HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201400011 Review Comments 2014-09-22 Norio
o AL
'cj
:14 fifI
County 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: September 22, 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.
„Epp
e.rhc .,
Dian -r:/s ,r
L.C.€ >10,
iAmoi . re\ic,Aiei -,;-
iff f I'd, that twh,rtt tlree, (23) lighP, diced rircvtrvur-ii,.
rrilv In 2 1 guts )n tike.• plan ;iire not previously hpfwoverL Ail Cfghis that tiu urt
I In (1.1.; i th. plan nuU to be i.rtough. into .rioirplioncePr<th u d r ordinkuce antJ wixh ihe
ihrirauce Corrhiltu rh; ithhting., ;Ilan; should eleavi3 Ako;rr %hien J',Nctire.,,,,h,epp,
previiiusly ppn /1 alp] iA vh n ry l'eppr<r<ra with ihh rnindnien L 'Phis tnii„y Ix lq)ne mon efficten.tiy 11
nuireriering each fixture;A.nci rmnidint 4 a u.i.iPe hai ii,ts the firm re no nii icr. a pr-5,;.., 1 n arid fixture
h;its 'iuroken out %%hien hgh a r mat mm i in l ma u riiore detaih.
it hpptitrs than there arc nrcn (h pair Ihiima olong the froitage of haule hi which wcmm mini
prec11) 1;<, y IIOTh I Thek; ni pevil m Ia through f leo)iumphanu Im ito (h'cli'otai ; uz`;')on(ling;kHR
(lesign gnnkhun Four ail(i ;ihrrud pole lights ;tIon:, the front of the imrt)pk,ety a hid) i prc\.ionski,
approved havti turcn Irt&;afilett irtJni the prell(unii nmpm iprid h nW a 1k t ah lighp., h middle
111.41ilei deed tO be
1
0
It apTh:Ars tih/t tleveri (I.!) lights.in 1.1i,,,, tititidie o ti;e.site were.not previitisly apprc(ved, t.).ifth.?...)sto nna( (9)
•h re 1)(tweed o he a()I-irg.)vable 11S- U; "th. ,,veer.thh()(2)( .1°these ne....(x th, ix, le 2b into coinru.into.:,"(',.wan ill 4.'•
..r!..(-(11.n.a dee,itieholing A 1...t1.,.;design .g,nellne,-„,
ft op,rpta(h., flit five(5) lights alt)rig:III(Ehn.ort.l.gerrt property line (tire '?•11.Ore•d AV111*-Nlart Ihror,e.:`71Y U .'• tilt'
Si.:C!'..,1O,..nr•I'' not previshi .a.pl,r,a‘-ed. These liglue need to 1,e rtuncu.,.eti. or nrrar,h .rt in:o eoloplinnee wi(h t.he
rotriirbtalich:, if..1.1uciii.40,.ARE design.guidulines.„.
.....ihipt)y to tried .h,itiryou Jo review our plaii tar.,, .1i;•.41.ingriiSites net en prehily( ily A pp.•'..io'ed areall. fixture ,art(I to further discuss optiop)s f(Jr 1.-ringing the sit( i.oth hont(hrthit;(...,
Ruh. ".2„ ,.. lulu.ryortie.(I vdth the apiiiieant to 01.14.::`/"Irkiric.: 1...hat the lights i,,e. cc (hheoute,1 u,it 3.had
on the properl.) prior to .f,....'..i..,..frit'r the NH ci.itift rel,(;„or were lights that did at nevi to.i cure tt.o
retilyirthlkey4f quee th<,,,,,,,, 1.(erh a i„,,:!,.:,.nsiclered pri(ing leil lights.. it Ise area for dispi(h. c(hhil nor to::
con.s1(lerhd '0u4rking Pd tree c.iyough they are rya ranaag hellicles„ It is (t..Npla.„. hr..,,,,..a t'tat hA.ppens to pari(
1..1.'hick,.,..„. Thus ti%e.th...,,turnen is 'iiiiittriNieth
2. .,!.'..'H).1.,J1!:.!,,:.......5:,!.,:i ,(...:., ).... 24.:,2:21 ..1.).h.:TI,iy..47-(m... ,%,,,.: phuh,i0:,..;.'ol:::.(3hh-otho,(f. '...,iiih H.I.,..., doe-3 1,,'.'n. hzt"-nd thd-'',:h.r,hrd,1"dd :::'..,r.-('cia)
nor:r Pica...,a,..,..ra.r1.trn hntr„.....:......en(koridoh, the suf;.:.. .11_,..6 h.,:h,„.".11 ...]:-.,oin):11h,o::;
-L.!.,....,:L. OILP,,. -CO)-Q•.........D.01", . :ti.1.1.::,...,.: ...;.,`8,i...'...i.1".O.,.:tiliS 1'•.,',•••,, i•(.M,,,,.?,OS ttl,;.'":.• ,.:.:h.',iOO., i.:1C1X.'OSO-hoo(1.1h:". thhir hh.,4)h...(y 'Arch. ',Iron',
.,/pnrh...nreri. by tr.p(...forriar'.:>. 11 he altn.,,arro. of ihar,(jor,r fithrn,r:, or.it dfinCied on the plan
.,,I..oh',.:.:11:h.o...:..,.,:,,,,,--,,i....ht site plane for the site, '.F hh a..ea of ro,:,,,,ern. U,:,. h)(.'.u.i.,od 4o ihu. l(...io 2h,
thh.131...h1.11O'g !:,...,:t.in •,:irc(h.....:,,. h',froht.
u.(0,;:,....1, ...:!. :.u......H!o:-.. : ,..: o-h„ .1.,..oh..!::..o.,...,....hy,...: :.HL...: (o.h:ho.,.:y. ..h.,..!i...., ,uu....: HH...!:-.h..:7..- rh.,'en ,::,.:phio.....(,,rh,:h 7h, the
n.a.o..,,:o!..H.11-(,-..: .1.h h,,...o(*,(-........'. hh...: iitsrou ,. ....(h.:!!.1: to tile c...i.e, ,,,!'::. h...:,..,.:,: .,..(:....h.--;-.- .r...,1.hhe,:hhi:y.h,.,..:.o.,...h...) To(,...,',.;
ac U
.,:.:..: ::. h.h...„..:::...........:h.„. .......:::..............., h. „.:.h....:....,„...:,: hh.._ „,„.......:...„....:.h.., .::...::...".::. :,i.:..... ,.......h.h...............h.,„„„",,,,,„,.....,, .ohh..„,...,„.o,,,„: ....h th..„,hrh,h,o, (h:oh(WhO't'(..:1"WA•::::.
.11., .•••••• •••-•'..!:•••T..1•!.:...••• -,•• •••,.....:•1 ...•,•••••=•--•-• ,.1...H.....' •••:•-• ...-,....• ...'....----'L',.... IR..(••••:',.. '-',: '''......-],•..... ..'-';.-•:.•H'.•nr. Q•SS.ed.;
..,..... :••••-•-..:. -...;..'''',H!:,:., .:, ..,'.•:,•,...O.'....• -..-...O.: ',.. •••.i .- ••••••-.:!.:•••• •,.!- :•••••••••••',..o.••,.... I: 1....--.•• •••.• ;.•!• .. ....:1.:. ''..••'...:•• .....I. ,....A. r.!.•.-,.:.:!:.:-.. :•-... ,H'.L. •:-...::L:.,••..• ...,:.1,..,..,, ••••sf....',....',.:,'.an or. ..:..!,Cs.T
,,,:',H.H••••••):•:•0.iL:,,„ „.:....•'!:•:.;!•;...•,; IH,o',...,,. ...!•-•!-:•-..•••••.. ...:::•••••. •••••. ,••-: •••••....:;EOi- :.. •••••.:. .:•o's..1 !.....1.-•-•:.--O ...i........v...H..•. ... •••.....!. .•-••:::..•••,-:H•: L :..!•. )•,i.!:.•.!•;:.,..H.'H;'...••-•.. .•.:-..'p-. ••:•,C:-,.....:1:- O.,..--•,...'-.-'.--,.:.•••.......,;:O 1.,-..;;;
3. :3,f) 6,3f.a..)(2.).,:: 2.-......:......L,.:,..:1,..... ...Z::- ..a....21 .,.'.::::.:...::...:':<:.:H.......:H...,...:.::.:.. ::•••:,.:1::.::.'::!'.... ::J'H'."''.•:::::. 'LH".::-.: '''''"'•:::• - '-• .. .HI ''''''''''HH'I.P.1'.•'11 •-•.'.1:'•':..'.::':..:•;'. ..1. '''''''''
.,:-...'...n,i.:-.,H.1.1,....: y.:.:-...:::<,..:1-....:'.:-. ::,....::,...-......- .H!...,..H.... ..:...,,., .1...'::-..---.,: ,F....:..) ..:::.:,..:..H.H...:k...::-, .H."-, .:............. ,;..!,.. ,...,,.,:-..'.H.Lr.,... ,,..::,...H..H.,...H..H ..:.'..,.-...:.. ft.-,:..H:..1 ....,.). ..!HL:,...-..)n{4:1-K::
,..nine ni. :" ...,-.,..,::,....,, .,,,,-,,,,,,:",,, :,,:.,,'::..,,....::,, ..--:.,,,,:,,,,,:.:,::.. ,,,,., ,,,,,,: ......:,...H: , ,,,,,,....:. --:. •:. L ,,,:',:.:,,,,,,,•.,:',. .::, ,,,,, ,,,,,,.,,,,,, :-.---:, .-----,,r.:.-..,H... ..or
the(htr,hr,„,:h "h Thu hhy. nd ,hih (..,H....H,..,.,,• -Hh.,!....,,,,,o,u.. .:--oh,,,,•,,,-,,,h,:, hh....... u!,....oh..; co. 411,:.,,,.::: ,,-hl h.....::;:.. •-....:.:,...o.:::::: :,:h.ii„1 h....!-,:::. ,:.h..,..0,
Pea- 'i,, 1,... ifirniaerb abrr,rrrr,::,::,,,,brirr>b, ba.," :,...f:/IV iie ant
4. 130,6.,3(1i)(2),21..,70.„24.121 Lh.h...,ihu.•:.:-Fhhl.. (3P. U'K": S:U.,:;0.t.:A..n t:j0.7,e1 .,1..C, 1.11:',1),,a:' ../1-,-h',:h.t Pa wit '>'llicn i'..).'•
Existing (Itreviottsly approved on a ii.t.i,i ii/out ani...i .F.'n()p(e..4C",13 '•''..e.'..Vivt.in•...:'..,..,' ,.a,!.rtaire ivithoiii heittg rep/n ied aii ail
. ailprored
cite phut e.krpropaiied with riztvphiitf 4..i. Liiiiiiiii.ssiii..ii,iiihii.1 i,.i.viii...ii..,1 chisiiii,i.i...:-.....ifir:ii rid iiiiifiiirc,,...
ciiiiiiictol 1.iiiii iocritnii.
.i.s.lso, oil iiivii. 1iiiiiiii pros h.t.i.i i..-iiiiiciiistiiii,.. •:I',,..:d Sc.O..L.'ff•••:;•:•• P,',..,',4.'.,-1:;"..;;-2:eS 1.,,..q O1 i.'W...-L,.1(.00' dO.;,,..)..]. ..".... al..,::';i:•••':..:. 1 0 cur.C.; C•rOrifUS10f1
:103 003 a ,(.'! arl. no the plan ',...rlitr...n '-U'..‹. ei.O:h ••••,71•1.O.J()(O'. •;.'.:1•SI)i.:.iy •,•!•1:,1",..::'„O''-.;•:-.t..111..ff.,..'' 2()1..A4.:,,,• C a.r..] The ICr,:.i..:-.:1
•,'..tn1:fr': `..f.i.:',..'thQ. C p.A'..,...::-...:•• 1••,,,..•.•:-..-„•:-...-- :-..--, !!..-A.-:--,,:a1; 1 : a' h b> ran nrerh,;,..to out and hi it, tra,;.1<hoho,,,,,-...
Reh ), (2(irninerit:aili(11".eSS.r.M.,.
317,9, 32.5,2] Ih.„,„,:o1,:.,..,,co,..:::;),:hh. „,:::.,,,.ii...,. rh-(ohi(hh,.1:, (liscuh:!...(..!!!,;...
1..-..h:.),,.i.c.te:a hoo.r.l.pich(...It rider (.!,,I„'.:..uri. 11...::,,,- :::,,-....h„.--h:,,,.:-.-.... C.)d .th,..i., l'11:,..h......
prhohch.o,h,; ,...(ppri.. ,oh'.1 ;....-.‘o ,......„,.al. .!,y.:.. .:,......> , ,..,...: .),,,...:13,:: :ierocl uo• o,(o..,,:.,,,.-..-h- .„...,,....:H0,,..:;,,,..o..., ,H.,,H,..,,,H.,...„.o.o, ....... ,,...:::o..--..:,,,,,..,..J• .,,,,,....
2
...
II, viir
,
in,1i t..,, s,,+r, Itv‘, x w f:sU,ia.i'Cfit hilii c.:;scd.
5. .. i, r. :€ L,.., ist,f.. &,in ::, �. :., ,.„°s,t 'a:. ,art ".,,.,, i€ . ii?;'
;'=€.:,... Pte I.. ri;t>rit.meit d.ri'.,
6. 132.5.2(b),32.6.2(i)]Parking •r°=:,. __AF
to
1 e iiit e€ti er e flit `i C. : 4i'a iil ier,yrs wiO, :tits. ..is t.1.... • ,q,aa ,e.. vice e, tci brt)tigirt into
e flit>1.xi:hitici, hii '',,..r"i$i$ic , iii.. ...r.F 'shall, he ii thi.,iiitritiin of 18' gi trg;ant ' .,N'ibali.'.
.. .a i it l they arc •, :17.5' ton: s',, i s.. , it is tiritnee:..0 lir that the°tile � 8ss:e"1;t,
titit,.4cighout the is ,ii8 • 0 are 113° long i hih.. .cieh i."a +ft intrg, l* ,,,ti.prwt,,irtt
Cher"e is ,, • trisi: width lth to 2,i>this, ., aT ,. a;mia.i', hart > U x a;Atai't sett„ .,,s t hits ,3Y°ovid'.R
i:''liiriri .. k beloisA..
.'?pis,,so lbfi I a ,. , pro i c 4 s :¢ S 2 't,'iis not rntitith i`, i.'i a;s.i.. .sbet:> a,
reniibs"s # .>` table .'1'i r°fib.{ri'ida. V , ?f,.:'ttliF%i:%.fi Ilr : ,.,,. _,. °is ;''.ili;„:
se. rie ..iriw"5S25s it ti ,t,t,..,s,,.::,,,,,t.,,• tt,il..2 lists Serva , g;V.,ith .: i,.;igii prof ,ai s>.
bi,U,::,r . .s ees S1 3 ; *is.30 e sss t. t.
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'.
7. __,££.
. ais more ,a z cz'e.,: .J.-,1,...;.!.
iy. " '`arreoi.ad(i `v .l.
3
(4-
9. 2 .
<1'C
10.
2.
Ri H
L
12.
13. .
14.
15.
16.
17. CC
;.:c•;
18. ,
4
19. s .5. ;, , , .,,.., io
i. c,.ion- I:. is 22 ... ?.,I-_ e plmede s. mien _., ,<'e ,3.?. . l, Comment iiiiilr .,.,
20. !Comment' fi s`.) nod (Rein „n. Cam, dieo. ouptomd, !<,s.,, . , 6 s... C', !2 d izi.
_a". k aX5md .a„ ,a.,,x., 0,' .0.J1 Should t.e;1L„a..5., L..,.”. SI d pia 5.0.,
`s ,. ;:nom, .1 t, Ciiiiimeal addressed,
21. ',''n on/men m.+ ,;-5.,.
devI:d,' Red I. Comment,:addresimil
22. IC 'Sly Sheet S,aa under-1ree-`Free Schedule,time size of the American
twain ended $, d„" Revise as neuroniid ei enls Idled its a .min di .
Rey 2„ a. ';, its „ .a. .,.
23. [(I: "sl 1.12NT On Sheet 51% under Tree Schen iil the Sin oft the As'i'a Thiie le Re eit dopy lec i >,
claimed shall he 3,5`g.. Rev Um as currently i, s xa'oh listed es.it min of
a r°2, Continent Linen dd es s .".
24. a ii:.s" [N l`l On " C under Snruli; .b F ,. , ?l the alapai es l2
mini mam, amid tins info tittakli >t on the Nan,,
Rid. 2. '° od dent; addressed,
25. K:OININIIIRIORI On the plan ;a<,° 'ill site a
kdy 2. 2 S"1
Red 3. emiii.atidressed,,
[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(1)] 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(1)]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 1 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 cperez(a)albemarle.org or 434-296-5832
ext. 3443 for further information.
6
ceeo 5
a`ea Dominion 172 South Pantops Drive
`� ► Engineering Charlottesville, VA 22911
.o��,' 434.979.8121 (p)
o��,I�I 434.979.1681 (f)
9oQe's DominionEng.com
May 27, 2014
Christopher Perez
Senior Planner
Zoning & Current Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
RE: SDP201400011—Jim Price—Minor Amendment— Comment-Response Letter
Dear Chris,
Enclosed for first submission review, please find eight(8) copies of the minor amendment for the referenced
project. These plans have been revised to address your comments dated March 13, 2014 in accordance with
the following:
Planning Comments
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.
RESPONSE: A full lighting plan has been included as Sheet SP7 of the site plan. With regards to the
background of the lighting installation, a letter from the architect Bob Anderson has been added to the
Cover Sheet that describes how the lighting was installed win the initial construction of the Jim Price
facility in 1977.
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 tne County and
this plan attempts to increase tne disaia■ a- s to the site. If you have a recent signed approved Si,: Dian
which depicts is please provide is s°af`: E,viewiconsideration. I increasing the display are& is t.7e
applicant inter' a Specie; :Ise prior to approve o' the plan. Otne-wise remo,'e tr,!s
display area from the site plan
p ; of 6
ee�c
,10
Nary
�e " Dominion 172 South Pantops Drive
:
y Ca • Engineering Charlottesville, VA 22911
"' MI% ,' 434.979.8121 (p)
� I_ 434.979.1681 (f)
m,)e,.s DominionEng.com
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.
RESPONSE: The display area located near the entrance has been removed from the plan. Also, by
copy of this letter,the owner has been made aware of the zoning issue respective of this location.
3. [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.
RESPONSE: By copy of this letter,the owner has been made aware of the zoning issue.
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.
RESPONSE: The display areas have been labeled and a site tabulation chart has been added to track
the areas.
5. [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
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 or comparable alternatives will be
required to be replanted in their stead.
RESPONSE: We have separated out the landscape plan and computations on a separate sheet SP8 for
clarity sake. This updated plan includes the results of a site visit and proposes that all landscaping that
was proposed with previous site plans be installed.
6. [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.
RESPONSE: The project area has been tabulated in chart form on the site plan sheet SP3.
7. [32.5.2(b), 32.6.2(i): Parkins. To assess the parking requirements of the site fo' the existing dealership
building provide the sois-e footages of eacr, of the uses in the building Current'.. Pape 3 has a total:
however it is not oror.-- .,u: fo-the builaIno. Providing the use breakdown wil staff assess the parking
required for the site.
Page 2 of 6
it
s
,eo
z Dominion 172 South Pantops Drive
► Engineering Charlottesville, VA 22911
434.979.8121 (p)
� *�.,,I„I 434.979.1681 (f)
9oeps DominionEng.com
RESPONSE: A detailed parking breakdown has been provided on Sheet SP2. Also, we have added the
square footages for each use to Sheet SP3.
8. [32.5.2(b), 4.12.6] 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. Revise.
RESPONSE: We have demarcated the area in question as "vehicle storage area" to more accurately
designate its function.
9. [4.12.6, 4.12.16] 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.
RESPONSE: We have revised the plan to indicate where spaces shall be restriped.
10. [32.5.2(b), 4.12.6] 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.
RESPONSE: The label has been made more clear on Sheet SP3.
11. [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.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged. This will be addressed during the Engineering review of the plans.
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?
RESPONSE: This area has been dimensioned and a pavement detail added to Sheet SP6.
12. [32.6.1(e6), 32.6.20), 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 existinc and proposed irnpmve.ments onsite. Revise.
RESPONSE: We he-vE adder dimensions throughout the site or Sr4eet S 3
Page 3 of 6
Novo' Noiser
a`4e�' Dominion 172 South Pantops Drive
L. Engineering Charlottesville, VA 22911
�I,��' 434.979.8121 (p)
� ,o'l�INoI 434.979.1681 (f)
.9,› s DominionEng.com
efrs
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.
RESPONSE: The aisle has been accurately dimensioned on the plan. Please note that the 20'-wide fire
lane can terminate in the location shown as discussed with the Fire Marshal.
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.
RESPONSE: The bay doors have been labeled on both front and back.
14. [4.12.13(e)] Each site plan that depicts a commercial or industrial building of four 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.
RESPONSE: The existing dumpster has been shown on the plans.
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.
RESPONSE: The fence labeling has been clarified.
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.
RESPONSE: The height and material of the fence has been added.
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.
RESPONSE: The light pole has been labeled to be removed.
18. [32.5.2(j), 32.6.2(d)] 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.
RESPONSE: All known easements are shown on the site plan.
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!wocder decl which is remaining. Why is this
re^ ai°: rc' V is is also to be removed, please label it as suc! or t-ie
RESPONSE. The iabel has been clarified to indicate both the e.`° _.: a E.;lc the deal, to be removed.
Page 4 of 6
el
New Nrie
ce o is
• per Dominion 172 South Pantops Drive
, ■ Engineering Charlottesville, VA 22911
��•#, 434.979.8121 (p)
"� o ,�I 434.979.1681 (f)
�e''s DominionEng.com
s
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.
RESPONSE: The SDP97-001 has been added to the cover sheet.
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.
RESPONSE: The note on Sheet 3 had a transposition in it. It has been corrected to read 9,537 SF.
ARB Comments
RESPONSE: The ARB comments will be handled with a separate submission to Margaret since these
responses are pertinent mainly to the architectural plans.
E911 Comments
There appears to be three (3) separate structures on the plans for this development. The developer will
need to submit a proposed private road name for the entry way before plans can be approved. Please
contact this office with a list of names for approval before the final plans are submitted.
RESPONSE: The owner's preference would be to leave the Seminole Trail address for the site and not
create a new road name which would likely cause more confusion with this almost 40-year old
Charlottesville mainstay business.
ACSA Comments
1)The ACSA has reviewed the above site plan amendment. Please have the applicant submit existing and
proposed fixture counts. If they are unable to obtain existing fixture counts a site survey can be scheduled with
me (Alexander Morrison), but it may delay the schedule. The ACSA will verify the existing water meter location
to ensure the proposed service line tap will be allowed (verification required because there is a discrepancy
between construction drawings and the GIS). Let me know if you have any further questions or comments.
RESPONSE: The fixture counts will be provided under separate cover.
VDOT Comments
RESPONSE to Comment 1 and 2: Based on our post submission meeting, VDOT has agreed to withdraw
comments 1 and 2 due to a non-intensification of use.
RESPONSE to Comment 3: The plan has been revised to shift the building by 5' away from Berkmar Drive to
leave adequate space for a new drop inlet. Downstream storm sewer design has been revised accordingly.
Fire and Rescue Comments applicable to Site plan
RESPONSE to comment 3: As discussed vvitr. Robbie Gilmer, we h.'E :'1c oated minimum 20'-wide- fire truci;
access sucr that there is a maximum of 15C' tc reach around the. buildin • .. al' directions.
RESPONSE to comment 9: Fire flow test results have been added to the :.over Sheet.
Page5of6
C5
ce eV
►ea Dominion 172 South Pantops Drive
aEngineering Charlottesville, VA 22911
MI NJ 434.979.8121 (p)
v
s,o� 434.979.1681 (f)
9ers DominionEng.com
We thank you for taking the time to review this resubmission. Please let me know if you have any questions or
require additional information.
Very trul your ,
V
Michae -rs, P.E., C.F.M.
Attac ments
Cc: Bob Anderson
Sandy Fewell
Page 6 o: 6
<s
`e�o
c� �s
e�" Dominion 172 South Pantops Drive
L 4` ► Engineering Charlottesville, VA 22911
0 �, 434.979.8121 (p)
D,m e� I, 434.979.1681 (f)
ems s DominionEng.com
August 29, 2014
Christopher Perez
Senior Planner
Zoning & Current Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
RE: SDP201400011 —Jim Price—Minor Amendment—Comment-Response Letter
Dear Chris,
Enclosed please find eight (8) copies of the minor amendment for the referenced project. Please note that we
have also submitted one set of the site plan with response memo directly to Margaret for ARB approval. These
plans have been revised to address your comments dated June 18, 2014 in accordance with the following:
Planning Comments
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
Page 1 of 7
s
N. ,Ors
�a Dominion 172 South Pantops Drive
► Engineering Charlottesville, VA 22911
434.979.8121 (p)
434.979.1681 (f)
9°Q�s s DominionEng.com
provided does not depict all previously approved landscaping. If some of the previously approved landscaping is
dead or has been removed. these plantings or cornparable alternatives will he required to be replanted in their
stead. Rev 1. Comment addressed.
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. To assess the parking requirements of the site, for the existing dealership
building provide the squa - .otages of each of the uses in the building. Currently page 3 has a total;
however it is not bro. out for the building. Providing the use breakdown will help staff assess the parking
required for the ' e.
Rev 1.T • majority of parking spaces on the plan were previously approved; however,the 17
spac• behind the car wash were never previously approved. As such these spaces need to be
b ught into compliance with today's ordinance. These spaces shall be a minimum of 18' long and
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.
RESPONSE: The plans have been revised to provide the minimum parking space dimensions.
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;
hoNiever, sheet SP3 only lists 30 employees. Revise.
/RESPONSE: The parking tabulations on Sheet SP3 have been removed.
Per the Parking Tabulations provided on sheet SP2 it appears the site is double counting it's employees
to gain 52 additional parkjpg-gpaces 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 appjov d on site plans but they shall be relabeled to "existing previously approved parking".
In the Pgrkind Tabulations chart provided on sheet SP2, relabel the 52 spaces provided at the bottom of
theehart to also be "existing previously approved parking".
RESPONSE: The parking tabulations on Sheet SP2 have been revised to indicate the 52 parking spaces
as existing previously approved parking.
7. 132.5.2(b), 4.12.61 Parlutlr, During 'cent .,,,>.ervecl along the zcr. , ,nerty that there
uh ianlialiy more parkulu too i, currently shown on lii: trrr for Employed Pan, 1;ot vice Parking
>pe nincally on the southern boulldary of the property near the grade changes fronting Perkrnar [Drive. If
ti to e spaces are ft remain as parkii ig they t seen to be depicted au i labeled on tilt-2 plan and reviewed by
the County. Rev 1. Comment addressed.
8. [412.6, 41.12.'46)4.12.'46] f-'r,iuinc paces for ci'slomers shall be clearly delineated ort the ground. sinned and
maintained lot cuUrmei', en h The mile (Ea) ciunionlei harking spacciF. at tie C'i11iarice to tile existing
le it tu,p building viour.4 approved with
Silt iii ci+Ir LIr13i CttritlnU 1 `<ItC lllpinCt.
it I I,,`, vi.rr.,i rd f _t//tE.,,sinaeo.d of e no; `toned n tic ,`.f rll);; i- .) .ll t " i1
Page 3 of 7
Noe -*old
e(
����' Dominion 172 South Pantops Drive
y `p • Engineering Charlottesville, VA 22911
%�goy) 434.979.8121 (p)
�9, e,s 434.979.1681 (f)
"mss DominionEng.com
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 rioted that this light pole will be removed. Revise. Rev 1. Comment
addressed.
18. [32.5.2(j), 32.6.2(d)] Along the property's frontage of Seminole Trail is an existing water line,. Is there an
easement associated with this line, it 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? It 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 SC)Ptls which currently still
apply to this site Stall located one additional site plan which should be added to the title: SDP97-001.
Revise. Rev 1. Comment addressed.
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 conrsistenl
thro!rchout the plan. Revise Rev 1. Comment addressed.
22. [NEW COM T] On Sheet SP8, under Tree Schedule,the size of the American Planetree for the
cano eing claimed shall be 3.5". Revise as currently it's only listed as a min of 3".
PONSE: The caliper has been changed to 3.5"and computations updated accordingly.
23. [ COMMENT] On Sheet SP8, under Tree Schedule,the size of the Red Maple for the canopy
Bing claimed shall be 3.5". Revise as currently it's only listed as a min of 3".
RESPONSE: The tali has been changed to 3.5"and computations updated accordingly.
24. [NEW CO ENT] On Sheet SP8, under Shrub Schedule, the size of the Japanese Holly shall be 24"
mini . Provide this information on the plan. Revise.
R PONSE: The shrubs have been updated to 24"minimum.
25. [NEW-COMMENT] On the plan provide cutsheets for all site lighting.
RESPONSE: Cutsheets have been added on Sheet 7A.
Engin ing—Max Greene
PO 2014-00049 was approved on June 30, 2014.
ARB -Margaret Maliszewski
Page 5 of 7
els
Jae Dominion 172 South Pantops Drive
y ► Engineering Charlottesville, VA 22911
. d �,j 434.979.8121 (p)
r ��evl 434.979.1681 (f)
°QPS a DominionEng.com
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.
RESPONSE: As indicated on the attached email, E911 will assign new street numbers to the new truck
maintenance facility and to the Hyundai dealership, keeping the 2150 Seminole Trail address for the
main building.
Fire and Rescue—Robbie Gilmer
1) no objection
VDOT—Troy Austin
1) No objection
Inspections—Jay Schlothauer
1) no objections
We thank you for taking the time to review this resubmission. Please let me know if you have any questions or
require additional information.
Very truly yours,
Michael Myers, P.E., C.F.M.
Attachments
Cc: Bob Anderson
Sandy Fewell
Page 7 of 7
Jim Price Chevrolet—Site Plan Modifications
TMP 04500000006800
Applicant: Mike Myers
Staff: Christopher Perez and Ron Higgins
TMP 04500000006800
10 acres
Zoned: Highway Commercial and Entrance Corridor
Comp Plan: Neighborhood 1 —Places 29
The applicant is proposing some modifications to the site and wanted to discuss routing it as a
minor site plan amendment.
** The site currently does not have an SP on it for outdoor display area...if they propose changes
to the outdoor display area(which would increase, moving it around, etc)then an SP may be
required(consult w/Zoning).
In 2011 an LOR was permitted regardless of the items need for an ARB application.
Response:
Mike,
After our pre application meeting I discussed the proposal with Francis and he explained his
methodology in how he came to the conclusions that we could processes this application as a
Minor Amendment. I concur with his previous determination and you can submit this as a
Minor Amendment. Below are some of the items which needs to be on the plan in addition to
all required items for a minor amendment.
* Assure that all items previously approved through minor amendments and LORs (SDP89-97,
SDP94-41, SDP94-62 and LOR#1) are provided on the site plan amendment...if you want to
review these files, County staff can pull them for you.
*Also, if site lighting is being modified to include any additional lighting being added, or
existing lighting being relocated to new locations on the site, or modifications to existing lighting
(other than removal of lights), then a lighting plan shall be required.
*On the plan assure a revised/up-to-date parking calculation assessment is provided on the site to
include all required and provided spaces per the ordinance. Also to avoid the requirement to
obtain an SP for outdoor display area, assure that the existing outdoor display area is not
changing. On the plan assure you label existing outdoor display areas.
*The plan should also include a landscape plan which depicts and lists all previously approved
landscaping/existing landscaping. If during the review of the project the ARB or Planning
requires additional landscaping to be provided, these items shall be included on the landscape
plan.
*As previously discussed your proposal will also require an ARB application, Margaret
Maliszewski is your primary contact point for this application.
Once you submit your application staff will review it and provide comments, if any, for required
changes to meet County ordinance requirements.
Hope that helps. Attached is the minor amendment application and checklist.
Please note that the last approved Major Amendment for this site was SDP89-70, this is the plan
all the minor amendments are piggybacked on.
Christopher P.Perez I Senior Planner
Department of Community Development(County of Albemarle.Virginia
401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext.3443
•
o AL r
County of Albemarle ` A k 6. .
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville,VA,22902
Phone 434-296-5832 �.- Fax 434-972-4126
Memorandum y 4
To: Michael Myers -t
From: Christopher P.Perez, Senior Planner
Division: Planning �Cv s Avt
Date: March 13,2014 —
Subject: SDP201400011 Jim Price-Minor Amendment yvt;Kt .A1
—4Iex/b rim,
— 1vial ,
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)323.2(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.
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.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.
Also, during a recent site visit it was observed that the facility is currently utilizing this space as outdoor
1
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.
3. [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.
4. 130.6.3(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.
5. [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
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 or comparable alternatives will be
required to be replanted in their stead.
6. [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.
7. [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.
8. [32.5.2(b),4.12.6] 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. Revise.
9. [4.12.6,4.12.16] 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.
10. [32.5.2(b),4.12.6]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.
2
, On the plan 591 SF of pervious area is to be removed and
regraI ed. 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.
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?
12. [32.6.1(e6),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.
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.
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.
14. [4.12.13(e)] Each site plan that depicts a commercial or industrial building of four 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.
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.
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.
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.
18. 132.5.2(j),32.6.2(d)] 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.
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.
3
New
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.
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.
Enginering—Max Green
1) See attached comments
ARB-Margaret Maliszewski
1) See attached comments
E911—Andrew Slack
1. There appears to be three(3)separate structures on the plans for this development. The developer will need
to submit a proposed private road name for the entry way before plans can be approved. Please contact this
office with a list of names for approval before the final plans are submitted.
ACSA—Alex Morrison
1)The ACSA has reviewed the above site plan amendment. Please have the applicant submit existing and
proposed fixture counts. If they are unable to obtain existing fixture counts a site survey can be scheduled with
me(Alexander Morrison),but it may delay the schedule. The ACSA will verify the existing water meter
location to ensure the proposed service line tap will be allowed(verification required because there is a
discrepancy between construction drawings and the GIS). Let me know if you have any further questions or
comments.
Fire and Rescue—Robbie Gilmer
1) See attached comments
VDOT—Troy Austin
1) See attached comments
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. Due to the amount and substance of the comments if you would like to meet to
discuss these contact staff and we can set up a meeting to go over any questions you may have.
4
`
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: Jim Price Automotive SDP201400011
Plan preparer: Mike Myers [mmyers @dominoneng.com]
Owner or rep.: Rosenthal,Robert H. &Harrison Nesbit III TRSTS U/TRUST Agreement&
Henry J Price
Plan received date: 11 February 2014
Date of comments: 4 March 2014
Reviewer: Max Greene
The Water Protection Plans(SDP201400011)submitted 11 February 2014 have received
Engineering Review and do not appear to meet Albemarle County minimum checklist items for
approval. Please adequately address the following comments for final approval:
A) Road and drainage plans(SDP201400011)
1) No objection
B) Stormwater Management and Mitigation Plan
1) Water protection Plan, application and fee will be required for review.
http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/forms_center/departments/Community Development/forms/Engi
neering and WPO Forms/Plan Review - Application Stormwater Management-BMP Plan.pdf
C) Erosion Control Plan
1) Water protection Plan, application and fee will be required for review.
http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/forms center/departments/Community Development/forms/Engi
neering and WPO Forms/Plan Review - Application Stormwater Management-BMP Plan.pdf
Once these comments have been addressed,please submit 2 copies of the revised plans, calculations, and
narratives to Current Development Engineering.
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 mgreene(a�albemarle.org to
schedule an appointment.
[17-204.f] An application for an erosion and sediment control plan that requires modifications,terms,or conditions to be
included in order for it to be approved shall be deemed to be withdrawn if the owner fails to submit a revised plan addressing the
omitted modifications,terms or conditions within six(6)months after the owner is informed of the omitted information as
provided under paragraph(B).
%Iry Noe
^tor• at,��1
:t r
1I17Gtw..
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,North Wing
Charlottesville,Virginia 22902-4596
Phone(434)296-5832 Fax(434)972-4126
February 7, 2014
Bob Anderson
P.O. Box 2257
Charlottesville,VA 22902
RE: ARB-2013-181: Price Hyundai and Truck Maintenance
Tax Map 45, Parcel 68
Dear Mr.Anderson,
The Albemarle County Architectural Review Board reviewed the above noted item at its meeting on Monday,
February 3,2014. The Board,by a vote of 5:0,approved the request,pending staff administrative approval of
the following conditions:
1. Provide samples for the blue and silver Alpolic panels.
2. Indicate on the plan the location of the existing truck maintenance demolition. Provide architectural
elevations for the new Hyundai waiting room to be reviewed by staff for color and scale.
3. Submit conceptual level drawings of the new truck maintenance facility to be reviewed by staff for
color and scale.
4. Revise the blue block above the entrance to reduce its scale so that it is coordinated with the overall
building. Revisions shall be reviewed by staff.
5. Provide specs for the new glass indicating that visible light transmittance (VLT) is not below 40% and
visible light reflectance(VLR)does not exceed 30%.
6. Indicate on the site plan the existing and proposed areas of display. New display areas will require a
Special Use Permit.
7. Add the following note to the site and architectural plans: "Visibility of all mechanical equipment from the
Entrance Corridor shall be eliminated."
8. Provide complete lighting information for review.Light levels exceeding 30 footcandles are not appropriate
for display lots in the Entrance Corridors.
9. Provide a complete landscape plan for review. Clearly distinguish between proposed and previously
approved landscaping.
10. Add the following note to the landscape plan: "All site plantings of trees and shrubs shall be allowed to
reach, and be maintained at, mature height;the topping of trees is prohibited. Shrubs and trees shall be
pruned minimally and only to support the overall health of the plant."
11. Coordinate all proposed grading with existing trees to remain.
Please provide:
1. Two full sets of revised drawings addressing each of these conditions. Include updated ARB revision
dates on each drawing.
2. A memo including detailed responses indicating how each condition has been satisfied. If changes
other than those requested have been made, identify those changes in the memo also. Highlighting
the changes in the drawing with"clouding" or by other means will facilitate review and approval.
3. The attached"Revised Application Submittal"form.This form must be returned with your 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 li Trsts U/Trust Agreement& Henry J Price
P 0 Box 7463
Charlottesville Va 22906
File
Noe
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 O indicates Submittal Code County Project Number # Copies
Erosion& Sediment Control Plan(E&S)
Mitigation Plan(MP)
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(PP)
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(F-GWMP)
Aquifer Testing Work Plan(ATWP)
Groundwater Assessment Report(GWAR)
Architectural Review Board(ARB) ARB2013-181
Other:Please explain
(For staff use only)
Submittal Code #Copies Distribute To: Submittal Code #Copies Distribute To:
ARB 2 Margaret Maliszewski
iMR►RLE Cpoy ) i/ E c ff tyrjE
Q► ly
ALBEMARLE COLIIVTY
, _.i 460 Stagecoach Road, Suite F Charlottesville, VA 22902-6489
Voice: 434-296-5833 FAX 434-972-4123 ,
DEPARTMENT OF
FIRE RESCUE www-ACFireRescue.org
TO: Chris Perez From: Robbie Gilmer
Date: March 4, 2014
RE: SDP-2014-00011 Jim Price Minor Amendment
The below checked items apply to this plan.
3. Required Specifications - Fire apparatus roads shall be installed and arranged
in accordance with sections VSFPC 503.2.1 — 503.2.8
Comments Maintain 20 ft wide clear access around the new building
" We will provide the highest quality services to protect and preserve the
lives, property, and environment of our community."
New Nee
Page 2
7. Required Key Boxes required on all commercial buildings per VSFPC 506.1
Comments Contact Albemarle County Fire Marshal's office for location
9. Required Fire Flow requirements shall conform to VSFPC Appendix B
Comments Submit Fire Flow test before final approval
10.Required Fire Department Connections shall conform to VSFPC 912 and
Albemarle County requires that the connection be within 50 ft of a
hydrant.
Comments If the building will have sprinkler system it shall conform to this code.
Aft ir Nu e
414
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper,Virginia 22701
Charles A. Kilpatrick,P.E.
Commissioner
February 28,2014
Mr. Christopher Perez
Senior Planner
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville,VA 22902
Re: SDP-2014-00011 Jim Price Automotive—Minor Amendment
Dear Mr.Perez:
We have reviewed the minor site plan amendment for Jim Price Automotive dated 213'14 as submitted by
Dominion Engineering and offer the following comments:
1. The existing trip generation for the site and the proposed trip generation for the site need to be
added to the plan. The number of trips generated by the site will certainly increase as a result of
the service facility being added to the site. The warrant for a dedicated right-turn lane for the
entrances needs to be evaluated.
2. The existing entrances do not meet the access management spacing requirement for partial access
entrances. An AM-E exception form needs to be completed and submitted for consideration of
approval.
3. The existing storm sewer under Berkmar Drive should not be connected to a private,enclosed
storm sewer system. There are a couple of apparent options to this situation:
• A private grate inlet could be installed so that the outfall runoff from the Berkmar storm
sewer would drain to the new private inlet. This option may require the proposed
maintenance building to be shifted on-site so that there is adequate space to capture the
runoff.
• The existing storm sewer could be evaluated to see if there is a way to connect the
existing grate inlet on the west side of Berkmar Drive to the existing drop inlet to the
north of the grate inlet on the west side of Berkmar Drive. The capacity and adequacy of
the downstream storm sewer along Berkmar would need to be evaluated in addition to the
physical ability to make the connection.
If you need additional information concerning this project,please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
bilAS
Troy Xustin,P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Culpeper District
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
OE AL
101,„„,
�'IRGIN�P
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development VI eel
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 ound that twenty three(23) lights depicted on the plan were previously approved and
twenty three 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.
1
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.
2. 130.6.3(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. If you have a recent signed approved
site plan which depicts it please provide it for skiff'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. [30.6.3(x)(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. 130.6.3(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
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 or comparable alternatives will be
required to be replanted in their stead. Rev 1. Comment addressed.
2
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. 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. 132.5.2(b),4.12.6] 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.
8. [4.12.6,4.12.16] 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. 132.5.2(b),4.12.6] 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
3
V
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. 132.6.1(e6),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 of four 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. 132.6.1(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. 132.6.1(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. [32.5.2(j),32.6.2(d)] 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 3.5".Revise as currently it's only listed as a min of 3".
23. [NEW COMMENT] On Sheet SP8,under Tree Schedule,the size of the Red Maple for the canopy
being claimed shall be 3.5".Revise as currently it's only listed as a min of 3".
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.
5
''',\ 71,k:,11.104'
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,North Wing
Charlottesville,Virginia 22902-4596
Phone(434)296-5832 Fax(434)972-4126
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
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 II, Trsts&Henry J Price,P 0 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 O indicates Submittal Code County Project Number #Copies
Erosion&Sediment Control Plan(E&S)
Mitigation Plan(MP)
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(PP)
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(F-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
Ginty
Service Authority
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.
• The proposed canopy addition encroaches into an existing ACSA waterline easement.
Remove all obstruction from the easement, including the canopy.
• Show 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
Near
Norse
Christopher Perez
From: Christopher Perez
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2014 1:04 PM
To: 'Mike Myers'
Cc: Margaret Maliszewski
Subject: SDP201400011 Jim Price Chevrolet—Minor
Mike Myers,
SDP201400011 Jim Price Chevrolet—Minor
Staff has completed their review of the revised site plan. I have received approval from ARB on 10-17-14. I
also have completed my review of the plan and noticed that additional changes had taken place on the plan
which were not previously discussed, nor required by reviewers. In the future if voluntary changes are being
made to the plan these changes need to be called out in a letter or through clouding out the changes so the lead
reviewer can decide who needs to review the revised plans and assure that previous approvals are still valid. In
this case, it does not appear that the changes affect anyone's review but Planning/Zoning.
As such, I have completed my review and have provided four additional comments which appear to have been
generated by the voluntary changes; however,these changes caused other items to change which did not
reverberate through the entire plan,thus revisions are required to assure everything matches. I offer the
following comments: Please make these changes, shoot me a PDF of the plan with the changes and I'll assure
they are complete, once finalized provide 4 signed/stamped copies of the plan and we can move forward with
approval. Thanks
1. Parking calculation. On sheet SP3 there are 105 service spaces for Existing Auto Dealership depicted
upfront; however, sheet SP2 lists 102 spaces. I believe the reason why these numbers do not match is
previously on sheet SP3 the 11 spaces next to the existing dumpster were 8 spaces because of the new
proposed entrance. Now that the entrance is no longer being proposed the spaces are now depicted as 11
spaces. The 3 additional spaces would account for this difference. Thus please revise sheet SP2's
calculation for Service Parking for Existing Auto Dealership to match the revised sheet SP3 (105
service spaces for the existing auto dealership)vs the 102 currently listed.
2. Parking calculation. On sheet SP3 there are 32 Service Spaces depicted for the new maintenance
building (at the rear of the property); however, sheet SP2 lists 33 service spaces for the new maintenance
building. I believe the reason why these numbers do not match is previously on sheet SP3 the three rows
of spaces near the proposed gate were 9 and 20.Now that the entrance is no longer being proposed and
the spaces seemed to have been re-measured and numbered the spaces switched to 10 and 18. Thus
please revise sheet SP2's calculation for Service Parking for New Maintenance building to match
the revised sheet SP3 (32 service spaces for the New Maintenance building)vs the 33 currently
listed.
3. Landscape Calculations. On sheet SP8,three (3)plantings are depicted/proposed on the plan in what
was previously the landscape islands at the rear of the site for the new entrance; however,those
landscape islands are no longer proposed but the trees remain on the plan. As such,the plantings (1) PO,
(1)AR and(1)AR should be relocated to an appropriate location where they can truly be planted.
1
Revise. If the three (3)plantings mentioned above are lost,the site will lose 2,675 SF of proposed tree
canopy. These three (3)plantings should be planted elsewhere on the site, potentially at the rear of the
site near the new facility to maintain the required tree canopy. Revise to assure the tree canopy
requirements are met.
4. Landscape Calculations. Based on the modifications to the site plan,the landscape requirements on
sheet SP8, under Landscape Requirements, Project Area, does not appear to match the rest of the sheets.
Currently sheet SP8 lists it as 53,275 SF; however sheet SP3 lists 52,200 SF. Please assure these match
and are accurate.
£'i ristopher P. Perez 1 Senior Planner
Department of Community Development 1County of Albemarle,Virginia
401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext.3443
2