HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201700048 Review Comments Pre-application Plan 2017-08-17County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Tim Miller (tmiller(a)meridianwbe.com)
From: J.T. Newberry (jnewberry&albemarle.org)
Division: Planning
Date: August 17, 2017
Subject: SDP201700048 Floor Fashions — Preapplication Plan
This application has been reviewed under Section 32.4.1.4 of the Site Plan Ordinance. 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.
Please note this application was not reviewed for compliance with the Subdivision Ordinance, although the plan appears
to propose a subdivision of both Parcel 4A and Parcel 4P. The recommended application process to achieve this layout
will be impacted by the answers to the questions below. It may be possible to achieve this layout administratively by
submitting two separate two -lot subdivision applications, but the timing and sequencing of the required applications will
play a role in the approval process. Staff recommends meeting with Planning and Zoning to discuss the subdivision
process prior to submitting the initial site plan.
Section 32.4.1.4 requires comments on the following:
• (a) Compliance with zoning
o See comments below.
• (b) Variations, exceptions and special exceptions
o We have tried to identify all of the required variations under County ordinances, however, other
variations may be needed based on the resolution of the concerns/questions outlined below.
• (c) Fees
o $752 initial site plan application and fee plus $0.016 per square foot of non-residential structure; and
o $457 special exception application and fee for critical slopes waiver.
• (d) Required changes, (e) Recommended changes and () Additional information
o See comments and attachments below.
Albemarle County Planning Services (Planner) — J.T. Newberry, jnewberry(a)albemarle.org — Requested changes.
1. [32.4.1.3(a)] On Sheet C-001, please correct the zoning district to be Highway Commercial (HC). Also, the
Monticello Viewshed is not a zoning district, so please note it separately. Voluntary guidelines for development in
the Monticello Viewshed are provided below.
2. [32.4.1.3(a)] On Sheet C-001, please confirm and note the proposed warehousing uses qualify as "Light
warehousing" as listed in Section 24.2.1(21).
3. [Section 24.2.2(13)] The Zoning and/or Engineering Division will require information to confirm that each
proposed lot does not exceed water consumption of 400 gallons per site acre per day.
4. [32.4.1.3(a)] On Sheet C-001, under Site Data, please note the application numbers of the previously approved
special use permits: SP 199900068 and SP200100001. Please also list the conditions of SP200100001 and show the
designated display area on the site plan. The approval letter and concept plan can be found here.
5. [32.4.1.3(a)] On Sheet C-001, please remove the maximum building setback because it does not apply to major
arterial roads.
6. [32.4.1.3(b)] The "total building areas" shown on Sheet C-001 do not match the building labels on the other
drawings. Please amend.
7. [32.4.1.3(n)] The plans do not provide calculations on the number of required loading spaces per lot and do not
show any loading spaces. Please provide a calculation of the minimum loading spaces required per lot on Sheet
C-001. A variation or exception under 18-4.12.13 may needed if the minimum required loading spaces are not
provided.
8. [32.4.1.3(n)] Similarly, please show the required dumpster pads. A variation or exception may be requested under
18-4.12.13 if the minimum required dumpster pads are not provided.
9. [32.4.1.3 (n)] Please provide dimensions for all proposed improvements, including width and depth of loading
spaces, streets/travelways, sidewalks, dumpster pads and all other paved areas, etc.
10. [32.4.1.3(n)] The parking calculations show that 243 parking spaces are required, but only 220 parking spaces are
provided. A parking study and/or shared parking agreement approved by the Zoning Division will be required.
11. [4.12.15(f)] For shared parking, internal sidewalks will be needed to provide safe and convenient access throughout
the site. Please add sidewalks to sufficiently allow pedestrians to navigate the site consistent with this requirement.
12. [32.4.1.3 (k)] Staff needs additional information regarding the proposed onsite wastewater treatment facility. If a
central sewerage system is proposed, then it must be reviewed and approved according the applicable provisions in
Chapter 16. These provisions require Health Department review, as well as approval by the Board of Supervisors.
A recent request submitted to the Board of Supervisors for a central sewerage system can be found here.
13. [Question] Is there any outdoor equipment associated with the proposed onsite wastewater treatment facility?
14. [Question] Where are the existing/proposed drainfields as noted on Sheet C-001?
15. [Question] A new well is proposed for the new warehouse on Parcel 4P. Does the existing 10,000 square foot
warehouse at the rear of Parcel 4A already have its own well? How is this structure being provided water?
16. [Section 32.7.9.5 and 32.7.9.61 Planting islands will be needed to reasonably disperse the required plant materials.
Albemarle County Planning Services (ARB) — Margaret Maliszewski, MMaliszewski(&albemarle.org — Requested changes.
1. Landscaping shown on the pre -application plan does not meet the Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines. In
particular, see EC requirements for planting along the EC frontage, at parking lot perimeters, at the interior of
parking lots, and along roads/travelways. Note that underground water lines and overhead power lines are in place
along the EC. Frontage planting areas will need to be increased to avoid conflicts between required landscaping
and utilities/easements.
2. There are potential issues with the proposed retaining walls in terms of height, location, and appearance. Along
the EC frontage and along the entrance drives, space should be provided on site for planting at the base of the
walls. This is in addition to other landscaping requirements referenced above and in the EC guidelines. The 16'
wall proposed at the back of the site is expected to be visible from the EC. EC guidelines call for terracing and
planting of walls over 6' in height. Handrails visible from the EC must have an appropriate appearance for the
EC. Standard guard rail is not considered appropriate.
3. ARB approval of the architectural design of new buildings is required with the final site plan. Site sections should
be provided to clarify visibility of new buildings from the EC.
4. Details on the appearance of the wastewater treatment facility are required. Screening beyond the standard
guidelines minimums may be required.
5. Show how the pipes and storm drain at the EC frontage will have an appropriate appearance for the EC.
6. The demolition plan appears to show existing trees as "to remain" that are intended to be removed.
7. Include in the site plan an indication of display areas previously approved with SP-2001-01.
Albemarle County Engineering Services (Engineer) — Frank Pohl, fpohl(iDalbemarle.org — Comments forthcoming.
Albemarle County Department of Fire Rescue — Shawn Maddox, smaddoxgalbemarle.org — No objection.
Albemarle County Building Inspections — Michael Dellinger, mdellinger(iDalbemarle.org — No objection.
ACSA — Alex Morrison, amorrison(&serviceauthority.org — Requested changes.
1. We have reviewed the pre -application submittal. Although this site is not within our Jurisdictional Area, we do
have a 16" water main across the frontage of the site. The water main shall be shown on the plans so the ACSA
can determine if any proposed improvements impact the water main.
Virginia Department of Transportation — Adam Moore, Adam.Moore(cvdot.vir_ig nia.gov — Requested changes.
1. The entrance on Route 250 does not meet the minimum spacing of 470' for a minor arterial.
2. The entrance on Hunters Way closest to Route 250 does not meet minimum corner clearance of 225'.
Staff has provided references to the County Code. The Code is kept up-to-date by the County Attorney's office and may
be found at www.albemarle.org/cogpiycode. code.
r
Voluntary Guidelines for Development within Monticello's Viewshed
❑ Building colors and materials should be earth -toned and muted.
Bright pastels and whites on exterior faces of buildings and roofs can be distracting when viewing the
natural landscape from Monticello. Surfaces that are prone to glare and reflection increase visibility
and should be avoided whenever possible. Muted colors for roofs and walls that blend with the natural
landscape (ie. mid -spectrum browns and grays, sandy tones) can be substituted for bright pastels and whites
on building faces and roofs.
❑ Design strategies can break up building massing.
Articulation of building facades and roofs - as opposed to the monotony of flat/monolithic facades - can
break up building massing and help minimize the visual impact from Monticello.
❑ Parking lots should be relegated to the side of the building that minimizes visual impact and/or
plantings should be used to visually break up the parking areas.
When there is no conflict with Entrance Corridor or Neighborhood Model guidelines, the preferred
location for parking is on the far side of buildings as viewed from Monticello. Parking lots can be broken up
with interspersed plantings of trees and other landscaping.
❑ Landscaping and a mature tree line can help screen the view from Monticello.
Where possible, clear -cutting of trees should be avoided. Additional design consideration should be given
to development that breaks the mature tree line to camouflage visual impacts. Landscape screening should
employ mixed types and sizes of native species, especially those that will generate a lofty canopy. Long,
narrow borders of single -species planting should be avoided. If there is no conflict with county landscaping
requirements, lower limbs can be pruned to open ground -level views while protecting views from
Monticello.
❑ Lighting for buildings and parking areas should be minimal and shielded.
Flood lights, up -lights and exposed bulbs are more apparent in the night sky than shielded fixtures. Lighting
for buildings and parking areas can use shielded fixtures at lower heights to reduce impacts. Whenever
possible, lighting should not be placed higher than the tree line. Regardless of intensity of illumination,
lighting for buildings and parking areas should use full cut-off fixtures to reduce/eliminate glare.
Contact Liz Russell (lrussell@monticello.org) for more information.
EGR 2/18/14