HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201800040 Review Comments Appeal to BOS 2018-07-06COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(434) 296-5832
July 3, 2018
Justin Shimp
Shimp Engineering
201 E. Main Street, Suite M
Charlottesville VA 22902
RE: SDP201800040 Hunters Way — Major Site Plan Amendment
Mr. Shimp:
Your Major Amendment application has been reviewed. In order for the amended site plan to be approved the
following revisions and items are required:
1. [32.5.2(b) & 16-1001 Well and Septic. The plan proposes more than 2 connections to the well and the septic
system. More than two connections to the well and the septic system require Board of Supervisor approval
of a central water supply and/or central sewerage system. Board of Supervisors approval of the central
systems shall be received prior to site plan approval. Additionally, prior to site plan approval the Planning
Commission shall approve the central systems in a Compliance of the Comprehensive Plan (CCP) review.
2. [30.6.3(a)(2)] Special Use Permit. Outdoor storage uses located in an Entrance Corridor (EC) require a
Special Use Permit. The previous approved plan for the auto repair shop did not require a SUP because the
"vehicles awaiting repair" where previously central to the site and were adequetly screened from the EC.
The changes in the level of screening along the EC combined with the relocation of the parking spaces for
"vehicles awaiting repair" require a SUP for outdoor storage and display prior to site plan approval.
3. [5.1.31(b)] Automobile Repair. No vehicle awaiting repair shall be located on any portion of the site so as
to be visible from any public street. The previous approved plan for the auto repair shop adequetly sited the
"vehicles awaiting repair" not to be visible from Hunters Way. The proposed relocation of 4 of these spaces
is not approvable without adequate screening. Staff suggests you relocate the spaces to their previous
location within the site. Revise.
4. [18-4.2] Critical Slopes. The proposal disturbs areas containing critical slopes, which requires approval of a
critical slopes waiver. Please submit a critical slopes wiaver request, application, applicable justification,
and review fee. Approval of the waiver by the Board of Supervisors is required prior to site plan approval.
5. [5.1.60(f)] Drive -Through Windows. A pedestrian travelway crosses a drive -through lane. As such provide
either a five (5) foot wide raised pedestrian travelway or a five (5) foot wide pedestrian travelway
containing a change in texture and visual markings. Depict and label the above required improvements on
the plan.
6. [4.12.8] Safe Pedestrian Movement. Staff is not supportive of the walk-up order window because it requires
all walk up orders to cross the drive thru lane. It is recommended the walk-up feature be removed, or
relocated to the other side of the building, or if it is to remain in it's current location that a sidewalk be
provided from the 9 parking spaces flanking Hunter's Way behind the building.
7. [5.1.600)] Drive -Through Windows. Each drive -through lane shall be a minimum of one hundred (100) feet
in length measured from the center of the first window or service point. This length may be reduced if a
study is submitted and approved by the director of community development or his designee demonstrating
that a shorter length will be sufficient for a particular use. Either revise the length of the drive -through lane
to meet the above requirement, or provide the study for review.
8. 15.1.601 Drive -Through Windows. Label the drive through window overhang and provide it's clearance
height.
9. [4.12.6] Minimum Parking Requirement. The drive thru coffe shop use is not provided a parking standard
in the ordinance; rather, the closest standard applies to "over the counter sales", which requires one space
per two hundred square feet of gross floor area. Revise the parking schedule to utilize the above formula.
10. [4.12.16] Bumper Blocks. Provide bumper blocks for the 16 parking spaces, which are centrally located in
the site. Also, please label the use of the proposed area between the two rows of parking.
11. [32.7.81 Outdoor Lighting Associated with the Sign. Provide cutsheets for the two lights associated with the
outdoor monument sign on the front of the property. Additionally, ensure the lighting photometric
calculations account for these lights.
12. [32.7.9.6] Landscaping Within a Parking Area. Revise parking lot landscape calculations on sheet C5 to
accurately reflect the increase in paved parking and vehicle circulation areas. 15,908 SF appears to be a
carryover error that was not updated with the current proposal. Revise.
13. [32.5.2(b)] Parking. Number the bays within the auto repair shop.
14. [4.19] Setbacks. Revise the front setback to correctly mention why the front maximum setback along Rte
250 is not applicable. Namely because Rte 250 is a principle arterial.
15. [Chapter 171 Water Protection. A WPO application is required to be submitted and approved prior to site
plan approval.
16. [Comment] This amendment cannot be approved until all comments from the site review committee (SRC)
have been addressed. If you have any questions about the comments please feel free to contact me.
Attached I have provided comments from the various SRC reviewers.
17. [32.6.2(J&K)] ARB approval of the site plan is required.
18. [Comment] Virginia Department of Health (VDH) approval is required prior to site plan approval.
Zoning - Rebecca Ragsdale
1. Section 18-24.2.2(13)-Water consumption information was provided on Sheet Cl and Sheet C4. There seems to
be a discrepancy between these sheets for the estimated daily water consumption (Sheet C1 indicates 100 gpd, Sheet
C4 505 gpd). In order to determine whether a special use permit will be required according to Section 18-24.2.2(13),
the methodology and sources (multiple examples) of the water usage data for each use shown on the table on Sheet
C4 must be provided. For example, actual franchise records (water bills) for the drive-thru coffee shop, with a
multiple examples must be provided.
Building Inspections - Michael Dellinger
1. Retaining walls greater than 3 feet in height require a separate building permit. Walls exceeding 4 feet in height
require an stamped engineered design also.
Parking spaces and access isles shall not have a surface slope greater than 1:48. Access isles shall be at the same
level as the parking space they serve.
Fire and Rescue - Shawn Maddox
1. The retail building height exceeds 30'. An aerial fire apparatus access road with 26' of unobstructed travel width
shall be provided for one entire side of the building. It shall be a minimum of 15' and maximum of 30' from the
building.
2. Minimum turning radius on the "main travel aisles" throughtout the site shall be 25'
3. Knox boxes will be required for the new structures. Add a note to the plans indicating the requirement and that
installation can be coordinated with the fire marshal's office.
4. A fire flow test of the closest available hydrant will be required prior to final acceptance.
Engineering — David James
1. WPO plan/amendment must be approved before site plan amendment is approved.
2. VDOT entrance permit required.
3. VDH permitting required.
4. Provide date of boundary and topo survey.
5. Provide curb and gutter in parking areas and along travelways [18-4.12.15].
6. Show sight distance lines.
7. Adjust the drive aisle from 24' to 12' before the parking spaces, and relocate curbing & "DO NOT
ENTER" sign accordingly.
8. Provide stormwater profiles & details.
9. Provide engineered plans and computations for the retaining wall design for all the walls that are next to
parking or travelways. Specify all structural components and dimensions of wall.
The following items will be required [DSM]:
a. A typical detail. (VDOT standard walls are acceptable)
b. Specific details as required for unusual or possibly conflicting areas. An example is where utilities are
expected to go through walls or footings.
C. Certified computations to support the design (for wall over 5' high). All soil and bearing assumptions, as
well as reinforcement materials and assumed loadings must be included.
10. Provide safety provision(s) for vehicles and pedestrians for walls over 30" high. This is typically a
guardrail, wall, or fencing [DSM].
11. Label location of wall maximum height and TW/BW elevations.
12. A vehicle stopped at `MENU SIGN' will cue onto the drive aisle and my warrant further review.
13. The vehicle parking spots near the drive through my warrant further review.
14. Private well & septic system may warrant further review and inspection (DSM, Sect.2).
15. Three (3) sanitary line connections to buildings may be required.
16. Sheet 2 —
a. Show existing easements, DB/PG.
b. Show demo area for parking island extensions.
Virginia Department of Health - Alan Mazurowski
Comments Attached
Virginia Department of Transportation — Adam Moore
Comments pending, to be forwarded upon receipt.
ARB - Heather McMahon
Comments pending, to be forwarded upon receipt.
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. If you have any questions about the comments
please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Christopher P. Perez
Senior Planner
Planning Division
COMMONWEALTH of VIR(3INIA
In Cooperation with the Thomas Jefferson Health District ALBEMARLE- CHARLOTTESVILLE
State Department of Health FLUVANNA COUNTY (PALMYRA)
1138 Rose HIII Drive GREENE COUNTY (STANAROSVILLE)
LOUISA COONTY(LOVISA)
Phone (434) 972-6219 P. O. Box 7546 NELSON COUNTY (LOVINGSTON)
Fax (434)972-4310
Charlottesville. Virginia 22946
June 29, 2018
Christopher Perez, Senior Planner
Albemarle County Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: 2300 Hunters Way
Major Site Plan Amendment
SDP2018-40
Mr. Perez:
As requested, I've reviewed the Site Plan (5/21/18) for the proposed construction to the
property referenced above, and offer the following comments:
Septic: The proposed construction will require modifications be made to the
existing septic system. These changes must be designed by a professional engineer and
submitted with an application to this office for a construction permit. The PE will need
to address the capacity of the existing system as well as anticipated wastewater strength,
particularly in regard to the wastewater from the coffee shop.
Well: It appears with the proposed additional commercial units the water use
will exceed the minimum criteria to require permitting by the Office of Drinking Water
as a public waterworks. The owner will need to contact their office for permitting as
such.
Recommendation: Approval
Conditions:
• Owner acquire permit for septic modification
• Location of any new septic components are added to site plan
• Approval of well by ODW as a public waterworks
If there are any questions or concerns, please give me a call, 434-972-4306.
Sincerely,
Alan Mazurowski
Environmental Health Supervisor
Thomas Jefferson Health District
alan.mazurowski(&,vdh.vir ig nia.gov
ARB comments for SDP2018-40: 2300 Hunter's Way major Amendment
Heather McMahon
7/3/18
This site development plan requires an ARB application for Initial Review of Site Development Plan
review as the parcel lies in the EC Overlay District. While ARB staff has not reviewed this project fully,
staff has identified a number of concerns:
1. As per Design Guideline #6, "Site development in the EC should be sensitive to the existing
natural landscape..." and as per Design Guideline #40, "Site grading should maintain the basic
relationship of the site to surrounding conditions by limiting the use of retaining walls and by
shaping the terrain through the use of smooth, rounded land forms that blend with the existing
terrain." This proposal shows grading in the southeast corner of the site that results in an 82-
foot-long, 6-foot-tall retaining wall on the southern edge of the limits of disturbance, closest to
the EC. It is anticipated that the size, location and treatment of the retaining wall, as currently
shown, will result in an inappropriate appearance on the EC.
2. As per Design Guideline #39, "The relationship of buildings and other structures to the Entrance
Corridor street and to other development within the corridor should be as follows: An
organized pattern of roads, service lanes, bike paths, and pedestrian walks should guide the
layout of the site; in general, buildings fronting the Entrance Corridor street should be parallel to
the street. Building groupings should be arranged to parallel the Entrance Corridor street." The
proposed two-story retail building appears to have its back turned to the EC. The new buildings
are not aligned to each other, the retaining wall is not coordinated with the proposed new
buildings, and the travelway appears to take precedence and will have a significant impact on
the EC.
3. The compatibility of the proposed buildings' architecture with traditional building forms in the
County cannot be determined until architectural elevations, floor plans, and material samples
are submitted for review. Staff is concerned that the scale of a two-story retail building with a
small coffee kiosk will be incongruous.
4. Please note that all visibility of vehicles awaiting repair must be eliminated from the EC and, as
per Zoning Ordinance [5.1.31(b)] Automobile Repair: "No vehicle awaiting repair shall be located
on any portion of the site so as to be visible from any public street." The 12 approved parking
spaces for vehicles awaiting repair at the center of the site were approved without the property
owner having to attain an SP because they were deemed to not be visible from the EC street.
Any changes to the location of the 12 approved parking spaces for vehicles awaiting repair may
require a Special Use Permit for Outdoor Storage and Display of Vehicles. Regardless, all visibility
of vehicles awaiting repair must be eliminated from any public street; please revise and show
how the four relocations spaces adjacent to Hunters Way will be screened sufficiently to
eliminate visibility.
5. Please identify the blank area between the two rows of parking in the center of the site.
6. If new wall -mounted lighting is being proposed on either of the proposed new buildings, that
information must be included in the photometric values on the lighting plan and provide
manufacturers' specifications for all proposed lighting (freestanding or wall -mounted) with the
lighting plan.
7. Please verify on the landscape plan what vegetation is extant, what has been previously
approved, and what is being proposed in this project. Please rectify quantity discrepancies in the
plant schedule on C5.
8. Additional vegetation around and within the parking area and travelways, as well as around the
proposed buildings will be required to meet the Design Guideline standards. Staff recommends
shrubs and trees along the travelway south of the proposed building.
9. Note that the new sign location will not be approved with the site plan amendment; it will be
reviewed and approved with the sign permit, which is a separate application. Landscaping will
be required to integrate the sign with the surroundings.
We recommend that the applicant apply to the ARB ASAP with at least conceptual architectural
drawings.
Christopher Perez
From:
Liz Russell <Irussell@monticello.org>
Sent:
Thursday, July 05, 2018 12:39 PM
To:
justin@shrimp-engineering.com
Cc:
Christopher Perez
Subject:
Hunters Way Site Plan Comments
Hi Justin — I hope the summer has been treating you well. I believe one of your projects is scheduled for review (Major
Site Plan amendment at Hunters Way). My apologies for the last minute nature of the review but I hope that my request
is not as relevant to site plan as it is primarily aesthetic and related to building material.
1. Roof color- in that the project is within the Monticello Viewshed and visible during certain months of the year,
we would ask that a muted roof color be employed on the roof color and front facades of the building.
Other elements of the site plan are in keeping with Monticello Guidelines, including the relegated parking lots and
landscaping improvements. There is relatively minimal net building square footage change. Apart from the Viewshed
guidelines, the Foundation does have a vested interest in the water quality of storm water entering water that feeds
Barn Branch, across Rt. 250 on our Shadwell Parcel (birthplace of Thomas Jefferson). I am sure that all plans are in
keeping with County and DEQ erosion and sediment control policies but I did just want to state the importance of the
site adjacent to Hunters Way.
As always, Monticello appreciates being a partner in the community working with Developers and the County to ensure
that the important historic views from Monticello are protected and impact is mitigated.
Sincerely,
Liz Russell
Liz Russell
Manager of Planning and Projects
Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Inc.
P.O. Box 316
1070 Monticello Loop
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Work: (434) 984-7589
Cell: (434) 466-1275
4