HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201800030 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2018-11-02Phone 434-296-5832
ALg��9�
k.r r
�'IRGSNlP`
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, VA, 22902
Memorandum
To: Craig Kotarski (craie.kotarski(ytimmons.com)
From: Paty Saternye, Senior Planner
Division: Planning
Date: June 14, 2018
Rev. 1: August 30, 2018
Rev. 2: November 2, 2018
Subiect: SDP 201800030 The Center at Belvedere — Final Site Plan
Fax 434-972-4126
The County of Albemarle Planning Division will recommend approval of the plan referenced above once the
following comments have been satisfactorily addressed (The following comments are those that have been
identified at this time. Additional comments or conditions may be added or eliminated based on further review.):
[Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference, which is to the Subdivision/Zoning Ordinances unless
otherwise specified.]
Initial Site Plan Comments (from conditional approval letter dated 12/29/17):
2. A site plan meeting all the requirements of section 32.6 of Chapter 18 of the Code.
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. See comments below.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. See comments below.
Rev. 2: Comment not vet fully addressed. See comments below.
3. A site plan meeting all the requirements of ZMA 2004-7, its Application Plan and its Code of Development
(C.O.D).
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. See comments below.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. See comments below.
Rev. 2: Comment not vet fully addressed. See comments below.
4. A site plan meeting all the requirements of variations to ZMA 2004-7, it's Application Plan and its Code of
Development (C.O.D), including Variations #49, #50 & #51. Address the following:
c) Variation #50 requires that a "Pergola and Garden" feature along Belvedere Boulevard, as shown in the
variation exhibit, be provided. The initial site plan does not meet this requirement and therefore the
layout must be updated before final site plan submittal in order to address this. The final site plan will
not be approved until this requirement is met.
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. Variation #50 was approved to allow the building massing,
interior parking access road and parking layout to be different than the ZMA application plan with two
conditions. One of those was to provide a "Pergola and Garden" feature along Belvedere Boulevard, in
addition to all other requirements, in order to mitigate the visual impact of the variation to the Application
Plan. The application plan was designed to present a "face" to the road and buffer the parking from
view. What has been proposed does not present a "face" for the majority of the lot frontage and has
insufficient buffering for the parking. The pergola provided in this submission stretches for less than
one tenth of the length of the parking lot and access ways and is not sufficient to meet this requirement.
Address the following:
i. The garden portion of the variation condition must be met. The plantings propose are a single
line of the same evergreen tree. Revise the plantings to be more of a garden, to include a
variety of plantings in an attractive arrangement, while mitigating the view of the parking and
parcel. Work with planning and zoning on ways to meet this requirement.
Page 1 of 11
Rev. 1: Comment will be addressed based on the 8/13/18 exhibit. Ensure site plan reflects the
changes shown in the exhibit. However, see landscaping comments for the need for additional
shrubs to buffer the parked cars from the road.
Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
iii. Provide additional pergola. This could be done by placing multiple pergolas along the length of
the lot frontage, interspersed with the garden plantings. Refer to the exhibit submitted with the
variation request, revision date 11/7/12, for the length of pergola shown. Note that where the
pergola was not shown the parking was more recessed from the street frontage. In order to
provide less pergola length planning and zoning reviewer must see that the intent of the
"pergola and garden" of creating a "face" and mitigating the view of the parking lot has been
accomplished.
Rev. 1: Comment will be addressed based on the 8/13/18 exhibit. Ensure site plan reflects the
changes shown in the exhibit.
Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
d) Variation #51 has many requirements that must be addressed before final site plan approval.
Reference the variation approval for all requirements that must be addressed. Included in this list are:
iv. Revision of the Water Protection Ordinance plan and approval by Engineering.
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. Acquire WPO approval from engineering.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Address the comment.
Rev. 2: Comment not yet fully addressed. Acquire WPO approval from engineering.
V. VDOT acceptance of Belvedere Boulevard.
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. Acquire VDOT acceptance of Belvedere Blvd.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Address the comment.
Rev. 2: Comment addressed. However, please note that if in the future changes are
proposed to the BLVD VDOT review will be once again required.
[32.5.1(c), 32.5.2(a) & 32.6.1(e)(1)] Address the following:
a) Provide the boundary information for all potions of the boundary including all required curve data where
appropriate. Boundary information along right of way should be provided and legible.
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following in reference to the added area of parking,
heading south on Belvedere Blvd.:
ii. Provide all boundary information for the ROW for the length of the improvements specified in
this site plan.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Provide boundary information for the proposed boundary
changes for the one parking space still shown along the Blvd.
Rev. 2: Comment no longer required. Parking space on BLVD is no longer shown in either
Phase 1 or 2.
g) FINAL - NEW COMMENT: Revise the setback information to specify 10' setback for the rear, as
specified on page 38 of the C.O.D.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. The side setback is not correct, because additional wording was
added. The "... or within 2' of existing easement" applies only to the front build -to -line not the side
setback. Removed this additional wording from the side setback information.
Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
7. [32.5.2(b), 32.5.2(e), 32.5.2(p), 32.6.20) & 32.7.9] Provide a full landscape plan that provides all required
landscaping, calculations and meets the requirements for 32.7.9, the ZMA Code of Development, and the
variations approved that impact this parcel. Also, address the following:
a) Provide the calculation and the "landscaping required" to meet the minimums for the 5% of the
paved parking and vehicular area, the number of plantings based on number of parking spaces,
and the parking lot landscaping specifically outlined in the C.O.D. and zoning ordinance.
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following:
i. Specify the amount of landscape parking and circulation area that is provided to meet the
minimum of 5%. Although a calculation has been provided the amount provided has not been
specified. Note that the area for the 5% is area of planting beds that have been provided that
will have parking lot trees and shrubs in them. It is not the canopy of the trees in the parking lot.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Although the required square feet is calculated and
shown in the site plan it appears the proposed/provided quantity of landscape area is not shown
on the Landscape Plan. Provide the area of proposed landscape areas.
Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
Page 2 of 11
e) Provide landscape screening for all features with negative impacts including parking, dumpster,
loading areas, and storage areas.
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following:
ii. See comment 4 (c) for details about planting requirements in the area to meet the variation
condition. Ensure that the plantings along the road frontage meet both the standard road
parking screening and the variation condition requirements.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Although requirements for the variations have been
met, the standard parking lot buffering requirements have not. There are large gaps in the
shrubs that are meant to buffer the parked cars from the street. There are over ten of these
gaps and one of them is about 38' long. Add additional shrubs between the trail and the
parking lot to meet this requirement (32.7.9.5 (e)). Also, please note that the cedars will
likely have no buffering impact on the parking spaces because they will need to have their
limbs trimmed because of their close proximity to the curb.
Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
iv. Provide landscaping to screen and mitigate the view of the loading dock area on the side of
the building fronting the street.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Provide additional screening landscaping within the
triangular planting area adjacent to the loading space in order to screen the loading space
from view of the road.
Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
f) Provide all required calculations for require landscaping to meet the zoning ordinance, the ZMA,
the C.O.D, and the variation requirement. Note that Variation #50 has landscaping requirements
"in addition" to those specified in the other documents. Plantings for other requirements will not be
counted towards meeting the variations requirements.
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following:
i. See comment 4 above.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressea. See comment 4 abov(
Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
vii. Either revise the canopy calculation to include the areas of open space, outside the parcel, that
are impacted by the site plan in the "project area" or remove the trees and shrubs planted in
those open space areas from the canopy calculation.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following:
a. The project area outside of the parcel does not seem to correspond with the limits of
clearing and grading. Ensure areas outside the parcel that are impacted are accurately
included in the canopy calc.
Rev. 2: Comment not yet fully addressed. The project area was updated on sheet
L1.02 in the calculations. However, the "Total Req'd SF" at the bottom of the
schedule has not been updated to match. Ensure all information is consistent.
b. Trees/plantings previously proposed in the area of open space outside of the parcel, which
is being impacted by the project, are no longer being shown. See zoning comment.
Planting are required in the open space to compensate for the vegetation removed by the
work.
Rev. 2: Comment not yet fully addressed. See zoning comment on the replanting of
this area and the minimum requirements on the size and species of those plantings.
There is wording in the Code of Development about the plantings.
c. [REV. 2: NEW COMMENT] The "Total Planting SF" near the bottom of the
"Landscape Schedule" appears to be incorrect. It seems that some component of
the calculation have been counted twice. Either revise this number to be correct or
provide the planning reviewer with information on the calculation and how 56,823 SF
of total canopy is being provided.
A. [NEW COMMENT] Rev. i : Insure no snruas inat ao not grow to a neigni at or above 5 are
included in the canopy calculation. Some of the shrubs specified do not meet this minimum
height and therefore cannot be included in the canopy calculation. Revised the Landscape
Schedule so that the "Area in SF" and the "Total Areas in SF" do not include these plants.
Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
g) Note that the limited/partial landscaping shown on sheet L100 does not appear to be sufficient to
meet the minimum requirements. This has not been fully reviewed since it is not meant to be
complete. However, at this stage, two things to note are 1) the lack of parking landscaping
adjacent/near to the proposed Phase 2 building and 2) landscaping to meet any of the
Page 3 of 11
requirements for Variation #50. All landscaping shown so far appear to be for street trees and
parking lot trees. Landscaping for Variation #50 is "in addition" to all other required landscaping.
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. See other landscaping comments.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. See other landscaping comments.
Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
j) FINAL — NEW COMMENT: Provide on the "Site Planting", "Phase I Layout" and "Phase 2 Layout
and Grading" sheets the proposed tree line and ensure that the limits of clearing and grading are
considered in the location of the proposed tree lines.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. The proposed tree line does not match the impact from all
of the edges of the limits of clearing and grading. Ensure no area graded shows existing trees
remaining. Ensure it is shown on all sheets specified above, as well as the Landscape Plan.
Rev. 2: Comment not yet fully addressed. Address the followinq:
i. On the east, next to the pond, an area of trees are show to be removed but are not
shown as being in the "Limits of Construction" on most of the pages. This is also
outside of the parcel and within the preserved slopes area. See zoning comments of
needing an SP to impact preserved slopes.
ii. Ensure that there are labels provided for the "Limits of Construction" on any sheet is
shown_
iii. The "Limits of Construction" to not match on all of the sheets. Sheets C2.2 and L1.00
shows a different area than that shown on sheets C2.1, C4.0, C4.1, C5.0 & C5.1.
Ensure that all sheets show consistent information.
iv. On sheet L1.00 there is a third line/linetype in the area of the "Limits of Construction"
and the tree protection fencing. Ensure that third line is clearly labeled or remove it is
it in error.
k) FINAL — NEW COMMENT: Revise the tree line for all proposed work outside of the parcel. Ensure
that the clearing for the extension of the existing trail, and the area between the proposed trail and
the proposed grading, on the east side of the parcel as well the proposed grading on the west side
of the parcel near the pond are addressed. Where there is clearing provide landscaping that will
address the removal of the existing vegetation.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following:
No impact to the tree line is snown Tor the proposea trails in the open space between Blocks
1 and 2. Since this trail is being created/improved tree impact is likely. Revise the tree line
or discuss with the plan reviewer.
Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
ii. There does not appear to be any landscaping provided to address the removal of the
existing landscaping and trees in the open space outside of the property. See the zoning
comments on the requirements for replacing the vegetation.
Rev. 2: Comment not yet fully addressed. See Zoning comments on the replanting
area.
9. [32.5.2(d) & 30.7.5] The managed and preserved slopes have been shown on the site plan. However, the
design standards for the steep slopes overlay district have not been applied. Address the following:
a) Walls above 6' in height are not allowed in the steep slope overlay areas. If additional height is required
it must be met with multiple stepped walls that are the prescribed minimum distance apart and have the
required landscaping.
FINAL: Comment not addressed. Address the following:
i. Provide the maximum wall height for all wall on the site plan.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
Rev. 2: Comment NO LONGER addressed. The labels for the walls no longer show the
"Maximum Wall Height" value. That part of the label was removed with the last changes.
The maximum wall height must be provided for each wall. Although the top of wall and
bottom of wall values are also required they do not meet the requirement for the "maximum
wall height" being labeled.
Page 4 of 11
iv. Provide a dimension for the minimum distance between the tiered retaining walls of 3'.
Rev. 1: Comment not addressed. Response states these dimensions and the wall heights are
shown on C2.1. Neither of these items appear to be shown in that sheet. Address the comment.
Rev. 2: Comment not vet fully addressed. Address the following:
a. The Rev. 1 version of this comment was incorrect. As stated in the first comment
"Provide a dimension for the minimum distance between the tiered walls of 3'."
b. This dimension must be shown in the plan view.
c. Also, include a typical wall section that shows the tiered walls and shows the minimum
distance of 3' between the tiered walls.
c) Check and clarify the locations of the steep slopes overlay graphics with the final site plan submittal and
show the steep slopes areas on at least one of the plan sheets that shows all (Phase 1 and 2) walls.
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following:
i. On the Steep Slopes sheet (C105) show all the layout and wall height information so that the
location and heights of the walls can be reviewed for their impact on the steep slopes.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Show the wall height on sheet C2.1.
Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
d) Provide the maximum wall heights in the Phase 1 and 2. None are shown in Phase 2, and in that phase
one of the walls that impacts the steep slopes areas is being extended farther than in phase 1.
FINAL: Comment not addressed. Address the comment. Provide maximum heights on all proposed
walls. Also include the top of wall and bottom of wall elevations.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Provide both top of wall and bottom of wall at each of the points
specified. They are meant to show the height of the individual walls.
Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
h) [NEW COMMENT 1 Rev. 1: Preserved steep slopes are being impacted by grading near the pond and
the tiered walls. Preserved steep slopes impact cannot be allowed. Revise the site plan to eliminate
preserved slope impact. A combination of a variety of design options might resolve the issue. Among
the possible options there are flipping the direction of the turnaround towards the subject parcel, the
creation of additional walls, field run topo to minimize the area considered to be preserved steep slopes
(discuss this with engineering). Also, ensure that guardrails do not limit any required access to the pond
dam.
Rev. 2: Comment not vet fully addressed. Preserved steep slopes impact are still shown on
sheets C2.2, and L1.00 between the property line and the pond. Fully address the comment. It is
my understanding from engineering that impact for the stormwater pipe will be allowed, but the
other impacts will not be.
i) [NEW COMMENT 1 Rev. 1: The steep slopes GIS overlay needs to be shifted to match the parcel lines.
No preserved steep slopes are meant to be within the parcel. Contact the plan reviewer about the need
for this shift and the history behind it.
Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
j) [NEW COMMENT 1 Rev. 1: Revise the legend on sheet C2.1 such that the correct hatches are assigned
to the correct areas.
Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
10. [32.5.2(i), (n), 32.6.2(f), & Wl Address the following:
b) The boundary line adjustment for the road right of way will have to be approved prior to the final site
plan approval because it is a requirement of Variation #51.
FINAL: Comment not yet addressed. The boundary line adjustment will be required to be submitted
under a separate project and could be combined with other plat requirements. The BLA must be
reviewed, approved and recorded prior to final site plan approval.
Rev. 1: Comment not addressed. Address the comment.
Rev. 2: Comment no longer required. The road right of way dedication is no longer shown on
the site plan in either phase 1 or 2.
Page 5 of 11
h) Show the location of any outdoor lighting on all plan sheets and provide information on lighting under
the entrance canopy. Submit a photometric plan.
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following:
ii. In the site plan include the primary page, with the picture of the light fixture, of each specifications
sheet for each light fixture proposed.
Rev. 1: Comment not addressed. No specification sheets, which should include a picture of the light
fixture, have been provided in the site plan. They must be added to the site plan.
Rev. 2: Comment not vet fully addressed. Address the following:
a. Supply both the 15' and 2nd sheet of the specification for the light fixtures so that the
details of the options being selected are included.
b. It is sufficient to supply one copy of each of the light fixtures specification sheets on the
site plan and lust circle ALL of the options being included for each fixture type being
proposed as long as enough detail is provided in the "Description" portion of the
"Luminaire Schedule" specifying the specific options being proposed for that one light
fixture_
c. Clarify what the small component sticking down from the light lenses is on the Viper S
series light fixtures. If this component generates light then it is not considered a full cut
off light and is not allowed since it is over 3,000 lumens. If it is a sensor then it is not an
issue. Specify what it is.
d. Ensure that all light fixtures that have a knuckle option, that allows the light to tilt, that the
knuckle option is not select. Ensure a different option is selected and specified in the
luminaire schedule. If the light is able to tilt it would not be a "full cut of light" and
therefore not allowed unless it is under 3,000 lumens.
iii. The specification sheets provide did not include the WAC Lighting 6651-30BZ or 5031-27BZ
A122915 light fixtures. Provide the correct specification sheets for all light fixtures proposed.
Rev. 1: Comment not addressed. No specification sheets have been provided in the site plan. They
must be added to the site plan.
Rev. 2: Comment not vet fully addressed. All light fixtures have changed from previous
submission. However, not all of the specification sheets have been provided for all light
fixtures specified in Luminaire Schedule. SA, SIB & SD light fixture cut sheets have not been
included. Provide the specification sheet for all lights proposed.
v. The Light Schedule "Description:" for the WAC Lighting 4091-27WT appears to be in symbols
instead of text. Ensure that the description can be read.
Rev. 1: Comment not addressed. Address the comment. The text still shows up as symbols.
Ensure you are looking at the printed version when checking this.
Rev. 2: Comment not yet fully addressed. Address the following:
a. Light fixtures proposed have changed. However, revise the Luminaire Schedule to
include the lumens for all proposed light fixtures. Type "C" has not been specified.
b. Either provide unique symbols for each light type or ensure that all light fixtures are
labeled correctly, clearly and that no other things on the Photometric Plan make it difficult
to read the label.
vi. There are additional symbols placed around the site in the plan that look like light symbols but do not
have a label assigned to them. Ensure that any residual/old symbols for lighting fixtures have been
removed from the Site Lighting site plan sheet. Note that the symbols shown in the "Schedule" and
the symbols in the upper left corner of the "Site Lighting" reduced size sheet are not the same.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. There appears to be one E light that has a symbol but no
label, near the internal crosswalks. Add the label for the light.
Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
vii. Add the standard lighting note to the Site Lighting site plan sheet which is, "Each outdoor Iuminaire
equipped with a lamp that emits 3,000 or more initial lumens shall be full cutoff Iuminaire and shall be
arranged or shielded to reflect light away from adjoining residential districts and away from adjacent
roads. The spillover lighting from luminaires onto public roads and property in residential or rural
areas zoning districts shall not exceed one half footcandle."
Rev. 1: Comment not addressed. It appears that the standard lighting not has not been added to the
Photometric Plan. Add the note to the Photometric Plan.
Rev. 2: Comment not fully addressed. The note has been added. However, the Photometric
Plan no longer meets the requirements specified in the note. Address the following:
a. Revise the photometric plan so that the luminaires from all light fixtures does not exceed
'/2 footcandle at the right of way line for Belvedere Blvd. There are multiple places that
Page 6 of 11
appear to have values higher than "0.5". One value appears to be 0.9 and others are not
able to be read.
b. Ensure all values for the footcandles are able to be read, with no other text obscuring it,
especially at the right of way line where the maximum footcandle limitation exists.
c. Revise the photometric plan so that the footcandles are provided right at the right of way
line and not feet beyond or behind it.
d. Ensure that the right of way line is visible and labeled.
ix. Show the lighting fixtures proposed for the site in other sheets to ensure that there will be no conflicts
with existing and proposed site features, utilities and utility easements. Show them in the "Site
Planting", "Site Layout Plan — Phase I" and "Site Layout and Grading Plan — Phase 2".
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following:
a. Show all free standing light fixtures in the Landscape Plan.
Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
b. The locations of the light fixtures does not appear to be accurate. Ensure accurate placement of
the fixtures on all site plan sheets. Remove light fixtures from parking spaces.
Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
A. Clarify what "Belvedere" in the lighting Statistics chart is meant to represent and provided review
planner with the location of the maximum 18.2 fc location is on the site.
Rev. 1: Comment not addressed. Lighting statistics chart has been removed. Add the statistics
chart, and the information it provides, back into the site plan and ensure comment is addressed.
Rev. 2: Comment not vet fully addressed. The statistics chart has been added back in.
However, clarify why one of the "maximums" in the chart is 510.4 or revise the chart if it is an
error.
xii. Update both the Lighting "Schedule" and "Statistics" accordingly.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Address the comment.
Rev. 2: Comment not yet fully addressed. See other lighting comments above.
xiii. FREV. 2: NEW COMMENTI One light fixture proposed within the future building envelope of
the gymnasium. Either address this issue with a phased photometric plan or revise the
photometric plan so that there is not this conflict with what is proposed in phase 2.
m) Provide directional arrows for the drive aisles.
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. Provide directional arrows for the two entrances.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Directional arrows have been added at the entrances but not
within the parking access aisles. Add arrows on the parking access aisles.
Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
o) Show the deed book and page number for the existing easements. The information does not appear to
be provided for the power and water easements.
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. Address the comment.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. See comment #12 below.
Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
v) Provide the full landscape plan including all required information, details, calculations and schedules.
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. See other comments.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. See comments above on Landscaping.
Rev. 2: Comment not vet fully addressed. See comments above on Landscaping.
11. [32.5.20) & (k)] Address the following:
d) There is an existing stormdrain from the road, through the parcel, and leading to the stormwater pond.
It does not appear to have an easement. Address this issue.
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. Provide on the existing conditions sheet the deed book and page
number for the existing stormwater easement that crossed the property to the pond.
Rev. 1: Comment not addressed. There is no deed book and page number in a label for the existing
stormdrain easement that drains from the Blvd to the stormwater pond. Also, ensure that the two pipes
coming from the road and converging before the pond are from the same recorded plat.
Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
12. [32.5.2(1)] Ensure the location of any existing or proposed utilities and utility easements, including cable, on
all of the plan sheets including the landscaping plan. Ensure that the label for the power easement is
located where it is obvious what line its leader is point to.
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following:
Page 7 of 11
Ensure that all existing utility easements on the parcel have the deed book and page number included
in the label for the easement.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following:
a. There does not appear to be a deed book and page number for either the water line easement or
the underground power easement shown on the existing conditions sheet.
Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
b. There is an easement line, about 5' off of the right of way line, that has no label at all. If it is another
easement label it and provide its deed book and page number. If it is the far side of one of the other
easements ensure the labels and/or dimensions clearly designate it as such.
Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
If the easements have been shown on the landscape plan they have not been labeled and their location
is not clear. Show and label all existing and proposed easements on the landscape and lighting plans
so that conflicts can be determined.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. The easements on the Landscape Plan do not all appear to be
complete, accurate or labeled correctly. It appears they may not agree with what is shown on the
existing conditions sheet. Also, ensure they are listed as the specific easement and not just as an
easement in general.
Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
13. [32.5.2(o)] Address the following in reference to open space.
a) Show in the site plan the required amenities associated with Block 1 and that are to be between Block 1
& Block 2 that are specified in the Code of Development (COD) on described on pages 10 and in listed
in the table on page 15.
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. The existing location of one of the two trails coming into the site
is not shown. Therefore, it cannot be determined if the proposed modification will connect to the
existing trail. Show the existing trail further to the west so that a portion of the existing trail still is shown
in the proposed layout.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Since there is a proposed section of the trail, make that
improvement more obvious. The hatching in the comment below may accomplish that.
Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
b) Add a note that references the open space requirements and notes that the open space requirements and
amenities for block 1 are primarily provided outside of the subject parcel. The one exception to this is
likely a pedestrian connection between Block 2 and 1 that is specified in the "Block 2 Open Space 6.2
acres" on page 10. A linkage to this pedestrian connection is likely required within this parcel.
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following:
iii. Ensure that other pavement sections are labeled for what areas they are sections for.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following:
a. The Heavy Duty Concrete and the Asphalt Trail hatch symbols resemble each other, either by
scale or symbology please ensure they are easier to differentiate.
Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
b. In the legend on sheet C4.0 in the text for the Asphalt to be milled & overlaid also specify which
type of material is to be overlaid after the milling. It would appear that it would be the Asphalt Trail
section.
Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
c. Specify on sheet C4.0 which section on sheet C1.1 apply to the "Asphalt Trail" and "Asphalt to be
milled & Overlaid" on Sheet C4.0. If it is not the "Light Duty Asphalt Pavement Section", or
another already on the site plan, then include the appropriate section.
Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
d. Add a hatch to the legend on sheet C4.0 for the Class B Trail and hatch the proposed portion of
the Class B Trail so that it is an obvious improvement like the other pedestrian an vehicular
improvements.
Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
Page 8 of 11
14. [Comment] Provide a copy of all off -site easements, or letters of intent to grant them from off -site property
owners. It appears that there are improvements proposed on the far side of Belvedere Blvd that may impact
an adjoining parcel.
FINAL: Comment not yet addressed. Address the comment. Also note that the limits of clearing and
grading appear to go into not only the open space but also the church parcel on the far side of the Blvd.
Rev. 1: Comment not addressed. Address the following:
a) Address the comment. See the comment below in reference to easement plats and deeds.
Rev. 2: Comment not yet fully addressed. See the comment below in reference to easement plats
and deeds.
b) Ensure that the off -site easements for the improvements in the open spaces adjacent to the site are
included in the easement plats and deeds when they are submitted and include all owner approvals.
Rev. 2: Comment not yet fully addressed. Address the followinq:
i. The easement submitted for the Stormwater and Drainage easements does not appear to
also include the off -site construction and grading easement for the area of open space to the
west. Submit a plat that is for the construction and grading easement.
ii. Ensure that the off -site construction and grading easement area includes all areas impacted,
including not only the grading and planting areas but also the trail construction.
iii. In order to minimize review time submit the deeds for all easements as soon as possible.
The deeds must be reviewed and approved before the easement plats can be approved. This
final site plan cannot be approved until all associated deeds are approved and recorded.
iv. The area for the construction and grading easement is not shown clearly on the site plan.
Sheet C4.0 has a label but the area it is referring to is not clear. Also, this easement should
be shown on other sheets, such as the grading and utility sheet. Ensure this area is shown
correctly and that it matches anv easement slat submitted.
15. [Comment] Required proposed easements, and deeds, must be approved and recorded prior to final site
plan approval.
FINAL: Comment not yet addressed. Address the comment.
Rev. 1: Comment not addressed. Address the comment. Please consider the easement plat review
process timeline and its impact on the approval of this site plan. All proposed/required easement plats and
deed must be reviewed, including the review of the County Attorney's Office, approved and recorded prior to
site plan approval.
Rev. 2: Comment not vet fully addressed. Not all easement slats and deeds have been submitted.
See comment #14 above.
17. [Comment] Required improvements be built or bonded prior to final site plan approval.
FINAL: Comment not yet addressed. Address the comment.
Rev. 1: Comment not addressed. Address the comment.
Rev. 2: Comment not yet fully addressed. Address the comment.
18. [Comment] See the attached comments from the majority of the other SRC reviewers. ACSA comments
will be forwarded to you once they have been received.
UPDATE: [NEW COMMENT] Zoning and ACSA comments have been attached. They had not been
available prior to the SRC meeting and had not been including in the draft comments.
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. See the attached comments from most of the other reviewers.
Zoning comments are not yet available and will be forwarded when they are.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. See the attached comments from most of the other reviewers.
Rev. 2: Comment not vet fully addressed. See the attached comments. ALSO. althouah Fire Rescue
had previously had "No Objection" to the site plan (last submission) because of the change to the
access turn around thev will need to confirm that "No Obiection" still aaDlies. Their comment will
be forwarded to you when available.
Page 9 of 11
Additional comments for Final Site Plan:
25. [Comment] Provide tree protection fencing just beyond the limits of clearing and grading in order to protect
the existing trees.
Rev. 1: Comment not addressed. There does not appear to be tree protection fencing shown in any of the
site plan or landscaping sheets. Ensure that the fencing is shown in the site plan and landscape plan
sheets and ensure that they are labeled appropriately.
Rev. 2: Comment not vet fully addressed. Also show the tree protection fencing, and a label for the
fencing, on the grading sheet C5.0. Please ensure that the linetype for this fence is easy to
distinguish from other linework.
26. [Comment] Provide handicapped ramps leading to all internal crosswalks.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Although it appears that handicapped ramps are not needed interior
to the sit, and it was noted in the comment response that "The curb is flush next to the internal crosswalks,
as ramp is not necessary." It appears that sufficient handicapped accessibility has not yet been provided
within the right of way. Please address the following:
a) Provide handicapped ramps on each side of the entrances to the site and leading to the multi -modal
trail.
Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
b) Provide crosswalks across both entrances to the site from the public road, which create a connection
across the entrance for the multi -modal trail.
Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
27. [Comment] Revise the layout so that there is the required 1' beyond the multi -use trail for the full length of
the right of way line. It is shown correctly on the sections, but does not appear to be correct on the plan
views. Ensure any right of way that requires dedication is show and labeled as such.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. On sheet C4.0 the label for the area of road dedication must be
labeled as dedication and not at "Boundary Line Adjustment". Revise the label to state "Additional street
right-of-way to be dedicated to the County of Albemarle for Public Use"
Rev. 2: Comments no longer required. Right of way dedication is no longer shown in Phase 1 or 2.
28. [Comment] Provide information on the "commercial uses" in phase II and confirm that all commercial uses
will be the senior center and not another entity, or provide information on others use of the site.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Response letter specified that all commercial uses are for the senior
center. If this is the case, include this information the phase 2 commercial space tabulation on the cover
sheet. One possible way to do this is to put "Senior Center" above the "Phase 2 (Commercial) line. Another
way to make it clear is to add a note that specifies that all uses in all phases are Senior Center uses.
Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
33. [Comment] Revise the Area Tabulations on the cover sheet such that the total area of the project does not
decrease in Phase 2, or provide planning reviewer information on why the area is decreasing.
Rev. 1: Comment not addressed. Response letter stated that the area tabulations were revised. However,
it appears the ones for the site have been removed instead. Either provide the revised area tabulations for
the site or discuss with planning reviewer prior to resubmission.
Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
34. [Comment] Revise the Area Tabulations on the cover sheet such that the total area is not smaller than the
parcel size or provide planning reviewer information on why the area is less.
Rev. 1: Comment not addressed. Response letter stated that the area tabulations were revised. However,
it appears the ones for the site have been removed instead. Provide the revised area tabulations for the site
or discuss with planning reviewer prior to resubmission.
Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
35. [Comment] Ensure that the access easement includes the off -site portion of the access road.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. There does not appear to be any labels for the access easement.
Provide labels for the proposed access easement. Also, ensure that at least one sheet shows the linework
for the easements in such a way that the lines are actually visible and not under some other linework.
Rev. 2: Comment sufficiently addressed.
Page 10 of 11
38. [Comment] Provide the benchmarks used for the survey.
Rev. 1: Comment not addressed. Address the comment.
Rev. 2: Comment sufficiently addressed.
39. [NEW COMMENT] Rev. 1: Revise the "Parking Space Required:" note on the coversheet to address the fact
that zoning is no longer requesting a parking study and that the use is more than "recreational". Discuss
this note with planning and/or zoning prior to resubmission.
Rev. 2: Comment not yet fully addressed. Address the following:
a) See the zoning comment for their comments on the parking study.
b) All square footage of the buildings must be included in the parking calculation. The recreational
areas and gymnasium are currently being left out of the calculations in the parking study even
though the ITE calculation specifies GROSS square feet.
c) One parking calculation must be used to meet both phases of the development. If the same
calculation does not meet the minimum and maximum parking spaces required for both Phase 1
or Phase 2 then a waiver must be requested (in the parking study) for not meeting those
requirements. Ensure that any calculation you utilize meets BOTH phases or request a waiver.
d) Revise the parking space note on the coversheet to specify:
L Both the minimums and maximums (120% of required) for Phase 1 AND Phase 2 parking.
ii. Both required and provided parking is to be shown.
M. Any waiver(s) being requested for minimum and/or maximum parking spaces in one or
both phases.
e) Any future request (beyond what is shown on this site plan in phase 2) for more parking must be
handled in a future site plan submission and parking study request. Please note that it cannot
be assumed that in the future what may or may not be approvable at this time would still be
approvable. By not including it in this site plan any "future parking expansion" is at risk.
40. [NEW COMMENT] Rev. 1: Revise the Legend on sheet C1.0 to include proposed sewer lines and ensure
that the proposed sewer line on the site plan matches the lines and symbols specified in the legend.
Rev. 2: Comment not yet fully addressed. Moved the proposed sanitary sewer line information in
the legend to be under the "SEWER" area of the legend. It is currently under a different section of
the legend.
41. [NEW COMMENTI Rev. 1: See engineering comments about additional impacts to the stream buffer and
impacts to the preserved steep slopes.
Rev. 2: Comment not yet fully addressed. See engineering and zoning comments about impacts to
the preserved slopes still shown on the site plan.
42. [NEW COMMENT] Rev. 1: Impact to the adjoining open space has increased since the last submission.
These impact must be minimized wherever possible.
Rev. 2: Comment addressed. However, see comments above on preserved slope impact that still is
proposed.
43. [NEW COMMENT] Rev. 1: Note that some comments above are based upon a revised exhibit (8/13/18).
The revisions shown there need to be incorporated into the site plan, except where a comment must also be
addressed in the exhibit itself.
Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
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" 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 Paty Saternye in the Planning Division by using psaternye(aMbemarle.org or 434-296-5832 ext. 3250 for
further information.
Page 11 of 11
Review Comments for SDP201800030 Final Site Development Plan LJ
Project Name: THE CENTER AT BELVEDERE - FINAL
Date Completed: Thursday, November 01, 2fl18 DepartmenVDiuisiorVAgency: Review Status:
Reviewer: Rebecca Ragsdale FED Zonina Requested Changes
-The code of development (page 10) allows minor grading in the wooded area between blocks 1 & 2. Any disturbed areas must
be revegetated, including replanted with a mix of deciduous and evergreen trees to restore the wooded area removed. Size of
trees must meet planting standards specified on page 10 of the code of development.
-Only managed slopes may be disturbed and design standards of Section 30.7.5 must be met. The proposed plan is showing
disturbance of preserved slopes along the property line with 61-58 for the stormwater managment facility. This is not an allowed
use on preserved slopes without a special use permit_ (Section 30.7.4_b(2)j
-As submitted, the parking study cannot be approved. It appears the recreational square footage has not been included in the
calculations.
Page: 1 County of Albemarle Printed On: 11/02/201B
VIRGlN1P
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To:
Patricia Saternye
From:
Emily Cox
Date:
15 May 2018
Rev. 1:
09 Aug 2018
Rev. 2:
10 Oct 2018
Subject:
The Center at Belvedere — Final Site Development Plan (SDP201800030)
The final site development plan for The Center at Belvedere has been reviewed by Engineering. The
following comments will need to be addressed before approval:
VSMP Plan must be approved before final site plan can be approved. Rev. 1: Comment still valid.
Rev. 2: Comment still valid.
2. The site plan must only contain what is required per Chapter 18-32.6.2 of the county code.
Therefore, erosion & sediment control sheets should be removed from the final site plan. Rev. 1:
Comment addressed.
3. [Section 8 Design Standards Manual] Slopes steeper than 3:1 must be permanently stabilized
with landscaping vegetation hardier than grass, which will not require mowing. Ensure this is
noted on the landscape plan. Eliminate any slopes steeper than 2: 1. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
4. Illustrate internal handicap access routes. Include spots to show grading meets requirements. Rev.
1: Comment addressed.
5. Clearly label the extent of flush curbing vs. CG-6 curbing. Provide a legend if necessary. Rev. 1:
Comment addressed.
6. It appears that changes to the roadway are proposed with this site plan. Changes to the road must
be submitted as a road plan amendment. VDOT approval is also necessary before final site plan
approval. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
7. Stream buffer is shown on plan along with improvements/grading in this buffer. Please show
proposed buffer outside of all improvements. The gravel trail can be inside the buffer. Rev. 1:
Why is grading so extensive (different from last submission) on the northeastern side of the site?
The stream is perennial and buffer should be as close to 100 ft as possible. Rev. 2: Comment
addressed.
8. Is there an easement or maintenance agreement for the 9' gravel trail? Rev. 1: Who will maintain
the trail? Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
9. Provide top and bottom elevations of retaining walls on the grading plans. Rev. 1: Spots
insufficient to show that walls do not exceed 6ft in height. Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
10. Please show steep slope hatching on grading/layout sheets. Ensure that design standards are
followed for retaining walls in this overlay district (per 18-30.7.5). This includes landscaping with
screening shrubs. Rev. 1: The managed and preserved slopes on Sheet C2.1 appear to be switched.
Also, there appears to be disturbance within the preserved slopes. This is not an allowed
disturbance per County Code 30.7.4. Rev. 2: Extend the pipe and outfall all the way to the water
surface elevation of the pond. Should not outlet in steep slopes.
II. Label all entrances with a VDOT designation. Rev. 1: Designation is not clear (CG-9D, etc). Rev.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 2
2: Comment addressed.
12. Are there any loading or dumpsters areas? If so, clearly designate areas and provide dumpster pad
detail. Rev. 1: Dumpster pad detail not provided. Bollard detail is shown. Rev. 2: Comment
addressed.
13. Please adjust linetypes and shading on Sheet C-104. This is the existing conditions sheet, however
all lines are dark, and appear to be similar to proposed linetypes. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
14. Sheet C-106 has a label, "underground utilities to be relocated (by others), but there are no utilities
shown. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
15. C-104 appears to show an easement around the storm drains. Please label the deed book and page
number of this easement. Rev. 1: Comment not addressed. Water easement and storm easement
Db & PG not labeled. Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
16. Why are slopes of storm drains labeled as negative in the profiles on sheet C-109? Rev. 1:
Comment addressed.
17. Sight distance for middle parking aisle, turning left, at the northern side of parking lot, appears
inadequate. Please refer to Chapter 18-4.12.15 (d) for sight distance within parking lots. Rev. 1:
Comment addressed.
18. Label the width (show dimension on road) of the crossing lines on Sheet C-121, item 13 in the
legend. Rev. 1: Since parking and crossing are removed, have parking requirements been met
elsewhere? Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
19. Rev. 1: Provide required rip -rap dimensions and sizing on the plans. Generic detail was provided.
However, correct size and dimensions must be shown on the plans. Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
20. Rev. 1: Provide storm drain calculations. Rev. 2: Calculations are not on the plan and were not in
the submission documents.
21. Rev. 1: Minimum pipe size is 12". Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
22. Rev. 1: SWM facility easement is necessary from cartridge filter to outfall. Rev. 2: Cartridge
removed, however easement still necessary at outfall (off site).
Review Comments for SDP201800030 Final Site Development Plan LJ
Project Name: THE CENTER AT BELVEDERE -FINAL
Date Completed: Monday, October 01, 2U18 DepartmenVDivisiorVAgency: Review Status:
Reviewer:
Richard Nelson ACSA Requested Changes
Page: 0 County of Albemarle Printed On: 11110112018
Review Comments for SDP201800030 Final Site Development Plan 0
Project Name: THE CENTER AT BELVEDERE - FINAL
Date Completed: Thursday, October 04, 20 DepartmenVDiuisiorVAgency: Review Status:
Reviewer:
Victoria Fort RWSA Requested Changes
201 &-10-04: I received the resubmission of the Final Site Plan for the Center at Belvedere and my comments are the same as r
below [with the previous submission].
201 t?rQti-09: RWSA has reviewed the Final Site Plan for the Center at Belvedere and finds no impacts to RWSA facilities_ As
stated in my email dated 5/9/201 S, our only comment is that a flow capacity certification will be required prior to final site plan
approval_
Page: 1 County of Albemarle Printed On: 11110112018
Review Comments for SDP201800030 Final Site Development Plan LJ
Project Name: THE CENTER AT BELVEDERE -FINAL
Date Completed: Monday, October 15, 2018 DepartmenVDiuisiorVAgency: Review Status:
Reviewer Kevin McDermott FJFEED man nina Requested Changes
The standard width for a Shared -use Path is 10' not 9'_ Request changing the width across the parcel frontage to meet this
width.
On the sight distance triangles on sheet C7.2, is it appropriate to show the drivers sight line beginning from the center of the
crosswalk. It would appear that a driver should be stopping behind pedestrian crosswalk_
Page: 1 County of Albemarle Printed On: 11110112018
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper Virginia 22701
Stephen C. Brich, P.E.
Commissioner
October 23, 2018
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Attn: Paty Saternye
Re: The Center at Belvedere- Final Site Plan
SDP-2018-00030
Review #4
Dear Ms. Saternye:
The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use
Section, has reviewed the above referenced plan as submitted by Timmons Group, dated July 18,
2018, revised September 21, 2018 and find it to be generally acceptable.
A VDOT Land Use Permit will be required prior to any work within the right-of-way. The
owner/developer must contact the VDOT Charlottesville Residency Land Use Section at (434)
422-9399 for information pertaining to this process. If further information is desired, please
contact Willis C. Bedsaul at 434-422-9866.
Sincerely,
*w ALk,
Adam J. Moore, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Charlottesville Residency
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING