HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201800030 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2018-12-03Phone 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
Rev. 3: December 3, 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):
10. [32.5.2(i), (n), 32.6.2(f), & (k)] Address the following:
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 yet fully addressed. Address the following:
a. Supply both the 1st and 2"d sheet of the specification for the light fixtures so that the details of the
options being selected are included.
Rev. 3: Provide the correct specification sheets for the light fixtures proposed. Address
the following:
A. It appears the specification sheets for the wrong fixture has been supplied for fixture
"B". The Luminaire Schedule lists a "RA-40551" but the specification sheet is for a
"RA-40552" light. Revise the Photometric Plan sheets as required.
B. Ensure that whatever fixture is specified is a full cut off fixture and is unable to tilt.
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.
Rev. 3: The "LLF" values in the Luminaire Schedule have been changed to something other
than 1.00. "LLF" must be 1.00, and all values adjusted for an "LLF" of 1.00. Revise the
Luminaire Schedule and the Photometric plan accordingly. Ensure that the values specified
at the right of way still do not exceed 0.5 fc.
xiii. [REV. 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.
Rev. 3: Comment not addressed. Address the comment. There is a free standing light fixture
proposed in the same location as there is a building proposed in Phase 2. Revise the site
plan to eliminate this conflict.
Page 1 of 3
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 yet fully addressed. Not all easement plats and deeds have been submitted. See
comment #14 above.
Rev. 3: Comment not fully addressed. An easement plat, and a previously recorded deed of
easement, have been submitted. The easement plat is under review. The easement plat must be
approved, recorded and a copy of the recordation receipt provided to the planning reviewer prior to
site plan approval.
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 yet fully addressed. See the attached comments. ALSO, although Fire Rescue had
previously had "No Objection" to the site plan (last submission) because of the change to the access turn
around they will need to confirm that "No Objection" still applies. Their comment will be forwarded to you
when available.
Rev. 3: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following:
a) ACSA & RWSA review is still pending. It is the understanding of the planning reviewer that
ACSA has contacted Timmons in reference to a comment response letter to clarify one item.
b) See the attached Engineering comment about missing data that needs to be provided on a new
sheet in the site plan. The cover sheet of the site plan will also need to be updated to include the
new sheet in the "Sheet List Table".
c) See the attached zoning comments in reference to the parking study and the parking
calculations/notes on the cover sheet.
Additional comments for Final Site Plan:
39. [NEW COMMENTI 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.
Rev. 3: Comment not fully addressed. See zoning comments.
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.
Rev. 3: Comment not fully addressed. See zoning comments for updated comments to address.
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.
iii. Any waiver(s) being requested for minimum and/or maximum parking spaces in one or both
phases.
Rev. 3: Comment not fully addressed. See zoning comments for updated comments to address.
Page 2 of 3
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.
Rev. 3: Replace "(See Parking Study)" next to "Parking Spaces Required" on the cover sheet
with "(No on -street parking is proposed or approved with this site plan.)"
44. [Rev. 3: NEW COMMENTI Ensure revision dates are added for all sheets revised and added to the
site plan.
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 3 of 3
Review Comments for SDP201800030 Final Site Development Plan LJ
Project Name: THE CENTER AT BELVEDERE -FINAL
Date Completed: Monday, December 03, 20 DepartmenVDiuisiorVAgency: Review Status:
Reviewer: Rebecca Ragsdale CDD Zonina Requested Changes
—As previously approved with SDP201100064, and based on the updated parking study, required parking is 3.2 spacesll,QQQ r
feet of grass floor area. 139 spaces are required for Phase I and 192 spaces are required with buildout of Phase 11. 233
spaces will be buillt with Phase 1. This increase of 3 spaces beyond the maximum 120% at full build -out is approved by Zoning.
—The cover sheet notes regarding parking must be revised to indicate the required parking calculation of 3.2 spacesfi ,QQQ and
not include the ranges.
Page: 1 County of Albemarle Printed On: 12/03/2018
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
Rev. 3:
29 Nov 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:
1. VSMP Plan must be approved before final site plan can be approved. Rev. 1: Comment still valid.
Rev. 2: Comment still valid. Rev. 3: Comment addressed.
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 611 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. Rev. 3: Comment addressed.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 2
11. Label all entrances with a VDOT designation. Rev. 1: Designation is not clear (CG-9D, etc). Rev.
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. Rev. 3: Comment addressed. Sheet C6.2 will be inserted into final
plans for signature.
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).Rev. 3: Comment addressed.
Review Comments for SDP2O18O003O Final Site Development Plan LJ
Project Name: THE CENTER AT BELVEDERE - FINAL
Date Completed: Friday, November 30, 2018 DepartmenVDivisiorVAgency: Review Status:
Reviewer: Kevin MCDermoff FED Plan nina No Objection
Page: 1 County of Albemarle Printed On: 12/03/2018