HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201900002 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2019-07-10COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
Memorandum
To: Cameron Palmore, P.E., L.S. [ci2almorekdewberry.co / (804)-205-33561
Nat Perkins [nperkinskuvafoundation.com / (434)-982-5304]
From: Tim Padalino, AICP — Senior Planner [Ipadalino@albemarle.org / (434)-296-5832 x 3088]
Division: Planning
Date: July 10, 2019
Subject: SDP-2019-00002 "University of Virginia Foundation Tennis Facilities" — Final Site Plan
The Planner for the Planning Division of the Community Development Department (CDD) will approve the plan referred
to above (revision date 6/20/2019) when the following items 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 to the Albemarle County Code.]
Albemarle County Planning Services (Planner) — Tim Padalino, tpadalinokalbemarle.org — No Objection:
1. [SP201700032 Concept Plan/Concept Plan Detail and Conditions of Approval]: The proposed development
shown on the Final Site Plan appears to be in general accord with the applicable Concept Plan and Tennis
Facility Detail (SP201700032).
Update 3/26: Confirmed — no action/revision required.
2. 1Z.O.32.5.2.a and 32.6.2.a]: The Zoning information is incomplete. Please make the following corrections:
A. The zoning information on Sheet C0.03 ("Erosion & Sediment Control Notes") does not correctly
include the required information regarding the most recent Special Use Permit (SP) approval and
conditions. Please include the approval resolution and conditions of approval for SP201700032 ("UVA
Outdoor Tennis, Permanent Connector Road, and Birdwood Golf Course Addition"). Copies of those
documents are attached for your reference.
Update 3/26: Addressed.
B. The Special Exceptions (SE) zoning information on Sheet C0.03 ("Erosion & Sediment Control Notes")
includes a title with reference to the wrong Special Use Permit (SP). The Special Exceptions Approval
Letter and Special Exceptions Conditions Letter relate to Special Use Permit SP201700032 (not
SP201700023). Please retain this Special Exception information, but revise the title to reference Special
Use Permit SP201700032.
Update 3/26: Addressed.
C. Please revise the "Project Zoning Data" on Sheet T1.01 ("Cover Sheet") to make a cross-reference to
the sheet containing the SP and SE conditions of approval for SP201700032 (for example: Special Use
Permit: SP201700032 See Sheet _").
Update 3/26: Addressed.
D. Please revise the title of Sheet C0.03 ("Erosion & Sediment Control Notes") to include reference to
"Project Zoning Data" or "Zoning Details" or something similar. It appears that the "Erosion and
Sediment Control Sequence" notes and `BMP Installation and As -Built Notes" information could be
Page 1 of 4
moved to Sheet C0.02; this would consolidate all E&S and BMP notes, and would therefore allow the
title and contents of Sheet C0.03 to be focused on the extensive zoning details that pertain to the
Birdwood property.
Update 3/26: Addressed.
[Z.O.32.5.2.a and 32.6.2.b]: Currently, the site plan set only contains sheets showing separate/isolated views
of the project area at a detailed scale of 1" = 20'. Please add a sheet depicting the overall/entire project area at a
larger scale (and showing match lines) for each of the following Civil sheets:
A. Existing Conditions
B. Site and Utility Plan
Update 3/26: Addressed.
4. [Z.O.32.5.2.a and 32.6.1.a]: Please identify the authorized plan preparer for the landscaping plan sheets
(Sheets L1, L2, L3, L4, and L5).
Update 3/26: Addressed.
5. [Z.O.32.7.9.4.a]: Please clarify the locations and extent of the proposed meadow landscaping on Sheet L2
("Planting Plan").
Update 3/26: Addressed.
6. [Z.O.32.7.9.4.d]: Please add the "verification of compliance note" contained in Z.O. Section 32.7.9.4.d to
Sheet L2 ("Planting Plan") or L3 ("Planting Schedule").
Update 3/26: Addressed.
[SP201700032 Special Exceptions — Conditions of Approval]: The proposed outdoor athletic lighting shown
on the Final Site Plan Sheets LT-303 and LT-304 appears to be in general accord with the applicable conditions
of approval of the Special Exceptions that were approved in conjunction with SP201700032. Specifically, the
pole height and mounting height of sixty (60) feet is compliant with the Special Exceptions conditions of
approval.
Update 3/26: Confirmed — no action/revision required.
[SP201700032 Special Exceptions — Conditions of Approval]: To ensure that the proposed outdoor athletic
lighting will be operated in general accord with the conditions of approval for the applicable Special
Exceptions, additional notes must be added to the Lighting Plan.
A. (SE Condition of Approval # 4): Add a note that clarifies that the maximum height of the outdoor
athletic lighting poles, inclusive of the concrete bases, shall not exceed seventy (70) feet total height
above ground level.
B. (SE Condition of Approval # 2): Add a note that stipulates the luminaires mounted on the outdoor
athletic light poles will be dimmed at all times except during televised nighttime play.
C. (SE Condition of Approval # 2): Based on information provided to the County during the review
process for SP201700032 and the accompanying Special Exception requests (Comment Response
Letter from Williams Mullen, dated April 30, 2018 — see attached excerpt and see insert, below), CDD
staff recommends, but does not require, that the note required above (review comment #8.B)
specifically state that such luminaires shall be dimmed to a level between 75 and 95 foot candles as
measured on the tennis courts, except for when in use for televised nighttime play when such luminaires
may be increased to between 100 and 125 footcandles as measured on the tennis courts (not to exceed a
maximum illumination level of 125 footcandles as measured on the tennis courts).
Page 2 of 4
a. The minimum level of illumr nation, in faotcandles at the ground, that is
considered acceptable for nighttime televised play.
Response: 100 footcandles
b. The maximum level of illumination that is typical for courts of this type, in
footcandles at the ground.
Response: 125 footcandles
c. The average level of illumination that is typical for courts of this type, in
footcandles at the ground.
Response. 75 - 95 footcandles
d. An estimate of the number of pole lights that would typically be required for
courts of this type, (A range is acceptable. The estimate can be based on
whatever conceptual court layout is current.)
Response: We estimate that approximately 12 high -mast poles will be
necessary to illuminate the courts intended for televised play.
(Advisory / For Future Reference): Please note that the Final Site Plan cannot be approved unless and until a
complete application for a Water Protection Ordinance Plan / VSMP Plan is submitted, reviewed, and approved
by the Engineering Services Division of the Community Development Department as required per Z.O. 32.7.4.1
and County Code Chapter 17, including any dedication of easements for facilities for stormwater management
required per Z.O. 32.7.4.2(a). Engineering review comments will be forwarded upon receipt.
Update 7/9: CDD Staff acknowledge that WPO Plan (WP0201800059) and Easement Plat (SUB201900114)
have been submitted, and are under review.
■ (Advisory / For Future Reference): Please note that the Final Site Plan typically cannot be approved unless and
until a complete application for a Countywide Certificate of Appropriateness is submitted, reviewed, and
approved by Staff in the Community Development Department. However, please reference project -specific
written guidance from Margaret Maliszewski, Chief of Planning — Resource Management (dated 3/20/2019),
which includes the following:
"At Monday's ARB meeting, the ARB agreed that it was acceptable to delay approval of the architectural
design of the tennis building until after site plan approval. The applicant should note, however, that if the ARB
agrees to the delay, the submittal, review and approval of the Countywide CofA application should precede
the submittal of the building permit application. "
RESUBMITTAL REVIEW COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM SITE REVIEW COMMITTEE MEMBERS:
Albemarle County Architectural Review Board (ARB) Margaret Maliszewski, mmaliszewskigalbemarle.org
No Objection; see attached comments (7/9/2019).
Albemarle County Building Inspections (Inspections) Michael Dellinger, mdellingergalbemarle.org —
No Objection (3/15/2019).
Albemarle County Department of Fire & Rescue (Fire -Rescue) Shawn Maddox, smaddoxgalbemarle.org —
No Objection (1/23/2019).
Albemarle County E-911 (E-911) Andy Slack, aslack(�ualbemarle.org —
No Objection (3/19/2019).
Page 3 of 4
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Adam Moore, Adam.Moore(kvdot.vir ig nia gov —
No Objection (4/2/2019).
Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) Richard Nelson, rnelson(cserviceauthority.org
"No Objection" / "Approved" review status, per ACSA Approval Letter dated 5/16/2019 and received on 6/11.
RESUBMITTAL REVIEW COMMENTS PENDING (AS OF 7/10/2019):
Albemarle County Engineering Services (Engineer) David James, diameskalbemarle.org
All pending review comments will be promptly forwarded upon receipt. Please contact Tim Padalino at the
Department of Community Development at (434)-296-5832 ext. 3088 or tpadalino&albemarle.org for further
information or assistance.
Page 4 of 4
WILLIAMS M U LLEN
April 30, 2018
Page 6
Pianninp — ARB & Entrance Corridor
The following comments related to the US 250 / Ivy Road Entrance Corridor have been provided
by Principal Planner Margaret Maliszewski:
SP-2017-32:
1. The use of full cutoff fixtures is recommended as a [recommended] condition of
approval.
Response: The applicant is amenable to this request, however, full cutoff fixtures
are already proposed in the waiver request and are a requirement of the code, and
we have been advised that an additional condition is not necessary.
2. It is anticipated that the primary impact of this proposed development on the Entrance
Corridor and nearby historic resources will be the court lighting. Additional information on
the intensity of the illumination would allow a more complete assessment of potential
impacts. In lieu of a photometric plan, please provide the following:
a. The minimum level of illumination, in footcandles at the ground, that is
considered acceptable for nighttime televised play.
Response:.100 footcandles
b. The maximum level of illumination that is typical for courts of this type, in
footcandles at the ground.
Response: 125 footcandles
c. The average level of illumination that is typical for courts of this type, in
footcandles at the ground.
Response: 75 - 95 footcandles
d. An estimate of the number of pole lights that would typically be required for
courts of this type. (A range is acceptable. The estimate can be based on
whatever conceptual court layout is current.)
Response: We estimate that approximately 12 high -mast poles will be
necessary to illuminate the courts intended for televised play.
ZMA-2017-10:
Review Comments for SDP201900002 IFinal Site Development Plan
Project Name: University of Virginia Foundation Tennis Facilities - Final
Date Completed: Tuesday, July 09, 2019 DepartmentIDivisionfAgency: Review Sys:
Reviewer: Margaret M al i szews ki DDDARB NoObjection
No further comments on EC issues_
Page: County of Albemarle Printed On: 071101 1919