HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP200800074 Review Comments 2014-03-14 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
of A Department Community Development
gF:Q.* Planning Services Division
x ,;,. 401 McIntire Road North Wing• Charlottesville,Virginia 22902-4596
Phone: (434)296-5823 •Fax: (434)972-4035
Transmittal
From: Ellie Carter Ray Date: 05/05/14
To: ()Michelle Roberge-Engineering/ OTroy Auston-VDOT
ORebecca Ragsdale-Zoning 0
()Andrew Slack-E911 0
°Alex Morrison-ACSA 0
ORobbie Gilmer-Fire and Rescue 0
JOB#/FILE NAME:SDP-2008-00074 Blue Ridge Co-Housing-Final(now Sheeflee Co-Housing)
We are sending you the following items: ® Attached or ❑ Under separate cover
® Copy of Letter El Prints ® Plans
❑ Plats El Specifications El Other
# of Copies Date Description
1 2/27/14 Sheeflee Cohousing Site Development Plan
These are transmitted as checked below:
® For review and comments ® For approval ❑ Other
Remarks: This is associated with ZMA2007-00012.
Comments are due in City View or email by: 5/19/14 Signature: Ellie Carter Ray
1- _ GAY AND N E E L, 4 .v'�. ENGINEERING v LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE • SURVEYING
March 14, 2014
Ms. Ellie Carter Ray, PLA
Senior Planner
Albemarle County Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville,VA 22902-4596
RE: Sheeflee Cohousing Site Development Plan
Job No. 1770.3
Dear Ms. Ray:
Please find enclosed a resubmittal on the above referenced project for your review and
approval. Below is an itemized list of the enclosures in this package.
• Eight copies of the Site Development Plan dated February 27, 2014.
I have also sent three copies of the plans to Michelle Roberge and three copies to the ACSA
for separate review.
We received your letter dated November 21, 2013 and have addressed your comments as
follows:
1. Comment: (32.5.2(a)] Label the southern boundary dimensions on the existing
conditions sheet.
Response: Labels have been added to this sheet.
2. Comment:(32.5.2(a)] Reference the ZMA (ZMA200700012)in the Zoning note.
Response: General Notes#36 and#40 reference the ZMA on the Cover Sheet.
3. Comment: (32.5.2(a)] The waivers referenced in note #34 are incorrect; see the
rezoning approval letter dated 12/21/07 and revise the waivers accordingly.
Response: General Note#36 has been revised to match the verbiage in the approval
letter.
4. Comment: [32.5.2(b)] This plan proposes to change or eliminate several elements that
were shown on the approved rezoning application plan. Zoning has determined that
the "playground" shown on the application plan must be provided or an equivalent
amenity must be proposed; either include the playground or propose an equivalent
4 "S il—: 4' ,f rx`;I: - �51F,- k '' x"•�a. e.) 0--74 ; t nt, , r. 4 :, c xo ilbs `a+:`�L`.,
=tz,- ,,- ?.:;j +„.-1, ;,,,•.,. ,!s w.n,, vx ' -`.Zfx'S ` . ' '.4�c, q.. wet,. s a:6i0 llki gat ,: tti
"'` h _ s' +,A -,,a +4. + z. ds _ �; } ' L26,( RADF ORD{.$�Tia" ;q�, ..�,, '^-„#y{,,� :'':s-4 ) ,,4 jvy, ,r�'`e.6
fir 46, a `a ., ,,*' -'� � `, ,, ! ' Y q - ,, ."ecio s �.,;a!aG r " 'n.+.x =, �.Y.A921 4�(A,"li�i� .44,,.,Pkil4 .,
};- + tir•IL'4 �'. Ih. 7 f �,. o- ,',�' h r^�k; l,r r'�..x'•' i, "+^i', Y' �� R �� ,
_, . r "'r� • .r` . w'a . �,' 4 %mr 11�, 11+G�1'+NDN E1 ,--71 t
r,si'h .-,, i. �_4',..,d . ,�. '"_.:,. ct,:1rf..Y.�_'m.:( 1 ,i ¢,�',•''.tr!4,a` ..... ,„,.. 4 . r - r'..r,„. !� , ,# .. ir:.
Sheeflee Cohousing Site Development Plan Page 2 of 11
Job No. 1770.3
amenity for Zoning review. Please also consider adding back the walkway that was
shown in between the playground area and the existing pool as it provided better site
circulation. The Director of Planning has determined that the minor modifications to
the parking and travelway layout along the front of the site are in conformity with the
application plan.
Response:The playground has been added back to the plan along with the walkway
connecting the playground and pool.
5. Comment:[32.5.2(b)] 200 square feet per dwelling unit of recreational area is required
by section 4.16;label this recreational area on the plan and indicate the square footage
provided.
Response: This has been noted on Sheet CO-01, general note#6 as well as on Sheet
C2-01.
6. Comment: [32.5.2(b)] The plan states that 52 parking spaces are provided, but it
appears there are 53 spaces shown on the plan;please clarify and revise if necessary.
Response: General Note #7 has been revised to show that 53 parking spaces are
provided in accordance with the plan.
7. Comment: (32.5.2(i)] Label and clarify the proposed 8' multipurpose along Park View
Drive as it is difficult to see the path on the plans.
Response:This path has been labeled and more clearly defined on sheet C3-01.
8. Comment: [32.5.2(i)] Provide the Deed Book and Page Number for the plat/deed that
established the access easement that runs with Park View Drive. Additionally, a revised
private maintenance agreement must be submitted for review by the County Attorney's
Office.
Response: See Sheet C1-01 for the requisite information. The private maintenance
agreement will be provided by the owner.
9. Comment: [32.5.2(n)] Provide the maximum footprint for each existing and proposed
building.
Response:This has been noted on a table on Sheet C2-01.
10. Comment: [32.5.2(n)] Label and dimension all walkways. Make sure they are
distinguishable from travelways.
Response:A vehicular/pedestrian path diagram has been included on Sheet C2-01 to
differentiate the different types of path uses on-site.
11. Comment:[32.5.2(n)] Label all fences and note the height.
Response: The only existing fence to remain is around the pool. This fence's height
has been noted on Sheets C1-01 and C2-01.
12. Comment:[32.5.2(n)] Label all retaining walls with the maximum height.
Sheeflee Cohousing Site Development Plan Page 3 of 11
Job No. 1770.3
Response:The maximum wall heights have been noted on Sheet C2-01.
13. Comment:[32.5.2(n)] Clarify how trash storage and pickup will be accommodated.
Response: A proposed dumpster pad has been added to the plan (near the barns)
and noted on Sheet C2-01.
14. Comment: [32.5.2(n)] Clarify what the pad or gravel area is in between buildings 9 &
10.
Response: This path has been clarified on Sheet C2-01 with reference to C3-02
where it is detailed.
15. Comment: [32.5.2(n) & 4.12.16(c)67 Any parking space whose length is reduced to 16'
must have a minimum 2'of unobstructed overhang area. Verify that this unobstructed
area exists in front of any reduced length parking space and show it on the plan.
Response: The "unobstructed overhang area" has been noted and called out via a
hatch pattern on Sheet C2-01.
16. Comment:[32.5.2(n)&4.12.16(c)1J Parking spaces that are 9'wide must have an aisle
width of 24'. The proposed spaces to the right as you enter this development are 9'
wide but the aisle is only 20'wide. Revise either the spaces to 10' width or the aisle to
24'width.
Response:The spaces have been revised to a 10'width.
17. Comment:[32.6.20 Dimension the radius of curb returns or edge of pavement.
Response: Curb return radii have been dimensioned. Please be aware of the note at
building 6 on Sheet C2-01.
18. Comment: (32.5.2(1) & 32.6.2(g)] Please verify that the location of all existing and
proposed utilities and utility easements, including telephone, cable, electric and gas
easements are shown on the plan. Any new easements may be generally shown and
dedicated by separate plat.
Response: All utilities are shown on the plan that exist and are proposed.
19. Comment: (32.6.2(i)J Provide the angle of parking stalls for any that aren't
perpendicular to the travelway.
Response: Angled parking has been removed from plan.
20. Comment: [32.6.2(j) & Comment] Please show utilities and associated easements on
the landscape and lighting plans to verify that no conflicts exist with plantings and
lighting locations.
Response: Sheets C6-01 and C6-03 now contain utilities and associated easements. •
21. Comment: [32.6.2(j), 32.7.9.4(b)J Existing trees may be preserved in lieu of planting
new plant materials in order to satisfy the landscaping and screening requirements of
Sheeflee Cohousing Site Development Plan Page 4 of 11
Job No.1770.3
section 32.7.9, subject to the agent's approval. It appears that many of the existing
trees are proposed to be used toward the tree canopy requirement, and possibly the
screening and street tree requirements. The landscape plan should show the trees to be
preserved, the limits of clearing, the location and type of protective fencing, grade
changes requiring tree wells or walls, and trenching or tunneling proposed beyond the
limits of clearing. The applicant shall also sign_a conservation checklist approved by the
agent to ensure that the specified trees will be protected during construction. The
checklist shall conform to the specifications in the Virginia Erosion and Sediment
Control Handbook,pages 111-393 through Ill-413, and as hereafter amended.
Response: Limits of disturbance (grading/clearing) have been shown on the
landscape plan. Silt fence as shown on Sheet C5-01 shall serve as Tree Protection.
The conservation checklist shows up on Sheet C6-01 and will be signed by the
owner.
22. Comment: (32.6.2(j), 32.7.9.4(b)] In addition to the above, clearly delineate the trees
that are to be saved as there appear to be some discrepancies between the demolition
plan, the grading plan, and the landscape plan. Any trees to be saved that are within
40' of any proposed disturbance require tree protection fencing. The landscape plan
and grading plans show proposed grading directly through areas of landscape that are
proposed to be saved;please clarify.
Response: Revisions have been made to the plan to more closely reflect which
existing trees need to be demolished due to grading changes. Additionally, SF has
been added to the plan to act as Tree Protection (see note on Sheet C5-01).
23. Comment: (32.6.2(j), 32.7.9.51 Street trees are required along the existing road
frontage at one large street tree per fifty feet of road frontage. It appears that a few
existing trees may be used to meet this requirement for a portion of the frontage, but
additional street trees should be added along the remaining portion.
Response: Red Maples (Ar) have been added to the plan where necessary to meet
the street tree requirement.
24. Comment: (32.6.2(j), 32.7.9.5(e)] Where parked cars will be visible from an off-site
street, low shrubs should be planted between the street and the parking area. Some
screening shrubs have been provided, but additional shrubs should be added to provide
screening of all portions of the parking areas from the existing street.
Response: Screening shrubs have been added to parking areas and dumpster pad
area. Please note that the bioretention by the front of the site (SWM 5) has shrubs
planted within it as noted on Sheet C6-0Z.
25. Comment: (32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.6(a)] An area of at least five (5) percent of the paved
parking and vehicular circulation area shall be landscaped with trees or shrubs. The.
note provided states 5%of the lot area is required; please revise.
Response:The general note (#8) has been revised to indicate the parking lot area. • •
Sheeflee Cohousing Site Development Plan Page 5 of 11
Job No.1770.3
26. Comment: (32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.6(b)] The 5% landscaped area required in 32.7.9.6(a)
shall be planted with a mixture of shade trees and shrubs and shall include one (1)
large or medium shade tree per ten (10) parking spaces or portion thereof, if five (5)
spaces or more. This plan requires 5 parking lot trees and proposes many large or
medium shade trees, but none of the trees are particularly close to the parking areas.
Please either add additional parking lot trees or move some of the proposed trees to
provide shade in the parking areas.
Response: See Sheet C6-01 for additional parking lot trees.
27. Comment: (32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.7(a)] Parking areas of four or more spaces should be
screened from adjacent residential and rural area districts; add additional screening
along the existing road frontage as well as between this parcel and TMP 56-678 or
demonstrate how the current proposal adequately screens the parking.
Response: Additional screening has been provided. See Sheet C6-02 for the Biofilter
Planting Plans to see how the parking area facing parcel TMP 56-67B is screened.
28. Comment: (32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.8] It appears the tree canopy requirement is being met
primarily through the preservation of existing trees. See comment above regarding the
conservation plan checklist and the clear delineation of what trees will remain and how
they will be protected. Also, please clarify where the 200 sf canopy number came from
for the Malus; the County Plant Canopy Calculations lists 129 sf.
Response: The 200 SF number has been changed to 129 SF in order to be in
accordance with the County's standards.
29. Comment: [32.6.2(k) &4.17] No lighting cut sheets were provided; cut sheets must be
provided in the plan set for each proposed fixture to verify if fixtures are full cutoff.
These cut sheets should coordinate with the catalog number provided in the luminaire
schedule.
Response: Cut sheets have been included on Sheet C7-01.
30. Comment:[32.6.2(k)&4.17] The luminaire schedule lists 23 as the quantity of fixture 8
proposed, but the plan only appears to show 19 of this type of fixture;please clarify.
Response: Only 19 fixtures are proposed.
31. Comment: [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] The luminaire schedule should list the tilt of each
proposed fixture.
Response:The tilt has been added to the luminaire schedule.
32. Comment: [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] Show the proposed light locations on the site plan, utility
plan and landscape plan to demonstrate that there are no site conflicts.
Response: The proposed light locations have been included on Sheets C2-01, C4-01
and C6-01.
33. Comment: [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] Revise the lighting note provided to the following
Sheeflee Cohousing Site Development Plan Page 6 of 11
Job No.1770.3
standard lighting (the note provided is slightly different): Each outdoor luminaire
equipped with a lamp that emits 3,000 or more initial lumens shall be a full cutoff
luminaire and shall be arranged or shielded to reflect light away from adjoining
residential districts and away from adjacent roads. The spillover of lighting from
luminaires onto public roads and property in residential or rural areas zoning districts
shall not exceed one-half foot-candle.
Response:The lighting note on Sheet C6-03 has been revised as noted herein.
34. Comment: Show, and provide documentation of, all off-site easements, including
temporary and permanent easements for the work that appears to be proposed on
TMPs 56-67B, 56-67, 56A3-1, 56A3-7, 56-68, and within the access easement for Park
View Drive. Add the Deed Book and Page Number to any existing easements. Any new
easements must be submitted for review and approval, and recorded prior to approval
of this site plan.
Response: The owner is working to obtain easements and these will be provided
when obtained.
35. Comment: This site plan cannot be approved until all site review committee members
grant their approval. Engineering,Zoning, E911,ACSA, and Fire/rescue comments have
been provided. ARB and Inspections had no objection to the first submittal. VDOT
comments will be provided once received.
Response: Noted.
We received a letter from Troy Austin, VDOT, dated November 21, 2013 and have
addressed his comments as follows:
1. Comment: The road names should be added to the all plan views for the roadways.
More specifically, they should be added to the plan view shown on sheet C1-02 and
sheet C3-01.
Response: Road names have been added to the indicated sheets.
2. Comment: The entrance of Parkview Drive at Three Notch'd Road should accurately
reflect the existing conditions on-site. There is a right turn lane for Parkview Drive
that is not shown on the plan.
Response:The existing right turn lane has been shown.
3. Comment: The proposed edge of pavement for Parkview Drive needs to be labeled
on the plan view shown on sheet C3-01.
Response:The pavement hatch has been turned on in this view to clearly distinguish
the proposed edge of pavement.
4. Comment: The Parkview Drive connection to Three Notch'd Road needs to meet the
requirements for a CG-11 as defined in the Road and Bridge Standards and the
requirements for a Private Subdivision Road as defined in Appendix F of the Road
Sheeflee Cohousing Site Development Plan Page 7 of 11
Job No.1770.3
Design Manual.
Response: Per our phone call on 01/28/2014, curb, gutter and sidewalk may be
waived if sufficient shoulder space is available. Also mentioned was that the CG-11
must be within the requisite grade differential. Per the VDOT CG-11 detail, a grade
change of 8% must not occur. Our grade goes from 2%to 9.5% resulting in a change
(AD) of 7.5%,which is within the specification.
5. Comment: The sight line shown on the plan view on sheet C3-01 needs to originate
at 14.5'from the edge of the travel lane on Three Notch'd Road. It appears that it
is shown at 10'.
Response:The sight line has been updated to reflect the 14.5'standard.
6. Comment: It is my understanding that the 12" waterline shown in Three Notch'd
Road is currently being designed for replacement. This project should coordinate
with the RWSA concerning this design to make sure that an appropriate connection
is made available rather than cutting the road for a wet-tap.
Response: We have discussed this with them and they are reviewing the plans to see
if a simple Tee and Valve can be added to their plan. No action is to happen at this
time.
We received a letter from Michelle Roberge, Albemarle County Engineering, dated
November 18, 2013 and have addressed her comments as follows:
1. Comment: The limits of travelway from walkways are not clear. Please label travelways
and walkways on plans.
Response: A vehicular/pedestrian path diagram has been created on Sheet C2-01 to
help distinguish.
2. Comment: Please note the road plan has changed. Please submit a road plan as a
separate SUB application. The Albemarle County Engineering Department distributes
road plan submittals to our planning staff, and to VDOT as a courtesy. We do not
distribute or coordinate review with other departments or agencies like Fire & Rescue,
Parks and Recreation, ACSA, RWSA, etc. This must be coordinated by the owner or
applicant. Approval documentation must be provided from all applicable departments
and agencies prior to final road plan approval. Please address the following comment:
a) Comment: The road beyond station 16+96.03 goes from 4.78% to about
10%. What is the sight distance?Show vertical crest curve for this area in
profile. Also, please note all recorded easements plats already recorded
may need to be revised due to changes with this proposal. Please address.
Response: The profile has been revised to indicate that we are tying into.
the existing 7.63%grade with a vertical curve. Sight distance information
is shown at the bottom of the profile view. If necessary, owner will
record new easements.
Sheeflee Cohousing Site Develol i; _: t Plan Page 8 of 11
Job No. 1770.3
b) Comment: The previous submittal proposed to remove and replace the
entire 30"CMP under Parkview Drive. Now, it only replaces two sections of
the pipe to EW and ES. The pipe's condition under road is unknown. Please
clarify. Show calcs with WPO application.
Response: We have calculations on record from a previous submittal
showing the two sections of pipe tying into the 30" CMP. These
calculations have been provided to verify the pipe is adequate.._The
condition of the pipe and maintenance of the pipe,is;fhti espofisibility`of=_
�; t e.par-fies involved iw th Parkview Dr. At this time, pipe is sufficient.
3. Comment: Please provide copies of federal and state permits for stream disturbance
(Army Corps, VEDQ etc).
Response: The original permit is provided and is in the process of being converted to
the new owner.
4. Comment: It appears the traffic circulation has changed since the previous submittal
from July 31, 2008. This proposal should incorporate the previous layout with the loop
for better circulation. Here are some additional concerns.
Response:The additional sidewalk loop has been added back to the plan.
a) Comment: The road to NW parking lot now has horizontal curvatures with
angular parking.
Response:Angular parking has been removed from the plan.
These parking spaces should be removed and added to lot located NW of
site. The angular parking will be difficult to maneuver into from the SB
direction.
Response: Done.
b) Comment: I recommend changing gravelpave2 limits as shown in
attached image to clarify this area from adjacent travel way.
Response: Gravelpave2 has been removed from plan and replaced
with asphalt.
5. Comment: Removable bollards are shown in front of travelways to be used for
emergency. I will defer to fire rescue if the bollards are ok or if they should be removed.
Response: Noted.
6. Comment:Show an outer radius for sharp curve north of site.
Response: Done.
7. Comment: Label the pad between Bldg 9 and Bldg 10. •
Response: Done.
Sheeflee Cohousing Site Developn,cnt Plan — Page 9 of 11
Job No.1770.3
8. Comment: It appears the grading limits and LOD are beyond project property line.
Provide a letter or any document from adjacent property owners stating permission of
construction. For example, the TMP 56-678 will be graded for SWM-5 facility. Also,
provide easements for construction of utilities offsite.
Response: The owner is obtaining the permission from the adjacent owners and will
provide the documentation as it is obtained.
9. Comment: A WPO application shall be submitted to review SWM, E&S and mitigation
plan. An approved WPO plan is required prior to the site plan approval. Here are some
WPO comments. Please note I will do full review after I receive the WPO application.
Please address the following with the WPO application:
a) Comment:Address MS-19 on WPO.
Response: An additional 1% analysis map and MS-19 narrative have
been added to the SWM narrative and included in the resubmittal.
b) Comment: Please note SWM-5 is outside property line. Access easement
around facility will be required.
Response: This is just temporary work to build the grade up and an
agreement will be provided by the owner for temporary access.
c) Comment: A standard SWM agreement will be necessary for SWM
facilities.
Response: Understood. This will be provided once all plan associated
comments are satisfactory to the county.
d) Comment: Provide an additional mitigation due to grading within the
WPO buffer.
Response: This was discussed in the-meetingwith;countyoffieialsand
due to the current conditions, the fact that we are landscaping and
seeding the areas, is an improvement over the existing condition and is
itigating:factor:irritselfia
e) Comment: Remove proposed ditch within floodplain.
Response:The ditch within the floodplain has been removed.
We received a letter from Rebecca Ragsdale, Zoning, dated November 19, 2013 and
have addressed her comments as follows:
1. Comment: Proffer 1-Are they providing 4 affordable units or cash in-lieu of units? If
units are provided, they must be designated on the site plan. •
Response:Affordable units have been designated on Sheet C2-01.
•
Sheeflee Cohousing Site Development Plan Page 10 of 11
Job No.1770.3
2. Comment: Proffer 3a and 3b-Are these requirements being shown in a separate plan
set? It looks like the widening of Parkview Drive to 18' and the 8' bike path are
shown on some plan sheets but I don't see where Parkview Drive is shown all the
way to the intersection, where the improvements are required by Proffer 3b.
Response: Please refer to Sheet C3-01.
We received a letter from Andrew Slack, E911, dated November 4, 2013 and have
addressed his comments as follows:
1. Comment: The applicant should contact this office with a list of three (3) proposed
road names for each of the two (2) travelways shown on this plan.
Response:The owner will be providing street name options to consider.
We received a letter from Alexander J. Morrison, Service Authority, dated November 18,
2013 and have addressed his comments as follows:
1. Comment: This site plan is within the Authority's jurisdictional area for:
a) Water and sewer
Response: Noted.
2. Comment: A 12 inch water line is located approximately 450'distant.
Response: Noted.
3. Comment:An 8 inch sewer line is located approximately 515'distant.
Response: Noted.
4. Comment: No improvements or obstructions shall be placed within existing or future
easements.
Response: Noted.
5. Comment: Final plans are required for our review and approval prior to granting
tentative approval.
Response: Noted.
6. Comments:
• Submit 3 copies of construction plans to the ACSA for construction review and
approval.
• Pump station should be built to DEQ standards.
Response: We have provided the three copies to the ACSA for review and
the pump station does meet DEQ standards.
Sheeflee Cohousing Site Develoi l,. , ;;,t Plan Page 11 of 11
Job No. 1770.3
We received a letter from Robbie Gilmer, Fire Rescue, dated November 12, 2013 and
have addressed his comments as follows:
1. Comment: Fire hydrant spacing shall be every 500 ft per travel way. At no point shall
a house be greater than 250 ft from a fire hydrant.
Response: The proposed fire hydrant assembly has been adjusted so as to be within
250'from all proposed house locations. An additional fire hydrant assembly has been
proposed to meet the 500 ft travel way spacing requirement.
2. Comment: Travel way shall be a minimum of 18 ft wide and constructed from a
material that can support 72,0001bs.
Response:The vehicular and fire access portions of the site (see vehicular/pedestrian
path diagram on Sheet C2-01) meet this requirement. The grass paver system is
engineered to support these loads (see detail on Sheet C7-03).
We received a letter from Margaret Maliszewski, ARB, dated November 14, 2013 and
have addressed her comments as follows:
1. Comment: A small portion of this parcel falls within the Route 240 Entrance
Corridor. The development proposed within that area is not expected to be visible
from the EC. Consequently, ARB review is not required.
Response: Noted.
Thank you for your time in reviewing this project. If you have any questions, please do
not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Gay and Neel, Inc.
ram.,
Kevin D. Conner, L.A.
Project Manager
Enclosures
cc: Mr. Peter Lazar
KDC/scw