HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201900028 Review Comments Major Amendment, Final Site Plan 2020-02-18�J
�'i�rllA
0
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Eric Woolley, P.E.
From: Cameron Langille — Senior Planner
Division: Planning Services
Date: July 2, 2019
First Revision: October 9, 2019
Second Revision: February 18, 2020
Subject: SDP201900028 — University of Virginia Research Park: Town Center 4 — Major Site
Plan Amendment
The Planner for the Planning Services Division of the Albemarle County Department Community
Development will recommend approval of the plan referred to above 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) — Cameron Langille, blan ig lle&albemarle.org — Required changes:
1. [General Comment] On Sheet C 1.0, please fix the text overlap in the box titled "Site Development Plans." Rev.
1: Comment addressed.
2. 132.5.2 (a)] On Sheet C1.0, please add each Tax Map Parcel (TMP) number that is affected by this amendment.
This includes TMPs 03200-00-00-019J1, 03200-00-00-006A2, 03200-00-00-006RO and 03200-00-00-019G0.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
3. [32.5.2 (a)] On all applicable sheets, please clearly identify the existing property boundaries within the scope of
the project and label them with the TMP, names of the owner, zoning district, and most recently recorded
instrument. Rev. 1: Comment not addressed. This information is missing across numerous drawings. Parcel
boundaries on Sheets C2.1 and C2.2, for example, state "(unknown)' on existing parcel boundaries. The deed
book and page references for most recently recorded plats are also incorrect. Each existing property line should
be identified with a measurement, and each property should contain a label stating the TMP, owner, zoning
district, and most recently recorded plat/instrument number. Existing utility easements should be shown and
labeled. Some existing easements are currently missing on Sheets C2.1 and C2.2. Rev. 2: Comment not fully
addressed. On Sheets C2.1 and C2.2, the correct parcel boundaries are not shown. There is a label for
TMP 03200-00-00-006AO shown where TMP 03200-00-00-006A2 currently exists. The property
boundaries for TMPs 03200-00-00-019G0, 03200-00-00-019J1, and TMP
03200-00-00-006RO are also not visible and their property identification labels are absent on these
drawings. Each label should state the correct TMP, names of the owner, zoning district, and most recentiv
recorded instrument. Please update accordingly.
4. [32.5.2 (a)] On Sheet C 1.0, please state that the portions of the properties lie within the Managed and Preserved
Steep Slopes Overlay Districts. Rev.1: Comment addressed.
5. [32.5.2 (a)] On Sheet C3.0, please revise the Legend so that it identifies both Managed and Preserved Steep
Slopes. Rev. 1: Per email from Bill Fritz, sent to Eric Woolley dated November 1, 2016, the disturbances to steep
slopes within the parcel as shown on SDP2006-113 remained valid and were approved on SDP201600051. This
SDP proposes an area of "future parking" within Town Center 4. On Sheets C3.0 and C5.0, please add a note
stating that all proposed grading will conform with the disturbances as shown on SDP2006-113 and SDP2016-
51. Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
a. Amend Sheet C3.0 so that areas of Managed and Preserved Steep Slopes are differentiated and identified.
b. On Sheet C3.0, state the source used to identify areas where Managed and Preserved Steep Slopes
currently exist.
6. [32.5.2 (a)] Please add a note to Sheet C0.0 that states the instrument numbers (deed book and pages) for all
recorded plats and deeds associated each parcel within the development. Rev. 1: Comment partially addressed.
The amendment proposes new utility easements which are shown on the site layout and utilities plans, their
labels state "DB tbd." Once a new easement plat is approved and recorded, these easements will need to be
labeled with the new instrument number. Sheet C0.0 should also list the new recorded instrument. Rev. 2:
Comment stands. Easement plat must be submitted, reviewed, approved and recorded. Once instrument
numbers are known, update the plan as necessary.
7. [32.5.2 (b)] Please verify the proposed Town Center 4 building footprint. According to SDP201600051, the
proposed building footprint was 27, 683 square feet and a gross total square footage of 108, 568 sq. ft. Under
"Proposed Building Statistics" on Sheet C1.0, the footprint has now been reduced to 27,201 sq. ft. but the gross
building square footage is still 108,568 sq. ft. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. Per applicant response, the gross
building square footage is not changing from the previously approved SDP201600051.
a. If the gross building square footage is changing, please revise the figure provided under Note 7 on Sheet
C1.0 next to "Gross Building Square Footage." Rev. 1: Comment not applicable.
b. If the gross building square footage is changing, please revise the figure provided under Note 13 on
Sheet C1.0 next to "Town Center Four — Approved Buildings (sf)." Rev. 1: Comment not applicable.
c. If the gross building square footage is changing, please revise the figure provided under Note 13 on
Sheet C1.0 for the total approved buildings (sf). Rev. 1: Comment not applicable.
d. If the gross building square footage is changing, please revise the figure provided under Note 13 on
Sheet C1.0 for the total remaining approved GSF column. Rev. 1: Comment not applicable.
[32.5.2 (a)] Please state the application numbers of all approved Special Use Permit and Zoning Map
Amendments (ZMA) that apply to the development in Note 5 on Sheet C1.0:
a. The properties are subject to the approved conditions of Special Use Permits SP200800015,
SP200800062, SP200800063, and SP200800064. Rev. 1: Initial comment made in error. Please remove
reference to these SPs on Sheet C0.0. Staff apologizes for the error. Rev.2: Comment addressed.
9. [32.5.2 (n)] On Sheet C4.0, please label all proposed features within and next to the lawn area to the north of
Building 4. Are the gray items sidewalks or some other sort of paths? Are the white areas grass cover?
a. Please provide labels in the white area south of Building 4 explaining whether the white area is grass
cover, pavement, etc. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
b. State the paving materials for all walkways in the lawn area. Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed.
Please state the detail and sheet number in the precast paver callouts on Sheet C4.0. It appears that this
detail is shown on Sheet S 1.0 as detail 23.0. Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
c. State the paving materials for the hatched area next to Building 4. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
10. [32.5.2 (j)] Please label all existing water, sewer and drainage easements by type and include a size/width
measurement. State the deed book and page for the recorded instrument number in each existing easement
label. Rev. 1: Some existing easements are not shown on Sheets C2.1 and C2.2. Please revise. Rev. 2:
Comment addressed.
11. [32.5.2 (k)] Verify that all necessary easements for water, sewer, and drainage currently exist and no new
easements are needed. If new easements are required, an easement plat application must be submitted,
reviewed, approved and recorded prior to final site plan approval for all proposed easements. Rev. 1: Per
applicant response letter, this comment has been acknowledged. A new easement Dlat must be submitted.
approved, and recorded prior to major amendment approval. Once the easement plat is recorded, all
easements shown on major amendment will need to include the new DB and page number for the
recorded plat and any deeds of dedication. Rev. 2: Per applicant response, once the new easement plat
is reviewed, approved, and recorded, the easement labels will be updated with the new recorded
instrument number.
b. Once the easement plat is recorded, the final site plan must be revised to show the recorded
instrument number for the easement plat (deed book and page number). The newly created
easements will need to be labeled with the instrument number, easement type, width dimensions,
and whether it is public or private. Rev. 1: Per applicant response letter, this comment has been
acknowledged. A new easement plat must be submitted, approved, and recorded prior to major
amendment approval. Once the easement plat is recorded, all easements shown on major
amendment will need to include the new DB and page number for the recorded plat and any
deeds of dedication. Rev. 2: Per applicant response, once the new easement plat is reviewed,
approved, and recorded, the easement labels will be updated with the new recorded
instrument number.
12. [32.5.2 (n)] ADA compliant striping must be provided across all parking lot drive aisles where handicap
accessible parking spaces are provided on opposite sides of the travelway. For example, the sidewalk
ramps to the west of Building 4 which connect to the 8' asphalt trail are not currently connected by
striping in two drive aisle locations. The ramps on either side of the drive aisle south of Building 4 also do
not have striping. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
13. [32.5.2 (n)] Please state the height of all proposed fences and retaining walls in the labels used on the drawings.
Profile view details of all proposed fences, retaining walls, and constructed screening measures will be required
with the final site plan. Each will need to show the types of materials used and dimensions. Rev. 1: Comment
not fullv addressed. Per the callout for the venerator pad and screening wall on Sheet C4.0. the screenine wall
details are shown on the "architectural plans." The major amendment needs to include a construction detail
showing a plan and profile view of the screening wall with dimensions and materials. Rev. 2: Comment
addressed.
c. See Engineering Division and Inspections Division comments for additional details on retaining wall
requirements. Add the notes specified by Inspections to the applicable drawings mentioned in their
comments. Rev. 1: Engineering review still underway. Comment will be updated accordingly once
reviews from other staff are complete. Rev. 2: Comment addressed, see Engineering review
comments.
14. [32.7.9] The landscape schedule on Sheet L1.0 lists the incorrect quantities for the following items:
a. Only 16 AC (Acer rubrum) are shown, not 74. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
b. Only 9 BN (Betula nigra) are shown, not 28. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
15. 132.7.9.91 Please add a note to the Sheet L 1.0 stating "All landscaping shall be installed by the first planting
season following the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy within the development." Rev. 1: Comment
addressed.
16. 132.7.8 and 4.171 Please address the following related to site lighting:
a. 14.17.4 (a)] On Sheet SL2.0 next to each manufacturer cut -sheet, please state the letter from the luminaire
schedule on Sheet SL1.0 that identifies which cut -sheet pertains to each luminaire. Rev. 1: Comment
addressed.
b. [4.17.4 (a)] All proposed outdoor luminaries exceeding 3,000 lumens must be full -cutoff fixtures. The
cut sheets provided on Sheet SL2.0 do not clearly verify that this is true for the following luminaires
proposed on site: luminaire A, luminaire G, luminaire G2, luminaire OG1, luminaire EXP, luminaire
AE. Please provide documentation from the manufacturers that all fixtures will be full -cutoff. Rev. 1:
Comment not fully addressed. The cut sheets on Sheet SL2.0 still do not clearly demonstrate that the
following fixtures will be full -cutoff. G, G2, OG1, P, and R. Please provide additional information that
no light will be emitted above the horizontal plane of the fixture for each of these lights. Rev. 2:
Comment addressed.
c. Please state the pole height of all outdoor luminaires in the table on Sheet SL1.0. Rev. 1: Comment
addressed.
d. 14.17.4 (b)] Add a note to Sheet SL1.0 stating "The spillover of lighting from luminaires onto public
roads and property in residential or rural areas zoning districts shall not exceed one-half (1/2) foot candle."
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
e. Please add a note to Sheet SL 1.0 which states "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 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 footcandle." Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
Please contact Cameron Langille at the Department of Community Development at blan ig lle@albemarle.org or 296-
5832 ext. 3432 for further information.
Comments From Other Reviewers:
Albemarle County Engineering Services (Engineer) — John Anderson, janderson2(&albemarle.org — No objection, see
attached.
Phone (434) 296-5832
Project:
Plan preparer:
Owner or rep.:
Plan received date:
(Rev. 1)
(Rev. 2)
Date of comments:
(Rev. 1, 1 a)
(Rev. 2)
Reviewer:
Project Coordinator:
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Fax (434) 972-4126
Site Plan review
University of Virginia Research Park — Town Center 4, Major Amendment
Eric Woolley, P.E., Woolley Engineering, 200 E. High St.
Charlottesville, VA 22902 [ ewoolley(abwoolley-eng com ]
University of Virginia Foundation / P.O. Box 400218
Charlottesville, VA 22904 [tmarshall(&uvafoundation.coml
21 May 2019
12 Sep 2019
22 Jan 2020
15 Jul 2019
10 Oct 2019; rev. 11 Oct 2019 (1 a)
16 Feb 2020, No objection
John Anderson
Cameron Langille
SDP2019-00028 -Many comments are addressed with Rev. 1. (Addressed if grayscale.) Rev. la considers comment response.
1. Cl.l — Please provide Note with date of Maj. Amendment approval corresponding with Major Amendment
Exhibit, since C1.1 shows site development design some years ago, while C2.1 shows existing conditions
exhibit, which is transitional since grading based on C4.0 (current proposed) layout plan is underway.
Without background understanding of approvals or grading /demolition of existing features, easy
connection with or conceptual grasp of design shown on sheets C1.1, C2.0, C4.0 is difficult.
2. Related to item 1., please provide demolition details for portions of C1.1 approved design that either will be
or have been demolished as site transitions toward C4.0 layout design. (discussed 7/10 during telecon with
Woolley Engineering, 11:32 AM)
C2.0
3. Note 6: Ref. Final Site Plan Review checklist Existing Conditions plan view information item 2: All
topography should be visually field verified by the designer within the last year. Please verify topography.
(Rev. 1) Comment persists. If plans include Note that topography was field verified within the last year,
please notify reviewer. Note: Comment response letters are helpful and welcome for this /any Application.
(Rev. la) Addressed —Ref. Note #4 on C1.0
4. Kirk Hughes seal appears on plan. With final print submittal for county signature approval, ensure LS seal
is signed /dated by LS. (Rev. 1) Comment persists. (Rev. 2) Addressed.
C2.1
5. Recommend Note make ref. to survey information on C2.0.
Recommend label buildings 1, 2, 3.
C2.2 — Point elevation labels are unreadable and will not scan. This comment applies to fine bold print
across the plan set. Information is so small it is indistinguishable. Please ensure all text is of size and
clarity to be readable and scannable.
C3.0
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 4
8. Provide ref. to legislative zoning action that supports by -right use or impact to preserved steep slopes (18-
30.4.4.b.l.g). Provide reference to ZMA, SP, or SDP on C3.0 and C1.0. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant
provided copy of email, Bill Fritz to Frederick Allen Missel (Matt Wentland /Engineering cc:), that states:
`The site plan may be reviewed under the last zoning approval for the property. That means that the
previous approval to disturb slopes remains valid. The disturbance of slopes over 25% that were created as
a result of grading activity may occur with no additional discretionary review. The long and short of this is
— The grading you have proposed may be approved once all the WPO and site plan issues are resolved.
There is no critical slope or steep slope issue.' Images included with initial comments removed with Rev. ]
comments. Also, ref. critical slope Exhibits, SDP200600113 and SDP201600051 /Attached.
9. Label preserved steep slopes; label managed steep slopes. Discriminate via shading or line -type. (Rev. 1)
Partially addressed, and no further revision required. Steep slopes identified via shading /legend without
segregating preserved from managed. See also item 8, above.
10. Although legislative zoning action may allow by -right impact to preserved or managed steep slopes, for
any steep slopes, constructions standards listed at 30.7.5 apply, including Vie. reverse slope benches
text image removed with Rev. 1 comments.
11. Provide reverse slope benches, per 18-30.7.5.c. If managed or preserved slopes are /have been graded
inconsistent with 30.7.5, ensure final contours meet 30.7.5 requirements, including revised grading of
affected sections of site. Surface water diversions are an option (1 4z o-vv�dr) text image removed with
Rev. 1 comments.
12. Increase size of small print for clarity, so readable and scannable (Also, item 7., above).
C4.0
13. Provide pavement design for site access from Lewis and Clark Drive. Ref. 2018 VDOT Pavement Design
Guide for Subdivision and Secondary Roads in Virginia; base pavement section on full build -out. Provide
ADT and Dr, Dp for heavy drive aisle section, C7.0. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Pavement design in CV. Also,
C7.0.
14. C4.0 should identify areas where each C7.0 pavement section applies.
15. Copy sidewalk, concrete, patio /plaza, and crosswalk details from architectural drawings to site plan. These
civil features require review. Each feature material type should be easily distinguished, via label or legend.
16. Provide note (or confirm) that plaza traffic is two-way.
17. Label sidewalk widths. (Rev. 1) Addressed. C7.0, Detail 11; Min. sidewalk width =6.0'.
18. Provide crosswalk pavement markings (two 6" parallel white lines) at intersections of 8' asphalt trail and
vehicular travel ways.
19. Relocate `2 spaces' (orphan) label to two parallel parking spaces west of building 4.
20. Label travel way width between town center buildings 3 and 4. [18-4.12.17.c.]
21. Similar to 15., provide labels /legend for travel way surfaces, unless all site travel ways are asphalt surface.
22. Label patio /plaza. Label solid dark circles (bollards). If solid circles are stone block bollards, ref. detail,
C7.0.
23. Label 3 unshaded rectangular forms at end of hardscape plaza, at south green park area. What is this
feature?
24. Label feature at end of 8' asphalt trail at Lewis and Clark Drive, which may be a detectable surface ramp.
25. C4.1: please revise small unreadable type.
26. C4.3: 415' and 480' sight lines confuse. For any speed limit, sight lines are an equal length in either
direction. Please clarify. (Rev. 1) Comment persists. Please confirm design speed limit and min.
required sight distance. Feel free to contact reviewer if apparent misunderstanding. (Rev. la.) Withdrawn.
Applicant response: `The sight distance profile sheet illustrates the actual sight distance at the intersection.
The minimum sight distances required by the AASHTO Green Book are SDL =335', SDR =455'. The
thresholds in both directions are met with the current layout.'
C5.0
27. Please enlarge unreadable print.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 4
28. Please revise proposed grade per 18-30.7.5.c., or provide surface water diversions per 18-30.7.5.d. Also,
item 11. (Rev. 1) Withdrawn. Also, item 8, above. (Attached critical slopes Exhibits — SDP200600113,
SDP201600051)
C5.1
29. Please enlarge unreadable print.
30. Provide additional spot elevations to ensure patio /plaza drains to inlets, and so that drainage may be
evaluated.
31. Several spot shot elevations near lower edge of plan sheet appear errant; for example: 545.5, 545.4.
32. Label bollards, inlets, all symbol features, or provide legend that defines symbols.
C6.0
33. Provide profiles for yard drains and trench drains, especially any drainage structure serving the patio /plaza.
34. C6.0 tables list inlet type `DI' while C6.3 lists the same structures as MHs. Compare and revise C6.0 table
descriptors or C6.3 storm drain profile labels, as needed.
35. Storm lines are obscured; in places, nearly entirely hidden. Storms lines must be visible on this sheet,
point-to-point, structure -to -structure. Examples: 106-105, 101-102, 92-94-96A, 88-87.
36. Plaza drainage is unclear. Once spot elevations provided and structures visible, a more thorough review
should be possible. (Rev. 1) Partially addressed. As follow-up: Please remove extraneous diamond
symbols, or revise legend to identify (+). Recommend shift YD. labels closer to structures; for example:
YD37, YD9, YD10, YD11, YD24. (Rev. 2) Addressed.
37. If email with drainage computations sent, cannot locate; please re -send. Need LD-204, LD-229 for
drainage design (inlet /storm drain computations). (Rev. l/ la.) Comment persists. (Rev. la.) Applicant
response: `Please see the stormwater drainage computations which will be hand -delivered to your
attention.' Hand -delivered computations may have been misdirected or misplaced in routing. Please send
as .PDF (Rev. 2) Addressed. Inlet /storm pipe design included with comment response letter d. 10 Jan
2020.
C6.3
38. Revise pipe DIA label for pipe between MH 88 and MH 92 to 18".
39. Ref. item 34., above, re. consistency with C6.0 table descriptors. Revise C6.0 or C6.3, as needed.
40. Recommend revise proposed 6" and 4-28" PVC to 12" DIA, Min. Were these pipes in easement, Drainage
Plan review checklist would require 15" DIA, Min. (Rev. 1) Comment persists. Engineering restates
recommendation, unless calculations show 6" DIA is a maximum diameter required to maintain self -
scouring velocity. Also, item 37, above: provide computations for all storm conveyance elements,
including 6" DIA lines. (Rev. la) If design not revised, comment will be withdrawn. (Rev. 2) Applicant
response: `Woolley Engineering acknowledges this comment.'
41. For structures or pipes in fill (as deep as 20'), provide Note with text similar to text image, below; i.e.,
ensure proper compaction to avoid settling and possible failure. (Rev. 1) Not addressed, unless Note
overlooked. If Note included with plans, please guide to location. Also, please ensure Note appears on
profile sheet where structure/s proposed in fill; for example: D183, D184, DI102. (Rev. la) Applicant
response: `A note about pipes in fill has been added to C6.3.' Reviewer cannot locate note. Please advise.'
(Rev. 2) Addressed.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 4 of 4
NOTE:
1. FOR MANHOLES TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN FILL,
CONTRACTOR SHALL PLACE FILL UNDER SAN. MH AT
95% COMPACTION & EMBANKMENT MATERIAL SHALL
CONSIST PREDOMINANTLY OF SOIL AND BE PLACED IN
SUCCESSIVE UNIFORM LAYERS NOT MORE THAN 8" IN
THICKNESS BEFORE COMPACTION IN ACCORDANCE
WITH VDOT 2007 ROAD AND BRIDGE SPECIFICATION
303.04. AFTER 3' VERTICAL PLACEMENT OF FILL,
CONTRACTOR SHALL EXCAVATE RECENTLY LAID FILL
AND INSTALL COMPACTED VDOT STD. 21A STONE IN AN
8'x8' O.C. COMPACTED 21A AREA CENTERED ON THE
MH(S). CONTRACTOR SHALL REPEAT THIS OPERATION
UNTIL AN 8'x8' O.C. 21A STONE BASE IN INSTALLED
BETWEEN THE EXISTING GROUND AND THE PROPOSED
SAN. MH BASE IN EFFORTS TO REDUCE THE RISK OF
SETTLING. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE ACSA WITH
COMPACTION RESULTS PRIOR TO SEWER ACCEPTANCE
42. L1.0: Cannot evaluate proposed landscaping relative to underground storm drain lines since drain lines
often obscure /invisible. Please ensure no canopy landscaping is within 5' horizontal of proposed storm
lines. (Rev. 1) Partially addressed. As follow-up: Revise landscape plan to avoid conflicts: for example: if
Ex. 79B remains, there is a conflict. Twelve or more landscape conflicts exist between proposed 6" DIA
lines and proposed plants in area between Town Center 1 and 4. Please revise plan or provide notes that
guide plant installation to avoid utility /landscaping conflicts. (Rev. 2) Addressed.
43. New: C6.5: Provide clean -outs throughout 6" DIA line storm conveyance system wherever there is a bend.
(Rev. 2) Addressed. Applicant response: `Based on our previous telephone conversation, it is Woolley
Engineering's opinion that these are not necessary because the segments are short enough to allow snaking
in the event of a clog.' Engineering accepts this response.
44. New: C7.1, Detail 19, indicates 17" depth to 6" line INV. Engineering discourages yard drain systems in
any but residential settings. While yard drains are reasonable in certain locations, extent of impervious
areas, institutional setting, and difficulty of maintaining 6" lines 4'-5' below grade more easily obstructed
by debris do not favor this design. Drainage Plan checklist for plan reviewers requires for systems within
drainage easements, all proposed pipes are a minimum 15" in diameter. Although proposed 6" DIA lines
are not in drainage easements, were they, design would be impermissible. (Rev. 2) Applicant response:
`Woolley Engineering acknowledges this comment. We have discussed this matter with the owners, and
they are comfortable with utilizing the proposed pipe sizes in this situation.'
Removed with Rev. 1:
Please feel free to call if any questions: 434.296-5832 -x3069
Thank you
SDP2019-00028 UVA Research Park Town Center 4 021620rev2