HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP202000037 Correspondence 2020-04-20SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C.
Design Focused Engineering
April 15, 2020
Mariah Gleason
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
RE: Response Letter #2 for SDP 2020-1 Our Neighborhood Child Development Center
Dear Ms. Gleason,
Thank you for your review of the site plan for Our Neighborhood CDC. This letter contains responses to
County comments dated April 6, 2020. Our responses are as follows:
1. Responses to Mariah Gleason, Planning, are attached
2. Responses to Richard Nelson, ACSA, are attached
3. Responses to Rebecca Ragsdale, Zoning, are attached
4. Responses to John Anderson, Engineering, are attached
5. Responses to Paty Saternye, ARB, are attached
Planning
Mariah Gleason — Senior Planner
[32.5.2(a)] Zoning notes.
a. The proposed zoning and use are not approved by this site plan. The rezoning
associated with this project — ZMA2019000015 Child Development Center — will
have to be approved by the Board of Supervisors prior to approval of the final site
plan.
RESPONSE: Comment received.
b. Any proffers and special exceptions, and conditions thereof, will need to be noted
and demonstrated in the site plan materials.
RESPONSE: Comment received.
[32.5.1(c), 32.5.2(a), 4.20] Setbacks.
a. On the Cover Sheet, make it clear that the setback notes are referencing the C-1
Commercial zoning district regulations.
RESPONSE: Comment received, please see the updated setback note, referencing C-1
district regulations.
b. Revise the Side & Rear Minimum setback notes to distinguish between required setbacks
for structures and off-street parking, since they are different (see Sec. 4.20(a)).
RESPONSE: Comment received, please see the updated setback note, distinguishing
between structures and parking.
c. Show the parking setback on the Sheet C3.
912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com
RESPONSE: Comment received. Please see the 20' parking setback on C3.
3. [32.5.2(a), 21.7(c)] Undisturbed use buffer. Per Sec. 21.7, when abutting a residential
zoning district, commercial properties are required to provide a 20ft use buffer. In these
areas, no construction activity is allowed and screening must be provided. Site
improvements shown within this 20ft buffer area will require approval of a special
exception. Please submit an application and fee for this exception. Note: The Special
Exception Application, if not signed by the property owner, will need to include the
additional page titled "Certification That Notice Of The Application Has Been Provided To
The Landowner" to be considered a complete application by the County.
RESPONSE: Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We have revised the site plan to
remove any construction activity 20' of the adjacent residential district. Screening Slats are
now proposed in the existing fence line to provide the required screening by 21.7(c).
4. [32.5.2(d, n), 4.12.15] Parking area. Requests for waivers to parking area grade and
curb & gutter requirements were received in the last submission. The waivers will
need to be approved prior to the approval of the final site plan.
RESPONSE: Comment received. Please evaluate the revised waiver included with
this submittal. The request for waiver is now only for curb & gutter.
5. [32.5.2(b), 32.5.2(q)] Parking schedule. Align the Parking Schedule and ITE Trip
Generation chart so both use the same enrollment capacity for the child day center use.
RESPONSE: The parking schedule has been updated to reflect the correct enrollment of
100 students.
6. [32.5.2(n), 4.12] Dumpster. Provide a detail for the dumpster pad. See Sec. 4.12.19
for more information regarding minimum design requirements for dumpster pads.
RESPONSE: Please refer to sheet C10 for the dumpster pad detail.
7. [32.5.2(h)] Floodplain. Note that activities, including development and storage, in the
Flood Hazard Overlay District are highly regulated by Sec. 30.3.
RESPONSE: Comment received.
8. [32.5.2(n)] Recreation areas. Will there be playground equipment, or something similar,
associated with the recreation areas? If so, those improvements should be shown on the
site plan. If equipment will be added later, a Letter of Revision, LOR, to the site plan
may be needed.
RESPONSE: No permanent play equipment is being proposed at this time.
9. [32.5.2(e), 32.7.9.4(c)] Existing landscape features. On Sheet C2, provide a note that
refers to Sheet C6 for information regarding the identification/common name and
approximate caliper of existing trees onsite.
RESPONSE: Comment received. A note has been added to C2 regarding landscape
requirements and where to find information on existing trees.
10. [32.5.2(a)] Departing lot lines. Please show departing lot lines from the southeast corner of the
property.
RESPONSE: Comment received, departing lot lines have been included in the southeast corner.
11. [32.5.2(a)] Abutting parcel information. Provide the tax map and parcel numbers, names of
the owners, zoning district, and present uses for TMP 78-813.
912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com
RESPONSE: Comment received. Parcel information for TMP 78-813 is now included.
12. [Comment] Process. Prior to final site plan approval:
a. ZMA201900015 must be approved by the Board of Supervisors.
RESPONSE: Comment received.
b. The special exception and waivers must be approved.
RESPONSE: Comment received.
c. Any applicable proffers and special exceptions, and conditions thereof, will need to be
satisfied.
RESPONSE: Comment received.
13. [32.6.20), 32.7.9] Landscape plan. For the final site plan:
a. Sign the conservation checklist provided on Sheet C6, per 32.7.9.4(b)(2).
RESPONSE: Comment received.
b. An area of at least 5% of the paved parking and vehicular circulation area shall be
landscaped with trees. These planting must be evenly dispersed within the parking area.
See Sec. 32.7.9.6 for more information.
RESPONSE: More shade trees have been incorporated into the site plan. Please see the
revised landscape plan.
Provide screening along property boundaries that are adjacent to residential districts, in
accordance with Sec. 32.7.9.7.
i. The tree line abutting TMP78-8B appears to be comprised of plantings that are
located on TMP 78-8B. If that is the case, and the plantings are located on a
neighboring parcel, they cannot be used to satisfy the requirements to develop
this parcel.
RESPONSE: Comment received. The barbed wire will be removed from the
fence on this portion of the parcel and screening slats will be installed on the
existing fence. A note with this information has been added into the site plan.
ii. Will the tree line between the proposed large parking area and TMP 78-813 have
protective fencing during the construction of the parking area?
RESPONSE: As no disturbance will occur within 20' of the adjacent residential
area, the tree line will not require protective fencing during construction.
d. The landscape plan will be required to meet the standards and guidelines of the ARB, as
this property is location in an Entrance Corridor.
RESPONSE: Comment received.
ACSA
Richard Nelson — Civil Engineer
1. Submit a PDF copy of the site plan for review.
RESPONSE: Comment received.
2. Show water connection to existing water main.
RESPONSE: Please see C5 for the water connection to the existing water main.
3. Water and sewer connection fees will be applied for the larger meter size.
912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com
RESPONSE: Comment received.
Zoning
Rebecca Ragsdale — Principal Planner
1. Parking -All parking areas must comply with the minimum design requirements of Section 4.12.
The Requirements of Section 4.12.15 must be met for all parking areas as well, including surface
materials, curb, gutter, etc, including existing gravel areas that may be used for parking.
RESPONSE: Comment received. Please evaluate the revised waiver attached with this package.
The request for waiver is now only for curb & gutter, as grading is now proposed for this parking
area. The proposed parking area will be paved.
2. Parking Lot landscaping- The existing gravel areas if allowed to remain for parking must also
meet parking lot landscaping requirements.
RESPONSE: Comment received. The parking lot will be paved and has been updated to meet
parking lot landscaping requirements.
3. Where will child recreation areas be located on the site? They are improvements that must be
shown on the site plan. If added later, an update (LOR) to the site plan must be reviewed and
approved in the future to allow the playground equipment.
RESPONSE: The recreation areas are shown on the site plan. The developer does not propose
permanent playground equipment at this time.
4. Section 21.7(c) applies: Use buffer adjacent to residential and rural areas districts. For the
purpose of this subsection, a use buffer shall not be required when a commercial zone is across a
street from a residential or rural area district. No construction activity including grading or
clearing of vegetation shall occur closer than 20 feet to any residential or rural areas district.
Screening shall be provided as required in section 32.7.9. The board of supervisors may waive by
special exception the prohibition of construction activity, grading or the clearing of vegetation in
the use buffer in a particular case upon consideration of whether: (i) the developer or subdivider
demonstrates that grading or clearing is necessary or would result in an improved site design; (ii)
minimum screening requirements will be satisfied; and (iii) existing landscaping in excess of
minimum requirements is substantially restored.
RESPONSE: Comment received. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. The site plan has
been updated to remove any construction activity within 20' of the adjacent residential district.
The area beside the dumpster pad was originally proposed to be paved and will now remain
gravel.
Engineering
John Anderson — Civil Engineer II
1. Fine Grading on Floodway Fringe (approximate cut of 39.58 SF; approximate fill of 39.47 SF)
must convert SF to CY cut /fill to support no net increase in earth volume within FEMA-mapped
floodplain. CY values and `No Rise' (PE -seal) Certificate are required with initial Floodplain
Development Permit Application. Also, since monitoring grading to the hundredth of a CY is
impractical or impossible, final site plan must include one or more notes or labels to ensure fine
grading does not violate floodplain hazard overlay district requirements. Specifically, site plan
(C3, C4) should provide text, notes, narrative, etc. to ensure:
a. No increase in `net' earth volume below contour 342' which is the base flood elevation at
this site.
b. Prohibition on earth import (unless select material; see d., below). In other words, cut in
one location may be used as fill in another, provided locations do not decrease existing
912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com
cross -sectional floodway fringe (area), or increase net volume of post -development fill
below elevation 342'.
c. Construction Sequence Note should prohibit earth import. Item 9.c., above, item 9.e.,
below.
d. Alternatively, note/s may require haul truck scale receipts as evidence that earth export
exceeds earth import. Asphalt pavement is not earth. Scale receipts must be submitted to
Engineering Division as condition of WPO plan bond release, and to receive a Certificate
of Occupancy.
e. Ref. text at 18-30.3.11 —Permitted and prohibited uses and structures /Table, Stream
Crossings and Grading Activities: `For purposes of this provision, fine grading is
defined as a balanced site (cut/fill) with no changes to the base floodplain elevation or
horizontal limits to the floodplain.'
RESPONSE: Comment received. A note regarding grading in the floodway fringe has been
added to the cover sheet.
2. C2 — Show concrete slab where the (building) addition in the floodplain has been removed.
RESPONSE: Comment received. The concrete slab is included on the existing conditions page, to
be removed. This will be paved over with the parking lot.
Engineering requests: (Rev. 1) Not addressed. Applicant response: `We proposed fine grading
activities within the floodway fringe, which will not require a floodplain development permit. A
VSMP application will be submitted at a later time.' As follow-up: see items 1 l.d.,e., below.
a. A Floodplain Development Permit (FDP) Application; please note requirements listed at
18-30.3.12 and 18-30.3.13. (Rev. 1) Comment persists.
RESPONSE: The FDP will be submitted at a later time.
b. A VSMP Permit Application: Requirements at 17-401 thru 17-405 apply, including
stormwater quality and quantity limits, and requirements. (Rev. 1) Comment persists.
RESPONSE: The VSMP will be submitted at a later time.
c. Applicant response to item l.a./b., above. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
d. Applicant response is incorrect. Definition at 18-3 /Development. `For purposes of
floodplain management, "development" means any man-made change to improved or
unimproved real estate, including, but not limited to, buildings or other structures,
mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation or drilling operations or storage of
equipment or materials.' A FDP Application, `No Rise' (PE -seal) certificate, and
Approved VSMP /WPO plan are pre -requisites to FSP Approval.
i. See 18-30.3.12.A. —Prerequisite to development; required permits and
certifications. `In addition to the requirements for any other permits under this
chapter, no use, structure, or any other development (collectively, the
"development") within the flood hazard overlay district shall commence without
the owner first obtaining or providing the following: A. Floodplain development
permit. Note: A FDP is required for fine grading within the floodplain fringe.
ii. See 18-30.3.13.A.1 —'Encroachment prohibited unless owner demonstrates no
increase in water surface elevation of the base flood.' (i.e., `No rise')
RESPONSE: Comment received. The requested materials will be submitted at a later
time.
e. On -site SWM facilities (if any) require deed of easement, with recordation of easement
plat a prerequisite to FSP Approval.
912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com
RESPONSE: Comment received.
New Comments
Cl: General Construction Note 6; meaning unclear at `Paved, rip -rap or stabilization amt
lined ditch...' Please check /revise.
RESPONSE: Thank you for bringing this to our attention. This has been revised to `stabilization
mat.'
Design should be revised to provide 5 - 6% maximum grade at any point in proposed 27-space
asphalt parking area (0). Although this comment is not recommendation to approve waiver
request to maximum grade for parking areas found at 18-4.12.15(c), design should be revised to
more nearly approach 5% maximum grade. Please consider images below. Existing grade is
proposed for the 27-sapce parking area, without altering grade at either the upper or lower ends of
the existing gravel parking area, which slopes from building toward a stream and is proposed to
be paved. Please note:
a. Waiver request states `this back parking lot will be reserved for employee parking.'
i. Please confirm approximately 27 employees are anticipated to work at Our
Neighborhood Child Development Center, else recommend language that reflects
likely staffing levels (5, 10?).
RESPONSE: Approximately 25 employees are anticipated to work at the daycare
(please refer to the parking schedule on C1). We have confirmed this number
with the business owner. Please note that the initial enrollment of the daycare is
estimated at 100 students, so the number of employees is appropriate.
ii. Whether parking at this or any site (where max. parking area grade applies) is
reserved for employees is irrelevant. Employees are entitled to safety -based
design listed at 18-4.12.15(c), as is owner, patrons, or any individual with access
to a parking lot. The standard does not discriminate, while waiver petitions for a
relatively less safe, steeper maximum grade.
RESPONSE: Comment received. The intent behind this statement was not
towards diminished employee safety. We were trying to convey that employees
are not dropping off children as parents will be. Daycare -age children require a
parent or adult to help them in and out of the car. The ease of this process could
be hindered at increased grade, while employees are likely the only passenger in
the car. Regardless, grading is now proposed for the back parking lot and the
waiver has been revised to only request a waiver from curb & gutter.
b. Waiver request states `the proposed grade of the back parking area (27 space) is
approximately 7%, while C4 indicates 7.8 and 9.6% proposed grade:
i. Waiver request appears inaccurate.
ii. 9.6% is nearly double the 5% max. grade allowed under 18-4.12.15.c.
iii. Initial site plan and waiver request are inconsistent, and waiver would likely be
denied on basis of inconsistency. Comment takes no action on waiver request to
standard listed at 18-4.12.15.c.; rather, comment notes that waiver of 5% grade is
problematic.
RESPONSE: Thank you for bringing our attention to this discrepancy. Grading is
now proposed for this area, bringing the slope to a maximum of 5%. The revised
waiver now only addresses curb & gutter.
912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com
There are design solutions that require no fill in the floodplain, no alteration to building, no
degradation to stream. Ref. images, below, and propose grade with final site plan to meet (or
nearly meet) 5% max grade for the 27-space parking area. If, for example, the 28.5' wide drive
aisle between the last, southernmost space in the 10-space area and first, northernmost parking
space in the 13-space side of the 27-space parking area is graded 10% (existing grade Z3.3%),
then 5% max grade in the 27 space area appears possible. This require cutting the drive aisle by
approx. 4'. Were the aisle cut 3', resulting 27-space lot max. grade would be Z5.8%; were it cut
2', resulting 27-space grade would approach 6.7%. Waiver request is problematic since design
alternatives exist to meet, or nearly meet, max. grade listed at 18-4.12.15.c. Design is encouraged
to examine alternatives that flatten grade in the 27-space area without requiring fill in mapped
floodplain, or affecting building, or altering sheet flow from pavement (recommend angle to
east), or diminishing stream water quality. In fact, runoff from flatter grade (less energy) is less
erosive than runoff from steeper impervious areas; steeper is proposed with waiver request. 5%
grade provides environmental and safety benefits; it is favored over paving existing 27-space
parking area at existing grade.
RESPONSE: Thank you for your thoughtful comments and providing the accompanying
diagrams. Grading is now proposed in the parking area to provide the appropriate 5% grade. The
waiver has been revised accordingly to only address curb & gutter.
4. Waiver from curb and gutter requirement at 18-4.12.15.g. appears reasonable if design of 27-
space parking area slopes east. This comment anticipates supporting waiver (no curb) at edge of
27-space parking area, but does not anticipate outcome of curb /gutter waiver review for other
areas. This comment takes no action on waiver of curb /gutter std. listed at 18-4.12.15.g. Waiver
request will be evaluated prior to final site plan approval.
RESPONSE: Comment received. Please evaluate the revised waiver request attached with this
submittal, which only requests a waiver from curb & gutter.
C4: Distance between proposed asphalt surface east of building and property line is less than 1'.
Confirm with Planning that paved surface within 1' of adjacent property is consistent with side
setback requirement.
RESPONSE: Thank you for bringing this to our attention. Planning and Zoning have brought this
concern forward as well. This area has now been revised to remain as gravel, so no construction
activity will take place within 20' of the adjacent residential district.
6. C4: Provide note requiring paving operation in this location be staked by a surveyor prior to
asphalt paving in this location (TMP # 78-58K), or acquire off -site temporary access/construction
easements.
RESPONSE: We have revised the site plan to remove any disturbance or construction activity
within the 20' buffer. A note has been added with the 20' setback line to indicate this buffer will
be marked in the field during construction.
7. C5: Confirm with VDOT whether portion of private water service lateral may be located within
Rt. 20 RW.
RESPONSE: We believe that the small segment of private water service lateral is permitted in the
R/W, but will confirm with VDOT.
8. C9: Label RW /property lines.
RESPONSE: Comment received. Right-of-way widths, adjacent property TMPs, and property
owners have been labeled on this sheet.
9. C9: Provide vertical sight distance profile.
912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com
RESPONSE: Vertical sight distance is provided with this submission. Please see C9.
ARB
Paty Saternye — Senior
1. Confirm that no changes are proposed to the exteriors of the buildings. If buildings are to be
modified, submit architectural designs, elevations, and material colors and samples for review
with the next submittal.
RESPONSE: While the main residential building will be maintained, the metal garage building is
to be adapted for the new commercial use. Final ARB package for review will be submitted by
the project architect.
2. Confirm that a dumpster is not proposed. If a dumpster is to be proposed, and will be visible from
the EC, include details for the dumpster enclosure in the site plan and identify screen type,
material, manufacturer and color.
RESPONSE: A dumpster is required for this site plan. It will not be visible from the Entrance
Corridor due to the slope of the property, the building, and the double -staggered row of
evergreens. Details of the dumpster pad are included on C 10.
3. Show all existing and proposed mechanical equipment on the site plan. Show how visibility of all
proposed mechanical equipment will be eliminated from the EC.
RESPONSE: Existing and proposed mechanical equipment is shown with this submission. Please
see C4 for proposed mechanical equipment location.
4. Show all proposed fences. Chain link fence cannot be approved for new fencing visible from the
EC.
RESPONSE: Comment received. No new fencing will be proposed, however, the existing fence
running adjacent to the residential district will have the barbed wire removed and screening slats
added.
5. Revise the plan to provide large shade trees along the EC, 35' on center, 3'h" caliper at planting.
Revise the spacing and quantity of ornamental trees accordingly.
RESPONSE: Comment received. Please refer to C6 for the landscape plan.
6. Provide a landscape schedule that identifies all proposed plant species, quantities and size at time
of planting.
RESPONSE: Comment received. Please refer to C6 for the landscape plan.
7. Revise the plan to show that there are no conflicts between the utilities, the existing drainage
easement, and the proposed landscaping.
RESPONSE: Comment received. Please refer to C6 for the landscape plan for existing and
proposed utilities in relation to the proposed landscaping.
8. Provide large shade trees, 2'/2" caliper at planting, spaced 40 feet on center, along the improved
accessway.
RESPONSE: Please see the updated proposed landscape.
9. Provide medium shade trees, at least 2'/2" caliper planting, spaced 25 feet on center, along the
proposed pedestrian ways.
RESPONSE: There are no pedestrian walkways proposed with this submittal.
912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com
10. Provide the standard perimeter parking lot landscaping (trees 40' on center, 2'/2" caliper at
planting) in all parking areas where improvements (other than paint striping) are proposed.
RESPONSE: Please refer to the proposed landscape plan.
11. Provide shrubs, 24" at planting, in the perimeter planting areas on the north side of the improved
parking lot.
RESPONSE: There is a row of double staggered evergreen trees on the north side of the
improved parking lot. Please refer to C2 and C6 which provides the existing landscape.
12. Revise the plan provide the species of the existing landscaping.
RESPONSE: Please refer to C6 for the existing landscape and proposed landscape schedules.
13. Add the standard plant health note to the landscape plan.
RESPONSE: Comment received. This has been included under the landscape calculations on C7.
14. Ensure all existing landscaping is shown on the site plan.
RESPONSE: Comment received. Existing landscaping is now included on the existing conditions
sheet as well as the landscape plan.
15. Show tree protection fencing for preserved trees in both the grading and landscape plans.
RESPONSE: Comment received. Please refer to the landscape plan, which shows the tree
protection fencing.
16. Provide a conservation checklist in the site plan.
RESPONSE: Comment received. Please refer to C7.
17. Ensure that no grading is proposed within the dripline of any tree designated as preserved.
RESPONSE: Comment received. No grading is proposed within the dripline of any tree. Please
see the tree protection fencing for preserved trees on C6.
18. Sign applications are required for all proposed signs.
RESPONSE: Comment received.
If you have any questions or concerns about these revisions, please feel free to contact me at
Rachelkshimp-en ing eering com or by phone at 434-227-5140.
Regards,
Rachel Moon
Shimp Engineering, P.C.
912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com