HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP202000023 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2020-04-23SOB ALg� ,
zn
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Scott Collins, P.E. (Scott(c-r�,collins-en in�g com)
From: Cameron Langille — Senior Planner
Division: Planning Services
Date: April 23, 2020
Subject: SDP202000023 — Martha Jefferson Hospital Presidio Apartments — Final Site Plan
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.]
Applicable Comments from Initial Site Plan Action Letter (February 7, 2020):
[ZM4,200100015]: The development appears to be in general accord with the approved ZMA-2001-00015
(including Exhibit B — Application Plan, sheets AP 1-AP6): the residential use and number of dwelling units are in
general accord with what is shown as Parcel I containing 250 residential units on AP-4; and the open space, trails,
and pedestrian connectivity are in general accord with what is shown as Parcel J on AP-4 and AP-5, and as
Anticipated Pedestrian Route — Connection to Gateway on AP-6. First submittal: Per proffer #4 of ZMA2001-
15, reasonable pedestrian access needs to be provided through the site down to the Countv owned greenway.
A 10' Class A asphalt path has been provided at the southern end of the development down to the greenway.
It appears that the path goes onto TMP 07800-00-00-020M1 which is owned by Worrell Land & Development
Company LC. Please address the following: an easement over the 10' wide pedestrian path should be
provided. owners of TMP 07800-00-00-020M1 will need to sign the easement plat (see comment #3 under
"New Comments Final Site Plan" section below).
Additionallv, staff acknowledges that the applicant has provided a 5' sidewalk through the site to access the
10' path. Staff with CDD and the Parks & Rec Department have evaluated the proposed pedestrian route
through the site. See comment #3 from Parks & Recreation staff below. Several options are available that
can be done on revised plans to accomplish the proffer's intent for providing reasonable access to the
greenway. This could include one or more of the following options (or a combination thereof):
a. Providing a publicly -accessible trail connection (Class A shared use path: 10' wide / asphalt
surface) through the property on the west side of the proposed private travel way, connecting to
sidewalk along Peter Jefferson Parkway; and/or
b. Revising the proposed private on -street pedestrian facilities (5' sidewalk) along the proposed
private travel way to instead be a Class A shared use path (10' wide / asphalt surface) and providing
a public use access easement; and/or
c. Adiusting the —4.5-acre "special lot" to increase in size, so as to contain additional acreage to the
west of the proposed private street, in order to create more opportunity/flexibility to install a public
bike/yed connection through this physically constrained area that contains substantial steep slopes.
A public access easement will need to be provided through the site over the pathway. Please see comment #3
under "New Comments Final Site Plan" section below for more information regarding the easement.
2. [Section 32.5.2(a)]: The title on the Cover Sheet (Sheet 1A) incorrectly states that this application is a "Final Site
Plan." This application has been submitted, processed, and reviewed as an "Initial Site Plan." First submittal:
Comment no longer applicable.
3. [Section 32.5.2(a)]: If the Open Space contained in the recently -created Special Lot (approximately 4.5 acres,
identified as Tax Map/Parcel #78-20M5) is included in the calculations for this site plan, then please add this Tax
Map/Parcel number and acreage to the "Tax Map No." and "Total Project Area" information in the General Notes
on the Cover Sheet (Sheet IA). Please also correct any density calculations that may change based on revisions to
the project area acreage. First submittal: Comment addressed. Only TMP 07800-00-00-020M6 is included in
the acreage.
4. [Z.O. Section 32.5.2(a)]: Please identify Tax Map/Parcel #78-20M5 on the Overall Layout Sheet (Sheet 3) and include
a note identifying it as Open Space reserved for future dedication to the County for public use. First submittal:
Comment addressed.
[Z.O. Section 32.5.2(i), 0), (k), (1)]: Please ensure all existing and all proposed public and private easements are
shown and labeled. First submittal: Comment not fully addressed. There is a conservation easement recorded in
DB 2544, pages 243-251 that appears to now be located within both TMP 78-20M5 and 78-20M6. Please show
this easement on the plans. Per the restrictions in the recorded instrument, limited activities may occur within
that easement. Please provide a written response verifying that the applicant and owner have researched this
and that the proposed site development complies with the restrictive covenants. Refer to DB 2607 PG 572-575
for other easements to which the property may be subject and show those easements that are located within
TMP 78-20M6.
6. [Z.O. Section 32.5.2(i), 0), (k), (1)]: Please ensure Deed Book/Page references are included for existing easements.
First submittal: See comment #5, add DB/page references for existing easements.
7. [Z.O. Sections 32.5.2(a), (b), (n), and (s)]: Please ensure that all portions of the subject property are included on each
applicable Sheet. Staff acknowledges the Match lines on Sheets 2 and 3 (shown at a scale of 1' = 50'). However, other
sheets (shown at a scale of 1" = 30') do not include all portions of the subject property; for example, the Layout Plan
(Sheets 4 and 5), the Utility Plan (Sheets 6 and 7), and the Grading & Drainage Plan (Sheets 8 and 9) exclude the
northwestern and southwestern portions of the property. First submittal: Comment addressed.
8. [Z.O. Sections 32.7.2.3 and 4.12.61: (Advisory Review Comment) — Based on the proposed number and types of
units, a minimum of 425 parking spaces are required. Staff acknowledges that the "Parking Required" and "Parking
Provided" sections of the "General Notes" on the Cover Sheet (Sheet IA) indicate that 426 spaces are provided,
including 406 surface parking spaces and 20 garage spaces. Staff further acknowledges that 14 parking spaces appear
to provide universal access towards meeting ADA requirements. First submittal: See comment #1 under the "New
Comments Final Site Plan" section below.
9. [Z.O. Section 32.7.2.31: (Advisory Review Comment) — Staff acknowledges that a 5' wide concrete sidewalk is
proposed in multiple locations throughout the development, including along Peter Jefferson Parkway between the
(proposed) eastern entrance and the northwestern property boundary, in order to establish a safe and convenient
pedestrian connection to adjoining properties and adjacent employment centers. Please note that this connection must
be designed and constructed to the standards established in the Albemarle County Design Standards Manual, provided
that all ramps for persons with mobility impairments shall be designed and constructed to the standards of VDOT.
First submittal: Comment addressed pending confirmation from Engineering Division staff.
10. [Z.O. Section 32.7.2.31: (Advisory Review Comment) — Staff acknowledges that a direct "pedestrian walkway" or
pedestrian connection is proposed across Peter Jefferson Parkway, in order to enable safe, convenient pedestrian access
between the subject property and the Martha Jefferson Hospital property. Please note that this connection must be
designed and constructed to the standards established in the Albemarle County Design Standards Manual, provided
that all ramps for persons with mobility impairments shall be designed and constructed to the standards of VDOT.
Please also note that this proposed "pedestrian walkway" or pedestrian connection is subject to VDOT acceptance of a
"justification report" as outlined in previous review comments provided by Mr. Adam Moore, PE (dated 5/16/2018).
Community Development staff remain available to assist with the coordination of this "pedestrian walkway" at an
unsignalized location. And CDD staff strongly support this proposed pedestrian crossing at an unsignalized location in
order to: a.) proactively address the likelihood of frequent pedestrian crossings of Peter Jefferson Parkway at a location
that would otherwise be unprotected and unsafe, and b.) to facilitate safe, convenient pedestrian mobility between
places of residence and a major place of employment.
More specifically, it can be reasonably anticipated that a relatively large number of pedestrian trips will occur on a
daily basis between the two hundred fifty (250) dwelling units and Martha Jefferson Hospital. Even factoring in the
provision of a new sidewalk along Peter Jefferson Parkway (as required pursuant to Zoning Ordinance §32.7.2.3, and
as acknowledged above in Planner review comment #9), if no such pedestrian walkway is provided across Peter
Jefferson Parkway then residents of the proposed apartment complex who want to walk from the apartments to the
hospital would have to choose to walk approximately 3,000 linear feet on sidewalks, crosswalks, and walking paths in
order to safely access the hospital — and would have to choose not to exit the development, cross Peter Jefferson
Parkway (without any safe pedestrian infrastructure), and access the hospital via a much more direct route that is
approximately 550 linear feet in length. A diagrammatic exhibit illustrating this issue is provided with this SRC review
comment letter packet for reference. First submittal: Comment addressed, see VDOT comment letter.
11. [Z.O. Sections 32.7.2.3 and 25A.51: Staff acknowledges the provision of safe, convenient on -site pedestrian
connections in many locations throughout this proposed development. However, staff have identified strategically
important locations where additional safe and convenient on -site pedestrian connections are necessary. These
connections must be designed and constructed to the standards established in the Albemarle County Design
Standards Manual, provided that all ramps for persons with mobility impairments shall be designed and constructed
to the standards of VDOT. Specifically, such safe, convenient pedestrian connections are required in the following
general locations, as described below (listed a-d) and as conceptually shown below (in pink):
Y
(TYP)
/
I �PL
1
MG
(TYP)
(TYP)
/
1
\
LSR
(TYP)
A
as
(TYP)
/ Q ' _
Q y
I �F 7
(T
(TYP)
°tee
r
GB
0.�
r,
BUILDING #4
w (TYP)
(TYP) /
✓!
`
;
r
3/4 STORY BLDG
42 UNITS
\ r
BUILDING #3 //
„ �, !ADOO
CID
(TYP)
4 STORY BLDG
AG 1IAlITC
v
a) Between the Clubhouse and Building #1; First submittal: Comment addressed.
b) Between the Clubhouse and Building #2; First submittal: Comment addressed.
c) Between Building #3 and Building #2; First submittal: Comment addressed.
d) Between Building #3 and Building #4. First submittal: Comment addressed.
12. [Z.O. Section 32.5.2(b)]: Please revise the sub -heading for the "Critical Slopes" section within the General Notes on
the Cover Sheet (Sheet IA) to "Steep Slopes Overlay District." Technically, there are no "Critical Slopes" within the
Development Area; and Steep Slopes are technically an overlay zoning district. First submittal: Comment
addressed.
13. [Z.O. Section 32.5.2(n)]: Show the proposed location(s) of outdoor trash containers. Staff acknowledges that the
"Trash Receptacles" section within the General Notes on the Cover Sheet (Sheet 1A) references the proposed provision
of a dumpster and trash compacter. Please also provide additional waste and recycling containers in the developed
recreation areas and within other areas of the proposed development and show these on the final site plan. First
submittal: Comment not fully addressed. As shown on the plans, the concrete pad at the trash receptacle area
does not extend at least 8' beyond the front of the dumpster, as required under Section 4.12.19 (b). Please draw
a concrete pad extending at least 8' beyond the front of the dumpster on all applicable sheets. Additionally, no
screening details have been provided, as required by Section 32.7.9.7 (a)(3). Please either provide landscaping
or a constructed screen around the trash receptacle area. If a wall or fence will be provided, please provide a
cut sheet detail of the fence/wall in compliance with all requirements of 32.7.9.7 (e).
14. [Z.O. Section 32.5.2(n)]: Show the proposed location(s) of outdoor lighting. Staff acknowledge that the "Lighting"
section within the General Notes on the Cover Sheet (Sheet IA) indicates that "Parking lot and building lighting is
included with this final site plan." However, no such lighting information appears to be provided. Please note that a
Lighting Plan that demonstrates compliance with Z.O. Sections 32.6.21 and 4.17 is required with the Final Site Plan
application. First submittal: See comment #2 under the "New Comments Final Site Plan" section below.
Additionally, because the subject property is within the Entrance Corridor Overlay District, this proposed project
(including the Lighting Plan) is subject to review by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and ARB staff, and
approval/issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness by the ARB is required. Staff acknowledges that application
ARB-2019-00145 was submitted for review on 11/25/2019, and was then deferred indefinitely by the applicant(s) on
12/30/2019. First submittal: See comment #2 under the "New Comments Final Site Plan" section below.
15. [Z.O. Section 32.5.2(p)]: Staff acknowledges the Landscape Plan sheets (Sheets 12, 13, and 14).Because the subject
property is within the Entrance Corridor Overlay District, this proposed project (including the Landscape Plan) is
subject to review by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and ARB staff, and approval/issuance of a Certificate of
Appropriateness by the ARB is required. Staff acknowledges that application ARB-2019-00145 was submitted for
review on 11/25/2019, and was then deferred indefinitely by the applicant(s) on 12/30/2019. First submittal: See
ARB comments below. Once the ARB has issued a COA, this comment will be addressed. The plan is
tentatively scheduled to go to the ARB in May.
16. [Z.O. Sections 32.5.2(n) and 4.161: The proposed development does not contain all of the required developed
recreation areas and minimum facilities. Specifically, Z.O. 4.16.2 ("Minimum Facilities") requires the following:
a. Z.O. 4.16.2.1: One (1) tot lot (2,000 SF minimum) shall be provided for the first thirty (30) units and for each
additional fifty (50) units. First submittal: Comment was informational.
b. As applied to SDP201900075: (250 units = Five (5) tot lots / minimum 10,000 SF total; see 4.16.2.1 for full
details of this requirement). First submittal: Comment was informational.
c. Z.O. 4.16.2.2: One-half (1/2) court for basketball shall be provided for each one hundred (100) units. First
submittal: Comment was informational.
d. As applied to SDP201800018: (250 units = Two (2) half -courts or one (1) full -court; see 4.16.2.2 for full
details of this requirement). First submittal: Comment was informational.
However, pursuant to Z.O. 4.16, the planning director has some discretionary authority to consider proposed
substitutions for the facilities that are required by this section of the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed provision of
"trails/walking paths" which "shall be available for public use to access the Rivanna River trails" in lieu of some of the
minimum required facilities would likely be partially acceptable and partially unacceptable. Please revise as follows:
A. Provide the correct calculations (SF) of the required recreation facilities (info summarized above) by revising
the "Recreation" section within the "General Notes" on the Cover Sheet (Sheet IA). First submittal:
Comment addressed.
B. Clarify the proposed recreation facilities; the General Notes on the Cover Sheet (Sheet 1A) indicate that the
proposed total area for recreation would be 51,200 SF (in the "Recreation" section), but the General Notes also
indicate that the recreational areas equal 0.83 acres (in the "Land Area" section). First submittal: Comment
addressed.
C. Provide a recreation facilities proposal for review by the Planning Director and Chief of Planning that includes
the calculations requested in comments #14-A, and which describes any and all requested substitutions from
4
the required minimum facilities (such as trails/walking paths, clubhouse and pool, dog park, etc.) with
supporting explanations/rationale. First submittal: The plan has been updated to show the proposed
recreational substitutions. However, a formal written request letter must be submitted so that it can be
forwarded to the Planning Director for review. Include the require recreation calculations, and provide
the proposed recreation area calculations and a description of the facilities themselves (for example,
indicate what, if any, improvements will be provided within the beer garden and courtyards. Explain
whether any fitness equipment or exercise areas are included in the 14,000 sq. ft. clubhouse). Also, is the
9,600 sq. ft. area figure of the walking trail the area within the dashed lines, as shown on Sheets 3 & 5?
Is the dashed line supposed to represent an access easement?
D. Please review the proposed locations, alignments, material specifications, and "Classification" of the "proposed
primitive trail way," and any other proposed or potential trail or park infrastructure, in collaboration with Mr.
Dan Mahon in the Albemarle County Parks & Recreation Department (ACPR). First submittal: A callout on
Sheet 5 states that there is a gate on the path and to refer to the detail on Sheet 10. No gate detail is
provided on Sheet 10. Please verify whether a gate is proposed, and the purpose for the gate.
As stated in comment #1 above, staff is requesting revisions to the proposed public access. If the 5'
sidewalk on the east side of the western travel way will be converted to a 10' wide Class A asphalt path
throughout the site up to Peter Jefferson Parkway, this comment will be addressed. If the applicant
chooses one of the other options mentioned in comment #1, staff will review this on a future submittal to
verify whether it provides reasonable access.
Furthermore, please revise the callout on Sheet 13 for the trail. It states that it will be gravel.
17. [Z.O. Sections 32.5.2(b) and 32.5.2(i)]: In consideration of this subject property's strategic location relative to the
Rivanna River, the Old Mills Trail, and the County's Rivanna Greenway and Blueway System, and following the
extensive coordination between the applicant team and County staff in 2019, CDD-Planning staff believe additional
coordination with Mr. Dan Mahon in ACPR is necessary. The purpose of this additional coordination would be to
revisit the previous collaborative efforts related to park planning and trail planning efforts, and to review and
(potentially) refine the proposed public access and publicly -accessible amenities that are shown and annotated on this
site plan.
a. Please note that ACPR staff have provided written review comments (dated 1/17/2020), which are attached to
this comment letter. Please also note that Mr. Mahon intends to attend the 1/23 SRC meeting to represent
ACPR and discuss these issues with the applicant team in person. First submittal: If the 10' wide Class A
asphalt path is provided through the site and a new public access easement is provided over the path on
both TMPs 07800-00-00-020M1 and 07800-00-00-020M6 as mentioned in comment #1, comment #16,
this comment will be addressed. Otherwise, staff from CDD and Parks & Recreation will need to revisit
this with the applicant to ensure that reasonable access is provided, per proffer #4 of ZMA2001-15.
18. [Advisory / For Future Reference]: Please note that the following approvals will be required prior to County
approval (as may be applicable) of a final site plan for this proposed project:
a. [Z.O. Sections 32.4.2.2 and 32.4.3.31: Architectural Review Board Certificate of Appropriateness / ARB-
2019-00145. First submittal: See ARB comments below. Once the ARB has issued a COA, this comment
will be addressed. The plan is tentatively scheduled to go to the ARB in May.
b. [Z.O. Section 32.7.4.1(a)]: Water Protection Ordinance Plan (and corresponding legal documents) / WPO-
2018-00027. First Submittal: WP0201800027 is still under review.
c. [Z.O. Sections 32.7.4.2 and 32.7.5.31: Easement Plat(s) (and corresponding legal documents) / SUB-2019-
00084 and SUB-2019-00118. First Submittal: See comment #3 under the "New Comments Final Site
Plan" section below.
d. [Z.O. Section 32.7.1.11: Special Lot Plat / Note: Staff acknowledges approval and recordation of Special Lot
Plat SUB-2019-00034. First Submittal: Comment addressed.
e. [Z.O. Section 32.4.3.6(a) and 32.4.3.6(c)]: Tentative approvals (review status of "No Objection") from all
applicable SRC members for final site plan. First submittal: See comments from other reviewers below.
This comment will be addressed once all SRC members confirm that outstanding comments have been
addressed.
New Comments Final Site Plan
[32.7.2.3 and 4.12.6] Please make the following revisions related to parking:
a. On Sheets 3 & 5, please draw the missing 13t' parking space in the row of parking in front of Building #5.
b. On Sheet 5, there is a row of parking that totals 14 spaces in front of Building #5, but the callout states 15.
Please revise the callout.
c. On Sheets 4 & 5, there is a row of parking in front of Building #4 that totals 16 parking spaces, but the
callout states 18. Please revise the callout. Be aware that the northernmost space in this row does not meet
the minimum 9' x 18' requirement and cannot be counted toward meeting required parking unless its
dimensions are revised. This does not appear to be an issue, because it appears that space was not counted
based on staff accounting of all parking proposed.
d. Revise the amount of handicap parking spaces provided in the note on Sheet 1. The plan shows 14
handicap spaces provided, not 12 as currently stated.
2. [32.7.8 and 4.17] The Lighting Plan on Sheet 26 must be revised to comply with all application regulations
contained in Section 4.17. Please address the following:
a. 14.17.4 (b)(1)] Provide a photometric plan that identifies footcandle measurements across the property
and along all property boundaries. Footcandle measurement spillover cannot exceed 0.5 footcandles onto
public roads or adjacent properties zoned RA. Show all proposed light locations and identify different
lamp types with unique symbology.
b. [4.17] Provide a luminaire schedule identifying outdoor lighting type, manufacture/model number,
quantity proposed, pole height, lumens, wattage, and light loss factor (LLF) used to calculate the
footcandles for each luminaire type. Albemarle County requires lighting plans to use a LLF of 1.0.
Include a legend that identifies the symbology used for each luminaire type on the plan.
c. [4.17.4 (a)] Highlight sections from the manufacturer cut sheets that identify the lumens/wattage emitted,
and confirm that each outdoor luminaire will be equipped with a full -cutoff fixture.
d. Revise the lighting plan as necessary to comply with any ARB requirements.
3. [32.6.2 (g), 32.7.4.2, and 32.7.5.31 An Application For Easement Plat will need to be submitted, reviewed, approved,
and recorded prior to final site plan approval. The following must be addressed:
a. Once the easement plat is approved, all easement labels on the final site plan will need to be revised so they
state "existing" and state the deed book/page number for the easement plat and any associated deeds of
easement.
b. As mentioned in comment #1 above, anew public access easement will need to be provided on TMPs 07800-
00-00-020M1 and 07800-00-00-020M6 for the entire length of the 10' Class A asphalt path. The owners both
properties will need to sign the plat prior to County approval.
4. [32.7.9] Please remove the callout for the primitive trail from Sheet 12. It is the County's understanding that this
primitive trail is no longer proposed.
5. [32.7.9] On Sheet 14, please add a column to the Plant Schedule so that is includes the symbology used for each plant
type.
6. [32.7.9.4 (b)] The County of Albemarle Conservation Checklist is provided on Sheet 14. However, the landscaping
plans do not identify the locations, species, and sizes of existing vegetation that will be retained. Please add this
information to the landscaping plans, and provide a table on Sheet 14 identifying the species, sizes, and quantity of each
landscaping material that will be retained. Provided a canopy coverage calculation so that staff can verify the overall
15% tree canopy requirement is being met. See comment #8 below for information on how to obtain canopy coverage
information, or explain the source used to identify the canopy coverage for existing plants if they are larger than the
calipers listed in the Albemarle County Plant Canopy Calculations.
7. [32.7.91 On Sheet 14, please add a column to the Plant Schedule that states the type of landscaping material that each
proposed species is categorized as by the Albemarle County Recommended Plants List (i.e. Large Deciduous Tree,
Ornamental tree, etc.)
8. [32.7.9] On Sheet 14, please add a column to the Plant Schedule that states the canopy coverage of each landscaping
material proposed per plant, and the overall canopy coverage based on the overall quantities of each species provided.
Individual plant canopy coverage can be found in the Albemarle County Plant Canopy Calculations.
9. [32.7.9] The landscaping plans on Sheets 12-13 do not show the same quantities of certain plants as specified by the
Plant Schedule on Sheet 14. Staff has identified the following inconsistencies that need to be addressed:
a. No ISH Satyr Hill Holly plants are shown on Sheets 12-13, but the Plant Schedule says 51 are provided.
b. No LS Creeping Liriope plants are shown on Sheets 12-13, but the Plant Schedule says 6,532 are provided.
c. 33 AR October Glory Red Maples are shown on Sheets 12-13, but the Plant Schedule says 37 are provided.
d. 16 IJK Jersey Knight Holly plants are shown on Sheets 12-13, but the Plant Schedule says 17 are provided.
e. 32 LSR Rotunidiloba Sweetgums are shown on Sheets 12-13, but the Plant Schedule says 29 are provided.
f. 34 LT Tulip Poplars are shown on Sheets 12-13, but the Plant Schedule says 43 are provided.
g. 12 PT Loblolly Pines are shown on Sheets 12-13, but the Plant Schedule says 17 are provided.
h. 5 NT Nuttall Oaks are shown on Sheets 12-13, but the Plant Schedule says 6 are provided.
i. 33 QS Shumard Oaks are shown on Sheets 12-13, but the Plant Schedule says 34 are provided.
10. [32.7.9.51 Large shade trees need to be provided along the entire length of the property frontage along Peter Jefferson
Parkway.
a. 132.7.9.5 (c)] Each tree must be a minimum of 1 '/z caliper at time of installation.
b. 132.7.9.5 (d)] Trees shall be spaced evenly at 1 tree per 50' of frontage.
c. 132.7.9.5 (e)] Pending ARB review, additional shrubs may need to be located along the property frontage to
screen off-street parking.
11. [32.7.9.81 The overall canopy calculation on Sheet 14 is incorrect. According to the Land Area notes on Sheet 1, there is
8.1 acres of area that the 15% calculation should be based from. This means a canopy coverage of 1.26 acres is required.
Please revise.
12. [32.5.2 (b), 25A.6, 21.7, and 4.201 Please revise the setback note on Sheet 1 so that it states all minimum and maximum
setback requirements. No setbacks were established with the proffers/Application Plan of ZMA2001-15. Therefore, the
setbacks for conventional commercial districts apply to this property. See Section 4.20 (a) of the Zoning Ordinance.
13. [32.5.2 (b), 25A.6, 21.7, and 4.201 Please revise the stepback note on Sheet 1 so that it states: "Front stepback
(minimum): For each story that begins above 40 feet in height or for each story above the third story, whichever is less,
the minimum stepback shall be 15 feet."
14. [General Comment] It appears that some sheets do not show the full extent of improvements proposed. For example,
proposed landscaping is not visible at the southern portion of the property on Sheet 13. Please amend the drawings so
that all proposed improvements are visible across applicable sheets.
a. The full extent of the proposed 10' Class A path on TMP 07800-00-00-020M1 should be visible on the layout
and grading drawings.
Please contact Cameron Langille at the Department of Community Development at blan ig llegalbemarle.org or 296-5832
ext. 3432 for further information.
Albemarle County Building Inspections — Michael Dellinger, mdellingergalbemarle.org — Inspections Division review
not yet complete. Comments or approvals will be forwarded to the applicant upon receipt.
Albemarle County Engineering Services — John Anderson, janderson2galbemarle.org — Engineering Division review
not yet complete. Comments or approvals will be forwarded to the applicant upon receipt.
Albemarle County Architectural Review Board (ARB) — Margaret Maliszewski, mmaliszewskigalbemarle.org — See
attached letter.
Albemarle County E911 Services — Brian Becker, bbecker(kalbemarle.org — Requested changes, see attached.
Albemarle County Fire Rescue — Shawn Maddox — smaddoxkalbemarle.org — Requested changes, see attached.
Albemarle County Department of Parks & Recreation — Tim Padalino, tpadalino(kalbemarle.org — Requested changes,
see attached.
Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) — Richard Nelson, rnelson(cr�,serviceauthority.org — ACSA review not yet
complete. Comments or approvals will be forwarded to the applicant upon receipt.
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) - Willis Bedsaul, willis.bedsaul(cr�,vdot.vir ig nia.gov —No objection, see
attached letter.
Virginia Department of Health — Alan Mazurowski — alan.mazurowski(kvdh.vir ig nia.gov — VDH review not yet
complete. Comments or approvals will be forwarded to the applicant upon receipt.
Review Comments for SDP202000023 Final Site Development Plan ---7--'
Project Name: MJH PRESIDIO APARTMENTS
Date Completed: Tuesday, March 17, 2D20 DepartmenVDivisionlAgency: Review Status:
Reviewer) Margaret Maliszewsl i E EDD ARB See Recommendations
rch 16 meeting). Staff n
Page: 1 County of Albemarle
Printed On: 1 04/09/2020
Review Comments for SDP202000023 Final Site Development Plan ---7--'
Project Name:� MJH PRIESIDIOAPARTHENTS
Date Completed: Friday, March 13, 2020 Department/DivisioniAgency: Review Status:
Reviewer:) Brian Becker -E FEED E911 See Recommendations
Critical Issues- No critical issues -
Comments: Applicant may want to consider providing a road name for Travel way A, as it will provide access to Peter Jefferson
Parkway, but it is not a requirement. If the applicant wishes to provide a road name, please provide this office with three (3)
afternates, incase the initial choices are not available. The applicant can review all existing road names in Albemarle County in
the Albemarle County Master Road Names Directory, available at.
hffp://www.albomarle.org/albomarlo/upload/images/w,-bapps/rGads/.
Page- 1 County of Albemarle Printed On: 104/09/2020
Review Comments for SDP202000023 Final Site Development Plan
Project Nams
Date Completed: Sunday, March 22, 2020 Department0vision/Agency: Review Status:
Revie%ver- Shawn Maddox
Fire Rescue
Requested Changes
1 The turn around provided infront ofthe primary access ofBuilding 92does not appear bomeet finscode standards. This is
the only private travel way serving the structure. The a0pUomnd can provide on exhibit showing that mnACFR oanm| apparatus
can turn around inthe space provided inlieu ofchanging the design if possible.
2 The 26'aerial apparatus access must bewithin 30'ofeach building that exceeds 3O'inheight. [nmany instances nnthe
plan the distance between the travel lane and the side of the structure exceeds 30' due to parking, building set backs, etc.
3. Fire department connections must be shown on the plan and must be located within 100' of a hydrant
4 Knox boxes will barequired onall structures. Please add anote indicating the requirement and that the location can be
coordinated with the firemarshal's office.
5Provide the ISO needed fire flow for each structure and the available fire flow atthe site based onacurrent ACS/\test.
Page- 1 County of Albemarle Printed On: FO47o-9-12020
Review Comments for SDP202000023 Final Site Development Plan
Project Nams
Date Completed: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 Department0vision/Agency: Review Status:
Reviewer- Tim Padalino
Requested Changes
1 ACPQstaff acknowledge prior coordination between CDD, ACPR, and the applicant's team towards identifying possible
solutions for providing reasonable public access through the subject property down tothe County greenwmyalong the Rivmnnm
River. Specifically: multiple meetings were conducted in 2018 and 2019 during which participants collaborated on potential
vehicular access, potenda|bike/ped access, potential tnui|haaddesign, development, and/or installation, and potential
reservation ordedication ofland for public use.
2. This fina|site plan appears toeliminate the previously -proposed publicly -accessible trail through the western portion of the
property from Peter Jefferson Parkway down towards the County greenway along the Rivanna River.
3. ACPRdoes not recommend approval ofthis final site plan until more revisions are made 8zprovide the public with
^reusonable provisions for access" from the Peter Jefferson Parkway ROW down towards the County Oraenwuy along the
RivannoRiver / Old Mills Trail. This requirement isfound inProffer #4ofZMA2O01 15: "...final site plan approval for any
development on Parcel | shown on the Application Plan will include reasonable provisions for access to the Gmmenway
System." As emamples, such revisions could include -
a. Providing apublicly-accessible trail connection (Class Ashared use path: 1U'wide / asphalt surface) through the
property on the west side of the proposed private travelway, connecting to sidewalk along Peter Jefferson Parkway; and/or
b Revising the proposed private on -street pedestrian facilities (5' sidewalk) along the proposed private hsxahwayto instead
be a Class A shared use path (1 O'wide / asphalt surface) and providing a public use access easement', and/or
o Adjusting the -45-aona"special lot" toincrease insize, soastocontain additional acreage tothe west ofthe proposed
private stnaet, in order to create more opportunity/flexibility to install n public bike/pad connection through this physically
constrained area that contains substantial stoop slopes.
Page- 1 County of Albemarle Printed On: FO4-f2312020
ct",
7 "
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Stephen C. Brich, P.E. 1401 East Broad Street
Commissioner Richmond, Virginia 23219
March 24, 2020
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Attn: Cameron Langille
Re: Martha Jefferson Hospital Presidio Apartments- Final site plan
SDP-2020-00023
Review #2
Dear Mr. Langille:
(804) 786.2701
Fax: (804) 786.2940
The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use
Section, has reviewed the above referenced plan as submitted by Collins Engineering, dated
November 25, 2019, revised March 02, 2020, and find it to be generally acceptable.
If further information is desired, please contact Willis C. Bedsaul at 434-422-9866.
A VDOT Land Use Permit will be required prior to any work within the right-of-way. The
owner/developer must contact the VDOT Charlottesville Residency Land Use Section at (434)
422-9399 for information pertaining to this process.
Sincerely,
Adam J. Moore, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Charlottesville Residency
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING