HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP202100001 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2021-10-22�� OF ALB
GIRGINIPM�
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832
Memorandum
To: Clint Shifflett, Timmons Group (clint.shiffletta&timmons.com)
Reid Murphy, BMC Holdings Group (reid&bmcholdingsgroup.com)
From: Mariah Gleason
Division: Community Development — Planning
Date: February 24, 2021
Revision 1: May 12, 2021
Revision 2: August 24, 2021
Revision 3: October 22, 2021
Subject: SDP202100001 Ivy Proper —Final Site Plan (digital submittal)
The final site plan referenced above has been reviewed by the Planning Services Division of the Albemarle County Department
of Community Development (CDD) and by other members of the Site Review Committee (SRC).
The Planner will approve the plan when the following items (from the Planner and from other SRC plan reviewers) have been
satisfactorily addressed and when all SRC plan reviewers have indicated in writing their tentative approvals. [Each comment is
preceded by the applicable reference to the Albemarle County Code.]
1. [32.5.2(a)] Application ID. Final site plans receive unique application numbers, separate from initial site plans. Please
include the application numbers for both the final site plan (SDP202 10000 1) and initial site plan (SDP202000065) for this
development on the Cover Sheet. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
2. [32.5.2(i), 32.5.2(m)] Easementplat. Prior to final site plan approval, any required easements supporting the site plan will
need to be reviewed, approved, and recorded. The recorded easements will then need to be located on the site plan with the
recorded deed book and page noted. According to the site plan, the plat will need to address the following:
a. Private shared access easement for the entrance and parking area (for the benefit of TMP 58A2-20A)
b. Drainage easements
c. Private landscaping, construction, and maintenance easements, as necessary
d. (Optional) Vacation of property line as shown on the Existing Conditions Sheet
Rev. 1: Comment remains. Please submit the requested easement plat to allow the approval of required aspects of the site
plan.
Rev. 2: Comment remains. Please submit the easement plat when ready. Reminder that the easement plat will need to be
submitted, reviewed, approved, and recorded prior to final site plan approval.
Rev. 3: Comment remains. An easement plat has been submitted in association with this site plan. Be advised, the
easement plat will need to be approved, recorded, and reflected in the final site plan. Staff recommends adding
placeholders for recordation information on the plan maps to make it easy to input this information later, once
known.
3. [32.7.9] Landscape plan. (Note: If there are conflicts between comments made by Planning and ARB, once their review
begins, Planning will defer to the ARB as their guidelines are more strict.)
a. Staff recommends providing the landscape plan as a separate sheet within the site plan. Rev. 1: Comment
addressed.
b. If existing landscape features will be preserved, as shown on the northern and western portions of the lot, the
landscape plan should show — as applicable — the tree area to be preserved, the limits of clearing, the location
and type of protective fencing, any grade changes requiring tree wells or walls, and trenching or tunneling
proposed beyond the limits of clearing. Also, a signed conservation checklist will be needed in accordance
with 32.7.9.4(b). Rev. 1: The comment response letter from the applicant states that tree protection information
has been omitted from the plan since existing trees will not be used to meet landscape plan requirements.
Please be aware that existing tree stands can be used to meet the Tree Canopy requirements of Sec. 32.7.9.8.
Rev. 2: Comment renewed because it is relevant to the revised plan dated 6-24-2021. In this version, the Tree
Canopy requirements of Sec. 32.7.9.8 are being met through a combination of new plantings and existing
trees/forest area to be preserved. As such, the Landscape Plan needs to:
i. Identify the tree areas to be preserved and their respective square footages. The total square footage of
preserved tree areas noted on the plan map and the information contained in the Tree Cover
Calculations table should align with one another.
ii. Identify the location and type of protective tree fencing. (If "TP" is an acronym for "tree protection"
please provide a note on the sheet.)
iii. A signed Conservation Plan Checklist will need to be included in the plans prior to final site plan
approval
Rev. 3: Comment not fully addressed. Please show the type of protective fencing to be used, grade
changes requiring tree wells or walls, and trenching or tunneling proposed beyond the limits of clearing,
to meet the ordinance requirements fully. Note: A label on the plan states that a detail for the proposed
tree protective fencing can be found on Sheet C3.1. However, that Sheet does not appear to be included.
c. The Plant Schedule notes 12 Willow Oaks are being provided, however the plan map only shows 11 Willow
Oaks. Please revise accordingly. Rev. 1: This comment is no longer necessary. Revisions removed Willow
Oaks from the plan.
d. The plan indicates that 8 large trees are being provided along Ivy Road, however the Landscaping Along The
Frontage table indicates only 7 large trees are being provide. Please revise accordingly. Rev. 1: This comment
is no longer necessary. ARB will review and comment on landscaping along the Entrance Corridor.
e. Please clarify what is being used to calculate the 891 square feet of interior parking lot landscaping area that is
being provided by the plan. Rev. L Comment not fully addressed. The County evaluates Sec. 32.7.9.6 —
Landscaping Within A Parking Area, based on the canopy provided by trees and shrubs located within the
parking area (as defined in the same section). Based on the plantings within said area, staff estimates 685sf of
landscaped area to be provided, based on 3 Ginkgos, 1 Hombeam, and the shrubs. In which case, this
requirement is still satisfied. Please review and revise the plan accordingly. Rev. 2: Comment not fully
addressed. Since this requirement is being satisfied by plantings in the parking lot islands, please revise the
"Provided" information to more accurately state: 685 SF (plantings in parking lot island areas).
Rev. 3: Comment addressed.
f The Tree Canopy requirement should be based off the total parcel area, as surveyed, which is 0.87 acres.
Please update the Tree Cover Calculations table accordingly. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
g. [Rev. 1] Please update the Parking Area calculation to align with the number of parking spaces provided (36
parking spaces shown). Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
h. [Rev. 1] Per Sec. 32.7.9.8 — Tree Canopy, the tree canopy required by subsection (a) must be composed of all
areas of the site that would be covered by trees and other plant materials exceeding five feet in height at a
maturity of ten years after planting. Since the proposed shrubs (Winter Jasmin) will not exceed five feet in ten
years, they cannot be used to meet this requirement. In which case, the Tree Canopy requirement is not yet
met. Please review and revise the plan accordingly. Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
i. [Rev. 31 Similar to comments provided by ARB below, there is a discrepancy in the frontage tree species
noted in the plant schedule (European Hornbeam) and the tree species notated on the plan (Armstrong
Red Maple). This is a new Please correct this discrepancy. Note, the canopy for a 2.5" caliper Armstrong
Red Maple is significantly lower than a European Hornbeam. If the applicant desires to move forward
with the Armstrong Red Maples, more landscaping will be needed to satisfy the ordinance's tree canopy
regulations.
4. [32.5.2(n)] Outdoor lighting. Is there any outdoor lighting proposed for this project? If so, please see Sec. 32.6.2(k) and Sec.
4.17 regarding materials that need to be provided for staff review and minimum performance standards/design requirements,
respectively. Also, please keep the character of the surrounding area in mind when developing the lighting plan. Rev. 1:
Thank you for providing the photometric plan and fixture cutsheets. Please revise the photometric plan so fixture labels can
be easily read within the plan map. Many labels are currently obscured by other linework. Otherwise, please see comments
provided by ARB. Rev. 2: Comments remain. Revise the photometric plan so fixture labels and symbols can be easily read
within the plan map. Staff are currently unable to easily identify where fixtures listed in the lighting schedule are located on
the plan map, as several of these elements are obscured by other linework. Please see additional comments provided by
ARB staff below. Rev. 3: Comment addressed.
5. [32.5.2(n), 32.7.2.3] Sidewalks along streets. Revise the walkway in front of the building to meet VDOT standards. See Sec.
32.7.2.3 for more information. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
6. [32.5.2(n), 4.12.19] Dumpster pad. Provide details for the proposed dumpster pad that demonstrate that the minimum design
requirements contained in Sec. 4,12.19 are being met. Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Please provide a measurement
and label on the plan to demonstrate that the concrete dumpster pad is extending at least, and no less than, eight feet beyond
the front of the proposed dumpster(s). Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
[32.5.2(a)] Owner Information. Following the recent sale of the property, update the parcel owner and associated
information for the subject properties across all applicable sheets. (Note: This information may need to be updated again
when an easement plat is approved and recorded. See Comment 2.) Rev. 1: Comment remains. It doesn't appear this
information was updated in the revised plan. Rev. 2: Comment remains. It doesn't appear this information was updated in
the revised plan. Albemarle County records indicate that LENVIC LLC is the previous owner, and that the property was
sold to Ivy Proper LLC on 1/26/21. Rev. 3: Comment partially addressed. Staff acknowledges that the Cover Sheet
reflects updated owner information. Owner information on the Existing Conditions sheet should be updated with the
new owner's name as well.
8. [32.5.2(a)] Zoning notes. If/when the special exception for the disturbance of critical slope areas is approved, the approval
and any conditions thereof will need to be included in the Zoning notes. Rev. 1: Comment remains. The request for a
Critical Slopes Waiver is scheduled for consideration by the Board of Supervisors on May 19, 2021. Rev. 2: Comment
remains. In the Zoning Notes, include the following language:
Critical Slopes Waiver SE202100002 was approved by the Board of Supervisors on May 19, 2021 with the
following conditions:
1. The area of land disturbance on critical slopes must not exceed the "Disturbed Critical Slopes" shown
on Image l of the request entitled "Ivy Proper Critical Slopes Waiver - Special Exception Request,"
prepared by Timmons Group, dated January 5, 2021 and last revised April 26, 2021.
2. Final design of the retaining walls must be submitted and is subject to the approval of the County
Engineer and the Building Division prior to approval of the VSMP application.
Rev. 3: Comment addressed.
9. [32.5.2(b)] Open space. As a commercial development, this plan is not required to provide open space. As such, staff advise
that the "Proposed Open Space" data under the proposed Use notes be removed. (Note: There is a requirement for a certain
amount of tree canopy onsite, which can be met by preserving existing tree areas, however, there is no specific requirement
for the provision of "open space", per Sec. 4.7). Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
10. [32.5.2(a), 4.20] Setbacks. Include in the setback notes that the maximum front setback is 30 feet from the right-of-way.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
11. [32.5.2(f)] Water -related notes. Rev. 1: Comments addressed.
a. On the Cover Sheet, please revise the drainage district to explicitly state that the subject property lies within
the "Ivy Creek water supply watershed".
b. Since Little Ivy Creek is not adjacent to this parcel, it does not need to be included in the notes. However, if
the applicant desires to leave it on the site plan, staff recommends amending the drainage district notes to state
that Little Ivy Creek is located near, but not adjacent to, the site OR `Y' feet away.
12. [32.5.2(d)] Topography.
a. Knowing Engineering has requested the Erosion & Sediment sheets be removed from the final site plan, please
keep in mind that proposed grading is still a required element of final site plans. Therefore, this information
will still need to be included somewhere within the final site plan. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
b. Show where critical slopes currently exist as well as where critical slope areas will remain on the site
following any proposed disturbance/construction. Rev. 1: Based on work associated with the Critical Slopes
Waiver request for this development (SE202100002), staff is aware that the applicant has field run and
reanalyzed critical slopes information on the subject parcels. Please update the existing conditions sheet to note
and locate critical slope areas per County GIS as well as field verified critical slope areas so that this
comparison can be saved for County records. Also, please update all other sheets where critical slope areas
area shown with the field verified critical slopes. Feel free to follow up with staff if there are questions. Rev.
2: Comment sufficiently addressed.
13. [32.5.2(n), 32.5.2(r)] Paving materials. Provide a legend for proposed paving materials on the Layout Plan sheet. Rev. 1:
Comment addressed.
14. [32.5.2(n)] Signs. Identify where parking signs for handicap parking spaces will be placed/posted. Rev. 1: Comment
addressed.
15. [32.5.2(a)] Surrounding parcel information. Provide the zoning district and present uses for TMP 58A2-20A and TMP
58A2-21. Also, please update the owner information for TMP 58A2-21, Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
16. [32.5.2(a), 32.5.2(s)] Labels.
a. On the Existing Conditions & Demolition Plan Sheet, please avoid placing labels beneath or in conflict with
hatched linework. Rev. 1: Comments addressed.
i. Move the curve data for the southern portion of the boundary line along Ivy Road outside of the
hatched area. Consider using a leader line, similar to how the other curved boundary line data is
provided.
ii. Relocate the critical slopes label.
iii. Move the "Remove Broken Asphalt" label.
iv. Move the benchmark label.
b. Please identify what the solid grey line running roughly along Ivy Proper, but not parallel to the subject
property boundary represents. This line can be seen running northwest from the westernmost property corner.
Rev. 1: Comment remains. Staff could not find a label within the plan maps for the line indicated below in red.
Please provide a label for this linework. Rev. 2: Comments addressed.
c. [Rev. 1] Within the "Vacate Property Line" label on Sheet C2.0, include a deed book and page number for the
recording instrument. If such a plat has not been recorded yet, feel free to leave placeholder lines for the deed
book and page. Alternatively, remove the "Vacate Property Line" label from the plan. Site plans do not act to
change boundary lines. Rev. 2: Comments addressed.
17. [32.6.2(h)] Signature panel. Include a signature panel on the Cover Sheet for signature by each member of the site review
committee. Staff can provide an example signature panel upon request. Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Please revise
the signature panel to include Virginia Department of Health, Architectural Review Board, and, under Department of
Community Development, E911. Rev. 2: Comment not fully addressed. The applicant's comment response letter indicates
that the requested changes had be made but they were not reflected on the revised final site plan. (Note: When addressing
this comment, do not replace the signature line for the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) with the one needed for
the Virginia Health Department. Both agencies will need to sign off on the final site plan since the subject property falls
within the ACSA jurisdictional area.) Rev. 3: Comment addressed.
18. [32.5.2(k)] VDH approval. VDH approval of the private well and septic fields is needed prior to final site plan approval.
Rev. 1: Comment remains. VDH approval has not been granted yet. Rev. 2: Comment remains. Thank you for providing a
copy of the approved sewage disposal system design. It appears there are some discrepancies between the system that was
approved and the proposed site plan. Health Department review and approval of the site plan will be needed prior to County
signature approval of the final site plan. Rev. 3: Comment addressed. VDH approval has been granted.
19. [Comment] Critical Slopes Waiver. The critical slopes waiver that submitted in association with this final site plan is being
processed by staff under SE202100002. County staff will be in contact if additional information is needed to process this
waiver request. Rev. l: Comment remains. The request for a Critical Slopes Waiver is scheduled for consideration by the
Board of Supervisors on May 19, 2021. Rev. 2: Comment addressed. The Critical Slopes Waiver was approved by the
Board of Supervisors on May 19, 2021, with conditions.
Additional comments based on revised plan dated 3/16/2021:
20. [32.5.2(b)] Parking schedule. The parking notes on the Cover Sheet indicate 35 parking spaces are provided by the plan.
The plan maps, however, show 36 parking spaces being provided. Please review and revise accordingly. Rev. 2: Comment
remains. There is still a discrepancy between the number of parking spaces noted on the Cover Sheet and shown on the
Layout Plan. Rev. 3: Comment addressed.
Additional comments based on revised plan dated 9/16/2021:
21. [Comment] Plan revision date. The revised plan dated 9/16/2021 included two new sheets (S-1 and S-2) which show
information related to the proposed retaining walls. The County commonly references plans by using a singular `last
revised" date. Revise the aforementioned sheets to be consistent with the larger plan by noting the same "date of last
revision" as noted throughout the plan.
22. [Comment] Water system capacity. VDH has confirmed their approval of the planned onsite sewage disposal system design
with a capacity of 875 gallons per day, however, County regulations for onsite water usage for the subject property are
restricted to a maximum of 348 gallons per day. If additional water use is desired above the 348 gallons per day limit, a
special use permit will be required.
Please add the following note to the plan under the "Utility Demands" on the Cover Sheet: "Per Chapter 18, Section 22.2.2
(11) of the Albemarle County Code, onsite water usage cannot exceed 348 gallons per day."
OTHER SRC REVIEWERS
Albemarle County Engineering Services (Engineer)
David James, diames2(a_albemarle.org — PENDING, comments will be forwarded upon receipt.
Albemarle County Information Services (E911)
Brian Becker, bbeckcni�albemarle.org—No Objection
Albemarle County Building Inspections
Betty Slough, bslough(a),albemarle.org—No Objection
Albemarle County Department of Fire Rescue
Shawn Maddox, smaddox(a_albemarle.org — No Objection
Albemarle County Service Authority
Richard Nelson, melson e serviceauthority.org — No Objection
Virginia Department of Health
Josh Kirtley, ioshua.kirdeyCa vdh.virginia.gov —No Objection, See recommendation below
The applicant has a valid VDH permit to treat and disperse up to 875 gpd. If the applicant is proposing to use significantly less
water, then the system will be over constructed. I advised the applicant that they could submit a new application and design for
the much lower water use proposal in order to save a significant amount of money.
Virginia Department of Transportation
Adam Moore, adam.mooreAvdot.virginia. gov — Requests Changes, see comment letter attached
Albemarle County Planning Services (Architectural Review Board)
Khristopher Taggart, ktaggartAalbemarle.org — Requests Changes
1. There is a discrepancy in the frontage tree species noted in the plant schedule (European Hornbeam) and the tree
species notated on the plan (Armstrong Red Maple). Please correct this discrepancy.
In accordance with the provisions of Section 32.4.3.5 of Chapter 18 of the Code, if the applicant fails to submit a revised
site plan to address all of the requirements within six (6) months after the date of this letter, the application shall be
deemed to have been voluntarily withdrawn by the applicant.
Please contact Mariah Gleason in the Planning Division by using mgleason(a_albemarle.org or 434-296-5832 east. 3097 for
further information.
(Z)
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Stephen C. Brich, P.E. 1401 East Broad Street
Commissioner Richmond, Virginia 23219
October 15, 2021
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Attn: Mariah Gleason
Re: SDP-2021-00001 - Ivy Proper - FSP
Review #4
Dear Ms. Gleason:
(804) 786-2701
Fax: (804) 786,2940
The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use
Section, has reviewed the Ivy Proper Final Site Plan dated 09-16-2021 and have the following
comments:
1. The Left turn lane warrant, AM-E and Design Waiver are under review and information
will be forward as received.
If further information is desired please contact Max Greene at (434) 422-9894.
A VDOT Land Use Permit will be required prior to any work within the right of way. The
owner/developer must contact the 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