Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201700034 Review Comments Letter of Revision 1 2018-08-20OMEN COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 April 17, 2018 Rev. 1: August 20, 2019 Jo Higgins 2564 Mt Torrey Road Lyndhurst, VA 22952 musxit@aol.com RE: LOR #15DP2017-34 Emerson Commons— Letter of Revision Dear Jo Higgins: Your Letter of Revision application has been reviewed. In order for the amended site plan to be approved the following revisions are required: 1. [Comment] There are it changes specified in the request letter, however only 8 of those are shown in modified site plan sheets. Address the following: • Provide all site plan sheets that are necessary in order to show all changes requested. Rev. 1: Comment may not be fully addressed. If the request for a revised pathwav detail is still being requested it is not shown or listed in the 7/10/18 submission of the LOR #1 plan sheets. Also, if the change is requested then ensure all site plan sheets impacted by the requested items are included, revised, listed and clouded in the next submission Ensure that sections for all other paths and roadways are still provided and not removed or modified for requested change. • Have clouds for, and a list of, the changes shown on each sheet. Rev. 1: Comment may not be fully addressed If the request for a revised Pathway detail is still being requested it is not shown or listed in the 7/10/18 submission of LOR #1 • Request #8 is shown on the provided sheet, and a label specifies it, but it is not yet listed in the numbered list at the bottom of the page and no cloud is shown. Include it in the list and add a cloud. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. • Rev. 1: [NEW COMMENT] Provide an undated LOR request letter that includes the changes for the stormwater management (yard drains and clearing limits), landscaping changes (as they are now shown) adding additional square footle to some buildings removes any requests no longer being requested(such as a revised path detail(s) which was not part of the 7/10/18 submission) etc A request letter that accurately specifies the request should be submitted with the next submission. 2. [32.5.2] Address the following: • Request #6 for revised building footprints and unit types also needs to be updated in the chart on the left side of sheet C2-01. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. • Request #7 for the affordable housing units must also be update in the chart on the left side of sheet C2-01 Rev. 1: Comment addressed. 3. [32.5.2 & 32.71 Request #11 changes should be shown on the Road Plan and Profile sheet as well as the Site Details sheet where there is a guardrail detail. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. 4. [32.7.9] Address the following in reference to the landscaping request #10: • Request #10 should be shown on the Landscaping Plan sheet. Changes to the layout, notes, calculations and Site Landscaping Plant Schedule should be shown and clouded. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. • There does not appear to be any "Corpus stolonifera" specified in the Site Landscaping Plant Schedule on the approved minor amendment. Therefore it is unknown what the "Calycanthus floridus" is replacing in the site plan. Either revise this request or contact the plan reviewer to discuss. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. • The Carpinus caroliniana is a small deciduous tree. Carpinus betulus is a medium deciduous shade tree. The approved Carpinus betulus are located adjacent to parking are access ways in the approved minor site plan amendment, and are meeting the parking lot tree requirement. Landscaping within parking areas is required to include large or medium shade trees. Therefore the Carpinus caroliniana does not meet this requirement and cannot be substituted for the Carpinus betulus as parking area trees. Revise the request in provide a large or medium shade tree replacement for the Carpinus betulus in order to continue to meet all landscaping requirements. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. • It appears that Juniperus "Grey Owl" and Juniperus "Pfitz Compacta" do not reach the same mature height as the Ilex glabria "ShamrocW'. Their mature growth may only reach the height needed at the time of planting if the shrubs are utilized for screening. At least a portion of the Ilex glabria are utilized for screening the parking areas and dumpsters. Ensure that all shrubs used for screening will meet the minimum height at planting. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. • Since two species are being specified to replace the Ilex glabria "Shamrock" ensure that the different species are clearly labeled, represented with different symbols in the layout, and have separate lines in the Site Landscape Plant Schedule on the Landscape Plan sheet C6-01. Ensure that the "Compacta" species is not utilized for screening. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. S. [Comment[ The LOR submission has been reviewed by Engineering and Fire Rescue for their review. Attached please their comments. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. Engineering had not objection. 6. Rev. 1: ]NEW COMMENT] Revise the "Building Tunes" in the chart on C2-01. With the changes in footprint for Buildings 2.3.8.9 & 13 they no longer match the previous footprint specified match or provide information to the plan reviewer why the changes are not required Also ensure that with the changes specified the other information in the chart, such as "Total # of Bedrooms". does not also need to be changed. In accord with the provisions of Section 32.4.3.5 of Chapter 18 of the Code if the developer fails to submit a revised final 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 developer. If you have any questions about the comments please feel free to contact me at psaternye@albemarle.ore or at 434-296-5832 ext. 3250. Planning Division