HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201700034 Review Comments Minor Amendment 2017-07-14County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Mr. Scott R. Collins, PE(scott()collins-engineering.com)
From: Paty Saternye — Senior Planner
Division: Planning
Date: July 14, 2017
Subject: SDP-2017-0034 (Emerson Commons — Minor Site Plan Amendment)
The County of Albemarle Planning Division will recommend approval of the plan referenced
above once the following comments 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, which is to the Subdivision/Zoning Ordinances unless otherwise
specified.]
1. [ZMA2007-12 Proffer #1] Provide four residential affordable dwelling units in the site plan as
specified in Proffer #1. Building 13 has been reduced from four units to three units and no
longer contains enough units to meet this proffer. Only 3 units have the "' in front of their unit
number specifying them as affordable units.
2. [ZMA2007-12 Application Plan] ZMA2007-12 specified 26 residential units. All of the
calculations on the approved site plan were based on 26 residential units. The unit count
specified in the note in the lower left hand corners of the coversheet specifies 28 units. Revise
the note to match the ZMA and approved site plan or clarify. The site plan will not be approved
unless it meets all requirements of the ZMA, proffers, and is in general accord with the
Application Plan.
3. [ZMA2007-12 Application Plan] Revise the landscaping to be in general accord with the ZMA
Application Plan. The Application Plan included diagrammatic sections showing the sightline
from Parkview Drive. These sightlines showed how the combination of the existing and
proposed landscaping, between the road and the development, would mitigate the view of the
development from the existing street. In the proposed site plan amendment the landscaping
along the road has been greatly reduced in comparison to the Application Plan and previously
approved site plan (SDP2008-74) and will not fully screen the development or the dumpsters.
4. [Comment] Revise the title on the coversheet to specify that the site plan number is
"SDP201700034".
5. [Comment] Add a note to the cover sheet that specifies the previously approved site plan
number'SDP200800074" and specifies the date of the last revision and the approval date of
that original plan.
6. [Comment] Revise the "Zoning District" on the cover sheet to include the ZMA # of "ZMA2007-
00012".
7. [Comment] Revise the list of "Minor Site Plan Amendment Proposed Changes:" to include all
changes to the site plan proposed with the amendment. That includes but is not limited to the
change in unit count/density, that the stormwater management has been changed from using
bioretention to yard drain straight into Parrott Branch, the changes in road/pavement
details/section as well as some widths. All changes to the site plan must be listed in the
proposed changes list.
8. [Comment] Include clouds around all changes to the site plan proposed with the amendment.
This includes clouds around both the plan view, the site data, and calculations on the
coversheet. Many of the changes in this site plan do not have clouds shown around them. Twc
examples are the changes to the stormwater management and the changes to the parking
spaces and the parking calculations.
9. [32.5.2(b) & 32.6.2(i)] Revise the site data, proposed building area, percent impervious and
calculation for 5% of parking lot area in order to incorporate the proposed changes to the site
plan. The building footprints have been modified, and the number of provided parking spaces
has been increased, however the areas and calculations shown have not been updated.
10. [Comment] Show the triangle label for minor site plan amendment changes on each sheet that
shows the change, specifying where that change is taking place.
11. [32.5.2(a), 32.5.2(n), & 32.6.1(e)] For a minor amendment to a site plan the sheets must
contain the same information, while incorporating the modifications, as was in the approved site
plan. This plan has merged the information from two or more sheets and not provided all of the
information provided in the original sheets. Therefore, the sheets provided could not be
swapped out for the sheets in the original set to create a full set. Address the following:
• Revise the existing conditions sheets to include existing conditions for both on site and off
site areas of improvements.
• Ensure all notes and details included on the original site plan sheets are included on the
provided sheets unless the information is no longer needed or valid because of changes to
what is proposed.
• Ensure that the sheets provided can be added back to the remaining original site plan
sheets and that all the information required is provided and that new amendment sheets and
remaining approved sheets do not provide contradictory information.
12. [Comment] Number the notes on the cover sheet (CO-01) in the General Notes section and
ensure the notes are numbered as they were in the approved site plan.
13. [32.5.2(i)] On the coversheet (CO-01) the second -to -last note states that "Site shall be
addressed as Parrot Creek Road (Private)." However, the plans only depict roads labeled as
Parkview Drive, Snapdragon Lane, Teaberry Lane, and Stargazer Lane; no road is labeled as
Parrot Creek Road. Please address and resolve this apparent discrepancy. Also, please note:
• See E991 comments about needed changes to the street names.
• The correct spelling of the riparian feature adjacent to this site is "Parrott" Branch, not
"Parrot" Creek.
14. [32.5.2(i) & 32.6.2(a)] Provide information on the "Proposed Trail Easement'. If this easement
already exists revise the label, provide the deed book and page reference for the recorded
easement. If this easement does not already exist then submit the proposed easement for
review. The final site plan will not be approved until the easement is approved, signed and
recorded.
15. [32.5.2(a) & 32.6.2(a)] Revise the Sheet List Table on Sheet CO-01 to include the total number
of sheets (16).
16. [32.5.2(a) & 32.6.2(a)] Specify zoning and present use(s) of abutting parcel TMP 56-74A.
17. [32.5.2(b) & 32.6.2(a)] Sheet C2-01 contains "Updated phasing line for the project;" please
provide information about the proposed timing of development/implementation of buildings and
utilities.
18. [32.5.2(f) & 32.6.2(a] Revise the note on Sheet CO-01 to correctly specify "Subject Parcel is in
the Beaver Creek Reservoir Water Supply Watershed." (Currently, "Water Supply" is omitted.)
19. [32.5.2(m) & 32.6.2(a] Provide the distance to the centerline of the nearest existing street
intersection from the proposed ingress and egress.
2
20. [32.5.2(n) & 32.6.2(a] Provide the maximum footprint of each building. The table on Sheet No.
C2-01, for the building information, no longer appears to supply the maximum square footage of
each building as it did in the approved site plan. Revise the table to include this information
once again.
21. [32.5.2(n) & 32.6.2(a] Revise the chart showing the building numbers to address the following:
• Revise the chart so that the quantity of residences for Building 3 matches the number of
residences shown in the proposed layout. The layout shows 2 residences and the chart
specifies only 1.
• Revise the chart to include the "Building Type" as was provided in the approved site plan.
• Provide a total of the residences at the bottom of the table.
23. [32.5.2(n) & 32.6.2(a] Provide a hatch for the trail shown on sheet C3-01.
24. [32.5.2(n), 32.6.1(e) & 32.6.2(a)] Clarify the number of residential units proposed with the plan
and meet all requirements based upon that number of units. See comment #2 above and
address the following:
• [32.5.2(b), 32.6.2(i) & 32.6.2(I]] The 52 required parking spaces on the Application Plan
were specified to meet the 26 units shown on that plan, which is two parking spaces per
unit, as specified in the Code (4.12.6). Revise all requirements including, but not limited to,
parking spaces and recreational facilities, based upon the number of residential units
specified.
• [32.5.2(b) & 32.6.2(i)] Include a calculation for the number of required parking spaces in the
site date on the cover sheet.
• [ZMA2007-12 Application Plan] The existing barns are shown with "N/A" for
"bedroom/residences" and "total # of bedrooms". However, they have 'V shown under
"QTY. of Residences". Revise the "QTY. of Residences" for the two barns to be "0" (zero).
• [32.5.2(b)] Ensure that the dwelling units per acre is updated in the note in the lower left
hand corner of the cover sheet.
25. [32.5.2(n) & 32.6.2(a)] Revise the labels for buildings 3, 11, 12 & 13 to match the format of the
other building labeling. Provide a "Building Type" and "unit" type for buildings 3, 11, 12 & 13.
26. [32.5.2(n), 32.6.1(e), 32.6.2(a)& 32.6.2(i)] Provide the hatched areas adjacent to the parking
spaces that are reduced in depth. There is an area of 2' adjacent to the 16' deep parking
spaces, and 1' adjacent to the 17' deep parking spaces, that must be clear of obstructions for
parking overhang. This was provided on the approved site plan and has not been provided in
this amendment.
27. [32.6.2(h)] Revise the signature panel to the one for minor site plan amendments. Approval
panels with all reviewers' signatures are not required on minor amendments.
28. [32.6.2(k)] Add a note on the coversheet specifying that no exterior lighting is proposed in the
site plan or provide a site lighting plan that meets all Codes and requirements.
29. [32.5.2(p), 32.6.2.0) & 32.7.9] Show proposed tree line on sheet C2-01 & C6-01.
30. [32.6.20)] The landscaping plan has changed extensively from the approved site plan. Address
the following:
• Provide the stream buffer mitigation plant schedule.
• Show the location of the tree protection and silt fence which were shown on the
approved site plan.
• Provide a legend, or labels, on the Landscape Plan that specifies all of the hatching
used in that plan sheet. There are hatches that have no labels specifying what they are
representing.
• Parrott Branch is not shown for its full length on the Landscaping sheet. Ensure that the
watercourse is shown for the whole area represented on the sheet.
• Only 5 "Hornbeam" trees are shown on the landscape plan but 9 are specified in the
"Site Landscaping Plant Schedule". Provide all specified trees or update the schedule
appropriately.
• The "Total Canopy" calculation appears to be incorrect. Address the following:
o It is uncertain where the "9,350 SF" comes from. In the approved plan the
number there was for the total square feet of canopy provide in the "Site
Landscape Plant Schedule". However "9,350 SF" does not match either the
current or the amended square footage of proposed canopy.
o In the approved plan the canopy provided by the "Stream Mitigation Plant
Schedule" was also included in this calculation. It is not shown as part of the
calculation in the proposed amendment to the site plan.
o Provide information on the source and area of the "72,630 SF" in the calculation.
If this is the area provided by "Existing Canopy Calculated Area" explain why this
area has not changed despite the change in the limits of disturbance. Update
this number to accurately represent the existing canopy that is to remain on the
site and is being utilized to meet part of the canopy requirements.
• Provide the note, previously next to the viewport for the "Existing Canopy Calculated
Area", that states "Trees in this area are not counted towards overall tree canopy and
should be protected to the greatest extent practical by the contractor at the desire of the
owner. Contractor shall consult with owner and design engineer prior to grading
operations in this area if any of the vegetation is removed, supplemental evergreen
plantings will be installed to help buffer views of development." Also, either expand the
note or add a leader to clarify the area for which this note applies.
• Ensure that the landscaping is in general accord with the approved ZMA Application
Plan.
• Since the proposed landscaping is different then what was shown in the previous site
plan include all required landscaping calculations including street trees, landscaping
within parking areas (trees and shrubs), screening, and tree canopy. Ensure all
landscaping requirements are met.
31. [32.6.1(e)] Revise the plan to show the correct height of all retaining walls and provide safety
railings where required. The retaining wall along the edge of the recreational area show two
different maximum heights on two different sheets (C2-01 & C3-02). If the walls are 4' or higher
they will require a safety railing. If a safety railing is required provide a detail for the railing.
32. [32.6.1(e)] VDOT and engineering approval will be required for the removal of the Guardrail
along the north side of Parkview Drive.
19
33. [Comment] Indicate the available sight distance for entrances and left turn lanes. It appears
that the sight distance profiles for Parkview Drive have been removed from the site plan (C3-
01).
34. [32.6.1(e) & 32.6.2(f)] Specify on the plan which roads/drives/lanes are private and which are
public.
35. [32.6.2(f)] It appears that a second travel way and parking pavement detail has been added to
the site plan (C3-03) and it does not specify the depths of all of the materials. The depths of the
materials will have to be included in the pavement detail and be approved by engineering.
36. [32.6.2(f)] It appears that the road section for Parkview Drive has been removed from Sheet C3-
03. Replace the required street section for Parkview Drive in the site plan.
37. [32.6.2(f)] It appears that a road section has been added (C3-03), which is for the internal road
of the development. However, it specifies a travelway width that does not appear to match the
site plan or meet standards. The layout shows Teaberry Lane and Snapdragon Lane with a 20'
wide drive aisle, not 14' wide drive aisle with a 3' concrete drainage ribbon on each side as
shown in the section. The new section will have to meets standards and be approved by
engineering.
38. [32.6.2(f)] It appears that the stone access path section has been removed from Sheet C3-03.
Clarify if no stone access paths will be included in the development. If they are to be provided
then provide the section in the site plan. If it is to be removed specify the change in the
modifications list for the minor amendment.
39. [Comment] It appears that there are extraneous notes and line work, in Parkview Drive
viewport window in the top right corner of sheet C1-01, that were not on the approved plan.
Please remove this text and line work or clarify why they are needed.
40. [Comment] It appears that the "Pavement", "Grading" and "Drainage" notes in the bottom right
corner of the coversheet of the site plan were not on the approved plan. Please clarify why
these notes have been placed on the cover sheet. Also provide in the site plan set the notes
that were removed from the coversheet for Pavement, Grading & Drainage or specify why those
notes are no longer needed on the site plan.
41. [Comment] Ensure that the owner of the property is the one to sign the conservation checklist
before the amendment can be approved.
42. [Comment] It is understood that some discussion on other reviewer's comments has taken
place and that some comments have been stated as no longer being needed. However, those
comments are being attached to this set of comments in their entirety for reference. It is
understood that some may no longer be needed.
43. [Comment] See the attached comments from Engineering, VDOT, E911, ACSA, Fire/Rescue,
ARB, Inspections, & Zoning. The site plan will not be approved without the approval of the other
reviewers.
Staff has provided references to provisions of Chapter 18 of the Code of the County of
Albemarle. The Code is kept up to date by the County Attorney's office. The Code may be
found on the County Attorney's website which may be found under "Departments" at
Albemarle.org.
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.
Please contact P e in the Planning Division by using psaternveiNalbemarle.oro or
434-296-5832 t. 50 r further information.
c
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Owpe nWtl
Culpeper V g,m 22701
Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E.
Commissioner
June 20, 2017
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Attn: Paty Saternye
Re: Emerson Commons- Minor Site Plan Amendment.
SDP-2017-00034
Review #1
Dear Ms. Saternye:
The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use
Section, has reviewed the above referenced as submitted by, Collins Engineering dated May
15, 2017, and offers the following comments.
Land Use
1. Please show mill and overlay on plans in accordance with WP-2 and show limits of mill
and overlay. Also please add the detail to the plans.
2. The mill and overlay will require work to centerline, so flagging operation will be
necessary. Please provide an MOT plan in accordance with the Virginia Work Area
Protection Manual.
3. Please provide sight distance lines and profile sheet for Parkview Road entrance.
4. Please provide Route number, Speed limit, and Right of Way width on all plan sheets.
5. Please indicate if Parkview Drive is Private or Public Street.
6. Commercial entrance design to serve a Private Subdivision Road/Street. Please see Road
Design Manual appendix F-Access Management design standards for entrances and
Intersections, figure 4-8 commercial entrance design. Please provide a left turn lane
warrant analysis as shown in F-78 through F-87. Please refer to F-109 to provide the
appropriate design vehicle and turning radius by land use.
7. Please provide trip generation data for unitstbuildings.
Please note that the final site plan must show conformance with the VDOT Road Design
Manual Appendices B (1) and F, as well as any other applicable standards, regulations, or
other requirements.
Please provide two copies of the revised plan along with a comment response letter. 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 Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use
Section at (434) 422-9399 for information pertaining to this process.
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
June 20, 2017
Paty Saternye
Page 2
Sincerely,
VV�Vuw
Adam J. M re, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Charlottesville Residency
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
Review Comments for
Project Name IEmerson Commons - Minor
Date Completed: I Wednesday, July 12, 2017
Reviewer: Rebecca Ragsdale
SDP201700034 MinorAmendment -
Department/Division/Agency: Review Status:
F-ICDD Zoning F-I Pending
Pape: 10 County of Albemarle Printed On: 07/1412017
Review Comments for SDP201700034 MinorAmendment 1-1
Project Name I Emerson Commons - Minor
Date Completed: Monday, June 19. 2017 Department/Division/Agency: Review Status:
Reviewer: David James F1 CDD Engineering Requested Changes O
1. Sign & date seal-
2- The site plan should not contain the road plan, or mitigation plan. These must be separate documents to be reviewed and
bonded separately.
3. N/A
4. Provide cross-section details of any driveways, walkways, and trails. Show dims, surface/subgrade materials.
5. See Design Standard Manual, Sect. 7H. for Trail Standards.
6. N/A
7. Mitigation plan can be part of the WPO plan. When you provide a mitigation plan, show your calculated areas of buffer
disturbance and total disturbed area. I roughly calculate from what is shown on sheet C6-01a between 7500-8500 sf of buffer
disturbed area.
8. Show all existing easements (BMP/Drainage/Utilities/Access/Temporary7) with deed book/page on sheet C1-01, and
proposed public easements on the site utility plan sheets.
9. Provide N arrow & scale for any separate viewport windows that are different from the main sheet.
10. Correct which one is the actual max. retaining wall height, see sheets C2-01 & C3-02.
11. Sheet C4.01A/ C3.02 — There are two (2) YD-21 shown. Renumber to distinguish one another.
12. Show min cover & pipe clearances in the profiles.
13. Anchoring system / blocks required for pipe grades over 16%. Provide details & show in profile.
In steeper terrain, large elevation differences can be accommodated using drop structures / step-down manholes, to
reduce the pipe gradient.
14. 1 see this plan has phasing (phasing line)... Provide more info... Is a phased subdivision plan required?
Page: 1 County of Albemarle Printed On: 07/14/2017
Review Comments for
Project Name_ (Emerson Commons - Minor
Date Completed: I Friday, June 02, 2017
Reviewer: Elise Kiewra
SDP201700034 MinorAmendment -
0 e p artment/D ivision/Agency: Review Status:
CDD E911 Requested Changes
Page: 10 County of Albemarle Printed On: 07/1412017
Review Comments for SDP201700034 MinorAmendment -
Project Name I Emerson Commons - Minor
Date Completed: Saturday, June 03, 2017 DepartmenUDivisionlAgency: Review Status:
Reviewer: Robbie Gilmer EI Fire Rescue O Requested Changes
Pape: 10 County of Albemarle Printed On: 07/1412017
Review Comments for SDP201700034 MinorAmendment -
Project Name Emerson Commons - Minor
Date Completed: Monday, June 05, 2017 DepartrnenUDivision/Agency: Review Status:
Reviewer: Heather McMahon —ECDDARB - No Objection E
Page: 0 County of Albemarle Printed Cn: 07/1412017
Review Comments for SDP201700034 MinorAmendment -
Project Name I Emerson Commons - Minor
Date Completed: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 DepartmenUDivision/Agency: Review Status:
Reviewer: Alexander Morrison -E ACSA - Requested Changes
I have reviewed the above referenced minor amendment for Emerson Commons. It appears that the public utilities proposed
match the currently approved plans at the ACSA. Furthermore, it appears the gravity sewer extension plan is a page from the
previously approved Emerson Commons plans which are referenced in an off -site extension agreement between the developer
and the ACSA. With that said, no modifications to the off -site extension agreement is required with the minor site plan
amendment. My only comment is to submit 3 copies of the minor site plan amendment to the ACSA, along with water and
sewer data sheets, for re -approval by the ACSA. The submission can be made to my attention. The applicant shall also submit
a copy of the plan to RWSA for an updated approval, prior to the ACSA re -approving the plan. I have CC'ed Victoria Fort. PE, so
she is aware.
Page: 10 County of Albemarle Printed On: 07/1412017
Review Comments for SDP2O17O0034 MinorAmendment -
Project Name I Emerson Commons - Minor
Date Completed: Thursday, June 01, 2017 DepartrnentlDivision/Agency: Review Status:
Reviewer: Michael Dellinger CDD Inspections O No Objection
Page: 10 County of Albemarle Printed On: F0711412017