HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP202100001 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2022-03-24�� OF ALB
GIRGIN1P47
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832
Memorandum
To: Clint ShifIlett, Timmons Group (clint.shifflettaktimmons.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
Revision 4: January 12, 2022
Revision 5: March 24, 2022
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.
Rev 4: Comment remains. The easement plat supporting this site plan is currently under review. The plat will need to be
approved and recorded prior to the approval of the site plan. Thank you for including place holders for the future deed book
and page. Please update individual easement names to align with those provided on the easement plat.
Rev. 5: Comment remains. The supporting easement plat for this development was approved on March 2, 2022.
Generally, it looks as though some easements are not identified on the final site plan. As staff indicated in previous
comments, when identified on the final site plan, individual easements should use the same names provided in the
recorded easement plat. Second, some recorded easements appear to have different configurations than what is
shown on the final site plan. Please consult the recorded easement document and review and revise the site plan
accordingly. Lastly, the revised plan must provide the deed book and page information for each of the recorded
easements. Please revise the plan accordingly.
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.
it. 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.
Rev. 4: Comment addressed in this version, however, Engineering has requested that Sheet C3.1— the sheet
that addressed this comment — be removed from the final site plan as it contains F&SC and SWM information
that is reviewed separately with the VSMP application. Planning is amenable to the removal of Sheet C3.1, as
the only information needed was the protective tree fencing detail. In which case, the protective fencing detail
will still need to be provided somewhere within the final site plan. (Note: Moving/duplicating this detail to
another sheet may also require an update to the TP label provided on Sheet L 1.0. Also to note, the detail
provided is not the typical protective fencing detail seen in most approved final site plans in the County,
however the detail provided is sufficient for this development.)
Rev. 5: Comment not fully addressed. The Tree Protection label and note on the plan map still
references Sheet C3.1 which has now been removed from the plan. Revise the note to match the plan.
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. 1: 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 Hornbeam, 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. 3] 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 Hombeam. 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. Rev. 4:
Comment addressed.
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.
7. [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. Rev. 4. Comment addressed.
Planning Comments 8-20 have previously been 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. Rev. 4: Comment addressed.
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."
Rev. 4: Comment addressed. Thank you.
Additional comments based on revised plan dated 11/29/2021:
23. [Comment] Shared parking agreement. In conversation with the Zoning Division, the proposed parking arrangement
will require a shared parking agreement. To be specific, the site plan exceeds the number of required parking spaces
by more than the ordinance allows (e.g. 20% under Section 4.12.4(a), as the proposed building and use require 26
parking spaces but the plan provides 36 parking spaces). The plan already notes on the Cover Sheet that seven (7)
parking spaces will be for the adjacent parcel (TMP 58-A2-20A). However, since no planned easement identifies the
parking spaces to be shared nor a sufficient agreement in place, a shared parking agreement will be needed with the
site plan. Staff will provide the applicant with an example of a previously approved shared parking agreement as soon
as it is received from Zoning staff. Rev. 5: Thank you for providing this document. It is under review by Zoning
staff as well as the County Attorney's Office. Comments are forthcoming and will be forwarded to you upon
receipt.
Additional comments based on revised plan dated 1/17/2022:
"Unrequested and unanticipated changes to plan. The revised plan included changes to the planting scheme and schedule
that were not requested by staff or made known to staff beforehand. In the future, if any changes are made to the site plan
they need to be acknowledged in the comment response letter. Be aware, when plans include changes that are not
requested by staff. 1) Staff can disapprove the plans under Sec. 32.4.3.6(d), and 2) They lead staff to question what other
change have been made to the plan that were not requested.
24. [Comment] Landscape Plan. Proposed Winter Jasmine plantings were both added and moved in the revised plans.
Please adjust the Winter Jasmine plantings to ensure that plantings are centered in planting strip areas and not in
locations that conflict with curb lines or tops of retaining walls.
OTHER SRC REVIEWERS
Albemarle County Engineering Services (Engineer)
David James, diames26i),,albemarle.org — Requests Changes
1. VSMP plan & application will need to be submitted and approved prior to FSP approval.
(Rev.1/2/3/4) Acknowledged; WPO currently under review/not approved.
(Rev.5) WPO bonding required.
(Rev.5) Addressed.
14. (Rev.3) Show all proposed easements and deed book references once recorded.
(Rev.4) Not currently addressed. Provide the correct easement labels per the plat —
[SUB2021001691. (Rev.S) Not addressed for the shared access easement and the F/OS
16.
17.
easement.
(Rev.S)Addressed.
Addressed.
(Rev.S) Addressed.
Albemarle County Information Services (E911)
Brian Becker, bbecker(a),,albemarle.ora —No Objection
Albemarle County Building Inspections
Betty Slough, bslouglrOWbemarle.org—No Objection
Albemarle County Department of Fire Rescue
Shawn Maddox, smaddox(aWbemarle.org — No Objection
Albemarle County Service Authority
Richard Nelson, melson(i�serviceauthoritv.ora — No Objection
(Rev.S)
Virginia Department of Health
Josh Kirtley, ioshua.kirtlgykvdh.vir ig nia.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
John Wilson John.c.wilson(a),vdot.virginia.gov — See comments provided below and in the letter attached.
1. The Department is still waiting for a comment -response letter from the Engineer for the Design Waiver Request,
as outlined in an email from Adam Moore dated 9 December 2021.
2. The Department is still reviewing the Access Management Exception. The Left turn lane warrant, AM-E and
Design Waiver are under review and information will be forward as received.
Albemarle County Planning Services (Architectural Review Board)
Khristopher Taggart, ktaggartAalbemarle.org — No Objection
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 e albemarle.org or 434-296-5832 ext. 3097 for
further information.
(Z)
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Stephen C. Brich, P.E. 1401 East Broad Street
Commissioner Richmond, Virginia 23219
March 21, 2022
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Attn: Mariah Gleason
Re: SDP-2021-00001 - Ivy Proper - FSP
Review #6
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 submitted by Timmons Group, dated 02-03-
2022, and have the following comments:
1. The Department is still waiting for a comment -response letter from the Engineer for the
Design Waiver Request, as outlined in an email from Adam Moore dated 9 December
2021.
2. The Department is still reviewing the Access Management Exception. 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,
John C. Wilson, P.E.
Assistant Resident Engineer
Area Land Use
Charlottesville Residency
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING