Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP201300006 Correspondence 2013-02-20 SHIMP PROJECT MANAGEMENT CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND PLANNING E _ I N May 6th, 2013 Mr. David Benish Chief of Planning Albemarle County Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Regarding: SP201300006 commonwealth Offices Responses to April 05,2013 Staff Comments Dear Mr. Benish, In response to comments that you provided us from County Staff, we are resubmitting 5. along with a new request for a waiver to permit disturbance of critical slopes and a request for a waiver of the requirement for inter-parcel connection in conjunction with consideration of the special use permit. There are no major changes to the Application Plan. Several comments appear to be related to site plan approval and are not addressed in this revision. The substance of the resubmittal is to address comments and clarify the request for the special use. Two new exhibits are attached with this response. The first shows a comparison between the approved residential use and the proposed commercial use. While we believe that the change of use to professional office does not increase the intensity of use for this site, we also acknowledge that commercial and residential uses are traditionally separated by screening buffers. We propose a condition on the SUP that requires an 8' landscape buffer between our parking lot and the neighboring residential lot. There is generally no need to provide screening between parking areas, but we believe that the inclusion of some additional green space in this particular instance is reasonable. The second exhibit demonstrates the substantial supply of multifamily and attached housing in this particular corridor. It is our opinion that a combination of providing a neighborhood scale office building with a site design that relegates the additional parking and integrates additional landscape requirements fits squarely within the goals of the comprehensive plan. In regards to the comments that you have previously provided to us, please consider the following responses: Planning Comments: • Staff has no objection with the proposed use(professional offices) in this location. There are concerns/questions primarily about how the use is proposed to be developed on the site (impacts to critical slopes and building location)and whether stormwater and drainage facilities are adequately designed for the extent of the proposed use. Resubmittal: A conceptual plan, based on an approved site development plan for residential use, has been provided with the original SUP application submittal. If the special use permit for`Professional Offices"is approved, further calculations and information will be provided for stormwater and drainage facilities, in conjunction with a new site plan submittal. • The site contains critical slopes(25%>slopes)that have not been shown on the concept plan. The concept plan shows development on critical slopes;therefore,a waiver of section 4.2 to allow grading on critical slopes needs to be submitted with this request. Please note that the Places29 Master Plan Parks and Green Systems Map identifies the stream and critical slope areas on site as"parks& public open space to recognize the areas"public" benefit as a stream and assumed undisturbed critical slope area. - please revise application plan to depict critical slopes - please submit critical slopes waiver request to be reviewed as acted on in conjunction with the review and action on the SP. It is recognized that a past critical slope waiver was approved for this site; however,this is a different proposal (for different use and with different plan of development)and the previous proposal was approved under different regulations for the review and approval for waivers and modifications(pre Sinclair Court case). Resubmittal: The resubmittal provides an additional sheet in the Application Plan providing "Existing Conditions". This sheet shows the critical slopes on the site and the proposed disturbance of these slopes based on the Concept Plan. A waiver request is also included herein to allow the disturbance shown. • No inter-parcel connection is shown on the concept plan to the Trophy Chase Apartments site on the north side of this site. Please submit a request to for modification of Section 32.7.2.5 of the Zoning Ordinance for the provision of inter-parcel to be reviewed as acted on in conjunction with the review and action on the SP. i Resubmittal: We believe the section in question is 32.7.2.2.e, a request is included herein for modification of Section 32.7.2.2,e of the Zoning Ordinance. • The County Engineer has identified a number of issues that need to be addressed with the concept plan and/or site development plan. Please make sure that items 1-3 of the County Engineer's comments are addressed as part of this SP review, and in particular items 2 and 3. The adequacy of the downstream channels for the conveyance of drainage from this site/development proposal is an important consideration in staffs review of this SP request, given current concerns about the adequacy of the drainage system serving this drainage area. -please provide information requested by the County Engineer to order to determine the adequacy of downstream channels to convey drainage from the proposed development. Resubmittal: The SP request is for an office use on the site and a conceptual plan is provided. Section 32.6.2 "Contents of a Final Site Plan"provides a requirement for establishing an adequate downstream channel. These comments will be addressed in a site plan application if the special use permit is approved. Further response to Engineering and Water Resources comments are provided later in this response. • The site only partially relegates parking and locates the building to the rear of the site. Furthermore,the total amount of development proposed on this site appears to necessitate impacts to critical slopes in order to provide an adequate amount parking. Staff recommends that the site layout be revised to the bring building up to Commonwealth Drive,to further relegate parking,and reduce the area of critical slopes impacted. This could be more easily achieved by a reduction in building total square footage proposed on the site. Resubmittal: The Application Plan, as submitted, provides 54 parking spaces, of which 23 spaces(43% and all of the additional parking required for this use) are relegated behind the front building façade. The approved site development plan provides 32 parking spaces, none of which are relegated behind the front building façade. Additionally, the approved site plan requires a greater disturbance of critical slopes and a greater disturbance of the overall site than does the Application Plan. The revised Application Plan does not include a change to the parking layout. • Neighborhood Model: Of the 12 principles of the Neighborhood Model,County Staff has identified four principles that are met(Pedestrian Orientation, Neighborhood Friendly Streets and Paths, Mixture of Uses,and Mixture of Housing Types and Affordability);four principles that do not apply(Parks and Open Space, Neighborhood Centers, Redevelopment,and Clear Boundaries with the Rural Areas);two principles that require waivers(Interconnected Streets and Transportation Networks and Site Planning that Respects Terrain); and two principles that are not met(Buildings and Spaces of Human Scale and Relegated Parking) Resubmittal: As previously mentioned, two waiver requests are submitted in conjunction with the Application Plan resubmittal and parking is relegated to a greater extent than with the approved residential site plan. Additionally, the proposed building, at 13,500 square feet is substantially smaller than the building approved in the residential site plan (20,170 SF). • Zoning: Recommend that Commercial setbacks be required/conditioned: -30'front building and 10'front parking setbacks and 20' undisturbed buffer from adjacent residential zoning.* Resubmittal: The Application Plan was prepared as a modification to an approved residential site plan. The parking and building locations/setbacks are consistent with the approved plan and with adjoining R- 10 and PRD developments. In addition, the adjoining residential apartment development has a parking lot that encroaches onto the subject property. The Application Plan shows a planting area of approximately 10 FT between the encroachment and the proposed parking lot. While we do not believe that any additional setback of buffers are necessary, we believe a condition of approval requiring an 8' landscaped area between the uses as shown on the attached exhibit would be reasonable. • Engineering and Water Resources 1. There are plans for the county to adopt the existing pond as a regional SWM facility. However, since this is a pending effort and no date has been established by the county since 2007, I recommend designing a new SWM facility within the property(same location).The existing state of this pond already encroaches on the Turtle Creek Condominium's property. Previous designers proposing to use this existing pond had great difficulty requesting and obtaining an easement required due to ponding beyond the property line. Resubmittal: The SWM facility proposed in the Application Plan is consistent with the SWM facility shown on the approved residential site plan. The Applicant is willing to consider changes to the facility at a future date as part of the Site Plan review process. 2. The site is proposed to drain into an existing 48" RCP pipe owned and maintained by VDOT. From there it drains through the townhouse site,then Stonefield shopping center, under Rt. 29 and finally into the city.Adequate channels are required to be demonstrated.The contributing drainage area,from your site,to a point of discharge is one percent or less for the total watershed area. Please provide this analysis. Please be aware that there have been great concerns at the discharge from Stonfield,and this site contributes to that flow directly. Resubmittal: The Applicant does not wish to address this item at this time. Adequate channel provisions are a requirement of a final site development plan and will be addressed at that time. The change is use does not impact this requirement in any way. 3. The existing 48" RCP is also in poor condition.A pipe has been inserted as a solution.The new pipe diameter is not known and will need to be addressed in calcs. I recommend replacing this pipe to mitigate future issues with this pipe. Resubmittal: The Applicant does not wish to address this item at this time. Adequate channel provisions are a requirement of a final site development plan and will be addressed at that time. The change is use does not impact this requirement in any way. 4. Guardrails are required for the retaining wall.There is a 4' drop at SW corner of the retaining wall with a proposed sidewalk. Resubmittal: A five foot planting area is provided between the sidewalk and the retaining wall, therefore we do not believe that a guardrail is not warranted. Additionally, this item can be reconsidered at the initial site plan stage if the special use permit is granted. 5. Please explain how the parking lot running north-south will be treated.Will filterra be used? Resubmittal: If additional fiterra structure(s) are required for the northern portion of parking lot, this will be provided with an initial site plan submittal, along with pollutant removal rate calculations. The Owner/Applicant does not wish to address this with the Land Use discussion. 6. Please provide CG-6 at the parking lot running north-south for drainage to Dl-3B. Resubmittal: CG-6 has been provided as requested. 7. The access road should wrap around the basin to the edge of the property line. Please ensure that this access road is above the 100 year water mark and does not exceed a 16%grade. Resubmittal: The access road is shown in the same configuration/grading/alignment as it was approved in the residential site development plan. The Owner/Applicant does not wish to grade the access road to the edge of the property line. There does not appear to be a 100-year floodplain on the site, but this will be verified during the site plan review, should the special use permit receive approval. 8. The entrance should not exceed 4%for a distance of 40'.Section 18-4.12.17. Resubmittal: The entrance drops 1.5 feet in elevation over the first 40'from the edge of Commonwealth Drive. 9. Please revise the 515 contour near the CG-12 at main entrance to a 2:1 slope at minimum. Resubmittal: The contour has been modified as requested. • Fire/Rescue 1. Fire Flow requirements shall be 1500 gpm @20 psi. Resubmittal: No revisions are provided based on this comment. Fire Flow shall be addressed with the site plan application should the special use permit receive approval. 2. Fire Department Connection shall be located on the address side of the building and within 50 ft of a fire hydrant.The FDC and Hydrant need to be located so as to not block other responding apparatus when hooked up. Resubmittal: No revisions are provided based on this comment. A Fire Department Connection shall be addressed with the site plan application should the special use permit receive approval. As always if you have any questions or concerns about these revisions please feel free to call me at(434) 207-8086 and we can discuss in further detail. Or ustin Shimp, P.E. Shimp Engineering, P.C.