Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP201300006 Review Comments 2013-02-20Project Name: Date Completed: Reviewer: Department/Division/Agency: Reviews Comments: Review Status: Review Comments Commonwealth Office Thursday, May 30, 2013 Michelle Roberge Engineering New Special Use Permit See Recommendations 1 County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, VA, 22902 Phone 434-296-5832 Fax 434-972-4126 Memorandum To: David Benish From: Michelle Roberge, Engineering Department Division: Engineering Date: May 29, 2013 Subject: SP 2013– 00006 Commonwealth Offices I have reviewed the concept plan for the application noted above and offer the following comments for the applicant. The comments are those that have been identified at this time. Additional comments may be added or eliminated based on further review. 1. [Comment] 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. [Revision 1] Comment not addressed. This proposal still assumes that a regional SWM facility will be built. No dates have been established to adopt the culvert area as a regional SWM facility. The culvert is in poor condition and will only continue to worsen. The culvert is clogged and is under water. There are also ponding issues into the Turtle Creek Condominium property, northwest of site. I recommend a new SWM facility within the property due to the current state of the existing culvert. 2. [Comment] 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. [Revision 1] Comment not addressed. Typically, the engineering dept will ask for a channel adequacy analysis during the wpo process. However, this site drains through the Stonefield shopping center. I recommend a SWM facility and possibly additional BMPs for more groundwater recharge to reduce the runoff downstream. 3. [Comment] 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. [Revision 1] Comment not addressed. Typically, the engineering dept will ask for a channel adequacy analysis during the wpo process. However, the condition of the pipe needs to be verified since it impacts the property upstream and downstream. If the pipe is undersized, the extent of the ponding issues needs to be verified to provide some guidance on the SWM facility size. If the pipe needs to be replaced, the impact of more runoff downstream needs to be verified. Further discussion with VDOT may be necessary. 4. [Comment] Guardrails are required for the retaining wall. There is a 4’ drop at SW corner of the retaining wall with a proposed sidewalk. [Revision 1] Comment not addressed, but applicant can address during site plan process. 2 5. [Comment] Please explain how the parking lot running north-south will be treated. Will filterra be used? [Revision 1] Comment not addressed, but applicant can address during site plan process and wpo process. 6. [Comment] Please provide CG-6 at the parking lot running north-south for drainage to DI-3B. [Revision 1] Comment addressed. 7. [Comment] 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. 8. [Revision 1] Comment not addressed, but applicant can address during site plan and wpo process. 9. [Comment] The entrance should not exceed 4% for a distance of 40’. Section 18-4.12.17. [Revision 1] Comment not addressed, but applicant can address during site plan process. 10. [Comment] Please revise the 515 contour near the CG-12 at main entrance to a 2:1 slope at minimum. [Revision 1] Comment addressed. Please contact Michelle Roberge in the Engineering Dept at mroberge@albemarle.org or 434-296-5832 ext. 3458 for further information. Revised 4-25-11 eke COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4176 April 5, 2013 Justin Shimp, Shimp Engineerng 201 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: SP 201300006, Commonwealth Offices Dear Mr. Shimp; Staff has reviewed your initial submittal for SP201300006, Commonwealth Offices. We have a number of questions and comments which we believe should be resolved before your proposal goes to public hearing. We would be glad to meet with you to discuss these issues. Our comments are provided below: Planning Initial comments on how you proposal generally related to the plan are provided below. Comments on conformity with the Comprehensive Plan are provided to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors as part of the staff report. The Places29 Master Plan designates this property as Urban Density Residential which is described as residential use at a density range 6.01 – 34 units/ acre supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, commercial, office and service uses. The property’s current zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan recommendation. It is zoned R-15-Residential, and professional offices are permit with approval of the requested Special Use Permit. Special Use Permit requests are reviewed for their consistency with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan and whether the proposed use is compatible with the site and surrounding area. The following are the staff’s initial comments regarding the proposal: · 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. · The site contains critical slopes (25%>) 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 Revised 4-25-11 eke - 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). · 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. · The County Engineer has indentified 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 staff’s 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. · 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. · Neighborhood Model: An initial evaluation of the proposal’s consistency with the the Neighborhood Model Principles is provided below: Pedestrian Orientation There is an existing sidewalk along the frontage of the site that will remain or be replaced and a internal sidewalk will be constructed to connect the building to the Commonwealth Drive sidewalk. This principle is met. Neighborhood Friendly Streets and Paths Trees are proposed to be planted between the existing sidewalk/road and proposed parking area. This principle is met. Interconnected Streets and Transportation Networks No interconnection is to adjacent sites is proposed. This site is adjacent to the Trophy Chase apartments and parking lot. Although an interconnection could be made to connect these sites, due to the small scale of the proposal, and the close proximity of the entrances serving these sites development on to Commonwealth Drive, there may bea limited benefit or purpose for an interconnection. A waiver request needs to be submitted to fully evaluate this request. Parks and Open Space No park or public space is provided for the office building. The Comprehensive does not identify this site for a public space/park use. Revised 4-25-11 eke A portion of the site contains a drainage area/stream, with critical slopes. A portion of that area will be used for stormwater detention for this proposal. Neighborhood Centers Neither this site or the immediate area is designated as a center in the Places29 MP. This proposal could provide service opportunities to nerby residential areas. Other center areas are located withn walking distance to this section of Commonwealth Drive. Buildings and Spaces of Human Scale The building is proposed to be 3 stories with a 4500 sq. ft. footprint. The height and scale of building is consistent with the general guidleines in the Places29 MP for commercial and retail secondary uses in the Urban Density Residential L.U. designation. However, parking is not fully relegated and the building is not oriented to the public street on this small parcel (which is constrained by a stream valley and critical slopes). This principle is not met. Relegated Parking Parking is not entirely relegated on this site. One of two parking pads is located between Commonwealth Drive and the building. The second pad is located beside the building. This principle is not met. Mixture of Uses This is a small site that would contain one single use office building. However, this building will create a greater mix of uses this immediate area along Commonwealth Drive. This principle is met. Mixture of Housing Types and Affordability This proposal is for professional offices only. This section of Commonwealth Drive is consists of apartment townhouses/single-family attached and a nursing home. This principle is met in the larger context of the area. Redevelopment This site is undeveloped. This principle does not apply. Site Planning that Respects Terrain The total square footage of office space proposed and the parking needed to support this amount of development is resulting in development on critical slopes. No critical slopes waiver request has been submitted to date. This principle has not been met Clear Boundaries with the Rural Areas This property is located entirely within the Development Area Boundaries. This principle does not apply. More detailed comments may be provided after more detailed or revised plans are provided. Zoning The following comments related to zoning matters have been provided by Ron Higgins: Recommend that Commercial setbacks be required/conditioned: -30' front building and 10' front parking setbacks and 20' undisturbed buffer from adjacent residential zoning.* Engineering and Water Resources The following comments related to engineering and water resources have been provided by Michelle Roberge: 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 Revised 4-25-11 eke use this existing pond had great difficulty requesting and obtaining an easement required due to ponding beyond the property line. 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. 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. 4. Guardrails are required for the retaining wall. There is a 4’ drop at SW corner of the retaining wall with a proposed sidewalk. 5. Please explain how the parking lot running north-south will be treated. Will filterra be used? 6. Please provide CG-6 at the parking lot running north-south for drainage to DI-3B. 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. 8. The entrance should not exceed 4% for a distance of 40’. Section 18-4.12.17. 9. Please revise the 515 contour near the CG-12 at main entrance to a 2:1 slope at minimum. Fire/Rescue The following comments have been provided by Robbie Gilmer: 1. Fire Flow requirements shall be 1500 gpm @20 psi. 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. Entrance Corridor (N/A) VDOT Comments from VDOT will be provided when received ASCA/RWSA The ACSA has reviewed the proposal and has not identified any major issues with the request. Revised 4-25-11 eke Action after Receipt of Comments After you have read this letter, please take one of the actions identified on “Action After Receipt of Comment Letter” which is attached. Resubmittal If you choose to resubmit, please use the attached form. There is no fee for the first resubmittal. The resubmittal date schedule is provided for your convenience. Notification and Advertisement Fees Recently, the Board of Supervisors amended the zoning ordinance to require that applicants pay for the notification costs for public hearings. Prior to scheduling a public hearing with the Planning Commission, payment of the following fees is needed: $168.60 Cost for newspaper advertisement $207.52Cost for notification of adjoining owners (minimum $200 + actual postage/$1 per owner after 50 adjoining owners) $368.50 Total amount due prior to Planning Commission public hearing Prior to the Board of Supervisor’s public hearing, payment of the newspaper advertisement for the Board hearing needed. $168.60 Additional amount due prior to Board of Supervisors public hearing $544.72 Total amount for all notifications Fees may be paid in advance. Payment for both the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors public hearings may be paid at the same time. Additional notification fees will not be required unless a deferral takes place and adjoining owners need to be notified of a new date. Feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. My email address is dbenish@albemarle.org. Sincerely, David Benish Chief of Planning enc: Action After Receipt of Comments Resubmittal Schedule Resubmittal Form Revised 4-25-11 eke DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACTION AFTER RECEIPT OF COMMENT LETTER Within 30 days of the date of this letter, please do one of the following: (1) Resubmit in response to review comments (2) Request indefinite deferral (3) Request that your Planning Commission public hearing date be set (4) Withdraw your application (1) Resubmittal in Response to Review Comments If you plan to resubmit within 30 days, make sure that the resubmittal is on or before a resubmittal date as published in the project review schedule. The full resubmittal schedule may be found at www.albemarle.org in the “forms” section at the Community Development page. Be sure to include the resubmittal form on the last page of your comment letter with your submittal. The application fee which you paid covers staff review of the initial submittal and one resubmittal. Each subsequent resubmittal requires an additional fee. (See attached Fee Schedule.) (2) Request Indefinite Deferral If you plan to resubmit after 30 days from the date of the comment letter, you need to request an indefinite deferral. Please provide a written request and state your justification for requesting the deferral. (Indefinite deferral means that you intend to resubmit/request a public hearing be set with the Planning Commission after the 30 day period.) (3) Request Planning Commission Public Hearing Date be Set At this time, you may schedule a public hearing with the Planning Commission. However, we do not advise that you go directly to public hearing if staff has identified issues in need of resolution that can be addressed with a resubmittal. After outstanding issues have been resolved and/or when you are ready to request a public hearing, staff will set your public hearing date for the Planning Commission in accordance with Revised 4-25-11 eke the Planning Commission’s published schedule and as mutually agreed by you and the County. The staff report and recommendation will be based on the latest information provided by you with your initial submittal or resubmittal. Please remember that all resubmittals must be made on or before a resubmittal date. By no later than twenty-one (21) days before the Planning Commission’s public hearing, a newspaper advertisement fee and an adjoining owner notification fee must be paid. (See attached Fee Schedule) Your comment letter will contain the actual fees you need to pay. Payment for an additional newspaper advertisement is also required twenty-two (22) days prior to the Board of Supervisors public hearing. These dates are provided on the attached Legal Ad Payments for Public Hearings form. Please be advised that, once a public hearing has been advertised, only one deferral prior to the Planning Commission’s public hearing will be allowed during the life of the application. The only exception to this rule will be extraordinary circumstances, such as a major change in the project proposal by the applicant or more issues identified by staff that have not previously been brought to the applicant’s attention. As always, an applicant may request deferral at the Planning Commission meeting. (4) Withdraw Your Application If at any time you wish to withdraw your application, please provide your request in writing. * * * * * Failure to Respond If we have not received a response from you within 30 days, we will contact you again. At that time, you will be given 10 days to do one of the following: a) request withdrawal of your application, b) request deferral of your application to a specific Planning Commission date as mutually agreed to with staff, or c) request indefinite deferral and state your justification for requesting the deferral. If none of these choices is made within 10 days, staff will schedule your application for a public hearing based on the information provided with your original submittal or the latest submittal staff received on a resubmittal date. Fee Payment Fees may be paid in cash or by check and must be paid at the Community Development Intake Counter. Make checks payable to the County of Albemarle. Do not send checks directly to the Review Coordinator. Revised 4-25-11 eke FEE SCHEDULE FOR ZONING APPLICATIONS A. For a special use permit: 1. Additional lots under section 10.5.2.1; application and first resubmission Fee .................................................................................................................................$1,000.00 Each additional resubmittal ..............................................................................................$500.00 2. Public utilities; application and first resubmission Fee .................................................................................................................................$1,000.00 Each additional resubmittal ..............................................................................................$500.00 3. Day care center; application and first resubmission Fee .................................................................................................................................$1,000.00 Each additional resubmittal ..............................................................................................$500.00 4. Home occupation Class B; application and first resubmission Fee .................................................................................................................................$1,000.00 Each additional resubmittal ..............................................................................................$500.00 5. 5. Amend existing special use permit; application and first resubmission Fee .................................................................................................................................$1,000.00 Each additional resubmittal ..............................................................................................$500.00 6. Extend existing special use permit; application and first resubmission Fee .................................................................................................................................$1,000.00 Each additional resubmittal ..............................................................................................$500.00 7. All other special use permits; application and first resubmission Fee .................................................................................................................................$2,000.00 Each additional resubmittal .......................................................................................... $1,000.00 8. Deferral of scheduled public hearing at applicant’s request Fee ....................................................................................................................................$180.00 B. For amendment to text of zoning ordinance: Fee .........................................................................................................................................$1000.00 C. Amendment to the zoning map: 1. Less than 50 acres; application and first resubmission Fee .................................................................................................................................$2,500.00 2. Less than 50 acres; each additional resubmission Fee .................................................................................................................................$1,250.00 3. 50 acres or greater; application and first resubmission Fee .................................................................................................................................$3,500.00 4. 50 acres or greater; each additional resubmission Fee .................................................................................................................................$1,750.00 5. Deferral of scheduled public hearing at applicant’s request Fee ....................................................................................................................................$180.00 D. Board of Zoning Appeals: 1. Request for a variance or sign special use permit Fee ....................................................................................................................................$500.00 2. For other appeals to the board of zoning appeals (including appeals of zoning administrator's decision) – Fee (to be refunded if the decision of the zoning administrator is overturned) .......$240.00 N. Required notice: 1. Preparing and mailing or delivering up to fifty (50) notices: Fee ....................................................................................................................................$200.00 plus the actual cost of first class postage 2. Preparing and mailing or delivering, per notice more than fifty (50): Fee ........................................................................................................................................$1.00 plus the actual cost of first class postage 3. Published notice: Fee ......................................................................................................................................Actual cost Project Name: Date Completed: Reviewer: Department/Division/Agency: Reviews Comments: Review Status: Review Comments Commonwealth Office Wednesday, March 20, 2013 Ron Higgins Zoning New Special Use Permit Recommend that Commercial setbacks be required/conditioned: -30' front building and 10' front parking setbacks; 50' building and 20' parking setbacks and 20' undisturbed buffer from adjacent residential zoning.* *Note parking area encroachments from Trophy Chase development to the north may affect requirement for a parking setback/buffer from that site. Requested Changes COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 Project: Commonwealth Offices Plan preparer: Justin Shimp [434-207-8086] Owner or rep.: Moores Creek Land, LLC Plan received date: 19 Feb 2013 Date of comments: 18 Mar 2013 Reviewer: Michelle Roberge A. Special Use Permit (SP201300006) 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. 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. 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. 4. Guardrails are required for the retaining wall. There is a 4’ drop at SW corner of the retaining wall with a proposed sidewalk. 5. Please explain how the parking lot running north-south will be treated. Will filterra be used? 6. Please provide CG-6 at the parking lot running north-south for drainage to DI-3B. 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. 8. The entrance should not exceed 4% for a distance of 40’. Section 18-4.12.17. 9. Please revise the 515 contour near the CG-12 at main entrance to a 2:1 slope at minimum. Sincerely, Michelle Roberge Project Name: Date Completed: Reviewer: Department/Division/Agency: Reviews Comments: Review Status: Review Comments Commonwealth Office Friday, March 15, 2013 Jay Schlothauer Inspections New Special Use Permit No Objection Project Name: Date Completed: Reviewer: Department/Division/Agency: Reviews Comments: Review Status: Review Comments Commonwealth Office Sunday, March 10, 2013 Robbie Gilmer Fire Rescue New Special Use Permit Based on SP dated 2/12/13 1. Fire Flow requirements shall be 1500 gpm @20 psi. 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. Requested Changes Project Name: Date Completed: Reviewer: Department/Division/Agency: Reviews Comments: Review Status: Review Comments Commonwealth Office Monday, February 25, 2013 Francis MacCall Zoning New Special Use Permit QC OK