Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP200900085 Review Comments Site Plan Waiver 2010-09-16 (3)� OF AL ,. vIRGI1`IZP COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 Project: Animal Wellness Center [SDP- 2009 - 00085] Plan preparer: Jim Taggart, PE Owner: 1100 Crozet Avenue LLC (Gwendolyn and Henry Smith) Plan received date: 22 October 2009 (Rev. 1) 27 August 2010 Date of comments: 23 November 2009 (Rev. 1) 16 September 2010 Reviewer: Phil Custer The site plan waiver for the Animal Wellness Center, received on 27 August 2010, has been reviewed. Engineering review can recommend approval to the plan after the following comments have been addressed. 1. In the applicant's letter dated 2 October 2009, waivers from Chapter 18 -32 were requested. The following comment is engineering review's analysis of the waiver requests. 32.5.6.d Topography The applicant must shade all critical slopes. By looking over the more accurate topography provided by the applicant, it is clear that critical slopes exist on the property. Disturbance of critical slopes for the driveway will be considered exempt per 18- 4.2.6.c. Engineering review has no objection to the waiving of the 50ft off the boundary requirement for topographic information. (Rev. 1) The critical slopes have been shaded as requested. All of the critical slope disturbance shown on the plan is necessary to create an accessway or other public facility (sidewalk) and is therefore exempt per 18- 4.2.6.c. It is my understanding that the agent will waive the requirement for the topography 50ft off of the property boundary. 32.5.6.n Waiver of the lighting and landscape requirements of this section Engineering has no objection to the waiver of these requirements. Engineering will note that it appears as though 2 significant trees will be removed due to the current design of the site. (Rev. 1) A waiver no longer appears to be required. 32.5.6.q Traffic Generation figures The location of this development is not pertinent to this requirement. The applicant must note on the plan that the site generates 75 trip ends and that the distribution is evenly divided between the north and south on Crozet Ave. (This number was determined from ITE's Clinic section, 630, since there was no section provided for a veterinarian's office.) (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. A waiver of this requirement is no longer necessary. Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 4 2. After further review of the application, it appears several other sections of the Chapter 32 must be waived. Below is a list of requirements in 32.5.6 and 32.6.6 that were not provided in this plan and engineering commentary on each section. 32.5.6.a General Requirements (SP Conditions and Datum) The plan should list the conditions of the Special Use Permit on the sheet. Also, the County's ordinance requires that for properties in the vicinity of a FEMA floodplain the USGS datum must be used. Engineering review requires further information regarding the NGS Y -55 datum and how it relates to the FEMA floodplain datum before a recommendation can be provided. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 32.5.6.g Stream Buffers The stream buffer line should be shown on the plan. The stream immediately behind the building requires a buffer. Disturbance to the stream buffer will be allowed under 17 -321, but a mitigation plan will be required. (Rev. 1) For this application, the county will accept the determination provided by Tamara Ambler regarding the stream immediately behind the existing building. However, please show the stream buffer off of Powell's Creek. In this area of the county, the buffer is the limits of the 100 year floodplain or 100ft from the top of bank, whichever is the farthest from the stream. 32.5.6.1 Location of existing and proposed utilities and utility easements. Please show the drainage pipe that will be constructed with the Downtown Crozet Stormwater Management project. Please show the drainage easements for the pipe at the front of the property and the channel at the rear of the building. Please also clearly note on the plan that the pipe is not to be included in the development of this application. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 32.5.6.m Distance to centerline of nearest existing street Engineering review has no objection to the waiver of this requirement. The location of the entrance has been set by the Board of Supervisors. (Rev. 1) It is my understanding that the agent will waive this requirement. 32.5.6.p Landscape Plan Engineering review has no objection to the waiver of this requirement. Engineering will note that it appears as though 2 significant trees will be removed due to the current design of the site. (Rev. 1) It appears this waiver is no longer necessary. 32.6.6.d Drainage plans (Profile) Engineering review has no objection to the waiver of the drainage profile (32.6.6.d.2) and the drainage schedule (32.6.6.d.4) requirements. Though, engineering recommends that a profile be provided so that an adequate cover of the pipe is accounted for to prevent reconstruction in the future. (Rev. 1) It is my understanding this requirement will be waived by the agent. 32.6.6.g Parking and Loading Space dimensions The parking spaces should be delineated on the plan and dimensioned to make sure they Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review Comments Page 3 of 4 meet county requirements. Engineering review does not recommend that this section be waived. (Rev. 1) Engineering review with yield to the planner regarding the waiver of this requirement. 32.6.6.i Final Landscape Plan Engineering review has no objection to the waiver of this requirement. Engineering will note that it appears as though 2 significant trees will be removed due to the current design of the site. (Rev. 1) It appears this requirement is no longer necessary. 32.6.6.j Final Photometric Plan Engineering review has no objection to the waiver of this requirement. (Rev. 1) It appears this requirement is no longer necessary. 3. The applicant's letter alludes to the travelway not being constructed with this project. If not with this project, when will the travelway be constructed? I recommend that this project construct the travelway so that no delays to the occupation of the building will be encountered due to delays in other project timelines. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. This note has been removed. 4. A mitigation plan must be approved before the site plan can be signed. (Rev. 1) The disturbance to the stream buffer has been eliminated. Therefore, a mitigation plan is no longer required. 5. An ESC plan will be needed for this project. (Rev. 1) A sheet was included with the site plan resubmittal. Engineering will provide the review of the ESC plan under separate cover. The site plan cannot be approved until the ESC plan is approved. 6. This project is exempt from detention requirements per 17- 314.F.4. Water quality requirements will be met with a fee to the Lickinghole Basin. This computation will be performed at a later date. (Rev. 1) Please remove the note in the northwest corner of the property regarding the Crozet Regional Stormwater Management facility. Please correct the Lickinghole Basin note south of the Metal Outbuilding to read: Water Quality Requirements of the Water Protection Ordinance will be met by a contribution to the Lickinghole Creek Basin. The calculation for the contribution to the Lickinghole Basin has not yet been performed and will be done at the time of site plan approval. It should be noted that the Facilities Development Department is bringing the downstream SWM project to the Board of Supervisors in future to discuss the creation of a SWM district in downtown Crozet. This property is within the proposed district and may be subject to the requirements of it once it is implemented. The limits of disturbance for this project have increased since the first submittal. According to the applicant's erosion and sediment control narrative, 1.3 acres of land is now being disturbed and, therefore, project is no longer exempt from detention requirements. This issue may be resolved at the Board Meeting if /when the SWM district is created. Like the Lickinghole Basin, a small fee for detention requirements may be the solution to the detention issue. Alternatively, the applicant can reduce the limits so the site disturbance is less than I acre or provide detention by retrofitting the trap (and relocating the lateral, if necessary) or with an orifice plate on the culvert. Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review Comments Page 4 of 4 7. The existing gravel drive should be removed. If it is to remain, landscaping or other obstacles should be provided around the parking lot to prevent use of this second entrance. The removal of the gravel would help reduce the Lickinghole Basin fee for this project. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 8. The applicant has requested a waiver of curbing requirements for the parking lot and travelway. Because the absence of curbing is not for stormwater management, the Zoning Administrator will need to make the decision on the waiver. Engineering review has no objection to the granting of this waiver except on the west side of the parking lot. I think curbing should be provided on this side of the lot to keep as much water as possible away from the foundation of the building. (Rev. 1) It is my understanding that the agent has granted this waiver for curbing with the exception being the area of the lot adjacent to the building. 9. The travelway must be 20ft wide. [32- 4.12.17.c.1] (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 10. Please update the entrance profile. The profile of the entrance does not match the contours as drawn. The entrance should also be adjusted in a manner that provides an adequate landing for stopped vehicles at the entrance. [32- 4.12.17.b] (Rev. 1) The profile now matches the site plan grading. 11. The slope of the travelway does not meet the County Ordinance requirements. The grade of this travelway is shown as 20% and the maximum grade allowed by the county is 10 %. If a waiver is sought, please provide this request in writing with all information necessary to justify that no reasonable design alternative exists. It looks as though the maximum grade can be met if the entrance is snaked to the northern entrance to the parking lot. Zoning will need to determine if this change is a significant deviation from the approved application plan. [32- 4.12.17.a] (Rev. 1) The Chief of Current Development has granted waiver of the travelway slope standard to allow for the 13% grade as currently proposed by the applicant. 12. Engineering review suggests that the applicant consider running the sanitary sewer lateral to one of the two manholes south of the building, if allowed by ACSA. This will eliminate the stream crossing and tapping into a clay pipe, which may be problematic. If the stream crossing is to remain, please coordinate the design of this pipe with the Water Resources Division of Albemarle County to make sure the pipe is accounted for in the new design of the stream channel. (Rev. 1) The sewer lateral has been relocated to avoid the stream crossing. However, the deed of easement for this lateral on the County -owned property must be recorded prior to site plan approval. 13. Please remove the note about the outdoor exercise area per condition 5 of the approved SP. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 14. Please provide a few spot elevations in the corners of the parking lot to show that the grading is no greater than 5% in any direction. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 15. Please provide low maintenance, non - grassed groundcover on the slopes adjacent to the travelway or flatten out the slope to 3:1. Acceptable groundcovers can be found in table 3.37C of the VESCH, though other landscaping can be satisfactory. [DM] (Rev. 1) The grading plan has been revised so that a low maintenance, non - grassed groundcover is required. 16. Please show all critical slopes on the plan. [18- 32.5.6.d] (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. All of the critical slope disturbance shown on the plan is necessary to create an accessway or other public facility (sidewalk) and is therefore exempt. 17. Please provide no parking signs in the turnaround area at the northside of the parking lot. [18- 32.7.21 (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed.