HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201100038 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2011-07-15Phone 434 - 296 -5832
To:
From:
Division
Date:
Subject:
of ALg�
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, VA, 22902
Memorandum
John D. Reno
Ellie Ray, CLA, Senior Planner
Zoning and Current Development
June 16, 2011
Revl: July 15, 2011
SDP 2011— 00038 Crozet Library Phase I (Parking Lot)
Fax 434 - 972 -4126
The County of Albemarle Division of Current Development Planner 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.]
[General Comment] There seems to be some discrepancy between County records and the plan in terms
of the acreage of each parcel. Please verify and clearly present each parcel and its acreage.
Rev1: Comment not addressed. Under the `Tax Map and Parcel Number' information on the Cover
Sheet it says TMP 56A2 -1 -18 contains 0.915 acres and that combined TMP 56A2 -1 -19 & 19A contains
1.170 acres, giving a total of 2.085 acres. County records show that all three parcels have been
combined into TMP 56A2 -1 -18 with a resulting acreage of 1.414 acres. Please verify County records
and correct the information on the Cover Sheet.
2. [32.5.6(a)] Please add the following: `Entrance Corridor overlay' to the zoning classification; present use of
all adjacent parcels; numerical values to the setback lines.
Revl: Comment addressed.
3. [32.5.6(e) and 32.7.9.4 (b)] The landscape plan should also indicate the trees to be saved, limits of
clearing, and location and type of protective fencing.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
4. [32.5.60) and 32.5.6(1)] In an effort to ensure that there are no oversights in the meshing together of the
existing conditions survey, Main Street Road Plans and this proposed plan, please verify the location and
size of all existing and proposed water, sewer, storm sewer, drainage and any other utility facilities and /or
easements.
Revl: Comment addressed.
5. [32.6.6(b)] It appears that some of the grading on the southern part of the property extends beyond the
property boundary and the `Project Boundary'. It also isn't included in the area marked `5715 SF Off Site
Grading Easement'. Make sure that all off -site grading is included within an easement for recordation.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
6. [32.6.6(f)] Please include a signature panel for the Department of Community Development on the Cover
Sheet.
Revl: Comment not addressed. Please use the example signature panel provided (see attached).
7. [32.6.6(g)] For all parking areas, indicate: the size, angle of stalls, and width of aisles and travelways.
Revl: Comment addressed.
8. [Comment] Although there are technically no parking spaces required on finis plan, please consiaer aaaing
bicycle parking spaces in conformance with section 20BA.B.3 at a rate of 1 bike space per 10 parking
spaces.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
9. [32.7.9.4(a)] Please add notes to the landscape plan indicating which sections of code you are addressing
and verification that the landscape requirements have been satisfied.
Rev1: Comment not addressed. Landscape notes should be more detailed and broken down into
each section of relevant code, a calculation or listing of the requirement and a calculation or listing
of how the requirement is being met (what is provided). An example is attached for your reference.
This plan has the added complexity of also being in the entrance corridor; consequently, in addition
to the landscaping requirements listed in Section 32.7.9 (Site Plan Landscape Plan requirements)
and in Section 2013.4 (DCD - Downtown Crozet District), this plan also has to meet the requirements
for the Entrance Corridor. Each section of code (requirement) should be listed separately so that
each reviewer can easily find the applicable requirements and how they are being met.
From what I can determine, most of the landscaping provided on this plan is to satisfy Entrance
Corridor /ARB requirements and should be presented in a manner acceptable to the ARB reviewer.
For Site Plan and DCD requirements, please use the attached example as a template for how to
present the information. The requirements are as follows:
• Sec. 32.7.9.6- Street Trees: It appears the street trees were provided on the road plans for Library Ave.
• Sec. 32.7.9.7- Parking Lot Landscaping:
(A) Street Trees — Provided on road plans.
(B) Interior Landscaping — As noted in Comment #10, will not be required until the library is constructed.
(C) Screening — Does not apply in DCD.
• Sec. 32.7.9.8- Screening: Not applicable on this site.
• Sec. 32.7.9.9 -Tree Canopy: Does not apply in DCD.
• Sec20B.4(D)- Screening from public streets. You have met this requirement and it needs to be noted on the
landscape /site plan as explained above.
• Sec20B.5(A)- Screening. Not applicable on this site.
10. [32.7.9.4(b)] We will not require interior parking lot landscaping for this Phase I temporary parking lot.
However, for future reference, this requirement will need to be met when the final plans for the library
building are submitted.
Rev1: Comment acknowledged.
11. [20B.4(D)] It appears that the screening provided between the parking lot and the new main street is
partially deciduous and is spaced approximately 10 feet on- center. Please revise the landscape plan to
meet this section by either making both species evergreen or re- spacing the Ilex crenata to 5 feet on- center.
Screening also needs to be added in the northeastern portion of the parcel between the parking lot and the
public road (on the eastern side of the entrance).
Rev1: Comment addressed. However, there appears to be a discrepancy between the number of Ilex
verticillata listed on the plan schedule and the number graphically presented on the plan; the plant
schedule lists 32, but there are only 25 symbols on the plan. What is presented graphically on the
plan meets the code; for consistency, please revise the plant schedule.
12. [32.6.60) and 4.17.4(a)] Please provide the manufacturer's cutsheet that demonstrates the lumen level and
full cutoff nature of the proposed light fixtures.
Revl: Comment not addressed.
13. [Comment] ARB review of the lighting plan has already requested revisions to the lighting plan including;
the boundary lines be shown properly on all sheets, the light loss factor be revised to 1.0, and the standard
lighting note be included on the lighting plan. Please include these revisions to the site plan review copies
as well.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
Please contact Ellie Ray at the Division of Current Development by using eray()-albemarle.org or 434 - 296 -5832
ext. 3432 for further information.