The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSDP201200024 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2012-05-14Phone 434 - 296 -5832 <C`tpF aLg� c County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, VA, 22902 Memorandum Fax 434 - 972 -4126 To: Justin Shimp, P.E., Shimp Engineering (Justin @shimp - engineering.com) From: Ellie Ray, CLA, Senior Planner Division: Zoning and Current Development Date: May 14, 2012 Subject: SDP 2012— 00024 Timberwood Commons — Final Site Development Plan The County of Albemarle Planning Division 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.] [Comment] This proposal has been submitted as a final prior to a preliminary. The ordinance contemplates the approval of a preliminary site plan prior to the submittal of a final site plan. However, by interpretation the ordinance does allow the submittal of a final prior to approval of a preliminary. No mechanism exists in the ordinance for the County to approve with conditions a final site plan. Therefore, if the site plan does not have all necessary approvals to allow signature by the revision deadline the County will deny your application. You may request that this project be changed from a final to a preliminary site plan which may allow the County to approve the plan with conditions or you may request that the County defer taking a formal action on your application. In accord with the provisions of Section 32.4.3.10 a deferred project is deemed withdrawn if action is not taken within 6 months. 2. [32.5.3] Include all necessary waiver, variation, and substitution requests. In order to reduce the parking requirement by four spaces in association with the proposed bus stop dedication, a parking reduction request will be required; please submit this request in accordance with Section 4.12.12. Staff researched previous applications and determined that an administrative waiver for critical slope disturbance was granted for this site during the rezoning process. 3. [32.5.6(a)] Please add descriptions of all waivers (currently requested and previously approved) to the Cover Sheet. Note the setback and critical slope waivers granted with the rezoning of this property, the parking reduction request, and any other applicable items. 4. [32.5.6(a)] This is a new application; remove all old dates (7/8/11, 8/15/11) from the plan set. 5. [32.5.6(b)] The Land Use Schedule does not appear to be updated to reflect the current proposal; please revise. The `pavement' number also does not coordinate with the `paved parking and vehicular circulation' number on the Landscape Plan; please verify and ensure all numbers are correct. The maximum impervious cover must also be accurate. 6. [32.5.6(b)] Provide the maximum square footage of the buildings and clarify the footprint. The `footprint' of the buildings is shown on the Parking Schedule as 5,155 and 8,100 SF, but this appears to be the square footage; please label as such. The Land Use Schedule states 13,159 SF is dedicated to the new buildings, but the total square footage of each ground level shown on the Site Plan sheet does not coordinate with this number. Please clarify both the square footage and the footprint and make sure all schedules accurately demonstrate this information. 7. [32.5.6(b)] Provide the actual maximum height of all proposed structures. While 65' is the maximum allowable height in this zoning district, anything above 35' requires additional setback provisions. 8. [32.5.6(b)] It appears that the parking requirement is not being met. The plan states that 61 spaces are required, but that this number has been reduced by four (the on- street spaces that are being replaced by the proposed bus stop), thus leaving 57 spaces as the requirement. However, according to Zoning, no parking reduction request has been submitted; please submit this request as indicated above. Additionally, only 53 spaces are provided on the site. The layout or proposed building square footage must be modified to meet the parking requirement. If off -site spaces are to be used, please provide documentation of an easement. If no easement currently exists, an easement plat must be submitted and approved. Please also remove the note that states `excess off -site spaces are not required but may be used for overflow' unless documentation of an easement is provided. 9. [4.12.16] Portions of the parking lot may not conform to County requirements. The last space in the upper lot adjacent to the South Building does not have an adequate travelway. The loading space in the upper lot is not properly protected by a raised island. Please refer to Engineering comments for further information. 10. [32.5.6(i)] Show and label all proposed and existing access easements. 11. [32.5.6(1) & 32.6.6(c)] Provide the location and dimensions of all existing and proposed utility easements. Label existing with Deed Book and Page Number, and indicate if proposed are to be privately or publicly maintained. 12. [32.5.6(n)] Provide dimensions of all existing and proposed improvements including: buildings (clarify maximum footprint); stairs; walkways; fences; walls (length); dumpster enclosures; and other paved areas. 13. [32.7.9.4 and Comment] Plant symbols should generally be drawn at 75% of the proposed plant's mature size; many symbols on this plan are not consistent with the actual size of the species indicated. For example, the Ilex crenata `Soft Touch' only gets about 3 feet wide but the symbol is drawn at 4' in width, and the Ilex glabra `Shamrock' grows to 4' wide but the symbol is just over 2' wide. While the plan as drawn may meet County Code, it appears that the intended design will be compromised if planted as shown; some plants will be much too close together resulting in health issues, while others will be `lone soldiers' that don't create any cohesive landscape element. 14. [32.7.9.7(b)] As noted above, the square footage of `paved parking and vehicular circulation area' indicated on the landscape plan does not match numbers provided on the Cover Sheet; please verify that all numbers are accurate. Clarify the number of parking spaces provided in the landscape notes; the landscape plan says 53, while the parking schedule says 57. 15. [32.7.9.8(a)] When a wall is proposed to meet screening requirements, it should be a minimum 6 feet in height. Please verify the height of the dumpster enclosures. 16. [32.7.9.9(a)] Tree canopy shall only include areas of coverage by plant material exceeding five feet in height at a maturity of 10 years. Ilex crenata `Soft Touch' and Prunus laurocerasus `Schipkaensis' do not meet this requirement; please remove these plants from the Tree Canopy calculation. 17. [Comment] Show all proposed lighting and utility easements on the landscape plan to verify that there are no additional conflicts. Some conflicts are already evident; one Ginkgo appears to be in the proposed sidewalk in front of the South Building, and one Cherrylaurel is on top of the proposed storm sewer at the front of the site. 18. [Comment] For consistency of appearance, you may want to consider continuing the row of Ilex crenata along the entire front of the South Building; currently the row ends in an odd location. 19. [4.17] Lighting comments provided with the ARB review apply to the Site Plan as well. 20. [Comment] Provide documentation of all off -site easements, including grading and off -site parking (if proposed). A Temporary 10' Grading Easement is shown on TMP 32 -41 H 1, however this easement is not included on the easement plat submitted. Grading is also proposed on TMP 32 -41R but no easement is shown or submitted. 21. [Comment] The `Block C9 Amendment Notes' do not appear to be applicable to this application; please remove all instances of these notes from the plan set. Site Plan modifications for TMP 32 -41A and 32 -41 R are not being reviewed with this submittal. Any modifications proposed on adjoining parcels that are necessary for implementation of this plan will require an easement from the adjoining owner, as well and a Letter of Revision or Minor Site Plan Amendment application for each parcel. Please contact Ellie Ray in the Planning Division by using erayCcDalbemarle.org or 434 - 296 -5832 ext. 3432 for further information.