Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201200043 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2012-09-20of ALg� County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, VA, 22902 Phone 434 - 296 -5832 Fax 434 - 972 -4126 Memorandum To: Frank Pohl, Pohl Consulting LLC From: Christopher P. Perez, Senior Planner Division: Current Development Date: September 20, 2012 Subject: SDP 2012— 00043 Whitewood Road Day Care Center The Planner for the County of Albemarle Division of Current Development 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 Zoning Ordinance unless otherwise specified.] [32.7.9] It appears that the required landscaping along Whitewood Road (Route 1455) and Oak Forest Drive (Route 1495) are located within a 15' Gas Line Easement denoted as DB1961 Pg 252. Either relocate the required landscaping outside of the easement or provide documentation from the easement holder to allow the landscaping to be located within the easement. Should the applicant /site gain permission to plant in the easements, on the plan provide a note which reads to the affect of: "The site is responsible for maintaining the landscaping within these easements. " Also, the Deed Book reference provided for the 15' Gas Line Easement depicted on the plan does not appear to be for this property? Provide the correct deed book reference information. Rev 1. On the site plan the applicant has depicted the gas line fronting on Whitewood Rd as being vacated and relocated. Prior to final site plan approval the existing gas line easement must be vacated and the new easement recorded through plat and deed of easement. While a solution to the easement/ planting conflict on Whitewood Road has been provided, it appears that plantings (mainly shrubs and small /med trees) are still being proposed in the remaining gas line easement fronting Oak Forest Drive. Please address this through one of the following options: Either relocate the required landscaping outside of the easement or provide documentation from the easement holder to allow the landscaping to be located within the easement. Should the applicant /site gain permission to plant in the easements, on the plan provide a note which reads to the affect of. "The site is responsible for maintaining the landscaping within these easements. " 2. [32.7.9] It appears that portions of the required landscaping along Whitewood Road (Route 1455) are located within a 20' Storm Sewer Easement per DB2386 Pg 692. Trees are not permitted to be planted within the storm sewer easement. Please revise landscape plan, relocate the required landscaping outside of the easement. Rev 1. Comment has been addressed. 3. [32.7.9] Also during the revision more clearly show all the easements and utilities on the landscape plan to assure no conflicts with the proposed landscaping. Rev 1. Comment has been addressed. [Comment] It appears drainage pipes fronting Whitewood Road (Route 1455) and Oak Forest Drive (Route 1495) are also located in the 15' Gas Line Easement and the 20' Storm Sewer Easement. Please revise to relocate these drainage systems outside of the easements. Rev 1. As proposed the 24 -inch UG detention /infiltration discharge pipe continues to be shown crossing through the gas easement. Either relocate the above mentioned items out of the easement or provide documentation from the easement holder to allow the items to be located within the easement. 5. [32.7.9.5(a) &(b)] ..ri sheet L -1, the Landscape Calculations are correctly calculated for the required street trees, the required parking lot landscaping, and the required plant canopy; however, the Plant List does not utilize the correct type of trees to fulfill these requirements. The Plant List is lacking the required Large Street trees and Medium Street trees. The only Medium Street tree depicted on the plan is the Carpinus betulus (see the following comment), in which a quantity of 3 are provided. All other trees provided on the plan are Small Ornamental trees and Evergreen Shrubs. Please revise the landscape plan appropriately to meet the landscaping requirements. To aid in your revisions of the landscape plan I have attached the Albemarle County Recommended Plants List, this document breaks down the various trees type into Large, Medium, and small ... etc Rev 1. Comment has been addressed. Additional comment based on revisions: * Sheet L -1, under Plant List, for Acer X Freemanii (Autumn Blaze Maple) the quantity is listed as 6; however, only 4 of these plants were located on the plan. These plantings are needed for the site to meet its Lrg Street Tree requirements. These additional Lrg trees are currently shown as being counted towards the site's tree canopy on Sheet L -2. Please locate these trees on the plan. Revise. * Sheet L -1, under Landscaping Calculations, Street Frontage, for "B. Provided: Whitewood Road" lists there being 2 Large Street Trees; however there are 7 depicted /required on the plan. It appears this is a minor typographical error. Revise. * Sheet L -1, under Landscaping Calculations, Street Frontage, for "B. Provided: Oak Forest Road" lists there being 2 Large Street Trees; however there is only 1 depicted on the plan. Please provide this additional large tree on the plan. Revise. 6. [32.7.9.4 & 32.7.9.9(a)] On sheet L -1 under Plant List and L -2 under Plant Canopy Calculations, for Carpinus betulus "Fastigiata" it appears you have utilized the plant calculation information for the Carpinus betulus rather than the Carpinus betulus "Fastigiata" If this is a minor typographical error and you would rather utilize Carpinus betulus please correct the name on these sheets. However, if you intend to utilize Carpinus betulus "Fastigiata then the height of the tree as depicted on Sheet L -1 and L -2 shall be modified to be between 6' -8', you will also need to modify the calculations for the tree canopy as follows: Height of Planting = 7 Growth over 10 yrs = 10 Total Height in 10 yrs = 17 Ratio of Width to height = 0.55 Total Width in 10 yrs = 9.35 Area of Canopy = 69 2 If you choose to utilize this tree, in order to meet the required tree canopy you will need to increase the quantity of this tree on the plans. Rev 1. Comment has been addressed. 7. [32.7.9.9] Also, revise the Plant Canopy Calculations on Sheet L -2 as follows (minor calculation errors): - For Cercis Canadensis & cvs (Eastern Redbud) the tree canopy calculations for 9 trees should be 1116 SF, rather than 1118.08 SF as depicted. Revise. - For Lagerstroemia indica x cvs (Crapemyrtle) the tree canopy calculations for 1 tree should be 77 SF, thus the Total Area of Canopy calculation should also be 77 SF, rather than 76.94 SF as depicted. Revise. - For Ilex comuta & cvs (Dward Buford) the tree canopy calculation for 43 plants should be 602 SF rather than the 609.7 SF as depicted. Revise. - For Ilex crenata & cvs (Hoogendom) the tree canopy calculation for 29 plants should be 464 SF rather than the 460.99 SF as depicted. Revise. - For Ilex glabra & cvs (Inkberry Holly) the tree canopy calculation for 38 plants should be 874 SF rather than the 869.84 SF as depicted. Revise. Rev 1. Comment has been addressed. 8. [32.5.6(e) & 32.7.9.4(b)] With regard to the 20' undisturbed buffer, on the plan please note the limits of clearing /disturbance as well as the location of protective fencing for this area. Also, assure the applicant signs the conservation checklist which has been provided on sheet L -2. Rev 1. Comment has been addressed. 9. [4.17.4(a) & 32.6.6(j)] On sheet 12 of 12, a photometric plan has been provided but it is not complete. It does not include the cut sheets for all proposed fixtures. Revise the site plan to include the manufacturer's cut sheets for each proposed fixture. All information presented in the lighting schedule must coordinate with the fixture cutsheets and the photometric plan. Ensure that the cut sheets show that each fixture that emits 3000 lumens or more is a full cutoff fixture (for definition see Section 4.17.3). REV 1. The cut sheets provided on sheets PH -2 and PH -3 are extremely blurry and illegible. Because of this, staff was unable to review the lighting plans. Assure the cut sheets are readable. Revise. 10. [32.6.6(j) & 4.17.4(b)2] The lighting plan must also include the following note: Each outdoor luminaire equipped with a lamp that emits 3, 000 or more initial lumens shall be a full cutoff luminaire. The spillover of lighting from luminaires onto public roads and property in residential or rural areas zoning districts shall not exceed one -half footcandle. Rev 1. Comment has been addressed. 11. [Comment] On sheet 12 of 12, in the Luminaire Schedule for L5 (Lithonia LF6N) the lamp type is a 26 watt Double Twin Fluorescent; however the Watt listing in the chart is 62 watts? These numbers should not contradict each other. Assure the correct wattage is provided. REV 1. On sheet PH -1 in the Luminaire Schedule for L5 the lamp type is a 26 watt Triple Tube Compact Fluorescent; however the Watt listing in the chart is 29 watts? These numbers should not contradict each other. Assure the correct wattage is provided. Revise. 12. [4.17.4(a)2] On sheet 12 of 12, in the Luminaire Schedule specify the lumen levels for the two LED fixtures types (OD -1 and OG -1). Currently they are listed as "Absolute ", what does that mean? How many lumens are emitted for these fixtures? Please provide the above information on the plan. REV 1. The cut sheets provided on sheets PH -2 are extremely blurry and illegible. Because of this, staff was unable to determine if the cutsheets provided Lumen levels for the two LED light types. The Luminaire Schedule specifies the lumen levels for the two LED fixtures types as "Absolute ". How many lumens are emitted for these fixtures? Please provide the above information on the plan. Staff has read the document defining "Absolute" which was provided via email w/ the resubmittal. This document did not provide any useful insight into the lumen levels for these lights. Provide the requested information for review by staff. lo. fs1.7.9.8] Provide a section /detail for the trash enclosure /fence. Rev 1. Comment has been addressed. 14. [Comment] The WPO must be approved before approval of the Final Site Plan can be granted. Rev 1. Comment remains for informational purposes. 15. [Additional Comment on Revision] Sheet C -10, Typical Gravity Wall Cross Section, the material /type of 6' tall fence has been altered from previous submittals where it was previously listed as being a wooden fence to replace the existing wooden fence. If an alternative fence design (of metal) is to continue provide a section /detail of the fence. 16. [Additional Comment on Revision] Sheet C -7, Site Section A- A(C -4), the diagram does not accurately reflect the exact portion of the referenced section: the diagram lacks the required concrete wheel stops and the 1.5' planting strip is listed on the diagram as 1.6'. This is being mentioned for purposes of consistency. VDOT Comments — Joel DeNunzio 9 -19 -12 It appears that a sight distance easement for the existing entrance of Whitewood Road has not previously been recorded. VDOT is working with the applicant to assure approval of the site plan, with the understanding that a permit for the new entrance on Oak Forest Drive will not be granted until the sight distance issues at the existing entrance on Whitewood Road are resolved per VDOT specifications. Fire and Rescue Comments - Robbie Gilmer No objections E911 — Andrew Slack No objections Building Inspections — Jay Schlothauer No objections ACSA — Alex Morrison 9 -19 -12 An approval was issued. Comments from Engineering were sent prior to the above comments. Please contact Christopher P. Perez at the Department of Community Development 296 -5832 ext. 3443 for further information.