HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201000013 Review Comments Letter of Revision 1 2012-10-18•
.v
00 .
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
Project: Treesdale Park: LOR #1
Plan preparer: Richard Park, Landscape Architect
Date of Comment: October 18, 2012
Lead Reviewer: Christopher Perez
The first submittal of the LOR for the site plan for the Treesdale Park Project (original site plan:
SDP - 2010 - 00013) has been reviewed. The following comments are provided.
1. [Comment] It is County policy that Letters of Revision (LOR) be attached to final site
plans, rather than minor amendments. The minor amendment referenced on the
application (SDP201100083) does not contain a landscape plan. Thus the LOR was
reviewed against and shall take affect for the landscape plan within the final site plan for
the site (SDP201000013).
2. [Comment] The revised landscape plan has Collins Engineering information on it, is he
parry to this revised landscape plan?
3 , [Comment] On the plan provide Deed Book and Page Reference of all easements;
specifically the "Dominion Virginia Power R.O.W. ". This easement was not noted or
depicted on the preliminary site plan, nor the final site plan. When was this easement
plated? Also, provide documentation from the easement holder that these required
plantings are permissible in their easement.
4. [ZMA2004 -22 & Nov 4, 2009 Variation] The conditions of the November 4, 2009
variation for disturbance of the tree preservation area were: "A variation to approve
disturbance of the tree preservation area on the south side of the site is approved because
the area adjacent to it is currently undeveloped. The variation is approved on the
condition that a landscape plan is submitted with the final site plan and plantings are
made in accordance with that landscape plan. The result should be heavy vegetation over
time at that location. "
The above condition refers to and applies to the rear portion of the property behind the
retaining walls where building 4 is located (formerly tree preservation area, as shown on
approved application plan) which was disturbed. The approved final site plan adequately
addressed the requirement of the variation; however, this LOR attempts to negate the
required landscaping which was subject of this variation by providing substantially less
plantings which do not meet the intent of the conditions associated with this variation.
Revise this section of the landscape plan to go back to what was approved on the final
site plan or some comparable alternative which meets the intent of the requirement.
5. [ZMA2004 -22 & March 10, 2010 memo] According to the memo on Jan 7, 2010 Scott
Collins contacted staff to inform them that additional intrusion had occurred into the tree
preservation area due to the retaining walls design. Staff utilized the previous variation
from Nov 4, 2009 to apply the same conditions to this intrusion of the tree preservation
area. Thus additional landscaping was required behind the retaining wall between the
development and the Village Square neighborhood (see the attached March 10th 2010
memo for visual representation of this). The approved final site plan adequately addressed
the requirement of the variation; however, this LOR attempts to negate the required
landscaping which was subject of this variation by providing substantially less plantings
which do not meet the intent of the conditions associated with this variation. Revise this
section of the landscape plan to go back to what was approved on the final site plan or
some comparable alternative which meets the intent of the requirement.
6. [ZMA2004 -22/ Approved Application Plan] As noted on the approved application plan
additional landscaping is required along Rio Rd to be approved on the final site plan.
This requirement is to help soften the appearance of buildings along Rio Rd. Currently
the final site plan depicts the additional landscaping along the frontage of Rio Rd/
fronting the parking garage. However, this LOR attempts to negate the required additional
landscaping which was subject of the application plan by providing substantially less
plantings which do not meet the intent of what was approved. Revise this section of the
landscape plan to go back to what was approved on the final site plan or some
comparable alternative which meets the intent of the requirement.
7. [ZMA2004 -22 & 32.7.9.5(a)] Minimum Standards. Shrubs for screening shall be a
minimum of 18" — 30" at time of plating; however, Sarcocca hookerians var. humilis
(SHH), is listed as being 12" —15" at time of planting. Being this planting is a part of the
required screening from the adjacent neighborhood, it needs to meet the minimum
requirements of the ordinance. Revise to provide a planting type which can meet the
minimum requirement.
8. [32.7.9.9(a)] Tree Canopy. Under Plant List, Sarcocca hookerians var. humilis (SHH) is
being utilized to count towards the required canopy for the site; specifically. 310 SF of
canopy. However, this plant type cannot be counted towards the required canopy of the
site as it does not reach a minimum height of 5' at maturity of ten (10) yrs. According to
the "approved plant canopy list" it only gets to be 4'. Revise to provide a planting type
which can meet the minimum requirement.
9. [32.7.9.9(a)] Tree Canopy. Under Plant List, Liriope muscari `Big Blue' (LM) is being
utilized to count towards the required canopy for the site; specifically 5,049 SF of canopy.
However, this plant type cannot be counted towards the required canopy of the site as it
does not reach a minimum height of 5' at maturity of ten (10) yrs. Also this plant type is
not listed on the "approved plant canopy" list for the County. These plantings can
continue to be used for the site but cannot be applied towards canopy calculations.
Revise.
10. [32.7.9.9(a)] Tree Canopy. Under Plant List, Euonymus alatus `compactus' (EAC) is
being utilized to count towards the required canopy for the site; specifically 400 SF of
canopy. However, this plant type cannot be counted towards the required canopy of the
site as it is not listed on the "approved plant canopy" list for the County. These plantings
can continue to be used for the site but cannot be applied towards canopy calculations.
Revise.
11. [32.7.9.7(b)] Provide the square footage of paved parking and vehicular circulation area
on the landscape plan to support the interior landscaping calculation.
Attached
- Nov 4, 2009 Variation letter to Scott Collins
- March 10, 2010 Memo. (additional intrusion into the tree preservation area)
A
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
November 4, 2009
Mr. Scott Collins
800 E. Jefferson St.
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: Variation request shown on SDP 08 -119 dated 10/19/09 for ZMA 04 -22 Treesdale Park
Dear Scott:
The County has received your variation request for the modifications listed below:
1. Moving Building #1 closer to Rio Road.
2. Moving the majority of the open space from the front of Building #1 to the area between Buildings #1
and #2.
3. Changing the orientation of the parking lots on the south side of the site.
4. Disturbing a tree preservation area which was shown on the application plan.
5. Splitting a single building into two separate buildings (Buildings 3 and 4) and moving the buildings
where parking and retaining walls were previously shown.
6 Providing.:retaining walls on north.side of site adjacent to Village Square development (Building-3).
This-letter serves to provide approval-of-the variations -in - keeping with the depictions -on- -the Preliminary Site
Plan entitled Treesdale Park Preliminary Site Plan prepared by Collins Engineering last revised 10/19/09 and
the attached application. Variations to items 1, 2, 3, and 5 provide for an improved design of the site.
Regarding item 4 above, this tree preservation area on the south side of the site was designated on the
rezoning application plan at the request of staff to identify where it was desired that, to the extent possible,
vegetation would be retained adjacent to future development and, in particular, existing trees would be
preserved on the site. It is different from the tree preservation area on the north side of the site adjacent to the
Village Square development. There, trees were to be preserved to help retain a vegetated area adjacent to an
existing development.
A variation to approve disturbance of the tree preservation area on the south side of the site is approved
because the area adjacent to it is currently undeveloped. The variation is approved on the condition that a
landscape plan is submitted with the final site plan and plantings are made in accordance with that landscape
plan. The resuit- .sh.ou.I.d -b.e- b.e.avyvegetat ion -ove-- ime -at_t- iatjocati -ora. ...--- .:....- ..,_- ..... -..-
Regarding item 5 above, elevations indicate that the buildings approved as fairly massive through the rezoning
will be broken up in appearance and become more human - scaled with the site plan. Gabled roofs shown in
the attachment are as tall as the flat- roofed buildings expected; .however because the stories are well
articulated, the buildings are less "box- like" than the buildings shown in plane view on the plan.
Regarding item 6 above, retaining walls in this location will help prevent removal of this vegetation in the
preservation area next to Village Square. This change is approved because the retaining walls are no taller six
feet. A landscape plan will need to be submitted with the final site plan and plantings must be made in
accordance with that landscape plan. The result should be heavy vegetation that meets the screening
requirements of the Zoning OrdmanceFtlf there�are' places;�wheT the screening irequirements cannot�be met•J g
, . m ._
�hetruenfirety7tlue to therretaming.wallnlocatiori; the agent =may approvv,,mo.difications �,�
Section 8.5.5.3 allows the director of planning to grant minor variations to change the arrangement of buildings
and uses shown on the approved zoning application plan, provided that the major elements shown on the plan
and their relationships remain the same, The findings are provided below:
1. The variation is consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan, specifically the
Neighborhood Model principles of buildings and spaces of human scale, parks and open space, and
relegated parking. In addition, by allowing the buildings to step down the hill and limiting the height of
the retaining walls, respect for the terrain is better achieved.
2. The variation does not increase the approved development density or intensity of development. No
additional units are proposed:
3. The variation does not adversely affect the timing and phasing of development of any other
development in the zoning district.
4. The variation does not require a special use permit.
5. The variation is in general accord with the purpose and intent of the approved rezoning application.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Elaine Echols or myself at 296 -5823.
Sincerely,
V. Wayne ilimber
Director of Plannin
C:
Elaine Echols, Princip l- .PWnner
Summer Frederick, Senior Planner
2 1 1D
IIII� ;�•
tCOUNTYsOF ALBEMARLE
Department ofCommunityDevelopment
MEMORANDUM
TO: 'Summer Frederick, Senior Planner
Philip Custer, Engineer
;FROM: Elaine K. Echols, Principal Planner el!C(,(/n.¢_
DATE: March '10, 2010 (replaces earlier March memo)
SUBJECT: ZMA 2004 -22 and SDP 2010 -13 Treesdale Park Final Site Plan
We have reviewed the site plan referenced above and noted that the tree preservation area has been impacted
slightly more than what was approved on -the preliminary site -plan. As you know, staff received an email from
Collins Engineering on January 7, .2010 indicating that the design of the three tier wall system approved on the
preliminary site plan was becoming very problematic with the geo -grid design. Scott-Collins said that, as they
tried to stay away from the preservation. area, the geo -grid was doubled up under the multiple wall system, and
.extending into the -foundation of the buildings, creating serious .concerns about the integrity of the walls once
constructed in the field. He said that if the geo -grid was not installed properly or cut with the installation of the
foundation and other walls, this could lead to structural failure of the wall system. He also said that there
needed-to be space for construction of the buildings and having enough room for access and maintenance of the
- exterior of the buildings. He wanted to design an access route behind building 4 to give access to the back areas
behind buildings 3 and 4 for construction purposes. These changes would result in grading that extended
further than the area approved on the preliminary site plan.
In February after provision of alternate designs by Collins Engineering and William Park, Wayne Cilimberg
reviewed the attached plan -for .conformity with prior variation approvals. He said that the small additional area
being disturbed for the 3- tiered retaining walls was sufficiently in keeping with his prior approvals. He made
-this decision because-the needto extend the .grading past:the.area shown on the preliminary site plan would still
.result in a multi - tiered retaining wall with appropriate wall heights. Please note that the attached plan also
shows an additional area for tree preservation which the applicant is providing.
The conditions of the November 4, 2009 variation for disturbance of the tree preservation area were as follows:
A v8dation-to 8pprove disiorbatice of'thatree preserv.atim area ori'the. south sGde. of the sltie is approved
because,the. area .adjaoerflto It is currently lundeveloped. Thavarjaiion 1s appr v d on the co. drtlori that .
'la;ndswpe:plan fs.submItted With the flnal.-sit.e p1aP. Mdl ptartli:r►g� aT� rrtad:e inaccoTdance-v0th that! landscape
fr,r ntrar' dlrrra afi k
plan. The tesulf..shauld;be hea�a�t (xatat�r�,.,-- .,- •..,_,_.r, „• .:............ .......
Accordingly, the applicant will need to amend his proposed landscape plan to add shrubbery and trees in the
locations shown here:
I
.l yrJ
r•c f
ry
y.�
:C� T
.r-
� r
With regards -to critical slopes disturbance, Current Development -makes the call relative to whether any
additional review-by the Planning Commission is needed. I understand they have determined that the
disturbance shown on the final site plan is covered by the Commission's prior action -to approve the critical
slopes.
I hope that this memo allows you to continue with your review of the site development plan for this project. If
you have questions or need additional.information, please let me -1mow.
2