Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201000013 Review Comments Letter of Revision 1 2013-09-19�• �I'�lll��• 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: September 19, 2013 Lead Reviewer: Christopher Perez The LOR to the landscape plan for Treesdale Park Project (original site plan: SDP -2010- 00013) has been reviewed. The following comments are provided. [ZMA2004 -22, Nov 4, 2009 Variation, and March 10, 2010 memo] The applicant has requested an amendment to the landscape plan which includes modifications to required landscaping on the tiered retaining walls at the rear of the property which support Buildings 3 and 4. The applicant proposes to omit all approved landscaping from the retaining walls at the rear of the property. The approved landscaping on the retaining walls is a major element of the proposal which provides required screening to neighboring residential lots and was a condition of two variations to the site for disturbance of tree preservation areas. Leading up to the submission of the site plan amendment the applicant sited hardship based on testimony from his site Engineer that the required plantings cannot be located on the retaining walls due to structural capacity issues caused by the installation of the Geogrid in the retaining walls, which if planted on may cause structural failure of the walls. Notably the approved final site plan is certified by Scott Collins, Professional Engineer which depicts /utilizes Geogrid retaining walls certified by Micheal R. Circeo, Professional Engineer. Tc move forward with modifications to landscaping as proposed at the rear of the property provide written documentation from Micheal R. Circeo, Professional Engineer which states that the required plantings or any substitution of similar plantings cannot be located on the retaining walls due to structural capacity issues caused by the installation/use of the Geogrid in the retaining walls. The documentation shall be reviewed for acceptability by Planning and Building Inspections staff prior to approving modifications to the landscaping plan as described in the following comments #2 and #3. 2. Area Behind Building 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 falls short. Below are staffs suggestions on how to meet the intent of the original variation. The three (3) Platanus occidentalis `Sycamore' (PO) and the addition of the five (5) Cryptomeria japonica `Yoshino' (CJY) at the top of the hill helps provided some of the anticipated buffering intended with the existing landscape plan that was a condition of the variation. To fully meet the intent of the variation behind Building 4 provide: three (3) additional CJ-Ys to this area for a total of eight (8) CJYs and provide the three (3) POs as depicted. Also provide some quantities of Llex aquipernyi `Dragon Lady Holly' (IADL) to each tier of the retaining wall (similar to what is depicted on the side of Building 3's retaining walls). Additionally it was discussed with staff that Ivy was to be planted along the entire expanse of the retaining walls at the rear of the property to aid in visually buffering the property from surrounding neighborhoods. Ivy does not appear to be listed in the Plant List nor depicted on the revised landscape plan. By providing the Ivy and the other items suggested above the intent of the variation would be fully met for this portion of the retaining wall. Revise. Area Behind Building 3 [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 10`h 2010 memo for visual representation of this). The approved final site plan adequately addressed the requirement of the variation; however, this LOR falls short. Below are staffs suggestions on how to meet the intent of the original variation. It appears that ten (10) additional Llex aquipernyi `Dragon Lady Holly' (IADL) have been added to two segments of the retaining wall on the side of Building 3. Staff feels this is an appropriate addition and helps provide some visual buffering intended to adjoining neighborhoods. To fully meet the intent of the variation behind all of Building 3 provide: additional plantings of Llex aquipernyi `Dragon Lady Holly' (IADL) along the entire expanse of the retaining walls. Additionally it was discussed with staff that Ivy was to be planted along the entire expanse of the retaining walls at the rear of the property to aid in visually buffering the property from surrounding neighborhoods. Ivy does not appear to be listed in the Plant List nor depicted on the revised landscape plan. By providing the Ivy and the other items suggested above the intent of the variation would be fully met for this portion of the retaining wall. Revise. 4. [32.7.9.5 and 32.7.9.7] The Planting Data lists 187' of frontage on Rio Rd; however, it appears the true frontage is closer to 450'. The entire frontage of Building 2 is essentially void of street landscaping with the exception of two (2) Upright European Hornbeams (CBF). Per discussions with the owner and VDOT trees and shrubs are prohibited from being planted in front of or behind the guard rail. On the final site plan the area between Building 2's retaining wall and the guard rail on Rio Rd was planted with `Bignonia capreolata `Tangerine Beauty' with a description that it would cascade down the retaining wall. Staff would like to see the revised landscape plan maintain this planting type or provide the same type of Ivy that was discussed to be planted on the rear retaining walls. These plantings would climb the existing fence and cascade down the retaining wall and would help to provide an alternative to the required street trees/ shrubs along Rio Rd. 5. [32.7.9.7] On the final site plan the dumpster was originally screened from adjoining residential property and the view from Rio Rd using shrubs, specifically nine (9) Prunus laurocerasus `Otto Luyken'. However the revised landscape plan does away with any such landscape screening of the dumpster. Revise the plan to provide for the shrubs around the dumpster which meet the minimum height of 18" at time of planting. 6. [Comment] As evident from recent site visits and numerous discussions with the owner it is apparent that there have been some required changes to the site to deal with drainage along the area beside Building 3, specifically an addition of a rock swale along the Northern property boundary to handle runoff from the parking lot. This rock swale does not appear on the final site plan and due to the nature of the current LOR shall be handled as part of this plan amendment. Revise to show the location of the rock swale. 7. [Comment] The single Cornus kousa `Stellar Pink' (CKSP) located in the landscape courtyard adjacent to the Community Building appears to be located in the required site distance easement for Treesdale Way. If this is the case please relocate it outside of the easement. Revise appropriately. 8. [Comment] The plan depicts a plant type of "LS" on the retaining walls at the rear of the property behind building 3 and 4 and along the frontage of Building 2 fronting Rio Rd. However, the Plant List does not make note of a "LS ", rather the Plant List makes note of "LM - Liriope spicata ". This appears to be a typographical error and LM should be replaced with LS. Revise appropriately. 9. [Comment] The quantity of Zelkova serrata "Green Vase" is listed as 6; however upon counting only 5 were found. Either provide the missing planting or revise the plant list (quantity and canopy area) appropriately. 10. [Comment] The quantity of Berberis thunbergii "Royal Burgundy barberry" is listed as 9; however upon counting only 7 were found. Either provide the missing plantings or revise the plant list (quantity) appropriately. 11. [32.7.9.8(b)] The following tree species are listed in the Plant List as 1" - 1.5" caliper or 1.5" — 2" caliper at time of planting; however, the "approved plant canopy list" does not recognize nor provide for these calculations on the following trees, rather it requires minimum heights for these trees at planting of either 6' — 7' tall or 6' - 8' tall. The height of the trees is also necessary in order for staff to assure these planting can be utilized towards tree canopy. Revise to provide height at planting for the following trees rather than caliper: - Amelanchier x grandiflora `Autumn brilliance' - Carpinus betulus `Fastigiata' - Cornus kousa `Stellar Pink' - Crataegus virdis ` Winter King' - Lagerstroemia indica `Muskogee' 12. [32.7.9.8(b)] Tree Canopy. Under Plant List, Prunus laurocerasus (PLS) is being utilized to count towards the required canopy for the site; specifically 220 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'. If you want to continue utilizing these plantings towards canopy the Plant List will need to specify that it is a "Schipkaensis" as these will meet the requirements. Either revise to provide an alternative plant type which can meet the minimum requirement or revise canopy calcs to omit the 220 SF. If the changes are not made these plantings can continue to be used for the site but cannot be applied towards canopy calculations. Revise. 13. [32.7.9.8(b)] Tree Canopy. Under Plant List, Spiraea x bumalda (SBAW) is being utilized to count towards the required canopy for the site; specifically 77 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 3'. Either revise to provide a planting type which can meet the minimum requirement or revise canopy calcs to omit the 77 SF. These plantings can continue to be used for the site but cannot be applied towards canopy calculations. Revise. 14. [Comment] Recently Albemarle County revised Section 32 of the Zoning Ordinance; as such many of the section numbers referenced on the plan have become outdated and should be revised to meet the new section numbers in the revised ordinance. The new section numbers are: Street Trees — 32.7.9.5, Parking Lot Landscaping — 32.7.9.6, Screening — 32.7.9.7, and Tree Canopy — 32.7.9.8. Revise appropriately. 15. [Comment] The LOR application references SDP201100013. This is a typographical error, as this site plan number for Treesdale is truly SDP201000013. No action is required, merely for informational purposes. ZMA 2004 -00022 — Proffer #4 16. Upon review of the proffers for this project it appears that proffer #4 has not been complied with. The connection to the Meadow Creek Parkway Greenway Easement as shown on the application plan does not appear to have ever been made. Rather the access easement meanders back and forth between Stonewater and Treesdale and ends around the revised Storm Water Management facility that the two properties share. The proffer states that if the adjacent property owner (Stonewater) made the connection the proffer would be met. While Stonewater dedicated a 50' Greenway Easement at the rear of the property, the shared access easement through Treesdale and Stonewater never connects to it like the application plan depicts and the proffer requires. During staff's recent review of Stonewater plans it was asked if they intended to construct/ dedicate the required connection on their land (if so staff would have requested it on their plats). However, Stonewater did not move forward with making the connection. Thus the proffer does not appear to have been complied with. Please contact Rebecca Ragsdale of Zoning to address this issue; she can be reached at 434.296.5832 ext 3226.