Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201300024 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2014-02-25County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, VA, 22902 Phone 434 - 296 -5832 Fax 434 - 972 -4126 Memorandum To: Mark Keller (mkeller @terraconceptspc.com) From: Ellie Ray, PLA, Senior Planner Division: Planning Date: July 17, 2013 Revl: November 25, 2013 Rev2: February 25, 2014 Subject: SDP 2013— 00024 Albrecht Place — 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.] 1. [32.5.2(a)] The graphic and written scales on sheet 2 don't match; please revise. Revl: Comment addressed. 2. [32.5.2(a)] Please add EC (Entrance Corridor) and AIA (Airport Impact Area) to the Zoning note. Revl: Comment addressed. 3. [32.5.2(a)] Please add the 20' undisturbed buffer to the setback notes. Revl: Comment addressed. 4. [32.5.2(b)] This plan proposes a new use (retail) and modifies several of the areas assigned to other uses (warehouse, indoor recreation, etc) in relation the information presented on the approved ZMA Application Plan and the Preliminary Plan; Zoning will determine if the proposed uses, areas, and parking provided are approvable. Their determination will be forwarded once complete. Revl: Comment addressed. 5. [32.5.2(b)] Provide the maximum amount of paved parking and vehicular circulation area on the Cover Sheet and Landscape Sheet. Revl: Comment not fully addressed. The Cover Sheet provides this area as 62,260 sf while the Landscape Sheet states that it is 4,861 sf; please revise. Rev2: Comment addressed. 6. [32.5.2(m)] Please clarify the 15' ingress /egress easement in the southeast corner of the site; who is the holder of this easement? Can improvements be constructed in it? Revl: Comment not fully addressed. The holder of this easement will need to provide a letter indicating their permission for construction of improvements within the easement. Rev2: Comment not addressed; awaiting easement documentation. 7. [32.5.2(n)] Label the guardrail on the layout sheet. Revl: Comment not addressed. Rev2: Comment not addressed. 8. [32.5.2(n)] Label the concrete area on the top of the northern retaining wall. Revl: Comment addressed. 9. [32.5.2(n)] Dimension the length of the dumpster pads behind the building. Revl: Comment not addressed. Rev2: Comment addressed. 10. [32.5.2(1) & 32.6.2(g)] Please verify that the location of all existing and proposed utilities and utility easements, including telephone, cable, electric and gas easements are shown on the plan. Any new easements may be generally shown and dedicated by separate plat. Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. All new off -site easements must be shown on the plan and documented prior to approval of final site plan. Rev2: Comment not addressed; awaiting easement documentation. 11. [32.6.2(h)] Please add a line for VDOT on the signature panel. Rev1: Comment addressed. 12. [32.6.20) & Comment] Provide a legend of all symbols and abbreviations used on the landscape plan. Rev1: Comment addressed. 13. [32.6.20) & Comment] No grading, planting or disturbance of any type is allowed within the 20' undisturbed buffer; please clarify the note regarding evergreen screen planting, and verify that the diversion dike construction will not disturb the buffer. The 20' undisturbed buffer requires tree protection fencing and a signed conservation plan checklist. Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. Because the E &S plan is not part of this plan set, the tree protection fencing must be shown on the landscape and/or layout sheets. The conservation plan checklist must also be included in the plan set, not as a separate document. Additionally, one response in the comment response letter says no disturbance of the buffer is proposed, yet a different response and most sheets do show disturbance of the 20' undisturbed buffer (the layout sheet does not; this sheet does not match the other sheets in the plan set in many ways). If buffer disturbance is proposed, a special exception request must be submitted (along with the appropriate fee) and will go to the Board of Supervisors for approval once reviewed. Rev2: Comment not fully addressed. Whether buffer disturbance is proposed still isn't resolved; a special exception may still be required. 14. [32.6.2(j) & Comment] Please show utilities and associated easements on the landscape plan to verify that no conflicts exist with plantings and lighting locations. Among possible others, it appears the UGE on the southeast corner of the building may pose some issues. Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. There are many discrepancies between the utilities shown on the layout sheet and those shown on the landscape sheet, please clarify which are correct. If those shown on the layout are correct, there still appear to be conflicts with the fire line and the UGE line. Rev2: Comment not fully addressed. It appears that all utility conflicts have been resolved, but storm drain isn't shown on the landscape plan. Please verify that there are no conflicts between proposed plantings and the storm drain system. 15. [32.6.20), 32.7.9.4(b)] Existing trees may be preserved in lieu of planting new plant materials in order to satisfy the landscaping and screening requirements of section 32.7.9, subject to the agent's approval. It appears that the undisturbed buffer area is being used toward the tree canopy requirement. The landscape plan should show the trees to be preserved, the limits of clearing, the location and type of protective fencing, grade changes requiring tree wells or walls, and trenching or tunneling proposed beyond the limits of clearing. The applicant shall also sign a conservation checklist approved by the agent to ensure that the specified trees will be protected during construction. The checklist shall conform to the specifications in the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook, pages III -393 through III -413, and as hereafter amended. Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. The limits of clearing are not provided on the landscape sheet as indicated in the comment response. Also, the undisturbed buffer should be labeled on the landscape sheet, and (as noted above) tree protection fencing should be shown. Rev2: Comment addressed. 16. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.6(a)] An area of at least five (5) percent of the paved parking and vehicular circulation area shall be landscaped with trees or shrubs. Neither the areas of street trees and shrubs required by sections 32.7.9.5(d) and (e), nor shrubs planted between a parking area and the building shall be counted toward the minimum landscaped area for a parking lot. As noted above, the square footage of `paved parking and vehicular circulation area' has not been provided. Please provide all relevant information to verify this requirement is satisfied. Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. As mentioned above, the two numbers provided do not match; please verify and revise. Also, provide a note on the landscape sheet indicating the square footage of area required by the calculation above and how much area is provided. Rev2: Comment not fully addressed. Provide a calculation of how much interior landscaped area is required, and a note indicating how much is proposed, to verify that this requirement is satisfied. 17. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.6(b)] The 5% landscaped area required shall be planted with a mixture of shade trees and shrubs and shall include one (1) large or medium shade tree per ten (10) parking spaces or portion thereof, if five (5) spaces or more. Crataegus viridus "Winter King" is classified as a small deciduous tree on the County's plant list; therefore there are 16 parking lot trees provided, not 24 as indicated on the plan. Given the parking count of 180, a minimum of 18 large or medium shade trees is required; please revise. Rev1: Comment addressed. Rev2: Comment not fully addressed. The number of large shade trees provided has now been reduced to 17. The other trees provided are categorized as either small or ornamental; add one additional large tree to meet this requirement. Please also revise Note #6 to indicate what is provided on the plan; it states 24 large shade trees and 14 small ornamental trees are provided, while the plan indicates 17 large shade trees, 7 small shade trees and 3 ornamental trees are proposed in connection with the paved area. 18. [32.6.20) & 32.7.9.8] Please clarify the "Preservation Credit" listed in the tree canopy calculation. Is this referring to the buffer area? If so, please label as such and show the acreage on the plan. Rev1: Comment addressed. 19. [Comment] The "landscape, lighting, and signing plan" shows a proposed sign location. Sign locations are not reviewed or approved on site plan applications. Rev1: Comment addressed. 20. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] The fixture locations shown on the "landscape, lighting, and signing plan" do not match all of the locations on the photometric plan; please revise. Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. There appear to be two pole lights shown along the east side of the building next to the travelway on the "landscape, lighting, and signing plan" that are not included on the photometric plan. All light fixture locations must be the same on all sheets. Rev2: Comment not fully addressed. There are still two pole lights shown along the east side of the building next to the travelway on the "landscape, lighting, and signing plan" that are not included and /or labeled on the photometric plan. One is labeled `20' high area light' on both the "landscape, lighting, and signing plan" and the "Photometric Plan" but does not appear to be included in the luminaire schedule. All light fixture locations must be the same on all sheets and all proposed fixtures must be included in the luminaire schedule. 21. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] The lighting cut sheets provided are not legible; please provide readable information at a size that can be used to determine if fixtures are full cutoff. Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. The cut sheets are still very blurry and difficult to read. The luminaire schedule is also fairly illegible. Please provide a readable luminaire schedule and cut sheets. Rev2: Comment addressed. 22. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] Provide the lumen level for all fixtures. Fixture A is definitely not full cutoff; the lumen level will have to lower than 3000 in order for this fixture to be approved. Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. The lumen level appears to say "absolute" for many of the proposed fixtures; if above 3000 lumen, the fixture must be full cutoff. The cut sheets requested above can help determine if the proposed fixtures meet Albemarle's definition of full cut -off (fixture H seems to be the only one of concern and the picture is too blurry to make a definitive decision). Rev2: Comment not fully addressed. The Luminaire Schedule still lists the lumen level as "absolute" for many of the proposed fixtures; please provide the lumen level for all proposed fixtures. If above 3000 lumen, the fixture must be full cutoff. Fixture D appears to have an angled glass lens, which would not be considered full cut -off by Albemarle's definition. If the lumen level is above 3000 lumen, a different fixture must be proposed. 23. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] The photometric plan noes riot proviae any foot - candle readings; please provide foot - candle values throughout the site and especially at all boundary lines. Rev1: Comment addressed. 24. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] Provide the following standard lighting note on the lighting plan: Each outdoor luminaire equipped with a lamp that emits 3, 000 or more initial lumens shall be a full cutoff luminaire and shall be arranged or shielded to reflect light away from adjoining residential districts and away from adjacent roads. The spillover of lighting from luminaires onto public roads and property in residential or rural areas zoning districts shall not exceed one -half foot - candle. Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. This note is not included on the photometric plan. Rev2: Comment addressed. 25. [Comment] Provide documentation of all off -site easements, including temporary and permanent easements for the work proposed on TMPs 61 U -1 -14, 61 U -1 -13, and 61 M-12-1C. Rev1: Comment not addressed. All easements must be documented prior to site plan approval. Rev2: Comment not addressed. All easements must be documented prior to site plan approval. 26. [Comment] This site plan cannot be approved until all site review committee members grant their approval. Engineering and ARB comments have been provided. E911, Inspections and Fire /Rescue had no objection to the first submittal. ACSA and VDOT reviews are being handled directly with the agency, but their signature is required on the site plan. Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. All resubmittals were handled directly with the reviewer; however, fire rescue has entered "no objection" into CountyView. Zoning comments have been provided. It has also come to my attention that the revised site plan was not submitted to ARB; please submit a set of revised plans so that they can verify that the site plan reflects what was approved with the ARB application. All other reviewers must provide their tentative approval prior to submittal of signature sets. Rev2: Comment not fully addressed. All revisions were submitted directly to each reviewer. Zoning has entered a "no objection" into CountyView. It still appears that the revised site plan was not submitted to ARB; submit a set of revised plans for ARB review so that they can verify that the site plan reflects what was approved with the ARB application. All other reviewers must provide their tentative approval prior to submittal of signature sets. 27. [32.5.2(a)] There are several instances of overlapping text or labels throughout the plan set, including in the title block area; please revise so that all labels and notes are readable. 28. [32.6.2(k), 4.17 & 4.12.16(c)6] When parking space length is reduced to 16', a minimum 2' of unobstructed overhang area must be provided to meet the minimum parking space size standard. It appears that light poles are proposed within this 2' overhang along all 16' rows of parking. If the light poles are installed in line with the parking stripe lines as shown on the plan, this is acceptable. However, if they aren't installed in these exact locations or if the bases extend too far to either side, the parking spaces will be deemed too short to meet the parking standard. Add a note to the plan that states that the light poles must be installed exactly in line with the parking stripes, or move the poles out of the required 2' unobstructed overhang. Please contact Ellie Ray in the Planning Division by using eray(LDalbemarle.org or 434 - 296 -5832 ext. 3432 for further information.