Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201300045 Review Comments Minor Amendment 2014-04-23� jRclti�� County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, VA, 22902 Phone 434 - 296 -5832 Memorandum To: Christopher Mantle (cmantle(a- )mckeecarson.com) From: Ellie Ray, CLA, Senior Planner Division: Planning Date: September 3, 2013 Rev1: October 30, 2013 Rev2: April 23, 2014 Subject: SDP 201300045 SOCA Fieldhouse - Minor Fax 434 - 972 -4126 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)] Please provide the correct tax map and parcel number, it appears the old TMP information is still on the plan. Additionally, please revise the TMP acreage accordingly. Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. This has been addressed on sheet 2, but sheet 3 still lists a different TMP and inaccurate owner information; please revise. Also, please update the DB and PG information on sheet 2 to DB 4299 PG 328, as that is the deed that created the existing parcel. Rev2: Comment addressed. 2. [32.5.2(a)] Provide boundary dimensions. Rev1: Comment addressed. 3. [32.5.2(a)] Please reference variations #15 -18 and #23 in addition to the ZMA information provided. Rev1: Comment addressed. 4. [32.5.2(b)] Clarify the total square footage of the proposed building and the maximum footprint; there are several different references to various square footages, but the only numbers that need to be provided are the total square footage of the building and the maximum footprint. The breakdown of areas within the building assigned to different uses is good; just make sure these numbers add up to whatever total square footage you provide. This use isn't `recreational' as defined in county code (and recreational area isn't required), so please remove that acreage reference. This plan also doesn't provide `open space' as defined in county code; please remove that reference as well. Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. The total square footage is blank; please provide this information. Rev2: Comment addressed. 5. [32.5.2(b)] Please clarify how much parking is provided; the parking schedule lists 63 spaces, but the plan appears to include 64 spaces. Rev1: Comment addressed. However, the note references sheet 4 when it appears it should reference sheet 6. Rev2: Comment addressed. 6. [32.5.2(b)] Verify the maximum amount of paved parking and vehicular circulation area; the exact same number is provided as the previous plan, yet the parking layout has changed fairly significantly. If this number is different, the landscape plan notes must be revised accordingly. Rev1: Comment addressed. 7. [32.5.2(i) & Code of Development] Please label the adjacent street and alley pavement and right -of -way or easement widths. Rev1: Comment not addressed. The right -of -way and easement widths do not appear to have been provided. Additionally, please label and dimension the proposed widening of Colvin Alley. Rev2: Comment not fully addressed. As noted above, the right -of -way and easement widths must be provided. Also, the Colvin Alley label is on top of other text and difficult to read, but it doesn't seem to dimension the widened portion. This label should be moved and indicate the width of the widening. 8. [32.5.2(k)] Verify that all necessary easements for proposed water, sewer and drainage facilities have been shown on the plan. Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. There are proposed water improvements within the open space along Belvedere Boulevard, yet no easement is noted. Additionally, there are several areas where grading is proposed outside of the parcel; grading /construction easements will be required and must be noted on the plan. See comment #18 for more information. Rev2: Comment not fully addressed. All easements proposed on the easement plat must be shown and labeled properly on the site plan, including temporary construction easements. 9. [32.5.2(1)] Provide the location of any other existing or proposed utilities and utility easements including telephone, cable, electric and gas. Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. There is an underground electric line that runs between Colvin Alley and the proposed building and then out to Belvedere Boulevard; does this line have an easement? If so, it must be shown on the plan and permission must be granted from the easement holder for any construction or improvements within the easement. Rev2: Comment not fully addressed. Label the electric easement with the Deed Book and Page Number. Documentation of authorization from the easement holder must be provided. 10. [32.5.2(n)] Dimension the proposed building aria provide the maximum rootprint. Rev1: Comment addressed. 11. [32.6.20) & 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 within or around the parking lot. As noted above, the square footage of `paved parking and vehicular circulation area' should be verified. Please also clarify why a different number is used for this area in the 5% calculation. Additionally, the 5% requirement refers to square footage of planting space, not tree canopy (as provided on the plan submitted). Please provide all relevant information to verify this requirement is satisfied. Rev1: Comment addressed. 12. [32.6.20) & 32.7.9.7] While screening of this building from the adjacent residential lots isn't technically required, due to its scale you may want to consider ways to mitigate the visual impact. Something like small islands in the hardscape next to the building to allow for vine plantings that will grow up the side of the building and /or installation of evergreen shrubs in the parking islands and under the trees specified along the fagade. Rev1: Comment addressed. 13. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.8] The minimum tree canopy requirement is 10 %; this use is not exempt from the tree canopy requirement (please remove the note that states this). It appears that this requirement is met if the street trees are included. However, the plant schedule lists 13 Cornus florida, but the plan appears to show 14; please verify and revise. Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. Please include the street trees in the plant schedule; list the species, quantity, and canopy provided. They can be noted as "already planted" if that's the case. Additionally, two of the proposed plantings are actually in the open space parcel next to Belvedere Boulevard; an easement must be established for landscape maintenance or these plantings cannot be counted toward the canopy requirement. Rev2: Comment not fully addressed. Only the street trees located on the subject parcel should be included in the plant schedule and plant canopy calculations (this includes only three Sycamore and none of the Red Oak); revise the schedule and calculations accordingly. 14. [32.6.2(j)] Several of the proposed plantings appear to be within existing or proposed easements or have utility conflicts; please either move all landscaping outside of easements or provide proof of authorization from the easement holder. See the fire line and drain pipe next to the parking lot in particular. Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. As noted above, it appears that several plantings may be within an electric easement; this should be resolved and documentation of permission to plant in the easement must be provided. As noted in comment #13, two of the plantings are outside of the parcel boundaries; please create a landscape easement if they are to count toward the canopy requirement. If they are not to count toward the canopy requirement but are still proposed to be planted, permission to do so must be granted from the open space parcel owner. Many of the plantings are still very close to proposed water and sewer lines; ACSA approval will be required. Also, it appears there is still one tree proposed directly on top of the drain pipe; please revise. Rev2: Comment pending. Awaiting ACSA comment for final approval of landscape placement. 15. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] The quantity of light fixtures listed in the luminaire schedule does not match the plan. There appear to be ten (10) C10 while 11 are listed, and there appear to be five (5) F5 while 4 are listed; please verify and revise. Rev1: Comment not addressed. The luminaire schedule now has quantity inaccuracies for fixtures G, H, I and possibly F. There are 11 "F" labels on the plan, but one fixture seems to be within the building. Lumen output must be provided for all proposed fixtures. Additionally, the labels listed for the fixtures in the schedule seem to be incorrect. Please revise the labels, quantities, and lumen information in the schedule and make sure each fixture is labeled properly on the plan itself. The cutsheet for fixture G should also include the catalog number. Rev2: Comment not fully addressed. Fixture "F" is still confusing, it looks as if two of the fixtures are essentially on top of one another; please clarify. 16. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] Please clarify the exact location of the light poles for all pole mounted fixtures. The lighting plan appears to show boxes that represent the pole bases right on the curb for the parking lot, while the landscape and layout sheets have boxes that look like they might represent the poles, but are in different locations than the boxes on the lighting plan. All three sheets should show the exact size and location of the pole base to verify that no site conflicts exist. Additionally, if the poles are in the sidewalk around the parking lot, they should be located at the end of parking stripes to minimize the chance of a vehicle running into it. Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. The pole locations still aren't shown on the lighting plan; please revise. Also, it looks like several site conflicts still exist; the poles seem to be proposed right in the edge of the curb even extending beyond the curb, they are not at the ends of parking space stripes as requested, and one is proposed on top of a storm drain pipe. Please resolve all light pole conflicts. Rev2: Comment addressed. 17. [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 footcandle. Rev1: Comment addressed. However, it is difficult to tell but it appears that the 0.5 footcandle limit may be exceeded in spots along the Belvedere Boulevard right -of -way; please verify that spillover at the edge of the right -of -way is 0.5 footcandle or less. Rev2: Comment not addressed. No photometric information is provided in this plan set. 18. [Comment] Provide documentation of all off -site easements, including grading and any other necessary easements. Rev1: Comment not addressed. Easements will be required for: any work proposed within Belvedere Boulevard, proposed construction within and the expansion of Colvin Alley, proposed construction and installation of utilities and landscaping in the open space, and the proposed grading on TMP 62A3 -1 and anywhere else off -site. All easements must be approved and recorded prior to site plan approval. Rev2: Comment not fully addressed. As noted above, all easements must be shown and labeled on the site plan. ACSA comment for final approval of easements is still pending. 19. [Comment] This site plan cannot be approved until ACSA completes their review and grants their approval; comments will be forwarded upon receipt. Fire /Rescue, Engineering, and E911 comments have been provided. Inspections and VDOT have completed their reviews and have no objection. Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. This site plan cannot be approved until ACSA and Engineering complete their reviews and grant their approval; comments will be forwarded upon receipt. Fire /Rescue, E911, Inspections and VDOT have completed their reviews and have no objection. Rev2: Comment pending. This site plan cannot be approved until ACSA and VDOT complete their reviews and grant their approval; comments will be forwarded upon receipt. VDOT had no objection to the previous submittal, so no issues are anticipated. Engineering comments have been provided. Part of their request is to remove WPO related sheets from the plan set; this is a new process that's being implemented for better record keeping. 20. [Comment] Please clarify the note that reads, "Old line is hereby vacated" on sheet 3. Rev2: Comment not fully addressed. If this line was vacated with a previously recorded plat, the note should either be removed or it should say "old line vacated with plat recorded DB XX PG XX ". Staff has provided references to provisions of Chapter 18 of the Code of the County of Albemarle. The Code is kept up to date by the County Attorney's office. The Code may found on the County Attorney's website which may be found under "Departments and Services" at Albemarle.org. In accord with the provisions of Section 32.4.3.5 of Chapter 18 of the Code if the developer fails to submit a revised final site plan to address all of the requirements within six (6) months after the date of this letter the application shall be deemed to have been voluntarily withdrawn by the developer. Please contact Ellie Ray in the Planning Division by using erayd)albemarle.org or 434 - 296 -5832 ext. 3432 for further information.