Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201400046 Review Comments Major Amendment, Preliminary Plan 2014-07-18CJQ_. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 2,2902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 7-18-14 Justin Shimp 201 E. Main Street, Suite M Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: SDP -201400046 Christian Aid Mission — Major Site Plan Amendment Mr. Shimp: Your Major Amendment application has been reviewed. In front of each comment 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 order for the amended site plan to be approved the following revisions are required: 1. [Comment] Staff suggests the applicant request to defer the site plan till after the Special Use Permit is acted on at the August 13th BOS meeting to determine if the applicant would like to move forward. 2. [32.5.2(a)] General Information. On sheet 1, under Existing Use, Church and School are listed; However, this is misleading as the Church is permitted by right and the School of Special Instruction is only permitted by Special Use Permit. On the plan please provide the applicable SP number for the school, SP2013-10, and provide a note that conditions of approval apply. 3. [32.5.2(a)] General Information. On the plan provide the zoning districts and the uses of abutting properties. 4. [32.5.2(a)] On the plan provide the parcel size (acreage). 5. [32.5.2(d)] Topography and proposed grading. The plan does not accurately depict all areas of the site which contain critical slopes, revise to show all critical slopes on the property. This should not affect the critical slope waiver as the area proposed to be disturbed by the new entrance appears to be accurate. Revised to show all critical slopes onsite prior to the site plan approval. 6. [32.5.2(d)] Topography and proposed grading. As noted above, a critical slope waiver (Special Exception) is requested for the site, the Special Exception shall be approved by the Board of Supervisors prior to approval of the site plan. 7. [32.5.2e, 32.5.2p, 32.6.20)], 32.7.9.4] Landscape plan. A landscape plan that complies with section 32.7.9 is required prior to the Major Site Plan Amendment approval. The landscape plan shall verify that the site satisfies the minimum landscaping and screening requirements of Section 32. See comments below. 8. [32.6.20) & 32.7.9.5] Provide a note indicating the number of street trees required and the number provided. 9. [32.6.20) & 32.7.9.61 Provide a note to demonstrate that an area a minimum of 5% of the paved parking and vehicular circular area is landscaped in shrubs and trees. The note should list the number of parking lot trees required and the number provided. See section 32.7.9.6(b) for additional information. 10. [32.5.2(e), 32.7.9.4(c)] Existing Landscape Features. On the plan identify whether the existing wooded areas are composed of evergreen, deciduous, or a mix of type. They appear to be a mix of both types. 11. [32.5.2(e), 32.7.9.4(c)] Existing Landscape Features. On the plan in the area adjacent to the new entrance, the existing tree line is depicted past the existing brick walk towards the new entrance; however, actual site conditions do not have the tree line going past the brick walk, rather only low ground cover extends to the area of disturbance. Revise appropriately. Also, on the opposite side of the proposed entrance closest to Rte 250 there is a clump of three (3) trees which has grown together, these are not depicted on the site plan? Revise to include these trees. If they are to be removed for sight distance, make note of this on the plan. 12. [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 or to meet conditions of approval, subject to the agent's approval. It appears that some of the Landscape Plan requirements are proposed to be met with existing vegetation. 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. In addition, the applicant shall sign a conservation checklist approved by the agent to insure that the specified trees will be protected during construction. Except as otherwise expressly approved by the agent in a particular case, such checklist shall conform to specifications contained in the Vier inia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook, pp III -284 through III -297, and as hereafter amended. This checklist must be signed, dated, and added to the landscape plan sheet. 13. [32.5.2(1)] Provide the right-of-way and pavement width for Broomley Road and Rte 250. 14. [32.5.2(1)] Provide the pavement width for both entrances and their associated accessways. 15. [32.6.2(1)] Dimension all travelways and provide directional arrows to signify traffic flow throughout the site. 16. [32.5.2(n)] Label and dimension any existing walkways. 17. [32.6.2(i)] Show the location of loading space(s) and provide dimensions. 18. [4.12.6] Parking requirements. On sheet 1 under Parking Schedule, the Guest House utilized parking calculations of Single Family Detatched; however, this type of unit is truly Multi Family and shall be calculated using those requirements. Please note that SDP92-52 utilized the correct calculation figures. On the plan provide the number of bedrooms per unit in the Guest House and recalculate the required parking. 19. [4.12.6] Parking requirements. On sheet 1 under Parking Schedule, the private school parking calculations have a mathmatical typographical error. The number of spaces required is listed as 30 spaces; however, it should be 31 required as proposed. Revise appropriately. 20. [4.12.6] Parking requirements. On the plan depict and deminsion all parking spaces. 21. [4.12.6] Parking requirements. On the plan distinguish between previously approved parking spaces from SDP92-52 and existing non approved parking which has not been approved on a site plan. Notably there appears to be discrepancies in parking spaces throughout the plan from what was approved and what is currently depicted. Revise and clarify. 22. [32.5.2(n), 32.6.2(k) & 4.17] Lighting. On the plan depict all lighting onsite. If site lighting is being proposed to be modified to include any additional lighting being added, or existing lighting being relocated to new locations on the site, or modifications to existing lighting (other than removal of lights), then a lighting plan shall be required. Is there any existing non approved site lighting which has not been approved on a site plan? If so, all lighting (including building mounted fixtures) must be shown on a lighting plan that includes a photometric plan, luminaire schedule and cut sheets for each proposed fixture. 23. [32.5.2(n), 32.6.2(k) & 4.17] Lighting. On the plan (Sheet C2 and C4) lighting is depicted at the existing entrance near the sign for the site; however, no such light exists. Remove this from the plan. Also, on the plan (Sheet C2 and C3) verify that a light is located in front of the church near the 10,000 gal underground cistern. Notably the approved site plan does not provide a light there. Revise appropriately. 24. [32.5.2(q)] Traffic generation figures. On the plan provide traffic generation figures for the site based on current VDOT rates. Indicate the estimated number of vehicles per day and the direction of travel for all connections from the site to a public street. 25. [32.6.2(f)] Street sections. On the plan provide the symmetrical transition of pavement at intersection with existing street. 26. [32.5.2(1)] Existing Utilities. The proposed entrance crosses a VEPCO easement. Is this permitted in the easement? Please confirm that this easement is for an overhead powerline. 27. [32.5.2(n)] Existing improvements. The school installed a wooden fence as part of the Special Use Permit at the rear of the property to prohibit kick ball and soccer balls from rolling down the hill. On the plan depict this fence and it's height. 3 28. [32.6.2(h)] Signature panel. Update the required signature panel to include the Health Department. 29. [Comment] On sheet 1 provide the site plan number: "SDP2014-46 Major Amendment to SDP92-52". 30. [32.5.2(r), 32.6.2(e)51 Provide a legend showing all symbols and abbreviations used on the plan. 31. 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. If you have any questions about the comments please feel free to contact me. Below I have provided comments from the various Site Plan Committee (SRC) reviewers. Prior to final site plan approval their comments shall have been adequately addressed. Engineering — Glenn Brooks 1) Approved - This is what was recommended with the special use permit, in order to obtain access to the signal, and a safer left turn movement onto Rt. 250. VDOT — Troy Austin See attached comment letter. Building Inspections — Jay Schlothauer 1) No comments or conditions. Fire and Rescue —Robbie Gilmer 1) No comments or conditions. E911—Andrew Slack 1) Approved ACSA —Alex Morrison 1) Approved Health Department — Joshua Kirtley Comments pending ARB — Margaret Maliszewski Comments pending Sincerely Christopher P. Perez Senior Planner f i 1 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1601 Orange Road Culpeper, Virginia 22701 Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E. Commissioner July 14, 2014 Mr. Christopher Perez Senior Planner County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: SDP -2014-00046 Christian Aid Mission— Major Site Plan Amendment Dear Mr. Perez: We have reviewed the major site plan amendment for Christian Aid Mission dated 61 9114 and the AM -E spacing exception dated 0014 as submitted by Shimp Engineering, P.C. and offer the following comments: 1. At least a 2' shoulder should be provided along Broomley Road in the vicinity of the proposed riprap, 2. Turn lane warrants need to be provided for the proposed entrance onto Broomley Road. 3. While it is not anticipated that turn lanes will be warranted for the proposed entrance, an entrance radius larger than 25' should be provided for the radius on the south side of the proposed entrance onto Broomley Road to aid vehicles in turning out of the travel lane of Broomley into the new entrance. 4. Sight lines need to.be provided on the proposed plan. Sight distance should be provided such that a driver in the entrance can see vehicles in the right turn lane along Route 250 at the intersection with Broomley Road. Vegetation removal and grading may be necessary to achieve this sight distance. 5. The existing entrance onto Route 250 needs to be modified such that left turns cannot be made out of the entrance onto Route 250. It is likely that a raised concrete island and appropriate signage will be necessary for this entrance. AM -E Comments 1. Broomley Road has a functional classification as a Rural Minor Collector rather than as a Local Road. The collector spacing from a signalized intersection to a full access entrance is required instead of the corner clearance requirement. The required spacing is 440 feet rather than 225 feet. 2. A traffic engineering study documenting that left turn movements will not have a negative impact on highway operation or safety was not included with the AM -E. If you need additional information concerning this project, please do not hesitate to contact me at (434) 589-5871. Sincerely, Troy Austin, P.E. Area Land Use Engineer Culpeper District WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING