HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201400046 Review Comments No Submittal Type Selected 2014-08-27COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
8-27-14
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. Rev 1. BOS approved the proposal on the 13th with
conditions.
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. Rev 1. Comment addressed.
3. [32.5.2(a)] General Information. On the plan provide the zoning districts and the uses of
abutting properties. Rev 1. Comment addressed.
4. [32.5.2(a)] On the plan provide the parcel size (acreage). Rev 1. Comment addressed.
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. Rev 1. Comment no longer relavent due to
change to the proposal.
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. Rev 1. Comment no longer
1
relavent due to change to the proposal.
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. Rev 1. Comment addressed.
8. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.51 Provide a note indicating the number of street trees required and
the number provided.
Upon the applicant's request staff discussed the landscaping requirements for the
site with Zoning. Per discussions with Zoning, the pork chop modification to the
existing Rte 250 entrace is not a significant modification to the property to cause the
sites' street tree landscaping along Rte 250 to be upgraded to meet todays
ordinance. The original comment no longer applies to the frontage of Rte 250;
however, still applies to modifications along Broomley Road.
9. [32.6.2(j) & 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.
Upon the applicant's request staff discussed the landscaping requirements for the
site with Zoning. Per discussions with Zoning, because no new parking spaces are
being proposed the sites' parking lot landscaping is not required to be upgraded to
meet todays ordinance. The original comment no longer applies. If new parking is
proposed the area of that parking shall meet the parking lot landscaping requirements.
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. Rev 1. Comment addressed.
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. Rev 1. Comment no longer relavent due to change to the
proposal.
12. [32.6.2(j) & 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
2
particular case, such checklist shall conform to specifications contained in the Virgini
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.
Rev 1. Comment no longer relavent due to change to the proposal.
13. [32.5.2(1)] Provide the right-of-way and pavement width for Broomley Road and Rte 250.
Rev 1. Comment no longer relavent due to change to the proposal.
14. [32.5.2(1)] Provide the pavement width for both entrances and their associated
accessways. Rev 1. Comment addressed.
15. [32.6.2(i)] Dimension all travelways and provide directional arrows to signify traffic flow
throughout the site. Rev 1. Comment addressed.
16. [32.5.2(n)] Label and dimension any existing walkways. Rev 1. Comment addressed.
17. [32.6.2(i)] Show the location of loading space(s) and provide dimensions. Rev 1.
Comment addressed.
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. Rev 1.
Comment addressed.
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. Rev 1. Comment addressed.
20. [4.12.6] Parking requirements. On the plan depict and deminsion all parking spaces. Rev
1. Comment addressed.
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. Rev 1. Comment addressed.
22. [32.5.2(n), 32.6.2(k) & 4.171 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. Rev 1. Comment addressed in the response letter #22 and 23;
3
however, not on the site plan. Revise the plan to omit the previously existing not
approved lighting.
23. [32.5.2(n), 32.6.2(k) & 4.171 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. Rev 1. Comment
addressed in the response letter #22 and 23; however, not on the site plan. Revise the
plan to omit the previously existing not approved lighting. Specifically at the
entrance there are two existing lights, one which is full cut off and one which is not
fullcuttoff (it's more of a spot light). The spot light should be removed as it does not
appear that light was ever approved on any previous site plan. Also, the light near
the cistern shall be removed as it does not appear that was ever approved on any
previously approved site plan. Revise.
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. Rev 1.
Comment no longer relavent due to change to the proposal.
25. [32.6.2(f)] Street sections. On the plan provide the symmetrical transition of pavement at
intersection with existing street. Rev 1. Comment no longer relavent due to change to
the proposal.
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. Rev 1. Comment no longer relavent due to change to the proposal.
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. Rev 1. Comment
addressed.
28. [32.6.2(h)] Signature panel. Update the required signature panel to include the Health
Department. Rev 1. Comment addressed.
29. [Comment] On sheet 1 provide the site plan number: "SDP2014-46 Major Amendment
to SDP92-52". Rev 1. Comment addressed.
30. [32.5.2(r), 32.6.2(e)51 Provide a legend showing all symbols and abbreviations used on
the plan. Rev 1. Comment addressed.
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.
New Comment
32. [4.12.16(4)] Deliniation of Parking. Parking spaces shall be delineated in a manner that identifies
and preserves the required dimensions by paint striping, signage, or by another means approved by the
4
zoning administrator. The zoning administrator may authorize that bumper blocks or posts be used to
delineate parking spaces on surfaces that are not conducive to paint striping.
Four parking spaces located at the rear of the building used by the school are listed on the
plan as bing provided on the site plan. However, currently there is a basketball net and
basketball striping on the asphalt. All new parking spaces, to include these four spaces
being approved with this plan shall be delinitaed through striping on the asphalt, signage,
or by other means approved by the Zoning Administrator. Notably, the majority of the
spaces through the site no longer have striping. It's suggested that restriping of the
previously approved spaces should also take place as it appears most of the striping has
worn off.
33. [Comment] On sheet Cl, under landscaping canopy, New Tree Canopy, the plan still has
an old note `removal of 2 trees not included with approved site plan'. Please remove this
note as no tree removal should be happening on the site. If it is the applicants intent to
take these trees down, let staff know, so ARB can be contacted about this.
34. [Comment] On sheet C1, staff suggests that the applicant remove the Conditions of
Approval. Notably condition #9 will have this SP expire in Aug 13, 2017. However the
site plan is anticipated to last longer.
35. [Comment] When the applicant submits signature copies, assure all pages of each set are
signed/dated by the Engineer.
Engineering — Glenn Brooks
Comments pending
VDOT — Troy Austin
Comments pending
Building Inspections — Jay Schlothauer
Comments pending
Fire and Rescue — Robbie Gilmer
Comments pending
ACSA — Alex Morrison
Comments pending
Health Department — Joshua Kirtley
Comments pending
ARB — Margaret Maliszewski
No objection - be the Broomley Road entrance is off the table and no changes are happening
outside the existing entrance pavement she has no objections.
Sincerely,
Christopher P. Perez
Senior Planner