Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201000013 Review Comments Letter of Revision 1 2014-10-15�• �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: October 15, 2014 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. To 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. Rev 3. Applicant provided a letter from Michael Circeo, Professional Engineer dated March 1, 2014 which states that "large plants or trees on the terrace levels are not recommended... ground cover on terrace levels should consist ofground cover with shallow root systems of up to 6 -12 inches deep. " Upon receipt of this letter I called Mr. Circeo and asked about shrubs being planted on the top terrace of the wall (even with the building). He did not oppose this as long as the shrubs were planted a minimum of 2 - 3 feet behind the face of the wall, and that their root system did not penetrate deeper than 12 inches. We then discussed the possibility of planting larger shrubs on the top terrace of the wall even with the buildings; he did not oppose this as long as they were setback a minimum of 3 — 4 foot from the face of the wall. I also spoke to Alex Morrison of ACSA about planting shrubs in their sewer easement and they are not opposed to shrubs being planted within the easement, they specify no trees shall be planted in the easement. Please note they also said, if ACSA needs to access or do work on their line, they will remove the plantings, and the applicant will be responsible to replace them. As such staff feels it's appropriate to continue planting the Boston Ivy on the retaining walls and Liriopy on the lower level and mid level terraces, additionally on the top terrace even with the buildings please plant evergreen shrubs a min of 2 — 3 feet behind the face of the wall, assure that these plantings' root system does not penetrate deeper than 12 inches. Also, on the top terrace even with the buildings please plant larger evergreen shrubs a min of 3 — 4 feet behind the face of the wall, assure that these plantings' are a minimum of 18 inches in height when planted. It may be appropriate to push the larger evergreen shrubs back a minimum of 5 feet from the face of the retaining walls to be cautious. It should be noted, that during Mr. Greco and my discussion he made it clear that the holes for the plantings should be individually dug with shovels and should not be in a single row across the wall to avoid severing the geo grid. He also stated that an auger should not be used to dig the holes as this tool could wrap the geo grid and pull it out. Rather shovels should be used to dig the holes and if the geogrid is encountered and the shovel could not cut through it that the landscaper should use a utility knife to cut the grid for individual plants. It is suggested that the planting discussed above be clustered at varying distances from the face of the wall. Please revise the plan and provide the plantings discussed above along the entire expanse of the top terrace of the retaining wall. If you have specific questions, please call me. Thanks 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. i. Rev 3. Comment addressed. 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). Rev 3. After review of Mr. Ciceo's March 1, 2014 letter, staff understands Dragon Lady Holly is not consistent with his guidance for permissible plants to be located on the terraced walls due to the size of these shrubs. However, per recent discussions with Mr. Greco, staff feels it's appropriate to include evergreen shrubs on the top terrace of the wall to aid in the screening. See comment #1 for a detailed explanation of what and how to plant to meet the intent of the variations. Also, per discussions with a landscape engineer the landscape plan should be revised to switch out the four (4) QC — Scarlet Oak trees at the base of the wall for seven (7) CJY — Yoshino Japanese Cryptomeria. Please revise as these evergreen trees will grow more quickly and will provide better screening year round. 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. Rev 3. Comment addressed. 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. 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 Iw was to be planted along the entire expanse of the retaining walls at the rear of the property to aid in visually buffering the propgU from surrounding neighborhoods. Rev 3. See comment #1 for a detailed explanation of what and how to plant. Ivy does not appear to be listed in the Plant List nor depicted on the revised landscape plan. By providing the he Ivy and the other items suggested above the intent of the variation would be fully met for this portion of the retaining wall. Rev 3. Comment addressed. 4. [32.7.9.5 and 32.7.9.71 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 IA description that it would cascade down the retaining wall. Staff would like to sec 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. Rev 3. Comment addressed. 132.7.9.71 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. Rev 3. Comment retracted. [Comment] As evident from recent site visits and numerous discussions with the owner it is apparent that there have been sonic 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 situ .. ,.. .. Rev 3. Comment addressed. Rev 3. Comment addressed. property behind building 3 and 4 and along the frontage of Building 2 fronting Rio Rc However, the Plant List does not make note of a "LS ", rather the Plant List makes not, Liriope spicata ". This appears to be a typographical error and LM should be replaced wit Revise appropriately. Rev 3. Comment addressed. 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. Rev 3. Comment partially addressed through the change in the quantity; however, with the change the canopy cales were switched to 452 SF. Utilizing the approved canopy calculations sheet the true canopy calcs are 350 SF for this plant type. If you would like to continue utilizing the 452 SF canopy cales the plant type needs to be modified to Zelkova serrata "Village Green ". Please revise to address this error. 16. NEW COMMENTS 17. [32.7.9.8(b)] Tree Canopy. Under Plant List, Euonymus alatus `compactus' (Compact winged euonymus) is being utilized to count towards the required canopy for the site; specifically 200 SF of canopy. However, this plant type cannot be counted towards the required canopy of the site as it is not provided for in the approved plant canopy list provided by the County. It is fine to continue using the plant but please omit the canopy calcs for this plant. Engineering Comment 1) Remove the two IADL (dragon lady holly) on the bottom tier of the retaining wall. These plants can grow to 15' tall. The root system will be larger than 12 ".