HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201400030 Review Comments Initial Site Plan 2014-05-13�,lfl� IIII�
s'
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
May 13, 2014
Tim Miller
Meridian Planning Group
1413 Sachem Place, Ste 1
Charlottesville VA. 22901
RE: SDP-2014-30 Inglewood Apartments _ Site Plan- Initial
Dear Sir:
The Agent for the Board of Supervisors hereby grants administrative approval to the above referenced site
plan.
This approval shall be valid for a period of five (5) years from the date of this letter, provided that the
developer submits a final site plan for all or a portion of the site within one (1) year after the date of this
letter as provided in section 32.4.3.1 of Chapter 18 of the Code of the County of Albemarle, and thereafter
diligently pursues approval of the final site plan.
An Erosion and Sediment Control Permit may be issued after the following approvals are received:
1. Approval an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan meeting the requirements of Chapter 17 of the
Code of the County of Albemarle.
2. Approval of a Stormwater Management Plan meeting the requirements of Chapter 17 of the
Code.
3. Approval of all easements for facilities for stormwater management and drainage control.
4. Submittal of a tree conservation checklist.
The final site plan will not be considered to have been officially submitted until the following items are
received:
1. A final site plan that satisfies all of the requirements of section 32.6 of Chapter 18 of the Code.
2. A fee of $1,500.
Please submit (10) copies of the final plans to the Community Development Department. The
assigned Lead Reviewer will then distribute the plans to all reviewing agencies. Once you receive the first
set of comments on the final site plan, please work with each reviewer individually to satisfy their
requirements. Provide proof of each reviewer's tentative approval once received. The Lead Review will
notify you when it is time to submit copies for signature.
The final site plan will not be approved until the following conditions are met:
The Department of Community�evelopment shall not accept su mittal of the final site plan for signature
until tentative approvals for the following conditions have been obtained:
Planning Division Approval of (4 Copies are required to be submitted for review)
1. [32.6] A site plan meeting all the requirements of section 32.6 of Chapter 18 of the Code.
2. [32.5.3(a)] This application was reviewed against Site Development Plan requirements only. It
appears that the project intends to perform a boundary line vacation between Parcel 2 and Parcel 1,
but no subdivision application has been submitted. Any subdivision related comments are provided
for reference only unless necessary for final site plan approval. Prior to final site plan approval the
Boundary Line Vacation plat shall be submitted, reviewed, approved by the County, and recorded in
the Clerk's Office. The deed book page information of the recorded plat shall be provided on the final
site plan.
3. [32.5.2(a)] With the proposal, modifications to parking, access, and stormwater facilities for the sites
are taking place on Parcel 3. As such this parcel shall also be part of the site plan. Throughout the site
plan revise to include Parcel 3 as part of the plan, such as legal reference, parcel address, title of plan,
and existing conditions on the lot. Staff does not intend for the density of this lot to be included on the
plan. If you have any questions about this please give me a call.
4. [4.12.8(e)] Instrument assuring continuation of off-site parking. The required parking for the two (2)
existing apartment buildings located on TMP 061KO -05 -OA -00300 is partially located on TMP
061KO- 05 -OA- 00200. As such an instrument for shared parking shall provided to the County in a
form that is suitable for recording. It shall be subject to review and approval as to form and substance
by the County Attorney, and shall be recorded in the office of the clerk of the circuit court of the
County before the final site plan is approved. It is advisable that this document be recorded with the
Boundary Line Vacation plat discussed above.
5. [32.5.2(a),18.6, 4.11.31 Building Separation. In any case in which there is more than one main
structure on any parcel, there shall be a minimum of thirty (30) feet between such structures except as
otherwise provided in section 4.11.3. This provision shall not apply to structures built to a common
wall. On the plan provide the building setbacks between the existing structure closest to the proposed
structure. Assure this meets the required building separation. Currently it does not appear to meet the
minimum 30' building separation distance. A reduction provided for in Section 4.11.3 may be
appropriate for the proposal, if the site qualifies based on fire flows. If you are seeking this reduction
assure that this is listed on the cover sheet under setbacks and assure you reference 4.11.3. The Fire
Official will be required to sign off on the reduction prior to final site plan approval. Revise
appropriately.
[32.5.2(a),18.31 Setbacks. On sheet 1, under site data, provide setbacks for R -15 zoning. They are:
Front 25', Side 15', Rear 20'. Also provide building separation information discussed above in
comment #5.
7. [32.5.2(n)] Existing conditions. On the site plan it is not clear what is happening to the existing
entrance on North Berkshire Road. Is it remaining open? Is it proposed to be closed? Please clarify.
8. [32.5.2(n)] Existing conditions. Add existing fire hydrants to the site plan. Specifically there is a
hydrant located along Inglewood Drive near the proposed entrance to the proposed 17 parking spaces.
Revise.
9. [32:5.2(n)] Existing conditions. There are existing sidewalks along North Berkshire Road. Revise the
site plan to show. the sidewalks.
connected to the sidewalk on Inglewood Drive. On the final site plan provide this connection.
2
11. [32.5.2(n)] Existing conditions. At the rear of the property there is an existing dumpster. Depict this
on the existing conditions sheet of the site plan. Is the dumpster to remain? Is it to be relocated? If so,
where is it to be relocated? Screening of the dumpster will be required per Section 32.7.9.7.
12. [32.5.2(n)] Existing conditions. At the rear of the property there is an existing shed. Depict this on the
existing conditions sheet of the site plan. Is the shed to remain? Is it to be relocated? If so, where is it
to be relocated?
13. [32.5.2(n)] Existing conditions. On TNT 061KO -05 -OA -00300 it appears the bio- filter is proposed
over the existing sidewalk leading to the laundry facility. Is the sidewalk being demolitioned or was it
not depicted? Please clarify. Revise appropriately.
14. [32.5.2(b) &(n)] Assure that the proposed units listed for the site are consistent throughout the site
plan. Specifically sheets C -201, 202, and 301 depict 4 proposed units; however, sheet 1 proposes 8
new units. Assure these pages are corrected to depict the correct number of proposed units for the
new building (8 proposed units).
15. 132.5.2(i)] Streets. Provide the Rte number for Inglewood Drive. Staff believes it is Rte 1411. Revise
appropriately.
16. [32.5.2 (m) & (n), 4.12.17(b)] Entrances. "Entrances to parking areas from public streets or private
roads shall be designed and constructed in accordance with Virginia Department of Transportation
standards... " VDOT approval shall be required.
17. [32.5.2(n), 4.12.17(c)1] Two way access. On the plan provide traffic directional arrows for traffic
movement.
18. [32.5.2(a)] Add Entrance Corridor (EC) to the Zoning note on the cover sheet.
19. [32.5.2(n)] Dimension the full width of the retaining walls required for construction.
20. [32.5.2 (n)] What kind of walls are the retaining walls? Are they block/redi -rock walls, geogrid?
Provide this information on the plan. Also, on the plan provide the limits of disturbance for the
proposal, to include the area to construct these walls.
21. [30.7.5, 32.6.1(e6), 32.5.2(n) 32.5.2(d)] Managed Slopes. Throughout the plan indicate with shading
those areas of the site where existing "managed slopes" are located. Currently only Sheet C -301
contains this information. Also, please discontinue the use of the term "critical slope" throughout the
plan, as these slopes are now defined as "managed slopes" as defined by the March 5, 2014 BOS
changes to the critical slopes portion of the ordinance (Section 30.7.5 adopted on 3- 5 -14).
Disturbance to these slopes are now permitted by right provided that design standards listed in 30.7.5
are satisfied to mitigate the impacts caused by the disturbance of the slopes. Please consult with
Engineering staff to assure design standards are being met with the proposal. Their approval of this
item shall be required prior to final site plan approval.
22. [32.5.2(k)] Verify that all necessary easements for proposed water, sewer and drainage facilities have
been shown on the plan.
23. [32.5.2(1)] Provide the location of any existing utilities and utility easements including telephone,
cable, electric and gas.
24. [32.5.2(p)] Assure that the proposed plantings are outside of existing and proposed easements or
provide proof of authorization from the easement holder.
25. [32.5.2(e), 32.7.9.4(c)] Existing landscape features. The site has a substantial amount of existing
mature trees onsite; however, none of these trees are depicted on the landscape plan or the existing
conditions page. Depict these trees and provide their size and common name on existing conditions
sheet of the plan. If they are to be removed, on the plan depict.this. Revise.
26. [32.5.2(p) & 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. If you intend to use existing trees to satisfy any of the landscape plan requirements, please
include the following:
1. Areas and other features shown on landscape plan. The landscape plan shall 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.
.2. Conservation checklist. The applicant shall sign a conservation checklist approved by the agent
to ensure that the specified trees will be protected during construction. Except as otherwise expressly
approved by the agent in a particular case, 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.
27. [32.7.9] On sheet C -202, in the landscape schedule, T -1 provides 2.5" caliper at time of planting for
340 SF; however, this does not match the approved plant canopy calculations. Rather for a 2.5"
caliper White Oak the canopy calculation is 289 SF. If you revise the minim size at planting to be
3.5" caliper then the 340 SF calculations is applicable. Revise appropriately.
28. [32 .7.9] On sheet C -202, in the landscape schedule, T -2 provides 2" caliper at time of planting for
124 SF; however, the minimum size provided does not match the approved plant canopy calculations.
For this plant type the county utilizes height at the time of planting to calculate canopy. Specifically
6 -7' height at the time of planting is required for the 124 SF of plant canopy. Revise appropriately.
29. [32.7.9] On sheet C -202, in the landscape schedule, T -2 provides 2.5" caliper at time of planting for
124 SF; however, the minimum size provided does not match the approved plant canopy calculations.
For this plant type the county utilizes height at the time of planting to calculate canopy. Specifically
6 -7' height at the time of planting is required for the 124 SF of plant canopy. Revise appropriately.
30. [32.7.9] On sheet C -202, in the landscape schedule, T -3 lists 744 SF of canopy calculations for 3
plantings; however, upon review of the plan there are truly 6 found. Three (3) plantings of Eastern
Redbud only account for 372 SF of canopy, six (6) Eastern Redbuds would account for 744 SF.
Revise appropriately.
31. [32.7.9.6] Landscaping within a parking area. The minimum parking lot landscaping requirements do
not appear to be met. Namely, the type of plantings required by the ordinance are shade trees;
however, the plan provides T -3 Eastern Redbuds, which are ornamental trees. Revise to assure shade
trees selected from the current list of recommended large shade trees are provided within the parking
lot areas. For the proposed amount of parking spaces, six (6) of shade tree plantings are required to be
located within 495 SF of landscape islands or abutting areas. 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 a
building on the site shall be counted towards the minimum area of landscaping for the parking area.
Revise appropriately.
32. [32.7.9.7(a)(2)] Screening. Parking areas consisting of 4 or more spaces shall be screened from
residential areas. On sheet C -202, screening meeting requirements described in 32.7.9.7 shall be
provided onsite to screen the 27 spaces from TNT 61K -9 -2. Revise.
33. [32.5.2(p) & 32.7.9.7(a)3] Screening. The proposed bio- filter shall be screened from the public street.
Screening meeting requirements described in 32.7.9.7 shall be provided onsite to screen the facility.
Revise.
4
34. [32.7.9.8] Tree Canopy. On the plan provide the calculations for the tree canopy, to include required
and provided. Upon my initial review of the site, the canopy provided on the plan does not appear to
meet the minimum required. My calculations are: 58,370 SF site * 15% canopy requirement = 8,755
SF required. Revise appropriately.
35. [32.5.2.n] Existing and proposed improvements. Please show all existing outdoor lighting and provide
a lighting plan.
36. [32.5.2(n) & (p)] The following will be required for final site plan approval:
- Outdoor lighting information including a photometric plan and location, description, and
photograph or diagram of each type of outdoor luminaire [Sec. 32.7.8 & Sec. 4.17]
- A landscape plan in accordance with [Sec. 32.7.9].
37. [Recommendation] While the parking space length reduction is permitted for the 27 spaces based on
the proposal, it may be appropriate to rework this to avoid the overhang as large vehicles trying to
park may continuously bump against the retaining wall. Retaining walls which sustain many hits
overtime may become unstable and collapse.
38. [Recommendation] On sheet 1, under site data, the site plan number is listed as not available.
Revise to contain the true site plan number. It is suggested that when the final site plan comes in, that
the title provide the SDP# for the final site plan.
Engineering Division Approval of. Cop, isrequired to be submitted for review)
1. An Erosion and Sediment Control Plan meeting the requirements of Chapter 17 of the Code of the
County of Albemarle
2. A Stormwater Management Plan meeting the requirements of Chapter 17 of the Code.
3. All easements for facilities for stormwater management and drainage control.
4. ADD Note: Existing Entrance To Be Removed (North Berkshire Road, NW corner of site), sheet
2 of 5, Existing Conditions and Demolition Plan.
5. AC Code, Ch. 18, Zoning, Sec. 30, Overlay Districts, 30.7 STEEP SLOPES OVERLAY
DISTRICT, 30.7.5 DESIGN STANDARDS, applies to proposed grade changes to existing
managed slopes just north of 17-space parking area (Ref. Sheet 4 (C -202), Initial Site Plan;
30.7.5.b.4, steepness; and 30.7.5.d, surface water diversions - § 30.7.5; Ord. 14- 18(2), 3 -5 -14.
Albemarle County Service Authority Approval 1 Copies are required to be submitted for review)
1) 1 copy of the final site plan is required for review and approval by the ACSA.
2) Provide fixture counts for the proposed building.
3) Revise sewer connection so the lateral angle with the flow is greater than 90 degrees.
4) Add applicable ACSA details (www.serviceauthority.org).
5) Add ACSA Water and Sewer General Conditions.
6) Show water main along entire alignment of Inglewood Drive on the plans.
7) Call out all fittings, bends, gate valves, taps, etc.
Virginia Department of Transportation Approval 1 Copy is required to be submitted for review)
- Comments attached
Albemarle County Fire & Rescue Approval (1 Cop, is to be submitted for review)
1. Dead end roads greater than 150' require an approved turn around for emergency vehicles. per 2009
VSFPC 503.2.5
2. Turning radii entering the parking lot shall not be less than 25'. per 2009 VSFPC 503.2.4
3. Fire Flow test required prior to final approval.
E911 Approval 1 Cony is required to be submitted for review)
1) For the three (3) existing structures that will be accessed by a separate parking area we will need to
create a private road name for the access and address those structures off of the new road name. The
developer should contact this office with a list of three (3) proposed road names for approval.
Building Inspections Approval. (l Copy is required to be submitted for review)
1) The proposed apartment building requires a fire sprinkler system; indicate the fire water line on Sheet
C -202.
If you have any questions about these conditions or the submittal requirements please feel free to contact
me at ext 3443, cperez @albemarle.org.
Sincerel
Christopher P. Perez, Senior Planner
"�•� �� ��l 'fog
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Oranga Road
Gulpepe , VirglNa 22701
Charles A. Kilpatrick, P..E„
Commissioner
April 30, 2014
Mr. Christopher Perez
Senior Planner
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: SDP - 2014 -00030 Inglewood Apartments Initial Site Plan
Dear Mr. Perez:
We have reviewed the initial site plan for the Inglewood Apartments dated 3/21/14 as submitted
by Meridian Planning Group, LLC and offer the following comments:
1. The sight lines and profiles for each entrance needs to be added to the site plan to ensure
that adequate sight distance is available.
2. The entrances may be designed to Moderate Volume Commercial Entrance standards as
described in Appendix F of the Road Design Manual.
3. The minimum throat width of each two way entrance should be 24'.
4. The new sidewalk shown should be extended to the corner of North Berkshire Road and
Inglewood Drive and connected to the existing sidewalk along North Berkshire Road.
5. It is difficult to tell from the grading plan provided, but it appears that a significant
portion of the parking area and entrance runoff will bypass the proposed storm sewer
system and drain towards Inglewood Drive. Additional grading information including
additional spot elevations should be added to the plan to confirm the drainage area of the
site runoff. In addition, the impact to drainage along Inglewood Drive needs to be
considered by the design engineer.
If you need additional information concerning this project, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
7
11UY PlUbIL 11, r.L'.
Area Land Use Engineer
Culpeper District
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
Albemarle County
Service Authority
TO: Chris Perez
FROM: Alexander J. Morrison, Civil Engineer
DATE: 5/5/2014
RE: Site Plan Technical Review for: SDP201400030: Inglewood Apartments - Initial Site
Plan
The below checked items apply to this site.
✓ 1. This site plan is within the Authority's jurisdictional area for:
✓ A. Water and sewer
B. Water only
C. Water only to existing structure
D. Limited service
✓ 2. An 8 inch water line is located approximately 5' distant.
3. Fire flow from, nearest public hydrant, located distant from this site plan, is
Gpm + at 20 psi residual.
✓ 4. An 8 inch sewer line is located approximately on site distant.
5. An Industrial Waste Ordinance survey form must be completed.
✓ 6. No improvements or obstructions shall be placed within existing or future
easements.
7. and plans are currently under review.
8. and plans have been received and approved.
9. No plans are required.
10. Final and plans are required for our review and approval prior to
granting tentative approval.
11. Final site plan may /may not be signed.
12. RWSA approval for water and /or sewer connections.
13. City of Charlottesville approval for sewer.
✓ Comments:
1 copy of the final site plan is required for review and approval by the ACSA.
Provide fixture counts for the proposed building.
Revise sewer connection so the lateral angle with the flow is greater than 90 degrees.
Add applicable ACSA details (www.serviceauthority.org).
Add ACSA Water and Sewer General Conditions.
Show water main along entire alignment of Inglewood Drive on the plans.
Call out all fittings, bends, gate valves, taps, etc.
168 Spotnap Road • Charlottesville • VA 22911 • Tel (434) 977 -4511 • Fax (434) 979 -0698
www.serviceauthority.org
• R ! 1 _
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
May 5, 2014
Tim Miller
Meridian Planning Group
1413 Sachem Place, Ste 1
Charlottesville VA. 22901
RE: SDP - 2014 -30 Inglewood Apartments _ Site Plan- Initial
Dear Sir:
Department of Community Development has reviewed the above referenced site plan (dated 3- 24 -14) against
applicable codes and ordinances. Comments are provided below:
1. [32.4.2.1(f)] The public notification fee of $200 was not paid till 5 -6 -14. Comments were held till the fee
was paid.
2. [32.5.3(a)] This application was reviewed against Site Development Plan requirements only. It
appears that the project intends to perform a boundary line vacation between Parcel 2 and Parcel 1, but
no subdivision application has been submitted. Any subdivision related comments are provided for
reference only unless necessary for final site plan approval. Prior to final site plan approval the
Boundary Line Vacation plat shall be submitted, reviewed, approved by the County, and recorded in
the Clerk's Office. The deed book page information of the recorded plat shall be provided on the final
site plan.
3. [32.5.2(a)] With the proposal, modifications to parking, access, and stormwater facilities for the sites are
taking place on Parcel 3. As such this parcel shall also be part of the site plan. Throughout the site plan
revise to include Parcel 3 as part of the plan, such as legal reference, parcel address, title of plan, and
existing conditions on the lot. Staff does not intend for the density of this lot to be included on the plan. If
you have any questions about this please give me a call.
4. [4.12.8(e)] Instrument assuring continuation of off-site parking. The required parking for the two (2)
existing apartment buildings located on TMP 061KO -05 -OA -00300 is partially located on TMP 061KO -05-
OA- 00200. As such an instrument for shared parking shall provided to the County in a form that is suitable
for recording. It shall be subject to review and approval as to form and substance by the County Attorney,
and shall be recorded in the office ofthe clerk of the circuit court of the County before the final site plan is
approved. It is advisable that this document be recorded with the Boundary Line Vacation plat discussed
5. [32.5.2(a), 18.6, 4.11.31 Building Separation. In any case in which there is more than one main
structure on any parcel, there shall be a minimum of thirty (30) feet between such structures except as
otherwise provided in section 4.11.3. This provision shall not apply to structures built to a common
wall. On the plan provide the building setbacks between the existing structure closest to the proposed
structure. Assure this meets the required building separation. Currently it does not appear to meet the
minimum 30' building separation distance. A reduction provided for in Section 4.11.3 may be
appropriate for the proposal, if the site qualifies based on fire flows. If you are seeking this reduction
assure that this is listed on the cover sheet under setbacks and assure you reference 4.11.3. The Fire
Official will be required to sign off on the reduction prior to final site plan approval. Revise
appropriately.
6. [32.5.2(a),18.3] Setbacks. On sheet 1, under site data, provide setbacks for R -15 zoning. They are:
Front 25', Side 15', Rear 20'. Also provide building separation information discussed above in
comment #5.
7. [32.5.2(n)] Existing conditions. On the site plan it is not clear what is happening to the existing
entrance on North Berkshire Road. Is it remaining open? Is it proposed to be closed? Please clarify.
8. [32.5.2(n)] Existing conditions. Add existing fire hydrants to the site plan. Specifically there is a
hydrant located along Inglewood Drive near the proposed entrance to the proposed 17 parking spaces.
Revise.
[32.5.2(n)] Existing conditions. There are existing sidewalks along North Berkshire Road. Revise the
site plan to show the sidewalks.
10. [32.5.2(a), 32.7.2.3(a)] Sidewalks. The sidewalk on North Berkshire Road shall be required to be
connected to the sidewalk on Inglewood Drive. On the final site plan provide this connection.
11. [32.5.2(n)] Existing conditions. At the rear of the property there is an existing dumpster. Depict this on the
existing conditions sheet of the site plan. Is the dumpster to remain? Is it to be relocated? If so, where is it
to be relocated? Screening of the dumpster will be required per Section 32.7.9.7.
12. [32.5.2(n)] Existing conditions. At the rear of the property there is an existing shed. Depict this on the
existing conditions sheet of the site plan. Is the shed to remain? Is it to be relocated? If so, where is it to be
relocated?
13. [32.5.2(n)] Existing conditions. On TNT 061KO -05 -OA -00300 it appears the bio- filter is proposed over the
existing sidewalk leading to the laundry facility. Is the sidewalk being demolitioned or was it not depicted?
Please clarify. Revise appropriately.
14. [32.5.2(b) &(n)] Assure that the proposed units listed for the site are consistent throughout the site
plan. Specifically sheets C -201, 202, and 301 depict 4 proposed units; however, sheet 1 proposes 8
new units. Assure these pages are corrected to depict the correct number of proposed units for the new
building (8 proposed units).
15. [32.5.2(i)] Streets. Provide the Rte number for Inglewood Drive. Staff believes it is Rte 1411. Revise
appropriately.
16. [32.5.2 (m) & (n), 4.12.17(b)] Entrances. "Entrances to parking areas from public streets or private
roads shall be designed and constructed in accordance with Virginia Department of Transportation
standards... " VDOT approval shall be required.
17. [32.5.2(n), 4.12.17(e)1] Two way access. On the plan provide traffic directional arrows for traffic
18. [32.5.2(a)] Add Entrance Corridor (EC) to the Zoning note on the cover sheet.
19. [32.5.2(n)] Dimension the full width of the retaining walls required for construction.
20. [32.5.2 (n)] What kind of walls are the retaining walls? Are they block/redi -rock walls, geogrid?
Provide this information on the plan. Also, on the plan provide the limits of disturbance for the
proposal, to include the area to construct these walls.
21. [30.7.5, 32.6.1(e6), 32.5.2(n) 32.5.2(d)] Managed Slopes. Throughout the plan indicate with shading
those areas of the site where existing "managed slopes" are located. Currently only Sheet C -301
contains this information. Also, please discontinue the use of the term "critical slope" throughout the
plan, as these slopes are now defined as "managed slopes" as defined by the March 5, 2014 BOS
changes to the critical slopes portion of the ordinance (Section 30.7.5 adopted on 3- 5 -14). Disturbance
to these slopes are now permitted by right provided that design standards listed in 30.7.5 are satisfied
to mitigate the impacts caused by the disturbance of the slopes. Please consult with Engineering eerin sg taff
to assure design standards are being met with the proposal. Their approval of this item shall be
required prior to final site plan approval.
22. [32.5.2(k)] Verify that all necessary easements for proposed water, sewer and drainage facilities have
been shown on the plan.
23. [32.5.2(1)] Provide the location of any existing utilities and utility easements including telephone,
cable, electric and gas.
24. [32.5.2(p)] Assure that the proposed plantings are outside of existing and proposed easements or
provide proof of authorization from the easement holder.
25. [32.5.2(e), 32.7.9.4(c)] Existing landscape features. The site has a substantial amount of existing
mature trees onsite; however, none of these trees are depicted on the landscape plan or the existing
conditions page. Depict these trees and provide their size and common name on existing conditions
sheet of the plan. If they are to be removed, on the plan depict this. Revise.
26. [32.5.2(p) & 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. If you intend to use existing trees to satisfy any of the landscape plan requirements, please
include the following:
1. Areas and other features shown on landscape plan. The landscape plan shall 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.
2. Conservation checklist. The applicant shall sign a conservation checklist approved by the agent to
ensure that the specified trees will be protected during construction. Except as otherwise expressly
approved by the agent in a particular case, the checklist shall conform to the specifications in the
Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook, pages III -393 through 111 -413, and as hereafter
amended.
27. [32.7.9] On sheet C -202, in the landscape schedule, T -1 provides 2.5" caliper at time of planting for
340 SF; however, this does not match the approved plant canopy calculations. Rather for a 2.5" caliper
White Oak the canopy calculation is 289 SF. If you revise the minim size at planting to be 3.5" caliper
then the 340 SF calculations is applicable. Revise appropriately.
28. [32.7.9] On sheet C -202, in the landscape schedule, T -2 provides 2" caliper at time of planting for 124
SF; however, the minimum size provided does not match the approved plant canopy calculations. For
height at the time of planting is required for the 124 SF of plant canopy. Revise appropriately.
29. [32.7.9] On sheet C -202, in the landscape schedule, T -2 provides 2.5" caliper at time of planting for
124 SF; however, the minimum size provided.does not match the approved plant canopy calculations.
For this plant type the county utilizes height at the time of planting to calculate canopy. Specifically 6-
7' height at the time of planting is required for the 124 SF of plant canopy. Revise appropriately.
30. [32.7.9] On sheet C -202, in the landscape schedule, T -3 lists 744 SF of canopy calculations for 3
plantings; however, upon review of the plan there are truly 6 found. Three (3) plantings of Eastern
Redbud only account for 372 SF of canopy, six (6) Eastern Redbuds would account for 744 SF. Revise
appropriately.
31. [32.7.9.6] Landscaping within a parking area. The minimum parking lot landscaping requirements do
not appear to be met. Namely, the type of plantings required by the ordinance are shade trees; however,
the plan provides T- 3_Eastern Redbuds, which are ornamental trees. Revise to assure shade trees
selected from the current list of recommended large shade trees are provided within the parking lot
areas. For the proposed amount of parking spaces, six (6) of shade tree plantings are required to be
located within 495 SF of landscape islands or abutting areas. 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 a
building on the site shall be counted towards the minimum area of landscaping for the parking area.
Revise appropriately.
32. [32.7.9.7(a)(2)] Screening. Parking areas consisting of 4 or more spaces shall be screened from
residential areas. On sheet C -202, screening meeting requirements described in 32.7.9.7 shall be
provided onsite to screen the 27 spaces from TNT 61K -9 -2. Revise.
33. [32.5.2(p) & 32.7.9.7(a)31 Screening. The proposed bio -filter shall be screened from the public street.
Screening meeting requirements described in 32.7.9.7 shall be provided onsite to screen the facility.
Revise.
34. [32.7.9.8] Tree Canopy. On the plan provide the calculations for the tree canopy, to include required
and provided. Upon my initial review of the site, the canopy provided on the plan does not appear to
meet the minimum required. My calculations are: 58,370 SF site * 15% canopy requirement = 8,755
SF required. Revise appropriately.
35. [32.5.2.n] Existing and proposed improvements. Please show all existing outdoor lighting and provide
a lighting plan.,
36. [32.5.2(n) & (p)] The following will be required for fmal site plan approval:
- Outdoor lighting information including a photometric plan and location, description, and
photograph or diagram of each type of outdoor luminaire [Sec. 32.7.8 & Sec. 4.17]
A landscape plan in accordance with [Sec. 32.7.9].
37. [Recommendation] While the parking space length reduction is permitted for the 27 spaces based on
the proposal, it may be appropriate to rework this to avoid the overhang as large vehicles trying to park
may continuously bump against the retaining wall. Retaining walls which sustain many hits overtime
may become unstable and collapse.
38. [Recommendation] On sheet 1, under site data, the site plan number is listed as not available. Revise
to contain the true site plan number. It is suggested that when the fmal site plan comes in, that the title
provide the SDP# for the fmal site plan.
Engineering Comments — John Anderson
el
1) ADD Note: Existing Entrance To Be Removed (North Berkshire Road, NW corner of site), sheet 2
2) AC Code, Ch. 18, Zoning, Sec. 30, Overlay Districts, 30.7 STEEP SLOPES OVERLAY
DISTRICT, 30.7.5 DESIGN STANDARDS, applies to proposed grade changes to existing
managed slopes just north of 17 -space parking area (Ref. Sheet 4 (C -202), Initial Site Plan;
30.7.5.b.4, steepness; and 30.7.5.d, surface water diversions - § 30.7.5; Ord. 14- 18(2), 3 -5 -14.
ARB — Margaret Maliszewski
This development is not expected to be visible from the Entrance Corridor. Consequently, ARB review is
not required.
E911— Andrew Slack
1) For the three (3) existing structures that will be accessed by a separate parking area we will need to
create a private road name for the access and address those structures off of the new road name. The
developer should contact this office with a list of three (3) proposed road names for approval.
Building Inspections — Jay Schlothauer
1) The proposed apartment building requires a fire sprinkler system; indicate the fire water line on Sheet
C -202.
Fire and Rescue — Robbie Gilmer
1. Dead end roads greater than 150' require an approved turn around for emergency vehicles. per 2009
VSFPC 503.2.5
2. Turning radii entering the parking lot shall not be less than 25'. per 2009 VSFPC 503.2.4
3. Fire Flow test required prior to final approval.
ACSA — Alex Morrison
1) 1 copy of the final site plan is required for review and approval by the ACSA.
2) Provide fixture counts for the proposed building.
3) Revise sewer connection so the lateral angle with the flow is greater than 90 degrees.
4) Add applicable ACSA details (www.serviceauthority.org).
5) Add ACSA Water and Sewer General Conditions.
6) Show water main along entire alignment of Inglewood Drive on the plans.
7) Call out all fittings, bends, gate valves, taps, etc.
VDOT— Troy Austin
- Comments attached
Please contact Christopher P. Perez in the Planning Division by using cperez(agalbeimarle.or or 434 -296-
5832 ext. 3443 for further information or if you have questions.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper; Virginia 22701
Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E,;
Commissioner
April 30, 2014
Mr. Christopher Perez:
Senior Planner
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: SDP - 2014 -00030 Inglewood Apartments — Initial Site Plan
Dear Mr. Perez:
We have reviewed the initial site plan for the Inglewood Apartments dated 3,21114 as submitted
by Meridian Planning Group, LLC and offer the following comments:
1. The sight lines and profiles for each entrance needs to be added to the site plan to ensure
that adequate sight distance is available.
2. The entrances may be designed to Moderate Volume Commercial Entrance standards as
described in Appendix F of the Road Design Manual.
3. The minimum throat width of each two way entrance should be 24'.
4. The new sidewalk shown should be extended to the corner of North Berkshire Road and
Inglewood Drive and connected to the existing sidewalk along North Berkshire Road.
5. It is difficult to tell from the grading plan provided, but it appears that a significant
portion of the parking area and entrance runoff will bypass the proposed storm sewer
system and drain towards Inglewood Drive. Additional grading information including
additional spot elevations should be added to the plan to confirm the drainage area of the
site runoff. In addition, the impact to drainage along Inglewood Drive needs to be
considered by the design engineer.
If you need additional information concerning this project, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
I � II �
f
Troy Austin, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Culpeper District
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
Service Aufh4rity
4C6.
TO: Chris Perez
FROM: Alexander J. Morrison, Civil Engineer
DATE: 5/5/2014
RE: Site Plan Technical Review for: SDP201400030: Inglewood Apartments - Initial Site
Plan
The below checked items apply to this site.
✓ 1. This site plan is within the Authority's jurisdictional area for:
✓ A. Water and sewer
B. Water only
C. Water only to existing structure
D. Limited service
✓ 2. An 8 inch water line is located approximately 5' distant.
3. Fire flow from, nearest public hydrant, located distant from this site plan, is
Gpm + at 20 psi residual.
✓ 4. An 8 inch sewer line is located approximately on site distant.
5. An Industrial Waste Ordinance survey form must be completed.
✓ 6. No improvements or obstructions shall be placed within existing or future
easements.
7. and plans are currently under review.
8. and plans have been received and approved.
9. No plans are required.
10. Final and plans are required for our review and approval prior to
granting tentative approval.
11. Final site plan may /may not be signed.
12. RWSA approval for water and /or sewer connections.
13. City of Charlottesville approval for sewer.
✓ Comments:
• 1 copy of the final site plan is required for review and approval by the ACSA.
Provide fixture counts for the proposed building.
• Revise sewer connection so the lateral angle with the flow is greater than 90 degrees.
• Add applicable ACSA details (www.serviceauthority.org).
Add ACSA Water and Sewer General Conditions.
• Show water main along entire alignment of Inglewood Drive on the plans.
• Call out all fittings, bends, gate valves, taps, etc.
168 Spotnap Road • Charlottesville - VA 22911 • Tel (434) 977 -4511 - Fax (434) 979 -0698.
www.serviceauthority.org
.tea..
i �1k j
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper V+rg n a 22701
Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E.
Commissioner
April 30, 2014
Mr. Christopher Perez
Senior Planner
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: SDP - 2014 -00030 Inglewood Apartments — Initial Site Plan
Dear Mr. Perez:
We have reviewed the initial site plan for the Inglewood Apartments dated 3121114 as submitted
by Meridian Planning Group, LLC and offer the following comments:
1. The sight lines and profiles for each entrance needs to be added to the site plan to ensure
that adequate sight distance is available.
2. The entrances may be designed to Moderate Volume Commercial Entrance standards as
described in Appendix F of the Road Design Manual.
3. The minimum throat width of each two way entrance should be 24'.
4. The new sidewalk shown should be extended to the corner of North Berkshire Road and
Inglewood Drive and connected to the existing sidewalk along North Berkshire Road.
5. It is difficult to tell from the grading plan provided, but it appears that a significant
portion of the parking area and entrance runoff will bypass the proposed storm sewer
system and drain towards Inglewood Drive. Additional grading information including
additional spot elevations should be added to the plan to confirm the drainage area of the
site runoff. In addition, the impact to drainage along Inglewood Drive needs to be
considered by the design engineer.
If you need additional information concerning this project, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
1711ha
Troy Austin, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Culpeper District
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
Review Comments
Project Name: Inglewood Apartments - Initial Initial Site Plan
Date Completed: ITuesday, May 13, 2014
Reviewer: Christopher Perez
Department /Division /Agency: CD
Reviews
Review Status: Approved
Service Authtrity
TO: Chris Perez
FROM: Alexander J. Morrison, Civil Engineer
DATE: 5/5/2014
RE: Site Plan Technical Review for: SDP201400030: Inglewood Apartments - Initial Site
Plan
The below checked items apply to this site.
✓ 1. This site plan is within the Authority's jurisdictional area for:
✓ A. Water and sewer
B. Water only
C. Water only to existing structure
D. Limited service
✓ 2. An 8 inch water line is located approximately 5' distant.
3. Fire flow from, nearest public hydrant, located distant from this site plan, is
Gpm + at 20 psi residual.
✓ 4. An 8 inch sewer line is located approximately on site distant.
5. An Industrial Waste Ordinance survey form must be completed.
✓ 6. No improvements or obstructions shall be placed within existing or future
easements.
7. and plans are currently under review.
8. and plans have been received and approved.
9. No plans are required.
10. Final and plans are required for our review and approval prior to
granting tentative approval.
11. Final site plan may /may not be signed.
12. RWSA approval for water and /or sewer connections.
13. City of Charlottesville approval for sewer.
✓ Comments:
• 1 copy of the final site plan is required for review and approval by the ACSA.
• Provide fixture counts for the proposed building.
• Revise sewer connection so the lateral angle with the flow is greater than 90 degrees.
• Add applicable ACSA details (www.serviceauthority.org).
• Add ACSA Water and Sewer General Conditions.
• Show water main along entire alignment of Inglewood Drive on the plans.
• Call out all fittings, bends, gate valves, taps, etc.
168 Spotnap Road • Charlottesville • VA 22911 • Tel (434) 977 -4511 • Fax (434) 979 -0698
www.serviceauthority.org
• R ! 1 _
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
May 5, 2014
Tim Miller
Meridian Planning Group
1413 Sachem Place, Ste 1
Charlottesville VA. 22901
RE: SDP - 2014 -30 Inglewood Apartments _ Site Plan- Initial
Dear Sir:
Department of Community Development has reviewed the above referenced site plan (dated 3- 24 -14) against
applicable codes and ordinances. Comments are provided below:
1. [32.4.2.1(f)] The public notification fee of $200 was not paid till 5 -6 -14. Comments were held till the fee
was paid.
2. [32.5.3(a)] This application was reviewed against Site Development Plan requirements only. It
appears that the project intends to perform a boundary line vacation between Parcel 2 and Parcel 1, but
no subdivision application has been submitted. Any subdivision related comments are provided for
reference only unless necessary for final site plan approval. Prior to final site plan approval the
Boundary Line Vacation plat shall be submitted, reviewed, approved by the County, and recorded in
the Clerk's Office. The deed book page information of the recorded plat shall be provided on the final
site plan.
3. [32.5.2(a)] With the proposal, modifications to parking, access, and stormwater facilities for the sites are
taking place on Parcel 3. As such this parcel shall also be part of the site plan. Throughout the site plan
revise to include Parcel 3 as part of the plan, such as legal reference, parcel address, title of plan, and
existing conditions on the lot. Staff does not intend for the density of this lot to be included on the plan. If
you have any questions about this please give me a call.
4. [4.12.8(e)] Instrument assuring continuation of off-site parking. The required parking for the two (2)
existing apartment buildings located on TMP 061KO -05 -OA -00300 is partially located on TMP 061KO -05-
OA- 00200. As such an instrument for shared parking shall provided to the County in a form that is suitable
for recording. It shall be subject to review and approval as to form and substance by the County Attorney,
and shall be recorded in the office ofthe clerk of the circuit court of the County before the final site plan is
approved. It is advisable that this document be recorded with the Boundary Line Vacation plat discussed
5. [32.5.2(a), 18.6, 4.11.31 Building Separation. In any case in which there is more than one main
structure on any parcel, there shall be a minimum of thirty (30) feet between such structures except as
otherwise provided in section 4.11.3. This provision shall not apply to structures built to a common
wall. On the plan provide the building setbacks between the existing structure closest to the proposed
structure. Assure this meets the required building separation. Currently it does not appear to meet the
minimum 30' building separation distance. A reduction provided for in Section 4.11.3 may be
appropriate for the proposal, if the site qualifies based on fire flows. If you are seeking this reduction
assure that this is listed on the cover sheet under setbacks and assure you reference 4.11.3. The Fire
Official will be required to sign off on the reduction prior to final site plan approval. Revise
appropriately.
6. [32.5.2(a),18.3] Setbacks. On sheet 1, under site data, provide setbacks for R -15 zoning. They are:
Front 25', Side 15', Rear 20'. Also provide building separation information discussed above in
comment #5.
7. [32.5.2(n)] Existing conditions. On the site plan it is not clear what is happening to the existing
entrance on North Berkshire Road. Is it remaining open? Is it proposed to be closed? Please clarify.
8. [32.5.2(n)] Existing conditions. Add existing fire hydrants to the site plan. Specifically there is a
hydrant located along Inglewood Drive near the proposed entrance to the proposed 17 parking spaces.
Revise.
[32.5.2(n)] Existing conditions. There are existing sidewalks along North Berkshire Road. Revise the
site plan to show the sidewalks.
10. [32.5.2(a), 32.7.2.3(a)] Sidewalks. The sidewalk on North Berkshire Road shall be required to be
connected to the sidewalk on Inglewood Drive. On the final site plan provide this connection.
11. [32.5.2(n)] Existing conditions. At the rear of the property there is an existing dumpster. Depict this on the
existing conditions sheet of the site plan. Is the dumpster to remain? Is it to be relocated? If so, where is it
to be relocated? Screening of the dumpster will be required per Section 32.7.9.7.
12. [32.5.2(n)] Existing conditions. At the rear of the property there is an existing shed. Depict this on the
existing conditions sheet of the site plan. Is the shed to remain? Is it to be relocated? If so, where is it to be
relocated?
13. [32.5.2(n)] Existing conditions. On TNT 061KO -05 -OA -00300 it appears the bio- filter is proposed over the
existing sidewalk leading to the laundry facility. Is the sidewalk being demolitioned or was it not depicted?
Please clarify. Revise appropriately.
14. [32.5.2(b) &(n)] Assure that the proposed units listed for the site are consistent throughout the site
plan. Specifically sheets C -201, 202, and 301 depict 4 proposed units; however, sheet 1 proposes 8
new units. Assure these pages are corrected to depict the correct number of proposed units for the new
building (8 proposed units).
15. [32.5.2(i)] Streets. Provide the Rte number for Inglewood Drive. Staff believes it is Rte 1411. Revise
appropriately.
16. [32.5.2 (m) & (n), 4.12.17(b)] Entrances. "Entrances to parking areas from public streets or private
roads shall be designed and constructed in accordance with Virginia Department of Transportation
standards... " VDOT approval shall be required.
17. [32.5.2(n), 4.12.17(e)1] Two way access. On the plan provide traffic directional arrows for traffic
18. [32.5.2(a)] Add Entrance Corridor (EC) to the Zoning note on the cover sheet.
19. [32.5.2(n)] Dimension the full width of the retaining walls required for construction.
20. [32.5.2 (n)] What kind of walls are the retaining walls? Are they block/redi -rock walls, geogrid?
Provide this information on the plan. Also, on the plan provide the limits of disturbance for the
proposal, to include the area to construct these walls.
21. [30.7.5, 32.6.1(e6), 32.5.2(n) 32.5.2(d)] Managed Slopes. Throughout the plan indicate with shading
those areas of the site where existing "managed slopes" are located. Currently only Sheet C -301
contains this information. Also, please discontinue the use of the term "critical slope" throughout the
plan, as these slopes are now defined as "managed slopes" as defined by the March 5, 2014 BOS
changes to the critical slopes portion of the ordinance (Section 30.7.5 adopted on 3- 5 -14). Disturbance
to these slopes are now permitted by right provided that design standards listed in 30.7.5 are satisfied
to mitigate the impacts caused by the disturbance of the slopes. Please consult with Engineering eerin sg taff
to assure design standards are being met with the proposal. Their approval of this item shall be
required prior to final site plan approval.
22. [32.5.2(k)] Verify that all necessary easements for proposed water, sewer and drainage facilities have
been shown on the plan.
23. [32.5.2(1)] Provide the location of any existing utilities and utility easements including telephone,
cable, electric and gas.
24. [32.5.2(p)] Assure that the proposed plantings are outside of existing and proposed easements or
provide proof of authorization from the easement holder.
25. [32.5.2(e), 32.7.9.4(c)] Existing landscape features. The site has a substantial amount of existing
mature trees onsite; however, none of these trees are depicted on the landscape plan or the existing
conditions page. Depict these trees and provide their size and common name on existing conditions
sheet of the plan. If they are to be removed, on the plan depict this. Revise.
26. [32.5.2(p) & 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. If you intend to use existing trees to satisfy any of the landscape plan requirements, please
include the following:
1. Areas and other features shown on landscape plan. The landscape plan shall 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.
2. Conservation checklist. The applicant shall sign a conservation checklist approved by the agent to
ensure that the specified trees will be protected during construction. Except as otherwise expressly
approved by the agent in a particular case, the checklist shall conform to the specifications in the
Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook, pages III -393 through 111 -413, and as hereafter
amended.
27. [32.7.9] On sheet C -202, in the landscape schedule, T -1 provides 2.5" caliper at time of planting for
340 SF; however, this does not match the approved plant canopy calculations. Rather for a 2.5" caliper
White Oak the canopy calculation is 289 SF. If you revise the minim size at planting to be 3.5" caliper
then the 340 SF calculations is applicable. Revise appropriately.
28. [32.7.9] On sheet C -202, in the landscape schedule, T -2 provides 2" caliper at time of planting for 124
SF; however, the minimum size provided does not match the approved plant canopy calculations. For
height at the time of planting is required for the 124 SF of plant canopy. Revise appropriately.
29. [32.7.9] On sheet C -202, in the landscape schedule, T -2 provides 2.5" caliper at time of planting for
124 SF; however, the minimum size provided.does not match the approved plant canopy calculations.
For this plant type the county utilizes height at the time of planting to calculate canopy. Specifically 6-
7' height at the time of planting is required for the 124 SF of plant canopy. Revise appropriately.
30. [32.7.9] On sheet C -202, in the landscape schedule, T -3 lists 744 SF of canopy calculations for 3
plantings; however, upon review of the plan there are truly 6 found. Three (3) plantings of Eastern
Redbud only account for 372 SF of canopy, six (6) Eastern Redbuds would account for 744 SF. Revise
appropriately.
31. [32.7.9.6] Landscaping within a parking area. The minimum parking lot landscaping requirements do
not appear to be met. Namely, the type of plantings required by the ordinance are shade trees; however,
the plan provides T- 3_Eastern Redbuds, which are ornamental trees. Revise to assure shade trees
selected from the current list of recommended large shade trees are provided within the parking lot
areas. For the proposed amount of parking spaces, six (6) of shade tree plantings are required to be
located within 495 SF of landscape islands or abutting areas. 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 a
building on the site shall be counted towards the minimum area of landscaping for the parking area.
Revise appropriately.
32. [32.7.9.7(a)(2)] Screening. Parking areas consisting of 4 or more spaces shall be screened from
residential areas. On sheet C -202, screening meeting requirements described in 32.7.9.7 shall be
provided onsite to screen the 27 spaces from TNT 61K -9 -2. Revise.
33. [32.5.2(p) & 32.7.9.7(a)31 Screening. The proposed bio -filter shall be screened from the public street.
Screening meeting requirements described in 32.7.9.7 shall be provided onsite to screen the facility.
Revise.
34. [32.7.9.8] Tree Canopy. On the plan provide the calculations for the tree canopy, to include required
and provided. Upon my initial review of the site, the canopy provided on the plan does not appear to
meet the minimum required. My calculations are: 58,370 SF site * 15% canopy requirement = 8,755
SF required. Revise appropriately.
35. [32.5.2.n] Existing and proposed improvements. Please show all existing outdoor lighting and provide
a lighting plan.,
36. [32.5.2(n) & (p)] The following will be required for fmal site plan approval:
- Outdoor lighting information including a photometric plan and location, description, and
photograph or diagram of each type of outdoor luminaire [Sec. 32.7.8 & Sec. 4.17]
A landscape plan in accordance with [Sec. 32.7.9].
37. [Recommendation] While the parking space length reduction is permitted for the 27 spaces based on
the proposal, it may be appropriate to rework this to avoid the overhang as large vehicles trying to park
may continuously bump against the retaining wall. Retaining walls which sustain many hits overtime
may become unstable and collapse.
38. [Recommendation] On sheet 1, under site data, the site plan number is listed as not available. Revise
to contain the true site plan number. It is suggested that when the fmal site plan comes in, that the title
provide the SDP# for the fmal site plan.
Engineering Comments — John Anderson
el
1) ADD Note: Existing Entrance To Be Removed (North Berkshire Road, NW corner of site), sheet 2
2) AC Code, Ch. 18, Zoning, Sec. 30, Overlay Districts, 30.7 STEEP SLOPES OVERLAY
DISTRICT, 30.7.5 DESIGN STANDARDS, applies to proposed grade changes to existing
managed slopes just north of 17 -space parking area (Ref. Sheet 4 (C -202), Initial Site Plan;
30.7.5.b.4, steepness; and 30.7.5.d, surface water diversions - § 30.7.5; Ord. 14- 18(2), 3 -5 -14.
ARB — Margaret Maliszewski
This development is not expected to be visible from the Entrance Corridor. Consequently, ARB review is
not required.
E911— Andrew Slack
1) For the three (3) existing structures that will be accessed by a separate parking area we will need to
create a private road name for the access and address those structures off of the new road name. The
developer should contact this office with a list of three (3) proposed road names for approval.
Building Inspections — Jay Schlothauer
1) The proposed apartment building requires a fire sprinkler system; indicate the fire water line on Sheet
C -202.
Fire and Rescue — Robbie Gilmer
1. Dead end roads greater than 150' require an approved turn around for emergency vehicles. per 2009
VSFPC 503.2.5
2. Turning radii entering the parking lot shall not be less than 25'. per 2009 VSFPC 503.2.4
3. Fire Flow test required prior to final approval.
ACSA — Alex Morrison
1) 1 copy of the final site plan is required for review and approval by the ACSA.
2) Provide fixture counts for the proposed building.
3) Revise sewer connection so the lateral angle with the flow is greater than 90 degrees.
4) Add applicable ACSA details (www.serviceauthority.org).
5) Add ACSA Water and Sewer General Conditions.
6) Show water main along entire alignment of Inglewood Drive on the plans.
7) Call out all fittings, bends, gate valves, taps, etc.
VDOT— Troy Austin
- Comments attached
Please contact Christopher P. Perez in the Planning Division by using cperez(agalbeimarle.or or 434 -296-
5832 ext. 3443 for further information or if you have questions.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper; Virginia 22701
Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E,;
Commissioner
April 30, 2014
Mr. Christopher Perez:
Senior Planner
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: SDP - 2014 -00030 Inglewood Apartments — Initial Site Plan
Dear Mr. Perez:
We have reviewed the initial site plan for the Inglewood Apartments dated 3,21114 as submitted
by Meridian Planning Group, LLC and offer the following comments:
1. The sight lines and profiles for each entrance needs to be added to the site plan to ensure
that adequate sight distance is available.
2. The entrances may be designed to Moderate Volume Commercial Entrance standards as
described in Appendix F of the Road Design Manual.
3. The minimum throat width of each two way entrance should be 24'.
4. The new sidewalk shown should be extended to the corner of North Berkshire Road and
Inglewood Drive and connected to the existing sidewalk along North Berkshire Road.
5. It is difficult to tell from the grading plan provided, but it appears that a significant
portion of the parking area and entrance runoff will bypass the proposed storm sewer
system and drain towards Inglewood Drive. Additional grading information including
additional spot elevations should be added to the plan to confirm the drainage area of the
site runoff. In addition, the impact to drainage along Inglewood Drive needs to be
considered by the design engineer.
If you need additional information concerning this project, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
I � II �
f
Troy Austin, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Culpeper District
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
Service Aufh4rity
4C6.
TO: Chris Perez
FROM: Alexander J. Morrison, Civil Engineer
DATE: 5/5/2014
RE: Site Plan Technical Review for: SDP201400030: Inglewood Apartments - Initial Site
Plan
The below checked items apply to this site.
✓ 1. This site plan is within the Authority's jurisdictional area for:
✓ A. Water and sewer
B. Water only
C. Water only to existing structure
D. Limited service
✓ 2. An 8 inch water line is located approximately 5' distant.
3. Fire flow from, nearest public hydrant, located distant from this site plan, is
Gpm + at 20 psi residual.
✓ 4. An 8 inch sewer line is located approximately on site distant.
5. An Industrial Waste Ordinance survey form must be completed.
✓ 6. No improvements or obstructions shall be placed within existing or future
easements.
7. and plans are currently under review.
8. and plans have been received and approved.
9. No plans are required.
10. Final and plans are required for our review and approval prior to
granting tentative approval.
11. Final site plan may /may not be signed.
12. RWSA approval for water and /or sewer connections.
13. City of Charlottesville approval for sewer.
✓ Comments:
• 1 copy of the final site plan is required for review and approval by the ACSA.
Provide fixture counts for the proposed building.
• Revise sewer connection so the lateral angle with the flow is greater than 90 degrees.
• Add applicable ACSA details (www.serviceauthority.org).
Add ACSA Water and Sewer General Conditions.
• Show water main along entire alignment of Inglewood Drive on the plans.
• Call out all fittings, bends, gate valves, taps, etc.
168 Spotnap Road • Charlottesville - VA 22911 • Tel (434) 977 -4511 - Fax (434) 979 -0698.
www.serviceauthority.org
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper. Virgnia 22701
Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E.
Commissioner
April 30, 2014
Mr. Christopher Perez
Senior Planner
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: SDP - 2014 -00030 Inglewood Apartments Initial Site Plan
Dear Mr. Perez:
We have reviewed the initial site plan for the Inglewood Apartments dated 3/21/14 as submitted
by Meridian Planning Group, LLC and offer the following comments:
1. The sight lines and profiles for each entrance needs to be added to the site plan to ensure
that adequate sight distance is available.
2. The entrances may be designed to Moderate Volume Commercial Entrance standards as
described in Appendix F of the Road Design Manual.
3. The minimum throat width of each two way entrance should be 24'.
4. The new sidewalk shown should be extended to the corner of North Berkshire Road and
Inglewood Drive and connected to the existing sidewalk along North Berkshire Road.
5. It is difficult to tell from the grading plan provided, but it appears that a significant
portion of the parking area and entrance runoff will bypass the proposed storm sewer
system and drain towards Inglewood Drive. Additional grading information including
additional spot elevations should be added to the plan to confirm the drainage area of the
site runoff. In addition, the impact to drainage along Inglewood Drive needs to be
considered by the design engineer.
If you need additional information concerning this project, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Troy Austin, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Culpeper District
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
Review Comments
Project Name: Inglewood Apartments - Initial Initial Site Plan
Date Completed: ITuesday, April 29, 2014
Reviewer: Robbie Gilmer
Department /Division /Agency: Fire Rescue
Reviews
Based on plans dated 3/24/14
1. Dead end roads greater then 150' require an approved turn around for emergency vehicles. per 2009 VSFPC
503.2.5
2. Turning radii entering the parking lot shall not be less then 25'. per 2009 VSFPC 503.2.4
3. Fire Flow test required prior to final approval.
Review Status: Requested Changes
Review Comments
Project Name: Inglewood Apartments - Initial Initial Site Plan
Date Completed: IThursday, April 17, 2014
Reviewer: Margaret Maliszewski
Department /Division /Agency: ARB
Reviews
This development is not expected to be visible from the Entrance Corridor. Consequently, ARB review is not
required.
Review Status: No Objection
Review Comments
Project Name: Inglewood Apartments - Initial Initial Site Plan
Date Completed: 1wednesday, April 16, 2014
Reviewer: John Anderson
Department /Division /Agency: Engineering
Reviews
ADD Note: Existing Entrance To Be Removed (North Berkshire Road, NW corner of site), sheet 2 of 5, Existing
Conditions and Demolition Plan.
AC Code, Ch. 18, Zoning, Sec. 30, Overlay Districts, 30.7 STEEP SLOPES OVERLAY DISTRICT, 30.7.5 DESIGN
STANDARDS, applies to proposed grade changes to existing managed slopes just north of 17 -space parking area
(Ref. Sheet 4 (C -202), Initial Site Plan; 30.7.5.b.4, steepness; and 30.7.5.d, surface water diversions - § 30.7.5;
Ord. 14- 18(2), 3 -5 -14.
Review Status: Requested Changes
Review Comments
Project Name: Inglewood Apartments - Initial Initial Site Plan
Date Completed: ITuesday, April 15, 2014
Reviewer: Andrew Slack
Department /Division /Agency: E911
Reviews
For the three (3) existing structures that will be accessed by a seperate parking area we will need to create a
private road name for the access and address those structures off of the new road name. The developer should
contact this office with a list of three (3) proposed road names for approval.
Review Status: Requested Changes
Review Comments
Project Name: Inglewood Apartments - Initial Initial Site Plan
Date Completed: 1wednesday, April 02, 2014
Reviewer: Jay Schlothauer
Department /Division /Agency: Inspections
Reviews
Based on plans dated March 21, 2014.
The proposed apartment building requires a fire sprinkler system, indicate the fire water line on Sheet C -202.
Review Status: Requested Changes