HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201400048 Review Comments Initial Site Plan 2014-08-06OF A
�'IRGI131P
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
August 6, 2014
David Jensen
3040 Avemore Square Pl.
Charlottesville VA 22911
RE:- SDP201400048 - The Lofts at Meadowcreek - Initial Site Development Plan
Dear Mr. Jensen:
The Site Review Committee has reviewed the development proposal referenced above. Initial comments
for the following divisions of the Department of Community Development and other agencies, as
applicable, are attached:
Albemarle County Planning Services
Albemarle County Engineering Services (to be forwarded upon receipt)
Albemarle County Department of Fire Rescue (to be forwarded upon receipt)
Albemarle County Information Services (E911)
Albemarle County Building Inspections
Albemarle County Service Authority
Rivanna Water Sewer Authority
Virginia Department of Transportation
Comments reflect information available at the time the development proposal was reviewed, and should
not be considered final. However, the Site Review Committee has attempted to identify all issues that
will be required to be resolved prior to Final Site Plan approval. The Lead Reviewer will either approve
with conditions or deny the Initial Site Plan within. 15 days of the Site Review Meeting.
Please contact me at your earliest convenience if you have questions or require additional information.
Sincerely,
Christopher P. Perez
Senior'Planner
Planning Services
J$
t
�'18GII3�Q'
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, VA, 22902
Phone 434 - 296 -5832 Fax 434 - 972 -4126
Memorandum
To: David Jensen
From: Christopher P. Perez, Senior Planner
Division: Planning
Date: August 6, 2014
Subject: SDP 201400048 The Lofts at Meadowcreek - Initial
The County of Albemarle Planning Division will recommend approval of the plan referenced above once the
following comments have been satisfactorily addressed (The following comments are those that have been
identified at this time. Additional comments or conditions may be added or eliminated based on further
review.): [Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference, which is to the Subdivision/Zoning.
Ordinances unless otherwise specified.]
[COD Section I, 8.5.5.31 Street landscaping. VDOT comment 44 dated 8 -5 -14 requires the street tree
landscaping along Rio Rd to be relocated out of the landscaping strip in the right -of -way due to Clear Zone
requirements. The street tree landscaping is depicted in the application plan for ZMA2013 -00001 and is
required; however, the required plantings can be relocated outside of the landscape strip to where VDOT
requires it. In order to facilitate the relocation of the street tree landscaping a Variation request will need to
be requested and processed to modify the typical street'design requirement and the application plan from the
rezoning. This item can be handled at the final site plan stage. The Variation will be reviewed through the
special exception process, if staff is recommending approval of the variation it will go to the BOS on
consent agenda. If staff is recommending denial it will be required to go to the PC IS, then the-BOS.
2. [COD Section I, 8.5.5.3] Landscaping strip. VDOT comment #5 dated 8 -5 -14 requires the landscaping strip
along Rio Rd to be six (6) foot wide, rather than the five (5) foot wide as provided. The landscape strip is
depicted in the application plan for.ZMA2013 -00001 as five (5) foot wide and is required; however, it can
be modified to meet VDOT requirements if needed. In order to facilitate the change a Variation request will
need to be requested and processed to modify the typical street design requirement and the application plan
from the rezoning. This item can be handled at the final site plan stage. The Variation will be reviewed
through the special exception process, if staff is recommending approval of the variation it will go to the
BOS on consent agenda. If staff is recommending denial it will be required to go to the PC I", then the
BOS.
3. [COD Section I, 8.5.5.3, 32.5.2(n), 4.12.16(c)(3)] Angled Parking Spaces. VDOT comment #9 dated 8 -5-
14 requires the two (2) parking spaces along the entrance from Rio Rd to be relocated to meet minimum
throat length. If the two parking spaces are to be relocated from what is depicted on the application plan
from the rezoning then a Variation shall take place. If the two spaces can be pushed back slightly to meet
the throat length but are in the same general location and design a Variation will not be needed.
4. [32.5.2(n), 4.12.16(c)(3)] Angled Parking Spaces. Also, for the two spaces mentioned above provide the
angle of these spaces on the plan so staff can verify they meet the required dimensions per section
4.12.16(c)3.
5. [32.5.2(n), 4.12.16(c)(4)] Curvilinear Parking Spaces. For the 1St curvilinear space after you enter the site
provide a one - hundred (100) foot sight distance line on the plan.
6. [COD Section I, 8.5.5.3] Pedestrian Path. The pedestrian path is depicted .on the application plan for
ZMA2013 -00001 as going around the rear of the building and meeting up in the - general area of the
dumpster pad at the front of the building. The original path design provided access to the open space on the
southwestern portion of the property. Instead, on the site plan the path has been .modified to double back and
lead to the passive recreational area near the pond and rear of the building. Staff suggests the original
design/layout of -the path also be incorporated into the site plan, in addition to what is depicted on the site
plan. Regardless of the design in order to facilitate a change from the application plan/ rezoning a Variation
request will need to be requested and processed to modify the path location. This item can be handled at the
final site plan stage. The Variation will be reviewed through the special exception process,. if staff is
recommending approval of the variation it will go to the BOS on consent agenda. If staff is recommending
denial it will be required to go to the PC P; then the BOS
[ZMA2013 -1, Proffer #21 Transit Reservation Area On the site plan label and depict the small transit
shelter associated with the bus stop.
8. [32.5.2(a) & (o) & Proffer #1] Rio Road Improvements. On the plan clearly delineate with shading any
area proposed to be dedicated for the improvements to Rio Rd. Also, provide a note stating that the land is
to be dedicated for public use.
9. [ZMA2013 -1, Proffer #1] Rio Road Improvements. Prior to final site plan approval the Rio Rd
widening /dedication to public use will need to take place on a subdivision plat to be reviewed by the
County, approved, and then recorded in the Clerk's Office prior to final site plan approval. The DB page
information of this action shall be provided on the final site plan.
10. [ZMA2013 -1, Proffer #3] Affordable Housing. "Each site plan for land within the property shall note the
aggregate number of units designated for Affordable Units" Provide the affordable unit information on the
site plan for staff to verify the requirement is met.
11. [32.5.2(n), 4.12.16(c)(1)] Perpendicular Parking Size. Throughout the plan label the aisle widths, including
in the parking areas. Spaces along a24' aisle shall be 9' wide by 18' long.
12. [Comment] The design of the parking garage does not provide a vehicle turnaround location to be used
when all the spaces are full. Rather vehicles will be prompted to reverse out of the site if the lot is full. For
safety reasons it is suggested that two spaces at the northern end of the unit are stripped for no parking to
facilitate vehicle turn arounds, such as would be for a hammer head turn around.
13. [4.12.6] Parking. On the plan depict the required parking spaces based on the use, show the calculations.
Continue to depict the spaces provided. Staff understands a parking waiver was processed at the rezoning
stage; however, the overall mix of unit types has changed since the rezoning. Previously it was 40 - single
bedroom units, now it is 35 - single bedroom units. Previously it was .25 - two bedroom units, now it is .28 -
two bedroom units and 2 - three bedroom units. Provide the revised information so that Zoning can
determine if the parking provided is still adequate.
14. [32.5.2(a), 32.7.2.3(a), 32.5.6.i, 32.7.2.3(a)(c)] Sidewalks. The sidewalks fronting the property shall be built
to the side property lines. Currently each sidewalks stops 10 feet short.of the property line. Revise.
15. [32.5.2(n), 32.7.2.3(a),14 -422] Sidewalks and landscaping strips. On the plan please dimension and label
all proposed sidewalks and planting strips.
2
16. [32.5.2(a) & (n)] General information. The zoning of the property is correctly labeled as NMD: Also, under
the zoning of the property provide a note that proffers are associated with ZMA2013 -1. Staff understands
that page two lists the proffers, but sheet 1 under zoning should also state that proffers apply per the
rezoning ZMA2013 -1.
17. [32.5.2(d), 30.7.51 Managed and Preserved Slopes. This parcel no longer contains "critical slopes"; it -has a
combination of both "managed slopes" and "preserved slopes" based on the approved overlay map. Show
both the managed and preserved slopes as represented on the approved map and label them accordingly.
These slopes should be shown on the site plan as well as the existing conditions sheet to give a better
understanding of the impacts on each type of slope. The proposed disturbance of the .preserved slopes is
allowed based on the exhibit and special exception approved with ZMA201300001 which requires
construction in this area. Additionally, disturbance of managed slopes is now permitted without a waiver as
long as certain performance standards are met. Coordinate with engineering to make sure the construction
proposed on the managed slopes meets these requirements.
18. [32.5.2(a)] Setbacks. On sheet 1 of the site plan assure that the 10' setbacks are noted.
19. [Comment] Throughout the plan provide directional arrows for the .drive aisles.
20. [32.5.2(b)] On sheet 1, revise site data information to break down how 70,696SF of Open Space is being
provided onsite. Notably, sheet 10 does not depict enough open to have 70,696SF of Open Space. Please
address this. Revise.
21: [Comment] It appears as though only one (1) dumpster is being provided onsite. Being there are to be 65
units in this multifamily development, it seems appropriate more dumpsters will be required to handle all the
waste produced. Assure that the amount of dumpsters is provided which will adequately service the
development.
22. [4.17] Lighting. On sheet 1, under Notes, the lighting note shall be revised, as lighting shall not exceed one
half (0.5) foot candle. Revise to provide the following standard lighting note on the lighting ,plan: Each
outdoor luminaire equipped with a lamp that emits 3, 000 or more initial lumens shall be a full cutoff
luminaire and shall be arranged or shielded to reflect light away from adjoining residential districts and
away from adjacent roads. The spillover of lighting from luminaires onto public roads and property in
residential or rural areas zoning districts shall not exceed one -half foot- candle.
23. [Comment] If any off -site easements are required, they must be approved and recorded prior to Site Plan
approval.
24. [Comment] This site plan cannot be approved until all reviewers complete their reviews; comments_ will be
forwarded upon receipt.
25. [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] and the Code of Development associated with the
rezoning.
Below staff has provided comments related to landscaping and lighting for the applicant to consider when
working on these items for the final site plan:
[32.5.2(n)] Show proposed lighting locations on the layout, utility and landscape sheets to verify no conflicts
exist.
[4.17.] On the light plan include out sheets for proposed lights and provide legible photometric plan on final site
plan.
[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.
[32.5.2(p), 32.7.9.51 When a parking lot is located such that parked cars will be visible from a public street, low
shrubs should be planted to minimize the view of the parked cars. The parking above ground parking will be
visible from Rio Road; on the landscape plan provide shrubs to screen the parking area from Rio Rd.
[32.7.9.6] Landscaping within a parking area Parking lot landscaping shall apply to above ground parking.
[32.7.9.8] Tree Canopy. On the plan provide the calculations for the tree canopy, to include required and
provided.
[32.5.2(p) & 32.7.9.7] Proposed SWM Facility should be screened from the adjacent residential lots.
[32.5.2(p) & COD Section X] On the landscape plan associated with the final site plan provide a chart or other
schedule demonstrating how the required Landscape Treatment requirements listed in Section X of the Code of
Development are being satisfied.
Please contact Christopher P. Perez in the Planning Division by using eperea 2albemarle. org or 434 - 296 -5832
ext. 3443 for further information.
4
Comments from SRC reviewers have been provided below:
Engineering Comments — John Anderson
- Comments pending
Fire and Rescue — Robbie Gilmer
Comments pending
E911— Andrew Slack
1. Approved
Building Inspections — Jay Schlothauer
- No objections
ACSA —Alex Morrison
- See attached comments.
RWSA — Victoria Fort
1. In addition to the comments provided by ACSA, RWSA requests that the applicant provide an estimate of
future sewer flows from this development. If projected flows are in excess of 40,000 gallons per day, the project
will require a flow capacity certification from RWSA prior to final site plan approval.
VD OT— Troy Austin
- Comments attached
5
Service: Auth4rity.
TO: Chris Perez
FROM: Alexander J. Morrison, E.I.T., Civil Engineer
DATE: July 23, 2014
RE: Site Plan Technical Review for: SDP201400048: The Lofts at Meadowcreek - 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 (ACSA Main) inch water line is located approximately .225' 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 0' 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 water plans required for construction review and approval prior to final site
plan approval being granted.
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:
Relocate water connection so it is an extension of the existing watermain on TMP #61A29.
• The proposed connection to the existing RWSA watermain in Rio Road is not an approved
connection.
• Call out all.fittings.
• Call out water meter "To be Sized by ACSA."
Show gate valve on fire line (marks the end of ACSA ownership).
Call out backflow prevention.
Call out sewer lateral invert in as well as the existing invert in, invert out, lid and depth for the
manhole. Show ACSA details (found at www.serviceauthority.org ).
• Include waterline profiles.
168 Spotnap Road • Charlottesville - VA 22911 • Tel (434) 977 -4511 • Fax (434) 979 -0698
www.serviceauthority.org
N,r.Sr..... i
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
culpaper, Mrglnle. 22701
Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E.
Commissioner
August 5, 2014
Mr. Christopher Perez
Senior Planner
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: SDP -2014 -00048 The Lofts at Meadowereek— Initial Site Plan
Dear Mr. Perez:
We have reviewed the initial site plan for The Lofts at Meadowereek dated 6/23/14:as submitted by W W Associates
and offer the following comments:
1. It appears that the right of way should be adjusted at the entrance to The Lofts at Meadowereek to
accommodate the crosswalk across the entrance.
2. There are two utility poles shown in the bus stop area that will need to be relocated.
3. Additional detail, including spot elevations, should be provided at the entrance to the stormwater
management facility to ensure positive drainage across the entrance and to clarify the transition from curb
and gutter to shoulder /roadside ditch.
4. The clear zone along Rio Road needs to be considered, It is likely that the street trees shown in the typical
sections for Rio Road will not be allowed due to clear zone restrictions.
5. The minimum width of a landscape strip between the back of curb and the sidewalk is 6' rather than the 5'
shown.
6. The pavement design for the Rio Road improvements will need to match the existing pavement structure of
Rio Road.
7. Per the 2011 AASHTO Manual, the deceleration taper for the bus stop should be at a minimum a 5:1 ratio,
or a minimum of 50' rather than the 30' shown. Please refer to page 4 -69 in the AASHTO Manual:
8. Rather than only showing the details from the Work Area Protection Manual; it would be helpful to also
show the sign locations and channelizing in plan view, to scale for this project.
9. The parking spaces located closest to Rio Road do not appear to meet the minimum throat length as defined
in Appendix F of the Road Design Manual.
If additional information is needed concerning this project, please do not hesitate to contact me at (434) 422 -9782.
Sincerely,
Troy Austin, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Culpeper District
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING