Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201500023 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2015-05-21Phone 434 - 296 -5832 County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, VA, 22902 Memorandum To: Michael Myers (mmyers(aD_dominioneng.com) From: Ellie Ray, CLA, Senior Planner Division: Planning Date: May 21, 2015 Subject: SDP 201500023 Timberwood Square — Final & SUB 201500077 Timberwood Square — Road Plans (private streets) Fax 434 - 972 -4126 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.] 1. [Comment] This SDP application was previously submitted as SDP201400039, but was subsequently withdrawn due to inactivity. In an effort to reduce confusion, the previous comment letter is being used as the basis for this review. Due to changes made to the Site Plan, some comments previously marked as addressed are now active comments again. Additional comments have been added at the end of the letter. Some comments apply to both the site plan and road plans; additional road plan comments are also added at the end of the letter. 2. [Comment] This application was reviewed against Site Development Plan requirements only. It appears that lot lines are shown on the plan, but no subdivision application was submitted. Any subdivision related comments are provided for reference only unless necessary for site plan approval or will significantly impact the approved site plan. 3. [Comment] Since no subdivision application was submitted, it should be noted on the plan that the revised areas given for each parcel won't be approved until a subdivision application is submitted for review. 4. [Comment] The boundary line adjustment necessary to provide the minimum 20' parking setback between commercial and residential areas will be required prior to site plan approval. It may be helpful to also include the other proposed boundary line changes between the parcels with this application to make it clear which areas are `residential' and which areas are `commercial' (see comments below for clarification). 5. [32.5.2(a)] Provide a listing of all Special Permits and waivers granted for this property along with the associated conditions of approval. This should include SP1994 -16 which allowed professional offices, SP2008 -52 which allowed stand -alone parking, and the critical slope and undisturbed buffer waivers granted during the preliminary site plan review. SDP201500023: Include a note about the critical slope and undisturbed buffer waivers granted during the preliminary site plan review (SDP201100042). 6. [32.5.2(a)] Add parking setback information to the Site Data (10' from a public street and 20' from residential). SDP201500023: Comment addressed. 7. [32.5.2(a)] Add the undisturbed buffer requirement to the Site Data (20' from residential). SDP201500023: Comment addressed. 8. [32.5.2(a)] Correct the front building setback for townhomes to 25' in the Site Data. SDP201500023: Comment addressed. 9. [32.5.2(a)] Add the zoning district to the adjacent property information. SDP201500023: Comment addressed. 10. [32.5.2(b)] The plan shows that 32 townhomes are proposed, not 35 as listed in the Site Data; revise notes accordingly. SDP201500023: Comment addressed. 11. [32.5.2(b)] Revised Parcel 46 -64 -7 is the only parcel that should be included in `residential' calculations and information (TMP 46 -134 -713 contains parking that supports the commercial uses on parcels 7A & 7C). The proposed density calculation should be revised to reflect the correct unit count (32) and the correct `residential' area (3.64 acres). SDP201500023: Comment not fully addressed. The `proposed use' note still references residential on both 7 & 7113; revise accordingly. 12. [32.5.2(b) & 4.16] Provide recreational area as required in Section 4.16 and list the amount provided in the Site Data. (see 4.16 for requirements regarding area, slope, groundcover, access and facilities) SDP201500023: Comment not fully addressed. 200 sf /unit of recreational area is required (making sure it meets the requirements for slope, etc. listed in section 4.16); the tot lot is the required facility within the recreation area. It appears this plan offers the required recreation area through open space and the trail system, but it should be documented and verified that it meets the requirements. Additionally, the tot lot requires two climbers not one. 13. [32.5.2(b)] Provide the combined square footage of all commercial space on the four subject parcels to verify that the limit in SP94 -16 is not exceeded. SDP201500023: Comment addressed. 14. [32.5.2(b)] Revise the parking requirement to reflect the accurate number of townhomes proposed. Additionally, two parking spaces noted as supporting the townhomes are located on the commercial parcel; if this scenario remains after revision an easement will be required on those spaces. SDP201500023: Comment addressed. 15. [32.5.2(d)] In the development areas, the critical slopes ordinance has been revised to create an overlay map of `managed' and `preserved' steep slopes. Please remove all reference to `critical slopes' and provide the locations of all managed and preserved slopes as shown on the overlay map. SDP201500023: Comment addressed. 16. [32.5.2(1)] Provide the location of any other existing or proposed utilities and utility easements including telephone, cable, electric and gas. SDP201500023: Comment not fully addressed. A portion of sewer easement is missing along Lot 1 (it was shown on previous submittals); verify and revise, if necessary. 17. [32.5.2(n)] Provide the maximum footprint for all proposed buildings. SDP201500023: Comment not addressed. Clarify where the maximum footprint information is provided; footprint information for both commercial and residential structures is required. 18. [32.5.2(n)] Dimension the entire dumpster pad, not just the apron. SDP201500023: Comment addressed. 19. [32.5.2(n)] Provide the location and dimensions of the required recreational areas. SDP201500023: Comment not fully addressed; see comment regarding recreation area above. 20. [32.5.2(0)] Clarify ownership of the `Common Area'. This area contains parking that supports the two commercial buildings as well as 2 residential spaces; an easement (and deed) will be required to ensure access by these uses. (see comment #33 below for more information) SDP201500023: Comment not fully addressed. Label the areas shown as `open space' as `common open space' (slightly different definition) and note that both `common area' and `common open space' will be owned by the HOA, if that is the case. If the `common area' (proposed parcel for parking) will have different ownership, provide the proposed ownership. 21. [32.6.2(f)] Provide the radius of all curb returns. SDP201500023: Comment addressed. 22. [32.6.2(g)] Clearly label which utilities /easements are existing and which are proposed. Additionally, all proposed water and sewer facilities intended to be dedicated to public use shall be identified by a statement that the facilities are to be dedicated to the Albemarle County Service Authority. SDP201500023: Comment addressed. 23. [32.6.2(h)] Add a line for Fire /Rescue to the signature panel. SDP201500023: Comment addressed. 24. [32.6.2(j)] Any proposed landscaping used to meet requirements of the landscape plan ordinance that will be located in private residential lots will require an easement and maintenance agreement when the lots are subdivided. SDP201500023: Comment not fully addressed. Four dogwoods and two maples are proposed on lots 1, 4, 8, 9 & 10. These plantings are not in a landscape easement but are used in the calculations for tree canopy; include these in a landscape easement if used to meet landscape requirements. 25. [32.6.20) & 32.7.9.4(b)] Existing trees may be preserved in lieu of planting new plant materials in order to satisfy the landscaping and screening requirements of section 32.7.9, 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. SDP201500023: Comment not fully addressed. The conservation checklist must be filled out in addition to being signed. 26. [32.6.20) & 32.7.9.5(e)] Provide shrubs along Worth Crossing (to minimize view of parked cars) where the proposed parking lot extends in that direction (near dumpster) as shown on the preliminary plan. SDP201500023: Comment not fully addressed. The approved preliminary plan included 12 ilex glabra to provide screening of parked cars, but this plan does not. Include the ilex glabra as previously shown. 27. [32.6.20) & 32.7.9.6(a)] Provide a calculation and documentation demonstrating that an interior area equal to 5% of the paved parking and vehicular circulation is provided and landscaped with trees or shrubs; this should be provided for both the residential and commercial areas (including existing paved areas). SDP201500023: Comment not fully addressed. The impervious area summary lists 33,715 sf (0.774 ac) of existing roads /parking areas and 25,439 sf (0.584 ac) of proposed roads /parking areas for a total of 59,154 sf. The landscape plan lists 28,300 sf of proposed parking area in the residential area and 23,700 sf of proposed parking area in the commercial area for a total of 52,000 sf. This calculation should take into account all paved parking and vehicular circulation areas (existing and proposed), and the numbers should be consistent throughout the plan; please verify and revise. 28. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.7] As noted in the conditions of approval below, screening meeting the requirements of this section has not been provided; revise the proposed landscape within the 20' buffer area accordingly. SDP201500023: Comment not fully addressed. See comment below under conditions of approval. 29. [32.6.20) & 32.7.9.8] The areas noted as residential and commercial are incorrect; revise the tree canopy calculations using the areas indicated in comment #11 above (3.64 acres residential & 2.23 acres commercial). SDP201500023: Comment addressed. 30. [32.6.20) & 32.7.9.8] Many of the plant counts provided in the Landscaping Schedules are incorrect. There are 16 Quercus palustris shown on the plan (not 18), 17 Cornus kousa in the residential area (not 18), 53 Cryptomeria japonica in the residential area (not 52), and 13 Ilex glabra in the commercial area (not 15); verify all plant counts and revise the schedules and associated canopy calculations. SDP201500023: Comment addressed; landscape plan has changed significantly, all plant counts appear to be accurate. 31. [32.6.20) & 32.7.9.8] Cornus kousa provides 123sf of canopy (not 133sf) according to the County Plant Canopy Calculations; revise the canopy calculations. SDP201500023: Comment addressed. 32. [32.6.20) & 32.7.9.8] As indicated above, clearly show all existing trees to be saved and used toward the tree canopy requirement (including the canopy provided by each tree or group of trees). The canopy bonus for preserving existing trees is 1.25, not 1.5; revise the tree canopy calculations. SDP201500023: Comment addressed. 33. [4.12.8(e)] Instrument assuring continuation of off -site parking. If stand -alone parking or off -site shared parking is to be provided, the applicant shall submit with the application for a site plan, site plan waiver or, if a site plan is not required, with an application for a zoning compliance clearance, an instrument that restricts the use of that part of the land on which parking is provided to that use, and assures that a minimum number of parking spaces as required by this section shall be established and maintained for the life of the use. The instrument shall be in a form that is suitable for recording, 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 site plan or site plan waiver is approved. As the parking requirements for the use or structure change, subsequent instruments may be submitted, reviewed, approved and recorded that rescind or modify the prior instrument. SDP201500023: Comment not addressed. Parking for the commercial buildings is currently shown as being on a separate parcel; the instrument noted above is required to be submitted and approved. Additionally, the parking for the proposed townhouses extends across many lots lines (currently, and once subdivided); an instrument regarding the parking easement, maintenance, etc shall also be submitted for review and approval. 34. [32.6.2(k)] Clarify if any outdoor lighting is proposed. If it is, provide a photometric plan including a luminaire schedule and fixture cut - sheets; if not, remove the lighting note on Sheet 2. SDP201500023: Comment not fully addressed. A lighting plan has now been included in the site plan; the plan does not meet the following requirements: • The photometric values should extend to the property lines to verify the spillover requirement is met (or show less than 0.5 fc before the property line). • Manufacturer's cut - sheets for each proposed fixture shall be included in the plan set; all fixtures 3000 lumen or higher must meet the County's definition of full cutoff. • The model numbers shown on the cut - sheets must match those listed in the luminaire schedule. • The tilt must be included in the luminaire schedule (must be 0 for full cutoff) • Light fixtures should be shown on the landscape plan and layout /utility plans to verify that no site conflicts exist. • Clarify existing and proposed light fixtures; all fixtures must be included in the photometric calculations. • 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. 35. [32.6.2(i)] Provide specifications for the required recreational facilities (see comments above). SDP201500023: Comment not fully addressed. Specifications for the proposed facilities (in the tot lot) should be included in the plan set. 36. [Lommentt riease indicate the aeea rook and page reference for aii existing utility easements located on the property. SDP201500023: Comment addressed. 37. [Comment] If any off -site easements are required, they must be submitted for review and recorded prior to Site Plan approval. SDP201500023: Comment addressed. 38. [Comment] This site plan cannot be approved until ACSA, VDOT, and Fire /Rescue complete their reviews and grant their approval. Inspections has reviewed the plan and has no objections. Engineering and E911 comments have been provided. SDP201500023: Comment still valid. This site plan cannot be approved until ACSA and Engineering complete their reviews and grant their approval. Inspections, Fire /Rescue and E911 have reviewed the plan and have no objection. VDOT comments have been provided. Conditions of Preliminary Approval (from approval letter dated 11/4/11): 39. Meet all the requirements in Chapter 18 Section 32 for final site plans, including lighting plans. SDP201500023: Comment still valid. 40. [32.5.6(a)] Correct the front setback for townhomes as listed on the Cover Sheet to 25', and show the 50' building setback from TMP 46 -B4 -7 on the Site Plan. SDP201500023: Comment addressed. 41. [32.5.6(b)] Provide the maximum number of employees. SDP201500023: Comment addressed. 42. [32.5.6(b)] Clarify the difference between the numbers provided for `paved parking and vehicular circulation' and `pavement' (as indicated in the impervious area summary). SDP201500023: Comment addressed. 43. [32.5.6(b)] Revise the parking schedule to indicate 65 spaces are required as approved with the parking requirement reduction request. Please also present your parking space count on the site plan to demonstrate the separation of commercial and residential parking (as shown on the cover sheet). SDP201500023: Comment addressed. 44. [4.12.16(c)6] Please clearly label the gutter that runs along the front of the parking spaces in the lower portion of each townhome lot, or dimension the spaces at 18'. SDP201500023: Comment addressed. 45. [32.5.6(n)] Dimension the dumpster pad. SDP201500023: Comment addressed. 46. [32.5.6(n)] Modify the 2' wide island strip between the handicapped space and the travelway (at the turn into the townhome parking) to meet the 3' minimum width requirement for parking islands. SDP201500023: Comment addressed. 47. [32.5.6(p)] Revise the landscape plan to conform to section 32.7.9 and conditions of SP 1994 -16, along with the calculations and notes demonstrating that the requirements are being satisfied. a) [32.5.6(e) and 32.7.9.4(c)] Verify all existing landscape features as described in section 32.7.9.4(c), and be very specific about which trees are to be saved and used toward meeting the landscape plan requirements. A conservation plan checklist will be required. SDP201500023: Comment addressed. b) [32.7.9.5(a)] Sizes of all proposed plantings must be listed in the plant schedule to demonstrate adherence to minimum standards. SDP201500023: Comment not fully addressed. The proposed size for Osmanthus should be provided as a height, not a caliper. c) [32.7.9.5(b)] All pervious areas must be labeled with proposed soil erosion protection. SDP201500023: Comment addressed. d) [32.7.9.7(b)] Please correct the parking space number (as provided for determining the number of parking lot trees required) for the upper townhouse lot to reflect the 58 spaces provided toward the residential requirement and for the commercial area to reflect the 65 spaces provided. The number of required trees should remain the same for the townhouse area and increase to 7 for the commercial area. This requirement has been met; this revision simply documents it properly. SDP201500023: Comment not fully addressed. Due to the `parking lot' created to provide parking for the townhouses and the existing parking lot that serves the commercial buildings, the internal landscape requirement is parking lot trees (32.7.9.6(b) - 1 tree per 10 parking spaces), not street trees. List the number of parking lot trees required and the number provided in each area. The street tree requirement applies to the frontage along existing streets, however the frontage provided appears to be incorrect. Provide accurate frontage numbers and verify that this requirement is satisfied (can include existing and proposed trees). e) [32.7.9.8(a)] Provide more detailed information about the proposed dumpster enclosure to demonstrate adherence to the screening standards. SDP201500023: Comment addressed. However, the detail reference is incorrect; it appears it should be 10/SP16, not 9/SP17. f) [32.7.9.8(a) & SP 94 -16 Condition# 1] The screening provided between the commercial and residential areas should be modified; please place the proposed fence on the same side of the Japanese cedars throughout for a consistent appearance. Please also add some smaller screening shrubs under the existing and proposed London Planetrees to soften the proposed fence. SDP201500023: This condition has not been addressed; adequate screening between the commercial and residential areas must be provided. Provide a detail for the fence and specify which cultivar of cryptomeria is proposed. Some cryptomeria cultivars would need to be planted at different spacing than what is shown to provide adequate screening. g) [32.7.9.9] Revise the Tree Canopy calculations as follows: i. The area of canopy for a Crataegus phaenopyrum is listed in the County Plant Canopy Calculations as 145 SF, not 125 SF as provided; please revise. ii. There appear to be three Fraxinus pennsylvanica, not four as listed in the plant schedule; please revise. iii. I calculate the sum of the existing canopy at 11,699 SF, not 12,699 as presented; please verify. iv. The trees labeled as existing Sycamores are actually London Planetrees; modify all tree canopy calculations accordingly. V. Remove the 98 SF assumption of tree cover; all tree canopy provided must be documented. SDP201500023: The landscape plan has changed significantly; these comments have been replaced with tree canopy comments nrovided above. h) [SP 94 -16 Condition# 2] For recordkeeping purposes: Condition #2 has been met through the proposed planting along Timberwood Blvd. SDP201500023: The proposed planting along Timberwood Blvd has changed from what was approved on the Preliminary Plan and no longer satisfies SP Condition #2; the preliminary plan included large deciduous trees and white pines. The cryptomeria may be substituted for white pines, depending on cultivar. Provide the large deciduous trees (can apply to street tree requirement as well) and indicate the cultivar of cryptomeria proposed. i) [SP 94 -16 Condition# 3] For recordkeeping purposes: Condition #3 has been met as determined by Zoning via email dated 10/20/11. SDP201500023: SP Condition #3 is met through preserving the existing vegetation along the entry road; provide a note on the plan expressly stating that this vegetation is not to be disturbed. j) [SP 94 -16 Condition# 4] Condition #4 has been met through the existing walkway and the proposed modifications. SDP201500023: This condition has been satisfied, but some portions of the trail appear to be disturbed by proposed grading; provide a note on the plan stating any disturbed areas will be reconstructed. Additionally, some easements have been provided for the trail but a section on lot 11 also needs an easement. 48. A critical slopes waiver has been granted for small areas of impacts to critical slopes as indicated on the Preliminary Site Plan. This approval is conditional on obtaining an approved Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. SDP201500023: The Site Plan will not be approved until the WPO application is approved. 49. An undisturbed buffer waiver has been granted in order to provide the required screening between the commercial and townhome portions of this site. This approval is conditional on revision of the proposed screening as indicated above (f). SDP201500023: See comment (f) above. Additional Comments: 50. This is a new application; please remove all previous dates and provide a date in keeping with a 2015 submittal. 51. Some of the parking in the existing parking lot looks to be too short (according to the parking stripes and access easement lines); verify and revise, if necessary. 52. Once a subdivision plat is submitted, double frontage lots will be proposed (See definition of double frontage lots in Chapter 14). Double frontage lots are prohibited for attached residential uses. For the subdivision plat to be approved, a minimum of 20' of open space between the rear of the lots and the second street must be provided or an exception can be requested as provided in section 14- 203.1. If double frontage lots are approved through an exception, screening that meets 32.7.9.7 must be provided. Road Plan Comments: 53. [Comment] The Sheet numbers should match those provided in the Sheet Index. 54. [Comment] As with the site plan, the road plan should be dated in keeping with a 2015 submittal. 55. [Comment] Clarify if private street easements or rights -of -way are proposed; the areas are noted as easements, but are shown as rights -of -way in some areas. Additionally, the condition should be consistent throughout the project. 56. [Comment] Subdivision exhibit sheet does not show the proposed private streets through the common area parcel. 57. [Comment] The turn - around areas should be clearly shown within the ROW or easement. They aren't included on the subdivision exhibit and appear to have a different type of easement on the layout sheets. 58. [Comment] The private streets should be labeled as such, not access easements. Revise to say either private street easement or private street right -of -way. 59. [Comment] A maintenance agreement for the private street (and all other required improvements) must be submitted for review and approval by the County Attorney's Office prior to Final Plat approval. Staff has provided references to provisions of Chapter 18 of the Code of the County of Albemarle. The Code is kept up to date by the County Attorney's office. The Code may found on the County Attorney's website which may be found under "Departments and Services" at Albemarle.org. In accord with the provisions of Section 32.4.3.5 of Chapter 18 of the Code if the developer fails to submit a revised final site plan to address all of the requirements within six (6) months after the date of this letter the application shall be deemed to have been voluntarily withdrawn by the developer. Please contact Ellie Ray at the Division of Current Development by using eray(a)albemarle.org or 434 - 296 -5832 ext. 3432 for further information.