HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201400067 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2015-05-28COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
Memorandum
To: David Jensen
From: Christopher P. Perez, Senior Planner
Division: Planning
Date: May 28, 2015
Subject: SDP - 2014 -67 The Lofts at Meadow Creek — Final Site Plan
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.]
Conditions of Initial Plan Approval (from approval letter dated August 20, 2014:
1. [32.6] A site plan meeting all the requirements of section 32.6 of Chapter 18 of the Code.
Final: See Final Plan comments below. Comment still valid.
2. [COD Section I, 8.5.5.3] Street landscaping. VDOT comment #4 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, ifstaff 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 to the BOS.
Final: Comment addressed. In consultation with the Director of Planning the required street
trees are determined to be in the same general character as depicted on the application
plan/Code of Development.
[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, ifstaff 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.
Final: Comment addressed. In consultation with the Director of Planning the required
landscape strip is determined to be in the same general character as depicted on the application
plan/Code of Development.
4. [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. Final: Comment appears to be addressed. A variation is not required based on
minimal redesign.
5. [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. Final: Comment appears to be addressed by having been revised to perpendicular
spaces and shifting spaces further from R/W.
6. [32.5.2(n), 4.12.16(c)(4)] Curvilinear Parking Spaces. For the Is` curvilinear space after you enter
the site provide a one - hundred (100) foot sight distance line on the plan. Final: Comment addressed.
7. [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. Final: Comment addressed.
8. [ZMA2013 -1, Proffer #2] Transit Reservation Area. On the site plan label and depict the small
transit shelter associated with the bus stop. Rev 2: Comment addressed.
9. [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. Final: Comment addressed.
10. [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.
Rev 3: Comment still relevant. Staff has received the revised plat and it is being reviewed.
Pending approval/recordation of plat, the site plan shall be revised to provide the latest deed
book and page reference information.
11. [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.
Final: Comment not adequately addressed. Sheet 2, Affordable Units, provides a note which
states: "see proffer 3 above for required number of affordable units. " however, proffer 3 states
that "each site plan...shall note the aggregate number of units designated for Affordable Units. "
Thus on this site plan please provide the aggregate number of units designated as Affordable
Units. Based on the proffer, the required amount of affordable housing for this use is twenty
percent of 65 units, thus 13 affordable units shall be provided. Clearly label this on the plan.
Rev 2. Comment addressed.
2
12. [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 a 24' aisle shall be 9' wide by 18' long.
Final: Comment still relevant. Only a single 24' width label was provided on the plan. Please
add a measurement to the parking structure aisles and the parking structure entrance. This will
aid the Zoning Inspectors in the field. Rev 2: Comment addressed.
13. [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 around, as would be for a hammer head turn around.
Final: Comment addressed.
14. [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 on the final site plan so that Zoning can determine if the parking provided is
still adequate. Final: Comment addressed.
15. [32.5.2(a), 32.7.2.3(a), 32.5.6.1, 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. Final: Comment addressed.
16. [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. Final: Comment addressed.
17. [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 I under zoning should also state that proffers
apply per the rezoning ZMA2013 -1. Final: Comment addressed.
18. 132.5.2(d), 30.7.5] 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. Comment addressed. 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. Final: Comment still relevant, work with Engineering to remedy this.
Rev 3: Comment addressed.
19. [32.5.2(a)] Setbacks. On sheet 1 of the site plan assure that the 10' setbacks are noted.
Final: Comment addressed.
20. [Comment] Throughout the plan provide directional arrows for the drive aisles.
Final: Comment addressed.
21. [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. Final: Comment addressed.
22. [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
3
handle all the waste produced. Assure that the amount of dumpsters is provided which will adequately
service the development. Final: Applicant acknowledges this comment. Comment addressed.
23. [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. Comment addressed. 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. Final: Comment not adequately addressed. The above required note
shall be provided on all site plans that have lighting associated with them. Please include the
above note on the site plan. Rev 2: Comment addressed.
24. [Comment] If any off -site easements are required, they must be approved and recorded prior to Site
Plan approval. Rev 2: Comment appears to be addressed.
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] Rev 3: Comment addressed.
- Sheet C -26 provides the required lighting cutsheets for each light type; however, the cutsheets
are not clearly labeled as to which fixture corresponds with the table: XA, XB, XC, and XW.
Rev 3: Comment addressed.
- Sheet C -6 depicts the locations of the various types of lights (XA -XW); however sheet C -26
does not provide matching quantities of each light found on sheet C -6.
Rev 3: Comment addressed.
- Also, the details of each light type provided in the cutsheet is not legible.
Rev 2: Comment addressed.
- Also, the table does not provide labels for each column.
Rev 2: Comment addressed.
- Also, clearly provide the lumen levels of each lamp within the table (if the light is over 3,000
lumens, it shall be a full cutoff fixture). Rev 2: Comment addressed.
- Within the table assure the tilt of the fixture is provided (full cutoff provides for zero tilt).
Rev 2: Comment addressed.
- Also, the lighting plan shall include a photometric plan which measures the light spillover to
the residential property lines and the public street (spillover shall not to be over 0.5 half foot
candles). Rev 2. The photometric plan provided is too small to read and the measurements at
the property lines overlap one another causing another obstacle to legibility. Please revise sheet
LT -1 so that the photometric plan is large enough to read. Staff suggests making the lighting
plan two pages; sheet 1 for the photometric plan, and sheet 2 for the cutsheets and other
lighting data. Rev3. Comment Addressed.
- All maintenance factors for the lights shall be 1.0
Rev 2: Comment addressed.
NEW COMMENTS
26. [4.12.6] Parking. On sheet C -2, under Parking Required, there appears to be a mathematical error in
the amount of required parking spaces. As currently the plan lists 53 + 60 spaces as 93; however, I
believe it should be 113. Revise if appropriate. Rev 2: Comment addressed.
4
27. [4.12.6] Parking. The Building Official has commented on the size of the handicapped barrier free
parking space associated with the van - accessible. Currently the plan has a 5' width; I believe he's
looking to have this expanded to 8' wide. Please work with him on this item.
Rev 2: Comment addressed.
28. [Comment] Prior to final site plan approval the vacation of the property line between TMP 61A -17
and TMP 61A -15 shall 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. It may be appropriate to combine all platting items on
a single plat. Rev 2. A revised plat has been submitted and shall be reviewed /approved /and
recorded prior to final site plan approval.
29. [COD Section VIII] The two required benches are depicted in various locations throughout the plan
(see sheet C -18 and sheet C -22). Assure that the plan is consistent on the location of the benches.
Revise. Rev 2: Comment addressed.
30. [COD Section X, 32.7.9.5(d)] The plan attempts to utilize Lagerstroemia Indica "Crape Myrtle" as
street trees along Rio Road; however, this is not permitted as these trees are classified as small
ornamental trees and do not qualify for use as public street trees, which shall be large deciduous
trees (Section 32.7.9.5(d)).
The applicant should revise the plan to provide some type of large deciduous tree in this area to act as
street trees in order to meet the required street tree landscaping. The Acer Rubrum "Flame Red
Maple" is an appropriate tree, as such replace the five Crape Myrtles fronting Rio with an
appropriate tree type.
Please note, that the Code of Development provides guidelines for plantings on the entrance road, that
requirement is met with this same mix; however, to meet the requirements for landscaping on the
public street frontage please refer to the comment above. If you have questions please give me a call.
Rev 2: Comment addressed.
31. [Comment] The plan depicts an indention, which looks like parallel parking spaces adjacent to the
two parking spaces at the entrance. Please clarify what this space is for through labels. If they are for
parking spaces please provide measurements and labels. Etc
Rev 3: Comment addressed.
32. [Comment] To avoid confusion on sheet A2.01, please provide labels to each elevation view. For
example it appears the West Elevation is the view from Rio Road. If so, please label it as such. Also,
it appears the East Elevation is the rear of the building. If so, please label it as such.
Rev 2: Comment addressed.
33. [4.12.6] Parking. At the rear of the building (East Elevation) is the base of the wall openings tall
enough to block vehicle headlamps from shinning through? If not, please modifying the openings to
prevent headlamps from shinning through onto residential lots. Rev 3: Comment addressed.
34. [Comment] To avoid confusion on the cover sheet please omit SDP201400048 from the title, and
replace it with SDP201400067 — Final Site Plan. Rev 2: Comment addressed.
35. [Comment] On sheet C -1, in the approvals box, please omit the Health Department and ARB
signature lines, and please include "E911" signature line. Rev 2: Comment addressed.
36. [32.5.2(n)] Proposed improvement. On the site plan dimension the height the retaining wall to the far
north associated with the sidewalk exiting the garage spaces. All other retaining walls have max
heights provided on sheet C -7. Assure that it's provided for this retaining wall too. Rev 3: Comment
addressed.
37. [Comment] The revised site plan was not sent to RWSA for review based on previous
correspondence not allowing a connection to RWSA lines. It appears that the applicant has worked
out it's water connection issues with RWSA and they are allowing it. Prior to final site plan approval,
provide something in writing (email is fine) that signifies RWSA has approved the site plan being
reviewed or has no objections. Per a phone call with Victoria Fort I am forwarding them a copy of
the plan today (3- 24 -15). Rev 3. See RWSA's single comment below.
Engineering Comments — Justin Deel
Comments attached dated 5 -22 -15
RWSA - Ictoria Fort
RWSA has reviewed the final site plan for the Lofts at Meadow Creek as prepared by WW & Associates
and dated 9/30/2014 with last revision dated 5/1/2015 and has only the following comment:
Sheet C -6:
1. Revise label on the water tap location to an 18" x 8" tapping sleeve and valve (the existing label
calls out an 8" x 8" tapping sleeve).
With regard to the Easement Plat (SUB2015 -39) - RWSA has no further comments on the plat.
ACSA —Alex Morrison
With RWSA's comment I will need a resubmittal of 3 sets of plans. Once RWSA gives me the approval I
will write an approval letter for the applicant. Once that is complete I will recommend approval of the
final site plan.
The easement plat is now approved so the applicant can submit the deed with the plan copies if he would
like.
E911— Andrew Slack
Previously approved
Building Inspections — Jay Schlothauer
Previously no objection
Fire and Rescue — Robbie Gilmer
Previously no objection
VDOT— Shelly Plaster
Approved 5 -19 -15
Charlottesville Area Transit (CAT) — Juwhan Lee
Previously approved shelter design and location
Please contact Christopher P. Perez in the Planning Division by using cperez(a1albemarle.org or 434 - 296 -5832 ext.
3443 for further information.
6