HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201500025 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2015-06-24�I�'��Il� llfll��•
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
June 24, 2015
Tim Miller
Meridian Planning Group
1413 Sachem Place, Ste 1
Charlottesville VA. 22901
RE: SDP - 2015 -25 Inglewood Apartments _ Site Plan- Final
Dear Sir:
Department of Community Development has reviewed the above referenced site plan (dated 5- 12 -15) against
applicable codes and ordinances. Comments are provided below:
1. [32.6] A site plan meeting all the requirements of section 32.6 of Chapter 18 of the Code.
Final: Comment still valid.
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. Final: See
Final Plan comments below. Comment still valid.
[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. Ifyou have
any questions about this please give me a call. Final: See Final Plan comments below. Initial comment
still valid. Also, on sheet 1 the TMPs for all 3 parcels have been revised to be the same TMP? Please
review.
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. Final: Comment still valid.
5. [32.5.2(a), 18.6, 4.11.3] 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. Final: Comment addressed.
6. [32.5.2(a),18.31 Setbacks. On sheet 1, under site data, provide setbacks for R -15 zoning. They
Fr-ei4 25� 15,Reaf20'. Also provide building separation information discussed above in comment
#5. Final: Since the initial site plan was conditionally approved the setbacks for the property have
been changed through a Zoning Text Amendment which was approved by the Board of
Supervisors on 6 -3 -15. Consequently the new setbacks for this zoning district are dictated by
Chapter 18 Section 4.19. On the plans please provide the following note for the site's setbacks and
assure that they are correctly depicted on the plans:
"Setbacks for the property are dictated by Chapter 18 Section 4.19
Front Minimum — 30' (based on the closest setback of an existing structure within 500' in each direction along street fronted)
Front Maximum —None
Side Minimum —10'
Side Maximum —None
Rear Minimum — 20'
Rear Maximum —None"
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. Final:
Comment addressed.
[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.
Final: Comment addressed.
9. [32.5.2(n)] Existing conditions. There are existing sidewalks along North Berkshire Road. Revise the
site plan to show the sidewalks. Final: Comment addressed.
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.
Final: Comment addressed.
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.
Final: Comment still valid.
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? Final: Comment addressed.
13. [32.5.2(n)] Existing conditions. On TMP 061 KO -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. Final: Comment addressed.
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). Final: Comment addressed.
15. [32.5.2(i)] Streets. Provide the Rte number for Inglewood Drive. Staff believes it is Rte 1411. Revise
appropriately. Final: Comment still valid. Also, it appears the plan was revised to omit the Rte
number for North Berkshire Rd. Assure the State Route number for that road is put back on the
plans (Rte. 1431).
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. Final: Comment still valid.
17. [32.5.2(n), 4.12.17(c)1] Two way access. On the plan provide traffic directional arrows for traffic
movement. Final: Comment still valid.
18. [32.5.2(a)] Add Entrance Corridor (EC) to the Zoning note on the cover sheet.
Final: Comment still valid.
19. [32.5.2(n)] Dimension the full width of the retaining walls required for construction.
Final: Comment addressed.
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. Final: Comment addressed.
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 desig}
standards are being met with the proposal. Their approval of this item shall be required prior to final site
plan approval. Final: Comment still valid.
22. [32.5.2(k)] Verify that all necessary easements for proposed water, sewer and drainage facilities have
been shown on the plan. Final: Comment addressed.
23. [32.5.2(1)] Provide the location of any existing utilities and utility easements including telephone, cable,
electric and gas. Final: Comment addressed.
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. Final: Comment still valid.
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.
Final: Comment partially addressed. While the existing trees are depicted on the plan it is not
clear exactly which trees are being removed and which are being saved. Please gray out (subdue)
all existing trees being removed.
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.
Final: Comment still valid.
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.
Final: Specific comment no longer valid due to redesigned site. A landscape plan will be required
prior to final site plan approval.
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.
Final: Specific comment no longer valid due to redesigned site. A landscape plan will be required
prior to final site plan approval.
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.
Final: Specific comment no longer valid due to redesigned site. A landscape plan will be required
prior to final site plan approval.
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. Final: Specific comment no longer valid due to redesigned site. A landscape plan
will be required prior to final site plan approval.
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. Final: Specific
comment no longer valid due to redesigned site. A landscape plan will be required prior to final
site plan approval.
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 TMP 61K-9-2. Revise. Final: Specific comment no
longer valid due to redesigned site. A landscape plan will be required prior to final site plan
approval.
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. Final: Specific comment no longer valid due to redesigned site. A landscape plan will be
required prior to final site plan approval.
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. Final: Specific comment no longer valid due to redesigned site. A landscape
plan will be required prior to final site plan approval.
35. [32.5.2.n] Existing and proposed improvements. Please show all existing outdoor lighting and provide a
lighting plan. Final: Comment still valid.
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].
Final: Comment still valid.
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. Final: Specific comment no longer valid due to redesigned site.
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.
Final: Comment still valid, the final site plan number is: SDP2015 -25.
New Comments on Redesigned Plan
39. [4.12.12] Parking. Parking provided onsite has been reduced below the required parking for the use.
Zoning staff (Ron Higgins) will need to approve the reduction in parking prior to approval of the final
site plan. Ron's comments are currently pending, once his review is complete the comments will be
forwarded to you. If you have any questions about this please contact Ron Higgins at Ext 3225.
40. [32.5.2(n)] The two parking spaces adjacent to the 5 parking spaces at the rear of the site are not
provided an adequate turn around. A possible way to correct this is to utilize a portion of the new
emergency vehicle access as a bump out for a turn around. Remove a portion of CG -7 for the bump out
for a smooth transition. Assure that the bump out is stripped or signed for no parking. Also, when
redesigning to provide the bump out assure that there is another bollard placed at the end of this turn
around to prevent resident vehicles from traversing the Emergency Vehicles Accessway as a private drive
to unload groceries and or park their cars next to the proposed building.
41. [32.6.2(i), 4.12.16(c)21 On street parking is classified as parallel parking, as such the parking spaces are
required to be a minimum of 9x20. Revise so these spaces are appropriately sized.
42. [32.7.9.7] Screening of Parking areas. Parking areas consisting of four (4) spaces or more shall be
screened from adjacent residential and rural areas districts. The 5 parking spaces and 2 parking
spaces at the rear of the site are to be screened from the adjacent residential areas. Assure that you have
enough room for the required screening to be placed in front of the spaces. With the most attention being
given to the 2 spaces.
43. [32.6.1(e)] Dimensions. On the plan please dimension the New Emergency Vehicles Accessway. Also,
provide the type of material and weight capacity of the material to construct this accessway. Provide a
detail on the plans.
44. [32.6.1(e) & (i)] Dimensions. On the plan please dimension the drive aisle fronting the 5 parking spaces
at the rear parking area of the site.
45. [32.6.1(e)] Dimensions. On the plan please dimension the width of the entrance and travel way on North
Berkshire Road.
46. [32.5.2(n)] Existing and Proposed Improvements. On the plans please label what is happening to the
land just outside of the rear parking area fronting the adjacent residential lot TMP 061K0- 09 -00- 00200.
Currently staff believe this area is paved? Is it to be replanted as grass?
47. [32.6.1(e)] Dimensions. On the plan please dimension the width of the proposed sidewalks fronting the
new 2 story building.
48. [Comment] Sheet 3 and 4 depicts the three (3) pipe openings where the site's stormwater is daylighted in
above ground swales. How are these 18" pipe openings going to be child safe? Will they have grates on
them? Please work with Engineering to rectify this concern on the site plan.
49. [32.5.2(a),18.31 General information. On the cover sheet of the plan list the maximum building height
permitted in the R -15 zoning district: "65 feet ". Provide this information on the cover sheet.
50. [32.5.2(r)] Symbols and abbreviations. On the plan behind the rear parking area what is the line with
squares on it represent? Please include this in the legend and label it on the plan.
Engineering Comments — John Anderson
1. Include brief SWM Narrative with Site Data, title sheet (bioretention/underground SWM system).
2. Submit VSMP Application. Use VaRRM (re- development) spreadsheet.
3. C -101 — Please label trees to remain; it is unclear which, if any, are to remain.
4. C -201 —Show stop signs /crosswalks at site entrances (Inglewood Drive, North Berkshire Road).
5. Defer to VDOT on design of median at entrance on North Berkshire Road.
6. C -202 — Intercept, collect runoff from Emergency Access. Prevent runoff release to Inglewood Drive.
7. Show steep slopes (County GIS).
8. C -301 — Provide CG -7 and CG -12 details.
9. New Pavement Detail caption should reference: parking, entrances, emergency vehicle access.
10. Provide ADT /pavement design —Ref. VDOT Pavement Design Guide, rev. 2014, Appendix III (.PDF
Attached) —link: http: / /www.virginiadot.org /vdot /business /asset upload— file427- 3638.pdf
11. Final site plan approval requires VSMP Application review and approval.
12. Explain why gutter continues east of the entrance to the principal (15- space) parking lot on Inglewood
Drive, but terminates before reaching parking spaces west of the entrance.
13. Eliminate first parking space on Inglewood Drive at intersection of Inglewood/N. Berkshire Road. A
vehicle occupying this space may obstruct clear view of stop sign, pedestrians, and cross street traffic.
Although parking presents challenge, Engineering recommends against approval of design that places parallel
parking space within 20' of curb radius return at intersection of Inglewood and N. Berkshire Road. Fairfax
County imposes similar restriction.
(Link: http:/ /www.fairfaxcounty.gov /fcdot /parking restrictions.htm) Although Inglewood Drive is a public
street, VDOT is advisory to site plan approval.
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) No objection
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. Fire Flow test required prior to final approval.
ACSA — Alex Morrison
- Comments attached
VDOT— Troy Austin
- Comments attached
Zoning - Ron Higgins
Comments pending
Please contact Christopher P. Perez in the Planning Division by using cperez&albemarle.org or 434 -296-
5832 ext. 3443 for further information or if you have questions.