HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201500023 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2015-12-17Phone 434 - 296 -5832
�� of AL
IRGINZ�'
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, VA, 22902
Memorandum
To: Michael Myers (mmyers @dominioneng.com)
From: Ellie Ray, CLA, Senior Planner
Division: Planning
Date: May 21, 2015
Rev1: December 17, 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.]
[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withdrawn due to inactivity.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.
Revi: Comment for informational purposes only.
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.
Revl : Comment for informational purposes only.
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.
Revi: Comment for informational purposes only.
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).
Revl : Comment not fully addressed. A boundary line adjustment plat to establish the required 20'
parking setback must be submitted, reviewed and approved prior to Site Plan approval. See
comment #53 for additional information regarding possible necessary boundary line adjustments.
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).
Revl : Comment addressed.
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
0
[32.5.2(a)] Add the undisturbed buffer requirement to the Site Data (20' from residential).
SDP201500023: Comment addressed.
[32.5.2(a)] Correct the front building setback for townhomes to 25' in the Site Data.
SDP201500023: Comment addressed.
Revi : Comment addressed. However, the setbacks are measured from the private street right -of-
way not the property line as shown. This layout will not meet the setback requirements listed when
a subdivision plat is submitted. The setback requirements have changed since the preliminary plan
was approved and applications with a valid approved preliminary can opt to use either the old or
new setbacks. The new setbacks for non - infill R -15 development are (see section 4.19):
ltion- Infill: Setback,,
Front- Miininium
Front- Maxinnim
Garage- Mininn►nl
Clara 2e- Maxinnunn
Side- Miiiiintun
Side- Maxinnun
Rear -IV firninnun
Rear- Maxnlnuin
5 feet from the right -of -way or the exterior edge of the sidewalk if the sidewalk is
outside of the right -of -way
In the R -1 and R -2 districts: None
In the R -4. R -6. R -1 a. and R -15 districts: 25 feet from the right -of -way or the exterior
edge of the sidewalk if the sidewalk is outside of the right -of -way: none. on any lot
abutting a pfincipal arterial highway
Front loading garage: IS feet from the right -of -way or the exterior edge of the sidewalk
if the sidewalk is outside of the right -of -Fray
Side loading garage: 5 feet from the right- of -way or the exterior edge of the sidewalk if
the sidewalk is outside of the right -of -way
None
None: see Non- hifill Building Separation
None
20 feet
None
It looks like if the new setbacks are used, this layout could work. Please verify, show the new
setback lines and revise the notes on sheet SP2. The commercial building can use the old setbacks
if desired, but there are new commercial setback requirements as well; see section 4.20 for more
information.
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 -134 -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 & 713; revise accordingly.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
2
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.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
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.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
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.
Revi : Comment addressed.
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.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
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.
Revi : Comment addressed.
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.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
25. [32.6.2(j) & 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.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. Preserved trees not near proposed work are simply noted as
being preserved, but trees that are in close proximity to proposed disturbance should be protected
by tree protection fencing. At least two trees that are used in the `existing tree canopy' calculation
are shown either in the middle of, or very close to, proposed grading. Either remove these from the
existing tree canopy calculation (and verify the tree canopy requirement is still met) or show tree
protection fencing around the trees.
26. [32.6.2(j) & 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.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
27. [32.6.2(j) & 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.
Revi : Comment not fully addressed. The 5% requirement is based on all of the paved parking and
vehicular circulation area. The numbers provided in the landscape notes still don't match those
provided under "roads /parking areas" in the impervious area summary, which it seems they should.
Additionally, the 5% requirement is ground area (islands and such), not tree canopy as indicated in
the notes; revise accordingly. It seems there might be some miscommunication happening; if we
need to discuss via phone please get in touch.
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.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. See comment below under conditions of approval.
4
29. [32.6.2(j) & 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.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. Due to changes in the landscape plan and the incorrect plant
counts noted in the next comment, the tree canopy requirement for the residential area may not be
satisfied. Revise the plant canopy numbers with the correct plant numbers, verify, and revise if
necessary. Please also list the canopy requirement for the commercial area (10 %) as was included
on the previous submittal.
30. [32.6.2(j) & 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.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. Due to changes to the landscape plan, the plant counts for
Cryptomeria japonica now appear to be incorrect; there look to be 28 (not 20) in the commercial area
and 63 (not 64) in the residential area.
31. [32.6.2(j) & 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. [32.6.2(j) & 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.
Rev1: Comment still valid; the instrument(s) noted above must be submitted for review and approval
by the County Attorney's Office.
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).
Revi : Comment not addressed. The lighting values extend beyond the property lines and in
several areas are well above the level allowed at the property line. Revise the lighting plan to
show spillover of less than 0.5 fc at all property lines.
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.
Revl : Comment not fully addressed. Fixture A is noted as emitting 3000 lumen and,
therefore, must be a full cutoff fixture. The fixture proposed is not full cutoff; either select a
full cutoff fixture or a different bulb that emits less than 3000 lumen. Existing fixtures must
also meet the lighting requirements. Provide a cut -sheet for the existing bollard fixtures
(Fixture C) to verify that it is a full cutoff fixture.
• The model numbers shown on the cut - sheets must match those listed in the luminaire
schedule.
Revl : Comment not fully addressed. Please make sure the cut - sheets are legible in the plan
set; model numbers are difficult to verify.
• The tilt must be included in the luminaire schedule (must be 0 for full cutoff)
Revi : Comment not addressed. List the proposed tilt in the luminaire schedule.
• Light fixtures should be shown on the landscape plan and layout /utility plans to verify that
no site conflicts exist.
Revl : Comment not fully addressed. One proposed pole fixture near the existing building is
not shown on the layout plan; add this fixture to the plan.
• Clarify existing and proposed light fixtures; all fixtures must be included in the photometric
calculations.
Revl : Comment addressed. It appears all fixtures have been included.
• 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.
Revi : Comment addressed.
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.
Revl : Comment not fully addressed. Details for the proposed equipment should be provided.
36. [Comment] Please indicate the deed book and page reference for all 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.
Revl : Comment still valid. This site plan cannot be approved until VDOT, ACSA and Engineering
complete their reviews and grant their approval. Inspections and Fire /Rescue have reviewed the
plan and have no objection.
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.
Rev1: 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 -134 -7 on the Site Plan.
SDP201500023: Comment addressed.
Rev1: See comment regarding setbacks above.
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.
Revi : Comment addressed.
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).
Rev1: Comment addressed.
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.
Revi : Comment not fully addressed. Due to plan changes, it seems the reference should now be
10 /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.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. The cultivar of Cryptomeria proposed still hasn't been
provided (black dragon, yoshino and ben franklin are very different trees in terms of size);
provide the cultivar as requested. Additionally, due to the parking /travelway layout revision
more screening area is now proposed. Ilex glabra is proposed in this area instead of
cryptomeria due to the sewer easement; please add more shrubs if possible and evergreen trees
outside of the sewer easement to make this a more robust screen.
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 provided above.
h) [SP 94 -16 Condition# 21 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.
Revi : Comment not fully addressed. Indicate the cultivar of cryptomeria proposed to verify the
SP condition is being met.
[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.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
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.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
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.
Revi : Comment still valid.
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.
Rev1: 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.
Revi : Comment addressed.
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.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
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.
Revi : Comment no longer valid. Section 14 -401 prohibiting double- frontage lots does not apply to
subdivisions following final site plan approval (see section 14 -207), therefore an exception request
will not be required when the subdivision plat is submitted. The screening along the road is still
necessary to meet the tree canopy and other site plan requirements.
53. There is an existing SP for stand -alone parking (SP200800052) on parcel 7B. Any expansion of the stand-
alone parking requires an amendment to this SP. This plan proposes additional parking on an existing
parcel that does not also contain a building, so an expansion of the stand -alone parking. Before this site
plan can be approved, either the SP will needed to be amended to allow the expansion or a boundary line
adjustment will need to be submitted, approved and recorded that transfers the stand -alone parking to a
parcel with a building it serves. Please call me to discuss this comment if you have any questions.
Road Plan Comments:
54. [Comment] The Sheet numbers should match those provided in the Sheet Index.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
55. [Comment] As with the site plan, the road plan should be dated in keeping with a 2015 submittal.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
56. [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.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
57. [Comment] Subdivision exhibit sheet does not show the proposed private streets through the common
area parcel.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
58. [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.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
59. [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.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
60. [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.
Revi : Comment still valid.
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 erav @albemarle.org or 434 - 296 -5832
ext. 3432 for further information.
10