HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201400056 Review Comments 2014-11-05Short Review Comments Report for:
SDP201400056
SubApplication Type:
Regional Firearm Training Center - Initial
Initial Site Plan
Date Completed:11/05/2014
Reviewer:Rachel Falkenstein Planning
Review Status:Approved
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:09/16/2014
Reviewer:Rachel Falkenstein Planning
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:08/26/2014
Reviewer:Max Greene Engineering
Review Status:See Recommendations
Reviews Comments:There do not appear to be Engineering concerns with the site design and layout. However the
property is owned by the State of Virginia and the County has no juridiction to review or enforce the
Stormwater requirements. DEQ's VSMP approval will be required prior to final site plan approval.
Division:
Date Completed:08/20/2014
Reviewer:Andrew Slack E911
Review Status:Approved
Reviews Comments:Approved.
Division:
Date Completed:08/25/2014
Reviewer:Jay Schlothauer Inspections
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:Property owned by Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia. This is state property and
Albemarle County has no building code jurisdiction.
Division:
Date Completed:09/10/2014
Reviewer:Margaret Maliszewski ARB
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:Archaeological resources may exist in the proposed area of work. A Phase 1 Archaeological Survey
is recommended to determine if such resources exist. Depending on the results of the Phase 1
Survey, additional evaluation and treatment may be necessary. Virginia Department of Historic
Resources input is recommended and the need for an Environmental Impact Statement should be
confirmed.
Division:
Date Completed:09/16/2014
Reviewer:Troy Austin VDOT
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:08/30/2014
Reviewer:Robbie Gilmer Fire Rescue
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:Based on plans dated 8/4/14
Division:
Page:1of2 County of AlbemarlePrinted On:January 13, 2016
1. Fire access road shall be installed to within 150 ft of all of the first floor VSFPC 503.1.1
2. Fire access road shall have an unobstructed travel width of 20 ft VSFPC 503.2.1 The area leaving
the parking lot is only 9.78 ft wide. A fire truck can't make the turn onto such a narrow road.
Date Completed:09/03/2014
Reviewer:Ron Higgins Admin Zoning Review
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:No objection to the waiver request to not have curbing in parking area also.
Division:
Date Completed:02/23/2015
Reviewer:John Anderson Engineering
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:Ref comments at: SDP201400074 -janderson2 2/24/2015 2:19 PM
Division:
Page:2of2 County of AlbemarlePrinted On:January 13, 2016
Steven W. Edwards
Landscape Architect
18 April 2014
Ms. Sarah Baldwin
Senior Planner
Albemarle County Community Development
401 Mclnitre Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
RE: Willow Glen: Phase 2 MSPA(SDP 201400060); Comment Response Letter
Dear Sarah:
Regarding the comments received on February 20, 2014 from you on the Willow Glen Phase 2
Minor Site Plan Amendment application, please find our responses below.
General Site(Sarah Baldwin):
1. 18.5.5.31 Removing interparcel connections are not recommended and may not qualify as
variation without providing alternative locations. Please provide more information on why
the future interparcel connections are being removed.
Originally we had several interparcel connections. At the time Phase 1 was approved, the
two connections into TMP 32-56 (owned by Wendell Woods)were dissolved per the
modification to our entrance connection at Towncenter Drive. It was/is our understanding
this also included the interparcel connection to TMP 32-49H. The reason this occurred
was due to the fact we were losing units to accommodate this new entrance alignment, at
the County's request. These units will be shown at a later date in another submittal.
The other interparcel connection is to TMP 32-49B. This makes no sense given further
review because of the grading impacts these connections would have to the sites and on
the environment. The connection to TMP 32-49B would only serve as a right-in/out, and
the parcel itself is too small to support over 50-units thereby requiring an emergency
access need. As for the travelway, given our wall is over 9-feet in height, we believe the
slope of that travelway would be too steep to accommodate any future connection.
Furthermore, our site is at the threshold allowed by DEQ for stream impacts so we don't
incur unnecessary mitigation fees. We will not be going above this threshold for our
project needs and are not prepared financially to incur additional cost.
2. [8.5.5.3]Please provide further clarification why additional condominiums are being
removed. What certain market conditions exist?
There have been dramatic changes in the real estate market in the aftermath of the
recent recession. One of the major changes has occurred in the residential condominium
component of the market. For a number of reasons, it is practically impossible for new
home buyers to get financing to purchase a condominium. Lenders simply have cooled to
that part of the market. One of the most glaring things that happened during the
recession that led lenders to feel this way revolves around condo association fees.
Typically the builder is responsible for paying those fees, which include real estate taxes,
insurance and maintenance, on all unsold units in a condo projects. With so many
builders going bankrupt, those fees fell to the purchasers of how ever many condos had
already sold. In a chain reaction, those huge fees created situations where condo owners
had to default of their loans. On the development side of the equation, it certainly
wouldn't be smart to build condos in a market where they wouldn't sell. The proposed
changes to the site plan reflect the shift away from condos to the much more popular
townhouse market.
4836 Old Boonsboro Road • Lynchburg, Virginia • 24503 •tele: 434.531.7507
email: swedwards8168 @gmail.com
1 of 3
Steven W. Edwards
Landscape Architect
3. [8.5.5.3]Please provide further clarification regarding the removal of the tot lot. Again,
what are the market conditions that exist?
By removing the second tot lot near the clubhouse and converting this space to an
event/adult area we can better capture the needs of the overall Willow Glen community.
Having two different tot lots accommodating different age groups doesn't make sense
when newer play systems on the market can serve both in one area. This will also help
parents focus their attention in one direction on their kids, for safety reasons, rather than
having to watch two different spaces on opposites side of the clubhouse. We believe this
is a benefit not an impact to the community.
4. Sheet 5 does not show the townhome units that are proposed in the variation.
Please see Sheet 5 again. These proposed townhome units are shown. These are
located within Phase IID.
5. See responses below under Engineering.
6. See responses below under VDOT.
7. See responses below under Fire Rescue.
Engineering (Glenn Brooks, dated 215114):
1. An amendment to the erosion and sediment control plans will be needed if they are still
active.
An amendment to our ES&C plans will be submitted separately soon.
2. Removing the interparcel connections is not recommended.
We have addressed this issue in our response#1 to Sarah.
VDOT(Troy Austin, dated 2/7/14):
1. Good access management practice minimizes the number of entrances on any given
roadway. We would recommend that the single family lots along Heathrow Glen Circle
continue to use shared entrances. Where possible, it would be good practice for the
townhouse units to use shared entrances as well.
We are amending our MSPA for Phase 2 to maintain the already approved shared
driveway between Lots 42&43; however we will be removing the shared driveway
between Lots 46&47 to better accommodate for the public needs (input received from
both the buyers and builders)/comments when buying homes. In addition this is in
keeping with VDOT's approval to remove "shared" driveways earlier in Phase 1.
As for modifying the townhome driveways within this project we feel it was originally
approved this way and warrants no change. Furthermore, this type of change is too cost
prohibitive at this point in the project and would cause significant delays moving forward
and would more resemble a parking lot condition than driveway.
2. The entrance shown to Lot 40 is very close to the intersection of Heathrow Glen Circle
and Shannon Glen Court. It may prove difficult for a vehicle traveling from Shannon Glen
Court to this parcel to make this turning movement without crossing into the opposing
lane.
We will consider this at a later date but feel there is no need to change this since it was
originally approved as shown.
3. Storm sewer should cross the public roads perpendicularly. An additional struction may
be needed near the property line between Lots 741 & 74J to allow the storm sewer to
cross Prestwick Glen Drive perpendicularly.
Duly noted. We will amend this alignment across Prestwick Glen Drive.
4. It is unclear to us whether the road plans and/or site plan for this development have
previously been approved. Please advise to the status of prior approvals.
This issue has been addressed many times. According to the County and Joel DeNunzio,
these plans have been approved and has been verified to exist in the system.
4836 Old Boonsboro Road • Lynchburg, Virginia • 24503 •tele: 434.531.7507
email: swedwards8168 @gmail.com
2 of 3
j
Steven W. Edwards
Landscape Architect
In addition to the four comments above, we have also incorporated (2) advisory signs
(W13-5) and removed (1) parallel parking space along the curve section of Heathrow
Glen Circle per our conversation following the approval of the Final Site Plans. See Sheet
10 for these revisions.
Fire Rescue (Robbie Gilmer):
1. Radii at the north end of Hartsfield Court shall not be less than 25 ft. This will allow for fire
access to building A(Lot 1) and Building B (Lot 2).
We have increased the radii at the north end of Hartsfield Court but given the space we
cannot meet the 25-foot minimum. The best we can do is a 15-feet radii at the face of
curb. See Sheet 7 for this change.
2. Fire hydrant spacing shall be every 500 ft. per traveiway.
Fire hydrants have not moved since our original plans were approved. All fire hydrants
are spaced no greater than 500-feet per travelway. Please see those plans if you have
additional concerns.
3. Fire Flow test required prior to final submittal.
A fire flow test was originally submitted and is on-file. Unless there is a need to repeat the
effort we would ask that this comment be removed.
We appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our plans and respectfully request that your
approval be given to these amendments. In the event there are additional questions please feel
free to contact us.
If you have any questions please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
Steven W. Edwards, CLA
cc: George Ray, Willow Glen Albemarle, Inc.
Alan Franklin
enclosures: See Transmittal
4836 Old Boonsboro Road • Lynchburg, Virginia •24503 • tele: 434.531.7507
email: swedwards8168 @gmail.com
3 of 3