HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201000021 Action Letter 2011-04-04,..r
��illl
x 7�� 1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 9724126
04 April 2011
Richard T. Spurzem
Neighborhood Investments — NP LLC
P.O. Drawer R
Charlottesville, VA 22903
RE: SDP-2010-00021 North Pointe Final Site Plan
Dear Mr. Spurzem:
Pursuant to Virginia Code § 15.2 -2259 and Albemarle County Code § 18- 32.4.37, the above
referenced final site plan is disapproved. The specific reasons for disapproval are provided with
references to specific duly adopted ordinances, regulations or policies, including the application plan
approved for ZMA- 2000 -09, the proffers accepted in conjunction with the approval of ZMA- 2000 -09, the
conditions of SP- 2006 -34, and the conditions of SP- 2002 -72. Required modifications or corrections that
will permit approval of the site plan are included as well.
1. County Site Plan Regulations
a. Coun V Code § 18- 32.7.2.4 (requirement for reasonably direct vehicular access provided
from all residential units to two public streets in a development of fiflv or more dwelling units): The final
site plan shows only one direct vehicular access to Lewis and Clark Drive. Amend the final site plan to
include a second vehicular access to Lewis and Clark Drive.
b. County Code § 18- 32.7.2.8 (requirement for pedestrian walkways): For the sidewalks in
front of buildings 1, 2, 6, 8 and 9, the area for pedestrians is not demarcated, which the County Engineer
has determined to be necessary under County Code § 18- 32.7.2.4. Demarcate the sidewalks using a range
of options: revert back to a concrete walk between the driveways and travelway as proposed in the first
revision, hatch or stripe the pedestrian areas as a crosswalk, or use some architectural feature such as
painted, stamped asphalt as seen at some of the crosswalks north of the downtown area in Charlottesville.
Also, regarding the greenway access point, please widen the public easement to include both of the
sidewalks.
C. Comfy Code § 18- 32.7.3 (requirement that all roads comply with VDOT standards):
VDOT has not approved the road plans. Obtain approval by VDOT of the road plans to demonstration
that Zoning Ordinance § 32.7.3 has been satisfied. For a complete set of VDOT's comments, see
Attachment 1 (March 18, 2011 and April 1, 2011 comments from Joel DeNunzio).
d. County Code $18- 32.7.5.3 (verification from the Albemarle County Service Authority):
The County has not received verification from the Albemarle County Service Authority as required by
County Code § 18- 32.7.5.3. Provide verification from the Albemarle County Service Authority that
adequate capability exists to serve the development as provided in that regulation.
`.► .r+i 11
e. County Code X18- 30.6.4.2 (ARB issuance of certificate of appropriateness): The
Architectural Review Board ( "ARB ") has not issued a certificate of appropriateness for this final site
plan, which also includes consideration of Conditions 6, 7, 8 and 9 of SP- 2006 -34, as required by County
Code § 18- 30.6.4.2 before the final site plan can be approved. Preliminary review of the final site plan by
the ARB is scheduled for April 18, 2011. Obtain a certificate of appropriateness from the ARB.
2. The Approved Application Plan for ZMA- 2000 -09
a. Vehicular access: The application plan shows two access points onto Lewis and Clark
Drive for the western half of the development. The final site plan shows a single access point onto Lewis
and Clark Drive, and it does not conform to the application plan as provided under County Code § 18-
8.5.5.2(c). Amend the final site plan to include a second vehicular access. to Lewis and Clark Drive.
b. Location of buildings 25.26 and 27: The placement of buildings 25, 26 and 27 do not
conform the application plan as provided under County Code § 18- 8.5.5.2(c). Either relocate the buildings
to conform to the -application plan or obtain a variation under Zoning Ordinance § 8.5.5.3, which may be
possible on the condition that SWM Facility # 10 is satisfactorily designed. Note that SWM Facility # 10
is also subj eat to ARB approval as part of the final site plan. The ARB has not issued a certificate of
appropriateness for the final site plan as required by County Code § 18- 30.6.4.2 before the final site plan
can be approved. Preliminary review of the final site plan by the ARB is scheduled for April 18, 2011.
Obtain a certificate of appropriateness from the ARB showing that this condition has been satisfied.
3. Proffers Accepted in Coniunction with ZMA- 2000 -09
a. Proffer 4.1 (flood plain): The final site plan shows a stream crossing. FEMA approval of
the conditional letter of map revision will be needed prior to the approval of the stream crossing plan and
approval of the stream crossing plan will be needed prior to approval of the final site plan. Obtain FEMA
approval of the conditional letter of map revision and the stream crossing plan. See also the comments to
Conditions 3, 4 and 5 to SP- 2006 -34.
b. Proffer 4.4 (stream buffer and restoration): A mitigation plan is being processed with the
stream crossing application but has not been approved. Obtain approval of the mitigation plan under
County Code § 17 -322. See also the comments to Conditions 3, 4 and 5 to SP- 2006 -34.
C. Proffer 5.3.1(c)(1) (Phase III road improvements required to be approved and bonded
before final site plan approval):
(i) U.S Route 29 Southbound construction of left turn lane with taper): No
associated permits have been obtained and no associated bonds have been posted. Obtain VDOT approval
of all applicable road permits and post required bonds, and obtain County (program authority) approval
and post required bonds. To post a bond, complete a Bond Estimate Request Form and submit it to the
County Engineer after all plans are approved. A road bond will require a fee of $250. To post a road
bond, a Schedule of Completion must be approved by the County Engineer.
(ii) Northwest Passage from U.S. Route 29 to North Pointe Boulevard: No associated
permits have been obtained, and no associated bonds have been posted. Obtain VDOT approval of all
applicable road permits and post required bonds, and obtain County (program authority) approval and
post required bonds. To post a bond, complete a Bond Estimate Request Form and submit it to the
County Engineer after all plans are approved. A road bond will require a fee of $250. To post a road
bond, a Schedule of Completion must be approved by the County Engineer.
(iii)- U.S Route 29 Northbound: construction of a right hand turn lane: No associated
permits have been obtained and no associated bonds have been posted. Obtain VDOT approval of all
applicable road permits and post required bonds, and obtain County (program authority) approval and
post required bonds. To post a bond, complete a Bond Estimate Request Form and submit it to the
2
County Engineer after all plans are approved. A road bond will require a fee of $250. To post a road
bond, a Schedule of Completion must be approved by the County Engineer.
(iv) North Pointe Boulevard between Northside Drive East and Northwest Passage:
No associated permits have been obtained and no associated bonds have been posted. Obtain VDOT
approval of all applicable road permits and post required bonds, and obtain County (program authority)
approval and post required bonds. To post a bond, complete a Bond Estimate Request Form and submit it
to the County Engineer after all plans are approved. A road bond will require a fee of $250. To post a
road bond, a Schedule of Completion. must be approved by the County Engineer.
d. Proffer 5.3.3 (provide signal plans to VDOT for approval prior to approval of In ans for
improvements): VDOT has -not received a signal plan along with a timing plan for the fourth leg and an
intersection analysis to determine if the intersection lane capacities are adequate; the lane configuration
will need to be verified as adequate prior to permitting construction based on the proposed traffic signal
timing plan and storage queues. Provide all of the foregoing information to VDOT and obtain approval of
the signal plans.
e. Proffer 9.1 (sizing of SWM # 10 to accommodate stormwater from the School Lot): The
post - development drainage area limits maintain the pre - development watershed, which is unrealistic; the
map and calculations need to be updated to include the bus parking (not the bus stops) which increases the
drainage area by approximately 17,000 square feet (approximately 10,000 square feet being impervious
area). Also, there is a discrepancy with the elevation of the emergency spillway between the plan view
and the detail; the calculations need to be updated by eliminating the references to MS -19 and instead
refer to the conditional detention waiver granted by County Engineering after the first review of the plan
(the one percent rule does not exempt any development from detention); since it is intended that this
facility be an extended detention facility, provide the 30 -hour drawdown calculation showing that the
facility meets the design standard (VSMH 3.07).
4. Conditions Imposed under Special Use Permit SP- 2006 -34
a. Condition 1 (County and VDOT approval of the final lane configuration for Northwest
Passage over the stream crossing with the final road plans): This condition has not been satisfied. VDOT
has not approved the road plans as required by Zoning Ordinance § 32.7.3. The lane configuration must
be verified as adequate prior to permitting of construction based on the proposed traffic signal timing plan
and storage queues, and VDOT has not yet received this information. Submit the required information
and obtain approval by VDOT of the road plans to demonstrate that this condition has been satisfied.
b. Condition 2 (County and VDOT approval of final design plans and hydrolo ig c/hvdraulic
computations for the stream crossing): This condition has not been satisfied. Neither the County nor
VDOT has approved these computations. Thus, VDOT has not approved the road plans as required by
Zoning Ordinance § 32.7.3. Obtain County and VDOT approval of final design plans and the
hydrologic/hydraulic computations for the stream crossing to demonstrate that this condition has been
satisfied.
c. Condition 3 (The applicant must obtain a map revision, letter of revision, or letter of
amendment as required from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and copy the County
Engineer on all correspondence: This condition has not been satisfied. FEMA approval of the conditional
letter of map revision will be needed prior to the approval of the stream crossing plan and approval of the
stream crossing plan will be needed prior to approval of the final site plan. Obtain FEMA approval of the
conditional letter of map revision or otherwise satisfy this condition and obtain approval of the stream
crossing plan.
d. Condition 4 (County approval of a 'grading and an erosion and sediment control plan prior
to the issuance of a grading permit for modification of the existing stream crossing):. This condition has
not been satisfied. The previously approved plan expired. A plan, which includes the design of the
culvert, FEMA approval, and approval of the mitigation plan under County Code § 17 -322, is required.
3
'#.r err►'
Submit a new application, the applicable fee, and a set of the revised stream crossing erosion and
sediment control plan showing the construction of sediment basin 1, and include the design of the culvert,
a proposed mitigation plan, and obtain FEMA approval.
. e. Condition 5 (Natural Resources Manager approval of a stream buffer mitigation plan
prior to the issuance of a grading permit for modification of the existing stream crossing): This condition
has not been satisfied. The previously approved plan expired. A plan, which includes the approval of the
mitigation plan under County Code § 17 -322, is required. Submit a new application, fee and a set of the
revised stream crossing erosion and sediment control plan showing the construction of sediment basin 1,
and include a proposed mitigation plan, and obtain FEMA approval.
f. Condition 6 (Provide an informal planting of mixed tree and shrub species and sizes to
compensate for removed vegetation. and low- rg owing_plants to stabilize slopes in the "proposed
landscaping areas" shown on the plan submitted for ARB review entitled "Proposed Entry Layout with
Landscaping North West Passage Intersection @ Route 29 North" with revision date of 12 -04 -06): This
condition has not been satisfied. The ARB has not issued a certificate of appropriateness for this final site
plan, which also includes consideration of Conditions 6 through 10 of SP- 2006 -34, as required by County
Code § 18- 30.6.4.2. A certificate of appropriateness is required before the final site plan can be approved.
Preliminary review of the final site plan by the ARB is scheduled for April 18, 2011. Obtain a certificate
of appropriateness from the ARB showing that this condition has been satisfied.
g. Condition 7 (Provide large shade trees on the north and south sides of Northwest Passage,
along the sidewalk and space reserved for the sidewalk, 2%207 caliper minimum at planting. 40' on center,
for a minimum distance of 400' from the existing edge of pavement of Route 29 North): This condition
has not been satisfied. The ARB has not issued a certificate of appropriateness for this final site plan,
which also includes consideration of Conditions 6 through 10 of SP- 2006 -34, as required by County Code
§ 18- 30.6.4.2. A certificate of appropriateness is required before the final site plan can be approved.
Preliminary review of the final site plan by the ARB is scheduled for April 18, 2011. Obtain a certificate
of appropriateness from the ARB showing that this condition has been satisfied. Staff requests, though it
is not required, that the 2.5" caliper plantings be extended to Station 14 +60 as stated in Glenn Brooks'
May 10, 2010 email to Doug March following their discussion regarding whether more trees could be
provided closer to the intersection in order to meet the spirit of extending the trees for a minimum
distance of 400' from the existing edge of pavement of Route 29.
h. Condition 8 (Provide trees in the median of Northwest Passage, beginning at the point
closest to Route 29 North that can be approved by VDOT and extending for a minimum distance of 400'
from the existing edge of pavement of Route 29 North. The planting shall take the form of a continuous
informal mix of large. medium and small deciduous trees ranging from 1 %z" to 2 %z" caliper and evergreen
trees ranging from 4'-6' in height): This condition has not been satisfied. The ARB has not issued a
certificate of appropriateness for this final site plan, which also includes consideration of Conditions 6
through 10 of SP- 2006 -34, as required by County Code § 18- 30.6.4.2. A certificate of appropriateness is
required before the final site plan can be approved. Preliminary review of the final site plan by the ARB is
scheduled for April 18, 2011. Obtain a certificate of appropriateness from the ARB showing that this
condition has been satisfied.
i. Condition 9 (All of the above -noted landscaping shall be shown on the road plans
submitted for Northwest Passage. The plans shall include a complete planting schedule keyed to the plan.
The plans are subject to review of the ARB): This condition has not been satisfied. The ARB has not
issued a certificate of appropriateness for this final site plan, which also includes consideration of
Conditions 6 through 10 of SP- 2006 -34, as required by County Code § 18- 30.6.4.2. A certificate of
appropriateness is required before the final site plan can be approved. Preliminary review of the final site
plan by the ARB is scheduled for April 18, 2011. Obtain a certificate of appropriateness from the ARB
showing that this condition has been satisfied.
j. Condition 10 (Design details of the retaining walls. including column cap desi ier
design, stone finish. other materials, etc., culvert color, plant size and planting configuration shall be
4
,%"r %w+
shown on the road Rlans and are subject to ARB approval as part of the review and approval of the road
lan : This condition has not been satisfied. The ARB has not issued a certificate of appropriateness for
this final site plan, which also includes consideration of Conditions 6 through 10 of SP- 2006 -34, as
required by County Code § 18- 30.6.4.2. A certificate of appropriateness is required before the final site
plan can be approved. Preliminary review of the final site plan by the ARB is scheduled for April 18,
2011. Obtain a certificate of appropriateness from the ARB showing that this condition has been satisfied.
5. Conditions Imposed under Special Use Permit SP- 2002 -72
a. Condition 4 (conservation areas with utilities shown on the application plan shall remain
undisturbed): The spillway for SWM Facility # 11 (and sediment basin 1) cannot go through the
previously undisturbed conservation area unless the program authority approves otherwise as provided in
the condition, but it has not done so. Relocate the spillway out of the conservation area, such as by
directing the spillway to the outlet of the Contech facility so only one riprapped channel to the stream is
needed.
The following are additional comments for your information regarding under WPO- 2010 -17.
Please provide an updated approval letter from Contech because the watersheds and arrangement of the
facilities have been modified since the last approval letter. The spillway is used more frequently than the
average stormwater facility because there is only one 15" pipe outlet. The rocklined weir should be
eliminated and replaced with a concrete weir because of the uncertainties with the construction and
routing of riprapped spillways; the VMSH requires that the armoring of a principle /emergency spillway
should begin at the upstream face, not at the top elevation (VMSH 3.02; County Code § 17 -303). Similar
to what was done for SWM Facility # 10, the calculations for the downstream emergency spillway and
riprapped channel below SWM Facility # 11 need to be updated to make sure it will be non - erosive for
the 2 -year storm and capable of carrying the 10 -year flow within its banks. Finally, please provide a
graded access path to the facility embankment from the roadway and, under County policy, if the access
path is steeper than 10 %, it must be graded.
This disapproval may be appealed as provided in Virginia Code § 15.2 -2259 and County Code §
18- 32.4.3.9.
Please contact me at your earliest convenience if you have any questions or require additional
information.
Sincer ly,
erald �Gatobu, Principal Planner
Division of Current Development
Department of Community Development
Enclosure
Attachment 1 (VDOT Comments)