HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201600053 Review Comments Pre-application Plan 2016-09-21L�RGiNL�'
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832
September 21, 2016
KentO'Donohue
Balzer & Associates, Inc
1561 Commerce Road, Suite 401
Verona, VA 24482
dodonohue@balzer.cc
RE: SDP2016-053 Timberland Park Apartments- Preapplication Plan
Mr. O'Donohue:
Fax (434) 972-4126
Your preapplication submittal has been reviewed and comments are provided below. These
comments do not constitute a final review of your project. The Agent has made a good faith
effort to determine compliance with the requirements of Chapter 18 of the Code of the County
of Albemarle, and to identify all deficiencies. It is possible that during the formal review of your
application that additional comments may be generated. Failure to identify a deficiency during
preapplication review does not relieve the project from compliance with Chapter 18 of the
Code.
In accord with the provisions of Section 32.4.1.4 of Chapter 18 of the Code of the County of
Albemarle the agent has reviewed the above referenced preapplication plan and has the
following comments:
Compliance with zoning. The proposed use and density DOES comply with the Chapter 18 of the
Code.
Required changes. The following changes are required for the plan to comply with Chapter 18
of the Code, special exception, or code of development:
1. [32.4.1.3(a)] It appears that the maximum setback for the buildings does not apply due
to the existing ACSA easement. However, this will need to be determined during initial
site plan due to comments from ACSA regarding the upgrade of the sewer line.
2. [32.4.1.3(b)] Buildings over 40 feet or the 3rd story require a 15 foot step back per code
section 4.19.
3. [32.4.1.3(d)] The steep slopes shown on the plan do not appear to match those slopes
that are shown on the County GIS. The County Engineer will need to determine if the
slopes surveyed showing less than 25% are more accurate than the GIS. A to scale
exhibit showing the difference in slopes (GIS and survey) would be helpful.
4. [32.4.1.3(1)] A buffer easement is labeled, however no additional information is
provided. Clarify this easement, and if it has been recorded provide the deed book and
page number.
5. [32.7.2.3] A sidewalk should be provided along Old Lynchburg Road.
6. [4.16] Two tot lots need to be provided as described under this section of the Zoning
Ordinance (size and equipment). If an exception from this requirement is desired,
provide a justification with the initial site plan for review.
7. [32.4.1.3(q)] Portions of the site are within the Dam Break Innundation Zone and will be
forwarded to DCR for review when the initial site plan is submitted.
Virginia Department of Transportation (Adam Moore):
1. Turn lane analysis (right and left) are needed.
Engineering (Matt Wentland):
1. Grading in some areas appears to direct the runoff to areas with no inlets and towards
buildings.
2. The grading should be at least 5' from the property line or a temporary grading
easement should be acquired.
3. Retaining wall plans may be needed to show wall construction will not encroach on
preserved slopes and neighboring property.
4. Provide a profile of the entrance.
5. Although the storm system is conceptual, it appears more controls may be necessary to
prevent the flow depths from topping the curbs and the spreads from going too far
outside of the parking or too far into the travelways.
Architectural Review (Margaret Maliszewski):
1. Plants shown in the 10' landscape buffer may need to be revised to satisfy ARB
conditions of approval.
2. Buildings are not oriented parallel to the EC, as is required by the guidelines. Reduced
visibility from the EC can reduce the importance of orientation in this case.
3. If the BMP is visible from the EC, the engineered feature will need to be revised to look
like a landscape feature that is visually integrated into the surrounding landscape.
4. EC guidelines state that "site grading should maintain the basic relationship of the site
to surrounding conditions by limiting the use of retaining walls and sloping the terrain
through the use of smooth, rounded land forms that blend with the existing terrain.
Steep cut or fill sections are generally unacceptable." The proposal does not appear to
meet this guideline. Reduced visibility from the EC can reduce the emphasis placed on
this guideline in this case.
5. It would be helpful to have the following information to facilitate ARB review of the
proposal:
a. Site sections to clarify anticipated visibility of the development from the 1-64
Entrance Corridor.
b. Include on the site plans the location of the 164 edge of pavement.
c. Include on the grading plan the topography in the 164 right-of-way.
Fire/Rescue (Robbie Gilmer):
1. Buildings over 30' in height require a 26' access aisle that is no more than 30' from the
building.
ACSA (Alex Morrison):
1. The sewer main along the frontage of the property will need to be relocated to achieve
the required cover at the proposed entrance.
2. Show fire hydrants and FDC's.
Additional information. The following information is required to be submitted with your site
plan application:
- Application
http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/forms center/departments/Community Dev
elopment/forms/applications/Site Plan - Application Initial Site Plan & Checklist.pdf
Staff has provided references to provisions of Chapter 18 of the Code. 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.
Sincerely,
w
Megan Yaniglos, AICP
Principal Planner