Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201700034 Review Comments Minor Amendment 2017-10-19Y OF ALBS �IRGI�� County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Mr. Scott R. Collins, PE (scott Collins-engineering.com) From: Paty Saternye — Senior Planner Division: Planning Date: July 14, 2017 Rev. 1: September 15, 2017 Rev. 2: October 19, 2017 Subject: SDP-2017-0034 (Emerson Commons — Minor Site Plan Amendment) 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.] 1. [ZMA2007-12 Proffer #1] Provide four residential affordable dwelling units in the site plan as specified in Proffer #1. Building 13 has been reduced from four units to three units and no longer contains enough units to meet this proffer. Only 3 units have the "' in front of their unit number specifying them as affordable units. Rev. 1: Comment Addressed. 2. [ZMA2007-12 Application Plan] ZMA2007-12 specified 26 residential units. All of the calculations on the approved site plan were based on 26 residential units. The unit count specified in the note in the lower left hand corners of the coversheet specifies 28 units. Revise the note to match the ZMA and approved site plan or clarify. The site plan will not be approved unless it meets all requirements of the ZMA, proffers, and is in general accord with the Application Plan. Rev. 1: Comment Addressed. 3. [ZMA2007-12 Application Plan] Revise the landscaping to be in general accord with the ZMA Application Plan. The Application Plan included diagrammatic sections showing the sightline from Parkview Drive. These sightlines showed how the combination of the existing and proposed landscaping, between the road and the development, would mitigate the view of the development from the existing street. In the proposed site plan amendment the landscaping along the road has been greatly reduced in comparison to the Application Plan and previously approved site plan (SDP2008-74) and will not fully screen the development or the dumpsters. Rev. 1: Comment Addressed. 4. [Comment] Revise the title on the coversheet to specify that the site plan number is "SDP201700034". Rev. 1: Comment Addressed. 5. [Comment] Add a note to the cover sheet that specifies the previously approved site plan number "SDP200800074" and specifies the date of the last revision and the approval date of that original plan. Rev. 1: Comment Addressed. 6. [Comment] Revise the "Zoning District" on the cover sheet to include the ZMA # of "ZMA2007- 00012". Rev. 1: Comment Addressed. 7. [Comment] Revise the list of "Minor Site Plan Amendment Proposed Changes:" to include all changes to the site plan proposed with the amendment. That includes but is not limited to the change in unit count/density, that the stormwater management has been changed from using bioretention to yard drain straight into Parrott Branch, the changes in road/pavement details/section as well as some widths. All changes to the site plan must be listed in the proposed changes list. Rev. 1: Comment not yet fully addressed. Address the following: • Revise "Proposed Changes" number 20 to include "General Notes". • Add a proposed change number 21 that specifies the removal of sheets from the site plan to address changes to the stormwater management and the removal of the Erosion and Sediment Control sheets from the site plan. Rev. 2: Comment Addressed 8. [Comment] Include clouds around all changes to the site plan proposed with the amendment. This includes clouds around both the plan view, the site data, and calculations on the coversheet. Many of the changes in this site plan do not have clouds shown around them. Two examples are the changes to the stormwater management and the changes to the parking spaces and the parking calculations. Rev. 1: Comment not yet fully addressed. Address the following: • Add a cloud around comment #37, since it has been changed since the approved plan. • Add Clouds around the sheets that have been removed from, or added to, the site plan. Rev. 2: Comment Addressed 9. [32.5.2(b) & 32.6.2(i)] Revise the site data, proposed building area, percent impervious and calculation for 5% of parking lot area in order to incorporate the proposed changes to the site plan. The building footprints have been modified, and the number of provided parking spaces has been increased, however the areas and calculations shown have not been updated. Rev. 1: Comment Addressed. 10. [Comment] Show the triangle label for minor site plan amendment changes on each sheet that shows the change, specifying where that change is taking place. Rev. 1: Comment not yet fully addressed. Address the following: • Add the appropriate triangle label next to comment #37, since it has been changed since the approved plan. • Add the appropriate triangle label next to removed and/or added sheets in the Sheet List Table. Rev. 2: Comment Addressed 11. [32.5.2(a), 32.5.2(n), & 32.6.1(e)] For a minor amendment to a site plan the sheets must contain the same information, while incorporating the modifications, as was in the approved site plan. This plan has merged the information from two or more sheets and not provided all of the information provided in the original sheets. Therefore, the sheets provided could not be swapped out for the sheets in the original set to create a full set. Address the following: • Revise the existing conditions sheets to include existing conditions for both on site and off site areas of improvements. Rev. 1: Comment not yet fully addressed. Although the sheets have been added they do not include all of the information shown in the approved plan or have errors. Address the following o On sheet C1-01 there is a hatch and note about brush and tree removal that has not been included in the upper left of the page, in the area where the fruit trees are proposed. o On both C1-01 and C1-02 there are insufficient elevation labels on the contour lines and the difference between the major and minor lines are hard to differentiate. o On sheet C1-02 the culvert under the road to the vet appears to be missing and the two "TBR" labels need to be placed correctly once the culvert is once again shown. o On sheet C1-02 there appear to be dimensions (24', 5'& 8') that are not associated with any objects. o The label for the "New 16" RWSA Waterline" pipe does not touch the location of the new pipe and has no arrow on the end of the leader. o On sheet C3-01 the "Albemarle County Construction Notes for Streets" still has not been included even though it was on the approved site plan. Include this information and see the engineering comments on a suggested way to create room to do so by giving the Maintenance of Traffic Plan information its own sheet. Rev. 2: Comment Addressed • Ensure all notes and details included on the original site plan sheets are included on the provided sheets unless the information is no longer needed or valid because of changes to what is proposed. Rev. 1: Comment not yet fully addressed. Include sheet C6-03 in the site plan or find a new location, on the sheets already included, to place the required landscaping details that were provided on that sheet in the approved site plan. Rev. 2: Comment Addressed • Ensure that the sheets provided can be added back to the remaining original site plan sheets and that all the information required is provided and that new amendment sheets and remaining approved sheets do not provide contradictory information. Rev. 1: Comment not yet fully addressed. See comment directly above. Rev. 2: Comment Addressed 12. [Comment] Number the notes on the cover sheet (CO -01) in the General Notes section and ensure the notes are numbered as they were in the approved site plan. Rev. 1: Comment Addressed. 13. [32.5.2(1)] On the coversheet (CO -01) the second -to -last note states that "Site shall be addressed as Parrot Creek Road (Private)." However, the plans only depict roads labeled as Parkview Drive, Snapdragon Lane, Teaberry Lane, and Stargazer Lane; no road is labeled as Parrot Creek Road. Please address and resolve this apparent discrepancy. Also, please note: • See E991 comments about needed changes to the street names. • The correct spelling of the riparian feature adjacent to this site is "Parrott" Branch, not "Parrot" Creek. Rev. 1: Comment not yet fully addressed. Revise the note to specify the correct streets for the existing and proposed building. The note should state "The existing buildings will be addressed as Teaberry Lane (Private) and the proposed residences will be addressed as Stargazer Lane (Private)", as long as both of those streets are proposed to be private streets. See comment # 34. Rev. 2: Comment Addressed 14. [32.5.2(1) & 32.6.2(a)] Provide information on the "Proposed Trail Easement". If this easement already exists revise the label, provide the deed book and page reference for the recorded easement. If this easement does not already exist then submit the proposed easement for review. The final site plan will not be approved until the easement is approved, signed and recorded. Rev. 1: Comment Addressed. 15. [32.5.2(a) & 32.6.2(a)] Revise the Sheet List Table on Sheet CO -01 to include the total number of sheets (16). Rev. 1: Comment Addressed. 16. [32.5.2(a) & 32.6.2(a)] Specify zoning and present use(s) of abutting parcel TMP 56-74A. Rev. 1: Comment Addressed. 17. [32.5.2(b) & 32.6.2(a)] Sheet C2-01 contains "Updated phasing line for the project;" please provide information about the proposed timing of development/implementation of buildings and utilities. Rev. 1: Comment not yet fully addressed. Clarify whether yard drain #5 will be in Phase I or Phase 11. Although the note specifying the phases does not list YD -5 as being in Phase 11, and the phase line and yard drain locations are not shown in the same graphics, the graphic representation of the phase line location appears to place YD -5 within Phase 11. If YD -5 is supposed to be in Phase I update the graphics so that it appears that it is within that area. Rev. 2: Comment Addressed 18. [32.5.2(f) & 32.6.2(a] Revise the note on Sheet CO -01 to correctly specify "Subject Parcel is in the Beaver Creek Reservoir Water Supply Watershed." (Currently, "Water Supply" is omitted.) Rev. 1: Comment Addressed. 19. [32.5.2(m) & 32.6.2(a] Provide the distance to the centerline of the nearest existing street intersection from the proposed ingress and egress. Rev. 1: Comment Addressed. 20. [32.5.2(n) & 32.6.2(a] Provide the maximum footprint of each building. The table on Sheet No. C2-01, for the building information, no longer appears to supply the maximum square footage of each building as it did in the approved site plan. Revise the table to include this information once again. Rev. 1: Comment Addressed. 21. [32.5.2(n) & 32.6.2(a] Revise the chart showing the building numbers to address the following: • Revise the chart so that the quantity of residences for Building 3 matches the number of residences shown in the proposed layout. The layout shows 2 residences and the chart specifies only 1. • Revise the chart to include the "Building Type" as was provided in the approved site plan. • Provide a total of the residences at the bottom of the table. Rev. 1: Comment Addressed. 23. [32.5.2(n) & 32.6.2(a] Provide a hatch for the trail shown on sheet C3-01. Rev. 1: Comment Addressed. 24. [32.5.2(n), 32.6.1(e) & 32.6.2(a)] Clarify the number of residential units proposed with the plan and meet all requirements based upon that number of units. See comment #2 above and address the following: • [32.5.2(b), 32.6.2(i) & 32.6.2(1]] The 52 required parking spaces on the Application Plan were specified to meet the 26 units shown on that plan, which is two parking spaces per unit, as specified in the Code (4.12.6). Revise all requirements including, but not limited to, parking spaces and recreational facilities, based upon the number of residential units specified. • [32.5.2(b) & 32.6.2(i)] Include a calculation for the number of required parking spaces in the site date on the cover sheet. • [ZMA2007-12 Application Plan] The existing barns are shown with "N/A" for "bedroom/residences" and "total # of bedrooms". However, they have 1" shown under "QTY. of Residences". Revise the "QTY. of Residences" for the two barns to be "0" (zero). • [32.5.2(b)] Ensure that the dwelling units per acre is updated in the note in the lower left hand corner of the cover sheet. Rev. 1: Comment Addressed. 25. [32.5.2(n) & 32.6.2(a)] Revise the labels for buildings 3, 11, 12 & 13 to match the format of the other building labeling. Provide a "Building Type" and "unit" type for buildings 3, 11, 12 & 13. Rev. 1: Comment Addressed. 4 26. [32.5.2(n), 32.6.1(e), 32.6.2(a)& 32.6.2(i)] Provide the hatched areas adjacent to the parking spaces that are reduced in depth. There is an area of 2' adjacent to the 16' deep parking spaces, and 1' adjacent to the 17' deep parking spaces, that must be clear of obstructions for parking overhang. This was provided on the approved site plan and has not been provided in this amendment. Rev. 1: Comment Addressed. 27. [32.6.2(h)] Revise the signature panel to the one for minor site plan amendments. Approval panels with all reviewers' signatures are not required on minor amendments. Rev. 1: Comment Addressed. 28. [32.6.2(k)] Add a note on the coversheet specifying that no exterior lighting is proposed in the site plan or provide a site lighting plan that meets all Codes and requirements. Rev. 1: Comment Addressed. 29. [32.5.2(p), 32.6.2.0) & 32.7.9] Show proposed tree line on sheet C2-01 & C6-01. Rev. 1: Comment Addressed. 30. [32.6.20)] The landscaping plan has changed extensively from the approved site plan. Address the following: • Provide the stream buffer mitigation plant schedule. Rev. 1: Comment Addressed. • Show the location of the tree protection and silt fence which were shown on the approved site plan. Rev. 1: Comment Addressed. • Provide a legend, or labels, on the Landscape Plan that specifies all of the hatching used in that plan sheet. There are hatches that have no labels specifying what they are representing. Rev. 1: Comment Addressed. • Parrott Branch is not shown for its full length on the Landscaping sheet. Ensure that the watercourse is shown for the whole area represented on the sheet. Rev. 1: Comment Addressed. • Only 5 "Hornbeam" trees are shown on the landscape plan but 9 are specified in the "Site Landscaping Plant Schedule". Provide all specified trees or update the schedule appropriately. Rev. 1: Comment Addressed. • The "Total Canopy" calculation appears to be incorrect. Address the following: o It is uncertain where the "9,350 SF" comes from. In the approved plan the number there was for the total square feet of canopy provide in the "Site Landscape Plant Schedule". However "9,350 SF" does not match either the current or the amended square footage of proposed canopy. o In the approved plan the canopy provided by the "Stream Mitigation Plant Schedule" was also included in this calculation. It is not shown as part of the calculation in the proposed amendment to the site plan. o Provide information on the source and area of the "72,630 SF" in the calculation. If this is the area provided by "Existing Canopy Calculated Area" explain why this area has not changed despite the change in the limits of disturbance. Update this number to accurately represent the existing canopy that is to remain on the site and is being utilized to meet part of the canopy requirements. Rev. 1: Comment Addressed. • Provide the note, previously next to the viewport for the "Existing Canopy Calculated Area", that states "Trees in this area are not counted towards overall tree canopy and should be protected to the greatest extent practical by the contractor at the desire of the owner. Contractor shall consult with owner and design engineer prior to grading operations in this area if any of the vegetation is removed, supplemental evergreen plantings will be installed to help buffer views of development." Also, either expand the note or add a leader to clarify the area for which this note applies. Rev. 1: Comment not yet fully addressed. Address the following: o No note with a leader, or expanded description, was added to clarify the area for which this note applies. It is important that the area in which tree preservation is not required, and that evergreen screening trees can be put in their place, is clearly defined in the site plan. Keep in mind that the note states that the trees in question are not counted towards the overall canopy. Therefore trees included in the calculation should not be those specified. Add the note with a leader, or expanded description, to provide this information. o The graphic showing the "Existing Canopy Calculated Area" has not been updated to show the hatch of the new area that generated the updated calculation provided. Update this graphic on the left of the page to show the area of the current "Existing Canopy Calculated Area". Rev. 2: Comment Addressed • Ensure that the landscaping is in general accord with the approved ZMA Application Plan. Rev. 1: Comment Addressed. • Since the proposed landscaping is different then what was shown in the previous site plan include all required landscaping calculations including street trees, landscaping within parking areas (trees and shrubs), screening, and tree canopy. Ensure all landscaping requirements are met. Rev. 1: Comment Addressed. 31. [32.6.1(e)] Revise the plan to show the correct height of all retaining walls and provide safety railings where required. The retaining wall along the edge of the recreational area show two different maximum heights on two different sheets (C2-01 & C3-02). If the walls are 4' or higher they will require a safety railing. If a safety railing is required provide a detail for the railing. Rev. 1: Comment Addressed. 32. [32.6.1(e)] VDOT and engineering approval will be required for the removal of the Guardrail along the north side of Parkview Drive. Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. See engineering comments on the possible need of the guardrail along the trail side of Parkview Drive. Rev. 2: Comment Addressed 33. [Comment] Indicate the available sight distance for entrances and left turn lanes. It appears that the sight distance profiles for Parkview Drive have been removed from the site plan (C3- 01). Rev. 1: Comment Addressed. 34. [32.6.1(e) & 32.6.2(f)] Specify on the plan which roads/drives/lanes are private and which are public. Rev. 1: Comment not yet fully addressed. Specify on the plan which roads/drives/lanes are private and which are public. Only Parkview Drive has been labeled as a "Private Road". Label all of the internal roads (Snapdragon Lane,Teaberry Lane, & Stargazer Lane) as either public or private. Rev. 2: Comment Addressed 35. [32.6.2(f)] It appears that a second travel way and parking pavement detail has been added to the site plan (C3-03) and it does not specify the depths of all of the materials. The depths of the materials will have to be included in the pavement detail and be approved by engineering. Rev. 1: Comment Addressed. 36. [32.6.2(f)] It appears that the road section for Parkview Drive has been removed from Sheet C3- 03. Replace the required street section for Parkview Drive in the site plan. Rev. 1: Comment Addressed. 37. [32.6.2(f)] It appears that a road section has been added (C3-03), which is for the internal road of the development. However, it specifies a travelway width that does not appear to match the site plan or meet standards. The layout shows Teaberry Lane and Snapdragon Lane with a 20' wide drive aisle, not 14' wide drive aisle with a 3' concrete drainage ribbon on each side as shown in the section. The new section will have to meets standards and be approved by engineering. Rev. 1: Comment Addressed. 38. [32.6.2(f)] It appears that the stone access path section has been removed from Sheet C3-03. Clarify if no stone access paths will be included in the development. If they are to be provided then provide the section in the site plan. If it is to be removed specify the change in the modifications list for the minor amendment. Rev. 1: Comment Addressed. 39. [Comment] It appears that there are extraneous notes and line work, in Parkview Drive viewport window in the top right corner of sheet C1-01, that were not on the approved plan. Please remove this text and line work or clarify why they are needed. Rev. 1: Comment Addressed. 40. [Comment] It appears that the "Pavement", "Grading" and "Drainage" notes in the bottom right corner of the coversheet of the site plan were not on the approved plan. Please clarify why these notes have been placed on the cover sheet. Also provide in the site plan set the notes that were removed from the coversheet for Pavement, Grading & Drainage or specify why those notes are no longer needed on the site plan. Rev. 1: Comment not yet fully addressed. Although the Pavement, Grading & Drainage notes have been added back to the coversheet in the process the "ACSA General Water & Sewer Conditions" now appear to have been removed from the coversheet and site plan. Either provide the ACSA notes again on the coversheet or provide them on another appropriate sheet within the site plan. All notes provided on the sheets in the approved site plan must be included in the amended site plan unless changes to the plan makes them no longer necessary to the design. Rev. 2: Comment Addressed 41. [Comment] Ensure that the owner of the property is the one to sign the conservation checklist before the amendment can be approved. Rev. 1: Comment Addressed. 42. [Comment] It is understood that some discussion on other reviewer's comments has taken place and that some comments have been stated as no longer being needed. However, those comments are being attached to this set of comments in their entirety for reference. It is understood that some may no longer be needed. Rev. 1: Comment Addressed. 43. [Comment] See the attached comments from Engineering, VDOT, E911, ACSA, Fire/Rescue, ARB, Inspections, & Zoning. The site plan will not be approved without the approval of the other reviewers. Rev. 1: Comment not yet fully addressed. See attached comments from Engineering, VDOT, E911, ACSA, Fire/Rescue & Zoning. The site plan will not be approved without the approval of reviewers. Address the remaining planning, engineering, VDOT and ACSA comments. Rev. 2: Comment not fully addressed. Address the remaining planning, engineering and ACSA comments. Bonding for all required infrastructure is part of addressing these comments. 44. iEW Comment] Provide existing and proposed contour lines on sheet C4-01. Both the main view and the inset view on sheet C4-01 do not provide the contour lines required and provided in the approved final site plan. Rev. 2: Comment Addressed 45. [NEW COMMENT: 32.5.2(k) & 32.6.2(e)1 Submit the deed of dedication and easement agreement, and its associated easements plat, for review as specified in the comment for WP02017-42). This requires a separate application and fee for an "easement plat(s) required with a site plan". Engineering will coordinate the review of the deed and easement, however planning and the County Attorney's office will also be part of that review. The site plan will not be approved until the deed and easement is submitted, approved, signed and recorded. Provide a copy of the recorded plat and deed to the planning reviewer once this has been completed. Also, provide the Deed Book page information on the final site plan. Rev. 2: Comment not fully addressed. WPO, Easement plat and deed are currently under review. Site Plan will not be approved until WPO and reauired easement plat are approved, the easement recorded and the Deed Book and Page number are added to the plan set where specified. 46. [NEW COMMENT: 32.5.2(1) & 32.6.2(e)1 Submit a plat showing the easement(s) to be vacated. The easement plat must be reviewed by the County, approved, signed and recorded prior to site plan approval. The vacation plat may be able to be coordinated with the plat for the Forest/Open Space easement (See the comment above, as well as engineering's comments for this site plan and for WP02017-42). If you wish to combine the two plats coordinate with the engineering reviewer to ensure that the addition of the vacation does not cause an issue for the approval of the Forest/Open Space easement. If it is not combined with the Forest/Open Space easement review it will require a separate submission, application and fee. Provide a copy of the recorded plat to the planning reviewer once this has been completed. Also, provide the Deed Book page information on the final site plan. Rev. 2: Comment not fully addressed. WPO, Easement plat and deed are currently under review. Site Plan will not be approved until WPO and required easement plat are approved, the easement recorded and the Deed Book and Page number are added to the plan set where specified. 47. jNEW COMMENT: 32.5.2(1) &32.6.2(e)] Revise the label for the existing BMP easement to be vacated to provide the correct Deed Book and Page Number. The deed book and page number provided on the site plan appears to be for the offsite easements and not the ones that are onsite. Rev. 2: Comment Addressed 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 be found on the County Attorney's website which may be found under "Departments" 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 Paty Saternye in the Planning Division by using psaternye(a-albemarle.org or 434-296-5832 ext. 3250 for further information. County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Mr. Scott R. Collins, PE(scott(cD_collins-engineering.com) From: Paty Saternye — Senior Planner Division: Planning Date: July 14, 2017 Rev. 1: September 15, 2017 Subject: SDP -2017-0034 (Emerson Commons — Minor Site Plan Amendment) 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.] 1. [ZMA2007-12 Proffer #1] Provide four residential affordable dwelling units in the site plan as specified in Proffer #1. Building 13 has been reduced from four units to three units and no longer contains enough units to meet this proffer. Only 3 units have the "*' in front of their unit number specifying them as affordable units. Rev. 1: Comment Addressed. 2. [ZIVIA2007-12 Application Plan] ZMA2007-12 specified 26 residential units. All of the calculations on the approved site plan were based on 26 residential units. The unit count specified in the note in the lower left hand corners of the coversheet specifies 28 units. Revise the note to match the ZMA and approved site plan or clarify. The site plan will not be approved unless it meets all requirements of the ZMA, proffers, and is in general accord with the Application Plan. Rev. 1: Comment Addressed. 3. [ZMA2007-12 Application Plan] Revise the landscaping to be in general accord with the ZMA Application Plan. The Application Plan included diagrammatic sections showing the sightline from Parkview Drive. These sightlines showed how the combination of the existing and proposed landscaping, between the road and the development, would mitigate the view of the development from the existing street. In the proposed site plan amendment the landscaping along the road has been greatly reduced in comparison to the Application Plan and previously approved site plan (SDP2008-74) and will not fully screen the development or the dumpsters. Rev. 1: Comment Addressed. 4. [Comment] Revise the title on the coversheet to specify that the site plan number is "SDP201700034". Rev. 1: Comment Addressed. 5. [Comment] Add a note to the cover sheet that specifies the previously approved site plan number "SDP200800074" and specifies the date of the last revision and the approval date of that original plan. Rev. 1: Comment Addressed. 6. [Comment] Revise the "Zoning District" on the cover sheet to include the ZMA # of "ZMA2007- 00012" . Rev. 1: Comment Addressed. 7. [Comment] Revise the list of "Minor Site Plan Amendment Proposed Changes:" to include all changes to the site plan proposed with the amendment. That includes but is not limited to the change in unit count/density, that the stormwater management has been changed from using bioretention to yard drain straight into Parrott Branch, the changes in road/pavement details/section as well as some widths. All changes to the site plan must be listed in the proposed changes list. Rev. 1: Comment not yet fully addressed. Address the following: • Revise "Proposed Changes" number 20 to include "General Notes". • Add a proposed change number 21 that specifies the removal of sheets from the site plan to address changes to the stormwater management and the removal of the Erosion and Sediment Control sheets from the site plan. 8. [Comment] Include clouds around all changes to the site plan proposed with the amendment. This includes clouds around both the plan view, the site data, and calculations on the coversheet. Many of the changes in this site plan do not have clouds shown around them. Two examples are the changes to the stormwater management and the changes to the parking spaces and the parking calculations. Rev. 1: Comment not vet fully addressed. Address the following: • Add a cloud around comment #37, since it has been changed since the approved plan. • Add Clouds around the sheets that have been removed from, or added to, the site plan- 9. [32.5.2(b) & 32.6.2(i)] Revise the site data, proposed building area, percent impervious and calculation for 5% of parking lot area in order to incorporate the proposed changes to the site plan. The building footprints have been modified, and the number of provided parking spaces has been increased, however the areas and calculations shown have not been updated. Rev. 1: Comment Addressed. 10. [Comment] Show the triangle label for minor site plan amendment changes on each sheet that shows the change, specifying where that change is taking place. Rev. 1: Comment not vet fully addressed. Address the following: • Add the appropriate triangle label next to comment #37, since it has been changed since the approved plan. • Add the appropriate triangle label next to removed and/or added sheets in the Sheet List Table. 11. [32.5.2(a), 32.5.2(n), & 32.6.1(e)] For a minor amendment to a site plan the sheets must contain the same information, while incorporating the modifications, as was in the approved site plan. This plan has merged the information from two or more sheets and not provided all of the information provided in the original sheets. Therefore, the sheets provided could not be swapped out for the sheets in the original set to create a full set. Address the following: • Revise the existing conditions sheets to include existing conditions for both on site and off site areas of improvements. Rev. 1: Comment not vet fully addressed. Although the sheets have been added they do not include all of the information shown in the approved plan or have errors. Address the following o On sheet C1-01 there is a hatch and note about brush and tree removal that has not been included in the upper left of the page, in the area where the fruit trees are proposed. o On both C1-01 and C1-02 there are insufficient elevation labels on the contour lines and the difference between the major and minor lines are hard to differentiate. o On sheet C1-02 the culvert under the road to the vet aaaears to be missina and the two "TBR" labels need to be placed correctly once the culvert is once again shown. o On sheet C1-02 there appear to be dimensions (24', 5' & 8') that are not associated with any objects. o The label for the "New 16" RWSA Waterline" pipe does not touch the location of the new pipe and has no arrow on the end of the leader. o On sheet C3-01 the "Albemarle County Construction Notes for Streets" still has not been included even though it was on the approved site plan. Include this information and see the engineering comments on a suggested way to create room to do so by giving the Maintenance of Traffic Plan information its own sheet. • Ensure all notes and details included on the original site plan sheets are included on the provided sheets unless the information is no longer needed or valid because of changes to what is proposed. Rev. 1: Comment not yet fully addressed. Include sheet C6-03 in the site plan or find a new location, on the sheets already included, to place the required landscaping details that were provided on that sheet in the approved site plan. • Ensure that the sheets provided can be added back to the remaining original site plan sheets and that all the information required is provided and that new amendment sheets and remaining approved sheets do not provide contradictory information. Rev. 1: Comment not vet fuliv addressed. See comment directly above. 12. [Comment] Number the notes on the cover sheet (CO -01) in the General Notes section and ensure the notes are numbered as they were in the approved site plan. Rev. 1: Comment Addressed. 13. [32.5.2(i)] On the coversheet (CO -01) the second -to -last note states that "Site shall be addressed as Parrot Creek Road (Private)." However, the plans only depict roads labeled as Parkview ®rive, Snapdragon Lane, Teaberry Lane, and Stargazer Lane; no road is labeled as Parrot Creek Road. Please address and resolve this apparent discrepancy. Also, please note: • See E991 comments about needed changes to the street names. • The correct spelling of the riparian feature adjacent to this site is "Parrott" Branch, not "Parrot" Creek. Rev. 1: Comment not vet fully addressed. Revise the note to specify the correct streets for the existing and proposed building. The note should state "The existing buildings will be addressed as Teaberry Lane (Private) and the proposed residences will be addressed as Stargazer Lane (Private)", as long as both of those streets are proposed to be private streets. See comment # 34. 14. [32.5.2(i) & 32.6.2(a)] Provide information on the "Proposed Trail Easement". If this easement already exists revise the label, provide the deed book and page reference for the recorded easement. If this easement does not already exist then submit the proposed easement for review. The final site plan will not be approved until the easement is approved, signed and recorded. Rev. 1: Comment Addressed. 15. [32.5.2(a) & 32.6.2(a)] Revise the Sheet List Table on Sheet CO -01 to include the total number of sheets (16). Rev. 1: Comment Addressed. 16. [32.5.2(a) & 32.6.2(a)] Specify zoning and present use(s) of abutting parcel TMP 56-74A. Rev. 1: Comment Addressed. 17. [32.5.2(b) & 32.6.2(a)] Sheet C2-01 contains "Updated phasing line for the project;" please provide information about the proposed timing of development/implementation of buildings and utilities. Rev. 1: Comment not vet fully addressed. Clarify whether yard drain #5 will be in Phase I or Phase ll. Although the note specifying the phases does not list YD -5 as being in Phase II, and the phase line and yard drain locations are not shown in the same graphics, the graphic representation of the phase line location appears to place YD -5 within Phase II. If YD -5 is supposed to be in Phase I update the graphics so that it appears that it is within that area. 18. [32.5.2(f) & 32.6.2(a] Revise the note on Sheet CO -01 to correctly specify "Subject Parcel is in the Beaver Creek Reservoir Water Supply Watershed." (Currently, "Water Supply" is omitted.) Rev. 1: Comment Addressed. 19. (32.5.2(m) & 32.6.2(a] Provide the distance to the centerline of the nearest existing street intersection from the proposed ingress and egress. Rev. 1: Comment Addressed. 20. [32.5.2(n) & 32.6.2(a] Provide the maximum footprint of each building. The table on Sheet No. C2-01, for the building information, no longer appears to supply the maximum square footage of each building as it did in the approved site plan. Revise the table to include this information once again. Rev. 1: Comment Addressed. 21. [32.5.2(n) & 32.6.2(a] Revise the chart showing the building numbers to address the following: • Revise the chart so that the quantity of residences for Building 3 matches the number of residences shown in the proposed layout. The layout shows 2 residences and the chart specifies only 1. �> Revise the chart to include the "Building Type" as was provided in the approved site plan. • Provide a total of the residences at the bottom of the table. Rev. 1: Comment Addressed. 23. [32.5.2(n) & 32.6.2(a] Provide a hatch for the trail shown on sheet C3-01. Rev. 1: Comment Addressed. 24. [32.5.2(n), 32.6.1(e) & 32.6.2(a)] Clarify the number of residential units proposed with the plan and meet all requirements based upon that number of units. See comment #2 above and address the following: • [32.5.2(b), 32.6.2(i) & 32.6.2(1]] The 52 required parking spaces on the Application Plan were specified to meet the 26 units shown on that plan, which is two parking spaces per unit, as specified in the Code (4.12.6). Revise all requirements including, but not limited to, parking spaces and recreational facilities, based upon the number of residential units specified. • [32.5.2(b) & 32.6.2(i)] Include a calculation for the number of required parking spaces in the site date on the cover sheet. • [ZMA2007-12 Application Plan] The existing barns are shown with "N/A" for "bedroom/residences" and "total # of bedrooms". However, they have "1" shown under "QTY. of Residences". Revise the "QTY. of Residences" for the two barns to be "0° (zero). [32.5.2(b)] Ensure that the dwelling units per acre is updated in the note in the lower left hand corner of the cover sheet. Rev. 1: Comment Addressed. 25. [32.5.2(n) & 32.6.2(a)] Revise the labels for buildings 3, 11, 12 & 13 to match the format of the other building labeling. Provide a "Building Type" and "unit" type for buildings 3, 11, 12 & 13. Rev. 1: Comment Addressed. 26. [32.5.2(n), 32.6.1(e), 32.6.2(a)& 32.6.2(i)] Provide the hatched areas adjacent to the parking spaces that are reduced in depth. There is an area of 2' adjacent to the 16' deep parking spaces, and 1' adjacent to the 17' deep parking spaces, that must be clear of obstructions for parking overhang. This was provided on the approved site plan and has not been provided in this amendment. Rev. 1: Comment Addressed. 27. [32.6.2(h)] Revise the signature panel to the one for minor site plan amendments. Approval panels with all reviewers' signatures are not required on minor amendments. Rev. 1: Comment Addressed. 28. [32.6.2(k)] Add a note on the coversheet specifying that no exterior lighting is proposed in the site plan or provide a site lighting plan that meets all Codes and requirements. Rev. 1: Cornment Addressed. 29. [32.5.2(p), 32.6.2.0) & 32.7.9] Show proposed tree line on sheet C2-01 & C6-01. Rev. 1: Comment Addressed. 30. [32.6.20)] The landscaping plan has changed extensively from the approved site plan. Address the following: C Provide the stream buffer mitigation plant schedule. Rev. 1: Comrnent Addressed. O Show the location of the tree protection and silt fence which were shown on the approved site plan. Rev. 1: Comment Addressed. L Provide a legend, or labels, on the Landscape Plan that specifies all of the hatching used in that plan sheet. There are hatches that have no labels specifying what they are representing. Rev. 1: Comment Addressed. • Parrott Branch is not shown for its full length on the Landscaping sheet. Ensure that the watercourse is shown for the whole area represented on the sheet. Rev. 1: Comment Addressed. • Only 5 "Hornbeam" trees are shown on the landscape plan but 9 are specified in the "Site Landscaping Plant Schedule". Provide all specified trees or update the schedule appropriately. Rev. 1: Comment Addressed. e The "Total Canopy" calculation appears to be incorrect. Address the following: v It is uncertain where the °9,350 SF" comes from. In the approved plan the number there was for the total square feet of canopy provide in the "Site Landscape Plant Schedule". However "9,350 SF" does not match either the current or the amended square footage of proposed canopy. o In the approved plan the canopy provided by the "Stream Mitigation Plant Schedule" was also included in this calculation. It is not shown as part of the calculation in the proposed amendment to the site plan. o Provide information on the source and area of the "72,630 SF" in the calculation. If this is the area provided by "Existing Canopy Calculated Area" explain why this area has not changed despite the change in the limits of disturbance. Update this number to accurately represent the existing canopy that is to remain on the site and is being utilized to meet part of the canopy requirements. Rev. 1: Comment Addressed. • Provide the note, previously next to the viewport for the "Existing Canopy Calculated Area", that states "Trees in this area are not counted towards overall tree canopy and should be protected to the greatest extent practical by the contractor at the desire of the owner. Contractor shall consult with owner and design engineer prior to grading operations in this area if any of the vegetation is removed, supplemental evergreen plantings will be installed to help buffer views of development." Also, either expand the note or add a leader to clarify the area for which this note applies. Rev. 1: Comment not yet fully addressed. Address the following: o No note with a leader, or expanded description, was added to clarify the area for which this note applies. It is important that the area in which tree preservation is not required, and that evergreen screening trees can be put in their place, is clearly defined in the site plan. Keep in mind that the note states that the trees in question are not counted towards the overall canopy. Therefore trees included in the calculation should not be those specified. Add the note with a leader, or expanded description, to provide this information. o The graphic showing the "Existing Canopy Calculated Area" has not been updated to show the hatch of the new area that generated the updated calculation provided. Update this graphic on the left of the page to show the area of the current "Existing Canopy Calculated Area". • Ensure that the landscaping is in general accord with the approved ZMA Application Plan. Rev. 1: Comment Addressed. • Since the proposed landscaping is different then what was shown in the previous site plan include all required landscaping calculations including street trees, landscaping within parking areas (trees and shrubs), screening, and tree canopy. Ensure all landscaping requirements are met. Rev. 1: Comment Addressed. 31. [32.6.1(e)] Revise the plan to show the correct height of all retaining walls and provide safety railings where required. The retaining wall along the edge of the recreational area show two different maximum heights on two different sheets (C2-01 & C3-02). If the walls are 4' or higher they will require a safety railing. If a safety railing is required provide a detail for the railing. Rev. 1: Comment Addressed. 32. [32.6.1(e)] VDOT and engineering approval will be required for the removal of the Guardrail along the north side of Parkview Drive. Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. See engineering comments on the possible need of the guardrail along the trail side of Parkview Drive. 33. [Comment] Indicate the available sight distance for entrances and left turn lanes. It appears that the sight distance profiles for Parkview Drive have been removed from the site plan (C3- 01). Rev. 1: Comment Addressed. 34. [32.6.1(e) & 32.6.2(f)] Specify on the plan which roads/drives/lanes are private and which are public. Rev. 1: Comment not vet fully addressed. Specify on the plan which roads/drives/lanes are private and which are Public_ Only Parkview Drive has been labeled as a "Private Road". Label all of the internal roads (Snapdragon Lane,Teaberry Lane, & Stargazer Lane) as either public or private. 35. [32.6.2(f)] It appears that a second travel way and parking pavement detail has been added to the site plan (C3-03) and it does not specify the depths of all of the materials. The depths of the materials will have to be included in the pavement detail and be approved by engineering. Rev. 1: Comment Addressed. 36. [32.6 2(f)] It appears that the road section for Parkview Drive has been removed from Sheet C3- 03. Replace the required street section for Parkview Drive in the site plan. Rev. 1: Comment Addressed. 37. [32.6.2(f)] It appears that a road section has been added (C3-03), which is for the internal road of the development. However, it specifies a travelway width that does not appear to match the site plan or meet standards. The layout shows Teaberry Lane and Snapdragon Lane with a 20' wide drive aisle, not 14' wide drive aisle with a 3' concrete drainage ribbon on each side as shown in the section. The new section will have to meets standards and be approved by engineering. Rev. 1: Comment Addressed. 38. [32.6.2(f)] It appears that the stone access path section has been removed from Sheet C3-03. Clarify if no stone access paths will be included in the development. If they are to be provided then provide the section in the site plan. If it is to be removed specify the change in the modifications list for the minor amendment. Rev. 1: Comment Addressed. 39. [Comment] It appears that there are extraneous notes and line work, in Parkview Drive viewport window in the top right corner of sheet C1-01, that were not on the approved plan. Please remove this text and line work or clarify why they are needed. Rev. 1: Comment Addressed. 40. [Comment] It appears that the "Pavement", "Grading" and "Drainage" notes in the bottom right corner of the coversheet of the site plan were not on the approved plan. Please clarify why these notes have been placed on the cover sheet. Also provide in the site plan set the notes that were removed from the coversheet for Pavement, Grading & Drainage or specify why those notes are no longer needed on the site plan. Rev. 1: Comment not yet fully addressed. Although the Pavement, Grading & Drainage notes have been added back to the coversheet in the process the "ACSA General Water & Sewer Conditions" now appear to have been removed from the coversheet and site plan. Either provide the ACSA notes again on the coversheet or provide them on another appropriate sheet within the site plan. All notes provided on the sheets in the approved site plan must be included in the amended site plan unless changes to the plan makes them no longer necessary to the design. 41. [Comment] Ensure that the owner of the property is the one to sign the conservation checklist before the amendment can be approved. Rev. 1: Comment Addressed. 42. [Comment] It is understood that some discussion on other reviewer's comments has taken place and that some comments have been stated as no longer being needed. However, those comments are being attached to this set of comments in their entirety for reference. It is understood that some may no longer be needed. Rev. 1: Comment Addressed. 43. [Comment] See the attached comments from Engineering, VDOT, E911, ACSA, Fire/Rescue, ARB, Inspections, & Zoning. The site plan will not be approved without the approval of the other reviewers. Rev. 1: Comment not vet fully addressed. See attached comments from Engineering, VDOT, E911, ACSA, Fire/Rescue & Zoning. The site plan will not be approved without the approval of reviewers. Address the remaining planning, engineering, VDOT and ACSA comments. 44. MEW Commentl Provide existing and proposed contour lines on sheet C4-01. Both the main view and the inset view on sheet C4-01 do not provide the contour lines required and provided in the approved final site plan. 45. MEW COMMENT: 32.5.2(k) & 32.6.2(e)l Submit the deed of dedication and easement agreement, and its associated easements plat, for review as specified in the comment for WP02017-42). This requires a separate application and fee for an "easement plat(s) required with a site plan". Engineering will coordinate the review of the deed and easement, however planning and the County Attorney's office will also be part of that review. The site plan will not be approved until the deed and easement is submitted, approved, signed and recorded. Provide a copy of the recorded plat and deed to the planning reviewer once this has been completed. Also, provide the Deed Book page information on the final site plan. 46. MEW COMMENT: 32.5.2(1) & 32.6.2(e)l Submit a plat showing the easement(s) to be vacated. The easement plat must be reviewed by the County, approved, signed and recorded prior to site plan approval. The vacation plat may be able to be coordinated with the plat for the Forest/Open Space easement (See the comment above, as well as engineering's comments for this site plan and for WP02017-42). If you wish to combine the two plats coordinate with the engineering reviewer to ensure that the addition of the vacation does not cause an issue for the approval of the Forest/Open Space easement. If it is not combined with the Forest/Open Space easement review it will require a separate submission, application and fee. Provide a copy of the recorded plat to the planning reviewer once this has been completed. Also, provide the Deed Book page information on the final site plan. 47. MEW COMMENT: 32.5.2(i) & 32.6.2(e)l Revise the label for the existing BMP easement to be vacated to provide the correct Deed Book and Page Number. The deed book and page number provided on the site plan appears to be for the offsite easements and not the ones that are onsite. 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 be found on the County Attorney's website which may be found under "Departments" 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 Pa, 4nye in the Planning Division by using psaternye(aD-albemarle.org or 434-296-5832 e�f. 3250/for further information G i, Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E. Commissioner COi i ONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1601 Orange Road Calpeper Virginia 22701 August 24, 2017 County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Attn: Tim Padalino Re: Emerson Commons- Minor Site Plan Amendment. SDP -2017-00034 Review #2 Dear Mr. Padalino: The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use Section, has reviewed the above referenced as submitted by, Collins Engineering dated May 15, 2017,revised August 4, 2017 and offers the following comments. Land Use 1. Please mill and overlay to center of Three Notch'd Road, appears to be a void in the mill and overlay on plan sheet# 3-01. Please note that the final site plan must show conformance with the VDOT Road Design Manual Appendices B (1) and F, as well as any other applicable standards, regulations, or other requirements. Please provide two copies of the revised plan along with a comment response letter. If further information is desired, please contact Willis C. Bedsaul at 434-422-9866. A VDOT Land Use Permit will be required prior to any work within the right-of-way. The owner/developer must contact the Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use Section at (434) 422-9399 for information pertaining to this process. Sincerely, Adam J. Mo ire, P.E. Area Land Use Engineer Charlottesville Residency VirginiaDOT.org WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING gum County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Mr. Scott R. Collins, PE (scotta-collins-engineering.com) From: Paty Saternye — Senior Planner Division: Planning Date: July 14, 2017 Subject: SDP -2017-0034 (Emerson Commons — Minor Site Plan Amendment) 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.] 1. [ZMA2007-12 Proffer #1] Provide four residential affordable dwelling units in the site plan as specified in Proffer #1. Building 13 has been reduced from four units to three units and no longer contains enough units to meet this proffer. Only 3 units have the "*" in front of their unit number specifying them as affordable units. 2. [ZMA2007-12 Application Plan] ZMA2007-12 specified 26 residential units. All of the calculations on the approved site plan were based on 26 residential units. The unit count specified in the note in the lower left hand corners of the coversheet specifies 28 units. Revise the note to match the ZMA and approved site plan or clarify. The site plan will not be approved unless it meets all requirements of the ZMA, proffers, and is in general accord with the Application Plan. 3. [ZMA2007-12 Application Plan] Revise the landscaping to be in general accord with the ZMA Application Plan. The Application Plan included diagrammatic sections showing the sightline from Parkview Drive. These sightlines showed how the combination of the existing and proposed landscaping, between the road and the development, would mitigate the view of the development from the existing street. In the proposed site plan amendment the landscaping along the road has been greatly reduced in comparison to the Application Plan and previously approved site plan (SDP2008-74) and will not fully screen the development or the dumpsters. 4. [Comment] Revise the title on the coversheet to specify that the site plan number is "SDP201700034". 5. [Comment] Add a note to the cover sheet that specifies the previously approved site plan number "SDP200800074" and specifies the date of the last revision and the approval date of that original plan. 6. [Comment] Revise the 'Zoning District" on the cover sheet to include the ZMA # of "ZMA2007- 00012". 7. [Comment] Revise the list of "Minor Site Plan Amendment Proposed Changes:" to include all changes to the site pian proposed with the amendment. That includes but is not limited to Ll16 change in unit count/density, that the stormwater management has been changed from using bioretention to yard drain straight into Parrott Branch, the changes in road/pavement details/section as well as some widths. All changes to the site plan must be listed in the proposed changes list. 8. [Comment] Include clouds around all changes to the site plan proposed with the amendment. This includes clouds around both the plan view, the site data, and calculations on the coversheet. Many of the changes in this site plan do not have clouds shown around them. Two examples are the changes to the stormwater management and the changes to the parking spaces and the parking calculations. 9. [32.5.2(b) & 32.6.2(i)] Revise the site data, proposed building area, percent impervious and calculation for 5% of parking lot area in order to incorporate the proposed changes to the site plan. The building footprints have been modified, and the number of provided parking spaces has been increased, however the areas and calculations shown have not been updated. 10. [Comment] Show the triangle label for minor site plan amendment changes on each sheet that shows the change, specifying where that change is taking place. 11. [32.5.2(a), 32.5.2(n), & 32.6.1(e)] For a minor amendment to a site plan the sheets must contain the same information, while incorporating the modifications, as was in the approved site plan. This plan has merged the information from two or more sheets and not provided all of the information provided in the original sheets. Therefore, the sheets provided could not be swapped out for the sheets in the original set to create a full set. Address the following: • Revise the existing conditions sheets to include existing conditions for both on site and off site areas of improvements. • Ensure all notes and details included on the original site plan sheets are included on the provided sheets unless the information is no longer needed or valid because of changes to what is proposed. • Ensure that the sheets provided can be added back to the remaining original site plan sheets and that all the information required is provided and that new amendment sheets and remaining approved sheets do not provide contradictory information. 12. [Comment] Number the notes on the cover sheet (CO -01) in the General Notes section and ensure the notes are numbered as they were in the approved site plan. 13. [32.5.2(i)] On the coversheet (CO -01) the second -to -last note states that "Site shall be addressed as Parrot Creek Road (Private)." However, the plans only depict roads labeled as Parkview Drive, Snapdragon Lane, Teaberry Lane, and Stargazer Lane; no road is labeled as Parrot Creek Road. Please address and resolve this apparent discrepancy. Also, please note: • See E991 comments about needed changes to the street names. • The correct spelling of the riparian feature adjacent to this site is "Parrott' Branch, not "Parrot" Creek. 14. [32.5.2(1) & 32.6.2(a)] Provide information on the "Proposed Trail Easement'. If this easement already exists revise the label, provide the deed book and page reference for the recorded easement. If this easement does not already exist then submit the proposed easement for review. The final site plan will not be approved until the easement is approved, signed and recorded. 15. [32.5.2(a) & 32.6.2(a)] Revise the Sheet List Table on Sheet CO -01 to include the total number of sheets (16). 16. [32.5.2(a) & 32.6.2(a)] Specify zoning and present use(s) of abutting parcel TMP 56-74A. 17. [32.5.2(b) & 32.6.2(a)] Sheet C2-01 contains "Updated phasing line for the project;" please provide information about the proposed timing of development/implementation of buildings and utilities. 18. [32.5.2(f) & 32.6.2(a] Revise the note on Sheet CO -01 to correctly specify "Subject Parcel is in the Beaver Creek Reservoir Water Supply Watershed." (Currently, "Water Supply" is omitted.) 19. [32.5.2(m) & 32.6.2(a] Provide the distance to the centerline of the nearest existing street intersection from the proposed ingress and egress. 2 20. [32.5.2(n) & 32.6.2(a] Provide the maximum footprint of each building. The table on Sheet No. C2-01, for the building information, no longer appears to supply the maximum square footage of each building as it did in the approved site plan. Revise the table to include this information once again. 21. [32.5.2(n) & 32.6.2(a] Revise the chart showing the building numbers to address the following: • Revise the chart so that the quantity of residences for Building 3 matches the number of residences shown in the proposed layout. The layout shows 2 residences and the chart specifies only 1. • Revise the chart to include the "Building Type" as was provided in the approved site plan. • Provide a total of the residences at the bottom of the table. 23. [32.5.2(n) & 32.6.2(a] Provide a hatch for the trail shown on sheet C3-01. 24. [32.5.2(n), 32.6.1(e) & 32.6.2(a)] Clarify the number of residential units proposed with the plan and meet all requirements based upon that number of units. See comment #2 above and address the following: • [32.5.2(b), 32.6.2(i) & 32.6.2(1]] The 52 required parking spaces on the Application Plan were specified to meet the 26 units shown on that plan, which is two parking spaces per unit, as specified in the Code (4.12.6). Revise all requirements including, but not limited to, parking spaces and recreational facilities, based upon the number of residential units specified. • [32.5.2(b) & 32.6.2(i)] Include a calculation for the number of required parking spaces in the site date on the cover sheet. • [ZMA2007-12 Application Plan] The existing barns are shown with "N/A" for "bedroom/residences" and "total # of bedrooms". However, they have "1" shown under "QTY. of Residences". Revise the "QTY. of Residences" for the two barns to be "0" (zero). • [32.5.2(b)] Ensure that the dwelling units per acre is updated in the note in the lower left hand corner of the cover sheet. 25. [32.5.2(n) & 32.6.2(a)] Revise the labels for buildings 3, 11, 12 & 13 to match the format of the other building labeling. Provide a "Building Type" and "unit" type for buildings 3, 11, 12 & 13. 26. [32.5.2(n), 32.6.1(e), 32.6.2(a)& 32.6.2(i)] Provide the hatched areas adjacent to the parking spaces that are reduced in depth. There is an area of 2' adjacent to the 16' deep parking spaces, and 1' adjacent to the 17' deep parking spaces, that must be clear of obstructions for parking overhang. This was provided on the approved site plan and has not been provided in this amendment. 27. [32.6.2(h)] Revise the signature panel to the one for minor site plan amendments. Approval panels with all reviewers' signatures are not required on minor amendments. 28. [32.6.2(k)] Add a note on the coversheet specifying that no exterior lighting is proposed in the site plan or provide a site lighting plan that meets all Codes and requirements. 29. [32.5.2(p), 32.6.2.0) & 32.7.9] Show proposed tree line on sheet C2-01 & C6-01. 30. [32.6.20)] The landscaping plan has changed extensively from the approved site plan. Address the following: • Provide the stream buffer mitigation plant schedule. • Show the location of the tree protection and silt fence which were shown on the approved site plan. • Provide a legend, or labels, on the Landscape Plan that specifies all of the hatching used in that plan sheet. There are hatches that have no labels specifying what they are representing. • Parrott Branch is not shown for its full length on the Landscaping sheet. Ensure that the watercourse is shown for the whole area represented on the sheet. • Only 5 "Hornbeam" trees are shown on the landscape plan but 9 are specified in the "Site Landscaping Plant Schedule". Provide all specified trees or update the schedule appropriately. • The "Total Canopy" calculation appears to be incorrect. Address the following: o It is uncertain where the "9,350 SF" comes from. In the approved plan the number there was for the total square feet of canopy provide in the "Site Landscape Plant Schedule". However "9,350 SF" does not match either the current or the amended square footage of proposed canopy. o In the approved plan the canopy provided by the "Stream Mitigation Plant Schedule" was also included in this calculation. It is not shown as part of the calculation in the proposed amendment to the site plan. o Provide information on the source and area of the "72,630 SF" in the calculation. If this is the area provided by "Existing Canopy Calculated Area" explain why this area has not changed despite the change in the limits of disturbance. Update this number to accurately represent the existing canopy that is to remain on the site and is being utilized to meet part of the canopy requirements. • Provide the note, previously next to the viewport for the "Existing Canopy Calculated Area", that states "Trees in this area are not counted towards overall tree canopy and should be protected to the greatest extent practical by the contractor at the desire of the owner. Contractor shall consult with owner and design engineer prior to grading operations in this area if any of the vegetation is removed, supplemental evergreen plantings will be installed to help buffer views of development." Also, either expand the note or add a leader to clarify the area for which this note applies. • Ensure that the landscaping is in general accord with the approved ZMA Application Plan. • Since the proposed landscaping is different then what was shown in the previous site plan include all required landscaping calculations including street trees, landscaping within parking areas (trees and shrubs), screening, and tree canopy. Ensure all landscaping requirements are met. 31. [32.6.1(e)] Revise the plan to show the correct height of all retaining walls and provide safety railings where required. The retaining wall along the edge of the recreational area show two different maximum heights on two different sheets (C2-01 & C3-02). If the walls are 4' or higher they will require a safety railing. If a safety railing is required provide a detail for the railing. 32. [32.6.1(e)] VDOT and engineering approval will be required for the removal of the Guardrail along the north side of Parkview Drive. 33. [Comment] Indicate the available sight distance for entrances and left turn lanes. It appears that the sight distance profiles for Parkview Drive have been removed from the site plan (C3- 01). 34. [32.6.1(e) & 32.6.2(f)] Specify on the plan which roads/drives/lanes are private and which are public. 35. [32.6.2(f)] It appears that a second travel way and parking pavement detail has been added to the site plan (C3-03) and it does not specify the depths of all of the materials. The depths of the materials will have to be included in the pavement detail and be approved by engineering. 36. [32.6.2(f)] It appears that the road section for Parkview Drive has been removed from Sheet C3- 03. Replace the required street section for Parkview Drive in the site plan. 37. [32.6.2(f)] It appears that a road section has been added (C3-03), which is for the internal road of the development. However, it specifies a travelway width that does not appear to match the site plan or meet standards. The layout shows Teaberry Lane and Snapdragon Lane with a 20' wide drive aisle, not 14' wide drive aisle with a 3' concrete drainage ribbon on each side as shown in the section. The new section will have to meets standards and be approved by engineering. 38. [32.6.2(f)] It appears that the stone access path section has been removed from Sheet C3-03. Clarify if no stone access paths will be included in the development. If they are to be provided then provide the section in the site plan. If it is to be removed specify the change in the modifications list for the minor amendment. 39. [Comment] It appears that there are extraneous notes and line work, in Parkview Drive viewport window in the top right corner of sheet C1-01, that were not on the approved plan. Please remove this text and line work or clarify why they are needed. 40. [Comment] It appears that the "Pavement", "Grading" and "Drainage" notes in the bottom right corner of the coversheet of the site plan were not on the approved plan. Please clarify why these notes have been placed on the cover sheet. Also provide in the site plan set the notes that were removed from the coversheet for Pavement, Grading & Drainage or specify why those notes are no longer needed on the site plan. 41. [Comment] Ensure that the owner of the property is the one to sign the conservation checklist before the amendment can be approved. 42. [Comment] It is understood that some discussion on other reviewer's comments has taken place and that some comments have been stated as no longer being needed. However, those comments are being attached to this set of comments in their entirety for reference. It is understood that some may no longer be needed. 43. [Comment] See the attached comments from Engineering, VDOT, E911, ACSA, Fire/Rescue, ARB, Inspections, & Zoning. The site plan will not be approved without the approval of the other reviewers. 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 be found on the County Attorney's website which may be found under "Departments" 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 P e in the Planning Division by using psaternyeC@albemarle.org or 434-296-5832 t. 50 r further information. COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1601 Orange Road Culpeper. Virginia 22761 Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E. Commissioner June 20, 2017 County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Attn: Paty Saternye Re: Emerson Commons- Minor Site Plan Amendment. SDP -2017-00034 Review #I Dear Ms. Saternye: The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use Section, has reviewed the above referenced as submitted by, Collins Engineering dated May 15, 2017, and offers the following comments. Land Use 1. Please show mill and overlay on plans in accordance with WP -2 and show limits of mill and overlay. Also please add the detail to the plans. 2. The mill and overlay will require work to centerline, so flagging operation will be necessary. Please provide an MOT plan in accordance with the Virginia Work Area Protection Manual. 3. Please provide sight distance lines and profile sheet for Parkview Road entrance. 4. Please provide Route number, Speed limit, and Right of Way width on all plan sheets. 5. Please indicate if Parkview Drive is Private or Public Street. 6. Commercial entrance design to serve a Private Subdivision Road/Street. Please see Road Design Manual appendix F -Access Management design standards for entrances and Intersections, figure 4-8 commercial entrance design. Please provide a left turn lane warrant analysis as shown in F-78 through F-87. Please refer to F-109 to provide the appropriate design vehicle and turning radius by land use. 7. Please provide trip generation data for units/buildings. Please note that the final site plan must show conformance with the VDOT Road Design Manual Appendices B (1) and F, as well as any other applicable standards, regulations, or other requirements. Please provide two copies of the revised plan along with a comment response letter. If further information is desired, please contact Willis C. Bedsaul at 434-422-9866. A VDOT Land Use Permit will be required prior to any work within the right-of-way. The owner/developer must contact the Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use Section at (434) 422-9399 for information pertaining to this process. VirginiaDOT_org WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING June 20, 2017 Paty Saternye Page 2 Sincerely, Adam J. M are, P.E. Area Land Use Engineer Charlottesville Residency VirginiaDOT.org WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 April 17, 2018 Rev. 1: Aueust 20, 2018 Jo Higgins 2564 Mt Torrey Road Lyndhurst, VA 22952 musxit@aol.com RE: LOR #1 SDP2017-34 Emerson Commons — Letter of Revision Dear Jo Higgins: Your Letter of Revision application has been reviewed. In order for the amended site plan to be approved the following revisions are required: [Comment] There are 11 changes specified in the request letter, however only 8 of those are shown in modified site plan sheets. Address the following: • Provide all site plan sheets that are necessary in order to show all changes requested. Rev. 1: Comment may not be fully addressed. If the request for a revised pathway detail is still being requested it is not shown or listed in the 7/10/18 submission of the LOR #1 plan sheets. Also, if the change is requested then ensure all site plan sheets impacted by the requested items are included, revised, listed and clouded in the next submission. Ensure that sections for all other paths and roadways are still provided and not removed or modified for requested change. • Have clouds for, and a list of, the changes shown on each sheet. Rev. 1: Comment may not be fully addressed. If the request for a revised pathway detail is still being requested it is not shown or listed in the 7/10/18 submission of LOR #1. Request #8 is shown on the provided sheet, and a label specifies it, but it is not yet listed in the numbered list at the bottom of the page and no cloud is shown. Include it in the list and add a cloud. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. Rev. 1: (NEW COMMENTI Provide an updated LOR request letter that includes the changes for the stormwater management (yard drains and clearing limits), landscaping changes (as they are now shown), adding additional square footage to some buildings, removes any requests no longer being requested (such as a revised path detail(s) which was not part of the 7/10118 submission) etc A request letter that accurately specifies the request should be submitted with the next submission. 2. [32.5.2] Address the following: • Request #6 for revised building footprints and unit types also needs to be updated in the chart on the left side of sheet C2-01. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. • Request #7 for the affordable housing units must also be update in the chart on the left side of sheet C2-01 Rev. 1: Comment addressed. 3. [32.5.2 & 32.7] Request #11 changes should be shown on the Road Plan and Profile sheet as well as the Site Details sheet where there is a guardrail detail. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. 4. [32.7.9] Address the following in reference to the landscaping request #10: • Request #10 should be shown on the Landscaping Plan sheet. Changes to the layout, notes, calculations and Site Landscaping Plant Schedule should be shown and clouded. Rev. 1: comment addressed. • There does not appear to be any "Cornus stolonifera" specified in the Site Landscaping Plant Schedule on the approved minor amendment. Therefore it is unknown what the "Calycanthus floridus" is replacing in the site plan. Either revise this request or contact the plan reviewer to discuss. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. • The Carpinus caroliniana is a small deciduous tree. Carpinus betulus is a medium deciduous shade tree. The approved Carpinus betulus are located adjacent to parking are access ways in the approved minor site plan amendment, and are meeting the parking lot tree requirement. Landscaping within parking areas is required to include large or medium shade trees. Therefore the Carpinus caroliniana does not meet this requirement and cannot be substituted for the Carpinus betulus as parking area trees. Revise the request in provide a large or medium shade tree replacement for the Carpinus betulus in order to continue to meet all landscaping requirements. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. • It appears that Juniperus "Grey Owl" and Juniperus "Pfitz Compacta" do not reach the same mature height as the Ilex glabria "Shamrock". Their mature growth may only reach the height needed at the time of planting if the shrubs are utilized for screening. At least a portion of the Ilex glabria are utilized for screening the parking areas and dumpsters. Ensure that all shrubs used for screening will meet the minimum height at planting. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. • Since two species are being specified to replace the Ilex glabria "Shamrock" ensure that the different species are clearly labeled, represented with different symbols in the layout, and have separate lines in the Site Landscape Plant Schedule on the Landscape Plan sheet C6-01. Ensure that the "Compacta" species is not utilized for screening. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. 5. [Comment] The LOR submission has been reviewed by Engineering and Fire Rescue for their review. Attached please their comments. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. Engineering had not objection. 6. Rev. 1: [NEW COMMENT] Revise the "Building Types" in the chart on C2-01. With the changes in foot print for Buildings 2, 3. S. 9 & 13 they no longer match the previous building types or even the buildings specified as the same Building Type on the current version of the chart. Ensure 'BLDG. TYPE". and the size of the building footprint specified, match or provide information to the plan reviewer why the changes are not required. Also, ensure that with the changes specified the other information in the chart, such as "Total # of Bedrooms". does not also need to be changed. 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. If you have any questions about the comments please feel free to contact me at Psaternve@albemarle.or or at 434-296-5832 ext. 3250. Planning Division COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 April 17, 2018 Jo Higgins 2564 Mt Torrey Road Lyndhurst, VA 22952 musxit@aol.com RE: LOR #1 SDP2017-34 Emerson Commons — Letter of Revision Dear Jo Higgins: Your Letter of Revision application has been reviewed. In order for the amended site plan to be approved the following revisions are required: [Comment] There are 11 changes specified in the request letter, however only 8 of those are shown in modified site plan sheets. Address the following: • Provide all site plan sheets that are necessary in order to show all changes requested. • Have clouds for, and a list of, the changes shown on each sheet. • Request #8 is shown on the provided sheet, and a label specifies it, but it is not yet listed in the numbered list at the bottom of the page and no cloud is shown. Include it in the list and add a cloud. 2. [32.5.2] Address the following: • Request #6 for revised building footprints and unit types also needs to be updated in the chart on the left side of sheet C2-01. • Request #7 for the affordable housing units must also be update in the chart on the left side of sheet C2-01 3. [32.5.2 & 32.7] Request #11 changes should be shown on the Road Plan and Profile sheet as well as the Site Details sheet where there is a guardrail detail. 4. [32.7.9] Address the following in reference to the landscaping request #10: • Request #10 should be shown on the Landscaping Plan sheet. Changes to the layout, notes, calculations and Site Landscaping Plant Schedule should be shown and clouded. • There does not appear to be any "Cornus stolonifera" specified in the Site Landscaping Plant Schedule on the approved minor amendment. Therefore it is unknown what the "Calycanthus floridus" is replacing in the site plan. Either revise this request or contact the plan reviewer to discuss. The Carpinus caroliniana is a small deciduous tree. Carpinus betulus is a medium deciduous shade tree. The approved Carpinus betulus are located adjacent to parking are access ways in the approved minor site plan amendment, and are meeting the parking lot tree requirement. Landscaping within parking areas is required to include large or medium shade trees. Therefore the Carpinus caroliniana does not meet this requirement and cannot be substituted for the Carpinus betulus as parking area trees. Revise the request in provide a large or medium shade tree replacement for the Carpinus betulus in order to continue to meet all landscaping requirements. It appears that Juniperus "Grey Owl" and Juniperus "Pfitz Compacta" do not reach the same mature height as the Ilex glabria "Shamrock". Their mature growth may only reach the height needed at the time of planting if the shrubs are utilized for screening. At least a portion of the Ilex glabria are utilized for screening the parking areas and dumpsters. Ensure that all shrubs used for screening will meet the minimum height at planting. Since two species are being specified to replace the Ilex glabria "Shamrock" ensure that the different species are clearly labeled, represented with different symbols in the layout, and have separate lines in the Site Landscape Plant Schedule on the Landscape Plan sheet C6-01. Ensure that the "Compacta" species is not utilized for screening. S. [Comment] The LOR submission has been reviewed by Engineering and Fire Rescue for their review. Attached please their comments. 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. If you have any questions about the comments please feel free to contact me at psaternye@albemarle.org or at 434-296-5832 ext. 3250. Sincerely, Pa Sat ye Senior Planner Planning Division Review Comments for SOP201700034 MinorAmendment Project Name: Emerson Commons - Minor Date Completed: Monday, April 16, 2018 D e pa rtm e ntID ivis i o n/Ag e n cy: Review Sys: Reviewer: Shawn Maddox LJ Fire Rescue H See Recommendations Page: County of Albemarle Printed On: 10411712 018 Review Comments for SDP201700034 MinorAmendment Project Name: Emerson Commons - Minor Date Completed: Friday, April 06, 2018 DepartmentfDivision/Agency: Review Status: Reviewer: DaAd James DDD Engineering No Objection Page: County of Albemarle Printed On: 10411712 018