HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201800003 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2018-03-12Phone 434-296-5832
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, VA, 22902
Memorandum
To: Justin Shimp Oustin(cishimp-engineering.com)
From: Paty Saternye, Senior Planner
Division: Planning
Date: March 12, 2018
Subiect: SDP 201800003 Hansen Road Church — Final Site Plan
Fax 434-972-4126
The County of Albemarle Planning Division will recommend approval of the plan referenced above once the
following comments have been satisfactorily addressed (The following comments are those that have been
identified at this time. Additional comments or conditions may be added or eliminated based on further review.):
[Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference, which is to the Subdivision/Zoning Ordinances unless
otherwise specified.]
Initial Site Plan Comments (from conditional approval letter dated 6/1/17):
1. A site plan meeting all the requirements of section 32.6 of Chapter 18 of the Code.
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. See comments below.
2. A site plan meeting all the requirements of ZMA1998-20 & ZMA2002-8.
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. See comments below.
3. [ZMA 2002-8 Modification B] Reduce the square footage of office space to below that specified
in ZMA2002-8. The portion of the Application Plan for ZMA1998-20 located generally east of
Hansen Road, and comprised of the area designated at "Office Space #5 — 45,0000 SQ FT", was
amended with ZMA2002-8 to reduce the permitted square footage of office space to 20,000
square feet. This plan shows the square footage of office uses at either of 34,000 or 35,840
square feet, both of which do not meet the ZMA proffer limitation.
UPDATED: ZMA2002-8 showed on the revised application plan "Office Space #5 — 20,0000 SQ
FT". 20,000 SQ FT is the maximum total square footage allowed on the site of any use based on
that rezoning, including unfinished basements. Reduce the proposed total square footage of uses
to 20,000 or less. Any square footage above 20,000 will require an amendment to the rezoning
and a new initial site plan. The amendment to the rezoning would have to be approved prior to
the new initial site plan being approved.
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. Although the "Proposed Use" on the coversheet, and
the building labels on the other sheets, specify a GFA of 19,180 square feet there are
dashed lines both within the building and on the exterior of the north corner of the building
that are not labeled as to what they represent. It appears that a future expansion of the
building that is not specified in the provided notes and labels is shown and would increase
the square footage of the building beyond the allowed 20,000 square feet of use. Either
remove these dashed lines or specify what they represent and ensure that they do not
represent any additional building area that would bring the total area within the building to
over the allowed 20,000 square feet.
4. UPDATE: [NEW COMMENT] An early grading plan cannot be approved until the requirements of
proffer #1 of ZMA-98-20 Pantops PD-MC have been met.
FINAL: Comment not addressed. See comments below in reference to the proffers.
Page 1 of 13
5. [ZMA 1998-20 Requirement 1] A landscape plan providing full screening of all buildings and
parking areas visible from Monticello shall be provided as a condition of site plan approval for all
development. The landscaping plan may preserve existing trees or provide plantings which shall
provide the necessary screening within 15 years. Note that this applies to the currently submitted
site plan and any impact this site plan would have on the existing screening of the previously
developed portions of the PD-MC development. The removal of the existing trees on this site will
have a major impact on the visibility of the Shopping Center portion of the PD-MC from Monticello
Also note that there is a clarification and guideline for this ZMA proffer dated 1/19/2001
(Landscape Plans for the entire Pantops PD-MC zoned by ZMA 98-20).
FINAL: Comment not addressed. A landscape plan providina full screenina of all buildinas
AND parking areas visible from Monticello shall be provided as a condition of site plan
approval for all development. Note that this applies to the currently submitted site plan and
any impact this site plan would have on the existing screening of the previously developed
portions of the PD-MC development. The landscaping plan may preserve existing trees or
provide plantings which shall provide the necessary screening within 15 years. The
removal of the existing trees on this site may have an impact on the visibility of the
Rivanna Ridge Shopping Center portion of the PD-MC from Monticello. Also note the
following things:
• Because of the topography of the site the proposed street trees are unlikely to
mitigate the view of the proposed within 15 years of planting.
• The County must approve this landscaping, with input from the Thomas Jefferson
Foundation (TJFoundation).
• The1/19/2001 guidelines for this proffer specify the following:
o The goal of "full screening" is not only to fully obscure but to provide the
maximum screening through integration within the existing character of the
forested slopes within the viewshed of Monticello.
o The sites should appear as natural as possible after development. This may
involve randomly placing trees on a slope rather than having a large mowed
area or a staggered row of evergreens.
o It may also provide for screening evergreen trees to be mixed with deciduous
trees so as not to create a "block of green" every winter when the deciduous
trees in the naturalized areas surrounding the development drop their leaves.
o The screening needs to be substantial, but a softer silhouette than the
standard, using indigenous trees wherever possible, and scattered in
clumps, not in rows.
o Consideration should be -given to species that will grow to a substantial size
and are disease resistant so that they will survive and integrate into the
native habitat.
o There will be different considerations on each site depending on the acreage
of the site, the topography or terrain, the visibility from Monticello, and the
surrounding natural microcosm.
o The height, size, layout and colors used on the buildings to be constructed
will also effect the required landscaping.
o Since cars and other vehicles reflect light and draw attention to one spot in a
field of vision, thorough landscaping of parking lots and accessways is also
a manor consideration.
• Vary the species of internal trees, even more than shown, in order to have a more
naturalistic appearance. This is especially needed within the parking areas.
• In order to evaluate compliance with the above guidelines for this proffer provide
with the next submission of the site plan architectural plans, architectural
renderings, building materials and building color information so that they can be
evaluated in reference to the need for landscape screenina of the buildina. These
Page 2 of 13
items are already required for the ARB submission, and should be part of what the
applicant provides directly to the TJFoundation, but four copies of these materials
should also be submitted with the site plan submission as well.
Submit the items specified in the bullet above, in addition to the site plan, directly to
the Thomas Jefferson Foundation (Liz Russell, Irussell(a)-monticello.org) and
discuss design strategies with them in reference to meeting this ZMA proffer
requirement.
6. [ZMA 1998-20 Requirement 3] All buildings shall be designed to provide rooftop style, treatment
and color schemes which assure minimal visual impact on the Monticello viewshed. Assurance of
such style, treatment and color scheme shall be a condition of final site plan approval. Such
approval may be given by the Director of Planning and Community Development after providing
notice to the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation and an opportunity for Foundation
comments to be considered.
FINAL: Comment not addressed. Address the following:
• Submit plans and graphics directly to the Thomas Jefferson Foundation (Liz
Russell, Irussell(a)monticello.org) and discuss design strategies with them in
reference to meeting this ZMA proffer requirement.
• The submission packet as submitted to the County does not contain all of the
information they will need for review. Any architectural plan, graphics, materials
and colors submitted to the Thomas Jefferson Foundation (TJF) should also be
submitted to the County for review.
• The approval is from the Directory of Planning and Community Development after
comments from the TJF are received.
7. [ZMA 1998-20 Requirement 2] Include in the site plan street trees for the full length of the parcel
boundaries on both streets and both sides of the street where road improvements are proposed.
A street tree plan providing a visual buffer for Hansen Road and Rolkin Road shall be provided as
a condition of site plan approval. Large street trees shall be planted on both sides of such roads
in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance and shall be staggered on opposite sides of the road.
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following:
• Provide street trees on the far side of Rolkin Road for the portion of street where
improvements are proposed. Seven trees currently exist. Supplement these to
meet the 40' on center requirement.
• On Rolkin Road the trees on one side of the street should be staggered from those
on the other side of the road.
Ensure that all proposed street trees meet the minimum soacina reauirements of 40'
on center.
Because they are being utilized to meet requirements provide landscape easements
for all street trees not on the subject parcel. This would include street trees and any
screening trees that will be placed on the Rivanna Ridge property.
Clarify why there are islands between the parallel parking spaces if then are not to
be utilized to meet the street tree requirements. Also, if they are to remain, provide
existing documentation that shows the right of the applicant to add the islands to
the streets or provide new documentation that will provide that right. This
documentation will be reviewed by planninq and the County Attorney's office. The
site plan will not be approved until all necessary rights and agreements are
approved by the County Attorney's office, signed, notarized and recorded.
Page 3 of 13
8. [ZMA 1998-20 Requirement 4] Provide a highlighted copy of the Four Party Road Improvement
Agreement dated 10/20/1998. Ensure that the highlights point out any reference to the subject
parcel and the responsibilities of its owners for private road improvements. Include the deed book
and page number for this agreement in a note on the site plan.
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. The Four Party Road Improvement Agreement was
submitted and evaluated. This agreement does not appear to cover maintenance of the
roads and does not cover adding landscaping, islands for landscaping, or parking to the
roads. Therefore it appears that this agreement does not provide sufficient rights for all
improvements to the roads currently being shown in the site plan. Address the following:
• Submit any existing or proposed maintenance agreement that provides maintenance
for ALL of the existing and proposed improvements to the private streets.
• Submit any existing or proposed documents and easements that will provide
sufficient rights for all of the proposed improvements to be made to the private
streets.
• Submit easements, and deeds of easement, for any changes to the adioininq
properties even if the modifications are within the private street access easement.
• Note that any new easement will need to be reviewed as a separate submission and
that all deeds associated with those easement should be submitted with them for
review.
9. [32.5.1(c) & 32.5.2(d)] Provide the elevation of the existing contours on the existing conditions
sheet (C2 of 5) and the proposed contours on the grading sheet (C5 of 5).
FINAL: Comment addressed.
10. [32.5.2(a)] Include all parcels impacted by this site plan in the Zoning portion of the site data on
the cover sheet. Since improvements are shown on both sides of the road on both roads, and the
property lines appear to be at the center of the road, then the parcels that include the other side of
the road must be included.
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. If trees are to be planted on the Rivanna Ridae
Shopping Center property, in order to replace the screening trees being removed with this
project, then the Rivanna Ridge parcel information should also be included on the
coversheet with the other impacted adioininq parcels.
11. [32.5.2(a)] Include all owners of parcels impacted by this site plan in the Zoning portion of the site
data on the cover sheet. Since improvements are shown on both sides of the road on both roads,
and the property lines appear to be at the center of the road, then the owners for the parcels on
the other side of the road must be included.
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. If trees are to be planted on the Rivanna Ridae
Shopping Center property, in order to replace the screening trees being removed with this
project, then the Rivanna Ridge owner information should also be included on the
coversheet with the other impacted adioininq parcel owners.
12. [32.5.2(a)] Include all parcel boundary information. The small straight property line in the
northeast corner of the triangular portion of the property does not appear to have any bearing or
distance provided.
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. When the boundary information is a distance from
the boundary line provide a leader to saecifv what portion of the boundary line it pertains
to.
13. [32.5.2(a)] Include the ZMA project numbers for all approve rezonings in the "Zoning" portion of
the site data on the cover sheet (Cl of 5).
FINAL: Comment addressed.
Page 4 of 13
14. [32.5.2(a)] Include the steeps slopes overlay district in the "Zoning" portion of the site data on the
cover sheet (C1 of 5).
FINAL: Comment addressed.
15. [32.5.2(a)] Provide a list of all proffers that affect the site in the site plan.
FINAL: Comment addressed.
16. [32.5.2(a)] Clearly label the bench mark locations and information on the site plan.
FINAL: Comment addressed.
17. [32.5.2(a)] Provide the setback lines, including minimum and maximum, on the site plan sheet.
Also, expand the setback information on the coversheet to include the full descriptions of the
setbacks. The side and rear setbacks are to more districts than the RA.
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following:
• Ensure that the label for the deed book and page number of "existing access
easement" can be read. There are other labels and symbols obscuring the text.
• See a comment below that outlines modifications needed to the private street
access easement labeling on the site plan.
• Adiust the location of the front setbacks to be measured from the private street
easement lines on Hansen Road. It appears it is being measured from the back of
the sidewalk, but the sidewalk is within the private street access easement.
18. [32.5.2(a)] Revise the building locations so that they meet the setback requirement. At least one
building does not appear to be meeting the maximum setback requirements.
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. Revise the buildina location so that it meets the
setback reauirement for both road frontaaes. It appears the setback reauirement is not
beinq met on Rolkin Road.
19. [32.5.2(a)] Revise the.
• "Abutting Parcel Information" so that they show the correct Tax Map Parcel number, owner
and most recent Deed Book and page numbers.
FINAL: Comment addressed.
• "Abutting Parcel Information" to include TMP 78-73A4.
FINAL: Comment addressed.
20. [32.5.2(a)] Provide all departing lot lines. The lot lines departing from the subject parcel and that
between parcels TMP 78-73A6, 78-73131 and 78-73A4 are not yet shown in the site plan.
FINAL: Comment addressed.
21. [32.5.2(b), 32.5.2(n) & 32.5.2(q)] Revise the Proposed Use, the ITE Trip Count and Parking
Schedule information on the coversheet so that they match. The square feet of office building
does not appear to be correct in at least one of these three places since they do not match. If the
square feet of the buildings in the parking schedule are corrected then update the parking
calculations based on the revised building area.
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. If there will be anv other use on this site include it in
the ITE count and soecifv it on this site plan. This site plan only shown a church use and is
beinq reviewed only for a church use.
Page 5 of 13
22. [32.5.2(b)] Revise the parking schedule to include the percentage of provided parking. Also,
include a note that specifies that the proposed parking includes street parking and shared parking
alternatives.
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following:
• Include a note in the Parking Schedule area that specifies that the proposed parking
includes street parking.
• Revise the parking schedule so that is uses the parking requirements for "Religious
Assembly Use". The "Religious Assembly Use" calculation replaced the "Church"
use calculation.
• Provide in the parking calculation the "area of assembly" if it is not the full square
footage of the church building and the number of fixed seats in the assembly area.
• Include in the parking schedule the number of provided parking spaces and clearly
delineate which are on -site parking space and which are on -street parking spaces.
• Update the parking shown and parking specified as provided in the parking
calculation to address all comments including those from Kevin McDermott on
conflicts with proposed on street parking.
23. [32.5.2(b) & 32.5.2(n)] Provide information on how the church will be used during the hours of
office building use (typically Monday through Friday from 8AM to 5PM). Depending on the usage
of the church during the same hours as the office buildings a parking study may be required to be
submitted and approved prior to approval of the final site plan.
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. Confirm that no other use other than reliaious
assembly proposed for the site.
24. [32.5.2(b) &32.5.2(n)] Provide accurate calculations for open space and impervious surfaces.
Check the area of open space. 45% appears high and may not include the area of existing
improvements already on the site, such as roads and sidewalks.
FINAL: Comment addressed.
25. [32.5.2(b)] Provide an accurate height for the proposed buildings. Check the height of the
buildings. 45' appears to be taller than necessary for a one story building when measured from
the front entry point.
UPDATE: If more than one story is proposed for the church building this must be shown on the
site plan and represented in all site data and calculations. See updated version of comment #3
above in reference to the maximum square footage of uses allowed on the site.
FINAL: Comment addressed.
26. [32.5.2(d)] Provide the existing topography for at least 50' outside of the site. Because of the
road improvements the site includes portions of two adjoining parcels. The existing topography
must go 50' beyond any proposed improvements on the adjoining parcels.
FINAL: Comment addressed.
Page 6 of 13
27. [32.5.2(d)] Include the existing managed steep slopes hatching in at least one plan sheet that
shows all proposed improvements to the site. Ensure that the steep slopes design standards are
met for all improvements in the area of impacted steep slopes.
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following:
• Provide top of wall and bottom of wall elevations on all retaining walls.
• Ensure that for any wall within the steep slope overlay area that at the tallest point
within the overlay area a top of wall and bottom of wall label is show that clearly
delineates what the wall height will be at that point.
• Provide a minimum of 3' between stepped retaining walls within the managed slopes
areas. This should be dimensioned in the plan view and in the detail for the
retaining walls.
• Provide a detail for the retaining walls.
28. [32.5.2(e)] Provide labels, on all plan view sheets, identifying whether the existing wooded areas
are composed of evergreen, deciduous or a mix of types of trees.
FINAL: Comment addressed.
29. [32.5.2(e)] Provide the proposed tree line on all proposed development sheets. There appears to
be a large area of existing woods that will not be impacted by the proposed development. Show
the extent of those trees that are to remain.
'INAL: Comment addressed.
30. [32.5.2(e)] Provide the location of all existing individual trees along the existing road frontage and
that are not within the wooded areas. If any of these trees are to remain show them as such.
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. Tree species for existina trees have not been
provided on all trees. Even some of the trees that are to remain and utilized to meet
requirements do not have their species specified. Provide the tree species in the tree label.
31. [32.5.2(e)] Ensure that any trees that are to remain, and are to be used to meet requirements, are
preserved. There appear to be existing trees shown on the landscape sheet. Label these trees
as existing trees to remain. Provide all require tree protections items in the site plan including tree
protection fencing on all required sheets, the tree preservation checklist and a tree protection
detail.
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following:
• Complete fill out the Conservation Plan Checklist and have it signed by the owner.
• Show tree protection fencing for the existing trees on the far side of Rolkin Road.
• It appears that the improvements to Rolkin Road may impact the trees on the far
side of the road. Ensure that the true edge of canopy/dripline is shown on the site
plan and that if improvements are shown within their dripline appropriate tree
preservation methods are provided and shown on the site plan.
• Add a note to the landscape plan that specifies that all existing trees that are shown
to remain, including those on the other side of Rolkin Road outside of the access
easement, that are negatively impacted by the development of the site and road will
be replaced in kind.
• Tree species for existing trees that are to remain have not been provided on all
trees. Provide the tree species in the tree label.
Page 7 of 13
32. [32.5.2(i)] Provide the width of all proposed parking travel and access ways.
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following:
• The width of the travel ways at the two drop off areas do not appear to meet
minimum requirements. Revise these accessways to meet minimum requirements.
• Add directional arrows for all access ways, including the drop off areas and clearly
delineate which accessways are one way.
• Add appropriate signage to the site plan for one way traffic.
• Add the width of all travel areas including every portion of the access ways. There
are no widths provided at the two entrances, connecting portions between multiple
parking areas, or within two of the parking areas. Also, it appears that the width of
the travel area, where there are 33 parking spaces, may be below required
standards.
33. [32.5.2(i)] Provide both pavement widths and travel lane widths for all existing and proposed
streets. Provide dimensions for the typical on -street parking space.
FINAL: r4.12.16(c)(2)1 Comment not fully addressed. The dimensions for the parking
spaces along the road no longer meet the minimum size requirements. Parallel parking
spaces must be 9' x 20'. 8' x 20' are currently shown on the site plan. Revise the site plan
to provide the minimum parking spaces and ensure that the minimum width is also
provided for the lanes or submit a request for a waiver, with justifications, for the
requirements to 4.12.16(c)(2) based upon 4.12.2(c), 4.12.2(c)(2) & 4.12.2(c)(3). Such a
request would be reviewed by the County Engineer and the Zoning Administrator.
34. [32.5.2(j)] Provide the deed book and page references for any and all existing water, wastewater
or storm drainage systems easements that are located on the property. Also, provide all of the
required information on what appears to be an existing drainage easement that goes through the
property.
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. Add another label in the existing conditions sheet
and the second landscaping sheet (C9 or 14) for the existing drainage easement that
specifies that the dashed lines on the far east of the property, between Rolkin Road and the
Rivanna Ridge Shopping Center are part of the existing drainage easement.
35. [32.5.20)] There are existing utilities that appear to not be located within their easements. Either
correct the site plan to show the correct locations of these utilities and their easement or show
proposed realignments for the easements. A plat for any proposed easement must be approved
and recorded prior to final site plan approval.
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following:
• It appears from notes on the existing conditions sheet and the utility sheet that both
the water and sewer lines are to be relocated. However, it is not clear how or where
the sewer line will be relocated and if the relocation is only a vertical realignment.
• There is a very light line shown in the utility sheet that may be the relocated water
line easement, but it should be darkened/thickened so that it is obvious it is a new
and proposed water line easement location.
• The waterline shown on the existing conditions sheet does not appear to be within
the water easement also shown on that sheet. Confirm that this is the existing
conditions of the waterline location.
• See comment on gas line easement below.
36. [32.5.20)] There appears to be an existing drainage ways that is not located within what may be a
drainage way easement. Ensure that this existing drainage way and drainage easement are
shown correctly on the site plan.
FINAL: Comment addressed.
Page 8 of 13
37. [32.5.2(k)] There is a proposed storm pipe that carries off site stormwater but easement is shown
for the proposed pipe. Show the proposed easement. A plat for the proposed drainage
easement, and the vacation of what appears to be the existing easement, must be approved and
recorded prior to final site plan approval.
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. A plat for the proposed drainage easement, and the
vacation of the existing easement, must be approved by the County, signed, notarized and
recorded prior to final site plan approval.
38. [32.5.2(k)] Revise the site plan to include the location of the proposed water lines.
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. See the comment above about the waterline
easement.
39. [32.5.2(1)] Provide the location and width of any existing or proposed utilities and utility
easements including telephone, cable, electric and gas. Indicate the deed book and page
reference for all exiting utility easements located on the property.
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following:
• There appears to be an existina aas line that does not show anv easement. There is
also no gas easement proposed for the line. Provide the appropriate location and
width of the existing and proposed gas easement.
• Show in existing conditions sheet the deed book and page number for the existing
gas easement.
• Show the existing and proposed easements for the telephone, cable, and electric
lines. Or specify in the comment response letter that none exist and none are
proposed.
• Provide on the site plan existing conditions sheet the deed book and page number
for any existing telephone, cable, electric and gas easements. If none exist specify
that in the comment response letter.
• There is what appears to be an easement in the far west corner of the site that does
not have a label specifying what the easement is for, its deed book and page
number, and no utility is shown going through the middle of it. Provide all required
information on this existing easement in the existing conditions sheet and if it is to
be changed and/or relocated also provide the proposed location and information.
• There is a line in the existing conditions sheet that appears to run across the
Rivanna Ridge shopping center's parking lot, on the north side of the site plan, and
into the site but dead ends about 15' into the site. No labels exist for the line and
the Iinetype does not clearly identify it as something specific. Provide information
on what this line represents, if it has an easement, if it has a deed book and page
number, if it will be utilized and/or modified in the proposed development.
40. [32.5.2(1)] Provide the location, width and deed book and page number for the existing gas
easements.
FINAL: Comment not addressed. Provide the location, width and deed book and page
number for the existing gas easements. If a gas easement is proposed it must be approved
by the County, signed, notarized and recorded prior to final site plan approval.
Page 9 of 13
41. [32.5.2(n)] Provide:
• Outdoor lighting information including a photometric plan and location, description, and
photograph or diagram of each type of outdoor luminaire [Sec. 32.7.8 & Sec. 4.17]. If there
will be any external lighting fixtures a photometric plan will be required for Final Site Plan
approval. In addition to meeting all lighting requirements a standard lighting note will be
required.
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following:
o The light specification sheet does not appear to be the one for the model number
shown in the light schedule. Ensure light specification sheet provided is for a
full cut off light.
o If there will be lights on the building they must be shown on the site plan and
meet all lighting requirements. Show any building mounted light fixtures.
o Ensure that the number of lamps in the light fixture matches those shown in the
specifications sheet.
o Show in the lighting schedule the "Light Loss Factor" (LLF) or "Maintenance
Factor" and ensure that it is a value of 1.
• If there is to be a sign for the proposed use, on the final site plan depict and label the sign
location. (Depicting the sign on the final site plan is not approval of the sign location or type).
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following:
o The sign location appears to conflict with the sight distance easement. Revise
location to not conflict with any easements.
o Note that depicting the sign on the final site plan is not approval of the sign
location or type.
• Information on the proposed paving material types for all walkways, access ways and parking
lots.
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. Include a pavement section for the streets that
are to be changed/expanded.
I I IU IUk CMU1I UI IUCIU11 1lj QI IU JGI VIUG QI GQJ.
FINAL: Comment addressed.
The location of trash containers.
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. Address the followin
o Show the dumpster on the site plan.
o Provide a dumpster screening detail.
o Ensure that the dumpster pad meet the minimum size beyond the front of the
dumpster.
Page 10 of 13
• A location for a pedestrian connection to all parking areas.
o There appears to be no pedestrian connections from the parking area and building
directly to Hansen Road. Since there are 50 proposed parking spaces along Hansen
Road, that are being specified as meeting the required parking requirements, a direct
pedestrian connection should be provided.
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following:
■ Show the location of all crosswalk signaqe.
■ Provide a detail for the crosswalk signaqe.
Provide a pedestrian connections internal to the site. Extend the sidewalks, and
handicapped access, so that it connects between the church and office buildings
FINAL: Comment addressed
[New Commentl Provide safe pedestrian connections for the parking spaces on
the far side of Rolkin Road. Address the following:
■ Provide a crosswalk from the stairs to the far side of Rolkin Road.
■ Show the location of all crosswalk signaqe.
■ Provide the location of and a detail for the crosswalk signaqe.
[New Commentl It is recommended that a staircase for safe pedestrian
connection be provided from the parking lot to the Rivanna Ridge shopping
center's parking lot.
42. [32.5.2(p)] Provide a complete landscape plan that meets all requirements of section 32.7.9 with
the Final Site Plan.
FINAL: Comment not addressed. Address the following:
■ Provided screenina of site (buildinas. oarkina spaces. and drive aisles) to Monticello
as specified in proffers. See the comments on the proffers above.
■ Ensure that the existing screening of adjacent site to Monticello, as specified in the
proffers, either remains or additional screening is provided with this proposed site
plan. See comments on the proffers above.
■ Provide the required screening shrubs between the steeped retaining was that are
within the managed steeps slopes overlay area.
• [32.7.9.5(d)l Revise the Street Tree calculation area so that it shows 40' on center as
the distance between the street trees in the heading.
• [32.7.9.5(d)l The three American Beech trees along Rolkin Road, that are set back
from the road, are not considered street trees. Street trees must be along the edge
of the street and also should not be behind other street trees. Revise the Rolkin
Road street trees so that the required number of trees can be planted adjacent to the
street. Also revise the calculations for the change in the street tree counts.
• [32.7.9.5(d)l Provide the required street trees at 40' on center on the far side or
Rolkin Road where improvements are proposed.
• [32.7.9.5(d)l Landscape easements will be required for the trees on the far side of
Rolkin Road since they will be on a different parcel.
■ Provide tree protection for the existing trees on the far side of Rolkin Road. Ensure
the existing trees are not damaged.
■ Add a note specifying that existing trees that are shown to remain will be replaced in
kind if damaged during construction.
• [32.7.9.61 Provide parking lot trees for the 36 space lot near Rolkin Road.
• [32.7.9861 Revise the Canopy calculation once the other landscaping comments are
addressed.
■ Adjust the locations of the proposed trees so that they are not on top of storm
drains or within utility easements.
■ Show the tree protection fencing on the demolition plan and grading plan sheets.
Page 11 of 13
43. [32.5.2(o)] Ensure that all symbols and abbreviations in the legend match those shown in the site
plan. The sewer lines do not appear to be represented correctly.
FINAL: Comment not addressed. Ensure that all symbols and abbreviations in the legend
match those shown in the site plan. Address the following:
■ The sewer lines do are not shown with the correct linetype.
■ Ensure that existing and proposed sewer line portions are represented correctly.
The sewer line is specified as being relocated.
■ Ensure all symbols and linetypes on the plan match those specified in the legend on
the cover sheet.
44. [Comment] Label the maximum height of all retaining walls. Ensure that all walls impacting the
managed steep slopes meet the design requirements for the steep slopes overlay district.
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. Label the maximum heights of the retaining walls
adjacent to the buildinq which wrap around the playground area.
45. [Comment] Provide copies of off -site easements, or letters of intent to grant them from off -site
owners. These must be received prior to final site plan approval.
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following:
■ Provide copies of off -site easements, or letters of intent to grant them from off -site
owners. These must be received prior to final site plan approval.
■ Even if the land on the adjacent property is owned by the same entity provide off -
site easements and letters of intent for improvements and maintenance that impact
the adjacent site.
46. [Comment] See the attached comments from the other SRC reviewers.
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. See the attached comments from the other SRC
reviewers.
Additional comments for Final Site Plan:
47. [New Comment] Revise the cover sheet to include the project number SDP201800003.
48. [New Comment] There are conflicts with sight distance easements along the roads. Address the
following:
■ Show sight distance easements for the intersection of Hansen Road and the entrance to
TMP 78-3A6.
■ Show the entrance to TMP 78-73A4 and show the sight distance easement for that
entrance on Hansen Road.
■ Remove all parking along both Hansen Road and Rolkin Road that is within any of the
four sight distance easements.
■ Within the portion of the private street that is within the subject property provide curb and
gutter along both Rolkin Road and Hansen Road that restrict parking from being within
the sight distance easements.
■ On the far side of the private street from the subject parcel provide stripping and signage
specifying no parking within the sight distance easement areas.
■ Ensure that the curb radii coming out of the proposed entrance on Hansen Road extends
to the proposed edge of the travel lane and not to the existing curb.
49. [New Comment] Provide an access easements along the trail, which parallels Rolkin Road, since
that trail is outside of the private street access easement.
50. [New Comment] Provide construction easements for all improvements on adjoining properties,
even if those easement are within the private street easement.
Page 12 of 13
51. [New Comment] Address the following in reference to the private street access easements:
• Labeled the access easements as private street easement and have leaders to both sides
of the easement so that it is obvious what linework is for the easement.
• Show the dashed line and a label for the Private Street access easement on sheet C9 of
14.
• The label for the easement for Rolkin Road does not appear to have the correct deed book
and page number listed. The document in DB 2106 PG 192 is a "Modification of Credit
Line and Deed of Trust" and not a deed of easement. Although there is an exhibit that
shows a plat no deed of easement is included and that plat was not signed by the County.
Provide the correct deed book and page number for the private street access easement for
Rolkin Road.
52. [32.6.2(f): New Comment] Label all curb returns and curved edges of pavement within the
parking lot and access ways. There are many missing dimensions throughout the parking lot
area. The drop off area by the playground area also is missing the majority of these dimensions.
53. [New Comment] Show the following on Sheet 1 or 14:
• The private street easement and labels.
• The edge of pavement for the private street.
54. [32.6.2(e): New Comment] Ensure there is proper drainage under the entrance to Hansen Road.
55. [New Comment] Submit all easement plat(s) required for this site plan as a separate submission.
Submit for those easements all required deeds and legal documents. This site plan will not be
approved until those easements and deeds have been approved by the County, the easement plat
has been signed, notarized, recorded, and a copy of the recorded easement plats and deeds are
provided to the reviewer of this site plan.
Staff has provided references to provisions of Chapter 18 of the Code of the County of Albemarle. The Code is
kept up to date by the County Attorney's office. The Code may found on the County Attorney's website which
may be found under "Departments" 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.
Page 13 of 13
Review Comments for SL)P201800003 lFinal Site Development Plan
Project Name: HANEN ROAD CHURCH - FINAL
Date Completed: Tuesday, February 06, 2018 Department1DivisionfAgency: Review Sys:
Reviewer: Margaret Maliszewski LJ CDDARB Requested Changes
Page: County of Albemarle Printed On: I 0-T 1212018
Review Comments for SDP201800003 Final Site Development Plan
Project Name: HANEN ROAD CHURCH - FINAL
Date Completed: Thursday, January 25, 2018 Department1DivisionfAgency: Review Sys:
Reviewer: Francis Mac Call CDD Zoning H See Recommendations
Page: County of Albemarle Printed On: I 0-T 1212018
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Patricia Saternye
From: Emily Cox
Date: 07 Feb 2018
Subject: Hansen Road Church — Final Site Development Plan (SDP201800003)
The final site development plan for Hansen Road Church has been reviewed by Engineering. The
following comments will need to be addressed before approval:
1. WPO Plan must be submitted and approved before final site plan can be approved.
2. Please ensure the professional seal is signed and dated.
3. Provide details for the proposed retaining walls.
4. Provide drainage easements for all pipes carrying water offsite. Easements will need to be recorded
before plan can be approved.
5. Parallel parking spaces should be 9'x20', not 8'x20'. (County Code Chapter 18- 4.12.16)
6. Show pavement markings required throughout the site (stop bars, one-way at the drop-off area,
etc.)
7. Provide a road section detail. Pavement sections were provided, but not road sections.
8. Ensure proposed tree protection locations are shown on the demolition sheet.
9. 2:1 Slopes should be avoided wherever possible. The landscape plan does properly specify the
required ground cover, but please ensure the WPO Plan also specifies this.
10. Please show the acreage and c-factors for each drainage area on sheet C-11.
11. Where is Ex. DI-7? The note on Sheet C-I I says concrete flume to Ex. DI-7, but it is not labeled.
12. Velocity in storm drains should be kept below 10 ft/s if possible.( Per the VDOT drainage manual,
section 9.4.8.7, velocities in excess of 10ft/s should be avoided)
Review Comments for SOP201800003 Final Site Development Plan
Project Name: HANEN ROAD CHURCH - FINAL
Date Completed: Tuesday, March 06, 2018 Department1DivisionfAgency: Review sus:
Reviewer: Kevin McDermott CDD Planning Requested Changes
On street parking is not allowed within the required line of sight from the entrances_ Commercial access requires 5' ft
between the church entrance and Abbey Road on Rolkin I see no issue with the 205' proposed but Albemarle County Engineer
will need to sign off_
Page: County of Albemarle Printed On: I 0311212018
Review Comments for SL)P201800003 lFinal Site Development Plan
Project Name: HANEN ROAD CHURCH - FINAL
Date Completed: Friday, February 16, 2019 Department1DivisionfAgency: Review sus:
Reviewer: Richard Nelson LJ AOSA Pending
Page: County of Albemarle Printed On: I 0-T 1212018
Stephen C. Brich, P.E.
Commissioner
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper Virginia 22701
February 2, 2018
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Attn: Patricia Saternye
Re: S DP-2018-00003 -Hansen Road Church- Final Site Plan
Review # 1
Dear Ms. Saternye:
The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use
Section, has reviewed the above referenced plans as submitted by Shimp Engineering, dated
January 12, 2018, and offers the following comment:
Hansen Road and Rolkin Road will remain private indefinitely, and no VDOT permit will be
required for work within road way.
If further information is desired, please contact Willis C. Bedsaul at 434-422-9866.
Sincerely,
A#," A 004�,-
Adam J. Moore, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Charlottesville Residency
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
Review Comments for SDP201800003 Final Site Development Plan
Project Name: HANEN ROAD CHURCH - FINAL
Date Completed: Thursday, January 25, 2018 Department1DivisionfAgency: Review Sys:
Reviewer: Elise Kiewra CDD E911 I No Objection
Page: County of Albemarle Printed On: I 0-T 1212018
Review Comments for SOP201800003 Final Site Development Plan
Project Name: HANEN ROAD CHURCH - FINAL
Date Completed: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 DepartmentlaivisionlAgency: Review sus:
Reviewer: I Shawn Maddox LJ Fire Rescue No Objection
Page: County of Albemarle Printed On: I 0-T 1212018
Review Comments for SDP201800003 Final Site Development Plan
Project Name: HANEN ROAD CHURCH - FINAL
Date Completed: Friday, January 19, 2018 Department1DivisionfAgency: Review Sys:
Reviewer: Michael Dellinger CDD Inspections No Obje-Ction
Page: County of Albemarle Printed On: I 0-T 1212018