HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201800030 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2018-08-30Phone 434-296-5832
ALg��9�
k.r r
�'IRGSNlP`
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, VA, 22902
Memorandum
To: Craig Kotarski (craie.kotarski(ytimmons.com)
From: Paty Saternye, Senior Planner
Division: Planning
Date: June 14, 2018
Rev. 1: August 30, 2018
Subiect: SDP 201800030 The Center at Belvedere — 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 12/29/17):
2. 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.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. See comments below.
3. A site plan meeting all the requirements of ZMA 2004-7, its Application Plan and its Code of Development
(C.O.D).
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. See comments below.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. See comments below.
4. A site plan meeting all the requirements of variations to ZMA 2004-7, it's Application Plan and its Code of
Development (C.O.D), including Variations #49, #50 & #51. Address the following:
c) Variation #50 requires that a "Pergola and Garden" feature along Belvedere Boulevard, as shown in the
variation exhibit, be provided. The initial site plan does not meet this requirement and therefore the
layout must be updated before final site plan submittal in order to address this. The final site plan will
not be approved until this requirement is met.
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. Variation #50 was approved to allow the building massing,
interior parking access road and parking layout to be different than the ZMA application plan with two
conditions. One of those was to provide a "Pergola and Garden" feature along Belvedere Boulevard, in
addition to all other requirements, in order to mitigate the visual impact of the variation to the Application
Plan. The application plan was designed to present a "face" to the road and buffer the parking from
view. What has been proposed does not present a "face" for the majority of the lot frontage and has
insufficient buffering for the parking. The pergola provided in this submission stretches for less than
one tenth of the length of the parking lot and access ways and is not sufficient to meet this requirement.
Address the following:
i. The garden portion of the variation condition must be met. The plantings propose are a single
line of the same evergreen tree. Revise the plantings to be more of a garden, to include a
variety of plantings in an attractive arrangement, while mitigating the view of the parking and
parcel. Work with planning and zoning on ways to meet this requirement.
Rev. 1: Comment will be addressed based on the 8/13/18 exhibit. Ensure site plan
reflects the changes shown in the exhibit. However, see landscaping comments for the
need for additional shrubs to buffer the aarked cars from the road.
Page 1 of 12
ii. If the berm provided is meant to help in mitigation of the parking provide the top of berm
minimum heights along the length of the berm so that reviewers can determine the extent of
screening provided by the berm.
Rev. 1: Comment no longer required since a berm in no longer proposed.
iii. Provide additional pergola. This could be done by placing multiple pergolas along the length of
the lot frontage, interspersed with the garden plantings. Refer to the exhibit submitted with the
variation request, revision date 11/7/12, for the length of pergola shown. Note that where the
pergola was not shown the parking was more recessed from the street frontage. In order to
provide less pergola length planning and zoning reviewer must see that the intent of the
"pergola and garden" of creating a "face" and mitigating the view of the parking lot has been
accomplished.
Rev. 1: Comment will be addressed based on the 8/13/18 exhibit. Ensure site plan
reflects the changes shown in the exhibit.
iv. Add a note to the site plan that states that all landscaping and structures within the easements
will be replaced, in kind, if ever removed by the easement holders during maintenance or
expansion of the utilities within the easement.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
V. Provide documentation or letters that specify that the pergola and landscaping is allowed within
any easements in which they are shown. If the easement holders will not allow the structures or
plantings within their easement move the pergola and garden further into the parcel, just outside
of the easements but still along the road frontage.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed. Letters have been provided and the design revised in such
a way that it appear to meet the requirements of the utility companies.
d) Variation #51 has many requirements that must be addressed before final site plan approval.
Reference the variation approval for all requirements that must be addressed. Included in this list are:
i. Revision of the road plans and approval of them by the County Engineer and VDOT.
FINAL: Comment not addressed. Address the comment. The final site plan will not be
approved until the amended Road Plan has been approved.
Rev. 1: Comment no longer needed. Since all but one parallel parking space along the
Blvd. has been removed from site plan, and because that space is adjacent to the subject
parcel, a road plan amendment is no longer required unless VDOT will require it.
iv. Revision of the Water Protection Ordinance plan and approval by Engineering.
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. Acquire WPO approval from engineering.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Address the comment.
V. VDOT acceptance of Belvedere Boulevard.
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. Acquire VDOT acceptance of Belvedere Blvd.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Address the comment.
[32.5.1(c), 32.5.2(a) & 32.6.1(e)(1)] Address the following:
a) Provide the boundary information for all potions of the boundary including all required curve data where
appropriate. Boundary information along right of way should be provided and legible.
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following in reference to the added area of parking,
heading south on Belvedere Blvd.:
i. This area does not appear to be within the right of way according to the County's GIS. Either,
provide the deed book and page number for the plat that created that portion of the right of way,
provide all information required for including that area outside of the right of way into the site plan,
or remove those parking spaces from the site plan.
Rev. 1: Comment no longer needed. Parking no longer proposed along the Blvd.
ii. Provide all boundary information for the ROW for the length of the improvements specified in this
site plan.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Provide boundary information for the proposed
boundary changes for the one parking space still shown along the Blvd.
Page 2 of 12
d) Provide all of the required "Abutting Parcel Information" including the names of owners, zoning district,
tax map and parcel numbers and present uses. Because of the improvements in the right of way this
should include the parcels on the far side of Belvedere Blvd. The information is provided but the owner
information has changed in the last year and must be updated appropriately.
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. Revise the deed book and page number information for the
Open Space in TMP62G-1-A. There is a type in the deed book number.
Rev. 1: Comment no longer needed. That parcel is no longer adjacent to the project area
parcels.
e) Provide information on all variations that directly impact this parcel. This is primarily Variations #49, #50
and #51 that were requested specifically for this parcel. Notes with allowed changes should be
provided in the appropriate areas of the notes, data, and/or plan sheets.
FINAL: Comment not addressed. Include the approval letter for variations #49, #50 & #51 in the site
plan set.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
f) Provide spot elevations.
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. Address comment.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
g) FINAL - NEW COMMENT: Revise the setback information to specify 10' setback for the rear, as
specified on page 38 of the C.O.D.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. The side setback is not correct, because additional
wording was added. The "... or within 2' of existing easement" applies only to the front build -to -
line not the side setback. Removed this additional wording from the side setback information.
6. [32.5.2(b)] Address the following:
b) The parking spaces provided are more than 120% of the required parking (4.12.4(a) & 4.12.2(c)).
Therefore, the parking must either be reduced to 120% or less, a parking study submitted and
approved justifying a different parking calculation, or a waiver must be requested and approved.
Please note the comments on the requirements of Variation #50 are not yet being met. The area
utilized for the parking that is above the allowed amount of parking, within the subject parcel and
adjacent to the road, could be utilized to meet the requirements for Variation #50.
FINAL: Comment not addressed. Address the comment and see zoning comments.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed. See zoning comments.
c) UPDATE: See 12-29-17 comments from Zoning.
FINAL: Comment not addressed. Address the comment and see zoning comments.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed. See zoning comments.
7. [32.5.2(b), 32.5.2(e), 32.5.2(p), 32.6.20) & 32.7.9] Provide a full landscape plan that provides all required
landscaping, calculations and meets the requirements for 32.7.9, the ZMA Code of Development, and the
variations approved that impact this parcel. Also, address the following:
a) Provide the calculation and the "landscaping required" to meet the minimums for the 5% of the
paved parking and vehicular area, the number of plantings based on number of parking spaces,
and the parking lot landscaping specifically outlined in the C.O.D. and zoning ordinance.
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following:
i. Specify the amount of landscape parking and circulation area that is provided to meet the
minimum of 5%. Although a calculation has been provided the amount provided has not been
specified. Note that the area for the 5% is area of planting beds that have been provided that
will have parking lot trees and shrubs in them. It is not the canopy of the trees in the parking lot.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Although the required square feet is calculated
and shown in the site plan it appears the proposed/provided quantity of landscape area
is not shown on the Landscape Plan. Provide the area of proposed landscape areas.
ii. Adjust the number of trees required in the parking area so that any rounding of the number is
up. If there are 232 spaces and they are divided by 10 then 23.2 spaces are required.
Therefore 24 spaces should be specified as the required number of spaces.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
Page 3 of 12
e) Provide landscape screening for all features with negative impacts including parking, dumpster,
loading areas, and storage areas.
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following:
A berm has been provided that may mitigate the view of the parking lot. However the
minimum height of the berm along its length has not been specified. Add the minimum
heights along the berm to the site plan so that reviewers can determine the extent of
screening provided by the berm or provide alternative screening methods.
Rev. 1: Comment no longer requires since the berm is no longer proposed.
ii. See comment 4 (c) for details about planting requirements in the area to meet the variation
condition. Ensure that the plantings along the road frontage meet both the standard road
parking screening and the variation condition requirements.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Although requirements for the variations have
been met, the standard parking lot buffering requirements have not. There are large
gaps in the shrubs that are meant to buffer the parked cars from the street. There are
over ten of these gaps and one of them is about 38' long. Add additional shrubs
between the trail and the parking lot to meet this requirement (32.7.9.5 (e)). Also,
please note that the cedars will likely have no buffering impact on the parking spaces
because they will need to have their limbs trimmed because of their close proximity to
the curb.
iii. Provide a dumpster screening detail.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
iv. Provide landscaping to screen and mitigate the view of the loading dock area on the side of
the building fronting the street.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Provide additional screening landscaping
within the triangular planting area adjacent to the loading space in order to screen the
loading space from view of the road.
V. rl Vvluv IdUCIJ iui VVI IBL CIPS UCIIJ LU UC Cy UIPI I ICI IL III VVI ICIL appears to be a loaning GOOK area
along the street frontage. Provide screening where required.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
f) Provide all required calculations for require landscaping to meet the zoning ordinance, the ZMA,
the C.O.D, and the variation requirement. Note that Variation #50 has landscaping requirements
"in addition" to those specified in the other documents. Plantings for other requirements will not be
counted towards meeting the variations requirements.
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following:
i. See comment 4 above.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. See comment 4 above.
ii. Revise the site plan to provide street trees with a minimum caliper of 2'/z' as specified on page
29 of the C.O.D.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
iii. Provide two calculations for the street tree requirements, one showing the FULL street frontage
of the parcel (Phase 1) and the other showing the FULL street frontage for the road frontage
changes in Phase 2 of the project. Ensure that the minimum street trees are provided based on
the full street frontages.
Rev. 1: Comment no longer required since all landscaping is specified as being provided
in/with Phase 1.
iv. The number of street trees shown on the site planting sheet does not match those specified by
the label or shown in the street tree schedule. Revise the site plan so that these match.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
v. Revise the site plan to provide street trees with a minimum spacing 50' on center as specified
on page 29 of the C.O.D. The spacing shown on the site plan has trees places more than 50'
apart and does not have street trees for a portion of the parcel. The number of street trees
required is based on the total frontage, including the entrances. The 50' spacing is a minimum
and trees can be placed closer in order to meet the minimum street tree frontage requirement.
Section 32.7.9.5 (d) states, "One (1) large street tree shall be required for every fifty (50) feet of
street frontage, or portion thereof, if twenty-five (25) feet or more."
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
vi. If the minimum number of required street trees cannot be provided within the ROW because of
conflicts they must be provided just outside of the ROW in landscape easements. If landscape
easements are created then an easement plat, deed of easement, and a document specifying
Page 4 of 12
the perpetual maintenance of the landscaping in the easement must be submitted, reviewed,
approved and recorded prior to final site plan approval.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
vii. Either revise the canopy calculation to include the areas of open space, outside the parcel, that
are impacted by the site plan in the "project area" or remove the trees and shrubs planted in
those open space areas from the canopy calculation.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following:
a. The project area outside of the parcel does not seem to correspond with the limits of
clearing and grading. Ensure areas outside the parcel that are impacted are
accurately included in the canopy calc.
b. Trees/plantings previously proposed in the area of open space outside of the parcel,
which is being impacted by the project, are no longer being shown. See zoning
comment. Planting are required in the open space to compensate for the vegetation
removed by the work.
viii. Keviae Ll IC Ucc anci snrub quantities in the ianascape schedule to be correct. i ne count of red
cedars is incorrect.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
ix. Revise the code shown on the landscape plan to match the code shown in the landscape
schedule. The Winterberry and Viburnum labels do not match.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
x. In the street trees Landscape Schedule revise the "Total Parking Lot Trees Provided" to be
"Total Street Trees Provided".
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
A. [NEW COMMENT] Rev. 1: Ensure no shrubs that do not prow to a height at or above 5'
are included in the canopy calculation. Some of the shrubs specified do not meet this
minimum height and therefore cannot be included in the canopy calculation. Revised
the Landscape Schedule so that the "Area in SF" and the "Total Areas in SF" do not
include these plants.
g) Note that the limited/partial landscaping shown on sheet L100 does not appear to be sufficient to
meet the minimum requirements. This has not been fully reviewed since it is not meant to be
complete. However, at this stage, two things to note are 1) the lack of parking landscaping
adjacent/near to the proposed Phase 2 building and 2) landscaping to meet any of the
requirements for Variation #50. All landscaping shown so far appear to be for street trees and
parking lot trees. Landscaping for Variation #50 is "in addition" to all other required landscaping.
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. See other landscaping comments
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. See other landscaping comments.
h) Ensure that the landscape plan is phased and that each phase can independently meet all
landscaping requirements.
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. See other landscaping comments.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed. Applicant has specified that all planting, for both phase, is to
take place in Phase 1
i) FINAL — NEW COMMENT: Add a note to the landscape plan that states, "Existing trees beyond
the limits of clearing and grading that are damaged by construction will be replaced in kind."
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
j) FINAL — NEW COMMENT: Provide on the "Site Planting", "Phase I Layout" and "Phase 2 Layout
and Grading" sheets the proposed tree line and ensure that the limits of clearing and grading are
considered in the location of the proposed tree lines.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. The proposed tree line does not match the impact
from all of the edges of the limits of clearing and grading. Ensure no area grades shows
existing trees remaining. Ensure it is shown on all sheets specified above, as well as the
Landscape Plan.
k) FINAL — NEW COMMENT: Revise the tree line for all proposed work outside of the parcel. Ensure
that the clearing for the extension of the existing trail, and the area between the proposed trail and
the proposed grading, on the east side of the parcel as well the proposed grading on the west side
of the parcel near the pond are addressed. Where there is clearing provide landscaping that will
address the removal of the existing vegetation.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following:
Page 5 of 12
No impact to the tree line is shown for the proposed trails in the open space between
Blocks 1 and 2. Since this trail is being created/improved tree impact is likely. Revise
the tree line or discuss with the plan reviewer.
There does not appear to be any landscaping provided to address the removal of the
existing landscaping and trees in the open space outside of the property. See the
zoning comments on the requirements for replacing the vegetation.
9. [32.5.2(d) & 30.7.5] The managed and preserved slopes have been shown on the site plan. However, the
design standards for the steep slopes overlay district have not been applied. Address the following:
a) Walls above 6' in height are not allowed in the steep slope overlay areas. If additional height is required
it must be met with multiple stepped walls that are the prescribed minimum distance apart and have the
required landscaping.
FINAL: Comment not addressed. Address the following:
1. Provide the maximum wall height for all wall on the site plan.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
ii. Ensure all walls in the steep slopes overlay district are 6' or less in height.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
iii. Provide the required landscaping and screening for the tiered retaining walls.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
iv. Provide a dimension for the minimum distance between the tiered retaining walls of 3'.
Rev. 1: Comment not addressed. Response states these dimensions and the wall heights
are shown on C2.1. Neither of these items appear to be shown in that sheet. Address the
comment_
c) Check and clarify the locations of the steep slopes overlay graphics with the final site plan submittal and
show the steep slopes areas on at least one of the plan sheets that shows all (Phase 1 and 2) walls.
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following:
i. On the Steep Slopes sheet (C105) show all the layout and wall height information so that the
location and heights of the walls can be reviewed for their impact on the steep slopes.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Show the wall height on sheet C2.1.
ii. According to the County's GIS, because an area shown on the site plan as ROW appears not to be
ROW there is also an area of preserved slopes that will be impacted by the added parking spaces
to the south along Belvedere Blvd. The additions of the parking spaces and a retaining wall within
the preserved slopes is not allowed. Remove the parking spaces, and all improvements for them,
from preserved slopes.
Rev. 1: Comment no longer required. Parking is not longer proposed in that area of the
Blvd.
d) Provide the maximum wall heights in the Phase 1 and 2. None are shown in Phase 2, and in that phase
one of the walls that impacts the steep slopes areas is being extended farther than in phase 1.
FINAL: Comment not addressed. Address the comment. Provide maximum heights on all proposed
walls. Also include the top of wall and bottom of wall elevations.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Provide both top of wall and bottom of wall at each of the
points specified. They are meant to show the height of the individual walls.
e) FINAL — NEW COMMENT: On t. -,seep mopes sneet (C105) 11 10MU Ll JU N1UNvacu VVC1110 I I 1U1 U UUV UUO
and label them.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
f) FINAL — NEW COMMENT: On the Steep Slopes sheet (C105) show the full extents of the project,
including the full extents of the proposed parking and modification along the street.
g) Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
h) [NEW COMMENT 1 Rev. 1: Preserved steep slopes are being impacted by grading near the pond
and the tiered walls. Preserved steep slopes impact cannot be allowed. Revise the site plan to
eliminate preserved slope impact. A combination of a variety of design options might resolve
the issue. Among the possible options there are flipping the direction of the turnaround towards
the subject parcel, the creation of additional walls, field run topo to minimize the area
considered to be preserved steep slopes (discuss this with engineering). Also, ensure that
guardrails do not limit any required access to the pond dam.
i) [NEW COMMENT 1 Rev. 1: The steep slopes GIS overlay needs to be shifted to match the parcel
lines. No preserved steep slopes are meant to be within the parcel. Contact the plan reviewer
about the need for this shift and the history behind it.
Page 6 of 12
j) [NEW COMMENT 1 Rev. 1: Revise the legend on sheet C2.1 such that the correct hatches are
assigned to the correct areas.
10. [32.5.2(i), (n), 32.6.2(f), & (k)] Address the following:
a) Although it is specified in the road section the road right of way to be dedicated is not shown on the plan
views. Show it in the plan views of the site plan.
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following:
i. Label all proposed ROW dedication areas.
Rev. 1: Comment not addressed. However, see comment on wording of label in a comment
below.
ii. It appears from the County's GIS that the added parking, further south along the Blvd., is not within
the existing ROW. Either show this on the site plan as an area of dedication, removed the parking
and improvements in that area, or provide information that proves the County's GIS is not correct.
Rev. 1: Comment no longer required. Improvements are no longer proposed in that section
of the Blvd.
b) The boundary line adjustment for the road right of way will have to be approved prior to the final site
plan approval because it is a requirement of Variation #51.
FINAL: Comment not yet addressed. The boundary line adjustment will be required to be submitted
under a separate project and could be combined with other plat requirements. The BLA must be
reviewed, approved and recorded prior to final site plan approval.
Rev. 1: Comment not addressed. Address the comment.
g) Provide dumpster containers dimension. Ensure that the dumpster pad meets or exceeds the minimum
requirements.
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following:
i. Provide a concrete dumpster pad that extends 8' beyond the front of the dumpster enclosure.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
ii. Provide dumpster and dumpster pad labels and dimensions.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
iii. Ensure that the dumpster pad does not impede any required loading space (4.12.13 (e)).
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
h) Show the location of any outdoor lighting on all plan sheets and provide information on lighting under
the entrance canopy. Submit a photometric plan.
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following:
i. Show the location, and provide specifications, for lighting under the entrance canopy.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
ii. In the site plan include the primary page, with the picture of the light fixture, of each specifications
sheet for each light fixture proposed.
Rev. 1: Comment not addressed. No specification sheets, which should include a picture of
the light fixture, have been provided in the site plan. They must be added to the site plan.
iii. The specification sheets provide did not include the WAC Lighting 6651-30BZ or 5031-27BZ
A122915 light fixtures. Provide the correct specification sheets for all light fixtures proposed.
Rev. 1: Comment not addressed. No specification sheets have been provided in the site plan.
They must be added to the site plan.
iv. The site lighting sheet is not legible. Many of the labels for the lighting fixtures cannot be read and
therefore their number and placement cannot be determined. Increasing the scale to that of the
other site plan sheets may be helpful, but also ensure that all labels can be clearly read. Also,
because of the current scale the symbols for the smaller light fixtures are not able to be differentiated
from each other.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
v. The Light Schedule "Description:" for the WAC Lighting 4091-27WT appears to be in symbols
instead of text. Ensure that the description can be read.
Rev. 1: Comment not addressed. Address the comment. The text still shows up as symbols.
Ensure you are looking at the printed version when checking this.
vi. There are additional symbols placed around the site in the plan that look like light symbols but do not
have a label assigned to them. Ensure that any residual/old symbols for lighting fixtures have been
removed from the Site Lighting site plan sheet. Note that the symbols shown in the "Schedule" and
the symbols in the upper left corner of the "Site Lighting" reduced size sheet are not the same.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. There appears to be one E light that has a symbol but
no label, near the internal crosswalks. Add the label for the light.
Page 7 of 12
vii. Add the standard lighting note to the Site Lighting site plan sheet which is, "Each outdoor luminaire
equipped with a lamp that emits 3,000 or more initial lumens shall be full cutoff luminaire and shall be
arranged or shielded to reflect light away from adjoining residential districts and away from adjacent
roads. The spillover lighting from luminaires onto public roads and property in residential or rural
areas zoning districts shall not exceed one half footcandle."
Rev. 1: Comment not addressed. It appears that the standard lighting not has not been added
to the Photometric Plan. Add the note to the Photometric Plan.
viii. Ensure that the number of each light fixture type is correct and that the correct label is placed next to
them in the Site Lighting Site Plan sheet.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
ix. Show the lighting fixtures proposed for the site in other sheets to ensure that there will be no conflicts
with existing and proposed site features, utilities and utility easements. Show them in the "Site
Planting", "Site Layout Plan — Phase I" and "Site Layout and Grading Plan — Phase 2".
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following:
a. Show all free standing light fixtures in the Landscape Plan.
b. The locations of the light fixtures does not appear to be accurate. Ensure accurate
placement of the fixtures on all site plan sheets. Remove light fixtures from parking
spaces.
x. Ensure that is the right of way is updated that the site lighting plan is update to match the new
boundary.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
A. Clarify what "Belvedere" in the lighting Statistics chart is meant to represent and provided review
planner with the location of the maximum 18.2 fc location is on the site.
Rev. 1: Comment not addressed. Lighting statistics chart has been removed. Add the
statistics chart, and the information it provides, back into the site plan and ensure comment
is addressed.
xii. Update both the Lighting "Schedule" and "Statistics" accordingly.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Address the comment.
i) Show the location of any service and loading areas. Two loading spaces are to be provided. If the
"Covered drop off" is to be used as loading ensure its width, depth, and height is sufficient to meet the
requirements and that it is show as hatched loading areas.
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following:
i. If the "Maintenance Access" is meant to be the required loading space label it as such.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
ii. Ensure that any above ground utility equipment or structure currently in the area of the proposed
loading space is relocate.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
iii. Label and dimension the required loading space.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
iv. Ensure that no dumpster pad impedes any required loading space.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
m) Provide directional arrows for the drive aisles.
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. Provide directional arrows for the two entrances.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Directional arrows have been added at the entrances but
not within the parking access aisles. Add arrows on the parking access aisles.
n) Provide a detail for any screening fencing/enclosure for the dumpster.
FINAL: Comment not addressed. Address comment.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
o) Show the deed book and page number for the existing easements. The information does not appear to
be provided for the power and water easements.
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. Address the comment.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. See comment #12 below.
v) Provide the full landscape plan including all required information, details, calculations and schedules.
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. See other comments.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. See comments above on Landscaping.
Page 8 of 12
11. [32.5.20) & (k)] Address the following:
d) There is an existing stormdrain from the road, through the parcel, and leading to the stormwater pond.
It does not appear to have an easement. Address this issue.
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. Provide on the existing conditions sheet the deed book and page
number for the existing stormwater easement that crossed the property to the pond.
Rev. 1: Comment not addressed. There is no deed book and page number in a label for the
existing stormdrain easement that drains from the Blvd to the stormwater pond. Also, ensure
that the two pipes coming from the road and converging before the pond are from the same
recorded plat.
12. [32.5.2(1)] Ensure the location of any existing or proposed utilities and utility easements, including cable, on
all of the plan sheets including the landscaping plan. Ensure that the label for the power easement is
located where it is obvious what line its leader is point to.
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following:
i. Ensure that all existing utility easements on the parcel have the deed book and page number included
in the label for the easement.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following:
a. There does not appear to be a deed book and page number for either the water line
easement or the underground power easement shown on the existing conditions sheet.
b. There is an easement line, about 5' off of the right of way line, that has no label at all. If it is
another easement label it and provide its deed book and page number. If it is the far side of
one of the other easements ensure the labels and/or dimensions clearly designate it as such.
ii. If the easements have been shown on the landscape plan they have not been labeled and their location
is not clear. Show and label all existing and proposed easements on the landscape and lighting plans
so that conflicts can be determined.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. The easements on the Landscape Plan do not all appear
to be complete, accurate or labeled correctly. It appears they may not agree with what is shown
on the existing conditions sheet. Also, ensure they are listed as the specific easement and not
just as an easement in general.
13. [32.5.2(0)] Address the following in reference to open space.
a) Show in the site plan the required amenities associated with Block 1 and that are to be between Block 1
& Block 2 that are specified in the Code of Development (COD) on described on pages 10 and in listed
in the table on page 15.
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. The existing location of one of the two trails coming into the site
is not shown. Therefore, it cannot be determined if the proposed modification will connect to the
existing trail. Show the existing trail further to the west so that a portion of the existing trail still is shown
in the proposed layout.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Since there is a proposed section of the trail, make that
improvement more obvious. The hatching in the comment below may accomplish that.
b) Add a note that references the open space requirements and notes that the open space requirements and
amenities for block 1 are primarily provided outside of the subject parcel. The one exception to this is
likely a pedestrian connection between Block 2 and 1 that is specified in the "Block 2 Open Space 6.2
acres" on page 10. A linkage to this pedestrian connection is likely required within this parcel.
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following:
i. Provide a label for the trail that specifies it as a "Class B" as is specified on page 10 of the Code of
Development and that specifies the site plan page for the section.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
ii. Provide a trail section for the "Class B" trail.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
iii. Ensure that other pavement sections are labeled for what areas they are sections for.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following:
a. The Heavy Duty Concrete and the Asphalt Trail hatch symbols resemble each other, either
by scale or symbology please ensure they are easier to differentiate.
b. In the legend on sheet C4.0 in the text for the Asphalt to be milled & overlaid also specify
which type of material is to be overlaid after the milling. It would appear that it would be
the Asphalt Trail section.
Page 9 of 12
c. Specify on sheet C4.0 which section on sheet C1.1 apply to the "Asphalt Trail" and
"Asphalt to be milled & Overlaid" on Sheet C4.0. If it is not the "Light Duty Asphalt
Pavement Section", or another already on the site plan, then include the appropriate
section.
d. Add a hatch to the legend on sheet C4.0 for the Class B Trail and hatch the proposed
portion of the Class B Trail so that it is an obvious improvement like the other pedestrian
an vehicular improvements.
c) FINAL - NEW COMMENT: Ensure that the proposed tree line is shown on all proposed layout sheets
and landscape plan. Also ensure that the proposed tree line considers not only the on-site
improvements but also the off-site improvements including the trail extension.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
14. [Comment] Provide a copy of all off-site easements, or letters of intent to grant them from off-site property
owners. It appears that there are improvements proposed on the far side of Belvedere Blvd that may impact
an adjoining parcel.
FINAL: Comment not yet addressed. Address the comment. Also note that the limits of clearing and
grading appear to go into not only the open space but also the church parcel on the far side of the Blvd.
Rev. 1: Comment not addressed. Address the following:
a) Address the comment. See the comment below in reference to easement plats and deeds.
b) Ensure that the off-site easements for the improvements in the open spaces adjacent to the site
are included in the easement plats and deeds when they are submitted and include all owner
approvals.
15. [Comment] Required proposed easements, and deeds, must be approved and recorded prior to final site
plan approval.
FINAL: Comment not yet addressed. Address the comment.
Rev. 1: Comment not addressed. Address the comment. Please consider the easement Dlat review
process timeline and its impact on the approval of this site plan. All proposed/required easement
plats and deed must be reviewed, includina the review of the Countv Attornev's Office. approved
and recorded prior to site plan approval.
17. [Comment] Required improvements be built or bonded prior to final site plan approval.
FINAL: Comment not yet addressed. Address the comment.
Rev. 1: Comment not addressed. Address the comment.
18. [Comment] See the attached comments from the majority of the other SRC reviewers. ACSA comments
will be forwarded to you once they have been received.
UPDATE: [NEW COMMENT] Zoning and ACSA comments have been attached. They had not been
available prior to the SRC meeting and had not been including in the draft comments.
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. See the attached comments from most of the other reviewers.
Zoning comments are not yet available and will be forwarded when they are.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. See the attached comments from most of the other reviewers.
19. UPDATE: [NEW COMMENT] Provide the appropriate note for the trimming of street tree within the VDOT
sight distance easement.
FINAL: Comment not yet addressed. Address the comment.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
21. UPDATE: [NEW COMMENTI Revise the Sheet Index on the Cover Sheet to provide "Drawing No." that
match those shown in the title block.
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following:
i. There are errors in the names listed in the Sheet Index for sheets C114, C115, C116, C121, L1.00,
L1.01, L1.02 and the site lighting plan.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
ii. There are errors in the Drawing No. listed in the Sheet Index for sheets L1.00, L1.01, L1.02 and the site
lighting plan.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
iii. Sheet L1.02 is not listed in the Sheet Index and needs to be.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
Page 10 of 12
iv. The Photometric plan should have its own sheet index page number assigned to it and included on the
sheet itself.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
Additional comments for Final Site Plan:
22. [Comment] Add the 5UH number of SDP201800030 to the title on the Coversheet.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
23. [Comment] Provide distance to the next entrances for the two entrances on the Blvd.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
24. [Comment] Remove note 11 on sheet C102, under site plan notes, since it appears to be for an initial site
plan.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
25. [Comment] Provide tree protection fencing just beyond the limits of clearing and grading in order to protect
the existing trees.
Rev. 1: Comment not addressed. There does not aaaear to be tree arotection fencina shown in anv
of the site plan or landscaping sheets. Ensure that the fencing is shown in the site plan and
landscape plan sheets and ensure that they are labeled appropriately.
26. [Comment] Provide handicapped ramps leading to all internal crosswalks.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Althouah it anaears that handicaaned ramps are not needed
interior to the sit, and it was noted in the comment response that "The curb is flush next to the
internal crosswalks, as ramp is not necessary." It appears that sufficient handicapped accessibility
has not vet been provided within the right of way. Please address the following:
a) Provide handicapped ramps on each side of the entrances to the site and leading to the multi-
modal trail.
b) Provide crosswalks across both entrances to the site from the public road, which create a
connection across the entrance for the multi -modal trail.
27. [Comment] Revise the layout so that there is the required 1' beyond the multi -use trail for the full length of
the right of way line. It is shown correctly on the sections, but does not appear to be correct on the plan
views. Ensure any right of way that requires dedication is show and labeled as such.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. On sheet C4.0 the label for the area of road dedication must
be labeled as dedication and not at "Boundary Line Adjustment". Revise the label to state
"Additional street right-of-way to be dedicated to the County of Albemarle for Public Use"
28. [Comment] Provide information on the "commercial uses" in phase II and confirm that all commercial uses
will be the senior center and not another entity, or provide information on others use of the site.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Response letter specified that all commercial uses are for the
senior center. If this is the case, include this information the phase 2 commercial space tabulation
on the cover sheet. One possible way to do this is to put "Senior Center" above the "Phase 2
(Commercial) line. Another way to make it clear is to add a note that specifies that all uses in all
phases are Senior Center uses.
29. [Comment] If additional parking spaces are still to be proposed in the area further south along the Blvd.
then provide all required existing conditions information, including existing trees and tree lines for the full
extents of any improvements. Then show the proposed tree lines and/or demolition of existing trees for
those areas.
Rev. 1: Comment no longer required. Parking is no longer proposed in that area.
30. [Comment] Provide a section for the proposed Class B trail that is being modified and extended in the open
space area.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
31. [Comment] Provide a north arrow on all plan sheets, including the Site Planting sheet.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
Page 11 of 12
32. [Comment] Revise the Area Tabulations on the cover sheet such that the area of recreational uses are not
the same in both Phase I and Phase 2.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
33. [Comment] Revise the Area Tabulations on the cover sheet such that the total area of the project does not
decrease in Phase 2, or provide planning reviewer information on why the area is decreasing.
Rev. 1: Comment not addressed. Response letter stated that the area tabulations were revised.
However, it appears the ones for the site have been removed instead. Either provide the revised
area tabulations for the site or discuss with planning reviewer prior to resubmission.
34. [Comment] Revise the Area Tabulations on the cover sheet such that the total area is not smaller than the
parcel size or provide planning reviewer information on why the area is less.
Rev. 1: Comment not addressed. Response letter stated that the area tabulations were revised.
However, it appears the ones for the site have been removed instead. Provide the revised area
tabulations for the site or discuss with planning reviewer prior to resubmission.
35. [Comment] Ensure that the access easement includes the off-site portion of the access road.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. There does not appear to be any labels for the access
easement. Provide labels for the proposed access easement. Also, ensure that at least one sheet
shows the linework for the easements in such a way that the lines are actually visible and not under
some other linework.
36. i;omment] Revise the beiveaere Blvd Roaa section for station 2z+50 to 22+ib such that it snows a -I
minimum dimension between the trail and the right of way.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
37. [Comment] Provide a signature panel on the cover sheet.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
38. [Comment] Provide the benchmarks used for the survey.
Rev. 1: Comment not addressed. Address the comment.
39. [NEW COMMENTI Rev. 1: Revise the "Parking Space Required:" note on the coversheet to address
the fact that zoning is no longer requesting a parking study and that the use is more than
"recreational". Discuss this note with planning and/or zoning prior to resubmission.
40. [NEW COMMENTI Rev. 1: Revise the Legend on sheet C1.0 to include proposed sewer lines and
ensure that the proposed sewer line on the site plan matches the lines and symbols specified in the
legend.
41. [NEW COMMENTI Rev. 1: See engineering comments about additional impacts to the stream buffer
and impacts to the preserved steep slopes.
42. [NEW COMMENTI Rev. 1: Impact to the ad]oining open space has increased since the last
submission. These impact must be minimized wherever possible.
43. [NEW COMMENTI Rev. 1: Note that some comments above are based upon a revised exhibit
(8/13/18). The revisions shown there need to be incorporated into the site plan, except where a
comment must also be addressed in the exhibit itself.
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 12 of 12
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To:
Patricia Saternye
From:
Emily Cox
Date:
15 May 2018
Rev. 1:
09 Aug 2018
Subject:
The Center at Belvedere — Final Site Development Plan (SDP201800030)
The final site development plan for The Center at Belvedere has been reviewed by Engineering. The
following comments will need to be addressed before approval:
1. VSMP Plan must be approved before final site plan can be approved. Rev. 1: Comment still valid.
2. The site plan must only contain what is required per Chapter 18-32.6.2 of the county code.
Therefore, erosion & sediment control sheets should be removed from the final site plan. Rev. 1:
Comment addressed.
3. [Section 8 Design Standards Manual] Slopes steeper than 3:1 must be permanently stabilized
with landscaping vegetation hardier than grass, which will not require mowing. Ensure this is
noted on the landscape plan. Eliminate any slopes steeper than 2:1. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
4. Illustrate internal handicap access routes. Include spots to show grading meets requirements. Rev.
1: Comment addressed.
5. Clearly label the extent of flush curbing vs. CG -6 curbing. Provide a legend if necessary. Rev. 1:
Comment addressed.
6. It appears that changes to the roadway are proposed with this site plan. Changes to the road must
be submitted as a road plan amendment. VDOT approval is also necessary before final site plan
approval. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
7. Stream buffer is shown on plan along with improvements/grading in this buffer. Please show
proposed buffer outside of all improvements. The gravel trail can be inside the buffer. Rev. 1:
Why is grading so extensive (different from last submission) on the northeastern side of the site?
The stream is perennial and buffer should be as close to 100 ft as possible.
8. Is there an easement or maintenance agreement for the 9' gravel trail? Rev. 1: Who will maintain
the trail?
9. Provide top and bottom elevations of retaining walls on the grading plans. Rev. 1: Spots
insufficient to show that walls do not exceed 6ft in height.
10. Please show steep slope hatching on grading/layout sheets. Ensure that design standards are
followed for retaining walls in this overlay district (per 18-30.7.5). This includes landscaping with
screening shrubs. Rev. 1: The managed and preserved slopes on Sheet C2.1 appear to be switched.
Also, there appears to be disturbance within the preserved slopes. This is not an allowed
disturbance per County Code 30.7.4.
11. Label all entrances with a VDOT designation. Rev. 1: Designation is not clear (CG -9D, etc).
12. Are there any loading or dumpsters areas? If so, clearly designate areas and provide dumpster pad
detail. Rev. 1: Dumpster pad detail not provided. Bollard detail is shown.
13. Please adjust linetypes and shading on Sheet C-104. This is the existing conditions sheet, however
all lines are dark, and appear to be similar to proposed linetypes. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 2
14. Sheet C-106 has a label, "underground utilities to be relocated (by others), but there are no utilities
shown. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
15. C-104 appears to show an easement around the storm drains. Please label the deed book and page
number of this easement. Rev. 1: Comment not addressed. Water easement and storm easement
Db & PG not labeled.
16. Why are slopes of storm drains labeled as negative in the profiles on sheet C-109? Rev. 1:
Comment addressed.
17. Sight distance for middle parking aisle, turning left, at the northern side of parking lot, appears
inadequate. Please refer to Chapter 18-4.12.15 (d) for sight distance within parking lots. Rev. 1:
Comment addressed.
18. Label the width (show dimension on road) of the crossing lines on Sheet C-121, item 13 in the
legend. Rev. 1: Since parking and crossing are removed, have parking requirements been met
elsewhere?
19. Rev. 1: Provide required rip -rap dimensions and sizing on the plans. Generic detail was provided.
However, correct size and dimensions must be shown on the plans.
20. Rev. 1: Provide storm drain calculations.
21. Rev. 1: Minimum pipe size is 12".
22. Rev. 1: SWM facility easement is necessary from cartridge filter to outfall.
Review Comments for SDP201800030 Final Site Development Plan
Project Name: THE CENTER AT BELVEDERE -FINAL
Date Completed: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 aepartmentUvision/Agency: Review Status:
Reviewer: Rebecca Ragsdale
CDD Zonina
Requested Changes
-The code of development (page 10) allows minor grading in the wooded area between blocks 1 & 2. Any disturbed areas must r
be revegetated, including replanted with a mix of deciduous and evergreen trees to restore the wooded area removed.
-Refer to steep slopes regulations and add manage/preserved slopes to the site plan. Only managed slopes may be disturbed
and design standards of Section 30.7.5 must be met.
-Prior comments regarding the pergola and landscaping associated with Variation 950 have been addressed
Page: 1 County of Albemarle Printed On: I 08!3012018
Review Comments for SDP201800030 Final Site Development Plan LJ
Project Name: THE CENTER AT BELVEDERE -FINAL
Date Completed: Wednesday, August 15, 2018 DepartmenVDivisionlAgency: Review Status:
Reviewer: Kevin McDermott -] CDD Plannina Requested Changes
On the Site Plan please show the entire shared -use path and clearly distinguish the existing and new/reconstructed noting
width. Also please show the ramps and crosswalk markings at each curb cut that meet VDOT standards.
Page: 1 County of Albemarle Printed On: I 08!3012018
0
Stephen C. Brich, P.E.
Commissioner
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper Virginia 22701
August 01, 2018
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Attn: Paty Saternye
Re: The Center at Belvedere- Final Site Plan
SDP -2018-00030
Review #3
Dear Ms. Saternye:
The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use
Section, has reviewed the above referenced plan as submitted by Timmons Group, dated July 18,
2018, and offer the following comment.
Land Use
1. Turn lane warrant analyses: please provide an estimate of the expected traffic generation.
How does a recreational community center differ from a senior center in terms of trip
generation? AIso, the absence of historical data does not preclude the need for an
analysis. Traffic data can be used from previous,TIAs or current traffic counts completed
at the developer's expense.
A VDOT Land Use Permit will be required prior to any work within the right-of-way. The
owner/developer must contact the VDOT Charlottesville Residency Land Use Section at (434)
422-9399 for information pertaining to this process. If further information is desired, please
contact Willis C. Bedsaul at 434-422-9866.
Sincerely,
J�k L L kt//d52- 4---,
Adam J. Moore, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Charlottesville Residency
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
Review Comments for SDP201800030 Final Site Development Plan LJ
Project Name: THE CENTER AT BELVEDERE - FINAL
Date Completed: Thursday, August 09, 2918 DepartmenVDiuisionlAgency: Review Status:
Reviewer:
Victoria Fort -1 RWSA Requested Changes
RWSA has reviewed the Final Site Plan for the Center at Belvedere and finds no impacts to RWSA facilities_ As stated in my
email dated 519/2018, our only comment is that a flaw capacity certification will be required prior to final site plan approval.
Page: 1 County of Albemarle Printed On: I 08!3012018
Review Comments for SDP201800030 Final Site Development Plan LJ
Project Name: THE CENTER AT BELVEDERE - FINAL
Date Completed: Thursday, July 26, 2018 DepartmenVDiuisiorVAgency: Review Status:
Reviewer: Richard Nelson ACSA I Pending
2018/08127= The Center at Belvedere Final is still under review -
2018 -07-26 SDP -2018-3a The Center at Belvedere - Final Site Plan is currently under review. I will forward my comments I
sent WW Associates if Timmons has not received them_
Page: 1 County of Albemarle Printed On: I 08!3012018