HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201800091 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2019-02-12ALg�,�9�r
vIRGiN1P
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Steve Edwards(steve(a�-edwardsdesignstudio.com)
From: Paty Saternye — Senior Planner
Division: Planning
Date: February 12, 2019
Subject: SDP-2018-0091 (Oakleigh — Minor Site Plan Amendment)
The County of Albemarle Planning Division will recommend approval of the plan referenced
above once the following comments have been satisfactorily addressed (The following
comments are those that have been identified at this time. Additional comments or conditions
may be added or eliminated based on further review.): [Each comment is preceded by the
applicable reference, which is to the Subdivision/Zoning Ordinances unless otherwise
specified.]
1. [ZMA2016-15 Proffer #3] The proposed changes to the site plan will impact at least 4 of the
trees proffered to be preserved. Address the following:
a) Include sheet 6 in the minor amendment sheet set.
b) Revise all tree preservation information for the new layout.
c) Provide updated information from an arborist approving the location, method and timing of
all work to be completed within the proximity of the trees to be preserved. Ensure all tree
preservation requirements are met or revised the layout to no longer increase the impact to
the trees specified to be preserved in the proffer.
2. [ZMA2016-15 Proffer #4] The proposed changes to the private street easements may impact
the public's access to the sidewalks within the development, which is required with Proffer 4.
Ensure that the public has legal access to all pedestrian ways (sidewalk and other) within Block
4. Provide a copy of the recorded Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions and highlight the
section that specifies public pedestrian access. It also appears that public access was granted
to the private streets, which include sidewalks, in DB 4928 PG 85. With the proposed changes
to the length and extent of the private roads have been changed, and therefore public access
to those same areas will be more restricted depending on the wording and structure of the
Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions. If any other plats or legal documents provide
pedestrian access to the public provide the deed book and page number to the planning
reviewer.
3. [ZMA2016-15 Proffer #5] Ensure the requirements of proffer 5, on Erosion and Sediment
Control, are met with the resubmission of this site plan as well as the amendment to the WPO.
4. [ZMA2016-15, 32.5.2(a) & 32.6.2(a)] Either request a variation for the building and parking
setbacks or revise the site plan in order to meet these requirements. Both the building, and the
parking along two sides of the proposed building, are located too close to the existing property
lines to meet the minimum setbacks. The variation request will be reviewed if/when submitted.
Please note that if a variation is requested, a maintenance easement on the adjoining property
may be discussed in reference to whether staff will be able to support the requested variation.
5. [32.5.2(b) & 32.6.2(a)] Revise the "Density (Overall Gross):" on Sheet 2 of the site plan. It is
uncertain what the 13.04 Dwelling Units/Acre specified on the current submission is referring
to. If the applicant considers 13.04 to be correct supply the calculation to the planning reviewer
with a description. Also, it appears that the 12.36 DU/AC on the approved Major Amendment
was not the proposed density but the maximum allowed density for the development, as
specified in the application plan. The assisted living units are not calculated as residential
units. Therefore, for this minor amendment the DU/AC is only based on the total of 40 units
currently proposed. 40/8.82=4.54 DU/AC. Revise the site plan accordingly.
6. [Comment] Revise the title on the coversheet to specify that the site plan number is
"SDP201800091 ".
7. [Comment] Revise the note to the cover sheet that specifies the previously approved site
plans. It includes three numbers, only two of which are for the Oakleigh development.
Remove SDP201700062 from the list. Replace it with the original approved Final Site Plan,
without the assisted living building, that was SDP200800101.
8. [Comment] Revise the submittal date in the center of the cover sheet to be "17 December,
2018" instead of "XX October 2018".
9. [32.5.2(a) & 32.6.2(a)] Revise the "Current Zoning:" on sheet 2 to include the ZMA # of
"ZMA2016-00015".
10. [Comment] Include in the minor amendment a list of "Minor Site Plan Amendment Proposed
Changes:" that includes all changes to the site plan proposed with the amendment.
11. [Comment] Show the triangle label for minor site plan amendment changes on each sheet
that shows the change, specifying where that change is taking place.
12. [Comment] Include clouds around all changes to the site plan proposed with the amendment.
This includes clouds around items in all the charts as well as in the plan views, the site data,
and calculations on the coversheet. Many of the changes in this site plan do not have clouds
shown around them. There are changes to many of the charts, and the data provided, that are
not clouded. Although the word "Breakdown" in the Project data is clouded the data actually
revised in this submission is not in a cloud and it should be. There are changes in both the
Parking Data and Trip Generation tables that are not yet shown as clouded. On sheet 4A there
is a note that has been revised that has not been clouded, where the Phase 4 description was
revised to specify an apartment building instead of townhomes. Also, although the layout
changes are shown clouded on some sheets, they are not shown clouded on 4A, 12, 17, 17A
or 19. Ensure all changes on all sheets are shown as clouded in the layout, the charts, the
details, etc.
13. [Comment] Include all sheets from the original Major Amendment, or the last Minor
Amendment, where the changes are shown. Add sheets 6 & 9 to the submission set and
ensure all the changes are shown and clouded.
14. [32.5.2(b), 32.5.2(n) & 32.6.2(a)] Revise the site plan to specify the number of stories of the
proposed building and its height.
15. [32.5.2(i) & 32.6.2(a)] All easements that already exists but will be impacted by these proposed
changes to the layout must be amended, approved, recorded and proof of recordation provided
to the planning reviewer prior to the approval of the minor amendment. The following
easements appear to be impacted:
a) Private Street Easement for Eckerson Court
b) Stormwater easement
c) Emergency Access
d) Sidewalks and pedestrian accesses (Proffer #4)
e) Utilities (water, sanitary sewer, gas, etc.)
f) Provide information on any other easements that may be impacted by the proposed
changes.
16. [32.5.2(k) & 32.6.2(a)] Revise the utility plan sheet 12 such that the hatching does not block
the view of the utilities and easement. All utilities under Nichols Court and Rio Road are not
visible on this submission.
17. [32.5.2(b), 32.5.2(n) & 32.6.2(a)] The Open Space parcels will no longer be correct if this
minor amendment is approved. An amendment to the subdivision plat will be required. These
revisions could be incorporated into the revision of the easement plats mentioned above.
18. [32.5.2(b) & 32.6.2(a)] Open Space — Provide on the chart on sheet 2 the common open
space area and the percentage of the site. This chart should break down the open space for
each outdoor Amenity Area (Pocket Park A, Pocket Park B, the Sunken Plaza, etc). Where
areas are not a portion of a specific amenity then specify that as "Common Open Space" and
its Block (ex. Block 2 — Common Open Space). Ensure that the amount of common open
space has not been reduced by the changes to below the required 20% of the whole project
area (76,857 SF).
19. [32.5.2(n) & 32.6.2(a] Revise the site plant to specify the maximum footprint of the proposed
apartment building.
20. [32.5.2(b), 32.5.2(n), 32.6.1(e) & 32.6.2(a)] Based on the increased number of residential units
proposed with the plan revise all requirements and address the following:
a) [32.5.2(b) & 32.6.2(i)] Either revise the calculation for the number of required parking
spaces for the one -bedroom apartments in Block 4 to be 2 spaces per unit (as specified I
the parking notes on sheet 4 of the application plan).
b) [32.5.2(b) & 32.6.2(i)] Ensure the required number of parking spaces are provided for this
use. Since the calculation for the 1-bedroom apartments appears to be incorrect the
number required is not correct and therefore the number provided may not meet the
requirement.
c) [32.5.2(b) & 32.6.2(i)] Provide a copy of the existing shared parking agreement for review.
Ensure that the existing parking agreement covers the situation of the parking lots on, or
partially on, the adjoining lot or revise the shared parking agreement in order to address this
new shared parking circumstance.
d) [32.5.2(b) & 32.6.2(I)] Provide the minimum recreational facilities and area required now
that the number of residential units has increased to 40. Provide all required information
and specifications for the required tot lot and ensure it is shown on the site plan and meets
the minimum size and equipment regulations. An area for a future tot lot is shown on the
plan. Change this to be an actual tot lot.
21. [32.5.2(n), 32.6.1(e), 32.6.2(a)& 32.6.2(i)] Address the following in reference to parking and
parking access:
a) Ensure all drive aisle widths, parking space widths, and parking space depths meet the
minimum standards. Address the following:
All drive aisles, including those going through the building and for the full length of the
building meet the minimum design standards.
a. A 24' drive aisle is required for 9' wide parking spaces. This includes the parking
under the building.
b. All parking spaces along a 20' wide drive aisle must be a minimum of 10' wide.
c. Ensure that the drive aisles are designed in order to allow proper turning and
access. Radii of curbs at intersections as well as width of the one-way drive
aisles may be of issue. See engineering comments. Ensure that the trash trucks
accessing the dumpsters will be able to turn into and out of the parking under the
building since they will not be allowed to travel in the other direction.
Provide directional arrows for all drive aisles, including the portion past the dumpsters
and under the building.
iii. Every portion of the parking area and drive aisles for the parking area, including the
bump outs, must meet the parking setback. Address the following:
a. There are two places, on two sides of the parcel, where the parking bump outs for
pulling out of the parking spaces appears to not meet the parking lot setback
requirements.
b. The parking spaces along the boundary do not meet the parking setback
requirements. See zoning comments about when the parking setback is
applicable. Although Block IV has a "0" front and side parking setback Block V
has a "10- front and side setback. These parking spaces are within Block V and
do not meet the Block V parking setbacks. Either do a Boundary Line Adjustment
to put these spaces within Block IV, revise the parking layout to meet both the
Block V parking setbacks, or request a special exception for this requirement.
c. If some of the proposed parking remains within Block V then a parking easement
and either a new or updated shared parking agreement will be required. They
would need to be submitted, approved, and recorded prior to the minor
amendment approval.
d. The parking setback lines, and labels specifying what the line represents, must be
shown parallel to all property lines that do not have a 0' parking setback. This line
and label should also be shown in Block V in the vicinity of the proposed parking
as long as parking is proposed within Block V.
b) Ensure all parking spaces shown are included in the table for proposes/provided parking.
The three spaces in Lots 6, near Pocket Park A, do not appear to have been included in the
parking table.
c) Ensure that all required linework, hatching and labels are provided for the three spaces in
Lots 6, near Pocket Park A, in order to distinguish the materials, curbs, and specifications.
Applicant has specified some design components that are not clear or not specified on the
site plan. Ensure, since there is no legend for hatching, that labels are provided specifying
the materials for each area.
d) Provide the dashed line parallel, that represents the 2' overhang, and a label specifying
what it represents to all of the parking spaces that are reduced in depth. This 2' area must
be clear of obstructions for parking overhang. Some of the parking spaces with reduced
depth do not have the line and/or the label.
e) For the three parking spaces proposed in Lot 6, near Pocket Park A, revise the spaces to
be a full 18' deep. There is a conflict in that the sidewalk is directly behind the spaces and
therefore could be blocked by vehicles. So, a reduced depth of space is a conflict with
sidewalk access.
22. [32.6.2(h)] Revise the signature panel to the one for minor site plan amendments. Approval
panels with all reviewers' signatures are not required on minor amendments.
23. [32.5.2(n), 32.6.2(a) & 32.6.2(k)] Address the following on the photometric plan:
a) Cloud all changes in the photometric layout and charts for changes with this minor
amendment.
b) Ensure specification sheets are included in the site plan for all light fixtures specified in the
photometric plan.
c) Check the count of type "E" light fixtures. The number added to the Block IV area and the
number added to the chart do not appear to match.
d) Check the count of type "WB" light fixtures. The number added to the Block IV area and
the number added to the chart do not appear to match.
e) If the difference in the number of light fixtures is because changes have been made in other
parts of the development, ensure those changes have clouds around them.
f) Fixture #98 is shown twice on the photometric layout. Review the layout to correct.
24. [32.5.2(p), 32.6.2(a)] & [32.6.20)] The landscaping plan has changed from the approved site
plan. Address the following:
• Landscaping has changed. Cloud all changes in the layout, charts and calculations.
Ensure all calculations are updated for the proposed landscaping.
• Revise all "County Calculations:" on sheet 17 to be correct for the revised landscape plan.
• The open space areas are being reduced with this minor amendment. Ensure that any
"open space" used in the calculations is updated.
• The "preserved area" appears to be reduced based on this site plan. Revise the
calculations or provide information to the planning reviewer on why the preserved area is
not decreasing.
• The paved area appears to have increased, but this has not been updated in the
landscaping calculations.
• Evergreen screening has been removed from behind what was the townhouses.
"Screening: As shown on plans via evergreen plantings" does not specify if these
evergreens were required. Either provide clarification on why this screening is no longer
required or revise the plan to included evergreen screening again.
• Provide a tally of the proposed trees at the bottom of each proposed planting sheet, since
the total number of provided trees is included in the calculations.
25. [32.5.2(n) & 32.6.2(a)] Revise the plan to include a label for the maximum height of each
retaining wall and provide a retaining wall detail.
26. [32.5.2(n), 32.5.2(r) & 32.6.2(a)] Ensure hatching can be distinguished on site plan and either
provide a legend for what the different hatches represent or provide more labels, in each area,
specifying what the hatches represent. It is not clear where permeable pavers may be located
or where traditional asphalt is located. The previously approved minor amendment appeared
to show permeable pavers for the full length of Eckerson Court and for all of the parking for the
townhomes. In addition to ensuring the hatching is visible and distinguishable also add
additional labels to clarify the extents of the areas of permeable paving.
27. [32.5.2(a) & 32.6.2(a)] Address the following in reference to building setbacks:
a) The building setback for the assisted living parcel, that goes through Pocket Park B, does
not appear to be correct and is not labeled as a building setback. Either label this dashed
line for something other than a building setback or label it as the building setback and
ensure it is parallel to the parcel line, or propose a Boundary Line that will make the
setback correct as shown.
b) Show and label all of the building setback lines in Block 4 on Sheet 4.
28. [32.5.2(r) & 32.6.2(a)] Ensure that minor amendment clouding can be differentiated from the
tree lines, both proposed and existing.
29. [32.5.2(n) & 32.6.2(a)] Provide labeling for what appears to be a fence at the back of the
apartment building and along the retaining walls. No legend appears to be provided, so
labeling is required.
30. [32.5.2(r) & 32.6.2(f)] Section line C/8 appears to no longer be in a portion of the road in which
the section applies. Ensure that this symbol is places along a portion of the road/accessway
that it applies to.
31. [Comment] Ensure the revision dates are correct and a new revision date is added prior to
resubmission. In the recent submission no revision date was added for Sheet 17A despite
changes to that sheet.
32. [Comment] See the attached comments from the other reviewers. The site plan will not be
approved without the approval of the other reviewers.
Staff has provided references to provisions of Chapter 18 of the Code of the County of
Albemarle. The Code is kept up to date by the County Attorney's office. The Code may be
found on the County Attorney's website which may be found under "Departments" at
Albemarle.org.
In accord with the provisions of Section 32.4.3.5 of Chapter 18 of the Code if the developer
fails to submit a revised final site plan to address all of the requirements within six (6) months
after the date of this letter the application shall be deemed to have been voluntarily withdrawn
by the developer.
Please contact Paty Saternye in the Planning Division by using Psaternye(aD-albemarle.org or
434-296-5832 ext. 3250 for further information.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
Site Plan Amendment Review
Project title: Oakleigh — Minor Site Plan Amendment
Project file number: SDP201800091
Plan preparer: Steve Edwards [steve(&edwarddesignstudio.com]
4936 Old Boonesboro Road, Lynchburg VA 24503
Alan Franklin, P.E., LLC [alan(a)alanfranklinpe.com]
427 Cranberry Lane, Crozet VA 22932
Owner or rep.: Oakleigh Albemarle LLC — 690 Berkmar Circle / Charlottesville, VA 22901
Plan received date: 20 Dec 2018
Date of comments: 7 Feb 2019
Plan Coordinator: Paty Saternye
Reviewer: John Anderson
SDP201800091
Compare approved impervious area (224,639 ft2) with proposed Amendment (232,586 ft2); a slight 3.4%
increase. Amend VSMP/WPO Plan for this site plan, including VSMH Vol. 2 Appendix 5D worksheets.
(Note: proposed routing of paved surface runoff directly into a Level-1 biofilter requires pre-treatment)
Link: https://www.deq.virgi>� nia.gov/Portals/O/DEQ/Water/Publications/HndbkVolumeI.pdf - p. 3.11-14 and
FIG. 3.11-7. "Like other infiltration basins, bioretention basins must always be preceded by a pretreatment
facility to remove grease, oil, floatable organic material, and settleable solids..."
SDP201700005, Sheet 2:
BREAKDOWN: BUILDINGS:
1.3
21%
ROADS rSIDEWALKS:
("75.1324
PAVED PARKINGlROADS
121,505
2.79
32%
SIDEWALKS:
23,210
0.53
6
PERVIOUS AREAIOPEN SPACE:
is
3.67
42%
TOTAL SITE ACREAGE:
384,286
8.822
100°111
NOTES: ` 1
1. The minimum required open space is 20 % (per Section 20A.9.a.1 ), 1V�
2. Pervious area'Open Space includes land within ROW and on any indivicual lot. `.'o
3. Common open space excludes land within ROW and on individual lots.
4. Lots Include only those indi dual lots and nothing more.
2. Include reference to approved VSMP/WPO for Oakleigh: list WP0201700023, Approved 3/26/18, as an
associated plan.
Sheet 4
3. Provide gutter along Eckerson Court, from Int. with Nichols Court, to parking area entrance at proposed
apartments. Ref. 18-4.12.15.g. Label curb and gutter using VDOT nomenclature, CG-7, for example.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 3
4. Concrete dumpster pad does not appear to extend 8' from back face of enclosure gates to edge of asphalt
surface. Revise to obtain min. 8' length, measured from back face of enclosure gates to edge of asphalt.
Ref. 18-4.12.19.
5. Dimension Eckerson Court travelway width. Provide width label.
6. Revise Note 5., Restrictions/Requirements/Notes: to read `All travelways are private with public access
easements over them.'
7. Label emergency access concrete apron /entrance at Rio Road using VDOT nomenclature (CG-9a, for
example). Ref. Final Site Plan checklist, pg. 2, entrances and right-of-way improvements.
8. SDP201700005, Oakleigh - Major Site Plan Amendment does not appear to include retaining wall design.
Provide retaining wall design. See Final Site Plan and Retaining Wall checklists (attached to this Memo).
9. Provide L X W (Typ.) dimensions for the three proposed parking spaces just west of the emergency access.
10. Provide auto turn for typical passenger vehicles at Sta. 12+50f, Eckerson Ct, to show that a car exiting may
pass a car entering without striking curb or parked vehicles, with at least 2' clearance between vehicles.
Revise design to provide minimum 2' clearance between two typ. passenger vehicles at this location.
11. Label travelway width between Sta. 12+50(f) and dumpsters, Eckerson Court (appears to be -14' FC-FC).
12. This section of travelway is too narrow for two-way travel. Provide signs indicating `one-way' travel
unless inconsistent with site plan requirements or Albemarle County Planning Division review, or policy.
13. Provide auto -turn for waste management vehicle (Typ.) to illustrate how WM vehicles may perform reverse
movement to exit this area without striking pedestrians, curbs, or parked vehicles.
14. Revise subterranean parking drive aisle dimension to 24' (apparent typo).
15. Revise 9' w (non-HC) parking space (adjacent to 8' w HC space) to 10' width. Ref. 18-4.12.16.c.1.
16. Label sidewalk width, for walk located north of Eckerson Court.
17. Provide curb cut required for drainage to bioretention midway along 8 parking spaces south of apartments.
18. Provide bioretention basin pre-treatment for this (asphalt surface) storm runoff, item above.
19. Provide `do not enter' sign at south exit of subterranean parking. Alternatively, revise travelway width,
north side of apartments to 20', min. Ref. 18-4.12.17.c.1.-2.
Sheet 5
20. Provide storm inlets and conveyance from paved surface of Eckerson Court. Please ref. proposed profile.
From proposed H.P. Sta. 11+20, surface runoff flows west, without any inlets on the travelway. This
runoff bypasses the parking area fronting east side of proposed apartments, and washes into a dumpster
enclosure. Provide VDOT storm drainage design, for both culvert pipes and inlets. Eckerson may (likely
will) flood and present hazard under proposed curb without gutter and inlet design.
21. Revise I/8 (4" curb) detail to VDOT CG-7. Ref. 2016 Road and Bridge Standard, CG-7, 201.04, Rev. 9/06.
22. Provide dumpster pad detail. Ref. 18-4.12.19. Specify /provide minimum 4" stone base, 6" concrete depth,
3000psi at 28 days, with minimum grid of wire reinforcing or #4 bars at 12" on center. Final Site Plan
checklist, p. 3, parking and circulation, item 8.
23. Revise proposed grade so that Eckerson Court storm runoff does not wash through dumpster pad enclosure.
Collect and convey storm runoff to avoid spread greater than 'h travel lane width + gutter pan.
Sheet 8:
24. Revise Ksag value, Eckerson Court, PVI Sta. 12+46 (K proposed = 5.00) to nearly approximate approved
site plan Ksag PVI Sta. 12+86, K=12.00. Recommend Ksag = 15.00 as a design target.
25. Provide emergency access section (detail).
26. Provide grasspave detail.
27. Detail D/8: Include VDOT Class A3 General concrete design parameters; i.e., compressive strength, slump,
air, etc. Link: http://www.virginiadot.ora/VDOTBusiness/asset_Oload_file41_3529.pdf , p. C-18.
28. Provide SL Storey Streetguard (guardrail) detail, as well as technical information that demonstrates this
product is equivalent to VDOT Std. in terms of barrier protection.
29. Nichols Court, Sta. 11+00(f): provide cross drain (VDOT CD-1, 2) at cut/fill transition.
30. Note: An approved VSMP Plan Amendment is required prior to Site Plan Amendment approval.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 3
Please feel free to call if any questions. Thank you
J. Anderson 434.296-5832 -0069
SDP201800091 Oakleigh Minor 020719.docx
Review Comments for SDP201800091 1 Minor Amendment
Project Name: OAKLEIGH - MINOR
Date Completed: Friday, February 08, 20110 DepartmenVDiuisionlAgency: Review Status:
Reviewer: Rebecca Ragsdale CDD Zonina Requested Changes El
—The property has developed under Application Plan Scenario A. The proposed parking along Eckerson Court that
encroaches into the pocket park on both sides is not shown on the Application Plan. Under Section 8.5.5.5.2.c(2) the Planning
Director shall determine whether it conforms to the application plan and if the major elements within the development are in the
same location as shown on the application plan and if the buildings, parking, streets, blacks, paths and other design elements
are of the same general character, scope and scale as shown on the application plan. The area for the pocket park required
on the application plan should be the same. It appears the parking scenario along Eckerson is similar to what was proposed
with Application Plan Scenario B. If its not consistent, the applicant may seek a special exception.
—Parking setbacks are applicable to those spaces of 5 or more that are proposed
—As we discussed; to allow the parking, provided the Planning Director determines its consistent with the Application Plan
Scenario A. the applicant coud do a BLA to address the setback issue or seek a special exception.
—The apartment building must meet the required rear 10' setback-
-The entire parking lot adjacent the building must meet the 5' rear parking setback.
—Based on the proposed number of units, the tot lot is required with this site plan and should be shown on the site plan. (Not
Left "potential area for future tot lot") The tot lot must be completed by the 50% of COs for residential units proposed.
—Assisted living beds are not residential units for purposes of dwelling units in the Development Block Summary table on Sheet
4 of the application plan or as dwelling units under the proffers. Given the 52 market rate credit allowed under the proffers, it
does not appear affordable housing or C I P proffers will need to be provided with this development.
—1 recommend the number of dwelling units proposed in each building be shown on the site plan
—Shared parking easement must be recorded per Section 4.12.8(e) prior to site plan approval.
Page: 1 County of Albemarle Printed On: 1 02l0812019
Review Comments for SDP201800091 Minor Amendment -
Project Name: OAKLEIGH - MINOR
Date Completed= Wednesday, January 02, 2fl19 DepartmenVDiuisiorVAgency: Review Status:
Reviewer: Margaret Maliszewski CDD ARB _ Requested Changes
1. Please provide additional clarification on the window glass specs_ You've provided specs for two different glass products with
only one measure for each, and elevations that identify only one glass type. If two glass products are proposed, indicate both
of their locations on the elevations and provide VLT and VLR for both products. You've indicated that the MI specs show VT as
_5. Confirm that this means the VLT = 50%. If not, please clarify_
2. You've indicated that you are not proposing any new fixtures. There are new fixture locations associated with the new
building, and your luminaire tables include a WB fixture, which was not included on the approved lighting plan in my records.
Provide the manufacturer's cut sheet for the WB fixture in the plan set.
3. Include a note on the site plan that the 1 Q' rear building setback and 5' rear parking setback requirements will be met at the
apartment building.
4. A work session to review the revised building design with the ARB will be scheduled when the Rio Road context views are
received.
Page: 1 County of Albemarle Printed On: 1 02l0812019
Review Comments for SDP201800091 1 Minor Amendment
Project Name: OAKLEIGH - MINOR
Date Completed: Friday, January 25, 2019 DepartmenVDivisionlAgency: Review Status:
Reviewer:
Richard Nelson ACSA Requested Changes El
Page: 1 County of Albemarle Printed On: 1 02l0812019
Review Comments for SDP201800091 1 Minor Amendment 0
Project Name: OAKLEIGH - MINOR
Date Completed: Thursday, January 17, 2019 DepartmenVDivisionlAgency: Review Status:
Reviewer: Victoria Fort R1NSA Nn Objection
2019-01-18: RWSA has reviewed the Minor Site Plan Amendment for Oakleigh sent on December 20, 2018, and there do not f
appear to be any changes that impact RWSA water or sewer lines. Let me know if you need anything else for this application.
Page: 1 County of Albemarle Printed On: 1 02l0812019
Review Comments for SDP2O18OOO91 1 Minor Amendment
Project Name: OAKLEIGH - MINOR
Date Completed: Wednesday, January 16, 2fl19 DepartmenVDivisionlAgency: Review Status:
Reviewer: Shawn Maddox Fire Rescue No Objection El
Page: 1 County of Albemarle Printed On: 1 02l0812019
Review Comments for SDP2O18OOO91 1 Minor Amendment
Project Name: OAKLEIGH - MINOR
Date Completed: Wednesday, December 26, DepartmenVDivisiorVAgency: Review Status:
Reviewer: Michael Dellinger CDD Inspections No Objection El
Page: 1 County of Albemarle Printed On: 1 02l0812019