HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201500044 Review Comments Major Amendment, Final Site Plan 2016-07-01Short Review Comments Report for:
SDP201500044
SubApplication Type:
Branchlands Whistler House - Major
Major Amendment
Date Completed:10/02/2015
Reviewer:Ellie Ray CDD Planning
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:08/28/2015
Reviewer:Andrew Slack CDD E911
Review Status:Approved
Reviews Comments:Approved.
Division:
Date Completed:10/01/2015
Reviewer:Justin Deel CDD Engineering
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:08/31/2015
Reviewer:Alexander Morrison ACSA
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:09/16/2015
Reviewer:Jay Schlothauer CDD Inspections
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:Based on plans dated August 24, 2015.
Rearrange one of the five parking spaces near the main entrance so that it is van-accessible,
barrier-free. Provide a sidewalk curb cut for this space.
Division:
Date Completed:10/01/2015
Reviewer:Troy Austin VDOT
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:09/23/2015
Reviewer:Victoria Fort RWSA
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:10/02/2015
Reviewer:Robbie Gilmer Fire Rescue
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:Based on plans dated 8/24/15.
1. Show FDC location on the plans. FDC shall be with in 100' of a fire hydrant.
2. Fire hydrant spacing shall be 400' per travelway.
3. Please add a note to the plans "Knox Box required please contact Albemarle County Fire Marshal
Office during construction to determine location."
4. Fire flow test required before final approval.
Division:
Page:1 of 3 County of Albemarle Printed On:April 05, 2019
3. Please add a note to the plans "Knox Box required please contact Albemarle County Fire Marshal
Office during construction to determine location."
4. Fire flow test required before final approval.
Date Completed:12/08/2015
Reviewer:Ellie Ray CDD Planning
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:12/07/2015
Reviewer:Justin Deel CDD Engineering
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:
Reviewer:Alexander Morrison ACSA
Review Status:Pending
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:12/08/2015
Reviewer:Jay Schlothauer CDD Inspections
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:Based on plans revised November 17, 2015.
No further comments or conditions.
Division:
Date Completed:12/06/2015
Reviewer:Robbie Gilmer Fire Rescue
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Based on plans dated 11/17/15.
1. Awaiting the Fire flow test for final approval.
Division:
Date Completed:02/02/2016
Reviewer:Ellie Ray CDD Planning
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:02/05/2016
Reviewer:John Anderson CDD Engineering
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:12/7/15 last remaining Engineering review comment addressed. janderson2 2/5/2016 3:44 PM
Division:
Date Completed:03/17/2016
Reviewer:Alexander Morrison ACSA
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:01/30/2016
Reviewer:Robbie Gilmer Fire Rescue
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:Based on plans dated 11/17/15.
No comments or objections.
Division:
Page:2 of 3 County of Albemarle Printed On:April 05, 2019
Date Completed:01/20/2016
Reviewer:Jay Schlothauer CDD Inspections
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:Based on plans revised January 19, 2016.
No comments or conditions.
Division:
Date Completed:03/23/2016
Reviewer:Ellie Ray CDD Planning
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:04/19/2016
Reviewer:Ellie Ray CDD Planning
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:04/26/2016
Reviewer:Ron Higgins CDD Zoning
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:shared parking agreement
Division:
Date Completed:04/26/2016
Reviewer:Unassigned Unassigned
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:sent shared parking agreement to CAO
Division:
Date Completed:07/01/2016
Reviewer:Johnathan Newberry CDD Planning
Review Status:Approved
Reviews Comments:I will be closing out this project for Ellie.
Division:
Page:3 of 3 County of Albemarle Printed On:April 05, 2019
Ellie Ray
From: Ron Higgins
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 2:51 PM
To: Ellie Ray
Subject: RE: SDP201500044 Branchlands Whistler House - Shared Parking Agreement
Hello, Ellie:
I have reviewed the agreement and it guarantees 40 spaces to be available to the new facility in the shared parking
arrangement. This is consistent with the parking analysis (and my earlier determination/approval) that indicated a peak
need of less than 40 spaces. Therefore this is acceptable as a means for meeting the parking requirement.
Ron Higgins
From: Ellie Ray
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 2:00 PM
To: Ron Higgins <rhiggins@albemarle.org>
Subject: FW: SDP201500044 Branchlands Whistler House - Shared Parking Agreement
I got this from Greg today ... have you had a chance to look at the agreement?
Thanks,
Ellie Carter Ray, PLA, LEED GREEN ASSOCIATE
Senior Planner
Albemarle County Community Development
ph: 434.296.5832 x. 3432
From: Greg Kamptner
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 10:13 AM
To: Ellie Ray <eray@albemarle.org>
Subject: RE: SDP201500044 Branchlands Whistler House - Shared Parking Agreement
Ellie -
The shared parking agreement is approved.
Greg Kamptner
Deputy County Attorney
County of Albemarle
ekamptner(@albemarle.ore
434-972-4067 ext. 3268
From: Ellie Ray
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 1:51 PM
To: Greg Kamptner <GKamptne@albemarle.or>
Subject: SDP201500044 Branchlands Whistler House - Shared Parking Agreement
Greg,
Ellie Ray
From: Greg Kamptner
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 10:13 AM
To: Ellie Ray
Subject: RE: SDP201500044 Branchlands Whistler House - Shared Parking Agreement
Ellie
The shared parking agreement is approved.
Greg Kamptner
Deputy County Attorney
County of Albemarle
ekamotner(@albemarle.ore
xL ! �'yi� �IiZ:�L 3'1 �c�►�:fza
From: Ellie Ray
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 1:51 PM
To: Greg Kamptner <GKamptne@albemarle.org>
Subject: SDP201500044 Branchlands Whistler House - Shared Parking Agreement
Greg,
The applicant for Branchlands Whistler House submitted a shared parking agreement for review. I forwarded a copy to
Ron Higgins. The applicant said they were submitting a copy directly to you, but in case they didn't I have attached a
PDF of the agreement as well as the layout sheet from their plan set which shows the location of the parking. Please let
me know if you have any comments or questions.
Thank you,
Ellie Carter Ray, PLA, LEED GREEN ASSOCIATE
Senior Planner
Albemarle County Community Development
Planning Division
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
ph: 434.296.5832 x. 3432
fax: 434.972.4126
�'jRGINZP
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
October 2, 2015
Revi : December 8, 2015
Rev2: February 2, 2016
Revi: March 23, 2016
Rev4: April 19, 2016
Craig Kotarski, P.E.
Timmons Group
919 2nd Street SE
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: SDP201500044 Branchlands Whistler House — Major Amendment
Dear Sir:
Your Major Amendment application has been reviewed. In order for the amended site plan to be
approved the following revisions are required:
1. [32.5.2(a)] Revise the title to indicate this plan amends SDP200100102.
Revi : Comment addressed.
2. [32.5.2(a)] List previous ZMA and SP on the cover sheet (ZMA198000026 & SP198000063).
Rev1: Comment addressed.
3. [32.5.2(a)] Setbacks need to be established with this plan; provide a minimum (and maximum, if you
wish) front, side and rear setback requirement. It looks like the minimum setback for the SW property
line was established with the SP to be 20'6", for clarity you may want to make it 21'. The other side
can have a different setback if desired. See next comment for guidance on front and rear setbacks.
Revi : Comment addressed.
4. [32.5.2(a) & SP201400010 Condition #11 The proposed building is closer to the property lines in
both the front and rear than what was shown on the approved application plan; please consult with
Zoning for a determination on whether or not this conforms with the application plan and what the
minimum setbacks should be to maintain conformity.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
5. [32.5.2(a)] Provide the total number of sheets.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
6. [32.5.2(a)] Provide the zoning district and present use of abutting parcels. Provide the required
information on all adjacent parcels; at least one isn't labeled.
Revi : Comment addressed.
7. [32.5.2(b)] Provide information regarding the amount of open space provided; the approved SP
application plan indicated 25% was provided but this site plan doesn't reference open space.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
8. [32.5.2(b)] Provide the maximum height of the proposed building as defined in the Zoning
Ordinance.
Rev1: Comment addressed. However, please note that there will be step -backs in the building
as a solid building wall of that height is not permitted.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
9. [32.5.2(b)] Note where parking is being removed including how many spaces in each area. Clearly
show where parking is being removed as well as where it's being replaced (replaced should be
indicated with black lines not grey).
Revi : Comment addressed.
10. [32.5.2(b) SP201400010 Condition #1] Comments provided below and by Engineering may result in
the loss of additional parking spaces; if so, consult with Zoning to determine if this is in conformity
with the approved application plan. A parking determination may be required.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
11. [32.5.2(b)] Provide the maximum amount of paved parking and vehicular circulation.
Rev1: Comment not addressed. Provide this number for use in the landscape plan
calculations.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
12. [32.5.2(d)] Clearly show and label all managed slopes on the site.
Revi : Comment addressed.
13. [32.5.2(i)] Provide all travelway dimensions.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
14. [32.5.2(i)] Access to this site and much of the necessary parking seems to be provided on adjacent
parcels; clarify if easements are already in place.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. Much of the parking is provided on TMP61Z-3-5D; is an
easement in place, or should this parcel be included in the application?
Rev2: Comment still valid; awaiting parking agreement submittal.
Rev3: Comment still valid; awaiting parking agreement submittal.
Rev4: The shared parking agreement has been sent to Zoning for review. Their comments, if
any, will be forwarded upon receipt. A copy has also been emailed to the County Attorney
with a copy of the Layout Sheet, as a supplement to the copy sent by the applicant.
15. [32.5.2(i)] The entrance travelway is not a consistent width resulting is parking that is not parallel in
configuration; if the blank grey area across the travelway from the proposed 5 spaces is intended to
be parking, either reconfigure the travelway at a consistent 24' or indicate angled parking spaces in
this area.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
16. [32.5.2(i) & 4.12.16(c)(1)] The minimum travelway width adjacent to 9' wide parking is 24'. In some
areas this standard is not met; either remove parking, increase parking space width to 10' or adjust
the travelway to meet this standard.
Revi : Comment addressed.
17. [32.5.2(i) & 4.12.17(c)] The minimum two-way travelway width not adjacent to parking is 20'. In
some areas this standard is not met; either provide 20' travelways or indicate one-way travel and
direction.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
18. [32.5.2(j,k,l)] Verify that the location(s) and dimensions of all existing or proposed utilities and utility
easements including water, sewer, drainage, telephone, cable, electric and gas are shown on the
plan. Provide the Deed Book and Page reference for any existing easements. Any proposed
easements should be labeled with the intended owner.
Revi : Comment addressed.
19. [32.5.2(1)] The plan notes the vacation of an existing VEPCO easement; has this vacation been
authorized?
Revi : Comment not fully addressed. The comment response letter indicates this easement is
in the process of being vacated; documentation must be provided once completed.
Rev2: Comment still valid; awaiting documentation.
Rev3: Comment addressed.
20. [32.5.2(j,k,l)] Show all easements on the site plan and landscape plan sheets to demonstrate no site
conflicts exist.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. ACSA will need to approve all proposed planting within
the sewer easement.
Rev2: Comment still valid; awaiting ACSA approval.
Rev3: Comment addressed.
21. [32.5.2(m)] Show the distance to the centerline of the nearest existing street intersection from the
proposed ingress/egress.
Revi : Comment addressed.
22. [32.5.2(n)] Dimension all walkways.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
23. [32.5.2(n)] Dimension and provide the maximum height of all proposed retaining walls.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. Provide the maximum height of the walls on the north
side of the building. Please also label and dimension the canopy over the building entrance.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
24. [32.5.2(n)] Dimension the dumpster pad and loading area.
Revi : Comment addressed.
25. [32.5.2(n) & 4.12.18(d)] Delineate the loading area as required by 4.12.18(d).
Rev1: Comment addressed.
26. [32.5.2(n)] Dimension all curb radii.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
27. [32.5.2(n)] Provide a legend for the hatch/shade patterns to indicate the proposed paving materials.
Revi : Comment addressed.
28. [32.5.2(i) & 4.12.15(f)] Provide an island at the end of the parking row adjacent to the emergency
turn -around area (see Engineering comments).
Rev1: Comment addressed.
29. [4.12.16(e))] Bumper blocks are required where parking abuts a sidewalk less than 6' in width.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
30. [32.5.2(r)] Provide a legend showing all symbols, abbreviations and hatch patterns used on the site
plan.
Revi : Comment addressed.
31. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9] The site layout on the landscape plan does not match the layout shown on other
sheets; layout must be consistent throughout the plan set.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
32. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9] Provide a landscape plan that meets the requirements of 32.7.9 including a plant
schedule listing plant species and size.
Rev1: Comment not addressed. See comments below.
Rev2: Comment not addressed. See comments below.
Rev3: Comment not fully addressed. See comments below.
Rev4: Comment addressed.
33. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9] Provide notes to verify compliance with landscape plan requirements (32.7.9.5.
32.7.9.6, 32.7.9.7 and 32.7.9.8).
Revi : Comment not addressed; show and provide notes indicating how the plan meets the
sections listed. The modified parking lot on TMP61Z-3-5D will need to be shown on the plan to
demonstrate that street landscaping and parking lot landscaping requirements are adequately
met (this may have been done with the site plan that created that parking lot, but will need to
be shown on this plan since the parking lot is changing). Tree canopy information for all
plants that will be 5' or taller should be provided to demonstrate the tree canopy requirement
has been met.
Rev2: Comment not fully addressed:
1. Section 32.7.9.5: The modified parking lot on TMP61Z-3-5D is still not shown on the
site plan. This parking lot needs to be shown to verify that Section 32.7.9.5
(Landscaping along streets) has been met. SDP1996-119 was approved with both
street trees and screening shrubs as required by this section, but GIS does not show
either as being present on the site. Include the parking lot on the plan and either
existing or new landscaping that meets this section. Please also add one street tree to
the street frontage in front of the proposed building (TMP61Z-3-5A).
Rev3: Comment not fully addressed. The existing landscaping shown on TMP
TMP61Z-3-5D does not match what was shown on the approved site plan or meet the
street tree and screening shrub requirements; please add street trees and screening
shrubs for the parking as required by this section (if shrubs are present adjacent to the
existing parking, show them on the plan).
Rev4: Comment addressed.
2. Section 32.7.9.6: This section (landscaping within a parking area) has likely been met,
but the note provided indicates the 5% requirement is tree canopy, when the actual
requirement is ground area. Provide a note indicating at least 5% of the paved parking
and vehicular circulation area has been provided in landscaped ground area in
islands. Additionally, it looks like one large shade tree has been provided (existing or
proposed) for every 10 parking spaces but a note should be included listing the
requirement and what has been provided.
Rev3: Comment addressed.
3. Section 32.7.9.7: This section (screening) has been met through the proposed
dumpster enclosure (this note included for recordkeeping purposes).
Rev3: Comment for recordkeeping purposes only.
4. Section 32.7.9.8: This section (tree canopy) appears to have been met, but there are a
few inconsistencies between the plant schedule on the Cover and the one provided on
the Landscape Plan sheet; verify that any plants being used to meet the tree canopy
requirement are consistent in both schedules. Additionally, it is unclear what the new
table on the Cover "Existing Trees Per As -built Landscape Plan" is demonstrating.
You need to show that the two subject parcels (TMP61Z-3-5A and TMP61Z-3-5D) have
adequate tree canopy, but this table does not provide information regarding where
these trees are located. Show the locations of any trees being used to meet this
requirement and either remove the "as -built" landscape chart or revise it to say
something like "existing landscape used toward tree canopy requirement".
Rev3: Comment not fully addressed. Please remove the landscape tables from the
cover sheet; they are inconsistent with what was provided on sheet LOA.
Rev4: Comment addressed.
5. Make sure the plant schedule includes information regarding the minimum planting
size of all proposed plants used to meet landscape plan requirements.
Rev3: Comment addressed.
6. The demolition plan only shows four existing trees as being removed; please add a
note stating that no other existing landscaping is being removed with this plan.
Rev3: Comment addressed.
7. A landscape easement will be needed for any off -site landscaping used to meet
Landscape Plan requirements or Condition of SP approval.
Rev3: Comment addressed.
34. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9] The demolition plan indicates the removal of three large trees on the adjacent
parcel. Are these trees being replaced? Were they used to meet landscape requirements on the
associated site plan?
Rev1: Comment not addressed. The comment response letter indicates that the trees will be
replaced, but the landscape plan does not seem to show this; please clarify. There is also
now another tree within the parking lot noted as being removed, but its replacement isn't
referenced on the landscape plan.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
35. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] Is any outdoor lighting proposed? If so, provide a photometric plan including a
Iuminaire schedule. The photometric plan must provide the following:
• The photometric values should extend to the property lines to verify the spillover requirement
is met.
• Manufacturer's cut -sheets indicating lumen level for each proposed fixture shall be included
in the plan set; fixtures 3000 lumen or higher (using a maintenance factor of 1.0) must meet
the County's definition of full cutoff.
• The model numbers shown on the cut -sheets must match those listed in the Iuminaire
schedule.
• Light fixtures should be shown on the layout/utility and landscape plans to verify that no site
conflicts exist.
• Show all existing and proposed light fixtures; all fixtures must be included in the photometric
calculations.
• Provide the following standard lighting note on the lighting plan: Each outdoor Iuminaire
equipped with a lamp that emits 3, 000 or more initial lumens shall be a full cutoff Iuminaire
and shall be arranged or shielded to reflect light away from adjoining residential districts and
away from adjacent roads. The spillover of lighting from luminaires onto public roads and
property in residential or rural areas zoning districts shall not exceed one-half foot-candle.
Revi : Comment not fully addressed. Provide a cut sheet for the relocated light pole to
verify it meets the current lighting regulations (must be full cutoff). Revise the
photometric plan using a LLF of 1.0 for all fixtures to verify that the spillover on to the
townhouse lots on Lilac Court is under 0.5 fc.
Rev2: Comment addressed. Previous "relocated" light pole is now being removed.
36. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] The demolition plan indicates one light pole is being relocated but the plan doesn't
say where; please clarify.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
37. [SP201400010 Condition #1] This plan must be in general accord with the approved application
plan. The plan now includes a retaining wall between the building and the SW property line closest to
the townhouses on Lilac Court. Since this was an area of emphasis during the SP review, consult
with Zoning to determine if the proposed wall is in conformity with the approved application plan. A
revised elevation drawing may be required.
Revi : Comment addressed.
38. [SP201400010 Condition #7] Consult with Branchlands Property Owners Association regarding
landscaping and fencing on the southwest side of the building.
Rev1: Comment still valid; please have the Branchlands Property Owners Association
representative contact me with their comments after your meeting.
Rev2: Comment still valid.
Rev3: Comment still valid; awaiting letter/email from Branchlands Property Owner's
Association.
Rev4: Comment addressed. Reference email from Zoning.
39. [Comment] If any off -site easements are necessary, show them on the plan and consult with
Engineering about documentation necessary prior to site plan approval.
Rev1: Comment still valid.
Rev2: Comment still valid
Rev3: Comment addressed.
40. [Comment] This amendment cannot be approved until all comments from the Site Review
Committee (SRC) have been addressed. Any comments not available at the time of the SRC
meeting will be forwarded once received.
Revi : Comment still valid. ACSA and Inspections must complete their reviews and grant their
approval before the site plan can be approved. Engineering and Fire Rescue comments have
been provided. The WPO application must also be approved.
Rev2: Comment still valid. ACSA and Engineering must complete their reviews and grant their
approval before the site plan can be approved. Fire Rescue has completed their review and
has no objection. Inspections had no objection to the previous submittal. The WPO
application must also be approved.
Rev3: Comment not fully addressed; all other reviewers have granted their tentative approval,
but WPO approval is pending.
Rev4: Comment still valid; WPO approval has not yet been granted.
41. [Comment] The managed steep slopes hatching on sheet C0.1 is no longer shown; please show the
hatching as it was on previous submittals.
Rev4: Comment not addressed; the slope hatching still isn't showing on the plans.
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 and Services" 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.
If you have any questions about the comments please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Ellie Carter Ray, PLA
Senior Planner
Planning Division
�'jRGINZP
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
October 2, 2015
Revi : December 8, 2015
Rev2: February 2, 2016
Rev3: March 23, 2016
Craig Kotarski, P.E.
Timmons Group
919 2nd Street SE
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: SDP201500044 Branchlands Whistler House — Major Amendment
Dear Sir:
Your Major Amendment application has been reviewed. In order for the amended site plan to be
approved the following revisions are required:
1. [32.5.2(a)] Revise the title to indicate this plan amends SDP200100102.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
2. [32.5.2(a)] List previous ZMA and SP on the cover sheet (ZMA198000026 & SP198000063).
Rev1: Comment addressed.
3. [32.5.2(a)] Setbacks need to be established with this plan; provide a minimum (and maximum, if you
wish) front, side and rear setback requirement. It looks like the minimum setback for the SW property
line was established with the SP to be 20'6", for clarity you may want to make it 21'. The other side
can have a different setback if desired. See next comment for guidance on front and rear setbacks.
Revi : Comment addressed.
4. [32.5.2(a) & SP201400010 Condition #1] The proposed building is closer to the property lines in
both the front and rear than what was shown on the approved application plan; please consult with
Zoning for a determination on whether or not this conforms with the application plan and what the
minimum setbacks should be to maintain conformity.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
5. [32.5.2(a)] Provide the total number of sheets.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
6. [32.5.2(a)] Provide the zoning district and present use of abutting parcels. Provide the required
information on all adjacent parcels; at least one isn't labeled.
Revi : Comment addressed.
7. [32.5.2(b)] Provide information regarding the amount of open space provided; the approved SP
application plan indicated 25% was provided but this site plan doesn't reference open space.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
8. [32.5.2(b)] Provide the maximum height of the proposed building as defined in the Zoning
Ordinance.
Revi : Comment addressed. However, please note that there will be step -backs in the building
as a solid building wall of that height is not permitted.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
9. [32.5.2(b)] Note where parking is being removed including how many spaces in each area. Clearly
show where parking is being removed as well as where it's being replaced (replaced should be
indicated with black lines not grey).
Revi : Comment addressed.
10. [32.5.2(b) SP201400010 Condition #1] Comments provided below and by Engineering may result in
the loss of additional parking spaces; if so, consult with Zoning to determine if this is in conformity
with the approved application plan. A parking determination may be required.
Revi : Comment addressed.
11. [32.5.2(b)] Provide the maximum amount of paved parking and vehicular circulation.
Rev1: Comment not addressed. Provide this number for use in the landscape plan
calculations.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
12. [32.5.2(d)] Clearly show and label all managed slopes on the site.
Revi : Comment addressed.
13. [32.5.2(i)] Provide all travelway dimensions.
Revi : Comment addressed.
14. [32.5.2(i)] Access to this site and much of the necessary parking seems to be provided on adjacent
parcels; clarify if easements are already in place.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. Much of the parking is provided on TMP61Z-3-5D; is an
easement in place, or should this parcel be included in the application?
Rev2: Comment still valid; awaiting parking agreement submittal.
Rev3: Comment still valid; awaiting parking agreement submittal.
15. [32.5.2(i)] The entrance travelway is not a consistent width resulting is parking that is not parallel in
configuration; if the blank grey area across the travelway from the proposed 5 spaces is intended to
be parking, either reconfigure the travelway at a consistent 24' or indicate angled parking spaces in
this area.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
16. [32.5.2(i) & 4.12.16(c)(1)] The minimum travelway width adjacent to 9' wide parking is 24'. In some
areas this standard is not met; either remove parking, increase parking space width to 10' or adjust
the travelway to meet this standard.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
17. [32.5.2(i) & 4.12.17(c)] The minimum two-way travelway width not adjacent to parking is 20'. In
some areas this standard is not met; either provide 20' travelways or indicate one-way travel and
direction.
Revi : Comment addressed.
18. [32.5.2(j,k,l)] Verify that the location(s) and dimensions of all existing or proposed utilities and utility
easements including water, sewer, drainage, telephone, cable, electric and gas are shown on the
plan. Provide the Deed Book and Page reference for any existing easements. Any proposed
easements should be labeled with the intended owner.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
19. [32.5.2(1)] The plan notes the vacation of an existing VEPCO easement; has this vacation been
authorized?
Revi : Comment not fully addressed. The comment response letter indicates this easement is
in the process of being vacated; documentation must be provided once completed.
Rev2: Comment still valid; awaiting documentation.
Rev3: Comment addressed.
20. [32.5.2(j,k,l)] Show all easements on the site plan and landscape plan sheets to demonstrate no site
conflicts exist.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. ACSA will need to approve all proposed planting within
the sewer easement.
Rev2: Comment still valid; awaiting ACSA approval.
Rev3: Comment addressed.
21. [32.5.2(m)] Show the distance to the centerline of the nearest existing street intersection from the
proposed ingress/egress.
Revi : Comment addressed.
22. [32.5.2(n)] Dimension all walkways.
Revi : Comment addressed.
23. [32.5.2(n)] Dimension and provide the maximum height of all proposed retaining walls.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. Provide the maximum height of the walls on the north
side of the building. Please also label and dimension the canopy over the building entrance.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
24. [32.5.2(n)] Dimension the dumpster pad and loading area.
Revi : Comment addressed.
25. [32.5.2(n) & 4.12.18(d)] Delineate the loading area as required by 4.12.18(d).
Revi : Comment addressed.
26. [32.5.2(n)] Dimension all curb radii.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
27. [32.5.2(n)] Provide a legend for the hatch/shade patterns to indicate the proposed paving materials.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
28. [32.5.2(i) & 4.12.15(f)] Provide an island at the end of the parking row adjacent to the emergency
turn -around area (see Engineering comments).
Revi : Comment addressed.
29. [4.12.16(e))] Bumper blocks are required where parking abuts a sidewalk less than 6' in width.
Revi : Comment addressed.
30. [32.5.2(r)] Provide a legend showing all symbols, abbreviations and hatch patterns used on the site
plan.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
31. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9] The site layout on the landscape plan does not match the layout shown on other
sheets; layout must be consistent throughout the plan set.
Revi : Comment addressed.
32. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9] Provide a landscape plan that meets the requirements of 32.7.9 including a plant
schedule listing plant species and size.
Rev1: Comment not addressed. See comments below.
Rev2: Comment not addressed. See comments below.
Rev3: Comment not fully addressed. See comments below.
33. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9] Provide notes to verify compliance with landscape plan requirements (32.7.9.5.
32.7.9.6, 32.7.9.7 and 32.7.9.8).
Revi : Comment not addressed; show and provide notes indicating how the plan meets the
sections listed. The modified parking lot on TMP61Z-3-5D will need to be shown on the plan to
demonstrate that street landscaping and parking lot landscaping requirements are adequately
met (this may have been done with the site plan that created that parking lot, but will need to
be shown on this plan since the parking lot is changing). Tree canopy information for all
plants that will be 5' or taller should be provided to demonstrate the tree canopy requirement
has been met.
Rev2: Comment not fully addressed:
1. Section 32.7.9.5: The modified parking lot on TMP61Z-3-5D is still not shown on the
site plan. This parking lot needs to be shown to verify that Section 32.7.9.5
(Landscaping along streets) has been met. SDP1996-119 was approved with both
street trees and screening shrubs as required bV this section, but GIS does not show
either as being present on the site. Include the parking lot on the plan and either
existing or new landscaping that meets this section. Please also add one street tree to
the street frontage in front of the proposed building (TMP61Z-3-5A).
Rev3: Comment not fully addressed. The existing landscaping shown on TMP
TMP61Z-3-5D does not match what was shown on the approved site plan or meet the
street tree and screening shrub requirements; please add street trees and screening
shrubs for the parking as required by this section (if shrubs are present adjacent to the
existing parking, show them on the plan).
2. Section 32.7.9.6: This section (landscaping within a parking area) has likely been met,
but the note provided indicates the 5% requirement is tree canopy, when the actual
requirement is ground area. Provide a note indicating at least 5% of the paved parking
and vehicular circulation area has been provided in landscaped ground area in
islands. Additionally, it looks like one large shade tree has been provided (existing or
proposed) for every 10 parking spaces but a note should be included listing the
requirement and what has been provided.
Rev3: Comment addressed.
3. Section 32.7.9.7: This section (screening) has been met through the proposed
dumpster enclosure (this note included for recordkeeping purposes).
Rev3: Comment for recordkeepinq purposes only.
4. Section 32.7.9.8: This section (tree canopy) appears to have been met, but there are a
few inconsistencies between the plant schedule on the Cover and the one provided on
the Landscape Plan sheet; verify that any plants being used to meet the tree canopy
requirement are consistent in both schedules. Additionally, it is unclear what the new
table on the Cover "Existing Trees Per As -built Landscape Plan" is demonstrating.
You need to show that the two subject parcels (TMP61Z-3-5A and TMP61Z-3-5D) have
adequate tree canopy, but this table does not provide information regarding where
these trees are located. Show the locations of any trees being used to meet this
requirement and either remove the "as -built" landscape chart or revise it to say
something like "existing landscape used toward tree canopy requirement".
Rev3: Comment not fully addressed. Please remove the landscape tables from the
cover sheet; they are inconsistent with what was provided on sheet L0.1.
5. Make sure the plant schedule includes information regarding the minimum planting
size of all proposed plants used to meet landscape plan requirements.
Rev3: Comment addressed.
6. The demolition plan only shows four existing trees as being removed; please add a
note stating that no other existing landscaping is being removed with this plan.
Rev3: Comment addressed.
7. A landscape easement will be needed for any off -site landscaping used to meet
Landscape Plan requirements or Condition of SP approval.
Rev3: Comment not fully addressed; awaiting letter/email from Branchlands Property
Owner's Association.
34. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9] The demolition plan indicates the removal of three large trees on the adjacent
parcel. Are these trees being replaced? Were they used to meet landscape requirements on the
associated site plan?
Rev1: Comment not addressed. The comment response letter indicates that the trees will be
replaced, but the landscape plan does not seem to show this; please clarify. There is also
now another tree within the parking lot noted as being removed, but its replacement isn't
referenced on the landscape plan.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
35. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] Is any outdoor lighting proposed? If so, provide a photometric plan including a
luminaire schedule. The photometric plan must provide the following:
• The photometric values should extend to the property lines to verify the spillover requirement
is met.
• Manufacturer's cut -sheets indicating lumen level for each proposed fixture shall be included
in the plan set; fixtures 3000 lumen or higher (using a maintenance factor of 1.0) must meet
the County's definition of full cutoff.
• The model numbers shown on the cut -sheets must match those listed in the luminaire
schedule.
• Light fixtures should be shown on the layout/utility and landscape plans to verify that no site
conflicts exist.
• Show all existing and proposed light fixtures; all fixtures must be included in the photometric
calculations.
• Provide the following standard lighting note on the lighting plan: Each outdoor luminaire
equipped with a lamp that emits 3, 000 or more initial lumens shall be a full cutoff luminaire
and shall be arranged or shielded to reflect light away from adjoining residential districts and
away from adjacent roads. The spillover of lighting from luminaires onto public roads and
property in residential or rural areas zoning districts shall not exceed one-half foot-candle.
Revi : Comment not fully addressed. Provide a cut sheet for the relocated light pole to
verify it meets the current lighting regulations (must be full cutoff). Revise the
photometric plan using a LLF of 1.0 for all fixtures to verify that the spillover on to the
townhouse lots on Lilac Court is under 0.5 fc.
Rev2: Comment addressed. Previous "relocated" light pole is now being removed.
36. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] The demolition plan indicates one light pole is being relocated but the plan doesn't
say where; please clarify.
Revi : Comment addressed.
37. [SP201400010 Condition #1] This plan must be in general accord with the approved application
plan. The plan now includes a retaining wall between the building and the SW property line closest to
the townhouses on Lilac Court. Since this was an area of emphasis during the SP review, consult
with Zoning to determine if the proposed wall is in conformity with the approved application plan. A
revised elevation drawing may be required.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
38. [SP201400010 Condition #7] Consult with Branchlands Property Owners Association regarding
landscaping and fencing on the southwest side of the building.
Revi : Comment still valid; please have the Branchlands Property Owners Association
representative contact me with their comments after your meeting.
Rev2: Comment still valid.
Rev3: Comment still valid; awaiting letter/email from Branchlands Property Owner's
Association.
39. [Commentj it any ou-site easements are necessary, show them on the plan ana consult with
Engineering about documentation necessary prior to site plan approval.
Rev1: Comment still valid.
Rev2: Comment still valid
Rev3: Comment addressed.
40. [Comment] This amendment cannot be approved until all comments from the Site Review
Committee (SRC) have been addressed. Any comments not available at the time of the SRC
meeting will be forwarded once received.
Revi : Comment still valid. ACSA and Inspections must complete their reviews and grant their
approval before the site plan can be approved. Engineering and Fire Rescue comments have
been provided. The WPO application must also be approved.
Rev2: Comment still valid. ACSA and Engineering must complete their reviews and grant their
approval before the site plan can be approved. Fire Rescue has completed their review and
has no objection. Inspections had no objection to the previous submittal. The WPO
application must also be approved.
Rev3: Comment not fully addressed; all other reviewers have granted their tentative approval,
but WPO approval is pending.
41. [Comment] The managed steep slopes hatching on sheet C0.1 is no longer shown; please show the
hatching as it was on previous submittals.
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 and Services" 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.
If you have any questions about the comments please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Ellie Carter Ray, PLA
Senior Planner
Planning Division
Ellie Ray
From: Alex Morrison <amorrison@serviceauthority.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 10:58 AM
To: Ellie Ray
Subject: SDP201500044 Branchlands Whistler House - Major
Ellie,
The ACSA has granted construction approval for the above referenced project. I hereby recommend approval of
SDP201500044.
Alexander J. Morrison, P.E.
Civil Engineer
Albemarle County Service Authority
168 Spotnap Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22911
(0) 434-977-4511 Ext. 116
(C) 434-981-5577
(F) 434-979-0698
�'jRGINZP
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
October 2, 2015
Revi : December 8, 2015
Rev2: February 2, 2016
Craig Kotarski, P.E.
Timmons Group
919 2nd Street SE
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: SDP201500044 Branchlands Whistler House — Major Amendment
Dear Sir:
Your Major Amendment application has been reviewed. In order for the amended site plan to be
approved the following revisions are required:
1. [32.5.2(a)] Revise the title to indicate this plan amends SDP200100102.
Revi : Comment addressed.
2. [32.5.2(a)] List previous ZMA and SP on the cover sheet (ZMA198000026 & SP198000063).
Revi : Comment addressed.
3. [32.5.2(a)] Setbacks need to be established with this plan; provide a minimum (and maximum, if you
wish) front, side and rear setback requirement. It looks like the minimum setback for the SW property
line was established with the SP to be 20'6", for clarity you may want to make it 21'. The other side
can have a different setback if desired. See next comment for guidance on front and rear setbacks.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
4. [32.5.2(a) & SP201400010 Condition #1] The proposed building is closer to the property lines in
both the front and rear than what was shown on the approved application plan; please consult with
Zoning for a determination on whether or not this conforms with the application plan and what the
minimum setbacks should be to maintain conformity.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
5. [32.5.2(a)] Provide the total number of sheets.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
6. [32.5.2(a)] Provide the zoning district and present use of abutting parcels. Provide the required
information on all adjacent parcels; at least one isn't labeled.
Revi : Comment addressed.
7. [32.5.2(b)] Provide information regarding the amount of open space provided; the approved SP
application plan indicated 25% was provided but this site plan doesn't reference open space.
Revi : Comment addressed.
8. [32.5.2(b)] Provide the maximum height of the proposed building as defined in the Zoning
Ordinance.
Revi : Comment addressed. However, please note that there will be step -backs in the building
as a solid building wall of that height is not permitted.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
9. [32.5.2(b)] Note where parking is being removed including how many spaces in each area. Clearly
show where parking is being removed as well as where it's being replaced (replaced should be
indicated with black lines not grey).
Revi : Comment addressed.
10. [32.5.2(b) SP201400010 Condition #1] Comments provided below and by Engineering may result in
the loss of additional parking spaces; if so, consult with Zoning to determine if this is in conformity
with the approved application plan. A parking determination may be required.
Revi : Comment addressed.
11. [32.5.2(b)] Provide the maximum amount of paved parking and vehicular circulation.
Rev1: Comment not addressed. Provide this number for use in the landscape plan
calculations.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
12. [32.5.2(d)] Clearly show and label all managed slopes on the site.
Revi : Comment addressed.
13. [32.5.2(i)] Provide all travelway dimensions.
Revi : Comment addressed.
14. [32.5.2(i)] Access to this site and much of the necessary parking seems to be provided on adjacent
parcels; clarify if easements are already in place.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. Much of the parking is provided on TMP61Z-3-5D; is an
easement in place, or should this parcel be included in the application?
Rev2: Comment still valid; awaiting parking agreement submittal.
15. [32.5.2(i)] The entrance travelway is not a consistent width resulting is parking that is not parallel in
configuration; if the blank grey area across the travelway from the proposed 5 spaces is intended to
be parking, either reconfigure the travelway at a consistent 24' or indicate angled parking spaces in
this area.
Revi : Comment addressed.
16. [32.5.2(i) & 4.12.16(c)(1)] The minimum travelway width adjacent to 9' wide parking is 24'. In some
areas this standard is not met; either remove parking, increase parking space width to 10' or adjust
the travelway to meet this standard.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
17. [32.5.2(i) & 4.12.17(c)] The minimum two-way travelway width not adjacent to parking is 20'. In
some areas this standard is not met; either provide 20' travelways or indicate one-way travel and
direction.
Revi : Comment addressed.
18. [32.5.2(j,k,l)] Verify that the location(s) and dimensions of all existing or proposed utilities and utility
easements including water, sewer, drainage, telephone, cable, electric and gas are shown on the
plan. Provide the Deed Book and Page reference for any existing easements. Any proposed
easements should be labeled with the intended owner.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
19. [32.5.2(1)] The plan notes the vacation of an existing VEPCO easement; has this vacation been
authorized?
Revi : Comment not fully addressed. The comment response letter indicates this easement is
in the process of being vacated; documentation must be provided once completed.
Rev2: Comment still valid; awaiting documentation.
20. [32.5.2(j,k,l)] Show all easements on the site plan and landscape plan sheets to demonstrate no site
conflicts exist.
Revi : Comment not fully addressed. ACSA will need to approve all proposed planting within
the sewer easement.
Rev2: Comment still valid; awaiting ACSA approval.
21. [32.5.2(m)] Show the distance to the centerline of the nearest existing street intersection from the
proposed ingress/egress.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
22. [32.5.2(n)] Dimension all walkways.
Revi : Comment addressed.
23. [32.5.2(n)] Dimension and provide the maximum height of all proposed retaining walls.
Revi : Comment not fully addressed. Provide the maximum height of the walls on the north
side of the building. Please also label and dimension the canopy over the building entrance.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
24. [32.5.2(n)] Dimension the dumpster pad and loading area.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
25. [32.5.2(n) & 4.12.18(d)] Delineate the loading area as required by 4.12.18(d).
Revi : Comment addressed.
26. [32.5.2(n)] Dimension all curb radii.
Revi : Comment addressed.
27. [32.5.2(n)] Provide a legend for the hatch/shade patterns to indicate the proposed paving materials.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
28. [32.5.2(i) & 4.12.15(f)] Provide an island at the end of the parking row adjacent to the emergency
turn -around area (see Engineering comments).
Revi : Comment addressed.
29. [4.12.16(e))] Bumper blocks are required where parking abuts a sidewalk less than 6' in width.
Revi : Comment addressed.
30. [32.5.2(r)] Provide a legend showing all symbols, abbreviations and hatch patterns used on the site
plan.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
31. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9] The site layout on the landscape plan does not match the layout shown on other
sheets; layout must be consistent throughout the plan set.
Revi : Comment addressed.
32. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9] Provide a landscape plan that meets the requirements of 32.7.9 including a plant
schedule listing plant species and size.
Rev1: Comment not addressed. See comments below.
Rev2: Comment not addressed. See comments below.
33. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9] Provide notes to verify compliance with landscape plan requirements (32.7.9.5.
32.7.9.6, 32.7.9.7 and 32.7.9.8).
Rev1: Comment not addressed; show and provide notes indicating how the plan meets the
sections listed. The modified parking lot on TMP61Z-3-5D will need to be shown on the plan to
demonstrate that street landscaping and parking lot landscaping requirements are adequately
met (this may have been done with the site plan that created that parking lot, but will need to
be shown on this plan since the parking lot is changing). Tree canopy information for all
plants that will be 5' or taller should be provided to demonstrate the tree canopy requirement
has been met.
Rev2: Comment not fully addressed:
1. Section 32.7.9.5: The modified parking lot on TMP61Z-3-5D is still not shown on the
site plan. This parking lot needs to be shown to verify that Section 32.7.9.5
(Landscaping along streets) has been met. SDP1996-119 was approved with both
street trees and screening shrubs as required by this section, but GIS does not show
either as being present on the site. Include the parking lot on the plan and either
existing or new landscaping that meets this section. Please also add one street tree to
the street frontage in front of the proposed building (TMP61Z-3-5A).
2. Section 32.7.9.6: This section (landscaping within a parking area) has likely been met,
but the note provided indicates the 5% requirement is tree canopy, when the actual
requirement is ground area. Provide a note indicating at least 5% of the paved parking
and vehicular circulation area has been provided in landscaped ground area in
islands. Additionally, it looks like one large shade tree has been provided (existing or
proposed) for every 10 parking spaces but a note should be included listing the
requirement and what has been provided.
3. Section 32.7.9.7: This section (screening) has been met through the proposed
dumpster enclosure (this note included for recordkeeping purposes).
4. Section 32.7.9.8: This section (tree canopy) appears to have been met, but there are a
few inconsistencies between the plant schedule on the Cover and the one provided on
the Landscape Plan sheet; verify that any plants being used to meet the tree canopy
requirement are consistent in both schedules. Additionally, it is unclear what the new
table on the Cover "Existing Trees Per As -built Landscape Plan" is demonstrating.
You need to show that the two subject parcels (TMP61Z-3-5A and TMP61Z-3-5D) have
adequate tree canopy, but this table does not provide information regarding where
these trees are located. Show the locations of any trees being used to meet this
requirement and either remove the "as -built" landscape chart or revise it to say
something like "existing landscape used toward tree canopy requirement".
5. Make sure the plant schedule includes information regarding the minimum planting
size of all proposed plants used to meet landscape plan requirements.
6. The demolition plan only shows four existing trees as being removed; please add a
note stating that no other existing landscaping is being removed with this plan.
7. A landscape easement will be needed for any off -site landscaping used to meet
Landscape Plan requirements or Condition of SP approval.
34. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9] The demolition plan indicates the removal of three large trees on the adjacent
parcel. Are these trees being replaced? Were they used to meet landscape requirements on the
associated site plan?
Revi : Comment not addressed. The comment response letter indicates that the trees will be
replaced, but the landscape plan does not seem to show this; please clarify. There is also
now another tree within the parking lot noted as being removed, but its replacement isn't
referenced on the landscape plan.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
35. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] Is any outdoor lighting proposed? If so, provide a photometric plan including a
Iuminaire schedule. The photometric plan must provide the following:
• The photometric values should extend to the property lines to verify the spillover requirement
is met.
• Manufacturer's cut -sheets indicating lumen level for each proposed fixture shall be included
in the plan set; fixtures 3000 lumen or higher (using a maintenance factor of 1.0) must meet
the County's definition of full cutoff.
• The model numbers shown on the cut -sheets must match those listed in the Iuminaire
schedule.
• Light fixtures should be shown on the layout/utility and landscape plans to verify that no site
conflicts exist.
• Show all existing and proposed light fixtures; all fixtures must be included in the photometric
calculations.
• Provide the following standard lighting note on the lighting plan: Each outdoor Iuminaire
equipped with a lamp that emits 3, 000 or more initial lumens shall be a full cutoff Iuminaire
and shall be arranged or shielded to reflect light away from adjoining residential districts and
away from adjacent roads. The spillover of lighting from luminaires onto public roads and
property in residential or rural areas zoning districts shall not exceed one-half foot-candle.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. Provide a cut sheet for the relocated light pole to
verify it meets the current lighting regulations (must be full cutoff). Revise the
photometric plan using a LLF of 1.0 for all fixtures to verify that the spillover on to the
townhouse lots on Lilac Court is under 0.5 fc.
Rev2: Comment addressed. Previous "relocated" light pole is now being removed.
36. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] The demolition plan indicates one light pole is being relocated but the plan doesn't
say where; please clarify.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
37. [SP201400010 Condition #1] This plan must be in general accord with the approved application
plan. The plan now includes a retaining wall between the building and the SW property line closest to
the townhouses on Lilac Court. Since this was an area of emphasis during the SP review, consult
with Zoning to determine if the proposed wall is in conformity with the approved application plan. A
revised elevation drawing may be required.
Revi : Comment addressed.
38. [SP201400010 Condition #7] Consult with Branchlands Property Owners Association regarding
landscaping and fencing on the southwest side of the building.
Rev1: Comment still valid; please have the Branchlands Property Owners Association
representative contact me with their comments after your meeting.
Rev2: Comment still valid.
39. [Comment] If any off -site easements are necessary, show them on the plan and consult with
Engineering about documentation necessary prior to site plan approval.
Rev1: Comment still valid.
Rev2: Comment still valid
40. [Comment] This amendment cannot be approved until all comments from the Site Review
Committee (SRC) have been addressed. Any comments not available at the time of the SRC
meeting will be forwarded once received.
Rev1: Comment still valid. ACSA and Inspections must complete their reviews and grant their
approval before the site plan can be approved. Engineering and Fire Rescue comments have
been provided. The WPO application must also be approved.
Rev2: Comment still valid. ACSA and Engineering must complete their reviews and grant their
approval before the site plan can be approved. Fire Rescue has completed their review and
has no objection. Inspections had no objection to the previous submittal. The WPO
application must also be approved.
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 and Services" 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.
If you have any questions about the comments please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Ellie Carter Ray, PLA
Senior Planner
Planning Division
�'jRGINZP
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
October 2, 2015
Revi : December 8, 2015
Craig Kotarski, P.E.
Timmons Group
919 2nd Street SE
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: SDP201500044 Branchlands Whistler House — Major Amendment
Dear Sir:
Your Major Amendment application has been reviewed. In order for the amended site plan to be
approved the following revisions are required:
1. [32.5.2(a)] Revise the title to indicate this plan amends SDP200100102.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
2. [32.5.2(a)] List previous ZMA and SP on the cover sheet (ZMA198000026 & SP198000063).
Rev1: Comment addressed.
3. [32.5.2(a)] Setbacks need to be established with this plan; provide a minimum (and maximum, if you
wish) front, side and rear setback requirement. It looks like the minimum setback for the SW property
line was established with the SP to be 20'6", for clarity you may want to make it 21'. The other side
can have a different setback if desired. See next comment for guidance on front and rear setbacks.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
4. [32.5.2(a) & SP201400010 Condition #11 The proposed building is closer to the property lines in
both the front and rear than what was shown on the approved application plan; please consult with
Zoning for a determination on whether or not this conforms with the application plan and what the
minimum setbacks should be to maintain conformity.
Revi : Comment addressed.
5. [32.5.2(a)] Provide the total number of sheets.
Revi : Comment addressed.
6. [32.5.2(a)] Provide the zoning district and present use of abutting parcels. Provide the required
information on all adjacent parcels; at least one isn't labeled.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
7. [32.5.2(b)] Provide information regarding the amount of open space provided; the approved SP
application plan indicated 25% was provided but this site plan doesn't reference open space.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
8. [32.5.2(b)] Provide the maximum height of the proposed building as defined in the Zoning
Ordinance.
Revi : Comment addressed. However, please note that there will be step -backs in the building
as a solid building wall of that height is not permitted.
9. [32.5.2(b)] Note where parking is being removed including how many spaces in each area. Clearly
show where parking is being removed as well as where it's being replaced (replaced should be
indicated with black lines not grey).
Rev1: Comment addressed.
10. [32.5.2(b) SP201400010 Condition #1] Comments provided below and by Engineering may result in
the loss of additional parking spaces; if so, consult with Zoning to determine if this is in conformity
with the approved application plan. A parking determination may be required.
Revi : Comment addressed.
11. [32.5.2(b)] Provide the maximum amount of paved parking and vehicular circulation.
Rev1: Comment not addressed. Provide this number for use in the landscape plan
calculations.
12. [32.5.2(d)] Clearly show and label all managed slopes on the site.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
13. [32.5.2(i)] Provide all travelway dimensions.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
14. [32.5.2(i)] Access to this site and much of the necessary parking seems to be provided on adjacent
parcels; clarify if easements are already in place.
Revi: Comment not fully addressed. Much of the parking is provided on TMP61Z-3-5D; is an
easement in place, or should this parcel be included in the application?
15. [32.5.2(i)] The entrance travelway is not a consistent width resulting is parking that is not parallel in
configuration; if the blank grey area across the travelway from the proposed 5 spaces is intended to
be parking, either reconfigure the travelway at a consistent 24' or indicate angled parking spaces in
this area.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
16. [32.5.2(i) & 4.12.16(c)(1)] The minimum travelway width adjacent to 9' wide parking is 24'. In some
areas this standard is not met; either remove parking, increase parking space width to 10' or adjust
the travelway to meet this standard.
Revi : Comment addressed.
17. [32.5.2(i) & 4.12.17(c)] The minimum two-way travelway width not adjacent to parking is 20'. In
some areas this standard is not met; either provide 20' travelways or indicate one-way travel and
direction.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
18. [32.5.2(j,k,l)] Verify that the location(s) and dimensions of all existing or proposed utilities and utility
easements including water, sewer, drainage, telephone, cable, electric and gas are shown on the
plan. Provide the Deed Book and Page reference for any existing easements. Any proposed
easements should be labeled with the intended owner.
Revi : Comment addressed.
19. [32.5.2(1)] The plan notes the vacation of an existing VEPCO easement; has this vacation been
authorized?
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. The comment response letter indicates this easement is
in the process of being vacated; documentation must be provided once completed.
20. [32.5.2(j,k,l)] Show all easements on the site plan and landscape plan sheets to demonstrate no site
conflicts exist.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. ACSA will need to approve all proposed planting within
the sewer easement.
21. [32.5.2(m)] Show the distance to the centerline of the nearest existing street intersection from the
proposed ingress/egress.
Revi : Comment addressed.
22. [32.5.2(n)] Dimension all walkways.
Revi : Comment addressed.
23. [32.5.2(n)] Dimension and provide the maximum height of all proposed retaining walls.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. Provide the maximum height of the walls on the north
side of the building. Please also label and dimension the canopy over the building entrance.
24. [32.5.2(n)] Dimension the dumpster pad and loading area.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
25. [32.5.2(n) & 4.12.18(d)] Delineate the loading area as required by 4.12.18(d).
Revi : Comment addressed.
26. [32.5.2(n)] Dimension all curb radii.
Revi : Comment addressed.
27. [32.5.2(n)] Provide a legend for the hatch/shade patterns to indicate the proposed paving materials.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
28. [32.5.2(i) & 4.12.15(f)] Provide an island at the end of the parking row adjacent to the emergency
turn -around area (see Engineering comments).
Revi : Comment addressed.
29. [4.12.16(e))] Bumper blocks are required where parking abuts a sidewalk less than 6' in width.
Revi : Comment addressed.
30. [32.5.2(r)] Provide a legend showing all symbols, abbreviations and hatch patterns used on the site
plan.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
31. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9] The site layout on the landscape plan does not match the layout shown on other
sheets; layout must be consistent throughout the plan set.
Revi : Comment addressed.
32. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9] Provide a landscape plan that meets the requirements of 32.7.9 including a plant
schedule listing plant species and size.
Rev1: Comment not addressed. See comments below.
33. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9] Provide notes to verify compliance with landscape plan requirements (32.7.9.5.
32.7.9.6, 32.7.9.7 and 32.7.9.8).
Rev1: Comment not addressed; show and provide notes indicating how the plan meets the
sections listed. The modified parking lot on TMP61Z-3-5D will need to be shown on the plan to
demonstrate that street landscaping and parking lot landscaping requirements are adequately
met (this may have been done with the site plan that created that parking lot, but will need to
be shown on this plan since the parking lot is changing). Tree canopy information for all
plants that will be 5' or taller should be provided to demonstrate the tree canopy requirement
has been met.
34. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9] The demolition plan indicates the removal of three large trees on the adjacent
parcel. Are these trees being replaced? Were they used to meet landscape requirements on the
associated site plan?
Rev1: Comment not addressed. The comment response letter indicates that the trees will be
replaced, but the landscape plan does not seem to show this; please clarify. There is also
now another tree within the parking lot noted as being removed, but its replacement isn't
referenced on the landscape plan.
35. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] Is any outdoor lighting proposed? If so, provide a photometric plan including a
luminaire schedule. The photometric plan must provide the following:
• The photometric values should extend to the property lines to verify the spillover requirement
is met.
• Manufacturer's cut -sheets indicating lumen level for each proposed fixture shall be included
in the plan set; fixtures 3000 lumen or higher (using a maintenance factor of 1.0) must meet
the County's definition of full cutoff.
• The model numbers shown on the cut -sheets must match those listed in the luminaire
schedule.
• Light fixtures should be shown on the layout/utility and landscape plans to verify that no site
conflicts exist.
• Show all existing and proposed light fixtures; all fixtures must be included in the photometric
calculations.
• Provide the following standard lighting note on the lighting plan: Each outdoor luminaire
equipped with a lamp that emits 3, 000 or more initial lumens shall be a full cutoff luminaire
and shall be arranged or shielded to reflect light away from adjoining residential districts and
away from adjacent roads. The spillover of lighting from luminaires onto public roads and
property in residential or rural areas zoning districts shall not exceed one-half foot-candle.
Revi : Comment not fully addressed. Provide a cut sheet for the relocated light pole to
verify it meets the current lighting regulations (must be full cutoff). Revise the
photometric plan using a LLF of 1.0 for all fixtures to verify that the spillover on to the
townhouse lots on Lilac Court is under 0.5 fc.
36. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] The demolition plan indicates one light pole is being relocated but the plan doesn't
say where; please clarify.
Revi : Comment addressed.
37. [SP201400010 Condition #1] This plan must be in general accord with the approved application
plan. The plan now includes a retaining wall between the building and the SW property line closest to
the townhouses on Lilac Court. Since this was an area of emphasis during the SP review, consult
with Zoning to determine if the proposed wall is in conformity with the approved application plan. A
revised elevation drawing may be required.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
38. [SP201400010 Condition #7] Consult with Branchlands Property Owners Association regarding
landscaping and fencing on the southwest side of the building.
Rev1: Comment still valid; please have the Branchlands Property Owners Association
representative contact me with their comments after your meeting.
39. [Comment] If any off -site easements are necessary, show them on the plan and consult with
Engineering about documentation necessary prior to site plan approval.
Revi : Comment still valid.
40. [Comment] This amendment cannot be approved until all comments from the Site Review
Committee (SRC) have been addressed. Any comments not available at the time of the SRC
meeting will be forwarded once received.
Rev1: Comment still valid. ACSA and Inspections must complete their reviews and grant their
approval before the site plan can be approved. Engineering and Fire Rescue comments have
been provided. The WPO application must also be approved.
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 and Services" 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.
If you have any questions about the comments please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Ellie Carter Ray, PLA
Senior Planner
Planning Division
�'jRGINZP
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832
Fax (434) 972-4126
October 2, 2015
Craig Kotarski, P.E.
Timmons Group
919 2nd Street SE
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: SDP201500044 Branchlands Whistler House — Major Amendment
Dear Sir:
Your Major Amendment application has been reviewed. In order for the amended site plan to be
approved the following revisions are required:
1. [32.5.2(a)] Revise the title to indicate this plan amends SDP200100102.
2. [32.5.2(a)] List previous ZMA and SP on the cover sheet (ZMA198000026 & SP198000063).
3. [32.5.2(a)] Setbacks need to be established with this plan; provide a minimum (and maximum, if you
wish) front, side and rear setback requirement. It looks like the minimum setback for the SW property
line was established with the SP to be 20'6", for clarity you may want to make it 21'. The other side
can have a different setback if desired. See next comment for guidance on front and rear setbacks.
4. [32.5.2(a) & SP201400010 Condition #1] The proposed building is closer to the property lines in
both the front and rear than what was shown on the approved application plan; please consult with
Zoning for a determination on whether or not this conforms with the application plan and what the
minimum setbacks should be to maintain conformity.
5. [32.5.2(a)] Provide the total number of sheets.
6. [32.5.2(a)] Provide the zoning district and present use of abutting parcels. Provide the required
information on all adjacent parcels; at least one isn't labeled.
7. [32.5.2(b)] Provide information regarding the amount of open space provided; the approved SP
application plan indicated 25% was provided but this site plan doesn't reference open space.
8. [32.5.2(b)] Provide the maximum height of the proposed building as defined in the Zoning
Ordinance.
9. [32.5.2(b)] Note where parking is being removed including how many spaces in each area. Clearly
show where parking is being removed as well as where it's being replaced (replaced should be
indicated with black lines not grey).
10. [32.5.2(b) SP201400010 Condition #1] Comments provided below and by Engineering may result in
the loss of additional parking spaces; if so, consult with Zoning to determine if this is in conformity
with the approved application plan. A parking determination may be required.
11. [32.5.2(b)] Provide the maximum amount of paved parking and vehicular circulation.
12. [32.5.2(d)] Clearly show and label all managed slopes on the site.
13. [32.5.2(i)] Provide all travelway dimensions.
14. [32.5.2(i)] Access to this site and much of the necessary parking seems to be provided on adjacent
parcels; clarify if easements are already in place.
15. [32.5.2(i)] The entrance travelway is not a consistent width resulting is parking that is not parallel in
configuration; if the blank grey area across the travelway from the proposed 5 spaces is intended to
be parking, either reconfigure the travelway at a consistent 24' or indicate angled parking spaces in
this area.
16. [32.5.2(i) & 4.12.16(c)(1)] The minimum travelway width adjacent to 9' wide parking is 24'. In some
areas this standard is not met; either remove parking, increase parking space width to 10' or adjust
the travelway to meet this standard.
17. [32.5.2(i) & 4.12.17(c)] The minimum two-way travelway width not adjacent to parking is 20'. In
some areas this standard is not met; either provide 20' travelways or indicate one-way travel and
direction.
18. [32.5.2(j,k,I)] Verify that the location(s) and dimensions of all existing or proposed utilities and utility
easements including water, sewer, drainage, telephone, cable, electric and gas are shown on the
plan. Provide the Deed Book and Page reference for any existing easements. Any proposed
easements should be labeled with the intended owner.
19. [32.5.2(1)] The plan notes the vacation of an existing VEPCO easement; has this vacation been
authorized?
20. [32.5.2(j,k,I)] Show all easements on the site plan and landscape plan sheets to demonstrate no site
conflicts exist.
21. [32.5.2(m)] Show the distance to the centerline of the nearest existing street intersection from the
proposed ingress/egress.
22. [32.5.2(n)] Dimension all walkways.
23. [32.5.2(n)] Dimension and provide the maximum height of all proposed retaining walls.
24. [32.5.2(n)] Dimension the dumpster pad and loading area.
25. [32.5.2(n) & 4.12.18(d)] Delineate the loading area as required by 4.12.18(d).
26. [32.5.2(n)] Dimension all curb radii.
27. [32.5.2(n)] Provide a legend for the hatch/shade patterns to indicate the proposed paving materials.
28. [32.5.2(i) & 4.12.15(f)] Provide an island at the end of the parking row adjacent to the emergency
turn -around area (see Engineering comments).
29. [4.12.16(e))] Bumper blocks are required where parking abuts a sidewalk less than 6' in width.
30. [32.5.2(r)] Provide a legend showing all symbols, abbreviations and hatch patterns used on the site
plan.
31. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9] The site layout on the landscape plan does not match the layout shown on other
sheets; layout must be consistent throughout the plan set.
32. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9] Provide a landscape plan that meets the requirements of 32.7.9 including a plant
schedule listing plant species and size.
33. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9] Provide notes to verify compliance with landscape plan requirements (32.7.9.5.
32.7.9.6, 32.7.9.7 and 32.7.9.8).
34. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9] The demolition plan indicates the removal of three large trees on the adjacent
parcel. Are these trees being replaced? Were they used to meet landscape requirements on the
associated site plan?
35. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] Is any outdoor lighting proposed? If so, provide a photometric plan including a
luminaire schedule. The photometric plan must provide the following:
• The photometric values should extend to the property lines to verify the spillover requirement
is met.
• Manufacturer's cut -sheets indicating lumen level for each proposed fixture shall be included
in the plan set; fixtures 3000 lumen or higher (using a maintenance factor of 1.0) must meet
the County's definition of full cutoff.
• The model numbers shown on the cut -sheets must match those listed in the luminaire
schedule.
• Light fixtures should be shown on the layout/utility and landscape plans to verify that no site
conflicts exist.
• Show all existing and proposed light fixtures; all fixtures must be included in the photometric
calculations.
• Provide the following standard lighting note on the lighting plan: Each outdoor luminaire
equipped with a lamp that emits 3, 000 or more initial lumens shall be a full cutoff luminaire
and shall be arranged or shielded to reflect light away from adjoining residential districts and
away from adjacent roads. The spillover of lighting from luminaires onto public roads and
property in residential or rural areas zoning districts shall not exceed one-half foot-candle.
36. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] The demolition plan indicates one light pole is being relocated but the plan doesn't
say where; please clarify.
37. [SP201400010 Condition #1] This plan must be in general accord with the approved application
plan. The plan now includes a retaining wall between the building and the SW property line closest to
the townhouses on Lilac Court. Since this was an area of emphasis during the SP review, consult
with Zoning to determine if the proposed wall is in conformity with the approved application plan. A
revised elevation drawing may be required.
38. [SP201400010 Condition #7] Consult with Branchlands Property Owners Association regarding
landscaping and fencing on the southwest side of the building.
39. [Comment] If any off -site easements are necessary, show them on the plan and consult with
Engineering about documentation necessary prior to site plan approval.
40. [Comment] This amendment cannot be approved until all comments from the Site Review
Committee (SRC) have been addressed. Any comments not available at the time of the SRC
meeting will be forwarded once received.
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 and Services" 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.
If you have any questions about the comments please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Ellie Carter Ray, PLA
Senior Planner
Planning Division
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E. Culpeper. Virginia 22701
Commissioner
October 1, 2015
Ms. Ellie Carter Ray
Senior Planner
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: SDP-2015-00044 Branchlands Whistler House — Major Site Plan Amendment
Dear Ms. Ray,
We have reviewed the major site plan amendment for the Branchlands Memory Care & Assisted
Living facility dated 8/24I15 as submitted Timmons electronically and offer the following
comments:
1. VDOT has no objection to the major site plan amendment as submitted.
If you need additional information concerning this project, please do not hesitate to contact me at
(434) 422-9782.
Sincerely,
Troy Austin, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Culpeper District
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Ellie Ray, Planning
From: Justin Deel, Engineering
Date: 1 October 2015
Subject: Branchlands Memory Care & Assisted Living
Major Site Plan Amendment (SDP-2015-00044)
The major site plan amendment for Branchlands Memory Care & Assisted Living has been
reviewed by Engineering. The following concerns should be addressed prior to approval;
1. Note that a retaining wall, which was not on the conceptual plan associated with
SP201400010, is now being proposed along the northwest boundary and western corner
of the parcel. The wall reaches a maximum height of approximately 11 feet (at the
western corner) and is as close as approximately 7 feet to the parcel boundary. Aside
from any Zoning concerns that may arise due to the inclusion of such a wall, it is not
recommended that retaining walls be any closer than a distance equal to the wall height
from the property line. Regardless, sealed retaining wall plans must be provided. Also,
the wall's proximity to the channel could potentially be an issue, and will be addressed in
the VSMP review.
2. Please remove the VSMP package components (SWM, ESC, storm drainage) from the
site plan. These items are being reviewed under the current VSMP/WPO application.
Note that the WPO will need to be approved before the site plan is approved.
3. A drainage plan, including a drainage area map, computations, and profiles, must be
provided and approved. The drainage plan can be part of the site plan or VSMP plan.
See drainage plan checklist at:
hqp://www.albemarle.org/deptforms.asp?department--cdengwpo
4. Show existing managed slopes on plan. Please make your drawings match the overlay
district maps. Proposed retaining walls, cuts/fills, etc., on slopes that are marked as
managed slopes must follow the design guidelines of ACC 18-30.7.5. This cannot be
confirmed, as the overlay is not being shown.
5. Sidewalks abutting parking must be at least 6' wide [Albemarle County Design Standard
Manual], unless bumper blocks or an unobstructed (grass) overhang are provided. Also,
4' sidewalk at the northern loading area; sidewalks must be at least 5 feet wide, if not
abutting parking. Please adjust. See image below.
Albemarle County Community Development
Engineering Review comments
Page 2 of 3
ti"riuL
19" p rt kilt .cp- ".
6'
sidnualli
6""rulL
19 1. n killn ,SFl if P4
- to 1:�r u�
�•
Lmnpel Llork
.cl�lpx�alk
6" nssL —
I11LL1
16" 1911C]ll1,1 cytie,c
cidx n -illti
6. Parking:
a. Please show all pavement markings. Is the drive aisle to remain one-way?
b. All parking rows must be protected by curbing or curbed islands. Please remove
or reconfigure the hatched spaces (below) so that they are fully protected by
curbing and/or do not overlap with the emergency vehicle turnaround. Note that
curbed islands must be at least 3' in width.
c. The parking area to the east (? below) cannot be used as parking if the parking to
the west and the drive aisle are to be reconfigured as proposed. Angled parking
may be provided at sixty, forty-five, or thirty degrees from the access aisle [18-
4.12.16(a)].
d. Parking space dimensions must be at least 10'x18' [18-4.12.16(c.l)]. While your
drive aisle may increase to at least 24 feet, it is only 21 feet at the entrance.
,ps 2" DOME
m
l� ? 2
21 0 I-n -- 6" FIRE l
e-way?
,/- (2) 22.5" BE
DADING
AREA
OUT
TYP)
Albemarle County Community Development
Engineering Review comments
Page 3 of 3
/TOP=43271'
provide curbed INV. IN=425.30' E
iSl d INV IN=424.86'(
STUB -OUT, SIZE
INV. OUT=424.7.
�— MANHOLE TO B
EMERGE
VEHICLE
TURNAR-
AREA
e. The curbed island at the loading area (below) makes the travelway too narrow.
The minimum is 20', if no parking. This also makes the existing spaces hatched
below unusable. Where does parking resume here? There should be a curbed
island at the first space if this is becoming a two-way travelway.
(2) 45° BENDS
here does parking
r sume? a curb island
i needed if this is
/ ecoming 2-way.
DS
`—TIE TO I
/ + travelways must be at
least 20' wide, if no
parking
n 2" DOMESTIC LINE
Ellie Ray
From: Alex Morrison <amorrison@serviceauthority.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 3:54 PM
To: vfort@rivanna.org; Ellie Ray
Subject: RE: SDP201500044 Branchlands Whistler House - Major Site Plan Amendment
Victoria,
I believe that analysis is representative of the wastewater flows. I agree that no Capacity Certification is required for this
project.
Alexander J. Morrison, P.E.
Civil Engineer
Albemarle County Service Authority
168 Spotnap Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22911
(0) 434-977-4511 Ext. 116
(C) 434-981-5577
(F) 434-979-0698
From: Victoria Fort [mailto:vfort@rivanna.org]
Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 11:32 AM
To: Ellie Ray
Cc: 'amorrison@serviceauthority.org'
Subject: RE: SDP201500044 Branchlands Whistler House - Major Site Plan Amendment
Ellie,
I looked over the plans and don't believe the site will have any impacts on RWSA facilities. I have estimated that the
proposed facility will produce approximately 16,600 gpd of sewage based on 200/bed at Nursing home facilities.
Therefore, this project will not require a capacity certification from RWSA. All utility connections will be made to existing
ACSA facilities, so no further RWSA review or inspection are necessary for this project.
Alex -- if you believe a different basis for estimating flows should be used for this facility, please let me know.
Thanks a lot,
Victoria
Victoria Fort, P.E.
Civil Engineer
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority
695 Moores Creek Lane
Charlottesville, VA 22902
(P): (434) 977-2970 ext. 205
(F): (434) 295-1146
From: Ellie Ray [mailto:eray(sbalbemarle.org]
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2015 2:29 PM
To: John Anderson; Alex Morrison; Andrew Slack; Margaret Maliszewski; Troy Austin; Robbie Gilmer; Victoria Fort; Jay
Schlothauer
Subject: SDP201500044 Branchlands Whistler House - Major Site Plan Amendment
on
The above noted application was submitted this week for SRC review. It is an electronic submittal, so I will initiate a
Bluebeam session shortly. Bluebeam will send an email letting you know the session has been started and allowing you
access to the file. Carla will send out the normal SRC notification letter, but I have copied the legal ad below for your
information. For those of you that don't want to use Bluebeam, you can access the file on laserfiche using the link in the
legal ad (either below or when Carla sends it). Please provide your comments by October S`"
Mandy is now out on maternity leave, so I am taking over coordination of the electronic plan review process; please let
me know if you have any questions, concerns or comments. Thanks!
PROJECT: SDP201500044 Branchlands Whistler House — Major Site Plan Amendment (Electronic Plan Review)
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 061ZO-03-00-005AO
LOCATION: Located on Branchlands Dr. approximately 125 feet north of the intersection of Lilac Court and Branchlands
Dr.
PROPOSAL: Request for a 83 unit memory care and assisted living facility on .97 acres associated with SP201400010.
ZONING: PUD-Planned Unit Development - residential (3 — 34 units per acre), mixed with commercial, service and
industrial uses.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Neighborhood 2 — Places 29: Urban Density Residential -residential (6.01— 34 units/acre);
supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, commercial, office and service uses.
Ellie Carter Ray, PLA, LEED GREEN ASSOCIATE
Senior Planner
Albemarle County Community Development
Planning Division
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
ph: 434.296.5832 x. 3432
fax: 434.972.4126
Ellie Ray
From: Alex Morrison <amorrison@serviceauthority.org>
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2015 12:10 PM
To: Ellie Ray
Subject: SDP201500044: Branchlands Whitsler House - Major Site Plan Amendment
Ellie,
I have reviewed the electronic submittal for the above referenced project. Please instruct the applicant to submit 3 hard
copies of the plan to the ACSA (Attn: Michael Vieira, PE) for construction review.
Alexander J. Morrison, P.E.
Civil Engineer
Albemarle County Service Authority
168 Spotnap Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22911
(0) 434-977-4511 Ext. 116
(C) 434-981-5577
(F) 434-979-0698
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Ellie Ray, Planning
From: Justin Deel, Engineering
Date: 1 October 2015
(Rev. 1) 7 December 2015
Subject: Branchlands Memory Care & Assisted Living
Major Site Plan Amendment (SDP-2015-00044)
The major site plan amendment resubmission for Branchlands Memory Care & Assisted Living
has been reviewed by Engineering. With the exception of the following, previous engineering
comments have been adequately addressed.
4. Show existing managed slopes on plan. Please make your drawings match the overlay
district maps. Proposed retaining walls, cuts/fills, etc., on slopes that are marked as
managed slopes must follow the design guidelines of ACC 18-30.7.5. This cannot be
confirmed, as the overlay is not being shown.
(Rev.1) The maximum single retaining wall height within the steep (managed) slopes
overlay district is 6 feet [18-30.7.51. This plan proposes retaining walls within the
managed slopes overlay district in excess of 6 feet in 2 locations; at the proposed
retaining wall along the western portion of the site and at the proposed walls between the
existing building and proposed building. Walls that are incorporated into the design of a
building are not subject to this limitation. Please request that the applicant adjust the
design at these locations to meet the design standards in 18-30.7.5.
file: SDP201500044 Engineering Review Rl.doe
P
:ffpitie*
Pnioth
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Ellie Ray, Planning
From: Justin Deel, Engineering
Date: 1 October 2015
(Rev. 1) 7 December 2015
Subject: Branchlands Memory Care &Assisted Living
Major Site Plan Amendment(SDP-2015-00044)
The major site plan amendment resubmission for Branchlands Memory Care&Assisted Living
has been reviewed by Engineering. With the exception of the following,previous engineering
comments have been adequately addressed.
4. Show existing managed slopes on plan. Please make your drawings match the overlay
district maps. Proposed retaining walls, cuts/fills, etc., on slopes that are marked as
managed slopes must follow the design guidelines of ACC 18-30.7.5. This cannot be
confirmed, as the overlay is not being shown.
(Rev. 1) The maximum single retaining wall height within the steep(managed)slopes
overlay district is 6 feet [18-30.7.5]. This plan proposes retaining walls within the
managed slopes overlay district in excess of 6 feet in 2 locations; at the proposed
retaining wall along the western portion of the site and at the proposed walls between the
existing building and proposed building. Walls that are incorporated into the design of a
building are not subject to this limitation. Please request that the applicant adjust the
design at these locations to meet the design standards in 18-30.7.5. •
file.SDI201500044 Engineering Review RI doe
PAL-
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper.WgiSa 22701
Charles A.Kilpatrick,P.E.
Commissioner
October 1, 2015
Ms. Ellie Carter Ray
Senior Planner
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville,VA 22902
Re: SDP-2015-00044 Branchlands Whistler House—Major Site Plan Amendment
Dear Ms. Ray,
We have reviewed the major site plan amendment for the Branchlands Memory Care&Assisted
Living facility dated 8/24/15 as submitted Timmons electronically and offer the following
comments:
1. VDOT has no objection to the major site plan amendment as submitted. •
If you need additional information concerning this project, please do not hesitate to contact me at
(434)422-9782.
Sincerely,
Troy Austin, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Culpeper District
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING