HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP202000030 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2020-06-01CLOY Aj,B,
�l=
�r �f
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, VA, 22902
Phone 434-296-5832
Memorandum
To: Jonathan Showalter, PE
From: Paty Saternye, Senior Planner
Division: Planning
Date: June 1, 2020
Subiect: SDP202000030 ChattanooLya — Colonnade Drive — Final Site Plan
Fax 434-972-4126
The County of Albemarle Planning Division will recommend approval of the plan referenced above
once the following comments have been satisfactorily addressed (The following comments are those
that have been identified at this time. Additional comments or conditions may be added or eliminated
based on further review.): [Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference, which is to the
Subdivision/Zoning Ordinances unless otherwise specified.]
Initial Site Plan Comments (from conditional approval letter dated 8/21/19 [UPDATED:
2. A site plan meeting all the requirements of section 32.6 of Chapter 18 of the Code.
Final: Comment not yet fully addressed. Address the comments below.
[4.20] Setbacks. Address the following:
a) Revise the setback descriptions to fully specify the setback requirements. There are special
circumstances both for parking setbacks and when a sidewalk is outside of the street right of
way that apply to these parcels and therefore should be included in the setback descriptions.
i. Revise the front setback to include the wording about when the sidewalk is outside of the
ROW.
Final: Comment not vet addressed. Despite the sidewalk now being shown outside the
parcel this additional setback description should be included.
ii. Revise the front setback to specify the setback for parking and loading.
Final: Comment not vet fully addressed. Revision has been done for the description on
the cover sheet but not in the label on the existing conditions and site plan sheets.
e) Final: [NEW COMMENTI The maximum front setback is not specified on the cover sheet or
shown on the plan sheets. Add the maximum front setbacks to into the site plan wherever
setbacks are specified or labeled.
4. [21.7(c)] Use buffer adjacent to residential and rural area districts. Revise site plan to meet the
undisturbed buffer requirements and the screening requirements for both sides of the properties
that are adjacent to a residentially zoned property. This includes the City parcel behind the
subject parcels. "No construction activity including grading or clearing of vegetation shall occur
closer than twenty (20) feet to any residential or rural areas districts. Screening shall be provided
as required in section 32.7.9." Because the 20' buffer must be left undisturbed the screening
requirement must be met outside of the 20' buffer area unless a special exception is granted by
the Board of Supervisors. No clearing, grading or improvements can be done in the 20' buffer
without a special exception being granted. See 21.7(c) for a list of the specific circumstances
when the BOS may waive these requirements.
Final: Comment not yet fully addressed. Address the following:
a) As stated above, because the 20' buffer to residentially zoned parcels must be left undisturbed
the screening requirement must be met outside of the 20' buffer area. Plantings are shown
within the 20' undisturbed buffer. Although they are close to the edge of the buffer, they are
still within it. They must be moved outside of the buffer unless a special exception request is
submitted, reviewed and then granted by the Board of Supervisors. Special Exceptions are
done by separate application and fee.
b) On the Demolition Plan sheet the "Clear and Grub Wooded Area" hatching goes into the 20'
undisturbed buffer. No disturbance is allowed within the 20' undisturbed buffer. Revise the
site plan to ensure that no disturbance, even grading and clearing (and landscaping as
specified above) is shown in the buffer.
c) Ensure that the removal of the existing pipe, located in the drainage easement to be vacated,
does not disturb the undisturbed buffer. The pipe is shown as being removed in the Grading
and Drainage Plan. Specify on the site plan how this will be accomplished without disturbing
the undisturbed buffer.
6. [Comment] If a Boundary Line Adjustment (BLA) will be done in order to address this offsite
parking show this in the site plan. If this is to be done a BLA Plat will be required under a separate
submission and with appropriate fees.
Final: Comment not yet addressed. The Boundary Line Adjustment plat must be submitted,
reviewed, approved and recorded prior to final site plan approval. Including it in the plat with any
the required easements would be appropriate but it can be submitted separately if preferred. If
they are not part of the same plat, they will require a separate applications and fees.
7. [32.5.1(c) & 32.5.2(a)] General information. Address the following:
a) Include in the Zoning area of the cover sheet the ZMA# (ZMA1998-16) for TMP60-40C3, the
Airport Impact overlay, and the Steep Slopes — Managed overlay information.
Final: Comment not yet fully addressed. Although all of the information specified has been
added to the coversheet the ZMA is only listed under the Tax Map Parcel and Owner Info
area. Also add ZMA1998-16 to the "Zoning:" section of the coversheet notes. Since it applies
to only TMP 60-40C3 included after it "(TMP 60-40C3 only)".
b) There are proffers for ZMA1998-16. They should be included in the site plan sheets.
Final: Comment not yet fully addressed. Although the proffers have been added Sheets 18-
24-2 & 18-24-3 appear to be out of order, which could cause confusion. Please reorder the
sheets so that they will not be misinterpreted (By -Right vs. Special Exception).
e) Provide all of the required information for the abutting parcel that is in the city. That parcel is a
residential parcel. See other comments in reference to requirements for commercial uses
adjoining residentially zoned parcels.
Final: Comment not yet fully addressed. Although some of the required information was
provided for the parcel across the Charlottesville boundary not all was provided and some of
the required information has been removed from the other adioininq lots. Address the
following:
i. Add the current use and zoning for the adioininq parcel within the City.
ii. Add back in the current use and zoning for the adioininq parcels within the County.
f) Final: [NEW COMMENTI The bearing and distances for the existing parcels has been
removed from the existing conditions sheet. Provide the subject parcels boundary information.
8. [32.5.2(d)] Topography and proposed grading. Address the following:
a) The Managed Steep Slopes, although shown on the sheets with the proposed layout, are hard
to distinguish except on the existing conditions sheet. Use hatching, or some other method,
on at least one of the proposed sheets so that it is clear the improvements that will impact the
managed slopes.
Final: Comment not vet fully addressed. Address the following:
i. The managed steep slopes are no longer shown on the existinq conditions sheet. Show
them on that sheet and ensure they are clearly labeled.
ii. Although the managed steep slopes are shown in the site plan sheet the areas are not
labeled and the hatch is not included in the legend. Ensure that the steep slopes areas
arP IahPlPd_
9. [32.5.2(f)] Watercourses and other bodies of water. The site plan does not show the existing
stream in the same location as the County's, or City's, GIS. Address the following:
b) Address engineering comments in reference to any disturbance of the stream or buffer.
Final: Comment not vet fullv addressed. Address the enaineerina comments in reference to
the stream buffer.
c) Provide the watershed note on the cover sheet of the site plan.
Final: Comment not vet fully addressed. A note specifying what watershed the parcels are in
was added, but this note does not vet include information on whether it is located within the
watershed of a public water supply reservoir. Provide that information as well.
10. [32.5.2(i)] Streets, easements and travelways. Address the following:
c) Final: [NEW COMMENT] Add a label to Colonnade Drive stating that it is a private street.
11. [32.5.20)] Existing sewer and drainage facilities. If the proposed retaining walls remain where
they are shown on the initial site plan, provide documentation that allows the building of retaining
walls within the existing drainage easement.
Final: Comment not vet fullv addressed. The existina drainaae easement is now shown as beinc
vacated in the demolition plan. However, please note that this requires that the vacation is
included in a plat, submitted, reviewed and approved prior to the final site plan approval.
12. [32.5.2(k)] Private & public easements. Address the following:
a) It appears that a public stormwater management easement will be required.
Final: Comment not vet addressed. See comment below about required easements.
c) Any easements required by the County must have the easement plat submitted (separate
application, fee and submission) and approved prior to the approval of the final site plan.
Final: Comment not vet addressed. Address the comment.
13. [32.5.2(1)] Existing and proposed utilities. Address the following:
c) Show any proposed utility easement. The submission, review, approval and recordation of a
plat and deeds of easement for all proposed easements will be prior to final site plan approval.
Final: Comment not yet addressed. Address the comment.
15. [32.5.2(n)] Existing and proposed improvements. Address the following:
c) Provide all dimensions and components of the dumpster pad and ensure they meet or exceed
the minimum requirements.
Final: Comment not vet fully addressed. Since the concrete pad that extends out from the
dumpster enclosure is not shown or dimensioned in the enclosure detail, provide the
dimension of the concrete pad extension beyond the enclosure in the site plan sheet.
3
f) There are not enough parking spaces provided to meet the minimum parking requirements for
the proposed use. If the applicant wishes to request a reduction in the required parking, follow
the steps specified in section 4.12.12 in reference to Transportation Demand Management
(TDM). An applicant seeking to reduce the number of required parking spaces through TDM
shall submit to the zoning administrator a parking study demonstrating how the number of
required parking spaces may be reduced through TDM. TDM is a set of tools that provide an
alternative to parking spaces upon a demonstration that the number of vehicle trips upon
which the minimum number of parking spaces required herein will be reduced. TDM tools
include, but are not limited to, mass transit, car pooling, and park and ride lots. The zoning
administrator may reduce the number of on -site parking spaces using TDM alternatives if the
parking study submitted by the applicant demonstrates that the use of TDM tools can
effectively eliminate the need for some of the required parking spaces. If this option interests
you please make the request, provide the study with appropriate justifications for the Zoning
Administrator's consideration.
Final: Comment not vet fully addressed. The square footage of the building has decreased,
and the comment response letter states that sufficient parking is now provided. However, the
parking calculation provided is not correct. The parking calculation has been revised to be
1/250 SF, which does not match the "Offices, business, administrative and professional
(including medical offices but not dental clinics)" requirement. Show the full parking
calculation (showing the "net floor area" calculation of 80% of the "gross floor area") and show
the correct calculation of 1 space for every 200 SF of net floor area, and not 250 SF.
g) Provide the required loading space on the site plan.
Final: Comment not vet addressed. Office uses reauires loadina spaces. Provide the
required loading space.
h) Please note that business signage is not approved with the site plan. Although it is
appropriate to show the monument sign location on the site plan please not that a full review of
the location, dimensions, and details of any business signage is reviewed separately from the
site plan.
UPDATE: Although as specified above signs are not reviewed and approved with the site plan
one modification should be made in the site plan. Revise the monument (Freestanding) sign
location to meet the minimum setback for freestanding signs in the HC zoning district
(4.15.11). The sign shown is closer than 5' to what appears to be the property line and
therefore must be relocated.
Final: Comment not vet fully addressed. Comment was addressed, however standards on
showing free standing monument signs in site plans have changed since initial site plan
comments were written. Remove the free-standing monument sign from the site plan.
Requirements for 4.15.11 still apply, and review of the location, dimensions and details of the
business signage are still done through a separate application, submission and fee.
i) Provide the required handicapped parking space signage.
Final: Comment not vet addressed. The parking signage has been shown and a detail has
been provided. However, please revise the "Typical Parking Space Detail" so that the bumper
blocks (or wheel stops) do not go into the hatch access aisles.
j) Final: [NEW COMMENTI Revise the proposed sidewalk within the parcel to be a minimum of
5' in width at all times. When adjacent to the parking spaces the parking space must have a
wheel stops unless the sidewalk is widened to a minimum of 6' in width. Address the
following:
i. The minimum width of the sidewalk does not include the curb. This is demonstrated in
Design Standard Manual on page 17. Widen the sidewalks to provide the required
widths.
ii. In areas where there is the Canopy Columns this restricts the width of the sidewalk.
Ensure both the minimum width and wheel stops requirements are met along both sides
of the building with the canopy columns.
4
16. [32.5.2.(e), 32.5.2.(p) & 32.6.20)] Landscape plan. A landscape plan is required in the final site
plan that complies with section 32.7.9. A landscape plan was submitted but requires additional
information for the final site plan. Such information should include, but is not limited to, the
following:
c) Revise calculation so that required number of trees is rounded up and not down, such as in
the street tree calculation.
Final: Comment not vet fully addressed. Although there are sufficient street trees provided,
the street tree calculation is rounded down instead of up. Revise this calculation.
e) Conservation checklist (signed, dated & filled out). Please note that there are areas required
to be maintained as "undisturbed buffers" (see other comments on required buffers). All
existing vegetation in those areas must be undisturbed and conserved.
Final: Comment not vet fully addressed. The conservation check list must be signed by the
owner prior to final site plan approval.
g) Show shrubs that will be provided in the planting areas of the parking lot.
Final: Comment not vet fully addressed. Revise the Interior Parking Lot Landscaping areas to
only include areas adjacent to the parking spaces that has landscaping in them. Three of the
landscaping areas shown in the upper right corner appear to have no landscaping in them.
Either ensure these areas have plantings in them or revise the area exhibit to show areas with
plantings.
h) Screening of the parking lot from the two adjoining residentially zoned parcels (TMP60-40C4 &
Parcel 7-1.101 in the City).
Final: Comment not vet fully addressed. Address the following:
i. As stated in comments above, revise the planting locations so that no plantings are
proposed within the undisturbed buffer.
ii. Plantings at the base of a retaining wall, when the parking is at the top of the retaining
wall, will not screen the parking from the residentially zoning adjoining lots. If plantings
are utilized for screening the parking lot then they must be in a place that would actually
screen the parking and meet all requirements for screening in 32.7.9.7 (b, c, d & e). A
single line of shrubs, even if of the right species and size, would not meet the minimum
requirements for screening.
iii. With the walls adjacent to the parking spaces other forms of screening may be
appropriate, other than plantings. See 32.7.9.7 (b, c, d & e) for the requirements and
options for screening, such as fencing.
iv. If a fence will be on the top of any of the retaining walls ensure that they are shown,
labeled, and a detail (meeting all minimums) is provided in the site plan. Please note
that an HR-1 railing does not appear meet the minimum requirements for parking lot
screening to an adjacent residentially zoned parcel.
i) Screening of the required loading space and dumpster location.
Final: Comment not vet fully addressed. A detail for the dumpster enclosure has been
provided, however no loading space has been shown and is required. Once the loading space
is shown on the site plan ensure it meets the screening requirements to residentially zoned
adloininq parcels. See 32.7.9.7 (b, c, d & e) for requirement and options.
j) Final — [NEW COMMENTI: Revise the site plan to show the tree protection fencing on the
landscaping, grading and demolition plan sheets. Ensure that all wooded areas within the
undisturbed buffer. as well as other trees beina preserved. have tree protection fencina shown.
17. [32.5.2(n) & 32.6.2(k)] Outdoor lighting. A photometric plan is required on the final site plan that
meets all requirements of section 4.17. Ensure the photometric plan includes all free standing and
wall mounted lighting that is proposed.
Final: Comment not vet fully addressed. Address the following:
a) Add the photometric plan to the site plan. It needs to be integrated into the site plan and not
submitted separately.
b) Revise the photometric plan to show footcandles for full parcel, not must portions of parcel, and
to all parcel boundaries. There should be no gaps, such as the 20' from the retaining wall to
the boundary with the City parcel.
5
c) Revise the Luminaire Data chart and photometric plan to be based upon 1.00 LLF for all light
fixtures.
d) Provide the manufactures cut sheets, including images of the unit and all options. Ensure that
the "Description" in the Luminaire Data chart matches the options in the manufacture cuts
sheets provided.
e) Ensure that any luminaire with a maximum of 3,000 more are full cut off.
f) Clarify what "Arr." is an abbreviation for in the Luminaire Data chart. The values provided
should be "Maximums". If "Arr. Lum. Lumens" is anything other that the maximum lumens for
the luminaire than revise the chart to provide the required maximums instead.
19. [Comment] See the other SRC reviewer comments attached. All SRC reviewer comments must
be sufficiently address prior to final site plan approval.
Final: Comment not vet fully addressed. See the other reviewer comments attached. All reviewer
comments must be sufficiently address prior to final site plan approval.
20. UPDATE: Prior to final site plan approval pay an additional $215 in Initial Site Plan notice fees.
Comment #1 above was incorrect in that no notice fee had actually been paid prior to 8/21/19.
Review staff apologizes for having misinterpreted what notice fee had already been paid and
having requested in that comment that only $220 needed to be paid.
Final: Comment not vet addressed. Prior to final site plan approval pay the remaining $215 in
fees for the Initial Site Plan (SDP2019-42).
Additional Final Site Plan Comments:
21. Final — [NEW COMMENTI: Revise the site plan so that the proposed square footage of use on
the cover sheet, in the parking calculation, and the square footage of the building shown on the
plan views match. If there is a partial 2nd story, please clarifv.
22. Final — [NEW COMMENTI: Revise the site plan to show the radius of the curb near the water
meter.
23. Final — [NEW COMMENTI: Revise the site plan to include labels for the maximum wall height for
each proposed retaining wall.
Staff has provided references to provisions of Chapter 18 of the Code of the County of Albemarle.
The Code is kept up to date by the County Attorney's office. The Code may found on the County
Attorney's website which may be found under "Departments" at Albemarle.org.
In accord with the provisions of Section 32.4.3.5 of Chapter 18 of the Code if the developer fails to
submit a revised final site plan to address all of the requirements within six (6) months after the date
of this letter the application shall be deemed to have been voluntarily withdrawn by the developer.
Please contact Paty Saternye in the Planning Division by using psaternye(a-)albemarle.org or 434-296-
5832 ext. 3250 for further information.
M.
Phone (434) 296-5832
Project:
Project file#:
Plan preparer:
Owner or rep.:
Plan received date:
Date of comments:
Reviewer:
Project Coordinator:
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Fax (434) 972-4126
Site Plan review
Chattanooga Colonnade Drive /Medical Office Building Final Site Plan
SDP2020-00030
Jonathan Showalter, PE, Timmons Group — 608 Preston Ave, Suite 200,
Charlottesville, VA 22903 [ jonathan.showalter(c�timmons.com ]
John Thier, Turner Enterprise, 250 W. Main St.
Charlottesville, VA 22902 [ john(a)turner-enterprises.com ]
30 Mar 2020
28 Apr 2020
John Anderson
Paty Satemye
SDP2020-00031 ( Also, please see SDP2019-00042, WP02020-00019 )
(SDP2019-00042 Engineering comments may persist
1. Addressed with FSP.
2. Addressed with FSP.
3. GIS topographic features indicate a drainage feature and show blue stream line that may be a perennial
stream. Provide confirmation that drainage is either intermittent or ephemeral, and not a perennial stream.
If feature is perennial, establish and show stream buffer on FSP, and revise proposed development design
consistent with Ch. 17, Article VI, Stream Buffers. (FSP) Not addressed. Applicant (3/23/20 letter): `Per
the survey the stream is not on the parcels to be developed.' As follow-up: Comment requests stream buffer
be established and shown if stream is perennial (whether stream is on parcels to be developed or not is
irrelevant). If stream is perennial, revise design per Ch. 17 requirements for stream buffers.*
4. [VSMP /WPO Plan is in process, WP0202000019.]
An approved VSMP Plan is pre -requisite to FSP approval.
5. SWM Facility /Access easement with deed must be recorded prior to FSP approval. Persists. Applicant:
Acknowledged.
6. Addressed with FSP.
7. Ensure project has all relevant state /federal permits, including Army Corps of Engineers permit for any
stream or wetland impacts. May persist. Applicant: `No wetlands or streams are located in the disturbed
area and therefore no permits for impacts are required.' Engineering cannot confirm whether other agency
permits are required, or not.
8. Identify existing wetlands, if any (FSP Addressed with FSP. Applicant: `No wetlands are present in the
disturbed area.'
9. With FSP, identify area or length of any wetland or stream impacts. Addressed with FSP. Applicant: `No
streams are located in the disturbed area.)
Please address items 3, 51 above.
* Please see Albemarle County Code Ch. 17-Article VI. Stream Buffers for requirements that apply to
development within stream buffers.
1. VSMP /WPO plan review comments (24-Apr 2020) include site plan -related comments. Please address:
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 3
a. C3.3 (C4.0 on FSP
i. Label all retaining walls along edges of site. Assign unique identifiers (Wall A, B, C,
etc.) to each wall.
ii. Provide lintel detail for detention outfall pipe where it passes beneath retaining wall at
east corner of site.
iii. Label SWM detention system outfall public drainage easement.
iv. Note: Easement plat must be recorded prior to VSMP Approval.
* SWM Facility, public drainage, and sight distance easements
v. Note: VSMP approval is required prior to final site plan approval.
vi. Wherever proposed parking lot grade concentrates runoff against a curb, provide CG-6.
[18-4.12.15.g.]
b. C4.0
i. Retaining walls > 4-ft. require sealed professional geotechnical design. Since proposed
retaining wall supports parking infrastructure, provide detailed geotechnical retaining
wall design to Engineering for review prior to VSMP /WPO plan approval.
ii. Mill and overlay 25' (minimum) either side of site entrance, full lane width of Colonnade
Drive, NBL.
iii. If existing pavement is alligatored or in bad repair, then more than 25' full lane width mill
and overlay will be required. Engineering intends to evaluate existing Colonnade Drive,
NBL, via site visit.
c. C5.0
i. Ensure Structures 204, 203, 202, and 201 work with segmental block retaining wall
geogrid, if geogrid is required.
ii. Provide a French drain (or similar collection system, similar to Boys & Girls Club) to
collect /screen runoff from dumpster area to prevent runoff crossing entire paved parking
lot area between dumpster and Str. 204.
iii. Show 72" CMP storage pipe (detention system) manway access, located in parking lot.
iv. Break pipe 103 into two sections (provide MH) so that pipe in public drainage easement
only passes beneath one of two tiered retaining walls. Albemarle typically does not allow
pipes in public drainage easements to pass through or beneath walls.
v. Retaining Wall Note 4. (revise `Albemarle')
vi. Provide cross -sectional trapezoidal, V-shaped, or other channel x-section, with riprap
detail (Str. 102).
d. C5.3: Provide and record sight distance easements, left -right, for areas outside Colonnade Drive
62' right-of-way. Show and label sight distance easements on site plan (SDP2020-00030),
proposed sight distance easements on WPO202000019 C5.3.
e. C7.0 (Include sheet with FSP)
i. Label inlet structure upstream of storm pipe 405.
ii. Provide invert elev. of pipe 301 at 72" CMP storage pipe.
f. C1.3: Provide VDOT 2016 Road and Bridge Standard WP-2 detail on civil sheet.
g. C2.0, C2.1: Compare with GIS. Confirm extent of critical slopes shown on plans match GIS.
2. Please note August 21, 2019 letter (Administrative conditional approval) for Initial Site Plan, SDP2019-
00042, p. 1, paragraph 2:
Early or Mass Grading, in accordance with Chapter 18 Section 32.4.2.8, is not permitted following this initial site
plan approval. Grading will only be permitted after final site plan approval.
Final Site Plan approval is required to receive a Grading Permit. Engineering can process VSMP /WPO
Plan (WPO202000012) to point of scheduling a preconstruction meeting, but cannot issue a Grading Permit
until the FSP is approved.
C4.0
3. Label entrance with VDOT designation, CG-9a, for example.
4. Provide leader line with ref. label to heavy duty concrete section, C1.1, if section applies to dumpster pad.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 3
5. C5.0: Ensure entrance does not exceed 4% grade for a distance of 40' from the intersected street, measured
anywhere in the entrance [18-4.12.17]. Also, Final Site Plan checklist for plan reviewers, Entrances and
right-of-way improvements, item 2.
Please feel free to call if any questions: 434.296-5832-x3069. Thank you
SDP2020-00030 Chattanooga Colonnade Dr Medical Office Bldg FSP 042820
Review Comments for SDP202000030 lFinal Site Development Plan
Project Name: CHAT -FAN OOOA- GOLONNADE DRIVE - FINAL -DIGITAL
Date Completed: Monday, May 18, 2020 DepartmentlDi+visionlAgency: Review Status:
Reviewer: Margaret Maliszewski CBBARB Requested Changes
An ARB submittal is required_ Submit an ARB application for a Final Site Development Plan, include all the items on the ARB
Final Site Plan checklist, and address all items from the Initial Plan ARB action letter_
Page: County of Albemarle Printed On: 051281 0020
Review Comments for SDP202000030 iFinal Site Development Plan
Project Name: CHAT -FAN OOOA- COLONNADE DRIVE - FINAL -DIGITAL
Date Completed: Thursday, April 30, 2020 DepartmentlDi+visionlAgency: Review Status:
Reviewer: Richard Nelson -E ACSA I Requested r-hanges Nd
00-04-10: Comments have been returned to Timmons for this site plan_
Page: County of Albemarle Printed On: 051281 0020
Review Comments for SDP202000030 iFinal Site Development Plan
Project Name: CHAT -FAN OOOA- GOLONNADE DRIVE - FINAL -DIGITAL
Date Completed: Sunday, April 05, 2020 DepartmentlDi+visionlAgency: Review Status:
Reviewer: Michael Dellinger CDD Inspections No Obje-ction
Page: County of Albemarle Printed On: 051281 0020
Review Comments for SDP202000030 iFinal Site Development Plan
Project Name: CHAT -FAN OOOA- GOLONNADE DRIVE - FINAL -DIGITAL
Date Completed: Friday, April 03, 2020 DepartmentlDi+visionlAgency: Review Status:
Reviewer: Brian Becker CBB E911 I No Objection Nd
No objections_
Page: County of Albemarle Printed On: 051281 0020
Review Comments for SDP202000030 lFinal Site Development Plan
Project Name: CHAT -FAN OOOA- GOLONNADE DRIVE - FINAL -DIGITAL
Date Completed: Monday, May 18, 2020 DepartmentlaivisionlAgency: Review Status:
Reviewer: Ishawn Maddox 7-1 Fire Rescue 1v No Objection
Fire Rescue has no objections, thank you for addressing previous comments_ SNM
n
Page: County of Albemarle Printed On: 051281 0020
COMMONWEALTH of \VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Stephen C. Brich, P.E. 1401 East Broad Street (804) 786.2701
Commissioner Richmond, Virginia 23219 Fax: (804) 786-2940
April 02, 2020
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Attn: Paty Satemye
Re: Chattanooga Medical Office Building — Final Site Plan
SDP-2020-00030
Review #1
Dear Ms. Saternye:
The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use
Section, has reviewed the above referenced plan as submitted by Timmons Group, dated 23
March 2020, and find it to be generally acceptable. Note that the proposed improvements are on
a private street.
If further information is desired, please contact Max Greene at 434-422-9894.
A VDOT Land Use Permit will be required prior to any work within the right-of-way. The
owner/developer must contact the Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use
Section at (434) 422-9399 for information pertaining to this process.
Sincerely,
Adam J. Moore, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Charlottesville Residency
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING