HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP202100022 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2021-05-170
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Keane Rucker (keane@shimp-en ing eerieg com)
From: Andy Reitelbach, Senior Planner
Division: Planning Services
Date: May 14, 2021
Subject: SDP2021-00022 — Albemarle Business Campus Block 5 — Final Site Plan
The Planner for the Planning Services Division of the Albemarle County Department of Community Development will
recommend approval of the plan referred to above when the following items 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 to the Albemarle County
Code.]
Comments from SDP2020-00066 — Albemarle Business Campus Initial Site Plan Action Letter:
The original comments from the review and action letter for SDP2020-00066 are in gray font. Follow-up comments from the
review of the final site plan, SDP2021-00022, are in bolded black font. Please address these follow-up comments as well.
1. [General Comment] This property is potentially located within the Monticello viewshed. It is
recommended that you reach out to Liz Russell (Irussell@monticello.org) at Monticello to discuss this project
if you have not already done so.
2. [General Comment] Development of the site will need to meet the requirements of the performance
agreement with the Economic Development Office that was approved by the Board of Supervisors on April 15,
2020.
3. [32.5.2(a)] Include the application number for this project on the cover sheet of the plan. Also include the
application number for this final site plan in the title — SDP2021-00022.
4. [32.5.2(a)] Include the correct zoning designation for this property on the cover sheet. It is NMD,
Neighborhood Model District, in accordance with the Application Plan and the Code of Development of
ZMA2019-00003, approved by the Board of Supervisors on October 7, 2020. All references to the "pending"
zoning district need to be removed and replaced with the actual approved zoning district.
5. ]32.5.2(a)] Include on the cover sheet the zoning overlay districts that these parcels are subject to.
6. [32.5.2(a)] Ensure the correct tax map and parcel numbers are provided on the plan, as they will likely
change as the proposed BLA and subdivision plats move forward. Revise the TMP numbers of the final site
plan to reflect the BLA plats that have recently been reviewed and recorded for these parcels. Also, ensure
the property lines depicted on the final site plan accurately reflect the lines as shown on these recently
recorded plats.
7. [32.5.2(a)] Revise the sheet index on the cover sheet. It does not accurately reflect the actual sheets that are
included within the site plan. There are additional sheets included in the site plan that are not listed in the index.
8. [32.5.2(a)] The source of title needs to be revised to include all parts of the property. The Region 10 portion
of the property is not currently included in this section. Revise the source of title note to reflect the BLA plats
that have recently been reviewed and recorded for these properties.
9. [32.5.2(a)] Include on the cover sheet a reference to the special exception that was approved with this
rezoning, for the waiver of a minimum of at least two housing types within an NMD.
10. [32.5.2(a)] Boundary line adjustment (BLA) and/or subdivision plats will be required prior to final site plan
approval for any of the buildings and/or blocks that are proposed to be located on individual parcels. These plats
will require review and approval by CDD staff prior to their recordation at the courthouse. Revise the final site
plan to reflect the BLA plats that have recently been reviewed and recorded for these parcels. Additional
plats may be required depending on the property fine locations identified with the most recent BLA plats.
11. [32.5.2(a)] On the cover sheet, include the parking setback lines for blocks 3 and 4 that are identified in the
COD. Comment does not apply to this final site plan for Block 5; however, this comment will need to be
addressed on the final site plan(s) for Blocks 3 and 4.
12. [32.5.2(a)] The stepback requirements for the blocks need to be included on the cover sheet, in addition to
the setbacks and building heights. What are the asterisks identifying, in both the setback and the stepback
tables on the cover sheet?
13. [32.5.2(a)] Include on the cover sheet of the site plan that this site lies within a state dam break inundation
zone. Depict the limits of the state dam break inundation zone on the site plan.
14. [32.5.2(d)] Depict and label the managed steep slopes on all applicable sheets of the site plan for staff to
determine the relationship of the proposed improvements to the locations of the managed slopes.
15. [32.6.2(h)] Provide a signature panel with a line for each member of the Site Review Committee on the final
site plan.
16. [32.5.2(e)] Provide more details about the existing landscape features as described in Section 18-32.7.9.4(c).
The Albemarle County Conservation Plan Checklist and Chapter 3.38 of the Virginia Erosion and
Sediment Control handbook. The Conservation Plan Checklist will need to be signed by the owners
and provided as an exhibit on the final site plan.
17. [32.5.2(c)] The phase lines need to encompass the entire property and go all the way to the property lines.
No portion of the property can remain outside of the phase lines. At least the northern portion of the dog park is
not included within phase lines.
Phase lines also need to follow constructed or natural features so that each phase can stand on its own. An
individual phase must include all requirements for a Zoning Clearance and CO to be issued. For example, a
phase line cannot go through the middle of a parking space, like is currently shown in the northern portion of
the line between blocks 2 and 5. That line should be extended east to incorporate all of that parking lot.
The phase lines at the eastern end of the proposed private street, near Wahoo Way, also need to be revised. The
phase with the street should include all of that intersection and not defer part of that intersection until Phase 3,
as is currently shown.
The phase lines must also be a part of the first final site plan that is submitted so that staff can ensure they
encompass all that is required.
Provide the phase lines for this development on this site plan. As a phased development, staff must be able
to analyze each phase individually to ensure all Zoning requirements are met for each block individually,
including the current block under review.
18. [32.5.2.1(b)] The match lines need to be provided or revised. Portions of the existing conditions sheets are
missing — the northern parts of each section, block 1 and blocks 2-5. Also, the northern part of block 1 on sheet
C7 is missing and needs to be provided.
The match lines shown on sheets C8 and C9 need to identify which sheets they match with.
19. [32.5.2(b)] Information regarding the proposed use.
i. The two apartment buildings in the northwest of Block 1 indicate they have 4 floors of 8 apartments,
which is 32 apartments. However, they indicate they have only 28 units. Clarify this discrepancy or
provide more information.
ii. Clarify what the "Portion of Stepback" is in the office building and whether that is a part of the
17,000 sq.ft. office footprint, or in addition to it.
iii. Provide the square footage of non-residential space in each of blocks 2-5 so that staff can ensure the
ranges identified in the Code of Development are met. Provide the total square footage of the
structure on Block 5. It appears the building footprint square footage is provided but not the
building's overall square footage, which must be between 45,000 and 125,000 square feet.
iv. Identify the acreage of each of the proposed blocks 1-5. It appears BLA plats have been recorded
for this property recently. Provide the revised acreage for Block 5. In addition, revise the
overall land use schedule on the cover sheet to reflect the new parcel boundaries, sizes, and
percentages.
v. Provide the number of one -bedroom multi -family units and the number of two -bedroom multi-
family units that are provided. Staff cannot accurately calculate the number of parking spaces
required without knowing the exact number of each type of unit.
vi. Provide more information on the amount of proposed greenspace and amenities. Also identify all
the amenities that are being provided. 20% of the site must be greenspace, and 20% of the site must
be amenities; however, these two elements can overlap in many, though not all, circumstances. It is
not clear what is being counted as greenspace, what is being counted as amenity area, and what is
counting toward both calculations. Provide more detailed calculations of these elements.
Recreational facilities in accordance with 18-4.16 of the Zoning Ordinance are not provided in block
1, as required by note 1 on sheet 5 of the COD. Provide these required amenities and recreational
facilities in block 1. If substitution of these facilities is desired, provide a substitution request with
justification to Planning staff for review.
In addition, the dog park on block 5 is not shown as a part of the site plan at all.
Who will be maintaining the private greenspace and amenity areas? Some sort of agreement will be
required. A Private Improvement Maintenance Declaration (PIMD) or another type of legal
agreement must be provided for review and recorded, to assign ownership and maintenance
responsibilities for the green space and amenities, such as the stone dust path.
Why does the stone dust path just end in the middle of the parcel? This amenity must go all the
way to the property line and/or the Block 5 phase line.
vii. Provide the maximum height of all structures.
In addition, two of the apartment buildings are shown as four stories tall; however, the Code of
Development limits the height of buildings in that block to three stories only. Revise.
viii. The parking schedule needs to be revised. Sufficient parking must be provided for the development.
There is not currently enough parking, and the Zoning division has not approved the requested
reduction in parking.
1. Staff cannot determine the number of parking spaces required in Block 1 because the
number of each type of unit has not been provided. In addition, more parking needs to be
provided in that block. The minimum amount required has not been provided.
2. As this development is proposed to be phased, enough parking must be provided for each
phase, cumulative with the previous phases, so the parking calculations must be separated
out by phase. (Block I cannot be included with the cumulative total as its parking must be
provided separately from blocks 2-5.)
3. Block 3 requires 267 parking spaces.
4. Block 4 requires 66 parking spaces.
4
5. A written request will need to be made to the Zoning Administrator regarding the number
of parking spaces required for the self -storage use, as it is an unscheduled use. See
comments below from Zoning regarding their determination of the required number
of parking spaces for the self -storage use.
6. More parking spaces are required for blocks 2-5, as there is not currently sufficient parking
provided to accommodate the proposed uses.
7. As the parking spaces are proposed to be shared among blocks 2-5, a shared parking
agreement will be required prior to site plan approval. A parking agreement may be
required with this site plan depending on the location of the revised property lines.
8. The parking schedule must be revised. There are more than 45 spaces depicted on the
site plan. In addition, there is greater than the 20% permitted increase over the
required amount of parking. Remove some of the parking spaces so that the number
of spaces is not above the 20% permitted.
9. Provide the measurements of all parking spaces. Many of the perpendicular spaces
are not measured, especially to the side and rear of the proposed building.
20. [32.5.2(i)] Streets, easements, and travelways.
a. At the time of subdivision, a request, with justification, for a private street will be required for the proposed
new street through blocks 2-5. Requests for private streets in non-residential areas are reviewed administratively.
If the request for a private street is granted, a private improvement maintenance agreement will also be required.
A request for a private street must be submitted for this block if right-of-way is proposed for the travelway
located between Wahoo Way and Old Lynchburg Road. Otherwise, the frontage and setback
requirements cannot be met with the currently proposed layout. If a private street is not proposed (and
approved dependent on staff review) for this travelway, then the building on this block must be pushed
back 5 feet in order to meet the requirements of the COD for a setback of five feet from the sidewalk if
the sidewalk is not in right-of-way. See footnote 3 on page 8 of the COD.
b. A separate submission of road plans will be required for the proposed new street through blocks 2-5. Road
plans will be required if the travelway between Wahoo Way and Old Lynchburg Road is proposed to
become a private or public street.
c. Identify all proposed bike lanes or multi -use paths, along with proposed bike parking. Provide the amount
of bike parking that is proposed, on the cover sheet.
d. Identify on the site plan the proffered right-of-way dedication depicted in the "Single -Lane Roundabout
Exhibit." With the vehicle trips per day generated by the proposed uses, as provided on the cover sheet of
the site plan, proffer number 1 will need to be fulfilled with this block. In addition to the cash contribution,
a plat will need to be prepared to dedicate the right-of-way at the intersection of 5t' Street and Old
Lynchburg Road. Show this round -about construction and dedication on this site plan as well.
e. The application plan identifies the interior street as having 12-11. travel lanes. The interior street through
blocks 2-5, as depicted, does not meet this width requirement, being only 20 or 22 ft. in width.
f. Identify all proposed access easements. Access easements will require an approved plat. An access
easement plat is required to be submitted and reviewed prior to final site plan approval. A PUAD will be
required with the easement plat.
21. [32.5.2(m)] Show the distance to the centerline of the nearest existing street intersection from the proposed
ingress and egress for Block 1 on sheet C7.
22. [32.5.2(n)] Existing and proposed improvements.
a. Provide the maximum height of all buildings.
b. Provide the maximum footprint of the multi -family buildings in block 1.
c. Identify the height of all proposed retaining walls and whether they are located within areas of managed
steep slopes. Retaining walls within steep slope areas must be terraced, with no individual wall being greater
than six feet in height. Railings or guard rails may be required on the retaining walls, depending on their height.
d. Provide accessible ramps with the sidewalks.
e. A sidewalk must be provided along Mountainwood Road, as shown in the COD and the application plan.
f. A pedestrian connection must also be provided from Mountainwood Road to the interior sidewalks of block
1, as shown in the COD and the application plan.
g. Identify the widths of the planting strips.
h. How are residents supposed to enter the most southern apartment building? There is no sidewalk connecting
it to the parking lot.
i. A sidewalk or path needs to connect to the northern end of the crosswalk in block 2 near the dog park.
j. A crosswalk needs to be provided across the eastern end of the proposed new street, from the block 2 vehicle
entrance toward block 3.
k. Crosswalks and accessible ramps need to be provided at the western entrance of the proposed new street.
1. Provide the proposed crosswalk across Old Lynchburg Road at Country Green Road. This crosswalk needs
to be provided.
in. The sidewalks at the northwest corner of the 4,219 sq.ft. retail building need to connect.
n. How is trash collection proposed to be performed?
Dumpster pads need to be provided throughout the development. See 18-4.12.13 and 18-4.12.19. The dumpster
pads will also need to be screened, with profiles of their enclosures provided. The dumpster pad must be
constructed of concrete and extend at least eight feet from the garbage containers.
o. Loading spaces need to be provided throughout the development. See 18-4.12.13 and 18-4.12.18. Identify
the locations of the loading spaces on the site plan, and provide their dimensions. Provide the length of the
loading space area.
p. Identify the length of the parking spaces provided. Many spaces are identified as 9-11. wide. However, none
of the parking spaces have their lengths identified. Spaces must be at least 18 feet long or 16 feet long with a 2-
ft. unobstructed overhang provided. Comment still applies. The measurements of the parking spaces on the
side and rear of the building are not identified.
q. Provide the dimensions of the on -street parking for the proposed new street through blocks 2-5. The widths
of the parallel spaces are not provided. No dimensions are provided for the angular parking spaces.
23. [32.5.2(o)] Identify all areas proposed to be dedicated to public use, and identify the entity (VDOT, the
County, etc.) to which those areas will be dedicated. The dedication will require a plat or plats. Dedication is
required, as shown on the application plan, along Old Lynchburg Road in the "finger" -like corner of the
parcel, across from Country Green Road. Identify the width of all of the dedicated land on the site plan,
so that staff can ensure it reflects what is shown on the application plan. This dedication of land will be
required to be shown on a plat.
24. [32.5.2(o)] Provide the right-of-way dedication along Mountainwood Road that is depicted in the application
plan.
25. [32.5.20); 32.5.2 (k)] Label all existing and proposed water, sewer, and storm drainage easements by type
and include a size/width measurement. For existing easements, state the deed book and page of the recorded
instrument. For proposed easements, an easement plat will need to be submitted, reviewed, approved, and
recorded at the courthouse prior to approval of the final site plan being granted. Submit easement plats for
review and approval prior to approval of the site plan.
26. [32.5.2 (1)] Label all existing and proposed utility easements by type and include a size/width measurement.
For existing easements, state the deed book and page of the recorded instrument. For proposed easements, an
easement plat will need to be submitted, reviewed, approved, and recorded at the courthouse prior to approval
of the final site plan being granted. Submit easement plats for review and approval prior to approval of the
site plan.
27. [32.5.2(n); 4.17; 32.7.8] A lighting plan that complies with sections 32.7.8 and 4.17 of the Zoning Ordinance
must be submitted with the final site plan, for any outdoor lighting that is proposed on the site. Why does the
lighting along the path end at the parking spaces?
28. [32.5.2(p); 32.7.9] A landscape plan that complies with section 32.7.9 of the Zoning Ordinance must be
submitted with the final site plan. When submitting final site plans, keep in mind that the landscaping
requirements need to be met individually for each phase of the development, as the phases must be able to stand
independently. See comments below:
a. Street trees need to be planted along the entirety of the proposed internal road since that improvement
is being proposed with this site plan.
b. Identify where the new property lines are so that staff can accurately determine whether the proposed
landscaping is actually on the subject property. The landscaping, such as the tree canopy, required
by this development must be located on the subject parcel.
c. The site area of Block 5 as identified on the landscaping plan does not match what is provided on the
cover sheet — 1.7 acres vs. 8.5 acres. This discrepancy appears to exist because of the BLA plats
recorded recently and changes in parcel size. Clarify these discrepancies.
d. Provide the amount of paved parking and vehicular circulation area on the site, along with the
calculations for the 5% of that square footage which must be landscaped with trees or shrubs. Identify
that landscaping proposed to be used to satisfy this requirement. The London planetrees would not
satisfy this requirement.
29. [COD] Identify the number of units proposed to be affordable in Block 1, in accordance with the COD. In
addition, include the affordable unit language from the COD in the final site plan for Block 1.
New Comments — First Review of Albemarle Business Campus Block 5 Final Site Plan (SDP2021-00022):
1. [General Comment] What are the bold dashed lines extending from the building over the sidewalks and loading
area? Are they awnings? If so, the ones along the travelway would not meet setback requirements and need to
be modified.
2. [32.5.2(b)] Provide the maximum amount of paved parking and other vehicular circulation areas.
Please contact Andy Reitelbach in the Department of Community Development at areitelbach@albemarle.org or 434-
296-5832 ext. 3261 for further information.
Comments from Other Reviewers:
Albemarle County Engineering Services (Engineer) — John Anderson, janderson2@albemarle.org — Requested
changes; please see the attached memo.
Albemarle County Information Services (E911) — Elise Kiewra, ekiewra@albemarle.org — Requested changes; please
see the attached memo.
Albemarle County Building Inspections — Betty Slough, bslough@albemarle.org albemarle.org — No objections at this time.
Albemarle County Architectural Review Board (ARB) — Margaret Maliszewski, mmaliszewski@albemarle.org —
Requested Changes; please see the comments below:
The proposed planting in the 4/13/21 revision has moved further away from meeting the EC guidelines — not closer. Trees
have been reduced in quantity and the pipes were not shifted to allow for future planting along the parking and travelway.
Relocate pipes, utilities, easements, etc. to allow for large shade trees spaced 40' on center along both sides of the full length
of the parking and travelway located south of the Block B building, extending from Old Lynchburg Road to Wahoo Way, and
along the travelway east of the building.
Albemarle County Zoning Division — Francis MacCall, flnaccallgalbemarle.org — No objections at this time; see the
comments below:
Zoning agrees with the applicant's parking analysis and has no objection to the parking numbers on the site plan
Albemarle County Fire -Rescue (ACFR) — Howard Lagomarsino, hlaeomarsinogalbemarle.org — Requested changes;
please see the comments below:
Review per plans dated 3/22/21:
1) Clarify turning radius (needs to be at least 25 ft) at entrance on West side of Project (Old Lynchburg/Country Green Ln.
Side)
2) Clarify distance from hydrant to FDC on southwest portion of plan
3) Provide a note on plan of the ISO fire flow calculation for the building
3) Do not see any hydrants on the east side or north side of the development. Spacing needs to be in accordance with the
required fire flow, but no less than 500 ft spacing and arranged so no building is more than 250 feet from a hydrant.
4) Turning radius at dynamic transport plaza needs to be 25 ft.
5) Clarify turning radius at entrance on east side of project, 25 ft required
Albemarle County Parks and Recreation Department — Tim Padalino, tnadalino@albemarle.org — Requested
changes; see the comments below:
At the request of staff in the Community Development Department and Economic Development Office, Parks &
Recreation staff have reviewed final site plan SDP202100022 (relative to the Performance Agreement dated 4/15/2020,
particularly "2. Developer's Obligations: g. Enhanced Connectivity and j. Bicycle Racks").
ACPR provides the following requests and recommendations:
1. Please identify the number of bicycle racks to be provided. (Staff acknowledges Detail 3 on Sheet C 15, but the final
site plan does not clearly identify the number of "Staple" racks or "Rambler" racks, or identify the total capacity of all
bicycle racks combined for ABC Block 5.)
2. Please ensure the bicycle racks will be sufficiently illuminated. (It appears that a "Large Deciduous Tree - Ulmus
americana" would be planted between the bicycle rack(s) and the proposed Lumark pole -mounted luminaire, which
might limit the amount of illumination during summer months when bicycles are likely to be used most frequently.)
Note: Parks & Recreation does not recommend eliminating this proposed large deciduous tree, but rather advocates for
the incorporation of other supplemental outdoor lighting solutions (as appropriate / if necessary).
3. Please consider locating the bicycle racks in a location that would be more directly accessible to bicyclists. (The
bicycle racks appear to be located between vehicular parking spaces and one of the sidewalks providing pedestrian access
into the site. This location might not be optimal relative to the fact that bicyclists typically follow roads and travelways,
and not sidewalks).
Albemarle County Economic Development Office (EDO) —J.T. Newberry, jnewbepykalbemarle.org—No objections
at this time; see the comments below:
(Comments from J.T. Newberry) On April 15, 2020, the Board of Supervisors approved a public -private partnership that
applies to approximately 8.55 acres of the Albemarle Business Campus development. This partnership is governed by a
performance agreement that outlines specific obligations for the Developer, for Albemarle County, and for the Albemarle
County Economic Development Authority. The Developer's obligations are listed on page C3 of the plan set.
Staff from the Economic Development Office reviewed the final site plan application for Block 5 (dated 3/22/21) and
finds it to be consistent with requirements of the performance agreement.
Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) — Richard Nelson, melsonkserviceauthority.org — Requested changes;
please see the attached memo.
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) — Adam Moore, Adam.Moore@vdot.virginia.gov — Requested
changes; please see the attached memo.
10
t� OF ALB
County of Albemarle
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Site Plan review
Project title: Albemarle Business Campus: Block 5: Final Site Plan
Project file number: SDP2021-00022
Plan prepares Shimp Engineering, 912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902
Kelsey Schlein, PE [ kelsey& chimp -en ing eering com ]
[ lustin(d�shimp-engineering.com ]
Owner or rep.: 5" Street Forest LLC / 250 W. Main St., Ste. 201
Charlottesville, VA 22902 [ kvle.redinger(i�grnail.com ]
Plan received date: 31 Mar 2021
Date of comments: 28 April 2021
Plan Coordinator: Andy Reitelbach
Reviewer: John Anderson
Comments below from Initial Site Plan, SDP2020-000W with Applicant response for FSP
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4579
Telephone:434-296-5832
WWW.ALBEMARLE.ORG
1. Cl, Stormwater Management Notes: Please ref. WPO201800084, Royal Fern Phase 2 rather than a regional
stormwater facility (in addition to referencing more recent ZMA201900003). Engineering will evaluate
WPO plan for Albemarle Business Campus WPO plan against information and stormwater data approved
with WPO201800084. WPO plan approval for ABC is not automatic with ZMA201900003 approval or
satisfied by reference to regional stormwater facilities for blocks 2-5. WPO plan approval is required for
ABC FSP approval. This development is subject to same or similar SWM program review requirements
and criteria as applied to WPO201800084. Also, see Engineering email to Shimp Engineering, 11/12/2020
2:56 PM, and November 12, 2020 12:04 PM. Please submit WPO plan for ABC at earliest convenience.
(FSP) NA / WPO202000058 is approved (3/17/21) for ABC blocks 2-5, including off -site export /import
from ABC (future development) block 1.
2. It appears that design relies on fewer parking spaces than required by ordinance. There is potential for ISP
disapproval with significant revision required prior even to approval of ISP (with conditions). (FSP) May
persist. Engineering defers to Planning/Zoning. Applicant response (3/22/21 letter): `We are working
through a parking reduction request with Zoning.'
With final site plan:
3. C5: Revise existing improvements shown on TMP 76-46C 1. See image below (C5 v. satellite
[satellite imagery removed with ESP comments ] (FSP) Addressed.
4. C5C6
CY,
6. C7
a. Label managed steep slopes. (FSP) Addressed.
a. Existing grade appears to indicate a SWM facility in vicinity of feature labeled rip -rap. With
WPO, address any SWM quality -quantity implications of removing any existing SWM facility
with proposed development. (FSP) Addressed. Applicant: `Noted, this was addressed in approved
WPO plan [WPO202000058], notes copied to SDP.'
a. Recommend provide sidewalk access to westernmost 24-apt 3-story building via internal sidewalk
rather than walk within public RW along Country Green Road since this is facility to be used by
residents for every trip between vehicle and apartment. This route so near a public road provides
inherent risk, risk analogous to requiring owners of single-family dwellings to transit walk within
public RW to travel between parked car in driveway and dwelling entrance. (FSP) May persist
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 6
(future). Applicant: `Noted, if necessary in the future, we will address this comment with the
potential multifamily final site plan.'
b. If apartment building access is via sidewalk along Country Green Road and ordinance requires
illumination from parking to dwelling entrance, provide adequate lighting. Engineering defers to
Planning, while reiterating safety concerns for residents if forced to rely on a walk within public
RW of Country Green Road. (FSP) May persist (future). Applicant: `Noted, if necessary in the
future, Pedestrian access will be provided with an internal sidewalk, to be addressed with the
multifamily final site plan.'
c. Label site entrance radii and relevant entrance geometry. (FSP) Partially addressed. Applicant:
`Site entrance radii and relevant entrance geometry are now labeled on the site plan sheet.' As
follow-up: Proffered roundabout at intersection of Old Lynchburg Road and Fifth Street cannot be
built with current ABC block 5 design. Revise block 5 entrance on Old Lynchburg (OL) Road to
accommodate ZMA201900003 proffered future roundabout geometry. Images may be helpful.
Sheet 2, SDP202100022 (per ZMA201900003) potential 150' inscribed diameter single -lane
roundabout: Please compare —130' distance needed to construct slip lane to point of transition
with OL Road RW, with sheet 6 —100' distance, Fifth St. to OL Road entrance. In other words,
constructing the roundabout requires OL Road block 5 site entrance to be positioned farther north
than shown.
ZONING MAP AMENDMENT
ZMA201900003
LBEMARLE BUSINESS
CAMPUS
SINGLE -LANE
ROUNDABOUT EXHIBIT
Sheet I oft
This eehibit Is shown for roundabout
f Ibility Pmpo,e,. This exi lhow,a
roundabout with a50' inscribed diameter,
,it, hnn and pecles:11. Improvements.
Approximately 60S AC (3350 SF) ROW
dediralion from the eastern portion of
the prom pr erty may be required
for a singleIsne roundabout with a 150'
inscribed diameter,
Key
Am on"wt prnwety
tFLmrybertqui elfin
snub" ut impmrtmeme
Vaerelboundary
Sheet 6: block 5 Old Lynchburg Road entrance:
® \/-TOP SIGN
f DIP' �I0.4.1"�,
WATER
INE,
4
_TEJ 4
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 6
REAAIL I RETAIL
TENANT TENANT
2398 SE 2,039 4
FEE 456A0 E 056.00
S. DII
—. -W,
F DIP
WATER
LINE
7. C7 C8C8
a. Label (typ.) parking space length. (FSP) Partially addressed. Applicant: `Parking space length
(18') is now included.' As follow up: Angled and parallel parking space length are included, but
unless overlooked, perpendicular parking space length (18') is not included, please provide
perpendicular parking space labels (L x W).
b. Label parking lot island radii. (FSP) Addressed.
c. Provide, label and revise or reconfigure parking to provide adequate HC parking, with ramps.
(FSP) Addressed.
d. Label CG-12. (FSP) Partially addressed. Applicant: `CG-12's are shown and labeled on the site
plan sheet.' As ollow-ug: Please label CG-12s at dynamic transport plaza.
e. Label CG-6. (FSP) Addressed.
f Provide /show /label dumpster pads for each use. No use appears likely able to function without
permanent outdoor solid waste disposal, with possible exception of self -storage, yet self -storage
patrons may wish to avail themselves of trash facility, which may or may not be required. Hotel,
office, and retail space typically (likely) require dumpster pads. Engineering defers to Planning.
(FSP) Addressed.
8. C8
Engineering Review Comments
Page 4 of 6
g. Please ensure that all parking spaces immediately adjacent to sidewalks are either:
i. 18' L fronting 6' sidewalks, or (FSP) Partially addressed. As follow-up: Please see item
7.a. above.
ii. 18' L with bumper blocks fronting 5' sidewalks (ref. ACDSM, pg. 17).
a. Label block 2-5 development entrance radii /relevant entrance geometry at Old Lynchburg Road.
(FSP) Partially addressed. As ollow-uj2: Please see item 6.c. above.
b. Label angle for angled parking. (FSP) Addressed.
c. Provide angled parking dimensions for comparison with ordinance requirements /ACDSM. (FSP)
Addressed.
d. Label site features (walks, crosswalks, traffic control signs). (FSP) Addressed.
e. Provide internal and external stop /yield signs to define stop /thru traffic patterns. (FSP)
Addressed. Applicant: `Appropriate traffic control signs have been provided with this submission.
As the other blocks are subsequently developed, additional traffic control signs will be proposed.'
f Since site access from 51' Street spans property line with parcel to east, provide legal instrument
that allows site access. Existing legal instrument (201800013730) presents obsolete image.
Provide instrument specific to current geometric design of Wahoo Way. (FSP) Persists.
Applicant: `A new access easement will be recorded prior to final site plan approval.'
587 Y. ]h 8OR
S
ENO PA LLC EL 1Ls ♦ , \ D I
0R an Pc 270 • \ x,\ \ 1
] 1
xP�OHD YL \ \ FA41fl11 NR 10d �11MB
PRMOHU
9Hwlllt IM.) INML) �'
a R'ms EA0fl11 1
6 tIH W Old )
0 H WL3E0
dI'M Old
RERYNIENT
E.HYEx] (w )
,JM011. bl. N .YL65
G41flll (N2WYU,
nP .-s
3.89 0 iR2
IXOR P]
OMIEP:. IE LLC! nP ]L-S.I.
SxOW 457 LLC (i I1$ 1..55 RCREs
oe un Pc zn
aHEP ins
< OYMER'. rFPP. LLC
CB .9Y PG 1]B
APMOX tM'CPoSED) < l( RER.R a `. flow
m. .Bl. Sp( RFyux I.CCEs51BLE P
411.
C((C
((C
J C(
FlF� Sr ENT, (G w 00 M/.R PflWOHC
C Gsbd]//E�MRRT
0 I00 150 (( .9d�FA'GA'1f'116YiyF.•
sGl£: 1'=50'
5 1 133 a3kz
g. Provide /show /label hotel loading space. (FSP) Persists. Applicant: `This comment will be
addressed with the hotel's final site plan.'
h. Clarify via label /dimension the short arc -pedestrian facility at intersection Wahoo Way and 5' St.
to clearly define how 10' multi -use path along 5' St. connects with 5' walk along Wahoo Way.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 5 of 6
(FSP) Persists. Applicant: `Clarification will be provided via labels/dimensions with Block 3
(office)'s final site plan. This path will be provided with Block 3 final SDP.'
9. C9: Label island dimensions and curb radii at right -in /right -out entrance on Old Lynchburg Road. (FSP)
Addressed. Note: please also see item 6.c., above.
10. C10
a. Provide spot grading near islands to ensure runoff reaches inlets without nuisance pending. (FSP)
Addressed.
b. Clarify how proposed UG detention and inlet conveyance system discharge to existing SWM
infrastructure. If discharge is via storm pipe between the two 28-apt buildings to property to the
immediate west, with WPO show compliance with channel and flood protection at this discharge
point. (FSP) NA. Applicant: `This is no longer applicable, however this would be provided with
the potential future Block 1 apartments development.' Also, please see WPO201800044
Amendment #1, approved 3/18/21.
c. Provide flowlines that clarify direction of floe (FSP) Addressed.
d. Label underground detention system. (FSP) NA. Applicant: `This is no longer applicable,
however this would be provided with the potential future Block 1 apartments development.'
11. C10.C11
a. Show Aabel proposed utility easements.
i. Recommend label private drainage easements. (FSP) Addressed. Applicant: `Private
drainage easements are not proposed at this time. Public drainage easements shown.'
ii. Label public drainage easement downstream of proposed SWM facility. (FSP)
Addressed. As follow-up: Please ensure (future) blocks do not propose improvements
other than pedestrian walks or parking /access aisles within public drainage easement.
Improvements within public drainage easement are impermissible. Please submit
easement plat for new public drainage easement at earliest convenience.
iii. Public SWM facility and public drainage easements require plat with deed, and
recordation prior to ESP approval. (FSP) Persists. Applicant: `Comment received.'
iv. Acquire and reference recorded public drainage easement across TMP 76-46C1
(Mountainwood Properties) that receives ABC development runoff. (FSP) NA.
Applicant: `This is no longer applicable, however this would be provided with the
potential future Block 1 apartments development.'
v. Ensure post -developed storm runoff across TMP 76-46C 1 is non -erosive. (FSP) NA.
Applicant: `This is no longer applicable, however this would be provided with the
potential future Block 1 apartments development.
b. Ensure easement widths are consistent with easement width diagram, p. 15, ACDSM. (FSP)
Addressed.
c. Indicate any existing trees to be preserved. (FSP) Addressed. Applicant: `No trees are proposed to
be preserved.'
12. C11
a. Apparent ponding at N corner of block 2 hotel parking lot: Revise to eliminate nuisance pending.
(FSP) Addressed with WPO202000058.
b. Apparent ponding at N comer of block 3 office parking lot. Revise to eliminate nuisance ponding.
(FSP) Addressed with WPO202000058.
c. Apparent ponding at N comer of 6,000 SF retail parking lot. Revise to eliminate nuisance
ponding. (FSP) Addressed with WPO202000058.
d. Provide spot grading throughout to ensure runoff reaches inlets, without nuisance ponding. (FSP)
Addressed; also addressed with WPO202000058.
e. Wherever grades concentrate runoff against curbing, revise proposed CG-2 to CG-6 [ref. 18-
4.12.15.g J. (FSP) Addressed, also addressed with WPO202000058.
f. Provide additional proposed grade labels, for example:
i. Graded slope area N of hotel parking lot, (FSP) May persist (future). Applicant: `This
will be addressed with Hotel Block 2's final site plan.'
Engineering Review Comments
Page 6 of 6
ii. Hotel parking lot, and, (FSP) May persist (future). Applicant: `This will be addressed
with Hotel Block 2's final site plan.'
iii. Impervious paved areas N of self -storage. (FSP) Addressed.
g. Retaining walls >3' ht. require a building permit. Retaining walls >4' ht. require sealed design
(PE) plans. Retaining wall design review by Engineering is required prior to FSP approval. (FSP)
Persists. Applicant: `Noted, we have hired Circeo Geotechnical Engineering to complete this, it
will be uploaded when received.'
h. Provide wall elevation details for retaining wall at W end of self -storage. (FSP) Addressed.
13. C 12: Provide horizontal sight distance that avoids landscape /sight line conflicts. (FSP) Addressed.
Applicant: `Sight distance has been provided at the new entrance on Old Lynchburg Road. Please note that
required sight distance for a 35-mph road is 390', while the required entrance spacing is 250'. Full 260'
sight distance from entrance to intersections is achieved. Vehicles leaving from the proposed entrance will
have adequate visibility of the Old Lynchburg intersection, allowing for safe movement out of the site.'
Additional FSP review comments:
14. Note: Permeable concrete pavers at dynamic transport plaza do not constitute a required WPO plan design
feature, and Engineering does not object to removal of permeable concrete pavers at this location. Please
ref. WPO202000058 for approved SWM-related design (Note: WPO202000058 relies on an off -site pond,
located at Fifth Street Place residential development, for SWM).
15. C7: Provide storm runoff capture /conveyance for block I design at point runoff leaves 5.0% paved drive
aisle, blue arrow, image, below:
Please feel free to call if any questions. Thank you
J. Anderson 434.296-5832 -x3069
SDP2021-00022 Albemarle Business Campus FSP 042821.doe
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS - E911
APPLICATION#: SDP202100022
TMP: 07600-00-00-046A0,07600-00-00-046FO
DATE: 4/27/21
FROM: Elise Kiewra
ekiewra(a)albemarle.org
Geographic Data Services (GDS)
www.albemarle.org/gds
(434) 296-5832 ext. 3030
The road that will connect Wahoo Way and Old Lynchburg will require a road due to future
buildings to be constructed. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact
our office.
This site will require a one (1) new private road name. Per Sec. 7-200-B of the County's Road
Naming and Property Numbering Ordinance (Page 2 of PDF).
"It is intended by this article that all roads within the County which serve or are designed
to serve three or more addressable structures will be named; and that all addressable
structures within the County will be assigned property numbers.
We recommend providing three (3) candidate names for each road to our office for
review, in case your first choices are not acceptable.
A PDF version of the Ordinance and Manual can be found here:
https://gisweb.albemarle.org/gisdata/Road Naming and Property Numbering Ordinance and Manu
al.ndf
Please consult the County's Road Name Index to check your road names prior to submittal. The
Index can be found here: https://Ifweb.albemarle.org/Forms/RoadNamelndex
Parcel and mapping information can be found here:
https:/https://gisweb.albemarle.or�v 51Niewer.aVx51Niewer.aVx
County of Albemarle
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT/PLANNING
April 29, 2021
Justin Shimp
Shimp Engineering
912 E. High Street
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: ARB-2020-132: Albemarle Business Campus Block 5
Dear Justin,
MARGARET MALISZEWSKI
mmaliszewski Ca)albemarle.org
tel: 434-296-5832 ext. 3276
I've reviewed the recent resubmittal for the above referenced project, and I have the following comments:
The proposed planting in the 4/13/21 revision has moved further away from meeting the EC guidelines
— not closer. Trees have been reduced in quantity and the pipes were not shifted to allow for future
planting along the parking and travelway. Relocate pipes, utilities, easements, etc. to allow for large
shade trees spaced 40' on center along both sides of the full length of the parking and travelway
located south of the Block B building, extending from Old Lynchburg Road to Wahoo Way (see red
arrow), and along the travelway east of the building (see red circle).
Please submit a revised plan addressing these comments, together with the attached resubmittal form and a memo
summarizing the changes you've made. If you have questions, please let me know.
Sincerely,
Margaret Maliszewski
Planning Manager, Department of Community Development
cc: 51h Street Forest LLC, 250 W Main St., Suite 201, Charlottesville VA 22902
W W W.ALBEMARLE.ORG
401 McIntire Road, Suite 228 1 Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
COUNTY OF ALBEMAR.LE
Department of Community Development
REVISED APPLICATION SUBMITTAL
This form must be returned with your revisions to ensure proper tracking and distribution. County staff has indicated
below what they think will be required as a resubmission of revisions. If you need to submit additional information please
explain on this form for the benefit of the intake staff. All plans must be collated and folded to fit into legal size files,
in order to be accepted for submittal.
TO:
PROJECT NAME:
DATE:
Submittal Type Requiring Revisions O indicates submittal Code
County Project Number
# Copies
Erosion & Sediment Control Plan E&S
Mitigation Plan MP
Waiver Request WR
Stormwater Management Plan SWMP
Road Plan RP
Private Road Request, with private/public comparison
PRR
Private Road Request — Development Area PRR-DA
Preliminary Site Plan PSP
Final Site Plan or amendment FSP
Final Plat FP
Preliminary Plat PP
Easement Plat EP
Boundary Adjustment Plat BAP
Rezoning Plan REZ
Special Use Permit Concept Plan SP-CP
Reduced Concept Plan R-CP
Proffers P
Bond Estimate Request BER
Draft Groundwater Management Plan D-GWMP
Final Groundwater Management Plan F-GWMP
Aquifer Testing Work Plan ATWP
Groundwater Assessment Report GWAR
Architectural Review Board ARB
ARB-2020-132
1
Other: Please explain
(For staff use only)
Submittal Code
# Copies
I Distribute To:
Submittal Code
# Copies
Distribute To:
ARB
1
Margaret Maliszewski
W W W.ALBEMARLLORG
401 McIntire Road, Suite 228 1 Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
Albemarle County
Service Auth`rity
SeMg*Co1=emn9 <::��
April 15, 2021
Shimp Engineering
Attn: Mr. Justin Shimp, P.E.
201 East Main Street, Suite M
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
Re: Albemarle Business Campus — Block 5
Dear Mr. Shimp:
We have reviewed the plans entitled "Albemarle Business Campus — Block 5,"
dated April 5, 2021. The following comments need to be addressed:
General
1. Provide fixture counts for each retail space and storage facility.
2. Backflow prevention will be required.
3. Show proposed Business Campus layout on utility plan.
Sheet C6
1. Include casing pipe for water main crossing pavers.
2. Each retail space should have their own service connection to the water main.
3. Relocate one of the hydrants further into the site.
4. Confirm if a 4" fire line will suffice for the building.
5. There is not an existing water main along Old Lynchburg Road. Confirm if this is
proposed under an offsite extension plan.
6. Revise proposed sewer main, as shown on PDF.
7. Account for potential retaining wall for future office building. The sewer manhole,
6A, should be 10-feet away from the wall.
If you have any questions concerning this review feel free to call at (434) 977-
4511, Ext. 113.
Sincerely,
A6lK44We-&M,
Richard Nelson
Civil Engineer
RN:dmg
050504AIbema rle Bu si nessCam pus BIk5Comments041521
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Stephen C. Brich, P.E. 1401 East Broad Street (804) 7862701
Commissioner Richmond, Virginia 23219 Fax: (804) 786.2940
May 3, 2021
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Attn: Andy Reitelbach
Re: Albemarle Business Campus — Initial Site Plan
SDP-2021-00022
Review # 1
Dear Mr. Reitelbach:
The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use
Section, has reviewed the above referenced plan as prepared by Shimp Engineering, dated 5
October 2020 and the comment response letter dated 22 March 2021, and offers the following
comments:
1. Responses to comments prepared by Max Greene on 2 December 2020 were included
with this submission. A full set of plans (not just Block 5) will be necessary to evaluate
these responses. This letter applies only to the layout of Block 5 shown in the submitted
plans and does not address those responses.
2. The entrance radii do not conform to Table 4-3 of Appendix F of the Road Design
Manual for Commercial/Retail without Separate Truck Access.
3. The entrance width does not conform to Figure 4-9 of Appendix F of the Road Design
Manual.
Please provide a digital copy in PDF format of the revised plan along with a comment response
letter. If further information is desired, please contact Doug McAvoy Jr. at (540) 718-6113.
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