HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201700034 Review Comments Minor Amendment 2017-09-15A'si
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Mr. Scott R. Collins, PE(scott(a)collins-engineering.com)
From: Paty Saternye — Senior Planner
Division: Planning
Date: July 14, 2017
Rev. 1: September 15, 2017
Subject: SDP-2017-0034 (Emerson Commons — Minor Site Plan Amendment)
The County of Albemarle Planning Division will recommend approval of the plan referenced
above once the following comments have been satisfactorily addressed (The following
comments are those that have been identified at this time. Additional comments or conditions
may be added or eliminated based on further review.): [Each comment is preceded by the
applicable reference, which is to the Subdivision/Zoning Ordinances unless otherwise
specified.]
[ZMA2007-12 Proffer #1] Provide four residential affordable dwelling units in the site plan as
specified in Proffer #1. Building 13 has been reduced from four units to three units and no
longer contains enough units to meet this proffer. Only 3 units have the "' in front of their unit
number specifying them as affordable units.
Rev. 1: Comment Addressed.
[ZMA2007-12 Application Plan] ZMA2007-12 specified 26 residential units. All of the
calculations on the approved site plan were based on 26 residential units. The unit count
specified in the note in the lower left hand corners of the coversheet specifies 28 units. Revise
the note to match the ZMA and approved site plan or clarify. The site plan will not be approved
unless it meets all requirements of the ZMA, proffers, and is in general accord with the
Application Plan.
Rev. 1: Comment Addressed.
3. [ZMA2007-12 Application Plan] Revise the landscaping to be in general accord with the ZMA
Application Plan. The Application Plan included diagrammatic sections showing the sightline
from Parkview Drive. These sightlines showed how the combination of the existing and
proposed landscaping, between the road and the development, would mitigate the view of the
development from the existing street. In the proposed site plan amendment the landscaping
along the road has been greatly reduced in comparison to the Application Plan and previously
approved site plan (SDP2008-74) and will not fully screen the development or the dumpsters.
Rev. 1: Comment Addressed.
4. [Comment] Revise the title on the coversheet to specify that the site plan number is
"SDP201700034".
Rev. 1: Comment Addressed.
5. [Comment] Add a note to the cover sheet that specifies the previously approved site plan
number "SDP200800074" and specifies the date of the last revision and the approval date of
that original plan.
Rev. 1: Comment Addressed.
[Comment] Revise the 'Zoning District' on the cover sheet to include the ZMA # of 'ZMA2007-
00012".
Rev. 1: Comment Addressed.
[Comment] Revise the list of "Minor Site Plan Amendment Proposed Changes:" to include all
changes to the site plan proposed with the amendment. That includes but is not limited to the
change in unit count/density, that the stormwater management has been changed from using
bioretention to yard drain straight into Parrott Branch, the changes in road/pavement
details/section as well as some widths. All changes to the site plan must be listed in the
proposed changes list.
Rev. 1: Comment not vet fully addressed. Address the following:
• Revise "Proposed Changes" number 20 to include "General Notes".
8. [Comment] Include clouds around all changes to the site plan proposed with the amendment.
This includes clouds around both the plan view, the site data, and calculations on the
coversheet. Many of the changes in this site plan do not have clouds shown around them. Two
examples are the changes to the stormwater management and the changes to the parking
spaces and the parking calculations.
Rev. 1: Comment not yet fully addressed. Address the following:
• Add a cloud around comment #37, since it has been changed since the approved
plan.
• Add Clouds around the sheets that have been removed from, or added to, the site
plan.
9. [32.5.2(b) & 32.6.2(i)] Revise the site data, proposed building area, percent impervious and
calculation for 5% of parking lot area in order to incorporate the proposed changes to the site
plan. The building footprints have been modified, and the number of provided parking spaces
has been increased, however the areas and calculations shown have not been updated.
Rev. 1: Comment Addressed.
10. [Comment] Show the triangle label for minor site plan amendment changes on each sheet that
shows the change, specifying where that change is taking place.
Rev. 1: Comment not vet fully addressed. Address the following:
• Add the appropriate triangle label next to comment #37, since it has been changed
since the approved plan.
• Add the appropriate triangle label next to removed and/or added sheets in the
Sheet List Table.
11. [32.5.2(a), 32.5.2(n), & 32.6.1(e)] For a minor amendment to a site plan the sheets must
contain the same information, while incorporating the modifications, as was in the approved site
plan. This plan has merged the information from two or more sheets and not provided all of the
information provided in the original sheets. Therefore, the sheets provided could not be
swapped out for the sheets in the original set to create a full set. Address the following:
• Revise the existing conditions sheets to include existing conditions for both on site and off
site areas of improvements.
do not include al
O Url bneet VI-ul Inere 15 a nalGn anu note aooUE orUbn aFlu IIee reflluVal HIM Flab
not been included in the upper left of the page, in the area where the fruit trees are
proposed.
o On both C1-01 and C1-02 there are insufficient elevation labels on the contour
lines and the difference between the maior and minor lines are hard to
differentiate.
o On sheet C1-02 the culvert under the road to the vet appears to be missing and the
two'TBR" labels need to be placed correctly once the culvert is once again
shown.
o On sheet C1-02 there appear to be dimensions (24', 5' & 8') that are not associated
with any objects.
o The label for the "New 16" RWSA Waterline" pipe does not touch the location of
the new pipe and has no arrow on the end of the leader.
o On sheet C3-01 the "Albemarle County Construction Notes for Streets" still has
not been included even though it was on the approved site plan. Include this
information and see the engineering comments on a suggested way to create
room to do so by giving the Maintenance of Traffic Plan information its own sheet.
Ensure all notes and details included on the original site plan sheets are included on the
provided sheets unless the information is no longer needed or valid because of changes to
what is proposed.
landscaping details that were provided on that sheet in the approved site plan.
• Ensure that the sheets provided can be added back to the remaining original site plan
sheets and that all the information required is provided and that new amendment sheets and
remaining approved sheets do not provide contradictory information.
Rev. 1: Comment not vet fully addressed. See comment directly above.
12. [Comment] Number the notes on the cover sheet (CO-01) in the General Notes section and
ensure the notes are numbered as they were in the approved site plan.
Rev. 1: Comment Addressed.
13. [32.5.2(i)] On the coversheet (CO-01) the second -to -last note states that "Site shall be
addressed as Parrot Creek Road (Private)." However, the plans only depict roads labeled as
Parkview Drive, Snapdragon Lane, Teaberry Lane, and Stargazer Lane; no road is labeled as
Parrot Creek Road. Please address and resolve this apparent discrepancy. Also, please note:
• See E991 comments about needed changes to the street names.
• The correct spelling of the riparian feature adjacent to this site is "Parrott" Branch, not
"Parrot" Creek.
existing buildings will be addressed as Teaberry Lane (Private) and the proposed
residences will be addressed as Stargazer Lane (Private)". as long as both of
14. [32.5.2(i) & 32.6.2(a)] Provide information on the "Proposed Trail Easement". If this easement
already exists revise the label, provide the deed book and page reference for the recorded
easement. If this easement does not already exist then submit the proposed easement for
review. The final site plan will not be approved until the easement is approved, signed and
recorded.
Rev. 1: Comment Addressed.
15. [32.5.2(a) & 32.6.2(a)] Revise the Sheet List Table on Sheet CO-01 to include the total number
of sheets (16).
Rev. 1: Comment Addressed.
16. [32.5.2(a) & 32.6.2(a)] Specify zoning and present use(s) of abutting parcel TMP 56-74A.
Rev. 1: Comment Addressed.
17. [32.5.2(b) & 32.6.2(a)] Sheet C2-01 contains "Updated phasing line for the project;" please
provide information about the proposed timing of development/implementation of buildings and
utilities.
Rev. 1: Comment not yet fully addressed. Clarify whether yard drain #5 will be in Phase I
or Phase II. Although the note specifying the phases does not list YD-5 as being in
within that area.
18. [32.5.2(f) & 32.6.2(a] Revise the note on Sheet CO-01 to correctly specify "Subject Parcel is in
the Beaver Creek Reservoir Water Supply Watershed." (Currently, "Water Supply" is omitted.)
Rev. 1: Comment Addressed.
19. [32.5.2(m) & 32.6.2(a] Provide the distance to the centerline of the nearest existing street
intersection from the proposed ingress and egress.
Rev. 1: Comment Addressed.
20. [32.5.2(n) & 32.6.2(a] Provide the maximum footprint of each building. The table on Sheet No.
C2-01, for the building information, no longer appears to supply the maximum square footage of
each building as it did in the approved site plan. Revise the table to include this information
once again.
Rev. 1: Comment Addressed.
21. 132.5.2(n) & 32.6.2(a] Revise the chart showing the building numbers to address the following:
• Revise the chart so that the quantity of residences for Building 3 matches the number of
residences shown in the proposed layout. The layout shows 2 residences and the chart
specifies only 1.
Revise the chart to include the "Building Type" as was provided in the approved site plan.
• Provide a total of the residences at the bottom of the table.
Rev. 1: Comment Addressed.
23. [32.5.2(n) & 32.6.2(a] Provide a hatch for the trail shown on sheet C3-01.
Rev. 1: Comment Addressed.
24. [32.5.2(n), 32.6.1(e) & 32.6.2(a)] Clarify the number of residential units proposed with the plan
and meet all requirements based upon that number of units. See comment #2 above and
address the following:
• [32.5.2(b), 32.6.2(i) & 32.6.2(1)] The 52 required parking spaces on the Application Plan
were specified to meet the 26 units shown on that plan, which is two parking spaces per
unit, as specified in the Code (4.12.6). Revise all requirements including, but not limited to,
parking spaces and recreational facilities, based upon the number of residential units
specified.
• [32.5.2(b) & 32.6.2(i)] Include a calculation for the number of required parking spaces in the
site date on the cover sheet.
• [ZMA2007-12 Application Plan] The existing barns are shown with "N/A" for
"bedroom/residences" and "total # of bedrooms". However, they have "V shown under
"QTY. of Residences". Revise the "QTY. of Residences" for the two barns to be "0" (zero).
• [32.5.2(b)] Ensure that the dwelling units per acre is updated in the note in the lower left
hand corner of the cover sheet.
Rev. 1: Comment Addressed.
25. [32.5.2(n) & 32.6.2(a)] Revise the labels for buildings 3, 11, 12 & 13 to match the format of the
other building labeling. Provide a "Building Type" and "unit' type for buildings 3, 11, 12 & 13.
Rev. 1: Comment Addressed.
26. [32.5.2(n), 32.6.1(e), 32.6.2(a)& 32.6.2(i)] Provide the hatched areas adjacent to the parking
spaces that are reduced in depth. There is an area of 2' adjacent to the 16' deep parking
spaces, and 1' adjacent to the 17' deep parking spaces, that must be clear of obstructions for
parking overhang. This was provided on the approved site plan and has not been provided in
this amendment.
Rev. 1: Comment Addressed.
27. [32.6.2(h)] Revise the signature panel to the one for minor site plan amendments. Approval
panels with all reviewers' signatures are not required on minor amendments.
Rev. 1: Comment Addressed.
28. [32.6.2(k)] Add a note on the coversheet specifying that no exterior lighting is proposed in the
site plan or provide a site lighting plan that meets all Codes and requirements.
Rev. 1: Comment Addressed.
29. [32.5.2(p), 32.6.2.0) & 32.7.9] Show proposed tree line on sheet C2-01 & C6-01.
Rev. 1: Comment Addressed.
30. [32.6.20)] The landscaping plan has changed extensively from the approved site plan. Address
the following:
• Provide the stream buffer mitigation plant schedule.
Rev. 1: Comment Addressed.
• Show the location of the tree protection and silt fence which were shown on the
approved site plan.
Rev. 1: Comment Addressed.
• Provide a legend, or labels, on the Landscape Plan that specifies all of the hatching
used in that plan sheet. There are hatches that have no labels specifying what they are
representing.
Rev. 1: Comment Addressed.
• Parrott Branch is not shown for its full length on the Landscaping sheet. Ensure that the
watercourse is shown for the whole area represented on the sheet.
Rev. 1: Comment Addressed.
• Only 5 "Hornbeam" trees are shown on the landscape plan but 9 are specified in the
"Site Landscaping Plant Schedule". Provide all specified trees or update the schedule
appropriately.
Rev. 1: Comment Addressed.
• The "Total Canopy' calculation appears to be incorrect. Address the following:
o It is uncertain where the "9,350 SF" comes from. In the approved plan the
number there was for the total square feet of canopy provide in the "Site
Landscape Plant Schedule'. However "9,350 SF" does not match either the
current or the amended square footage of proposed canopy.
o In the approved plan the canopy provided by the "Stream Mitigation Plant
Schedule" was also included in this calculation. It is not shown as part of the
calculation in the proposed amendment to the site plan.
o Provide information on the source and area of the "72,630 SF" in the calculation.
If this is the area provided by "Existing Canopy Calculated Area" explain why this
area has not changed despite the change in the limits of disturbance. Update
this number to accurately represent the existing canopy that is to remain on the
site and is being utilized to meet part of the canopy requirements.
Rev. 1: Comment Addressed.
• Provide the note, previously next to the viewport for the "Existing Canopy Calculated
Area", that states "Trees in this area are not counted towards overall tree canopy and
should be protected to the greatest extent practical by the contractor at the desire of the
owner. Contractor shall consult with owner and design engineer prior to grading
operations in this area if any of the vegetation is removed, supplemental evergreen
plantings will be installed to help buffer views of development." Also, either expand the
note or add a leader to clarify the area for which this note applies.
Rev. 1: Comment not yet fully addressed. Address the following:
o No note with a leader, or expanded description, was added to clarify the area
for which this note applies. It is important that the area in which tree
preservation is not required, and that evergreen screening trees can be put in
their place, is clearly defined in the site plan. Keep in mind that the note states
that the trees in question are not counted towards the overall canopy.
Therefore trees included in the calculation should not be those specified. Add
the note with a leader, or expanded description, to provide this information.
o The graphic showing the "Existing Canopy Calculated Area" has not been
updated to show the hatch of the new area that generated the updated
calculation provided. Update this graphic on the left of the page to show the
area of the current "Existing Canopy Calculated Area".
• Ensure that the landscaping is in general accord with the approved ZNIA Application
Plan.
Rev. 1: Comment Addressed.
• Since the proposed landscaping is different then what was shown in the previous site
plan include all required landscaping calculations including street trees, landscaping
within parking areas (trees and shrubs), screening, and tree canopy. Ensure all
landscaping requirements are met.
Rev. 1: Comment Addressed.
31. 132.6.1(e)] Revise the plan to show the correct height of all retaining walls and provide safety
railings where required. The retaining wall along the edge of the recreational area show two
different maximum heights on two different sheets (C2-01 & C3-02). If the walls are 4' or higher
they will require a safety railing. If a safety railing is required provide a detail for the railing.
Rev. 1: Comment Addressed.
32. [32.6.1(e)] VDOT and engineering approval will be required for the removal of the Guardrail
along the north side of Parkview Drive.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. See enaineerina comments on the possible need
of the guardrail along the trail side of Parkview Drive.
33. [Comment] indicate the available sight distance for entrances and left turn lanes. It appears
that the sight distance profiles for Parkview Drive have been removed from the site plan (C3-
01).
Rev. 1: Comment Addressed.
34. [32.6.1(e) & 32.6.2(f)] Specify on the plan which roads/drives/lanes are private and which are
public.
Rev. 1: Comment not vet fully addressed. Specifv on the plan which roads/drives/lanes
are private and which are public. Only Parkview Drive has been labeled as a "Private
Road". Label all of the internal roads (Snaodraaon Lane.Teaberry Lane. & Staraazer
Lane) as either public or private
35. [32.6.2(f)] It appears that a second travel way and parking pavement detail has been added to
the site plan (C3-03) and it does not specify the depths of all of the materials. The depths of the
materials will have to be included in the pavement detail and be approved by engineering.
Rev. 1: Comment Addressed.
36. [32.6.2(f)] It appears that the road section for Parkview Drive has been removed from Sheet C3-
03. Replace the required street section for Parkview Drive in the site plan.
Rev. 1: Comment Addressed.
37. [32.6.2(f)] It appears that a road section has been added (C3-03), which is for the internal road
of the development. However, it specifies a travelway width that does not appear to match the
site plan or meet standards. The layout shows Teaberry Lane and Snapdragon Lane with a 20'
wide drive aisle, not 14' wide drive aisle with a 3' concrete drainage ribbon on each side as
shown in the section. The new section will have to meets standards and be approved by
engineering.
Rev. 1: Comment Addressed.
38. [32.6.2(f)] It appears that the stone access path section has been removed from Sheet C3-03.
Clarify if no stone access paths will be included in the development. If they are to be provided
then provide the section in the site plan. If it is to be removed specify the change in the
modifications list for the minor amendment.
Rev. 1: Comment Addressed.
39. [Comment] It appears that there are extraneous notes and line work, in Parkview Drive
viewport window in the top right corner of sheet C1-01, that were not on the approved plan.
Please remove this text and line work or clarify why they are needed.
Rev. 1: Comment Addressed.
40. [Comment] It appears that the "Pavement", "Grading" and "Drainage" notes in the bottom right
corner of the coversheet of the site plan were not on the approved plan. Please clarify why
these notes have been placed on the cover sheet. Also provide in the site plan set the notes
that were removed from the coversheet for Pavement, Grading & Drainage or specify why those
notes are no longer needed on the site plan.
Rev. 1: Comment not vet fully addressed. Although the Pavement, Grading & Drainage
notes have been added back to the coversheet in the process the "ACSA General Water
& Sewer Conditions" now appear to have been removed from the coversheet and site
plan. Either provide the ACSA notes again on the coversheet or provide them on another
appropriate sheet within the site plan. All notes provided on the sheets in the approved
site plan must be included in the amended site plan unless changes to the plan makes
them no longer necessary to the design.
41. [Comment] Ensure that the owner of the property is the one to sign the conservation checklist
before the amendment can be approved.
Rev. 1: Comment Addressed.
42. [Comment] It is understood that some discussion on other reviewer's comments has taken
place and that some comments have been stated as no longer being needed. However, those
comments are being attached to this set of comments in their entirety for reference. It is
understood that some may no longer be needed.
Rev. 1: Comment Addressed.
43. [Comment] See the attached comments from Engineering, VDOT, E911, ACSA, Fire/Rescue,
ARB, Inspections, & Zoning. The site plan will not be approved without the approval of the other
reviewers.
Rev. 1: Comment not vet fully addressed. See attached comments from Engineering,
VDOT, E911, ACSA, Fire/Rescue & Zoning. The site plan will not be approved without the
approval of reviewers. Address the remaining planning, engineering, VDOT and ACSA
comments.
44. MEW Commentl Provide existing and proposed contour lines on sheet C4-01. Both the
main view and the inset view on sheet C4-01 do not provide the contour lines required
and provided in the approved final site plan.
45. [NEW COMMENT: 32.5.2(k) & 32.6.2(e)l Submit the deed of dedication and easement
agreement, and its associated easements plat, for review as specified in the comment for
WPO2017-42). This requires a separate application and fee for an "easement plat(s)
required with a site plan". Engineering will coordinate the review of the deed and
easement, however planning and the County Attorney's office will also be part of that
review. The site plan will not be approved until the deed and easement is submitted,
approved, signed and recorded. Provide a copy of the recorded plat and deed to the
planning reviewer once this has been completed. Also, provide the Deed Book page
information on the final site plan.
46. [NEW COMMENT: 32.5.2(i) & 32.6.2(e)l Submit a plat showing the easement(s) to be
vacated. The easement plat must be reviewed by the County, approved, signed and
recorded prior to site plan approval. The vacation plat may be able to be coordinated
with the plat for the Forest/Open Space easement (See the comment above, as well as
engineering's comments for this site plan and for WPO2017-42). If you wish to combine
the two plats coordinate with the engineering reviewer to ensure that the addition of the
vacation does not cause an issue for the approval of the Forest/Open Space easement.
If it is not combined with the Forest/Open Space easement review it will require a
separate submission, application and fee. Provide a copy of the recorded plat to the
planning reviewer once this has been completed. Also, provide the Deed Book page
information on the final site plan.
47. (NEW COMMENT: 32.5.2(i) & 32.6.2(e)l Revise the label for the existing BMP easement to
be vacated to provide the correct Deed Book and Page Number. The deed book and
page number provided on the site plan appears to be for the offsite easements and not
the ones that are onsite.
Staff has provided references to provisions of Chapter 18 of the Code of the County of
Albemarle. The Code is kept up to date by the County Attorney's office. The Code may be
found on the County Attorney's website which may be found under "Departments" at
Albemarle.org.
In accord with the provisions of Section 32.4.3.5 of Chapter 18 of the Code if the developer
fails to submit a revised final site plan to address all of the requirements within six (6) months
after the date of this letter the application shall be deemed to have been voluntarily withdrawn
by the developer.
Please contact Pa nye in the Planning Division by using psaternye(a)albemarle.org or
434-296-5832 a or further information.
Review Comments for SDP201700034 MinorAmendment
Project Name I Emerson Commons -Minor
Date Completed: Thursday. September 07, 2017 Department/DivisionlAgency: Review Status:
Reviewer: David James
Eng. comments per MIA plan dated 8/4/2017:
CDD Engineering Requested Changes
1. Currently addressed
2. Currently addressed
3. Currently addressed
4. Show detail for multi -purpose trail. Trail should meet Class A— type 2 standards.
If trail is an 8' bike trail than label as such. A 2-foot (min) wide graded area with a 6:1 (max) slope shall be maintained adjacent
to both sides of the path... [VDOT, Appx B(1}34].
Guardrail (as show on approve plan) to remain if you cannot meet above requirements.
Show/Note on plans that 'All trails are required to have appropriate signage and markings at road crossings per VDOT
standards. At a minimum crossing signs and sidewalk pavement markings must be placed on the roadway, with stop signs and
warning signs on the trail'.
5. Currently addressed
6. Addressed on an approved mitigation plan as part of the WPO plan review.
7. Submit a plat showing easements to be vacated.
8. Currently addressed
9. Currently addressed
10. Currently addressed
11. Currently addressed
12. For pipes there should be no excessive outlet velocities (> 15fps). Can you not decrease the pipe slopes & lower the
velocities to under 15fps?A solution would be to use the drop structures / step-down manholes.
13. Currently addressed
14. Sheet C3-01 — Include Albemarle county construction notes for private streets. Recommended to show 'Maintenance of
traffic plan' details & notes (rev. 9 changes) on it's own sheet.
15. Separate signs needed for stop sign & street name sign. Street name sign typically placed opposite stop signs.
16. Provide sign maintenance agreement if using non-standard VDOT signs/posts.
17. Provide/show cross drain (CD-1,2) at sag curve.
18. Sheet C4-01A— Show profile for YD-28 — OUT. The pipe velocity is excessive at junction (>20fps). Correct for the slope of
YD26-YD25 in the profile it's 45.13% vs. 43.75% in table, also correct for YD25-YD24.
YD1A-OUT & YD12-OUT have excessive outlet velocities (>15 fps).
19. Provide maintenance requirements for yard drains (storm drain & inlets) and/or maintenance agreement.
20. A separate bond and/or maintenance agreement for the roads will be required.
Page: 1 County of Albemarle Printed On: 09114 01017
Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E.
Commissioner
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper Virginia 22701
August 24, 2017
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Attn: Tim Padalino
Re: Emerson Commons- Minor Site Plan Amendment.
SDP-2017-00034
Review #2
Dear Mr. Padalino:
The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use
Section, has reviewed the above referenced as submitted by, Collins Engineering dated May
15, 2017,revised August 4, 2017 and offers the following comments.
Land Use
1. Please mill and overlay to center of Three Notch'd Road, appears to be avoid in the
mill and overlay on plan sheet# 3-0 1.
Please note that the final site plan must show conformance with the VDOT Road Design
Manual Appendices B (1) and F, as well as any other applicable standards, regulations, or
other requirements.
Please provide two copies of the revised plan along with a comment response letter. If further
information is desired, please contact Willis C. Bedsaul at 434-422-9866.
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. M re, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Charlottesville Residency
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
Review Comments for
Project Name: IEmerson Commons - Minor
Date Completed:I Friday, September 15, 2017
Reviewer: Alexander Morrison
SDP201700034 MinorAmendment
Department/Division/Agency: Review Status:
ACSA - No Objection 0
9115/2017: Approval of RWSA Flow Acceptance is required before site plan approval.
9113/17: The applicant has submitted 3 sets of plans for Construction Plan Approval. I am working on our internal approval
package.
9/112017: (This is ACSA's initial comments in 2nd review, but changed to what is listed above):
Previous comment has not been fully addressed.
Provide ACSA with the 3 copies and issue the re -approval internally.
Provide RWSAwith 1 copy.
They have not changed the proposed water connection. It is an RWSA transmission main so we are awaiting RWSA's review.
Page: 10 County of Albemarle Printed Cn: 09115/2017
Review Comments for SDP2O17O0034 MinorAmendment -
Project Name Emerson Commons - Minor
Date Completed: Friday, June 02, 2017 DepartmenVDivision/Agency: Review Status:
Reviewer: Elise Kiewra F-I CDD E911 No Objection
Pape: 10 County of Albemarle Printed On: 09/08/2017
Review Comments for SDP201700034 MinorAmendment -
Project Name I Emerson Commons - Minor
Date Completed: Monday, August 21, 2017 DepartrnenUDivisionlAgency: Review Status:
Reviewer: Robbie Gilmer Fire Rescue O No Objection
Page: 10 County of Albemarle Printed On: F0911212017
Review Comments for SDP2O17O0034 MinorAmendment -
Project Name: Emerson Commons -Minor
Date Completed: Friday, September 08, 2017 DepartmentlDivisionlAgency: Review Status:
Reviewer: Rebecca Ragsdale F-I CDD Zoning O No Objection
Pape: 10 County of Albemarle Printed On: 0911212017