HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP000000130 Review Comments 1978-06-09 ,� of ALB,*Ai
Caiv
•
pper�/
•
Planning Department
(804) 296-5823
414 EAST MARK ET STREET
ROBERT W.TUCKER,JR. CHARLOTTESV I LL E,V 1 RGI N IA 22901 RONALD S.KEELER
DIRECTOR OF PLANNING • ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
MEMORANDUM MARY JOY SCALA
SENIOR PLANNER
CARLOS M.MONTENEGRO
PLANNER
TO: Kurt M. Gloeckner
FROM: Carlos M. Montenegro, Plann::r
SUBJECT: SITE PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS - FLOOR FASHIONS SITE PLAN
DATE: , June 9, 1978
Please review your site plan or plat to include the following comments. Five copies
of the revised plans must be submitted no later than Thursday, June 22, 1978
in order to be heard by the Planning Commission on Tuesday, June 27, 1978
7:30 p.m. , Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Otherwise
it will have to be deferred to a later date. These comments should not be considered
final. Please have a representative present at the Planning Commission meeting.
CMM/ja
/ Provide a 4"x4" space forfapprovals;
Dumpster screen must be. Don-combustible;
4/ Note existing zoning;
Note adjacent owners;
K./ Note width of proposed decel lane in median; .
6 Note location and size of proposed water. line;
Landscape plan should note sizes of all items;
Note location of setback lines;
yNote finished height of building;
1.4 Provide an outdoor lighting plan;
Note location of proposed sign(s) ;
12'. Add a note stating "Landscape items are to be maintained in a healthy condition;
if any should die, they shall be replaced." .
Discuss with staff possible access to adjacent tracts;
14. If you have any problems regarding these comments, please let me know;
15. Other comments enclosed.
Site Plan Review
Page 3
June 7, 1978
13Floor Fashions of Virginia Site Plan - Route 29 North. Entrance location
shown has adequate sight distance being in excess of a thousand feet. Improvements ad-
jacent to the site appear to be proper as well as the turn lane in the southbound lane
crossover.
14. Warehouse Facility - Northside Industrial Park Site Plan - Route 29 N.
A 30 foot commercial entrance would be required and pavement of the entrance by bituminous
concrete to the right of way line.
15. Caleb Stowe Associates Site Plan - Route 631 Rio Road West. Entrance
location to the new parcel has adequate sight distance, improvements including set back
of curb and gutter, and additional pavement as shown will be adequate.
16. Hatfield Farm Final Plat - Route 810. The entrance location for the four
lots need to be checked and a commercial entrance required. At this time it appears that
the sight distance at this location is questionable.
17. Wavertree Hall Farm RPN Plan - Route 637 and 692. Commercial street con-
nections will be required at the three locations serving lots 1 through 4B, the main
entrance, and lots 16 through 23. Entrance serving lots 1 through 4B appears to be
adequate; however, the others are questionable. A review by our District Office is
required to determine if sight distance is adequate.
18. Woodbrook Shopping Village Revised Site Plan - Route 29 North. The
entrance existing serving this parcel is adequate.
19. Shadwell Mountain Final Plat - Shadwell Frontage Road I-64. Our previous
comments still apply.
20. Rives C. Gentry Site Plan - Route 742 Avon Street Extended. Location of
entrance needs to be checked to confirm that sight distance is adequate for a commercial
entrance. A deceleration lane may be required.
21 . Manley Associates Site Plan - Route 29 North. Entrance location has
adequate sight distance. The actual width of the entrance should be determined by the
total useage. We recommend that the frontage improvements for the entire parcel in-
cluding curb and gutter and storm sewer be required including a 12 foot acceleration lane.
22 . Cismon Container Site Plan - Route 22. At Route 231 the entrance
location shown would be adequate provided the trees to the west of the entrance are
cleared to improve sight distance and the radius increased on the west side of the
entrance. A taper of pavement from the radius point back to what is shown as .5 feet
from the box culvert would be more desirable than a full 12 foot lane.
If you should have any questions, please advise.
Very truly yours,
D. S. Roosevelt
Resident Engineer
WBCjr/dcd By: W. B. Coburn, Jr
Asst. Resident Engin er
cc: Mr. R. D. Harrison
Mr. J. C. DuFresne