HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201300057 Review Comments 2014-04-04Review Comments
Project Name: Northside Library - Minor Minor Amendment
Date Completed: Friday, April 04, 2014
Reviewer: Ellie Ray
Department /Division /Agency: Planning
Reviews
Review Status: Approved
Review Comments
Project Name: Northside Library - Minor Minor Amendment
Date Completed: Wednesday, March 26, 2014
Reviewer: Margaret Maliszewski
Department /Division /Agency: ARB
Reviews
Review Status: Approved
J. �3•.
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper, Virginia 22701
Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E.
Commissioner
March 21, 2014
Ms. Ellie Carter Ray
Senior Planner
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: SDP - 2013 -00057 Northside Library -- Minor Site Plan Amendment
Dear Ms. Ray:
We have reviewed the site plan for Northside Library dated 10121113 with revisions dated
12118113, 116114, 1115114, 1/27i'14, 2.13/14, and 3!4.;14 as submitted by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin,
Inc. All previous review comments have been adequately addressed and VDOT has no objection
to the site plan as submitted. Please note, a Land Use Permit will need to be obtained from this
office prior to any work beginning within the State right -of -way.
If you need additional information concerning this project, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
,-<, fi'�
1
Troy Austin, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Culpeper District
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
O
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
November 11, 2013
Revl: February 10, 2014
Rev2: March 21, 2014
Scott Chapman
VHB, Inc.
115S. 15th Street, Suite 200
Chester, VA 23836
RE: SDP2013 -00057 Northside Library — Minor Amendment
Dear Sir:
Your Minor Amendment application has been reviewed. In order for the amended site plan to be
approved the following revisions are required:
1. [32.5.2(a)] The owner of this parcel is County of Albemarle; please revise the Cover Sheet.
Revl : Comment addressed.
2. [32.5.2(a)] Add EC (Entrance Corridor) to the Zoning note.
Revl : Comment addressed.
3. [32.5.2(a)] The written and graphic scales provided on Sheet C7.01 do not match; please revise.
Revl : Comment addressed.
4. [32.5.2(a)] Add the landscape, lighting, and lighting detail sheets to the Sheet Index.
Revl : Comment addressed.
5. [32.5.2(a)] Provide the names of the owners, zoning district, tax map and parcel number, and
present uses of all abutting parcels.
Revl : Comment not fully addressed. The information provided on the parcel to the southwest
is incorrect; it appears to be a combination of information for the parcel being reviewed and
the adjacent parcel to the east. The SW parcel contains office condominiums and can be
labeled as `Village Office Condos, various owners'.
Rev2: Comment not addressed. The information provided on the parcel to the southwest is
cut off and illegible. Additionally, all of the other adjacent parcel information is no longer on
the plan. Please provide the correct information on all adjacent parcels.
6. [32.5.2(b) & 4.12.4(a)] Zoning will determine the number of required parking spaces for this use; this
information will be forwarded upon receipt. The number of spaces required and the number of
spaces provided should be included on the cover sheet once their determination is made.
Revl : Comment not fully addressed. The parking chart and other notes indicate that 84
spaces are provided, but only 83 are present on the layout (one row labeled 8 spaces in the
back parking lot only has 7 spaces). Please revise all notes to indicate the correct number of
spaces and remove the old `parking requirements' information provided under `Site Data'.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
7. [32.5.2(b)] Provide the maximum amount of impervious cover on the Cover Sheet.
Revl : Comment addressed.
8. [32.5.2(b) & 4.12.16] All 16' reduced length parking spaces must have a 2' unobstructed overhang.
It appears the light pole may encroach into this 2' overhang; please verify and revise if necessary.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. Please also show the overhang line on the landscape
and lighting plans to ensure no light poles, shrubs or trees will encroach into this space.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
9. [32.5.2(1)] Provide the name and route number of the existing adjacent street, as well as the
pavement and right -of -way width.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
10. [32.5.2(1)] It appears there are off -site lanes proposed for egress from the site; clarify if an access
easement exists. If it does, please show it on the plan with the associated Deed Book and Page
Number. If it does not, an easement and maintenance agreement must be established.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
11. [32.5.2(k)] The proposed storm drain system appears to connect to portions of the existing system
that are labeled for removal on the demolition plan; please clarify.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
12. [32.5.2(1)] Verify that the location(s) of any other existing or proposed utilities and utility easements
including telephone, cable, electric and gas are shown on the plan.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
13. [32.5.2(m)] Show the distance to the centerline of the nearest existing street intersection from the
proposed ingress and egress location.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
14. [32.5.2(n)] Clarify the current square footage of the building as well as the square footage of the
proposed addition(s).
Rev1: Comment addressed.
15. [32.5.2(n)] Dimension all walkways, the dumpster pad, all curb radii, the larger travelway behind the
building and the outer travel lane next to the book -drop.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
16. [32.5.2(r)] Clarify the large dark circle symbols (one in loading area, one near loop in upper parking
lot) that are on the layout plan.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. Since no other storm drain information is provided on
the layout plan, the manholes should be labeled for clarification.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
17. [32.6.2(e)5] Provide a detail for "VDOT Mod CG -6R ".
Rev1: Comment addressed.
18. [32.6.2(8)] Label the angle of the parking spaces in the upper lot.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
19. [32.6.20) & 32.7.9.4] Currently the landscape plan is very difficult to read; the call -outs have no
quantity included, different symbols are used for the same plant, and the same symbols are used for
different plants. Please provide the quantity of the proposed species in the call -out and /or use
consistent symbols for each type of plant proposed.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. One section of planting area in the back parking lot has
not been labeled. It appears to contain 5 additional Thuja.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
20. [32.6.20) & 32.7.9.4(a)] Several of the proposed plantings appear to have utility conflicts; move all
landscaping away from proposed utilities and outside of any utility easements.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. The Cornus along the front of the parcel are all within
the Dominion Power easement; please provide documentation of authorization to plant within
their easement. Additionally, three Platanus are proposed directly on top of existing storm
drain pipe and will need to be moved. Please also verify that all existing and proposed utilities
are shown on the landscape plan; it appears that at a minimum the proposed storm drain
information isn't provided.
Rev2: Comment not fully addressed. Provide documentation of Dominion's authorization to
plant within their easement for the project file.
21. [32.6.20) & 32.7.9.4(a)] Provide the planting size of each species in the plant schedule, and verify
that the minimum standards have been met.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
22. [32.6.20) & 32.7.9.5(b)] Street trees are required along all existing public street frontage; these trees
should be selected from a current list of recommended large shade trees approved by the agent,
provided that medium shade trees may planted instead when the agent determines that site
conditions warrant smaller trees. The trees proposed are listed under "ornamental trees" and do not
meet this requirement. Please select a large shade tree from the County's approved plant list unless
the ARB approves the use of this species.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed; awaiting final ARB approval.
Rev2: Comment not fully addressed; awaiting final ARB approval.
23. [32.6.20) & 32.7.9.5(b)] Clarify which existing trees along the existing public street frontage are to
remain; the demolition sheet indicates several are to be saved, but the landscape plan seems to
indicate otherwise.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
24. [32.6.20) & 32.7.9.5(e)] When a parking area is located so that the parked cars will be visible from
an off -site street, the agent may require additional planting of low street shrubs between the street
and the parking area. It appears that this requirement is proposed to be met with rows of shrubs
planted perpendicular to the parking lot. It is unclear if this layout will provide the desired screening of
the parking lot; the ARB will determine whether or not this is an approvable layout.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed; awaiting final ARB approval.
Rev2: Comment not fully addressed; awaiting final ARB approval.
25. [32.6.20) & 32.7.9.6(a)] An area of at least five (5) percent of the paved parking and vehicular
circulation area shall be landscaped with trees or shrubs. Neither the areas of street trees and shrubs
required by sections 32.7.9.5(d) and (e) nor shrubs planted between a parking area and the building
shall be counted toward the minimum landscaped area for a parking lot. Please verify that the number
provided for "parking areas" includes all paved parking and vehicular circulation.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
26. [32.6.20) & 32.7.9.7] The dumpster enclosure note refers to a separate set of plans; dimension the
height of the fence and provide an enclosure detail to show that the screening requirements are being
satisfied.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. Please provide the requested information on this plan
set (one note still says `refer to arch plan'). Additionally, please demonstrate how the
dumpster pad provides the minimum 8' of pad area in front of the dumpster (4.12.19(b)) as it
appears that the pad ends just a foot or two in front of the enclosure on one side.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
27. [32.6.20) & 32.7.9.8(b)] Tree canopy is calculated using plants that will exceed 5' in height at 10
years maturity. Buxus `Green Velvet' does not meet this requirement; subtract its canopy number
from the calculation.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. The Buxus canopy was successfully removed, but there
are a couple of other canopy miscalculations. Acer rubrum planted at 2.5" caliper can use the
canopy number for that planting size of 452 sf (see page 10 of the Albemarle County approved
plant canopy calculations). Please also make revisions necessitated by correcting the plant
counts for the Itea and Thuja requested below.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
28. [32.6.20) & 32.7.9.8(b)] The plant schedule lists 13 Acer rubrum but it appears there are 14 shown
on the plan; please clarify and revise if necessary.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. While the Acer rubrum count is now correct, there are a
few remaining inconsistencies between call -outs, plant counts and the plant schedule. One
area of Carpinus is labeled as 9 trees, but there only appear to be 8 (the schedule seems to
count just 8); please revise the call -out. One area of Itea is labeled as 25, but only 23 plants
are shown; please revise the call -out as well as the schedule. Please include the unlabeled
area of plants referenced above ( #19 ... Thuja ?) in the plant schedule.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
29. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] All lighting, including building mounted fixtures, must be shown on the lighting
plan. Any areas labeled "TBD" must be included on this plan or the approval will not extend to those
fixtures. An additional site plan amendment will be required when those fixtures are to be installed.
Revl: Comment addressed. No building mounted lighting is reviewed or approved with this
site plan.
30. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] Sheet E1.2 includes a spec sheet for a fixture not listed in the luminaire schedule;
please clarify.
Revl: Comment not addressed. This sheet contains the spec sheet for a "GL 13" fixture
while this fixture is not listed in the luminaire schedule; please clarify.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
31. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] The luminaire (fixture) schedule must include the quantity, lumen level,
maintenance factor, and tilt of each proposed fixture.
Revl: Comment addressed.
32. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] Albemarle County requires that the LLF (maintenance factor) be 1.0; verify that the
photometric plan uses proper LLF.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
33. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] Provide the following standard lighting note on the lighting plan: Each outdoor
luminaire equipped with a lamp that emits 3, 000 or more initial lumens shall be a full cutoff luminaire
and shall be arranged or shielded to reflect light away from adjoining residential districts and away
from adjacent roads. The spillover of lighting from luminaires onto public roads and property in
residential or rural areas zoning districts shall not exceed one -half footcandle.
Revl: Comment not fully addressed. The note has been added, but the spillover exceeds 0.5
footcandle along the Rio Road right -of -way; please revise the lighting to reduce the spillover
to 0.5 footcandle or less (4.17.4(b)l ).
Rev2: Comment addressed.
34. [Comment] Reference the benchmarks used for surveys.
Revl: Comment addressed.
35. (Comment] It appears that there are "removal' areas outside of the limits or work; please clarify.
Revl: Comment addressed.
36. [Comment] The limits of work extend beyond the parcel lines in several areas. Provide
documentation of all off -site easements including temporary and permanent easements. If no
easements exist, they will need to be established prior to approval of this site plan.
Revl: Comment not fully addressed; awaiting word on easements for all proposed off -site
work. Off -site work is shown on both TMP 61 -120L and TMP 61 -120.
Rev2: Comment not fully addressed; awaiting word on easements for all proposed off -site
work. Additionally, all easements must be shown and labeled on the site plan. As previously
discussed, verification of authorization to construct permanent improvements within the
existing access easement on the library parcel is also required.
37. [Comment] This amendment cannot be approved until ACSA, ARB and Fire /Rescue complete their
reviews and grant their approval; comments will be forwarded upon receipt. Engineering and VDOT
comments have been provided. Inspections and E911 have completed their reviews and have no
objection.
Revl: Comment not fully addressed. The revised plan has been distributed to ACSA, ARB,
Fire /Rescue, Engineering and VDOT; this amendment cannot be approved until they complete
their reviews and grant their approval. Comments will be forwarded upon receipt.
Rev2: Comment not fully addressed. This amendment cannot be approved until ACSA and
ARB complete their reviews and grant their approval. VDOT, Fire /Rescue and Engineering
have completed their reviews and have no objection. All other comments will be forwarded
upon receipt.
38. [Comment] There is at least one area where labels on the plan are covered with white -out; when the
plans are submitted for signature, no white -out may be present.
Staff has provided references to provisions of Chapter 18 of the Code of the County of Albemarle. The
Code is kept up to date by the County Attorney's office. The Code may found on the County Attorney's
website which may be found under "Departments and Services" at Albemarle.org.
In accord with the provisions of Section 32.4.3.5 of Chapter 18 of the Code if the developer fails to submit
a revised final site plan to address all of the requirements within six (6) months after the date of this letter
the application shall be deemed to have been voluntarily withdrawn by the developer.
If you have any questions about the comments please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
2
Ellie Carter Ray, CLA
Senior Planner
Planning Division
Review Comments
Project Name: Northside Library - Minor Minor Amendment
Date Completed: Friday, March 14, 2014
Reviewer: Max Greene
Department /Division /Agency: Engineering
Reviews
Review Status: No Objection
p A
Lils
�'rRG1I3tA
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
February 19, 2014
Ron Lilley
Office of Facilities Management
County of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: ARB- 2013 -162: Northside Library
Dear Ron,
I have reviewed the revised plans recently submitted for the above - referenced project. I have the following comments:
1. The ARB indicated that light pole height must be limited to 20' including bases. Note A on Sheet E -1 states,
"Provide 30' concrete pole base...." Assuming the 30' is intended to be 30 ", the maximum pole height does not
meet the ARB requirement.
2. Five dogwood trees are proposed in the Dominion Power easement, and five birch trees and one London plantetree
appear to be within the AC SA water easement. Documentation from the easement holders indicating no objection to
the planting has not yet been provided. Also, three London Planetrees are proposed on top of a pipe in the rear
parking lot. Resolve all tree and pipe conflicts and provide documentation from the easement holders that there is
no objection to the proposed planting in the easements.
3. 9 Carpinus Caroliniana are called out on the south side of the building, but 8 are drawn on the plan. Revise the call -
out to match the drawing.
Please provide:
1. One set of revised plans addressing each of these conditions. Include updated revision dates on the drawings.
2. A memo including detailed responses indicating how each condition has been satisfied. If changes other than those
requested have been made, identify those changes in the memo also.
3. The attached "Revised Application Submittal" form. This form must be returned with your revisions to ensure
proper tracking and distribution.
When staff s review of this information indicates that all conditions of approval have been met, a Certificate of
Appropriateness may be issued. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Margaret Maliszewski
Principal Planner
cc: HBM Architects, c/o James Shook, 1382 West Ninth Street, Suite 300, Cleveland, OH 44113
�p� ALA
� An
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
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: Margaret Maliszewski
PROJECT NAME: ARB- 2013 -162: Northside Library
DATE:
Submittal Type Requiring Revisions O indicates submittal Cade
County Project Number
# Copies
Erosion & Sediment Control Plan (E &S)
# Copies
Distribute To:
Mitigation Plan (MP)
1
Margaret Maliszewski
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)
ARB2013 -162
1
Other: Please explain
(For staff use only)
Submittal Code
# Copies
Distribute To:
Submittal Code
# Copies
Distribute To:
ARB
1
Margaret Maliszewski
Review Comments
Project Name: Northside Library - Minor Minor Amendment
Date Completed: Friday, February 14, 2014
Reviewer: Robbie Gilmer
Department /Division /Agency: Fire Rescue
Reviews
Based on plans dated 1/27/14
No Comments or Objections
Review Status: No Objection
Review Comments
Project Name: Northside Library - Minor Minor Amendment
Date Completed: 1wednesday, February 12, 2014
Reviewer: Max Greene
Department /Division /Agency: Engineering
Reviews
Review Status: No Objection
t�1• �1� IGt
9
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper, Yrgirra 22701
Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E.
Commissioner
February 12, 2014
Ms. Ellie Carter Ray
Senior Planner
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: SDP - 2013 -00057 Northside Library
Dear Ms. Ray:
We have reviewed the Site Plan for Northside Library dated October 21, 2013 with revisions
dated 12118113, 1!6114, 1115114, 1127114, and 213114 and offer the following comments:
1. Rio Road West is mislabeled as Route 632. The route number should be 631.
2. It remains unclear to how the drop inlet near the entrance is going to be relocated. It
appears that the new pipe section to be installed will be deflected from the main line. It
appears that an additional structure will be necessary to correct this situation.
If you need additional information concerning this project, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Troy Austin, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Culpeper District
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
O
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
November 11, 2013
Revl: February 10, 2014
Scott Chapman
VHB, Inc.
115S. 15th Street, Suite 200
Chester, VA 23836
RE: SDP2013 -00057 Northside Library — Minor Amendment
Dear Sir:
Your Minor Amendment application has been reviewed. In order for the amended site plan to be
approved the following revisions are required:
1. [32.5.2(a)] The owner of this parcel is County of Albemarle; please revise the Cover Sheet.
Revl : Comment addressed.
2. [32.5.2(a)] Add EC (Entrance Corridor) to the Zoning note.
Revl : Comment addressed.
3. [32.5.2(a)] The written and graphic scales provided on Sheet C7.01 do not match; please revise.
Revl : Comment addressed.
4. [32.5.2(a)] Add the landscape, lighting, and lighting detail sheets to the Sheet Index.
Revl : Comment addressed.
5. [32.5.2(a)] Provide the names of the owners, zoning district, tax map and parcel number, and
present uses of all abutting parcels.
Revl : Comment not fully addressed. The information provided on the parcel to the southwest
is incorrect; it appears to be a combination of information for the parcel being reviewed and
the adjacent parcel to the east. The SW parcel contains office condominiums and can be
labeled as `Village Office Condos, various owners'.
6. [32.5.2(b) & 4.12.4(a)] Zoning will determine the number of required parking spaces for this use; this
information will be forwarded upon receipt. The number of spaces required and the number of
spaces provided should be included on the cover sheet once their determination is made.
Revl : Comment not fully addressed. The parking chart and other notes indicate that 84
spaces are provided, but only 83 are present on the layout (one row labeled 8 spaces in the
back parking lot only has 7 spaces). Please revise all notes to indicate the correct number of
spaces and remove the old `parking requirements' information provided under `Site Data'.
7. [32.5.2(b)] Provide the maximum amount of impervious cover on the Cover Sheet.
Revl : Comment addressed.
8. [32.5.2(b) & 4.12.16] All 16' reduced length parking spaces must have a 2' unobstructed overhang.
It appears the light pole may encroach into this 2' overhang; please verify and revise if necessary.
Revl : Comment not fully addressed. Please also show the overhang line on the landscape
and lighting plans to ensure no light poles, shrubs or trees will encroach into this space.
9. [32.5.2(1)] Provide the name and route number of the existing adjacent street, as well as the
pavement and right -of -way width.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
10. [32.5.2(1)] It appears there are off -site lanes proposed for egress from the site; clarify if an access
easement exists. If it does, please show it on the plan with the associated Deed Book and Page
Number. If it does not, an easement and maintenance agreement must be established.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
11. [32.5.2(k)] The proposed storm drain system appears to connect to portions of the existing system
that are labeled for removal on the demolition plan; please clarify.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
12. [32.5.2(1)] Verify that the location(s) of any other existing or proposed utilities and utility easements
including telephone, cable, electric and gas are shown on the plan.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
13. [32.5.2(m)] Show the distance to the centerline of the nearest existing street intersection from the
proposed ingress and egress location.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
14. [32.5.2(n)] Clarify the current square footage of the building as well as the square footage of the
proposed addition(s).
Rev1: Comment addressed.
15. [32.5.2(n)] Dimension all walkways, the dumpster pad, all curb radii, the larger travelway behind the
building and the outer travel lane next to the book -drop.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
16. [32.5.2(r)] Clarify the large dark circle symbols (one in loading area, one near loop in upper parking
lot) that are on the layout plan.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. Since no other storm drain information is provided on
the layout plan, the manholes should be labeled for clarification.
17. [32.6.2(e)5] Provide a detail for WDOT Mod CG -6R ".
Rev1: Comment addressed.
18. [32.6.2(g)] Label the angle of the parking spaces in the upper lot.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
19. [32.6.20) & 32.7.9.4] Currently the landscape plan is very difficult to read; the call -outs have no
quantity included, different symbols are used for the same plant, and the same symbols are used for
different plants. Please provide the quantity of the proposed species in the call -out and /or use
consistent symbols for each type of plant proposed.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. One section of planting area in the back parking lot has
not been labeled. It appears to contain 5 additional Thuja.
20. [32.6.20) & 32.7.9.4(a)] Several of the proposed plantings appear to have utility conflicts; move all
landscaping away from proposed utilities and outside of any utility easements.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. The Cornus along the front of the parcel are all within
the Dominion Power easement; please provide documentation of authorization to plant within
their easement. Additionally, three Platanus are proposed directly on top of existing storm
drain pipe and will need to be moved. Please also verify that all existing and proposed utilities
are shown on the landscape plan; it appears that at a minimum the proposed storm drain
information isn't provided.
21. [32.6.20) & 32.7.9.4(a)] Provide the planting size of each species in the plant schedule, and verify
that the minimum standards have been met.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
22. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.5(b)] Street trees are required along all existing public street frontage; these trees
should be selected from a current list of recommended large shade trees approved by the agent,
provided that medium shade trees may planted instead when the agent determines that site
conditions warrant smaller trees. The trees proposed are listed under "ornamental trees" and do not
meet this requirement. Please select a large shade tree from the County's approved plant list unless
the ARB approves the use of this species.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed; awaiting final ARB approval.
23. [32.6.20) & 32.7.9.5(b)] Clarify which existing trees along the existing public street frontage are to
remain; the demolition sheet indicates several are to be saved, but the landscape plan seems to
indicate otherwise.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
24. [32.6.20) & 32.7.9.5(e)] When a parking area is located so that the parked cars will be visible from
an off -site street, the agent may require additional planting of low street shrubs between the street
and the parking area. It appears that this requirement is proposed to be met with rows of shrubs
planted perpendicular to the parking lot. It is unclear if this layout will provide the desired screening of
the parking lot; the ARB will determine whether or not this is an approvable layout.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed; awaiting final ARB approval.
25. [32.6.20) & 32.7.9.6(a)] An area of at least five (5) percent of the paved parking and vehicular
circulation area shall be landscaped with trees or shrubs. Neither the areas of street trees and shrubs
required by sections 32.7.9.5(d) and (e) nor shrubs planted between a parking area and the building
shall be counted toward the minimum landscaped area for a parking lot. Please verify that the number
provided for "parking areas" includes all paved parking and vehicular circulation.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
26. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.7] The dumpster enclosure note refers to a separate set of plans; dimension the
height of the fence and provide an enclosure detail to show that the screening requirements are being
satisfied.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. Please provide the requested information on this plan
set (one note still says `refer to arch plan'). Additionally, please demonstrate how the
dumpster pad provides the minimum 8' of pad area in front of the dumpster (4.12.19(b)) as it
appears that the pad ends just a foot or two in front of the enclosure on one side.
27. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.8(b)] Tree canopy is calculated using plants that will exceed 5' in height at 10
years maturity. Buxus 'Green Velvet' does not meet this requirement; subtract its canopy number
from the calculation.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. The Buxus canopy was successfully removed, but there
are a couple of other canopy miscalculations. Acer rubrum planted at 2.5" caliper can use the
canopy number for that planting size of 452 sf (see page 10 of the Albemarle County approved
plant canopy calculations). Please also make revisions necessitated by correcting the plant
counts for the Itea and Thuja requested below.
28. [32.6.20) & 32.7.9.8(b)] The plant schedule lists 13 Acer rubrum but it appears there are 14 shown
on the plan; please clarify and revise if necessary.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. While the Acer rubrum count is now correct, there are a
few remaining inconsistencies between call -outs, plant counts and the plant schedule. One
area of Carpinus is labeled as 9 trees, but there only appear to be 8 (the schedule seems to
count just 8); please revise the call -out. One area of Itea is labeled as 25, but only 23 plants
are shown; please revise the call -out as well as the schedule. Please include the unlabeled
area of plants referenced above ( #19 ... Thuja ?) in the plant schedule.
29. 32.6.2(11k) & 4.17] All lighting, including building mounted fixtures, must be shown on the lighting
plan. Any areas labeled "TBD" must be included on this plan or the approval will not extend to those
fixtures. An additional site plan amendment will be required when those fixtures are to be installed.
Rev1: Comment addressed. No building mounted lighting is reviewed or approved with this
site plan.
30. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] Sheet E1.2 includes a spec sheet for a fixture not listed in the luminaire schedule;
please clarify.
Rev1: Comment not addressed. This sheet contains the spec sheet for a "GL 13" fixture
while this fixture is not listed in the luminaire schedule; please clarify.
31. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] The luminaire (fixture) schedule must include the quantity, lumen level,
maintenance factor, and tilt of each proposed fixture.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
32. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] Albemarle County requires that the LLF (maintenance factor) be 1.0; verify that the
photometric plan uses proper LLF.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
33. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] Provide the following standard lighting note on the lighting plan: Each outdoor
luminaire equipped with a lamp that emits 3, 000 or more initial lumens shall be a full cutoff luminaire
and shall be arranged or shielded to reflect light away from adjoining residential districts and away
from adjacent roads. The spillover of lighting from luminaires onto public roads and property in
residential or rural areas zoning districts shall not exceed one -half footcandle.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. The note has been added, but the spillover exceeds 0.5
footcandle along the Rio Road right -of -way; please revise the lighting to reduce the spillover
to 0.5 footcandle or less (4.17.4(b)1).
34. [Comment] Reference the benchmarks used for surveys.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
35. [Comment] It appears that there are "removal" areas outside of the limits or work; please clarify.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
36. [Comment] The limits of work extend beyond the parcel lines in several areas. Provide
documentation of all off -site easements including temporary and permanent easements. If no
easements exist, they will need to be established prior to approval of this site plan.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed; awaiting word on easements for all proposed off -site
work. Off -site work is shown on both TMP 61 -120L and TMP 61 -120.
37. [Comment] This amendment cannot be approved until ACSA, ARB and Fire /Rescue complete their
reviews and grant their approval; comments will be forwarded upon receipt. Engineering and VDOT
comments have been provided. Inspections and E911 have completed their reviews and have no
objection.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. The revised plan has been distributed to ACSA, ARB,
Fire /Rescue, Engineering and VDOT; this amendment cannot be approved until they complete
their reviews and grant their approval. Comments will be forwarded upon receipt.
Staff has provided references to provisions of Chapter 18 of the Code of the County of Albemarle. The
Code is kept up to date by the County Attorney's office. The Code may found on the County Attorney's
website which may be found under "Departments and Services" at Albemarle.org.
In accord with the provisions of Section 32.4.3.5 of Chapter 18 of the Code if the developer fails to submit
a revised final site plan to address all of the requirements within six (6) months after the date of this letter
the application shall be deemed to have been voluntarily withdrawn by the developer.
If you have any questions about the comments please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
&U- ('. (2ab
Ellie Carter Ray, CLA
Senior Planner
Planning Division
Review Comments
Project Name: Northside Library - Minor Minor Amendment
Date Completed:
Reviewer: Alexander Morrison
Department /Division /Agency: ACSA
Reviews
applicant submitted directly to ACSA
Review Status: Pending
AL�,��
IRG1
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Ellie Ray, Senior Planner
From: Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator PK-1
Date: December 18, 2013
Subject: SDP 20130007 Northside Library Minor Amendment — Parking Determination
The parking requirements based on the proposed uses of this property are not specifically listed in the
parking schedule in the Zoning Ordinance (Section 4.12.6). In accordance with Section 4.12.7 of the
Zoning Ordinance, I am hereby determining the minimum number of required parking spaces for the
proposed uses of this property. Based on the parking study information provided by Ron Lilley,
Project Manager, it is my opinion that these uses require a total of 82 parking spaces. Ron based his
information on actual experience from these uses per discussion with the Northside Library staff, the
ESOL staff, County General Services and Schools Building Services.
Ron's parking study is attached to this memorandum for reference. The projected peak use occurs in
the evening as follows:
Library / Public meetings: 7 staff + 65 patrons /attendees = 72 spaces
Storage: 0 space
ESOL: 2 staff + 8 participants = 10 spaces
If you have any questions after reviewing this information, please let me know.
Northside Library Parking Study Information
Submitted by Ron Lilley, Project Manager via email 12/9/13 and 12/11/13
The assumptions are based on actual experience per discussion with the Northside Library
location staff, the ESOL staff, and County General Services and Schools Building Services
regarding storage /warehouse use.
The SF by use breaks down as:
GSF
Library 37,320
Storage 23,033
Schools (ESOL) 3,588
Total 63,941 GSF
This is slightly different total from James' numbers provided 11/25, but very close.
The library use would have a peak parking demand during their summertime childrens' program,
which is a daytime program that typically has on the order of 100 participants, with an associated
parking need of 50 spaces. The library's peak staff loading of 15 (at one parking space each) is
also typically during the daytime. The library will also include public meeting rooms, which are
not necessarily to be used for library programs, and it is expected that the peals use for those
spaces would be during evening hours. During the evening, library staff would not likely exceed
7 persons (one parking space each), and the meeting and library patron loading is expected to
generate a need for 65 spaces, assuuning an average of two persons per vehicle for such
situations.
The storage space is actually quite similar to the example you provided. The storage space is
primarily for storage of surplus or between -uses furniture and equipment and mostly passive
storage of documents and is expected to have 1 daytime staff (warehouse manager), and
generally not more than 2 other customers /users at once, with a total need for 3 parking spaces,
all of which is expected to be daytime use.
The Schools ESOL Program is being planned for a portion of the mezzanine space. The daytime
peak loading is 6 staff and 2 families, needing a total of 8 spaces. An evening class may need up
to 10 spaces (2 evening staff and 8 spaces for class participants).
In summary, the daytime peals parking need would be:
Library: 15 staff + 50 patrons = 65 spaces
Storage: 1 staff + 2 patrons = 3 spaces
ESOL: 6 staff + 2 patrons = 8 spaces
Total daytime peak: 76 spaces
The evening peals would be:
Library/Public meetings: 7 staff + 65 patrons /attendees = 72 spaces
Storage: 0
ESOL: 2 staff + 8 participants = 10 spaces
Total evening peals: 82 spaces
Proposed spaces = 84 (inclusive of 4 ADA spaces)
It is worth noting that the Northside facility will also have CTS Bus Service.
Additionally, though not being relied on for purposes of site plan requirements, we are expecting
to identify some overflow parking spaces on -site. Since the likely largest demand can be
anticipated on evenings when a large public meeting is occurring and a full -use of ESOL space is
occurring, the truck circulation areas associated with the storage use will not be in use during
such peak demands, so we expect to provide for overflow parking within those unneeded
circulation areas.
Another notable intention, again not being relied on at this point, is the reasonable expectation
that the adjacent site will have parking space availability during times of peak need. The
adjacent site is presently owned by Martha Jefferson Hospital, who is considering development
of the site for Medical Office Building use. MJH has indicated they are very open to establishing
a shared parking arrangement with the County once their development plan is solidified.
Service A6thkitv
16 ,.o!J- 'T,
TO: Ellie Ray Carter
FROM: Alexander J. Morrison, EIT, Civil Engineer
DATE: November 14, 2013
RE: Site Plan Technical Review for: SPD201300057: Northside Library — Minor
TMP# 61 -120K (705 Rio Road West)
The below checked items apply to this site.
✓ 1. This site plan is within the Authority's jurisdictional area for:
✓
A. Water and sewer
B. Water only
C. Water only to existing structure
D. Limited service
✓
2.
A 6 inch water line is located on site.
3.
Fire flow from, nearest public hydrant, located distant from this site plan, is
Gpm + at 20 psi residual.
✓
4.
An 8 inch sewer line is located approximately 5' from the site.
5.
An Industrial Waste Ordinance survey form must be completed.
✓
6.
No improvements or obstructions shall be placed within existing or future
easements.
7.
and plans are currently under review.
8.
and plans have been received and approved.
9.
No plans are required.
✓
10.
Final water plans are required for our review and approval prior to granting
construction approval.
11.
Final site plan may /may not be signed.
12.
RWSA approval for water and /or sewer connections.
13.
City of Charlottesville approval for sewer.
✓
Comments:
• Submit 3 copies of the construction plans and a water data sheet to the ACSA, Attn:
Michael Vieira, for construction review and approval.
• The ACSA will require dedication of the existing private fire hydrant (FH# 11082) and
associated water mains.
• A condition assessment will be required on the infrastructure to be dedicated to determine
if replacement is required as a condition of dedication.
• Advise if an irrigation meter will be required for this site.
168 Spotnap Road • Charlottesville • VA 22911 • Tel (434) 977 -4511 • Fax (434) 979 -0698
www.serviceauthority.org
Review Comments
Project Name: Northside Library - Minor Minor Amendment
Date Completed: ITuesday, November 12, 2013
Reviewer: Robbie Gilmer
Department /Division /Agency: Fire Rescue
Reviews
Based on plans dated 10/21/13
1. FDC shall not be blocked by new mechanical units to be installed at that location. VSFPC 912.2.1
2. The Front parking lot shall have a 20 ft wide unobstructed travel way to allow for fire apparatus egress. VSFPC
503.2.1
3.The front of the building and the north east side of the building shall be marked "No Parking Fire Lane" VSFPC
D103.6
Review Status: Requested Changes
O
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
November 11, 2013
Scott Chapman
VHB, Inc.
115S. 15th Street, Suite 200
Chester, VA 23836
RE: SDP2013 -00057 Northside Library — Minor Amendment
Dear Sir:
Your Minor Amendment application has been reviewed. In order for the amended site plan to be
approved the following revisions are required:
1. [32.5.2(a)] The owner of this parcel is County of Albemarle; please revise the Cover Sheet.
2. [32.5.2(a)] Add EC (Entrance Corridor) to the Zoning note.
3. [32.5.2(a)] The written and graphic scales provided on Sheet C7.01 do not match; please revise.
4. [32.5.2(a)] Add the landscape, lighting, and lighting detail sheets to the Sheet Index.
5. [32.5.2(a)] Provide the names of the owners, zoning district, tax map and parcel number, and
present uses of all abutting parcels.
6. [32.5.2(b) & 4.12.4(a)] Zoning will determine the number of required parking spaces for this use; this
information will be forwarded upon receipt. The number of spaces required and the number of
spaces provided should be included on the cover sheet once their determination is made.
7. [32.5.2(b)] Provide the maximum amount of impervious cover on the Cover Sheet.
8. [32.5.2(b) & 4.12.16] All 16' reduced length parking spaces must have a 2' unobstructed overhang.
It appears the light pole may encroach into this 2' overhang; please verify and revise if necessary.
9. [32.5.2(1)] Provide the name and route number of the existing adjacent street, as well as the
pavement and right -of -way width.
10. [32.5.2(1)] It appears there are off -site lanes proposed for egress from the site; clarify if an access
easement exists. If it does, please show it on the plan with the associated Deed Book and Page
Number. If it does not, an easement and maintenance agreement must be established.
11. [32.5.2(k)] The proposed storm drain system appears to connect to portions of the existing system
that are labeled for removal on the demolition plan; please clarify.
12. [32.5.2(1)] Verify that the location(s) of any other existing or proposed utilities and utility easements
including telephone, cable, electric and gas are shown on the plan.
13. [32.5.2(m)] Show the distance to the centerline of the nearest existing street intersection from the
proposed ingress and egress location.
14. [32.5.2(n)] Clarify the current square footage of the building as well as the square footage of the
proposed addition(s).
15. [32.5.2(n)] Dimension all walkways, the dumpster pad, all curb radii, the larger travelway behind the
building and the outer travel lane next to the book -drop.
16. [32.5.2(r)] Clarify the large dark circle symbols (one in loading area, one near loop in upper parking
lot) that are on the layout plan.
17. [32.6.2(e)5] Provide a detail for "VDOT Mod CG -6R ".
18. [32.6.2(g)] Label the angle of the parking spaces in the upper lot.
19. [32.6.20) & 32.7.9.4] Currently the landscape plan is very difficult to read; the call -outs have no
quantity included, different symbols are used for the same plant, and the same symbols are used for
different plants. Please provide the quantity of the proposed species in the call -out and /or use
consistent symbols for each type of plant proposed.
20. [32.6.20) & 32.7.9.4(a)] Several of the proposed plantings appear to have utility conflicts; move all
landscaping away from proposed utilities and outside of any utility easements.
21. [32.6.20) & 32.7.9.4(a)] Provide the planting size of each species in the plant schedule, and verify
that the minimum standards have been met.
22. [32.6.20) & 32.7.9.5(b)] Street trees are required along all existing public street frontage; these trees
should be selected from a current list of recommended large shade trees approved by the agent,
provided that medium shade trees may planted instead when the agent determines that site
conditions warrant smaller trees. The trees proposed are listed under "ornamental trees" and do not
meet this requirement. Please select a large shade tree from the County's approved plant list unless
the ARB approves the use of this species.
23. [32.6.20) & 32.7.9.5(b)] Clarify which existing trees along the existing public street frontage are to
remain; the demolition sheet indicates several are to be saved, but the landscape plan seems to
indicate otherwise.
24. [32.6.20) & 32.7.9.5(e)] When a parking area is located so that the parked cars will be visible from
an off -site street, the agent may require additional planting of low street shrubs between the street
and the parking area. It appears that this requirement is proposed to be met with rows of shrubs
planted perpendicular to the parking lot. It is unclear if this layout will provide the desired screening of
the parking lot; the ARB will determine whether or not this is an approvable layout.
25. [32.6.20) & 32.7.9.6(a)] An area of at least five (5) percent of the paved parking and vehicular
circulation area shall be landscaped with trees or shrubs. Neither the areas of street trees and shrubs
required by sections 32.7.9.5(d) and (e) nor shrubs planted between a parking area and the building
shall be counted toward the minimum landscaped area for a parking lot. Please verify that the number
provided for "parking areas" includes all paved parking and vehicular circulation.
26. [32.6.20) & 32.7.9.7] The dumpster enclosure note refers to a separate set of plans; dimension the
height of the fence and provide an enclosure detail to show that the screening requirements are being
satisfied.
27. [32.6.20) & 32.7.9.8(b)] Tree canopy is calculated using plants that will exceed 5' in height at 10
years maturity. Buxus `Green Velvet' does not meet this requirement; subtract its canopy number
from the calculation.
28. [32.6.20) & 32.7.9.8(b)] The plant schedule lists 13 Acer rubrum but it appears there are 14 shown
on the plan; please clarify and revise if necessary.
29. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] All lighting, including building mounted fixtures, must be shown on the lighting
plan. Any areas labeled "TBD" must be included on this plan or the approval will not extend to those
fixtures. An additional site plan amendment will be required when those fixtures are to be installed.
30. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] Sheet E1.2 includes a spec sheet for a fixture not listed in the luminaire schedule;
please clarify.
31. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] The luminaire (fixture) schedule must include the quantity, lumen level,
maintenance factor, and tilt of each proposed fixture.
32. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] Albemarle County requires that the LLF (maintenance factor) be 1.0; verify that the
photometric plan uses proper LLF.
33. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] Provide the following standard lighting note on the lighting plan: Each outdoor
luminaire equipped with a lamp that emits 3, 000 or more initial lumens shall be a full cutoff luminaire
and shall be arranged or shielded to reflect light away from adjoining residential districts and away
from adjacent roads. The spillover of lighting from luminaires onto public roads and property in
residential or rural areas zoning districts shall not exceed one -half footcandle.
34. [Comment] Reference the benchmarks used for surveys.
35. [Comment] It appears that there are "removal" areas outside of the limits or work; please clarify.
36. [Comment] The limits of work extend beyond the parcel lines in several areas. Provide
documentation of all off -site easements including temporary and permanent easements. If no
easements exist, they will need to be established prior to approval of this site plan.
37. [Comment] This amendment cannot be approved until ACSA, ARB and Fire /Rescue complete their
reviews and grant their approval; comments will be forwarded upon receipt. Engineering and VDOT
comments have been provided. Inspections and E911 have completed their reviews and have no
objection.
Staff has provided references to provisions of Chapter 18 of the Code of the County of Albemarle. The
Code is kept up to date by the County Attorney's office. The Code may found on the County Attorney's
website which may be found under "Departments and Services" at Albemarle.org.
In accord with the provisions of Section 32.4.3.5 of Chapter 18 of the Code if the developer fails to submit
a revised final site plan to address all of the requirements within six (6) months after the date of this letter
the application shall be deemed to have been voluntarily withdrawn by the developer.
If you have any questions about the comments please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
&U ('. (2ab
Ellie Carter Ray, CLA
Senior Planner
Planning Division
Review Comments
Project Name: Northside Library - Minor Minor Amendment
Date Completed: Friday, November 08, 2013
Reviewer: Max Greene
Department /Division /Agency: Engineering
Reviews
'Please show AASHTO radii for single unit truck movement for one -way circulation. 18- 4.12.17.d
'Please show all radii for curbs. 18- 32.5.2.i
'Demo plan appears to show items to be removed that are shown as existing in final plan, please clarify.
'VDOT approval for entrance required prior to final site plan approval.
'Off -site travelway easement appears required to access site. 18- 32.5.2.1
'Please submit construction detail for modified CG -61R for review.
Light pedastil will need to be a minimum 2 feet from back of curb. 18- 4.12.16.c.6
'Please show parking bumper blocks in center rows of parking lot. 18- 4.12.16.e
'Please show distance to the centerline of the nearest existing street intersection. 18- 32.5.2.m
'Will there be a free standing sign? if so, please show location on plan. 18- 32.5.2.n
Review Status: Requested Changes
Review Comments
Project Name:
Northside Library - Minor Minor Amendment
Date Completed:
Friday, November 08, 2013
Reviewer:
Margaret Maliszewski
Department /Division /Agency: ARB
Reviews
This proposal is scheduled for review by the ARB at their December 2, 2013 meeting. Comments will be provided
after that meeting.
See ARB- 2013 -162 12/2/2013 comments and 12/16/2013 comments.
Review Status: See Recommendations
_' -
-
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper, Virginia 22701 -3819
Gregory A. Whirley
Commissioner of Highways
November 7, 2013
Ms. Ellie Carter Ray
Senior Planner
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: SDP - 2013 -00057 Northside Library Minor Amendment
Dear Ms. Carter:
We have reviewed the site plan for Northside Library dated October 21, 2013 as submitted by Vanasse Hangen
Brustlin, Inc. and offer the following comments:
1. The pavement section of the entrance taper should match the pavement structure of Rio Road.
2. The entrance radius is shown to be 15'. The minimum radius should be 25'.
3. I think that it would be helpful if directional arrows were added to the travelway around the library.
4. More detail is needed concerning the relocated drop inlet on Rio Road including:
a. It appears that the intention is to reuse the existing inlet. I believe it may be difficult to remove the
existing inlet without damaging it.
b. The detail provided for the DI -2 references a DI -2C, however, I believe the structure currently is a
DI -213. In addition, the length of the slot should be provided.
c. Graphically, the existing storm sewer does not appear to line up with the proposed location of the
relocated structure.
5. Sight lines./distances should be added to the site plan. It needs to be determined whether the proposed street
trees will create a sight distance issue or not.
6. The queue at the Rio Road/Route 29 intersection should be considered to determine if the left turn into the
library site will be impacted by the signal at Route 29. During this evaluation, the AM peak should also be
considered in addition to the PM peak.
7. If and when the adjacent property to the south of this site is developed or redeveloped, the entrance to the
south of the library entrance will need to be closed and the library entrance be used as access for both
parcels. As such, an access easement on the library property should be provided.
If additional information is needed, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
At
Troy Austin, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Culpeper District
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
Review Comments
Project Name: Northside Library - Minor Minor Amendment
Date Completed: Monday, November 04, 2013
Reviewer: Andrew Slack
Department /Division /Agency: E911
Reviews
Approved
Review Status: Approved
Review Comments
Project Name: Northside Library - Minor Minor Amendment
Date Completed: IThursday, October 24, 2013
Reviewer: Jay Schlothauer
Department /Division /Agency: Inspections
Reviews
Based on plans dated October 21, 2013.
No comments or conditions.
Review Status: No Objection
`..r i..r
David Benish
From: Andrew Sorrell
Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 3:43 PM
To: David Benish
Subject: FW: Rio Rd West properties-compliance with the Comp Plan
fyi
Andrew V.Sorrell,AICP ( Senior Planner
434.296.5832 ext.3272(o) I asorrell@albemarle.org
From: David Benish
Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2013 3:31 PM
To: Andrew Sorrell
Subject: FW: Rio Rd West properties - compliance with the Comp Plan
From: Amelia McCulley
Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2013 3:03 PM
To: David Benish
Subject: Rio Rd West properties - compliance with the Comp Plan
David,
I've looked at the info you've provided. Thanks for asking for my input. I don't see any major issues or concerns. Here
are a few things we checked out:
1. Uses proposed are permitted by-right as public use;
2. No setback issues. This property and surrounding properties are zoned HC. There are no side or rear setbacks
(commercial to commercial). 721 Rio Rd may not currently meet the front setback of 30 ft. This would only be
an issue with building expansion to the front of the bldg;
3. Jay preliminarily reviewed the concept and says it's okay with the Bldg Code;
4. Traffic entering the site from Rt 29—couldn't tell if there is a left turn lane and available stacking;
5. If Police would have a secure area in a separate building, may need to redo entrances;
6. With regard to parking, I didn't count existing spaces. The parking along the frontage for 705 W Rio seems to
serve the upper floor well in terms of grade, etc. The consultant's report mentioned a max of 40 spaces needed
for the library; however,their numbers didn't add up (1/1000 GFA). As noted, parking to the rear of the
building has some grade issues. Perhaps staff can park in the rear.
7. If only one of the parcels is acquired such as 705 W Rio, please make sure there are access easements and
maintenance agreements. You may also want to explore a parking easement with 721 W Rio.
8. The consultant notes that add'I site lighting is necessary. This will involve a site plan amendment and
compliance with current lighting regulations;
9. Building modifications and site plan amendments will be subject to the EC regulations.
1