HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201300045 Review Comments 2013-08-13Review Comments
Project Name: SOCA Fieldhouse - Minor Minor Amendment
Date Completed: Wednesday, June 11, 2014
Reviewer: Ellie Ray
Department /Division /Agency: Planning
Reviews
Review Status: Approved
Review Comments
Project Name: SOCA Fieldhouse - Minor Minor Amendment
Date Completed: ITuesday, June 10, 2014
Reviewer: Ellie Ray
Department /Division /Agency: Planning
Reviews
I've done my review and my previous comments have been addressed, but the E &SC sheets have been added
back to this plan set. Additionally, not all of the sheets have been sealed and signed. I was willing to sign with
some of the pages lacking a seal b/c the cover is sealed, but Engineering specifically requested that sheets 4 & 5
be removed from the Site Plan. So, we're going to need 4 new sets with those pages removed and the sheet index
changed back to what is was on the previous submittal.
Review Status: See Recommendations
Review Comments
Project Name: SOCA Fieldhouse - Minor Minor Amendment
Date Completed: Imonday, June 09, 2014
Reviewer: Alexander Morrison
Department /Division /Agency: ACSA
Reviews
Alex let me know in person that he has given his approval on the site plan. -ERay
Review Status: No Objection
�Y OF ALg�'Lr
�IRGIN�P
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, VA, 22902
Phone 434 - 296 -5832
Fax 434 - 972 -4126
The County of Albemarle Planning Division will recommend approval of the plan referenced above once the
following comments have been satisfactorily addressed (The following comments are those that have been
identified at this time. Additional comments or conditions may be added or eliminated based on further review.):
[Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference, which is to the Subdivision /Zoning Ordinances unless
otherwise specified.]
1. [32.5.2(a)] Please provide the correct tax map and parcel number, it appears the old TMP information is still
on the plan. Additionally, please revise the TMP acreage accordingly.
Revl : Comment not fully addressed. This has been addressed on sheet 2, but sheet 3 still lists a
different TMP and inaccurate owner information; please revise. Also, please update the DB and PG
information on sheet 2 to DB 4299 PG 328, as that is the deed that created the existing parcel.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
2. [32.5.2(a)] Provide boundary dimensions.
Revl : Comment addressed.
3. [32.5.2(a)] Please reference variations #15 -18 and #23 in addition to the ZMA information provided.
Revl : Comment addressed.
4. [32.5.2(b)] Clarify the total square footage of the proposed building and the maximum footprint; there are
several different references to various square footages, but the only numbers that need to be provided are
the total square footage of the building and the maximum footprint. The breakdown of areas within the
building assigned to different uses is good; just make sure these numbers add up to whatever total square
footage you provide. This use isn't `recreational' as defined in county code (and recreational area isn't
required), so please remove that acreage reference. This plan also doesn't provide `open space' as defined
in county code; please remove that reference as well.
Revl : Comment not fully addressed. The total square footage is blank; please provide this
information.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
5. [32.5.2(b)] Please clarify how much parking is provided; the parking schedule lists 63 spaces, but the plan
appears to include 64 spaces.
Revl : Comment addressed. However, the note references sheet 4 when it appears it should
reference sheet 6.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
Memorandum
To:
Christopher Mantle (cmantleCo)mckeecarson.com)
From:
Ellie Ray, CLA, Senior Planner
Division:
Planning
Date:
September 3, 2013
Revl : October 30, 2013
Rev2: April 23, 2014
Rev3: May 21, 2014
Subject:
SDP 201300045 SOCA Fieldhouse - Minor
Fax 434 - 972 -4126
The County of Albemarle Planning Division will recommend approval of the plan referenced above once the
following comments have been satisfactorily addressed (The following comments are those that have been
identified at this time. Additional comments or conditions may be added or eliminated based on further review.):
[Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference, which is to the Subdivision /Zoning Ordinances unless
otherwise specified.]
1. [32.5.2(a)] Please provide the correct tax map and parcel number, it appears the old TMP information is still
on the plan. Additionally, please revise the TMP acreage accordingly.
Revl : Comment not fully addressed. This has been addressed on sheet 2, but sheet 3 still lists a
different TMP and inaccurate owner information; please revise. Also, please update the DB and PG
information on sheet 2 to DB 4299 PG 328, as that is the deed that created the existing parcel.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
2. [32.5.2(a)] Provide boundary dimensions.
Revl : Comment addressed.
3. [32.5.2(a)] Please reference variations #15 -18 and #23 in addition to the ZMA information provided.
Revl : Comment addressed.
4. [32.5.2(b)] Clarify the total square footage of the proposed building and the maximum footprint; there are
several different references to various square footages, but the only numbers that need to be provided are
the total square footage of the building and the maximum footprint. The breakdown of areas within the
building assigned to different uses is good; just make sure these numbers add up to whatever total square
footage you provide. This use isn't `recreational' as defined in county code (and recreational area isn't
required), so please remove that acreage reference. This plan also doesn't provide `open space' as defined
in county code; please remove that reference as well.
Revl : Comment not fully addressed. The total square footage is blank; please provide this
information.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
5. [32.5.2(b)] Please clarify how much parking is provided; the parking schedule lists 63 spaces, but the plan
appears to include 64 spaces.
Revl : Comment addressed. However, the note references sheet 4 when it appears it should
reference sheet 6.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
6. [32.5.2(b)] Verify the maximum amount of paved parking and vehicular circulation area; the exact same
number is provided as the previous plan, yet the parking layout has changed fairly significantly. If this
number is different, the landscape plan notes must be revised accordingly.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
7. [32.5.2(1) & Code of Development] Please label the adjacent street and alley pavement and right -of -way
or easement widths.
Rev1: Comment not addressed. The right -of -way and easement widths do not appear to have been
provided. Additionally, please label and dimension the proposed widening of Colvin Alley.
Rev2: Comment not fully addressed. As noted above, the right -of -way and easement widths must
be provided. Also, the Colvin Alley label is on top of other text and difficult to read, but it doesn't
seem to dimension the widened portion. This label should be moved and indicate the width of the
widening.
Rev3: Comment addressed.
8. [32.5.2(k)] Verify that all necessary easements for proposed water, sewer and drainage facilities have been
shown on the plan.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. There are proposed water improvements within the open
space along Belvedere Boulevard, yet no easement is noted. Additionally, there are several areas
where grading is proposed outside of the parcel; grading /construction easements will be required
and must be noted on the plan. See comment #18 for more information.
Rev2: Comment not fully addressed. All easements proposed on the easement plat must be shown
and labeled properly on the site plan, including temporary construction easements.
Rev3: Comment addressed.
9. [32.5.2(1)] Provide the location of any other existing or proposed utilities and utility easements including
telephone, cable, electric and gas.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. There is an underground electric line that runs between
Colvin Alley and the proposed building and then out to Belvedere Boulevard; does this line have an
easement? If so, it must be shown on the plan and permission must be granted from the easement
holder for any construction or improvements within the easement.
Rev2: Comment not fully addressed. Label the electric easement with the Deed Book and Page
Number. Documentation of authorization from the easement holder must be provided.
Rev3: Comment not fully addressed. It has been determined through research with Dominion
Power that no electric easement exists on the parcel as previously thought; please remove the
labels referencing a 15' electric easement.
10. [32.5.2(n)] Dimension the proposed building and provide the maximum footprint.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
11. [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 within or around the parking lot. As noted above, the square
footage of `paved parking and vehicular circulation area' should be verified. Please also clarify why a
different number is used for this area in the 5% calculation. Additionally, the 5% requirement refers to
square footage of planting space, not tree canopy (as provided on the plan submitted). Please provide all
relevant information to verify this requirement is satisfied.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
12. [32.6.20) & 32.7.9.7] While screening of this building from the adjacent residential lots isn't technically
required, due to its scale you may want to consider ways to mitigate the visual impact. Something like small
islands in the hardscape next to the building to allow for vine plantings that will grow up the side of the
building and /or installation of evergreen shrubs in the parking islands and under the trees specified along
the facade.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
13. [32.6.20) & 32.7.9.8] The minimum tree canopy requirement is 10 %; this use is not exempt from the tree
canopy requirement (please remove the note that states this). It appears that this requirement is met if the
2
street trees are included. However, the plant schedule lists 13 Cornus florida, but the plan appears to show
14; please verify and revise.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. Please include the street trees in the plant schedule; list the
species, quantity, and canopy provided. They can be noted as "already planted" if that's the case.
Additionally, two of the proposed plantings are actually in the open space parcel next to Belvedere
Boulevard; an easement must be established for landscape maintenance or these plantings cannot
be counted toward the canopy requirement.
Rev2: Comment not fully addressed. Only the street trees located on the subject parcel should be
included in the plant schedule and plant canopy calculations (this includes only three Sycamore and
none of the Red Oak); revise the schedule and calculations accordingly.
Rev3: Comment addressed.
14. [32.6.20)] Several of the proposed plantings appear to be within existing or proposed easements or have
utility conflicts; please either move all landscaping outside of easements or provide proof of authorization
from the easement holder. See the fire line and drain pipe next to the parking lot in particular.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. As noted above, it appears that several plantings may be
within an electric easement; this should be resolved and documentation of permission to plant in
the easement must be provided. As noted in comment #13, two of the plantings are outside of the
parcel boundaries; please create a landscape easement if they are to count toward the canopy
requirement. If they are not to count toward the canopy requirement but are still proposed to be
planted, permission to do so must be granted from the open space parcel owner. Many of the
plantings are still very close to proposed water and sewer lines; ACSA approval will be required.
Also, it appears there is still one tree proposed directly on top of the drain pipe; please revise.
Rev2: Comment pending. Awaiting ACSA comment for final approval of landscape placement.
Rev3: Comment pending. Awaiting ACSA final approval.
15. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] The quantity of light fixtures listed in the luminaire schedule does not match the plan.
There appear to be ten (10) C10 while 11 are listed, and there appear to be five (5) F5 while 4 are listed;
please verify and revise.
Rev1: Comment not addressed. The luminaire schedule now has quantity inaccuracies for fixtures
G, H, I and possibly F. There are 11 "F" labels on the plan, but one fixture seems to be within the
building. Lumen output must be provided for all proposed fixtures. Additionally, the labels listed
for the fixtures in the schedule seem to be incorrect. Please revise the labels, quantities, and lumen
information in the schedule and make sure each fixture is labeled properly on the plan itself. The
cutsheet for fixture G should also include the catalog number.
Rev2: Comment not fully addressed. Fixture "F" is still confusing, it looks as if two of the fixtures
are essentially on top of one another; please clarify.
Rev3: Comment addressed.
16. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] Please clarify the exact location of the light poles for all pole mounted fixtures. The
lighting plan appears to show boxes that represent the pole bases right on the curb for the parking lot, while
the landscape and layout sheets have boxes that look like they might represent the poles, but are in
different locations than the boxes on the lighting plan. All three sheets should show the exact size and
location of the pole base to verify that no site conflicts exist. Additionally, if the poles are in the sidewalk
around the parking lot, they should be located at the end of parking stripes to minimize the chance of a
vehicle running into it.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. The pole locations still aren't shown on the lighting plan;
please revise. Also, it looks like several site conflicts still exist; the poles seem to be proposed right
in the edge of the curb even extending beyond the curb, they are not at the ends of parking space
stripes as requested, and one is proposed on top of a storm drain pipe. Please resolve all light pole
conflicts.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
17. [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 addressed. However, it is difficult to tell but it appears that the 0.5 footcandle limit
may be exceeded in spots along the Belvedere Boulevard right -of -way; please verify that spillover at
the edge of the right -of -way is 0.5 footcandle or less.
Rev2: Comment not addressed. No photometric information is provided in this plan set.
Rev3: Comment not fully addressed. The photometric plan is difficult to read in places; verify that
the spillover at the right -of -way line for Belvedere Blvd does not exceed 0.5 footcandle. A note
stating such is sufficient.
18. [Comment] Provide documentation of all off -site easements, including grading and any other necessary
easements.
Rev1: Comment not addressed. Easements will be required for: any work proposed within
Belvedere Boulevard, proposed construction within and the expansion of Colvin Alley, proposed
construction and installation of utilities and landscaping in the open space, and the proposed
grading on TMP 62A3 -1 and anywhere else off -site. All easements must be approved and recorded
prior to site plan approval.
Rev2: Comment not fully addressed. As noted above, all easements must be shown and labeled on
the site plan. ACSA comment for final approval of easements is still pending.
Rev3: Comment pending. Awaiting ACSA final approval.
19. [Comment] This site plan cannot be approved until ACSA completes their review and grants their approval;
comments will be forwarded upon receipt. Fire /Rescue, Engineering, and E911 comments have been
provided. Inspections and VDOT have completed their reviews and have no objection.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. This site plan cannot be approved until ACSA and
Engineering complete their reviews and grant their approval; comments will be forwarded upon
receipt. Fire /Rescue, E911, Inspections and VDOT have completed their reviews and have no
objection.
Rev2: Comment pending. This site plan cannot be approved until ACSA and VDOT complete their
reviews and grant their approval; comments will be forwarded upon receipt. VDOT had no objection
to the previous submittal, so no issues are anticipated. Engineering comments have been provided.
Part of their request is to remove WPO related sheets from the plan set; this is a new process that's
being implemented for better record keeping.
Rev3: Comment pending. VDOT has granted their approval. Awaiting ACSA final approval.
20. [Comment] Please clarify the note that reads, "Old line is hereby vacated" on sheet 3.
Rev2: Comment not fully addressed. If this line was vacated with a previously recorded plat, the
note should either be removed or it should say "old line vacated with plat recorded DB XX PG XX ".
Rev3: Comment addressed.
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.
Please contact Ellie Ray in the Planning Division by using eray(@albemarle.org or 434 - 296 -5832 ext. 3432 for
further information.
Review Comments
Project Name: SOCA Fieldhouse - Minor Minor Amendment
Date Completed: Wednesday, May 14, 2014
Reviewer: John Anderson
Department /Division /Agency: Engineering
Reviews
Review Status: Approved
�Y OF ALg�'Lr
�IRGIN�P
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, VA, 22902
Phone 434 - 296 -5832
Memorandum
To: Christopher Mantle (cmantleCo)mckeecarson.com)
From: Ellie Ray, CLA, Senior Planner
Division: Planning
Date: September 3, 2013
Revl : October 30, 2013
Rev2: April 23, 2014
Subject: SDP 201300045 SOCA Fieldhouse - Minor
Fax 434 - 972 -4126
The County of Albemarle Planning Division will recommend approval of the plan referenced above once the
following comments have been satisfactorily addressed (The following comments are those that have been
identified at this time. Additional comments or conditions may be added or eliminated based on further review.):
[Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference, which is to the Subdivision /Zoning Ordinances unless
otherwise specified.]
1. [32.5.2(a)] Please provide the correct tax map and parcel number, it appears the old TMP information is still
on the plan. Additionally, please revise the TMP acreage accordingly.
Revl : Comment not fully addressed. This has been addressed on sheet 2, but sheet 3 still lists a
different TMP and inaccurate owner information; please revise. Also, please update the DB and PG
information on sheet 2 to DB 4299 PG 328, as that is the deed that created the existing parcel.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
2. [32.5.2(a)] Provide boundary dimensions.
Revl : Comment addressed.
3. [32.5.2(a)] Please reference variations #15 -18 and #23 in addition to the ZMA information provided.
Revl : Comment addressed.
4. [32.5.2(b)] Clarify the total square footage of the proposed building and the maximum footprint; there are
several different references to various square footages, but the only numbers that need to be provided are
the total square footage of the building and the maximum footprint. The breakdown of areas within the
building assigned to different uses is good; just make sure these numbers add up to whatever total square
footage you provide. This use isn't `recreational' as defined in county code (and recreational area isn't
required), so please remove that acreage reference. This plan also doesn't provide `open space' as defined
in county code; please remove that reference as well.
Revl : Comment not fully addressed. The total square footage is blank; please provide this
information.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
5. [32.5.2(b)] Please clarify how much parking is provided; the parking schedule lists 63 spaces, but the plan
appears to include 64 spaces.
Revl : Comment addressed. However, the note references sheet 4 when it appears it should
reference sheet 6.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
6. [32.5.2(b)] Verify the maximum amount of paved parking and vehicular circulation area; the exact same
number is provided as the previous plan, yet the parking layout has changed fairly significantly. If this
number is different, the landscape plan notes must be revised accordingly.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
7. [32.5.2(i) & Code of Development] Please label the adjacent street and alley pavement and right -of -way
or easement widths.
Rev1: Comment not addressed. The right -of -way and easement widths do not appear to have been
provided. Additionally, please label and dimension the proposed widening of Colvin Alley.
Rev2: Comment not fully addressed. As noted above, the right -of -way and easement widths must
be provided. Also, the Colvin Alley label is on top of other text and difficult to read, but it doesn't
seem to dimension the widened portion. This label should be moved and indicate the width of the
widening.
8. [32.5.2(k)] Verify that all necessary easements for proposed water, sewer and drainage facilities have been
shown on the plan.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. There are proposed water improvements within the open
space along Belvedere Boulevard, yet no easement is noted. Additionally, there are several areas
where grading is proposed outside of the parcel; grading /construction easements will be required
and must be noted on the plan. See comment #18 for more information.
Rev2: Comment not fully addressed. All easements proposed on the easement plat must be shown
and labeled properly on the site plan, including temporary construction easements.
9. [32.5.2(1)] Provide the location of any other existing or proposed utilities and utility easements including
telephone, cable, electric and gas.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. There is an underground electric line that runs between
Colvin Alley and the proposed building and then out to Belvedere Boulevard; does this line have an
easement? If so, it must be shown on the plan and permission must be granted from the easement
holder for any construction or improvements within the easement.
Rev2: Comment not fully addressed. Label the electric easement with the Deed Book and Page
Number. Documentation of authorization from the easement holder must be provided.
10. [32.5.2(n)] Dimension the proposed building aria provide the maximum footprint.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
11. [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 within or around the parking lot. As noted above, the square
footage of `paved parking and vehicular circulation area' should be verified. Please also clarify why a
different number is used for this area in the 5% calculation. Additionally, the 5% requirement refers to
square footage of planting space, not tree canopy (as provided on the plan submitted). Please provide all
relevant information to verify this requirement is satisfied.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
12. [32.6.20) & 32.7.9.7] While screening of this building from the adjacent residential lots isn't technically
required, due to its scale you may want to consider ways to mitigate the visual impact. Something like small
islands in the hardscape next to the building to allow for vine plantings that will grow up the side of the
building and /or installation of evergreen shrubs in the parking islands and under the trees specified along
the facade.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
13. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.8] The minimum tree canopy requirement is 10 %; this use is not exempt from the tree
canopy requirement (please remove the note that states this). It appears that this requirement is met if the
street trees are included. However, the plant schedule lists 13 Cornus florida, but the plan appears to show
14; please verify and revise.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. Please include the street trees in the plant schedule; list the
species, quantity, and canopy provided. They can be noted as "already planted" if that's the case.
Additionally, two of the proposed plantings are actually in the open space parcel next to Belvedere
Boulevard; an easement must be established for landscape maintenance or these plantings cannot
be counted toward the canopy requirement.
Rev2: Comment not fully addressed. Only the street trees located on the subject parcel should be
included in the plant schedule and plant canopy calculations (this includes only three Sycamore and
none of the Red Oak); revise the schedule and calculations accordingly.
14. [32.6.2(j)] Several of the proposed plantings appear to be within existing or proposed easements or have
utility conflicts; please either move all landscaping outside of easements or provide proof of authorization
from the easement holder. See the fire line and drain pipe next to the parking lot in particular.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. As noted above, it appears that several plantings may be
within an electric easement; this should be resolved and documentation of permission to plant in
the easement must be provided. As noted in comment #13, two of the plantings are outside of the
parcel boundaries; please create a landscape easement if they are to count toward the canopy
requirement. If they are not to count toward the canopy requirement but are still proposed to be
planted, permission to do so must be granted from the open space parcel owner. Many of the
plantings are still very close to proposed water and sewer lines; ACSA approval will be required.
Also, it appears there is still one tree proposed directly on top of the drain pipe; please revise.
Rev2: Comment pending. Awaiting ACSA comment for final approval of landscape placement.
15. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] The quantity of light fixtures listed in the luminaire schedule does not match the plan.
There appear to be ten (10) C10 while 11 are listed, and there appear to be five (5) F5 while 4 are listed;
please verify and revise.
Rev1: Comment not addressed. The luminaire schedule now has quantity inaccuracies for fixtures
G, H, I and possibly F. There are 11 "F" labels on the plan, but one fixture seems to be within the
building. Lumen output must be provided for all proposed fixtures. Additionally, the labels listed
for the fixtures in the schedule seem to be incorrect. Please revise the labels, quantities, and lumen
information in the schedule and make sure each fixture is labeled properly on the plan itself. The
cutsheet for fixture G should also include the catalog number.
Rev2: Comment not fully addressed. Fixture "F" is still confusing, it looks as if two of the fixtures
are essentially on top of one another; please clarify.
16. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] Please clarify the exact location of the light poles for all pole mounted fixtures. The
lighting plan appears to show boxes that represent the pole bases right on the curb for the parking lot, while
the landscape and layout sheets have boxes that look like they might represent the poles, but are in
different locations than the boxes on the lighting plan. All three sheets should show the exact size and
location of the pole base to verify that no site conflicts exist. Additionally, if the poles are in the sidewalk
around the parking lot, they should be located at the end of parking stripes to minimize the chance of a
vehicle running into it.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. The pole locations still aren't shown on the lighting plan;
please revise. Also, it looks like several site conflicts still exist; the poles seem to be proposed right
in the edge of the curb even extending beyond the curb, they are not at the ends of parking space
stripes as requested, and one is proposed on top of a storm drain pipe. Please resolve all light pole
conflicts.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
17. [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 addressed. However, it is difficult to tell but it appears that the 0.5 footcandle limit
may be exceeded in spots along the Belvedere Boulevard right -of -way; please verify that spillover at
the edge of the right -of -way is 0.5 footcandle or less.
Rev2: Comment not addressed. No photometric information is provided in this plan set.
18. [Comment] Provide documentation of all off -site easements, including grading and any other necessary
easements.
Rev1: Comment not addressed. Easements will be required for: any work proposed within
Belvedere Boulevard, proposed construction within and the expansion of Colvin Alley, proposed
construction and installation of utilities and landscaping in the open space, and the proposed
grading on TMP 62A3 -1 and anywhere else off -site. All easements must be approved and recorded
prior to site plan approval.
Rev2: Comment not fully addressed. As noted above, all easements must be shown and labeled on
the site plan. ACSA comment for final approval of easements is still pending.
19. [Comment] This site plan cannot be approved until ACSA completes their review and grants their approval;
comments will be forwarded upon receipt. Fire /Rescue, Engineering, and E911 comments have been
provided. Inspections and VDOT have completed their reviews and have no objection.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. This site plan cannot be approved until ACSA and
Engineering complete their reviews and grant their approval; comments will be forwarded upon
receipt. Fire /Rescue, E911, Inspections and VDOT have completed their reviews and have no
objection.
Rev2: Comment pending. This site plan cannot be approved until ACSA and VDOT complete their
reviews and grant their approval; comments will be forwarded upon receipt. VDOT had no objection
to the previous submittal, so no issues are anticipated. Engineering comments have been provided.
Part of their request is to remove WPO related sheets from the plan set; this is a new process that's
being implemented for better record keeping.
20. [Comment] Please clarify the note that reads, "Old line is hereby vacated" on sheet 3.
Rev2: Comment not fully addressed. If this line was vacated with a previously recorded plat, the
note should either be removed or it should say "old line vacated with plat recorded DB XX PG XX".
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.
Please contact Ellie Ray in the Planning Division by using erayCbTalbemarle.org or 434 - 296 -5832 ext. 3432 for
further information.
Review Comments
Project Name: SOCA Fieldhouse - Minor Minor Amendment
Date Completed: 1wednesday, April 16, 2014
Reviewer: John Anderson
Department /Division /Agency: Engineering
Reviews
1.Remove sheet 4; Erosion & Sediment Control Plan is not part of the Final Site Plan.
2.Remove sheet 5; Erosion & Sediment Control Details are not part of the Final Site Plan.
3.Include Note, sheet 6: "Final parking and site grades must divert runoff away from Colvin Alley to the inlet at the
north end of parking spaces 1 -15." (finished grades, sheet 6, do not show or necessarily ensure this outcome)
Review Status: Requested Changes
Ellie Ray
From: Alex Morrison [amorrison @serviceauthority.org]
Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 1:29 PM
To: Ellie Ray
Subject: SDP201300045: SOCA Fieldhouse-Minor Amendment
Ellie,
As you know, Fire and Rescue is requiring a fire hydrant on site.The applicant has submitted 3 sets of construction
drawings to my attention for review. Due to the extension of public infrastructure, I have to reconfigure the routing of
the water main. I will advise once I grant construction approval.
Alexander J. Morrison, EIT
Civil Engineer
Service Authorit r
168 Spotnap Road
Charlottesville,VA 22911
Office: (434)977-4511 EXT: 116
This email may contain confidential information that should not be shared with anyone other than its intended
recipient(s).
1
Review Comments
Project Name: SOCA Fieldhouse - Minor Minor Amendment
Date Completed: 1wednesday, November 06, 2013
Reviewer: Rebecca Ragsdale
Department /Division /Agency: Zoning
Reviews
Review Status: No Objection
Review Comments
Project Name: SOCA Fieldhouse - Minor Minor Amendment
Date Completed: ITuesday, November 05, 2013
Reviewer: Michael Koslow
Department /Division /Agency: Engineering
Reviews
1. Please provide a detail for proposed IN -1 (ADS Drop Inlet). For maintenance purposes, county recommends a
"beehive" grate to maintain flow while debris surrounds this proposed inlet (see "12" and 15" Dome Light Duty on p
9 of website below for reference):
http: / /www. nyloplast- us.com/ sites / default / files /npl 09 _nyloplast_brochure_16pg_04 -13. pdf
2. Please revise proposed alley layout on sheet 6 for parking spaces 1 -15. Need runoff to drain away from the
centerline of the proposed alley in this area with an inlet to capture runoff at the north end of parking space 15.
3. Please provide a typical section including milling of existing alley pavement for the widened alley for parking
spaces 1 -15.
4. All proposed drainage lines running under proposed parking needs to be 15" diameter minimum for maintenance
purposes including pipe flowing out from proposed MH -2.
Review Status: See Recommendations
�Y OF ALg�'Lr
�IRGIN�P
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, VA, 22902
Phone 434 - 296 -5832
Memorandum
To: Christopher Mantle (cmantleCo)mckeecarson.com)
From: Ellie Ray, CLA, Senior Planner
Division: Planning
Date: September 3, 2013
Revl : October 30, 2013
Subject: SDP 201300045 SOCA Fieldhouse - Minor
Fax 434 - 972 -4126
The County of Albemarle Planning Division will recommend approval of the plan referenced above once the
following comments have been satisfactorily addressed (The following comments are those that have been
identified at this time. Additional comments or conditions may be added or eliminated based on further review.):
[Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference, which is to the Subdivision /Zoning Ordinances unless
otherwise specified.]
1. [32.5.2(a)] Please provide the correct tax map and parcel number, it appears the old TMP information is still
on the plan. Additionally, please revise the TMP acreage accordingly.
Revl : Comment not fully addressed. This has been addressed on sheet 2, but sheet 3 still lists a
different TMP and inaccurate owner information; please revise. Also, please update the DB and PG
information on sheet 2 to DB 4299 PG 328, as that is the deed that created the existing parcel.
2. [32.5.2(a)] Provide boundary dimensions.
Revl : Comment addressed.
3. [32.5.2(a)] Please reference variations #15 -18 and #23 in addition to the ZMA information provided.
Revl : Comment addressed.
4. [32.5.2(b)] Clarify the total square footage of the proposed building and the maximum footprint; there are
several different references to various square footages, but the only numbers that need to be provided are
the total square footage of the building and the maximum footprint. The breakdown of areas within the
building assigned to different uses is good; just make sure these numbers add up to whatever total square
footage you provide. This use isn't `recreational' as defined in county code (and recreational area isn't
required), so please remove that acreage reference. This plan also doesn't provide `open space' as defined
in county code; please remove that reference as well.
Revl : Comment not fully addressed. The total square footage is blank; please provide this
information.
5. [32.5.2(b)] Please clarify how much parking is provided; the parking schedule lists 63 spaces, but the plan
appears to include 64 spaces.
Revl : Comment addressed. However, the note references sheet 4 when it appears it should
reference sheet 6.
6. [32.5.2(b)] Verify the maximum amount of paved parking and vehicular circulation area; the exact same
number is provided as the previous plan, yet the parking layout has changed fairly significantly. If this
number is different, the landscape plan notes must be revised accordingly.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
7. [32.5.2(1) & Code of Development] Please label the adjacent street and alley pavement and right -of -way
or easement widths.
Rev1: Comment not addressed. The right -of -way and easement widths do not appear to have been
provided. Additionally, please label and dimension the proposed widening of Colvin Alley.
8. [32.5.2(k)] Verify that all necessary easements for proposed water, sewer and drainage facilities have been
shown on the plan.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. There are proposed water improvements within the open
space along Belvedere Boulevard, yet no easement is noted. Additionally, there are several areas
where grading is proposed outside of the parcel; grading /construction easements will be required
and must be noted on the plan. See comment #18 for more information.
9. [32.5.2(1)] Provide the location of any other existing or proposed utilities and utility easements including
telephone, cable, electric and gas.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. There is an underground electric line that runs between
Colvin Alley and the proposed building and then out to Belvedere Boulevard; does this line have an
easement? If so, it must be shown on the plan and permission must be granted from the easement
holder for any construction or improvements within the easement.
10. [32.5.2(n)] Dimension the proposed building and provide the maximum footprint.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
11. [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 within or around the parking lot. As noted above, the square
footage of 'paved parking and vehicular circulation area' should be verified. Please also clarify why a
different number is used for this area in the 5% calculation. Additionally, the 5% requirement refers to
square footage of planting space, not tree canopy (as provided on the plan submitted). Please provide all
relevant information to verify this requirement is satisfied.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
12. [32.6.20) & 32.7.9.7] While screening of this building from the adjacent residential lots isn't technically
required, due to its scale you may want to consider ways to mitigate the visual impact. Something like small
islands in the hardscape next to the building to allow for vine plantings that will grow up the side of the
building and /or installation of evergreen shrubs in the parking islands and under the trees specified along
the fagade.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
13. [32.6.20) & 32.7.9.8] The minimum tree canopy requirement is 10 %; this use is not exempt from the tree
canopy requirement (please remove the note that states this). It appears that this requirement is met if the
street trees are included. However, the plant schedule lists 13 Cornus florida, but the plan appears to show
14; please verify and revise.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. Please include the street trees in the plant schedule; list the
species, quantity, and canopy provided. They can be noted as "already planted" if that's the case.
Additionally, two of the proposed plantings are actually in the open space parcel next to Belvedere
Boulevard; an easement must be established for landscape maintenance or these plantings cannot
be counted toward the canopy requirement.
14. [32.6.2(j)] Several of the proposed plantings appear to be within existing or proposed easements or have
utility conflicts; please either move all landscaping outside of easements or provide proof of authorization
from the easement holder. See the fire line and drain pipe next to the parking lot in particular.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. As noted above, it appears that several plantings may be
within an electric easement; this should be resolved and documentation of permission to plant in
the easement must be provided. As noted in comment #13, two of the plantings are outside of the
parcel boundaries; please create a landscape easement if they are to count toward the canopy
requirement. If they are not to count toward the canopy requirement but are still proposed to be
planted, permission to do so must be granted from the open space parcel owner. Many of the
plantings are still very close to proposed water and sewer lines; ACSA approval will be required.
Also, it appears there is still one tree proposed directly on top of the drain pipe; please revise.
15. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] The quantity of light fixtures listed in the luminaire schedule does not match the plan.
There appear to be ten (10) C10 while 11 are listed, and there appear to be five (5) F5 while 4 are listed;
please verify and revise.
Rev1: Comment not addressed. The luminaire schedule now has quantity inaccuracies for fixtures
G, H, I and possibly F. There are 11 "F" labels on the plan, but one fixture seems to be within the
building. Lumen output must be provided for all proposed fixtures. Additionally, the labels listed
for the fixtures in the schedule seem to be incorrect. Please revise the labels, quantities, and lumen
information in the schedule and make sure each fixture is labeled properly on the plan itself. The
cutsheet for fixture G should also include the catalog number.
16. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] Please clarify the exact location of the light poles for all pole mounted fixtures. The
lighting plan appears to show boxes that represent the pole bases right on the curb for the parking lot, while
the landscape and layout sheets have boxes that look like they might represent the poles, but are in
different locations than the boxes on the lighting plan. All three sheets should show the exact size and
location of the pole base to verify that no site conflicts exist. Additionally, if the poles are in the sidewalk
around the parking lot, they should be located at the end of parking stripes to minimize the chance of a
vehicle running into it.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. The pole locations still aren't shown on the lighting plan;
please revise. Also, it looks like several site conflicts still exist; the poles seem to be proposed right
in the edge of the curb even extending beyond the curb, they are not at the ends of parking space
stripes as requested, and one is proposed on top of a storm drain pipe. Please resolve all light pole
conflicts.
17. [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 addressed. However, it is difficult to tell but it appears that the 0.5 footcandle limit
may be exceeded in spots along the Belvedere Boulevard right -of -way; please verify that spillover at
the edge of the right -of -way is 0.5 footcandle or less.
18. [Comment] Provide documentation of all off -site easements, including grading and any other necessary
easements.
Rev1: Comment not addressed. Easements will be required for: any work proposed within
Belvedere Boulevard, proposed construction within and the expansion of Colvin Alley, proposed
construction and installation of utilities and landscaping in the open space, and the proposed
grading on TMP 62A3 -1 and anywhere else off -site. All easements must be approved and recorded
prior to site plan approval.
19. [Comment] This site plan cannot be approved until ACSA completes their review and grants their approval;
comments will be forwarded upon receipt. Fire /Rescue, Engineering, and E911 comments have been
provided. Inspections and VDOT have completed their reviews and have no objection.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. This site plan cannot be approved until ACSA and
Engineering complete their reviews and grant their approval; comments will be forwarded upon
receipt. Fire /Rescue, E911, Inspections and VDOT have completed their reviews and have no
objection.
20. [Comment] Please clarify the note that reads, "Old line is hereby vacated" on sheet 3.
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.
Please contact Ellie Ray in the Planning Division by using erayCcDalbemarle.org or 434 - 296 -5832 ext. 3432 for
further information.
4
Review Comments
Project Name: SOCA Fieldhouse - Minor Minor Amendment
Date Completed: ITuesday, October 29, 2013
Reviewer: Robbie Gilmer
Department /Division /Agency: Fire Rescue
Reviews
Based on plans dated 10/21/13
No Comments or objections
Review Status: No Objection
Review Comments
Project Name: SOCA Fieldhouse - Minor Minor Amendment
Date Completed: Monday, October 28, 2013
Reviewer: Andrew Slack
Department /Division /Agency: E911
Reviews
Approved
Review Status: Approved
Review Comments
Project Name: SOCA Fieldhouse - Minor Minor Amendment
Date Completed: 1wednesday, October 23, 2013
Reviewer: Jay Schlothauer
Department /Division /Agency: Inspections
Reviews
Based on plans dated October 21, 2013.
No comments or conditions.
Review Status: No Objection
Ellie Ray
From: Alex Morrison [amorrison @serviceauthority.org]
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 2:51 PM
To: Ellie Ray
Subject: FW: SDP201300045: SOCA Fieldhouse- Minor Amendment
Attachments: SDP201300045-SOCA Fieldhouse-Minor Amendment.pdf
Ellie,
In addition, I forgot to mention something about the landscaping.They are proposing trees and/or bushes within the
vicinity of the water service line, fire line and sewer lateral.The ACSA does not have ownership or jurisdiction over these
lines(will be privately owned).The applicant may want to review the landscaping because this may create long term
maintenance issues on the private infrastructure.
Alexander J. Morrison, EIT
Civil Engineer
Abefack
Service Authtbrity
168 Spotnap Road
Charlottesville,VA 22911
Office: (434)977-4511 EXT: 116
This email may contain confidential information that should not be shared with anyone other than its intended
recipient(s).
From: Alex Morrison [mailto:amorrison(&serviceauthority.orq]
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 2:47 PM
To: erayc albemarle.orq
Subject: SDP201300045: SOCA Fieldhouse - Minor Amendment
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Dear Ellie :
The Albemarle County Service Authority(ACSA) has received and reviewed the plan/document/project described above.
Attached is the ACSA comment sheet with any relevant comments and concerns we may have regarding the
plan/document/project.
Please feel free to contact me at the number below with any comments or questions you may have about the attached
ACSA comment sheet.
Thank you.
Alexander J. Morrison, EIT `'■" wee
Civil Engineer
Alex ( qty
Service AltrEirity
168 Spotnap Road
Charlottesville,VA 22911
Office: (434)977-4511 EXT: 116
This email may contain confidential information that should not be shared with anyone other than its intended
recipient(s).
2
Service A6thkitv
16 ,.o!J- 'T,
TO: Ellie Ray Carter
FROM: Alexander J. Morrison, Civil Engineer
DATE: September 6, 2013
RE: Site Plan Technical Review for: SDP201300045: SOCA Fieldhouse - Minor
Amendment
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.
An 12 inch water line is located approximately 140' distant.
3.
Fire flow from, nearest public hydrant, located distant from this site plan, is
Gpm + at 20 psi residual.
✓
4.
A 8 inch sewer line is located approximately ON SITE distant.
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 and plans are required for our review and approval prior to
granting tentative 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:
• Update the water meter service line. The new configuration will incorporate a 4" tap and 4" gate valve
before downsizing and using copper. Contact Alexander Morrison ( amorrison (a�_serviceauthority.org) for
an updated detail to include in the plans.
• The offsite easement for the water meter must be recorded prior to the ACSA setting a water meter. The
plat and deed require ACSA review and approval prior to signing and recordation.
• Correctly show fitting and bends on the fire line (specifically at the 90 degree bend).
• Revise the proposed easement extents. ACSA ownership of the fire line ends after the gate valve.
• No fill is to be placed over the existing ACSA sewer main.
168 Spotnap Road • Charlottesville • VA 22911 • Tel (434) 977 -4511 • Fax (434) 979 -0698
www.serviceauthority.org
Albemarle Gunty
Service uth rit r
• Submit updated fixture counts for water meter size verification and connection fee quoting.
• Further ACSA commenting and construction review is contingent on the resolution of Fire and Rescue's
comments (specifically for additional fire hydrants). If additional fire hydrants are installed it will require a
full construction review by the ACSA. If no hydrants are installed then no construction review is required
separate from the county review process.
168 Spotnap Road • Charlottesville • VA 22911 • Tel (434) 977 -4511 • Fax (434) 979 -0698
www.serviceauthority.org
�Y OF ALg�'Lr
�IRGIN�P
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, VA, 22902
Phone 434 - 296 -5832
Memorandum
To: Christopher Mantle (cmantleCo)mckeecarson.com)
From: Ellie Ray, CLA, Senior Planner
Division: Planning
Date: September 3, 2013
Subject: SDP 201300045 SOCA Fieldhouse - Minor
Fax 434 - 972 -4126
The County of Albemarle Planning Division will recommend approval of the plan referenced above once the
following comments have been satisfactorily addressed (The following comments are those that have been
identified at this time. Additional comments or conditions may be added or eliminated based on further review.):
[Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference, which is to the Subdivision /Zoning Ordinances unless
otherwise specified.]
1. [32.5.2(a)] Please provide the correct tax map and parcel number, it appears the old TMP information is still
on the plan. Additionally, please revise the TMP acreage accordingly.
2. [32.5.2(a)] Provide boundary dimensions.
3. [32.5.2(a)] Please reference variations #15 -18 and #23 in addition to the ZMA information provided.
4. [32.5.2(b)] Clarify the total square footage of the proposed building and the maximum footprint; there are
several different references to various square footages, but the only numbers that need to be provided are
the total square footage of the building and the maximum footprint. The breakdown of areas within the
building assigned to different uses is good; just make sure these numbers add up to whatever total square
footage you provide. This use isn't `recreational' as defined in county code (and recreational area isn't
required), so please remove that acreage reference. This plan also doesn't provide `open space' as defined
in county code; please remove that reference as well.
5. [32.5.2(b)] Please clarify how much parking is provided; the parking schedule lists 63 spaces, but the plan
appears to include 64 spaces.
6. [32.5.2(b)] Verify the maximum amount of paved parking and vehicular circulation area; the exact same
number is provided as the previous plan, yet the parking layout has changed fairly significantly. If this
number is different, the landscape plan notes must be revised accordingly.
7. [32.5.2(1) & Code of Development] Please label the adjacent street and alley pavement and right -of -way
or easement widths.
8. [32.5.2(k)] Verify that all necessary easements for proposed water, sewer and drainage facilities have been
shown on the plan.
9. [32.5.2(1)] Provide the location of any other existing or proposed utilities and utility easements including
telephone, cable, electric and gas.
10. [32.5.2(n)] Dimension the proposed building and provide the maximum footprint.
11. [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 within or around the parking lot. As noted above, the square
footage of `paved parking and vehicular circulation area' should be verified. Please also clarify why a
different number is used for this area in the 5% calculation. Additionally, the 5% requirement refers to
square footage of planting space, not tree canopy (as provided on the plan submitted). Please provide all
relevant information to verify this requirement is satisfied.
12. [32.6.20) & 32.7.9.7] While screening of this building from the adjacent residential lots isn't technically
required, due to its scale you may want to consider ways to mitigate the visual impact. Something like small
islands in the hardscape next to the building to allow for vine plantings that will grow up the side of the
building and /or installation of evergreen shrubs in the parking islands and under the trees specified along
the fagade.
13. [32.6.20) & 32.7.9.8] The minimum tree canopy requirement is 10 %; this use is not exempt from the tree
canopy requirement (please remove the note that states this). It appears that this requirement is met if the
street trees are included. However, the plant schedule lists 13 Cornus florida, but the plan appears to show
14; please verify and revise.
14. [32.6.20)] Several of the proposed plantings appear to be within existing or proposed easements or have
utility conflicts; please either move all landscaping outside of easements or provide proof of authorization
from the easement holder. See the fire line and drain pipe next to the parking lot in particular.
15. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] The quantity of light fixtures listed in the luminaire schedule does not match the plan.
There appear to be ten (10) C10 while 11 are listed, and there appear to be five (5) F5 while 4 are listed;
please verify and revise.
16. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] Please clarify the exact location of the light poles for all pole mounted fixtures. The
lighting plan appears to show boxes that represent the pole bases right on the curb for the parking lot, while
the landscape and layout sheets have boxes that look like they might represent the poles, but are in
different locations than the boxes on the lighting plan. All three sheets should show the exact size and
location of the pole base to verify that no site conflicts exist. Additionally, if the poles are in the sidewalk
around the parking lot, they should be located at the end of parking stripes to minimize the chance of a
vehicle running into it.
17. [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.
18. [Comment] Provide documentation of all off -site easements, including grading and any other necessary
easements.
19. [Comment] This site plan cannot be approved until ACSA completes their review and grants their approval;
comments will be forwarded upon receipt. Fire /Rescue, Engineering, and E911 comments have been
provided. Inspections and VDOT 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.
Please contact Ellie Ray in the Planning Division by using eray(a-Mbemarle.orp or 434 - 296 -5832 ext. 3432 for
further information.
Review Comments
Project Name: SOCA Fieldhouse - Minor Minor Amendment
Date Completed: IThursday, August 29, 2013
Reviewer: Michael Koslow
Department /Division /Agency: Engineering
Reviews
1. Please provide spot elevation for the parking lot in front of proposed drainage structure IN2 on sheet 6.
2. Please update the proposed top elevations for IN1, IN2, and MH1 on drainage profiles on sheet 11 and the
grading plan on sheet 6. These elevations should match.
Review Status: See Recommendations
Review Comments
Project Name: SOCA Fieldhouse - Minor Minor Amendment
Date Completed: Saturday, August 24, 2013
Reviewer: Robbie Gilmer
Department /Division /Agency: Fire Rescue
Reviews
Based on plans dated 8/8/13
1.Colbert street Shall be 36 ft FC /FC to allow parallel parking on two sides. This will maintain the 20 ft unobstructed
travel way for fire apparatus per VSFPC 503.2.1.
2. Fire Hydrants shall be installed every 500 ft per travel way. VSFPC C105.1
3. Fire flow test required. Required fire flow is 1500 gpm @ 20 psi.
4. The building must have an approved fire access within 150 ft of all portions of the first floor. VSFPC 503.1.1
Colvin Alley is not an approved fire access road due to the size and access.
5. Contact the Albemarle County Fire Marshal's office for the location of the required Knox box. VSFPC 506.1
6. FDC Shall be located on the address side of the building and within 50 ft of a fire hydrant. VSFPC 912.2.1
Review Status: Requested Changes
Review Comments
Project Name: SOCA Fieldhouse - Minor Minor Amendment
Date Completed: 1wednesday, August 21, 2013
Reviewer: Andrew Slack
Department /Division /Agency: E911
Reviews
The applicant should remove "Colbert St West" from the plans and have it read the name "Colbert St". If the
applicant has any questions please contact our office.
Review Status: Requested Changes
Review Comments
Project Name: SOCA Fieldhouse - Minor Minor Amendment
Date Completed: Friday, August 16, 2013
Reviewer: Jay Schlothauer
Department /Division /Agency: Inspections
Reviews
Based on plans dated August 8, 2013.
No comments or conditions.
Review Status: No Objection