HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201300002 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2013-05-02Project Name:
Date Completed:
Reviewer:
Department/Division/Agency:
Reviews
Comments:
Review Status:
Review Comments
NORTHTOWN, PHASE 11-A - FINAL
Thursday, May 02, 2013
Ellie Ray
Planning
Final – Non-residential –
Administrative
Approved
Project Name:
Date Completed:
Reviewer:
Department/Division/Agency:
Reviews
Comments:
Review Status:
Review Comments
NORTHTOWN, PHASE 11-A - FINAL
Thursday, April 25, 2013
Ellie Ray
Planning
Final – Non-residential –
Administrative
No Objection
Project Name:
Date Completed:
Reviewer:
Department/Division/Agency:
Reviews
Comments:
Review Status:
Review Comments
NORTHTOWN, PHASE 11-A - FINAL
Wednesday, April 24, 2013
Andrew Slack
E911
Final – Non-residential –
Administrative
This site will require a private road name at the time the third structure is built. To minimize the impact of re-
addressing the existing structures we recommend establishing a private road name at this time. The applicant will
need to speak with the property owner of TMP 45-111A (Stellar One Bank) to develop a list of potential road
names that would have to be submitted and approved by this office.
Requested Changes
Project Name:
Date Completed:
Reviewer:
Department/Division/Agency:
Reviews
Comments:
Review Status:
Review Comments
NORTHTOWN, PHASE 11-A - FINAL
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
Alexander Morrison
ACSA
Final – Non-residential –
Administrative
Notified via email that their approval letter has been sent to the applicant.
Approved
Project Name:
Date Completed:
Reviewer:
Department/Division/Agency:
Reviews
Comments:
Review Status:
Review Comments
NORTHTOWN, PHASE 11-A - FINAL
Friday, April 19, 2013
Jay Schlothauer
Inspections
Final – Non-residential –
Administrative
Based on plans revised April 3, 2013.
No comments or conditions.
No Objection
1
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, VA, 22902
Phone 434-296-5832 Fax 434-972-4126
Memorandum
To: Scott Collins (scott@collins-engineering.com)
From: Ellie Ray, CLA, Senior Planner
Division: Planning
Date: February 1, 2013
Rev1: March 12, 2013
Rev2: April 19, 2013
Subject: SDP 2013– 00002 Northtown Phase II-A – Final Site Development Plan
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. [Comment] It appears that a 24’ access easement is being provided for the future Phase IIB. For your
information, should this property be subdivided to split Phases IIA and IIB, a minimum 30’ private street
easement would be required, and private street approval would be necessary for frontage for Phase IIB.
Similarly, if you plan to subdivide Phase IIA from Phase I, the existing 24’ access easement would need to
be increased to a minimum of 30’ to qualify for private street approval.
Rev1: Comment addressed. However, please be aware that the 24’ access easement that runs
through Phase I and connects Phase IIA to the public street would have to be upgraded to 30’ and
included in the private street request in order to gain approval of any potential subdivision of this
development.
Rev2: Comment acknowledged by applicant, no change to 24’ easement included.
2. [Comment] The parking and building setback lines along Route 29 have two different labels. In one area
they are refered to as 20’ buffer and 50’ building setback, and in another they are labeled 10’ parking
setback and 30’ building setback; please correct on all sheets.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
3. [32.5.2(a)] The boundary information provided does not include reference to TMP 045000000111B0, and
the cover sheet provides the incorrect acreage for TMP 04500000011100; please verify and provide
accurate existing boundary lines and acreage information.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
4. [32.5.2(a)] Add AIA (Airport Impact Area) to the Zoning note. Please also document the waiver granted for
disturbance of critical slopes including the associated conditions of approval by reference to the approval
letter for SDP 200400045 dated October 28, 2005.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
5. [32.5.2(b)] While the maximum building height on HC zoned land is 65’, any building height in excess of 35’
requires an additional 2’ of setback for each 1’ in height above 35’. The cover sheets states “‘proposed
building height is approximately 40’ to highest peak”. It appears this is referring to the front façade
treatment, which is exempt from the setback provisions. Please provide the actual maximum building height
(not approximate) to verify that no additional setback is required.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
2
6. [32.5.2(b) & 4.12.4(a)] The number of parking spaces provided may not exceed the number of spaces
required by more than twenty (20) percent. The site plan indicates that the requirement is being exceeded
by 54%. Please either reduce the number of parking spaces to a maximum of 209, or request a waiver from
this section of the ordinance.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
7. [32.5.2(b)] Provide the maximum amount of impervious cover on the Cover Sheet.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
8. [32.5.2(b)] Provide the maximum amount of paved parking and vehicular circulation area on the Cover
Sheet and Landscape Sheet.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
9. [32.5.2(l)] Please show the location of other existing and proposed utilities and utility easements, including
telephone, cable, electric and gas easements.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
10. [32.5.2(n)] Label the length of the loading/dumpster area.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
11. [32.6.2(g)] Indicate all utility and drainage easements outside the right-of-way of public streets. Any new
easements may be generally shown and dedicated by separate plat. All water and sewer facilities to be
dedicated to public use and the easements for those facilities and shall be identified by a statement that the
facilities are to be dedicated to the Albemarle County Service Authority.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
12. [32.6.2(j) & Comment] The landscape plan submitted for ARB review is different from the plan shown in
the Site Plan set; these plans must match before a full landscape plan review will be completed. The
following comments are for reference when submitting the revised plan.
Rev1: Comment addressed. However, please make sure that the final ARB submittal and Final Site
Plan for signature contain the same landscape plan.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
13. [32.6.2(j) & Comment] Many of plant labels have conflicts with other lines/labels on the sheet and are
difficult to read; please make sure all labels are legible.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
14. [32.6.2(j) & Comment] The plant counts provided for Cornus florida and Ilex x ‘Nellie R. Stevens’ appear to
be incorrect; please verify and revise.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. On the current submittal it appears that the plant counts for
Quercus palustris (schedule says 20, I count 19) and Ulmus parvifolia ‘Allee’ (schedule says 7, I
count 8) are incorrect. Please verify and correct, along with the associated canopy calculations.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
15. [32.6.2(j) & Comment] Many of the proposed plantings appear to have site conflicts. Some are shown
outside of the site, some are in utility easements and some are directly on top of proposed utilities and
drainage structures. Please move plants into more suitable locations or provide approval from the
associated agency (VDOT, ACSA, etc) that they will allow the plantings within their property/easement.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. It still appears that there are proposed plantings in the VDOT
R/W and marginally in some of the ACSA easements. As indicated above, please provide approval
from the associated agency (VDOT, ACSA, etc) that they will allow the plantings within their
property/easement.
Rev2: Comment not fully addressed; ACSA approval is pending.
16. [32.6.2(j), 32.7.9.4(b) & Condition of approval] Existing trees may be preserved in lieu of planting new
plant materials in order to satisfy the landscaping and screening requirements of section 32.7.9 or to meet
conditions of approval, subject to the agent’s approval. It appears the Preliminary Site Plan and first Final
Site Plan were approved with a condition that certain trees along the border of the 20’ undisturbed buffer be
3
marked and preserved. The landscape plan should show the trees to be preserved, the limits of clearing,
the location and type of protective fencing, grade changes requiring tree wells or walls, and trenching or
tunneling proposed beyond the limits of clearing. The conservation checklist refers to these elements, but
they don’t appear to be present on the plan.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. The conservation plan checklist must be signed and dated.
Rev2: Comment not fully addressed. The conservation plan checklist must be signed and dated.
17. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.5(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. As noted above, the square footage of ‘paved
parking and vehicular circulation area’ has not been provided. 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.
18. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.5(b)] The 5% landscaped area required shall be planted with a mixture of shade trees
and shrubs and shall include one (1) large or medium shade tree per ten (10) parking spaces or portion
thereof, if five (5) spaces or more. The Acer rubrum, Platanus acerifolia, and Ulmus parvifolia are the only
trees provided that are on the current list of recommended large or medium shade trees approved by the
agent; therefore there are 31 parking lot trees provided, not 37 as indicated on the plan.
Rev1: Comment addressed. However, it appears that the parking lot tree calculation is still based
on 268 parking spaces instead of the revised 196 spaces. Of course, the number of trees provided
meets our requirements. The tree distribution is good and allows for future parking spaces to be
added, but please revise the calculation to reflect was it actually required on this plan.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
19. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.7] Please extend the additional screening plants on top of the retaining wall to the end of
the adjacent residential district.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
20. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.8] It appears that the site acreage used to calculate the tree canopy requirement is
incorrect. The plan only lists the acreage for TMP 45-110, when TMP 45-110A should also be included;
please revise. Additionally, provide information as to how the canopy numbers for the Taxodium distichum
and Magnolia grandflora were determined.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. The plant schedule lists 16 sf as the canopy provided by Ilex
cornuta, when it should be 14 sf. Additionally, the plant count discrepancies noted in comment #14
will also change the overall tree canopy provided. It appears that the 10% canopy requirement will
still be satisfied, but please revise the schedule and canopy calculations to reflect the accurate
numbers.
Rev2: Comment addressed. However, the total tree canopy numbers provided don’t coordinate; the
plant schedule lists 50,029sf while the ‘calculations’ area lists 50,536sf. Please provide the correct
number in both places.
21. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] Lighting comments provided with the ARB review apply to the Site Plan as well. Also, it
appears that the lighting plan submitted for ARB review shows building mounted fixtures, while the plan
included with the Site Plan set does not. All proposed lighting fixtures must be included on the lighting plan
included in the Site Plan set.
Rev1: Comment addressed. However, any future ARB comments will apply as well.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
22. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] Two of the pole fixtures are proposed directly on top of storm drain pipe; please correct
this conflict.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
4
23. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] Please indicate that the proposed pole fixture will have a flat lens.
Rev1: Comment not addressed. The model number provided for the pole fixture doesn’t seem to
reference the cut sheet. Please provide a model number that clearly indicates that the fixture will
have a flat lens.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
24. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] The lighting plan indicates that a LLF of 0.75 was used to create the photometric plan.
Albemarle County requires that the LLF be 1.0; revise the photometric plan using the proper LLF.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
25. [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.
26. [Comment] Provide documentation of all off-site easements, including grading and off-site plantings.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. The plan appears to show proposed planting and minor
grading in the VDOT R/W. As indicated above, please provide approval from VDOT.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
27. [Comment] Provide the deed book and page references for all existing utility easements located on the
property.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. This information is still missing on some sheets.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
28. [Condition of Preliminary Approval] Architectural Review Board issuance of a Certificate of
Appropriateness.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. ARB review is in progress, which could result in additional
revisions necessary on the site plan.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
29. [Condition of Preliminary Approval] Virginia Department of Transportation approval of entrance design,
signal improvements, frontage and turn lane improvements as well as any associated road plans and
drainage plans.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. VDOT review is in progress.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
30. [Condition of Preliminary Approval] Albemarle County Service Authority approval including approval of
the design of the relocated sanitary sewer meeting ACSA standards with no portion located within storm
water management facilities.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. ACSA review is in progress.
Rev2: Comment not fully addressed. ACSA review is in progress.
31. [Condition of Preliminary Approval] The 18' retaining wall on the northern side of the site cannot disturb
the undisturbed buffer for a footing or reinforcing grid. The plan must be revised as necessary, or provide
computations, details and construction methods to avoid disturbance of the buffer. The preliminary plan did
not show a retaining wall where it is currently proposed in Phase IIA; this condition is applicable to the
proposed wall as well.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
Rev2: Comment addressed; however, in order to address this condition in keeping with the
Planning Commission approval, please add a note to the retaining wall detail that states ‘The
retaining walls cannot disturb the undisturbed buffer for a footing or reinforcing grid. If requested,
details will be provided with the retaining wall building permit application that show no disturbance
of the buffer will occur’.
5
32. [Condition of Preliminary Approval] Grading to the edge of the undisturbed wooded buffer on the sides
of the site will likely cut tree root systems, damaging and eventually killing trees. On final plans, the grading
should be moved back, or specific trees surveyed and marked on plans to ensure survivability of trees within
the undisturbed buffer.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
33. [Condition of Preliminary Approval] Fire Marshall approval.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed, please see fire/rescue comments.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
34. [Condition of Preliminary Approval] Building Official approval.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
35. [Condition of Preliminary Approval] The final site plan shall be subject to Planning Commission review.
This submittal will be scheduled on the consent agenda once ARB approval is obtained and the majority of
the site plan issues have been resolved.
Rev1: Coordination of this item will be handled after ARB approval is granted.
Rev2: Comment addressed. The Planning Commission approved the plan with conditions at their
April 9th meeting.
36. [Comment] This site plan cannot be approved until Engineering, ACSA and VDOT completed their reviews
and grant their approval; comments will be forwarded upon receipt. ARB, Fire/Rescue, inspections, and
E911 comments have been provided.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. ACSA and VDOT reviews are pending; comments will be
forwarded upon receipt. ARB, Fire/Rescue, and E911 comments have been provided. Engineering
and inspections have completed their reviews and have no objections.
Rev2: Comment not fully addressed. ACSA review/approval is still pending.
37. [Comment] It appears that several sheets within the plan set have a revision date of 4/15/13; please
update the revision date on the Cover Sheet to reflect the most revision.
Please contact Ellie Ray in the Planning Division by using eray@albemarle.org or 434-296-5832 ext. 3432 for
further information.
Project Name:
Date Completed:
Reviewer:
Department/Division/Agency:
Reviews
Comments:
Review Status:
Review Comments
NORTHTOWN, PHASE 11-A - FINAL
Wednesday, April 17, 2013
Margaret Maliszewski
ARB
Final – Non-residential –
Administrative
Approved
Project Name:
Date Completed:
Reviewer:
Department/Division/Agency:
Reviews
Comments:
Review Status:
Review Comments
NORTHTOWN, PHASE 11-A - FINAL
Tuesday, April 16, 2013
Ellie Ray
Planning
Final – Non-residential –
Administrative
Applicant sent email saying he wants to swap out the plan set - am awaiting new submittal.
See Recommendations
Ellie Ray
From: Ron Higgins
Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2013 11:42 AM
To: Ellie Ray
Subject: FW: NorthTownCtr_SPB Fence.xlsx
F.Y.I.
From: Ron Higgins
Sent: Friday, April 05, 2013 11:01 AM
To: 'Nena Harrell'
Cc: Andrew Kellerman; Amelia McCulley; Jay Schlothauer
Subject: RE: NorthTownCtr_SPB Fence.xlsx
Good morning, Nena:
I believe you may be confused about the location of the fence and what triggers it. This fence (with gate and some
asphalt as shown and detailed on the site plan) is located on the NORTH side of the NorthTownCtr development
(adjacent to what will be the car dealer)along the boundary with Carrsbrook. The approved site plan indicates that the
fence,gate and asphalt must be finished BEFORE ANY rough-in inspections are done by the county. That means for the
Gander Mountain building OR the car dealer building. We cannot wait until the COs since the approved site plan
requires it to be in earlier.September 1S`will be too late, as I am sure you all will be wanting inspections before then. It
appears that none of the work going on out there would prevent the fence from being installed now. I would
recommend that you all get a fence contractor out there to install right away if you plan to get any inspections done
soon. Please advise on your revised timetable.
Ron Higgins
From: Nena Harrell [mailto:ulcwww(aembargmail.com]
Sent:Tuesday, April 02, 2013 5:16 PM
To: Ron Higgins
Cc: Andrew Kellerman; Amelia McCulley
Subject: RE: NorthTownCtr_SPB Fence.xlsx
Hi Ron,
We just received grading permit for the Northtown site. We will be working there throughout the summer. Would like
to have fence installed by 9/1. It would be nice to install when the majority of the site work is complete. If you really
need further assurance in addition to our cash bond,you could tie it to the Gander CO O.
Hope you can work with us since it seems the site is finally coming together.
Nena
From: Ron Higgins [mailto:rhiggins@@albemarle.orq]
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 10:04 AM
To: ulcwww(aembargmail.com
Cc: Andrew Kellerman; Amelia McCulley
Subject: FW: NorthTownCtr_SPB Fence.xlsx
1
Nena: ''s" woe
The attached bond for$30,900 was for the fence at Northtown Center, a gate and a small amount of asphalt. This,
according to the approved site plan, was to have been put in before the first"rough in inspection". We allowed it to be
bonded when the Stellar One bank was completed on its own separate parcel. As you can see,the bond was in 2010
and set to expire in October of 2011. It was extended to October, 2012. I cannot extend this bond further, so this is a
violation.
I will need a firm completion date for the fence and for the work to commence on the fence, gate and asphalt within the
next 30 days or we will pursue this as a violation,which will affect approvals of permits after that.
Ron Higgins
2
Project Name:
Date Completed:
Reviewer:
Department/Division/Agency:
Reviews
Comments:
Review Status:
Review Comments
NORTHTOWN, PHASE 11-A - FINAL
Friday, April 05, 2013
Jay Schlothauer
Inspections
Final – Non-residential –
Administrative
Based on plans revised April 3, 2012.
No comments or conditions.
No Objection
Project Name:
Date Completed:
Reviewer:
Department/Division/Agency:
Reviews
Comments:
Review Status:
Review Comments
NORTHTOWN, PHASE 11-A - FINAL
Thursday, March 28, 2013
Ellie Ray
Planning
Final – Non-residential –
Administrative
Staff report complete for PC consent agenda.
See Recommendations
1
Ellie Ray
From:DeNunzio, Joel D., P.E. (VDOT) [Joel.DeNunzio@VDOT.virginia.gov]
Sent:Tuesday, March 19, 2013 4:15 PM
To:Ellie Ray
Cc:Oleynik, Megan (VDOT)
Subject:SDP-2013-00002 Northtown Center Phase II A final
Ellie,
I have reviewed the subject plan and have one comment:
· Proposed landscaping needs to be placed off of the Route 29 right of way.
Thanks
Joel
Joel DeNunzio, P.E.
Residency Administrator
VDOT Charlottesville Residency
434-422-9373
joel.denunzio@vdot.virginia.gov
1
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, VA, 22902
Phone 434-296-5832 Fax 434-972-4126
Memorandum
To: Scott Collins (scott@collins-engineering.com)
From: Ellie Ray, CLA, Senior Planner
Division: Planning
Date: February 1, 2013
Rev1: March 12, 2013
Subject: SDP 2013– 00002 Northtown Phase II-A – Final Site Development Plan
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. [Comment] It appears that a 24’ access easement is being provided for the future Phase IIB. For your
information, should this property be subdivided to split Phases IIA and IIB, a minimum 30’ private street
easement would be required, and private street approval would be necessary for frontage for Phase IIB.
Similarly, if you plan to subdivide Phase IIA from Phase I, the existing 24’ access easement would need to
be increased to a minimum of 30’ to qualify for private street approval.
Rev1: Comment addressed. However, please be aware that the 24’ access easement that runs
through Phase I and connects Phase IIA to the public street would have to be upgraded to 30’ and
included in the private street request in order to gain approval of any potential subdivision of this
development.
2. [Comment] The parking and building setback lines along Route 29 have two different labels. In one area
they are refered to as 20’ buffer and 50’ building setback, and in another they are labeled 10’ parking
setback and 30’ building setback; please correct on all sheets.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
3. [32.5.2(a)] The boundary information provided does not include reference to TMP 045000000111B0, and
the cover sheet provides the incorrect acreage for TMP 04500000011100; please verify and provide
accurate existing boundary lines and acreage information.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
4. [32.5.2(a)] Add AIA (Airport Impact Area) to the Zoning note. Please also document the waiver granted for
disturbance of critical slopes including the associated conditions of approval by reference to the approval
letter for SDP 200400045 dated October 28, 2005.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
5. [32.5.2(b)] While the maximum building height on HC zoned land is 65’, any building height in excess of 35’
requires an additional 2’ of setback for each 1’ in height above 35’. The cover sheets states “‘proposed
building height is approximately 40’ to highest peak”. It appears this is referring to the front façade
treatment, which is exempt from the setback provisions. Please provide the actual maximum building height
(not approximate) to verify that no additional setback is required.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
6. [32.5.2(b) & 4.12.4(a)] The number of parking spaces provided may not exceed the number of spaces
required by more than twenty (20) percent. The site plan indicates that the requirement is being exceeded
2
by 54%. Please either reduce the number of parking spaces to a maximum of 209, or request a waiver from
this section of the ordinance.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
7. [32.5.2(b)] Provide the maximum amount of impervious cover on the Cover Sheet.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
8. [32.5.2(b)] Provide the maximum amount of paved parking and vehicular circulation area on the Cover
Sheet and Landscape Sheet.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
9. [32.5.2(l)] Please show the location of other existing and proposed utilities and utility easements, including
telephone, cable, electric and gas easements.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
10. [32.5.2(n)] Label the length of the loading/dumpster area.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
11. [32.6.2(g)] Indicate all utility and drainage easements outside the right-of-way of public streets. Any new
easements may be generally shown and dedicated by separate plat. All water and sewer facilities to be
dedicated to public use and the easements for those facilities and shall be identified by a statement that the
facilities are to be dedicated to the Albemarle County Service Authority.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
12. [32.6.2(j) & Comment] The landscape plan submitted for ARB review is different from the plan shown in
the Site Plan set; these plans must match before a full landscape plan review will be completed. The
following comments are for reference when submitting the revised plan.
Rev1: Comment addressed. However, please make sure that the final ARB submittal and Final Site
Plan for signature contain the same landscape plan.
13. [32.6.2(j) & Comment] Many of plant labels have conflicts with other lines/labels on the sheet and are
difficult to read; please make sure all labels are legible.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
14. [32.6.2(j) & Comment] The plant counts provided for Cornus florida and Ilex x ‘Nellie R. Stevens’ appear to
be incorrect; please verify and revise.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. On the current submittal it appears that the plant counts for
Quercus palustris (schedule says 20, I count 19) and Ulmus parvifolia ‘Allee’ (schedule says 7, I
count 8) are incorrect. Please verify and correct, along with the associated canopy calculations.
15. [32.6.2(j) & Comment] Many of the proposed plantings appear to have site conflicts. Some are shown
outside of the site, some are in utility easements and some are directly on top of proposed utilities and
drainage structures. Please move plants into more suitable locations or provide approval from the
associated agency (VDOT, ACSA, etc) that they will allow the plantings within their property/easement.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. It still appears that there are proposed plantings in the VDOT
R/W and marginally in some of the ACSA easements. As indicated above, please provide approval
from the associated agency (VDOT, ACSA, etc) that they will allow the plantings within their
property/easement.
16. [32.6.2(j), 32.7.9.4(b) & Condition of approval] Existing trees may be preserved in lieu of planting new
plant materials in order to satisfy the landscaping and screening requirements of section 32.7.9 or to meet
conditions of approval, subject to the agent’s approval. It appears the Preliminary Site Plan and first Final
Site Plan were approved with a condition that certain trees along the border of the 20’ undisturbed buffer be
marked and preserved. The landscape plan should show the trees to be preserved, the limits of clearing,
the location and type of protective fencing, grade changes requiring tree wells or walls, and trenching or
tunneling proposed beyond the limits of clearing. The conservation checklist refers to these elements, but
they don’t appear to be present on the plan.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. The conservation plan checklist must be signed and dated.
3
17. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.5(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. As noted above, the square footage of ‘paved
parking and vehicular circulation area’ has not been provided. 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.
18. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.5(b)] The 5% landscaped area required shall be planted with a mixture of shade trees
and shrubs and shall include one (1) large or medium shade tree per ten (10) parking spaces or portion
thereof, if five (5) spaces or more. The Acer rubrum, Platanus acerifolia, and Ulmus parvifolia are the only
trees provided that are on the current list of recommended large or medium shade trees approved by the
agent; therefore there are 31 parking lot trees provided, not 37 as indicated on the plan.
Rev1: Comment addressed. However, it appears that the parking lot tree calculation is still based
on 268 parking spaces instead of the revised 196 spaces. Of course, the number of trees provided
meets our requirements. The tree distribution is good and allows for future parking spaces to be
added, but please revise the calculation to reflect was it actually required on this plan.
19. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.7] Please extend the additional screening plants on top of the retaining wall to the end of
the adjacent residential district.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
20. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.8] It appears that the site acreage used to calculate the tree canopy requirement is
incorrect. The plan only lists the acreage for TMP 45-110, when TMP 45-110A should also be included;
please revise. Additionally, provide information as to how the canopy numbers for the Taxodium distichum
and Magnolia grandflora were determined.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. The plant schedule lists 16 sf as the canopy provided by Ilex
cornuta, when it should be 14 sf. Additionally, the plant count discrepancies noted in comment #14
will also change the overall tree canopy provided. It appears that the 10% canopy requirement will
still be satisfied, but please revise the schedule and canopy calculations to reflect the accurate
numbers.
21. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] Lighting comments provided with the ARB review apply to the Site Plan as well. Also, it
appears that the lighting plan submitted for ARB review shows building mounted fixtures, while the plan
included with the Site Plan set does not. All proposed lighting fixtures must be included on the lighting plan
included in the Site Plan set.
Rev1: Comment addressed. However, any future ARB comments will apply as well.
22. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] Two of the pole fixtures are proposed directly on top of storm drain pipe; please correct
this conflict.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
23. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] Please indicate that the proposed pole fixture will have a flat lens.
Rev1: Comment not addressed. The model number provided for the pole fixture doesn’t seem to
reference the cut sheet. Please provide a model number that clearly indicates that the fixture will
have a flat lens.
24. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] The lighting plan indicates that a LLF of 0.75 was used to create the photometric plan.
Albemarle County requires that the LLF be 1.0; revise the photometric plan using the proper LLF.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
25. [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.
4
26. [Comment] Provide documentation of all off-site easements, including grading and off-site plantings.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. The plan appears to show proposed planting and minor
grading in the VDOT R/W. As indicated above, please provide approval from VDOT.
27. [Comment] Provide the deed book and page references for all existing utility easements located on the
property.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. This information is still missing on some sheets.
28. [Condition of Preliminary Approval] Architectural Review Board issuance of a Certificate of
Appropriateness.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. ARB review is in progress, which could result in additional
revisions necessary on the site plan.
29. [Condition of Preliminary Approval] Virginia Department of Transportation approval of entrance design,
signal improvements, frontage and turn lane improvements as well as any associated road plans and
drainage plans.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. VDOT review is in progress.
30. [Condition of Preliminary Approval] Albemarle County Service Authority approval including approval of
the design of the relocated sanitary sewer meeting ACSA standards with no portion located within storm
water management facilities.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. ACSA review is in progress.
31. [Condition of Preliminary Approval] The 18' retaining wall on the northern side of the site cannot disturb
the undisturbed buffer for a footing or reinforcing grid. The plan must be revised as necessary, or provide
computations, details and construction methods to avoid disturbance of the buffer. The preliminary plan did
not show a retaining wall where it is currently proposed in Phase IIA; this condition is applicable to the
proposed wall as well.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
32. [Condition of Preliminary Approval] Grading to the edge of the undisturbed wooded buffer on the sides
of the site will likely cut tree root systems, damaging and eventually killing trees. On final plans, the grading
should be moved back, or specific trees surveyed and marked on plans to ensure survivability of trees within
the undisturbed buffer.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
33. [Condition of Preliminary Approval] Fire Marshall approval.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed, please see fire/rescue comments.
34. [Condition of Preliminary Approval] Building Official approval.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
35. [Condition of Preliminary Approval] The final site plan shall be subject to Planning Commission review.
This submittal will be scheduled on the consent agenda once ARB approval is obtained and the majority of
the site plan issues have been resolved.
Rev1: Coordination of this item will be handled after ARB approval is granted.
36. [Comment] This site plan cannot be approved until Engineering, ACSA and VDOT completed their reviews
and grant their approval; comments will be forwarded upon receipt. ARB, Fire/Rescue, inspections, and
E911 comments have been provided.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. ACSA and VDOT reviews are pending; comments will be
forwarded upon receipt. ARB, Fire/Rescue, and E911 comments have been provided. Engineering
and inspections have completed their reviews and have no objections.
Please contact Ellie Ray in the Planning Division by using eray@albemarle.org or 434-296-5832 ext. 3432 for
further information.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
Project: Northtown Phase II-A Final Site Plan
Plan preparer: Collins Engineering [293-3719]
Owner or rep.: First Gold Leaf Land Trust
Plan received date: 19 Feb 2013
Date of comments: 5 Mar 2013
Reviewer: Michelle Roberge
I have completed the review of Northtown Phase II-A Final Site Plan- Revision 1. This approval is
contingent upon the approval of the WPO201300002, since the stormwater facility’s size and
location is a crucial part of the plan.
A. Site Development Plan (SDP201300002)
All previous comments were addressed. Additional review may be required if the stormwater facilty
affects the site development plan.
Sincerely,
Michelle Roberge
File: E1_rp,esc,swm,fsp_GEB_template.doc
Project Name:
Date Completed:
Reviewer:
Department/Division/Agency:
Reviews
Comments:
Review Status:
Review Comments
NORTHTOWN, PHASE 11-A - FINAL
Thursday, February 28, 2013
Andrew Slack
E911
Final – Non-residential –
Administrative
This site will require a private road name at the time the third structure is built. To minimize the impact of re-
addressing the existing structures we recommend establishing a private road name at this time. The applicant will
need to speak with the property owner of TMP 45-111A (Stellar One Bank) to develop a list of potential road
names that would have to be submitted and approved by this office.
Requested Changes
Project Name:
Date Completed:
Reviewer:
Department/Division/Agency:
Reviews
Comments:
Review Status:
Review Comments
NORTHTOWN, PHASE 11-A - FINAL
Monday, February 25, 2013
Jay Schlothauer
Inspections
Final – Non-residential –
Administrative
Based on plans revised February 19, 2013.
No further comments or conditions.
No Objection
Project Name:
Date Completed:
Reviewer:
Department/Division/Agency:
Reviews
Comments:
Review Status:
Review Comments
NORTHTOWN, PHASE 11-A - FINAL
Sunday, February 24, 2013
Shawn Maddox
Fire Rescue
Final – Non-residential –
Administrative
All comments dated 1/12/2013 have been addressed. Please provide documentation to Fire/Rescue that the
required fire flow of 1500gpm with a residual pressure of not less than 20psi for the site is available. Fire/Rescue
has no objections to the Final Site Plan revised on 2/19/2013 by Collins Engineering job number 092029. Thank
you. SNM
See Recommendations
Project Name:
Date Completed:
Reviewer:
Department/Division/Agency:
Reviews
Comments:
Review Status:
Review Comments
NORTHTOWN, PHASE 11-A - FINAL
Thursday, February 21, 2013
Margaret Maliszewski
ARB
Final – Non-residential –
Administrative
At its meeting on February 19, 2013, the ARB approved a Certificate of Appropriateness for ARB-2013-08 Gander
Mountain with the following conditions:
1. Provide dimensioned architectural elevations (black and white line drawings) with all standard information: the
visibility note, materials/color schedule, materials identification keyed to the drawings, the drawing scale,
drawing/revision date, etc.
2. Revise the elevation drawings to show the location and height of rooftop equipment. Ensure that all equipment
will not be visible.
3. Provide samples of the proposed EIFS colors (other than SW6150 and SW6151) for review. Revise the Sherwin
Williams “sandtrap” to a color with less pink and more khaki.
4. Ensure that the visibility note will appear on the architectural drawings submitted with the building permit
application.
5. Provide cut sheets on the plan for the wall pack fixtures. Include the wall packs in the photometric calculations.
Ensure that the decorative wall lights meet the scale and proportion shown in the elevations.
6. Revise the luminaire schedule to include the wall packs and the decorative wall fixtures.
7. Revise the photometrics using an LLF of 1.0.
8. Revise the luminaire schedule to specify the flat lens for the shoebox fixtures.
9. Revise the luminaire schedule to include the lamp type and catalog numbers for all proposed fixtures. Ensure
that the lamps will provide a consistent appearance throughout the development by specifying a consistent lamp
type. (Metal halide appears to be a common lamp type in the development.)
10. Indicate if the entrance element is illuminated. If it is, add the information to the photometric plan.
11. Revise the lighting plan to eliminate lighting/utility conflicts.
12. Indicate whether or not the parking lot pole lights will be placed on bases. If bases will be used, indicate this on
the plan and clarify on the plan that the 20’ height includes the base height.
13. Clearly identify all utilities and easements on the site plan. Provide all landscaping on site and outside of
easements without reducing the quantity of plants or the general character of the planting illustrated on the 1/15/13
plan.
14. Provide a grading plan.
15. Maintain all grading on site.
16. Clarify and coordinate the grading and planting near the existing individual trees to remain on the south side of
the site. Show tree protection fencing and related relevant details.
17. Consider replacing the dogwoods at the building with an evergreen species or other scale appropriate tree with
visual interest for year-round effect.
18. Extend the street trees along rain garden #3.
Revised plans addressing the above-noted conditions are required.
Requested Changes
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
Project: Northtown Phase II-A Final Site Plan
Plan preparer: Collins Engineering [293-3719]
Owner or rep.: First Gold Leaf Land Trust
Plan received date: 7 Jan 2013
Date of comments: 4 Feb 2012
Reviewer: Michelle Roberge
A. Site Development Plan (SDP201300002)
1. It appears the shape of the biofilter NW of site has slightly changed. Please differentiate between the
existing and the revised easements. This will need to be updated on plats. Also, call out the proposed
stormsewer easements on the grading plan.
2. Please increase the 18’ travelway to 20’ (west of the building). 20’ is the minimum travelway width for
two-way access aisles. Section 4.12.17
3. The travelway NE of parking lot transitions from a 30’ to 20’. The minimum travelway is 24’ for lots
with 9’x18’parking spaces per Section 4.12.16. I recommend showing pavement striping to show lane
width transition and provide a “R4-8c Narrow Keep Left.”
4. There is a future pedestrian bridge and crosswalk. By pulling back the median, the visibility clearance
has been improved. However, I would recommend adding future yield to pedestrian signs on both
sides of the travelway.
5. Call out the CG-2 for sidewalks east and west of the building.
6. Bumper blocks are required for parking spaces (west of the 5’ sidewalk) since the sidewalk is less
than 2’ from the edge of the parking area. Each bumper block shall be a minimum length of six (6)
feet, a maximum height of five (5) inches, and shall be securely anchored into the pavement in at least
two (2) places. If the sidewalk is increased to 6’, bumper blocks will not be necessary.
7. I recommend improving the layout of the handicap parking spaces to provide persons with direct
unobstructed access to buildings by the shortest practical route, and to eliminate the need to cross
vehicular access aisles wherever possible. Please note that comment 6 applies if sidewalks are
provided in this area.
8. There is an existing 8” french drain on the final SDP for Phase 1 Northtown Center, running through
phase 2. Please clarify.
9. I recommend adjusting the grading on the forebay closest to the sidewalk. Pull back grading a
minimum of 2’. This area may require a guardrail. Please refer to Vdot A-34 if a guardrail is
warranted.
10. The biofilter is about 13’ deep and I recommend placing a guardrail all along the travelway. I
recommend the same for the travelway with the retaining wall, with the guardrail starting at the 454
contour.
11. Please provide the easement DB # for utilities. The are labeled with missing DB and page#. Also
provide the ACSA widths where they are missing. Label the 20’ access easement to the biofilter.
12. The 30’ building setback and 10’ parking setback are labeled incorrectly on plans.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 2
13. There is a temporary easement for stream restoration work on Phase 1. Please show it on the Phase II
plans. One of the conditions from the critical slopes waiver approval is to provide downstream channel
and pond restoration upon project completion of phase 1 and 2.
14. The approved phase 1 plans included a safety rail. After conducting a field visit, I noticed the safety
rail was not installed. This is a 22’ wall and is hazardous since the site is not fenced off.
15. Please update the existing topo. The plans are showing a retaining wall just east of biofilter, which is
not existing. Also, it appears the limits of the existing tree line has changed as well.
16. There are two sidewalk details. Based on the plans, only the detail with the curb is necessary.
17. Near the retaining wall south of site, the grading limit is right on the 20’ undisturbed buffer. Extra
precaution should be take to protect the existing trees and root damage. Mark all trees to save.
Sincerely,
Michelle Roberge
File: E1_rp,esc,swm,fsp_GEB_template.doc
1
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, VA, 22902
Phone 434-296-5832 Fax 434-972-4126
Memorandum
To: Scott Collins (scott@collins-engineering.com)
From: Ellie Ray, CLA, Senior Planner
Division: Planning
Date: February 1, 2013
Subject: SDP 2013– 00002 Northtown Phase II-A – Final Site Development Plan
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. [Comment] It appears that a 24’ access easement is being provided for the future Phase IIB. For your
information, should this property be subdivided to split Phases IIA and IIB, a minimum 30’ private street
easement would be required, and private street approval would be necessary for frontage for Phase IIB.
Similarly, if you plan to subdivide Phase IIA from Phase I, the existing 24’ access easement would need to
be increased to a minimum of 30’ to qualify for private street approval.
2. [Comment] The parking and building setback lines along Route 29 have two different labels. In one area
they are refered to as 20’ buffer and 50’ building setback, and in another they are labeled 10’ parking
setback and 30’ building setback; please correct on all sheets.
3. [32.5.2(a)] The boundary information provided does not include reference to TMP 045000000111B0, and
the cover sheet provides the incorrect acreage for TMP 04500000011100; please verify and provide
accurate existing boundary lines and acreage information.
4. [32.5.2(a)] Add AIA (Airport Impact Area) to the Zoning note. Please also document the waiver granted for
disturbance of critical slopes including the associated conditions of approval by reference to the approval
letter for SDP 200400045 dated October 28, 2005.
5. [32.5.2(b)] While the maximum building height on HC zoned land is 65’, any building height in excess of 35’
requires an additional 2’ of setback for each 1’ in height above 35’. The cover sheets states “‘proposed
building height is approximately 40’ to highest peak”. It appears this is referring to the front façade
treatment, which is exempt from the setback provisions. Please provide the actual maximum building height
(not approximate) to verify that no additional setback is required.
6. [32.5.2(b) & 4.12.4(a)] The number of parking spaces provided may not exceed the number of spaces
required by more than twenty (20) percent. The site plan indicates that the requirement is being exceeded
by 54%. Please either reduce the number of parking spaces to a maximum of 209, or request a waiver from
this section of the ordinance.
7. [32.5.2(b)] Provide the maximum amount of impervious cover on the Cover Sheet.
8. [32.5.2(b)] Provide the maximum amount of paved parking and vehicular circulation area on the Cover
Sheet and Landscape Sheet.
9. [32.5.2(l)] Please show the location of other existing and proposed utilities and utility easements, including
telephone, cable, electric and gas easements.
2
10. [32.5.2(n)] Label the length of the loading/dumpster area.
11. [32.6.2(g)] Indicate all utility and drainage easements outside the right-of-way of public streets. Any new
easements may be generally shown and dedicated by separate plat. All water and sewer facilities to be
dedicated to public use and the easements for those facilities and shall be identified by a statement that the
facilities are to be dedicated to the Albemarle County Service Authority.
12. [32.6.2(j) & Comment] The landscape plan submitted for ARB review is different from the plan shown in
the Site Plan set; these plans must match before a full landscape plan review will be completed. The
following comments are for reference when submitting the revised plan.
13. [32.6.2(j) & Comment] Many of plant labels have conflicts with other lines/labels on the sheet and are
difficult to read; please make sure all labels are legible.
14. [32.6.2(j) & Comment] The plant counts provided for Cornus florida and Ilex x ‘Nellie R. Stevens’ appear to
be incorrect; please verify and revise.
15. [32.6.2(j) & Comment] Many of the proposed plantings appear to have site conflicts. Some are shown
outside of the site, some are in utility easements and some are directly on top of proposed utilities and
drainage structures. Please move plants into more suitable locations or provide approval from the
associated agency (VDOT, ACSA, etc) that they will allow the plantings within their property/easement.
16. [32.6.2(j), 32.7.9.4(b) & Condition of approval] Existing trees may be preserved in lieu of planting new
plant materials in order to satisfy the landscaping and screening requirements of section 32.7.9 or to meet
conditions of approval, subject to the agent’s approval. It appears the Preliminary Site Plan and first Final
Site Plan were approved with a condition that certain trees along the border of the 20’ undisturbed buffer be
marked and preserved. The landscape plan should show the trees to be preserved, the limits of clearing,
the location and type of protective fencing, grade changes requiring tree wells or walls, and trenching or
tunneling proposed beyond the limits of clearing. The conservation checklist refers to these elements, but
they don’t appear to be present on the plan.
17. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.5(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. As noted above, the square footage of ‘paved
parking and vehicular circulation area’ has not been provided. 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.
18. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.5(b)] The 5% landscaped area required shall be planted with a mixture of shade trees
and shrubs and shall include one (1) large or medium shade tree per ten (10) parking spaces or portion
thereof, if five (5) spaces or more. The Acer rubrum, Platanus acerifolia, and Ulmus parvifolia are the only
trees provided that are on the current list of recommended large or medium shade trees approved by the
agent; therefore there are 31 parking lot trees provided, not 37 as indicated on the plan.
19. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.7] Please extend the additional screening plants on top of the retaining wall to the end of
the adjacent residential district.
20. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.8] It appears that the site acreage used to calculate the tree canopy requirement is
incorrect. The plan only lists the acreage for TMP 45-110, when TMP 45-110A should also be included;
please revise. Additionally, provide information as to how the canopy numbers for the Taxodium distichum
and Magnolia grandflora were determined.
21. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] Lighting comments provided with the ARB review apply to the Site Plan as well. Also, it
appears that the lighting plan submitted for ARB review shows building mounted fixtures, while the plan
included with the Site Plan set does not. All proposed lighting fixtures must be included on the lighting plan
included in the Site Plan set.
3
22. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] Two of the pole fixtures are proposed directly on top of storm drain pipe; please correct
this conflict.
23. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] Please indicate that the proposed pole fixture will have a flat lens.
24. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] The lighting plan indicates that a LLF of 0.75 was used to create the photometric plan.
Albemarle County requires that the LLF be 1.0; revise the photometric plan using the proper LLF.
25. [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.
26. [Comment] Provide documentation of all off-site easements, including grading and off-site plantings.
27. [Comment] Provide the deed book and page references for all existing utility easements located on the
property.
28. [Condition of Preliminary Approval] Architectural Review Board issuance of a Certificate of
Appropriateness.
29. [Condition of Preliminary Approval] Virginia Department of Transportation approval of entrance design,
signal improvements, frontage and turn lane improvements as well as any associated road plans and
drainage plans.
30. [Condition of Preliminary Approval] Albemarle County Service Authority approval including approval of
the design of the relocated sanitary sewer meeting ACSA standards with no portion located within storm
water management facilities.
31. [Condition of Preliminary Approval] The 18' retaining wall on the northern side of the site cannot disturb
the undisturbed buffer for a footing or reinforcing grid. The plan must be revised as necessary, or provide
computations, details and construction methods to avoid disturbance of the buffer. The preliminary plan did
not show a retaining wall where it is currently proposed in Phase IIA; this condition is applicable to the
proposed wall as well.
32. [Condition of Preliminary Approval] Grading to the edge of the undisturbed wooded buffer on the sides
of the site will likely cut tree root systems, damaging and eventually killing trees. On final plans, the grading
should be moved back, or specific trees surveyed and marked on plans to ensure survivability of trees within
the undisturbed buffer.
33. [Condition of Preliminary Approval] Fire Marshall approval.
34. [Condition of Preliminary Approval] Building Official approval.
35. [Condition of Preliminary Approval] The final site plan shall be subject to Planning Commission review.
This submittal will be scheduled on the consent agenda once ARB approval is obtained and the majority of
the site plan issues have been resolved.
36. [Comment] This site plan cannot be approved until Engineering, ACSA and VDOT completed their reviews
and grant their approval; comments will be forwarded upon receipt. ARB, Fire/Rescue, inspections, and
E911 comments have been provided.
Please contact Ellie Ray in the Planning Division by using eray@albemarle.org or 434-296-5832 ext. 3432 for
further information.
Project Name:
Date Completed:
Reviewer:
Department/Division/Agency:
Reviews
Comments:
Review Status:
Review Comments
NORTHTOWN, PHASE 11-A - FINAL
Friday, January 25, 2013
Margaret Maliszewski
ARB
Final – Non-residential –
Administrative
This proposal is scheduled for ARB review. Updated comments will be provided after the completion of that review.
ARB approval is required prior to final site plan approval.
Requested Changes
Project Name:
Date Completed:
Reviewer:
Department/Division/Agency:
Reviews
Comments:
Review Status:
Review Comments
NORTHTOWN, PHASE 11-A - FINAL
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Andrew Slack
E911
Final – Non-residential –
Administrative
This site will require a private road name at the time the third structure is built. To minimize the impact of re-
addressing the existing structures we recommend establishing a private road name at this time. The applicant will
need to speak with the property owner of TMP 45-111A (Stellar One Bank) to develop a list of potential road
names that would have to be submitted and approved by this office.
Requested Changes
Project Name:
Date Completed:
Reviewer:
Department/Division/Agency:
Reviews
Comments:
Review Status:
Review Comments
NORTHTOWN, PHASE 11-A - FINAL
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Jay Schlothauer
Inspections
Final – Non-residential –
Administrative
Based on plans dated January 7, 2013.
Due to the total number of parking spaces provided (268), seven wheelchair accessible spaces are required.
Provide one more accessible parking space.
Requested Changes
Project Name:
Date Completed:
Reviewer:
Department/Division/Agency:
Reviews
Comments:
Review Status:
Review Comments
NORTHTOWN, PHASE 11-A - FINAL
Saturday, January 12, 2013
Robbie Gilmer
Fire Rescue
Final – Non-residential –
Administrative
Based on SDP Dated 1/7/13
1. Hydrant spacing shall be 500 ft per travel way around the building.
2. FDC Location shall be on the address side of the building and within 50 ft of a fire hydrant. And located so
that when the fire apparatus is hooked to the hydrant and FDC it doesn't block access for other apparatus. This
may require a free standing FDC located in a parking lot island with a fire hydrant.
3. Fire Access roads shall have a width of 20 ft unobstructed width. Travel lane located on west side of building
needs to be 20 ft.
4. Need to advise the fire official of the construction type so the fire flow can be determined.
5. Key box required contact Fire Offical during construction to determine a location.
6. The front of the building and the west side of the building need to marked "No Parking Fire Lane"
Requested Changes