Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201200044 Review Comments Major Amendment, Final Site Plan 2012-09-12Phone 434 - 296 -5832 <C`tpF aLg� c County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, VA, 22902 Memorandum Fax 434 - 972 -4126 To: Susan Winslow, P.E. (swinslow @deltaairport.com) From: Ellie Ray, PLA, Senior Planner Division: Planning Date: August 6, 2012 Rev1: September 12, 2012 Subject: SDP 2012— 00044 CHO Runway 21 Extension - Major Site Plan Amendment The County of Albemarle Planning Division will recommend approval of the plan referenced above once the following comments have been satisfactorily addressed (The following comments are those that have been identified at this time. Additional comments or conditions may be added or eliminated based on further review.): [Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference, which is to the Subdivision /Zoning Ordinances unless otherwise specified.] [Comment] This proposal has been submitted as a Major Site Plan Amendment, which is effectively a Final Site Plan. No mechanism exists in the ordinance for the County to approve with conditions a Final Site Plan. Therefore, if the site plan does not have all necessary approvals to allow signature by the revision deadline the County will deny your application. You may request that the County defer taking a formal action on your application. In accord with the provisions of Section 32.4.3.10 a deferred project is deemed withdrawn if action is not taken within 6 months. Rev1: Comment not addressed. There are still outstanding items that need to be resolved in order for approval to be granted on this project. It appears that most of the issues are either minor in nature or require outside agency approval, and shouldn't prevent eventual approval of the application. Please request deferral while the health department, VDOT and WPO approvals are obtained. The few remaining planning comments included in this letter can be addressed through email and with the signature submittal once all of the other approvals are in place. 2. [Comment] It appears there have been a series of minor amendments approved for this property, both before and after the site plan this application is amending (SDP200800087). The previously approved Major Amendment should have documented all changes /improvements approved on previous minor amendments. However, it seems that due to the large size of the property, the amendment only documented the proposed changes under consideration at that time. This current application should document all previously approved modifications from the original site plan for the property; please include a legible overall site plan for the entire property indicating all existing or previously approved improvements. Existing improvements should be clearly differentiated from any that are approved but not yet built as well as those that are currently proposed. Any improvements that have not yet been submitted for approval by the County and are not included as part of this application should be removed from the plan sheets. Multiple sheets can be used if necessary. Rev1: Comment addressed. 3. [Comment] Please clarify exactly what improvements are proposed with this application. The cover sheet says `Extend Runway 21 (Phases 2, 3, & 4)', but it appears all three phases are not actually included in this proposal. The Project Sequencing table seems to indicate only a portion of Phase 4 is proposed. Additionally, the bubbled `for review' areas are not the same throughout the plan set; on some sheets the northern portion appears to include the revised maintenance access road and retaining wall only, while on other sheets it appears to include portions of two taxiways. Are the taxiways included in this application? The layer standards used also make it difficult to determine what is existing versus what is proposed with this application, and perhaps even what is planned for the future. This plan should clearly indicate what is being submitted for consideration at this time. Rev1: Comment addressed. 4. [32.5.6(a)] As noted above, please clarify which phases(s) are submitted for review and title the plan set accordingly. Rev1: Comment addressed. 5. [32.5.6(a)] Revise the zoning designation to reflect RA only, no portion of this site is zoned Ll. Rev1: Comment addressed. 6. [32.5.6(a)] Please list any proffers or variances previously approved for this site /project. Rev1: Comment addressed. 7. [32.5.6(a)] Provide the magisterial district (White Hall). Rev1: Comment addressed. 8. [32.5.6(a)] Add County information to the cover sheet. Rev1: Comment addressed. 9. [32.5.6(a)] Provide the source of topography. Rev1: Comment addressed. 10. [32.5.6(a)] Provide the source of survey. Rev1: Comment not addressed. No source of survey can be found on sheet 6; please clarify where this information has been provided. 11. [32.5.6(a)] When revisions are submitted, provide a date and description of revision specific to submittal to the County. Rev1: Comment addressed. 12. [32.5.6(a)] Provide the owner, zoning, tax map and parcel number, and present use of adjoining parcels. Rev1: Comment addressed. 13. [32.5.6(a)] Please list the minimum setback and yard requirements. Rev1: Comment addressed. 14. [32.5.6(a)] Please clarify the boundary lines and provide dimensions. Rev1: Comment addressed. 15. [32.5.6(d)] Show areas of the site where existing slopes are twenty -five percent or greater. Rev1: Comment addressed. 16. [32.5.6(f)] Add a note indicating this site is within a water supply protection area. Rev1: Comment addressed. 17. [32.5.6(i)] Provide right -of -way lines, widths, centerline radii and pavement widths for all existing streets. Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. It does not appear that this information has been provided on sheet 24 as indicated in the comment response letter. Please verify that the limits of disturbance do not extend beyond the VDOT right -of -way near the revised entrance to the SRE building. 18. [32.5.60 & 1) & 32.6.6(c)] Provide the location and dimensions of all existing and proposed utility, storm sewer, and drainage easements in the areas under review. Label any existing easements with Deed Book and Page Number, and indicate if proposed are to be privately or publicly maintained. Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. The comment response letter indicates that the Dominion Power and VDOT easements are not finalized. Deed book and page number information will be required as noted in the comment response letter. 19. [32.5.6(n)] Provide dimensions of all existing and proposed improvements in the areas under review, including: buildings; walkways; fences; walls; parking lots and other paved areas. Rev1: Comment addressed. 20. [Comment] Engineering review and /or building code may require handrail on the top of the proposed retaining wall. Rev1: Comment addressed. 21. [Comment] Provide documentation of all necessary off -site easements. Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. As noted in #17 above, please verify that no off -site easement is needed to construct the new entrance into the SIRE building. 22. [Comment] This plan cannot be approved until Engineering and VDOT have granted their approval. The WPO application must also be approved by engineering prior to site plan approval. Engineering comments have been provided. VDOT has not yet provided their comments on the latest submittal. Their comments will be forwarded, if any, once received. Please contact Ellie Ray in the Planning Division by using eray(a- )albemarle.org or 434 - 296 -5832 ext. 3432 for further information.