HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201400019 Correspondence 2014-04-29 Ellie Ray
From: William M. Eschenfelder[beschenfelder @deltaairport.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 11:53 AM
To: Ellie Ray
Subject: RE: SDP201400019 CHO Airport Surface Parking Expansion - Major Amendment
Ellie,
I am sorry for your loss.
We will make sure to submit enough copies. Thank you for the help.
Bill
From: Ellie Ray [mailto:erayOalbemarle.orq]
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 11:48 AM
To: William M. Eschenfelder
Subject: Re: SDP201400019 CHO Airport Surface Parking Expansion - Major Amendment
Bill,
I'm actually out of the office for a family funeral and will likely be gone all week. So I can't look at your application...but
submit enough copies to cover the number of reviewers who provided comments plus one. I can't think of any other
fees.
Thanks,
Ellie
On Apr 29, 2014,at 8:21 AM, "William M. Eschenfelder" <beschenfelder deltaairport.com>wrote:
Ellie,
We are preparing a resubmittal and had a couple of quick questions.
1. How many copies of the plan will be required?
2. Are there any additional fees beyond the$200 for adjacent owner notification that must be
provided?
Thank you for your assistance.
Bill
From: Ellie Ray [m. .•:era • albemarle.or•
Sent: Monday, April07, '9 4 4:35 PM
To: William M. Eschenfelder
Subject: SDP201400019 CHO Air..- Surface Parking Expansion - Major Amendment
Bill,
Please find attached my co ents for the above re erenced application. I have also attached a PDF with
the other SRC reviewer co ments received to date The SRC meeting is at 10 am this Thursday, April
1
Ellie Ray
From: Michelle Roberge
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 5:15 PM
To: beschenfelder @deltaairport.com
Cc: Ellie Ray
Subject: RE: SDP201400019 CHO Surface Parking Expansion - Major Amendment
Bill,
I recommend submitting the old SWM agreement.This will be routed to the County Attorney for review.The County
Attorney will then determine if the old SWM agreement is okay or if a new agreement should be completed.
-Michelle Roberge
From: Ellie Ray
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2014 2:03 PM
To: William M. Eschenfelder
Cc: Michelle Roberge
Subject: SDP201400019 CHO Surface Parking Expansion - Major Amendment
Bill,
I wanted to follow up on some of the outstanding issues discussed in yesterday's SRC meeting,so here's is what I've
found:
1. The internal signs will require a sign application.
2. Michelle will send information about whether or not a new stormwater maintenance agreement will be
required.
I think this covers the remaining questions, please let me know if I've neglected anything.
Thanks,
Ellie Carter Ray, PLA
Senior Planner
Albemarle County Community Development
Planning Division
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville,Virginia 22902
ph: 434.296.5832 x. 3432
fax: 434.972.4126
•
Nor
Ellie Ray
From: Margaret Maliszewski
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 9:45 AM
To: William M. Eschenfelder
Cc: Ellie Ray
Subject: RE: SDP201400019 CHO Surface Parking Expansion - Major Amendment
Bill,
In this case it will be fine to submit to the ARB as a final. Here is the link to the ARB application:
http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/forms center/departments/Community Development/forms/arb applicatio
ns/ARB Application 11 2010.pdf
Here is the link to the checklist:
http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/forms center/departments/Community Development/forms/arb applicatio
ns/ARB Final Review Site Plan Checklist July 2010.pdf
Let me know if you have other questions.
Margaret
Margaret M.Maliszewski,Principal Planner
Albemarle County Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,Charlottesville,VA 22902
434-296-5832 x3276
From: Ellie Ray
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2014 2:08 PM
To: William M. Eschenfelder
Cc: Margaret Maliszewski
Subject: RE: SDP201400019 CHO Surface Parking Expansion - Major Amendment
I don't know much about ARB applications...I have copied Margaret on this.
Margaret, can you let Bill know what type of application to submit?
Thanks,
Ellie Carter Ray, PLA
Senior Planner
Albemarle County Community Development
ph: 434.296.5832 x. 3432
From: William M. Eschenfelder [mailto:beschenfelder Caldeltaairport.com]
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2014 2:07 PM
To: Ellie Ray
Subject: RE: SDP201400019 CHO Surface Parking Expansion - Major Amendment
Ellie,
1
To confirm,we will submit as final to ARB correct?
Bill
From: Ellie Ray [mailto:eray(aalbemarle.org]
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2014 2:03 PM
To: William M. Eschenfelder
Cc: Michelle Roberge
Subject: SDP201400019 CHO Surface Parking Expansion - Major Amendment
Bill,
I wanted to follow up on some of the outstanding issues discussed in yesterday's SRC meeting,so here's is what I've
found:
1. The internal signs will require a sign application.
2. Michelle will send information about whether or not a new stormwater maintenance agreement will be
required.
I think this covers the remaining questions, please let me know if I've neglected anything.
Thanks,
Ellie Carter Ray, PLA
Senior Planner
Albemarle County Community Development
Planning Division
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville,Virginia 22902
ph: 434.296.5832 x. 3432
fax: 434.972.4126
2
DELTA AIRPORT
CONSULTANTS, INC.
May 5, 2014
Mrs. Ellie Carter Ray, CLA
Senior Planner
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville,VA 22902-4596
Subject: Site Development Plan Review-SDP201400019
CHO Airport Surface Parking Expansion-Comments& Response
Dear Mrs. Ray:
Delta Airport Consultants is in receipt of your comments dated April 4, 2014 for the referenced project
review plans. We have addressed the comments and revised the plans.Ten sets of revised plans are
enclosed.
Responses to your comment are itemized below:
Comment 1: [32.5.2(a)] Clarify why TMP 32-49 is included in "Project Information" as no work appears
to be proposed on this parcel. If TMP 32-49 is indeed part of the project, owner
information should be provided or easements may be necessary.
Response: TMP 32-49 is not part of the project. Reference to TMP 32-49 has been removed from
the project cover,Sheet 1
Comment 2: [32.5.2(a)] It looks as if both grading work and the very edge of the new parking lot are
proposed outside of the parcel limits; please clarify.
Response: The geometry and grading plan have been revised to within the parcel limits. Please
see grading and drainage,Sheet 8.
Comment 3: [32.5.2(a)] Remove LI from the zoning note as the Airport parcel is zoned RA. Add EC
(Entrance Corridor).
Response: "LI"has been replaced by"EC"for zoning on the project cover,Sheet 1.
Comment 4: [32.5.2(a)]Add a north point to the Landscape Plan.
Response: A North arrow has been added to Landscape Plan, Sheet L-1.
Comment 5: [32.5.2(a)] Display the Landscape Plan at a standard scale.
Response: The Landscape Plan, Sheet L-1, has been revised to a standard scale of 1"=20.
9711 FARRAR COURT, SUITE 100, RICHMOND, VIRGINIA, 23236
P. (804) 275-8301 F. (804) 275-8371 WWW.DELTAAIRPORT.COM
Mrs. Ellie Ray N"r Noe
May 5, 2014
Page 2
Comment 6: [32.5.2(b)] One of the upper rows of parking in the new employee parking lot is labeled
as 19 spaces when there are just 18 shown on the plan; please revise.
Response: The geometric layout, Sheet 7, has been revised to correctly reference the 18
space in the row.
Comment 7: [32.5.2(b)] List the total number of existing and proposed parking spaces in addition to
the overall total.
Response: The total number of existing and proposed parking spaces are included on the
managed steep slopes and Albemarle County notes, Sheet 3.
Comment 8: [32.5.2(b)] Provide the maximum amount of paved parking and vehicular circulation in
the project area for use in landscape plan calculations.
Response: The Landscape Plan, Sheet L-1, has been revised to provide project area data.
Comment 9: [32.5.2(d)] The critical slopes ordinance was recently amended to create a Steep Slopes
Overlay map for the development areas. The slopes shown on this plan are now
considered "managed steep slopes"; revise all 'critical slopes' references to'managed
steep slopes'.
Response: References to "critical slopes"have been revised to "managed steep slopes."
Please see the Managed Steep Slopes and Albemarle County notes sheets.
Comment 10: [32.5.2(e)] Show all existing landscape features and clearly label what is being removed
and what is intended to remain.
Response: Tree and vegetation demolition is shown on the Demolition Layout, Sheet 6.
Comment 11: [32.5.2(f)] Revise the water supply protection note to indicate that this parcel is within a
water supply protection area.
Response: The water supply protection note has been revised. Please see the project cover,
Sheet 1.
Comment 12: [32.5.2(1)] Provide the right-of-way and pavement width of Dickerson Road.
Response: The right-of-way and pavement widths have been added. Please see the
Intersection Sight Distance Plan &Profile, Sheet 23.
Comment 13: [32.5.2(1)] Provide the pavement width for the proposed entrance off of Dickerson Road.
Response: The proposed pavement width has been added. Please see the Geometric Layout,
Sheet 7.
Comment 14: [32.5.2(1)] Provide the pavement width for the modified entrance off of Bowen Loop along
with the associated travel way width. One-way access aisles must have a minimum 12'
width.
Response: The Geometric Layout, Sheet 7, has been revised to propose the minimum 12'
width for entry/exit.
Mrs. Ellie Ray
May 5, 2014
Page 3
Comment 15: [32.5.2(j,k,l)]Verify that the location(s) and dimensions of all existing or proposed utilities
and utility easements including water, sewer, drainage, telephone, cable, electric and gas
are shown on the plan. Label any existing easements with the Deed Book and Page
Number or the easement number reference from the Airport Property Map.
Response: The easements, deed book, and page numbers for all utilities have been added.
Please see the Utility Layout, Sheet 21.
Comment 16: [32.5.2(m)] Show the distance to the centerline of the nearest existing street intersection
from the proposed ingress and egress location.
Response: The distance to centerline has been added. Please see the Intersection Sight
Distance Plan 8 Profile, Sheet 7.
Comment 17: [32.5.2(n)] Label and dimension any existing walkways.
Response: Labels and dimensions for existing walkways have been added. Please see the
Geometric Layout, Sheet 7.
Comment 18: [32.5.2(n)] Show the proposed lighting on the layout, grading, and utility sheets to verify
that no site conflicts exist.
Response: Proposed lights have been added to the Grading and Drainage, Sheet 8, and Utility
Layout, Sheet 21.
Comment 19: [32.5.2(n)] Sign location and design are not reviewed or approved on a Site Plan
application; a separate sign application is required. Please remove all sign design
information. Sign locations should also be removed or labeled as 'future sign location to
be reviewed and approved with a sign application'.
Response: A sign permit application will be made to the Architectural Review Board.
Comment 20: [32.5.2(n)] Label blank areas around the proposed parking lot with the intended ground
cover/surface treatment.
Response: Permanent seeding notes have been added.
Comment 21: 032.6.1(a)]The site development plan must be sealed, signed and dated by an
authorized preparer(licensed architect, engineer, land surveyor or landscape architect).
Response: When plans are approved pending signature, signed and sealed plans will be
submitted for execution.
Comment 22: [32.6.2(f)] Clarify the transition between the existing travel way and the existing parking
lot at the modified entrance off of Bowen Loop; is there curbing along the edge of the
parking lot?
Response: The existing entrance has existing curb on the east side that remains unchanged.
The west curb is proposed to be relocated to provide 12'wide access. The parking
lot has existing curb. Please see the Geometric Layout, Sheet 7.
Mrs. Ellie Ray `1° s4
May 5, 2014
Page 4
Comment 23: [32.6.2(h)] Remove one of the `inspections' signature lines from the signature panel.
Response: One of the "inspections"signature lines has been removed. Please see the Plan
Cover, Sheet 1.
Comment 24: [32.6.2(j)]Verify that all utilities and utility easements are shown and labeled on the
landscape plan; it appears that some utilities shown on other sheets aren't present.
Response: Easements have been added to the Landscape Plan, Sheet L-1.
Comment 25: [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.4(a)] Several of the proposed plantings have utility conflicts; move all
landscaping away from existing and proposed utilities and outside of any utility
easements. Documentation of authorization from the easement holder to plant within their
easement must be provided for any plants remaining within easements.
Response: No proposed trees are proposed in the Utility Easements. Some small shrubs are
proposed to remain to meet the Architectural Review Board Screening
Requirements. Please see the Landscape Plan, Sheet L-1.
Comment 26: [32.6.2(j)& 32.7.9.4(a)] The plant schedule lists 20 Amelanchier grandiflora but only 18
are shown on the plan. Similarly, the plant schedule lists 12 Acer rubrum while 14 are
shown on the plan. Clarify and revise if necessary.
Response: The Plant Schedule has been revised to clarify.
Comment 27: [32.6.2(j)&32.7.9.4(b)] 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 seems that some of
the Landscape Plan requirements may be proposed to be met with existing vegetation. If
this is the case, 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. In addition, the
applicant shall sign a conservation checklist approved by the agent to insure that the
specified trees will be protected during construction. Except as otherwise expressly
approved by the agent in a particular case, such checklist shall conform to specifications
contained in the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook, pp III-284 through III-
297, and as hereafter amended. This checklist must be signed, dated and included on
the plans.
Response: The Conservation Plan Checklist has been included with this letter. The plan has
been revised to show all items.
Comment 28: [32.6.2(j)& 32.7.9.4(d)] The landscape plan shall verify that it satisfies the minimum
landscaping and screening requirements of Section 32. See comments below.
Response: Landscape calculations are included to verify minimum landscaping and screening
requirements.
Comment 29: [32.6.2(j)& 32.7.9.5] Provide a note indicating the number of street trees required and
the number provided.
Response: The note for number of trees has been added. Please see Landscape Plan, Sheet L-
2
Mrs. Ellie Ray i`"e "'o,
May 5, 2014
Page 5
Comment 30: [32.6.2(j) &32.7.9.6] Provide a note to demonstrate that an area a minimum of 5% of the
paved parking and vehicular circular area is landscaped in shrubs and trees. See section
32.7.9.6(a) for additional information.
Response: A note has been added. Please see Landscape Plan, Sheet L-2.
Comment 31: [32.6.2(j)& 32.7.9.6] Provide a note listing the number of parking lot trees required and
the number provided. See section 32.7.9.6(b)for additional information.
Response: A note has been added. Please see Landscape Plan, Sheet L-2.
Comment 32: [32.6.2(j)&32.7.9.8]The tree canopy requirement for this site is 10%; provide
information to verify that this requirement is being met.
Response: A note has been added. Please see Landscape Plan, Sheet L-2.
Comment 33: [32.6.2(j)] ARB approval of the landscape plan is required.
Response: A submission will be made to the Architectural Review Board for review and
approval.
Comment 34: [32.6.2(k)&4.17] Light poles are shown on the landscape plan, but no photometric plan
is included in the plan set. A complete lighting plan including photometric information, a
luminaire schedule, and legible cutsheet(s) must be submitted for review. The lighting
plan must also be reviewed and approved by the ARB.
Response: The Photometric Plan has been added. Please see Light&Photometric Plan, Sheet
L-5.
Comment 35: [Comment] If any off-site easements are required, they must be recorded prior to site
plan approval.
Response: Offsite easements are not applicable. Parcel 49 is not anticipated to be impacted.
Comment 36: [Comment] This amendment cannot be approved until all comments from the Site
Review Committee (SRC) have been addressed. Any comments not available at the time
of the SRC meeting will be forwarded once received.
Response: Comment noted.
VDOT Comments were as follows:
Comment 1: The proposed entrance onto Dickerson Road needs to be designed in accordance with
the standard for commercial entrance along highways with shoulders as found in
Appendix F of the Road Design Manual. Items of particular note that need to be
addressed are:
a) The minimum radius at the entrance is 25'
b) The entrance radius needs to be offset from Route 606 by 12'
c) Since curb and gutter is currently shown on the entrance, it should be
extended to the radii as shown in appendix F.
Response: The proposed entrance has been revised to address the noted comments. Please
see the Geometric Layout, Sheet 7.
Mrs. Ellie Ray `"e *gore
May 5, 2014
Page 6
Comment 2: Turn lane warrants need to be provided for review.
Response: The turn lane warrant computations are included in this package for review.
Comment 3: The sight triangle to the right of the entrance does not appear to be drawn correctly.
Response: The sight triangle has been revised. Please see the Intersection Sight Distance
Plan & Profile, Sheet 23.
County Engineering's comments are as follows:
Comment 1: On sheet 8, the existing parking lot should not be hatched solid. Only show in bold the
areas that are proposed.
Response: The existing parking lot is proposed to be sealed and remarked. The solid hatch
identifies this work. Please see the Geometric Layout,Sheet 7.
Comment 2: What is the width of the entrance to the existing parking lot?The minimum requirement
is 12' wide for one way.
Response: The existing entrance has been revised to provide 12'minimum width.See the
Geometric Layout,Sheet 7.
Comment 3: Place a yield sign at the exit lane intersecting Bowen Loop.
Response: A proposed yield sign has been added at the exit of the West parking lot.See
Geometric Layout,Sheet 7.
Comment 4: Remove parking spaces next to the travel way and revise to island curbs. Per our policy,
a parking space is separated 18" at a minimum to entrance.
Response: The entrance islands have been revised to provide the required 18'separation
between the travel way and parking spaces. See Geometric Layout,Sheet 7.
Comment 5: Provide all existing easements: sanitary, drainage and etc., with deed book and page
number.
Response: Utility Easements,including deed book and page number,have been added to the
Utility Layout,Sheet 21.
Comment 6: The site plan should not contain erosion control plans or stormwater management
plans.Also remove details pertaining to these plans.These will be reviewed with the
WPO application.The title of the WPO plans should include "E&S and Stormwater
Management."
Response: The Erosion Control and Stormwater Management Plans have been removed from the
Site Plan.
Mrs. Ellie Ray °No"-
May 5, 2014
Page 7
Comment 7: Critical slopes being disturbed are "managed slopes."Address 30.7.5 (b) (2), [I]ocation of
toe of the fill slope.
"The toe of any fill slope shall not be located within 10 feet horizontally of the top of an
existing or proposed cut slope."
Response: The South biofilter has been revised to provide the required 10'buffer between toe of
fill slope and top of cut slope when grading managed slopes.See Grading and
Drainage,Sheet 8.
Comment 8: Site has to be field verified within the last year. Please verify. Provide date and name of
surveyor.
Response: Field Survey information is included on Managed Steep Slopes and Albemarle County
notes,Sheet 3.
Comment 9: Provide low maintenance ground cover(not grass)for 2:1 slopes and specify on plan.
Response: Ground cover has been added to the Landscape Plan,Sheet L-1.
Comment 10: All proposed permanent easements shall be dimensioned and labeled: drainage, sight,
swm facility and access to SWM.
Response: Permanent easements for the Airport are included on the Airport Property Map.
Comment 11: Remove all trees on drainage structures. Provide 3' horizontal clearance.
Response: The plan has been revised to provide 3'minimum horizontal clearance. Please see
Landscape Plan,Sheet L-1.
Comment 12: VDOT approval shall be obtained for entrance intersecting Dickerson Road.
Response: Virginia Department of Transportation approval will be obtained through site plan
review.
Comment 13: Provide, at a minimum, a 25' radius at entrance intersecting Dickerson Road.
Response: The entrance at Dickerson Road has been revised to provide a 25'radius. See
Geometric Layout,Sheet 7.
Comment 14: Entrances shall not exceed 4%grade for a distance of 40'from intersected road.
Response: A profile of the parking lot entrance at Dickerson Road has been added showing
grades less than 4%. See Drainage and Waterline and Centerline Profile,Sheet 8.
Mrs. Ellie Ray
May 5, 2014
Page 8
Comment 15: Provide existing contour labels.
Response: Existing contour labels have been added for elevation reference. See Grading and
Drainage,Sheet 8.
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority's comments are as follows:
Comment 1: On Sheet 8, show the valve on the RWSA water line near the edge of pavement for
Dickerson Lane (see NRW-054 on attached GIS map)
Response: The existing valve(NRW-054)has been added. Please see Utility Layout,Sheet 21.
Comment 2: On Sheet 8, show the limits of the temporary soil stockpile shown near the RWSA 12"
water line.The stockpile should remain outside of the 20' RWSA easement and should
not interfere with access to the water line.
Response: The limits of the stockpile have been revised so as to not impede access to the
waterline or overlap the existing easement. Please see the Grading and Drainage,
Sheet 8
Comment 3: On Sheet 8, add a note that valve boxes for RWSA valves must be adjusted to match
final grade once the parking lot has been paved.
Response: Notes regarding adjustment of valves have been added. Please see Grading and
Drainage,Sheet 8.
Comment 4: On Sheet 20, label the 20' RWSA easement with deed book and page number.
Response: The 20'RWSA easement has been labeled with deed book and page number. Please
see Utility Layout,Sheet 21.
Comment 5: On Sheet 20, please provide RWSA with the results of test holes 1, 2, &3.
Response: Results for test holes are displayed on the waterline profile. Please see Drainage and
Waterline and Centerline Profiles,Sheet 24.
Comment 6: On Sheet 23, Dig additional test holes to confirm the depth of the RWSA 12" waterline
between stations 9+90 and 11=10, since the water line appears to be most shallow at
this location.The results of the test holes may require a revision to the proposed
grading over the water line in order to meet a minimum of 42" of cover.
Response: Notes have been added to provide additional test holes and guidance to the contractor
regarding the results of said test holes. Please see Drainage and Waterline and
Centerline Profiles, Sheet 24.
• Mrs. Ellie Ray �..r `""`
May 5, 2014
Page 9
Comment 7: On Sheet 23, under the RWSA 12" Waterline Profile, change the minimum depth of
cover for the water line to 3.5' (42").
Response: The profile has been revised to specify 42"minimum depth. Please see Drainage and
Waterline and Centerline Profiles,Sheet 24.
Comment 8: On Sheet L-1, remove trees and large shrubs from within the RWSA easement.
Response: No proposed trees are proposed in the Utility Easements.Some small shrubs are
proposed to remain to meet the Architectural Review Board Screening Requirements.
Please see Landscape Plan,Sheet L-1
Fire Rescue's comments are as follows:
Comment 1: Each parking lot shall have a fire hydrant installed to provide water for transportation
hazards.
Response: A proposed fire hydrant has been added in coordination with the Albemarle County
Service Authority(ACSA comment#2). Please see Utility Layout,Sheet 24.
ARB's comments are as follows:
Comment 1: ARB approval is required prior to final site plan approval.An ARB application is required.
The application form and checklists are available at www.albemarle.org/arb. Be sure
the plan that is submitted clearly distinguishes existing conditions from proposed
conditions and includes a photometric plan with complete lighting details.
Response: The plan has been revised and submitted for the Architectural Review Board approval.
Inspection's comments are as follows:
No comments or conditions.
E911's comments are as follows:
Comment 1: Approved
Albemarle County Service Authority's Civil Engineer's comments are as follows:
Comment 1: Submit 3 copies of the plans directly to the ACSA, attention Jeremy Lynn.
Response: Three copies of the plans will be sent directly to the ACSA, as requested.
Comment 2: Add a fire hydrant in the proposed island approximately 165 from the existing road
measured along the travel way.
Mrs. Ellie Ray *two
May 5, 2014
Page 10
Response: A fire hydrant has been added. Please see Utility Layout,Sheet 24.
Comment 3: Remove all proposed trees within ACSA easements.
Response: No proposed trees will be proposed within ACSA Easements. Please see Landscape
Plan,Sheet L-1.
Comment 4: Note existing trees within ACSA easements as "to be removed by contractor" under this
site plan.
Response: No existing trees are proposed to be removed because of Architectural Review Board
Requirements.
Should you have any further questions or concerns, please don't hesitate to contact our office.
Sincerely,
William Eschenfelder, P.E.
WME/meb
Enclosures: 1. Revised Site Plans—10 sets
2.Turn Lane Warrant—1 copy
3. Copy of$200 Check for adjacent owner notifications—1 copy
4. Conservation Plan Checklist—1 copy
cc: Bill Pahuta,Director of Operations w/encl
Michelle Roberge
From: Victoria Fort<vfort@rivanna.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 2:49 PM
To: Michelle Roberge
Cc: Dennis Seale
Subject: RE: Airport parking lot expansion project
Michelle,
There is sufficient cover over the water line at the location shown to allow the contractor to cross it with equipment
until the site plan is approved. Let me know if you have any questions.
Thank you,
Victoria
Victoria Fort, P.E.
Civil Engineer
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority
695 Moores Creek Lane
Charlottesville,VA 22902
(P):(434)977-2970 ext.205
(F):(434)295-1146
From: Michelle Roberge [mailto:mroberge @albemarle.org]
Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2015 2:16 PM
To: Victoria Fort; Dennis Seale
Subject: Airport parking lot expansion project
Hi Victoria,
We have issued the applicants a notice to comply to work outside the RWSA waterline.Since the waterline cuts their site
in half,they have asked if it is okay to cross the waterline near Dickerson road with their equipment. The sketch is an
approximate location only to explain the crossing. I mentioned that this will be RWSA's call. My guess is no, but let me
know what you think?John Johnson keeps mentioning the cover at this spot is 42".
Dennis,since the site is cut in half they are also proposing more than one construction entrance.Let me know what you
are okay with.We typically only ask for one, but this is your call since this in the VDOT ROW.
1
,.....„ i :,77 ......
//It
/ ,,, I , 1
, .z.
/ r ,
I z.., 1/
0 / .., '..
/
, lz
i 1
/ „/, ,„ \
i , , ,
.
\ 's
*. ''." .1 ■\ "41';','' '' i #
1 /
It 1 /
.4,
," '
; ;
.!
,,,,,,,
11
`---, ---- ,/ ;
,T 32-10+
/
,,,4'.;*: i lir•
4.1'' 1•"' .. /
/ ....
. . ,
/ /
'
I
/ /
/ //
..., ../
.<4' '.<. .......,,.....,,.. ,c)
4,114:444, :•.. I ./.`.."`".,, ''''''''-:.:::. ,.. /
../`
/ ...
-..., , 4,:, /
/„.0,v- / _C-01
Michelle Roberge
Department of Community Development
County of Albemarle.Virginia
401 McIntire Road Charlotte.wille,VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext.3458
2
Ellie Ray
From: Margaret Maliszewski
Sent: Friday,July 10, 2015 4:41 PM
To: Ellie Ray
Subject: Planning Application Review for SDP201400019 Surface Parking Expansion-Major
Amendment.
The Review for the following application has been completed:
Application Number=SDP201400019
Reviewer= Margaret Maliszewski
Review Status=Approved
Completed Date =07/10/2015
1
Ellie Ray
From: Ellie Ray
Sent: Friday,July 10, 2015 3:10 PM
To: 'William M. Eschenfelder'
Subject: SDP201400019 CHO Airport Surface Parking Expansion - Major Amendment
Bill,
I have reviewed the revision submittal and my previous comments have been addressed. Engineering has also
completed their review and has no objection. I am awaiting comment from the other reviewers; I will forward their
comments upon receipt. Let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
Thank you,
Ellie Carter Ray, PLA,LEER GREEP,.A soCTATE
Senior Planner
Albemarle County Community Development
Planning Division
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville,Virginia 22902
ph: 434.296.5832 x. 3432
fax: 434.972.4126
1