The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSDP201400071 Review Comments 2015-02-10Short Review Comments Report for: SDP201400071 SubApplication Type: Henley Middle School Auxiliary Gym Addition - Major Major Amendment Date Completed:12/16/2014 Reviewer:Ellie Ray Planning Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments: Division: Date Completed:12/16/2014 Reviewer:Justin Deel Engineering Review Status:See Recommendations Reviews Comments:1) We strongly recommend that drainage structure No. 101 be routed around the proposed building addition footprint. 2) Please remove VSMP items (Erosion & Sediment Control and Stormwater Management). 3) VSMP approval will be needed before Final Site Plan Approval. Division: Date Completed:12/05/2014 Reviewer:Jay Schlothauer Inspections Review Status:No Objection Reviews Comments:Based on plans dated November 21, 2014. No comments or conditions. It is understood, from architectural documents, that this auxiliary gym will be separated from the rest of the building with a firewall. Division: Date Completed:12/12/2014 Reviewer:Margaret Maliszewski ARB Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments:A Certificate of Appropriateness is required prior to final approval of the minor amendment. The applicant should submit an ARB application for a Countywide Certificate of Appropriateness for a minor amendment. Here is the link to the application form: http://www.albemarle. org/upload/images/forms_center/departments/Community_Development/forms/arb_applications/ARB _Application_11_2010.pdf The corresponding checklist should also be submitted. The checklist outlines the submittal items that are required. Here is a link to the checklist: http://www.albemarle. org/upload/images/forms_center/departments/Community_Development/forms/arb_applications/ARB _Minor_Amendment_Checklist_July_2010.pdf In the submittal, please be sure to address the visibility and screening of rooftop equipment. Entrance Corridor guidelines state that equipment should not be visible from the street. Screening should be fully integrated into the design. Division: Date Completed:12/12/2014 Reviewer:Shelly Plaster VDOT Review Status:No Objection Reviews Comments: Division: Page:1of3 County of AlbemarlePrinted On:January 14, 2016 Date Completed:12/30/2014 Reviewer:Alexander Morrison ACSA Review Status:No Objection Reviews Comments: Division: Date Completed:12/09/2014 Reviewer:Robbie Gilmer Fire Rescue Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments:Based on SDP dated 11/21/14 1. An approved fire apparatus access road shall be installed to within 150 ft of all the first floor of the addition. Exception to the code: if the school has an approved Sprinkler system the distance can be increased to 200 ft. 2. Hydrant shall be installed within 500 ft of the addition. The hydrant shall have an approved fire apparatus access road. Division: Date Completed:01/07/2015 Reviewer:Margaret Maliszewski ARB Review Status:Approved Reviews Comments: Division: Date Completed:01/23/2015 Reviewer:Ellie Ray Planning Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments: Division: Date Completed:01/21/2015 Reviewer:Justin Deel Engineering Review Status:See Recommendations Reviews Comments:Previous comments addressed. Awaiting VSMP approval. Division: Date Completed:01/23/2015 Reviewer:Margaret Maliszewski ARB Review Status:Approved Reviews Comments:The light loss factor (LLF) shown in the luminaire schedule is .95. Generally, an LLF of 1.0 is required on Albemarle County lighting plans. In this case, however, the increased LLF is not expected to create unacceptable spillover or brightness levels. Consequently, a revision is not required in this particular case. Please note the 1.0 LLF requirement for future plans. Division: Date Completed:01/20/2015 Reviewer:Robbie Gilmer Fire Rescue Review Status:No Objection Reviews Comments:Based on plans dated 1/13/15 No comments or objections Division: Date Completed:02/04/2015 Reviewer:Ellie Ray Planning Review Status:No Objection Reviews Comments: Division: Date Completed:02/09/2015 Reviewer:Justin Deel Engineering Review Status:No Objection Division: Page:2of3 County of AlbemarlePrinted On:January 14, 2016 Reviews Comments: Date Completed:02/10/2015 Reviewer:Ellie Ray Planning Review Status:Approved Reviews Comments: Division: Page:3of3 County of AlbemarlePrinted On:January 14, 2016 L. ire F A Nuar S% --1 1 ullllh frrtG N). COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road,North Wing Charlottesville,Virginia 22902-4596 Phone(434)296-5832 Fax(434)972-4126 December 16, 2014 Rev 1: January 23, 2015 Craig Kotarski 919 2nd Street S.E. Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: SDP201400071 Henley Middle School Auxiliary Gym Addition—Minor Amendment Dear Sir: Your Minor Amendment application has been reviewed. In order for the amended site plan to be approved the following revisions are required: 1. [Comment] It has been determined that this application may be processed as a Minor Amendment instead of a Major Amendment; please revise the cover sheet and reference SDP200400019 as the original site plan that this aoplication amends. Rev1: Comment addressed. 2. [32.5.2(a)] Show the closes: boundary line and provide a dimension between toe line and the proposed improvements (or show the required setback line, Rev1: Comment addressed. 3. [32.5.2(a)] Add Entrance Corridor(EC) to toe Zoning note. Revi: Comment addressed. 4. [32.5.2(e)] Show and label any existing landscape features as descr;oed in 32.7.9.4(c). Rev1: Comment addressed. 5. [32.5.2(f)] Add a note indicating this parcel lies witnin the South Fork. F;Dianna Reservoir Water Supply /Vatershea. Rev.: Comment addressed. 6. [32.5.2(k)] Clarify if new sewer is rroposed along the western tree line a portion of toe line !s aaarke than. t`?e rest, thus making it look ao if tna° s ectir 's 'aronosed`, Rev1: !Comment addressed. 7. :32.5.2a k i)] ':/brit!! that the €i)ca� `C. -,r,',.. 'f a . . c `s ut: :ies l. V a it lion. %.i"�I�"viJr's _i: :�, �.:s�i;l Ji' pr"�").,�..: and Uii,r `..a::ements Inch' in^ wate^ sewe r. telephone, _aoia electric and cas a• shown. 'ii the rid plan Ptcvirje toe Jeeo Booi: an: Pads r 'roc a.:`r' easements shouic cc 1atie:e Rev l: Comment a.:icress:ed. 8. 67�. G.�'! ProvidE. cir`i�rFThnE' _ . 107 • 9. [32.6.2(j)&32.7.9] Thejyim addition itself does not carry any Site Neff landscaping requirements provided that all landscaping required on SDP200400019 was installed and has been maintained. Show and provide tree protection for any required landscaping from the original SDP that is near the project area. Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. I believe Engineering is going to request that you remove the E&S sheets from the Site Plan (WPO related sheets should only be included in the WPO application for enforcement and period of validity reasons). Please add the tree protection information to the Landscape Plan sheet so that it is included in the Site Plan. 10. [Comment] ARB review and approval is required which may have separate landscape requirements. Revi: Comment addressed. 11. [32.6.2(k) &4.17] Is any outdoor lighting proposed? If so, all lighting (including building mounted fixtures) must be shown on a lighting plan that includes a photometric plan, luminaire schedule and cut sheets for each proposed fixture. Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. 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 foot-candle. For future reference,the LLF (or maintenance factor) should be 1.0, not 0.95. In this case, ARB does not expect any issues with the correct maintenance factor, so it's acceptable to leave it as is. 12. [Comment] This amendment cannot be approved until ACSA completes their review and grants their approval; comments will be forwarded upon receipt. Inspections and VDOT have reviewed the plan and have no objection. Engineering, Fire Rescue and ARB comments have been provided. Rev1: Comment addressed. However,the WPONSMP application must be approved prior to site plan approval. 13. [Comment] For future reference, when additional changes are added to a revision submittal (such as relocation of the sheds), please make sure the planner is made aware of the additions. Many times, we only review for the revisions we have requested and might miss the additional changes. In this case, the changes are approvable but there have been times when additional changes have become a problem during the inspection process. Staff has provided references to provisions of Chapter 18 of the Code of the County of Albemarle. The Code is kept up to date by the County Attorney's office. The Code may found on the County Attorney's website which may be found under"Departments and Services" at Albemarle.org. In accord with the provisions of Section 32.4.3.5 of Chapter 18 of the Code if the developer fails to submit a revised final site plan to address all of the requirements within six(6) months after the date of this letter the application shall be deemed to have been voluntarily withdrawn by the developer. If you have any questions about the comments please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, ELL, C', eab Ellie Carter Ray, CLA Senior Planner Planning Division