Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP200500149 Review Comments 2006-01-17or AII*,l iIII f Ir d 11. r , t IRGII \ COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 January 17, 2006 Brian P. Smith Brian P. Smith PE Civil Engineering Inc 105 West High Street Charlottesville VA 22902 RE: SDP 2005 - 144 Earlysville Business Park Major Site Plan Amendment Dear Sir: The Site Review Committee has reviewed the development proposal referenced above. Preliminary comments for the following divisions of the Department of Community Development and other agencies,as applicable, are attached: Albemarle County Division of Zoning & Current Development (Planner) Albemarle County Division of Zoning & Current Development (Engineer) Albemarle County Department of Fire Rescue Virginia Department of Transportation Comments reflect information available at the time the development proposal was reviewed, and should not be considered final. However, the Site Review Committee has attempted to identify all issues thatcouldaffectapprovaloftheproposedproject. Please make the revisions that have been identified as necessary for preliminary approval by the Site Review Committee. If you choose not to make the requested revisions, please submit in writing justification for not incorporating such revisions. Submit eight (8) full size copies and one (I) 11" x 17" copy to the Department of Community Development including responses to each of the attached comments of the Site Review Committee by January 30, 2006. Include with the revisions a "REVISED APPLICATION SUBMITTAL" form. Failure to submit this information by this date will result in suspension of the review schedule. Review will resume when revisions are submitted along with areinstatementfeeof865. Please contact me at your earliest convenience if you have questions or require additional information. Sin a e .. . - 71 ..-•••••°.'"e.'"-.. 77- . ' Francis H MacCall Senior Planner Zoning & Current Development NOV County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To:Brian P. Smith From: Francis H. MacCall, Senior Planner Division: Zoning & Current Development Date:1/17/06 Subject: SDP - 2005 - 0144 Earlysville Business Park Major site Plan Amendment The Planner for the Zoning & Current Development Division of the Albemarle County Department Community Development will approve the preliminary site plan when the following items 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 to the Code of Albemarle.] 1. COMMENT: There appears to be site improvements made on the property that have not been approved by the County. This is technically a site plan violation. All of the improvements that have been made to the site since the last revision need to be shown on this plan and resubmitted for further review. 2. 26.10.3] The requested waiver for the disturbance of the buffer cannot be supported by staff. This includes all disturbance proposed, even grading for the building. There appear to be alternatives that could be utilized instead of further disturbing the existing buffer. If you would still like to go to the Planning Commission with this request then state so in your revision submittal. If not, a redesigned site may be resubmitted as a revised site plan addressing all comments received. 3. 32.5.6a] Sheet number and total n of sheets COMMENT: You reference 5 sheets but only provide 4. 4. 32.5.6a] Date and description of latest revision. COMMENT: There have been a number of revisions approved for this site that need to be referenced. 5. 32.5.6n] Will there be lighting? If so then show the location of any proposed lighting or note that at this time there will be no new lighting. 6. 4.12] The parking calculation should be shown as follows: 1 space per employee on the largest shift plus 1 space per 500 square feet open to the public but in all cases at least 2 customer spaces. TOTAL # EMPLOYEES S CUSTOMER PARKING 2 PARKING REQUIRED:10 SPACES PARKING ALLOWED WITH 20% INCREASE 10 + 2 = 12 SPACES PARKING PROVIDED 12 SPACES 7. 32.7.9] The landscape plan needs to note the limits of clearing /disturbance to protect the tree line from being disturbed any further. Due to staff not supporting the waiver, the Leyland Cypress on the rural area property would not be necessary for this plan. 8. 32.7.9] The number of Burford Holly on the plan does not match the number in the schedule. 9. Soils work will need to be submitted for approval by the Health Department for draintield location. Please contact me at your earliest convenience if you have questions or require additional information. Copy: SDP -2005 -0144 Review Comments Project Name:Earlysville Business Park - Major Amendment Major Amendment Date Completed:Tuesday, January 10, 2006 Reviewer:James Barber Department/Division /Agency: Fire Rescue Reviews Comments Verify fire flow from existing hydrant. Verify access to existing hydrant through post and cable barrier shown on proposed site plan. Review Status:Requested Changes Page: 1.00 County of Albemarle Printed 0 Tuesday, January 17, 200i Page 1 of 3 David E. Pennock From: Sarah Baldwin Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 6:02 PM To:David E. Pennock Subject: FW: RE PROFFER: ZMA #: ZMA200100020 Hollymead C proffer status (roads). Also out there -$ tied to final sdb /sub containing DU. sdb Sarah f) t3aldwin, Zoning I'lanne' ounty of Albert iarle 1)eparlrnenl of Community Development Divis of Zoning arid C Lure' '1 Developsien! 4U I Mr Inure Road hatlotlesvdle, VA 7:' )04 4596 sbaldwin('Cilbemarlc or X434179658;7 1 4)977 4176, fax From: Greg Cooley Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 10:14 AM To: Sarah Baldwin Cc: Warner Wilkerson; Jack Kelsey; Glenn Brooks; Jay Schlothauer Subject: RE: RE PROFFER: ZMA #: ZMA200100020 Sarah Below is the update: Proffer 2A — Not satisfied. Timberwood Blvd. is only bonded from Station 10 +00 to Station 21+45. Proffer 2B, 2C, 2D, and 2E — VDOT has these covered through their entrance permits. Proffer 2F — Not satisfied. Access Road C or Meeting Street is bonded in Area B, but not in Area C. Let us know if you have any questions. greg From: Sarah Baldwin Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 12:39 PM To: Jack Kelsey; Glenn Brooks; Jay Schlothauer Cc: Warner Wilkerson; Greg Cooley Subject: RE PROFFER: ZMA #: ZMA200100020 ZMA Name: Hollymead Town Center As you may recall, several months ago, we met and discussed proffer compliance and who /how it would 1/12/2006 Page 2 of 3 be done. Road issues were to go to Jack and Glenn to be dispersed to whoever would be appropriate within your divisions. I am copying Warner and Greg (and Jay as their supervisor) since it was decided at the time that they would review proffer road issues. Please review the following email and provide a status response no later the 1/20/06. If this timeframe is too short (or too long), please let me know as this is a process that is new. This is also part of CDD's pilot proffer database and notification of stakeholders, so if there are comments for improvement, please let me know. A Special Use Application is currently being reviewed by Zoning for an assisted living facility within Hollymead Area C. These particular proffers can be tied to a C/O and as part of our comments, we need to know the status of road improvements for Proffers 2A -F, noting Proffer 3 that contains information relative to the road improvements. The proffers are abbreviated below, but can be seen entirely through Laser Fiche. Directions to use Laser Fiche are attached, http: / /ts2 /CDD /Shared °/0 20Documents/ Proffer s %o20at %20Your %20Desktop 1.doc , and can be found in the shared documents drive under "Proffers at your desktop1." Proffer #: 2A) Construction of Timberwood Blvd as shown on App Plan. 2 EB lanes to 1st dual lane roundabout at Access Rd. B; WB lanes of dual left lane, one thru land, one continuous right turn land from roundabout at access B to 29, from roundabout at B, 2 lane section to VDOT ext w/ add'l turn lanes a inters. C. Proffer # 2B) Construction of dual left turn lanes C' 29 & Timberwood Blvd from NB 29 into Timberwood. Proffer # 2C) Signalization cr Timberwood Blvd and 29 to include reconstruction of Forest Lakes Subd. entrance location in coordination w /VDOT. Existing intersection exiting Forest Lakes shall maintain dual left lanes, continuous right turn lane and add a through lane. Proffer #2D) Owner to dedicate land and construct 3rd through lane on 29; dedicate continuous thru- lane 500 ft. to SB of Area C; a 200 ft. taper lane starting at S B and 29 [only if Area B not rezoned]; and continuous right turn lane starting at the right -in at NB of 32-41A to right -in at S entrance of Area C. Proffer #2E) Construction of one add'1 continuous right turn NB lane starting 1096 ft. south of Timberwood Blvd. g location of beginning of turn and taper of Worth Crossing and 29, terminating at Timberwood. Proffer #2F) Access Rd. C b/w Area A and its intersection w/ Timberwood built of bonded prior to c/o issuance within Area B. If bonded, constructed for acceptance by VDOT w /in 1 year of 1st c /o. Proffer #3) Constructed to VDOT standard and accepted or bonded for acceptance. Can be tied to 1st C /O. Also satisfied by having plans submittted w/ bond. Please indicate Status of the Proffers listed above. Thank you. Sarah D. Baldwin, Zoning Planner County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Division of Zoning and Current Development 40 I McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 -4596 sbaldwin @albemarle org 34 )296 -5832 434)972-4126. fax 1/12/2006 Page 1 of 1 David E. Pennock From:Donna Shaunesey [Donnas ©ridejaunt.org] Sent:Thursday, January 12, 2006 3:46 PM To:David E. Pennock Cc:Juandiego Wade Subject:Hollymead Town Center's Rosewood Village Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Red David - my staff took a look at the plans for the proposed assisted living center with regard to access for JAUNT - sized vehicles. We wanted to make sure to remind the developer that the canopy should have at least 10.5 feet clearance. The plans don't give a wider view of the area, so were a little confused about access. Since our passengers board and disembark from the vehicles on the right side, we would want to pull under the canopy, which means as best we can tell) driving through the parking lot of the development just south of Rosewood. Otherwise, we don't believe we could make a U -turn in Rosewood's front parking area after entering from the north. Of course, we're just assuming that north is up - couldn't find an arrow anywhere. But hopefully, you get the point. We'd be happy to come by and discuss this with you further. Thanks, Donna Executive Director JAUNT, Inc. 104 Keystone Place Charlottesville, VA 22902 434) 296 -3184 ext 101 1/12/2006 0 , AL c1 er ryRciN County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum G .v. L'L '1X 2 r W ,,.. 4 ) To:David Jensen, W and W Associates From:David Pennock, Principal Planner Division:Zoning and Current Development Date:January 12, 2006 1 L 4J) ` ti ) . 1-1 W i tlE 2- w/ j 1tSubject:SDP -05 -149: Hollymeade Town Center, Area C, Block 3 The Albemarle County Division of Zoning and Community Development: Zoning and Planning Review has reviewed the preliminary site plan referenced above and will approve the plan when the following items have been satisfactorily addressed. Keep in mind that these comments are preliminary in nature. [Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference.] Site Plan Comments 1. Sec. 8.5.5.2] The site plan as submitted appears to vary from the conceptual plan. Staff will confirm that the variations are consistent with previous approvals. 2. 32.5.6(a)] It appears on our maps that this site is in the Rio Magisterial District, rather than the Rivanna. 3. 25A.2.2] A special use permit application is currently under review for this use. Final approval of this site plan is contingent upon approval of this application. 4. 32.5.6(i)] A 24 -foot access easement is proposed. However, this easement seems to be off -site. What is the purpose of this easement? rt u fr-ss , -# ^t Nr To WOO pA6 i,. 5. 32.5.6(d)] Please indicate areas of slope greater than 25 %. There appear to be areas of critical slope near the drop -off loop and in the southern parking lot. Have waivers previously been granted for disturbance of these areas? 6. 32.7.9.4(c)] Please identify any existing landscape features. 7. 32.5.6(n)] Please provide dimensions for parking spaces — if spaces are the same for a block, one can be dimensioned as "typical ". 8. 32.5.6(n) and 4.1.2.19] Dumpsters appear to be shown. Please designate a method of screening, in accord with the requirements of Sections 32.7.9 and 30.6, if necessary. 9. 32.5.6(n)] No functional sidewalk is shown in the southern parking area. Preferably, a route should be provided that doesn't require pedestrians to use drive aisles. Please revise. 10. [32.5.6(n)] Please indicate the proposed location of any signs on the layout plan 11. [Sec. 32.1] The height of the retaining wall along Gathering Place is not specified, but may be as high as four feet based on the spot elevations shown. For Final Site Plan approval, keep in mind that retaining walls greater than 4 feet in height constitute a potential safety hazard and must be topped with a barrier of some type in accordance with State building code. Please indicate some method of safeguarding any such areas. Please contact David Pennock at 296 -5832 ext. 3432 if you have any questions. cc: Katurah Roell — Hurt Contractors, LLC 1 itZeview Comments Project Name:Hollymead Town Center, Area C - Block 3 Preliminary — Non - residential Date Completed:Wednesday, January 11, 2006 Reviewer:Jay Schlothauer Department /Division /Agency: Inspections Reviews Comments Based on plans dated December 27, 2005. Provide a curb cut at the barrier -free parking spaces' access aisle on the south side of the north building. Provide a curb cut in close proximity (near the fire hydrant) to the barrier -free parking spaces near the entrance loop at the west side of the north building. Review Status:Requested Changes Page: 1.00 County of Albemarle Printed 01 Thursday, January 12, 20C Review Comments Project Name:Hollymead Town Center, Area C - Block 3 Preliminary — Non - residential Date Completed:Tuesday, January 10, 2006 Reviewer:Tamara Ambler Department/Division /Agency: Water Resources Manager Reviews Comments No water resources. Review Status:No Objection Page: 1.00 County of Albemarle Printed O Thursday, January 12, 20C Review Comments Project Name:Hollymead Town Center, Area C - Block 3 Preliminary — Non - residential Date Completed:Wednesday, January 04, 2006 Reviewer:David Swales Department/Division /Agency: Water Resources Manager Reviews Comments Public water and sewer - no groundwater issue. Review Status:No Objection ape; 1.00 County of Albemarle Printed 0 Thursday, January 12, 20C Review Comments Project Name:Hollymead Town Center, Area C - Block 3 Preliminary — Non - residential Date Completed:Thursday, January 12, 2006 Reviewer:Margaret Maliszewski Department/Division /Agency: ARB Reviews Comments This project is tentatively scheduled for ARB review on February 21, 2006. Comments will be provided following the ARB meeting. Review Status:Pending ge: 1.00 County of Albemarle Printed O Thursday, January 12, 20C Review Comments Project Name:Hollymead Town Center, Area C - Block 3 Preliminary — Non - residential Date Completed:Tuesday, January 10, 2006 Reviewer:James Barber Department/Division /Agency: Fire Rescue Reviews Comments Verify adequate fire flow is available from proposed hydrants. Review Status:No Objection Page: 1.00 County of Albemarle Printed 0 Thursday, January 12, 20C Review Comments Project Name:Hollymead Town Center, Area C - Block 3 Preliminary — Non - residential Date Completed:Tuesday, January 17, 2006 Reviewer:Andrew Slack Department/Division /Agency: E911 Reviews Comments The road name "Gathering Place" is not an acceptable road name. Please submit to this office a list of three (3) potential road names to replace this. There appears the possibility for another road name to be considered for the access between "Meeting St." and proposed Gathering Place" Review Status:Requested Changes Page: 1.00 County of Albemarle Printed Oi Thursday, January 19, 20C ot, .ate, County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To:David Pennock, Current Development planning and zoning review From:Glenn Brooks, Current Development engineering review Date:11 fan 2006 Subject: Hollymead Town Center, Area C, Block 3, preliminary site plan (SDP200.500149) The preliminary site plan for Block 3 has been reviewed. The following comments are provided for your use; 1. This plan does not appear to be in conformity with the approved rezoning application plan. A determination will have to be made by the appropriate County officials, or the Board of Supervisors. 2. Abington Place in Area D (SDP200500098, SDP20050019) will have to be approved before this plan can be approved. This plan discharges into the proposed drainage system for that site 3. Gathering Place, the road between areas C and D, and Meeting Street will have to be approved before this site plan can be approved. This plan relies on these roads for access and grading. Please label Gathering Place on the plans. 4. Please clarify the date of the existing topography, and take proposed roads off of the existing site features. It is unclear whether the existing topography on the plan is actually current. Site topography must meet the accuracy standards of 18- 32.5.6r. 5. Please provide a datum and benchmark for topography. [18- 32.5.6a, DSM CD -15] C9 is unclear whether the boundary dimensions shown are proposed or existing. Please clarify the O.J boundary dimensions, as well as departing lot lines. [18- 32.5.6a] 7. Easements or letters of intent are required for all off -site work. [DSM1102] 8. Sight distance is not available for the loading space next to the building corner. This must be revised to allow for sight distance. [18- 32.7.2, 18- 4.12.15d, DSM902A5] 9. Parking islands are required to protect parking rows. [DSM902A5, 18- 32.7.2, 18-4.12.15f] 10. The proposed second access on Gathering Place for the parking lot to the south must be removed. [18- 32.7.2.4, 32.7.3.2, DSM607B, ZMA] 11. The loading area and parking on either side of the road /travelway is too close to the entrance onto Gathering Place. A tangent section is preferred, and 20' is suggested, with adequate radii. (The rezoning plan did not show parking on this road /travelway.) VDOT minimum 12.5' radii should be used. Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District January 23, 2005 2134 Berkmar Dr Charlottesville, VA 22901 975 -0224 TO:David Pennock Planning Department RE:Soils Report for: Hollymead Town Center - C i84i`: jo IMUNIII11141110"M-E , oc co t.7 J t CO S A. 1 /t Li 6ar1 1 4 __. 3 r "-p4 co v ___ W 4. I W 1 co a, 4, ,,a0 ,„ ,m , voiL j n srle f wcra A a j n a,r f j A Teri m o t c n ao SpeumilMillik..o i o,,c' op, s a.W ; CA) G.,n fit,l ni S'o A G 4, p killiii\'' , „ ,1 W AA c, c, 4 CO 7 4 ' 0 v N J 0." N T @ I 4t0 '' .Owl. e---J„ i tit W C3 w f =, ^m N Y cocn Water -7 7'0 0 N Y W rat CO i iti 4 \ '‘ f i ,47 m 1t, S n S. n 5 0 ///n 1r\1j J v it W CO CD 0 N jtl' 1 01t t `' F 6'myVi O v L,,.' j lINIVCD 1 A C1 w v 1V m- r en W pti N W a yJ 106W1 n N N \f _ r l f p . C\ \;,......_ 1 4 uo v& J9-C-V-u USDA United States Natural Prepared by: Thomas Jefferson Soil & Water Department of Resources Conservation District Agriculture Conservation 434 - 975 -0224 Service Soils Report SOILS REPORT FOR: Hollvmead Town Center - C Soil Survey: Albemarle County, Virginia Survey Status: Published Correlation Date: 12/01/1981 Distribution Date: 10/21/2002 Map Unit: 2711 Elioak loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Elioak is a gently sloping to moderately sloping. very deep. well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is loam about 8 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderate content of organic matter The slowest permeability is moderately slow. It has a moderate available water capacity and a low, shrink swell potential. This soil is not Hooded and is not pondcd. The seasonal high Neater table is at a depth of more than 6 feet. The land capability classification is 2c. The Virginia soil management group is X. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 27C Elioak loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Elioak is a strongly sloping to moderately steep. Very deep. well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is loam about 8 inches thick. The surface laver has a moderate content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is moderately slow. It has a moderate available water capacity and a low shrink swell potential. This soil is not flooded and is not pondcd. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of more than 6 feet. The land capability classification is 3c. The Virginia soil management group is X. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 28C3 Elioak clay loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes, severely eroded Description Category: Virginia FOTG Elioak is a strongly sloping to moderately steep. eery deep. well drained soil. Typically the surface la\cr is clay loam about 8 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderate content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is moderately slow. It has a low mailable water capacity and a moderate shrink swell potential. This soil is not flooded and is not pondcd. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of more than 6 feet. The land capability classification is 4e, The Virginia soil management group is X. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 3.11) Glenelg loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Glenelg is a moderately steep to steep. ti ery deep. well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is loam about 8 inches thick. The surface laver has a moderate content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is moderate. It has a high available water capacity and a low shrink swell potential. This soil is not flooded and is not ponded. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of more than 6 feet. The land capability classification is 4c. The Virginia soil management group is Li. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 6 511 Pacolet sandy loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Pacolet is a gently sloping to moderately sloping. Vcr deep. well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is sand\ loam about 6 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderately low content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is moderate. It has a moderate available water capacity and a low shrink swell potential. This soil is Thomas Jefferson SWCD 1 1 /24/06 not flooded and is not ponded. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of more than 6 feet. The land capability classification is 2e. The Virginia soil management group is X. This soil is not Iwdric. Map Unit: 65C Pacolet sandy loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Pacolet is a strongly sloping to moderately steep. very deep. well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is sandy loam about 6 inches thick. The surface laver has a moderately low content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is moderate. It has a moderate available water capacity and a low shrink swell potential. This soil is not flooded and is not ponded. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of more than 6 feet The land capability classification is 4e. The Virginia soil management group is X. This soil is not hvdric. Map Unit: 94B Wedowee sandy loam, 2 to 7 percent .slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Wedowee is a gently sloping to moderately sloping, very deep. well drained soil. Typically the surface laver is sandy loam about 7 inches thick. The surface laver has a moderately low content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is moderate. It has a moderate available water capacity and a low shrink swell potential. This soil is not flooded and is not ponded. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of more than 6 feet. The land capability classification is 2e. The Virginia soil management group is V. This soil is not hydric, Map Unit: 94C Wedowee sandy loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Wedowee is a strongly sloping to moderately steep. very deep. well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is sandy loam about 7 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderately low content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is moderate. It has a moderate available water capacity and a low shrink swell potential. This soil is not flooded and is not ponded. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of more than 6 feet. The land capability classification is 4e. The Virginia soil management group is V. This soil is not hvdric. Dwellings With Basements - Dominant Condition Map Symbol Soil Name Rating 27B Elioak loam. 2 to 7 percent Not limited slopes 27C Elioak loans. 7 to 15 Somewhat limited percent slopes 2803 Elioak clay loath. 7 to 15 Somewhat limited percent slopes_ severel eroded 34D Glenelg loam. 15 to 25 Very limited percent slopes 65B Pacolet sandy loam, 2 to 7 Not limited percent slopes 65C Pacolet sandy loam. 7 to Some« hat limited 15 percent slopes 9-4B Wedowee sandy loam. 2 to Not limited 7 percent slopes 94C Wedowee sandy loam, 7 to Somewhat limited 15 percent slopes Thomas Jefferson SWCD 2 1/24/06 Local Roads and Streets - Dominant Condition Map Symbol Soil Name Rating 27B Elioak loam. 2 to 7 percent Ve limited slopes 27C Elioak loam. 7 to 15 Vcr limited percent slopes 2803 Elioak clay loam, 7 to 15 Very limited percent slopes. severel} eroded 34D Glenelg loam, 15 to 25 Very limited percent slopes 65B Pacolet sandy loam. 2 to 7 Very limited percent slopes 65C Pacolet sandy loam. 7 to Very limited 15 percent slopes 94B Wedowee sand loam. 2 to Very limited 7 percent slopes 94C Wedowee sandy loam. 7 to Very limited 15 percent slopes Soil Shrink -Swell - Dominant Soil Top Depth : 0 Bottom Depth : 0 Map Symbol Soil Name Rating 27B Elioak loam, 2 to 7 percent 1.5 slopes 27C Elioak loam. 7 to 15 1.5 percent slopes 28C3 Elioak clay loam. 7 to 15 4.5 percent slopes, severely eroded 34D Glenelg loans. 15 to 25 1.5 percent slopes 65B Pacolet sandy loans. 2 to 7 1.5 percent slopes 65C Pacolet sandy loans. 7 to 1.5 15 percent slopes 94B Wedowee sandy loan. 2 to 1.5 7 percent slopes 94C Wedowee sandy loam, 7 to 1.5 15 percent slopes Corrosion Concrete - Dominant Condition Map Symbol Soil Name Rating 27B Elioak loam. 2 to 7 percent Moderate slopes 27C Elioak loam, 7 to 15 Moderate percent slopes 28C3 Elioak clay loam. 7 to 15 Moderate percent slopes, severely eroded 3.4D Glenelg loam. 15 to 25 High Thomas Jefferson SWCD 3 1/24/06 percent slopes 65B Pacolet sandy loans, 2 to 7 High percent slopes 65C Pacolet sandy loam. 7 to High 15 percent slopes 94B Wedowee sandy loam, 2 to High 7 percent slopes 94C Wedow ce sandy loam. 7 to High 15 percent slopes Corrosion Steel - Dominant Condition Map Symbol Soil Name Rating 27B Elioak loam. 2 to 7 percent High slopes 27C Elioak loam. 7 to 15 High percent slopes 28C3 Elioak clay loam. 710 15 High percent slopes. severer eroded 34D Glenelg loam. 15 to 25 Low percent slopes 65B Paco let sandy loam. 2 to 7 High percent slopes 65C Paco let sandy loam. 7 to High 15 percent slopes 94B Wedowee sandy loam, 2 to Moderate 7 percent slopes 94C Wedowee sandy loam, 7 to Moderate 15 percent slopes Thomas Jefferson SWCD 4 112 -11116 1AT A :,. ri County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To:David Jensen, W and W Associates From:David Pennock, Principal Planner Division: Zoning and Current Development Date:January 12, 2006 Subject:SDP -05 -149: Hollymeade Town Center, Area C, Block 3 The Albemarle County Division of Zoning and Community Development: Zoning and Planning Review has reviewed the preliminary site plan referenced above and will approve the plan when the following items have been satisfactorily addressed. Keep in mind that these comments are preliminary in nature. [Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference] Site Plan Comments 1-.--[Sec. 8.5.5.2] The site plan as submitted appears to vary from the conceptual plan. Staff will confirm that the variations are consistent with previous approvals. 2. [32.5.6(a)] Jt appears on our maps that this site is in the Rio Magisterial District, rather than the Rivanna. 3. [25A.2.2] A special use permit application is currently under review for this use Final approval of this site plan is contingent upon approval of this application. 4. [32,5.6(i)] A 24 -foot access easement is proposed. However, this easement seems to be off -site. What is the purpose of this easement? 5. [32.5.6(d)] Please indicate areas of slope greater than 25 %. There appear to be areas of critical slope S near the drop -off loop and in the southern parking lot. Have waivers previously been granted for disturbance of these areas? 6, {32.7.9.4(c)] Please identify any existing landscape features. 7. [32.5.6(n)] Please provide dimensions for parking spaces — if spaces are the same for a block, one can be1:;`V dimensioned as "typical" 32.5.6(n) and 4.1.2.19] Dumpsters appear to be shown. Please designate a method of screening, in accord with the requirements of Sections 32.7.9 and 30.6, if necessary.Slit• a:a 9. • [32.5.6(n)] No functional sidewalk is shown in the southern parldng area. Preferably, a route should be provided that doesn't require pedestrians to use drive aisles. Please revise. 10. [32.5.6(x)] Please indicate the proposed Location of any signs on • the Iayout plan 11. [Sec. 32,1] The height of the retaining wall along Gathering Place is not specified, but may be as high as four, feet based on the spot elevations shown. For Final Site Plan approval, keep in mind that retaining walls greater than 4 feet in height constitute a potential safety hazard and must be topped with a barer of some type in accordance with State building code. Please indicate some method of safeguarding anysuchareas. Please contact David Pennock at 296 -5832 ext. 3432 if you have any questions, sY cc: Katurah Roell Hurt Contractors, LLC c „Li J f County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To:David Pennock, Current Development planning and zoning review From:Glenn Brooks, Current Development engineering review Date:11 jan 2006 Subject: Hollymead Town Center, Area C, Block 3, preliminary site plan (SDP200500149) The preliminary site plan for Block 3 has been reviewed. The following comments are provided for your use 1. This plan does not appear to be in conformity with the approved rezoning application plan. A determination will have to be made by the appropriate County officials, or the Board of Supervisors. 2. Abington Place in Area D (SDP200500098, SDP20050019) will have to be approved before this plan can be approved. This plan discharges into the proposed drainage system for that site 3. Gathering Place, the road between areas C and D, and Meeting Street will have to be approved before this site plan can be approved. This plan relies on these roads for access and grading. Please label Gathering Place on the plans. 4. Please clarify the date of the existing topography, and take proposed roads off of the existing site features. It is unclear whether the existing topography on the plan is actually current. Site topography must meet the accuracy standards of 18- 32.5.6r. 5. Please provide a datum and benchmark for topography. [18- 32.5.6a, DSM CD -15] 6. It is unclear whether the boundary dimensions shown are proposed or existing. Please clarify the boundary dimensions, as well as departing lot lines. [18- 32.5.6a] 7. Easements or letters of intent are required for all off -site work. [DSM 1 1 02] 8. Sight distance is not available for the loading space next to the building corner. This must be revised to allow for sight distance. [18- 32.7.2, 18- 4.12.15d, DSM902A5] 9. Parking islands are required to protect parking rows. [DSM902A5, 18- 32.7.2, 18- 4.12.15f] 10. The proposed second access on Gathering Place for the parking lot to the south must be removed. 18- 32.7.2.4, 32.7.3.2, DSM607B, ZMA] 11. The loading area and parking on either side of the road /travelway is too close to the entrance onto Gathering Place. A tangent section is preferred, and 20' is suggested, with adequate radii. (The rezoning plan did not show parking on this road /travelway.) VDOT minimum 12.5' radii should be used. QI J County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To:David Pennock, Current Development planning and zoning review From:Glenn Brooks, Current Development engineering review Date:11 jan 2006 Rev.]: 13 Mar 2006 Subject: Holiymead Town Center, Area C, Block 3, preliminary site plan (SDP200500149) Re v.1: As not all comments have been addressed, it is recommended that the preliminary site plan be denied. The preliminary site plan for Block 3 has been reviewed. The following comments are provided for your use; 1. This plan does not appear to be in conformity with the approved rezoning application plan. A determination will have to be made by the appropriate County officials, or the Board of Supervisors. Rev.1: There has been no official determination that I know of and the plan still does not appear to conform to the rezoning. 2. Abington Place in Area D (SDP200500098, SDP20050019) will have to be approved before this plan can be approved. This plan discharges into the proposed drainage system for that site Rev.1: no change. 3. Gathering Place, the road between areas C and D, and Meeting Street will have to be approved before this site plan can be approved. This plan relies on these roads for access and grading. Please label Gathering Place on the plans. Rev. 1: road label added. No change in status. 4. Please clarify the date of the existing topography, and take proposed roads off of the existing site features. It is unclear whether the existing topography on the plan is actually current. Site topography must meet the accuracy standards of 18- 32.5.6r. Rev.1: comment not addressed. 5. Please provide a datum and benchmark for topography. [18- 32.5.6a, DSM CD -15] Rev.1: comment addressed. 6. It is unclear whether the boundary dimensions shown are proposed or existing. Please clarify the boundary dimensions, as well as departing lot lines. [18- 32.5.6a] Rev.1: The response indicates that the lot lines are proposed. Therefore, it does not appear that the existing parcel boundary is shown in its entirety, and the plan does not meet the requirement of 18- 32.5.6a to show the property boundary. 7. Easements or letters of intent are required for all off -site work. [DSM 1 102] Rev.1: The response indicated these would he provided separately. Nothing has been received. 8. Sight distance is not available for the loading space next to the building corner. This must be revised to allow for sight distance. [18-32.7.2, 18- 4.12.15d, DSM902A5] Rev. 1: comment addressed. 9. Parking islands are required to protect parking rows. [DSM902A5, 18- 32.7.2, 18- 4.12.151] Rev.1: islands have not been provided next to rows labeled 4 and 8. 1 0 . The proposed second access on Gathering Place for the parking lot to the south must be removed. [ 18- 32.72.4, 32.7.3.2, DSM607B, ZMA] Rev. 1: Comment not addressed. The developer has indicated this arrangement is for future structured Current Development Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 2 parking. At such time as the structured parking is actually proposed, this entrance can be proposed with it. Currently, it is not part of the zoning approval, and it does not work well with the roadway. 11. The loading area and parking on either side of the road /travelway is too close to the entrance onto Gathering Place. A tangent section is preferred, and 20' is suggested, with adequate radii. (The rezoning plan did not show parking on this road /travelway.) VDOT minimum 12.5' radii should be used. Rev.1: This comment has not been satisfactorily addressed. The response indicates a 20' tangent section has been provided, but the plan does not have a tangent section at the entrance radii. 11F 1.ljF,v County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To:David Pennock, Current Development planning and zoning review From:Glenn Brooks, Current Development engineering review Date:1 1 jan 2006 Rev.1: 13 Mar 2006 Rev.2: 26 May 2006 Subject: Hollymead Town Center, Area C, Block 3, Rosewood Village preliminary site plan SPP200500149) Rev.1: As not all comments have been addressed, it is recommended that the preliminary site plan be denied. Rev. 2: The recommendation is unchanged. The preliminary site plan for Block 3 has been reviewed. The following comments are provided for your use 1. This plan does not appear to be in conformity with the approved rezoning application plan. A determination will have to be made by the appropriate County officials, or the Board of Supervisors. Rev.1: There has been no official determination that 1 know of, and the plan still does not appear to conform to the rezoning. Rev.1: comment addressed. These areas in question have been removed from the plan. 2. Abington Place in Area D (SDP200500098, SDP20050019) will have to be approved before this plan can be approved. This plan discharges into the proposed drainage system for that site Rev.1: no change Rev. 2: no change. 3. Gathering Place, the road between areas C and D, and Meeting Street will have to be approved before this site plan can be approved. This plan relies on these roads for access and grading. Please label Gathering Place on the plans. Rev.1: road label added. No change in status. Rev.2: no change. 4. Please clarify the date of the existing topography, and take proposed roads off of the existing site features. It is unclear whether the existing topography on the plan is actually current. Site topography must meet the accuracy standards of 18- 32.5.6r. Rev.1: comment not addressed. Rev. 2: not addressed. 5. Please provide a datum and benchmark for topography. [18- 32.5.6a, DSM CD -15] Rev.1: comment addressed. 6. It is unclear whether the boundary dimensions shown are proposed or existing. Please clarify the boundary dimensions, as well as departing lot lines. [18- 32.5.6a] Rev.1: The response indicates that the lot lines are proposed. There fore, it does not appear that the existing parcel houndar_v is shown in its entirety, and the plan does not meet the requirement of 18- 32.5.6a to show the property boundary. Rev.2: appears unchanged. 7. Easements or letters of intent are required for all off -site work. [DSM 1 102] Rev.1: The response indicated these woulcl he provided separately. Nothing has been received. Current Development Erineering Review Comments Page 2 of 2 Rev. 2: no change. 8. Sight distance is not available for the loading space next to the building corner. This must be revised to allow for sight distance. [18- 32.7.2, 18- 4.12.15d, DSM902A5] Rev.1: comment addressed. 9. Parking islands are required to protect parking rows. [DSM902A5, 18- 32.7.2, 18- 4.12.15f] Rev. 1: islands have not been provided next to rows labeled 4 and 8. Rev.2: unchanged. 10. The proposed second access on Gathering Place for the parking lot to the south must be removed. [18- 32.7.2.4, 32.7.3.2, DSM607B, ZMA] Rev.1: Comment not addressed. The developer has indicated this arrangement is for future structured parking. At such time as the structured parking is actually proposed, this entrance can be proposed with it. Currently, it is not part of the zoning approval, and it does not work well with the roadway. Rev. 2: Disregard. This area of the plan has been removed. 11. The loading area and parking on either side of the road /travelway is too close to the entrance onto Gathering Place. A tangent section is preferred, and 20' is suggested, with adequate radii. (The rezoning plan did not show parking on this road/travelway.) VDOT minimum 12.5' radii should be used. Rev. 1: This comment has not been satisfactorily addressed. The response indicates a 20' tangent section has been provided, but the plan does not have a tangent section ut the entrance radii. Rev. 2: no change.