The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSDP200700002 Review Comments 2006-01-16J ti L a t /1tClti County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum From: Jonathan Sharp, Current Development engineering review Date: 16 Jan 2006 Subject: Meadows Expansion Preliminary (SDP200700002) The preliminary plans have been reviewed and will be approved when the following comments have been addressed: 1. Please provide pre and post drainage area maps and removal rate calculations for the proposed water quality structures. [17- 315B,C, DSM503.3A] 2. Please show the stream buffers on the plans. [17 -317] The following comments will need to be addressed before the final site plan can be approved: Sidewalk adjacent to parking needs a minimum width of 6 feet. [18- 4.12.16e] The current plans show critical slopes very near to proposed improvements. These areas will also need to remain undisturbed by any proposed erosion & sediment control measures (or else a critical slopes waiver will be necessary). 4 ,Y DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1601 Orange Road Culpeper, Virginia 22701 David S. Ekern, P.E. VirginiaDOT.org COMMISSIONER January 29th, 2006 Mr. Glenn Brooks Department of Engineering and Development 401 McIntire Rd. Charlottesville, VA 22902 Subject: Site Review Meeting Comments February 1 st, 2007 site review meeting Dear Mr. Brooks: Below are VDOT's comments on the Site Plans for the February 1 st, 2007 Site Review Committee Meeting: SDP - 2007 -00001 Martha Jefferson Hospital Preliminary (David Pennock) The design speed needs to be indicated on the plans. It appears that the plans are designed to a 25mph design speed. The minimum should be 30mph. The desirable crossover spacing is be 500 feet and the minimum is 450 feet. Intersection "D" does not provide enough distance between crossovers. Sight distance lines need to be shown on the plans. The minimum intersection sight distance is 355 feet for 30 mph design speed. Where the sight lines go outside the proposed R/W, an easement will need to be provided and must stay clear of sight obstructions. Road plans will need to be provided and include horizontal and vertical alignments and data, typical sections, mainline and entrance profiles, pavement design with computations, and drainage computations. The plans should also include projected traffic and dimensions of features such as turn lanes. All road plans, intersections with public and private roads, and entrances need to be designed in accordance with VDOT's Road Design Manual, The Road and Bridge Standards, and the Minimum Standards for Entrances to State Highways. SDP - 2007 -00002 Meadows Expansion Preliminary (Summer Frederick All connections to Rte. 1230 need to be designed in accordance with VDOT's Road Design Manual and The Minimum Standards of Entrances to State Highways. The plans needs to include all dimensions of proposed roads and entrances along with horizontal and vertical data. 1RANSPtrRTATld E7(EF1tEhiCi S 9 6 2 0 0 6 Sight distances need to be shown on the plans. All work within the VDOT R/W needs to be pennitted by VDOT's Charlottesville Office. The plan needs to provide pavement calculations and drainage calculations. Sidewalks within the VDOT R/W need to include CG -12 detectable warning surface. SDP - 2007 -00009 Westhall Phase V Lots 90, 91, 92 (Patrick Lawrence) Lot 90 If a driveway is to be proposed on Park Road from this lot, the entrance needs to be entirely outside of the radius between Park Road and Westhall. Please request the applicants provide a written description of revisions with re- submissions. If you have any questions or conunents, please contact ine prior to sharing these cominents with the applicants. Sincerely, Joel DeNunzio, P.E. Residency Program Manager VDOT Charlottesville Residency 434 - 293 -0011 cc Allan Schuck, Bill Fritz, David Benish, Juan Wade, Elaine Echols, Joan McDowell, Judith Weigand, Margaret Maliszewski, David Pennock, Francis McCall, Jon Sharp, Summer Frederick, Patrick Lawrence, and John Giometti A r,a 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 30, 2007 Brian Smith 105 West High Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: Meadows Expansion — Preliminary Site Plan SDP2007 -002 Dear Mr. Smith: 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 (Engineer) Albemarle County Division of Zoning & Current Development (Planner) Albemarle County Division of Planning (E911) Albemarle County Division of Planning (Architectural Review Board) Albemarle County Division of Planning (Historic Preservation) Albemarle County Division of Planning (Water Protection) Albemarle County Department of Fire Rescue Albemarle County Service Authority Virginia Department of Health 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 that could affect approval of the proposed project. 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 (1) 11" x 17" copy to the Department of Community Development including responses to each of the attached comments of the Site Review Committee by February 12th. 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 a reinstatement fee of $65. Please contact me at your earliest convenience if you have questions or require additional information. Sincerely, Summer Frederick Senior Planner Zoning & Current Development Application #: SDP2007000U2 t Short Review Como 3ntS Project Name: Meadows Expansion - Preliminary - - — Preliminary —Residential Date Completed:01/29/2007 Reviewer:Andrew Slack E911 Review Status:No Objection Reviews Comment NO OBJECTION. Date Completed:01/29/2007 Reviewer:James Barber Fire Rescue Review Status: No Objection Reviews Commenfindicate the location of fire hydrants. Verify adequate fire flow is available. Date Completed: 01/11/2007 Reviewer: Margaret Maliszewski ARB Review Status: Requested Changes Reviews Comment This project is scheduled for ARB review on February 20, 2007. Comments will be available after that meeting. Paqe: 1.00 County of Albemarle Printed 0 Tuesday, January 30, 200 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 434) 296 — 5823 Ext 3439 Fax (434) 972 - 4035 MEMO TO: Summer Frederick, Senior Plainer Current Development FROM: Rebecca Ragsdale, Senior Planner Development Areas /Crozet RE: SDP 2007 -002 The Meadows Expansion DATE: January 23, 2007 I have reviewed The Meadows Expansion preliminary site plan and have a few things to note based on the Crozet Master Plan and as a follow up to our discussions about the SDP. Please let me know if you have any questions about the Master Plan. The insets below are taken from the maps on the County's website. There is a proposed interconnection from Western Avenue (Old Trail Drive) to Crozet Avenue that is shown on this property, which is labeled as a Drive, as illustrated on the Crozet Master Plan Place - Type and Built Infrastructure Map below: V • 5A'' Greenways are recommended along the stream at the northern edge of the property and in other locations, as illustrated in white on the Crozet Master Plan Green Infrastructure Map below. Please contact Dan Mahon in Parks and Recreation to coordinate any greenway dedications /easements. 1 F i a 2 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 I pF ALg, RGINZ COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 MEMORANDUM TO: Brian Smith via email: bpspe @earthlink.net FROM: Summer Frederick, Senior Planner DATE: January 30, 2007 RE: Meadows Expansion - Preliminary SDP07 -002 The Albemarle County Department of Planning and Community Development will approve the above - mentioned site plan amendment when the following items have been satisfactorily addressed: [Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference.] 1. Boundary lines of parcels may not be changed via the site development process. A subdivision application will need to be made to address the parcel changes indicated on the plans. 2. Information on the cover sheet should be revised to reflect information for existing parcels. 3. [Sec.32.5.6(a)] Please include tax map, parcel number, use and name of owner for adjacent parcels across Crozet Avenue. 4. [Sec.32.5.6(h)] The flood plain and stream buffer for Slabtown Branch needs to be clearly delineated. 5. [Sec.32.5.6(k)] Proposed conceptual lay -out for storm drainage facilities including storm detention ponds. 6 [Sec.32.7.9 and ZMA2003 -005, Proffer 51 A landscape plan, with a conservation plan included, is required. Additional comments from the other reviewing agencies will be forwarded. Please contact me at your earliest convenience if you have questions or require f additional information. 21 2 C It County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum From: Jonathan Sharp, Current Development engineering review Date: 20 Feb 2007 Subject: Meadows Expansion Preliminary (SDP200700002) The preliminary plans have been reviewed and all preliminary comments have been addressed. Engineering recommends approval of the Meadows Expansion. Please provide pre and post drainage area maps and removal rate calculations for the proposed water quality structures. [17- 315B,C, DSM503.3A] Rev]: conaunents culdressed. 2. Please show the stream buffers on the plans. [17 -317] Revl: comments whh The following comments will need to be addressed before the final site plan can be approved: Sidewalk adjacent to parking needs a minimum width of 6 feet. [18- 4.12.16e] The current plans show critical slopes very near to proposed improvements. These areas will also need to remain undisturbed by any proposed erosion & sediment control measures (or else a critical slopes waiver will be necessary). Application #: - -SDP200700002 ..5. ; Short Review Com, ants Project Name:M Expansion - Preliminary iPreli — Residential Date Completed:02/22/2007 Reviewer:Andrew Slack E911 Review Status:No Objection Reviews Comments:NO OBJECTION. Date Completed:01/29/2007 Reviewer:James Barber Fire Rescue Review Status:No Objection Reviews Comments:ndicate the location of fire hydrants. Verify adequate fire flow is available. Date Completed:03/02/2007 Reviewer:James Barber Fire Rescue Review Status:No Objection Reviews Comments:Approval is subject to field inspection and verification. 1 Date Completed:01/29/2007 Reviewer:Julie Mahon Historic Preservation Review Status:No Objection Reviews Comments:See attached memo Date Completed:01/31/2007 Reviewer:Jay Schlothauer Inspections Review Status:No Objection Reviews Comments:Based on plans dated January 2, 2007. No comments o c Date Completed:01/11/2007 Reviewer:Margaret Maliszewski ARB Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments:This project is scheduled for ARB review on February 20, 2007. Comments will be available after that meeting. Date Completed:03/13/2007 Reviewer:Summer Frederick Planner Z &CD Review Status:Requested Changes Page: 1.00 County of Albemarle Printed On: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 Reviews Comments: - - - -- Original Mess From: Summer Fre .ck To: bpspe @earthlink.net - , Peter W. Loach Cc: Forrest Kerns Sent: 3/13/2007 4:36:40 PM Subject: RE: Meadows Brian- I've left a voicemail message for you, but thought I'd reply to your email as well. In regards to preliminary approval for the Meadows site plan, there remains a problem with the parcel boundary line for TMP 56 -14C1. By leaving it as it currently is, the boundary line is shown not only separating parking, but also running through one building and immediately adjacent to another. This creates issues with building code standards, and setback and parking location requirements. I understand from your letter that there will be a boundary line adjustment application made to correct this at some point. This works, as long as the adjustment is made prior to final site plan approval. If this is indeed the intention, the boundary line location issues can be cleared up at this preliminary stage by altering the overall drawing on the Cover Sheet to show the intended boundary line location, and adding a note to the plan confirming the adjustment will occur prior to final site plan submission. Please feel free to contact me with any further questions. - Summer Summer Frederick Senior Planner Albemarle County Community Development Department Division of Zoning and Current Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Tel: 434.296.5832 x3565 Fax: 434.972.4126 Page: 2.00 County of Albemarle Printed On: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 r ti fir- AL'/? O 9 IrRGIN Pt COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 March 14, 2007 Brian Smith 105 West High Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 Fax(434)972 -4012 RE: ARB- 2007 -03: The Meadows Expansion - Preliminary Review of Site Development Plan Tax Map 56, Parcels 14C and 14C 1) Dear Mr. Smith: The Albemarle County Architectural Review Board reviewed the above noted item at its meeting on Monday, February 20, 2007. The Board unanimously approved the Certificate of Appropriateness for ARB - 2007 -03, The Meadows Expansion, pending staff administrative approval of the following conditions: 1. Submit architectural elevations with exterior finish schedules confirming that the new buildings will match the existing buildings. 2. Indicate that no accessory structure or equipment are proposed, or identify all such features on the plan and provide sufficient screening. 3. Provide all details regarding the appearance of storm water detention ponds and bio- filters including new grading, swales, planting, etc. Show how these new features will be fully integrated into the landscape. 4. Revise the site plan to address tree preservation. Show existing and proposed tree lines. Show all existing significant tree groupings. Show tree protection fencing. Include a tree protection detail. Include a conservation checklist. 5. Add some strategic planting, in a natural in ix of shade trees, flowering trees and shrubs, to Delp block some of the visibility of the new buildings from the EC. The strategic planting should be grouped close to the building so that the lawn area at the front of the site can be retained. 6. In the front lawn and along the Entrance Corridor, provide a naturalistic planting composed of an informal mixture of native trees and shrubs characteristic of the rural countryside. 7. Show all utility easements, existing utilities and proposed roadways as applicable. Demonstrate compatibility with existing site layout and coordinate with proposed landscaping. 8. Provide 2'/" caliper trees at 40' on center along Meadow Drive, outside of the utilities and easements. ARB 2007 -0; The Nleadoxvs Expansion Page 2 March 14. 2007 9. Revise the landscape plan to show shrubs 24" high at planting on the southeast side of the parking area at Unit 10. 10. ldentitj quantity, size and type of proposed tree and shrub planting in a plant schedule on the landscape plan. 11. Provide complete information on proposed lighting for review, or indicate in writing that no new site or building lighting is proposed. 12. Provide a proposed grading plan with a minimum of 2' contours showing how the new and existing contours will be tied together and rounded, without anv sharp angles. Please provide: 1. Two full sets of revised drawings addressing each of these conditions. Include updated ARB revision dates on each drawing. 2. A memo including detailed responses indicating how each condition has been satisfied. if changes other than those requested have been made, identify those changes in the memo also. Highlighting the changes in the drawing with `clouding" or by other means will facilitate review and approval. I The attached "Revised Application Submittal" form. This form must be returned with your revisions to ensure proper tracking and distribution. When staffs review of this information indicates that all conditions of approval have been met, a Certificate of Appropriateness may be issued. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Margaret Maliszewski Design Planner Planning Division MMM /aer Cc: Jordon Development Corporation C/O Elaine McDaniel /Mgmt Srvs Corp PO Box 5186, Charlottesville, VA 22905 Summer Frederick File pF AL O A7 fRGINI COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone(434)296 -5832 Fax(434)972 -4012 December 5, 2007 Brian Smith, PC Civil Engineering, Inc. 105 West High Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: ARB- 2007 -03: The Meadows Expansion Plan (Tax Map 56, Parcels 14C and 14C 1) Dear Mr. Smith: I have reviewed your recent submittal for the above -noted project (major amendment plan sheets 1 — 8 with revision date of 11 -05 -07 and materials samples notebook) and I have the following comments. Text in italics represents the conditions of approval outlined in our March 14, 2007 action letter. 1. Indicate that no accessory structure or equipment are proposed, or identO all such features on the plan and provide sz ffrcient screening. Comment The screening provided for the mechanical units near the buildings are deciduous shrubs. Evergreen shrubs would provide more consistent screening year- round. Revision Required Revise the shrubs at the mechanical units to an evergreen species. 2. Provide all details regarding the appearance ofstorrn water detentionponds and bio- filters including new grading, swales, planting, etc. Show hole these new features tit be fully integrated into the landscape. Comment This issue was discussed as an "other business" item at the December 3, 2007 ARB meeting. The board indicated that more plants should be added along the south and east sides of the basin in a naturalistic planting pattern to screen the basin and integrate the basin into the surrounding landscape. Revision Required Revise the plan to add plants along the south and east sides of the basin in a naturalistic planting pattern to screen the basin and integrate the basin into the surrounding landscape. 3. Revise the site plan to address tree preservation. Show existing and proposed tree lines. Shou all existing significant tree groupings. Show tree protection fencing. Include a tree protection detail. Include a conservation checklist. Comment A tree protection detail is not included on the plan. Tree protection fencing does not continue all along the tree lines on the north and south sides of the site where work is proposed. Revision Required Include a tree protection detail on the plan. Continue the tree protection fencing all along the existing tree lines on the north and south sides of the parcel where work is proposed nearby. 4. Add some strategic planting, in a natural mix ofshade trees, flowering trees and shrubs, to help block some of the visibility of the new buildings fr•onr the EC. The strategic planting should he grouped close to the building so that the lawn area at the front of the site can be retained. S. In the front lawn and along the Entrance Corridor, provide a naturalistic planting composed of an informal mixture of native trees and shrubs characteristic of the rural countryside. Comment These issues were discussed as "other business" items at the December 3, 2007 ARB meeting. The ARB indicated that the variety of trees proposed south of the entrance drive was too large and that the trees in this area should be grouped together (3 or 5 plants per group) and dispersed throughout the area to establish a naturalistic appearance reminiscent of a field. The condition also calls for shrubs, which are not shown on the plan. The ARB also confirmed that the lawn area at the front of the site in this area should be retained. Revision Required Revise the plan to: a) reduce the variety of trees proposed south of the entrance drive, b) south of the entrance drive, plant the trees in groups of 3 or 5 to establish a naturalistic field -like appearance and add shrubs in this area; and c) maintain the open lawn at the front of the site, south of the entrance drive. 6. Revise the landscape plan to show shrubs 24 "high at planting on the southeast side of the parking area at Unit 10. Comment These rhododendron are identified at 18 -24" high. Many of the other shrubs required by the EC Guidelines are also specified at less than 24 ". Revision Required Revise the Planting List to indicate planting size as 24" minimum for the Aa, Df, Dk, Vd and Rc shrubs. 7. Provide complete information on proposed lightingfor review, or indicate in writing that no new site or building lighting is proposed. Comment The luminaire schedule indicates that the photometrics were calculated using an LLF of .95. To meet ordinance requirements, the LLF must be 1.0. Revision Required Revise the luminaire schedule and photometric plan using an LLF of 1.0. 8. Provide a proposed grading plan with a minimum of2' contours showing how the new and existing contours will be tied together and rounded, without any sharp angles. Comment In many places the new contours still meet existing contours at sharp angles. Revision Required Revise the grading plan to show new contours meeting existing contours in a rounded condition, not at sharp angles. Please provide: 1. Two full sets of revised drawings addressing each of these conditions. Include updated ARB revision dates on each drawing. 2. A memo including detailed responses indicating how each condition has been satisfied. If changes other than those requested have been made, identify those changes in the memo also. Highlighting the changes in the drawing with "clouding" or by other means will facilitate review and approval. 3. The attached "Revised Application Submittal" form. This form must be returned with your revisions to ensure proper tracking and distribution. When staffs review of this information indicates that all conditions of approval have been met, a Certificate of Appropriateness may be issued. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, X Margaret Maliszewski, Design Planner cc: Jordon Dev Corp c/o Elaine McDaniel/Mgmt Srvs Corp, PO Box 5186, Charlottesville, VA 22905 Summer Frederick File