Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP200800012 Study 2008-02-07Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District February 7, 2008 2134 Berkmar Dr Charlottesville, VA 22901 975 -0224 TO:Patrick Lawrence Planning Department RE:Soils Report and Comments for: South Pantops Condos This project may present an opportunity for preservation of a permanent riparian forest buffer through the dedication of an easement. If interested, please contact the TJSWCD. RECEIVED FEB 0 8 2008 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1B 4 8 22C 710 yd 7iC 7 7 9B 1r. 12C 11E 1 76 798 83 '7203S411111111; I8 59EEt, '. \~O 23B 1 41191 1 hch/A 12D 23C 2@3 0 vv 71E 71E',lE f 71 12 710 0 71 710 70 88 water 716 1 710 71D 88 1/ c 23C71C c.. - 71E 71E r 4 _ T Pantops 23B .; l; 73D 71E i 71D71D2C3 / 7 3E e-/ - - 12E 71 D 1 J i J 59U 238 is4liiit (( 798 710 O 71C 590 roo P4 0 2 3C MO 4IP 0 r 71C 710 710 kW •. 23B 71 jv7203eh.71D 88 3 i ` 72D3 23' 1 73E 590 ,,) i 111511°- r 72C3 23B 710 0 7 536old D A._ 2C 83 4 203 710-x 16, ki. 580 10 71C / )2E 710 I83 710 58C CHESAPEAKE 7 i 110.0.71DC 12D 73E 8D/59E 2E 0 23859D710203v 71E 580 238 I 59E ill710 710 7283 76 13E,'-411111111161/4Cr:, -71C 23C 72D3 E 711)58D E {} `/ 1 580 1 t •. 71D'71C 580 120 23E „7-----to l 798 718 710 580 4,/71C < 2, 0111147283l7203i$ 1d 74:11 72C3 230 3E 798 710 Ate' _C C. v J Y r '3 I N 23B eV v 23B cb 71water2JS4071D 2do • 2C 3 9e Q, G 510 V1114..i.......k4W0_ o9y r 13E 586 710 710 71D 71C 510 3 5 ` 8D Joins sh-ef 2 ) 5::.0 ta/4-- 5000 Feet 4000 3000 SCALE 1:15 840 2000 1000 0 1000 Meters 800 600 400 200 0 1 Ki ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA NO. 16 i :. 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: South Pantops Condos Soil Survey Area: Albemarle County, Virginia Survey Status: Published Correlation Date: 12/01/1981 Distribution Date: 10/21/2002 Map Unit: 12E Catoctin silt loam, 25 to 45 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Catoctin is a steep, moderately deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is silt loam about 5 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderately low content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is moderately rapid. It has a low 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 7e. The Virginia soil management group is JJ. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 13E Catoctin very stony sit loam, 25 to 45 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Catoctin is a steep, moderately deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is silt loam about 5 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderately low content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is moderately rapid. It has a low 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 7e. The Virginia soil management group is JJ. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 23B Davidson clay loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Davidson is a gently sloping to moderately sloping, very deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is clay loam about 4 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 3e. The Virginia soil management group is N. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 23C Davidson clay loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Davidson is a strongly sloping to moderately steep, very deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is clay loam about 4 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 6e. The Virginia soil management group is N. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 71C Rabun clay loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Rabun is a strongly sloping to moderately steep, very deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is clay 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 2/7/08 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 6e. The Virginia soil management group is N. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 71D Rabun clay loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Rabun is a moderately steep to steep, very deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is clay 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 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 6e. The Virginia soil management group is N. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 72C3 Rabun clay, 7 to 15 percent slopes, severely eroded Description Category: Virginia FOTG Rabun is a strongly sloping to moderately steep, very deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is clay about 4 inches thick. The surface layer has a very 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 N. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 72D3 Rabun clay, 15 to 25 percent slopes, severely eroded Description Category: Virginia FOTG Rabun is a moderately steep to steep, very deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is clay about 4 inches thick. The surface layer has a very 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 6e. The Virginia soil management group is N. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 73E Rabun very stony clay loam, 25 to 45 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Rabun is a steep, very deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is clay 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 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 7s. The Virginia soil management group is N. This soil is not hydric. Dwellings With Basements - Dominant Condition Soil Survey: Albemarle County, Virginia Survey Status: Published Correlation Date: 12/01/1981 Distribution Date: 10/21/2002 Map Symbol Soil Name Rating 12E Catoctin silt loam, 25 to 45 Very limited percent slopes 13E Catoctin very stony silt Very limited loam, 25 to 45 percent slopes 23B Davidson clay loam, 2 to 7 Not limited percent slopes 23C Davidson clay loam, 7 to Somewhat limited Thomas Jefferson SWCD 2 2/7/08 15 percent slopes 71C Rabun clay loam, 7 to 15 Somewhat limited percent slopes 71D Rabun clay loam, 15 to 25 Very limited percent slopes 72C3 Rabun clay, 7 to 15 Somewhat limited percent slopes, severely eroded 72D3 Rabun clay, 15 to 25 Very limited percent slopes, severely eroded 73E Rabun very stony clay Very limited loam, 25 to 45 percent slopes Mapunit Hydric Rating Soil Survey: Albemarle County, Virginia Survey Status: Published Correlation Date: 12/01/1981 Distribution Date: 10/21/2002 Map Symbol Soil Name Rating 12E Catoctin silt loam, 25 to 45 Not hydric percent slopes 13E Catoctin very stony silt Not hydric loam, 25 to 45 percent slopes 23B Davidson clay loam, 2 to 7 Not hydric percent slopes 23C Davidson clay loam, 7 to Not hydric 15 percent slopes 71C Rabun clay loam, 7 to 15 Not hydric percent slopes 71D Rabun clay loam, 15 to 25 Not hydric percent slopes 72C3 Rabun clay, 7 to 15 Not hydric percent slopes, severely eroded 72D3 Rabun clay, 15 to 25 Not hydric percent slopes, severely eroded 73E Rabun very stony clay Not hydric loam, 25 to 45 percent slopes Soil Shrink - Swell - Dominant Soil Top Depth : 0 Bottom Depth : 0 Soil Survey: Albemarle County, Virginia Survey Status: Published Correlation Date: 12/01/1981 Thomas Jefferson SWCD 3 2/7/08 Distribution Date: 10/21/2002 Map Symbol Soil Name Rating 12E Catoctin silt loam, 25 to 45 1.5 percent slopes 13E Catoctin very stony silt 1.5 loam, 25 to 45 percent slopes 23B Davidson clay loam, 2 to 7 1.5 percent slopes 23C Davidson clay loam, 7 to 1.5 15 percent slopes 71C Rabun clay loam, 7 to 15 1.5 percent slopes 71D Rabun clay loam, 15 to 25 1.5 percent slopes 72C3 Rabun clay, 7 to 15 1.5 percent slopes, severely eroded 72D3 Rabun clay, 15 to 25 1.5 percent slopes, severely eroded 73E Rabun very stony clay 1.5 loam, 25 to 45 percent slopes Corrosion Concrete - Dominant Condition Soil Survey: Albemarle County, Virginia Survey Status: Published Correlation Date: 12/01/1981 Distribution Date: 10/21/2002 Map Symbol Soil Name Rating 12E Catoctin silt loam, 25 to 45 Moderate percent slopes 13E Catoctin very stony silt Moderate loam, 25 to 45 percent slopes 23B Davidson clay loam, 2 to 7 Moderate percent slopes 23C Davidson clay loam, 7 to Moderate 15 percent slopes 71C Rabun clay loam, 7 to 15 Moderate percent slopes 71D Rabun clay loam, 15 to 25 Moderate percent slopes 72C3 Rabun clay, 7 to 15 Moderate percent slopes, severely eroded 72D3 Rabun clay, 15 to 25 Moderate percent slopes, severely eroded 73E Rabun very stony clay Moderate loam, 25 to 45 percent slopes t'homas Jefferson SWCD 4 2/7/08 Corrosion Steel - Dominant Condition Soil Survey: Albemarle County, Virginia Survey Status: Published Correlation Date: 12/01/1981 Distribution Date: 10/21/2002 Map Symbol Soil Name Rating 12E Catoctin silt loam, 25 to 45 High percent slopes 13E Catoctin very stony silt High loam, 25 to 45 percent slopes 23B Davidson clay loam, 2 to 7 High percent slopes 23C Davidson clay loam, 7 to High 15 percent slopes 71C Rabun clay loam, 7 to 15 High percent slopes 71D Rabun clay loam, 15 to 25 High percent slopes 72C3 Rabun clay, 7 to 15 High percent slopes, severely eroded 72D3 Rabun clay, 15 to 25 High percent slopes, severely eroded 73E Rabun very stony clay High loam, 25 to 45 percent slopes Thomas Jefferson SWCD 5 2/7/08 Are County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To:Patrick Lawrence, Current Development Project Planner From:Phil Custer, Current Development engineering review Date:20 February 2008 Subject: South Pantops Condominiums (SDP -2008- 00012) The site plan for the South Pantops Condominium Complex has been reviewed. Engineering review for current development cannot recommend approval to the plan at this time. The following comments are provided. 1. Critical slopes are disturbed on the property. A critical slope waiver will be required. [18 -4.2] 2. It appears that in some cases, the parking lot and access ways are over the maximum allowed five and ten percent slopes specified in the ordinance. This is normally a final site plan comment but it appears the application of this ordinance standard may require the applicant to adjust the layout. 3. Engineering has not received any conceptual stormwater management analysis. Please provide the removal rate spreadsheet for the development. 4. The BMP can not be held up by a retaining wall. 5. Because of the land development's proximity to the Rivanna River, the applicant may request to be exempt from Section 17 -314 of the Water Protection Ordinance but must provide stabilization measures in the existing channel from where the site discharge enters it. [17- 314.F.6] 6. A special use permit will be required for the parking garages on site. During that process, the applicant should request variances for the design standards listed in the ordinance for that the latest plan of the parking do not meet. [4.12.15] 7. Many of the parking spaces will be difficult to enter and exit from in the parking garages. Please correct. It also appears that a car entering the each garage level will have difficulty turning around if all of the spaces are filled. [32.7.2] 8. A connection must be made to TMP 78 -19A. [32.7.2.4] The following comments must be addressed prior to final site plan approval. 1. The minimum width for parallel parking is 9ft. 2. An adequate channel from the SWM facility to the Rivanna River must be provided. 3. It appears that site grading could inadvertently direct water into some garages. Engineering review recommends that the travelway grading and finished floor elevations be designed with a higher tolerance to allow the contractor greater flexibility in the field if a slight error is made in during grading and pavement operations. tit,/ 7 O County of Albemarle j 41A2, z(! SDepartmentofCommunityDevelopment Memorandum To:Patrick Lawrence, Current Development Project Planner From:Phil Custer, Current Development engineering review Date:20 February 2008 Subject: South Pantops Condominiums (SDP -2008- 00012) The site plan for the South Pantops Condominium Complex has been reviewed. Engineering review for current development cannot recommend approval to the plan at this time. The following comments are provided. 1. Critical slopes are disturbed on the property. A critical slope waiver will be required. [ 18 -4.2] 2. It appears that in some cases, the parking lot and access ways are over the maximum allowed five and ten percent slopes specified in the ordinance. This is normally a final site plan comment but it appears the application of this ordinance standard may require the applicant to adjust the layout. 3. Engineering has not received any conceptual stormwater management analysis. Please provide the removal rate spreadsheet for the development. 4. The BMP can not be held up by a retaining wall. 5. Because of the land development's proximity to the Rivanna River, the applicant may request to be exempt from Section 17 -314 of the Water Protection Ordinance but must provide stabilization measures in the existing channel from where the site discharge enters it. [17- 314.F.6] 6. A special use permit will be required for the parking garages on site. During that process, the applicant should request variances for the design standards listed in the ordinance for that the latest plan of the parking do not meet. [4.12.15] 7. Many of the parking spaces will be difficult to enter and exit from in the parking garages. Please correct. It also appears that a car entering the each garage level will have difficulty turning around if all of the spaces are filled. [32.7.2] 8. A connection must be made to TMP 78 -19A. [32.7.2.4] The following comments must be addressed prior to final site plan approval. 1. The minimum width for parallel parking is 9ft. 2. An adequate channel from the SWM facility to the Rivanna River must be provided. 3. It appears that site grading could inadvertently direct water into some garages. Engineering review recommends that the travelway grading and finished floor elevations be designed with a higher tolerance to allow the contractor greater flexibility in the field if a slight error is made in during grading and pavement operations. Application #:SDP200800012 Short Review Comnrdnts Project Name: South Pantops Condominiums - Prel Preliminary — Residential Date Completed:02/13/2008 Reviewer:Andrew Slack E911 Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments: THE APPLICANT SHOULD CONTACT THIS OFFICE WITH A LIST OF THREE (3) ROAD NAMES TO BE APPROVED AND DISPLAYED ON THE FINAL PLAN. Date Completed:02/06/2008 Reviewer:Jay Schlothauer Inspections Review Status:No Objection Reviews Comments: Based on plans dated January 28, 2008. No comments or conditions. Date Completed:03/17/2008 Reviewer:Patrick Lawrence Planner Z &CD Review Status:Pending Reviews Comments: Extra Copies Page: 1.00 County of Albemarle Printed On: Thursday, March 20, 2008 IRGINIP COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development - Planning 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Ext.3439 434) 972 -4126 MEMORANDUM TO:Patrick Lawrence, Senior Planner FROM:Rebecca Ragsdale, Senior Planner for Development Areas RE:SP 2008 -003 — South Pantops Condominiums (TMP 78 -20) DATE:February 26, 2008 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed special use permit for South Pantops Condos, which is a request for structured parking on property zoned R15 Residential and is being processed concurrently with a preliminary site plan (SDP 2008- 012) The site is approx. 13 acres and is proposed for 125 residential units and 266 parking spaces at a density of 9.5 acres. The majority of the site is critical slopes, with the exception of the northeast portion of the site adjacent to Overlook Condos. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SUMMARY INFORMATION FOR THIS SITE Land Use Plan This property is designated Urban Density Residential in the Land Use Plan (LUP). (See inset below) These areas are intended to have a gross density of between 6.01 to 20 dwellings per acre, with possible densities of up to 34 dwellings per acre under a planned development approach. The LUP further specifies that, while developments should maximize the developed density with a form in keeping with the Neighborhood Model, that development densities should ultimately be based on environmental criteria, road function and condition, available utilities, adjacent land uses, and site requirements. The Land Use Plan also recommends maintaining statements in the Zoning Ordinance that site development within Urban Density residential areas be based on standards in both the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. For this particular property, recommendations of the Open Space Plan component of the Comprehensive Plan are relevant and discussed below. SP 2008 -003 South Pantops Condos Parking Structure 1 Planning Comments February 26, 2008 Aci C -0,i4:47` , i';': ,,, ''',CINm Mr,' i 416" J SITE ' ilk AWN H i est Land Use Plan - Neighborhood Three The property is also designated parks and greenways (green) along the Rivanna River and uses allowed within this designation include public and private parks, and existing and proposed greenways along streams. Pedestrian and bicycle access to parks and greenways, and especially to parks provided on school grounds, is viewed as essential to their viability. Open Space Plan The Open Space Plan is part of the Comprehensive Plan and gives high priority to the preservation of the Rivanna River system corridor in the development of the Plan. The recommendations of the Open Space Plan are very important with regard to development of this site. This site is shown on the Growth Area Open Space Map for Urban Neighborhoods Three and Four Composite Map of the Open Space Plan. The Plan shows Major and Locally Important Street Valleys and Adjacent Critical Slopes on the site. Critical slopes and wooded areas are also shown on the inventory maps for the neighborhood. These maps show areas recommended for open space protection in the growth areas. According to the Open Space Plan, it is recommended that, if the site is in a Growth Area, the applicant should locate the site on the appropriate Growth Area Composite Map. Discretionary and use proposals are to be assessed for consistency with the Composite Map. The Composite Maps are to be used to guide decisions regarding waiver of the critical slopes provisions in the Growth Area. The goal is to protect the critical resources. SP 2008 -003 South Pantops Condos Parking Structure 2 Planning Comments February 26, 2008 As shown on the proposed plan, development will impact important resources and development encroachment into the critical slopes area is not recommended for the resources shown on the Open Space Plan. Pantops Master Plan (Not yet adopted, latest draft dated August 1, 2007) Although not yet adopted, the recommendations of the Pantops Master Plan are provided for your information. The Pantops Master Plan Green Infrastructure Map and Land Use Plan (insets below) recommend that this site be preserved, due to environmental features, and that opportunities for trail head access to the greenway system should be considered for this •ro•ert , shown with the red asterisk below. Illr ,, I z IF %' j ' / t fit I rte 1 1 r . ,r Air if '' T''''''-, ti B Draft Pantops Master Plan -Green Infrastructure Draft Pantops Master Plan -Land Use Neighborhood Model The 12 Principles of the Neighborhood Model describe the urban design form expected for development in the Development Areas. It appears that this proposal provides for some principles of the neighborhood model, but does not provide for site planning that respects terrain. PLANNING COMMENTS: Based on this relevant Comprehensive Plan information and information submitted on the preliminary site development plan, I offer the following comments: Disturbance of the critical slopes identified in the County Open Space Plan as Major and Locally Important Stream Valleys and Adjacent Critical Slopes" should be avoided. Planning cannot recommend a critical slopes waiver be approved because of the importance of these resources to the County. In addition these issues are also important to consider: The extent of impacts to resources identified for protection are difficult to determine because it appears that the full limits of grading around the perimeter of the development is not shown on this plan -refer to Engineering comments on this issue. The critical slopes on this parcel identified in the County Open Space Plan as "Major and Locally Important Stream Valleys and Adjacent Critical Slopes" should be identified as such. Retaining walls of up to 12' and 15' are proposed on the perimeter of the site SP 2008 -003 South Pantops Condos Parking Structure 3 Planning Comments February 26, 2008 adjacent to the Rivanna River. The Neighborhood Model recommends that development conform as best possible to existing terrain. Where extensive grading is needed, though, to achieve other principles of the Neighborhood Model, large expanses of 2:1 regraded slopes are to be avoided. Large retaining walls should likewise be avoided. While retaining walls may be appropriate, they should be terraced with shorter walls rather than be tall and expansive. I recommend revising the grading plan for the site in such a way that tall and expansive retaining walls or expanses of regraded 2:1 slopes are avoided. The areas of critical slope, flood plain, and stream buffer should be shown and labeled on the proposed grading plan in order to evaluate the impact of the proposed clearing & grading. Sheets C4 -C6 in particular do not show how the proposed development relates to environmental features or adjoining properties and roadways. No information is provided as to how this proposal will meet recommendations for greenways. I recommend consultation with the Greenways Planner, Dan Mahon with Parks and Recreation. The Thomas Jefferson Foundation, on behalf of Monticello, has provided comments on past development projects in Pantops, which could be visible from Monticello and impact their viewshed. I can forward you the contact information for staff at Monticello. Please let me know if you need additional information of if I can answer any questions you might have. SP 2008 -003 South Pantops Condos Parking Structure 4 Planning Comments February 26, 2008 pF ALg4; COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development - Planning 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Ext.3439 434) 972 -4126 MEMORANDUM TO:Patrick Lawrence, Senior Planner FROM:Rebecca Ragsdale, Senior Planner for Development Areas RE:SP 2008 -003 — South Pantops Condominiums (TMP 78 -20) DATE:February 26, 2008 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed special use permit for South Pantops Condos, which is a request for structured parking on property zoned R15 Residential and is being processed concurrently with a preliminary site plan (SDP 2008- 012) The site is approx. 13 acres and is proposed for 125 residential units and 266 parking spaces at a density of 9.5 acres. The majority of the site is critical slopes, with the exception of the northeast portion of the site adjacent to Overlook Condos. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SUMMARY INFORMATION FOR THIS SITE Land Use Plan This property is designated Urban Density Residential in the Land Use Plan (LUP). (See inset below) These areas are intended to have a gross density of between 6.01 to 20 dwellings per acre, with possible densities of up to 34 dwellings per acre under a planned development approach. The LUP further specifies that, while developments should maximize the developed density with a form in keeping with the Neighborhood Model, that development densities should ultimately be based on environmental criteria, road function and condition, available utilities, adjacent land uses, and site requirements. The Land Use Plan also recommends maintaining statements in the Zoning Ordinance that site development within Urban Density residential areas be based on standards in both the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. For this particular property, recommendations of the Open Space Plan component of the Comprehensive Plan are relevant and discussed below. SP 2008 -003 South Pantops Condos Parking Structure Planning Comments February 26, 2008 At orf kN ' ' ' . - \ \\ . , F E ' F 7, r r b4 i r>r St Y a ..„.....-" L SITE f 7:1:, , — s j a H J _, A6, t t , ,,f,I*7:, , ' '4,-:,,-,,, ,)::--,;;,--,,#*,-.=, :AA, r,;,. :-.1,,c Land Use Plan - Neighborhood Three The property is also designated parks and greenways (green) along the Rivanna River and uses allowed within this designation include public and private parks, and existing and proposed greenways along streams. Pedestrian and bicycle access to parks and greenways, and especially to parks provided on school grounds, is viewed as essential to their viability. Open Space Plan The Open Space Plan is part of the Comprehensive Plan and gives high priority to the preservation of the Rivanna River system corridor in the development of the Plan. The recommendations of the Open Space Plan are very important with regard to development of this site. This site is shown on the Growth Area Open Space Map for Urban Neighborhoods Three and Four Composite Map of the Open Space Plan. The Plan shows Major and Locally Important Street Valleys and Adjacent Critical Slopes on the site. Critical slopes and wooded areas are also shown on the inventory maps for the neighborhood. These maps show areas recommended for open space protection in the growth areas. According to the Open Space Plan, it is recommended that, if the site is in a Growth Area, the applicant should locate the site on the appropriate Growth Area Composite Map. Discretionary land use proposals are to be assessed for consistency with the Composite Map. The Composite Maps are to be used to guide decisions regarding waiver of the critical slopes provisions in the Growth Area. The goal is to protect the critical resources. SP 2008 -003 South Pantops Condos Parking Structure 2 Planning Comments February 26, 2008 As shown on the proposed plan, development will impact important resources and development encroachment into the critical slopes area is not recommended for the resources shown on the Open Space Plan. Pantops Master Plan (Not yet adopted, latest draft dated August 1, 2007) Although not yet adopted, the recommendations of the Pantops Master Plan are provided for your information. The Pantops Master Plan Green Infrastructure Map and Land Use Plan (insets below) recommend that this site be preserved, due to environmental features, and that opportunities for trail head access to the greenway system should be considered for this •ro•ert , shown with the red asterisk below. 4 fors1.MI 40 0 i 5i 1 t 1 2 1 Draft Pantops Master Plan -Green Infrastructure Draft Pantops Master Plan -Land Use Neighborhood Model The 12 Principles of the Neighborhood Model describe the urban design form expected for development in the Development Areas. It appears that this proposal provides for some principles of the neighborhood model, but does not provide for site planning that respects terrain. PLANNING COMMENTS: Based on this relevant Comprehensive Plan information and information submitted on the preliminary site development plan, I offer the following comments: Disturbance of the critical slopes identified in the County Open Space Plan as Major and Locally Important Stream Valleys and Adjacent Critical Slopes" should be avoided. Planning cannot recommend a critical slopes waiver be approved because of the importance of these resources to the County. In addition these issues are also important to consider: The extent of impacts to resources identified for protection are difficult to determine because it appears that s development is not shown the on full this limit plan of refer grading to Engineering around the comments perimeter of on the this issue. The critical slopes on this parcel identified in the County Open Space Plan as "Major and Locally Important Stream Valleys and Adjacent Critical Slopes" should be identified as such. Retaining walls of up to 12' and 15' are proposed on the perimeter of the site SP 2008 -003 South Pantops Condos Parking Structure 3 Planning Comments February 26, 2008 adjacent to the Rivanna River. The Neighborhood Model recommends that development conform as best possible to existing terrain. Where extensive grading is needed, though, to achieve other principles of the Neighborhood Model, large expanses of 2:1 regraded slopes are to be avoided. Large retaining walls should likewise be avoided. While retaining walls may be appropriate, they should be terraced with shorter walls rather than be tall and expansive. I recommend revising the grading plan for the site in such a way that tall and expansive retaining walls or expanses of regraded 2:1 slopes are avoided. The areas of critical slope, flood plain, and stream buffer should be shown and labeled on the proposed grading plan in order to evaluate the impact of the proposed clearing & grading. Sheets C4 -C6 in particular do not show how the proposed development relates to environmental features or adjoining properties and roadways. No information is provided as to how this proposal will meet recommendations for greenways. I recommend consultation with the Greenways Planner, Dan Mahon with Parks and Recreation. The Thomas Jefferson Foundation, on behalf of Monticello, has provided comments on past development projects in Pantops, which could be visible from Monticello and impact their viewshed. I can forward you the contact information for staff at Monticello. Please let me know if you need additional information of if I can answer any questions you might have. SP 2008 -003 South Pantops Condos Parking Structure 4 Planning Comments February 26, 2008 Application #:SP2OO8O0003 tor# Review Comments Project Name: South Pantops Condominiums New Special Use Permit 1 Date Completed:04/22/2008 Reviewer:Lisa K Glass CDZCD Review Status:Pending Reviews Comments: I Indefinate deferal requested by applicant see docs in CV file. Date Completed:04/22/2008 Reviewer:Patrick Lawrence Planner Z &CD Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments: Actually, deferred. Date Completed:03/27/2008 Reviewer:Ron Higgins Building Code Zoning Review Status:Pending Reviews Comments: Patrick: I had discussed these in the distribution meeting, February 13th, but had not forwarded my comments in writing, since I did not have a copy of the plan. Here goes: There are extensive critical slopes that are proposed to be disturbed. It is recommended that this be requested at the special permit review stage. Some of the aisles adjacent to parking appear to exceed 5% slope as the standards require. A modification of the standards or alterations as needed, will be required at the site plan review stage. There may be sight distance problems with the garage exits. If so, these will have to be addresses or waived at the site plan review stage. Date Completed:04/04/2008 Reviewer:Tamara Ambler Planning Review Status:Pending Reviews Comments: Project is immediately adjacent to the Rivanna River. The floodplain is relatively narrow at this location. The required stream buffer is measured 100 horizontal feet from the top of the streambank. This buffer must be left undisturbed. Page: 1.00 County of Albemarle Printed On: Friday, June 27, 2008 i a Wy COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McEntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4035 Project:SDP200800012 & SP200800003, South Pantops Condominiums Tax Map 78 Parcel # 2 Primary Contact: Justin Shimp, c/o Dominion Development Resources (434.989.2181) (fax 989.1681) E -mail - jshimp(i ddrva.com Applicant:Virginia Land Company 195 Riverbend Drive Charlottesville, VA 22906 Date received:28 January 2008 Date of Comment: 17 March 2008 Planner:Patrick Lawrence, Senior Planner Site Review Committee Meeting — Room 235 Thursday, March 20, 2008 10:00 AM The current Development Planning Division of the Albemarle County Community Development Department has reviewed the above referenced preliminary site plan received on 28 January 2007 has been reviewed for presentation to the Site Review Committee meeting listed above. The Planning division recommends approval of the minor site plan amendment upon the resolution of the following comments. [Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference, which is to the Zoning Ordinances (Chapter 18 of the Albemarle County Code) unless otherwise specified.] Please note that approval of the associated Special Permit (SP08 -003) is required prior to approval of the preliminary site plan. 1. 3 2.5.6 (n)] Please show the dimensions of all existing and proposed improvements to this site including but not limited to: proposed buildings height; outdoor lighting, loading and service areas together with paving material, and signage. Please show the elevation of the top of all buildings. 2. 4.2 et seq.] Critical slopes please request waiver for disturbance of critical slopes. 3. you may wish to re- consider the parking layout of the garages to facilitate maneuvering within the confines of the garage. 4. Please show a tabulation of the bedrooms within each building for parking calculations. The agent or the commission may require additional information to be shown on the preliminary site plan as deemed necessary in order to provide sufficient information for the agent or the commission to adequately review a the preliminary site plan. d"i fd . ii • r, t M ` t V E , '\L _ .E- H t ! J: ` 1 R u [ LTV ( A DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1601 Orarne Road Cuipf :per, Virginia 22701 Virg riaDOT org David S. Ekern. P.E. COMMISSIONER March 19` 2008 Mr. Glenn Brooks Department of Engineering and Development 401 McIntire Rd. Charlottesville, VA 22902 Subject: Site Review Meeting Comments March 20` 2008 site review meeting Dear Mr. Brooks: Below are VDOT's comments on the Site Plans for the March 20 2007 Site Review Committee Meeting: SDP- 2007 -00137 Rivanna Plaza — Preliminary (Patrick Lawrence) The proposed location of the entrance does not meet the minimum spacing requirements of the Access Management Standards that will become VDOT standard in July 2008. The final site plan will need to be approved by the county before the standard goes into effect in order for VDOT to issue a permit for the entrance. An entrance profile, road plan for widening, and drainage computations will be required with the final site plan. CG -12 ramps need to be added to the plan at all road and entrance crossings. The sidewalk along route 29 needs to be 8 feet wide with a minimum 2 foot wide utility strip behind the curb. If possible, the sidewalk should be located 1 foot within the ROW line and leave as much utility strip as possible. The turn lane going into the site needs to have a bump out of the curb, a taper of 100 feet, and as much full width turn lane as possible. The radius on the connection should be a minimum of 45 feet to accommodate a WB -50 truck. SDP-2008-04)012 South Pantops Condominiums —Prel. (Patrick Lawrence) A pavement widening joint needs to be shown for rte. 1140 Drainage structure ST -8B will cause complications for future extension of the sidewalk. Drainage easements need to be shown for pipes or structures conveying water away from the state road. 00yEARs OF TRAAlSPORTABON EMU Mt 1 4 3 6 2 !.`, 6 Final plans will need to include pavement and drainage calculations. SUB - 2008 -00064 Montesano -UVA Foundation -Final Plat (Summer Frederick) No comments Please request the applicants provide a written description of revisions with re- submissions. If you have any questions or comments, please contact me prior to sharing these comments with the applicants. Sincerely, Joel DeNunzio, P.E. Residency Program Manager VDOT Charlottesville Residency 434- 293 -0011 cc Bill Fritz, David Benish, Juan Wade, Elaine Echols, Joan McDowell, Judith Wiegand, Margaret Maliszewski, David Pennock, Francis McCall, Jon Sharp, Summer Frederick, Patrick Lawrence, and John Giometti J County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To:Pat Lawrence, Current Development planning and zoning review From:Phil Custer, Current Development engineering review Date:11 July 2008 Subject: South Pantops Condominiums critical slope waiver request (SDP- 2008 - 00012) The critical slope waiver request has been reviewed. The engineering analysis of the request follows: Description of critical slope area and proposed disturbance: The critical slope disturbance on parcel 78 -20 will be needed for the placement of condo buildings, surrounding travelways, and parking lots. The analysis provided in this report is based on the current drawing dated 05- 23 -08. Nearly the entire critical slope disturbance occurs within 150ft of the relatively flat meadow area on the property. This area is about 2.25 acres of contiguous land without critical slopes. All critical slopes on this property appear to be natural and well vegetated. Areas Acres Total site 13.12 acres approximately Critical slopes 6.76 52% of site Critical slopes disturbed 0.89 13% of critical slopes Exemptions to critical slopes waivers for driveways, roads and utilities without reasonable alternative locations: A portion of this disturbance, the area needed to construct the biofilter, could possibly be considered exempt. It appears a smaller development footprint would eliminate the need for a SWM facility on the critical slope. [4.2.6c] The combined area of the exempted critical slope disturbance (which has been included in the above calculations) is 0.12 acres. This area is approximately l 3% of the critical slope disturbance. Compliance with Zoning Ordinance 18 -4.2: movement of soil and rock" Construction of the building and other site features will most likely require a temporary increased flow down the critical slopes during a rain event. Movement of soil can be caught with an appropriate sediment trapping measure before site runoff enters the existing stormwater system. The applicant has included in this set a conceptual Erosion and Sediment Control plan. An approval of the site plan is not an indication that the conceptual plan is acceptable. excessive stormwater runoff' Stormwater runoff will be controlled on site by a biofilter. The WPO plan review will ensure that adequate channels for stormwater runoff will be included in this plan to the Rivanna River. siltation" Inspection and bonding by the County will ensure siltation control during construction. Proper Albemarle uunty Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 2 of 2 stabilization and maintenance will ensure long term stability. The applicant has included in this set a conceptual Erosion and Sediment Control plan. An approval of the site plan is not an indication that the conceptual plan is acceptable. loss of aesthetic resource" The critical slopes along the ravine of this property are visible from South Pantops Drive. The critical slopes on the west end of the property between the flat buildable area and the river cannot be seen from South Pantops drive, but the area is visible from a trail running along the east side of the river. septic effluent" This site is serviced by public sewer. Based on the review above, there are no engineering concerns with the proposed disturbance to critical slopes that cannot be alleviated with standard engineering and erosion control practices that will be worked out in the final stages of the plan. Therefore, engineering review recommends the approval of the critical slope waiver. However, it should be noted that close to 2.25 acres of relatively flat land could be developed on this parcel and a critical slope waiver would not be required. County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To:Patrick Lawrence, Current Development Project Planner From:Phil Custer, Current Development engineering review Date:11 July 2008 Subject: South Pantops Condominiums (SDP -2008- 00012) The preliminary site plan for the South Pantops Condominium Complex has been reviewed. Engineering review for current development cannot recommend approval to the plan at this time. The following comments are provided. 1. Critical slopes are disturbed on the property. A critical slope waiver will be required. [ 18 -4.2] Rev. 1) A waiver request has been received. Engineering review comments for this waiver will be given in a separate document. 2. It appears that in some cases, the parking lot and access ways are over the maximum allowed Live and ten percent slopes specified in the ordinance. This is normally a final site plan comment but it appears the application of this ordinance standard may require the applicant to adjust the layout. Rev. 1) Comment not addressed. There are numerous cases where the maximum grades for parking area and travelways are violated. Engineering review will not support a waiver of these ordinance standards. 4. The BMP can not be held up by a retaining wall. Rev. 1) This issue will be resolved during the review of the WPO plan. Although BMPs can be held by retaining walls, engineering review is concerned in this instance and will be looking for an impervious layer of clay between the biofilter media and the retaining wall gravel backfill. Engineering review is afraid that capillaries will form between the backfrll and the soil media allowing a bypass of the filtering process. The retaining wall will also be included in the WPO bond and maintenance easement. 5. Because of the land development's proximity to the Rivanna River, the applicant may request to be exempt from Section 17 -314 of the Water Protection Ordinance but must provide stabilization measures in the existing channel from where the site discharge enters it. [17- 314.F.6] Rev. 1) A waiver request has been received and approved by the County Engineer with the condition that channel improvements are made in the ravine. Improvements in the channel may be needed both upstream and downstream of the biofilter discharge. 6. A special use permit will be required for the parking garages on site. During that process, the applicant should request variances for the design standards listed in the ordinance that the latest plan of the parking do not meet. [4.12.15] Rev. 1) The applicant should request in the SP approval letter specific language explicitly approving the garage layout and all necessary ordinance waivers required with it, especially sight distance. All parking areas in the county must meet ordinance design requirements. Current Development Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 2 7. Many of the parking spaces will be difficult to enter and exit from in the parking garages. Please correct. It also appears that a car entering the each garage level will have difficulty turning around if all of the spaces are filled. [32.7.2] Rev. 1) Engineering review recommends some greater turnaround allowances in the design of the garage parking areas. 8. A connection must be made to TMP 78 -19A. [32.7.2.4] Rev. 1) The agent has determined that inteuparcel connection will not be required. The following comments must be addressed prior to final site plan approval. 1. The minimum width for parallel parking is 9ft. 2. An adequate channel from the SWM facility to the Rivanna River must be provided. 3. It appears that site grading could inadvertently direct water into some garages. Engineering review recommends that the travelway grading and finished floor elevations be designed with a higher tolerance to allow the contractor greater flexibility in the field if a slight error is made in during grading and pavement operations. 4. Sidewalk width should be measured exclusive of the curb. 5. The dumpster pads adjacent to ST -2B and ST -4B should be relocated. [18- 4.12.19] Page 1 of 2 Patrick Lawrence From: Lisa K. Glass Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 1:59 PM To:Amy Pflaum; Jonathan Sharp Cc:Patrick Lawrence; Bill Fritz; Janet Miller Subject: FW: SDP08 -90 Final site plan for Rivanna Plaza Dear all, This is to confirm that the Final site plan for Rivanna Plaza (SDP08 -90) is under review. (right ?) Please notify Patrick Lawrence, lead planner and Janet Miller, applicant, if this is not true. I do not have any information in the 08 -90 file to indicate that the new set of Final Site plans were distributed (on or about 6/13.) Janet believes that the set of 8 plans has been distributed for final review. The original submittal, 5/28 plan titled Final, was distributed by me on 6/4 as a Preliminary SDP07 -137, to close that file. The Preliminary site plan approval letter was sent this morning. Thank you Lisa From: Lisa K. Glass Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 12:11 PM To: 'Mark Green' Cc: Janet Miller; Bill Fritz; Patrick Lawrence Subject: RE: SDP -07 -137 Preliminary Site plan Approval Janet and Mark, Attached please find the approval letter for the Preliminary Site Plan referenced above. The off -site easements area a condition of final approval. Please contact Patrick Lawrence with questions or concerns regarding this project. As you are aware with the BOS action on June 11, 2008 there was no way to obtain final site plan approval by your July 1 deadline. Good luck with a justification to VDOT for an exception to the rule in this specific case. Lisa From: Lisa K. Glass Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 3:45 PM To: 'Mark Green' Cc: Janet Miller; Bill Fritz; Patrick Lawrence Subject: RE:SDP -07 -137 Letter of intent from Kegler's The last item pending for the Preliminary approval of SDP07 -137 is the letter of intent from Keglers. I will not be here on Monday, so please send the letter to Bill Fritz and copy Patrick Lawrence. They both know where the draft approval letter is waiting to he sent out... as soon as we get the kegler letter it can be dated and sent. I am handing this project off for others to complete. Lisa 6/30/2008 Vj A41.h4l L County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To:Pat Lawrence, Current Development planning and zoning review From:Phil Custer, Current Development engineering review Date:2 December 2008 Subject: South Pantops Condominiums critical slope waiver request (SDP -2008- 00012) The critical slope waiver request has been reviewed. The engineering analysis of the request follows: Description of critical slope area and proposed disturbance: The critical slope disturbance on parcel 78 -20 will be needed for the placement of condominium buildings, surrounding travelways, and parking lots. The analysis provided in this report is based on the current drawing dated 11- 06 -08. Nearly the entire critical slope disturbance occurs within 150ft of the relatively flat meadow area on the property. This area is about 2.25 acres of contiguous land without critical slopes. All critical slopes on this property appear to be natural and well vegetated. Areas Acres Total site 13.12 acres approximately Critical slopes 6.76 52% of site Critical slopes disturbed 0.89 13% of critical slopes Exemptions to critical slopes waivers for driveways, roads and utilities without reasonable alternative locations: A portion of this disturbance, the area needed to construct the biofilter, could possibly be considered exempt. It appears a smaller development footprint would eliminate the need for a SWM facility on the critical slope. [4.2.6c] The combined area of the exempted critical slope disturbance (which has been included in the above calculations) is 0.12 acres. This area is approximately 13% of the critical slope disturbance. Compliance with Zoning Ordinance 18 -4.2: movement of soil and rock" Construction of the building and other site features will most likely require a temporary increased flow down the critical slopes during a rain event. Movement of soil can be caught with an appropriate sediment trapping measure before runoff enters the Rivanna River. A detailed phased erosion and sediment control plan will be required in order to construct the buildings and travelways with the critical slope disturbance requested. The applicant has included in this set a conceptual Erosion and Sediment Control plan. An approval of the site plan is not an indication that the conceptual plan is acceptable. excessive stormwater runoff' Stormwater runoff will be controlled on site by a biofilter. The WPO plan review will ensure that adequate channels for stormwater runoff will be included in this plan to the Rivanna River. Albemarle Ccrerfity Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 2 of 2 siltation" Inspection and bonding by the County will ensure siltation control during construction. Proper stabilization and maintenance will ensure long term stability. The applicant has included in this set a conceptual Erosion and Sediment Control plan. An approval of the site plan is not an indication that the conceptual plan is acceptable. loss of aesthetic resource"' The critical slopes along the ravine of this property are visible from South Pantops Drive. The critical slopes on the west end of the property between the flat buildable area and the river cannot be seen from South Pantops drive, but the area is visible from a trail running along the east side of the river. septic effluent' This site is serviced by public sewer. Based on the review above, there are no engineering concerns with the proposed disturbance to critical slopes that cannot be alleviated with standard engineering and erosion control practices in a phased Erosion and Sediment Control Plan that will be completed with the review of the WPO plan. Therefore, engineering review has no objections to the approval of this critical slope waiver. However, it should be noted that close to 2.25 acres of relatively flat land could be developed on this parcel and a critical slopewaiverwouldnotberequired. lF A1.fiF. Count, of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Patrick Lawrence, Current Development Project Planner From: Phil Custer, Current Development engineering review Date: 2 December 2008 Subject: South Pantops Condominiums (SDP -2008- 00012) The preliminary site plan for the South Pantops Condominium Complex has been reviewed. Engineering review cannot recommend approval to the plan at this time. The following comments are provided. Critical slopes are disturbed on the property. A critical slope waiver will be required. [18-4.2] Rev. 1) A tivaiver request has been received. Engineering reviely colninents,fol this waiver will be given in a separate docltnlent. Rev. 2) .4 waiver request has been received. Engineering review comrnents this waiver will be given in a separate document. 2. It appears that in some cases, the parking lot and access ways are over the maximum allowed five and ten percent slopes specified in the ordinance. This is normally a final site plan comment but it appears the application of this ordinance standard may require the applicant to adjust the layout. Rev. 1) Comment not addressed. There are numerous cases where the maXin111111 grades parking area and travelways are violated. Engineering review will not support a waiver of these ordinance standards. Rev. 2) Comment has not been addressed. A waiver of these requirements should be granted by the Zoning Administrator before the preliminary site plan is approved. Engineering review does not support a waiver of these standards. 4. The BMP can not be held up by a retaining wall. Rev. 1) This issue will be resolved during the review of the TYPO plan. .41though BMPs can be held by retaining balls, engineering review Is concerned in this Instance and tivlll be looking for an impervious layer of clan betnveen the biofilter media and the retaining ball gravel bac>fill. Engineering revielr' is afraid that capillaries frill fibrin between the backfill and the soil media a1101l'i11g a bypass of the fllte'rin- process. The retaining Nall hill also be included in the PT PO bond and maintenance easement. Rev. 2) This is issue can be resolved during the review of the H'PO plan. Because of the land development's proximity to the Rivanna River, the applicant may request to be exempt from Section 17 -314 of the Water Protection Ordinance but must provide stabilization measures in the existing channel from where the site discharge enters it. [17- 314.F.6] Rev. 1) A waiver request has been received and approved by the County Ellglnee'r with the condition that channel improvements are madc in the ravine. Improvements in the channel may be needed both ups'treanl and downstream of the blbflter discharge. Rev. 2) Channel improvements have not been shown on this plan. This will be reviewed during the iiPO plan process. Current Development Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 2 6. A special use permit will be required for the parking garages on site. During that process, the applicant should request variances for the design standards listed in the ordinance that the latest plan of the parking do not meet. [4.12.15] Rev. 1) The applicant should request in the SP approval letter specific language explicitly approving the garage layout and all necessary ordinance waivers required with it, especially sight distance. .411 parking areas in the county must meet ordinance design requirements. Rev. 2) Comment not addressed. As drawn, the plan requires waivers for sections 18- 4.12.15c, 18- 4.12.15d, 18- 4.12.19b, and 18- 4.12.16.cl. A waiver of these requirements should be granted by the Zoning Administrator (or Board of Supervisors if it has been determined that the site must get a Special Use Permit for the parking structure) before the preliminary site plan is approved. 7. Many of the parking spaces will be difficult to enter and exit from in the parking garages. Please correct. It also appears that a car entering the each garage level will have difficulty turning around if all of the spaces are filled. [32.7.2] Rely. 1) Engineering review recommends some greater turnaround allowances in the design of the garage parking areas. Rev. 2) Comment remains unchanged. The following comments must be addressed prior to fmal site plan approval. 1. The minimum width for parallel parking is 9ft. 2. An adequate channel from the SWM facility to the Rivanna River must be provided. 3. It appears that site grading could inadvertently direct water into some garages. Engineering review recommends that the travelway grading and fmished floor elevations be designed with a higher tolerance to allow the contractor greater flexibility in the field if a slight error is made in during grading and pavement operations. 4. Sidewalk width should be measured exclusive of the curb. 5. The dumpster pads adjacent to ST -2B and ST -4B should be relocated. [18- 4.12.19]