HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP200800064 Review Comments 2007-03-26Al,
ori
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4012
March 26, 2007
Chris Kabbash
PO Box 496
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: ARB- 2007 -08: Hydraulic Georgetown Office Building (2 Story Professional Building
Preliminary Review of a Site Development Plan, Advisory Review for a Rezoning
Tax Map 60F, Parcel 03)
Dear Mr. Kabbash:
The Albemarle County Architectural Review Board, at its meeting on March 5, 2007, completed a preliminary
review of the above -noted request. The Board took the following actions.
Rec arding the Request for the Rezoning the Board by a vote of 4:0, forwarded the following recommendation
to the Plannin- Commission:
The ARB has no objection based on the preliminary site plan "Georgetown /Hydraulic
Professional Offices" dated January 19, 2007 and the building elevation "Two Story Office
Building at Hydraulic and Georgetown Roads" dated January 22, 2007 if the building and
parking setbacks as illustrated and all RWSA requirements can be met without reducing the
quantity or otherwise changing the general character of the proposed planting.
Regarding the Preliminary Site Plan the Board made the following comments and suggestions for the
benefit of the applicant's next submittal.
1. Provide, in writing, all authorization from RWSA regarding proposed building, tree and shrub
locations as they relate to the existing 12" water line. Move the Ginkgo Biloba "Princeton Santry ", at
the southeast corner of the Georgetown Building, out of the power easement, or provide
documentation that it is permitted and will be allowed to reach mature height, with topping of the tree
prohibited and only minimal pruning permitted to support its overall health.
2. The cast stone Dark Buff Lime stone sample is acceptable. Provide a mortar color that is similar to it.
3. Revise the site plan to show the proposed height and material of the retaining walls. Provide a sample
of the retaining wall material for review. Revise the site plan to show the proposed location and
method of screening for all mechanical equipment, details, including method of construction and
ARB -07 -08 Hydraulic Georgetown Office Building
Page 2 of 3
March 26, 2007
proposed color, for the dumpster enclosure (masonry enclosure preferred); and proposed building and
parking setbacks. Revise the site plan layout so that the parking space next to the site entrance does not
violate the 10' parking setback. Revise the parking schedule to include the three parking spaces that
are required for the adjoining parcel to the north.
4. Revise the site layout so that buildings do not violate the existing 50' side setback along the southeast
property line, and the retaining wall can be constructed without disturbing the 20' non - disturb buffer
adjacent to the same property line. Consider relocating the two proposed parking spaces at the south
end of the parking lot so that the proposed retaining wall behind the Georgetown Building can be
moved farther from the non- disturb buffer.
5. Revise the site and landscape plans to clearly show the location of all existing and proposed utilities
with the boundary of their respective easements clearly drafted and labeled. Revise the grading plan to
keep all proposed grading and site improvements (including retaining walls), a minimum of five feet
from all buffers and outside of all utility easements. Revise the site and landscape plans to show the
location of all existing and proposed tree lines. Revise the Existing Conditions sheet so that all existing
conditions that are to be removed are so labeled.
6. Provide a landscape schedule on the landscape plan with all proposed planting sizes clearly noted.
Revise the landscape plan to show existing trees to remain, five trees, 2.5" caliper, in interior parking
lot islands, and trees 2.5" in caliper, 40' on center, along the perimeter of the parking lot.
7. Provide a lighting photometric plan showing the location of all proposed site, building and decorative
lighting. Provide a luminaire schedule of all proposed exterior lighting. Indicate in the schedule all
lighting options chosen, and the colors proposed for the fixtures and poles. All proposed lighting
exceeding the 3,000 lumens threshold must be a full cutoff design. Lighting values can not exceed 1 /2
foot candle at a public right -of -way line or at a property line adjoining a residential or rural area
district.
8. Revise the tower elevations to allow the walls of the tower to rise higher above the cornice of the main
building roof line. Consider reducing the roof slope of the tower. The Hunter Green Benjamin Moore
204110 is currently approved for the tower roof. Charcoal gray would also be an appropriate color.
Onyz black is acceptable for the shingles of the main roof.
9. Revise the drawings to specify exactly which cast stone product is proposed for the sign panels and
provide a sample. Provide all ARB signage checklist items with the next submission.
10. Relocate the dumpster so that it is not visible from the EC.
11. Provide sections of the south end of the site to illustrate the visibility of the southeast corner of the
parking lot.
12. Show more of the Hydraulic Road EC on the site plan so that visibility from the EC of the building
can be better determined.
13. Indicate that female gender Ginkgo trees will not be used.
14. If a half -round window is used over the main entrance, it should be a true half -round window [with the
glass beginning at the radius, with the frame and sill below that radius, so as not to foreshorten the
half - circle into an ellipse or flattened circle].
15. Provide details of the proposed cornice line.
Note: The ARB was split on the color of the downspouts. Mr. Wright preferred bronze. Ms. Smith and Mr.
ARB -07 -08 Hydraulic Georgetown Office Building
Page 3 of 3
March 26, 2007
Lebo preferred white. The applicant needs to Submit a sample for review.
You may submit your application for continued ARB review at your earliest convenience. Application forms,
checklists and schedules are available on -line at t ° ; `ti._ <tll . E :} i _ fat il,ttsnw ,.
Revised drawings addressing the comments listed above are required. Include updated ARB revision dates on
each drawing. Please provide a memo including detailed responses indicating how each comment has been
addressed. 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.
If you have any questions concerning any of the above, please feel free to call me.
Sincerely,
Brent W. Nelson
Landscape Planner
Planning Division
B W N /aer
Cc: CKW 2 LLC
1300 West Little Neck Rd, Virginia Beach VA 23452
LimehOUSe Architects (Gate Pratt)
946 Grady Ave, Suite 27, Charlottesville, VA 22903
Claudette Grant
File
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Facilities Development
MEMORANDUM
TO: Claudette Grant, Senior Planner
FROM: Jack M. Kelsey, PE — Transportation Engineer
DATE: 26 November 2007
SUBJECT: ZMA 2006 -014 Professional Office Building at Hydraulic & Georgetown Roads
Application Plan
The application plan for this zoning map amendment has been reviewed. My previous comments have
been adequately addressed. And approval of the Application Plan is recommended.
Critical Slope Waiver
Description of critical slope area and proposed disturbance:
From the southern property line to the northern property line, the middle portion of this site is traversed by a
variable width strip of existing critical slopes. This strip contains approximately 9580 square feet (0.22 acres)
of critical slopes and represents about 21 % of the total parcel area. These critical slopes are to be disturbed
predominantly to construct the site improvements, which include the retaining walls, portions of the parking
lot, and the drainage /stormwater management system. The table below summarizes the critical slope data.
Areas Acres
Total site 1.051
Critical slopes 9580 sf (0.22 acs)21 % of site
Critical slopes disturbed 5902 sf (0.14 acs)62% of critical slopes
Compliance with Zoning Ordinance 18 -4.2:
movement of soil and rock ": Installation of the Red -Rock retaining wall system, control of drainage during
and after construction, and vegetative stabilization will prevent any movement of soil.
excessive stormwater runoff': Stormwater runoff will be managed by the stormwater management facilities
designed and approved in accordance with the Water Protection Ordinance.
siltation ": Erosion control measures design and installed in accordance with County standards, bonding to
assure compliance, and inspection by the County will ensure siltation control during construction. Proper
stabilization and maintenance will ensure long term stability.
loss of aesthetic resource ": A portion of impacted critical slopes are wooded. The bulk of the existing trees
that screen Georgetown Green are within an existing 20 foot vegetative butter and the 50 foot rear building
setback and will not be impacted by the improvements shown on the Application Plan (refer to Sheet 4 of 4
Existing Conditions).
septic effluent": This site will be served by public sewer so this is not a concern.
ZMA 2006 -014
POB at Hydraulic & Georgetown Roads
Page 2 of 2
The commission may modify or waive any requirement of section 4.2 in a particular case
upon finding that: (Amended 1 1- 15 -89)
1. Strict application of the requirements of section 4.2 would not forward the purposes of this chapter or
otherwise serve the public health, safety or welfare, or that alternatives proposed by the developer would
satisfy the purposes of section 42 to at least an equivalent degree; or (Added 11-15-89)
The current zoning limits this use to a Gcis Stcition/C'orn Store. which has a greater impact on
the existing critical slopes and screening trees clue to the access and site circulation needs frr the fiiel
delivery trucks. As sttc•h the prei approved Gas' StutiotilC'oni ? ce Store site plan allowed a
retaining /building wall (5 ' to 12' high) fiacing Georgetown Green cis well as the site cleared and a 2:,
slope graded down to the 20oot ht {ffer adjacent to Georgetown Green. Moclificationhrcriver of'this
provision will allow ,/0'r a use anal a "fcrrnr " of development that will have significantly less impact on
hoth the critical slopes and the existing trees.
Due to its unusual size, topography, shape of the property, location of the property or other unusual
conditions, excluding the proprietary interest of the developer, the requirements of section 4.2 would
effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use of the property or would result in significant
degradation of the site or adjacent properties. Such modification or waiver shall not be detrimental to
the public health, safety or welfare, to the orderly development of the area, or to adjacent properties, or
be contrary to sound engineering practices; or (Added 11-15-89)
This provision applies fin all of the reasons stated in #1 above. l pproval c?f the request would not he
detrimental to the public health, salety or welfare.
Factors favorable to approval of a modification to allow activity on critical slopes:
Approval of the request would not result in negative effects identified in Section 4.2.
The critical slopes on this property are not identified in the Open Space Plan.
Approval of this request will have less impact on the critical slopes and the existing screening trees
than the Gas Station /Convenience Store use to which this site is limited and the site plan previously
approved for this site.
Approval of this request will allow a more Neighborhood Model form of site development than the
previously approved Gas Station /Convenience Store site plan.
Factors unfavorable to approval of a modification to allow activity on critical slopes:
Construction of retaining walls that face Georgetown Green are necessary to minimize impacts to the
critical slopes and the existing trees, for the site to be developed as illustrated on the Application Plan.
Based on the review above, there are no engineering concerns for the disturbance of the critical slopes
anticipated with this development. Therefore, I recommend Commission approval of this modification of
Section 4.2.3.
J K\
File: F5 zma_jmk_PUB at I lydraulic- Georgetoan.doc
J
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4012
March 26, 2007
Chris Kabbash
PO Box 496
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: ARB- 2007 -08: Hydraulic Georeetown Office Buildine (2 Story Professional Building
Preliminary Review of a Site Development Plan, Advisory Review for a Rezoning
Tax Map 60F, Parcel 03)
Dear Mr. Kabbash:
The Albemarle County Architectural Review Board, at its meeting on March 5, 2007, completed a preliminary
review of the above -noted request. The Board took the following actions.
Regarding the Request for the Rezoning the Board by a vote of 4:0, forwarded the following recommendation
to the Planning Commission:
The ARB has no objection based on the preliminary site plan "Georgetown/Hydraulic
Professional Offices" dated January 19, 2007 and the building elevation "Two Story Office
Building at Hydraulic and Georgetown Roads" dated January 22, 2007 if the building and
parking setbacks as illustrated and all RWSA requirements can be met without reducing the
quantity or otherwise changing the general character of the proposed planting.
Regarding the Preliminary Site Plan the Board made the following comments and suggestions for the
benefit of the applicant's next submittal.
1. Provide, in writing, all authorization from RWSA regarding proposed building, tree and shrub
5 PP locations as they relate to the existing 12" water line. Move the Ginkgo Biloba "Princeton Sentry", at
the southeast corner of the Georgetown Building, out of the power easement, or provide
documentation that it is permitted and will be allowed to reach mature height, with topping of the tree
prohibited and only minimal pruning permitted to support its overall health.
Agt pf 2. The cast stone Dark Buff Limestone sample is acceptable. Provide a mortar color that is similar to it.
w
hd j /3. - vise e si e p ose i - - d - matena7of thefe - W g w s. Prov a sample
Spn 1 A of thining wall material for review. Revise the site an to. s ow a proposed location and
WA method of screening for all mechanical equipm t; details, including method of construction and
ARB -07 -08 Hydraulic Georgetown Office Building
Page 2 of 3
March 26, 2007
proposed color, for the dumpster enclosure (masonry enclosure preferred); and proposed building and
Sp(J parking setbacks. Revise the site plan layout,sp_thatth space next to the site entran does not
viol a 10' parking tback. Revise the parking schedule to include the three parkingg spaces that
are required for the adjoining parcel to the north. Ate NE h& -e sz C3x,.
jP 4. Revise the site lay so that buildings do not viol xistin 0 ' ide c along the southeast
property line, and he retaining wall can be constructed without rlsturbin the 20' non zstur u
adjacent to the same property lime. Consider relocating the two proposed parking spaces at the south
end of the parking lot so that the proposed retaining wall behind the Georgebtown Building can be
moved farther from the non - disturb buffer. — 14041 e,4( /tzz L / PaCL Jc#,,, 5'1i91Q9PA,.
5. Revise the site and landscape plans to clearly show the location of all existing and proposed utilities
with the boundary of their respective.easements clearly drafted and labeled. Revise the ading feetkeepallroposed_grading apd site improvements (including retaining wall, a minimum of fiL, from all bu ers an u si e o uttements. evise the site and landscape plans to show the
oca ion of all existing and proposed s. Revise the Existing Conditions sheet so that all existingconditionsthataretoberemovedaresolabeled.
6. Provide a Ian scape schedu a on the landscape plan with all proposed planting sizes clear noted.
Revise the landscape plan to show_existing trees to remainRive treek, 2.5" caliper, in interior par ng
lot islands, and trees 2.5" in caliper, 40' on center, along the penmeter ot the parking lot.
7. Provide a lighting ometric pl showing the location of all proposed site, building and decorative
lighting. Provide a lummaire schedule of all proposed exterior lighting. Indicate in the schedule all
lighting options chosen, and the colors proposed for the fixtures and poles. All proposed lighting
exceeding the 3,000 lumens threshold must be a full cutoff design. Lighting values can not exceed 1 /z
foot candle at a public right -of -way line or at a property line adjoining a residential or rural area
district.
8. Revise the tower elevations to allow the walls of the tower to rise higher above the cornice of the main
Q building roof line. Consider reducing the roof slope of the tower. The Hunter Green Benjamin Moore
204110 is currently approved for the tower roof. Charcoal gray would also be an appropriate color.
Onyz black is acceptable for the shingles of the main roof.
9. Revise the drawings to specify exactly which cast stone product is proposed for the sign panels andP11ZAA4provideasample. Provide all ARB signage checklist items with the next submission.
10. Relocate the dumpster so that it is not visible from the EC.
11. Provide sections of the south end of the site to illustrate the visibility of the southeast corner of the
parking lot.
12. Show more of the Hydraulic Road EC on the site plan so that visibility from the EC of the buildingcanbebetterdetermined.
13. Indicate that female gender Ginkgo trees will not be used.
14. If a half -round window is used over the main entrance, it should be a true half -round window [with the
glass beginning at the radius, with the frame and sill below that radius, so as not to foreshorten the
i half - circle into an ellipse or flattened circle].
15. Provide details of the proposed cornice line.
Note: The ARB was split on the color of the downspouts. Mr. Wright preferred bronze. Ms. Smith and Mr.
ARB -07-08 Hydraulic Georgetown Office Building
Page 3 of 3
March 26, 2007
Lebo preferred white. The applicant needs to submit a sample for review.
You may submit your application for continued ARB review at your earliest convenience. Application forms,
checklists and schedules are available on -line at tip__ u:!_ .t's,r /I_[ p :,< r.
Revised drawings addressing the comments listed above are required. Include updated ARB revision dates on
each drawing. Please provide a memo including detailed responses indicating how each comment has been
addressed. 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.
If you have any questions concerning any of the above, please feel free to call me
Sincerely,
Brent W. Nelson
Landscape Planner
Planning Division
BWN /aer
Cc: CKW 2 LLC
1300 West Little Neck Rd, Virginia Beach VA 23452
Limehouse Architects (Gate Pratt)
946 Grady Ave, Suite 27, Charlottesville, VA 22903
Claudette Grant
File
Q
10. Add a note that the loading space is in accord with the ZMA. (Section 32.5.6 a and ZMA 06 -14)
11. Landscape plan is required. Show the conditions for Proffer 4, note 6 above, and match the ARB
approved plan. (Section 32.5.6 a and e)
12 ACSA easement shown at south property line as 12 feet wide; is this correct? Please add
dimension for the RWSA water line easement along the road frontage. (Section 32.5.6 j)
Show dumpster enclosure dimensions. (Section 32.5.6 n)
l V ;V4. Show sidewalk dimension adjacent to parking area. (Section 32.5.6 n)VJ
t 15 SPdw outdoor lighting or indicate there is none.(Section 32.5.6 n)
i IXlarify where existing sidewalk is to be removed at the proposed entrance. (Section 32.5.6 n)
1ate that the sign indicated will meet ARB Approval requirements. (Section 32.5.6 n)
dicate traffic generation has been or will be addressed with Engineering. (Section 32.5.6 q)
19. Regarding the site plan and the ZMA, please confirm that the conditions of the 11/21/07 letter from
Claudette Grant regarding the ZMA 06 -14 has been addressed or will be addressed prior to final
approval.
a. Parking with overhang will be addressed.
b. Landscape Plan must match approved ARB plan. Confirm plantings are allowed by the RWSA
if in their easement.
c. A parking modification was required for the number of spaces indicated in the Code of
Development (COD).
d. The sewer service shall connect to the existing manhole
e. Entrance concerns shall be addressed by providing: 1. drawing showing all lanes at intersection,
2. sight lines; and 3. left turn in shall be at northern most end.
f. RWSA approval of improvements that occur within their easement.
g. Indicate limitations on uses in accord with the COD.
h. Bus shelter will be built by owner at a location approved at a later date.
i. Indicate all easements on plans.
The ZMA file notes indicate that inter - parcel connectivity was discussed as part of the ZMA, but it
was superseded by the importance of preserving the critical slopes and existing vegetation in the
watershed.
Comments from Engineering are listed below. Before engineering can recommend approval the following
items must be addressed:
20. It is difficult to distinguish between proposed and existing features on this plan, please provide line
shading or another mechanism to "lowlight" the existing features.
I. Please include a conceptual stormwater management plan in the preliminary site plan. Show
boundaries of drainage areas and location of proposed detention facilities. What is the proposed
15 -inch storm sewer pipe outletting to? Because this property is in the rural area, no removal rate
credit will be given. Engineering anticipates that 2 Filterra units will not be enough to achieve the
required removal rate for this highly impervious site. [18- 32.5.6.s]
22. Please show the traffic lane lines on Hydraulic and Georgetown roads. [18- 32.5.6.s]
3. If a construction easement will be required to build the proposed retaining wall next to TMP 60E-1,
please show the easement on this plan.
r
County of Albemarle I COP
Department of Community Development n '
Memorandum n
To: Lisa K. Glass, Current Development Project Planner lU t U
From: Amy Pflaum, Current Development Engineering Review l ,
Date: 5 May 2008
REV #1 Comments: 2 June 2008
Subject: Georgetown / Hydraulic Professional Offices (SDP- 2008 - 00066) O
The preliminary site plan for Georgetown / Hydraulic Professional Offices has been reviewed. Before
engineering can recommend approval the following items must be addressed:
1. It is difficult to distinguish between proposed and existing features on this plan, please provide
line shading or another mechanism to "lowlight" the existing features.
REV #1: It appears that the existing sidewalk will remain all along the property, other than in the area
of the proposed curb cut and taper lane at the proposed entrance. With the addition of the 9' sidewalk,
there will be 15' of concrete sidewalk fronting the length of the site on Hydraulic Road. This will
need to be graphically clarified and detailed information regarding the proposed curb cut will be
required on the Final Site Plan.
02. Please include a conceptual stormwater management plan in the preliminary site plan. Show
boundaries of drainage areas and location of proposed detention facilities. What is the proposed
15 -inch storm sewer pipe outletting to? Because this property is in the rural area, no removal rate
credit will be given. Engineering anticipates that 2 Filterra units will not be enough to achieve the
required removal rate for this highly impervious site. [18- 32.5.6.s] f k-
7 REV #1 : Although your comment response letter states that drainage areas are shown on the site plan,
I am unable to find them. I refer you to the Albemarle County Design Standards Manual for the
requirements of a "conceptual" stormwater plan:
A. Stormwater management Design Plans:
1. Preliminary: Conceptual stormwater management is required to be shown on preliminary
plats and preliminary site plans.
a. The concept plan must include the target removal rate for each drainage area...
No further information has been provided regarding the flow from the 15" outlet pipe. Please
demonstrate that this flow is being released into an adequate downstream channel. Please provide any
easements necessary (or letters of intent from neighboring property owners) to convey this flow to such
channel.
Also, it has been confirmed with Albemarle County's Development Areas Principal Planner, Elaine
Echols, that this parcel of land is not within the Development Area.
3. Please show the traffic lane lines on Hydraulic and Georgetown roads. [18- 32.5.6.s]
REV #1 : Traffic lanes have been added to the plan. VDOT has also required that details of turn
movements, storage lengths, and existing and projected traffic volumes be added. Please see VDOT
Current Development
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 2
comments from the May 8, 2008 Site Review Meeting.
More detailed information regarding the proposed curb cut, including turning movements, lane widths
and spot elevations will be required on the Final Site Plan.
4. If a construction easement will be required to build the proposed retaining wall next to TMP 60E-
1, please show the easement on this plan.
REV #1 : Comment has been noted by applicant.
5. Please show the necessary grading required to construct a shallow- sloping spot in the Conservation
Area for the picnic tables.
REV # 1 : Comment has been addressed.
6. The existing 8 -inch ACSA waterline shown along the southern edge of the property does not
appear to be within the existing 12 -foot Utility Easement. Please verify that this waterline is in an
existing easement or provide a new easement.
REV 41 : Comment has been noted. Applicant is working with ACSA regarding the waterline and
easement.
7. VDOT approval is required for any work affecting the public right-of-way.
REV #1 : Please see VDOT comments from the May 8, 2008 Site Review Meeting.
11F .1 f,fiti•ti
h*
r ftttii`
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Lisa K. Glass, Current Development Project Planner
From: Amy Pflaum, Current Development Engineering Review
Date: 5 May 2008
Subject: Georgetown / Hydraulic Professional Offices (SDP -2008- 00066)
The preliminary site plan for Georgetown / Hydraulic Professional Offices has been reviewed. Before
engineering can recommend approval the following items must be addressed:
L It is difficult to distinguish between proposed and existing features on this plan, please provide
line shading or another mechanism to "lowlight" the existing features.
2. Please include a conceptual stormwater management plan in the preliminary site plan. Show
boundaries of drainage areas and location of proposed detention facilities. What is the proposed
15 -inch storm sewer pipe outletting to'? Because this property is in the rural area, no removal rate
credit will be given. Engineering anticipates that 2 Filterra units will not be enough to achieve the
required removal rate for this highly impervious site. [I 8- 32.5.6.s]
3. Please show the traffic lane lines on Hydraulic and Georgetown roads. [ 18- 32.5.6.s]
4. If a construction easement will be required to build the proposed retaining wall next to TMP 60E-
1, please show the easement on this plan.
Please show the necessary grading required to construct a shallow- sloping spot in the Conservation
Area for the picnic tables.
6. The existing 8 -inch ACSA waterline shown along the southern edge of the property does not
appear to be within the existing 12 -foot Utility Easement. Please verify that this waterline is in an
existing easement or provide a new easement.
7. VDOT approval is required for any work affecting the public right -of -way.
8. More comments may be necessary upon resubmittal.
0 4 .'ke'jWA-
OF A], .
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE tc AV44A J 'n
Department of Community Development „/,:
401 McIntire Road, Room 227 '
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
May 5, 2008
Chris Kabbage
PO Box 496
Charlottesville, VA, 22902
RE: SDP - 2008 -00064 Preliminary Site Plan for Georgetown - Hydraulic Professional Offices
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 Division of Planning (Principle Planner ARB)
Albemarle County Division of Planning (Principle Planner Rural Area)
Albemarle County Division of Inspections (Building Official)
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT).
Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA).
Albemarle County Fire and Rescue.
Albemarle County Geographic and Data Services (GDS)
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 identity 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 snake 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 Monday May 19, 2008. 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,
4'4to
Lisa Glass, Planner
County of Albemarle Department of Community Development, Current Development Division
43 4- 296 -5 83 2,ext.3 43 2
CC: Tom Muncaster, DDR, by e -mail
ALg
a
7rn;tNr
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memoranrtnm
To: Tom Muncaster, Plan preparer, (fax 434- 979 -8121)
Chris Kabbash, Primary Contact, (fax 434 - 817 -0251)
From: Lisa Glass, Planner/ Amy Pflaum, Engineer
Division: Zoning & Current Development
Date: May 6, 2008
Subject: SDP- 08 -64 Preliminary Site Plan for Georgetown - Hydraulic Professional Offices
The Planner /Engineer for the Zoning & Current Development Division of the Albemarle County
Department Community Development will recommend approve the plan referred to above 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 Albemarle County Code.]
1. The site plan must match the approved ARB Plan.
2. Describe all variances: The topo indicates a critical slope waiver is required.(Section 32.5.6 a)
3. Please include all proffers on the title page; complete proffer 3 and add proffer 4. (Section 32.5.6 a,
see ZMA 06 -14)
4. Modify the existing conditions page to show the extent of the conservation and preservation
easements; they should match those shown on the approved ZMA06 -14 application plan on sheet 4
of 4 titled "Existing /Conservation & Preservation Areas ", by Dominion Development Resources
revised 2/25/08. (Section 32.5.6 a and ZMA 06 -14)
5. Show diameters of all trees to be removed in the conservation easement. (Section 32.5.6 a and
ZMA 06 -14) 17, )
4 P
6. Show on the landscape plan the number of trees in the conservation easement to be removed that
are 12- inches or greater, as well as the number and type of trees to be replanted in the conservation
easement per Proffer 4. The goal is to have two new 2.5 -inch (minimum) trees replanted for each
tree removed greater than 12 inches. (Section 32.5.6 a and ZMA 06 -14)
7. Please add a note regarding the front setbacks are in accord with the approved ZMA Code of
Development.(Section 32.5.6 a and ZMA 06 -14)
8. Please add maximum square footage of commercial to match the ZMA. ZMA states 9,516 sf net.
Section 32.5.6 b and ZMA 06 -14)
9. P ase add a note on the parking schedule regarding the status of the Parking Modification,
obtained or under review. (Section 32.5.6 b.) (Section 32.5.6 a and ZMA 06 -14)
1
10. Add a note that the ing space is in accord with the ZMA. (SeJn 32.5.6 a and ZMA 06 -14)
1 9.
11. Landscape plan is required. Show the conditions for Proffer 4, note 6 above, and match the ARB
approved plan. (Section 32.5.6 a and e)
12. ACSA easement shown at south property line as 12 feet wide; is this correct? Please add
dimension for the RWSA water line easement along the road frontage. (Section 32.5.6 j)
13. Show dumpster enclosure dimensions. (Section 32.5.6 n)
14. Show sidewalk dimension adjacent to parking area. (Section 32.5.6 n)
15. Show outdo fighting or in icate there is none.(Section 32.5.6 n)
16. Clarify where existing sidewalk is to be removed at the proposed entrance. (Section 32.5.6 n)
17. Note that the sign indicated will meet ARB Approval requirements. (Section 32.5.6 n)
18. Indicate traffic generation has been or will be addressed with Engineering. (Section 32.5.6 q)
Regarding the site plan and the ZMA, please confirm that the conditions of the 11/21/07 letter from
Claudette Grant regarding the ZMA 06 -14 has been addressed or will be addressed prior to final
approval.
a. Parking with overhang will be addressed.
b. Landscape Plan must match approved ARB plan. Confirm plantings are allowed by the RWSA
if in their easement.
c. A parking modification was required for the number of spaces indicated in the Code of
Development (COD).
d. The sewer service shall connect to the existing manhole — c(XU
e. Entrance concerns shall be addressed by providing: 1. drawing showing all lanes at intersection,
2. sight lines; and 3. left turn in shall be at northern most end.
RWSA approval of improvements that occur within their easement.
g. Indicate limitations on uses in accord with the COD.
h. Bus shelter will be built by owner at a location approved at a later date.
i. Indicate all easements on Olans.
The ZMA file notes indicate that inter - parcel connectivity was discussed as part of the ZMA, but it
was superseded by the importance of preserving the critical slopes and existing vegetation in the
watershed.
cents from Engineering are listed below. Before engineering can recommend approval the following
nust be addressed:
21
Caf
22
23
It is difficult to distinguish between proposed and existing features on this plan, please provide line
shading or another mechanism to "lowlight" the existing features.
Please include a conceptual stormwater management plan in the preliminary site plan. Show
boundaries of drainage areas and location of proposed detention facilities. What is the proposed
15 -inch storm sewer pipe outletting to? Because this property is in the rural area, no removal rate
credit will be given. Engineering anticipates that 2 Filterra units will not be enough to achieve the
required removal rate for this highly impervious site. [18- 32.5.6.s]
Please show the traffic lane lines on Hydraulic and Georgetown roads. [18- 32.5.6.s]
If a construction easement will be required to build the proposed retaining wall next to TMP 60F -1,
please show the easement on this plan.
y
24. Please show the necessary grading required to construct a shallow - Oping spot in the Conservation
Area for the picnic tables. , C''*KA ((j, „„ (, +itz Ian cw L
25. The existing 8 -inch ACSA waterline shown along the southern edge of the property does not
appear to be within the existing 12 -foot Utility Easement. Please verify that this waterline is in an
existing easement or provide a new easement. apt/b h Gn FWOL j6p LO emx
26. VDOT approval is required for any work affecting the public right -of -way.
27. More comments may be necessary upon resubmittal.
Please contact Lisa Glass, Planner, or Amy Pflaum, Engineer, at the Department of Community
Development 296 -5832 for further information, ext 3432 for Lisa and ext 3244.for Amy.
Application #: SDP200800064 —Short Review Com,,-,ants
Project Name: Georgetown /Hydraulic Professional Offices - Prel Preliminary — Non - residential
Date Completed: 05,'05/2008
Reviewer: Amy Pflaum Engineer Z &CD
Review Status: Pending
Reviews Comments SRC Meeting 5/8/08
Date Completed: 05/02/2008
Reviewer: Andrew Slack E911
Review Status: No Objection
Reviews Comments: NO OBJECTION.
Date Completed:0501!2008
Reviewer:Brent Nelson ARB
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:The ARB last reviewed this proposal on March 5, 2007. The posted Action Letter was sent to the
applicant outlining revisions needed for approval of the Final Site Development/Building proposal. An
ARB submission addressing requested revisions has not been received.
Date Completed:04/25,
Reviewer:Claudette Grant Planning
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:1) All the proffers are not shown on Sheet 1 of 3 and they should be.
2) Particular attention should be paid to proffer 4.
3) The existing conditions shown on Sheet 2 of 3 is not the one shown in the approved BOS plans.
There is a slight change in the conservation /preservation boundary that is shown on the Preliminary
site plan, and should be shown on the existing conditions plan as well.
Date Completed:04/28/2008
Reviewer:Joan McDowell Planning
Review Status:Pending
Reviews Comments:The existing zoning is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation. No
properties containing conservation easements or properties located within Agricultural/ Forestal
Districts are in this area.
Date Completed:05105,'2008
Reviewer:Jay Schlothauer Inspections
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments.Based on plans dated April 15, 2008.
Due to the total number of parking spaces ( >50), there must be three barrier -free parking spaces.
Show another barrier -free parking space and associated access aisle.
Page: 1.00 County of Albemarle Printed On Tuesday, May 06, 2008
Application #: SDP200800064 'Short Review Com rmL'nts
J Hydraulic Professional Offices - Prel Preliminary - Non - residentialProjectName:'Georgetown /
Date Completed:05/05/2008
Reviewer:Amy Pflaum Engineer Z &CD
Review Status:Pending
Reviews Comments:SRC Meeting 5/8/08
Date Completed:05/02/2008
Reviewer:Andrew Slack E911
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:NO OBJECTION.
Date Completed:05/01/2008
Reviewer:Brent Nelson ARB
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:The ARB last reviewed this proposal on March 5, 2007. The posted Action Letter was sent to the
applicant outlining revisions needed for approval of the Final Site Development/Building proposal. An
ARB submission addressing requested revisions has not been received.
Date Completed:04/25/2008
Reviewer:Claudette Grant Planning
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:1) All the proffers are not shown on Sheet 1 of 3 and they should be.
2) Particular attention should be paid to proffer 4.
3) The existing conditions shown on Sheet 2 of 3 is not the one shown in the approved BOS plans.
There is a slight change in the conservation /preservation boundary that is shown on the Preliminary
site plan, and should shown on the existing conditions plan as well.
Date Completed:04/28/2008
Reviewer:Joan McDowell Planning
Review Status:Pending
Reviews Comments:The existing zoning is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation. No
properties containing conservation easements or properties located within Agricultural /Forestal
Districts are in this area.
Date Completed:05/05/2008
Reviewer:Jay Schlothauer Inspections
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:Based on plans dated April 15, 2008.
Due to the total number of parking spaces ( >50), there must be three barrier -free parking spaces.
Show another barrier-free space and associated access aisle.
Page: 1.00 County of Albemarle Printed On: Thursday, May 08, 2008
Application # IZMA200600014
Project Name ,Professional Office Building at Hydraulic & Georgetown Roads
Application Type (Zoning Map Amendment
Tax Map Parcel
Project Description
TMP
Proffer
Status
I060FO -00 -00 -00300
ZMA198200006
ZMA199400022
ARB200000042PS
PROJECT MA 2006 -14 /Professional Office Building at Hydraulic & Georgetown Rds ) ARB 9
I PROPOSAL: Rezone 1 051 acres from C-1 Commercial zoning district which allows retail sales and service
use
uses; and
Z M A200600014residentialbyspecialusepermit (15 units/ acre) to NMD Neighborhood Model District zoning district which allows residential
I (3 - 34 units /acre) mixed with commercial, service and industrial uses Approx. 20,000 sq ft building.
PROFFERS' Yes 1ARB200600118EXISTINGCOMPREHENSIVEPLANLANDUSE /DENSITY. Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural, Forestal, open space,
and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density ( 5 urnt /acre) ARB200700008ENTRANCECORRIDOR. Yes
LOCATION: Southwest corner of Georgetown /Hydraulic Roads intersection
TAX MAP /PARCEL' 60 F S /3 C '' D P200800064MAGISTERIALDISTRICT' Jack Jouet[ v
I
R Coordinator Site Inspector Date Assigned Entered By: Ron Higgins on 0210412008
I
Claudette Grant Unassigned
Reviewer ID Submittal Type
Zoning Map Amendmentnn-
Group or Agency
Building Code Zoning
Status
No Objection
Received
01/29/2008
Due
102/05/2008
Completed
02/04/2008RonHiggins
Ron Higgins Zoning Map Amendm Building Code Zon No Objection 01/29/2008 02/05/2008 02/04/2008
Ron Higgins Zoning Map Amendm Building Code Zon Pending 12/11/2007 01/02/2008 01/03/2008
John Shepherd Zoning Map Amendm Admin Zoning Rev No Objection 12/11/2007 01/02/2008 01/03/2008
Claudette Grant Zoning Map Amendm Planning Pending 12/11/2007 01/02/2008 02/12/2008
Jack Kelsey Zoning Map Amendm CDCO No Objection 10/29/2007 11/12/2007 11/26/2007
Ron Higgins Zoning Map Amendm Building Code Zon Pending 10/29/2007 11/12/2007 11/02/2007
John Shepherd Zoning Map Amendm Planner Z &CD Pending 10/29/2007 11/12/2007 11/01/2007
Brent Nelson Zoning Map Amendm ARB No Objection 10/29/2007 11/12/2007 11/06/2007
James Barber Zoning Map Amendm Fire Rescue No Objection 10/24/2007 11/06/2007 11/05/2007
Brent Nelson Zoning Map Amendm ARB Requested Changes 10/23/2007 11/06/2007 11/06/2007
Jack Kelsey Zoning Map Amendm CDCO Pending 10/23/2007 11/06/2007
Ron Higgins Zoning Map Amendm Building Code Zon Pending 10/23/2007 11/06/2007 11/06/2007
John Shepherd Zoning Map Amendm Planner Z &CD Pending 10/23/2007 11/06/2007 11/21/2007
Claudette Grant Zoning Map Amendm Planning Pending 10/23/2007 11/06/2007 11/26/2007
Ron Higgins Zoning Map Amendm Building Code Zon Pending 09/04/2007 09/04/2007 09/04/2007
John Shepherd Zoning Map Amendm Admin Zoning Rev Pending 08/21/2007 09/04/2007 09/09/2007
Claudette Grant Zoning Map Amendm Planning Pending 08/21/2007 09/04/2007 09/24/2007
James Barber Zoning Map Amendm Fire Rescue No Objection 08/22/2007 09/04/2007 08/31/2007
Jack Kelsey Zoning Map Amendm CDCO Requested Changes 08/21/2007 09/04/2007 09/14/2007
Tamara Ambler No Submittal Type SE Planning No Objection 08/20/2007 09/03/2007 08/31/2007
Jack Kelsey Zoning Map Amendm CDCO Requested Changes 03/26/2007 04/09/2007 04/10/2007
Bill Fritz Zoning Map Amendm Planner Z &CD Pending 03/26/2007 04/09/2007 04/16/2007
John Shepherd Zoning Map Amendm CDZCD Pending 03/26/2007 04/09/2007 04/12/2007
Claudette Gra Zoning Map Amendm Plann Pendi 03/2 04/09/2007 04/12/2007
Document Review Title (Review Documents will also show on the Web)
NOW
Existing Review Docs
Comments: The box below Is meant for short comments.
The corrections have been made to the code of development to address my comment of 1/3/08
All Applications: IZMA198100007
r
Date Sent
Application # IZMA200600014 All Applications: ZMA198100007
Project Name Professional Office Building at Hydraulic & Georgetown Roads Z
Application Type Zoning Map Amendment J
Date
Tax Map Parcel 060FO -0 - 00 -00300
Grant on 1212012007
PROJECT ZMA 2006 -14 /Professional Office Building at Hydraulic & Georgetown ResProjectDescriptionjPROPOSALRezone1.051 acres from C-1 Commercial zoning district which allows retail sales and service uses, and
Submittal Typey
Zoning Map Amendment
Zoning Map Amendm
residential use by special use permit (15 units/ acre) to NMD Neighborhood Model District zoning district which allows residential
Status
Pending
No Objection
3 - 34 units /acre) mixed with commercial, service and industrial uses. Approx 20,000 sq ft building
Due
01/02/2008
02/05/2008
PROFFERS' Yes
Ron Higgins
EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE /DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space,
02/04/2008
and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density ( 5 unit /acre)
Zoning Map Amendm
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR. Yes
Pending
LOCATION' Southwest corner of Georgetown /Hydrauli Roads Intersection
01/02/2008
TAX MAP /PARCEL' 50F/3
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, Jack Jouett
TMP
Proffer
Status
ZMA199400022
ARB200000042PS
ARB200000059
ZMA200600014
IARB200600118
ARB200700008
SDP200800064
Review Coordinator Site Inspector
Unassigned
Date Assigned j Entered By: Claudette Grant on 1212012007
Claudette Grant
Reviewer ID Submittal Typey
Zoning Map Amendment
Zoning Map Amendm
Group or AgencyP9Y
Building Code Zoning
Building Code Zon
Status
Pending
No Objection
Received
12/11/2007
01/29/2008
Due
01/02/2008
02/05/2008
Completed
01/03/2008RonHiggins
Ron Higgins 02/04/2008
Ron Higgins Zoning Map Amendm Building Code Zon Pending 12/11/2007 01/02/2008 01/03/2008
John Shepherd Zoning Map Amendm Admin Zoning Rev No Objection 12/11/2007 01/02/2008 01/03/2008
Claudette Grant Zoning Map Amendm Planning Pending 12/11/2007 01/02/2008 02/12/2008
Jack Kelsey Zoning Map Amendm CDCO No Objection 10/29/2007 11/12/2007 11/26/2007
Ron Higgins Zoning Map Amendm Building Code Zon Pending 10/29/2007 11/12/2007 11/02/2007
John Shepherd Zoning Map Amendm Planner Z &CD Pending 10/29/2007 11/12/2007 11/01/2007
Brent Nelson Zoning Map Amendm ARB No Objection 10/29/2007 11/12/2007 11/06/2007
James Barber Zoning Map Amendm Fire Rescue No Objection 10/24/2007 11/06/2007 11/05/2007
Brent Nelson Zoning Map Amendm ARB Requested Changes 10/23/2007 11/06/2007 11/06/2007
Jack Kelsey Zoning Map Amendm CDCO Pending 10/23/2007 11/06/2007
Ron Higgins Zoning Map Amendm Building Code Zon Pending 10/23/2007 11/06/2007 11/06/2007
John Shepherd Zoning Map Amendm Planner Z &CD Pending 10/23/2007 11/06/2007 11/21/2007
Claudette Grant Zoning Map Amendm Planning Pending 10/23/2007 11/06/2007 11/26/2007
Ron Higgins Zoning Map Amendm Building Code Zon Pending 09/04/2007 09/04/2007 09/04/2007
John Shepherd Zoning Map Amendm Admin Zoning Rev Pending 08/21/2007 09/04/2007 09/09/2007
Claudette Grant Zoning Map Amendm Planning Pending 08/21/2007 09/04/2007 09/24/2007
James Barber Zoning Map Amendm Fire Rescue No Objection 08/22/2007 09/04/2007 08/31/2007
Jack Kelsey Zoning Map Amendm CDCO Requested Changes 08/21/2007 09/04/2007 09/14/2007
Tamara Ambler No Submittal Type SE Planning No Objection 08/20/2007 09/03/2007 08/31/2007
Jack Kelsey Zoning Map Amendm CDCO Requested Changes 03/26/2007 04/09/2007 04/10/2007
Bill Fritz Zoning Map Amendm Planner Z &CD Pending 03/26/2007 04/09/2007 04/16/2007
John Shepherd Zoning Map Amendm CDZCD Pending 03/26/2007 04/09/2007 04/12/2007
Claudette Grant Zoning Amendm Planning Pending 03 /26 / 2007 04/ 09/2007 04/12/2007
Document Review Title (Review Documents will also show on the Web)
Existing Review Docs
Comments: The box below is meant for short comments.
My previous comments have been addressed appropriately. However, the latest Application &
Code of Development, dated November 30, 2007, keeps referring to the required number of
parking spaces as 43, when it is actually 48 (9,558 sq. ft./200 =48). This should be corrected in
the documents. The plans show it correctly.
Date Sent
9
J TL l!'
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832
May 5, 2008
Chris Kabbage
PO Box 496
Charlottesville, VA, 22902
Fax(434)972 -4126
RE: SDP - 2008 -00064 Preliminary Site Plan for Georgetown - Hydraulic Professional Offices
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 Division of Planning (Principle Planner ARB)
Albemarle County Division of Planning (Principle Planner Rural Area)
Albemarle County Division of Inspections (Building Official)
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT).
Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA).
Albemarle County Fire and Rescue.
Albemarle County Geographic and Data Services (GDS)
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 Monday May 19, 2008. 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,
Lisa (glass Planner
County of Albemarle Department of Community Development, Current Development Division
434 -296- 5832,ext.3432
CC: Tom Muncaster, DDR, by e -mail
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Tom Muncaster, Plan preparer, (fax 434- 979 -8121)
Chris Kabbash, Primary Contact, (fax 434 -817 -0251)
From: Lisa Glass, Planner/ Amy Pflaum, Engineer
Division: Zoning & Current Development
Date: May 6, 2008
Subject: SDP- 08 -64 Preliminary Site Plan for Georgetown - Hydraulic Professional Offices
The Planner /Engineer for the Zoning & Current Development Division of the Albemarle County
Department Community Development will recommend approve the plan referred to above 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 Albemarle County Code.]
1. The site plan must match the approved ARB Plan.
2. Describe all variances: The topo indicates a critical slope waiver is required. (Section 32.5.6 a)
Please include all proffers on the title page; complete proffer 3 and add proffer 4. (Section 32.5.6 a,
see ZMA 06 -14)
4. Modify the existing conditions page to show the extent of the conservation and preservation
easements; they should match those shown on the approved ZMA06 -14 application plan on sheet 4
of 4 titled "Existing /Conservation & Preservation Areas ", by Dominion Development Resources
revised 2/25/08. (Section 32.5.6 a and ZMA 06 -14)
5. Show diameters of all trees to be removed in the conservation easement. (Section 32.5.6 a and
ZMA 06 -14)
6. Show on the landscape plan the number of trees in the conservation easement to be removed that
are 12- inches or greater, as well as the number and type of trees to be replanted in the conservation
easement per Proffer 4. The goal is to have two new 2.5 -inch (minimum) trees replanted for each
tree removed greater than 12 inches. (Section 32.5.6 a and ZMA 06 -14)
7. Please add a note regarding the front setbacks are in accord with the approved ZMA Code of
Development.(Section 32.5.6 a and ZMA 06 -14)
8. Please add maximum square footage of commercial to match the ZMA. ZMA states 9,516 sf net.
Section 32.5.6 b and ZMA 06 -14)
9. Please add a note on the parking schedule regarding the status of the Parking Modification,
obtained or under review. (Section 32.5.6 b.) (Section 32.5.6 a and ZMA 06 -14)
10. Add a note that the loading space is in accord with the ZMA. (Sewn 32.5.6 a and ZMA 06 -14)
11. Landscape plan is required. Show the conditions for Proffer 4, note 6 above, and match the ARB
approved plan. (Section 32.5.6 a and e)
12. ACSA easement shown at south property line as 12 feet wide; is this correct? Please add
dimension for the RWSA water line easement along the road frontage. (Section 32.5.6 j)
13. Show dumpster enclosure dimensions. (Section 32.5.6 n)
14. Show sidewalk dimension adjacent to parking area. (Section 32.5.6 n)
15. Show outdoor lighting or indicate there is none.(Section 32.5.6 n)
16. Clarify where existing sidewalk is to be removed at the proposed entrance. (Section 32.5.6 n)
17. Note that the sign indicated will meet ARB Approval requirements. (Section 32.5.6 n)
18. Indicate traffic generation has been or will be addressed with Engineering. (Section 32.5.6 q)
19. Regarding the site plan and the ZMA, please confirm that the conditions of the 11/21/07 letter from
Claudette Grant regarding the ZMA 06 -14 has been addressed or will be addressed prior to final
approval.
a. Parking with overhang will be addressed.
b. Landscape Plan must match approved ARB plan. Confirm plantings are allowed by the RWSA
if in their easement.
c. A parking modification was required for the number of spaces indicated in the Code of
Development (COD).
d. The sewer service shall connect to the existing manhole
e. Entrance concerns shall be addressed by providing: 1. drawing showing all lanes at intersection,
2. sight lines; and 3. left turn in shall be at northern most end.
f. RWSA approval of improvements that occur within their easement.
g. Indicate limitations on uses in accord with the COD.
h. Bus shelter will be built by owner at a location approved at a later date.
i. Indicate all easements on plans.
The ZMA file notes indicate that inter - parcel connectivity was discussed as part of the ZMA, but it
was superseded by the importance of preserving the critical slopes and existing vegetation in the
watershed.
Conmients from Engineering are listed below. Before engineering can recommend approval the following
items must be addressed:
20. It is difficult to distinguish between proposed and existing features on this plan, please provide line
shading or another mechanism to "lowlight" the existing features.
21. Please include a conceptual storrnwater management plan in the preliminary site plan. Show
boundaries of drainage areas and location of proposed detention facilities. What is the proposed
15 -inch storm sewer pipe outletting to? Because this property is in the rural area, no removal rate
credit will be given. Engineering anticipates that 2 Filterra units will not be enough to achieve the
required removal rate for this highly impervious site. [18- 32.5.6.s]
22. Please show the traffic lane lines on Hydraulic and Georgetown roads. [18- 32.5.6.s]
23. If a construction easement will be required to build the proposed retaining wall next to TMP 60F -1,
please show the easement on this plan.
24. Please show the necessary grading required to construct a shallow- ssfoping spot in the ConservationAreaforthepicnictables.
25. The existing 8 -inch ACSA waterline shown along the southern edge of the property does not
appear to be within the existing 12 -foot Utility Easement. Please verify that this waterline is in an
existing easement or provide a new easement.
26. VDOT approval is required for any work affecting the public right -of -way.
27. More comments may be necessary upon resubmittal.
Please contact Lisa Glass, Planner, or Amy Pflaum, Engineer, at the Department of ConnnunityDevelopment296 -5832 for further information, ext 3432 for Lisa and ext 3244.for Amy.
Application #: SDP200800064 - Short Review Comirrants
Project Name : Georgetown /Hydraulic Professional Offices - Prel Preliminary -Non- residential
Date Completed:05/05/2008
Reviewer:Amy Pflaum Engineer Z &CD
Review Status:Pending
Reviews Comments:SRC Meeting 5/8/08
Date Completed:05/02/2008
Reviewer:Andrew Slack E911
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:NO OBJECTION.
Date Completed:05/01/2008
Reviewer:Brent Nelson ARB
Review Status:Requested Changes
ITheReviewsComments:ARB last reviewed this proposal on March 5, 2007. The posted Action Letter was sent to the
applicant outlining revisions needed for approval of the Final Site Development/Building proposal.An
IARB_submission addressing requested revisions has not been received.
Date Completed:04/25/2008
Reviewer:Claudette Grant Planning
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:1) All the proffers are not shown on Sheet 1 of 3 and they should be.
2) Particular attention should be paid to proffer 4.
3) The existing conditions shown on Sheet 2 of 3 is not the one shown in the approved BOS plans.
There is a slight change in the conservation /preservation boundary that is shown on the Preliminary
site plan, and should be shown on the existing conditions plan as well.
Date Completed:04/28/2008
Reviewer:Joan McDowell Planning
Review Status:Pending
Reviews Comments:iThe existing zoning is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation. No d
properties containing conservation easements or properties located within Agricultural /Forestal
Districts are in this area.
Date Completed:05/05/2008
Reviewer:Jay Schlothauer Inspections
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:Based on plans dated April 15, 2008.
Due to the total number of parking spaces ( >50), there must be three barrier -free parking spaces.
Show another barrier -free parking space and associated access aisle.
Page: 1.00 County of Albemarle Printed On: Tuesday, May 06, 2008
iF 4 /.liF,1
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Lisa K. Glass, Current Development Project Planner
From: Amy Pflaum, Current Development Engineering Review
Date: 5 May 2008
Subject: Georgetown / Hydraulic Professional Offices (SDP -2008- 00066)
The preliminary site plan for Georgetown / Hydraulic Professional Offices has been reviewed. Before
engineering can recommend approval the following items must be addressed:
1. It is difficult to distinguish between proposed and existing features on this plan, please provide
line shading or another mechanism to "lowlight" the existing features.
2. Please include a conceptual stormwater management plan in the preliminary site plan. Show
boundaries of drainage areas and location of proposed detention facilities. What is the proposed
15 -inch storm sewer pipe outletting to? Because this property is in the rural area, no removal rate
credit will be given. Engineering anticipates that 2 Filterra units will not be enough to achieve the
required removal rate for this highly impervious site. [18- 32.5.6.s]
3. Please show the traffic lane lines on Hydraulic and Georgetown roads. [18- 32.5.6.s]
4. If a construction easement will be required to build the proposed retaining wall next to TMP 60E-
1, please show the easement on this plan.
Please show the necessary grading required to construct a shallow - sloping spot in the Conservation
Area for the picnic tables.
6. The existing 8 -inch ACSA waterline shown along the southern edge of the property does not
appear to be within the existing 12 -foot Utility Easement. Please verify that this waterline is in an
existing easement or provide a new easement.
7. VDOT approval is required for any work affecting the public right -of -way.
8. More comments may be necessary upon resubmittal.
I
JC.
i
4
1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone(434)296 -5832 Fax(434)972 -4126
To: Lisa K. Glass, Principal Planner
From: Amy Pflaum, Engineering Review
Subject: SDP - 2008 - 00064, Georgetown- Hydraulic Professional Offices,
Dumpster Pad Waiver Request
Date received: 19 May 2008
Date of Comment: 2 June 2008
The applicant has requested a waiver of the requirement of Section 4.12.13.e of the Albemarle County
Zoning Ordinance.
Section 4.12.13.e of the Ordinance states that "Each site plan that depicts a commercial or industrial
building of four thousand (4,000) gross square feet or more shall provide a dumpster pad ..."
Section 4.12.13.f of the Ordinance provides for the waiver of Section 4.12.13.e if "The zoning
administrator, in consultation with the county engineer, finds that (1) the public health, safety or
welfare would be equally or better served by the modification or waiver; (2) that the modification
or waiver would not be a departure from sound engineering and design practice; and (3) that the
modification or waiver would not otherwise be contrary to the purpose and intent of this chapter.
The engineering analysis of the requests is as follows:
Waiver of the requirement of the Zoning Ordinance section 4.12.13.e:
The applicant states that trash generated within the proposed office building will be collected
internally and taken off -site by an office cleaning agency. No external dumpster will be used, and
therefore, no dumpster pad is required in the parking lot.
Engineering presumes that the public health, safety and welfare would be equally served by trash
being collected inside the building and taken off -site as an alternative to an external dumpster. This is
not a departure from sound engineering practices.
If no external dumpster is to be on the site, then Engineering concludes that no dumpster pad is
necessary in the parking lot. Should the applicant determine the need for an external dumpster at a
later time, a dumpster pad will be required then.
The intent of the chapter is to require orderly disposal of trash generated within the proposed building.
So long as the applicant has secured alternate means of trash disposal, the waiver request is not
contrary to the Ordinance.
Engineering recommends approval to this waiver request.
u, '
W
Jt .
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Lisa K. Glass, Current Development Project Planner
From: Amy Pflaum, Current Development Engineering Review
Date: 5 May 2008
REV #1 Comments: 2 June 2008
Subject: Georgetown / Hydraulic Professional Offices (SDP -2008- 00066)
The preliminary site plan for Georgetown / Hydraulic Professional Offices has been reviewed. Before
engineering can recommend approval the following items must be addressed:
1. It is difficult to distinguish between proposed and existing features on this plan, please provide
line shading or another mechanism to "lowlighf" the existing features.
REV #1: It appears that the existing sidewalk will remain all along the property, other than in the area
of the proposed curb cut and taper lane at the proposed entrance. With the addition of the 9' sidewalk,
there will be 15' of concrete sidewalk fronting the length of the site on Hydraulic Road. This will
need to be graphically clarified and detailed information regarding the proposed curb cut will be
required on the Final Site Plan.
2. Please include a conceptual stormwater management plan in the preliminary site plan. Show
boundaries of drainage areas and location of proposed detention facilities. What is the proposed
15 -inch storm sewer pipe outletting to? Because this property is in the rural area, no removal rate
credit will be given. Engineering anticipates that 2 Filterra units will not be enough to achieve the
required removal rate for this highly impervious site. [18- 32.5.6.s]
REV # 1 : Although your comment response letter states that drainage areas are shown on the site plan,
I am unable to find them. I refer you to the Albemarle County Design Standards Manual for the
requirements of a "conceptual" stormwater plan:
T .Stornn'ater nlclll Wenlent Design Plans:
1. Prehllllnal')': C onCeptllal stornlu'ater 111allewelnent is requiredl to he shown on prelnlnnar,v
Mats and preliminur .site plcrizs.
a. The c'onc'ept plan nrllst include the target removal rate each clrainag area...
No further information has been provided regarding the flow from the 15" outlet pipe. Please
demonstrate that this flow is being released into an adequate downstream channel. Please provide any
easements necessary (or letters of intent from neighboring property owners) to convey this flow to such
channel.
Also, it has been confirmed with Albemarle County's Development Areas Principal Planner, Elaine
Echols, that this parcel of land is not within the Development Area.
3. Please show the traffic lane lines on Hydraulic and Georgetown roads. [18- 32.5.6.s]
REV # 1 : Traffic lanes have been added to the plan. VDOT has also required that details of turn
movements, storage lengths, and existing and projected traffic volumes be added. Please see VDOT
Current Development
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 2
comments from the May 8, 2008 Site Review Meeting.
More detailed information regarding the proposed curb cut, including turning movements, lane widths
and spot elevations will be required on the Final Site Plan.
4. If construction easement will be required to build the proposed retaining wall next to TMP 60E-
1, please show the easement on this plan.
REV #1 : Comment has been noted by applicant.
5. Please show the necessary grading required to construct a shallow- sloping spot in the Conservation
Area for the picnic tables.
REV 41 : Comment has been addressed.
6. The existing 8 -inch ACSA waterline shown along the southern edge of the property does not
appear to be within the existing 12 -foot Utility Easement. Please verify that this waterline is in an
existing easement or provide a new easement.
REV fl : Comment has been noted. Applicant is working with ACSA regarding the waterline and
easement.
7. VDOT approval is required for any work affecting the public right -of -way.
REV # 1 : Please see VDOT comments from the May 8, 2008 Site Review Meeting.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper, Virginia 22701
David S. Ekern, P.E.
VirginiaDOT org
COMMISSIONER
May 7, 2008
Mr. Glenn Brooks
Department of Engineering and Development
401 McIntire Rd.
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Subject: Site Review Meeting Comments May 8, 2008 site review meeting
Dear Mr. Brooks:
Below are VDOT's comments on the Site Plans for the May 8, 2008 Site Review Committee
Meeting:
SDP- 2008 -00059 Olinva and sons- Ma_ior (Megan Yaniglos)
No comments
SDP- 2008 - 00060 First Church of the Nazarene — Preliminary (Summer Frederick)
VDOT has previously reviewed the configuration and location of the turn land and
entrance and it does appear to be in accordance with past meetings and comments from
VDOT.
The construction of VDOT project 0022- 002 -104 will begin May 12 °i , 2008. This plan
needs to, and appears to be, designed to the changes by the intersection project. Final
plans should show the proposed intersection project and how the proposed turn lane and
entrance will tie in to that project. VDOT has provided the developer the survey data and
that needs to be shown on the final plan.
SDP - 2008 -00061 Easrlysville Business Park -Final (Summer Frederick)
The sag vertical curve at station 21 +44 needs to have a minimum k value of 17.
Outlet protection at Al should be class II rip rap
SDP- 2008 -00064 Georgetown/Hydraulic Professional Offices - Preliminary (Lisa Glass)
Previous comments have been made for ZMA- 2006 -00014 that still need to be addressed
and are:
vEsRS OP
Tit AN §PfkR7AfFq## E3[ELTENf
q 1 6 2 0 0 6
This plan must be coordinated with the VDOT project for Georgetown Road. The project
manager has been forwarded a copy of this plan. The applicants engineer should contact
VDOT for coordination.
It is very undesirable to have the entrance in the functional area of the intersection,
however, a previous meeting with the engineer and the county determined that this is the
best solution at this site for Hydraulic Road. The only other option is to access the site
from Georgetown Road.
The plan needs to show the intersection of 656 and 743 and show details of turn
movements, lane widths, storage lengths, etc. All projected and existing traffic needs to
be shown on the plan.
Si-ht lines need to be shown for the entrance to the site and also for the existing
intersection at 656/743.
Vehicles heading northbound on Hydraulic trying to turn left into the site is a dangerous
situation and needs to be addressed with the site plan.
Proposed traffic needs to be shown on the site plan to determine is a Chapter 527 study
needs to be done.
SDP - 2008 -00065 Moser Radiation Therapy Ctr- Ma_ior (Gerald Gatobu)
LTACH access management plan should be completed prior to any site plan approvals.
SDP- 2008 -00066 Hunters Way Site Plan Amendment- Ma_ior (Lisa K Glass)
The plan needs to include calculations for outlet velocity on YD l and outlet protection
details. Also include ditch calculations.
SUB- 2008 -00102 Handley Farm Estates(10 -19) lots -Final (Megan Yaniglos)
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, Sumner Frederick, Patrick
Lawrence, and John Giometti
C'ountl of AllMmarle
Deportment of Community Development
Memorandum
1W four Muncastcr, Plan preparer, (tat 434- 979 -S1 »1)
Chris Kabbash, Primary Contact. (fax 434 -`;1' -1)251 )
From: Lisa Glass. Pl mnerr Anl, Pllaum. I n` *inter
Di -, ision:Zoning hz Current Detc [op,ncnt tF
s
Date: `alas 6. 2005
Subject: SDP- 0S -64 Preli €ninwy Sitc Plan for 4RoTeMwn4JQauHe ProNs• omd (tlfices
Yhe Phulner E:nghner tilt the LunhW ,,'- Current DeN elopinctlt Dk ision of the Albemarle COLIWt ,
Department Community Dcticlopnlcnt will recommend apprm c the Matt referred to above when the
lillo"in itcn2, h:ltic been sati,tactcril} addressed. ( Che ttlllowinz comments are those that We been
identified at this time. Additional arrunews ,or conditions Isla} be added or eliminated hascd on further
re% Owl [Lath continent is preceded by the applicable reference to the Albemarle Cotult C'ode.I
1. I he site plan must nmWh tltc aMmn eel ARB Plan.
P . V /" ». Describe all variances: 'J he tofu indicates a critical slope tivailer is rctluiod.(Svction 3».5.6 a)r.>
3j Please Wekidct all proffers on the title pag, emnplctc proffer 3 and add proffer -I. (Section 3».5.6 a,
see /-lA 06 -14)
ModiI'v the existing conditions page to shoee tilt extent o Ct ilt conscrkation and preservation
casement,: they should match those shown on the approted Z IAt}6 -1-1 application plan on sheet 4
of 4 titled "I xlsting ('tonscnailon A: Presenatton Arcas ", by G undon Delctopnwnt Resources
Lk rctiiscd 2 25 O.S. (Section 315.6 a and /%MA ()() 14)
Shoe Tanleters of all trees to he ruts"cd in the anon%wOn casement. (Section 32 .5.6 a and
IA 00 -141
6, Slim on dic landscape plan the number of trec, in the conscn alioll c.isenlclu tt) be rc_lno ed that
l ,• are I »- inches or +greater. a;, well as the number anti t_ypc Ott tree, to he rcplantcd in the consen atltln
casement per Proffer 4. Ile goal is to haN c i "o new Winch { nlinirnunl) trees replanted tier cash
tree remt»ed gown than i» inches. tScction 3_'0.h a anti /%I,I iih -l-l)
6 7. I'leasc add a note regarding the front setbacks arc in accord will the approved ZNIA Code of
DeN 6 1pineut. (Sect ion 313.0 a and /MA 0K, -14) C*q
1'Icase add naavilt?ltnl square hOohTe ol'anlnlercial to Inatill the /NIA. /MA: ,tates 9,316 sf nct. `
t (Scction 32.5.6 h and /NJ \ 06 - 14)
y - `Please add a none on the parking schedule regarding the status of dw Parking, \toclifi.eation.. \1ISc -, .
Vl
cthTainet2 t: +r tinder rClt <'«. ( 3 - 1 .5.0 l?.) (SCcTiilt'i 3 »..6 <i and /:yJ:1 {!6- l-1)
Lau WC( i, Pjfar'fi— 5 , 1 " t "
t_ `
99
J l 2 .1(x' Ltk1 ( i3ow jV C3 Cb,4 ` rL SC fiet & L,
24. Pk:asc show the necessary grading required to construct it shallcnv- sloping : >pc in the Cons'crvatiOil
ArCFi for the picnic tables.
ti. The existing $ - inch _EC'SA waterline shown along the southern edge of the property does not
appear tv be iithin t}te exi ling 1 -trot L tility l-alentent. Please verity that this tatertitic is in an
elistinL,r easement or prof ide a new easement.
fit;. b fit T approval is required for any work aftectin the public right -of -% av,
lore couiunetits may he' necessary upon resuhmittal,
Please contact Liszt Class, Planner, or Amy Pflautri. I_ngineer. at the I)epatIme.rtt Ot'Ct ,VIII .pity
l)el elopment 296 -5N Cor furtlicr information, ell 3- fOr ! -isa and cxt 32-44,for Amv.
1
I IN 1A
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
16301 Orange Road
ulpF per, VFr,ginia 22701
David S. Ekern, P.E.
VirginiaDGT „ig
COMMISSIONER
May 7, 2008
Mr. Glenn Brooks
Department of Engineering and Development
401 McIntire Rd.
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Subject: Site Review Meeting Comments May 8, 2008 site review meeting
Dear Mr. Brooks:
r
y1
Below are VDOT's comments on the Site Plans for the May 8, 2008 Site Review Committee
Meeting:
SDP -2008 -00059 Olinva and sons- Ma_ior (Meman Yaniglos)
No comments
SDP -2008 -00060 First Church of the Nazarene — Preliminary (Summer Frederick)
VDOT has previously reviewed the configuration and location of the turn land and
entrance and it does appear to be in accordance with past meetings and comments from
VDOT.
The construction of VDOT project 0022 - 002 -104 will begin May 12 2008. This plan
needs to, and appears to be, designed to the changes by the intersection project. Final
plans should show the proposed intersection project and how the proposed turn lane and
entrance will tie in to that project. VDOT has provided the developer the survey data and
that needs to be shown on the final plan.
SDP- 2008 -00061 Easrlysville Business Park -Final (Summer Frederick)
The sag vertical curve at station 21 +44 needs to have a minimum k value of 17.
Outlet protection at A I should be class II rip tap
SDP - 2008 -00064 Geormetown /Hydraulic Professional Offices - Preliminary (Lisa Glass)
Previous comments have been made for ZMA -2006 -00014 that still need to be addressed
and are:
vEAPtS LtF
TRAfiSP4RTATtCs EXCE4Lt Nf£
This plan must be coordinated with the VDOT project for Georgetown Road. The project
manager has been forwarded a copy of this plan. The applicants engineer should contact
VDOT for coordination.
It is very undesirable to have the entrance in the functional area of the intersection,
however, a previous meeting with the engineer and the county determined that this is the
best solution at this site for Hydraulic Road. The only other option is to access the site
from Georgetown Road.
The plan needs to show the intersection of 656 and 743 and show details of turn
movements, lane widths, storage lengths, etc. All projected and existing traffic needs to
be shown on the plan.
Sight lines need to be shown for the entrance to the site and also for the existing
intersection at 656/743.
Vehicles heading northbound on Hydraulic trying to turn left into the site is a dangerous
situation and needs to be addressed with the site plan.
Proposed traffic needs to be shown on the site plan to determine is a Chapter 527 study
needs to be done.
SDP - 2008- 00065N1oser Radiation Therapy Or-Major (Gerald Gatobu)
LTACH access management plan should be completed prior to any site plan approvals.
SDP- 2008 -00066 Hunters Wav Site Plan Amendment - Maior (Lisa K Glass)
The plan needs to include calculations for outlet velocity on YD 1 and outlet protection
details. Also include ditch calculations.
SUB- 2008 -00102 Handley Farm Estates(10 -19) lots -Final (Megan Yaniglos)
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
Page IofI
Lisa K. Glass
From:Lisa K. Glass
Sent:Friday, May 09, 2008 9:08 AM
To:Chris Kabbash'
Subject: RE: Georgetown /Hydraulic Professional Offices RWSA comments
Chris.
Thank you for forwarding the message from the RWSA. The e -mail below from RWSA is sufficient for preliminary review.
As Ms. Simpson states "RWSA will need to review a complete set of final plans and the written water line
easement prior to final approval of the plans ". This will be a condition of final site plan approval.Please Jet me know if you have other questions.
Lisa
From: Chris Kabbash [mailto :chriskabbash @summitcos.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 12:54 PM
To: Lisa K. Glass
Subject: FW: Georgetown /Hydraulic Professional Offices RWSA comments
Ms Glass,
Here is the email I received from RWSA.
Please let me know if this is enough for now.
Thanks
Chris
From: Michelle Simpson [mailto:msimpson @rivanna.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 2:58 PM
To: chriskabbash @summitcos.com
Cc: jwhitaker @rivanna.org; 'Jeremy Lynn'; 'Tom Garrison'; 'Gary Whelan'; 'Roger Zieg'; 'Glen Recknagel'; 'Travis Goode';Claudette Grant'
Subject: Georgetown /Hydraulic Professional Offices
Chris,
Per our conversation, RWSA has reviewed only Plan Sheet 3 of 4 (revision date 5/22/07) for the
above subject project and is preliminarily agreeable to the proposed location of street trees, the
entrance sign, and light posts relative to our water line as shown. RWSA will need to review a
complete set of final plans and the written water line easement prior to final approval of the plans.Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thank you,
Michelle Simpson
Michelle S. Simpson, PE
Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority
695 Moores Creek Lane
Charlottesville, VA 22902
434) 977 -2970 ext. 202
434) 295-1146 (fax)
msimpson@rivanna.org
6/10/2008 I
Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District May 14, 2008
2134 Berkmar Dr
Charlottesville, VA 22901
975-0224
TO: Lisa Glass
Planning Department
RE: Soils Report and Comments for.
Georgetown/Hydraulic Prof Offices
m t ,
m n N f
to
0 8b6
cc D
n 00
nN
m m
N
J
N. O N
co
O
N m 2
17 ,M, P N
P 1W J
U N
m
N N
O
r
m LLJ a a
3
CD
U iJ
m
N
cn '-
oy
m M
U
m1
n >
6
to
M
m
O U
M m
d p O
2
Q o
o
s
E Q O a
d O uO
O
C O
U)
ai
LN
F N E
R
10
0
0
r-1
0
Z
W
w
W
g 0
c
C
aI .tA °
l > —
NOo - cc 0 -a o N
a O o E
a
a)n
v, 3
E o r
W O O a
USDA United States Natural
Department of Resources
Agriculture Conservation
Service
Prepared by: Thomas Jefferson Soil & Water
Conservation District
434 - 975 -0224
Soils Report
SOILS REPORT FOR: Georgetown/Hydraulic Prof. Offices
Soil Survey Area: Albemarle County, Virginia
Survey Status: Published
Correlation Date: 12/01/1981
Distribution Date: 10/21/2002
Map Unit. 65B Pacolet sandy loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes
Description Category: Virginia FOTG
Pacolet is a gently sloping to moderately sloping, very deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is
sandy 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 2e. The Virginia soil management group is X. This soil is not hydric.
Map Unit. 65C Pacolet sandy loan, 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 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 X. This soil is not hydric.
Small Commercial Buildings - 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
65B Pacolet sandy loam, 2 to 7 Somewhat limited
percent slopes
65C Pacolet sandy loam, 7 to Very limited
15 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
65B Pacolet sandy loam, 2 to 7 Not hydric
Thomas Jefferson SWCD 1 5/15/08
percent slopes
65C Pacolet sandy loam, 7 to Not hydric
15 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
Distribution Date: 10/21/2002
Map
Symbol Soil Name Rating
65B Pacolet sandy loam, 2 to 7 1.5
percent slopes
65C Pacolet sandy loam, 7 to 1.5
15 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
65B Pacolet sandy loam, 2 to 7 High
percent slopes
65C Pacolet sandy loam, 7 to High
15 percent slopes
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
65B Pacolet sandy loam, 2 to 7 High
percent slopes
65C Pacolet sandy loam, 7 to High
15 percent slopes
v y
V_
QC°
Thomas Jefferson SWCD 2 5/15/08
Page 1 of 1
Lisa K. Glass
From: Lisa K. Glass
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 9:27 AM
To: Chris Kabbash (chriskabbash @summitcos.com); Brent Nelson; Amy Pflaum
Cc: Tom Muncaster (tuncaster @DDRva.com)
Subject: SDP 08 -64 georgetown - hydraulilc Office: SRC and ARB
Chris,
I took a quick look at your revised plan (5/19/08); most of my comments are addressed except comment 1: match
ARB.
The Preliminary site plan can be approved with the condition that the final site plan match the ARB plan.
Please follow -up with Engineering for their comments and the other short review comments for Preliminary
approval.
ARB is indeed a significant issue for approval. May I suggest:
First, confirm that the ARB letter is the most recent to use for evaluation (I used 3/26/07).
Then the most recent ARB review letter should be given to Tom Muncaster, your design engineer, so these items
are addressed on the final site plan.
Many of the ARB items are not addressed on the 5/19 revisions.
My main concerns are:
a) ARB comment 5 keeping improvements 5' off the buffers strips or easements... also in SRC comments that the
retaining walls are all too close;
Move the the building out of the 50 foot setback; and indicate the ten foot parking setback near the entrance is
intact; and indicate how the walls will be built without easements on adjacent property or disturbing an buffers;
b) ARB comment 7 asks for 5 interior trees; I don't see these; this requirement affects your parking layout and
number of spaces;
c) ARB comment 3 asks about the HVAC equipment; I don't see that on the site plan;
d) then other items that ARB want for approval are also needed for final site plan : photometric plan, light details,
Plant list with all proposed trees listed (or Landscape schedule), etc.
Please address all the ARB comments on the final site plan. The final site plan submittal must match the
approved ARB plan.
Although there are significant items requested in the ARB letter that aren't addressed on the preliminary site plan,
The Preliminary site plan can be approved with the condition that the final site plan match the ARB plan.
BUT you need to look at things like loosing parking spaces to get enough interior trees and see if that affects
your building size, etc. )
The Final site plan submittal must include all the items that SRC required, the conditions for Preliminary
approval , as well as the conditions for the ARB approval.
I hope this helps you understand the sequence of approval and revisions required for final approval.
You can reach me at 29605832 x 3432 with questions.
Lisa
5/22/2008
Oln
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To:
From:
Division:
Date:
Subject:
Chris Kabbash, Primary Applicant
Tom Muncaster, Plan Preparer
Lisa Glass, Principal Planner
Zoning and Current Development
May 30, 2008
V
SDP 08 -64: Preliminary Site Plan for Georgetown - Hydraulic Office BuildingCommentsonMay19, 2008 revised site plan
The Albemarle County Department of Community Development, Current Development Division plannerhasreviewedthesiteplanreferencedabove. The plan may be approved when the following items havebeenaddressed. The site plan comments below are from the Current Development Planner only. PleasecontactLisaGlassat296 -5832 x 3432 if you have questions. Comments from other reviewers are onseparatepages.
2.
P I -A .
00
4.
5.
7.
A
Final approval of the preliminary plan is subject to approvals from .current Development Division, Engineering
pp all agencies and departments.
Fire and Rescue
Inspections
Albemarle County Service Authority
Virginia Department Transportation
Show ' mp er enclosure dimensions, or obtain waiver. (Section 32.5.6 n)5/28/08 btain Waiver of section requiring a dumpster pad prior to preliminary approval.Obtain en ' een approval of the preliminary plan; to include addressing traffic generation.Section 32.5.6 q)
5/28/08 obtain engineering approval, see separate comments.Lan ape n is required for final approval. Include a plant list with the correct number of treesremovandtobereplacedintheconservationeasement, note 2 above, and match the ARBapprovedplan. (Section 32.5.6 a and e)
5/28/08 5/28 sees Planning comments from Ms Grant: to match plan and schedule.The final site plan must match the approved 1!1an; be sure to address all the conditions of the3/26 07 letter including but not limited to keeping construction of the setbacks and buffers, andprovidingthecorrectnumberoftreesinteriortotheparkinglot.Final site plan must obtain SA proval; To include addressing the ACSA easement shown atsouthpropertylineas12feetwide;
Final site plan must obtain approval; to include adding dimension for the RWSA water lineeasementalongtheroadfrontage. (Section 32.5.6 j)Li ng p with diagram or photograph of luminaire and photometric plan required for finalapprova .(Section 32.5.6 n)
Final site plan must meet all Z A a lication conditions and proffers.
Short comments from other departments available on City View
c vj a-c hu A+d
Application SDP200800064 Short Review Comi..nts
Project Name: 1Georgetown /Hydraulic Professional Offices - Prel J Preliminary - Non - residential
Date Completed:05/05/2008
Reviewer:Amy Pflaum Engineer Z &CD
Review Status:Pending
Reviews Comments:SRC Meeting 5/8/08
Date Completed:05/02/2008 1
Reviewer:Andrew Slack E911 l
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comment 'NO OBJECTION. - -
Date Completed:05/01/2008
Reviewer:Brent Nelson ARB
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Date Completed:
Reviewer:
Review Status:
Reviews Comments:
Date Completed:
Reviewer:
The ARB last reviewed this proposal on March 5, 2007. The posted Action Letter was sent to the
applicant outlining revisions needed for approval of the Final Site Development/Building proposal. An
ARB submission addressing requested revisions has not been received.
05/22/2008
Brent Nelson ARB
Requested Changes
The ARB last reviewed this proposal on March 5, 2007. The posted Action Letter was sent to the
applicant outlining revisions needed for approval of the Final Site Development/Building proposal. An 1,ARB submission addressing request revisions has not been - received.
05/27/2008
Claudette Grant Planning
Review Status: Requested Changes
Reviews Comments: Sheet 2 of 3 is not consistent with sheet 3 of 3 regarding tree 12' or greater in conservation easement
to be removed. The location of trees to be removed does not appear to be consistent on each of the
sheets. Also, sheet 2 of 3 shows 6 trees to be removed and sheet 3 of 3 shows 7 trees to be removed
in other words, the note on sheet 3 of 3 states 6 trees to be removed, but shows 7. These
discrepancies need to be clarified.
Date Completed: 04/25/2008
Reviewer: Claudette Grant Planning
Review Status: Requested Changes
Reviews Comments
Date Completed:
Reviewer:
Review Status:
Reviews Comments:
1) All the proffers are not shown on Sheet 1 of 3 and they should be.
2) Particular attention should be paid to proffer 4.
3) The existing conditions shown on Sheet 2 of 3 is not the one shown in the approved BOS plans.
There is a slight change in the conservation /preservation boundary that is shown on the Preliminary
site plan, and should be shown on the existing conditions plan as well.
04/28/2008
Joan McDowell Planning
Pending
The existing zoning is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation. No
properties containing conservation easements or properties located within Agricultural /Forestal
Districts are in this area.
Page: 1.00 County of Albemarle Printed On: Friday, May 30, 2008
Date Completed:05/05/20
Reviewer:Jay Schlothauer Inspections
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:Based on plans dated April 15, 2008.
Due to the total number of parking spaces ( >50), there must be three barrier -free parking spaces.
Show another barrier -free parking space and associated access aisle.
Date Completed:05/21/2008
Reviewer:Jay Schlothauer Inspections
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:Based on plans revised May 19, 2008.
Relocate the barrier -free parking space at the north end of the parking lot so that it is as close as
practicable to the building entrance.
Date Completed:05/30/2008
Reviewer:Lisa K Glass CDZCD
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:Revisions submitted 5/19, requested comments by 5/30 in time for 6/2 ARB submittal.
15/19/08 applicant submitted waiver for 4.12.19 dumpster pad, as allowed in 4.12.2c.
Page: 2.00 County of Albemarle Printed On: Friday, May 30, 2008
Phone (434) 296 -5832
To:
From:
Subject:
Date received:
Date of Comment:
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Lisa K. Glass, Principal Planner
Fax(434)972-4126
Amy Hawn, Engineering Review
SDP - 2008 - 00064, Georgetown- Hydraulic Professional Offices,
Dumpster Pad Waiver Request
19 May 2008
2 June 2008
The applicant has requested a waiver of the requirement of Section 4.12.13.e of the Albemarle County
Zoning Ordinance.
Section 4.12.13.e of the Ordinance states that "Each site plan that depicts a commercial or industrial
building of four thousand (4,000) gross square feet or more shall provide a dumpster pad ..."
Section 4.12.13.f of the Ordinance provides for the waiver of Section 4.12.13.e if "The zoning
administrator, in consultation with the county engineer, finds that (1) the public health, safety or
welfare would be equally or better served by the modification or waiver; (2) that the modification
or waiver would not be a departure from sound engineering and design practice; and (3) that the
modification or waiver would not otherwise be contrary to the purpose and intent of this chapter.
The engineering analysis of the requests is as follows:
Waiver of the requirement of the Zoning Ordinance section 4.12.13.e:
The applicant states that trash generated within the proposed office building will be collected
internally and taken off-site by an office cleaning agency. No external dumpster will be used, and
therefore, no dumpster pad is required in the parking lot.
Engineering presumes that the public health, safety and welfare would be equally served by trash
being collected inside the building and taken off -site as an alternative to an external dumpster. This is
not a departure from sound engineering practices.
If no external dumpster is to be on the site, then Engineering concludes that no dumpster pad is
necessary in the parking lot. Should the applicant determine the need for an external dumpster at a
later time, a dumpster pad will be required then.
The intent of the chapter is to require orderly disposal of trash generated within the proposed building.
So long as the applicant has secured alternate means of trash disposal, the waiver request is not
contrary to the Ordinance.
Engineering recommends approval to this waiver request.
4 OF v ir.tr
J71411
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Lisa Glass, Current Development planning review
From: Jonathan Sharp, Current Development engineering review
Date: 04 June 2008
Subject: Rivanna Plaza (SDP200700137)
En-ineering recommends denial.
1. Please provide easements or, at a minimum, a letter of intent for all offsite improvements.
Rev]: comments not addressed. No easements have been provided.
2. Please provide updated removal rate calculations and drainage area maps.
Revl: comments not addressed. No updated removal rate calculations have been provided. In
addition, the calculations for the original layout of the site showed a removal rate of 70 %. 1
would anticipate the new layout having a similar removal rate requirement. The proposed
Contech Stormfilter only achieves a removal rate of 50 %. Additionally, we have been having
difficulties with the sizing procedures for Stormfilters from the manufacturer.
3. Please show sight distances at entrances.
Revl: comments not addressed. Sight distances have not been provided.
The following items will need to be addressed prior to the final site plan:
4. Parking grades cannot exceed 5
5. Guardrail is required over steep slopes or drop offs.
6. Safety railing is required for all retaining walls in excess of 4' in height.
Page 1 of 1
Lisa K. Glass
From: Lisa K. Glass
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 12:23 PM
To: Tom Muncaster (tmuncaster @DDRva.com); Chris Kabbash (chriskabbash @summitcos.com)
Subject: SDP08 -64 Georgetown - Hydraulic Office; Waiver Request for dumpster pad; Approved
Attachments: Dumster waiver approved.pdf
Dear Mr. Muncaster,
In lieu of a formal letter, this message is to notify you that your request, dated 5/19/08, for an administrative
waiver of the requirement for a dumpster pad has been granted.
The attached message from Ms McCulley, Zoning Administrator, is in the file for SDP 2008 -00064 as approval.
Please reference this 6/5/08 approval on your final plan, if you do not show a dumpster pad.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Lisa
Lisa Glass, Planner
Albemarle County Department of Community Development
434 - 296 -5832 x 3432
l
6/10/2008
NWW
Application #: SDP200800064 [!: short Review Comments
Project Name:: Georgetown /Hydraulic Professional Offices - Prel Preliminary - Non - residential
Date Completed: 0510512008
Reviewer: Amy Pflaum Engineer Z &CD
Review Status: Pending
Reviews Comments: `SRC Meeting 5408
Date Completed: - 05102 12008
Reviewer: Andrew Slack E911
Review Status: No Objection
Reviews Comments: !NO OBJECTION.
Date Completed: 05!01/2008
V
Renewer:Brent Nelson ARB
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:The ARB last reviewed this proposal on March 5, 2007. The posted Action Letter was sent o the
applicant outlining revisions needed for approval of the Final Site Development/Building pr posal. An
ARB submission addressing requested revisions has not been received.
Date Completed:04125;2008
Reviewer.Claudette Grant Planning
Renew Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:1) All the proffers are not shown on Sheet 1 of 3 and they should be.
2) Particular attention should be paid to proffer 4.
3) The existing conditions shown on Sheet 2 of 3 is not the one shown in the approved BOS plans. i
There is a slight change in the conservationrpreservation boundary that is shown on the Preliminary
site plan, and should be shown on the existing conditions plan as welt. /
Date Completed:04/2812008
Reviewer:Joan McDowell Planning
Review Status:Pending
Reviews Comments:The existing zoning is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation. No
properties containing conservation easements or properties located within Agricultura(!Forestal
Districts are in this area. /
Date Completed:05!05!2008
Reviewer:Jay Schlothauer Inspections
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:Based on plans dated April 15, 2008.
Due to the total number of parking spaces ( >50), there must be ree b rier -free parking spaces.
Show another barrier -free parking space and associated access e.
1
Page: 1.00 County of Atbemarie Printed On. Tuesday, May 06, 2008