Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP200800066 Review Comments 2009-04-28FW: Hunters Way site plan amendment t-: b Lisa K. Glass From: Lisa K. Glass Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 9:28 AM To: SRC - SDP SUB; Amy Pflaum Subject: FW: SDP08 -66; Hunters Way site plan amendment: deferral To SRC members reviewing SDP 08 -66 Hunters Way: The applicant requested deferral (indefinite see e -mail below) . So it is taken off the 5/8 SRC rneeting and you can stop working on comments. Please let me know if you have questions. Lisa From: Scott Collins [mailto:scott @collins- engineering.com] Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 10:00 AM To: Bill Fritz; Lisa K. Glass Cc: kirsten @collins- engineering.com; Amy Pflaum Subject: RE: SDP08 -66; Hunters Way site plan amendment Page 1 of 1 Bill - Thanks for the email. At this point, we will have to ask for a deferral, so that the client does not risk any more expense at this time. I understand, and we will be requesting a meeting with Ron and Amelia for next week. Thanks. Scott 4/28/2008 Lisa K. Glass Subject: Location: Start: End: Show Time As: Recurrence: Meeting Status: Required Attendees Optional Attendees: Dear Ron and Scott, Hunters way Variance Disc County Office Building Conf room A Thu 5/1/2008 9:00 AM Thu 5/1/2008 10:00 AM Tentative none) Not yet responded Lisa K. Glass; Ron Higgins; Scott Collins (scott @collins - engineering.com) Bill Fritz This meeting was requested by Scott Collins, design engineer, to discuss the option of a variance regarding Section 4.1.3 Area Requirements for a lot at Hunters Way with no public water or sewer. The ordinance requires 60,000 sf for each use. The site plan (SDP 08 -66 now deferred) shows a second use, so the area required is 120,000 sf. The lot is smaller only 2.187 ac. A second item for discussion is Section 24.2.2(14) regarding water use; it states the water consumption shall be less than 400 gpd per acre of site, or 875 gpd ( 2.187ac x 400 gpd). This needs to be confirmed by the applicant if the information is already not submitted with the groundwater information. If you are unable to attend please let me know soon so I can reschedule with Ron or Amelia.I Thanks, Lisa tZrrr. v ll A1,k, pit COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 May 30, 2008 Collins Engineering c/o Scott Collins 800 East Jefferson Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: ARB2008 -00047 Hunters Way (Recreation Facility) Tax Map 78, Parcel 49131 Dear Mr. Collins: The Albemarle County Architectural Review Board reviewed the above noted item at its meeting on Monday, May 19, 2008. The Board approved the request, by a vote of 5:0, pending staff administrative approval of the following conditions: 1. Revise Sheet A1.0 Hunters Way so that all sections of each elevation are labeled for the materials and colors that are proposed. 2. Revise the proposal, and all applicable drawings, to show the use of a darker slate gray color. Provide a sample of the material /color for review and approval. 3. Revise all applicable drawings to show the use of a darker material for the pediment in the east and west elevations. Consider, for example, reversing the wall and banding colors or use a darker material. Revise the proposed grading on Sheet 3 Entrance Corridor Site Plan, Sheet 4 Site Plan, and Sheet 5 Landscape Plan to show cut and fill_slopes that are rounded (minimum ten foot radius) to meet existing conditions. Revise the grading plan, as needed, to keep all proposed grading five feet off of the property line, or provide evidence of a grading casement with adjoining owner. 5. Revise Sheet 5 Landscape Plan to include the signed Tree Conservation Checklist. 6. Revise Sheet 5 Landscape Plan to include details relating to the appearance of the biofilter and water quality swale in the southwest corner of the site. This facility is to be designed to provide a landscaped not engineered) appearance, integrated with the site, eliminating the need for screening. 7. Signage that is visible from the EC will require ARB approval. Freestanding signage proposals can be submitted separately from the site plan application and should demonstrate that they meet all ARB sign guidelines, with locations free of utility conflicts. Building signage that is visible from the EC should be included in this application and demonstrate that it meets all ARB sign guidelines. 8. Add to the drawings a note that the glass shall be clear. 9. Relieve the blankness of the pediment with articulation, block color, the addition of a louver addition, etc. Please provide: 1. Two full sets of revised drawings addressing each of these conditions. Include updated ARB revision dates on each drawing and an ARB approval signature panel. 2. A memo including detailed responses indicating how each condition has been satisfied. If changes other than those requested have been made, identify those changes in the memo also. Highlighting the changes in the drawing with "clouding" or by other means will facilitate review and approval. 3. The attached "Revised Application Submittal' form. This form must be returned with your revisions to ensure proper tracking and distribution. mh When staff's review of this information indicates that all conditions of approval have been met, a Certificate of Appropriateness may be issued. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Brent Nelson Landscape Planner Cc: John Flevarakis 1524 Rosa Terrace Charlottesville, VA 22902 Virginia School Boards Association 2330 Hunters Way Charlottesville, Va 22911 ARB File Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District June 3, 2008 2134 Berkmar Dr Charlottesville, VA 22901 975-0224 TO: Lisa Glass Planning Department RE: Soils Report and Comments for: Hunters Way Site Plan Amendment Soils Report for this project prepared and sent to Planning Dept on 5/14/2008. nJ'4,.r` 1 ? t''i.% ..i.'2r''L'l. ' i L.L., 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: Hunters Way b o., W \ N J 6 olQ n . o 8 / N J o m ; o m I xo 111 o0 W x JO Ith V ul co el cn 61 t 2 N " CD N C7 7 W Ol 1 1 V 1 1f w i 111 777 . )_ r., \ ,. T, w 72 E 3 ro J ' J F cn - Jw w V!N W O cu 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: Hunters Way Soil Survey Area: Albemarle County, Virginia Survey Status: Published Correlation Date: 12/01/1981 Distribution Date: 10/21/2002 Map Unit: 23B Davidson clay loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Davidson is a gently sloping to moderately sloping, very deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is clay loam about 4 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderately low content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is moderate. It has a moderate available water capacity and a low shrink swell potential. This soil is not flooded and is not ponded. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of more than 6 feet. The land capability classification is 3e. The Virginia soil management group is N. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 71 C Rabun clay loan, 7 to 15 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Rabun is a strongly sloping to moderately steep, very deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is clay loam about 6 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderately low content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is moderate. It has a moderate available water capacity and a low shrink swell potential. This soil is not flooded and is not ponded. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of more than 6 feet. The land capability classification is 6e. The Virginia soil management group is N. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 71D Rabun clay loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Rabun is a moderately steep to steep, very deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is clay loam about 6 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderately low content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is moderate. It has a moderate available water capacity and a low shrink swell potential. This soil is not flooded and is not ponded. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of more than 6 feet. The land capability classification is 6e. The Virginia soil management group is N. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit. 72C3 Rabun clay, 7 to 15 percent slopes, severely eroded Description Category: Virginia FOTG Rabun is a strongly sloping to moderately steep, very deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is clay about 4 inches thick. The surface layer has a very low content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is moderate. It has a moderate available water capacity and a low shrink swell potential. This soil is not flooded and is not ponded. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of more than 6 feet. The land capability classification is 4e. The Virginia soil management group is N. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 72D3 Rabun clay, 15 to 25 percent slopes, severely eroded Description Category: Virginia FOTG Rabun is a moderately steep to steep, very deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is clay about 4 inches thick. The surface layer has a very low content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is moderate. It has a moderate available water capacity and a low shrink swell potential. This soil is not flooded and is not Thomas Jefferson SWCD 1 5/14/08 ponded. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of more than 6 feet. The land capability classification is 6e. The Virginia soil management group is N. This soil is not hydric. Dwellings With Basements - Dominant Condition Soil Survey: Albemarle County, Virginia Survey Status: Published Correlation Date: 12/01/1981 Distribution Date: 10/21/2002 Map Symbol Soil Name Rating 23B Davidson clay loam, 2 to 7 Not limited percent slopes 71C Rabun clay loam, 7 to 15 Somewhat limited percent slopes 71D Rabun clay loam, 15 to 25 Very limited percent slopes 720 Rabun clay, 7 to 15 Somewhat limited percent slopes, severely eroded 72D3 Rabun clay, 15 to 25 Very limited percent slopes, severely eroded Septic Tank Absorption Fields - 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 23B Davidson clay loam, 2 to 7 Somewhat limited percent slopes 71C Rabun clay loam, 7 to 15 Somewhat limited percent slopes 71D Rabun clay loam, 15 to 25 Very limited percent slopes 720 Rabun clay, 7 to 15 Somewhat limited percent slopes, severely eroded 72D3 Rabun clay, 15 to 25 Very limited percent slopes, severely eroded Mapunit Hydric Rating Soil Survey: Albemarle County, Virginia Survey Status: Published Correlation Date: 12/01/1981 Distribution Date: 10/21/2002 Thomas Jetterson SWCD 2 5/14/08 Map Symbol Soil Name Rating 23B Davidson clay loam, 2 to 7 Not hydric percent slopes Survey Status: Published 71C Rabun clay loam, 7 to 15 Not hydric percent slopes Distribution Date: 10/21/2002 71D Rabun clay loam, 15 to 25 Not hydric percent slopes Symbol Soil Name 720 Rabun clay, 7 to 15 Not hydric percent slopes, severely percent slopes eroded 71C Rabun clay loam, 7 to 15 72D3 Rabun clay, 15 to 25 Not hydric percent slopes, severely 71 D Rabun clay loam, 15 to 25 eroded 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 Correlation Date: 12/01/1981 Distribution Date: 10/21/2002 Distribution Date: 10/21/2002 Map Map Symbol Soil Name Symbol Soil Name Rating 23B Davidson clay loam, 2 to 7 1.5 percent slopes 71 C Rabun clay loam, 7 to 15 71C Rabun clay loam, 7 to 15 1.5 percent slopes 71 D Rabun clay loam, 15 to 25 71 D Rabun clay loam, 15 to 25 1.5 percent slopes 720 Rabun clay, 7 to 15 72C3 Rabun clay, 7 to 15 1.5 percent slopes, severely eroded 72D3 Rabun clay, 15 to 25 1.5 percent slopes, severely eroded 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 23B Davidson clay loam, 2 to 7 Moderate percent slopes 71 C Rabun clay loam, 7 to 15 Moderate percent slopes 71 D Rabun clay loam, 15 to 25 Moderate percent slopes 720 Rabun clay, 7 to 15 Moderate Thomas Jetterson SWCD 3 5/14/08 percent slopes, severely eroded a; 72D3 Rabun clay, 15 to 25 Moderate percent slopes, severely eroded 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 23B Davidson clay loam, 2 to 7 High percent slopes 71C Rabun clay loam, 7 to 15 High percent slopes 71D Rabun clay loam, 15 to 25 High percent slopes 720 Rabun clay, 7 to 15 High percent slopes, severely eroded 72D3 Rabun clay, 15 to 25 High percent slopes, severely eroded l'homas Jetterson SWCD 4 5/14/08 0 : COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone(434)296 -5832 Scott Collins, Collins Engineering 800 East Jefferson Street Charlottesville, VA, 22902 June 17, 2008 RE: SDP -2008 -00066 Hunters Way Site Plan Amendment - Major Dear Mr. Collins, Fax (434) 972 -4126 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 Crozet 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 June 30, 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, lanner, for Summer Frederick, Sr. Planner CC: File John Flevarakis, 1524 Rosa Terrace, Charlottesville VA 22902 Virginia School Boards Association, 2330 Hunters Way, Charlottesville VA 22911 OH AI,H. J j(l COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 Memorandum To: Scott Collins, Collins Engineering John Flevarakis, 1524 Rosa Terrace, Charlottesville VA 22902 Virginia School Boards Association, 2330 Hunters Way, Charlottesville VA 22911 From: Lisa Glass, Planner, for Summer Frederick Senior Planner Division: "Zoning and Current Development f Date: .Lune 17, 2008 Subject: SDP 2008 - 00066: Hunters Way Site Plan Amendment - Major The Albemarle County Department of Community Development, Current Development planner has reviewed the site plan referenced above. The plan may be approved when the following items have been satisfactorily addressed. Comments are followed by a reference to the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. The Site Plan comments below are from the Current Development Planner only. Other comments will be forth coming under separate cover. The plan as submitted will require the removal of the existing building prior to occupancy of the new building. The only way that the old building may remain will be if the parcel acreage can be adjusted. This represents a complicated process that may result in a delay of occupancy. Staff encourages that the adjustment to the parcel acreage occur now, instead of leaving it to a later date. The site plan cannot be approved until the water usage is adjusted or a Special Permit is approved. Staff recommends that the Special Use permit be applied for as soon as reasonable or a significant delay will occur in the site plan approval. As previously advised, Section 24.2.2.4 restricts the water usage to 400 gallons per day per acre of site. It is anticipated that the water usage will exceed this limit. Water calculations as submitted are not acceptable. Please contact Glenn Brooks to adjust your calculations or apply for a Special Use Permit to use more water. (Section 32.5.6 a) If the boundary line adjustment is not approved and there is only one building on the site, then the usage may be lower and it may be acceptable; However if the BLA adjustment is approved and there are two buildings on site, then a Special Use Permit will most likely be required. Depending on determination from Glenn Brooks water usage may make this plan un- approvable. 2. As previously discussed, Section 4.1.3 of the Code requires minimum areas for uses with private water and sewer. The wording of the note on the plan (Sheet T -1) regarding restrictions to one establishment and conditions for the certificate of occupancy need to be finalized with Zoning, please contact Ron Higgins. For instance, the additional area required cannot be obtained by an easement it must be a boundary line adjustment. (Section 32.5.6 a) 3. The note on the plan regarding the boundary line adjustment and the demolition of the existing building (sheet e -1 S -2) should be unconditional on the final plan. Although Current Development prefers that the boundary line adjustment issue be resolved before the site plan can be approved; IF you can agree on wording with Zoning the plan may be approved. 4. Provide Letters of Intent, with a sunset clause (2 years), from the adjoining property owners. Include with the letter the calculations to show that the acreage is available from the "doper" parcel while keeping the doner parcel in compliance the Code. 5. Add a diagram on the site plan to show how the boundary line will be adjusted to provide area for two establishments, and how the reside will also meet Code. 6. Please revise the plan to show what changes occur if the existing building is removed. For instance, there will be too many parking spaces for the one new use, so indicate what parking will be removed and how this will happen ( i.e. will asphalt be returned to grass ?) And other aspects of the plan that need modification due to the change. (Section 32.5.6 a) 7. A critical slopes waiver is required. Please submit a letter of request and justification, and a plan highlighting the critical slope areas over the site plan. (Section 32.5.6 a) 8. Please provide the name of this development. (Section 32.5.6 a) 9. Please show a datum reference. (Section 32.5.6 a) 10. Add the present use for the adjacent parcels. (such as residential, vacant, commercial, etc) (Section 32.5.6 a) 11. Add minimum setbacks for all property lines and minimum building separation. (Section 32.5.6 a). 12. Indicate in a use schedule the area for each use; parking /driveways, office building or indoor athletic facility, "yard ", etc. (Section 32.5.6 b) 13. Change proposed use to "Indoor Athletic Facility" section 24 2.1.42. This was discussed previously as the correct use and the use allowed by right in this district. (Section 32.5.6 b) 14. Parking calculations need to be approved. Please explain how the ratio of 3 spaces per batting cage was established. (Section 32.5.6 b) 15. Indicate the maximum amount of paved parking and vehicular circulation. This number is used for landscape plan calculations. This number may change depending on if the building is demolished or not. (Section 32.5.6 f) 16. Please indicate the location of the existing well. Also show how the existing building connects to the drain field shown. (Section 32.5.6 t) 17. Old site plans and plats indicate an underground storage tank and gas pump at the rear of the existing building. Please either indicate location or verify that they have been removed. (Section 32.5.6t) 18. Please show the layout for water and sewer. Will the new building have a new well and keep the existing well? Will both building use the existing drain field? Will the discharge be other than domestic? Health Department approval is required. (Sect ion 32.5.6 k) 19. Add any other utility easements. (Section 32.5.6 1) 20. Be advised that any changes to the existing sign will require a sign permit. (Section 32.5.6 n) 21. Although loading space is not required for this use, please indicate is the area to the north is for service only so no parking restricts access to the dumpster. (Section 32.5.6.n) 22. Depending on the use of the new building, provide pedestrian connection between the two buildings on site and adjacent buildings off-site, if the proposed use could benefit from inter - parcel connectivity. (Section 32.5.6 n) 23. Please dimension handicap spaces. (Section 32.5.6 n) 24. Landscape plan shall meet requirements of Section 32.7.9 and address the ARB comments from Brent Nelson's 5 /30/08 letter (such as including conservation checklist, etc.) (Section 32.5.6 p and 32.79.4) 25. The buffer zone between Rural Area and Commercial is to be planted with screening trees or trees and fence. Please either verify and add a note that the existing trees to remain provide adequate screening OR add evergreens to provide continuous screening along the property line, to include the area behind the existing building. (Section 32.7.9.4) 26. Please provide information for the existing gravel drive along the west property line. Is there an easement? What parcel is served by this road? This may need to be addressed on both the site plan and boundary line adjustment. 27. Add a note that "Access to this site is limited to Hunters Way ". 28. VDOT approval is required. (Section 32.5.6 q). 29. ARB approval is required prior to site plan approval; to include addressing comments regarding grading in Brent Nelson's letter of 5/30/08. 30. ARB approval must include the option for the removal of the existing building. CC: File SDP 2008 -00066 Application #: $DP200800066 Review Comiants Project Name: Hunters Way Site Plan Amendment - Major Mayor Amendment Date Completed:04/28/2008 Reviewer:Amy Pflaum Engineer Z &CD Review Status:Pending Reviews Comments:SRC Meeting 5/8/08 - NO, plan deferred indefinitely 4/25/08 due to ground water issues. Date Completed:05/02/2008 Reviewer:Andrew Slack E911 Review Status:No Objection Reviews Comments:NO OBJECTION. Date Completed:06/10/2008 Reviewer:Andrew Slack E911 Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments:THE APPLICANT SHOULD CONTACT THIS OFFICE WITH A LIST OF THREE (3) PROPOSED ROAD NAMES FOR USE AT THIS SITE. THE NAME "HUNTERS WAY" IS NOT AN ACCEPTABLE ROAD NAME. Date Completed:05/01/2008 Reviewer:Brent Nelson ARB Review Status:Pending Reviews Comments:An ARB application has been received for this proposal and is scheduled for review at the 5/19/08 ARB meeting. The ARB Action Letter, outlining changes requested by the Board, will be posted in County View after the meeting. Date Completed: Reviewer:Josh Rubinstein Water Resources Manager Review Status:Pending Reviews Comments:A draft Tier III or IV Groundwater Assessment must be submitted and the associated fee paid before 1 May 2008 for this application to be considered complete. If this is not done by that date, the lapplication will b rejected. Recieved 4/24/08 Date Completed:06/10/2008 Reviewer:Jay Schlothauer Inspections Review Status:No Objection Reviews Comments:Based on plans revised May 29, 2008. No comments or conditions. Date Completed Reviewer:Lisa K Glass CDZCD Review Status:Pending Reviews Comments:SRC Meeting 5/8/08 Date Completed:06/11/2008 Reviewer:Max Greene Engineer Z &CD Review Status:Pending Reviews Comments:SRC 6/19/08 Page: 1.00 County of Albemarle Printed On: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 Date Completed: 06/04/20' Reviewer: Scott Clark Planning Review Status: No Objection Reviews Comments: Commercial uses are inconsistent with the Rural Areas chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. However, this property is zoned HC. No chang requested. Page: 2.00 County of Albemarle Printed On: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 77 I at r r TO: Lisa Glass FROM: Gary Whelan, Civil Engineer DATE: June 16, 2008 RE: Site Plan Technical Review for: Hunters Way Site Plan Amendment SDP200800066 TM 78 -49131 The below checked items apply to this site. X 1. This site plan is not within the Authority's jurisdictional area for: X A. Water and sewer B. Water only C. Water only to existing structure D. Limited service 2. An inch water line is located approximately distant. 3. Fire flow from, nearest public hydrant, located distant from this site plan, is Gpm + at 20 psi residual. 4. A inch sewer line is located approximately distant. 5. An Industrial Waste Ordinance survey form must be completed. 6. No improvements or obstructions shall be placed within existing or future easements. 7. and plans are currently under review. 8. and plans have been received and approved. 9. No plans are required. 10. Final and plans are required for our review and approval prior to granting tentative approval. 11. Final site plan may /may not be signed. 12. RWSA approval for water and /or sewer connections. 13. City of Charlottesville approval for sewer. Comments: No comment. The site plan does not show or incorrectly shows: meter locations water line size waterline locations sewer line size sewer line locations expected wastewater flows easements expected water demands 168 Spotnap Road • Charlottesville • VA 22911 • Tel (434977 -4511 • Fax (434)979 -0698 www.serviceauthoriy.org Ji ° IIII N County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum From: Max Greene, Current Development engineering review Date: 10 June 2008 Subject: Hunters Way major site plan amendment. The major site plan amendment has been reviewed. I . Show all radii for travel way construction. 2. Pavement appears too flat in the loading space area. Please review the proposed grading so no pounding areas area created from air - conditioning units or stormwater. 3. Basin embankment slopes are not in conformance with State Water quality standards. The slopes should be 3:1 or flatter. 4. Slopes 3:1 and steeper will require low maintenance ground cover. 5. Block retaining wall detail does not appear complete. Drainage pipe is noted but appears to be missing from the detail. 6. Place a benchmark with USGS elevation on the plan. 7. Please add FEMA map and date references labeled for FEMA flood plain. 8. Safety railing will be shown on retaining walls over4' in height. 9. Please add the existing pavement width for Hunters Way. 10. Critical slope waiver is required. 11. SWM planting plan required. 12. Basin is shown several different ways. Please clarify basin designs and detail so they are congruent. 13. Show roof drains going to SWM basin. 14. Culvert inlet protection and check dam in the existing roadside ditch do not appear to meet minimum standard requirements as stated in the VESCH and can be removed. 15. Limits of clearing and grading will encompass all proposed work as shown on the plan. 16. VDOT entrance and site distance approval is required. 17. Health Department approval for septic system is required. V J v alt) ? - •` It-, < Ve e COUNTY OF .Ll ,13UMARLF. Department of Community De %elopment 441 Mclntire 12oad, Room 227 C'harlon"Nille, Virginia 22902 -0590 Phone(434)296 -5832 Fat (434) 972-4126 June 11 W)8 Scott C'ollW Collins F.ighwuring , Sou Fast ,lel'ferson Street Charlottcst ille. V V 22 RE: SDP- 2(108 -00066 Hunters Watt Site Plan Dear Nit Collins, jLtLj ,, (y A u-4-ek- L v-t U Sh 0,0)A the Site lZe iev, C'ututrfince has revicwal the doeOlpent propo ,al referenced A)o) c. Prchinnuw coninicnts for the wAlowing dig iAms of the Department ofC'omnuinity Development and other a,k;cncies, is applicable, are attached: Albemarle Count} 1)itision of lonin & Current llcclopmcnt (Planner) Albemarle County Division of Zoning &' Current Dc clopntent (1:11`„;inevr) Albemarle County Division of Planning, (Principle Planner ARl3) klhemarle County Dit ision of Planning (Principle Planner Crozet area) lbeniarlc Count, Division of Inspections (Buildinc, ( Wleial) Virginia Department of transportation (VD() I Albemarle County Seri iCC AUthoritti (:\('SA) Albemarle County Fire and Rescue. Albemarle County Gcogmphic and Data Serf ices (GDS) Iv Q C,) P L" --t j4 P 0 h PCL{ S ev Lt onitn nts reflect inFornlation avatlable Lit the tinge the dexelopm nt proposal was rc%ic" cd. and s1wuld not he considered final, llowctier, the Site Revv" C'omnlince hits attempted to identify all issue; that could affect approval ofthe proposed project. Please make the rex isions that have been identified as necessary file preliminary approx al by the Site Rci ICES ComnAteo tt ou ch, not to nlrike the requested rep Wow plcase V• ub mt in "elfin, tuMitiCatini for w4 Awwwwing su,11 re%isiOnss Subi - nit Cight 0) hill Sizc eopws and one (i i \ 1 copy Io the Department of C otnMwAty Dc eMpmon hwWdnl`T rcponscs to each of illc attaciml counne 1tS of the Site Rtil iCN Committee by :Monday .tune 30, NMM. Failure to submit this inthrfn;.i k it by this date xk ill result in suspension of the rCA ieW SCIicdulc. Rc%ic\N NG ill resume when re i ions .ire AnAtcd aloe` xith a reinstatement lee of S Please contact me m `ow earnest con%enience if you ha%c quemiom, Or FC tUne additional ti.l0r1110tik111, SI1lccrely, 11 U,44j Lisa Glass, Planner. for Sutnma Frederick. Sr. Planner CC: File Jahn FQ%amkis, 1521 Rosa Terrace, Charlottcsille V ?'()()? Vire- School Boards Association- 2 t lt.intcrS \Z'.1 }, Clmrlotteix ills: V 1 'i Department of Communitl De%clopment 401 McIntire Road, Room 117 Charlottesti ille, l it -inia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5332 Fax (434) 972 -4126 Memorandum To: Scott Collins. C'ollitis 1 :ngillc<rin Jahn Flc \araki.. 1 X24 Rasa - 1 en Charlotte\\ ill12 V'A 2- 21)(1 Vir,=snia School Hoards Association} }hinters Way. Charlottesville VA 22911 From: Lisa Glass, Planner. tot Summer Frcdcrick Senior Planner Dk ision: /.oning and Current Deg cloptiictlt Date: June i 200 Subject: SDP 00,8 1)(71)61,: 1lunters `4'i'a~v Site Plan Amendment - Major I lic Albeinadc COL111t\ I)epartJnent of Comintinit} De \ elopment, C tin t De%c'lopment planner has reviewed the site (Matt relercnc cd abo \'e. P plall mati he appro\ ed t \'hen the lollo\\ Ing items hate I)Ceil satisfactorily addressed. Comments are tullo\ \cd by a rcCcrencc to the AlIvinarte.. COL1111V Zoning ()rdinance. I lac: Site Plan continent, hclow are from the ('urrcut Dc\ cloptnent Planner only. ( )tile?- Comments n ill he ti)t111 Col"11 12 under ,cparate corer. The plan as submitted NN ill require the remos al of the existing building prior to occupancy of the new building. The only Nay that the old building mai remain will he if the parcel acreage can be adjusted. This represents a complicated process that may result in a delay of occupancy. Staff encourages that the adjustment to the parcel acreage occur now, instead of leaving it to a later date. 1. t he site plan cannot he appi ed until the W \'11121_ LiSagc is adjusted or a Special Pcnuit is .pproNed. Staff recommends that the Special t'sc permit be applied fi)r aS soon as reasonable or a ,iuntficaiit dCkl\ \\ ill occur in the site plan appro\ al. A.-, prc\ iousl\ ad, iced. Section _4.2.2.4 restrict, the \\ ater usage. to 4011 ali ms per ila% per acre of site. It i, anticipated that the \\,Itcr Ils.t-e \ ; Ill e.tcc °ed this llnitt. l atcr calculations tl: ,ubnlitted are not acceptahle. Please contact Olenn Nn,oks to adjust }our calculatic or apply for a Special ,r Perm to use mare \\ater. (Section 32.-' a) If llic houtidar\ line adjustment is Itot appro\ ed and there is onit one building on the site. then the u au e ina\ he km \r and it it he acceptable_ Ilime\'er it the BL.\ a( justiilent is appro\cd and there are M building coil site, then it Special I ;c Permit «ill moat likes\ be requital. Depending on determination from Glenn Brooks \ \11121• us.111c nlsl make this Clan tin- ctl)prc1 \able. Vs pre\'toUSl} diSC:LISSed. Section 4.1 .3 ot`dic' Code requires minimum areas for rises k\ 1 pni att vatcr and sc - \ cr. Idle \\ordin4, of the note on the plats (Sheut F-I ) rcgardinn= restrictions to one establishment and Conditions for the certificate of occupatic\; need to be tMaltzed %vith /onin{,. please contact Ron Eligu ins. For instance. the additional area required cannot be obtained hr an easement it must be a boundary line adjustment. 1 Section 12.5.6 ;t) 1 he note on the plan rcrardinu the boundary line adjusnneut and the demolition of the existing huildin! (shcct c -I S -?) should lie unconditional on the find } ?ian. AliliO Ugh Currcnt DC clopntcnt prefers that the boundart line adjustment issue lie resolled before the site plan can he appm ed, IF }on can agree on mooing "Rh MnhW € e phn may he apprmed, Prop We Letters of hatent. A ath a sunset clause (' )em trotn the adjoining pnTaq owners. Include ith the letter the calculkons a show dwt the acreage is al ailahle Isom the " loner" parcel "bile keeping the Amer parcel in coaiipIQmce the Code- Add a diagi in on the site plan to ,ho% how the boundary line - will he aQustcd to pnn isle area for two establishments. and hook the reside will also meet ( fi. Please rep ise the plan to shcm% what changes occur it the existing huildkg is romR ed. l0r instance, there w dl he too imim parking specs for the one nett use. so indicate what parking will 4 roamed and hoc% thi, a ill happen ( ix. will asphalt he returned w grass:') Ud other aspects of the plan that need modification due to the change. (Section 32.5.6 a) 7. A critical slopes ak er is required. 1lease submit a letter of request and justification. and a plan IAghhghtmg the critical hTc areas over the site plan. (Scokm 2.51 a) S. Please pro%We the name ofthis duchTmon (Secti 315b a) 1 ). Please show :a datum refet'encc. (Section 32.5.6 10. Add the present use Rw the adj=cm parcels. (such as residential. %acal it. commercial. etc) (Section 32.5.6 a) 11. : \dd rniumIrim scthacks G)r all properly Imes acid minimum building Separation. (Section 32.5.6 a). 12. Indicate in a uac schedule the area Or each use: parking drit n ays. office building or indoor athletic tacild , - and etc. (Section 325.6 b) 13. Change preposcd use to "Indoor ,athletic Facility" section 2.4.2.1.42. Hits «ati discussed prn iousl} as the correct use and the use allowed h; right in this district. ( coWn 3233 h) I A Parking ealcdations need to be appnn ed. Please explain how the ratio of 3 spaces per hatting' c,i +.:c ti as established. ( Section 32.5.6 h) 15. ludic ate the maxim m anikOrlaat wit pmed pmking Anil %chicubw jrCtllata m. TVs nwnlwr n used Qr ImWw ape plan calculations. I his numher may change depending on if the building is donohshcd or not. (Section 32.5.6 f> 16. Plcasc indicate the kwati gat of Me ekistin` «c11..Qo ;host hots the eximh, huiWAT ca rn cu to the main field shown. (Section 32.5.6 f) 17, Old site plains and plats indicate an uncicrgnand storage tank and gas pump at the rear < the cdatiaifs_ huildin Plcasc either indicate ideation or \erit4 that thc ha%e been rcnimcd. (Section 32.5.61) IS. Please shoe the hymn tier a titer and in%er. %Vill the new building have a new «ell and keep the existing meft:' Will huth huildut,_ use Ow existing drain field:' "ill the discharge he other than domestic" Health Dcpartnient appro %al is rccluired, (Sect ion 32.5.6 k) IQ.:kdd any either utility casements. ( Section 32.5.6 1) t). Be ad, Ised that a11% ehaIlgc`i it) the CxIst si,- N ill requ a sign perm (Section 15.6 n) 1. -1lthuugh loading pace is not required for this use. please indicate is the area to the north is for serf ice oillti so no parking restricts access to the dumpstcr. ( Section 12.5.6.n) Depending on the use ol`thc ncN} building. prop idc pede "trian connection hcmeen the tit o huddin < ^s on site and a(tjacctit off -site, i f tltc proposed u.,e could benefit tram inter - parcel comicctiiils. (Section 3_'.x.6 n) 23. Please dimension handicap :paces. (Section 3-15.6 n) 24. Landscape plan shl fll mect requirements of Scction 3?.7.9 and address the ARB comments from Brent Nckon i 30 ()t; letter (sued as including consemition checklist, ctc.) (Section 32.5.6 p and 25. Chi buffer IMIC I)OWeen Dural Arca and C onlnwi - vial is to be planted with screening tree; or irecs and fence. Please either crif% and Acid a note that the existing tree, to remain provide adequate screening ( )R add c(cr4,rccns to provide continuous .crccning along the property title. to include the area behind the existing buitding. (Section 32. -.9. I) 6. Pleasc proN Ide information fur the existing gra %cl drive alone, the %k esl property line. Is there an casement:' What parcel is scrGcd by this road:` This ma need to be addressed on hotel the site plan and boundary find: adjustment. Add a note that ":Access to this site is limited to Hunters "ay MY ) I appro %. iI is I (Sectioi1 1 2 ..6 dli. 29. R 1 appro<<d is required prior to site plan appro\aI; to include addressiri curllnleIIts rcgardin,- radius* in Brent Nelson's letter of ; 30 Wi. U. _11213 approtal must include die option fur the remoNat of the existing building C( : f rle 5[)1' 200-0 0066 r C i y TO ti 1 Gl Lkl f- ;q i County of Albemarle Department of Commutflh Development Memorandum Frotu: Nfa% Greene, Current De\elopment engineering rc ic° Date: J)) tone 21100 Sub hunter Wav major site plait :tmendntent. Hie mater sne plan amendment ha, been rctie I. Show all radii for tral cl w:iN construction. Pavement appears too tlat in the loading space area. Please rc\ iew the proposed ktadtng ,,, no Pounding area, area created from air conrlidi minx unit, or,torm titer. Basin emhankment slopes are not in contOrnrrnce tit ith State Water gttaht, sumdards. The slopes should he 3A or hatter. 4. Slopes I and steeper will require Iov, maintenance ground 5. Block retaining wall detail does not appear complete_ Draimige pipc is netted but appear, to he nus,tm- tiom the detail. f,. Place a hcnchmark with t'SGS ele\ ation on the plan. 7. P }ease add FERIA map anei date references labeled for 1 ~ENIA t1ood plain. H. Safety raihn, will be shown on retaininw, wall, Weer -t' in height. t). Please add the existing Pavement width €i,r IWlIters 1(). C'r'itical JIq - )e \cui\el i, required. 1 1. SWM planting plan required. 12. Basin is shown several dilfercut cav Please clariti hasin deign, and detail ,o ihe are consoruent. 1 Show roof drain~ tioing to S%NAI basil). 1 t. Culvert inlet protection and cheek dam in the c \i,tin2 roadside dite do not appear to meet minimum standard requirements as stated in the VESCt1 and can he rciumed. 15. Limit, Ott clearm- and aradim w it] enccunpa„ all proposed Mork .t, ,ho" n on the plan. 10. VDOT entrance and site distance approRal is required. \t 17. Health Department apprmal for septic s},tCnl is required. ,}J Application #: SDP200800066 Short Review Comments Project Name Hunters Way Site Plan Amendment - Major Major Amendment Date Completed: 0428'2008 Reviewer- Amy Pflaum Engineer Z &CD Re ,i€ew Status, Pending Revievvs Comments SRC Meeting 5;8,08 - NO, plan deferred indefinitely 4;25/08 due to ground water issues. Date Campietedi 05.02'2008 ; Reviewer Andrew Slack E911 Review Status. f No Objection l Reviews Cornwerts NO OBJECTION. i Date Completed 06 10/2008 { Reviewer Andrew Slack E911 CSC v Reviev. Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments:THE APPLICANT SHOULD CONTACT THIS OFFICE WITH A LIST OF THREE (3) PROPOSED : ROAD NAMES FOR USE AT THIS SITE. THE NAME "HUNTERS WAY" IS NOT AN ACCEPTABLE ROAD NAME. Date Completed 05.01'2008 Reviewer:Brent Nelson ARB Revrew Status Pending Reviews Comments,An ARB application has been received for this proposal and is scheduled for review at the 5;19/08 ARB meeting. The ARB Action Letter, outlining changes requested by the Board, will be posted in County View after the meeting. Date Completed Revie Josh Rubinstein Water Resources Manager Review Status Pending Reviews Comments: A draft Tier III or IV Groundwater Assessment must be submitted and the associated fee paid before 1 May 2008 for this application to be considered complete. If this is not done by that date, the application will be rejected. Recieved 4;24/08 Date Con pleted. 06 ;1&2008 Reviewer: Jay Schlothauer Inspections Rev Status: No Objection Reviews Comments: Based on plans revised May 29, 2008 No comments or conditions. Date Completed: Revie.ver Lisa K Glass CDZCD Revie Status: Pending Rev#e.vs Garr; eats: SRC MMeeting 5.'8 08 Date Completed: 0& 11:2008 Re Max Greene Engineer Z &CD Review Status: Pending Reviews Comrrerts: SRC 6119.08 Page: 100 Cot!nty of Albemarle Pnnted On Tuesday, June 1 7, 2008 Date Conipieted 06;04;2008 Reviewer: Scott Clark Planning Review Status: No Objection Reviews Comments: Commercial uses are inconsistent •with the Rural Areas chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. However. this property is zoned HC. No changes requested. Page: 2.00 County of .Albemarle Pr Cn Tuesday, June i 7. 2008 Service rid TO: Lisa Glass FROM: Gary Whelan, Civil Engineer DATE: June 16, 2008 RE: Site Plan Technical Review for: Hunters Way Site Plan Amendment SDP200800066 The below checked items apply to this site. X 1. This site plan is not within the Authority's jurisdictional area for: X A. Water and sewer B. Water only C. Water only to existing structure D. Limited service 2. An inch water line is located approximately distant. 1 Fire flow from, nearest public hydrant, located distant from this site plan, is Gpm + at 20 psi residual. 4. A inch sewer line is located approximately distant. 6. An Industrial Waste Ordinance survey form must be completed. 6. No improvements or obstructions shall be placed within existing or future easements. 7. and plans are currently under review. 8. and plans have been received and approved. 9. No plans are required. 10. Final and plans are required for our review and approval prior to granting tentative approval. 11. Final site plan may /may not be signed. 12. RWSA approval for water and /or sewer connections. 11 City of Charlottesville approval for sewer. Comments: No comment. The site plan does not show or incorrectly shows: meter locations water line size waterline locations sewer line size sewer line locations expected wastewater flows easements expected water demands i CEPART1': OF TRANSPORTATION David S. Ekern, P E. JL111C 18, 2OOS tilt Glenn Brooks Department oI* Enginecrin`* and Dex clopnlcnt 401 Mclntirc RBI. Charlottes tile. VA Subject: Site Rex iew 'Meeting Coill111e1ltS June 19 "' , OOH site review electing Dear Mr. Brooks: Below are V DOT's comments on the Site Plans for the June 19" 2008 Site Review Committee Meeting: SDP-2006-00079 Berkmar Business Park - Reinstatement (Francis MacCall) There is no work proposed within the ROW for Berk - mar Drive on this project. The site is Currently SCIACCI by right and left Wi lanes which should accommodate the traffic needs for this Licvclopnlcnt. SDP-2008-00066 Hunters Way Site Plan amendment- Maior( K Glass) The projected traffic NolunlcS need to he Shown. The existing entrance to the site does not meet the current mi11inlunl xxidth standard for a C0111111CrCial entrance. IIICILIIIC CalCtllatI01lti for pipe YD- I lllltlCt \ CIOClty and the flitch and Culvert L111LICr the entrance. - RB anna Commercial Park /Phase II- Prelim. (Snnmer Frederick) Show sight lliStallCCS at the pri\ ate entrance to Route l , 0. Northsilie Drivc. Lahcl the route nLlnlhcr on Northsicle Dri\c. Shoe the pro jectcd traffic form the sight allll the existing traffic oil Northsille Dr anti HIClulie x\arrantS for rilht anal left Will I,111CS. l'he eillrallCC Illllst he lleSlgllcll Ill accordance w tth The M11111111.1111 5tallllarllS o Entrances to State }lilhx\LINS. the Road Design Manual, and the Road and Bridge Standards. The profile at the connection to the state road needs to he on the plan. U)0 i Application #: SDP200800066 - -4 hort Review Comirtents t -- -Project Name:, Hunters Way Site Plan Amendment - Major Major Amendment Date Completed: 04/28/2008 Reviewer: Amy Pflaum Engineer Z &CD Review Status: Pending Reviews Comments: SRC Meeting 5/8/08 - NO, plan deferred indefinitely 4/25/08 due to ground water issues. Date Completed: 05/02/2008 Reviewer: Andrew Slack E911 Review Status: No Objection Reviews Comments: NO OBJECTION. V Date Completed:06/10/2008 Review Status: Reviewer:Andrew Slack E911 ISRC Meeting 5/8/08 Review Status:Requested Changes Reviewer: Reviews Comments:THE APPLICANT SHOULD CONTACT THIS OFFICE WITH A LIST OF THREE (3) PROPOSED Requested Changes Reviews Comments: ROAD NAMES FOR USE AT THIS SITE. THE NAME "HUNTERS WAY' IS NOT AN ACCEPTABLE ROAD NAME. V Date Completed:05/01/2008 Reviewer:Brent Nelson ARB Review Status:Pending Reviews Comments:An ARB application has been received for this proposal and is scheduled for review at the 5/19/08 IARB meeting. The ARB Action Letter, outlining changes requested by the Board, will be posted in County View after the meeting. Date Completed: Reviewer:Josh Rubinstein Water Resources Manager Review Status:Pending Reviews Comments:A draft Tier III or IV Groundwater Assessment must be submitted and the associated fee paid before 1 May 2008 for this application to be considered complete. If this is not done by that date, the application will be rejected. Recieved 4/24/08 Date Completed:06/10/2008 Reviewer:Jay Schlothauer Inspections Review Status:No Objection Reviews Comments:Based on plans revised May 29, 2008. No comments or conditions. Date Completed Reviewer:Lisa K Glass CDZCD Review Status:Pending Reviews Comments:ISRC Meeting 5/8/08 Date Completed:06/17/2008 Reviewer:Lisa K Glass CDZCD Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments:SRC comment packet e- mailed and mailed 6/17/08. Date Completed: 06/11/2008 Reviewer: Max Greene Review Status: Pending V Engineer Z &CD Page: 1.00 County of Albemarle Printed On: Thursday, June 19, 2008 Reviews Comments: SRC 6/19/08 A Date Completed: 06/04/2008 Reviewer: Scott Clark Planning Review Status: No Objection Reviews Comments: Commercial uses are inconsistent with the Rural Areas chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. However,', this property is zoned HC. No changes requested. Page: 2.00 County of Albemarle Printed On: Thursday, June 19, 2008 OF : \L XIE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 To: Summer Frederick, Senior Planner From: Amy Pflaum, Engineer Subject: SDP -2008- 00066, Hunters Way, Major Amendment, Critical Slope Waiver Request Date received: 08 July 2008 Date of Comment: 10 July 2008 The request for a waiver to develop on areas of critical slope for grading incorporated with the new construction proposed on TMP 78 -49B 1 was received on 08 July 2008. The existing critical slopes and proposed grading are shown on the Major Amendment to Final Site Plan dated The engineering analysis of the request follows: Description of critical slope area and proposed disturbance: The critical slope areas within TMP 78 -49B 1 contain both natural and man -made slopes. The man- made slopes are embankments created when the existing building and parking area on the parcel were constructed per Site Plan SDP -83 -001. The natural critical slopes exist in two areas near the northeast corner of the site and are wooded slopes. The critical slope disturbance is in the form of grading required for the construction of a new building and the accompanying septic field. Areas Acres Total site area 2.187 Area of natural critical slopes 0.02 1.0% of development Total critical slopes disturbed 0.02 100% of critical slopes Below, each of the concerns of Zoning Ordinance section 18 -4.2 is addressed: rapid uncL'or lcrrge .vccrle iriorefrrerll ol'soil arul t - ock ": The 2 areas of natural critical slopes on this site are small and scattered. The larger area will be cut into and graded flat to provide a location for the new building's septic field. The smaller area is up against the property boundary with TMP 78 -49C and will be cut into to steepen an embankment, providing for the flat area below. Particular attention will be required in this area to stabilize the existing up- slope embankment and the proposed engineered slopes. This will be noted in the review of the Erosion and c went Control Plan which has been sul tted for this project. Both critical slope areasare small and large scale movement of soil and rock is not anticipated to occur as a result of this construction. 2. "excessive storrmvater run - off' ". The applicant has submitted a Stormwater Management Plan which is being reviewed for County compliance. Stormwater facilities are being proposed to control the drainage generated by this site through above ground detention and proper conveyance systems. Excessive stormwater runoff is not expected as a result of disturbance of these critical slopes. 3. "siltation of natural and roan -made bodies of water ": The applicant has submitted an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan which is being reviewed for County compliance. The Plan proposes measures including silt fence, storm sewer inlet protection and permanent seeding on exposed ground during the stages of construction. These measures are anticipated to reduce sediment -laden runoff from leaving the site. Inspection and bonding by the County will ensure siltation control during construction. Proper stabilization and maintenance will ensure long term stability. 4. "loss of aesthetic resource ": The disturbance of the existing critical slopes with this development does involve the removal of existing trees. This site is located within the Entrance Corridor Overlay District, and is therefore subject to approval by the Architectural Review Board. septic effluent ": The critical slopes disturbance is uphill from the existing and proposed drainfields on this site. In the event of a septic system failure, any effluent which has reached the surface will run to the parking lot of the existing building, into the storm sewer, and to the river. The critical slopes disturbance does not affect the travel distance of septic effluent. This site does not drain into a waterway that is a public drinking water supply for Albemarle County. No portion of this site plan is located inside the 100 -year flood plain area according to FEMA Maps, dated 04 February 2005. Based on the above review, the applicant has satisfactorily addressed the technical criteria for the disturbance of critical slopes. 0 County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum From: Max Greene, Current Development engineering review Date: 29 September 2008 Subject: Hunters Way major site plan amendment. The major site plan amendment has been reviewed. 1. Two -way travelways will be a minimum of 20' in width. [ 18- 4.12.17.c. I ] Please expand the existing 16' travelway to at least 20' in width. 2. SWM planting plan required. Please confirm that the proposed plants for the BMP are I -HVI, 3 -VBDN, and 1 -NSY. If correct, please show this list of plants on the BMP plan for bonding and inspection purposes. 4. VDOT entrance and site distance approval is required. 5. Health Department approval for septic system is required. 6. Please explain the "Tank farms" shown on the plan. Tank Farms are listed as "An oil depot (sometimes called a "Tank Farm ", an "Installation" or a "Terminal ") is an industrial facility for the storage of oil and /or petrochemical products and from which these products are usually transported to end users or further storage facilities. llH AI.JIF, O IL It ?ri'A1 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 October 8, 2008 Scott Collins Collins Engineering Via email: scott@)collins-engineering.com RE: SDP2008 -66 Hunters Way Site Plan Amendment - Major Dear Scott: The Site Review Committee has reviewed the development proposal referenced above. Preliminary comments for the following divisions of the Department of Community Development and other agencies, as applicable, are attached: Albemarle County Division of Zoning & Current Development (Engineer) Albemarle County Division of Zoning & Current Development (Planner) Albemarle County Division of Planning (E911) Albemarle County Division of Planning (Architectural Review Board) Albemarle County Division of Planning (Historic Preservation) Albemarle County Division of Planning (Water Protection) Albemarle County Department of Fire Rescue Albemarle County Service Authority Virginia Department of Health Virginia Department of Transportation Comments reflect information available at the time the development proposal was reviewed, and should not be considered final. However, the Site Review Committee has attempted to identify all issues that could affect approval of the proposed project. Please make the revisions that have been identified as necessary for preliminary approval by the Site Review Committee. If you choose not to make the requested revisions, please submit in writing justification for not incorporating such revisions. Submit eight (8) full size copies and one (1) 11" x 17" copy to the Department of Community Development including responses to each of the attached comments of the Site Review Committee by October 20, 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, Summer Frederick Senior Planner Zoning & Current Development kCt County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Scott Collins; Collins Engineering via email: scottocollins -engineering. com From: Summer Frederick, Senior Planner Division: Zoning & Current Development Date: October 6, 2008 Subiect: SDP2008 -66 Hunters Way Site Plan Amendment - Major The Planner 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. [Sec. 18- 32.5.6(b)] Please provide maximum floor area ratio and lot coverage for all buildings, maximum amount of impervious cover on site, and maximum amount of paved parking and vehicular circulation area. 2. [Sec. 18- 32.5.6(i)] Please provide right -of -way lines and pavement widths for Hunters Way. 3. [Sec. 18- 32.5.6(n)] Please provide maximum footprint and height of existing buildings. 4. [Sec. 18- 32.6.6(g)] Standard parking spaces must be a minimum of nine (9) feet wide, and two -way travel lanes must be a minimum of twenty (20) feet wide. Please correct. 5. [Sec. 18- 32.7.9] Numbers of trees on plant schedule is not consistent with tree representation on plan. Please correct. 6. [Sec. 18- 32.7.9.4(a)] Please use same symbol for all trees of same species and connect clusters of trees with line running through midpoint. 7. [Sec. 18- 32.7.9.4(b)] The Conservation Plan Checklist must be signed by applicant prior to final signature. 8. [Sec. 18 32.7.9.9] Due to errors on plant schedule, canopy calculations are inaccurate. Additionally, only exiting trees located within property boundaries may be used for calculations. 9. [Sec. 18- 32.7.9.6(c)] Street trees are to be planted with even spacing along public street. Please provide a large shade tree in between two existing maples to remain south of entrance. 10. Confirmation of ARB approval of latest revised plans required prior to final site plan approval. 11. Please explain "Tank Farm ". Please contact Summer Frederick at the Department of Community Development 296- 5832 ext. 3565 for further information. 0 County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum From: Max Greene, Current Development engineering review Date: 29 September 2008 Subject: Hunters Way major site plan amendment. The major site plan amendment has been reviewed. 1. Two -way travelways will be a minimum of 20' in width. [ 18-4.12.17.c. l ] Please expand the existing 16' travelway to at least 20' in width. 2. SWM planting plan required. Please confirm that the proposed plants for the BMP are 1 -HV1, 3. 3 -VBDN, and 1 -NSY. If correct, please show this list of plants on the BMP plan for bonding and inspection purposes. 4. VDOT entrance and site distance approval is required. 5. Health Department approval for septic system is required. 6. Please explain the "Tank farms" shown on the plan. Tank Farms are listed as "An oil depot (sometimes called a "Tank Farm ", an "Installation" or a "Terninal ") is an industrial facility for the storage of oil and /or petrochemical products and from which these products are usually transported to end users or further storage facilities. COMMONWEALTH of VIRQINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CHARLOTTESVILLE RESIDENCY OFFICE 701 VDOT WAY CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22911 DAVID S. EKERN, P.E. COMMISSIONER October 7t11 ?008 Mr. Glenn Brooks Department of Engineering and Development 401 McIntire Rd. Charlottesville, VA 22902 Subject: Site Review Meeting Comments October 9` I ', 2(H)8 site review meeting Dear Mr. Brooks: Below are VDOT's comments on the Site Plans liar the October 9` I ', 2008 Site Review Committee Meeting: SDP -2008 -00066 Hunters Wav Site Plan Amendment -Major (Mean Yani2los 1. Stippled area needs to be shown to the edge of pavement on Route 1146. 2. All other comments provided in the June 19 " 2008 site review letter from VDOT have been adequately addressed. SDP -2008 -00135 BB &T Bank (Crozet) - Maior (Megan Yani0os) 1. The proposed bank site will generate 592 weekday trips, 110 VPH in the PM peak hour, and 171 VPD on a Saturday according to the ITE trip generation numbers. 2. This site does not exceed the number of trips to require a Chapter 527 Study 3. The site will use an approved entrance from Route 250 in connection with the Blue Ridge Shopping site plan. SDP - 2008 -00136 Airport Road Office Plaza - Preliminary (Elizabeth Marotta 1. This site will produce about 100 VPH in the peak hour into the site from the intersection at Airport Road. The build out traffic for Timberwood needs to be added to the plan to determine if a right turn lane is warranted. If the build out traffic on Timberwood exceeds 150 VPH a right turn lane will be warranted. 2. An entrance profile in accordance with the CG -I I standard needs to be Shown on the plan. 3. The sidewalk needs to be adjusted with the shift in the entrance location and CG -12's need to be added at the entrance. SDP- 2008 -00139 Green House Coffee - Preliminary (Gerald Gatobu 1. The existing Slot drain needs to be replaced with curbing and tied into the curbing on the adjacent site. 2. The right of way on the southern side of the property should be adjusted off the centerline of Route 810 and lined up with the right of way on the northern side of the property. 3. The length and width of the proposed entrance will cause accessibility issues for two way traffic on the site. aVE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING SUB 2008 -00219 Kia Dealership -Final (Megan Yani2los) 1. 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. Staff Engineer 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 WE KEEP VIRGINIA PROVING Application #: ' SDP2008 _ o66 Project Name:[Hunters Way Site Plan Amendment - Major Major Amendment Date Completed: 04/28/2008 Reviewer: Amy Pflaum Engineer Z &CD Review Status: Pending Reviews Comments: SRC Meeting 5/8/08 - NO, plan deferred indefinitely 4/25/08 due to ground water issues Date Completed: 07/10/2008 Reviewer: Amy Pflaum Engineer Z &CD Review Status: No Objection Reviews Comments: (Going to PC 7/22/08. - Deferred 7/22/08, taken off PC agenda. Date Completed:06/10/2008 Reviewer:Andrew Slack E911 Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments:THE APPLICANT SHOULD CONTACT THIS OFFICE WITH A LIST OF THREE (3) PROPOSED ROAD NAMES FOR USE AT THIS SITE. THE NAME "HUNTERS WAY" IS NOT AN ACCEPTABLE ROAD NAME. Date Completed:05/02/2008 Reviewer:Andrew Slack E911 Review Status:No Objection Reviews Comments:NO OBJECTION. Date Completed:10/03/2008 Reviewer:Andrew Slack E911 Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments:THE APPLICANT SHOULD CONTACT THIS OFFICE WITH A LIST OF THREE (3) PROPOSED 1ROAD NAMES FOR APPROVAL. "HUNTERS WAY" IS NOT AN APPROVED ROAD NAME. Date Completed:05/01/2008 Reviewer:Brent Nelson ARB Review Status:Pending Reviews Comments:'IAn ARB application has been received for this proposal and is scheduled for review at the 5/19/08 BARB meeting. The ARB Action Letter, outlining changes requested by the Board, will be posted in County View after the meeting. Date Completed:09/25/2008 Reviewer:Brent Nelson ARB Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments:Sheet LL -1 "Landscape Plan" does not match approved ARB drawing Sheet 5 "Landscape Plan" latest revision date 8/4/08). SDP drawing does not show the approved plantings around the Bio- filte /swale west of the existing shed. Date Completed:08/05/2008 Reviewer:Glenn Brooks Engineer Z &CD Review Status: Approved Page: 1.00 County of Albemarle Printed On: Wednesday, October 08, 2008 Reviews Comments: (This is to note that the report on the private well, which was provider' with the preliminary revision, 06/17/2008 has been accep Date Completed:09/30/2008 Reviewer:Joan McDowell Planning Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments:The proposed site is in the Rural Areas an use designation. The HC zoning is inconsistent with the designation. Extensive evergreen landscape buffering between this use and the adjacent RA use onItherearoftheproperty - is strongly recommended. Date Completed:09/25/2008 Reviewer:Josh Rubinstein Water Resources Manager Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments:The Tier III Groundwater Assessment is well done. Please include in the assessment the Hunter'sIWayEstimatedWaterUsagedocumentproducedbyOldDominionEngineeringandupdateboth documents to conform to with the most recent site plans. And, finally, please submit the final document in paper and electronic formats. Date Completed:04/24/2008 Reviewer:Josh Rubinstein Water Resources Manager Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments:A draft Tier III or IV Groundwater Assessment must be submitted and the associated fee paid before 1 May 2008 for this application to be considered complete. If this is not done by that date, the application will be rejected. Recieve 4/24/ Date Completed:06/10/2008 Reviewer:Jay Schlothauer Inspections Review Status:No Objection Reviews Comments:Based on plans revised May 29, 2008. No comments or conditions. Date Completed:10/03/2008 Reviewer:Jay Schlothauer Inspections Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments:Based on plans revised August 29, 2008. The existing and proposed buildings appear to be attached (exceed 12,000 sq. ft.). If so, either indicate that there will be a 3 -hour rated firewall on the proposed building side of the connector, or indicate that both buildings will be protected by a fire sprinkler system Date Completed:06/30/2008 Reviewer:Lisa K Glass CDZCD Review Status: Pending Reviews Comments: ISRC Meeting 5/8/08 Date Completed:06/17/2008 Reviewer:Lisa K Glass CDZCD Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments:SRC comment packet e- mailed and mailed 6/17/08. Date Completed Reviewer: Review Status: Reviews CommE Date Completed Reviewer: Review Status: 06/11/2008 Max Greene Pending nts:'SRC 6/19/08 09/29/2008 Max Greene Pending Engineer Z &CD Engineer Z &CD Page: 2.00 County of Albemarle Printed On: Wednesday, October 08, 2008 Reviews Comments: SRC 10/9/08 Date Completed: 06/04/2008 Reviewer: Scott Clark Planning Review Status: No Objection Reviews Comments: commercial uses are inconsistent with the Rural Areas chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. However, this property is zoned HC. No changes requested. Date Completed: 07/29/2008 Reviewer: unassigned engineer Engineer Z &CD Review Status: Pending Reviews Comments: Site Plan has been deferred by the applicant per S.Frederick. - Page: 3.00 County of Albemarle Printed On: Wednesday, October 08, 2008 rHG1 County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum From: Max Greene, Current Development engineering review Date: 10 June 2008 Subject: Hunters Way major site plan amendment. The major site plan amendment has been reviewed. 1. Show all radii for travel way construction. 2. Pavement appears too flat in the loading space area. Please review the proposed grading so no pounding areas area created from air - conditioning units or stormwater. 3. Basin embankment slopes are not in conformance with State Water quality standards. The slopes should be 3:1 or flatter. 4. Slopes 3:1 and steeper will require low maintenance ground cover. 5. Block retaining wall detail does not appear complete. Drainage pipe is noted but appears to be missing from the detail. 6. Place a benchmark with USGS elevation on the plan. 7. Please add FEMA map and date references labeled for FEMA flood plain. 8. Safety railing will be shown on retaining walls over4' in height. 9. Please add the existing pavement width for Hunters Way. 10. Critical slope waiver is required. 11. SWM planting plan required. 12. Basin is shown several different ways. Please clarify basin designs and detail so they are congruent. 13. Show roof drains going to SWM basin. 14. Culvert inlet protection and check dam in the existing roadside ditch do not appear to meet minimum standard requirements as stated in the VESCH and can be removed. 15. Limits of clearing and grading will encompass all proposed work as shown on the plan. 16. VDOT entrance and site distance approval is required. 17. Health Department approval for septic system is required. J' jllll r County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum r From: Max Greene, Current Development engineering review N ZA ' Date: 10 June 2008 Subject: Hunters Way major site plan amendment. The major site plan amendment has been reviewed. 1. Show all radii for travel way construction. 2. Pavement appears too flat in the loading space area. Please review the proposed grading so no pounding areas area created from air - conditioning units or stormwater. 3. Basin embank=ment slopes are not in conformance with State Water quality standards. The slopes should be 3:1 or flatter. 4. Slopes 3:1 and steeper will require low maintenance ground cover. 5. Block retaining wall detail does not appear complete. Drainage pipe is noted but appears to be missing from the detail. 6. Place a benchmark with USGS elevation on the plan. 7. Please add FEMA map and date references labeled for FEMA flood plain. 8. Safety railing will be shown on retaining walls over4' in height. 9. Please add the existing pavement width for Hunters Way. 10. Critical slope waiver is required. 11. Culvert inlet protection and check dam in the existing roadside ditch do not appear to meet minimum standard requirements as stated in the VESCH and can be removed. 12. Limits of clearing and grading will encompass all proposed work as shown on the plan. 13. VDOT entrance and site distance approval is required. 14. Health Department approval for septic system is required. fat 11 u I` d ," x x ` IN _, it ;H ' ) C' .1 !'v ; DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1601 Orange Read Culpeper, Virginia 22701 VirginiaDOT org David S. Ekern, P.E. Goi',IMISSIONER June 18, 2008 Mr. Glenn Brooks Department of Engineering and Development 401 McIntire Rd. Charlottesville, VA 22902 Subject: Site Review Meeting Comments June 19` 2008 site review meeting Dear Mr. Brooks: A Y"v t`?t1 /__7 L Below are VDOT's comments on the Site Plans for the June 19`', 2008 Site Review Committee Meeting: SDP - 2006 -00079 Berkmar Business Park - Reinstatement (Francis MacCall) There is no work proposed within the ROW for Berkmar Drive on this project. The site is currently served by right and left turn lanes which should accommodate the traffic needs for this development. SDP - 2008 -00066 Hunters Way Site Plan Amendment- Ma_ior(Lisa K Glass) The projected traffic volumes need to be shown. The existing entrance to the site does not meet the current minimum width standard for a commercial entrance. Include calculations for pipe YD- I outlet velocity and the ditch and culvert under the entrance. Rivanna Commercial Park/Phase II- Prelim. (Summer Frederick) Show sight distances at the private entrance to Route 1570, Northside Drive. Label the route number on Northside Drive. Show the projected traffic form the sight and the existing traffic on Northside Dr and include warrants for right and left turn lanes. The entrance must be designed in accordance with The Minimum Standards of Entrances to State Highways, the Road Design Manual, and the Road and Bridge Standards. The profile at the connection to the state road needs to be on the plan. TTRANSPORTAVOEXCELLE SDP -2008 -00086 Willow Glenn -Final Francis MacCall) Sheet 7 — the entrance to Route 606 needs to have a layout as shown in The Minimum Standards of Entrances to State Highways with adequate tapers and curb offsets. Previous comments recommended a turn lane off Hollymead. The pavement width on Heathrow Glenn Circle should be reduces in area where there will be no on street parking. The layout will cause a situation with parking in the driveways where the sidewalk will not and cannot be used because cars will be parked on the sidewalk. This are should be reconfigured. The driveway entrances should be a CG -9D standard. Material Reports for the con -span should be submitted to VDOT ASAP to ensure adequate design. I need to complete the drainage review and will provide comments once I am finished. SUB - 2008 -00138 Westhall V lots 93 -125 Final (Patrick Lawrence) It looks like there is a storm drain easement on the corner of lot 112 for pipe D -19 to D- 20 that needs to be labeled on sheet 3A. 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 -001 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 F AL{ IRGIN County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Scott Collins; Collins Engineering via email: scott@collins- engineering.com From: Summer Frederick, Senior Planner Division: Zoning & Current Development Date: December 16, 2008 Subject: SDP2008 -66 Hunters Way Site Plan Amendment - Major The Planner 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.] 4. [Sec. 18- 32.6.6(g)] Standard parking spaces must be a minimum of nine (9) feet wide, and two -way travel lanes must be a minimum of twenty (20) feet wide. Please correct. While the parking space dimensions are correct, the parking space number provided on the Sheet T -1 is not consistent with the number shown on the plan. Please correct. 5. [Sec. 18- 32.7.9] Numbers of trees on plant schedule is not consistent with tree representation on plan. Please correct. The number of trees on the plant schedule is still not consistent with tree representation on plan. The western grouping of Viburnum x burkwoodii is labeled as having six (6) trees in the grouping. There are only five (5) symbols. Please correct. Sec. 32.5.60)] Please provide deed book and page number for all existing draining and utility easements, as well as indication if they are dedicated to public use. Please contact Summer Frederick at the Department of Community Development 296 -5832 ext. 3565 for further information. 1