HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP200800078 Review Comments 2008-06-03COUNT V OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -1596
Phone (134) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
Julie 3, 2008
Julia Skare, Draper ;\den associates
700 1larris Street, Suite F.
Charlottesville , VA, 222903
RE: SDP -2008- 00078 Preliminary Site Plan for restoration of Montalto
Dear %Is. Skare,
l'lle Site Review Committee has reviewer} the development proposal referenced above. Preliminary
comments tier the following divisions of the Department of Community Development and other agencies,
as applicable, are attached:
Albemarle County Division of "boning & Current Development (Planner)
Albemarle County Division of Zoning & Current Development (Engineer)
Albcnlarle 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 rcN iewed, and Should
not be considered final. However, the Site Rc Col inuttee has attempted to Identify all Issues that
could affect approval ofthe proposed project.
Please make the revisions that have been identified as necessary for preliminary approval by the Site
Rev iew Committee. If you choose not to make the requested revisions, please submit in w ritinu
justification for not incorporating Such rI:VI,;IOI1S. Stlbllllt right () full 51Le eC' })1CS Gild one (I) 1 1 Y 1
copy to the Department of Community DeNcloplllent includin` responses to cacti of the attached
comments of the Site Rev iew Committee by Mon( ay June 16, 2008. Failure to Stlbllllt this ultorination
by this date will result IIl Suspension of the I "e%left' ` schedule. ReVlew Will reSUIIIC when re) lsions are
submitted along \vlth a reinstatement fee of 565
Please contact ine at your earliest convenience If You have questions or require additional information.
Sincerely,
n l L, )
Lisa Glass, Planner, for Summer Frederick, Sr. Planner
County of Albemarle Department of Community Development, Current Development Division
434 -296 -5832
CC: File
OW
COUNTY OF ALBENTARLE
Department of Community De-s elopment
301 liclntire Road, Room 227
Charlottes ille, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (433) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
Memorandum
To: Julia Skare, Draper , \rden :associates
From: Lisa Glass, Principal Planner, for Summer Frederick, Sr. Planner ^
DiN'ision: %uning and Current Development
Date: May 29, 2005
Subject: SDP 2008- 00075: Restoration of Montalto: Preliminary Site Plan
The Albernarle County Department of Coninlunity Development, Current Development planner has
reviewed the site plan referenced above. The plan play he approved when the 60110 wing itcrlls have been
satisfactorily addressed. Comments are followed by a reference to the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance.
The Site Plan continents below are from the Current Development Planner only. Other comments will be
forth coiling under separate cover.
1.Correct reference to rezoning: it is 7.TA 2007 -06. (Section 32.5.6 a)
2.Please note that the filial site plan shall address all site related items in the LMA and LTA. (Section
32.5.6 a) `-!p lid e- a kao .
3.A Site lighting plan with photoinctr1Cs will be required foi final site plan approval, The lighting plan
Should also he Submitted to the ARB for review. (Section 32.5.6 a)
dd the present use for the adjacent parcels. (Section 32.5.6 a)
Please clarify the fence or `ouardrall shown (ill the existing conditions plan. It appea - s to Celllalll.
Please il1CILICIe the material and height of the railing. (Section 32.5.6 d)
y . — 6.Indicate if the Site is or is not In a reser watershed. (Section 32.5.6 f) t y /I.
7.Add ally other Lltihty easements. (Section 32.5.6 1)
tjl(
J h ZL 8.V
S11() \v the distance to the eellterhne. of the nearest existing street intersection. (Section 32.5.6 Ill)
9.Show the location for trash containers or if no dumpster pad 1S proposed, apply for a wal\'er (Section
32.5.6 n and Section 14.12.13 c and 0
TO.Please indicate location and din1e11siol(S fur load space. (Section 315.6.11) IS
11.Revle \v ha[ldlcap Space d1111eI1S1(111S \\Itll lI1SpeCtlollS to Cllllhrin they sleet code. (Section 32.5.6 n)
w- 12.13•
Slimv all sT or indicate lf HICIUded 111 this application. (Section 32.5.6 n)
Landscape plan to Illeet reClLllrenlents of Section 32.7.9 InaV he regUired fi filial plan, to address
ISSUeS SL1CI1 as *interior park tot tree
14.Administrative waivers are required For Sections 14.12.17 For travel way slopes and 14. 1115 parking
i'aisle surface The courtyard entrance grade and surface materials were discussed by the Planning
coninussion \vlth the ZMA and approval IS expected.
of 15.A wal\ er for d1StUrbance of critical slopes was approved with the j1L \, and an action letter to tills
affect will be placed in the Site plan file.
16.The central water system play require additional approval, please contact Josh Rubinstein 296 -5532.
1 7.pal'klllg schedule 1S not CegLllCed SlI1l C the L V1A addCCSSC S the number of spaces, howe\ er the
number of spaces shown on page C2? should match the number in the text on page C0.0.
CC: File SDP 2004 -0074
j 'l'hGL J Ct CLjl1 h t C ittt e; t, g
V
Application #: SDP2008000i short Review Commnents
Project Name: Restoration of Montalto- Prel Preliminary — Non - residential
Date Completed: 05/30/2008
Reviewer: Andrew Slack E911
Review Status: No Objection
Reviews Comments: NO OBJECTION.
Date Completed: 06/03/2008
Reviewer: Jay Schlothauer Inspections
Review Status: Requested Changes
Reviews Comments: Based on plans dated May 13, 2008.
Rearrange the barrier -free parking spaces in the Court Yard of the Main House so that one of them is
van - accessible (min. 8' wide parking space, with min. 8' wide adjacent access aisle)
Date Completed: 051i301
Reviewer: Margaret Maliszewski ARB
Review Status: No Objection
Reviews Comments: The proposed changes are not expected to be visible from the EC. Consequently, ARB review is fry.required.
Date Completed:06/03/2008
Reviewer:Philip Custer
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:SRC 6/5/08
Date Completed: 05/29/2008
Reviewer: Summer Frederick
Review Status: Pending
Reviews Comments: See Lisa Glass comments
Engineer Z &CD
Planner Z &CD
Page: 1.00 County of Albemarle Printed On. Tuesday, June 03. 2008
Jiluiu =
J
1
V
County of Albemarle
Department of Communiq Development
Memorandum
To: Lisa Glass, Current Dceloprnent Project Planner
From: Phil Custer, Current Declopnlcnt engineering review
Date: 03 June 2008
Subject: Montalto Restoration (SUP -2008- 00078)
The prchininary site plan for the Montalto restoration project has been reN iewed. The folloN ina conlnlents
are provided:
L "The applicant will need to submit an application for a WPU plan when else final site 0-tan is
submitted. A preliminary assessment of the SWM concept plan has been perf6rmed with the
preliminary site plan review.
2. Engineering review realizes that the impervious area around the existing house and barn
structures in the post - development condition is nearly equal to the pre - development condition and
will not require SWM quality treatnlcnt in this area. SWM treatnlcnt and detention will he
required for the parking lots to the south of the site where new impervious area is added over
grass. Please provide treatment measures in this area that meet or exceed the required removal rate
computed using the county's modified simple spreadsheet. Please contact me if you need a copy
of this spreadsheet. .L /;.' trc : r. /IaLiCi "2
fzlelej Cl Tj /Lc LuG_: ThlJ <'hlL11a(Z
Y 3. Please note on the plan the date of the topographic and utility survey. The survey does not
appear to accurately show the existing entrance onto Route 53. A blowup of this entrance should
be provided in the plan showing adequate sight distance. j)1 . r/r rL, y)ei Gft4' any ed
f >
I. The plan has been desi to parameters less stringent than the standards listed 111 the County
ordinance. It is unclear what design standards were walNcd during the rezoning process and what '
were left to be waned adirunistratively. The waivers needed are: `
a. [ 18- 4.12.15.a] Surface materials. r
b. [ 18- 1.1'.15.x] N IaxilIlunl grade in parking lot.
c. [ I S --I.I 2.15A'] Curb and gutter.
d. [18- 4.1'.16.x.1] 1- Iilllnuliii parking space size and aisle widths.
e. [ 15- 4.12.16.e] 131-Inlper blocks. } `
C. [ 18- 4.12.17.a] Nlaxinlunl grade for a trw, elw ay.
18 -4.111 7.c. l ] Travelway width.
t .
fee`ayt:
17
4L
VLIk
An engineering analysis of the pending waivers is as follows:
a. 118- 4.12.15,a) Details for each modification front standard asphalt paving should be
included before a waiver is granted. Details were not included in this set.
b. 118- 4.12.15.cl It appears that the 5°0 maxini un grade can easily be achieved in most
locations.
e. 118- 4.12.15.ol StorniNvater runoff is always more efficiently transferred with curbing. _i
d. j 18- 4.12.16.x.1 1 Room is available for the expansion of the tra\ elway in the southwest
Current Development
Enuincering Review Comments
Page 2 of 2
Yh
parking lot to the standard in the County Code.
e. 118- 4.12.16.el Bumper blocks should be provided in parking spaces adjacent to ti
sidewalk that is narrower than Eft.
L 118- 4.12.17.al All travelNays that exceed the maximum grade requirement are existing
travelways on the "farm road ". All existing travelways appear to have grades
shallower than the maximum allowable slope that can he tra\ crscd by emergency
access vehicles. Though, this cannot be confirmed until a survey of the entry road is
provided in this set. Engineering review recommends approval of this waiver if sonic
additional safety barricades are proposed and topographical information on the entry
road is given in the set.
g. 118- 4.12.17.c.11 Tra elwav widths are difficult to confirm for the farm road from
Route 53 because it is not shown in this plan. All two -way traffic is recommended by
engineering review to he at least 201t in width.
The following comments are final plan comments that do not have to be addressed with this preliminary
review but may be helpful to the applicant in the development of the preliminary and concept plans.
1. A guardrail is required for Lill travelways and parking areas adjacent to a wall of Oft in height
fCp2 or taller.
J t Please provide typical details for all retaining walls. r`` ,I'l I, `w S
3. A handrail is needed tier all walls 411 or taller.
f. Adequatc channel analyses will he required for all concentrated flow discharge points.
OF
f` 3
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
June 3, 2008
Julia Skare, Draper Aden Associates
700 Harris Street, Suite E
Charlottesville, VA, 22903
RE: SDP - 2008 -00078 Preliminary Site Plan for restoration of Montalto
Dear Ms. Skare,
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 16, 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, for Summer Frederick, Sr. Planner
County of Albemarle Department of Community Development, Current Development Division
434 - 296 -5832
CC: File
10 AI. /3F y..
R(.Iy
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: Julia Skare, Draper Arden Associates
From: Lisa Glass, Principal Planner, for Summer Frederick, Sr. Planner -,
Division: Zoning and Current Development
Date: May 29, 2008
Subject: SDP 2008 - 00078: Restoration of Montalto: Preliminary Site Plan
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 coining under separate cover.
1. Correct reference to rezoning: it is ZTA 2007 -06. (Section 32.5.6 a)
2. Please note that the final site plan shall address all site related items in the ZMA and ZTA. (Section
32.5.6 a)
3. A site lighting plan with photometrics will be required for final site plan approval; The lighting plan
should also be submitted to the ARB for review. (Section 32.5.6 a)
4. Add the present use for the adjacent parcels. (Section 32.5.6 a)
5. Please clarify the fence or guardrail shown on the existing conditions plan. It appears to rernain.
Please include the material and height of the railing. (Section 32.5.6 d)
6. Indicate if the site is or is not in a reservoir watershed. (Section 32.5.6 f)
7. Add any other utility easements. (Section 32.5.6 1)
8. Show the distance to the centerline of the nearest existing street intersection. (Section 32.5.6 n)
9. Show the location for trash containers or if no dumpster pad is proposed, apply for a waiver (Section
32.5.6 n and Section 14.12.13 e and t)
10. Please indicate location and dimensions for loading space. (Section 32.5.6.n)
H. Review handicap space dimensions with Inspections to confirm they meet code. (Section 32.5.6 n)
12. Show all signs or indicate if not included in this application. (Section 32.5.6 n)
13. Landscape plan to meet requirements of Section 32.7.9 may be required for final plan, to address
issues such as interior parking lot trees.
14. Administrative waivers are required for Sections 14.12.17 for travel way slopes and 14.12.15 parking
aisle surface The courtyard entrance grade and surface materials were discussed by the Planning
Commission with the ZMA and approval is expected.
15. A waiver for disturbance of critical slopes was approved with the ZMA, and an action letter to this
affect will be placed in the site plan tile.
16. The central water system may require additional approval, please contact Josh Rubinstein 296 -5832.
17. A parking schedule is not required since the ZMA addresses the number of spaces; however the
number of spaces shown on page C2.2 should match the number in the text on page C0.0.
CC: File SDP 2008 -0078
Application #: SDP200800078 - jhort Review Comm —As
Project Name: Restoration - o i - - -jton f Montalto- Prel Preliminary — Non- residentiaProi
Date Completed:05/30/2008
Reviewer:Andrew Slack E911
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:NO OBJECTION.
Date Completed:06/03/2008
Reviewer:Jay Schlothauer Inspections
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:Based on plans dated May 13, 2008.
Rearrange the barrier -free parking spaces in the Court Yard of the Main House so that one of them is
van - accessible (min. 8' wide parking space, with min. 8' wide adjacent access aisle)
Date Completed:05/30/2008
Reviewer:Margaret Maliszewski ARB
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:IThe proposed changes are not expected to be visible from the EC. Consequently, ARB review is not
required. -
Date Completed:06/03/2008
Reviewer:Philip Custer Engineer Z &CD
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:SRC 6/5/08
Date Completed: 05/29/2008
Reviewer: Summer Frederick Planner Z &CD
Review Status: Pending
Reviews Comments: ; See Lisa Glass comments
r
y
Page: 1.00 County of Albemarle Printed On: Tuesday, June 03, 2008
J W111 r
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Lisa Glass, Current Development Project Planner
From: Phil Custer, Current Development engineering review
Date: 03 .Lune 2008
Subject: Montalto Restoration (SDP -2008 -00078)
The preliminary site plan for the Montalto restoration project has been reviewed. The following comments
are provided:
1. The applicant will need to submit an application for a WPO plan when the final site plan is
submitted. A preliminary assessment of the SWM concept plan has been performed with the
preliminary site plan review.
2. Engineering review realizes that the impervious area around the existing house and barn
structures in the post - development condition is nearly equal to the pre - development condition and
will not require SWM quality treatment in this area. SWM treatment and detention will be
required for the parking lots to the south of the site where new impervious area is added over
grass. Please provide treatment measures in this area that meet or exceed the required removal rate
computed using the county's modified simple spreadsheet. Please contact me if you need a copy
of this spreadsheet.
3. Please note on the plan the date of the topographic and utility survey. The survey does not
appear to accurately show the existing entrance onto Route 53. A blowup of this entrance should
be provided in the plan showing adequate sight distance.
4. The plan has been designed to parameters less stringent than the standards listed in the County
ordinance. It is unclear what design standards were waived during the rezoning process and what
were left to be waived administratively. 'fhe waivers needed are:
a. [18- 4.12.15.a] Surface materials.
b. [18- 4.12.15.c] Maximum grade in parking lot.
c. [18- 4.12.15.g] Curb and gutter.
d. [ 18- 4.12.16.c. I ] Minimum parking space size and aisle widths.
e. [I 8-4.12.16.e] Bumper blocks.
f. [18- 4.12.17.a] Maximum grade for a travelway.
g. [ 18- 4.12.17.c. I ] Travelway width.
An engineering analysis of the pending waivers is as follows:
a. 118- 4.12.15.al Details for each modification from standard asphalt paving should be
included before a waiver is granted. Details were not included in this set.
b. 118- 4.12.15.cl It appears that the 5% maximum grade can easily be achieved in most
locations.
e. 118- 4.12.15.gl Stormwater runoff is always more efficiently transferred with curbing.
d. 1 18- 4.12.16.c.1) Room is available for the expansion of the travelway in the southwest
Current Development
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 2
parking lot to the standard in the County Code.
e. 118- 4.12.16.el Bumper blocks should be provided in parking spaces adjacent to
sidewalk that is narrower than 6ft.
L 118- 4.12.17.al All travelways that exceed the maximum grade requirement are existing
travelways on the "faun road ". All existing travelways appear to have grades
shallower than the maximum allowable slope that can be traversed by emergency
access vehicles. Though, this cannot be confirmed until a survey of the entry road is
provided in this set. Engineering review recommends approval of this waiver if some
additional safety barricades are proposed and topographical information on the entry
road is given in the set.
g. 118- 4.12.17.c.1 1 Travelway widths are difficult to confirm for the farm road from
Route 53 because it is not shown in this plan. All two -way traffic is recommended by
engineering review to be at least 20ft in width.
The following comments are final plan comments that do not have to be addressed with this preliminary
review but may be helpful to the applicant in the development of the preliminary and concept plans.
1. A guardrail is required for all travelways and parking areas adjacent to a wall of 4ft in height
or taller.
2. Please provide typical details for all retaining walls.
3. A handrail is needed for all walls 4ft or taller.
4. Adequate channel analyses will be required for all concentrated flow discharge points.
Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District June 3, 2008
2134 Berkmar Dr
Charlottesville, VA 22901
975-0224
TO. Summer Frederick
Planning Department
RE: Soils Report and Comments for:
Montalto Restoration
I ' IIIIIIIIIIII 'IIIIIIIIIIIIIilllllllll 111 uii
47U 71B
Pantops
23B /
71C
Ir. *K
I ,
M,
I %ti
was compiled by the U.S.
culture, Soil Conservation
rating agencies. Base
tographs prepared by
1
t.. 1", 23
a s
71
W / (
59
til
3/
i
Y 7283
I
f w
Nn
on
IC i;D
5000 Feet 4000 3000
1000 Meters 800
I -
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: Montalto Restoration
Soil Survey Area: Albemarle County, Virginia
Survey Status: Published
Correlation Date: 12/01/1981
Distribution Date: 10/21/2002
Map Uaait: 12(' Catoctin .tilt loaana, 7 to 15 percent slopes
Description Category: G'irginica FOTG
Catoctin is a strongly sloping to moderately steep, moderately deep, yvelI drained soil. Ty pically the surface layer
is silt loam about inches thick. The surface laver has a moderately lovv content of organic matter. The slowest
permeability is moderately rapid. It has a lovy available water capacity and a love shrink syvcll 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 ?c. The Virginia soil management group is JJ. This soil is not hydric.
Map t4 it: 12D Catoctin silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes
Description C'ategoq: Virginia FOT(;
Catoctin is a moderately steep to steep, moderately deep. well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is silt loam
about 5 inches thick. The surface laver has a moderately logy content of organic matter. The sloNwst permeability
is moderately rapid. It has a loyv available \yatcr capacity and a to \v shrink s\\cll potential. This soil is not
flooded and is not pondcd. The seasonal high \\ater table is at a depth of more than 6 feet. The land capabilit\
classification is -le. The Virginia soil management group is JJ. This soil is not by dric.
Map Unit: 12E ('atoctna silt loam, 25 to 45 percent slopes
Description Category: Yirginiaa FOTG
Catoctin is a steep, moderately sleep, N\cll drained soil. Typicall\ the surface laver is silt loam about 5 inches
thick. The surface laver has a moderately logy content of organic matter. The sloN\cst permeability is moderately
rapid. It has a logy available water capacity and a lo\\ shrink s\\cll potential. This soil is not flooded and is not
pondcd. The seasonal high mater table is at a depth of more than 6 feet. The land capabilit} classification is 7e.
The Virginia soil management group is JJ. This soil is not hydric.
Map Unit: 2.1B Davidson slat' loam, 2 to 7 perceaat slnpec
Description Category: Virginia FOTG
Davidson is a gentle sloping to moderately sloping. vcr-\ deep, \yell drained soil. Typicall\ the surface layer is
clay loam about 4 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderately IoNN content of organic matter. The sloyyest
permeability is moderate. It has a moderate available yyatcr capacity and a logy shrink syycll potential. This soil is
not flooded and is not ponded. The seasonal high Neater 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
Hap Unit: 59D Mt very stone silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes
Description Category: Virginia FOTG
Myersvillc is a moderately steep to steep. Nerd deep. well drained soil. Typocall, the surface layer is silt loam
about 7 inches thick. 'The surface laver has a moderately lovy content of organic matter. The slovyest permeability
is moderate. It has a moderate available yyater capacit\ and a logy shrink syycll potential. This soil is not flooded
Thomas Jefferson SWCD 1 6/11/08
and is not ponded. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of more than 0 feet. The land capability
classification is hs. The Virginia soil management group is D. This soil is not hydric.
Map Unit: 7113 Rabun clat loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes
Description Category: Virginia FOTG
Rabun is a gently sloping to moderatelo sloping. xery deep. Nell drained soil. 'Trpicalll the surface layer is clal_
loam about h inches thick. The surface laver has a moderatcly loN\ content of organic matter. The s1m\cst
permeability is moderate. It has a moderate available eater capacit\ and a lo« 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 2c. The Virginia soil management group is N. This soil is not hedric.
Nfap Unit: 71CRahun ell't loam, Ito 1 percent slopes
Description Category: Virginia FOTG
Rabun is a strongly sloping to moderately steep. very deep. \\ell drained soil. Typicall\ the surface layer is cla\
loam about 6 inches thief:. The surface layer has a moderate]\ low content of organic matter. "File slowest
permeability is modcratc It has a moderate available mater capacity and a logy shrink swell potential. This soil is
not flooded and is not ponded. The seasonal high eater table is at a depth of more than 6 feet. The land
capability classification is hc. The Virginia soil management group is N. This soil is not hydric.
Val) Unit: 711) Rahun cliq loam, 15 to '1 percent slopes
Description Categoi :y: Virginia FOTG
Rabun is a moderately steep to steep, yen deep. well drained soil Typically the surface ]aver is clay loam about
6 inches thick. The surface Inver has a moderate]\ lo®o content of organic matter. ']'lie sloewcst permeability is
moderate. It has a moderate available i\atcr capacity and a IoN\ shrink stcll potential. This soil is not flooded
and is not ponded. 'The seasonal high water table is at a depth of more than h feet. The land capability
classification is 6c. The Virg soil management group is N. This soil is not hydric.
lblap Unit: 71E Rabun clat loam, 25 to 43 percent slopes
Description Categorv: Virginia FOTG
Rabun is a steep, very deep. \\ell drained soli. Typically the surface layer is clar loam about h inches thick. The
surface Inv er has a modcratc]. low content of organic matter. The slo\ \cst permeability is moderate. It has a
moderate available N`atcr capacitN and a low shrink swell potential. This soil is not flooded and is not ponded.
The seasonal high \\titer table is at a depth of more than 6 feet. The land capability classification is 7c. The
Virginia soil management group is N. This soil is not hydric.
Map Unit: 72113 Rabun clap, 2 to 7 percent slopes, severelt erollell
Description Category: Virginia FOTG
Rabun is a gentl\ sloping to moderately sloping, very deep. \ell drained soil. Typically the surface layer is clad
about 4 inches thick. The surface laver has a \.cr\ logy content of oryyanic matter. "File sloN\cst permeability is
moderate. It has a moderate mailable «ater capacity and a lo\\ shrink sell potential. This soil is not flooded
and is not ponded. The seasonal high eater table is at a depth of more than 6 fcet. The land capability
classification is 3c. The Virginia soil management group is N This soil is not hydric.
Mapunit Hydric Rating
Soil Survey: Albemarle County, Virginia
Survey Status: Published
Correlation Date, 12 /01/1981
Distribution Date; 10/21/2002
Map
Thomas Jellerson SWCU 2 6/3/08
Symbol Soil Name Rating
12C Catoctin silt loam, 7 to 15 Not hvdric
Distribution Date: 10/21/2002
percent slopes
Map
12D Catoctin silt loans. 15 to 25 Not Iiydric
Soil Name
percent slopes
12C
12E Catoctin silt loam. 25 to 45 Not hydric
percent slopes
percent slopes
12D
2313 Davidson clan loam. 2 to 7 Not IiNdric
percent slopes
percent slopes
12E
59D Mversville ver\ stony silt Not hydric
percent slopes
loam. 15 to 25 percent
2313 Davidson cla% loam. 2 to 7
slopes
71B Rabun cla\ loam. 2 to 7 Not liydric
klNersyillc ycry stony silt
percent slopes
71C Rabun char loam. 7 to 1 Not hydric
slopes
percent slopes
71B
71D Rabun clay loam. I5 to 25 Not hydric
percent slopes
percent slopes
7 l C
71E Rabun clay loam, 25 to -IS Not hydric
percent slopes
percent slopes
71D
72B3 Rabun clay. 2 to 7 percent Not hydric
percent slopes
slopes. severely eroded
71E
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
12C Catoctin silt loam. 7 to I5 1.5
percent slopes
12D Catoctin silt loam. I5 to 25 1.5
percent slopes
12E Catoctin silt loam. 25 to 45 1.5
percent slopes
2313 Davidson cla% loam. 2 to 7 1.5
percent slopes
59D klNersyillc ycry stony silt 1.5
loam. 15 to 25 percent
slopes
71B Rabun clay loam. 2 to 7 1.5
percent slopes
7 l C Rabun clay loam. 7 to I 1.5
percent slopes
71D Rabun clay loans. 15 to 25 1.5
percent slopes
71E Rabun clay loam. 25 to 45 1.5
percent slopes
72133 Rabun cl iN. 2 to 7 percent l.5
slopes, scycrely eroded
Yhomas Jefferson S\VC'D 3 W3/08
Corrosion Concrete - Dominant Condition
Soil Survey: Albemarle County, Virginia
Survey Status: Published
Correlation Date: 12/01/1981
Correlation Date: 12/01/1981
Distribution Date: 10/21/2002
Map
Rating
12C Catoctin sill loam. 7 to 15
Symbol Soil Name Rating
12C Catoctin sill loam. 7 to 15 Moderate
percent slopes
High
12D Catoctin silt loam. I? to 2i Moderate
High
percent slopes
12E Catoctin silt loans 25 to 41;Moderate
percent slopes
23B DaN idson claN loam. 2 to 7 Moderate
percent slopes
High
59D M\ersNilleNcn stow silt Moderate
loam. 15 to 2 percent
slopes
71B Rabun clay loam. 2 to 7 Moderate
percent slopes
71C Rabun clay loam. 7 to 1 'Moderate
percent slopes
71D Rabun claN loam. I; to 2i Moderate
percent slopes
71E Rabun clay loam. 2i to 45 Moderate
percent slopes
7213 R,.bun claN'. 2 to 7 percent Moderate
slopes. sc \ eroded
Corrosion Steel - Dominant Condition
Soil Survey: Albemarle Countv, Virginia
Survey Status: Published
Correlation Date: 12/01/1981
Distribution Date: 10/21/2002
Map
Symbol Soil Name Rating
12C Catoctin sill loam. 7 to 15 High
percent slopes
12D Catoctin sill loam. 15 to 2 High
percent slopes
12E Catoctin sill loam. 2i to 45 High
percent slopes
23B Day idson claN loam. 2 to 7 High
percent slopes
59D M \ersN ille v en slom silt Moderate
loam. 17 to 25 percent
slopes
71B Rabun clay loam, 2 to 7 High
percent slopes
71C Rabun claN loam. 7 to 15 High
percent slopes
Thomas JeYlerson SWCD 4 6 /, /()8
71D Rabun claN loam. 15 to 2 High
percent slopes
71E Rabun clan loam. 2? to 4 High
percent slopes
7213; Rabun clad. 2 to 7 percent High
slopes. sevcreIN eroded
l'honnas Jefferson SWCD 4i 0/3/08
11F \IJU.1
J7 Idir N
1 flnll \''
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Lisa Glass, Current Development Project Planner
From: Phil Custer, Current Development engineering review
Date: 03 .lime 2008
Subject: Montalto Restoration (SDP - 2008 - 00078)
The preliminary site plan for the Montalto restoration project has been reviewed. The following continents
are provided:
1. The applicant will need to submit an application for a WPO plan when the final site plan is
submitted. A preliminary assessment of the SWM concept plan has been performed with the
preliminary site plan review.
2. Engineering review realizes that the impervious area around the existing house and barn
structures in the post - development condition is nearly equal to the pre - development condition and
will not require SWM quality treatment in this area. SWM treatment and detention will be
required for the parking lots to the south of the site where new impervious area is added over
grass. Please provide treatment measures in this area that meet or exceed the required removal rate
computed using the county's modified simple spreadsheet. Please contact me if you need a copy
of this spreadsheet.
3. Please note on the plan the date of the topographic and utility survey. The survey does not
appear to accurately show the existing entrance onto Route 53. A blowup of this entrance should
be provided in the plan showing adequate sight distance.
4. The plan has been designed to parameters less stringent than the standards listed in the County
ordinance. It is unclear what design standards were waived during the rezoning process and what
were left to be waived administratively. The waivers needed are:
a. [I 8-4.12.15.a] Surface materials.
b. [18- 4.12.15.c] Maximum grade in parking lot.
c. [18- 4.12.15.g] Curb and gutter.
d. [18- 4.12.16.c.I] Minimum parking space size and aisle widths.
e. [18- 4.12.16.e] Bumper blocks.
E [18- 4.12.17.a] Maximum grade for a travelway.
g. [18- 4.12.17.c.I] Travelway width.
An engineering analysis of the pending waivers is as follows:
a. [18- 4.12.15.a] Details for each modification from standard asphalt paving should be
included before a waiver is granted. Details were not included in this set.
b. 118 4.12.15.cl It appears that the 51io maximum grade can easily be achieved in most
locations.
c. 1 18- 4.12.15.gl Stormwater runoff is always more efficiently transferred with curbing.
d. 11 8- 4.12.16.c.1 1 Room is available for the expansion of the travelway in the southwest
Current Development
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of?
parking lot to the standard in the County Code.
e. 118- 4.12.16.el Bumper blocks should be provided in parking spaces adjacent to
sidewalk that is narrower than 611.
f. 118- 4.12.17.al All travelways that exceed the maximum grade requirement are existing
travelways on the "farm road ". All existing travelways appear to have grades
shallower than the maximum allowable slope that can be traversed by emergency
access vehicles. Though, this cannot be confirmed until a survey of the entry road is
provided in this set. Engineering review recommends approval of this waiver if some
additional safety barricades are proposed and topographical information on the entry
road is given in the set.
g. [18- 4.12.17.c.1] Travelway widths are difficult to confirm for the farm road from
Route 53 because it is not shown in this plan. All two -way traffic is recommended by
engineering review to be at least 20ft in width.
The following comments are final plan comments that do not have to be addressed with this preliminary
review but may be helpful to the applicant in the development of the preliminary and concept plans.
1. A guardrail is required for all travelways and parking areas adjacent to a wall of 4ft in heightortaller.
2. Please provide typical details for all retaining walls.
3. A handrail is needed for all walls 4ft or taller.
4. Adequate channel analyses will be required for all concentrated flow discharge points.
3C}
Sg
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road s
Culpeper, Virginia 22701
VirginiaDOT.org
David S. Ekern, P.E. VI
COMMISSIONER
June 4` 1008
Mr. Glenn Brooks
Department of Engineering and Development
401 McIntire Rd.
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Subject: Site Review Meeting Comments June 5` 2008 site review meeting
Dear Mr. Brooks:
Below are VDOT's comments on the Site Plans for the June 5` 2008 Site Review Committee
Meeting:
SDP - 2008 -00075 Easton Estate - Verizon Wireless — Tier II PWSF -Final (Megan Yaniglos)
No Comments
SDP - 2008 -00078 Restoration of Montalto - Preliminary (Summer Frederick)
All proposed work is outside of VDOT Right of Way and does not require any Land Use
Permits.
SUB -2007 -00338 Old Trail Ballard Field Phase IV -Final (Francis MacCall)
The plat appears to be the same as the latest site plan for thissection for ffie roadways and
drainage easements but not for the lots.
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
f---YEARS 06
r•Aawaraxrctr EacEwc€
9 0 6 2 0 7 6
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
c s.
f /kGlti \ ?I
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Summer Frederick, Current Development Project Planner
From: Phil Custer, Current Development engineering review
Date: 25 July 2008
Subject: Montalto Restoration (SDP- 2008 - 00078)
The revision to the preliminary site plan for the Montalto restoration project has been reviewed.
Engineering review has no major issues with the plan as submitted and has no objection if approved. The
following comments are provided for the applicant as the project continues to the next phase:
1. The applicant will need to submit an application for a WPO plan when the final site plan is
submitted. A preliminary assessment of the SWM concept plan has been performed with the
preliminary site plan review.
Rev. 1) A complete WPO plan review will be performed when the WPO application is
submitted aitlt the required fee. A quick preliminary review of the ESC plan yields a ftw
comments which should be adjusted before the application is submitted:
Silt fence must be installed parallel to contour lines. As currerttty designed, the silt
fence will be acting as a diversion in marry places when installed. Please either adjust
placement of the silt fence or replace with diversion dikes and sediment traps. .4
sediment trap at the base of the fill adjacent to the southern parking lot will likely be
required.
The construction entrance should be placed at the edge of'where work is taking place.
Why are the limits of construction so wide ?)
Please show tree protection fencing to the standard in VESCK Currently, site
improvements are shown within the fencing. Are there any trees required to be
protected through the rezoning process?
The three parking spaces to the east appear to need protection measures during their
con
2. Engineering review realizes that the impervious area around the existing house and barn
structures in the post - development condition is nearly equal to the pre- development condition and
will not require SWM quality treatment in this area. SWM treatment and detention will be
required for the parking lots to the south of the site where new impervious area is added over
grass. Please provide treatment measures in this area that meet or exceed the required removal rate
computed using the county's modified simple spreadsheet. Please contact me if you need a copy
of this spreadsheet.
Rev. 1) The conceptual BMP adjacent to the southern parking lot is acceptable to engineering
review as shown in this plait. At this tinte, we are not convinced that it is not required. When
the WPO plait is submitted, please provide a diagram showing the impervious areas of the pre
and post development conditions if'the applicant still wishes to contend that total impervious
area is reduced.
Please note that there is a discrepancy between sheets C1.4 and C2.1 regarding the cisterns in
the basement of the main house. This does not affect engineering review.
3. Please note on the plan the date of the topographic and utility survey. The survey does not
Current Development
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 3
appear to accurately show the existing entrance onto Route 53. A blowup of this entrance should
be provided in the plan showing adequate sight distance.
Rev. 1) The date of the topographic and utility survey has not been added to the plan. This
must be shown on the final site plan.
4. The plan has been designed to parameters less stringent than the standards listed in the County
ordinance. It is unclear what design standards were waived during the rezoning process and what
were left to be waived administratively. The waivers needed are:
a. [I 8-4.12.15.a] Surface materials.
b. [18- 4.12.15.c] Maximum grade in parking lot.
c. [18- 4.12.15.g] Curb and gutter.
d. [18- 4.12.16.c.1] Minimum parking space size and aisle widths.
e. [18- 4.12.16.e] Bumper blocks.
f. [18- 4.12.17.a] Maximum grade for a travelway.
g. [18- 4.12.17. c. I ] Trave I way w idth.
An engineering analysis of the pending waivers is as follows:
a. [18- 4.12.15.a] Details for each modification from standard asphalt paving should be
included before a waiver is granted. Details were not included in this set.
b. 118- 4.12.15.cl It appears that the 5% maximum grade can easily be achieved in most
locations.
c. 118- 4.12.15.gi Stormwater runoff is always more efficiently transferred with curbing.
d. 118- 4.12.16.e.1 I Room is available for the expansion of the travelway in the southwest
parking lot to the standard in the County Code.
e. 118- 4.12.16.el Bumper blocks should be provided in parking spaces adjacent to
sidewalk that is narrower than 6ft.
C 118- 4.12.17.a] All travelways that exceed the maximum grade requirement are existing
travelways on the "farm road ". All existing travelways appear to have grades
shallower than the maximum allowable slope that can be traversed by emergency
access vehicles. Though, this cannot be confirmed until a survey of the entry road is
provided in this set. Engineering review recommends approval of this waiver if some
additional safety barricades are proposed and topographical information on the entry
road is given in the set.
g. 118- 4.12.17.c.1 J Travelway widths are difficult to confirm for the farm road from
Route 53 because it is not shown in this plan. All two -way traffic is recommended by
engineering review to be at least 20ft in width.
Rev. 1) The results of the waiver requests are as follows:
a. The use of alternative pavement in parking and travelways is allowed. Please
include these section details on the final site plan.
b. All parking areas are under the 5% maxiimmm. A waiver is not needed Though,
the complete grading the parking lot areas should be shown the eastern
three space area and the southern 9 space lot on final site plan.
c. The curb and gutter waiver has been granted by the Zoning Department.
d. A waiver has been granted by the Zoning Department for the minimum parking
space size and aisle widths on the condition that the parking adjacent to the bus
parking area is realigned so that it is at a 60 degrees to the travehvay. Please refer
to section 18- 4.12.16.e and the design manual_for the required dimensions.
e. The county engineer has granted the waiver bumper blocks. I recommend
Current Development
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 3
placing a bumper block in the spaces in the courtyard of'the main house to prevent
drivers from dropping the nose of the car over the wall.
f. The county engineer has granted a waiver for the maximum grade of the travelway.
The county should be provided with a letter from Fire and Rescue stating that the
entrance drive meets their minimum requirements before final approval is granted.
g. A travelway width waiver has been given by the Zoning Department.
Application #: SDP200800078 ._ ,Short Review Com 3ints
Proect Name: Restoration of Montalto- Prel Preliminary — Non- residentialt _- -- - - - -- j
Date Completed:05/30/2008
Reviewer:Andrew Slack E911
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:NO OBJECTION.
Date Completed:06/11 /2008
Reviewer:Josh Rubinstein Water Resources Manager
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:In my judgement this site plan is not water consumptive and therefore does not require a Groundwater
No Objection
Assessment. It should be noted that, with the new mixed use zoning, any future site plan that
The proposed changes are not expected to be visible from the EC. Consequently, ARB review is not
increases the water use for the non residential portion of the site will require a Groundwater
requir
Assessment.
Date Completed:07/24/2008
Reviewer:Jay Schlothauer Inspections
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:Comment re: van accessible spaces near main house not addressed.
Date Completed: 06/03/2008
Reviewer: Jay Schlothauer Inspections
Review Status: Requested Changes
Reviews Comments: Based on plans dated May 13, 2008.
Reviews Comments: I SRC 6/5/08
Date Completed: 05/29/2008
Reviewer: Summer Frederick Planner Z &CD
Review Status: Requested Changes
Reviews Comments: 'See Lisa Glass comments
Page: 1.00 County of Albemarle Printed On: Monday, August 11, 2008
Rearrange the barrier -free parking spaces in the Court Yard of the Main House so that one of them is
van-accessible 8' wide parking space, with min. 8' wide adjacent access aisle)
Date Completed:05/29/2008
Reviewer:Lisa K Glass CDZCD
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:SRC comment packet e- mailed 6/3/08
Date Completed:05/30/2008
Reviewer:Margaret Maliszewski ARB
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:The proposed changes are not expected to be visible from the EC. Consequently, ARB review is not
requir
Date Completed:06/03/2008
Reviewer:Philip Custer Engineer Z &CD
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments: I SRC 6/5/08
Date Completed: 05/29/2008
Reviewer: Summer Frederick Planner Z &CD
Review Status: Requested Changes
Reviews Comments: 'See Lisa Glass comments
Page: 1.00 County of Albemarle Printed On: Monday, August 11, 2008
Application #:1 SDP200800078w— Short R @ @W Comments
Project Name:' Res of Montalto- Prel - - Preliminary- Non - residential
Date Completed:05/30/2008
Reviewer:Andrew Slack E911
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:NO OBJECTION. '
Date Completed:06/03/2008
Reviewer:Jay Schlothauer Inspections
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:Based on plans dated May 13, 2008. j
Rearrange the barrier -free parking spaces in the Court Yard of the Main House so that one of them is
van - accessible (min. 8' wide parki space, with min 8' wid adjacent access aisle) -
Date Completed:05/29/2008
Reviewer:Lisa K Glass CDZCD
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:SRC comment packet e- mailed 6/3/08 4
Date Completed:05/30/2008
Reviewer:Margaret Maliszewski ARB
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:The proposed changes are not expected to be visible from the EC. Consequently, ARB review is not
required. V
Date Completed:06/03/2008
Reviewer:Philip Custer Engineer Z &CD
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:SRC 6/5/08
Date Completed: 05/29/2008
Reviewer: Summer Frederick Planner Z &CD
Review Status: Pending
Reviews Comments: See Lisa Glass comments
V
t t,U
L
U t!Gh
U
1
Page: 1.00 County of Albemarle Printed On: Thursday, June 05, 2008