Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP200800119 Review Comments 2008-08-18Application #: SDP200800119 Short Review Comments Project Name: TREESDALE PARK - PRELIM Preliminary — Residential Date Completed: 08/18/2008 Reviewer: Andrew Slack E911 Review Status: Reviews Comments: Date Completed: Reviewer: Review Status: Reviews Comments: Date Completed: Reviewer: Review Status: Reviews Comments: Requested Changes HE APPLICANT SHOULD CONTACT THIS OFFICE WITH A LIST OF THREE (3) ROAD NAMES -OR APPROVAL. 08/14/2008 Jay Schlothauer Inspections Requested Changes Based on plans dated July 18, 2008. Provide curb cuts at the heads of the barrier -free parking spaces' access aisles. 08/01/2008 Max Greene Engineer Z&CD Requested Changes SRC 8/12/08 Critical slope waiver may be required. —Off-site grading easement/letter of intent required. Show grading required to install the walking trail. —Interparcel connector road needs to match the adjacent road for width and design. —Interparcel sidewalk needs to attach to adjacent property sidewalk for continuity. Curb and gutter needs to connect to the existing curb and gutter to the north of the propose �u entrance. — SCi OC�� pct 4 t��I '�� Qo~C C+ G� UO K 6� r �1� add a north arrow to the plan sheets.` '�' of '' °�'�` "" p Dr- -Please c� Erosion and sediment control structural measures will require the removal of additional trees below the proposed fill areas. Tree canopy may be lees than shown. V,(2,,(�\or-) ltbL-)2V6 l KT;�D \JkLk_A , SQ,jAj�. Page: 1.00 County of Albemarle Printed On: Thursday, August 21, 2008 Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District August 21, 2008 2134 Berkmar Dr Charlottesville, VA 22901 975-0224 TO: Summer Frederick Planning Department RE: Soils Report and Comments for: Treesdale Park ;RICULTURE SERVICE 10 21C 34C asi �y 21B 16 346 76 3¢( C3 21L) r7203 76 72B 3 Keys esf s" }., g1 r 72C3 7'"' ., ,�. '��. L' 7¢8 , �' ,rs: � lye•.. tt,»-- �c. ♦ '.� 'fir.. ,; �s ,;'�3� ' S� r" ea �,� �Z1B a „� 72C3 t 2B' mo n \ • "y 2C3 . @y 85 x 1B y�0tE. k ; s r. 3 ,* � 3 j� � " 9g, 72B _ j 05 4W ,r • : 13C 13D Pry ` M' : 23C Z ,#, 'tx' 14, 42B3 'IC lft� A 42k; i , ',• 4 • Ya..,..,µ. -c',' `� 4, 't- �' "" ' 71C 79B 71B 12fiy0 r ^m h 12 j.w '.�,-P7�� n • ; '-r j.1f .xA a ",�45 _ f+ �„°, YK•.. `r' ys. `..',< :. :'4,-. ,r `v�=';, h S3� 236 15 - - „'{sa%.. -T' - w • it -.'(.' r�� �tl� + �� env 716 y� 23B �. _,� '� -;xP•� x�.;; �� _r w �^ ',r :.`' r: �,4,rr�v+.�j._ ,,�'4M _ �Ag ..�'. 23 , C 236 23 a "*tea;,: • r `,k ' `§` , �i�3'�`t'�" ,._ ".`��,-" *'� � _ ,�" S �"�/ � = 8B * 71 _USDA united States Natural Department of Resources — Agriculture Conservation Service Prepared by: Thorn—gs Jefferson Soil & Water Conservation District 434-975-0224 Soils Report SOILS REPORT FOR: Treesdale park Soil Survey Area: Albemarle County, Virginia Survey Status: Published Correlation Date: 12/01/1981 Distribution Date: 10/21/2002 Map Unit: 2C Albemarle fine sandy loam, 7 to 1 S percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Albemarle is a strongly sloping to moderately steep, shallow, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is fine sandy loam about 5 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderately low content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is moderate. It has a low available water capacity and a low shrink swell potential. This soil is not flooded and is not ponded. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of more than 6 feet. The land capability classification is 3e. The Virginia soil management group is JJ. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit. 16 Chewacla silt loam Description Category: Virginia FOTG Chewacla is a nearly level to gently sloping, very deep, somewhat poorly drained soil. Typically the surface layer is silt loam about 8 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderate content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is moderate. It has a high available water capacity and a low shrink swell potential. This soil is occasionally flooded and is not ponded. The top of the seasonal high water table is at 12 inches. The land capability classification is 3w. The Virginia soil management group is I. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit. 21B Culpeper fine sandy loan, 2 to 7 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Culpeper is a gently sloping to moderately sloping, deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is fine sandy loam about 8 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 moderate shrink swell potential. This soil is not flooded and is not ponded. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of more than 6 feet. The land capability classification is 2e. The Virginia soil management group is X. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 21 C Culpeper fine sandy loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Culpeper is a strongly sloping to moderately steep, deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is fine sandy loam about 8 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 moderate 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 X. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit. 47CLouisburg sandy loans, 7 to 15 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Louisburg is a strongly sloping to moderately steep, deep or very deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is sandy loam about 5 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderately low content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is rapid. It has a moderate available water capacity and a low shrink swell potential. This Thomas Jefferson SWCD 1 8/21/08 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 FF. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 47D Louisburg sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Louisburg is a moderately steep to steep, deep or very deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is sandy loam about 5 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderately low content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is rapid. 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 7e. The Virginia soil management group is FF. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 48E Louisburg very stony sandy loan:, 25 to 45 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Louisburg is a steep, deep or very deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is sandy loam about 5 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderately low content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is rapid. It has a moderate available water capacity and a low shrink swell potential. This soil is not flooded and is not ponded. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of more than 6 feet. The land capability classification is 7s. The Virginia soil management group is FF. 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 47D 48E Soil Name Rating 2C Albemarle fine sandy Somewhat limited loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes Chewacla silt loam Very limited Culpeper fine sandy loam, Somewhat limited 2 to 7 percent slopes 21C Culpeper fine sandy loam, Somewhat limited 7 to 15 percent slopes 47C Louisburg sandy loam, 7 Somewhat limited to 15 percent slopes Louisburg sandy loam, 15 Very limited to 25 percent slopes Louisburg very stony Very limited sandy loam, 25 to 45 percent slopes Mapunit Hydric Rating Soil Survey: Albemarle County, Virginia Survey Status: Published Correlation Date: 12/01/1981 Distribution Date: 10/21/2002 Map Symbol Soil Name Rating 1'h omas J etterson S W Cll 2 8121108 2C Albemarle fine sandy Not hydric loam, 7 to 15 percent Correlation Date: 12/01/1981 slopes Distribution Date: 10/21/2002 16 Chewacla silt loam Partially hydric 21B Culpeper fine sandy loam, Not hydric 2 to 7 percent slopes 2C Albemarle fine sandy 21 C Culpeper fine sandy loam, Not hydric 7 to 15 percent slopes slopes 47C Louisburg sandy loam, 7 Not hydric to 15 percent slopes 21 B Culpeper fine sandy loam, 47D Louisburg sandy loam, 15 Not hydric to 25 percent slopes 21 C Culpeper fine sandy loam, 48E Louisburg very stony Not hydric sandy loam, 25 to 45 47C Louisburg sandy loam, 7 percent slopes to 15 percent slopes Soil Shrink -Swell - Dominant Soil Top Depth: 0 to 25 percent slopes Bottom Depth: 0 48E Louisburg very stony Soil Survey: Albemarle County, Virginia Survey Status: Published Correlation Date: 12/01/1981 Distribution Date: 10/21/2002 Map Symbol Soil Name Rating 2C Albemarle fine sandy 1.5 loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes 16 Chewacla silt loam 1.5 21 B Culpeper fine sandy loam, 1.5 2 to 7 percent slopes 21 C Culpeper fine sandy loam, 1.5 7 to 15 percent slopes 47C Louisburg sandy loam, 7 1.5 to 15 percent slopes 47D Louisburg sandy loam, 15 1.5 to 25 percent slopes 48E Louisburg very stony 1.5 sandy loam, 25 to 45 percent slopes Corrosion Concrete - Dominant Condition Soil Survey: Albemarle County, Virginia Survey Status: Published Correlation Date: 12/01/1981 Distribution Date: 10/21/2002 Map Symbol Soil Name Rating 2C Albemarle fine sandy Moderate loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes Thomas Jefferson SWCD 3 8/21/08 16 Chewacla silt loam Moderate 2113 Culpeper fine sandy loam, Moderate 2 to 7 percent slopes 21C Culpeper fine sandy loam, Moderate Moderate 7 to 15 percent slopes 47C Louisburg sandy loam, 7 Moderate High to 15 percent slopes Moderate 47D Louisburg sandy loam, 15 Moderate Moderate to 25 percent slopes 48E Louisburg very stony Moderate sandy loam, 25 to 45 Low to 25 percent slopes percent slopes 48E Louisburg very stony 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 2C Albemarle fine sandy Moderate loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes 16 Chewacla silt loam High 21B Culpeper fine sandy loam, Moderate 2 to 7 percent slopes 21 C Culpeper fine sandy loam, Moderate 7 to 15 percent slopes 47C Louisburg sandy loam, 7 Low to 15 percent slopes 47D Louisburg sandy loam, 15 Low to 25 percent slopes 48E Louisburg very stony Low sandy loam, 25 to 45 percent slopes "Phomas Jetterson SWCD 4 8/21/08 - SOF AI.g�,t _. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 August 28, 2008 Mr. Mike Fenner 220 East High Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: Variation Request dated July 25, 2008 regarding a variation from the application plan for ZMA 04-22 Treesdale Park Dear Mike: You have requested several variations to ZMA 2004-22, Treesdale Park. These were sent to us in the form of a letter. When you resubmit your request, please make sure that you use the application form which is on-line at the following internet address: http://albemarle.org/upload/images/forms center/departments/community development/forms/applications/Ap plication Variation from Application Plans Codes and Standards of Development.pd This letter is to give you preliminary feedback on your requests which are indicated below: 1. Pulling Building #1 closer to Rio Road. The building can be moved closer to Rio Road, but, not as close as shown on your site plan. There must be some open space in front of the building. The purpose of this open space was to break up the massing of buildings along Rio and also to provide for some visibility into the site. 2. Moving the open space from the front of Building #1 to the area between Buildings #1 and #2. The recreational open space can be placed between Buildings #1 and #2. 3. Reducing the open space and recreation area between the two buildings. This can be approved because of the large amount of open space on the site. Active recreation meeting the needs of the development must be provided here or at another approved location on the site. 4. Removing structured parking from the residential buildings. The structured parking can be removed from the residential buildings as a design feature because it reduce the need for retaining walls. 5. Moving the community center into Building #1 instead of having it as a stand-alone building. As long as there is a community center in the development, it can be provided as a stand-alone building or interior to the building. 6. Changing the orientation of the parking lots on the south side of the site and 7. Disturbing tree preservation area which was shown on the application plan. Two parking areas on the south side of the site were approved with the rezoning. These two areas were perpendicular to each other. Your reques,— co make them parallel to each other \N—n will negatively impact the tree preservation area. This tree preservation area was different from the area on the north side of the site adjacent to the Village Square development. There, trees were to be preserved to help retain a vegetated area between the two developments. On the south side, however, I can approve some disturbance because there is not yet an adjoining neighborhood. However, I cannot approve the disturbance to the extent requested and recommend that you revise your plan to provide for both perpendicular and parallel parking in this area reasonably consistent with that shown on the approved application plan. In addition to the extent of disturbance of the tree preservation area, the design change you propose has created 2:1 slopes between the two parking lots which is not acceptable because it leaves no logical connection between the two lots and is a difficult area to vegetate and maintain. I hope that these answers provide the necessary guidance for a resubmittal of your site plan and variation request. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Elaine Echols at 296-5823 x 3252. Sincerely, Wayne Cilimberg Director of Planning C: John Shepherd, Zoning �r ALt JD �f y COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 August 28, 2008 Mr. Mike Fenner 220 East High Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: Variation Request dated July 25, 2008 regarding a variation from the application plan for ZMA 04-22 Treesdale Park Dear Mike: You have requested several variations to ZMA 2004-22, Treesdale Park. These were sent to us in the form of a letter. When you resubmit your request, please make sure that you use the application form which is on-line at the following internet address: http://albemarle orq/upload/images/forms center/departments/community development/forms/applications/Ap plication Variation from Application Plans Codes and Standards of Development.pdf This letter is to give you preliminary feedback on your requests which are indicated below: ®Pulling Building #1 closer to Rio Road. The building can be moved closer to Rio Road, but, not as close as shown on your site plan. There must be some open space in front of the building. The purpose of this open space was to break up the massing of buildings along Rio and also to provide for some visibility into the site. �,` /Moving the open space from the front of Building #1 to the area between Buildings #1 and #2. loC" The recreational open space can be placed between Buildings #1 and #2. 3. Reducing the open space and recreation area between the two buildings. This can be approved because of the large amount of open space on the site. Active recreation meeting the needs of the development must be provided here or at another approved location on the site. 4. Removing structured parking from the residential buildings. The structured parking can be removed from the residential buildings as a design feature because it reduce the need for retaining walls. 5. Moving the community center into Building #1 instead of having it as a stand-alone building. As long as there is a community center in the development, it can be provided as a stand-alone building or interior to the building. 076. Changing the orientation of the parking lots on the south side of the site and Disturbing tree preservation area which was shown on the application plan. Two parking areas on the south side of the site were approved with the rezoning. These two areas were perpendicular to each other. Your request is t6"make them parallel to each other which-,Mll negatively impact the tree preservation area. This tree preservation area was different from the area on the north side of the site adjacent to the Village Square development. There, trees were to be preserved to help retain a vegetated area between the two developments. On the south side, however, I can approve some disturbance because there is not yet an adjoining neighborhood. However, I cannot approve the disturbance to the extent requested and recommend that you revise your plan to provide for both perpendicular and parallel parking in this area reasonably consistent with that shown on the approved application plan. In addition to the extent of disturbance of the tree preservation area, the design change you propose has created 2:1 slopes between the two parking lots which is not acceptable because it leaves no logical connection between the two lots and is a difficult area to vegetate and maintain. I hope that these answers provide the necessary guidance for a resubmittal of your site plan and variation request. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Elaine Echols at 296-5823 x 3252. Sincerely, i Wayne ihmberg Director of Planning (� C1 John Shepherd, Zoning COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 September 11, 2008 Mike Fenner The Cox Company 220 East High Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: Parking Determination ZMA-2004-22 Treesdale Park Dear Mr. Fenner.- This enner: This letter replaces my letter to you dated August 26, 2008. Fax (434) 972-4126 You have submitted a site development plan, SDP -2008-119, that shows 84 dwelling units served by 105 parking spaces. The parking shown on that plan was approved by a parking determination that was dated August 26, 2008. You have requested a further reduction of 15 spaces that will result in the provision of 90 parking spaces to serve this development. A conventional multi family project comprised of 17 one -bedroom units and 67 two & three-bedroom units would require 160 spaces. However, this is a unique affordable housing project that car be considered to be an unscheduled use as described in section 4.12.7 for which the zoning administrator shall determine the parking requirement. We approve your request to provide 90 parking spaces to serve the 84 above described units for the following reasons. The Parking Study, dated July 24, 2008, presented a well reasoned analysis of the parking requirements for this development. It included on- site inspections of comparable developments that demonstrated a minimum of 81 parking spaces were required to serve the 84 units planned for Treesdale. 2. All of the units in Treesdale are proffered to be affordable, for -rent units for a minimum of 15 years. Furthermore, in order to secure financing for this project AHIP must obtain Federal Low Income Housing Tax Credit I:\DEPT\Community Development\Zoning & Current Development Division\Determinations\Parking Determinations\Treesdale SDP -2008-119 REVISED.doc Mike Fenner September 11, 2008 Page 2 funding. Such funding requires that those served by Treesdale must have incomes of 60% or below the area median. The project must comply with this requirement for 15 years. In addition, it is the stated intention of AHIP to continue to serve this income group beyond the 15 -year period. We find it is reasonable to assume that this income group will require fewer parking spaces than are specified for a conventional development. 3. We find that AHIP's experience in managing Parks Edge which is a comparable development supports this request. 4. The parking reduction is further supported by the provision of transportation services by either JAUNT or CTS to this development. 5. An area on the site will be reserved for the construction of 15 additional spaces in the event they are needed in the future. This determination is subject to two conditions: A note stating that "additional parking may be required if the dwelling units are converted to private ownership" must be added to the plan. 2. An area that can accommodate an additional 15 parking spaces must be reserved on the plan. Please contact me if you have any questions about this determination. Sincerely, John Shepherd Manager of Zoning Administration Copy: SDP -2008-119 (:\DEPT\Community Development\Zon+ng & Current Development Division\Determinations\Parking Determinations\Treesdale SDP -2008-119 REVISED.doc AIljFp, COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 September 12, 2008 Eric Woolley The Cox Company 220 East High Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 ericwoolley@thecoxcompany.biz RE: SDP2008-119 Treesdale Park - Preliminary Dear Mr. Woolley: 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 Zoning & Current Development (Inspections) Albemarle County Division of Planning (E911) Albemarle County Division of Planning (Water Protection) Albemarle County Department of Fire Rescue Albemarle County Service Authority 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 21, 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 YOh :1LyF,t MGN' County of Albemarle Department of Community Development To: Eric Woolley; The Cox Company From: Summer Frederick, Senior planner Division: Zoning & Current Development Date: September 12, 2008 Subject: SDP2008-119 Treesdale Park - Preliminary 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(a)] Please provide required information for all adjacent parcels, including those located on the opposite side of Rio Road. 2. [Sec. 18-32.5.6(a)] All minimum setback lines must clearly identified and labeled as such accompanied by relevant distances. 3. [Sec. 18-32.5.6(b)] The parking schedule found on the Cover Sheet indicates that the minimum number of required parking space has not been provided on- site. It is understood that a parking modification request addressing this issue is currently being reviewed by the Zoning Administrator, and that the applicant will incorporate changes necessitated by the decision regarding the parking modification. 4. [Sec. 18-32.5.6(b)] Please clarify percentages shown within Lot Coverage table (is some of the "Landscaped Areas" also included in the "Open Space" designation percentage?). 5. [Sec. 18-32.5.6(c)] If any phasing is anticipated for the project, indication of phasing sections must be included on plan sheets. 6. [Sec. 18-32.5.6(m)] Please provide distance to centerline of the nearest existing street intersection for project's proposed ingress/egress. 7. [Sec. 18-32.5.6(n)] Locations and dimensions of all proposed improvements are required, including; trash containers, outdoor lighting, open space, recreation areas, and signs. 8. [Sec. 18-32.5.6(0)] Please clearly identify and label all areas intended to be dedicated or reserved for public use. 9. [Sec. 18-4.2.3.2] No structure or improvement nor earth disturbing activity to establish such structure or improvement shall be located on slopes of twenty-five (25) percent or greater. In accord with Sec. 18-4.2.5 a waiver of this requirement must be approved to allow for proposed development as shown within submitted plan. 10. It is understood that subsequent submitted revisions of this plan will include changes to address the issues of the location of Building #1 relative to Rio Road, and the orientation of the parking lots on the south side of the site, as stated in the August 28, 2008 letter from Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning regarding the Variation Request made by Mike Fenner of The Cox Company. Please contact Summer Frederick at the Department of Community Development 296- 5832 ext. 3565 for further information. bervice Auth4rity - TO: Summer Frederick FROM: Gary Whelan, Civil Engineer DATE: August 14, 2008 RE: Site Plan Technical Review for: Treesdale Park -Preliminary SDP200800119 TM 61-182, 183, 183A The below checked items apply to this site. X 1. This site plan is within the Authority's jurisdictional area for: X A. Water and sewer B. Water only C. Water only to existing structure D. Limited service X 2. An 18 inch water line is located approximately 30 distant. X 3. Fire flow from, nearest public hydrant, located 180 distant from this site plan, is 1802 Gpm + at 20 psi residual. X 4. An 8 inch sewer line is located approximately 130 distant. 5. An Industrial Waste Ordinance survey form must be completed. X 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. X 10. Final water and sewer plans are required for our review and approval prior to granting tentative approval. 11. Final site plan may/may not be signed. X 12. RWSA approval for water and/or sewer connections. 13. City of Charlottesville approval for sewer. Comments: Provide offsite sewer easement. Provide plumbing fixture count to size meter(s). Show meter locations. Road improvements to Rio Road could result in the relocation of the RWSA water line. See attached flow data. 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 (434) 977-4511 • Fax (434) 979-0698 www.serviceauthoriy,org Stonehenge Area Hydraulic Capacity Critical Pipe = MH A-2 to A-3 at 8 inches and 1.03% grade = 792,568 GPD 4 Development Units GPD Total GPD Peak GPD Stonewater 48 270 12.960 51,840 Treesdale 99 270 26,730 106,920 Village Square 89 270 24,030 96,120 Three parcels in front of Waldorf School 3 270 810 3,240 Waldorf School 250 16 4,000 16,000 0 0 0 p Total From Branch 274,120 GPD Upstream 0 Total 274,120 `DESIGN CAPACITY 792,568 GPD % OF CAPACITY 34.59% rcP.�f 4 a. a DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1601 Grange Road Culpeper, Virginia `2'2.701 David S. Ekern, P.E. VirginiaDOT.org COMMISSIONER August 19`h, )008 Mr. Glenn Brooks Department of Engineering and Development 101 McIntire Rd. Charlottesville, VA 22902 Subject: Site Review Meeting Comments August 21`h, 2008 site review meeting Dear Mr. Brooks: Below are VDOT's comments on the Site Plans for the August 2l `h, 2008 Site Review Committee Meeting: SDP -2008-00115 Forest Lakes Office Park-Maior (Summer Frederick) • No Comments. SDP -2008-00118 Emmanuel Enisconal Church -Final (Megan Yaniglos • The dimensions on the proposed turn lane need to be shown. • The typical section on the turn lane must be in accordance with VDOT's Road Design Manual for a road classified as Rural Minor Arterial. The pavement widening needs to be in accordance with the WP -2 standard in the Road and Bridge Standards. A pavement section will need to be determined according to the WP -2 and the new pavement can be designed to at least the same specifications. • The existing pipe under Route 250 appears to need to he extended. • The old Route 250 roadbed should be utilized to connect the two sites and the main site should be the only access to Route 250. The access to the Religious Education Building should be closed. • The entrance needs to show a profile in accordance with the CG -I 1 Standard in the Road and Bridge Standards. • Show sight distance dimensions on the plan. SDP -2008-00119 Treesdale Park — Preliminary (Summer Frederick) • The right of way lines need to be located a minimum of I foot behind the sidewalk. • The minimum sight distance on Rio Road is 390 feet. f__� TRANSPtR7ATiQ3i E7[CEitECE 1 ''a s G 2 0 0 i • The 18 inch waterline will need to be relocated to the outer 3 to 5 feet of the right of way. This construction should be coordinated with the Stonewater Plan. • The two 12" crop's at the existing driveway needs to be removed. T , 66-faet t��--lnt��--and45-..font.-ttrp�r. • Remove manhole 13 from the pavement area and eliminate storm drain 13 to 14. This wilt allow the surface flow to continue flowing north within the proposed concrete gutter, discharging onto class Al rip rap, and then flowing down the existing outfall along the property boundary. • Final plans need to show details for pavement widening, an entrance profile, and road and drainage plans. _SUB -2008-00173 Glenoaks -Final (Bill Fritz) • The design of the proposed emergency connection to Route 808 will need to be included with the site plan and reviewed by VDOT. SUB -2008-00183 Belle Vista Subdivision -Preliminary Plat (Meman Yaniglos) • The entrance was originally permitted as a private entrance but has been built to commercial standards and is adequate for it's proposed use. 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 434-2-93-0011 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 reaps a� Tii,�N5pC1NTATIQ�# EXCEtiECE ' a 2 0 0 a u.nm...n ft J OUISA ALBEMARLE 11!//`�v NELSON \ / FLWANNA Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District 706 Forest St, Ste G Charlottesville, VA 22903 975-0224 September 25, 2009 TO: Summer Frederick Planning Department RE: Soils Report and Comments for: Treedales Park Th,. . . . . . . . . . wPON EM ■® .37 1415-22 7 ,45-26- -- 045 -,I �* " b Q, t, cc i -1B1 I i ID z� 7 (b, N', 44 6,' 4A� 67 729 129E ; J2L-26 129D 046 6' mum 76-------------- 1 077 07 S,ale , Albemarle County ax map: 0 goo 061 F..t �n,Thfc map r., for display pl(?Po,5e� A-0 S icol 61 57 do OIL AT 1-e cb 167A ->O cl, if A' City of Charlottesville 1-191-A 76-------------- 1 077 07 S,ale , Albemarle County ax map: 0 goo 061 F..t �n,Thfc map r., for display pl(?Po,5e� r-- ga,.�r.• r.{", # �y ,'*. # p ^ .A t j' ter #" fin, �v ,*.. • ._�,'h i{ ..r ♦� j, ,R ; ., ,w" ,u• iY 'e"a°¢y5i"•h j _ ,pts +'+« +ti•d +�, , $ _^i �Yry,�r "k ^ q +: nt . -� `'r $.;;' Y t w, �. X' try � i. ' . s M-�„ .:- ',...arr • �.... - � y % ' � + 1g+' '�' -s• -. law#�}. '�" r,«,, ,cam ,a ;' � ,b t`' •. �- ' ., ra °°.,: � •tea" '• '# 1 • "w �. 78 71 88 1 120 k 88 ✓ 72D3 / �' rlrtoriu 718 a �ti0 x,58 ,1 8C 18 I tl71='*t �9 7,1C 23B 2C #•} 72(f 2D3`,, ky' • � 71B ;. � 71D 'l� � r n� 71C i 2C �yV •r. f ryG3 _. 71D 71E; 72C3 79B v' + NO ' 58 � 58C 58E D 79B This soil survey map was compiled by the U.S. Department o; Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, and cooperating agencies. Base maps are orthophotographs prepared by USDA united States l atural �— Department of Resources _ Agriculture Conservation Service Prepared by: Thomas Jefferson Soil & Water Conservation District 434-975-0224 Soils Report SOILS REPORT FOR: Treedales Soil Survey Area: Albemarle County, Virginia Survey Status: Published Correlation Date: 12/01/1981 Distribution Date: 10/21/2002 Map Unit. 2C Albemarle fine sandy loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Albemarle is a strongly sloping to moderately steep, shallow, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is fine sandy loam about 5 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderately low content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is moderate. It has a low available water capacity and a low shrink swell potential. This soil is not flooded and is not ponded. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of more than 6 feet. The land capability classification is 3e. The Virginia soil management group is JJ. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 16 Chewacla silt loam Description Category: Virginia FOTG Chewacla is a nearly level to gently sloping, very deep, somewhat poorly drained soil. Typically the surface layer is silt loam about 8 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderate content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is moderate. It has a high available water capacity and a low shrink swell potential. This soil is occasionally flooded and is not ponded. The top of the seasonal high water table is at 12 inches. The land capability classification is 3w. The Virginia soil management group is I. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 21B Culpeper fine sandy loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Culpeper is a gently sloping to moderately sloping, deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is fine sandy loam about 8 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 moderate shrink swell potential. This soil is not flooded and is not ponded. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of more than 6 feet. The land capability classification is 2e. The Virginia soil management group is X. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 21 C Culpeper fine sandy loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Culpeper is a strongly sloping to moderately steep, deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is fine sandy loam about 8 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 moderate 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 X. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 27B Elioak loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Elioak is a gently sloping to moderately sloping, very deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is loam about 8 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderate content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is moderately slow. It has a moderate available water capacity and a low shrink swell potential. This soil is not flooded and is not ponded. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of more than 6 feet. The land capability classification is 2e. The Virginia soil management group is X. This soil is not hydric. Thomas Jefferson SWCD 1 9/25/09 Map Unit: 27D Elioak loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Elioak is a moderately steep to steep, very deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is loam about 8 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderate content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is moderately slow. It has a moderate available water capacity and a low shrink swell potential. This soil is not flooded and is not ponded. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of more than 6 feet. The land capability classification is 4e. The Virginia soil management group is X. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 280 Elioak clay loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes, severely eroded Description Category: Virginia FOTG Elioak is a strongly sloping to moderately steep, very deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is clay loam about 8 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderate content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is moderately slow. It has a low available water capacity and a moderate shrink swell potential. This soil is not flooded and is not ponded. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of more than 6 feet. The land capability classification is 4e. The Virginia soil management group is X. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 39C Hazel loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Hazel is a strongly sloping to moderately steep, moderately deep, excessively drained soil. Typically the surface layer is loam about 10 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderately low content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is moderately rapid. It has a low available water capacity and a low shrink swell potential. This soil is not flooded and is not ponded. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of more than 6 feet. The land capability classification is 3e. The Virginia soil management group is JJ. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 47C Louisburg sandy loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Louisburg is a strongly sloping to moderately steep, deep or very deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is sandy loam about 5 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderately low content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is rapid. 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 FF. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 47D Louisburg sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Louisburg is a moderately steep to steep, deep or very deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is sandy loam about 5 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderately low content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is rapid. 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 7e. The Virginia soil management group is FF. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 48E Louisburg very stony sandy loam, 25 to 45 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Louisburg is a steep, deep or very deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is sandy loam about 5 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderately low content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is rapid. It has a moderate available water capacity and a low shrink swell potential. This soil is not flooded and is not ponded. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of more than 6 feet. The land capability classification is 7s. The Virginia soil management group is FF. This soil is not hydric. Dwellings W/O Basements - Dominant Condition Phomas Jefferson SWCD 2 9/25/09 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 Rating Symbol Soil Name Rating 2C Albemarle fine sandy Somewhat limited 16 Chewacla silt loam loam, 7 to 15 percent 21 B Culpeper fine sandy loam, Not hydric slopes 16 Chewacla silt loam Very limited 21 B Culpeper fine sandy loam, Somewhat limited slopes 2 to 7 percent slopes 27D Elioak loam, 15 to 25 21 C Culpeper fine sandy loam, Somewhat limited 280 Elioak clay loam, 7 to 15 7 to 15 percent slopes percent slopes, severely 27B Elioak loam, 2 to 7 percent Not limited slopes 27D Elioak loam, 15 to 25 Very limited percent slopes 28C3 Elioak clay loam, 7 to 15 Somewhat limited percent slopes, severely eroded 39C Hazel loam, 7 to 15 Somewhat limited percent slopes 47C Louisburg sandy loam, 7 Somewhat limited to 15 percent slopes 47D Louisburg sandy loam, 15 Very limited to 25 percent slopes 48E Louisburg very stony Very limited sandy loam, 25 to 45 percent slopes Mapunit Hydric Rating Soil Survey: Albemarle County, Virginia Survey Status: Published Correlation Date: 12/01/1981 Distribution Date: 10/21/2002 Map Symbol Soil Name Rating 2C Albemarle fine sandy Not hydric loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes 16 Chewacla silt loam Partially hydric 21 B Culpeper fine sandy loam, Not hydric 2 to 7 percent slopes 21C Culpeper fine sandy loam, Not hydric 7 to 15 percent slopes 27B Elioak loam, 2 to 7 percent Not hydric slopes 27D Elioak loam, 15 to 25 Not hydric percent slopes 280 Elioak clay loam, 7 to 15 Not hydric percent slopes, severely eroded Phomas Jefferson SWCD 3 9/25/09 39C Hazel loam, 7 to 15 Not hydric percent slopes 47C Louisburg sandy loam, 7 Not hydric to 15 percent slopes 47D Louisburg sandy loam, 15 Not hydric to 25 percent slopes Symbol 48E Louisburg very stony Not hydric sandy loam, 25 to 45 Albemarle fine sandy percent slopes Soil Shrink -Swell - Dominant Soil Top Depth: 0 Bottom Depth : 0 Soil Survey: Albemarle County, Virginia Survey Status: Published Correlation Date: 12/01/1981 Distribution Date: 10/21/2002 Map Symbol Soil Name Rating 2C Albemarle fine sandy 1.5 loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes 16 Chewacla silt loam 1.5 21B Culpeper fine sandy loam, 1.5 2 to 7 percent slopes 21C Culpeper fine sandy loam, 1.5 7 to 15 percent slopes 27B Elioak loam, 2 to 7 percent 1.5 slopes 27D Elioak loam, 15 to 25 1.5 percent slopes 28C3 Elioak clay loam, 7 to 15 4.5 percent slopes, severely eroded 39C Hazel loam, 7 to 15 1.5 percent slopes 47C Louisburg sandy loam, 7 1.5 to 15 percent slopes 47D Louisburg sandy loam, 15 1.5 to 25 percent slopes 48E Louisburg very stony 1.5 sandy loam, 25 to 45 percent slopes Corrosion Concrete - Dominant Condition Map Symbol Soil Name Rating 2C Albemarle fine sandy Moderate loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes 16 Chewacla silt loam Moderate 21B Culpeper fine sandy loam, Moderate Phomas Jetterson SWCD 4 9/25/09 Corrosion Steel - Dominant Condition Map Symbol 2 to 7 percent slopes Rating 21C Culpeper fine sandy loam, Moderate 7 to 15 percent slopes 27B Elioak loam, 2 to 7 percent Moderate 16 slopes High 27D Elioak loam, 15 to 25 Moderate percent slopes 28C3 Elioak clay loam, 7 to 15 Moderate percent slopes, severely 27B eroded High 39C Hazel loam, 7 to 15 High 27D percent slopes High 47C Louisburg sandy loam, 7 Moderate 28C3 to 15 percent slopes High 47D Louisburg sandy loam, 15 Moderate to 25 percent slopes 48E Louisburg very stony Moderate sandy loam, 25 to 45 47C percent slopes Low Corrosion Steel - Dominant Condition Map Symbol Soil Name Rating 2C Albemarle fine sandy Moderate loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes 16 Chewacla silt loam High 21B Culpeper fine sandy loam, Moderate 2 to 7 percent slopes 21C Culpeper fine sandy loam, Moderate 7 to 15 percent slopes 27B Elioak loam, 2 to 7 percent High slopes 27D Elioak loam, 15 to 25 High percent slopes 28C3 Elioak clay loam, 7 to 15 High percent slopes, severely eroded 39C Hazel loam, 7 to 15 Low percent slopes 47C Louisburg sandy loam, 7 Low to 15 percent slopes 47D Louisburg sandy loam, 15 Low to 25 percent slopes 48E Louisburg very stony Low sandy loam, 25 to 45 percent slopes Phomas Jetterson SWCD 5 9/25/09 �"IRGINt�` 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 6, 2009 To: Scott Collins; Collins Engineering via email: scotto- collins-engineering.com CC: Joyce Dudak; AHIP via email: JoycePahipva.org RE: SDP2008-119 Treesdale Park - Preliminary Dear Sir: The Site Review Committee has reviewed the development proposal referenced above. Preliminary comments for the following divisions of the Department of Community Development and other agencies, as applicable, are attached: Albemarle County Division of Zoning & Current Development (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 19, 2009. 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 County of Albemarle Department of Community Development To: Scott Collins; Collins Engineering via email: scott(@collins-enpineering.com CC: Joyce Dudak; AHIP via email: joyceC@ahipva.org From: Summer Frederick, Senior Planner Division: Current Development Date: October 5, 2009 Subject: SDP2008-119 Treesdale Park - Preliminary The Planner for the 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(a)] Descriptions of all variances, proffers, and other modifications must be included on Cover Sheet. 2. [Sec. 18-32.5.6(a)] Please provide required information for all adjacent parcels, including those located on the opposite side of Rio Road. 3. [Sec. 18-32.5.6(a)] All minimum setback lines must clearly identified and labeled as such accompanied by relevant distances. 4. [Sec. 18-32.5.6(b)] The parking schedule found on the Cover Sheet does not match provided parking spaces on plan. Clear explanation of alternate parking requirement information must be included with information requested in #1 of this memo. 5. [Sec. 18-32.5.6(c)] If any phasing is anticipated for the project, indication of phasing sections must be included on plan sheets. 6. [Sec. 18-32.5.6(m)] Please provide distance to centerline of the nearest existing street intersection for project's proposed ingress/egress. 7. [Sec. 18-32.5.6(n)] Locations and dimensions of all proposed improvements are required, including outdoor lighting and recreation facilities. 8. [Sec. 18-32.5.6(o)] Please clearly identify and label all areas intended to be dedicated or reserved for public use. 9. [Sec. 18-4.2.3.2] No structure or improvement nor earth disturbing activity to establish such structure or improvement shall be located on slopes of twenty-five (25) percent or greater. In accord with Sec. 18-4.2.5 a waiver of this requirement must be approved to allow for proposed development as shown within submitted plan. Application for said waiver has been received and will be heard by the Planning Commission. 10. Prior to final site plan approval, the individual parcels within this project will need to be combined so property lines are not located through proposed building sites. Please contact Summer Frederick at the Department of Community Development 296- 5832 ext. 3565 for further information. Application #: SDP200800119 'Short Review Comm is Project Name: TREESDALE PARK - PRELIM Preliminary — Residential Date Completed: 08/18/2008 Reviewer: Andrew Slack E911 Review Status: Requested Changes Reviews Comments: rHE APPLICANT SHOULD CONTACT THIS OFFICE WITH A LIST OF THREE (3) ROAD NAMES =0R APPROVAL. Date Completed: 09/28/2009 Reviewer: Andrew Slack Review Status: Approved Reviews Comments: Date Completed: 10/02/2009 Reviewer: Elaine Echols Review Status: Pending Reviews Comments: E911 Planning Wayne Cilimberg provided a letter indicating direction for changes to the preliminary site plan which could result in approval of the variations requested on March 12, 2009. Pulling Building #1 closer to Rio Road, moving the open space from the front of Building #1, putting the recreation area between Buildings 1 & 2, and changing the orientation of the parking lots on the south side of the site all appear to be approvable by variation. Disturbance of the tree preservation area on the south side will need a landscape plan submitted showing heavy vegetation. This can wait until the final site plan. Splitting a single building into 2 separate buildings and moving buildings where parking and retaining walls were previously shown requires building elevations. Please provide any conceptual elevations you have at this time. The change in the retaining wall on the north side of the site adjacent to Village Square will also require a landscape plan. This, too can be submitted with the final site plan. After you have provided conceptual drawings that respond to the to the March 9 letter concerns, we can provide a formal variation response letter. Date Completed: 10/05/2009 Reviewer: James Barber Review Status: No Objection Reviews Comments: Date Completed Reviewer: Review Status Fire Rescue Aust comply with the Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code. Final approval is subject to field nspection and verification. 10/02/2009 Jay Schlothauer Inspections Requested Changes k,�`7C�- 01-- �� s.!&� Reviews Comments: IBased on plans dated September 14, 2009. Provide at least one barrier -free parking space, with its associated access aisle, in the Building #1 parking garage. Date Completed Reviewer: Review Status: Note: An elevator must be installed in Building #1 to serve the 08/14/2008 Jay Schlothauer Requested Changes Inspections e. Page: 1.00 County of Albemarle Printed On: Wednesday, October 07, 2009 Reviews Comments: I Based on plans dated July 18, 2008. Date Completed: Reviewer: Review Status: Reviews Comments: Date Completed: Reviewer: Review Status: Reviews Comments: Date Completed: Reviewer: Review Status: Reviews Comments: Date Completed: Reviewer: Review Status: Reviews Comments: Provide curb cuts at t,-,neads of the barrier -free parking spaces' access aisles. 09/11/2008 John Shepherd Admin Zoning Review Approved See parking determination dated August 26, 2008 that was then replaced by the determination dated September 11, 2008. It is determined that this 84- dwelling project may be served by 90 parkig Spaces. 10/06/2009 Max Greene CommDev-Current Development Pending Please show sight distances at the entrance from the State Road. Max Greene Pending 08/01/2008 Max Greene Requested Changes CommDev-Current Development Engineer Z&CD SRC 8/12/08 Critical slope waiver may be required. -Off-site grading easement/letter of intent required. Show grading required to install the walking trail. �Interparcel connector road needs to match the adjacent road for width and design. -Interparcel sidewalk needs to attach to adjacent property sidewalk for continuity. Curb and gutter needs to connect to the existing curb and gutter to the north of the proposed entrance. Please add a north arrow to the plan sheets. i -Erosion and sediment control structural measures will require the removal of additional trees below jthe proposed fill areas. Tree canopy may be lees than shown. Page: 2.00 County of Albemarle Printed On: Wednesday, October 07, 2009 Service Auth6rity TO: Summer Frederick FROM: Gary Whelan, Civil Engineer DATE: August 14, 2008 RE: Site Plan Technical Review for: Treesdale Park -Preliminary SDP200800119 TM 61-182,183,183A The below checked items apply to this site. X 1. This site plan is within the Authority's jurisdictional area for: X A. Water and sewer B. Water only C. Water only to existing structure D. Limited service X 2. An 18 inch water line is located approximately 30 distant. X 3. Fire flow from, nearest public hydrant, located 180 distant from this site plan, is 1802 Gpm + at 20 psi residual. X 4. An 8 inch sewer line is located approximately 130 distant. 5. An Industrial Waste Ordinance survey form must be completed. X 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. X 10. Final water and sewer plans are required for our review and approval prior to granting tentative approval. 11. Final site plan may/may not be signed. X 12. RWSA approval for water and/or sewer connections. 13. City of Charlottesville approval for sewer. Comments: Provide offsite sewer easement. Provide plumbing fixture count to size meter(s). Show meter locations. Road improvements to Rio Road could result in the relocation of the RWSA water line. See attached flow data. 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 (434) 977-4511 • Fax (434) 979-0698 www.serviceauthoriy.org { COMMONWEALTH of VIRCjI IA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CHARLOTTESVILLE RESIDENCY OFFICE 701 VDOT WAY CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22911 DAVID S. EKERN, P.E. COMMISSIONER October 8°i, 2009 Mr. Glenn Brooks Department of Engineering and Development 401 McIntire Rd. Charlottesville, VA 22902 Subject: Site Review Meeting Comments October 8`h, 2009 site review meeting Dear Mr. Brooks: Below are VDOT's comments on the Site Plans for the October 8th, 2009 Site Review Committee Meeting: SDP -2008-00119 Treesdale Park -Preliminary (Summer Frederick) 1. The bus turn out may cause weave issues and sight distance problems on Rio Road. These issues were discussed during the rezoning of this project and it was decided that this turn out would be removed from the plan and shown as an easement for a possible future turnout to be considered if appropriate atter Meadowcreek Parkway is constructed. 2. The minimum lateral setback for clear zone is 8 feet beyond the face of curb or 1 foot behind the sidewalk, whichever is greater in accordance with VDOT's Road Design Manual Section A-2. This is the location where the right of way needs to be shown. 3. Sight lines need to be within sight easements. 4. The width of the entrance may not accommodate the design vehicle with the proposed radius on the curve. A single unit truck should be able to make this turn. 5. The improvements shown to Rio Road do not appear to match the plan that was submitted for the Stonewater subdivision and have improper transitions shown. SDP -2009-00075 Pleasant Grove New Santuary-final (Elizabeth Marotta) 1. The location map shows the wrong location for this site. WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING 171 2. The proposed site entrance needs to show sight lines in accordance with The Minimum Standards of Entrances to State Highways. 3. The entrance needs to show an entrance profile. 4. Show the drainage area to the culvert and the design data to show headwater elevation to pass the 10 year storm with adequate headwater in accordance with chapter 8 of VDOT's Drainage Manual. 5. Indicate proposed materials for the entrance. 6. The geometry of the entrance needs to be in accordance with The Minimum Standards of Entrances to State Highways and the dimensions need to be shown on the plan. 7. SDP -2009-00065 Old Trail Village Phase 9 Prelim. (Megan Yani&s) 1. Claremont Lane has a 20 mph design speed and the corresponding site distance is 225'. The connections to Claremont do not have adequate site distances shown. Sight distance triangles need to be contained within easements. The sight lines shown appear to cross structures or be very close to structures. 2. In accordance with VDOT's Road Design Manual, Appendix B, page B-15, intersections entering from the same side of the major street should have a spacing of 500 feet but with lower traffic volumes can be spaced at 250 feet. 3. Show sight lines and distances for the roundabout to ensure that the proposed building does not block the sight distances. 4. The final plans need to show entrance profiles for all proposed entrances to the streets. SDP -2009-00078 CTS Operation Center -Major (Summer Frederick) 1. This plan amendment does not appear to change the improvements to Avon Street or the proposed site entrances. SUB -2009-00129 Next Generation LLC — Final (Summer Frederick) 2. Will the new lot be developed and have an additional entrance on Boulders Road? 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 WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING `IRGiNi� COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 November 4, 2009 Mr. Scott Collins 800 E. Jefferson St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: Variation request shown on SDP 08-119 dated 10/19/09 for ZMA 04-22 Treesdale Park Dear Scott: The County has received your variation request for the modifications listed below: 1. Moving Building #1 closer to Rio Road. 2. Moving the majority of the open space from the front of Building #1 to the area between Buildings #1 and #2. 3. Changing the orientation of the parking lots on the south side of the site. 4. Disturbing a tree preservation area which was shown on the application plan. 5. Splitting a single building into two separate buildings (Buildings 3 and 4) and moving the buildings where parking and retaining walls were previously shown. 6. Providing retaining walls on north side of site adjacent to Village Square development (Building 3). This letter serves to provide approval of the variations in keeping with the depictions on --the Preliminary Site Plan entitled Treesdale Park Preliminary Site Plan prepared by Collins Engineering last revised 10/19/09 and the attached application. Variations to items 1, 2, 3, and 5 provide for an improved design of the site. Regarding item 4 above, this tree preservation area on the south side of the site was designated on the rezoning application plan at the request of staff to identify where it was desired that, to the extent possible, vegetation would be retained adjacent to future development and, in particular, existing trees would be preserved on the site. It is different from the tree preservation area on the north side of the site adjacent to the Village Square development. There, trees were to be preserved to help retain a vegetated area adjacent to an existing development. A variation to approve disturbance of the tree preservation area on the south side of the site is approved because the area adjacent to it is currently undeveloped. The variation is approved on the condition that a landscape plan is submitted with the final site plan and plantings are made in accordance with that landscape plan. The result-should-be_h.eauy-ueg.etat' _location____ -- Regarding item 5 above, elevations indicate that the buildings approved as fairly massive through the rezoning will be broken up in appearance and become more human -scaled with the site plan. Gabled roofs shown in the attachment are as tall as the flat -roofed buildings expected; however because the stories are well articulated, the buildings are less "box -like" than the buildings shown in plane view on the plan. Regarding item 6 above, retaining walls in this location will help prevent removal of this vegetation in the preservation area next to Village Square. This change is approved because the retaining walls are no taller six feet. A landscape plan will need to be submitted with the final site plan and plantings must be made in accordance with that landscape plan. The result should be heavy vegetation that meets the screening requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. If there are places where the screening requirements cannot be met in their entirety due to the retaining wall location, the agent may approve modifications Section 8.5.5.3 allows the director of planning to grant minor variations to change the arrangement of buildings and uses shown on the approved zoning application plan, provided that the major elements shown on the plan and their relationships remain the same. The findings are provided below: 1. The variation is consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan, specifically the Neighborhood Model principles of buildings and spaces of human scale, parks and open space, and relegated parking. In addition, by allowing the buildings to step down the hill and limiting the height of the retaining walls, respect for the terrain is better achieved. 2. The variation does not increase the approved development density or intensity of development. No additional units are proposed. 3. The variation does not adversely affect the timing and phasing of development of any other development in the zoning district. 4. The variation does not require a special use permit. 5. The variation is in general accord with the purpose and intent of the approved rezoning application. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Elaine Echols or myself at 296-5823. Sincerely, ,W V. Wayne Gyflimber Director of Plannin C Elaine Echols, Princip6nner Summer Frederick, Senior Planner