HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201700004 Review Comments Initial Site Plan 2018-02-27Short Review Comments Report for:
SDP201700004
SubApplication Type:
Old Trail Blocks 5, 20, & 21 - Digital
Final Site Development Plan
Date Completed:12/11/2017
Reviewer:Emily Cox CDD Engineering
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:04/14/2017
Reviewer:Johnathan Newberry CDD Planning
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:1. [Comment] Prior to final site plan approval, please pay the outstanding $215 notification fee
for the initial site plan (SDP201600033).
2. [Section 32.5.2(a)] On Sheet 1, please note that “On October 5th, 2016, the Board of
Supervisors approved a special exception for this area, subject to the following conditions:
1. The maximum number of units permitted in Block 20 shall be 90 units.
2. The minimum number of units permitted in Block 21 shall be five units.”
3. [Section 32.5.2(n)] On Sheet C6, the row of parking adjacent to Building 103 shown as “21 –
9’ x 18’ Parking Spaces, 2 - 8’ x 18’ Van HC Spaces” is incorrectly labeled. Also on Sheet C6, the
row of parking adjacent to the Clubhouse shown as “17 – 9’ x 18’ Parking Spaces, 4 - 8’ x 18’ Van
HC Spaces” is incorrectly labeled. Please revise on this sheet and Sheet C1. I count a total of 347
parking spaces provided (including 12 van handicap accessible spaces)
4. [Section 4.12.16(c)(6)] Sheet C7 shows a “segmented block retaining wall (max. ht. 3 feet)”
immediately adjacent to three parking spaces that have a reduced length of 16 feet. This reduction is
permitted where an unobstructed overhang is present, but the wall prevents an overhang. Can the
wall be moved back or can the spaces be lengthened to 18 feet?
5. [Section 32.7.9.4] Please sign and date the conservation checklist shown on Sheet C17.
6. [Section 32.7.2.3] Please extend the sidewalk within Block 21 to the end of the property line
towards Route 250.
Division:
Date Completed:03/22/2017
Reviewer:Michael Dellinger CDD Inspections
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:04/06/2017
Reviewer:Emily Cox CDD Engineering
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:04/10/2017
Reviewer:Derek Bedarf CDD E911
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:Name and label the continuation of GLEN VALLEY DRIVE on the west side of Old Trail Drive. This is
the entrance into the site from Old Trail Dr between the Clubhouse and Building 100 on the plans.
This has been noted on the digital plans. Please call if you have questions.
Division:
Date Completed:04/13/2017
Reviewer:Adam Moore VDOT
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Page:1 of 4 County of Albemarle Printed On:June 23, 2018
Date Completed:03/27/2017
Reviewer:Alexander Morrison ACSA
Review Status:See Recommendations
Reviews Comments:JT,
Please instruct the applicant to submit a construction plan review submittal to the ACSA for water
and sewer review. The submittal shall be made to the attention of Michael Vieira, PE, and shall
include 3 copies of the plan along with water and sewer data sheets.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Alexander J. Morrison, P.E.
Civil Engineer
Division:
Date Completed:04/14/2017
Reviewer:Robbie Gilmer Fire Rescue
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:Based on plans dated 1/25/17.
1. Relocate FDC's on Building 101 and 102 to face the parking lot.
Division:
Date Completed:04/07/2017
Reviewer:Margaret Maliszewski CDD ARB
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:A Certificate of Appropriateness is required prior to final site plan approval. For the Certificate of
Appropriateness, the applicant shall submit an ARB application for a County-wide Certificate of
Appropriateness for structures 750’ or more from the EC. The submittal should address the
corresponding checklist requirements and the following:
1. Building mass, roof form, building materials/colors, and landscaping will be the focus of review.
2. If existing trees to remain are intended to be counted towards landscaping requirements, show the
individual trees to remain on the plan and identify them by size and species.
3. Include the standard planting note on the site plan: “All site plantings of trees and shrubs shall be
allowed to reach, and be maintained at, mature height; the topping of trees is prohibited. Shrubs and
trees shall be pruned minimally and only to support the overall health of the plant.”
4. Coordinate the proposed grading with the wooded area to remain.
5. Show tree protection fencing on the plan.
Division:
Date Completed:05/24/2017
Reviewer:Johnathan Newberry CDD Planning
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:I also sent a transmittal through Bluebeam that invited the outstanding reviewers to view the revised
submittal.
Division:
Date Completed:06/02/2017
Reviewer:Elise Kiewra CDD E911
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:Name and label the continuation of GLEN VALLEY DRIVE on the west side of Old Trail Drive. This is
the entrance into the site from Old Trail Dr between the Clubhouse and Building 100 on the plans.
This has been noted on the digital plans. Please call if you have questions
Same commnts as Derek's above per site plan dated 5/5/17, still need to label the continuation of
GLENN VALLEY DRIVE on the west side of Old Trail Drive.
Division:
Date Completed:06/16/2017
Reviewer:Adam Moore VDOTDivision:
Page:2 of 4 County of Albemarle Printed On:June 23, 2018
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Date Completed:06/23/2017
Reviewer:Emily Cox CDD Engineering
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:
Reviewer:Shawn Maddox Fire Rescue
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:08/18/2017
Reviewer:Heather McMahon CDD ARB
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:1. The street and perimeter parking area trees – particularly the Willow Oaks (QP) on Old Trail
Drive and Golf Drive and the October Glory Red Maples (AROG) on Trailhead Drive – must be
planted 40 feet on center in order to meet ARB standards and criteria. Except for the instance of two
trees, the majority distances average 50’ or more on center.
2. Check the calculations in the landscaping notes at the top of page C17; they differ from the
previous notes as well as staff’s calculations. Also, one note states that 54 trees have been provided
for parking but staff was able to locate 52 on sheets C15-C17. Please verify this number (it may be
beneficial to call out trees that address parking requirements on plans).
3. In the plant schedule, the number of Arapaho Crapemyrtles (LIA) was listed as 14 but only
13 were drawn on the plans; the discrepancy seems to result from the deletion of 1 LIA from C15
from the previous submission.
4. The number of Ilex Glabra Shamrock (IGS) was reduced to 75, according to the plant
schedule, but 75 is still greater than 25% of the total number of shrubs, which at 276 (total number)
should be under 69.
5. This number is suspect, however, as the plant schedule listed 75 IGS, yet 78 were found on
the drawing; it listed 38 JVGO, yet 42 were found on the drawing; and it listed 47 RMRR, yet 43 were
found on the drawing. Please verify your calculations with what appears on the landscape plans.
6. The tree symbols for the 12 gingkos (GBPS) which were on the previous submission have
disappeared, yet the GBPS call outs remain and the number is listed in the plant schedule on this
resubmission. Please address this omission.
7. The standard maximum for light levels in the EC overlay district is 20 footcandles. Two
values listed in this photometric plan exceed that maximum. However, previous staff comments were
in error and identified the maximum value as 30 footcandles. Please note that this is not correct;
however, the two values above 20 footcandles may stand given staff’s previous error.
8. Note that the applicant responded to staff’s previous comment that “no wall-mounted lights
are proposed.” This conflicts with the architect’s submittals, which include revised elevations showing
wall mounted lights as well as manufacturer’s specifications and cut sheets for those lights. The
architect, however, has also stated that photometry for these lights is unavailable, and so staff has
struck the request to add the photometric values of these wall-mounted lights to the photometric plan.
However, a condition of the CoA will state that ground-level illumination from combined wall- and
ground-mounted light fixtures shall not exceed 20 footcandles (unless otherwise noted) and shall not
contribute to spillover on the property line in excess of half (0.5) a footcandle.
Division:
Date Completed:08/22/2017
Reviewer:Johnathan Newberry CDD Planning
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:08/17/2017
Reviewer:Emily Cox CDD Engineering
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Page:3 of 4 County of Albemarle Printed On:June 23, 2018
Reviews Comments:
Date Completed:08/22/2017
Reviewer:Adam Moore VDOT
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:11/30/2017
Reviewer:Jeremy Lynn ACSA
Review Status:See Recommendations
Reviews Comments:On 8/7/17, Keane told me that he is working directly with Jeremy Lynn at ACSA.
Division:
Date Completed:08/21/2017
Reviewer:Elise Kiewra CDD E911
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:Please use Trailhead Dr and Upland Dr as noted on the plans per discussion with Ruth/Andy and
more information from planners. This is a change from the previous comments.
Division:
Date Completed:11/22/2017
Reviewer:Johnathan Newberry CDD Planning
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:11/28/2017
Reviewer:Adam Moore VDOT
Review Status:Approved
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:11/30/2017
Reviewer:Jeremy Lynn ACSA
Review Status:Approved
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:12/06/2017
Reviewer:Elise Kiewra CDD E911
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:Current version shows Glen Valley Dr. between blocks 20 and 21, please update this to Trailhead Dr.
Division:
Date Completed:02/27/2018
Reviewer:Johnathan Newberry CDD Planning
Review Status:Approved
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Page:4 of 4 County of Albemarle Printed On:June 23, 2018
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To:
JT Newberry
From:
Emily Cox
Date:
6 April 2017
Rev. 1 Date:
23 June 2017
Rev. 2 Date:
17 Aug 2017
Rev. 3 Date:
11 Dec 2017
Subject:
Old Trail Blocks 5, 20 and 21 - FSP (SDP201700004)
The final site plan for Old Trail Blocks 5, 20 and 21 has been reviewed by Engineering. The following
comments will need to be addressed before approval:
1. WPO Plan (WPO 201700016) must be approved before final site plan can be approved.
Rev 1: Comment still valid. Rev. 2: Comment still valid. Rev. 3: Comment still valid.
2. Provide the date of the topographic information (source was provided). Rev. 1: Survey
was completed in 2012. Was this topo field verified within the last year? If so, please put
the date on the plans. Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
3. The plan states that disturbance to the preserved slopes is allowed per the master plan.
Please add the approved master plan number to these notes. Rev. 1: Comment not
addressed. Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
4. Per the Engineering Design Standards Manual, Section 8, any slopes steeper than 3:1 must
have low maintenance (not grass) ground cover specified on the plans. Please add this
note on the plan for any slopes steeper than 3:1. Rev. 1: Comment not addressed. Rev. 2:
Please add the requested note above to the plan. Rev. 3: Comment addressed.
5. Building permit will be required for the retaining walls. Provide retaining wall detail and
certified computations (per the Design Standards Manual Section 8). Ensure the safety
rails are included with these details where they are necessary. Rev. 1: Comment not
addressed. Rev. 2: Comment still valid. Please provide certified wall design. Rev. 3:
Comment addressed.
6. Show the 2' overhang for the proposed parking spaces that are 9'x16'. (18-4.12.16) Rev.
1: Comment not addressed. Rev. 2: Label/dimension the 2' overhang for the proposed
9x16 spaces. Sheet C7 shows a retaining wall very close to the parking area. Rev. 3:
Comment addressed.
7. The proposed sidewalks along the roads are outside of the right-of-way, therefore they
should be in easements. (Subdivision Ordinance, Article IV, Division 4) Rev. 1:
Comment not addressed. Rev. 2: The sidewalks along Old Trail and Golf Drive do not
have easements. Rev. 3: Comment still valid.
8. Please show a `SWM Facility Easement' around all SWM facilities. (18-32.7.4) Rev. 1:
Comment addressed. A SWM agreement, deed and plat will be necessary for WPO plan
approval. Rev. 2: Comment still valid. Rev. 3: Comment still valid.
9. VDOT entrance permit will be required. Rev 1: Comment still valid. Rev. 2: Comment
still valid. Rev. 3: Comment addressed.
10. Provide better detail for the dumpster pad. Ensure there is 4" stone base, 6" concrete of
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 2
3000 psi at 28 days (or stronger) reinforced with #4 bars at 12" on center. Rev 1: Detail
appears the same. Comment not addressed. Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
11. Show that the proposed pavement travelway sections can handle the proposed traffic.
Rev. 1: No additional information provided. Comment not addressed. Rev. 2: Provided
calculated pavement section does not meet the detail section on Sheet C 12. Calculations
show 2" of SM 9.5A and 3" of BM25A, however detail shows 1.5" and 2.5". Please
clarify. Rev. 3: Comment addressed.
12. Storm systems are under review with the VSMP Plan. Rev 1: Comment still valid. Rev. 2:
Comment still valid. Please note that the slope from ST5 to ST 4 is less than 0.50%.
Please revise. Rev. 3: Comment addressed.
13. Rev. 3: Update the TMP on the cover sheet.
Johnathan Newberry
From: Deel, Justin (VDOT) <Justin.Deel@vdot.virginia.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2017 3:27 PM
To: Johnathan Newberry
Cc: 'Justin Shimp, P.E.'
Subject: RE: SDP201700004 Old Trail Village Bl 5, 20, &21 FSP 8-22-17
Justin, note that these comments may be addressed via email.
From: Deel, Justin (VDOT)
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2017 3:22 PM
To: 'Johnathan Newberry'
Cc: 'Justin Shimp, P.E.'; Moore, Adam PE (VDOT)
Subject: SDP201700004 Old Trail Village BI 5, 20, &21 FSP 8-22-17
JT,
Attached is our review letter and attachments for SDP201700004 Old Trail Village BI 5, 20, &21 FSP,which includes the
following comments:
1. The area requiring mill&overlay(WP-2)the entire affected lane through the width of the entrance. Note that,
dependent upon conditions in the field,this area can be minimized as deemed appropriate by our inspectors.
2. Per our email correspondence with Shimp Engineering,the ADT on Old Trail Drive should be shown as having
increased by 1% per year since the date of the last published traffic count.This should be reflected in the
warrant analyses.The provided warrant calculations table is difficult to follow in general, and it references row
numbers which have been, presumably, cut off. Please see attached hand calculations illustrating what the
department would like to see for warrant analyses.
Justin
Justin Deel, P.E.
Land Development Engineer
Virginia Department of Transportation
434-422-9894
540-717-1408 (c)
1
_ , N1
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Poatl
Cu peper Vvrua 22701
Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E.
Commissioner
August 22, 2017
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Attn: J.T. Newberry
Re: Old Trail Village Blocks 5, 20,& 21 —Final Site Plan
SDP-2017-00004
Review#3
Dear Mr. Newberry:
The Department of Transportation,Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use
Section, has reviewed the above referenced plan as submitted by Shimp Engineering, last revised
3 August 2017, and offers the following comments. '
1. The area requiring mill & overlay (WP-2) the entire affected lane through the width of
the entrance. Note that, dependent upon conditions in the field, this area can be
minimized as deemed appropriate by our inspectors.
2. Per our email correpsondense with Shimp Engineering, the ADT on Old Trail Drive
should be shown as having increased by 1% per year since the date of the last published
traffic count. This should be reflected in the warrant analyses. The provided warrant
calculations table is difficult to follow in general, and it references row numbers which
have been, presumably,cut off. Please see attached hand calculations illustrating what the
department would like to see for warrant analyses.
Note that these comments may be addressed via email correspondence. If further information is
desired, please contact Justin Deel at 434-422-9894.
A VDOT Land Use Permit will be required prior to any work within the right-of-way. The
owner/developer must contact the Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use
Section at (434)422-9399 for information pertaining to this process.
Sincerely,
0444A,
Adam J. Moore, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Charlottesville Residency
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: JT Newberry
From: Emily Cox
Date: 6 April 2017
Rev. 1 Date: 23 June 2017
Rev. 2 Date: 17 Aug 2017
Subject: Old Trail Blocks 5, 20 and 21 - FSP (SDP201700004)
The final site plan for Old Trail Blocks 5, 20 and 21 has been reviewed by Engineering. The following
comments will need to be addressed before approval:
1. WPO Plan (WPO 201700016) must be approved before final site plan can be approved.
Rev 1: Comment still valid. Rev. 2: Comment still valid.
2. Provide the date of the topographic information (source was provided). Rev. 1: Survey
was completed in 2012. Was this topo field verified within the last year? If so, please put
the date on the plans. Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
3. The plan states that disturbance to the preserved slopes is allowed per the master plan.
Please add the approved master plan number to these notes. Rev. 1: Comment not
addressed. Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
4. Per the Engineering Design Standards Manual, Section 8, any slopes steeper than 3:1
must have low maintenance (not grass) ground cover specified on the plans. Please
add this note on the plan for any slopes steeper than 3:1. Rev. 1: Comment not addressed.
Rev. 2: Please add the requested note above to the plan.
5. Building permit will be required for the retaining walls. Provide retaining wall detail and
certified computations (per the Design Standards Manual Section 8). Ensure the safety
rails are included with these details where they are necessary. Rev. 1: Comment not
addressed. Rev. 2: Comment still valid. Please provide certified wall design.
6. Show the 2' overhang for the proposed parking spaces that are 9'x16'. (18-4.12.16) Rev.
1: Comment not addressed. Rev. 2: Label/dimension the 2' overhang for the proposed
9x16 spaces. Sheet C7 shows a retaining wall very close to the parking area.
7. The proposed sidewalks along the roads are outside of the right-of-way, therefore they
should be in easements. (Subdivision Ordinance, Article IV, Division 4) Rev. 1:
Comment not addressed. Rev. 2: The sidewalks along Old Trail and Golf Drive do not
have easements.
8. Please show a `SWM Facility Easement' around all SWM facilities. (18-32.7.4) Rev. 1:
Comment addressed. A SWM agreement, deed and plat will be necessary for WPO plan
approval. Rev. 2: Comment still valid.
9. VDOT entrance permit will be required. Rev 1: Comment still valid. Rev. 2: Comment
still valid.
10. Provide better detail for the dumpster pad. Ensure there is 4" stone base, 6" concrete of
3000 psi at 28 days (or stronger) reinforced with #4 bars at 12" on center. Rev 1: Detail
appears the same. Comment not addressed. Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 2
11. Show that the proposed pavement travelway sections can handle the proposed traffic.
Rev. 1: No additional information provided. Comment not addressed. Rev. 2: Provided
calculated pavement section does not meet the detail section on Sheet C12.
Calculations show 2" of SM 9.5A and 3" of BM25A, however detail shows 1.5" and
2.5". Please clarify.
12. Storm systems are under review with the VSMP Plan. Rev 1: Comment still valid. Rev. 2:
Comment still valid. Please note that the slope from ST5 to ST 4 is less than 0.50%.
Please revise.
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To:
JT Newberry
From:
Emily Cox
Date:
6 April 2017
Rev. 1 Date:
23 June 2017
Subject:
Old Trail Blocks 5, 20 and 21 - FSP (SDP201700004)
The final site plan for Old Trail Blocks 5, 20 and 21 has been reviewed by Engineering. The following
comments will need to be addressed before approval:
1. WPO Plan (WPO 201700016) must be approved before final site plan can be approved.
Rev 1: Comment still valid.
2. Provide the date of the topographic information (source was provided). Rev. 1: Survey
was completed in 2012. Was this topo field verified within the last year? If so, please
put the date on the plans.
3. The plan states that disturbance to the preserved slopes is allowed per the master plan.
Please add the approved master plan number to these notes. Rev. 1: Comment not
addressed.
4. Per the Engineering Design Standards Manual, Section 8, any slopes steeper than 3:1 must
have low maintenance (not grass) ground cover specified on the plans. Please add this
note on the plan for any slopes steeper than 3:1. Rev. 1: Comment not addressed.
5. Building permit will be required for the retaining walls. Provide retaining wall detail and
certified computations (per the Design Standards Manual Section 8). Ensure the safety
rails are included with these details where they are necessary. Rev. 1: Comment not
addressed.
6. Show the 2' overhang for the proposed parking spaces that are 9'x16'. (18-4.12.16) Rev.
1: Comment not addressed.
7. The proposed sidewalks along the roads are outside of the right-of-way, therefore they
should be in easements. (Subdivision Ordinance, Article IV, Division 4) Rev. 1:
Comment not addressed.
8. Please show a `SWM Facility Easement' around all SWM facilities. (18-32.7.4) Rev. 1:
Comment addressed. A SWM agreement, deed and plat will be necessary for WPO
plan approval.
9. VDOT entrance permit will be required. Rev 1: Comment still valid.
10. Provide better detail for the dumpster pad. Ensure there is 4" stone base, 6" concrete of
3000 psi at 28 days (or stronger) reinforced with #4 bars at 12" on center. Rev 1: Detail
appears the same. Comment not addressed.
11. Show that the proposed pavement travelway sections can handle the proposed traffic.
Rev. 1: No additional information provided. Comment not addressed.
12. Storm systems are under review with the VSMP Plan. Rev 1: Comment still valid.
ti4r/ ti
Johnathan Newberry
From: Deel,Justin (VDOT) <Justin.Deel@vdot.virginia.gov>
Sent: Friday,June 16, 2017 10:39 AM
To: Johnathan Newberry
Cc: 'Justin Shimp, P.E.'; Moore, Adam PE (VDOT)
Subject: SDP201700004 Old Trail Village BI 5, 20, &21 FSP 6-16-17
Attachments: SDP201700004 Old Trail Village BI 5, 20, &21 FSP 6-16-17.pdf
J.T.,
Attached is our review letter for SDP201700004 Old Trail Village BI 5,20, &21 FSP, which includes the following
comments:
1. Left turn lane warrant analysis:
a. The provided left-turn lane warrant analysis uses trip generation for townhomes(ITE#230); however,
per sheet 1 of the site plan only apartments are proposed (ITE#221).
b. A directional factor of 0.65 may be used for Rt. 1815,corresponding to the published value of 0.65 for
Route 250.
c. We recommend using the directional distribution factor published in ITE#221 for the p.m. peak hour.
(64%entering, 36%exiting),as well as the average per unit trip rate.
d. We recommend using a conservative estimate (80%)to determine the number of entering trips that are
left turns.
e. Right turns exiting Upland Drive should be added to the opposing traffic total for the warrant analysis
for Glen Valley Drive.
f. Include all turn-lane warrant analysis on the plans;this should not be submitted as a separate package.
2. Provide the VDOT WP-2 detail and note on plans the required area of mill and overlay in accordance with the
WP-2 standard. Note that the WP-2 requirement may be waived at the time of construction if deemed
appropriate by the Department.
Justin
Justin Deel, P.E.
Land Development Engineer
Virginia Department of Transportation
434-422-9894
540-717-1408 (c)
1
err/ stud
Johnathan Newberry
From: Johnathan Newberry
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2017 1:56 AM
To: 'Keane Rucker'
Cc: Justin Shimp
Subject: RE: SDP 2017-0004 Old Trail Blocks 5, 20, 21 Digital Submittal
Hi Keane,
Here are updated Planning comments on this application:
[Comment] Prior to final site plan approval, please pay the outstanding$215 notification fee for the initial site
plan (SDP201600033).Countyview does not show that this fee has been paid.Are our records incorrect?
. . . - „g . . . . . _
t [Section 32.5.2(n)] On Sheet C6,the row of parking adjacent to Building 103 shown as"21—9'x 18' Parking
Spaces, 2 -8'x 18'Van HC Spaces" is incorrectly labeled. I count twenty-three 9'x 18' parking spaces and one 8'
x 18'van HC spaces. Please revise this label. • _ _ --- • - .. - . : . - • . • - . : _ - -
., .
[Section 4.12.16(c)(6)]Sheet C7 shows a "segmented block retaining wall (max. ht. 3 feet)"immediately adjacent
to three parking spaces that have a reduced length of 16 feet.This reduction is permitted where an
unobstructed overhang is present, but the wall prevents an overhang.Can the wall be moved back or can the
spaces be lengthened to 18 feet? It appears the wall has been moved back sufficiently, but can you show it by
labeling the distance from the back of the curb to the front of the wall?
250.
Thanks,
J.T. Newberry
Senior Planner
County of Albemarle, Planning Division
434-296-5832, ext. 3270
From: Keane Rucker[mailto:keane@shimp-engineering.com]
Sent:Wednesday, May 10, 2017 12:35 PM
To:Jennifer Pritchett<jpritchett@albemarle.org>;Johnathan Newberry<jnewberry@albemarle.org>
Cc:Justin Shimp<justin@shimp-engineering.com>
Subject:SDP 2017-0004 Old Trail Blocks 5, 20, 21 Digital Submittal
Hello Jennifer and JT,
We have just digitally resubmitted the Old Trail Final Site plan with our comment responses.The documents are in the
ftp.albemarle folder.We will drop off the outstanding$215 notification fee check at the county front desk later today.
1
ftrior
Thanks,
Keane Rucker, E.I.T.
Civil Engineer
Shimp Engineering
keane@shimp-engineering.com
Phone:434.227.5140
2
400.60' N4.01
Johnathan Newberry
From: Patricia Saternye
Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2017 10:49 AM
To: Johnathan Newberry
Subject: FW: Emailing: SDP 2017-4 FINAL SP 2ND SUBMIT(051017).pdf
Attachments: SDP 2017-4 FINAL SP 2ND SUBMIT(051017).pdf
JT,
As mentioned yesterday, I think you involved with SDP 2017-4.
Attached please find the PDF of the electronic submission.
Intake is having trouble uploading it.
I will try to get that solved, and go to Rod if that is necessary,so you don't have to worry about that.
I did however want you to get the attached PDF as soon as you could and not have to wait until it is successfully
uploaded to County View.
So, here you go :).
Thanks,
Paty Saternye
Senior Planner
Community Development
Albemarle County
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville,VA 22902
434-296-5832 ext.3250
psaternye@albemarle.org
www.albemarle.org
Original Message
From:Jennifer Smith-CDD- Planning
Sent:Thursday, May 11, 2017 10:23 AM
To: Patricia Saternye<psaternye@albemarle.org>
Subject: Emailing:SDP 2017-4 FINAL SP 2ND SUBMIT(051017).pdf
Good morning Paty:
We received an electronic submittal for SDP17-4. I have uploaded the correspondence letters but when I try to upload
the plans it will not upload again. I have tried to upload the file to County View 5 times min. I have attached the file if
you would like to give it a try.
Thank you!
Jen
1
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Floyd
Culpeper Virginia 22701
Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E.
Commissioner
April 13, 2017
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Attn: J.T. Newberry
Re: Old Trail Village Blocks 5, 20, & 21 — Final Site Plan
SDP -2017-00004
Review #1
Dear Mr. Newberry:
The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use
Section, has reviewed the above referenced plan as submitted by Shimp Engineering, dated 25
January 2017, and offers the following comments:
1. Please show and label the public right-of-way.
2. Intersection sight distance profiles are required. The intersection sight distance triangle
for the entrance on Golf Drive has not been provided. Sight distance easements are
required where the sight line is not within the right-of-way.
3. It appears as though the eastern side of the entrance on Golf Drive needs and inlet, as
well as the northern side of the southern -most entrance on to Old Trail Drive. Provide
adequate calculations to go along with any additional storm inlets.
4. CG- I2's should be in-line with the direction of the sidewalk and should not be angled
toward the center of the intersection.
5. Provide turn lane warrant analyses on plans.
Please provide two copies of the revised plan along with a comment response letter. If further
information is desired, please contact Justin Deel at 434-422-9894.
A VDOT Land Use Permit will be required prior to any work within the right-of-way. The
owner/developer must contact the Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use
Section at (434) 422-9399 for information pertaining to this process.
Sincerely,
Adam J. Moore, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Charlottesville Residency
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: JT Newberry
From: Emily Cox
Date: 6 April 2017
Subject: Old Trail Blocks 5, 20 and 21 - FSP (SDP201700004)
The final site plan for Old Trail Blocks 5, 20 and 21 has been reviewed by Engineering. The following
comments will need to be addressed before approval:
1. WPO Plan (WPO 201700016) must be approved before final site plan can be approved.
2. Provide the date of the topographic information (source was provided).
3. The plan states that disturbance to the preserved slopes is allowed per the master plan.
Please add the approved master plan number to these notes.
4. Per the Engineering Design Standards Manual, Section 8, any slopes steeper than 3:1 must
have low maintenance (not grass) ground cover specified on the plans. Please add this
note on the plan for any slopes steeper than 3:1.
5. Building permit will be required for the retaining walls. Provide retaining wall detail and
certified computations (per the Design Standards Manual Section 8). Ensure the safety
rails are included with these details where they are necessary.
6. Show the 2' overhang for the proposed parking spaces that are 9'x16'. (18-4.12.16)
7. The proposed sidewalks along the roads are outside of the right-of-way, therefore they
should be in easements. (Subdivision Ordinance, Article IV, Division 4)
8. Please show a `SWM Facility Easement' around all SWM facilities. (18-32.7.4)
9. VDOT entrance permit will be required.
10. Provide better detail for the dumpster pad. Ensure there is 4" stone base, 6" concrete of
3000 psi at 28 days (or stronger) reinforced with #4 bars at 12" on center.
11. Show that the proposed pavement travelway sections can handle the proposed traffic.
12. Storm systems are under review with the VSMP Plan.