Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201900067 Correspondence 2020-04-02 (6)SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. Design Focused Engineering April 2, 2020 Planning Review County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 RE: SDP 2019-00067 Eco Village Charlottesville — GIS Comment Response Dear Reviewer, Thank you for your review of the Final Site Plan for Eco Village. We have revised the plans per Tim Padalino's comments dated December 10, 2019, and additional comments dated Dec. 13, 2019. Our responses are as follows: REVIEW COMMENTS REQUIRING REVISIONS TO SDP201900067: 1. [SP-2018-16 Conditions of Approval #1, #3, and #4]: Please note the following review comments regarding SP201800016 conditions of approval #1, #3, and #4, primarily relating to the following requirements established by the Board of Supervisors through special use permit SP201800016: (#1) the Limits of Disturbance shown on Final Site Plan SDP201900067 and WPO201900053 being in general accord with the "Supplementary Exhibits" packet dated 2/4/2019; (#3) the Stormwater, Drainage, and Grading Plans shown on Final Site Plan SDP201900067 and WPO201900053 being in general accord with the "Stormwater Improvements" exhibit and "Proposed Entrance Layout" exhibit dated 2/27/2019 (inclusive of required modifications); and (#4) the on -site provision of DEQ-approved BMPs for water quality compliance. a. Please see CDD-Engineering comments for SDP201900067 and WPO201900053, and address and resolve those comments in coordination with CDD-Engineering staff. CDD-Planning staff remain available to assist with any and all questions relating to the Final Site Plan (and associated Water Protection Ordinance Plan) being in general accord with the application materials for SP201800016 referenced above and specified in the conditions of approval. Noted. 2. [SP-2018-16 Condition of Approval #2]: Please note the following review comments regarding SP201800016 condition of approval #2, primarily relating to the Landscape Plan shown on Final Site Plan SDP201900067 being in general accord with the "Habitat Planting Plan" and "Landscape Schedule" exhibit dated 2/26/2019 (inclusive of required modifications): a. (#2a): The "Landscape Schedule: Trees" for the "Habitat Planting Plan" on Sheet C9 ("Habitat Redevelopment Plan") specifies large shade trees at 1.5" caliper, which generally meets the minimum requirements specified by County Code § 18-32.7.9.5.c. However, SP201800016 condition of approval #2a establishes the specific requirement that 25% - 33% of tree plant materials and shrub plant materials meet the Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines, which specify a minimum caliper of 3.5" for large shade trees, and which specify large shade trees to be provided every 35' on center. Therefore, please revise the Landscape Schedule: Trees to ensure that 25% - 33% of the large shade trees are specified at a minimum caliper of 3.5;" the remaining 67% - 75% of the large shade trees can continue to be specified at 1.5" minimum caliper. Noted, this has been specified. b. (#2b): The "Landscape Schedule: Trees" for the "Habitat Planting Plan" on Sheet C9 ("Habitat Redevelopment Plan") specifies evergreen trees (Ilex opaca / American Holly) with a minimum height of 4' — 5' at time of planting. The corresponding "Habitat Planting Plan" appears to show 12 such trees. 912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com These specifications are acceptable relative to SP201800016 conditions of approval #2b. However, please revise the Habitat Planting Plan to include additional evergreen plants (Ilex opaca / American Holly tree•, or Kalmia latifolia / Mountain Laurel shrub; or other native evergreen trees or shrubs) in the "strategic locations" shown in red (below): Noted, this has been provided. c. Additionally, please cross-reference CDD-Planning comment #29 regarding the need to further revise Sheet C9 ("Habitat Redevelopment Plan") through the addition of landscape materials in the area between the two terraced retaining walls in the Steep Slopes Overlay District, as required per the applicable minimum design standards specified in County Code § 18-30.7.5. (Note: CDD-Planning staff acknowledge that, in this particular context, it might potentially be acceptable to satisfy this design standard through an alternative design other than "screening shrubs planted on ten foot centers," and remain available to answer questions, consider alternative designs, or otherwise assist.) Noted, shrubs have been added here. 3. [18-32.6.2(a) and 18-32.5.2(a)]: Please add reference to SP201800016 approved by the Board of Supervisors on 5/1/2019 to Cover Sheet (C1), and please insert a copy of the Conditions of Approval to the Final Site Plan. Noted, see note on cover sheet and added sheet C3. 4. [18-32.6.2(a), 18-32.5.2(a), and 18-32.5.2(b)]: Annotation on Sheet C2 indicates that the co -owned inheld parcel (TMP #06100-00-00-210A0) is to be formally added to TMP #06100-00-00-21000 ["TMP 61A-201A to be added to parent parcel (TMP 61-210 Parcel A-1)"]. (Note: the parcel reference appears to be incorrect; this should be "210A" and not "201A.") This proposed modification to existing parcels of record would require the submittal of a separate application for a final plat showing this vacation/boundary line adjustment for review, approval, and recordation prior to Final Site Plan approval. Alternately, please add existing parcel of record TMP #06100-00-00-210A0 to the Cover Sheet and please ensure the acreage information is accurate. Noted. Cover sheet revised to include this parcel. 5. [18-32.6.2(a) and 18-32.5.2(a)]: On the Cover Sheet, please include specify the total number of sheets in the Sheet Index. Noted. 6. [18-Sec. 32.6.2(a) and 18-32.5.2(a)]: Please add the application number for this final site plan (SDP201900067) to the Cover Sheet, and please also include reference to the approved initial site plan application number (SDP201800056) on this sheet for reference purposes. Application number and other plan numbers added. 7. [18-15.4 and 18-2.4]: Bonus Factors. Additional information is required for County staff to have sufficient detail to make a determination of the proposed bonus factor(s). Specifically, more information is required regarding the Environmental Standards, Development Standards, and Affordable Housing Bonus Factors, as identified in the following comments. Staff recommends adding an additional sheet which focuses on identifying all details, calculations, and justification of the proposed bonus factors. Noted, see additional sheet. 8. [18-15.4.1, 18-2.4, and 18-32.7.9]: Bonus Factors: Environmental Standards. In order to qualify for this bonus factor ("maintenance of existing wooded areas equal to 10-19% of the site"), a conservation plan as specified in section 32.7.9 is required. Please provide the required conservation plan and ensure Final Site Plan contains all necessary information. Additionally, the Cover Sheet (Cl) indicates that this Final Site Plan includes "10% area preserved [as] open space" and proposes a 5% density bonus (or 1.3 additional units). However, per County Code § 18-15.4.1, the "environmental standards" for this bonus factor require "maintenance of existing wooded areas" — not "preserved open space." Please re -calculate this (potential) bonus factor using the correct criteria ("maintenance of existing wooded areas"). Specifically, please identify the location, extent, and size of the "wooded area(s)" that are to be maintained on the applicable sheets; and please demonstrate that the "wooded areas" to be "maintain[ed]" are eligible for this bonus factor (relative to the definition of "wooded area" in County Code § 18-3, below), by identifying the "minimum number of trees of specified size or combinations thereof" in each "existing wooded area" to be "maintain[ed]." Noted, maintenance of wooded areas using counts of the largest tree caliper size in that table has been shown. See C4 and C10. 9. [18-15.4.2 and 18-2.4]: Bonus Factors: Development Standards. Staff acknowledges the proposed "public access easement — 0.49 acres dedicated to public use" and the "0.12 acres dedicated to public ROW (added to Rio Road)." Please note the following review comments regarding the proposed "public access easement — 0.49 acres dedicated to public use." a. (18-15.4.2 — "For dedication of land to public use not otherwise required by law, density may be increased as follows: [... ]"): The proposed establishment of a public use access easement for a shared use path technically does not qualify as being eligible for the "Development Standards Bonus Factor" for "dedication of land to public use not otherwise required by law." To pursue bonus density utilizing this bonus factor (if desired/as may be applicable), the proposed easement would need to be modified to a proposed special lot for open space to be dedicated to the County for public use. Such a special lot would need to be established and dedicated on an approved and recorded plat, and would need to include a maintenance agreement establishing acceptable terms of maintenance of the shared -use path by the homeowners association/property owners association — all of which must be submitted, approved, and recorded prior to approval of the final site plan. We do not agree with this determination, as there is nothing in the code that says the dedication has to be a special lot. Making this area a special lot is not possible, and would destroy the entire subdivision layout due to setback revisions. We believe an easement is in better alignment with the county's interest because it is still privately owned and maintained but benefits the public. b. (18-15.42 — "The dedication shall be accepted by the board of supervisors prior to final approval."): Any such proposal for the "dedication of land to public use not otherwise required by law" (as may be applicable) must be sent to the Board of Supervisors for Board review and acceptance during the "Regular Board Action" portion of a regularly -scheduled Board meeting. (Note: this process does not require public hearing.) Additional communication and coordination with CDD-Planning staff and staff in the County Attorney's Office is necessary in order to prepare any such proposal/request for Board review and action. Noted. We request that the county attorney review the dedication proposed herein and contact us to establish the next steps. c. Any bonus density through this proposed "Development Standards Bonus Factor" is subject to further coordination with, and tentative approval by, Mr. Kevin McDermott, Principal Planner/Transportation and Mr. Frank Pohl, County Engineer (in coordination with CDD-Planning staff and Albemarle County Parks and Recreation staff). Please note that additional coordination with County staff is necessary in order to refine the proposed public access shared -use path prior to BOS review and (potential) acceptance. Specifically, the following aspects of the proposed path require further review and potential revision: • the proposed location and alignment of the public access easement — including its proposed termination at the Alwood Lane private street and not at the Rio Road E. public right of way; and • the potential need to incorporate signage that clearly communicates to members of the public that the shared -use path through the Ecovillage development is open to the public. Noted. "Public Trail" signs added. On the terminations: Altwood Lane is partially on the EcoVillage Property. Access is therefore allowed, and thus with the proposed easement, and the current boundary, we can ensure public access in this area. On the far end: the trail terminates at the Old Rio Road ROW, which transitions into the Rockbrook Dr ROW. Both of these are Public. Thus, we have a full, paved connection from Rio Rd East ROW to the New Public Access easement (Including portions of Altwood Lane because it lies within the property) to Old Rio Rd ROW to Rio Rd East ROW. 10. [18-15.4.2 and 18-2.4]: Bonus Factors: Affordable Housing Standards. Please provide additional details to explain the bonus density for proposed affordable housing. Staff acknowledge that the Bonus Density Calculations indicate that this bonus factor will yield an additional 7.8 units; however, this information must be incorporated into the Site Plan with more detailed information [such as, at minimum, a note which confirms that "at least one-half of the additional housing units allowed by this density bonus shall be developed as affordable housing units" and which specifies the number of such affordable units, pursuant to County Code § 18-15.4.3(a)]. Any bonus density through this proposed "Affordable Housing Bonus Factor" is subject to further coordination with, and tentative approval by, Mrs. Stacy Pethia, Principal Planner/Housing (in coordination with CDD Planning staff). See updated sheet. 11. [Z.O. Sec. 32.6.2(a), 32.5.2(o)]: Sheet C3 includes proposed right-of-way dedication along Rio Road E. Please add a note stating that this area is "dedicated to the County for public use — new right-of-way." Additionally, please note that any such dedication requires the submission, approval, and recordation of a plat containing the note "hereby dedicated to the County for public use" prior to final site plan approval. More details regarding platting requirements will be provided during the review of the pending final plat and/or easement plat. Note added, noted. 12. [18-32.6.2(a) and 18-32.5.2(b)]: Annotation on Sheet C2 indicates that the existing structure addressed as 480 Rio Road East will be retained in the proposed development ("Demo all ex. Structures except this building"). Please ensure this existing structure is clearly shown on all other sheets in this Final Site Plan (as applicable). Structure is now clearly shown (linetype error) 13. [18-32.6.2(a), 18-32.5.2(a), 18-32.5.2(d), 18-30.7.4, and 18-30.7.5]: Please revise the applicable sheets in this Final Site Plan to clearly show the location and extent of all Steep Slopes Preserved and Steep Slopes Managed. Staff acknowledges the note on Sheet C2 which states, "Note: managed slopes shown on this sheet only since they have no effect on this plan." However, these managed steep slopes do need to be shown, and the proposed public access easement for the proposed shared -use path appears to go through areas containing managed steep slopes — and would therefore need to comply with all applicable minimum design standards specified in County Code § 18-30.7.5. Noted, slopes shown. 14. [18-32.6.2(a), 18-32.5.2(a), 18-32.5.2(d), 18-30.7.4.b. I (h), and 18-30.7.5]: Staff acknowledges the information on Sheet C2 which shows areas identified as "preserved slopes surveyed < 25%," and further acknowledges that the "Slopes" information on the Cover Sheet (Cl) state that "9,866 SF of preserved slopes overlay was surveyed at less than 15% and do not qualify as preserved slopes." (Note: the reference appears to be incorrect; this should be "25%" and not "15%."). Staff also acknowledges that grading and/or improvements are proposed within the preserved steep slopes overlay district as shown on Sheet C3. However, no disturbance or improvements are permissible within the preserved steep slopes overlay district, unless and until new topographic information is submitted pursuant to County Code § 18- 30.7.4.b.1(h) which demonstrates to the satisfaction of the County Engineer that the slopes are less than 25 percent. All disturbance or improvements proposed following any such acceptance/approval by the County Engineer must comply with all applicable design standards contained in County Code § 18 30.7.5. Note revised. We are collaborating with CDD Engineering. 15. [18-32.6.2(a) and 18-32.5.2(r)]: Please revise the legend and/or plans to clearly distinguish between "Property Line" and "Vacated Property Line." It is difficult to accurately determine the proposed property boundary(s) and proposed ROW limit(s) on Sheet C3 ("Site Layout"). Linetype updated. 16. [18-32.6.2(a), 18-32.5.2(a), 18-32.5.2(b), 18-15.3, and 18-4.19]: Please verify that all proposed dwellings comply with the minimum front yard setback (5') and maximum front yard setback (25') requirements. Noted, see plans. They now comply. 17. [18-32.6.2(a), 18-32.5.2(a), 18-32.5.2(b), 18-15.3, and 18-4.19]: It appears that portions of the existing dwelling that will be retained (identified as "Common House 1" and for which "Tourist Lodging" uses are proposed) does not meet the minimum front yard setback (5'). Plans revised to comply. 18. [18-32.6.2(a) and 32.5.2(b)]: It appears that portions of the proposed "5' Sidewalk" are partially within the right of way of the proposed private streets and partially within proposed lots and/or proposed Open Space. Please clarify and/or please revise to locate sidewalk entirely within right of way or entirely within Open Space, as appropriate. Additional coordination with CDD-Planning staff and VDOT staff may be necessary. [Note: sidewalk standards and specifications will be subject to the requirements contained in County Code §§ 14- 410.H ("Standards for all streets and alleys.") and 14-422 ("Sidewalks and planting strips."), unless certain variations or exceptions are formally requested and approved (as may be appropriate) pursuant to County Code §§ 14-422.E and 14.203.1, in conjunction with a pending application for a corresponding plat.] See updated plans. A waiver is still required, and included. 19. [18-32.6.2(a), 18-32.5.2(a), 18-32.6.2(1), 18-15.7, and 18-4.16]: ("Recreation regulations. Developed recreational area(s) shall be provided for every development of 30 units or more equal to or exceeding four dwelling units per acre, except for single-family and two-family dwellings developed on conventional lots.") Please identify the proposed developed recreation areas and facilities which meet or exceed the "minimum facilities" required by County Code § 18-4.16.2. Please also note that "Substitutions of equipment or facilities may be approved by the director of planning and community development, provided they offer a recreational amenity equivalent to the facilities listed above, and are appropriate to the needs of the occupants" may be requested pursuant to County Code § 18-4.16.2.1. See included waiver request. 20. [18-32.6.2(a) and 18-32.5.2(n)]: On Sheet C3, please specify the maximum height of Common House 2. (Note: Staff acknowledges this proposed amenity appears to be a one story structure.) Cover sheet note now states that all buildings are to be less than 35'. 21. [18-Sec. 32.6.2(a) and 18-32.5.2(n)]: Please ensure that specifications and details for all proposed paving materials and/or other surface materials for all sidewalks, paths, parking lots, driveways, and similar proposed improvements are included in the Final Site Plan. Noted, plans updated. 22. [18-Sec. 32.6.20) and 18-32.7.9]: Staff acknowledges the "Lighting" note on the Cover Sheet which states that "No outdoor lighting is proposed..." Please verify the intent that no outdoor lighting is proposed anywhere within this proposed development; however, please note that CDD-Planning staff might potentially require outdoor lighting in certain locations such as along the proposed public shared - use path (following additional coordination with other County staff — to be determined). Additionally, please also revise the "Lighting" note to reference the Final Site Plan (and not "Initial"). See updated lighting note on Cover Sheet. 23. [18-Sec. 32.6.20) and 18-32.7.9]: On Sheets C8 and C9, please add genus and species names (or abbreviations) to identify the locations of proposed landscape materials. See updated Landscape plans. 24. [18-32.6.20), 18-32.7.9.4(b-c), and 18-32.7.9.5(b)]: Sheet C8 ("Landscape Plan") identifies areas labeled as "Trees to be Preserved." The following revisions are necessary in order for these calculations to be permissible: a. Please identify the location/extent and quantify the area of the existing tree canopy that will be preserved and maintained, as it appears that this area is being used for the proposed bonus density and (presumably) to meet tree canopy requirements and/or street tree requirements. Noted, area, and tree sizes, added. b. Please insert a signed Conservation Checklist onto one of the Landscape Plan sheets and include any information required by the checklist into the plan documents (as specified by County Code § 18- 32.7.9.4.b.2). Signed Conservation Checklist is included on Sheet C11. c. Please also revise the Grading Plan sheets and Landscape Plan sheets (where necessary) to clearly show the limits of disturbance, tree preservation practices, and all other required details (as specified in Z.O. 32.7.9.4.b.1) in relationship to the areas labeled as "Trees to be Preserved," in order to demonstrate that required conservation practices will be utilized for successfully prey -ping Pxisting trees. Noted, tree protection and Limits of Disturbance are now shown on these sheets. d. Please also cross-reference CDD-Planning comment #9. Noted. 25. [Z.O. Sec. 32.6.20), 32.7.9.4(b-c), 32.7.9.5(b)]: Please ensure that all new street trees are located outside of the Rio Road East right-of-way. Noted, all street trees are outside the Rio Rd E ROW. 26. [18-32.3, 14-410.H]: Numerous street trees required per the "Landscaping Along Streets" requirements contained in County Code § 18-32.7.9.5 appear to be proposed in locations outside the right of way (ROW) for proposed new private streets. This is not permissible, unless a variation is formally requested and approved (as may be appropriate) pursuant to County Code § 18-32.3.5.b, and unless one or more private landscape easement(s) are established. Any such private landscape easement(s) to accommodate the required street trees outside of the ROW, if requested and if approved, would need to be shown on the corresponding final plat, and a note would need to be included on the final site plan and final plat, as follows (or similar): "The purpose of this landscape easement is to provide a location outside of the private street right way for the installation and perpetual maintenance of street trees, in order to satisfy the "landscaping along streets" requirements contained in Zoning Ordinance Section 32.7.9.5. The location of the required street trees within this landscape easement is permissible per a variation approved with conditions by the Agent, pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 32.3.5, on " Sec. 18-32.7.9.5: Street trees shall be planted with even spacing in a row within the public street right-of- way or adjacent to the public street right-of-way if not permitted therein by the Virginia Department of Transportation, and within the private street right-of-way. One large street tree shall be required for every 50 feet of street frontage, or portion thereof, if 25 feet or more. Where permitted, one medium shade tree shall be required for every 40 feet of road frontage, or portion thereof, if 20 feet or more. If required street trees cannot be planted within the parking setback or within ten feet of the street right-of-way due to sight distance, utility easements or other conflicting requirements, then the planting strip shall be enlarged to accommodate the trees. If this requirement creates a hardship by causing the relocation of required parking spaces, then the additional planting area may be counted toward the interior landscaping requirement. All street trees not located within the access easement are within the parking setback and within 10' of the private access easement. Thus, it appears that we meet the requirements for street trees, and do not need a waiver or private landscaping easements. It is not that we would not want to grant a landscaping easements, it is just impractical due to the interspersed nature of the trees. It would be incredibly difficult to plat easements to standards in a legible manner. Instead, we propose that no easement be required, but rather that a condition of subdivision plat approval is to have a clause in the HOA bylaws that specify maintenance of all landscaping shown on the site plan, and to forbid removal of these trees, except for replacement. 27. [18-32.7.9.4(d)]: Please add the required "verification of compliance" note; and please include the following standard plant health note: "All site plantings of trees and shrubs shall be allowed to reach, and be maintained at, mature height; the toping of trees is prohibited. Shrubs and trees shall be pruned minimally and only to support the overall health of the plant." Verification of compliance added, health note added. 28. [18-30.7.5]: The plan shows two proposed retaining walls within the Steep Slopes Overlay District, with proposed maximum heights of five (5) feet, as is permissible per SP201800016. However, these proposed retaining walls need to comply with all applicable design standards in County Code § 18-30.7.5. Therefore, it appears that revisions to the proposed retaining walls may be necessary in order to comply with the design standards contained in County Code § 18-30.7.5.a.2 ("Multiple stepped walls; separation") which specifies that "a minimum horizontal distance of three feet shall be maintained between each individual wall in a stepped wall system, and shall be landscaped with screening shrubs planted on ten foot centers." Please cross-reference CDD-Planning comment #2c. (Note: CDD-Planning staff acknowledge that, in this particular context, it might potentially be acceptable to satisfy this landscaping requirement through an alternative design other than "screening shrubs planted on ten foot centers," and remain available to answer questions, consider alternative designs, or otherwise assist.) Required plantings added between walls. 29. [18-15.3]: Minimum lot size for bonus -level conventional lots in the R-4 Residential District is 7,260 SF. Please identify the size of the proposed lots. These are cluster lots, and have no minimum size. Cluster note added to Proposed Use on Cl. 30. [18-32.7.3, 18-4.12.8, and 18-4.12.11]: In order to allow parking spaces that are required to meet minimum parking requirements to be located separately from the residential lots, a Shared Parking Agreement must be submitted for review pursuant to County Code § 18-4.12.11 and approved (as may be appropriate) by the Zoning Administrator. Noted, we are preparing this and will submit as soon as it is completed. 31. [18-32.7.3, 18-4.12.2(c), and 18-4.12.8]: Sheet C1 indicates that the proposed uses require a minimum of 81 total parking spaces, but further indicates that the total number of parking spaces provided is 76. This discrepancy between required and provided parking spaces is not permissible unless a written request for parking alternatives is submitted pursuant to County Code § 18-4.12.8 and is reviewed and approved (as may be appropriate) by the Zoning Administrator. Noted. Request is included. ADDITIONAL REVIEW COMMENTS APPLICABLE TO PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: 32. [18-32.5.2(i), 14-233, 14-234, and 14-235]: This plan proposes private streets that would serve single family detached units and single family attached units. While streets (public or private) are not reviewed or approved with site plan applications, it should be noted that a private street authorization request must be submitted with any subdivision plat application for this project. Therefore, please submit the required private street request pursuant to County Code §§ 14-233-A and 14 234, inclusive of the required justification, for review and approval (as may be applicable) by the Planning Commission in conjunction with staff review of the pending subdivision application. Additionally, per County Code § 14-235, a maintenance agreement for the private street must be submitted for review and approval by the County Attorney's Office with the subdivision application. Private street authorization request included. 33. [14-401, 14-419, and 14-203.1]: Proposed lots 9A — 16A are double -frontage lots, which are not permissible unless a special exception is formally requested and approved (as may be appropriate) pursuant to County Code § 14.203.1. Additionally, if double -frontage lots are approved by special exception, County Code § 14-419 requires such lots to be screened as provided in County Code § 18- 32.7.9.7. Those screening requirements may be varied or excepted as provided in County Code § 14- 203.1. Please submit an application for any such special exception request with required information and justification in conjunction with a pending application for a corresponding plat. Special exception request for double -frontage lots are attached. 34. [18-32.7.2.2(a), 14-410, 14-412, 14-234(D), and 18-2.51: It appears that the proposed "Road B," "Road C," and "Road D" do not meet all applicable private street standards, and would only be permissible with County Engineer approval. While streets (public or private) are not reviewed or approved with site plan applications, it should be noted that any desired private street standards waiver requests must be submitted with the subdivision plat application for this project. Therefore, please submit any such private street standards waiver request(s) pursuant to County Code §§ 14-234(D) and 18-2.5 for review in conjunction with the pending subdivision plat application. Please ensure all such waiver requests identify each applicable County Code provision for which a waiver is being requested, the proposed alternative, and corresponding justification for review and approval (as may be applicable) by the County Engineer. Waivers to the private street standards are attached. 35. [18-32.6.2(a), 18-32.5.2(1), and 18-32.5.2(o)] Prior to final site plan approval, it is necessary to obtain County approval of a plat showing all proposed easements (such as utility easements, stormwater management facility easements, and public use recreation easements) as well as all areas intended for dedication to the County for public use. The platting of easements and lands to be dedicated to the County for public use can be shown all together on one plat, or separately — however the applicant prefers. Noted. Subdivision plat preparation, with an easements shown, is the next step and is forthcoming. 36. [18-32.6.2(a), 18-32.5.2(a), 18-32.4.3.2(b), and County Code Chapter 141: It appears that proposed new residential lot lines are shown on the plan, but no subdivision plat application has been submitted. If division of the subject property is intended, please submit an application for a plat for review and approval (as may be appropriate) by an authorized Agent in the Community Development Department, as required by County Code § Chapter 14. A plat showing proposed new lots can be incorporated into the same plat application showing proposed easements and lands to be dedicated to the County for public use, or separately — however the applicant prefers. Noted. Subdivision plat preparation, with an easements shown, is the next step and is forthcoming. 37. [18-32.4.3.2 and 18-32.4.3.61: The County cannot approve Final Site Plan SDP201900067 unless and until all applicable SRC reviewers have confirmed that all of their respective review comments have been satisfactorily addressed and have each confirmed their tentative approval by indicating a review status of "No Objection." Noted. 38. Additionally, the following remaining (separate) applications and approvals are required prior to approval of Final Site Plan SDP201900067: a. [18-32.7.4.2 and 18-32.7.5.3]: Easement Plat Noted, we have yet to submit this. b. [18-32.7.2 and County Code Chapter 14]: Road Plans Noted, road plans have been digitally submitted on 3-27-20 c. [18-32.7.4.1 and County Code Chapter 17]: Water Protection Ordinance Plan (Note: Staff acknowledge that Water Protection Ordinance Plan application WPO201900053 is under review.) Noted, latest WPO plan was submitted 2-24-20. If you have any questions or concerns about these revisions, please feel free to contact me at keane@shimp-en ing eering com or by phone at 434-299-9843. Regards, Keane Rucker, EIT Shimp Engineering, P.C.