HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201900062 Correspondence 2020-04-29ROUDABUSH, GALE & ASSOCIATES, INC. s
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION g p
LAND SURVEYING Serving Virginia Since 1956
ENGINEERING
LAND PIANNING ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT SURVEY DEPARTMENT
172 SOUTH PANTOPS DRIVE, STE. A 914 MONTICELLO ROAD
JIM L. TAGGART, P.E. CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22911 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 WILLIAM J. LEDBETTER, L.S.
DON FRANCO, P.E. PHONE (434) 979-8121 PHONE (434) 977-0205 BRIAN D. JAMISON, L.S.
DUSTIN GREENE, PE FAX (434) 979-1681 FAX (434) 296-5220 NICI IOLAS M, HUTCHINSON, L.S,
AMMY M. GEORGE, PEA INFO@ROUDABUSH.COM
April 22, 2020
Mr. Andy Reitelbach
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: SDP-2019-00062 Georgetown Hydraulic Professional Offices
Dear Mr. Reitelbach,
Please find attached copies of the Final Site Plan. The plans have been revised to address the comments
received on May 22, 2019 following the Initial Site Plan submission.
Planning — Andy Reitleback
1. [32.5.2] General Information. Include the application number for the final site plan on the cover
sheet, SDP2019- 00062.
RESPONSE: The application number has been added to the Cover Sheet.
2. [32.5.2] General Information. Indicate on the cover sheet whether this site is in the jurisdictional area
for public water and sewer.
RESPONSE: The subject property is located within the jurisdictional area for public water and sewer.
Last note of the Cover Sheet.
3. [32.5.2] General Information. Indicate whether the watershed this site is in is a water supply
watershed ornot.
RESPONSE: The site is located within the Ivy Creek watershed, a water supply watershed.
4. [32.5.2] General Information. In the zoning note on the cover sheet, provide the overlay districts this
parcel is in, including the Entrance Corridor and the Airport Impact Area.
RESPONSE: The overlay districts have been added to the Zoning information on the Cover Sheet.
[32.5.2] General Information. In the boundary source note on the cover sheet, it appears that the date
of the referenced subdivision plat should be 1967, not 1867.
RESPONSE: The date has been corrected.
6. [32.5.2] General Information. Indicate whether the front setbacks provided for on the cover sheet
are maximum or minimum setbacks.
RESPONSE: The parcel has a 10' minimum parking setback setbacks. Per the ZMA there are four
building corner minimum setbacks. The setback information has been updated on the Cover Sheet. On
sheet 2, "Existing Conditions" the four building corners have been called out with labels.
7. [ZMA2006-14 COD] Include on the cover sheet in the area summaries the 5,227 square feet of
amenities that are required by the COD (11% of the area), as well as label that area on the site plan
layout sheet.
RESPONSE: The required and provided amenities areas have been added to the Cover Sheet. Per
meeting with Bill Fritz, the Preservation and Conservation areas are included in the calculation.
8. [ZMA2006-14 COD] The COD states that the building is to be 16,815 gross square feet. Include on the
cover sheet in the area summaries the gross square footage of the actual building proposed with this
site plan.
RESPONSE: The maximum and proposed gross areas of the building have been provided on the Cover
Sheet.
9. [ZMA2006-14 COD] The COD states that the impervious coverage of the site is 14,099 sq. ft, at 31%
of the site; however, the cover sheet of the site plan indicates that the impervious coverage is more
than that amount, at 19,702 sq. ft. and 43% of the site. Clarify the discrepancy. The impervious
coverage cannot be more than what is permitted in the COD.
RESPONSE: The area summary on the ZMA was calculated incorrectly or show incorrectly. For
clarification, the note on the ZMA states:
Total building coverage 6,775 sf (15%)
Total Impervious coverage 14,099 sf (31%)
6,775 + 14,099 = 20,874 sf
Site area = 45,738 sf
20,874 / 45,738 = 46%
It is of our opinion that the "Total Impervious coverage 14,099 sf' on the ZMA excluded the building
area coverage and was only an indication of the parking lot and sidewalk area. Therefore, the label on
the ZMA was incorrect. The total site impervious are on the Final Site Plan cover sheet is the correct
reflection of the TOTAL site impervious area. We added "(including building)" to the note on the cover
sheet for clarity. Our total impervious coverage is 45% and thus the site remains in compliance with
the ZMA.
10. [32.5.2(d), 4.2.] Critical slopes. On all sheets, in the legend, revise the label from "GIS steep slopes"
to "GIS critical slopes >25%."
RESPONSE: The label revised as requested.
11. [32.5.2] General Information. On the existing conditions and site plan sheets, provide the deed book
and page numbers for all existing easements, including the RWSA, ACSA, and VEPCO easements, along
with the temporary construction easements.
RESPONSE: The recordation information for the existing easements has been added to the plans.
12. [32.7.2.3] Indicate on the site plan that the proposed sidewalk will connect with the existing sidewalk
to the north on TMP 60E-1, and depict the existing sidewalk adjacent to that parcel. With the proposed
widening of Hydraulic for the right -term taper, it appears some of the existing sidewalk will also be
removed. The new and existing sidewalks must tie together.
RESPONSE: The proposed sidewalk along the frontage of TMP60E-1 will be built in accordance with
VDOT's requirements. The right turn taper will be constructed and an 8'-wide sidewalk will be added
to the back of curb along the taper.
13. [32.5.2] General Information. Label what the dashed lines behind the retaining walls are
representing.
RESPONSE: The dashed lines on the previous submission was an indication of the proposed footer.
This line has been removed since the proposed walls are segmental block and will not have footers.
Please see Retaining wall plans submitted under separate cover by others for more information.
14. [32.5.2(j)] General Information. Depict the drainage easement that is shown on the general
development plan on the site plan layout sheet, at the northern portion of the property.
RESPONSE: The existing drainage easement along the northern property line is shown on all of the
plan view pages.
15. [ZMA2006-14 General Development Plan] Label how wide the conservation area is along the border
with TMP 60-76B.
RESPONSE: The label has been revised to "20' conservation area".
16. [32.7.2.3] Label what the element is at the southeastern corner of the building, extending into the
right-of-way of Georgetown Road. It appears to be a sidewalk and stoop, or something similar.
RESPONSE: This is a sidewalk to connect the interior stairwell/exit to the sidewalk at the right-of-way.
This sidewalk has been labeled on the Site Layout Plan.
17. [32.5.2] General Information. More clearly label the dashed lines that are depicted between the
building and the right- of -way. There are at least three near the center of the building, near where the
bike rack is shown. One appears to be labelled as the ZMA build -to line; however, it is unclear what
the others are depicting.
RESPONSE: Labels with leaders have been added to aid in clarifying the lines along the frontage. The
three lines between the face of the building and the right-of-way are:
(1) 10' minimum Parking setback
(2) Existing VEPCO easement DB 723 PG 362
(3) New 20' RWSA easement
18. [ZMA2006-14 COD 20A.5.i] Setbacks. The COD indicates there is a 21.9' setback line on the site.
Indicate the location of this setback.
RESPONSE: The 9.6' and 21.9' indicate the location of the building corners, "build -to" corners. These
dimensions have been added to sheet 2 and 3. The 9.63' dimension is to the north-east building
corner and the 21.85' dimension is to the middle south-east building corner.
19. [32.5.5] What is the hatched area depicted on the site plan adjacent to the parking spaces under the
building overhang? Label this area. Is it painted asphalt, a sidewalk, or something else?
RESPONSE: The hatched area under the building will be painted to differentiate the parking spaces
from the pedestrian walking space/accessible parking.
20.[32.5.51 Label the locations of the pillars or other support structures for the portion of the building that
overhangs the parking spaces, so staff can ensure that these structures do not interfere with the
parkingspaces.
RESPONSE: The building columns in the parking area under the building have been shown on the Site
Layout Plan, sheet 3. They are labeled and are shown as a circle that is not to scale for illustrative
purposes only. A 6" column does not show up well on a 20-scale drawing. These columns do not
interfere with the parking spaces or pedestrian movement in the area. Please see Architectural plans
for more details.
21. [32.5.2(n)] The parking spaces cannot overhang the sidewalk at the northwestern corner of the
building. Revise.
RESPONSE: Per the February 10, 2020 meeting, there is no issue with parking space overhang on a 7'
sidewalk.
22. [32.7.9] Landscaping and screening. Additional street trees are needed along Hydraulic Road. The
frontage length requires 6.2 trees, so a minimum of 7 trees is needed along this frontage. Also, identify
which trees are being used to provide the street tree requirements.
RESPONSE: We have spoken with Bill Fritz and were directed that 6 trees in this instance was
sufficient. As per other sections of the ordinance, rounding of numbers is generally to the closest
whole number.
23. [32.7.9] Landscaping and screening. Provide a list of the trees being removed in the conservation area
(those that require replacement) and the trees that are being planted in order to replace them at the
2:1 ratio.
RESPONSE: A list of the trees to be removed within the Conservation Area has been added to the
existing conditions and landscape plan. On the existing conditions plan, please see the three trees
with Asterix to indicate which three trees are to be replaced at 2:1 ration. On the Landscape plan, a
note has been added to the top left text box that 6 trees are being planted to replace the 3 trees
removed. Please see the plan view for the 6 trees replaced in the conservation area.
24. [32.7.9] Landscaping and screening. Revise the canopy coverage table, as only those plants exceeding
five feet in height at ten years maturity can count toward the required canopy coverage.
RESPONSE: The canopy coverage table has been revised so that only the plants that are taller than 5'
at 10-years maturity are counted towards the required canopy coverage.
25. [32.7.9] Landscaping and screening. Delineate the preservation and conservation areas on the
landscape plan, as well as all easements, to ensure landscaping does not interfere with required
easements.
RESPONSE: The easements, preservation and conservation areas are shown on the Landscape Plan by
using hatching. The easements within the parcel has been shaded in yellow. The plantings shown
withing the RWSA easement are allowed within their easement per their planting list (see comment
response #28). No plantings are proposed within easements.
26. [32.7.9] Landscaping and screening. Are the VP plants proposed to be planted behind the retaining
wall or in front of it? It is somewhat unclear, as they look to be on top of the retaining wall.
RESPONSE: The viburnums (VP) are to be planted at the bottom of the retaining wall, the side
opposite of the parking lot.
27. [32.7.9] Landscaping and screening. The shrubs around the two parking spaces at the north end of
the building, adjacent to the site entrance, need to be shifted, as the shrubs cannot be located within
the required 2 ft. parking space overhang. The 2-ft. overhang space must be clear of obstructions.
RESPONSE: The shrubs have been shifted to be outside of the 2-foot overhang space.
28. [32.7.9] Landscaping and screening. The two CC forest pansy redbuds appear to be located within the
RWSA easement. These plants may need to be moved to ensure they do not interfere with the
easement.
RESPONSE: The redbuds have been selected from the planting list from RWSA of the species of
vegetation that is allowed within their easements.
29. [32.7.9] Landscaping and screening. The LN Natchez crepe myrtle is located in the loading space.
Move thistree.
RESPONSE: The LN Natchez Crepe Myrtle has been shifted out of the loading space.
30. [4.17] Outdoor Lighting. Clarify the note on the lighting plan, page 10. The note states that all
proposed lighting will not exceed 3,000 lumens. However, in the lighting table, light fixtures A and D
are labelled as having lumens of over 3,000. If any lights are proposed to have over 3,000 lumens,
they must be full cut-off fixtures.
RESPONSE: The note on the Cover Sheet has been revised to remove the indication that all of the
lighting is/will be below 3,000 lumens. The note goes on to state that any lighting fixture that is over
3,000 lumens will be full cut-off fixtures. "Each outdoor luminaries equipped with a lamp that emits
3,000 or more initial lumens shall be a full cutoff luminaries and shall be arranged or shielded to
reflect light away from adjoining residential districts and from adjacent roads."
31. [4.17] Outdoor Lighting. Several of the light fixtures need to be moved. Light "D" appears to be located
partly within the parking lot. In addition, the three "A" light fixtures appear to be located within the
2-ft. overhang for the parking spaces. In order for 16 ft. parking spaces to be approved with 2-ft.
overhangs, the overhang space must be clear of all obstructions, including lights, trees, and shrubs.
RESPONSE: The larger squares shown for the light is the overhead part of the fixture. The light poles
do not interfere with the parking or overhang space.
Comments from SDP2019-00014 — Georgetown Hydraulic Professional Offices Initial Site Plan Action
Letter:
1. [ZMA2006-14 General Development Plan] Conservation Area. Modify each sheet of the plan to
clearly depict the extent of the conservation area and the preservation area as approved with the
general development plan. Please lightly gray or hatch each area out so they are easily
distinguishable. The physical improvements (parking, retaining walls, drain pipes, filterras, and
ripraps) depicted on the general development plan that are adjacent to or within the conservation
area shall not extend further into the conservation area than depicted on the general
developmentplan. Clearly depict the preservation and conservation areas on all sheets (e.g., it is
difficult to distinguish the conservation area on the landscape plan.). Also, the riprap at the
southwestern corner of the site extends farther into the conservation area than shown on the
general development plan and needs to be shifted so that is does not extend farther than the
general plan shows it.
RESPONSE: The hatch for the GIS Steep Slopes >25% has been revised so that the conservation
easement hatch/area is easier to read. The hatching for the conservation/preservation areas are
shown on the landscape plan. The storm detention pipe shown on the General development plan was
conceptual and not designed. The storm system shown on this plan is designed in accordance with
engineering requirements. We are not disturbing the conservation area with this design.
2. [ZMA2006-14 General Development Plan] Conservation Area. Revise the limits of the conservation
area adjacent to TMP 60-76B to match the limits depicted on the general development plan.
Comment addressed.
3. [ZMA2006-14 Proffer 4] On the existing conditions sheet please mark each tree over 12" diameter
to be removed within the conservation area. There appears to be an 18" oak in the preservation
area (near where the 50' setback line crosses the preservation -conservation areas border) proposed
to be removed. This tree cannot be removed because it is in the preservation area. Revise the
demolition plan to show this tree being maintained.
RESPONSE: The existing 18" oak in question is not within the limits of clearing and grading and has
been denoted as one of the trees to remain.
4. [ZMA2006-14 General Development Plan] The max height and general design of the retaining walls
(Redi-Rock) shall conform to the general development plan. The retaining wall at the southern end
of the parking lot is located in a different area than what is shown on the general development plan.
On the general development plan, it is depicted to the southwest, against the conservation area;
however, on the site plan, it is depicted on the southeast, closer to the street. Revise.
RESPONSE: Per the February 10, 2020 meeting, the retaining walls are located where they need to be
based upon the existing and proposed grading. The proposed retaining walls will remain as they are
shown on the plans.
5. [32.5.2(d), 4.2.] Critical Slopes. Clearly depict and label all critical slopes onsite. Also, label which
slopesare proposed to be disturbed. Provide this information on the existing conditions sheet, the
grading sheet, and the site plan sheet. Also, provide critical slope area calculations (total SF of
critical slopes to be disturbed). Clarify whether any of the critical slopes on the adjacent property to
the north or near the right- of -way of Hydraulic Road are to be disturbed. (There appears to be some
disturbance of critical slopes within the right-of-way. Also, there appears to be a need for
disturbance of critical slopes on the adjacent property within the proposed temporary construction
easement.) If they are, include that square footage within the amount proposed to be disturbed.
Provide the deed book and page number for the temporary construction easement located on TMP
60E-1.
RESPONSE: There will be no offsite disturbance on the adjacent property, TMP 60E-1. The proposed
temporary construction easement is no longer needed and has been removed from the plans.
The GIS infers that there are critical slopes within Hydraulic Road. Per a topographic analysis of the
field run survey, those critical slopes do not exist.
6. [ZMA2006-14 COD 20A.5.i] Setbacks. Visually depict and label setback lines for the development.
Also, revise the setbacks listed on the cover sheet asfollows:Front setbacks from the building
corners: 9.6' & 13.47' Front setbacks from center of the building: 21.9' Building setbacks from the RA
zoning: 47.5' Clarify the setback line depicted along the front of the property. There appear to be
two dashed lines intertwining in this area. In addition, clearly label each of the setback
measurements listed above. The 21.9' setback does not appear to be shown.
RESPONSE: One line is the original 10' parking setback. Labels with leaders have been added to
indicate the different "build -to" corners. The line has been removed since the build -to dimensions are
to the building corners and not a line.
7. [ZMA2006-14 COD 20A.5.i(5)] Maximum Building Height. Revise the maximum building height
information as follows: 2 stories, 50' (measured at the front facade) and 3 stories, 60' (measured at
the back to include basement). Comment addressed.
8. [ZMA2006-14 COD 20A.5.d] Amenities. Provide the required 14' wide concrete sidewalks along the
front of the site as depicted in the general development plan. The sidewalk does not appear to be 14'
wide in some areas, as there are steps and a front porch/stoop included instead. These elements are
not depicted on the general development plan. In addition, these step/porch structures appear to
be within the right-of-way.
RESPONSE: The lead walks, steps and front porch/stoops have been reconfigured and are now located
outside of the right of way. There is a minimum of 14' wide sidewalk along Hydraulic Road.
9. [ZMA2006-14 COD 20A.5.d] Amenities. Provide a sidewalk connection from the parking area to the
sidewalk at the front of the site. Comment has not been addressed.
RESPONSE: Per meeting with Bill Fritz, the grade at this area of the site is unfavorable for the use of a
sidewalk.
10. [ZMA2006-14 Proffer 1] Depict and label the location of the required 5-bike bicycle rack. Installation
of the bicycle rack shall be completed prior to CO for the building. Revise the location of the bicycle
rack. It is not shown in the same place as it is depicted on the general development plan.
RESPONSE: Per the February 10, 2020 meeting, the proposed location of the bicycle rack is sufficient.
11. [ZMA2006-14 Proffer 2] Depict, label, and dimension the required bus shelter. Construction ofthe
bus shelter shall be completed prior to the issuance of the CO for the building. The location of the
bus shelter has been determined by the County's Transportation Planner, Dan Butch (see attached
review comments for the location). Location #1 is the preferred location to locate the shelter but
the County will accept location #2 as an alternative site if it better suites the applicant. Please
ensure the final site plan includes an additional sheet which depicts the shelter's location, it's
design, and any grading and construction required to build the shelter. Also, if there is not adequate
room in the right-of-way to locate the shelter an offsite easement shall be obtained by the applicant
and recorded in the Clerk's office prior to final site plan approval. Provide the recordation
information forthe easement on the site plan. This comment has not been addressed, as the
required bus shelter does not appear to be shown on the site plan.
RESPONSE: A bus shelter will be provided when it is requested by Charlottesville Area Transit.
12. [ZMA2006-14] Proffers. On the final site plan clearly list the proffers. Comment addressed.
13. [ZMA2006-14 COD 20A.9] Amenities. On the plan depict and label the two required picnic tables and
benches. See the general development plan for location. More clearly label the picnic tables and
amenity area. The font is too small to be legible.
RESPONSE: The two picnic tables and one bench have been labeled more clearly on the Site Layout
Plan.
14. [32.5.2] General Information. The northern most retaining wall appears to cross the property line
into TMP 60E-1. Additionally, there is a sewer connection proposed on TMP 60E-1. Prior to final site
plan approval offsite easements forthese improvements shall be approved and recorded in the Clerk's
office. On the final site plan label and depict the easements and provide their recordation
information. This comment has not been addressed, as the sewer connection still appears to be on
an adjacent parcel.
RESPONSE: The sanitary connection is made to a manhole located on TMP 60E-1, however the
connection and 10' sanitary lateral is located within the larger existing sanitary sewer easement. As
such, an additional easement is not necessary.
15. [32.5.2(q)] Traffic Generation Figures. On the site plan provide the estimated traffic generation
figures for the site based on current Virginia Department of Transportation rates; indicate the
estimated number of vehicles per day and the direction of travel for all connections from the siteto
a public street. Comment addressed.
16. [32.7.2.1] Vehicular Access to Site. Each entrance onto any public street shall be designed and
constructed as required by the standards of the Virginia Department of Transportation. VDOT
approval of the entrance to the site shall be required prior to final site plan approval. Comment not
addressed; VDOT must grant approval of the site plan prior to final site plan approval.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged. We are working with VDOT to address their comments.
17. [ZMA2006-14 General Development Plan] Landscaping. Revise the landscape plan asfollows:
Replace the five (5) viburnum x rhytidophylloides plantings at the southeastern portion of the
building with six (6) 7-8' tall Ilex xPatriots. Add two (2) 7-8' tall crepe myrtle multi stemmed
plantings at the southeastern portion of the building. Replace the thirty seven (36) green boxwoods
shrubs along the northern property line with a rowof 4-5' tall viburnum x pragense to fill this area.
Provide the following note on the landscape plan: "Female gender ginko trees will not be used"
Comments not addressed, as the gingko trees appear to have been removed from the site plan,
although they show up on the general development plan, and the required note about female
gingko trees is not provided.
RESPONSE: Per meeting with Bill Fritz, any street tree can be used.
18. [ZMA2006-14 COD 20A.3.b] Parking and Loading. Label the 3 parking spaces for the adjacent
property. Please list the adjacent property's TMP that these spaces are dedicated to. Comment not
Addressed.
RESPONSE: Please see sheet 3. The first three spaces on the north side of the entrance is labeled "(3)
Parking spots for TMP60f-1".
19. [4.12] Parking. Omit the double stacked parking throughout the site. If double stacked parking is to
remain submit a waiver request application and associated review fee. Provide the required
information under Section 4.12.2(c) for County consideration to the standards of Section 4.12.16(a).
Review and approval of this waiver shall be required prior to final site plan approval. Comment
addressed.
20. [4.12.13(e), 4.12.19] Parking and Loading. Provide the required dumpster, dumpster pad, and
screening. To omit the required dumpster submit a waiver request application and associated
review fee. Provide the required information under Section 4.12.13(f) for County consideration.
Review and approval of this waiver shall be required prior to final site plan approval. Comment not
addressed. Provide a dumpster and required accessory elements, including pad and screening. In
addition, what are the trash containers at the southeast corner of the building?
RESPONSE: Per the February 10, 2020 meeting, the trash containers located within the lower level of
the building are adequate.
21. [32.5.2] General Information. The TMP listed on the cover sheet is incorrect. The true TMP is 060F0-
00-00-00300. Revise. Comment addressed.
22. [32.5.2] General Information. The C-1 zoning listed on the cover sheet is incorrect. The zoning of this
parcel is NMD. Revise. Comment addressed.
23. [32.5.2] General Information. On the plans provide the following note: "This parcel is subject to
ZMA2006-14 with associated proffers and Code of Development." Comment addressed.
24. [32.5.1(c)] Dimensions. Throughout the plan dimension all proposed improvements. Comment not
addressed. More clearly identify the limits of the building versus the other elements proposed for
the site, including the portions of the building proposed to overhang the parking spaces.
RESPONSE: The outline of the building face has been darkened on the Site Layout Plan.
25. [32.5.2(n)] Outdoor Lighting. Any proposed outdoor lighting must be shown on the site plan. A
photometric plan and lighting cut sheets must be provided with the final site plan. Proposed lighting
must comply with requirements of Sec. 4.17 of the Zoning Ordinance. Comment not addressed;
lighting plan does not fully comply with Section 4.17.
RESPONSE: The note on the Cover Sheet has been revised to remove the indication that all of the
lighting is/will be below 3,000 lumens. The note goes on to state that any lighting fixture that is over
3,000 lumens will be full cut-off fixtures. "Each outdoor luminaries equipped with a lamp that emits
3,000 or more initial lumens shall be a full cutoff luminaries and shall be arranged or shielded to
reflect light away from adjoining residential districts and from adjacent roads."
The larger squares shown for the light is the overhead part of the fixture. The light poles do not
interfere with the parking or overhang space.
Albemarle County Architectural Review Board (ARB) — Margaret Maliszewski
1. ARB approval is required prior to final site plan approval. Submit an ARB application for a final site
plan review. Include all items on the ARB Final Site Plan checklist, and be sure to address all comments
listed in the ARB action letter dated August 20, 2019.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Albemarle County Transportation Planning — Daniel Butch
[ZMA2006-14 Proffer 2] Install a bus shelter as described in Proffer #2. Please choose between
location # 1 or location #2 for the shelter. Location #1: Existing bus stop, ID: 144SO southbound bus
route on Georgetown Rd. The proposed shelter Location #1 is denoted with a red circle in Map 1
(see below). The location is approximately 170 ft south of TMP 60E-3 property line on the
northwestern side of Georgetown Rd. It is directly across the Westgate driveway entrance with
existing bus stop signage and is denoted with a red circle in Map 2 (see below). Location #2: Existing
bus stop, ID: 13119 northbound bus route on Georgetown Rd. The proposed shelter Location #2 is
denoted with a blue circle in Map 3 (see below). The location is across Georgetown Rd of TMP 60E-3
property approximately 48 ft south of the crosswalk at the intersection of Georgetown Rd and
Hydraulic Rd with existing bus stop signage and is denoted with a red circle in Map 4 (see below). On
the final site plan please provide the location of the shelter selected and a cutsheet of the proposed
bus shelter design.
RESPONSE: A bus shelter will be provided when it is requested by Charlottesville Area Transit.
Albemarle Countv Eneineerine Services — Matthew Wentland
1. The VSMP plans will need to be approved before final site plan approval.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
2. Sidewalk cannot be located in the 2' parking overhang. The parking spaces next to the sidewalk will
need to be 18' and have bumper blocks. Bumper blocks are not required where the sidewalk is 6' or
wider. [18.4.12.16e, DSM]
RESPONSE: Sidewalk has been revised to 7' wide.
Provide guardrail/vehicle barrier between the parking and the retaining walls. If the wall is being
used as a vehicle barrier, provide plans and verification from the wall engineer.
RESPONSE: The guardrail and details to be provided with wall design plans, under separate cover, by
others. Please see note 3 and 4 on sheet 3 related to the walls.
4. Provide more information on the stormwater system, such as inlet types, elevations, inverts, pipe
sizes, etc.
RESPONSE: The underground system is a propriety system designed by a third party. The full packet by
ADS was included with the submission of the FSP and the VSMP. Please see the utility sheet for more
information related to the inlet structures in the parking lot and pipe inverts.
Albemarle County Information Services (E911) — Brian Becker
No objection
Albemarle County Building Inspections — Michael Dellinger
1. Add the following note to the general notes page:
a. ALL water lines, sewer lines, and fire lines from the main to the structure MUST have a visual
inspection performed by the building department.
b. All roof drains shall discharge in a manner not to cause a public nuisance and not oversidewalks.
RESPONSE: The requested notes have been added to the Utility and Drainage sections of the General
Construction Notes on the Cover Sheet.
Fire and Rescue — Shawn Maddox
1. Mark the entire travel way on the property as fire lane.
RESPONSE: The entire travel way will be designated as fire lane. Note added to sheet 3, number 6.
2. A Knox Box is required.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged, see sheet 3, note number 7.
3. Provide ISO needed fire flow and the currently available fire flow on site.
RESPONSE: Roudabush is working with ACSA. A fire flow test was requested on 03/10/2020.
Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) — Richard Nelson
1. Move water meter more North West for easier access.
RESPONSE: Water meter has been moved.
2. Add note "contractor is to contact ACSA 3 days prior to tying sewer manhole, to schedule an
inspector on site"
RESPONSE: Note has been added. Utility sheet 4, note #5.
3. Provide fixture counts.
RESPONSE: Provided on sheet 4, bottom left. All the fixtures listed will be installed. Conventional flush
tanks will be used. Sewer and water data sheets is provided with this submission.
Virginia Department of Transportation — Adam Moore
1. The Please show and label mill and overlay limits to adjacent travel lane on plan view.
RESPONSE: The extent of the mill and overlay/saw cut has been shown on the plans.
2. Please provide a MOT plan in accordance with the Virginia Work Area Protection Manual. MOT plan
should be on a separate sheet and designed for this project, include the proposed mill and overlay.
RESPONSE: Sheet 7 has been revised per meeting with Max Greene.
3. The sidewalk, along the North side frontage, of existing property line to CG-12 does not appear to
meet the minimum width requirements and should be 8ft. wide or revised to provide a 3'ft., buffer
strip next to the curb. Please clarify. Adjacent property appears to have concrete and asphalt from
curb to building. Please show how these areas will be addressed.
RESPONSE: The sidewalk has been revised to be 8' in width per VDOT.
4. Please add CG-12 construction detail and general construction notes for this site's construction and
inspection. CG-12 type B appears to be the detail with the closest match to this submittal.
RESPONSE: CG-12 type B detail on sheet 5. VDOT construction notes on sheet 8.
5. The right—in/right-out entrance must be physically restricted. Include a partial access entrance
restrictive median and detail for Right -In Right -Out on the plan. See VDOT Road Design Manual,
figure 4-4, commercial entrance channelization island.
RESPONSE: Entrance has been revised per meeting with VDOT.
6. Proposed building roof drains should not discharge towards or across VDOT right -of- way. Please
show how the drainage runoff will be adequately discharged.
RESPONSE: Please see sheet 4. Label added to indicate roof drains discharge will flow directly into the
underground storage. Please see Architecture drawings for more details if needed.
7. Landscaping plants and trees adjacent to the sight distance triangle will need to be maintained in
area between 2- and 7-feet above ground as a clear zone to preserve sight lines and accommodate
pedestrians.
RESPONSE: Note has been added to the landscaping plan sheet and sight distance profile sheet.
Additionally, landscaping layer has been turned on to show that it does not conflict with the sight
distance triangle (sheet 6).
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA) — Dvon Vega
General Comments:
1. RWSA requests a permanent 20' easement along the eastern boundary of the property for the
existing RWSA 12" water line. The easement should extend 10' on either side of the pipe centerline
or to the VDOT right-of-way line, whichever is closer. Show the proposed easement on plan sheets 3-
5.
RESPONSE: Revisions have been made.
2. RWSA is concerned about the proximity of the footers of the building to the waterline. Additional
information on the type and depth of the building footers will be needed in order to determine the
extent of impacts on the RWSA water line (see Sheet 3 comment, below).
RESPONSE: Acknowledged, the building has a 3-foot footer. No excavation will be near the waterline.
Sheet 1:
1. Include the RWSA General Notes this sheet (see attached).
RESPONSE: Notes have been added.
,hPPt
1. RWSA is concerned about the proximity of the footers of the building to the waterline. Additional
information on the type and depth of the building footers will be needed in order to determine the
extent of impacts, on the RWSA water line (see General Comments, above).
RESPONSE: Acknowledged, the building has a 3-foot footer. No excavation will be near the waterline.
Sheet 5:
1. Please show and label the location of the 12" RWSA water main on this plan sheet.
RESPONSE: Watermain has been added to sheet 4 Utility Sheet.
2. Please move the proposed trees so there is a minimum of 10' of separation from the centerline of
the 12" RWSA water line.
RESPONSE: Trees have been revised in accordance with approved planting list provided by RWSA.
We thank you for taking the time to review these plans and trust the above adequately addresses your
comments. However, please let me know if you have any questions or require additional information.
Very truly yours,
Riki Van-Niekerk