HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP202000025 Review Comments Initial Site Plan 2020-05-07�� OF A(,B&
GLIZIA
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
May 7, 2020
Daniel Hyer, PE
Line + Grade
113 4t" Street NE, Suite 100
Charlottesville, VA 22902
SDP202000025 Airport Road Sheetz - Initial Site Plan
Daniel Hyer:
The Site Review Committee has reviewed the development proposals referenced above. Initial comments
for the following divisions of the Department of Community Development and other agencies, as
applicable, are attached:
Albemarle County Planning Services
Architectural Review Board (ARB) [Comments pending to be forwarded once received]
Albemarle County Engineering Services
Albemarle County Information Services (E911)
Albemarle County Building Inspections
Albemarle County Department of Fire Rescue
Albemarle County Service Authority
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority
Virginia Department of Transportation
Virginia Department of Health
Comments reflect information available at the time the development proposal was reviewed, and should
not be considered final. However, the Site Review Committee has attempted to identify all issues that will
be required to be resolved prior to Final Site Plan approval.
Please contact me at your earliest convenience if you have questions or require additional information.
Sincerely,
Paty Saternye
Senior Planner
CC: Airport Auto Investments, LLC
600 E. Water Street, Suite H
Charlottesville, VA 22902
William Scott Marshall & Rachel K. Marshall Rev. Trust
1791 Airport Road
Charlottesville, VA 22911
OF A(,B&
��$GIIZIA
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, VA, 22902
Phone 434-296-5832
Fax 434-972-4126
Memorandum
To:
Daniel Hyer, PE
From:
Paty Saternye, Senior Planner
Division:
Planning
Date:
May 7, 2020
Subject:
SDP202000025 Airport Road Sheetz — Initial Site Plan
The County of Albemarle Planning Division will recommend approval of the plan referenced above once the following
comments have been satisfactorily addressed (The following comments are those that have been identified at this time.
Additional comments or conditions may be added or eliminated based on further review.): [Each comment is preceded by
the applicable reference, which is to the Subdivision/Zoning Ordinances unless otherwise specified.]
Comments to be addressed Drior to the Initial Site Plan
1. Pay the required notices fee of $435.00.
Comments to be addressed with the Final Site Plan submission:
2. A site plan meeting all the requirements of section 32.6 of Chapter 18 of the Code.
[32.5.2(a)] General information. Revise the following:
a) Include the name of all owners on the site plan cover sheet, under project summary. The owners of TMP 32-39
and TMP 32-39A are not listed as they appear in the County's GIS system.
b) Revise the parcel information for TMP 32-39 to include the Steep Slopes — Managed overlay district information.
Also, revise the site plan to show the managed slopes information. The area of managed slopes in this parcel
appears to be very small and crossing the western property line.
c) Revise the site plan to include the parcel information for TMP 32-39A in the plan views, any where the
information for TMP 32-38 and TMP 32-39 is shown.
d) Revise the scale on sheet X3.0. It does not appear to match the scale of the shared access agreement graphic.
e) Revise the cover sheet to include the "Source of Survey" or revise "Source of Topography" to state both survey
and topography if they are the same source.
f) Revise the Sheet Check List Table and/or sheet C-500 to have consistent information for sheet number and name.
g) Revise the owner and zoning district for TMP 32-40. GIS shows this parcel as being zoned Highway Commercial
and the owner as Airport Auto Investments, LLC.
h) Revise the zoning information to list the approved proffer for the veterinary office and hospital for TMP 32-38.
i) This site plan is based upon a boundary line adjustment. Therefore, address the following:
a. A boundary line adjustment plat must be submitted (separate application, fee and submission) and approved
prior to the approval of the final site plan.
b. The plat at the back of the site plan should be removed prior to final site plan submission.
c. The final site plan must show all of the required information and not refer to a plat that is a separate
document.
d. The final site plan should show the existing parcels but also show the proposed BLA parcels.
[32.5.1(c), 32.5.2(a), & 4.201 Revise the setback in to address the following: Revise the setback description and
linework to fully, consistently and correctly specify the setback requirements. Address the following:
a) Include a label for all setbacks lines on all sheets.
b) Revise the labels for the front setbacks to specify they are for both the building and the parking.
c) Revise the front setback to include the wording about when the sidewalk is outside of the ROW.
d) Add a label to the site plan that shows that the zoning district division line is the western parcel line for TMP 32-
39. The adjoining property (TMP 32-40) is zoned HC.
5. [32.5.2(h)] Floodplain and related information. Revise the plan to include a floodplain note.
[32.5.20), (k) & (1)]] Existing sewer and drainage facilities; Private & public easements; Existing and proposed
utilities. Address the following:
a) Offsite easements will be required, provide their location and dimension. This includes a stormwater easement for
the outfall pipe in the northeast corner of the site, leading to the TMP 32-39B pond.
b) See engineering comments in reference to required storm drainage easements and modification that will be
required.
c) Revise the site plan to show any existing or proposed waterline easements. In the southwest corner, where the
water meters are proposed, no easements are shown or labeled for water.
d) On the western parcel boundary line there is an existing storm pipe that crosses the property boundary. Show all
existing or proposed easements for this pipe and the associated grates the rights of all involved are not already
covered by the VDOT drainage easement.
e) An easement plat must be submitted (separate application, fee and submission) and approved prior to the approval
of the final site plan.
f) Include the abandonment of any easement in the proposed easement plat.
g) A proposed gas line easement is shown. An easement plat will be required. Work with gas provider to establish
this easement.
[32.5.2(m) & 32.5.2.(i)] Ingress and egress; Streets, easements and travelways. Address the following:
a) An offsite easement is required for ingress egress, a temporary construction easement and a permanent access
easement.
b) Revise the plan to show that the access easement, on sheet X3.0, is either new or existing. If it is existing include
the deed book and page number for the easement plat and deed.
c) Ensure that the deed for the access easement included maintenance agreement details.
d) An easement plat must be submitted (separate application, fee and submission) and approved prior to the approval
of the final site plan.
e) Ensure that the deed for the access easement, submitted with the plat, includes maintenance agreement details that
meet the Counties minimum requirements.
[32.5.2(n)] Existing and proposed improvements. Address the following:
a) See engineering comments in reference to pedestrian access from the pumps to the store.
b) Revise the plan to include a detail for the screening fence.
c) Revise the plan to show the bottom of wall elevation for the retaining wall and label the maximum height of the
retaining wall.
d) Revise the plan to include a detail for the dumpster enclosure.
e) Revise the plan to address the following in reference to parking:
i. See engineering comments on parking conflicts and required dimensions.
ii. Revise the legend for areas within the building. The different hatches can not be differentiated from each
other, both in the legend and in the building layout.
iii. The parking calculation (32.5.2(b)) does not incorporate 824 SF of the building and the inclusion of an
"office" use does not appear appropriate for the facility. It appears that the office area is an integral
portion of the other uses and not a separate use. Utilizing the "Restaurant' and the "Food Store"
calculation, both of which are based on Gross Floor Area (GFA), encompasses all areas of the building and
all uses that are proposed. If the bathrooms are incorporated into the "restaurant' part of the calculations it
generates 1.531 SF or Restaurant use and 4,546 SF of Food Store use. This generates a total required
parking of 43 spaces. This allows some flexibility to address some of engineering concerns.
a. Restaurant-- 1,531 at 13 spaces/1,000 SF GFA (1,531/1,000=1.53xl3=19.9)
b. Food Store= 4,546 at 1 space/200 SF GFA (4,546/200=22.73)
f) See engineering comments on loading areas.
g) Show all street/accessway signage on the plan, ensure it is shown on the layout and landscaping sheets, and ensure
there are no conflicts with landscaping.
2
h) Revise the plan to include the proposed paving material types for all walks, parking lots and driveways. This
information should include sections for each of those items.
i) There are what appear to be walls on either side of the pedestrian ramp to Airport Road that are shown on the
Landscape Plan but not shown on the other sheets. If is it a wall, show it on all other sheets and ensure it is labeled
with top -of -wall, bottom -of -wall, and maximum wall height on the grading sheets. If it is not a wall, clarify what
is being shown in the Landscape Plan. A railing should also be shown on the other sheets, labeled, and a detail of
the railing would need to be included in the site plan.
[32.5.2.(e), 32.5.2.(p) & 32.6.20)] Landscape plan. A landscape plan is required in the final site plan that complies
with section 32.7.9. A landscape plan was submitted but requires additional information for the final site plan. Such
information should include, but is not limited to, the following:
a) The calculation for the required tree canopy does not appear to be correct. The coversheet shows the site as
102,514 SF and the calculation lists the Gross Site Area as only 67,665 SF. The canopy is based on the whole
parcel, not a portion of it. Revise the calculation and ensure sufficient tree canopy is provided to meet the
requirement.
b) Do not utilize trees provided for street trees in the count for the parking lot trees. Additional parking lot trees are
required.
c) Revise the landscape schedule to include the canopy of each tree, the total canopy for that type of tree (canopy x
quantity) and then tally the quantity of canopy provided at the bottom of the schedule. Although the amount of
canopy "provided" is in the Landscape Compliance Chart there is nothing in the landscape plan showing how the
provided 9,242 SF of canopy was generated.
d) Provide the calculations for planting beds in the parking area being the equivalent area of 5% of paved and
vehicular circulation area, 1 large or medium shade tree per 10 parking spaces and ensure that the minimum
requirements are met.
e) Provide the required shrubs between the parking spaces and Airport Road in the area of the HC ramp. Some
shrubs could be provided at the lot side of the ramp and some could be provided at the roadside.
f) Ensure area that utilized to meet the interior parking landscaping bed requirement is planted with landscaping, not
just one tree in a much larger area, and is around the parking. The hatched island at the corner of the building
could be changed to a planting bed and provide additional area. Do not claim areas not adjacent to parking,
especially when it is above the required amount.
g) Include in the site plan a filled out, signed and dated conservation checklist.
h) Include in the existing conditions, grading and landscape sheets tree protection fencing around all existing trees
that are to remain and include tree protection fencing details in the site plan.
10. [32.5.2(n) & 32.6.2(k)] Outdoor lighting. In reference to the photometric plan address the following:
a) Revise the Photometric Plan so that for the full length of both right of ways the Footcandles do not exceed 0.5.
There are at least four portions of the parcel line that show values above what is allowed.
b) Revise the Luminaire Schedule to have LLF value for all fixtures and update the table accordingly.
c) Revise the Luminaire Schedule to have values for the total lamp lumens.
d) Ensure that the all product manufacturer cutsheets are provided in the site plan and include pictures or details that
allow determination that they are "full cut off'.
11. [32.5.2(r)] Symbols and abbreviations. Revise the site plan to include a legend for the line types used in the plan.
12. [Comment] ARB comments are not available at this time. Because of COVIDI9's impact on public meetings the
ARB comments will be provided when they become available. The final site plan approval will not be granted until
ARB has approved the site plan.
13. [Comment] See the SRC comments from most of the reviewers attached. All SRC reviewer comments must be
sufficiently address prior to final site plan approval.
Please contact Paty Saternye in the Planning Division by using psaternye6a�albemarle.org or 434-296-5832 ext.
3250 for further information.
Phone (434) 296-5832
Project:
Project file number:
Plan preparer:
Owner or rep.
Applicant:
Plan received date:
Date of comments:
Reviewer:
Project Coordinator:
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Fax (434) 972-4126
Site Plan review
Airport Road Sheetz - ISP
SDP2020-00025
Daniel Hyer, PE / Line and Grade, 113 411 St. NE, Suite 100
Charlottesville, VA 22902 dh er0jine-grade.com
Airport Plaza LLC / 5029 Stony Point Road, Barboursville, VA 22923
Airport Auto Investments, LLC / 600 E. Water St., Suite H
Charlottesville, VA 22902
31 Mar 2020
6 May 2020
John Anderson
Paty Satemye
Engineering review comments / required for Final Site Plan approval:
1. Please restore sheets C6.1 and C6.2 to Final Site plan. Utility profiles and details should be included.
2. Restore sheets C4.1, C4.2, C4.3, needed for site plan review.
3. Restore sheet CO. 1, General Construction Notes.
4. Once these sheets are restored, additional review comments are possible.
5. An approved VSMP /WPO plan is required prior to Final Site Plan approval.
6. A recorded SWM facility /public drainage easement plat is required prior to WPO plan approval.
7. C3.0 (Traffic Plan):
a. Sheetz fuel tanker entering from Airport Rd, WBL: Driver will likely not know in advance that
Sheetz fuel tanker must occupy 4'-5' of inside WBL of Airport Rd. to avoid curb on -site. Image,
below, p. 3. Auto -turn fig. indicates fuel tanker entering the site from this direction will entirely
occupy the site -to -Airport Rd exit lane. Fuel tanker's path may conflict with a vehicle exiting car
wash, or site. Please examine option of shifting fuel loading and delivery zone to back of site,
relative to Airport Road. Current Airport Rd. site entry -exit design and fuel loading and delivery
zone locations present conflicts:
i. 15 parking spaces east of fuel dispensing islands (spaces #33 — 47):
1. For vehicles exiting fueling area to site -exit on Airport Road, if fuel tanker
occupies proposed fuel loading /delivery zone, there is a conflict.
2. For Sheetz fuel tanker that has entered the site from Airport Rd, there is possible
conflict with car parked in space 433, or with vehicles exiting fueling area, or
possibly with fueling space canopy structure, or protective bollard/s.
b. Of major site elements (underground fuel tanks, fueling space, store, car wash, bioretention),
Engineering encourages review of site objectives. Please examine alternative locations for major
site elements to limit conflicts. This site presents a number of potential traffic -traffic, traffic -
tanker, traffic -pedestrian conflicts. Initial site plan design reflects thought, effort, and expense; it
may be too late for substantial redesign, but certain improvements may be possible. Given
investment in design, certain alternatives are less -likely possibilities. Possibilities:
i. UG fuel tanks should be at a lower elevation, if possible. This area may not be upslope
of bioretention with infiltration. Infiltration is not a suitable SWM practice for possible
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 4
petroleum -laden runoff, which is a possibility at a large-scale commercial re -fueling
station. If UG fuel tanks occupy a lower elevation, it may be possible to isolate runoff
from the surface of the UG fuel tank area, treat it to remove petroleum fraction (injurious
to bioretention) prior to routing runoff to bioretention (or other) infiltration practice. As
proposed, runoff from the UG fuel tank area (a site high point /higher elev.) is collected,
routed to an underground SWM detention system, and then routed to bioretention filter B.
ii. Please consider whether multiple C3.0 traffic /pedestrian patterns are a best alternative.
ARB, Planning, Zoning (setback) requirements affect design, but on -site circulation
appears problematic, given current location of major site elements (below):
1. Purple —store
2. M —car wash
3. Yellow —drive-thru
4. _ —bioretention
5. Orange —Sheetz fuel tanker
6. — —commercial fueling space
i..- c-
..�
_i iy1111 � �
.-
�
iii. For example: would switching the fueling space and store offer any benefit, or work?
iv. Would shifting proposed UG fuel tanks to back of site relative to Airport Road address
tanker entry conflict points at entry /exit from Airport Road?
v. Is space available between parking spaces 33-47 and Rt. 29 to relocate bioretention filter
B from back of site to this location?
vi. Please examine alternative site layouts in effort to minimize traffic -traffic conflicts,
traffic -pedestrian conflicts, and to protect biofilters.
�— A \Ne 4 _
� r -
1 /r
T � •- y
r "
at -
TRAFFIC AND TRUCK ROUTING PLAN
r
r
❑e NO
i r
r i
i r
i r
i r
rent now.A�w mh r
i r
:Ii.0 1
r �
r wn wrvt sr�r.y�r.n i �
i
i
i
r r
r
a r r
i
0m O❑
H
�rwrc>MTEP
1NIN 1W lAI irMolm6
ll,
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 4
....-------
vii. Please provide AASHTO W13-67 auto -turn fig. between points A and BA and B, which appears
the only travel path available for a fuel tanker entering the site, either from Airport Road
or U.S. Rt. 29. A tanker entering either entry must exit via the other site entry point, but
cannot enter and leave via the same site entry point.
C4.0
8. Revise proposed R2' to R3' Min. [Final Site Plan checklist for plan reviewers, p. 2, parking and
circulation, item 6.]
9. Provide curbing or trench drains to capture runoff and an oil /water separator to remove petroleum fraction
in storm runoff prior to routing runoff from surface above underground fuel tanks or from vehicle fuel
islands if bioretention with infiltration persists as a SWM on -site practice. Ref. VA DEQ Stormwater
Engineering Review Comments
Page 4 of 4
Design Specifications 9 (bioretention), and 8 (Infiltration). Design Spec. 8 specifically prohibits infiltration
practices at `hot spots.' Ref. Spec. 8, p. 20, Sec. 10.2 Designation of Stormwater Hotspots; link:
https://www.swbMp.vwrrc.vt.edI /wp-contegt/uploads/2017/11BMP-Spec-No-8_INFILTRATION_vl-
9 03012011.pdf
10. Provide handrail at top of retaining wall at dumpster enclosure if dumpster remains at this location (or
provide screening fence). Safety railing is required for walls > 4' high, and proposed wall ht. > 9'. If
screening fence (C8.0) is to be installed, please provide screening fence detail.
11. Recommend label CG-6 fronting parking /UG fuel tanks facing Airport Road spill curb.
12. Provide typ. parking space length for parking spaces #7 — 18.
13. Recommend eliminate parking space #7 (since overlaps HC parking space 6) and shift spaces 8 and 9 south
to allow pavement markings to delineate a pedestrian access from parking spaces #33 thru 47 to storefront.
Loss of one parking space to delineate pedestrian access of nearly 125' length from parking spaces 33 — 47
(beneath the center of fuel canopy) to safety of sidewalk fronting store is likely a worthwhile trade-off.
C6.0
14. Show /label SWM Facility easement for bioretention filters A, B.
15. Provide public drainage easements for any inlets receiving flow from public roads, and for any pipes
downstream of proposed on -site bioretcntion practices, or underground detention systems.
16. Relocate 15" DIA RCP between bioretention filter A and B to earth slope to reduce potential future conflict
should pipes in public easement require maintenance replacement. Avoid placing storm pipe between
bioretention filters A and B beneath: car wash drive aisle, curb, store drive-thru, and any other paved
surfaces (to extent practical).
General
17. A VDOT Land Use permit is required for any work within VDOT right-of-way.
18. Site must be accessible for ACF&R apparatus. Engineering defers to ACF&R.
Please feel free to call if any questions: 434.296-5832 -0069
Thank you
SDP2020-00025 Airport Road Sheetz ISP 050620
COMMONWEALTH i of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Stephen C. Brich, P.E. 1401 East Broad Street (804) 786.2701
Commissioner Richmond, Virginia 23219 Fax: (804) 786-2940
April 16, 2020
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Attn: Patricia Satemye
Re: Airport Road Sheetz — Initial Site Plan
SDP-2020-00025
Review #1
Dear Ms. Saternye:
The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use
Section, has reviewed the above referenced plan as submitted by Line+Grade Civil Engineering,
dated 16 March 2020, and offers the following comments:
1. Provide right turn lane warrants for Route 649 into proposed site. This section of SR
649 is designated Minor Arterial.
2. Provide right turn lane warrants for Route 29 into proposed site. This section of SR 29 is
designated Principal Arterial and entrance is proposed combined/joint entrance with
adjacent parcel.
3. Entrance spacing does not appear to meet the minimum per RDM, Appendix F, pg. 26.
This includes the shared entrance adjacent to Route 29.
4. Entrance radii do not appear to meet design vehicle and turning radius by land use. See
table 4-3 on page F-94, RDM. Appears 50' radii is the minimum for Commercial/Retail
without separate truck access.
5. Project appears to be within the Physical and Functional Areas of Intersection. Part A of
the Waiver Form AM-E shall be completed and submitted for review by the District
Location and Design Engineer for approval. See RDM appendix F-96
6. Add note stating "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."
7. Please show "mill and overlay" areas on plans in accordance with WP-2. Show limits of
mill and overlay to adjacent travel lane. Also, please add the WP-2 detail to the plans.
8. MOT plan for this project should be for multi -lane roads, please review TTC -6.2, TTC-
16.2, and TTC-53.0. Please include the proposed mill and overlay.
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
9. Note that the final plan must show conformance with the VDOT Road Design Manual
Appendices B(1) and F, as well as any other applicable standards, regulations or other
requirements.
10. Please provide a comment response letter with each submission after the initial.
If further information is desired, please contact Max Greene 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
Review Comments for SDP202000025 11nitial Site Plan
Project Name: AIRPORT ROAD S HEETZ - INITIAL
Date Completed: Monday, April 27, 2020 DepartmentlaivisionlAgency: Review sus:
Reviewer: Ishawn Maddox Fire Rescue I Requested r-hanges
1 -A hydrant needs to be added at the entrance on Airport Road_ The only hydrant visible on GIS shows a hose lay across A
multiple lanes of traffic well beyond the required spacing
distance-
_ If the building is going to be slprinklered an FDD must be shown and a hydrant located within 100' of the FDO_
3_ The ISO needed fire flow for the building is required-
4- Provide the currently available fire flow for the site from a recent ADA fire flow test-
5- A knox box is required_ Please indicate this requirement with a note on the plan_ The location can be coordinated with the fire
marshal's office_
Page: County of Albemarle Printed On: 10510712020
Review Comments for SDP202000025 11nitial Site Plan
Project Name: AIRPORT ROAD S HEETZ - INITIAL
Date Completed: Fnday, May 01, 2020 DepartmentlDi+visionlAgency: Review Sys:
Reviewer: Richard Nelson AOSA I Requested Changes Nd
0 0-05-01: 1 recommend SDP 0 0000 5 Airport Road Sheetz — Initial for approval with the following conditions: A
1) RWSAwill need to review and approve the final site plan_
) RWSA will need to approve new connections made on their water main_
3) The water meter for the shopping center to be abandoned is located on Airport Acres Rd_ This meter and the one picked up
on the survey are located on RA's water main_ RWA will need to be on site for the abandonment of these_
4) Provide fixture counts for meter sizing_
5) Provide water use projection for proposed car wash_
6) Contact Tim Brown at thro n serviceauthority_org if interested in car wash program_
7) Existing sewer laterals will need to be abandoned at the sewer main_
8) Confirm with Fire/Rescue if a fire hydrant will be required_
Page: County of Albemarle Printed On: 10510712020
Review Comments for SDP202000025 11nitial Site Plan
Project Name: AIRPORT ROAD S HEETZ - INITIAL
Date Completed: Sunday, April 05, 2020 DepartmentlDi+visionlAgency: Review sus:
Reviewer: Michael Bellinger CBB Inspections Requested Changes
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_
Add the following to the general notes page:
All roof drains shall discharge in a manner not to cause a public nuisance and not over sidewalks_
Add the following note to the general notes page:
Buildings or structures built before January 1, 1985 must have an asbestos survey performed in order to apply for a demolition
permit_ Asbestos removal permits are required if positive for such from Albemarle COLlllty and VDOLI Contact VDOLI for their
additional requirements and permits for demolition projects at 640-662-3580 x131_
Add the following note to the general notes page:
Retaining walls greater than 3 feet in height require a separate building permit_ Walls exceeding 4 feet in height require a
stamped engineered design also_ Walls require inspections as outlined in the UBC_
Page: County of Albemarle Printed On: 10510712020
Review Comments for SDP202000025 11nitial Site Plan
Project Name: AIRPORT ROAD S HEETZ - INITIAL
Date Completed: Tuesday, Apnl 21, 2020 DepartmentlDi+visionlAgency: Review Sys:
Reviewer: Victoria Fort RA No Objection
00-04-1: RWSA has reviewed Airport Road Sheetz initial site plan dated March 16th 2020 and has no conflicts with this
project_
Page: County of Albemarle Printed On: 10510712020
Review Comments for SDP202000025 11nitial Site Plan
Project Name: AIRPORT ROAD S HEETZ - INITIAL
Date Completed: Fnday, Apnl 03, 2020 DepartmentlDi+visionlAgency: Review Sys:
Reviewer: Brian Becker �� E911 No Objection
No objection_
Page: County of Albemarle Printed On: 10510712020
COMMONWEALTH of 'VIRGINIA
In Cooperation with the Thomas Jefferson Health District AL-LU ARLE- COUNTY
TTESVR A)
State Department of Health
F Lll VANNA COONTY r PALAAYRA]
1138 Rose Hill Drive ���"e cau"rY (srANARasvILLe)
LOUISA COUNTY (LOUISA)
Phone (434� 972-6219 P. ❑. Box 7546 NELSON COUNTY (LOVINGSTON)
Fax (434)972-4310
CharlvtSesvi!!e. Virginia 22906
May 4, 2020
Patricia Saternye, Senior Planner
Albemarle County Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: Airport Road Sheetz
Initial Site Plan
SDP2020-25
Ms. Saternye:
As requested, I have reviewed the Initial Site Plan, dated 3/16/20, for the proposed
development, referenced above. It appears both water and sewer will be provided by
public utilities, and it does not appear any existing wells or onsite septic systems will be
impacted, I have no objection to the proposed development.
If there are any questions or concerns, please give me a call, 434-972-4306.
Sincerely,
Alan Mazurowski
Environmental Health Supervisor
Thomas Jefferson Health District
alan.mazurowski(c�r�,vdh.vir ig nia. og_v