Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201700039 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2017-11-01 1 County of Albemarle Department of Community Development ________________________________________________________________________ Memorandum To: Cody A. Pennetti, P.E. (Cody.Pennetti@Timmons.com) From: Cameron Langille – Senior Planner Division: Planning Services Date: August 1, 2017 Revision 1: November 1, 2017 Subject: SDP-2017-00039 LIDL 1248 Richmond Rd – Final Site Plan The Planner for the Planning Services Division of the Albemarle County Department Community Development will recommend approval of the plan referred to above when the following items have been satisfactorily addressed. (The following comments are those that have been identified at this time. Additional comments or conditions may be added or eliminated based on further review.) [Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference to the Albemarle County Code.] Requirements from Initial Site Plan Action Letter Dated June 14, 2017: 1. The notification fee of $215 has not been paid. The initial site plan will not be approved until the fee is paid. Comment addressed. 2. [32.5.2a] Please show all areas on each parcel within the Steep Slopes Overlay District (managed and preserved). Please add the Steep Slope Overlay District to the Site Data table on Sheet C0.0. Comment not fully addressed. TMP78-5A and 78-5B both have Managed Steep Slopes that are not shown on the drawings or included in the Site Data table on Sheet C0.0. Please show the Managed Steep slopes and state on Sheet C0.0. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. 3. [32.5.2a] Please state the zoning map amendment number to the Site Data table on the Cover Sheet- ZMA2013-002. Comment addressed. 4. [32.5.2a] Please state the exact proffers that were approved as part of ZMA201300002 somewhere on the plans. Comment addressed. 5. [32.5.2a] The private road design as proposed on this site plan does not meet the intention of proffer #1 for interconnectivity that was approved by the County through ZMA201300002. Parking stalls which back into the travel lanes of the private road are not permitted. Please consult with the County Engineer for further questions regarding permitted design of the private road. Comment addressed. 6. [32.5.2a] Please state the zoning districts of all abutting parcels in the property description labels across all drawings. Comment addressed. 7. [32.5.2a] The drawings show incorrect property boundaries for the abutting parcel T.M.P. 78-5C. The property is not divided into lots C and D as shown on the plans, please amend. Comment addressed. 2 8. [32.5.2n] On Sheet C4.0, please show the areas within the building that will be utilized for retail use and warehouse uses, and include a label stating the square footage for each use which corresponds with the parking area calculations provided on the Cover Sheet. Comment not fully addressed. Please list the full Code language for the use type selected to calculate the required parking under Section 18-4.12.6. The applicant is using the parking standard for “Retail use not otherwise listed.” This use type contains two options, and the applicant is proposing to utilize option 2 which states “(2) at the request of the applicant, the actual retail sales floor area as shown on floor plans submitted by the applicant delineating the actual retail sales area, which plans shall be binding as to the maximum retail sales area used.” On Sheet C0.0, please include a note with the parking calculation that refers to the floor layout detail on Sheet C2.5. Please amend the parking calculation on Sheet C0.0 so that it states for the remainder portion of the parking calculation “1 space / 200 square feet (remainder 18,812) = 94 spaces.” Ron Higgins, Zoning Administrator, has approved the proposal to not require additional parking spaces for the 12,150 square foot warehousing area as depicted on Sheet C2.5. Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. On the Cover Sheet, please amend the parking calculation on Sheet C0.0 so that it states for the remainder portion of the parking calculation “1 space / 200 square feet (remainder 18,812) = 94 spaces.” 9. [32.5.2n] Please state the proposed paving materials to be used on all walks, parking lots, and driveways in the item labels shown on Sheet C4.0. Comment addressed. 10. [32.5.2n] Please provide verification that all outdoor lights proposed on site will be full cutoff luminaires. The spec sheets provided for each model do not indicate what cutoff classification each luminaire type falls under. Comment not fully addressed. Light models B, C, and C2 emit more than 3,000 lumens. Please provide spec sheets demonstrating that those models will be installed with full-cutoff shields. Rev. 1: The Lighting Plan appears to have changed since the first review. Please remove the Luminaire Schedule on Sheet E2.0 because it does not match the luminaire schedule on Sheet E1.0. Please provide a cut sheet for the C2 Lithonia Lighting luminaire and demonstrate that it is a full-cutoff fixture. On Sheet E2.0, please remove the cut sheets that are not for any proposed luminaire models proposed on Sheet E1.0. Please see ARB comments for additional details. 11. [32.5.2n] The lighting plan shows footcandle measurements that are higher than the maximum 0.5 footcandles permitted along property lines and right-of-ways. Please amend the light locations as necessary to bring the footcandle measurements into compliance with the regulations set forth in Section 18-4.17 of the Albemarle County Code. Comment not fully addressed. It appears that the footcandles near the private road entrance along Route 20 may exceed 0.5 footcandles. Please show the property boundary and a footcandle measurement to verify compliance. Rev. 1: Comment not addressed. There is a footcandle measurement of 0.8 shown along the Route 20 right of way on Sheet E2.0. Please see ARB comments for additional details. 12. [4.17.4] Please add a note to the lighting plan which states “Each outdoor luminaire equipped with a lamp that emits 3,000 or more initial lumens shall be a full cutoff luminaire and shall be arrange d or shielded to reflect light away from adjoining residential districts and adjacent roads. The spillover of lighting from luminaires onto public roads and property in residential or rural areas zoning districts shall not exceed one- half footcandle.” Comment addressed. 13. [32.5.2n] The lighting plan shows two handicap parking spaces on the west side of the building which are not shown on any other drawings. Please amend the plans so that handicap parking space locations match across all drawings. Comment addressed, site layout has changed since initial site plan. 14. [32.5.2r] Please provide a legend showing all symbols, line types, and abbreviations used on the plan. Comment not fully addressed. Please add the symbology for Managed Steep Slopes and the Flood Hazard Overlay districts to the legend on Sheet C1.0. Please add Legends to the landscape drawings that show the symbology types for each tree and shrubs species visible. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. 3 15. [32.5.2b] On the landscaping plan, please provide a calculation stating the maximum amount (in square footage) of paved parking and all other vehicular circulation areas. Comment not fully addressed. In accordance with Section 32.7.9.6 (a), a minimum of 5% of the interior parking and vehicular circulation area must be landscaped with trees or shrubs. Please provide a calculation demonstrating in square feet what 5% canopy cover of the interior parking and vehicular circulation areas is followed by a calculation of the trees and shrubs provided to meet the minimum 5%. These figures should be shown on Sheet L2.0 under the “Interior Parking Lot Landscaping Requirements.” Rev. 1: Comment addressed. a. [32.7.9.6 (b)] Landscaping that qualifies toward meeting the minimum 5% canopy requirement includes large and medium shade trees, as classified in the Albemarle County Recommended Plants List. The plan shows primarily ornamental tree species within the parking area. Please provide different tree types in order to comply with the Ordinance. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. b. [32.7.9.6 (c)] Large shade trees must be installed at a minimum of 1 ½” - 1 ¾”, and medium shade trees must be installed at a minimum of 1” – 1 ¼”. Please amend the Plant schedule on Sheet L2.0 so that each species is installed at the minimum calipers. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. 16. [32.5.2p] Please add an additional column to the Plant Schedule on Sheet L2.0 which states the canopy coverage of each species of proposed landscaping in accordance with the Albemarle County Recommended Plants List. Comment not addressed. The Plant Schedule on Sheet L2.0 does not contain a column stating the canopy coverage for the landscaping materials. The column should state the coverage per a single tree or shrub of each species. Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. No canopy figures are given for the deciduous shrubs and evergreen shrubs in the Plant Schedule on Sheet L2.0. Please provide the individual canopy of these items from the Albemarle County Recommended Plants List and complete the canopy total column on Sheet L2.0. a. Rev. 1: Please amend the Canopy Unit and Canopy Total column for the CER OKA trees in the Plant Schedule on Sheet L2.0. These trees are each allocated 124 sq. ft. of canopy per the Albemarle County Recommended Plants List. The Canopy Total column should state 992 sq. ft. 17. [32.5.2p] Please add an additional column to the Plant Schedule on Sheet L2.0 which states the specific vegetation type (i.e. Large Shade Tree, Small Ornamental Tree, etc.) of each species of proposed vegetation in accordance with the Albemarle County Recommended Plants List. Comment not addressed. In the Plant Schedule on Sheet L2.0, please add a column stating the type of each tree and shrub species as identified in the Albemarle County Recommended Plants List (i.e. Large Deciduous Tree, Ornamental Tree, Broadleaf Evergreen Shrub, etc.) Rev. 1: Comment addressed. Recommendations from Initial Site Plan Action Letter Dated June 14, 2017: 18. [32.5.2a] As a reminder, the other proffers (#2 and #3) and the required access easement to TMP 78-6 (as stated in proffer #1) approved through ZMA201300002 must be addressed on the site plan for any future development proposed on TMP 78-5G1. Comment not fully addressed. Please amend Notes 2 and 3 on Sheet R1.0 to state that Proffers 2 and 3 will need to be satisfied with any future development on TMP 78-58G1. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. New Comments Final Site Plan: 19. [32.6.2 (d) and Chapter 14] Please submit an easement plat and application to the County that shows all new easements proposed by the site plan. This includes all new drainage, stormwater, ACSA utility easements, etc. The easement plat must be reviewed, approved, and recorded prior to approval of the site plan amendment. Rev. 1: Comment not addressed, no easement plat has been submitted for review. 4 a. [32.7.5 and 4.1] Please show the boundaries of all proposed water and sewer easements on the utility drawings. Rev. 1: Comment not addressed, staff will need to verify that the site plan easements match the easement plat once it is submitted, approved, and recorded. The site plan will need to be updated so that the labels for all new easements include the instrument numbers of the recorded easement. 20. [ZMA201300002, 14-234 (E), 14-317, and 14-422 (C)] As part of the easement plat application, a public access easement will need to be platted over the proposed private street. A private street maintenance agreement will need to be approved by the County Attorney and recorded with the easement plat. As required by Proffer #1 of ZMA2013-02, an access easement shall be provided subject to an agreement between the respective property owners to share the cost of maintenance and construction for shared portions of the private road. The private street maintenance agreement will need to contain language for maintenance and construction of the private road between the owners of TMP 78-6 and 78-5A. A template for private street maintenance agreement can be found on the CDD website. Rev. 1: As mentioned in Planning comment #4 of the first review letter for the LIDL road plan application, SUB201700138, a separate application must be submitted, reviewed, and approved to record the private street right of way prior to final site plan approval. The correct application to submit is the Application for a Special Lot, which can be found through this LINK. a. Proffer 1 of ZMA2013-02 requires an easement granting right of public passage over the new private road. Staff suggests showing the public access easement on the Special Lot application. Please submit a deed of dedication for the public access easement with the special lot plat application. Please provide a response stating when the public access easement application will be submitted. b. [14-317] A private street maintenance agreement template is available through this LINK. 21. [ZMA201300002, 32.7.2.2 (a), 14-233 (B)(1)] As required by Proffer #1 of ZMA201300002, a separate “Application for Road Plan Approval” will need to be filed in accordance with Chapter 14 in order to authorize and construct the private street. The road plan application must be approved prior to final site plan approval. Rev. 1: Road plans are currently under review, application number SUB201700138. The final site plan cannot be approved until road plans are approved. a. [General Comment] On all applicable site plan drawings, please remove the words “County Standard” from the private road label. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. b. [14-234 (A)] All of the criteria and design standards contained in Section 14-234 (A)(1), 14-410, and 14-412 will need to be satisfied through the road plan application. The road plans will be reviewed by the Engineering Division. Rev. 1: Comment addressed, the road plan details are being reviewed under SUB201700138. c. [14-410 (H) and 14-422 (D)] The street trees shown along the private street are not located within a 6’ planting strip between the sidewalk and curb and gutter. A waiver request will need to be made as part of the road plan application in order to allow the street tree locations as proposed, which requires Planning Commission approval. The information to be submitted and findings required for Planning Commission approval are contained in 14-422 (F). Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed, please see comment #41 below. d. [14-410 (H) and 14-422(B)] A waiver request will need to be made as part of the road plan application to only require sidewalks along one side of the private street. The information to be submitted and findings required for Planning Commission approval are contained in 14-422 (E). Rev. 1: Staff incorrectly identified Section 14-222 as the applicable code section for the sidewalk requirements along the new private street. Since this is a private street in the development areas serving non-residential uses, the applicable standards for sidewalks is Section 18-32.7.2.3 (a). Staff has reviewed the special exception request from Timmons Group dated August 18, 2017, and is granting an approval to not require sidewalks along the eastern side of the private street. Please see the attached memorandum granting approval of the 5 proposed sidewalk locations. Please add the attached sidewalk modification approval letter, dated 10/20/2017, to Sheet R1.0. 22. [4.12.11 and 24.2.2] A boundary line adjustment is needed to add TMP 78-5B to TMP 78-5A in order to have all parking associated with LIDL within a single parcel. Some of the required parking spaces are on TMP 78- 5B, and this is considered stand along parking. Stand alone parking requires approval of a Special Use Permit, but combining the two parcels will eliminate this issue. Rev. 1: A BLA plat, SUB201700141, is currently under review to merge TMP 78-5B with 78-5A. The plat will need to be approved and recorded prior to final site plan approval. Once the BLA plat is recorded, please update the Cover Sheet to remove references to TMP 78-5B, and remove the property boundary lines and labels across all applicable drawings. 23. [General Comment] Please provide documentation that the all portions of the proposed retaining walls will be located entirely within the easement recorded in Deed Book 4553, pages 473-486. Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed, please refer to Engineering comments for additional details. 24. [32.6.2 (a)] The site plan proposes improvements and disturbance on portions of adjacent parcels, specifically TMP 78-5E and 78-6. Please state the TMP numbers and property owner names and addresses in the Site Data table on Sheet C0.0. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. a. As part of the easement plat mentioned in previous comments, off-site temporary construction easements will need to be recorded for any encroachments within adjacent parcels. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. 25. [32.6.1 (e)] There is a discrepancy between Sheet C0.0 and Sheet C1.0 regarding the survey dates. Please verify whether the survey occurred in June or May 2016 and amend the notes on either drawing as necessary. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. 26. [32.6.2 (i)] Please amend General Note 11 on Sheet C1.0 so that it states “Any changes to the parking layout or reducing/increasing the number of parking spaces as shown on the approved final site plan will require review and approval by Albemarle County.” Rev. 1: Comment addressed. 27. [32.5.2 (e)] Please label the existing tree line symbology used on the drawings. Currently, the existing landscape features are shown across all drawings, including areas where parking improvements are proposed. Existing landscaping should only be shown on Sheet C1.1, and all areas proposed to be removed must be labeled on that drawing. Existing landscaping to be retained should be shown and labeled on the Landscape Plan. Tree cutting may only occur in accordance with the standards of Section 18-4.3. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. 28. [32.5.2 (h) and 32.5.7] Portions of TMP 78-58G1 are within the Flood Hazard Overlay District. Please show the boundaries of the FH district on all applicable drawings with a label, and include this as an overlay district in the Site Data table on Sheet C0.0. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. 29. [4.20] Please clarify the setbacks on Sheet C0.0 so that it states the minimum and maximum front setbacks for buildings along public street right-of-ways. It appears that the existing sidewalks are located within the Route 250 right of way, so the minimum front setback is 10’ along 250. There is no maximum front setback along 250 since it is classified as a principal arterial highway in the Comprehensive Plan. There is a maximum 30’ front setback along Route 20 because it is not classified as a principal arterial highway. a. Please state the minimum 10’ front setback for parking and loading spaces. Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Please amend Sheet C0.0 so that it states “Route 250: Minimum front setback for buildings and off-street parking: 10’.” For Route 20, it should state 10’ minimum building setback and 30’ maximum building setback. 6 b. Please amend the side and rear setbacks so that it states “any primary structure shall be constructed and separated in accordance with the current edition of the Building Code.” Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Under “Required setbacks” on Sheet C0.0, please remove the 10’ shown for side and rear and replace with the following: “any primary structure shall be constructed and separated in accordance with the current edition of the Building Code.” c. [32.6.1 (e)] Please show all applicable setback lines on Sheet C2.0. Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Please label the 10’ minimum front setback line along Route 250 on Sheet C2.0. Please label the minimum 10’ front setback and maximum 30’ front setback along Route 20 on Sheet C2.0. 30. [4.12.13] The site plan does not show any loading spaces. Loading spaces shall be provided in addition to and exclusive of any parking requirement on the basis of: (1) one (1) space for the first eight thousand (8,000) square feet of retail gross leasable area, plus one (1) space for each additional twenty -thousand (20,000) square feet of retail gross leasable area. Please calculate the number of required loading spaces and state how many will be provided on Sheet C0.0. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. a. [4.12.18] Loading spaces must comply with the minimum design standards of the Zoning Ordinance. Please show loading space locations and dimensions on the site plan. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. 31. [4.12.19 and 32.7.9.7 (a)(3)] Please provide a profile view detail with dimensions and materials of the dumpster pad enclosure to verify compliance with the screening requirements contained in the Zoning Ordinance. Please note that fences or other constructed screening measures must be a minimum of six feet (6’) in height, as specified in 32.7.9.7 (e.) Rev. 1: Comment addressed. 32. [32.7.3 (b)] Please show the locations of all proposed mechanical equipment and utility hardware. Please provide information so that the agent can verify they will be screened from public view. Rev. 1: Please see ARB comments for required notations on architectural drawings. 33. [32.7.9.4 (a)] All plant materials that will be used to meet any of the minimum requirements of 32.7.9.5, 32.7.9.6, 32.7.9.7, and 32.7.9.8 shall be chosen from the Albemarle County Recommended Plants List. The following landscaping materials may not be used to meet the minimum landscaping standards because they are not on the list: a. Trees: Quercus Nuttali (QOU NUT); Rev. 1: Comment addressed. b. Shrubs: Buxus Sinica Unsularis (BUX WIN); Distylium X ‘Blue Cascade’ (DIS DIM); Hydrangea Anomala Petiolaris (HYD ANO); Pennisetum Alopeourides (PEN CAS); Spiraea Prunifolia (SPI BRI). Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed, the plans still show Hydrangea Anomala (HYD ANO). The only species of Hydrangea on the Albemarle County Recommended Plant list is Hydrangea quercifolia & cvs. Please replace as necessary. 34. [32.7.9] On Sheets L1.0 and L1.1, please provide the quantity of each species that is shown on the drawing in a new column in the Plant Key. The callouts for certain items state quantities that do not correspond to the amount visible on either drawing. Rev. 1: Please amend the Plant Schedule on Sheet L2.0 because there are 24 QUE PHE and 29 ULM PAR trees proposed on Sheets L1.0 and L1.1. Please state the correct quantities in the QTY column of the Plant Schedule of Sheet L2.0. Amend the Canopy Total column so that it reflects the correct overall square footage for QUE PHE (8,880 sq. ft.) and ULM PAR (10, 614 sq. ft.) trees provided. 35. [32.7.9.5] The landscape plans do not demonstrate compliance with the minimum required landscaping along streets. a. [32.7.9.5 (b)] Large or medium shade trees are required along the private road. Large shade trees must be installed one every fifty feet (50’), or medium shade trees must be installed once every forty feet (40’). The landscaping plans show ornamental tree species being planted at 7 varying intervals along the new private street. These are not large or medium shade trees as classified by the Albemarle County Recommended Plants List. Please amend the tree species and locations accordingly. Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed, see comment #41 below. b. [32.7.9.5 (b)] Street trees are not provided along the property frontage of Route 250 in accordance with the size, species, location, and spacing requirements of the Ordinance. Rev. 1: Please see ARB comments for confirmation from easement holders that tree locations are acceptable along Route 250 as proposed on the revised plans. c. [32.7.9.5 (c)] Large shade trees must be installed at a minimum of 1 ½” - 1 ¾”, and medium shade trees must be installed at a minimum of 1” – 1 ¼”. Please amend the Plant Schedule on Sheet L2.0 so that each species is installed at the minimum calipers. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. 36. [32.7.9.5] The landscape plans show four (4) perimeter yard areas with shrubs and trees. Are these areas intended to meet the parking screening required by 32.7.9.5 (e), or the parking screening as required by 32.7.9.7? Rev. 1: Per applicant response to first review comments, the shrubs being provided in the perimeter yards are intended to satisfy screening requirements of Section 32.7.9.7. The site plan now only shows Perimeter Yard A, and the Entrance Corridor Perimeter on the Landscape Plans. Staff has verified that these two perimeter yards are required by the ARB for entrance corridor screening purposes. a. [32.7.9.5 (e) or 32.7.9.7 (e)] The Plant Key on Sheet L2.0 should specify the spacing and height standards for trees and shrubs that are being counted toward meeting either requirement. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. The Plant Schedule on Sheet L2.0 specifies minimum sizes and spacing in accordance with Section 32.7.9.5 (e). b. [32.7.9.7 (d)] Trees and shrubs being used to screen parking that is visible from a street must be planted within a planting strip not less than twenty (20) feet in depth. The plant materials shall consist of a double staggered row of evergreen trees planted fifteen (15) feet on center, or a double staggered row of evergreen shrubs planted ten (10) feet on center. It appears that perimeter parking yards C and D do not have the double staggered rows inside of a 20’ wide planting strip. Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Perimeter yards C and D have been removed from the site plan, but ARB staff has confirmed that the screening yard along Route 20 and the screening yard along the retaining wall on the eastern property line are ARB requirements. Please label the yards on the landscaping plans, and update the Perimeter Parking Lot Landscape Requirements table on Sheet L2.0 to include these yards. 37. [32.7.9.8] On Sheet L2.0, please provide a calculation of the overall tree canopy required, and the overall canopy provided. Commercial uses require a minimum of 10% canopy cover on site. The trees and plant materials composing the tree canopy are those required under sections 32.7.9.5, 32.7.9.6 and 32.7.9.7, and any existing trees preserved under section 32.7.9.4(b). Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Sheet L2.0 states that 40,443 sq. ft. is provided but this figure only includes the total canopy of trees listed in the Plant Schedule on L2.0. This figure does not include any of the shrubs being provided to satisfy 32.7.9.5, 32.7.9.6, or 32.7.9.7. Please amend the Tree Canopy Requirements table on Sheet L2.0 so that it states the total canopy provided on site by incorporating the total canopy of required landscaping being installed. 38. [32.7.9.9 (c)] Please add the following note to Sheet L2.0: “All landscaping and screening shall be maintained in a healthy condition by the current owner or a property owners’ association, and replaced when necessary. Replacement material shall comply with the approved landscape plan.” Rev. 1: Comment addressed. New Comments First Revision of Final Site Plan: 39. [32.7.9.4] Sheet L2.0 shows that 5,135 sq. ft. of the existing wooded area is being conserved to count toward the minimum 10% tree canopy requirements of 32.7.9.8. 8 a. [32.7.9.4 (b)(2)] Please provide include a copy of the Albemarle County Conservation Plan Checklist, signed by the owner, on the Landscape plans. A template for the checklist can be found through this LINK. b. [32.7.9.4 (c)(1)] Please provide a table that identifies the types of vegetation (i.e. deciduous, evergreen or mixture of types). If possible, identify groups of trees that measure 6” in caliper or greater within the wooded area. 40. [32.7.9] Please amend Sheet L2.0 as follows: a. Please amend the in the Total Canopy square footage calculation in the Plant Schedule on Sheet L2.0 to reflect the changes requested by comments #16, #33, #34, #35, #36, and #37. b. Please amend the Tree Canopy Requirements table to reflect all changes to the canopy calculations as requested by comments #16, #33, #34, #35, #36, and #37. 41. [32.7.9.5] Staff has received the variation request from the applicant, dated August 18, 2017, to modify the location and spacing of the street trees required by Section 18-32.7.9.5. Comment #35a from the first review of SDP2017000039 incorrectly identified Sections 14-422 (A) and 14-422 (D) as the applicable code sections for required landscaping standards along the private street. Since this is a private street in the development areas serving non-residential uses, the applicable standards for street tree locations and spacing is Section 18-32.7.9.5. a. Based on the proposed locations of the street trees, the plans need approval of a modification to the street tree spacing requirements of Section 18-32.7.9.5 (d). As currently shown, the trees are not spaced evenly every fifty feet (50’). b. The plans also need approval of a modification to the tree species requirements of Section 18- 32.7.9.5 (b). The road plans show ornamental tree species along the southern portion of the private street instead of large or medium shade trees as required by Section 18-32.7.9.5 (b). c. In order for staff to approve the two modification requests, the landscape plans must clearly identify the proposed private street right-of-way, as well as the boundary of the proposed planting strip. The road plans show the proposed trees planted approximately eighteen feet (18’) from the back of the curb. Section 32.7.9.5 (d) requires street trees to be located within 10’ of the street right-of-way. Please show the proposed street right-of-way on the landscape plans. d. Please move the three AME GRA trees outside of the interconnectivity easement between TMP 78-5A and TMP 78-6. Please contact Cameron Langille at the Department of Community Development at blangille@albemarle.org or 296-5832 ext. 3432 for further information. Albemarle County Architectural Review Board – Margaret Maliszewski, mmaliszewski@albemarle.org – Requested Changes: 1. The ARB set out conditions of approval for this plan on September 5, 2017. Most of those conditions remain outstanding. See the attached September 7, 2017 ARB action letter for more information. Albemarle County Engineering Services – Emily Cox, ecox@albemarle.org – Requested Changes, See Attached. Albemarle County E911 Services – Elise Kiewra, ekiewra@albemarle.org – Requested Changes, See Attached. Albemarle County Department of Fire Rescue – Shawn Maddox, smaddox@albemarle.org – See Recommendation: 9 1. The hydrant and fire department connection locations are acceptable. Fire flow test required before final approval. Please attach a copy to the final plan. Albemarle County Service Authority – Alex Morrison, amorrison@serviceauthority.org – ACSA comments not yet received. Any comments or approvals from ACSA will be forwarded to the applicant upon receipt by the agent. Virginia Department of Transportation – Adam Moore, adam.moore@vdot.virginia.gov – Requested Changes, See Attached. 1 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Rd. North Wing Charlottesville, VA 22902 Phone: 434-296-5832 Fax: 434-972-4126 October 20, 2017 Cody Pennetti , PE Timmons Group cody.pennetti@timmons.com RE: SUB201700138 and SDP201700039 – LIDL 1248 Richmond Road – Approval of Modification to 32.7.2.3 Sidewalks and Other Pedestrian Ways Dear Mr. Pennetti, Your request to modify the sidewalk requirements of Chapter 18, Section 32.7.2.3 (a) of the Zoning Ordinance has been approved by the Agent for the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors. The applicant submitted a request for a special exception to the sidewalk standards contained in Section 14-422 (A) of the Subdivision Ordinance. Since the project proposes a private street serving commercial uses in the development areas, the applicable Code section for sidewalk requirements is Chapter 18, Section 32.7.2.3 (a) of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant’s request contained justifications that satisfied the finding requirements listed in Chapter 18, Section 32.3.5 (b) which allow the agent to grant administrative approval to the request. The site is located on Tax Map Parcels 07800-00-00-058G1 and 07800-00-00-005A0. Both parcels are subject to unusual topography due to the presence of Managed Steep Slopes, Preserved Steep Slopes, and floodplain. As authorized by Chapter 18, Section 32.3.5 (b)(3) of the Zoning Ordinance, the agent has determined that requiring sidewalks along both sides of the private street would result in significant degradation to sensitive environmental features. Additionally, the grading required to install sidewalks along the western side of the street would not result in the application of sound engineering principles. As depicted on the final site plan (SDP201700039) and the road plans (SUB201700138) for the LIDL project at 1248 Richmond Road, the sidewalk proposed along the eastern side of the private street satisfies the minimum requirements of Section 32.7.2.3 (a) of the Zoning Ordinance. Sincerely, Cameron Langille Senior Planner Enclosed: Waiver Request County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Cameron Langille From: Emily Cox Date: 28 Jul 2017 Rev 1: 23 Oct 2017 Subject: LIDL - Pantops - FSP (SDP201700039) The final site plan for Lidl - Pantops has been reviewed by Engineering. The following comments will need to be addressed before approval: 1. WPO Plan must be approved before final site plan can be approved. Rev. 1: Comment not addressed. 2. Road Plan must be submitted and approved before final site plan can be approved. Rev. 1: Comment not addressed. 3. VDOT approval is required. Rev. 1: Comment not addressed. 4. Please remove sheets that do not apply to the site plan (E&S, SWM).Rev. 1: Please remove road profile sheets. They are part of the road plan (SUB 201700138). Refer to County Code Section 32.6.2, CONTENTS OF A FINAL SITE PLAN. 5. Cannot create open channel outfall in the preserved slopes. Can pipe stormwater through preserved slopes to get to the existing channel, but cannot create an open channel in the preserved slopes. Rev 1: Please pipe stormwater to where it meets the 1% rule. See WPO Plan, WPO201600073, for more details. 6. Grading along Route 20 in the preserved slopes seems excessive. Was this due to sight distance issues? Rev. 1: Comment addressed. 7. Provide signed and sealed design for retaining walls to ensure they are structurally adequate. Rev. 1: Design must be provided for walls adjacent to the roadway. 8. Show the location of the geogrid/grading/disturbance that will be necessary to install the retaining walls. Ensure this is contained on site or within the easement. Rev. 1: Disturbance for walls not shown. 9. The left sight distance profile for the entrance on Route 20 appears to have an obstruction with the existing grade. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. 10. Provide better detail of the dumpster pad foundation. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. 11. Rev 1: Please ensure proposed contours are tying in to the existing contour conditions. 12. Rev. 1: Ensure all comments from the road plan and WPO plan are incorporated into the site plan.