The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSDP202000005 Correspondence 2020-06-16 (3)L I N E + G R A D E C I V I L E N G I N E E R I N G June 15, 2020 Albemarle County Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Attention: Paty Saternye I Senior Planner RE: SDP20200005 I Minor Site Plan Amendment Dear Paty, On behalf of Lockwood Broadcasting Group, we offer the following responses and plan revisions to comments dated May 28, 2020. Our Responses are in bold italic text below each comment. 4. [32.5.1(c), 32.5.2(a) & 32.6.1(e)(1)] Revise the site plan to include the bearing and distances dimensions for the parcel provided on the approved minor amendment SDP1997-91. Rev. 1: Comments not yet fully addressed. The bearing and distance along the northern property line cannot be read because of other linework on top of it. Revise the text location so that it can be read on sheet C1.0. Comment implemented. 5. [32.5.1(c), 32.5.2.(d), 32.6.1(e)(2) & 32.6.2(c)] Revise the site plan to show the proposed contours. Rev. 1: Comments not yet fully addressed. Revise the site plan to show the existing contours on the sheet that shows proposed contours. Address the following: a. Existing contours appear to be shown only on the front of sheet C1.0. Show the existing contours for the full parcel on this sheet. Comment noted. The existing grade contours have been corrected and are shown as requested. b. Existing contours appear to be shown only on the front of sheet C2.0. Show the existing contours for the full parcel on this sheet so that it is shown how the proposed contours tie into the existing contours. Comment noted. The existing grade contours have been corrected and are shown as requested. 7. [32.5.2(a)] Revise the site plan to: L I N E + GRADE CIVIL ENGINEERING 113 4`h STREET NE, STE. 100 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 LINE-GRADE.COM 874 Rio Road — Minor Site Plan Amendment Comment Response Letter June 15, 2020 1 Page 2 Include scans of the ZMA approval and proffer. Rev. 1: Comments not yet fully addressed. The ZMA for this project, which is correctly listed on the cover sheet is ZMA1996-04. However, the ZMA and associated proffers on sheet C0.1 are ZMA 1984-6. Revise sheet C0.1 to show the most current, and for the PDMC, ZMA and proffer information. Comment noted. Please refer to updated ZMA action letter on this page. 9. [32.5.2(b), 32.5.2(n) & 32.6.20)] Revise the site plan landscaping to: a. Show all existing landscaping for the whole site in the existing conditions sheet C1.0 and included the required information/labeling for the existing plantings. Rev. 1: Comments not yet addressed. Show the existing tree species on sheet C1.0. Comment noted. Tree species labels have been updated as requested. Meet all of the same landscaping requirement met in the approved site plan. It appears that although some landscaping remains on the site, even though it is not shown on sheet C1.0, there is other landscaping that is no longer on planted within the site that was a requirement of the approved site plan. One example is a tree in one of the parking lot landscape islands. If there are some locations where there are reasons the tree or shrub cannot be replanted, or some species the owner no longer wishes to have on site, work with the planning reviewer to find an appropriate alternative location or species. Any tree not currently planted on site, that needs to be replanted to meet the previously approved landscaping requirements, should be shown as "proposed" with this minor site plan amendment. Rev. 1: Comments not yet fully addressed. See the comment below in reference to the difference between SDP1997-91 plan and what is proposed. Also, revise the landscape plan to provide one additional "Large Shade Tree" along one of the two roads. There is one less than provided in SDP1997-91. Comment noted. A large shade tree (Willow Oak) has been added along Rio East Court. Rev. 1: [NEW COMMENT] Revise the site plan to show the correct "Original Proposed" trees as follows: i. In the upper left, adjacent to Rio Road, you show a "Current: None, Orig. Prop. (1) Bradford Pear". However, SDP1997-91 actually shows a "Sourwood" in that location. Revise the original L I N E + GRADE CIVIL ENGINEERING 113 41h STREET NE, STE. 100 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 LINE-GRADE.COM 874 Rio Road — Minor Site Plan Amendment Comment Response Letter June 15, 2020 1 Page 3 tree information and propose a tree that is a deciduous shade tree. Since Sourwoods are small shade trees small is acceptable, but medium and large would be as well. Comment noted. We have replaced this missing Sourwood with a new sourwood. In an effort to most nearly reflect the original approved plan SDP1997-91. ii. Just below of that tree location is another label that states, "Current: Dogwood, Orig. Prop. (1) Bradford Pear". However, SDP1997-91 actually shows a "sourwood" in that location. Revise the label to specify that sourwoods were originally proposed. Comment noted. This has been corrected. The reason the "Bradford pear" was referenced in this location, and the location mentioned above was due to the fact that we were referencing the SDP1996-100 plan, mistakenly. iii. Just below of that tree location is another label that states, "Current: Willow Oak, Orig. Prop. None". However, SDP1997-91 actually shows a "Willow Oak" in that location. Revise the label to specify that a Willow Oak were originally proposed. Comment noted. This has been corrected. iv. No label is provided in the lower right corner of the site where a "Sourwood" was proposed in SDP1997-91. Also, since no tree is currently in the location or shown as proposed in this location it may be an opportunity to plant a tree to make up for one of the missing trees. There is in fact a tree in this location. It is a sourwood. I have re- checked the last submission; we did show a tree in this location. However, it was missing its label. This has bee corrected. We have revised the plan to indicate this location. See image... L I N E + GRADE CIVIL ENGINEERING 113 41h STREET NE, STE. 100 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 LINE-GRADE.COM 874 Rio Road — Minor Site Plan Amendment Comment Response Letter June 15, 2020 1 Page 4 _ - - - LOD _ _ _ _f- I j OUMFS:" PAG /NV.TOP.'5/7 5-1 S —d' 1 li /NV. /N.-5/4. 00 /NV. IW,5/0.9 MILL AND RESURFACE) EXISTING ASPHALT DEMOLISH EX. CURBVV. fa I MATERIALSTORAGE I I T IE. LOD _ _ST �R�`i ORA/V E SANITA B"PVC MANHOL x .. SAF 3321F 1 / . IN.5 //.09 -- - 75/0.6 CURB INLET ..... . .. .. _ .: ..: PROTECTION. . ,... a s I c C(RB BOX INV. /N.8/0.96�W — /TOP.•SW / NV. N,5/4.00 00 SW - INV. W-510. 90 NW INV. OUT.-5/0.77 Screengrab from last submission showing 6" sourwood v. There are two Leland Cyprus proposed adjacent to the dumpster enclosure. One of them is located too close to the enclosure fence and should be moved in order to not cause damage to the enclosure or block trash pick up. Comment noted. This tree has been shifted to as near to the easement line as feasible. It seems to provide sufficient clearance. vi. Just to the right of the proposed Leland Cyprus trees by the dumpster is a label that states, "Current: (1) Redbud, Orig. Prop: (1) Willow Oak". However, SDP 1997-91 shows a "redbud". Revise the original tree information to state it was a "redbud". Comment noted. You are correct. Thank you for pointing this out. e. Rev. 1: [NEW COMMENT] There is a redbud tree in the lower right corner of the landscape plan that is labeled as if it is part of this project, however it is actually located on the adjacent parcel. Revise the plan to not treat plantings on the adjacent parcels as if they are meeting the requirements for this site plan. Comment noted. This has been corrected. L I N E f. Rev. 1: [NEW COMMENT] In the Original vs. Existing Planting GRADE Summary address the following: CIVIL ENGINEERING vii. Revise the charts to address the discrepancies specified above in what is shown as Original Proposed. 1134 1h STREET NE, STE. 100 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 Comment noted. The chart that expressed "original" proposed LINE-GRADE.COM was taken from the landscape schedule on the original 874 Rio Road — Minor Site Plan Amendment Comment Response Letter June 15, 2020 1 Page 5 SDP1997-91. See screen grabs below. As far as I can tell, these match. SCHEDULE OF LANDSCAPE MATERIALS 3 CANOPY COMPUTATIONS NEY BOTANICAL6 YIN. CALIF.. COYYON NAPE TOTAL HIIONT IN 10 ♦RANN TOTAL IN 10 WIDTH YEARR AREA OF OUANTITY CANOPY TOTAL AREA OF CANOPY F.n. / D OMYDENDRUM AR80REUM I 1/. SOURWO-0 a 13 2' i3G S.r. 6 B28 3.1 (1l(•)))tSSS///1' CERCIS DAN4DEN 915 1/q' EA6 TERN REOBUD 2a 223 396 SF 6 23765.F %.JJJ IL O W ERINFLORI D• I I/q' G DOG W000 19 Iql ISSSF. q 8205F OLERCUS PHELLOS 1 3/4 ILLOW OAN 3i 22 380 a, F. B -oo S.F. LEI CORNVTA IB"30" B' 1. B' 4. a. F. q0 I60 S.F. O B11FORD HaLLT _, _--- Approved SI[e Pfon (SDP I9970009I) Lund—pe Motenuls Original Parking Street TotalQuantity f Cano o Area py Bonus Key Botanical Name Common Name Quantity Trees Trees Currently on jpertree}� Factor Total Canopy Area _ Site T-1 0xydeud— Arbomum SOurwood 6 0 3 3 138 SF 1.2 5185F T-2 c—c—densfs Eastern Redhud 6 3 0 3 356 SF 1.25 1,485 SF T-3 C.—Ffondv Flowering Dogwood 4 4 2 6 1555F 1.25 1,1635F T-4 0uereus Pheffos Willow Oak 5 0 3 3 380 SF 1.25 1,4255F Total Preserved Cano py Area 4,S90 SF viii. Revise "Street trees" to be "Trees planted along streets". "Street trees" are currently required to be "large shade trees" and many on this site plan are not. So, revising that wording could avoid future confusion. Comment noted. We have made this adjustment. Do not utilize a bonus factor in the calculations for the tree canopy. These trees were not existing on site prior to approval of this site plan. This project is just revising an existing approved site plan. Revise the calculations to adjust for this change. A canopy calculation to meet 10% of the site was not included in SDP1997-91. Therefore, as long as the requirements shown in the previously approved site plan are still met this calculation does not need to be shown. However, in that case the canopy provided by the existing and proposed TREES combined should match or exceed what was originally approved. We have changed the Bonus Factor value to 1.0, which neutralizes this calculation. ix. Revise the Original vs. Existing Planting Summary to show the caliper of the tree at planting. Although this information is included in the Planting Schedule at the bottom of the sheet that chart is only for proposed plantings and does not include the information for the existing plants. Comment noted. See revised planting summary. L I N E + GRADE CIVIL ENGINEERING 113 4th STREET NE, STE. 100 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 LINE-GRADE.COM 874 Rio Road — Minor Site Plan Amendment Comment Response Letter June 15, 2020 1 Page 6 Rev. 1: [NEW COMMENT] A Parking Area Landscaping calculation was not included in SDP1997-91. Therefore, as long as the previous requirements are met this is not required in this site plan amendment. Please note though that "Parking Area Landscaping" is not the canopy of the trees in the parking area. It is the square footage of the landscaped beds in the parking area. Either remove this portion of the calculations or revise it to specify the correct type of areas. We will remove this calculation as to avoid further confusion. There is already enough confusion j. Rev. 1: [NEW COMMENT] Remove the street tree calculation, since it are not required based upon the previous approved site plan, or ensure that it is are correct. The street tree chart is specifying a significant number of existing "medium street trees". However, dogwoods and redbuds classified as ornamentals and sourwoods are classified as small shade trees. None of these species are classified as "medium shade trees" by the county and do not meet the requirement for street trees. We will remove this calculation as to avoid further confusion. However, this will also affect the nomenclature discussed above. As these are no longer street trees. They are "trees along streets." Rev. 1: [NEW COMMENT] Remove the previously approved site plan from the proposed site plan sheets. Comment noted. See revised drawing package. 14. [32.5.2(n) 32.6.1(e)(6),& 32.6.2(i)] Revise the site plan to: b. Revise the HC parking space detail to show the actual sizes of the spaces shown in the site plan. The detail shows van spaces 8' wide with an 8' wide access hatched area but the plan shows 11' wide spaces with a 5' wide access hatched area. Both are allowed, but the detail should match what is built. Rev. 1: Comments not yet fully addressed. A detail with a van space utilizing 11' wide spaces and 5' wide access hatched area, to match what L I N E —� is on site, should be provided. The "car" version with the 8' space and 5' hatched area does not meet the minimum requirements for a van GRADE accessible space. Comment noted. See revised plans. CIVI L ENG I N EERI N G 113 41h STREET NE, STE. 100 d. Provide information on the timing temporary construction fencing. This CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 fencing appears to reduce the available parking by 8 spaces, 5 below the LINE-GRADE.COM minimum required, and therefore cannot be allowed while the business 874 Rio Road — Minor Site Plan Amendment 16. Comment Response Letter June 15, 2020 1 Page 7 is open. If this temporary construction fence will be removed before the business is open, and before the certificate of occupancy is granted, then add a note or label to sheet C1.0 that specifies that. Rev. 1: Comments not yet fully addressed. Revise the note that was added to sheet C1.0 to have at the end of it "... and prior to the certificate of occupancy being granted." Comment noted. See revised plans. Rev. 1: [NEW COMMENT] Revise the "Parking Provided" calculations on the cover sheet to state "Total Provided Parking" instead of "Total Required Parking" and remove the calculation and ADA reference since they are already shown in the "Parking Required" sections above. [32.5.2(n)] Revise the site plan to: Comment noted. We think we understand this comment. The wording was a little hard to decipher. Please review the attached plans and let us know if we adequately addressed this. Clarify why the existing sidewalks do not appear to extend all of the way from the curb to the building on the proposed site plan. Both the approved site plan and the as built conditions seem to show that there is no landscaped area between the sidewalk and building. Rev. 1: Comments not yet addressed. Comment response letter states "Comment noted. See revised plans." However, any change to clarify this issue is not apparent. The line work and sidewalk hatching on sheets C1.0, C2.0, C3.0 & C4.0 all do not appear to show a 6' sidewalk around the building on the southeast and southwest sides. It looks like it is either 3' on the southwest side and 6' on the northwest side or 6' on the southwest side and 10' on the southeast side. They do not look the same width, there is an extra line (maybe the roof overhang) that has sidewalk hatch within it on one side and not within it on the other side. There appears to be an error in the CAD drawing that needs to be revised. Revise the plan to show what is built and ensure it is fully dimensioned on both the southeast and the southwest sides of the building. Please note that site visit photos do not appear to show 10' wide sidewalk on L I N E —� the southeast side of the building. Comment noted. This discrepancy has been repaired. Rev. 1: [ NEW COMMENT] Show the concrete dumpster pad, that extends the minimum required distance beyond the gates, in the plan view sheets of the site plan. It is shown in the detail but not the plan views. GRADE CIVIL ENGINEERING 113 41h STREET NE, STE. 100 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 LINE-GRADE.COM 874 Rio Road — Minor Site Plan Amendment Comment Response Letter June 15, 2020 1 Page 8 Comment noted. See revised plans. 17. [32.5.2(r)] Revise the site plan to ensure the legend is complete and correct and that the hatches in the drawing correspond to those hatches/symbols. On sheet C1.0 there is a hatch for "Limits of Pavement Patch Repairs" that is not utilized in that sheet. However, a hatch is used in C2.0 that appears to be an area of grass or groundcover that appears to be using that same hatch symbol. Ensure the hatches are used in the areas that they are designating, are not too similar to hatching for other uses, and if appropriate add another legend to sheet C2.0 to designate what the hatches on that sheet are representing. Rev. 1: Comments not yet fully addressed. On sheet C1.0 one of the hatch patterns shown in the legend has been revised and relabeled. However, the "Limits of Pavement Patch" hatch is still not being shown/utilized in the plan view. Either clarify that this hatch is not supposed to be utilized or show it in the areas in question on the plan view. Comment noted. See revised plans. We removed the hatch and instead provided a call out. 19. [Comment] It appears that off -site easements will be required for changes proposed in this site plan amendment. Both construction grading and a permanent security fence are shown on the adjoining lot (TMP61-124B1) on sheet C2.0. All off -site easement plats and deeds must be submitted to the county (under separate application and fee) for review, approved, recorded and proof of recordation provided to the reviewer prior to approval of this site plan amendment. Rev. 1: Comments not yet fully addressed. The security fence has been moved to be within the parcel but only 1' from the property line. Ensure that construction of the fence can be accomplished this close to the property line without requiring any impact to the adjoining parcel. There appears to be a concrete base proposed for the fence, based upon the detail. If any impact to the adjoining parcel will be required to construct the fence foundation, then address the comment in reference to the required off -site easement. Comment noted. The detail has been revised for additional clarity of the footing dimensions. We feel this can be installed without impact to the adjacent property owner. 20. [Comment] See the attached comments from the other reviewers. The site plan will not be approved without the approval of the other reviewers. Rev. 1: Comments not yet fully addressed. Attached please find the ARB, ACSA and RWSA comments. This site plan will note be approved without the approval of all other reviewers. Comment noted. Only 1 additional comment was offered from Margaret. It has been included and addressed. L I N E + GRADE CIVIL ENGINEERING 113 41h STREET NE, STE. 100 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 LINE-GRADE.COM 874 Rio Road — Minor Site Plan Amendment Comment Response Letter June 15, 2020 1 Page 9 Rev. 1: [ NEW COMMENT] Please note that adding a sheet from a previously approved plan is not "including' the information requested and required in the site plan. Please ensure all required information is integrated into the site plan and not just attached. Comment noted. We have done our best to integrate the original hand -drawn site plan, the field survey, and our information into a cohesive document. Rev. 1: [ NEW COMMENT] Provide the "Maximum number of employees" in the project summary on the cover sheet. This information was included in the approved site plan. Comment noted. This has been added. Please see updated coversheet. Margaret Maliszewski - CDD ARB Identify the three rectangles to the plan to the northwest of the new generator. Comment noted. See revised plans. LINE GRADE CIVIL ENGINEERING 113 4ch STREET NE, STE. 100 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 LINE—GRADE.COM