HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP202000061 Correspondence 2020-09-09L I N E + G R A D E
C I V I L E N G I N E E R I N G
September 9, 2020
TO: Albemarle County
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
ATTN: Paty Saternye
Senior Planner
RE: SDP-2020-00025 Airport Road Sheetz — Responses to Initial Site Plan Comments
Dear Ms. Saternye,
We offer the following responses and plan revisions to comments dated May 7, 2020.
Our Responses are in bold italic text below each comment.
Planning — Poty Saternve
Initial Site Plan Comments
Final Site Plan Comments
2. A site plan meeting all the requirements of section 32.6 of Chapter 18 of the Code.
A final site plan accompanies this submission.
3. [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.
Comment noted see revised plans.
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
LINE -I-
appears to be very small and crossing the western property line.
GRADE
The parcel information on sheet C0.0 for TMP 32-39 has been revised to show
managed steep slopes overlay. The areas have been hatched and labeled on
CIVIL ENGINEERING
the plans according to a GIS overlay. It is of note that the managed steep
slopes appear close to (but not actually within) the surveyed property
113 4" STREET NE, STE. 100
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902
boundary. See revised sheet C2. 1. Refer specifically to the legend.
LINE-GRADE.COM
SDP-2020-00025 Airport Road Sheetz
Initial Site Plan Comment Response Letter
September 9, 20201 Page 2
c. Revise the site plan to include the parcel information for TMP 32-39A in the
plan views, anywhere the information for TMP 32-38 and TMP 32-39 is shown.
On the previous submission, the parcel information for TMP 32-39A was
included on all plans. Due to the small size of the parcel, this information
appears near the intersection at the bottom -right of the plans, with a leader
indicating the parcel to which the information is attached. No drawing
changes have been made.
d. Revise the scale on sheet X3.0. It does not appear to match the scale of the
shared access agreement graphic.
The scale has been revised to correctly match the plan. Please note sheet X3.0
is now sheet X2.0.
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.
The source of topography has been revised to indicate both survey and
topography are from the same source. See revised cover sheet.
f. Revise the Sheet Check List Table and/or sheet C-500 to have consistent
information for sheet number and name.
The sheet number and sheet list table for this sheet have been updated.
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.
The owner and zoning district for TMP 32-40 has been updated. See revised
plan sheets.
h. Revise the zoning information to list the approved proffer for the veterinary
office and hospital for TMP 32-38.
The zoning information for parcel32-38 has been revised to reference the
proffer associated with the veterinary office and hospital use. See revised L i N E -�—
sheet C0.0.
GRADE
i. This site plan is based upon a boundary line adjustment. Therefore, address the
following:
CIVIL
ENGINEERING
A boundary Ilne adjustment plat must be submitted %separate application,
fee and submission) and approved prior to the approval of the final site 1134ih STREET NE, STE. 100
lan. CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902
P LINE-GRADE.COM
SDP-2020-00025 Airport Road Sheetz
Initial Site Plan Comment Response Letter
September 9, 20201 Page 3
Comment Noted. This has not been provided with this submission but
will be provided as suggested.
ii. The plat at the back of the site plan should be removed prior to final site
plan submission.
Comment noted. Sheets X4.0-X4.1 will be removed prior to FSP approval.
iii. The final site plan must show all of the required information and not refer
to a plat that is a separate document.
Acknowledged.
iv. The final site plan should show the existing parcels but also show the
proposed BLA parcels.
Comment noted. When the Boundary Line Adjustment has been
completed this plan will include this information.
4. [32.5.1(c), 32.5.2(a), & 4.20] 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 setback lines on all sheets.
Previously unlabeled setback lines on sheets C3.0, CS.O, C6.0, and C8.0 are
now labeled as required. See revised sheets for labels.
b. Revise the labels for the front setbacks to specify they are for both the building
and the parking.
The setback line labels have been revised as indicated. See updated plans.
c. Revise the front setback to include the wording about when the sidewalk is
outside of the ROW.
A note has been added detailing setback measurements when sidewalk is
outside ROW. See note below setbacks" requirement section on sheet C0.0.
L
I N E +
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.
GRADE
A label has been added to the site plan (sheet C4.0) specifically calling out the
CIVIL
ENGINEERING
western parcel line as the zoning district division line. See also response to
113 4" STREET NE, STE. 100
comment 3. above.
g
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902
LINEGRADE.COM
SDP-2020-00025 Airport Road Sheetz
Initial Site Plan Comment Response Letter
September 9, 20201 Page 4
5. [32.5.2(h)] Floodplain and related information. Revise the plan to include a floodplain
note.
The property is in Zone X. See notes on Coversheet CO.0
6. [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.
Please refer to the updated design documents for the current design.
b. See engineering comments in reference to required storm drainage easements
and modification that will be required.
Acknowledged. See responses to those comments below.
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.
Comment noted. The waterlines are within the easement defined in the
drawing package.
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.
Comment noted. We are working with the Surveyor to confirm this. As of the
date of this submission this is not yet confirmed but we are working on it.
e. An easement plat must be submitted (separate application, fee and
submission) and approved prior to the approval of the final site plan.
Comment noted. Similar response to Item d" above.
L I n I E
f. Include the abandonment of any easement in the proposed easement plat.
1 Y
Comment noted. Similar response to Item "d" above.
GRADE
g. A proposed gas line easement is shown. An easement plat will be required.
CIVIL ENGINEERING
Work with gas provider to establish this easement.
1134" STREET NE, STE. 100
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902
LINE-GRADE.COM
SDP-2020-00025 Airport Road Sheetz
Initial Site Plan Comment Response Letter
September 9, 20201 Page s
Comment noted. Similar response to Item d" above.
7. [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.
These required easements are shown on the plans and will be recorded in the
plat that is currently being prepared.
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.
The access easement is labeled as proposed on sheet C4.0. Record of an
existing access easement on the existing shared entrance could not be found.
For clarity, the access easement labels on other plan sheets have been revised
to be labeled as proposed. See revised sheets C3.0, C5.0, C6.0, and C8.0.
c. Ensure that the deed for the access easement included maintenance
agreement details.
Language addressing the responsibility for maintenance of the access
easement area will be included in the deeded easement. Maintenance
agreement details meet minimum county requirements, as commented on
below.
d. An easement plat must be submitted (separate application, fee and
submission) and approved prior to the approval of the final site plan.
Acknowledged. An easement plat is being prepared and will be submitted
separately for review and approval.
e. Ensure that the deed for the access easement, submitted with the plat,
includes maintenance agreement details that meet the Counties minimum
requirements.
See response to comment 7.c above.
8. [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.
Acknowledged. See responses to those comments below.
b. Revise the plan to include a detail for the screening fence.
LINE
GRADE
CIVIL ENGINEERING
113 0 STREET NE, STE. 100
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902
LINE-GRADEXOM
SDP-2020-00025 Airport Road Sheetz
Initial Site Plan Comment Response Letter
September 9, 20201 Page 6
As of this writing, the screening fence is still under ARB consideration. Once
this has been approved it will be added to the plans.
c. Revise the plan to show the bottom of wall elevation for the retaining wall and
label the maximum height of the retaining wall.
The grading and drainage plan now show the maximum height of the wall,
along with elevations at the bottom of the wall. See revised sheet CS.O.
d. Revise the plan to include a detail for the dumpster enclosure.
Comment noted. Please refer to Sheet C4.1 for the dumpster enclosure. The
dumpster enclosure is still under ARB consideration.
e. Revise the plan to address the following in reference to parking:
i. See engineering comments on parking conflicts and required dimensions.
Acknowledged. See responses to those comments below.
ii. Revise the legend for areas within the building. The different hatches
cannot be differentiated from each other, both in the legend and in the
building layout.
The building layout and legend have been revised to display more clearly
and explicitly match the updated parking calculations. See revised sheet
CO.2.
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=1.53x13=19.9)
b. Food Store= 4,546 at 1 space/200 SF GFA (4,546/200=22.73)
The parking calculations have been updated as indicated. See revised
parking calculations and requirements on sheet CO.2.
f. See engineering comments on loading areas.
L I N E +
GRADE
CIVIL ENGINEERING
113 41^ STREET NE, STE. 100
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902
LINE-GRADECOM
SDP-2020-00025 Airport Road Sheetz
Initial Site Plan Comment Response Letter
September 9, 20201 Page 7
Acknowledged. See responses to those comments below.
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.
Comment noted. Because we are utilizing existing entrances, the MUTCD
signs withing the street signs are already in place. Please advise if this is not
the case.
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.
Comment noted. See revised plans.
9. [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.
UPDATE: Comment not yet fully addressed. Although the SF of "provided" canopy area
was revised and increased to 14,772 the "required" calculation was not updated. The
comment above is in reference to the "required" SF of canopy. Address the following:
i. Revise the "required" canopy calculation.
ii. Ensure "provided" percentage is still correct. It was not revised when the "provide"
area was increased.
M. Ensure that the "provided" canopy meets or exceeds the "required" canopy.
Comment noted. See revised Landscape plans.
LINE
GRADE
CIVIL ENGINEERING
113 0 STREET NE, STE. 100
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902
LINE-GRADE.COM
SDP-2020-00025 Airport Road Sheetz
Initial Site Plan Comment Response Letter
September 9, 20201 Page 8
b. Do not utilize trees provided for street trees in the count for the parking lot
trees. Additional parking lot trees are required.
Comment noted. See revised Landscape plans.
C.
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.
Comment noted. See revised Landscape plans.
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.
Comment noted. See revised Landscape plans.
g. Include in the site plan a filled out, signed and dated conservation checklist.
Comment noted. See revised Landscape plans.
h. Include in the existing conditions, grading and landscape sheets tree protection L I (V E +
fencing around all existing trees that are to remain and include tree protection
fencing details in the site plan. GRADE
Comment noted. See revised Landscape plans.
10. [32.5.2(n) & 32.6.2(k)] Outdoor lighting. In reference to the photometric plan address
the following:
CIVIL ENGINEERING
113 0 STREET NE, STE. 100
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902
LINE-GRADE.COM
SDP-2020-00025 Airport Road Sheetz
Initial Site Plan Comment Response Letter
September 9, 20201 Page 9
a. Revise the Photometric Plan so that for the full length of both right of ways the
Foot-candles do not exceed 0.5. There are at least four portions of the parcel
line that show values above what is allowed.
Comment noted. See revised Photometric plan.
b. Revise the Luminaire Schedule to have LLF value for all fixtures and update the
table accordingly.
Comment noted. See revised Luminaire sheet
c. Revise the Luminaire Schedule to have values for the total lamp lumens.
Comment noted. See revised Luminaire sheet
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".
Comment noted. See revised Luminaire sheet
11. [32.5.2(r)] Symbols and abbreviations. Revise the site plan to include a legend for the
line types used in the plan.
Comment noted. A legend has been provided on Sheet C4.0; however, individual
lines are labeled with a leader and call out for denotation.
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.
Comment noted.
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.
Comment noted.
L I N E
14. UPDATE: [NEW COMMENT] The final site plan will not be approved until an ARB Certificate
of Appropriateness has been granted. Additional revisions have been made to the site
layout, based upon ARB comments, that have not been shown on the version of the initial site
GRADE
plan (see note top of "UPDATE" comments) being reviewed. ARB review of the Initial Site Plan
_
has not been finalized/completed, revisions to the site plan to meet ARB comments have
CIVIL ENGINEERING
been made since the site plan submission date, and additional revisions may be required.
1134"STREET NE, STE. too
Additional discussion and review of the site plan is on the agenda for the 9/21/2020 ARB
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902
LINE-GRADE.COM
SDP-2020-00025 Airport Road Sheetz
Initial Site Plan Comment Response Letter
September 9, 20201 Page 10
meeting. Any revisions to the site plan from the original submission date to meet ARB
requirements will be reviewed by all reviewers during the final site plan review process.
Comment noted.
Engineering —John Anderson
C0.0
15. Please restore sheets C6.1 and C6.2 to Final Site plan. Utility profiles and details
should be included.
Comment noted. See final site plan sheets C6.1 and C6.2 for utility profiles and
sheet C6.3 and C6.4 for utility details.
16. Restore sheets C4.1, C4.2, C4.3, needed for site plan review.
Comment noted. See final site plan sheets.
17. Restore sheet C0.1, General Construction Notes.
Comment noted. See final site plan for sheet C0.1 General Construction Notes.
18. Once these sheets are restored, additional review comments are possible.
Acknowledged.
19. An approved VSMP/WPO plan is required prior to Final Site Plan approval.
Comment noted. The WPO/VSMP Application and Documents was also submitted
for Review/approval.
20. A recorded SWM facility /public drainage easement plat is required prior to WPO
plan approval.
Comment noted. This will be provided.
C3.0 (Traffic Plan):
21. 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:
a. 15 parking spaces east of fuel dispensing islands (spaces #33 —47):
LINE
GRADE
CIVIL ENGINEERING
113 0 STREET NE, STE. 100
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902
LINE-GRADE.COM
r
SDP-2020-00025 Airport Road Sheetz
Initial Site Plan Comment Response Letter
September 9, 20201 Page 11
b. For vehicles exiting fueling area to site -exit on Airport Road, if fuel tanker
occupies proposed fuel loading /delivery zone, there is a conflict.
c. For Sheetz fuel tanker that has entered the site from Airport Rd, there is
possible conflict with car parked in space #33, or with vehicles exiting fueling
area, or possibly with fueling space canopy structure, or protective bollard/s.
Site geometry has been updated to improve truck movements In the
following ways: all entrance radii have been revised to 50 feet, and the
Airport Road entrance has been widened to 40 feet and shifted West. In
addition to these geometric improvements, we have coordinated with Sheetz
operations and delivery divisions to coordinate deliveries of fuel and store
supplies such that all delivery trucks will enter the site from Route 29 and
leave the site on Route 649. This can be achieved due to Sheetz owning and
operating its own fueling fleet and delivery trucks. As such, the traffic plan
has been revised to show one design vehicle path (the larger of the design
vehicles) through the site as described above. Smaller passenger vehicles
have been added to the plan in the opposing lone for scale/reference. In
addition, fuel deliveries will not coincide with store supply deliveries, and
both will occur at non -peak hours. See revised sheet C3.0.
22. 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:
a. 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 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.
Due to vertical site constraints, UGT locations have been selected so as to
work with pump lines as directed by property user to support adequate
operations. The proposed bioretention will have an impermeable liner and
will not infiltrate any runoff from hotspot activity.
b. Please consider whether multiple C3.0 traffic /pedestrian patterns are a best
alternative. ARB, Planning, Zoning (setback) requirements affect design, but
L I N E +
GRADE
CIVIL ENGINEERING
113 4" STREET NE, STE. 100
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902
LINE-GRADE.COM
SDP-2020-00025 Airport Road Sheetz
Initial Site Plan Comment Response Letter
September 9, 20201 Page 12
on -site circulation appears problematic, given current location of major site
elements (below):
c. For example: would switching the fueling space and store offer any benefit, or
work?
This option was evaluated in the ARB work session and determined to be
undesirable for a number of reasons, including internal site flow and street
visibility of the rear of the building. The current layout most effectively
optimizes safety and serviceability of the site.
d. 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?
As discussed in the comment review meeting, the UGTs must be closer to the
canopy, which must be in the current location (see responses to other layout
comments). Also, fuel deliveries will be coordinated operationally to occur at
non -peak hour times by the site operator.
e. Is space available between parking spaces 33-47 and Rt. 29 to relocate
bioretention filter B from back of site to this location?
ARB desires bioretention at the back of the site, less visible from Route 29.
Furthermore, underground detention is present at this location.
f. Please examine alternative site layouts in effort to minimize traffic -traffic
conflicts, traffic -pedestrian conflicts, and to protect biofilters.
As discussed in the comment review meeting, a number of layout iterations
were developed and presented to ARB as well as internally. The current
layout most effectively optimizes safety and serviceability of the site. Small
geometric improvements were possible and have been made to the layout
presented in the initial submission.
g. Please provide AASHTO WB-67 auto -turn fig. between points A 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. L I N E +
Comment noted. Please refer to Sheet C3.0 GRADE
C4.0
CIVIL ENGINEERING
23. Revise proposed 112' to R3' Min. [Final Site Plan checklist for plan reviewers, p. 2, 1130 STREET NE, STE. 100
parking and circulation, Item 6. CHARLOTTESVILLE,VA22902
P g j LINE-GRADE.COM
r
SDP-2020-00025 Airport Road Sheetz
Initial Site Plan Comment Response Letter
September 9, 20201 Page 13
The proposed R2' curb radii have been revised to R3'. See sheet C4.0.
24. 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
We are in the process of coordinating this with Sheetz. We will implement based on
their feedback.
25. 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.swbmo.vwrrc.vt.edu/wo-
content/uploads/2017/11/BMP-Spec-No-8 INFILTRATION v1-9 03012011.pdf
The proposed Bioretention practices will have an impermeable liner to prevent any
pollutants from infiltrating into groundwater. See details on sheet C7.5
26. 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.
Comment noted. Please refer to revised documents.
27. Recommend label CG-6 fronting parking /UG fuel tanks facing Airport Road spill curb.
The label has been revised as recommended. See revised sheet C4.0.
28. Provide typ. parking space length for parking spaces #7 —18.
Dimensions have been added to this bay of parking. See revised sheet C4.0.
29. 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.
Comment noted.
C6.0
30. Show /label SWM Facility easement for bioretention filters A, B.
LI N E+
GRADE
CIVIL ENGINEERING
113 e STREET NE, STE. 100
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902
LINE-GRADE.COM
SDP-2020-00025 Airport Road Sheetz
Initial Site Plan Comment Response Letter
September 9, 20201 Page 14
Comment noted.
31. Provide public drainage easements for any inlets receiving flow from public roads,
and for any pipes downstream of proposed on -site bioretention practices, or
underground detention systems.
Comment noted. See revised plans.
32. 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).
Comment noted. See revised plans.
General
33. A VDOT Land Use permit is required for any work within VDOT right-of-way.
Comment noted.
34. Site must be accessible forACF&R apparatus. Engineering defers to ACF&R.
Comment noted.
VDOT Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use — Max Greene
35. Provide right turn lane warrants for Route 649 into proposed site. This section of SR
649 is designated Minor Arterial.
The right lane turn warrant is now provided. No taper or turn lane warranted at the
Route 649 intersection. See sheet C0.2 for warrant analysis.
36. 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.
The right lane turn warrant is now provided. A taper is warranted at the Route 29
intersection; however, an existing turn lane is present at this entrance and will
remain, so the taper is not provided. See sheet CO.2 for warrant analysis.
37. Entrance spacing does not appear to meet the minimum per RDM, Appendix F, pg.26.
This includes the shared entrance adjacent to Route 29.
L I N E +
GRADE
CIVIL ENGINEERING
113 4" STREET NE, STE. 100
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902
LINE-GRADE.COM
SDP-2020-00025 Airport Road Sheetz
Initial Site Plan Comment Response Letter
September 9, 20201 Page 15
Per correspondence with VDOT staff on 412012020, the entrance on Route 649
complies with spacing standards, however the Route 29 entrance does not. An
access management exception request (AM-E) has been submitted for review
electronically on 512012020 to allow the Route 29 entrance to remain as proposed.
38. 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' radius is the minimum for
Commercial/Retail without separate truck access.
Both entrance radii have been revised to be 50 feet. The Route 649 entrance has
also been widened from 35 feet to 40 feet to allow for better turning movements
into the site. Please note that Sheetz intends to organize delivery and fueling
operations such that trucks will enter the site from Route 29 and leave the site on
Route 649.
39. 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.
The waiver was provided directly to VDOT and received approval on 0611812020.
40. 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."
The note has been added to both the sight distance sheet and landscape plan.
41. 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.
Comment noted. See revised Plans, sheet C8.0, specifically.
42. 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.
Comment noted. See revised Plans
43. Note that the final plan must show conformance with the VDOT Road Design Manual L I N E �—
Appendices B(1) and F, as well as any other applicable standards, regulations, or
other requirements. GRADE
Acknowledged. Final plans accompanying this submission are compliant with all
VDOT standards and regulations to the best of our knowledge. CIVIL ENGINEERING
113 0 STREET NE, STE. 100
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902
44. Please provide a comment response letter with each submission after the initial. LINE-oRADE.COM
r
SDP-2020-00025 Airport Road Sheetz
Initial Site Plan Comment Response Letter
September 9, 20201 Page 16
Comment response letter provided.
Albemarle County Fire and Rescue — Shawn Maddox
45. A hydrant needs to be added at the entrance on Airport Road. The only hydrant
visible on GIS shows a hose lay across multiple lanes of traffic well beyond the
required spacing distance.
Comment noted. See revised Plans
46. If the building is going to be sprinklered, an FDC must be shown and a hydrant
located within 100' of the FDC.
The building is not going to be sprinklered.
47. The ISO needed fire flow for the building is required.
Comment noted. This will be provided on the next submission.
48. Provide the currently available fire flow for the site from a recent ACSA fire flow test.
Comment noted. We have requested this but have not yet received it.
49. 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.
Comment noted. Please indicated preferred location via sketch or otherwise.
Albemarle County Sanitary Authority — Richard Nelson
50. RWSA will need to review and approve the final site plan.
Comment noted.
51. RWSA will need to approve new connections made on their water main.
Comment noted.
52. 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 RWSA's water L I N E
main. RWSA will need to be on site for the abandonment of these.
Comment noted.
53. Provide fixture counts for meter sizing.
Comment noted. Will be provided with final fixture count is confirmed by Architect.
GRADE
CIVIL ENGINEERING
113 0 STREET NE, STE. 100
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902
LINE-GRADE.COM
SDP-2020-00025 Airport Road Sheetz
Initial Site Plan Comment Response Letter
September 9, 20201 Page 17
54. Provide water use projection for proposed car wash.
Comment noted. Will be provided based on Sheetz use data. Will provide when
obtained.
55. Contact Tim Brown at tbrown@serviceauthority.org if interested in car wash
program.
Comment noted.
56. Existing sewer laterals will need to be abandoned at the sewer main.
Comment noted.
57. Confirm with Fire/Rescue if a fire hydrant will be required.
The need for afire hydrant has been confirmed and one is now provided. See sheet
C6.0.
COD Inspections — Michael Dellinger
58. ALL water lines, sewer lines and fire lines from the main to the structure MUST have
a visual inspection performed by the building department.
Comment noted.
59. Add the following to the general notes page:
a. All roof drains shall discharge in a manner not to cause a public nuisance and
not over sidewalks.
b. 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 County and VDOLL
Contact VDOLI for their additional requirements and permits for demolition
projects at 540-562-3580 x131.
c. 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 USBC.
Comment noted.
LINE
GRADE
CIVIL ENGINEERING
113 0 STREET NE, STE. 100
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902
LINE-GRADE.COM