HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP202100001 Correspondence 2021-11-29ease
608 Preston Avenue
P 434.295.5624
Suite 200 F 434.295.1800
T I M M O N S GROUP
Charlottesville, VA 22903 www.timmau.com
November 29, 2021
Mariah Gleason, Senior Planner
County of Albemarle
Dept. of Community Dev.
401 McIntire Rd, North Wing
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: Ivy Proper— Final Site Plan Review— SDP202100001 -Comment Response Letter
Dear Ms. Gleason:
We have reviewed all of your comments from (Rev. 3) October 22, 2021 and made the
necessary revisions. Please find our responses to the comments below in bold lettering.
1. [32.5.2(a)] Application ID. Final site plan receive unique application numbers, separate
from initial site plans. Please include the application numbers for both the final site plan
(SDP202100001) and initial site plan (SDP2020000065) for this development on the
Cover Sheet.
Both site plan numbers are now included on the cover sheet.
Rev. 1 Comment addressed.
2. [32.5.2(i), 32.5.2(m)] Easement Plat. Prior to final site plan approval, any required
easements supporting the site plan will need to be reviewed, approved, and recorded.
The recorded easements will then need to be located on the site plan with the recorded
deed book and page noted. According to the site plan, the plat will need to address the
following:
a. Private shared access easement for the entrance and parking area (for the
benefit of TMP 58A2-20A).
A shared use parking agreement and easement plat was submitted on October
22, 2021 and is currently under review.
b. Drainage easements.
Drainage and SWM easements are included on the site plan. An easement plat
was submitted on October 22, 2021 and is currently under review.
c. Private landscaping, construction, and maintenance easements, as necessary.
All applicable easements are included on the site plan. An easement plat was
submitted on October 22, 2021 and is currently under review.
d. (Optional) Vacation of property line as shown on the Existing Conditions Sheet.
Rev. 1 Comment remains. Please submit the requested easement plat to allow the
approval of required aspects of the site plan.
ENGINEERING I DESIGN I TECHNOLOGY
Acknowledged. Easements will be recorded prior to final approval.
Rev. 2 Comment remains. Please submit the easement plat when ready. Reminder that
the easement plat will need to be submitted, reviewed, approved, and recorded prior to
final site plan approval.
An easement plat is currently being prepared and will be submitted shortly.
Rev. 3 : Comment remains. An easement plat has been submitted in association with
this site plan. Be advised, the easement plat will need to be approved, recorded, and
reflected in the final site plan. Staff recommends adding placeholders for recordation
information on the plan maps to make it easy to input this information later, once
known.
Placeholders for deed book and page number have been added to easement labels.
3. [32.7.9] Landscape Plan. (Note: If there are conflicts between comments made by
Planning and ARB, once their review begins, Planning will defer to the ARB as their
guidelines are more strict.).
a. Staff recommends providing the landscape plan as a separate sheet within the
site plan.
A separate landscape plan is now provided. See sheet L1.0.
Rev.1 Comment Addressed.
b. If existing landscape features will be preserved, as shown on the northern and
western portions of the lot, the landscape plan should show— as applicable —the
tree area to be preserved, the limits of clearing, the location and type of
protective fencing, any grade changes requiring tree wells or walls, and trenching
or tunneling proposed beyond the limits of clearing. Also, a signed conservation
checklist will be needed in accordance with 32.7.9.4(b).
Tree protection fencing and limits of disturbance have been copied to
Landscape Plan from the Erosion & Sediment Control Plans. Conservation
checklist has been added, to be signed by the contractor.
Rev. 1 The comment response letter from the applicant states that tree
protection information has been omitted from the plan since existing trees will
not be used to meet landscape plan requirements. Please be aware that existing
tree stands can be used to meet the Tree Canopy requirements of Sec. 32.7.9.8.
Noted. Existing forested areas along perimeter of site have been added to Tree
Cover Calculations. Approximately 8,995 SF of trees are expected to remain.
Rev. 2 Comment renewed because it is relevant to the revised plan dated 06-
24-2021. In this version, the Tree Canopy requirements of Sec. 32.7.9.8 are being
met through a combination of new plantings and existing trees/forest area to be
preserved. As such, the Landscape Plan needs to:
i. Identify the tree areas to be preserved and their respective square
footages. The total square footage of preserved tree areas noted on the
plan map and the information contained in the Tree Cover Calculations
table should align with one another.
3,203 SF tree preservation area has been hatched and labeled.
Calculations have been updated to only include this area for existing
tree cover to remain.
ii. Identify the location and type of protective tree fencing. (If "TV is an
acronym for "tree protection" please provide a note on the sheet.)
Tree protection fence was labeled in previous submittal in addition to
TP linetype. Tree protection fence label has been revised to clarify that
orange construction fence is intended, in accordance with detail on
C3.1.
iii. A signed Conservation Plan Checklist will need to be included in the plans
prior to final site plan approval.
Conservation Plan Checklist has been signed by owner. Contractor
signature remains blank, as contractor has not yet been selected.
Rev. 3 : Comment not fully addressed. Please show the type of
protective fencing to be used, grade changes requiring tree wells or walls,
and trenching or tunneling proposed beyond the limits of clearing, to
meet the ordinance requirements fully. Note: A label on the plan states
that a detail for the proposed tree protective fencing can be found on
Sheet C3.1. However, that Sheet does not appear to be included.
Existing and proposed grading have been turned on for sheet L1.0,
Landscape Plan. Checklist has been updated to indicate that no
trenching or tunneling has been proposed beyond the limits of clearing.
Sheet C3.1 has been added to Site Plan sheet set, which includes tree
protection fence detail.
c. The Plat Schedule notes 12 Willow Oaks are being provided, however the plan
map only shows 11 Willow Oaks. Please revise accordingly.
The landscape plan has been revised. Planting schedule has been revised to
agree with the trees shown graphically in plan view.
Rev. 1 This comment is no longer necessary. Revisions removed Willow Oaks
from the plan.
d. The plan indicates that 8 large trees are being provided along Ivy Road, however
the Landscaping Along The Frontage table indicates only 7 large trees are being
provided. Please revise accordingly.
The landscape plan has been revised and now includes 8 large street trees.
Rev. 1 This comment is no longer necessary. ARB will review and comment on
landscaping along the Entrance Corridor.
e. Please clarify what is being used to calculate the 891 square feet of interior
parking lot landscaping area that is being provided by the plan.
Additional breakdown of interior parking lot landscaping will be provided.
Rev. 1 Comment not fully addressed. The County evaluates Sec. 32.7.9.6 —
Landscaping Within A Parking Area, based on the canopy provided by trees and
shrubs located within the parking area (as defined in the same section). Based on
the plantings within said area, staff estimates 685sf of landscaped area to be
provided, based on 3 Ginkgos, 1 Hornbeam, and the shrubs. In which case, this
requirement is still satisfied. Please review and revise the plan accordingly.
Noted. "Provided" column in Interior Parking Lot Landscape Area
Requirements table has been revised to 685 SF, which meets the minimum
requirement of 671 SF.
Rev. 2 Comment not fully addressed. Since this requirement is being satisfied
by plantings in the parking lot islands, please revise the "Provided" information
to more accurately state: 685 SF (plantings in parking lot island areas).
Wording of plantings provided has been revised as requested.
Rev. 3 : Addressed.
f. The Tree Canopy requirement should be based off the total parcel area, as
surveyed, which is 0.87 acres. Please update the Tree Cover Calculations table
accordingly.
The canopy calculation has been updated accordingly.
Rev. 1 Comment addressed.
g. Rev. 1 Please update the Parking Area calculation to align with the number of
parking spaces provided (36 parking spaces shown).
Parking Area calculation has been updated to reflect the 36 parking spaces
proposed by the current design.
Rev. 2 Comment addressed.
h. Rev. 1 Per Sec. 32.7.9.8 — Tree Canopy, the tree canopy required by subsection
(a) must be composed of all areas of the site that would be covered by trees and
other plant materials exceeding five feet in height at a maturity of ten years after
planting. Since the proposed shrubs (Winter Jasmin) will not exceed five feet in
ten years, they cannot be used to meet this requirement. In which case, the Tree
Canopy requirement is not yet met. Please review and revise the plan
accordingly.
Tree Cover Calculations have been revised to remove proposed shrubs from
the calculations and add existing trees to remain along the perimeter of the
site.
Rev. 2 Comment addressed.
i. Rev. 3 : Similar comments provided by ARB below, there is a discrepancy in the
frontage tree species noted in the plant schedule (European Hornbeam) and the
tree species notated on the plan (Armstrong Red Maple). This is a new Please
correct this discrepancy. Note, the canopy for a 2.5" caliper Armstrong Red
Maple is significantly lower than a European Hornbeam. If the applicant desires
to move forward with the Armstrong Red Maples, more landscaping will be
needed to satisfy the ordinance's tree canopy regulations.
Plan has been revised to indicate European Hornbeam.
4. [32.5.2(n)] Outdoor Lighting. Is there any outdoor lighting proposed for this project? If
so, please see Sec. 32.6.2(k) and Sec. 4.17 regarding materials that need to be provided
for staff review and minimum performance standards/design requirements,
respectively. Also, please keep the character of the surrounding area in mind when
developing the light plan.
A photometric plan and lighting cut sheets have been included and comply with
County Ordinance.
Rev. 1 Thank you for providing the photometric plan and fixture cutsheets. Please
revise the photometric plan so fixture labels can be easily read within the plan map.
Many labels are currently obscured by other linework. Otherwise, please see comments
provided by ARB.
Text has been revised to include background masks for drawing clarity.
Rev. 2 Comments remain. Revise the photometric plan so fixture labels and symbols
can be easily read within the plan map. Staff are currently unable to easily identify
where fixtures listed in the lighting schedule are located on the plan map, as several of
these elements are obscured by other linework. Please see additional comments
provided by ARB staff below.
Fixture labels and symbols have been revised for drawing clarity.
Rev. 3 : Addressed.
5. [32.5.2(n), 32.7.2.3] Sidewalks along streets. Revise the walkway in front of the building
to meet VDOT standards. See Sec. 32.7.2.3 for more information.
The material of this walk has been revised to be concrete.
Rev. 1 Comment addressed.
6. [32.5.2(n), 4.12.19] Dumpster Pad. Provide details for the proposed dumpster pad that
demonstrates that the minimum design requirements contained in Sec. 4.12.19 are
being met.
The proposed dumpster pad is 20'X12' which provides 8' of heavy duty concrete
outside of the enclosure for garbage truck front wheel loading.
Rev. 1 Comment not fully addressed. Please provide a measurement and label on the
plan to demonstrate that the concrete dumpster pad is extending at least, and no less
than, eight feet beyond the front of the proposed dumpster(s).
Dimension has been added, showing 8' from front of the dumpster enclosure to the
edge of the concrete pad.
Rev. 2 Comment addressed.
7. [32.5.2(a)] Owner Information. Following the recent sale of the property, update the
parcel owner and associated information for the subject properties across all applicable
sheets. (Note: This information may need to be updated again when an easement plat is
approved and recorded. See Comment 2).
The owner information and associated information has been updated for the subject
properties.
Rev. 1 Comment remains. It doesn't appear this information was updated in the
revised plan.
Owner information has been updated on cover sheet and existing conditions.
Rev. 2 Comment remains. It doesn't appear this information was updated in the
revised plan. Albemarle County records indicate that LENVIC LLC is the previous owner,
and that the property was sold to Ivy Proper LLC on 01/26/2021.
Owner information has been updated on cover sheet and existing conditions.
Rev. 3 : Comment partially addressed. Staff acknowledges that the Cover Sheet reflects
updated owner information. Owner information on the Existing Conditions sheet should
be updated with the new owner's names as well.
Owner information has been updated on the Existing Conditions sheet.
8. [32.5.2(a)] Zoning Notes. If/when the special exception for the disturbance of critical
slope areas is approved, the approval and any conditions thereof will need to be
included in the Zoning notes.
Acknowledged.
Rev. 1 Comment remains. The request for a Critical Slopes Waiver is scheduled for
consideration by the Board of Supervisors on May 19, 2021.
Critical slopes waiver was approved by the Board of Supervisors on May 19, 2021.
Letter of approval has been included in this submittal for reference.
Rev. 2 Comment remains. In the Zoning Notes, include the following language: Critical
Slopes Waiver SE202100002 was approved by the Board of Supervisors on May 19, 2021
with the following conditions:
1. The area of land disturbance on critical slopes must not exceed the "Disturbed
Critical Slopes" shown on Image 1 of the request entitled "Ivy Proper Critical
Slopes Waiver— Special Exception Request," prepared by Timmons Group, dated
January 5, 2021 and last revised April 26, 2021.
A note under "Zoning Notes" on the cover sheet has been included which
includes this language.
2. Final design of the retaining walls must be submitted and is subject to the
approval of the County Engineer and the Building Division prior to approval of the
VSMP application.
Note has been added to Zoning Notes on cover sheet. A preliminary wall design
has been included within this plan set.
Rev. 3 : Addressed.
9. [32.5.2(b)] Open Space. As a commercial development, this plan is not required to
provide open space. As such, staff advise that the "Proposed Open Space" data under
the proposed Use notes be removed. (Note: There is a requirement for a certain amount
of tree canopy onsite, which can be met by preserving existing tree areas, however,
there is no specific requirement for the provision of "open space", per Sec. 4.7).
The open space callout has been removed from the plans.
Rev. 1 Comment addressed.
10. [32.5.2(a), 4.20] Setbacks. Include in the setback notes that the maximum front setback
is 30 feet from the right-of-way.
The maximum setbacks are now included on the cover sheet site notes.
Rev. 1 Comment addressed.
11. [32.5.2(f)] Water -related notes.
a. On the Cover Sheet, please revise the drainage district to explicitly state that the
subject property lies within the "Ivy Creek water supply watershed".
The drainage district has been revised accordingly.
b. Since Little Ivy Creek is not adjacent to this parcel, it does not need to be
included in the notes. However, if the applicant desires to leave it on the site
plan, staff recommends amending the drainage district notes to state that Little
Ivy Creek is located near, but not adjacent to, the site OR "x" feet away.
The note has been revised to call out the distance Little Ivy Creek is from the
site.
Rev. 1 Comment addressed.
12. [32.5.2(d)] Topography.
a. Knowing Engineering has requested the Erosion & Sediment sheets be removed
from the final site plan, please keep in mind that proposed grading is still a
required element of final site plans. Therefore, this information will still need to
be included somewhere within the final site plan.
Comment noted. The ESC sheets will be removed from the final site plan and
the proposed grading will still be included in the submission.
Rev. 1 Comment addressed.
b. Show where critical slope areas will remain on the site following any proposed
disturbance/construction.
A callout for critical slopes to remain has been added to the plans.
Rev. 1 Based on work associated with the Critical Slopes Waiver request for this
development (SE202100002), staff is aware that the applicant has field tun and
reanalyzed critical slopes information on the subject parcels. Please update the
existing conditions sheet to note and locate critical slope areas per County GIS as
well as field verified critical slope areas so that this comparison can be saved for
County records. Also, please update all other sheets where critical slope areas
are shown with the field verified critical slopes. Feel free to follow up with staff if
there are questions.
Note has been added to sheet C2.0, clarifying that critical slopes are based on
GIS and survey. Critical slopes shown on all sheets have been revised to show
updated extents.
Rev. 2 Comment sufficiently addressed.
13. [32.5.2(n), 32.5.2(r)] Paving materials. Provide a legend for proposed paving materials
on the Layout Plan sheet.
A paving legend has been added to the layout sheet.
Rev. 1 Comment addressed.
14. [32.5.2(n)] Signs. Identify where parking signs for handicap parking spaces will be
placed/posted.
Handicap parking signs have been added to the plans and called out.
Rev. 1 Comment addressed.
15. [32.5.2(a)] Surrounding parcel information. Provide the zoning district and present uses
for TMP 58A2-20A and TMP 58A2-21. Also, please update the owner information for
TMP 58A2-21.
The surrounding parcel information has been updated as requested.
Rev. 1 Comment addressed.
16. [32.5.2(a), 32.5.2(s)] Labels.
a. On the Existing Conditions & Demolition Plan Sheet, please avoid placing labels
beneath or in conflict with hatched linework.
Text overwrites have been updated to avoid conflict.
Rev. 1 Comment addressed.
i. Move the curve data for the southern portion of the boundary line along
Ivy Road outside of the hatched area. Consider using a leader line, similar
to how the other curved boundary line data is provided.
The curve data has been relocated as requested.
ii. Relocate the critical slopes label.
The critical slope labels have been relocated as requested.
iii. Move the "Remove Broken Asphalt" label.
The label has been moved accordingly.
iv. Move the benchmark label.
The benchmark label has been moved accordingly.
b. Please identify what the solid grey line running roughly along Ivy Proper, but not
parallel to the subject property boundary represents. This line can be seen
running northwest from the westernmost property corner.
A label has been added to help better identify the solid gray line.
Rev. 1 Comment remains. Staff could not find a label within the plan maps for
the line indicated below in red. Please provide a label for this linework.
The indicated line was a GIS remnant in the survey. It has been frozen on all
plan sheets.
Rev. 2 Comment addressed.
c. Rev. 1 Within the "Vacate Property Line" label on Sheet C2.0, include a deed
book and page number for the recording instrument. If such a plat has not been
recorded yet, feel free to leave placeholder lines for the deed book and page.
Alternatively, remove the "Vacate Property Line" label from the plan. Site plans
do not act to change boundary lines.
"Vacate Property Line" label has been removed from sheet C2.0.
Rev. 2 Comment addressed.
17. [32.6.2(h)] Signature panel. Include a signature panel on the Cover Sheet for signature
by each member of the site review committee. Staff can provide an example signature
panel upon request.
A signature panel is now included on the cover sheet.
Rev. 1 Comment not fully addressed. Please revise the signature panel to include
Virginia Department of Health, Architectural Review Board, and, under Department of
Community Development, E911.
Virginia Department of Health, Architectural Review Board, and E911 have been
added to signature panel.
Rev. 2 Comment not fully addressed. The applicants comment response letter
indicates that the requested changes had been made but they were not reflected on
the revised final site plan. (Note: When addressing this comment, do not replace the
signature line for the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) with the one needed
for the Virginia Health Department. Both agencies will need to sign off on the final site
plan since the subject property falls within the ACSA jurisdictional area.)
Virginia Department of Health, Architectural Review Board, and E911 have been
added to signature panel.
Rev. 3 : Comment addressed.
18. [32.5.2(k)] VDH approval. VDH approval of the private well and septic fields is needed
prior to final site plan approval.
Acknowledged. This process is underway and approvals will be granted prior to final
site plan approval.
Rev. 1 Comment remains. VDH approval has not been granted yet.
Private well and septic field have been approved by VDH, per Josh Kirtley. Approval
remains valid through end of calendar year 2021.
Rev. 2 Comment remains. Thank you for providing a copy of the approved sewage
disposal system design. It appears there are some discrepancies between the system
that was approved and the proposed site plan. Health Department review and approval
of the site plan will be needed prior to County signature approval of the final site plan.
The existing VDH approval has been granted for a higher GPD than is currently being
proposed. Additional VDH documentation indicating their OK of the current layout will
be provided shortly.
Rev. 3 : Comment addressed. VDH approval has been granted.
19. [Comment] Critical Slopes Waiver. The critical slopes waiver that submitted in
association with this final site plan is being processed by staff under SE202100002.
County staff will be in contact if additional information is needed to process this waiver
request.
Comment acknowledged.
Rev. 1 Comment remains. The request for a Critical Slopes Waiver is scheduled for
consideration by the Board of Supervisors on May 19, 2021.
Critical Slopes Waiver was approved by the Board of Supervisors on May 19, 2021.
Letter of approval has been included in this submittal for reference.
Rev. 2 Comment addressed. The Critical Slopes Waiver was approved by the Board of
Supervisors on May 19, 2021, with conditions.
Additional Comments based on revised plan dated 03/16/2021:
20. [32.5.2(b)] Parking Schedule. The parking notes on the Cover Sheet indicates 35 parking
spaces are provided by the plan. The plan maps, however, show 36 parking spaces being
provided. Please review and revise accordingly.
Parking schedule has been updated to reflect current design of 36 parking spaces
proposed.
Rev. 2 Comment remains. There is still a discrepancy between the number of parking
spaces noted on the Cover Sheet and shown on the Layout Plan.
The Cover Sheet has been updated to indicate that 36 parking spaces are proposed.
Rev. 3 : Comment addressed.
Additional Comments based on revised plan dated 09/16/2021:
21. [Comment] Plan revision date. The revised plan dated 09/16/2021 included two new
sheets (S-1 and S-2) which show information related to the proposed retaining walls.
The County commonly references plans by using a singular "last revised" date. Revise
the aforementioned sheets to be consistent with the larger plan by noting the same
"date of last revision" as noted throughout the plan.
Title block on retaining wall plans and details sheets has been revised to match the
rest of the submittal set.
22. [Comment] Water system capacity. VDH has confirmed their approval of the planned
onsite sewage disposal system design with a capacity of 875 gallons per day; however,
County regulations for onsite water usage for the subject property are restricted to a
maximum of 348 gallons per day. If additional water use is desired above the 348
gallons per day limit, a special use permit will be required. Please add the following note
to the plan under the "Utility Demands" on the Cover Sheet: "Per Chapter 18, Section
22.2.2 (11) of the Albemarle County Code, onsite water usage cannot exceed 348
gallons per day."
Note has been added to Cover Sheet.
Albemarle County Engineering Services — David James - Engineer:
1. VSMP plan & application will need to be submitted and approved prior to FSP approval.
A VSMP application and WPO has been included with this submittal.
Rev. 1 2 Acknowledged; WPO currently under review / not approved.
Acknowledged.
2. A plat will need to be recorded prior to FSP approval.
Acknowledged. Applicable plats will be submitted and recorded prior to FSP approval.
Rev. 1 2 Currently not addressed.
Acknowledged. Plats will be recorded prior to final approval.
3. Please remove the E&SC and SWM-related sheets from the site plan. They're to be
submitted & reviewed separately with the VSMP application (Sheets C3.0-C3.3, C6.0).
Comment acknowledged. The ESC and SWM related sheets will be removed from the
site plan and included in the VSMP submission.
(Rev. 1) Addressed.
4. Show public drainage easement over storm str/pipes 115 to 101.
Drainage easements have been included.
Rev. 1 N/A Addressed. Appears to be in ROW.
S. Show public drainage easement over storm str/pipes 111 to 106 (pipes appear to carry
stormwater from off -site that pass through the site).
Drainage easements have been provided as requested.
Rev. 1 Partially addressed. The drainage easement needs to be shown separate from
the SWIM Facility easement. Note: Easements can overlap. Use different linetype & / or
key to identify.
Drainage easements and SWM Facility easements have been revised to display as
separate entities with different line types. Where storm pipes are near the CMP
storage pipe, easements overlap.
Rev. 2 Partially addressed. The Trapezoidal channel will need to be included in the
public drainage easement.
Public drainage easement has been revised to include trapezoidal channel.
6. Ensure SWM pipe meet easement width requirement shown on page 15, ACDSM.
SWM easements have been revised accordingly to meet the easement width
requirements.
Rev.1 Acknowledged.
7. For the DI-1s, provide half -clogged design following VDOT drainage manual, chpt. 9.
DI-1`s have been updated to design at half clogged.
Rev.1 Addressed.
8. Rev. 1 Critical slopes waiver will need to be approved.
Critical Slopes Waiver was approved by the Board of Supervisors on May 19, 2021.
Letter of approval has been included in this submittal for reference.
Rev.2 Addressed.
9. Rev. 1 Show/ Provide the number of well connections.
One well connection is proposed. Approximate location is shown on sheet C4.0.
Rev.2 Addressed.
10. Rev. 1 Sheet 4:
a. Provide safety railing for the walls where over 30" high.
Safety railings have been added.
b. Ensure accurate horizontal depth (batter) of retaining walls.
It is anticipated that batter will be minimal on the proposed retaining walls, as
we are anticipating a poured concrete design. Final wall design will be
provided prior to Site Plan Approval.
c. Show line extent of geogrid/tieback or amount of horizontal excavation
necessary for retaining wall whichever's greater.
Geogrid is not anticipated for this wall. Final wall design information will be
provided prior to Site Plan Approval.
Rev.2 Acknowledged.
11. (Rev. 1) Sheet 5:
a. Provide CG-6.
CG-6 has been added along the west side of the entrance.
b. Direct area (not captured) to str 116 by adjusting grading. Provide slight crown to
better direct water from entrance.
Grading has been revised to direct more of the entrance toward structure 116,
including adding a crown. Inlet and pipe calculations have been updated
accordingly.
Rev.2 Addressed.
12. Rev. 1 Provide engineering design plans for the walls over 4' high prior to plan
approval.
Final wall design information will be provided prior to Site Plan Approval. Please note,
the preliminary wall design has been included within this plan set.
Rev. 2 Currently not addressed.
13. Note: Drainage easement shown over str/pipe 114 appears to be private.
This easement has been revised to a "10' Private Drainage Easement."
Rev.2 Addressed.
Albemarle County Information Services (E911) — Brian Becker:
1. No objection.
Albemarle County Building Inspections — Betty Slough
Add the following notes to the general notes page:
1. Retaining walls greater than 3 feet in height requires a separate building permit. Walls
exceeding 4 feet in height require a stamped engineered design also. Walls require
inspections as outlined in the USBC.
Acknowledged. Stamped wall plans will be provided to the County for review and
approval prior to installation.
2. Accessible parking spaces, access isles, and accessible route shall be installed in
accordance with ICC ANSI A117.1-09 and the 2015 Virginia Construction Code.
Noted
3. All water lines, sewer lines, and fire lines from the main to the structure located on
private property MUST have a visual inspection performed by the building department.
Comment noted. There are no proposed fire lines on this project
4. All roof drains shall discharge in a manner not to cause a public nuisance and not over
sidewalks.
Noted. All roof drainage is picked up in underground roof drains and tie to adjacent
inlet structures. 8" roof drain pipes that tie to adjacent inlets have been added to the
plan.
5. Depending on the occupant load and egress travel paths, the pea gravel sidewalk on the
south side may not meet egress travel requirements.
The path has been revised to concrete.
Rev. 1 No objection.
Albemarle County Dept of Fire Rescue — Shawn Maddox:
1. No objection.
Albemarle County Service Authority— Richard Nelson:
1. No objection.
Virginia Department of Health —Josh Kirtley:
No objection; See recommendation below
1. The applicant has a valid VDH permit to treat and disperse up to 875 gpd. If the
applicant is proposing to use significantly less water, then the system will be over
constructed. I advised the applicant that they could submit a new application and design
for the much lower water use proposal in order to save a significant amount of money.
Comment acknowledged.
Virginia Dept of Transportation — Adam Moore:
1. Requested Changes; see comment letter attached.
Responses to letter provided separately.
Albemarle County Planning Services ARB — Khris Taggard:
1. There is a discrepancy in the frontage tree species noted in the plant schedule
(European Hornbeam) and the tree species notated on the plan (Armstrong Red Maple).
Please correct this discrepancy.
Plan has been revised to indicate European Hornbeam.
We have included PDF copies of the plans and calculations for your review. If you have any
questions or comments, please feel free to give me a call at 434.295.5624 or email
dint.shifflett aPtimmons.com .
Sincerely,
Clint Shifflett, PE