Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201500034 Review Comments Major Amendment, Final Site Plan 2016-10-18Christopher Perez From: Victoria Fort <vfort@rivanna.org> Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 5:32 PM To: Christopher Perez Cc: Alex Morrison Subject: RE: LOR for Federal Express & Retail Office Building (SDP2015-34) Chris, We are currently working with the owner to put together an indemnification agreement since we will be allowing them to construct a canopy within the RWSA easement. If possible, I'd like to hold my approval until we resolve this issue. Let me know if you foresee any issue with this. I'm hoping this will be wrapped up in the next couple of weeks. Thanks, Victoria Victoria Fort, P.E. Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority 695 Moores Creek Lane Charlottesville, VA 22902 (P): (434) 977-2970 ext. 205 (F): (434) 295-1146 From: Alexander Morrison [mailto:amorrison@serviceauthority.org] Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 3:44 PM To: Christopher Perez <cperez@albemarle.org> Cc: Victoria Fort <vfort@rivanna.org> Subject: RE: LOR for Federal Express & Retail Office Building (SDP2015-34) Chris, The application just arrived in my office today so I will try to take a look this week. I may need to hold my approval until RWSA issues and approval, but I am checking on that. Thanks. Alexander J. Morrison, P.E. Civil Engineer Albemarle County Service Authority 168 Spotnap Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22911 (0) 434-977-4511 Ext. 116 (C) 434-981-5577 (F) 434-979-0698 From: Christopher Perez [mailto:cperez@albemarle.org] Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 9:47 AM To: Alexander Morrison Cc: vfortCa)rivanna.org Subject: LOR for Federal Express & Retail Office Building (SDP2015-34) Alex, LOR for Federal Express & Retail Office Building (SDP2015-34) Checking on the status of the review for the above ref plan. It's fairly minor on this end, but definitely need ACSA to sign off on it. Let me know. Christopher P. Perez I Senior Planner Department of Community Development ICounty of Albemarle, Virginia 401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville, VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext. 3443 Ellie Ray From: Victoria Fort <vfort @rivanna.org> Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 6:39 PM To: Ellie Ray Cc: Alex Morrison; Jeremy Lynn Olynn @serviceauthority.org) Subject: 2335 Seminole Lane - Major Site Plan Amendment Ellie, RWSA has reviewed the revisions to the major site plan amendment for 2335 Seminole Lane as prepared by Shimp Engineering and dated 7/6/2015, with most recent revision dated 1/28/2016, and consents to the proposed construction as shown. All changes to the proposed work from that shown in the drawings shall be approved by RWSA in writing prior to construction. RWSA reserves all rights associated with its easement, including but not limited to its rights to access, construction, operation, maintenance, and repair of its facilities within the easement, and such consent shall not be construed to modify or prohibit any existing easement rights held by the RWSA, nor modify or increase its obligations, if any, to repair or restore. Prior to the start of work, RWSA wishes to schedule a preconstruction meeting with the contractor. Please call Victoria Fort at (434) 977 -2970 x 205 to schedule the meeting. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks a lot, Victoria Victoria Fort, P.E. Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority 695 Moores Creek Lane Charlottesville, VA 22902 (P): (434) 977 -2970 ext. 205 (F): (434) 295 -1146 Npe Ellie Ray From: Ellie Ray Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2016 4:48 PM To: 'Chris Norvelle' Cc: Justin Shimp Subject: RE: SDP201500034 Revised PDF Chris, The revision addresses my comment regarding the parking schedule. We are still awaiting final approval/no objection from ACSA and RWSA...once that's received,four copies should be submitted for signature. Thanks, Ellie Carter Ray, PLA, LEED GREEN ASSOCIATE Senior Planner Albemarle County Community Development ph: 434.296.5832 x. 3432 From:Chris Norvelle [mailto:chris @shimp-engineering.com] Sent:Thursday, February 11, 2016 12:40 PM To: Ellie Ray<eray @albemarle.org> Cc:Justin Shimp<justin @shimp-engineering.com> Subject:SDP201500034 Revised PDF Ellie, Please see the attached revised PDF of the major site plan amendment for 2335 Seminole Lane. I have updated the parking schedule on the cover sheet per the approved parking reduction from Ron Higgins. Please review and let me know if you have any further comments. I believe the only comment you had remaining was to revise the parking schedule. How many full hard copy sets will you need? Thanks, Chris Norvelle Senior Design Tech. Shimp Engineering, P.0 201 E. Main St,Ste M Charlottesville,VA 22902 Office: (434) 227-5140 Cell: (434)987-2543 1 Ellie Ray Subject: Sent from Snipping Tool ric:A Luic t. arc] A cm- per tc urovc ICTcI uccJ rLr TY..)3 rap. v cordtic7ed tc delirexe the ac-,a,a1 4lood plain lire and vfill Le ubmittei -.o FEVA for ;1;:eept1r(.,.: 0:.; Cl I_CMA Icarove the loocl 11:1/11r•I (;vcr kly PARKING SCHEDULE Proposed ,,se: ' equirel In '-'hase Ii ii r,)ffi:;e: Sigre 2C0 F N1 c. I a. 43,752+,80 = 35,02/200 = 75 ',paces .5 Spaces Per 1,C0',) ! F Gross Floor Area. 2.5C0/1,C0',) = 2.5i"3 = 33 Spaces Taal Spaces Reqaired Ir Phase 3 = 2C8 Tal Spaces Provided Ir Phase .5 = Parkino Summary Cr Site tiPt-ases AV;Iii(11)1(: CII Situ (PI:: Ar•c1)(11iT117): .4,40 Tcjl Exis-ang Spaces Available Cr Site (Yost Arendr-en-.): 328 Sfaces T37,31 Viribc1 c' — $4(;.1:)re) = 12 (:.paocs Per appro'val letter 'rori criald Higgins cn 02/"1/1 aIlDwir q a reduc-,ipri ir teqJired for :11!) total rcqiirt1 for plIal: !!.; 1-4 WATER & SANITARY SERVICES , Acs) All vilt:1 ;41 !,:-1 v1::E:!-; arc to 711(' 1117Y Nc chanc:es -.0 tie exis-drif:, services are r(posed. 1 Ellie Ray From: Ron Higgins Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2016 10:56 AM To: Justin Shimp, P.E.; Ellie Ray Subject: Fed Ex Complex Parking Reduction approval SDP201500034 Attachments: FedExRetail&OfficeComplex2-11-16.pdf; FedExsite-ShimpParking Waiver Request.pdf Justin & Ellie: Pleased find attached the approval letter and the submitted analysis for this modification. Ron H. 1 Swirl .c COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road,North Wing Charlottesville,Virginia 22902-4596 Phone(434)296-5832 Fax(434)972-4126 February 11, 2016 Mr. Justin Shimp, Shimp Engineering, P.C. do 201 East Main Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: Federal Express& Retail Office Buildings—SDP201500034—Ph-3(2335 Seminole Ln.) Request for Modification to minimum parking requirements of Section 4.12.6. Dear Mr. Shimp: You provided a parking analysis on February 4, 2016 that addressed my comments and concerns with your earlier draft analysis. This letter is to confirm approval of this latest reduction in accordance with Section 4.12.2-c of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. The latest analysis supports the provision of 328 total parking spaces to serve this development. This would accommodate all of the uses outlined in your analysis, based on the typical daily parking needs table and the maximum peak need of 314 spaces between 10:00 AM & 2:00 PM. This is summarized in the following totals: Total required spaces for all of this commercial center= 394 Total provided spaces= 328 Deficit= 66 Percentage of reduction= 17.0% Given the nature of the uses proposed, the potential for little conflict in the need for parking spaces and the overall percentage of reduction(17.0%), this plan is acceptable and within the limit of 35% specified in Section 4.12.10 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance for shared parking. I also find that the public health, safety or welfare would be equally or better served by the modification and that the modification would not otherwise be contrary to the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance. Please me sho '• you have any questions on this information. Si �- c doh 'oval• . iggins, A P ief of Zoning/Deputy Zoning Administrator CC: File: SDP201500034, Ellie Ray, Senior Planner SHIMP PROJECT MANAGEMENT CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND PLANNING February 4,2016 Mr. Ron Higgins Albemarle County Deputy Zoning Administrator Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville,VA 22902 Regarding: Major Site Plan Amendment—Federal Express&Retail Office Buildings Phase 3(2335 Seminole Lane), SDP 2015.00034 Request for Modification Dear Mr. Higgins, In accordance with Section 4.12.2-c of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance,the Owner/Applicant,Jefferson Equity Partners,for the above referenced amendment does hereby request a modification of the minimum number of parking spaces required in a commercial zoning district in accordance with the application plan for SDP 2015-00034. It is our opinion that the public health,safety,and welfare will be equally or better served by the modification and that the modification will not otherwise be contrary to the purpose and intent of chapter 4 of the Zoning Ordinance. While the original site development plans for phases one through four of the development were prepared primarily for storage and warehouse uses;the buildings and site have been repurposed for many other uses more commercial, recreation,and office in character such as: Acme Stove, Ferguson Enterprises, Rhett's River Grill,Aqua Pro Pools and Spas,Jarman Sort Cycle, Classic Gymnastics, Childress Paint, Charlottesville Family Chiropractic,Evergreen Ministries,Total Performance Sports and Fitness,Monticello Surgery,and other commercial businesses. Our research shows that many of these uses were provided zoning clearances without any parking analysis and we have found that no overall parking analysis has been provided for Phases 1-4 in over fifteen years. Please consider Exhibits A and B on the following pages showing a current analysis of parking needs for uses currently occupying space in phases one through four of this development and the associated location of buildings and parking for each phase. In accordance with these findings,the Owner/Applicant hereby requests a modification of 4.12.6 to allow a reduction of 66 required parking spaces(17%)for a total of 328 parking spaces(as shown on Exhibit C)for phases one through four. The primary use for Phase four is medical office and the primary use for the proposed phase three is also medical office. This recent change and proposed change reflect a lower intensity of use(need for parking)from existing and previous commercial uses(see those listed above). Parking has always been available on the site and the 161 parking spaces provided in phase one are substantially under-utilized during the regular hours of the medical office uses for phases three and four(see Exhibit B below). As additional parking for the change to office use is not needed to adequately serve the site,the public health,safety,and welfare will be equally or better served by the modification. Now, ,ftmor Federal Express Parking Analysis(Phases one through four) LOCATION USE(per 4.12.6) PARKING Gross SF Net SF Parking Parking BASIS Required Provided PHASE ONE: Classics Gymnastics Recreational(not specified) 1/125 SF(net) 10,000 8,000 64 Enter rises Furniture store/other large Ferguson P sized retail items 1/4005F(net) 14,000 10,500 27 Wholesale/warehousing use 1/employee Childress Paint&More plus 1/500SF 3,750 1,500 15 not otherwise identified (open to public) PHASE ONE TOTAL 106 161 PHASE TWO: Furniture store/other large Bullfrog Spas 1/400SF(net) 3,200 2560 7 sized retail items United land Co. Offices,business, 1/2005F(net) 3,200 2560 13 administrative and professional PHASE TWO TOTAL: 20 12 PHASE THREE: Medical Offices Offices,business, administrative and professional 1/2005F(net) 43,752 35,002 175 Restaurant Restaurant 1/76.923(gross) 2,500 N/A 33 PHASE THREE TOTAL: 208 113 PHASE FOUR: Monticello Surgery& Offices,business, PRW Labs administrative and professional 1/200 SF(net) 30,403 24,322 60• PHASE FOUR TOTAL: 60 42 TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED/PROVIDED: 394 ' 328 Requested Parking Reduction: 66 ( 17% Exhibit A: Current Parking Analysis(Including proposed uses for phase 3) If you have any further questions or concerns about these revisions please feel free to call me at (434)227-5140. ;ego ustin Shimp Shimp Engineering, P.C. Attachments: Exhibit B showing parking needs v.time of day Exhibit C showing proposed parking summary for phase one through four • 000ONso g' III ! lj2000022g * 1 4 yy�� N .4 N m m v o m N .. i 11KS' Rni4 § 53 * 1 aa " . ^ s � sry s a ' r Y 11§ sssssss x „ sm . , I • a O 2 sKKKKS122 I I0 o` r4 ^ MISA $ a # .2 01 zeiW § § 111KK ' xq a : : ]^ 4sm' sH ^ $ '0 S e " SiKKKKKS3 § I 1 lislssssssK ,, 4. 4. 3 xa Ill o i � sg0 Y C 3134 ^ Mlial8 f § 114 g ^ g 41 o ii 1 111 a g ii i'fl Iii I sa 11 ill 1-! illiiiiii ili i Z 40' ', W I 1 ii i, --oos Z ' Et- rib 'ifs _ �e.,,,\ , oOL °� a — w y o• a ego a I. _� e°N it ,J Mi"«) - De . A Q O u^ O .r, -::�0a � - ' , Z o § o sic-�' - z m ` W r U.1 a. • � • �, O W "Z E Ts U d —v A 'f %• \\`' r 5 a,zs @; w '• \ , 7, 0 0 .13— CEO m Za c si- /N 3i i 0 EL g du N H„...,..7, 7 Z M y 11111 o � a. g tD - NInNo a10 - - e1'N }_ IL 4 = in — — as Z r ' g - ' a S 6+ b < Z 2 v 1 L1 i 1 Ellie Ray From: Alex Morrison <amorrison @serviceauthority.org> Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2016 12:29 PM To: Ellie Ray;vfort @rivanna.org Subject: RE: 2335 Seminole Lane Ellie, Jeremy commented on 1/28 and 1/29 to the applicant. He is waiting on a set of revised plans so that we can start the approval package. Once the approval is complete we will be ready to recommend approval and signature sets through the county. Alexander J. Morrison, P.E. Civil Engineer Albemarle County Service Authority 168 Spotnap Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22911 (0)434-977-4511 Ext. 116 (C) 434-981-5577 (F)434-979-0698 From: Ellie Ray [mailto:eray @. bemarle.org] Sent: Friday, January 29, 2016 4:23 AM To: vfort@rivanna.org; Alex Morris. Subject: RE: 2335 Seminole Lane Alex/Victoria, The applicant contacted me this morning thinkin: the plans are r ady for signature. While I have seen the correspondence below and a subsequent email fro • Jeremy L n, I haven't received comment/approval from either of you. There is another outstanding issue that they nee. o a.:ress to satisfy my comments (which I reminded them of this morning), but are both of you at a point in your revie . where they could submit for signature? Just seems like they might be jumping the gun a little, so I thought I should c -c 'n with you guys. Thanks, Ellie Carter Ray, PLA, LEED GREEN ASSOCIATE Senior Planner Albemarle County Community Development ph: 434.296.5832 x. 3432 From:Chris Norvelle [mailto:chris • shim.-en:in-erin:.com] Sent:Thursday,January 28, 2016 1:58 PM To: jlynn@serviceauthority.org;vfort @rivanna.org Cc:Justin Shimp<justin @chimp-engineering.com>; Ellie • . <era • albemarle.or:> Subject: 2335 Seminole Lane Jeremy&Victoria, 1 Ellie Ray From: Kelly Strickland <kelly @shimp-engineering.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2016 10:27 AM To: Ellie Ray; Ron Higgins Cc: justin @shimp-engineering.com; Chris Norvelle Subject: FW: Fedex Phase IV, parking reduction request Attachments: Parking Schedule Changes-Cover Sheet (02-02-16).pdf; parking modification request - McCulley-020216.pdf Good Morning Ellie, I've provided an updated request with calculations and exhibits (attached)for the parking modification for the Fed Ex site plan amendment. I made a couple of labeling mistakes on Exhibit B. These have been corrected to show a total of 328 proposed parking spaces, with 113 located on the Phase three site. We also had a mistake (actually an update that was not made) in the parking calculation on the cover of the SPA and I've attached a pdf showing the revision to the cover sheet with 328 proposed spaces and a deficit of 98 spaces (matching the attached request). Both the revised cover sheet calculation and the modification request Exhibits A and B now match sheets C2 and C3 of the current SPA showing existing and proposed parking for Phase three. Feel free to give me a call if we need to confirm or adjust anything further. Thanks, Kelly Strickland Shimp Engineering PC 434.981.6029 From: Justin Shimp [mailto:justin@>shimp-engineering.com] Sent: Monday, February 01, 2016 4:25 PM To: Kelly Strickland Subject: Fwd: Fedex Phase IV, parking reduction request Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Ellie Ray<era ! albemarle..r•> Date: February 1, 2016 at 4:24:14 P ST To: "Justin Shimp, P.E." <'ustin ' shim. - _ineerin•.com> Subject: RE: Fedex Phase IV, parkin e:uction request Justin, I looked this over really quickly . ►.d I'm not sure the n hers presented are consistent with the site plan under review. For exam I le, the first row of"Pha - 3" parking is labeled as 27 spaces while the site plan shows 25,the n:.t'combined' row is labe •. as 49 spaces while the site plan 1 r✓ ...,r Ellie Ray From: Ellie Ray Sent: Monday, February 01, 2016 4:24 PM To: 'Justin Shimp, P.E.' Subject: RE: Fedex Phase IV, parking reduction request Justin, I looked this over really quickly and I'm not sure the numbers presented are consistent with the site plan under review. For example,the first row of"Phase 3" parking is labeled as 27 spaces while the site plan shows 25,the next'combined' row is labeled as 49 spaces while the site plan shows 37 spaces, 18 along the front of the building while the site plan shows 15, etc. If you add the total up it shows 126 spaces, but it only notes 114 spaces in Phase 3. Of larger concern is the request asks for 330 spaces to be the requirement but I think the site plan shows 327. Something to look in to...unless I'm missing something. I don't want your reduction request to be approved for more spaces than can actually be provided. Ellie Carter Ray, PLA, LEED GREEN ASSOCIATE Senior Planner Albemarle County Community Development ph:434.296.5832 x. 3432 Original Message From:Justin Shimp, P.E. [mailto:justin @shimp-engineering.com] Sent: Monday, February 01, 2016 3:36 PM To: Ron Higgins<rhiggins @albemarle.org> Cc: Ellie Ray<eray @albemarle.org> Subject: Fedex Phase IV, parking reduction request Hello Ron, This slipped off our radar for a bit.We've talked several times about the complex parking situation out at the various fedex phases... We have tried to clean that up with a zoning waiver request that take a worst case scenario view of making all of phase III medical office (there will likely be some storage/etc) but in any even the parking required is less than many of the retail uses that could be and have been permitted under the HC zoning. Let me know if this looks ok to you. Thanks! Justin Shimp, P.E. 434-953-6116 1 Ellie Ray From: Ellie Ray Sent: Friday,January 29, 2016 10:23 AM To: vfort @rivanna.org;Alex Morrison Subject: RE: 2335 Seminole Lane Alex/Victoria, The applicant contacted me this morning thinking the plans are ready for signature. While I have seen the correspondence below and a subsequent email from Jeremy Lynn, I haven't received comment/approval from either of you. There is another outstanding issue that they need to address to satisfy my comments (which I reminded them of this morning), but are both of you at a point in your reviews where they could submit for signature? Just seems like they might be jumping the gun a little, so I thought I should check in with you guys. Thanks, Ellie Carter Ray, PLA, LEED GREEN ASSOCIATE Senior Planner Albemarle County Community Development ph: 434.296.5832 x. 3432 From: Chris Norvelle [mailto:chris @shimp-engineering.com] Sent:Thursday,January 28, 2016 1:58 PM To:jlynn @serviceauthority.org;vfort@rivanna.org Cc:Justin Shimp<justin @shimp-engineering.com>; Ellie Ray<eray@alb: arle.org> Subject: 2335 Seminole Lane Jeremy&Victoria, Please see the attached PDF of the site pla -me dment for 2335 Seminole Lane. I have revised the plan per your most recent comments. For RWSA I have adjuste• '4e new waterline easement per the highlighted sketch that we received. For ACSA I have revised the ACSA standard ote on sheet C2 as requested. I have also revised the note calling out the new tapping sleeve and valve on sh-et C3.The . tached PDF also contains only the sheets you asked for. Please review the attached digital file and let •s know if this meets y. r expectations for revisions. Once we receive word that it is satisfactory we shall submit taper sets to you for signatu Thank you, Chris Norvelle Senior Design Tech. Shimp Engineering, P.0 201 E. Main St,Ste M Charlottesville,VA 22902 Office: (434) 227-5140 Cell: (434)987-2543 1 Ellie Ray From: Ellie Ray Sent: Friday,January 29, 2016 10:16 AM To: 'Justin Shimp, P.E.' Subject: RE: 2335 Seminole Lane The parking reduction request hasn't been submitted yet that I'm aware of...so you'll need to do that and change the cover sheet as indicated in my notes before the plan is ready for signature. Also, I haven't gotten anything from Victoria. Ellie Carter Ray, PLA, LEED GREEN ASSOCIATE Senior Planner Albemarle County Community Development ph: 434.296.5832 x. 3432 From:Justin Shimp, P.E. [mailto:justin @shimp-engineering.com] Sent: Friday,January 29, 2016 10:08 AM To: Ellie Ray<eray @albemarle.org> Subject: Fwd: 2335 Seminole Lane FYI: I'll get the plans to you today, I guess since its a major amendment you have to put them out on the desk to be signed by everyone? Justin Shimp, P.E. 434-953-6116 Begin forwarded message: From: "Jeremy Lynn" <jlynn(c�serviceauthority.orq> To: "'Chris Norvelle"' <chris(a�shimp-engineerinq.com> Cc: "'Justin Shimp"' <justin[a�shimp-engineerinq.com> Subject: RE: 2335 Seminole Lane Date: January 29, 2016 at 8:47:50 AM EST Chris, Your callout on the Tapping Sleeve should be 12"x 6"Tapping Sleeve and Valve. Otherwise, no further comments. Jeremy M. Lynn, P.E. Senior Civil Engineer Albemarle County Service Authority 168 Spotnap Road, Charlottesville, VA 22911 (434) 977-4511 ext. 114 1 R l COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1601 Orange Road Culpeper, Virginia 22701 Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E. Commissioner January 29, 2016 Ms. Ellie Carter Ray County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re. SDP -2015 -00034 FedEx and Retail Office Building -Major Amendment Dear Ms. Ray: We have reviewed the FedEx and Retail Office Building -Major Amendment, with revision dates of September 25, 2015, October 13, 2015, November 3, 2015, December 10, 2015 and December 28, 2015, as submitted by Shimp Engineering. All previous review comments have been addressed and we recommend approval of the amendment as submitted. If you need additional information concerning this project, please do not hesitate to contact me at (434) 422 -9782. Sincerely, Troy Austin, P.E. Area Land Use Engineer Culpeper District �'jRGINZP COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 August 14, 2015 Rev1: November 18, 2015 Rev2: January 14, 2016 Justin Shimp, P.E. 201 E. Main Street, Suite M Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: SDP201500034 Federal Express and Retail Office Buildings — Major Amendment Dear Sir: Your Major Amendment application has been reviewed. In order for the amended site plan to be approved the following revisions are required: 1. [32.5.2(a)] Provide boundary dimensions for all boundary lines. Clarify the boundary line behind the building; it is shown differently on different sheets. Rev1: Comment addressed. 2. [32.5.2(a)] Add FH (Flood Hazard) and SS (Steep Slopes) to the Zoning information. Revi : Comment addressed. 3. [32.5.2(a)] List all Special Use Permits (with conditions), waivers, and variances on the Cover Sheet. Revi : Comment not addressed. List the Special Use Permits (not site plans); specifically SP89 -70 which approved fill in the floodplain. Rev2: Comment addressed. 4. [32.5.2(a)] Provide the setback, yard, and buffer lines on the site plan sheet. Rev1: Comment addressed. 5. [32.5.2(a)] Provide the zoning district and present use of abutting parcels. Revi : Comment addressed. 6. [32.5.2(b)] The cover sheet indicates that a waiver is being requested for the parking requirement; a waiver is not required, but a parking reduction request must be submitted to and approved by Zoning (you may need to provide the net reduction from previous approved plans). Please revise the cover sheet accordingly. Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. Has a parking reduction request been submitted to Zoning? There is a note on the plan, but a formal request must be submitted; if this hasn't been done, consult with Ron Higgins to determine what needs to be submitted. Rev2: Comment not fully addressed; awaiting submittal of the parking reduction request. The parking information on the cover sheet is the same as the previous submittal even though the parking layout has changed. Make sure the correct `post amendment' parking number is provided both on the site plan and in the reduction request. 7. [32.5.2(b)] Provide the maximum amount of impervious cover on the site. Revi : Comment addressed. 8. [32.5.2(b)] Provide the maximum amount of paved parking and vehicular circulation. Revi : Comment addressed. 9. [32.5.2(d)] Label the proposed topography on the site plan sheet. Rev1: Comment no longer valid; no grading is proposed on the revised site plan. 10. [32.5.2(d)] Clearly show and label all steep slopes on the site. Change any reference to `critical slopes' to either `managed slopes' or `preserved slopes'. Rev1: Comment addressed. 11. [32.5.2(d)] The Cover Sheet references disturbance to `critical slopes' authorized by a previous waiver. Since slopes are not shown on the plan it is difficult to tell if any disturbance is actually proposed. If so, clearly show the area of disturbance. If not, please remove the note. Revi : Comment addressed. 12. [32.5.2(e)] Show all existing landscape on the Site Overview and Landscape Plan sheets; GIS shows some that isn't included in the plans along the sides of the building. Make sure all landscaping to be removed is noted as such. Rev1: Comment addressed. 13. [32.5.2(f)] Clearly show and label the river adjacent to the site on the Site Overview and Site Plan sheets. Revi : Comment addressed. 14. [32.5.2(h)] The plan shows both the existing and proposed floodplain lines. The amended line must be approved prior to site plan approval. Once approved, the old line should be removed. Rev1: Comment not yet addressed. Rev2: Comment addressed. The line amendment is in process; Engineering has determined that the old line is sufficient for site plan approval. 15. [32.5.2(i)] Provide travelway dimensions. Rev1: Comment addressed. 16. [32.5.2(],k,l)] Verify that the location(s) and dimensions of all existing or proposed utilities and utility easements including water, sewer, drainage, telephone, cable, electric and gas are shown on the plan. Provide the Deed Book and Page reference for any existing easements. Any proposed easements should be labeled with the intended owner. Revi : Comment addressed. 17. [32.5.2(1)] Clarify the location of the noted electric easements and provide authorization of any improvements proposed within the easements. Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. A 30' electric easement is noted behind the building, but the label points to a single line; show the extents of the easement. Rev2: Comment addressed. 18. [32.5.2(],k,l)] Show all easements on the site plan and landscape plan sheets to demonstrate no site conflicts exist. Revi : Comment not addressed. While there may not be easements for the utilities along the site frontage, the utilities need to be clearly shown and labeled on the Landscape Plan. The fiber line should be labeled. On the landscape plan, the fiber line looks to have a three foot `easement' line of sorts on either side; please increase this to 5' on either side and move any proposed plantings outside of this `easement' (the three trees closest to the 29 entrance appear to be closer than that). The telephone line is very hard to see under the meadow hatching; clearly show and label this line, and make sure there are no conflicts with proposed plantings. One River Birch looks to be proposed directly on top of an existing storm drain line at the northern most end of the 29 frontage; label the stormdrain and move the tree away from the line. Rev2: Comment addressed. 19. [32.5.2(n)] Clarify the demolition areas; the pattern is inconsistent on the submitted copies and in some cases it is not clear where the demo area begins and ends. Rev1: Comment addressed. 20. [32.5.2(n)] Several improvements are shown outside of the subject parcel, within the public road right -of -way; VDOT must approve the location of these improvements. Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. Trees are still proposed within the right -of -way; VDOT must approve the location of these trees. Rev2: Comment not fully addressed; awaiting VDOT approval. 21. [32.5.2(n)] Label and dimension all of the walls on the site plan sheet. Rev1: Comment no longer valid; walls have been removed from the plan. 22. [32.5.2(n)] Label existing lighting and provide the location of proposed lighting on the site plan sheet. Revi : Comment addressed. 23. [32.5.2(n)] Dimension curb radii. Revi : Comment addressed. 24. [32.5.2(n)] Clarify the parking at the rear of the building; 15 spaces are noted but it's difficult to determine where the spaces are located. Rev1: Comment addressed. 25. [32.5.2(n)] Provide a detail for the proposed wood bridge with handrails and reference the detail on the site plan sheet. Revi : Comment no longer valid; bridge was removed from the plan. 26. [4.12.16(e))] Bumper blocks are required where parking abuts a sidewalk less than 6' in width. Revi : Comment addressed. 27. [32.5.2(r)] Provide a legend showing all symbols, abbreviations and hatch patterns used on the site plan. Rev1: Comment addressed. 28. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.4] Landscaping is proposed outside of the subject parcel and possibly within easements; proof of authorization for these locations must be provided. Revi : Comment not fully addressed. Written, not verbal, authorization is required. See #18 for further information regarding utilities. Rev2: Comment not fully addressed; awaiting VDOT approval. 29. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.4(a)] The landscape schedule indicates 8 Nyssa sylvatica are provided, but the plan shows 12; revise accordingly. Rev1: Comment no longer valid; Nyssa has been removed from the plan. 30. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.4(b)] Existing trees may be preserved in lieu of planting new plant materials in order to satisfy the landscaping and screening requirements of section 32.7.9 or to meet conditions of approval, subject to the agent's approval. It seems that some of the Landscape Plan requirements are proposed to be met with existing vegetation. If this is the case, the landscape plan should show the trees to be preserved, the limits of clearing, the location and type of protective fencing, grade changes requiring tree wells or walls, and trenching or tunneling proposed beyond the limits of clearing. In addition, the applicant shall sign a conservation checklist approved by the agent to insure that the specified trees will be protected during construction. Except as otherwise expressly approved by the agent in a particular case, such checklist shall conform to specifications contained in the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook, pp III -284 through III -297, and as hereafter amended. This checklist must be signed, dated and included on the plans. Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. Clarify where the 31,126sf tree save area noted in the landscape calculations is located (label on the plan). The Conservation Plan Checklist must be completed, signed and dated prior to site plan approval. Rev2: Comment addressed. 31. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.4(b)] Clarify the "limits of work" line /labels on the landscape plan. One label points to what appears to be the current flood plan line, which is confusing. A second label points to a line well beyond the "tree preserve area "; if that area is truly a preservation area then no work may occur within its limits. Revi : Comment not fully addressed. The "limits of work" line is still shown beyond the "tree preservation area "; if that area is truly a preservation area then no work may occur within its limits. Rev2: Comment addressed. 32. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.6] Demonstrate that an area a minimum of 5% of the paved parking and vehicular circular area is landscaped in shrubs and trees. See section 32.7.9.6(a) for additional information on which areas can be counted toward this requirement. Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. The area of `pavement' is listed as 59,987sf on the cover sheet, but the area of `parking' is listed as 63,790sf in the landscape calculations; these numbers should be consistent. Rev2: Comment addressed. 33. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.6] Several of the `existing' large shade trees noted as satisfying the parking lot tree requirement could potentially be being used to meet the same requirement for phase 1. However, it appears there are existing trees not accounted for in the plans; please show all existing parking lot trees and include them in the landscape notes to demonstrate this requirement is met. Rev1: Comment addressed. 34. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.7] It appears that the existing trees behind the building are being used to satisfy the screening and buffer requirements. As noted above, please provide the conservation plan and checklist, and clarify the `limits of work' line. Revi : Comment not fully addressed. See #30. Rev2: Comment addressed. 35. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.8] The tree canopy information provided for a couple of the proposed plants is incorrect; Betula nigra at a 10' planting height provides 397 sf not 535, and Nyssa sylvatica provides 123 sf not 213. Additionally, it appears that in some cases a custom canopy calculation has been provided when the planting size is larger than the minimum but it has not been done consistently; if custom calculations are used, please do so consistently and indicate with a note that this type of calculation has been employed. For the sake of clarity, if custom calculations aren't needed to meet the requirement use the standard tree canopy values. Revi : Comment addressed. 36. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] Provide a photometric plan including a luminaire schedule. The photometric plan must provide the following: • The photometric values should extend to the property lines to verify the spillover requirement is met (or show less than 0.5 fc before the property line). Rev1: Comment addressed. • Manufacturer's cut - sheets indicating lumen level for each proposed fixture shall be included in the plan set; fixtures 3000 lumen or higher (using a maintenance factor of 1.0) must meet the County's definition of full cutoff. Revi : Comment not fully addressed. The luminaire schedule should list the lumen level for each fixture. The cut - sheets indicate 334 lumen for Fixture A and 3850 lumen for Fixture B. Additionally, there is a discrepancy in the plans for Fixture B; the cut - sheet indicates 3850 lumen, but the landscape plan labels the fixtures as 2000 lumen. Please clarify the lumen level and revise the plan accordingly. Rev2: Comment addressed. • The model numbers shown on the cut - sheets must match those listed in the luminaire schedule. Revi : Comment addressed. • Light fixtures should be shown on the layout /utility plans to verify that no site conflicts exist. Rev1: Comment addressed. • Show all existing and proposed light fixtures; all fixtures must be included in the photometric calculations. Revi : Comment addressed. • Provide the following standard lighting note on the lighting plan: Each outdoor luminaire equipped with a lamp that emits 3, 000 or more initial lumens shall be a full cutoff luminaire and shall be arranged or shielded to reflect light away from adjoining residential districts and away from 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 foot - candle. Rev1: Comment addressed. 37. [32.6.2(k) & 4.171 One light appears to be located on the footbridge; revise accordingly. Revi : Comment no longer valid; footbridge and light have been removed. 38. [32.6.2(j & k)] ARB approval of the landscape and lighting plans is required. Rev1: Comment still valid. Rev2: Comment still valid. 39. [Comment] This amendment cannot be approved until all comments from the Site Review Committee (SRC) have been addressed. Any comments not available at the time of the SRC meeting will be forwarded once received. Revi : Comment not fully addressed. VDOT, ACSA, Fire Rescue and RWSA must complete their reviews and grant their approval. Engineering has completed their review and has no objection. ARB comments have been provided. Rev2: Comment not fully addressed. VDOT, ACSA, Fire Rescue and RWSA must complete their reviews and grant their approval. ARB comments have been provided. 40. [Comment] The landscape plan notes a lawn strip to the right of the building entrance, but the site plan shows a sidewalk; please clarify. Rev2: Comment addressed. 41. [Comment] The landscape plan shows "9 TN" near the entrance, but this plant is not included in the plant schedule; list all proposed plantings in the plant schedule. Rev2: Comment addressed. 42. [Comment] One the existing trees along the 29 frontage is labeled as "existing sugar maple, 12" & 9" caliper; clarify how one tree has two caliper measurements. Rev2: Comment addressed. Staff has provided references to provisions of Chapter 18 of the Code of the County of Albemarle. The Code is kept up to date by the County Attorney's office. The Code may found on the County Attorney's website which may be found under "Departments and Services" at Albemarle.org. In accord with the provisions of Section 32.4.3.5 of Chapter 18 of the Code if the developer fails to submit a revised final site plan to address all of the requirements within six (6) months after the date of this letter the application shall be deemed to have been voluntarily withdrawn by the developer. If you have any questions about the comments please feel free to contact me Sincerely, Ellie Carter Ray, PLA Senior Planner Planning Division Ellie Ray From: Alex Morrison <amorrison @serviceauthority.org> Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2015 8:50 AM To: Ellie Ray Subject: SDP201500034: FeclEx & Retail Office Building - Major Attachments: 050601GENERALWATER &S EWE RCONDITIONS020613.pdf, TD 9.pdf, TD 8.pdf Ellie, I have reviewed the above referenced plan and met with Fire - Rescue separately about the fire hydrant placement. The proposed location for the new ACSA fire hydrant is not acceptable due to the existing utilities in the area. The applicant shall relocate the proposed fire hydrant to the parking island adjacent to the RWSA water main relocation. The new fire hydrant shall be connected to the relocated portion of the RWSA water main through a 12" x 6" tee and associated 6" gate valve. Due to the new location of the proposed fire hydrant, the FDC being relocated from the rear stairwell shall be located at the front entrance instead of the side of the building. The applicant shall also update the plans to include the ACSA fire hydrant detail, gate valve detail and the ACSA Water and Sewer General Conditions. I have attached the documents in PDF format. Once the revisions are made the applicant shall submit 3 copies of the plan, along with a water data sheet to the attention of Michael Vieira, PE at the ACSA for review and approval. Alexander J. Morrison, P.E. Civil Engineer Albemarle County Service Authority 168 Spotnap Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22911 (0) 434 - 977 -4511 Ext. 116 (C) 434 - 981 -5577 (F) 434 - 979 -0698 Ellie Ray From: Victoria Fort <vfort @rivanna.org> Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2015 6:18 PM To: justin @shimp - engineering.com Cc: Ellie Ray; Alex Morrison Subject: SDP 2015 -034 Fed Ex & Retail Office Building - Major Attachments: WATER 1 - DIP INSTALL & BEDDING_REVISED 9 30 15.pdf, WATER 5 - CONCRETE THRUST COLLAR_REVISED 9 9 15.pdf, WATER 13 - TEMPORARY CONNECTION.PDF; RWSA General Notes.doc; RWSA Water Line Testing Requirements.pdf Justin, RWSA has reviewed the Major Site Plan Amendment for 2335 Seminole Lane (Fed Ex & Retail Office Building) as prepared by Shimp Engineering and dated 11/03/2015 and has the following comments. General: Include the RWSA General Water and Sewer Notes on the plans (attached) Include attached RWSA standard details (Water 1, Water 5, Water 13) on the plans. I have attached pdfs, but I can provide CAD files if requested. Sheet C2 of 5: 1. The existing easement (DB 471, P 126) does not line up with the water main; is the location of the water line based on survey or as- builts? It may be necessary to update the easement so that it is in line with the existing water main. Sheet C3 of 5: 1. The relocated section of RWSA water main should be extended out beyond the proposed curb and gutter. 2. All new pipe shall have restrained joints. 3. Concrete thrust collars will be necessary on each side of the relocated section to restraint the old push -on pipe (see detail Water 5). 4. Include the following notes on this sheet: a. A preconstruction meeting shall be held with RWSA prior to the start of work. All materials and methods of construction shall be approved by RWSA. No work shall be done on the RWSA water line without an RWSA inspector present. Please notify RWSA at least 3 days in advance of the start of work to schedule an inspector. Contractor shall provide RWSA with a minimum of 7 days' notice prior to any work requiring a shut -down of the water line. b. No permanent connections may be made to the existing water main until the new pipe has been tested and accepted into service by RWSA. All testing must be done in accordance with RWSA standards (see attached). c. Tie -ins shall require coordination with RWSA and ACSA and may need to be scheduled as night work at RWSA's discretion. The contractor may be responsible for any costs associated with shutting down the water main in order to make tie -ins. Wet -taps will not be allowed. I am available to meet any time next week if you have any questions. Thanks a lot, Victoria Victoria Fort, P.E. Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority 695 Moores Creek Lane Charlottesville, VA 22902 (P): (434) 977 -2970 ext. 205 (F): (434) 295 -1146 COMMONWEALTH of VsIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1601 Orange Road Culpeper Virginia 22MI Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E. Commissioner November 24, 2015 Ms. Ellie Carter Ray County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 40I McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re. SDP -2015 -00034 FedEx and Retail Office Building -Major Amendment Dear Ms. Ray: We have reviewed FedEx and Retail Office Building -Major Amendment, with the latest revision date of November 3, 2015, as submitted by Shimp Engineering, and we offer the following comments: 1. A landscape maintenance agreement shall be established and a land -use permit must be obtained prior to placement of landscaping within the public right -of -way. 2. The choice of vegetation and the landscaping design must ensure that sight distance is not obstructed. Landscaping that does not meet the breakaway requirements may not be located within the clear zone and it shall be set beyond the deflection limits of the guardrail. If you need further information concerning this project please do not hesitate to contact me at (434) 422 -9894. Sincerely, r Shelly A. Plaster Land Development Engineer Culpeper District 701 VDOT Way Charlottesville, Virginia 22911 �'jRGINZP RE: SDP201500034 Federal Express and Retail Office Buildings — Major Amendment Dear Sir: Your Major Amendment application has been reviewed. In order for the amended site plan to be approved the following revisions are required: 1. [32.5.2(a)] Provide boundary dimensions for all boundary lines. Clarify the boundary line behind the building; it is shown differently on different sheets. Rev1: Comment addressed. 2. [32.5.2(a)] Add FH (Flood Hazard) and SS (Steep Slopes) to the Zoning information. Revi : Comment addressed. 3. [32.5.2(a)] List all Special Use Permits (with conditions), waivers, and variances on the Cover Sheet. Revi : Comment not addressed. List the Special Use Permits (not site plans); specifically SP89 -70 which approved fill in the floodplain. 4. [32.5.2(a)] Provide the setback, yard, and buffer lines on the site plan sheet. Rev1: Comment addressed. 5. [32.5.2(a)] Provide the zoning district and present use of abutting parcels. Rev1: Comment addressed. 6. [32.5.2(b)] The cover sheet indicates that a waiver is being requested for the parking requirement; a waiver is not required, but a parking reduction request must be submitted to and approved by Zoning (you may need to provide the net reduction from previous approved plans). Please revise the cover sheet accordingly. Revi : Comment not fully addressed. Has a parking reduction request been submitted to Zoning? There is a note on the plan, but a formal request must be submitted; if this hasn't been done, consult with Ron Higgins to determine what needs to be submitted. 7. [32.5.2(b)] Provide the maximum amount of impervious cover on the site. Rev1: Comment addressed. 8. [32.5.2(b)] Provide the maximum amount of paved parking and vehicular circulation. Revi : Comment addressed. 9. [32.5.2(d)] Label the proposed topography on the site plan sheet. Revi : Comment no longer valid; no grading is proposed on the revised site plan. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 August 14, 2015 Rev1: November 18, 2015 Justin Shimp, P.E. 201 E. Main Street, Suite M Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: SDP201500034 Federal Express and Retail Office Buildings — Major Amendment Dear Sir: Your Major Amendment application has been reviewed. In order for the amended site plan to be approved the following revisions are required: 1. [32.5.2(a)] Provide boundary dimensions for all boundary lines. Clarify the boundary line behind the building; it is shown differently on different sheets. Rev1: Comment addressed. 2. [32.5.2(a)] Add FH (Flood Hazard) and SS (Steep Slopes) to the Zoning information. Revi : Comment addressed. 3. [32.5.2(a)] List all Special Use Permits (with conditions), waivers, and variances on the Cover Sheet. Revi : Comment not addressed. List the Special Use Permits (not site plans); specifically SP89 -70 which approved fill in the floodplain. 4. [32.5.2(a)] Provide the setback, yard, and buffer lines on the site plan sheet. Rev1: Comment addressed. 5. [32.5.2(a)] Provide the zoning district and present use of abutting parcels. Rev1: Comment addressed. 6. [32.5.2(b)] The cover sheet indicates that a waiver is being requested for the parking requirement; a waiver is not required, but a parking reduction request must be submitted to and approved by Zoning (you may need to provide the net reduction from previous approved plans). Please revise the cover sheet accordingly. Revi : Comment not fully addressed. Has a parking reduction request been submitted to Zoning? There is a note on the plan, but a formal request must be submitted; if this hasn't been done, consult with Ron Higgins to determine what needs to be submitted. 7. [32.5.2(b)] Provide the maximum amount of impervious cover on the site. Rev1: Comment addressed. 8. [32.5.2(b)] Provide the maximum amount of paved parking and vehicular circulation. Revi : Comment addressed. 9. [32.5.2(d)] Label the proposed topography on the site plan sheet. Revi : Comment no longer valid; no grading is proposed on the revised site plan. 10. [32.5.2(d)] Clearly show and label all steep slopes on the site. Change any reference to `critical slopes' to either `managed slopes' or `preserved slopes'. Rev1: Comment addressed. 11. [32.5.2(d)] The Cover Sheet references disturbance to `critical slopes' authorized by a previous waiver. Since slopes are not shown on the plan it is difficult to tell if any disturbance is actually proposed. If so, clearly show the area of disturbance. If not, please remove the note. Rev1: Comment addressed. 12. [32.5.2(e)] Show all existing landscape on the Site Overview and Landscape Plan sheets; GIS shows some that isn't included in the plans along the sides of the building. Make sure all landscaping to be removed is noted as such. Revi : Comment addressed. 13. [32.5.2(f)] Clearly show and label the river adjacent to the site on the Site Overview and Site Plan sheets. Rev1: Comment addressed. 14. [32.5.2(h)] The plan shows both the existing and proposed floodplain lines. The amended line must be approved prior to site plan approval. Once approved, the old line should be removed. Rev1: Comment not yet addressed. 15. [32.5.2(i)] Provide travelway dimensions. Revi : Comment addressed. 16. [32.5.2(j,k,l)] Verify that the location(s) and dimensions of all existing or proposed utilities and utility easements including water, sewer, drainage, telephone, cable, electric and gas are shown on the plan. Provide the Deed Book and Page reference for any existing easements. Any proposed easements should be labeled with the intended owner. Rev1: Comment addressed. 17. [32.5.2(1)] Clarify the location of the noted electric easements and provide authorization of any improvements proposed within the easements. Revi : Comment not fully addressed. A 30' electric easement is noted behind the building, but the label points to a single line; show the extents of the easement. 18. [32.5.2(j,k,l)] Show all easements on the site plan and landscape plan sheets to demonstrate no site conflicts exist. Rev1: Comment not addressed. While there may not be easements for the utilities along the site frontage, the utilities need to be clearly shown and labeled on the Landscape Plan. The fiber line should be labeled. On the landscape plan, the fiber line looks to have a three foot `easement' line of sorts on either side; please increase this to 5' on either side and move any proposed plantings outside of this `easement' (the three trees closest to the 29 entrance appear to be closer than that). The telephone line is very hard to see under the meadow hatching; clearly show and label this line, and make sure there are no conflicts with proposed plantings. One River Birch looks to be proposed directly on top of an existing storm drain line at the northern most end of the 29 frontage; label the stormdrain and move the tree away from the line. 19. [32.5.2(n)] Clarify the demolition areas; the pattern is inconsistent on the submitted copies and in some cases it is not clear where the demo area begins and ends. Rev1: Comment addressed. 20. [32.5.2(n)] Several improvements are shown outside of the subject parcel, within the public road right -of -way; VDOT must approve the location of these improvements. Revi : Comment not fully addressed. Trees are still proposed within the right -of -way; VDOT must approve the location of these trees. 21. [32.5.2(n)] Label and dimension all of the walls on the site plan sheet. Rev1: Comment no longer valid; walls have been removed from the plan. 22. [32.5.2(n)] Label existing lighting and provide the location of proposed lighting on the site plan sheet. Revi : Comment addressed. 23. [32.5.2(n)] Dimension curb radii. Rev1: Comment addressed. 24. [32.5.2(n)] Clarify the parking at the rear of the building; 15 spaces are noted but it's difficult to determine where the spaces are located. Rev1: Comment addressed. 25. [32.5.2(n)] Provide a detail for the proposed wood bridge with handrails and reference the detail on the site plan sheet. Revi : Comment no longer valid; bridge was removed from the plan. 26. [4.12.16(e))] Bumper blocks are required where parking abuts a sidewalk less than 6' in width. Rev1: Comment addressed. 27. [32.5.2(r)] Provide a legend showing all symbols, abbreviations and hatch patterns used on the site plan. Rev1: Comment addressed. 28. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.4] Landscaping is proposed outside of the subject parcel and possibly within easements; proof of authorization for these locations must be provided. Revi : Comment not fully addressed. Written, not verbal, authorization is required. See #18 for further information regarding utilities. 29. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.4(a)] The landscape schedule indicates 8 Nyssa sylvatica are provided, but the plan shows 12; revise accordingly. Rev1: Comment no longer valid; Nyssa has been removed from the plan. 30. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.4(b)] Existing trees may be preserved in lieu of planting new plant materials in order to satisfy the landscaping and screening requirements of section 32.7.9 or to meet conditions of approval, subject to the agent's approval. It seems that some of the Landscape Plan requirements are proposed to be met with existing vegetation. If this is the case, the landscape plan should show the trees to be preserved, the limits of clearing, the location and type of protective fencing, grade changes requiring tree wells or walls, and trenching or tunneling proposed beyond the limits of clearing. In addition, the applicant shall sign a conservation checklist approved by the agent to insure that the specified trees will be protected during construction. Except as otherwise expressly approved by the agent in a particular case, such checklist shall conform to specifications contained in the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook, pp III -284 through III -297, and as hereafter amended. This checklist must be signed, dated and included on the plans. Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. Clarify where the 31,126sf tree save area noted in the landscape calculations is located (label on the plan). The Conservation Plan Checklist must be completed, signed and dated prior to site plan approval. 31. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.4(b)] Clarify the "limits of work" line /labels on the landscape plan. One label points to what appears to be the current flood plan line, which is confusing. A second label points to a line well beyond the "tree preserve area "; if that area is truly a preservation area then no work may occur within its limits. Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. The "limits of work" line is still shown beyond the "tree preservation area "; if that area is truly a preservation area then no work may occur within its limits. 32. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.6] Demonstrate that an area a minimum of 5% of the paved parking and vehicular circular area is landscaped in shrubs and trees. See section 32.7.9.6(a) for additional information on which areas can be counted toward this requirement. Revi : Comment not fully addressed. The area of `pavement' is listed as 59,987sf on the cover sheet, but the area of `parking' is listed as 63,790sf in the landscape calculations; these numbers should be consistent. 33. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.6] Several of the `existing' large shade trees noted as satisfying the parking lot tree requirement could potentially be being used to meet the same requirement for phase 1. However, it appears there are existing trees not accounted for in the plans; please show all existing parking lot trees and include them in the landscape notes to demonstrate this requirement is met. Revi : Comment addressed. 34. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.7] It appears that the existing trees behind the building are being used to satisfy the screening and buffer requirements. As noted above, please provide the conservation plan and checklist, and clarify the 'limits of work' line. Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. See #30. 35. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.8] The tree canopy information provided for a couple of the proposed plants is incorrect; Betula nigra at a 10' planting height provides 397 sf not 535, and Nyssa sylvatica provides 123 sf not 213. Additionally, it appears that in some cases a custom canopy calculation has been provided when the planting size is larger than the minimum but it has not been done consistently; if custom calculations are used, please do so consistently and indicate with a note that this type of calculation has been employed. For the sake of clarity, if custom calculations aren't needed to meet the requirement use the standard tree canopy values. Rev1: Comment addressed. 36. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] Provide a photometric plan including a luminaire schedule. The photometric plan must provide the following: • The photometric values should extend to the property lines to verify the spillover requirement is met (or show less than 0.5 fc before the property line). Revi : Comment addressed. • Manufacturer's cut - sheets indicating lumen level for each proposed fixture shall be included in the plan set; fixtures 3000 lumen or higher (using a maintenance factor of 1.0) must meet the County's definition of full cutoff. Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. The luminaire schedule should list the lumen level for each fixture. The cut - sheets indicate 334 lumen for Fixture A and 3850 lumen for Fixture B. Additionally, there is a discrepancy in the plans for Fixture B; the cut - sheet indicates 3850 lumen, but the landscape plan labels the fixtures as 2000 lumen. Please clarify the lumen level and revise the plan accordingly. • The model numbers shown on the cut - sheets must match those listed in the luminaire schedule. Rev1: Comment addressed. • Light fixtures should be shown on the layout /utility plans to verify that no site conflicts exist. Revi : Comment addressed. • Show all existing and proposed light fixtures; all fixtures must be included in the photometric calculations. Rev1: Comment addressed. • Provide the following standard lighting note on the lighting plan: Each outdoor luminaire equipped with a lamp that emits 3, 000 or more initial lumens shall be a full cutoff luminaire and shall be arranged or shielded to reflect light away from adjoining residential districts and away from 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 foot - candle. Revi : Comment addressed. 37. [32.6.2(k) & 4.171 One light appears to be located on the footbridge; revise accordingly. Rev1: Comment no longer valid; footbridge and light have been removed. 38. [32.6.2(j & k)] ARB approval of the landscape and lighting plans is required. Rev1: Comment still valid. 39. [Comment] This amendment cannot be approved until all comments from the Site Review Committee (SRC) have been addressed. Any comments not available at the time of the SRC meeting will be forwarded once received. Revi : Comment not fully addressed. VDOT, ACSA, Fire Rescue and RWSA must complete their reviews and grant their approval. Engineering has completed their review and has no objection. ARB comments have been provided. 40. [Comment] The landscape plan notes a lawn strip to the right of the building entrance, but the site plan shows a sidewalk; please clarify. 41. [Comment] The landscape plan shows "9 TN" near the entrance, but this plant is not included in the plant schedule; list all proposed plantings in the plant schedule. 42. [Comment] One the existing trees along the 29 frontage is labeled as "existing sugar maple, 12" & 9" caliper; clarify how one tree has two caliper measurements. Staff has provided references to provisions of Chapter 18 of the Code of the County of Albemarle. The Code is kept up to date by the County Attorney's office. The Code may found on the County Attorney's website which may be found under "Departments and Services" at Albemarle.org. In accord with the provisions of Section 32.4.3.5 of Chapter 18 of the Code if the developer fails to submit a revised final site plan to address all of the requirements within six (6) months after the date of this letter the application shall be deemed to have been voluntarily withdrawn by the developer. If you have any questions about the comments please feel free to contact me Sincerely, Ellie Carter Ray, PLA Senior Planner Planning Division { SHIMP PROJECT MANAGEMENT CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND PLANNING ENGINEERING ) November 3rd, 2015 Ms. Ellie Ray Albemarle County Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Regarding: Major Site Plan Amendment — Federal Express &Retail Office Buildings Phase 3 (2335 Seminole Lane), SDP 2015-00034 Comment Response Letter Dear Ms. Ray, Thank you for your review of the 2335 Seminole Lane Major Site Plan Amendment. We have reviewed and revised the plan per your most recent comments dated 08/14/15. See below for detailed responses to each of your comments. Major Site Plan Amendment: 1. The boundary dimensions shown along the river is on a tie line due to the fact that the actual northern most property line is based on the centerline of the Rivanna River. The tie line is shown per standard surveying conventions in such cases as this. 2. The text for FH and SS have been added to the cover sheet under Zoning. See sheet C1. 3. The previously recorded site plans associated with this property have been referenced on the cover sheet under"Zoning." 4. Setback lines are now shown and labeled on the site plan sheet. See sheet C3. 5. The zoning and present use of each abutting parcel is now shown on sheet C2. 6. The total parking provided with this site plan amendment has been updated to reflect the change is parking lot design/close of entrance. The text has also been updated to reflect a request of a parking reduction rather than a waiver. 7. A detailed land use schedule is now provided on the cover sheet under the heading "Land Use Schedule". See sheet C1. 8. A detailed land use schedule is now provided on the cover sheet under the heading "Land Use Schedule". See sheet C1. 9. With the overall scope changing for this site plan amendment, we are no longer showing proposed grading. 10. All preserved slopes are now shown and labeled correctly on sheet C2. 11. The critical slopes text on the cover sheet is now updated as requested. No disturbance within preserved slopes is shown. 12. Additional existing landscaping is now shown on the demo/overview sheet. Additional demo text was added for the landscaping to be removed. See the landscape plan on sheet L1.00 for detailed plant information to remain being used towards landscape requirements. All bold landscaping is to be removed as shown on sheet C2. 13. Additional text for the Rivanna River was added to the plan. See sheets C2 & C3. 14. Comment noted. Once approved the old floodplain limits line will be removed. 15. Dimensions for the existing travel ways within our limits of work are now shown on sheet C3. Nom, *are- 16. Additional labels and deed book references are now shown for the existing utility easements as shown on sheets C2 & C3. 17. The landscaping proposed within the VDOT right of way has been reduced. We have also been given verbal authorization for those proposed street trees. No other proposed landscaping is within the existing easements. All existing landscaping along the edge of the travelway/parking area is shown to remain. 18. Easement locations and labels have been added to landscape sheet L1.00. 19. All line work shown in bold is to be removed including portions of existing sidewalk/curb/pavement/parking spaces as shown and labeled on sheet C2. 20. Comment noted. Improvements have been shifted out of the VDOT right of way as requested. See sheet C3. 21. This site plan amendment has been revised to have a reduced scope of work. No new walls are now proposed. 22. No existing parking lot lighting exists on this site. All proposed outdoor light fixtures are now labeled on sheet C3, C4, and L1.00. 23. Curb radii are now labeled. Please see sheet C3. 24. Additional labels are now shown on sheet C3 calling out the existing parking space locations. There is a portion of parking that is restriped on the east side of the new building addition. 25. The previously proposed wooden bridge is no longer proposed with this resubmittal. 26. Bumper blocks are now shown in front of the proposed parking spaces along the 5' sidewalk. See sheet C3. 27. A legend is now shown on sheet C1 showing all standard symbols and line types used in this plan. 28. The scope of proposed landscaping has been greatly reduced. The only proposed landscaping within VDOT right of way is the required street trees. Boulders are no longer proposed. We have been given verbal approval for the street trees from VDOT. 29. The plant schedule has been updated to reflect the correct number of Nyssa sylvatica. 30. Existing trees remaining satisfying landscape requirements have been identified on landscape sheet L1.00. 31. The notation used previously for the limits of work and preservation area has been edited. See sheet L1.00. 32. The calculation demonstrating the minimum 5% landscaping area is now provided on sheet L1.01. 33. Existing and proposed parking lot trees are now identified and tabulated in calculations on sheet L1.01. 34. The conservation plan and checklist is now added to the plan. Additional calculations have been provided clarifying the area to be preserved. See L1.00 and L1.01. 35. The landscape canopy calculations have been updated. See sheet L1.01. 36. A detailed photometric plan is now provided as sheet C4. The standard lighting note has been added as requested. 37. The proposed lighting locations have been revised since the last submittal. We are currently showing only downlights on the building, and ornamental up lights along the proposed entranceway. No parking lot lighting mounted on traditional poles are proposed. 38. Comment noted. Plans were resubmitted to the ARB on September 25`h. 39. Comment noted. Fire & Rescue 1. The FDC is now shown on the east side of the building near the existing water meter vault. See sheet C3. 2. A new fire hydrant is shown on the east side of the building near the FDC. See sheet C3. 3. A new knox box location is shown on the south east corner of the building. See sheet C3. 4. The site plan amendment is no longer proposing to close the rear parking lot travelway. Existing fire access will remain. 5. A fire flow test has been requested on the existing fire hydrant on the back of the building. Noise Naomi If you have any questions or concerns about these revisions please feel free to call me at (434) 227-5140 and we can discuss any questions that you may have in further detail. Best Regards, hris Norvelle Shimp Engineering, P.C. waterss,et C O M M E N T R E S P O N S E DATE November 24, 2015 PROJECT ARB201500080 Riverside Medical TO Ellie Ray Carter FROM Pete Price SUBJECT Site Plan Amendment Comment Reponses PLANNING DIVISION COMMENTS 1. Comment addressed. 2. Comment addressed. 3. <SE> 4. Comment addressed 5. Comment addressed 6. <SE> 7. Comment addressed 8. Comment addressed 9. Comment addressed 10. Comment addressed 11. Comment addressed 12. Comment addressed 13. Comment addressed 14. <SE> 15. Comment addressed 16. Comment addressed 17. <SE> 18. All utilities and associated offsets have been added to Landscape plan.Trees have been relocated to avoid utility conflicts. 19. Comment addressed 20. Noted. 21. Comment addressed 22. Comment addressed 23. Comment addressed 24. Comment addressed 25. Comment addressed 26. Comment addressed 27. Comment addressed 28. Noted. 29. Comment addressed 30. Signed checklist has been added to the Plant Schedule 31. Limits of work line has been adjusted. The above record constitutes our understanding of the matters discussed and the decisions made.Please send any additions or corrections to the recorder within five(5)days of receipt. 418 East Main Street Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 434.295.8177 www.waterstreetstudio.net wateret 1 . 32. Pavement areas have been coordinated. 33. Comment addressed 34. Noted. 35. Comment addressed 36. <SE> 37. Comment addressed 38. Noted. 39. Noted. 40. Lawn strip will be implemented in the area of question. 41. Plants have been added to plant schedule 42. The existing tree is a double trunk tree. 418 East Main Street Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 434.295.8177 www.waterstreetstudio.net 5H' IMP PROJECT MANAGEMENT CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND PLANNING ENGINEERING December 10th, 2015 Ms. Ellie Ray Albemarle County Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Regarding: Major Site Plan Amendment—Federal Express &Retail Office Buildings Phase 3(2335 Seminole Lane), SDP 2015-00034 Comment Response Letter Dear Ms. Ray, Thank you for your review of the 2335 Seminole Lane Major Site Plan Amendment. We have reviewed and revised the plan per your most recent comments dated 11/18/15. See below for detailed responses to each of your comments. Major Site Plan Amendment: 3. The special use permit text under the zoning heading on sheet C1 has been revised as requested. 6. A formal parking reduction request will be completed and submitted to you and Ron Higgins directly. 14. The current flood plain line is now the only line shown. The proposed flood plain amendment line and label has been removed. Please see sheet C2 for the existing flood zone line as labeled "Limits of Flood Zone AE." 17. The 30' electric easement labels that are shown are from plats with no physical easement recorded and are simply granted within the deed text. It would be inaccurate of me to show a line as I have no way of knowing the exact limits of said easement. It would only be an assumption that it is centered on the line as surveyed from pole to pole. 18. See Water Street Studios Comment Response 20. See Water Street Studios Comment Response 28. We are coordinating with VDOT to complete the required landscape maintenance agreement and land use permit. A copy will be forwarded to you when complete. 30. See Water Street Studios Comment Response 31. The limits of work line has been adjusted slightly with this resubmittal. Also the text label for this line has been revised to"Phase Limits."The landscape plan has also been revised to match the line shown in the site plan. 32. The total pavement area shown on the cover sheet has been updated. The site plan and landscape plan areas are now coordinated. 34. See Water Street Studios Comment Response 36. The luminare schedule has been revised as you have noted. The correct lumen levels are now listed on the table and cutsheet. The lumen note on the landscape plan has been removed. Please see sheet C4 & L1. 38. Comment noted. We are resubmitting to the ARB for final approval. r 39. The plan has been revised per ARB comments. VDOT comments are also incorporated with this submittal. A separate comment response to VDOT, ACSA, RWSA, and ARB are attached. Fire and Rescue has no objection pending fire flow tests which are attached with this resubmittal. 40. The landscaping plan was correct. The site plan has been updated to show the demo of the existing sidewalk and the creation of a 5' grass strip in front of the restriped parking spaces. 41. See Water Street Studios Comment Response 42. See Water Street Studios Comment Response Fire& Rescue 1. The fire flow test that you requested is attached with this resubmittal. If you have any questions or concerns about these revisions please feel free to call me at (434) 227-5140 and we can discuss any questions that you may have in further detail. Best Regards, a, \ Chris Norvelle Shimp Engineering, P.C. Ellie Ray From: Victoria Fort <vfort @rivanna.org> Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 8:11 PM To: Ellie Ray Cc: Alex Morrison Subject: SDP201500034 Federal Express and Retail Office Building - Major Amendment Ellie, RWSA has reviewed the Major Site Plan Amendment for 2335 Seminole Trail (Federal Express and Retail Office Building) as prepared by Shimp Engineering and dated 7/6/2015 and has the following comments for the applicant. Sheet C2 of 4: 1. Show the RWSA 12" Ductile Iron waterline on this sheet. Sheet C3 of 4: 1. Show and label the RWSA 12" D.I. water line and easement on this sheet. 2. The proposed canopy at the building entrance encroaches on the RWSA waterline easement (D.B. 1045 -337). Either the canopy must be redesigned to allow RWSA to work within the easement area or the water line must be relocated. Sheet 11-1.00 (Landscape Plan): 1. Show the RWSA 12" D.I. waterline and easement on this sheet. 2. RWSA does not allow trees within its utility easements. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks a lot, Victoria Victoria Fort, P.E. Civil Engineer Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority 695 Moores Creek Lane Charlottesville, VA 22902 (P): (434) 977 -2970 ext. 205 (F): (434) 295 -1146 1 ACCREDITED LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Police Department 1600 5th Street, Suite D Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Phone: (434) 296 -5807 • Fax: (434) 972 -4061 Major Amendment Lead Reviewer: Ellie Ray Item Number: SDP201500034 Project Name: Federal Express and Retail Office Building — Major Amendment Due Date: August 17, 2015 4CCREDITED AGETyCV All Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (OPTED) recommendations are considered to be advisory. The recommendations are meant to be utilized as a design strategy to create a safer environment for the citizens of Albemarle County. I have no advisory CPTED recommendations for the request for a major site amendment. MPO Steve Watson, ICPS, CPD Albemarle County Police Department 434 - 872 -4558 Watsons@albemarle.org �'IRGII�ZP RE: SDP201500034 Federal Express and Retail Office Buildings — Major Amendment Dear Sir: Your Major Amendment application has been reviewed. In order for the amended site plan to be approved the following revisions are required: 1. [32.5.2(a)] Provide boundary dimensions for all boundary lines. Clarify the boundary line behind the building; it is shown differently on different sheets. 2. [32.5.2(a)] Add FH (Flood Hazard) and SS (Steep Slopes) to the Zoning information. 3. [32.5.2(a)] List all Special Use Permits (with conditions), waivers, and variances on the Cover Sheet. 4. [32.5.2(a)] Provide the setback, yard, and buffer lines on the site plan sheet. 5. [32.5.2(a)] Provide the zoning district and present use of abutting parcels. 6. [32.5.2(b)] The cover sheet indicates that a waiver is being requested for the parking requirement; a waiver is not required, but a parking reduction request must be submitted to and approved by Zoning (you may need to provide the net reduction from previous approved plans). Please revise the cover sheet accordingly. 7. [32.5.2(b)] Provide the maximum amount of impervious cover on the site. 8. [32.5.2(b)] Provide the maximum amount of paved parking and vehicular circulation. 9. [32.5.2(d)] Label the proposed topography on the site plan sheet. 10. [32.5.2(d)] Clearly show and label all steep slopes on the site. Change any reference to `critical slopes' to either `managed slopes' or `preserved slopes'. 11. [32.5.2(d)] The Cover Sheet references disturbance to `critical slopes' authorized by a previous waiver. Since slopes are not shown on the plan it is difficult to tell if any disturbance is actually proposed. If so, clearly show the area of disturbance. If not, please remove the note. 12. [32.5.2(e)] Show all existing landscape on the Site Overview and Landscape Plan sheets; GIS shows some that isn't included in the plans along the sides of the building. Make sure all landscaping to be removed is noted as such. 13. [32.5.2(f)] Clearly show and label the river adjacent to the site on the Site Overview and Site Plan sheets. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 August 14, 2015 Justin Shimp, P.E. 201 E. Main Street, Suite M Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: SDP201500034 Federal Express and Retail Office Buildings — Major Amendment Dear Sir: Your Major Amendment application has been reviewed. In order for the amended site plan to be approved the following revisions are required: 1. [32.5.2(a)] Provide boundary dimensions for all boundary lines. Clarify the boundary line behind the building; it is shown differently on different sheets. 2. [32.5.2(a)] Add FH (Flood Hazard) and SS (Steep Slopes) to the Zoning information. 3. [32.5.2(a)] List all Special Use Permits (with conditions), waivers, and variances on the Cover Sheet. 4. [32.5.2(a)] Provide the setback, yard, and buffer lines on the site plan sheet. 5. [32.5.2(a)] Provide the zoning district and present use of abutting parcels. 6. [32.5.2(b)] The cover sheet indicates that a waiver is being requested for the parking requirement; a waiver is not required, but a parking reduction request must be submitted to and approved by Zoning (you may need to provide the net reduction from previous approved plans). Please revise the cover sheet accordingly. 7. [32.5.2(b)] Provide the maximum amount of impervious cover on the site. 8. [32.5.2(b)] Provide the maximum amount of paved parking and vehicular circulation. 9. [32.5.2(d)] Label the proposed topography on the site plan sheet. 10. [32.5.2(d)] Clearly show and label all steep slopes on the site. Change any reference to `critical slopes' to either `managed slopes' or `preserved slopes'. 11. [32.5.2(d)] The Cover Sheet references disturbance to `critical slopes' authorized by a previous waiver. Since slopes are not shown on the plan it is difficult to tell if any disturbance is actually proposed. If so, clearly show the area of disturbance. If not, please remove the note. 12. [32.5.2(e)] Show all existing landscape on the Site Overview and Landscape Plan sheets; GIS shows some that isn't included in the plans along the sides of the building. Make sure all landscaping to be removed is noted as such. 13. [32.5.2(f)] Clearly show and label the river adjacent to the site on the Site Overview and Site Plan sheets. 14. [32.5.2(h)] The plan shows both the existing and proposed floodplain lines. The amended line must be approved prior to site plan approval. Once approved, the old line should be removed. 15. [32.5.2(i)] Provide travelway dimensions. 16. [32.5.2(j,k,I)] Verify that the location(s) and dimensions of all existing or proposed utilities and utility easements including water, sewer, drainage, telephone, cable, electric and gas are shown on the plan. Provide the Deed Book and Page reference for any existing easements. Any proposed easements should be labeled with the intended owner. 17. [32.5.2(1)] Clarify the location of the noted electric easements and provide authorization of any improvements proposed within the easements. 18. [32.5.2(j,k,I)] Show all easements on the site plan and landscape plan sheets to demonstrate no site conflicts exist. 19. [32.5.2(n)] Clarify the demolition areas; the pattern is inconsistent on the submitted copies and in some cases it is not clear where the demo area begins and ends. 20. [32.5.2(n)] Several improvements are shown outside of the subject parcel, within the public road right -of -way; VDOT must approve the location of these improvements. 21. [32.5.2(n)] Label and dimension all of the walls on the site plan sheet. 22. [32.5.2(n)] Label existing lighting and provide the location of proposed lighting on the site plan sheet. 23. [32.5.2(n)] Dimension curb radii. 24. [32.5.2(n)] Clarify the parking at the rear of the building; 15 spaces are noted but it's difficult to determine where the spaces are located. 25. [32.5.2(n)] Provide a detail for the proposed wood bridge with handrails and reference the detail on the site plan sheet. 26. [4.12.16(e))] Bumper blocks are required where parking abuts a sidewalk less than 6' in width. 27. [32.5.2(r)] Provide a legend showing all symbols, abbreviations and hatch patterns used on the site plan. 28. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.4] Landscaping is proposed outside of the subject parcel and possibly within easements; proof of authorization for these locations must be provided. 29. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.4(a)] The landscape schedule indicates 8 Nyssa sylvatica are provided, but the plan shows 12; revise accordingly. 30. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.4(b)] Existing trees may be preserved in lieu of planting new plant materials in order to satisfy the landscaping and screening requirements of section 32.7.9 or to meet conditions of approval, subject to the agent's approval. It seems that some of the Landscape Plan requirements are proposed to be met with existing vegetation. If this is the case, the landscape plan should show the trees to be preserved, the limits of clearing, the location and type of protective fencing, grade changes requiring tree wells or walls, and trenching or tunneling proposed beyond the limits of clearing. In addition, the applicant shall sign a conservation checklist approved by the agent to insure that the specified trees will be protected during construction. Except as otherwise expressly approved by the agent in a particular case, such checklist shall conform to specifications contained in the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook, pp III -284 through III -297, and as hereafter amended. This checklist must be signed, dated and included on the plans. 31. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.4(b)] Clarify the "limits of work" line /labels on the landscape plan. One label points to what appears to be the current flood plan line, which is confusing. A second label points to a line well beyond the "tree preserve area "; if that area is truly a preservation area then no work may occur within its limits. 32. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.6] Demonstrate that an area a minimum of 5% of the paved parking and vehicular circular area is landscaped in shrubs and trees. See section 32.7.9.6(a) for additional information on which areas can be counted toward this requirement. 33. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.6] Several of the `existing' large shade trees noted as satisfying the parking lot tree requirement could potentially be being used to meet the same requirement for phase 1. However, it appears there are existing trees not accounted for in the plans; please show all existing parking lot trees and include them in the landscape notes to demonstrate this requirement is met. 34. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.7] It appears that the existing trees behind the building are being used to satisfy the screening and buffer requirements. As noted above, please provide the conservation plan and checklist, and clarify the `limits of work' line. 35. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.8] The tree canopy information provided for a couple of the proposed plants is incorrect; Betula nigra at a 10' planting height provides 397 sf not 535, and Nyssa sylvatica provides 123 sf not 213. Additionally, it appears that in some cases a custom canopy calculation has been provided when the planting size is larger than the minimum but it has not been done consistently; if custom calculations are used, please do so consistently and indicate with a note that this type of calculation has been employed. For the sake of clarity, if custom calculations aren't needed to meet the requirement use the standard tree canopy values. 36. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] Provide a photometric plan including a luminaire schedule. The photometric plan must provide the following: • The photometric values should extend to the property lines to verify the spillover requirement is met (or show less than 0.5 fc before the property line). • Manufacturer's cut - sheets indicating lumen level for each proposed fixture shall be included in the plan set; fixtures 3000 lumen or higher (using a maintenance factor of 1.0) must meet the County's definition of full cutoff. • The model numbers shown on the cut - sheets must match those listed in the luminaire schedule. • Light fixtures should be shown on the layout /utility plans to verify that no site conflicts exist. • Show all existing and proposed light fixtures; all fixtures must be included in the photometric calculations. • Provide the following standard lighting note on the lighting plan: Each outdoor luminaire equipped with a lamp that emits 3, 000 or more initial lumens shall be a full cutoff luminaire and shall be arranged or shielded to reflect light away from adjoining residential districts and away from 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 foot - candle. 37. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] One light appears to be located on the footbridge; revise accordingly 38. [32.6.2(j & k)] ARB approval of the landscape and lighting plans is required. 39. [Comment] This amendment cannot be approved until all comments from the Site Review Committee (SRC) have been addressed. Any comments not available at the time of the SRC meeting will be forwarded once received. Staff has provided references to provisions of Chapter 18 of the Code of the County of Albemarle. The Code is kept up to date by the County Attorney's office. The Code may found on the County Attorney's website which may be found under "Departments and Services" at Albemarle.org. In accord with the provisions of Section 32.4.3.5 of Chapter 18 of the Code if the developer fails to submit a revised final site plan to address all of the requirements within six (6) months after the date of this letter the application shall be deemed to have been voluntarily withdrawn by the developer. If you have any questions about the comments please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Ellie Carter Ray, PLA Senior Planner Planning Division Ellie Ray From: Alex Morrison <amorrison @serviceauthority.org> Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 3:21 PM To: Ellie Ray Subject: SDP201500034: Federal Express and Retail Office Building - Major Amendment Ellie, I have reviewed the above referenced plan. I have the following comments: • Label the existing ACSA Water Infrastructure by material and size. • Label the existing ACSA Sewer infrastructure by material and size. • Correctly show the water meter service lines and fire lines on the east side of the building. • Any internal plumbing changes will require water meter size verification by the ACSA prior to a building permit being approved. In addition to the above comments it appears that the proposed overhang is encroaching into an RWSA waterline easement. The plan is under review by RWSA staff as well. Thank you. Alexander J. Morrison, P.E. Civil Engineer Albemarle County Service Authority 168 Spotnap Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22911 (0) 434 - 977 -4511 Ext. 116 (C) 434 - 981 -5577 (F) 434 - 979 -0698 r.' COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSFUR i R i iUR :60: Qrpega Rmu CWpeper, Wginia 22701 M.rlvo A. Kilpatrick, P.E. ,-ommissioner August i t, 201 Ms. Ellie Caner Ray of Albemarle Depanmen, of Community Development �+N ivicintire moan Charlottesville, VA 22902 Kv: our -2015 -00034 FedEx and Retail Office Building -Major Amendment Dear tvis. Kay: We have reviewed FedEx and Ketah Vti,ve t3�ail...� -major Amendment, dated July 06, 2015, as sumn.itca o, Shimt. Enbineerinb, and we have the following concerns: t. t he first entrance rro... Kt. 29 needs to be removed. The second enkrance will be used to access this property. 2. The proposed patio area needs to outside of the right -of -way. .s. t nw iroo standinb wall, for the water feature, will also need to be re- located outside of ine rignt- of -way. 4. The stone oouiae,. „na --m ne re- located outside of the right-of-way. If you need further information concz,-ning this prujcct please uu not hesitate to COntact me at (434) 422 -9894. Sincerely, Sneuy A. P1abtet Lm-.d Devemp ... ent Engineer Culpeper District 701 VDOT Way Charlottesville_ Virginia 22911 Ellie Ray From: Ron Higgins Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2015 5:27 PM To: Justin Deel; Ellie Ray; Glenn Brooks Subject: Riverside Planning meeting Folks: It would be helpful to discuss what the appropriate process would be for their dealing with the Flood Plain. I think part of the confusion (on my part) is that the FP was revised in 2010?, 2011?, long after this facility and the buildings were approved and constructed. It included this larger area running up through the site with no apparent relationship to the contours it seems. If they do not pursue some type of amendment(LOMA) then there is likely no way we can approve these occupied buildings with some sort of SP. I might be missing something, so meeting to discuss would help. From: Justin Deel Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2015 4:24 PM To: Ron Higgins; Ellie Ray; dtimmerman @brucewardell.com Cc: Margaret Maliszewski; Troy Austin Subject: RE: Riverside Planning meeting Please see added comments from Glenn Brooks, County Engineer, in green. Justin Deel Department of Community Development County of Albemarle, Virginia 434.296.5832 ext. 3565 From: Ron Higgins Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2015 3:28 PM To: Ellie Ray; dtimmerman @brucewardell.com Cc: Margaret Maliszewski; Troy Austin; Justin Deel Subject: FW: Riverside Planning meeting Folks: My comments/changes below in yellow. From: Ellie Ray Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2015 4:51 PM To: David Timmerman Cc: Ron Higgins; Justin Deel; Margaret Maliszewski Subject: RE: Riverside Planning meeting David, Here is a summary of what was discussed in yesterday's pre-application meeting: 1. You are proposing changes to the building numbered 2335 on what the County refers to as the FedEx Site, IMP 045B1-06-00-001B0. These include: a. Changing the use to a 'medical mall' (while possibly maintaining the restaurant portion of the building) b. Overall architectural changes to the building c. Adding an entrance canopy to the building, which will result in the loss of three parking spaces d. Adding an enclosed stair to the back of the building, which may also result in a small loss in parking e. Changing the site lighting 1 f. Possible changes to site landscaping g. Possible addition of a healing garden 2. Ron Higgins (Zoning) said that they should calculate the required parking and compare it against the number that will remain. He said the requirement for offices is 1 space/200 sq. ft. NET office area. He said he doesn't believe it will be a problem, but the applicants will need to verify. 3. Troy Austin (VDOT) said with any proposed changes to the site VDOT will ask that the closest entrance to Route 29 be closed. Ron Higgins said he recalls a previous plan where the entrance closure was required but then allowed to remain in a subsequent approval; he will look into the history on this and let us know the outcome. Ron will research this further, although it may not affect the current requirements of VDOT. 4. Robbie Gilmer(Fire Rescue) said the healing garden in the location shown (which would remove the existing travelway between the building and Route 29) would require an approved turn-around be installed at the end of the parking lot behind the building. There doesn't appear to be enough space on-site to support the required turn-around area, so the healing garden would need to be relocated in such a way to allow the existing travelway do remain. 5. Justin Deel (Engineering) spoke about the need for a Special Permit for fill in the floodplain, and/or a LOMR to update the location of the floodplain. Justin said he would follow up on this and let you know what is required. Ron Higgin :The largely out of sync flood plain boundary was apparently addressed in the 1989 SP, but a LOMA was never done to correct the maps. No new SP will be needed but the LOMA will be needed as per engineering. Glenn Brooks: - A Floodplain Development Permit is required (18-30.112), This permit will require a Fioodplain Impact Plan per 18-30.3.13,A.1. Encroachments due to fill will need to be studied to quantify possible impacts. Fill in the I loodway fringe requires a special use permit (1.8-30.3.11). We cannot find that all the fill in the floodplain on this site has a special use perrnit approval, The SP copy provided at the meeting does not appear to encompass all the fill placed in the floodplain. This site appears to be out of compliance with the floodplain overlay district. Ultimately; this is a zoning administrator and planning director decision, whether to require a special use permit to correct the situation, As it stands, the structures on-site are in the r EM.A floodplain as shown on the neap. This is not permitted tinder 18-30:3.11. No permits or approvals should be allowed to modify these structures or uses until they are out of the FEM:A designated floodplain. This is typically done through a FEMA LOMB as given in 18- 30.3.10 and 18-30.3.13. - Part of the duties of the Floodplain Administrator are to ensure all structures are reasonably safe from flooding. (44CFR 60.3a)To this end, the pond adjacent to this property, and the stormsewerconveyances through this property, will need to be examined for flooding concerns. Areas of localized flooding which remain unaddressed will not be recommended for further development. 6. We spoke about the various applications required to gain approval of your proposed changes. These include: a. An ARB application. You spoke with Margaret separately concerning the ARB application, so I assume you know what is required. b. A Site Plan Amendment. I spoke with my supervisor and he confirmed that due to the ARB application, this should be processed as a Major Amendment. See below for additional information and links. You discussed some interior changes to the building, but interior changes are not required to be shown on the site plan. The site plan amendment(regardless of whether it's a LOR, Minor or Major) cannot be approved until the ARB application and WPO application (if required) are approved. c. A WPO (water protection ordinance) application. I believe this is required if the proposed site disturbance is greater than 10,000 SF, but you may want to confirm with Justin. 7. One thing we didn't discuss that we probably should have is that any proposed drive-thru requires a Special Permit. You didn't say a drive-thru is part of any of the ideas about this site, but I thought I'd mention it just in case. 2 Here is a link to the Site Plan Submittal and Review Schedule: http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/forms center/departments/Community Development/forms/schedules/Site Plan Subdivision & Tier II Wireless Schedule.pdf Here is a link to the ARB Submittal and Review Schedule: http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/forms center/departments/Community Development/forms/arb applicatio ns/Architectural Review Board Schedule.pdf As discussed, you'll notice that the same submittal deadline gets you to the ARB on the Monday of the week of the SRC meeting (on Thursday). The Major Amendment schedule is designed to work in concert with the ARB schedule. Other hopefully useful links: The Site Plan Amendment Policy: http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/forms center/departments/Community Development/forms/applications/Si te Plan - Amendment Policy.pdf The Site Review Manual: http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/forms center/departments/Community Development/forms/applications/Si te Plan Review Manual.pdf This attempts to explain our process. A Major Amendment goes through both the Initial & Final Plan processes, but with just one application instead of two. Ron &Justin—if you don't mind, when you get more information on the items noted above, please reply on this email so we'll all know what's going on. If I've missed anything or you have any additional questions,just let me know. Thanks, Ellie Carter Ray, PLA, _EED GREEN AssocjA rr Senior Planner Albemarle County Community Development ph: 434.296.5832 x. 3432 From: David Timmerman [mailto:dtimmerman@brucewardell.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2015 9:22 AM To: Ellie Ray Subject: RE: Riverside Planning meeting Thank you, Ellie. That would be great. I just thought of another question—do you have a schedule of Submission dates(assuming we are doing a minor or major revision)? Thanks again! David david timmerman brw architects 1 12 4th street ne charlottesville virginia 22902 [p] 434 . 971 . 7160 [f] 434 . 971 . 7166 www.brw-architects.com From: Ellie Ray [mailto:erayOalbemarle.orq] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 4:48 PM 3 To: David Timmerman Subject: RE: Riverside Planning meeting David, Nice meeting you as well. We don't normally put together anything formal for exploratory type pre-app meetings, but since there are so many unresolved issues on this one I'll try to write something up tomorrow. I will also copy the others that attended the meeting that need to provide additional information and ask that they respond to the email when they have answers. If tomorrow gets crazy, it could be later in the week...but I will get something to you. Thanks, Ellie Carter Ray, PLA, EED GREEN ASSOCIATE Senior Planner Albemarle County Community Development ph: 434.296.5832 x. 3432 From: David Timmerman [mailto:dtimmerman@brucewardell.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 4:26 PM To: Ellie Ray Subject: Riverside Planning meeting Hi Ellie, It was nice meeting you this afternoon.Thanks for all your input. I was wondering if you do in-house notes for those meetings and if so can you send me a copy? I look forward to hearing how the pre-app review goes later this week and whether we apply for the minor site plan amendment. Thanks again, David david timmerman brw architects 1 1 2 4th street ne charlottesville virginia 22902 [p] 434 . 971 . 7160 [f ] 434 . 971 . 7166 www.brw-architects.00m 4