Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201500044 Correspondence 2016-04-150 S i 0401 TIMMONS GROUP YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS. April 12, 2016 Ellie Carter Ray, PLA Senior Planner Albemarle County Community Development 401 McIntire Rd, North Wing Charlottesville, VA 22902 111 West High Street P 434.295.5624 Charlottesville, VA 22902 F 434.295.8317 www.timmons.com RE: SDP201500044 - Branchlands Whistler House — Major Amendment —Comment Response Dear Ms. Ray: We have reviewed all of your comments from December 8, 2015 and made the necessary revisions. Please find our responses to the comments below in bold lettering. 14. [32.5.2(i)] Access to this site and much of the necessary parking seems to be provided on adjacent parcels; clarify if easements are already in place. Rev 1: Comment not fully addressed. Much of the parking is provided on TMP61 Z-3-5D; is an easement in place, or should this parcel be included in the application? For your reference a copy of the parking agreement has been included with this submission. The signed and notarized agreement will be submitted to the county attorney. 32. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9] Provide a landscape plan that meets the requirements of 32.7.9 including a plant schedule listing plant species and size. Rev 1: Comment not addressed. See comments below. See responses below. 33. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9] Provide notes to verify compliance with landscape plan requirements (32.7.9.5., 32.7.9.6, 32.7.9.7 and 32.7.9.8). Rev 1: Comment not addressed; show and provide notes indicating how the plan meets the sections listed. The modified parking lot on TMP61 Z-3-5D will need to be shown on the plan to demonstrate that street landscaping and parking lot landscaping requirements are adequately met (this may have been done with the site plan that created that parking lot, but will need to be shown on this plan since the parking lot is changing). Tree canopy information for all plants that will be 5' or taller should be provided to demonstrate the tree canopy requirement has been met. CIVIL ENGINEERING I ENVIRONMENTAL I SURVEYING I GIs I LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE I CONSTRUCTION SERVICES The existing landscaping shown on TMP 61 Z-3-5D does not match what was shown on the approved site plan or meet the street tree and shrub requirements; please add street trees and screening shrubs for the parl<ing as required by this section (if shrubs are present adjacent to the existing parl<ing, show them on the plan. The existing tree species have been updated to match the approved plan. Street Trees have been added along Branchlands Dr. Screening requirements are being met via existing shrubs adjacent to the parking. These shrubs have been shown more clearly on the plans. See Sheet LO.1. 4. Please remove the landscape tables from the cover sheet; they are inconsistent with what was provided on sheet LO.1. The landscape tables have been removed from Sheet CO.0. 7. Awaiting letter/email from the Branchlands Property Owner's Association. Per conversation between yourself and LJ Lopez (Owners Rep) the meeting with the HOA has taken place and they are ok with the proposed landscaping. 38. Still awaiting letter/email from Branchlands Property Owner's Association. Per conversation between yourself and LJ Lopez (Owners Rep) the meeting with the HOA has taken place and they are ok with the proposed landscaping. 41. The manage steep slopes hatching on Sheet CO. I is no longer shown; please show the hatching as it was on previous submittals. The hatching is shown. The pattern on the hatch has been updated to improve the readability of the plans (Stipple pattern). See Sheet CO. I. We have included PDF copies of the plans and calculations for your review. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to give me a call at 434.964.7148. Sincerely, 0-4-4�- C�C� Craig Kotarsld, PE Senior Project Manager CIVIL ENGINEERING | ENVIRONMENTAL | SURVEYING | GIS | LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE | CONSTRUCTION SERVICES 111 West High Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 P 434.295.5624 F 434.295.8317 www.timmons.com March 11, 2016 Ellie Carter Ray, PLA Senior Planner Albemarle County Community Development 401 McIntire Rd, North Wing Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: SDP201500044 - Branchlands Whistler House – Major Amendment –Comment Response Dear Ms. Ray: We have reviewed all of your comments from December 8, 2015 and made the necessary revisions. Please find our responses to the comments below in bold lettering. 14. [32.5.2(i)] Access to this site and much of the necessary parking seems to be provided on adjacent parcels; clarify if easements are already in place. Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. Much of the parking is provided on TMP61Z-3-5D; is an easement in place, or should this parcel be included in the application? A parking agreement is in the process of being made; when the document has been completed it shall be submitted to Zoning for review and approval. 19. [32.5.2(l)] The plan notes the vacation of an existing VEPCO easement; has this vacation been authorized? Rev 1: Comment not fully addressed. The comment response letter indicates this easement is in the process of being vacated; documentation must be provided once completed. Documentation has been provided via email that Dominion is willing to vacate the easement. 20. [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 fully addressed. ACSA will need to approve all proposed planting within the sewer easement. ACSA has approved the plan. All easements have been shown on the plan. 32. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9] Provide a landscape plan that meets the requirements of 32.7.9 including a plant schedule listing plant species and size. Rev1: Comment not addressed. See comments below. See responses below. 33. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9] Provide notes to verify compliance with landscape plan requirements (32.7.9.5., 32.7.9.6, 32.7.9.7 and 32.7.9.8). Rev1: Comment not addressed; show and provide notes indicating how the plan meets the sections listed. The modified parking lot on TMP61Z-3-5D will need to be shown on the plan to demonstrate that street landscaping and parking lot landscaping requirements are adequately met (this may have been done with the site plan that created that parking lot, but will need to be shown on this plan since the parking lot is changing). Tree canopy information for all plants that will be 5’ or taller should be provided to demonstrate the tree canopy requirement has been met. 1. The modified parking lot on TMP61Z-3-5D is still not shown on the site plan. This parking lot needs to be shown to verify that section 32.7.9.5 (Landscaping along streets) has been met. SDP1996-119 was approved with both street trees and screening shrubs as required by this section, but GIS does not show either as being present on the site. Include the parking lot on the plan and either existing or new landscaping that meets this section. Please also add one street tree to the street frontage in front of the proposed building (TMP61Z-3-5A). The entire parking lot has been shown on plan Sheet L0.1. One additional Street Tree has been added in front of the proposed building. See Sheet L1.0. 2. Section 32.7.9.6: This section (landscaping within a parking area) has likely been met, but the note provided indicates the 5% requirement is tree canopy, when the actual requirement is ground area. Provide a note indicating at least 5% of the paved parking and vehicular circulation area has been provided in landscaped ground area in islands. Additionally, it looks like one large shade tree has been provided (existing or proposed) for every 10 parking spaces but a note should be included listing the requirement and what has been provided. A summary of the landscape requirements for TMP61Z-3-5D has been added to the plans. See Sheet L0.1 3. Section 32.7.9.7: This section (screening) has been met through the proposed dumpster enclosure. (This note included for record keeping purposes) 4. Section 32.7.9.8: This section (tree canopy) appears to have been met, but there are a few inconsistencies between the plant schedule on the cover and the one provided on the Landscape plan sheet; verify that any plants being used to meet the tree canopy requirement are consistent in both schedules. Additionally, it is unclear what the new table on the Cover “Existing Trees per As-Built Landscape Plan” is demonstrating. You need to show that the two subject parcels (TMP61Z- 3-5A and TMP61Z-3-5D) have adequate canopy, but this table does not provide information regarding where these trees are located. Show the locations of any trees being used to meet this requirement and either remove the “as-built” landscape chart or revise it to say something like “existing landscape used toward tree canopy requirement” Refer to Sheet L0.1 for a tree canopy calculation of all trees used to meet landscaping requirements. For clarification, the planting design schedule on Sheet L1.0 is the construction planting schedule and denotes all trees to be installed as a part of the project to help the contractor provide accurate pricing. “As-built” has been removed from the table on Sheet L0.1 this table has been updated to show compliance with all landscaping requirements for TMP61Z-3-5D. 5. Make sure the plant schedule includes information regarding the minimum planting size of all proposed plants used to meet landscape plan requirements. All plant schedules show the minimum installed planting size of all plants. See Sheets L1.0 & L0.1. 6. The demolition plan only shows four existing trees as being removed; please add a note stating that no other existing landscaping is being removed with this plan. This note has been added to the plans. See Sheet L0.1. 7. A landscaping easement will be needed for any off-site landscaping used to meet Landscaping Plan requirements or condition of SP approval. Per email conversation dated 2/29/16 between John Wilson, Ellie Ray, and Craig Kotarski, a letter or email will be provided from the property owners association that they have reviewed the screening fence/landscaping. 34. [SP201400010 Condition #7] Consult with Branchlands Property Owners Association regarding landscaping and fencing on the southwest side of the building. Rev1: Comment still valid; please have the Branchlands Property Owners Association representative contact me with their comments after your meeting. The meeting is being scheduled; a letter or email from the Owners Association representative will be provided after the meeting takes place. 38. [Comment] If any off-site easements are necessary, show them on the plan and consult with Engineering about documentation necessary prior to site plan approval. Rev1. Comment still valid. All easements have been shown on the plans. 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. Rev1: Comment still valid. ACSA and inspections must complete their reviews and grant their approval before the site plan can be approved. Engineering and Fire Rescue comments have been provided. The WPO application must also be approved. ACSA, Inspections and Engineering have approved the plan. The WPO plan is all but approved, with the exception of providing proof of nutrient credit purchase, and bonds. We have included PDF copies of the plans and calculations for your review. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to give me a call at 434.964.7148. Sincerely, Craig Kotarski, PE Project Manager TIMMONS GROUP YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS. January 19, 2016 Ellie Carter Ray, PLA Senior Planner Albemarle County Community Development 401 McIntire Rd, North Wing Charlottesville, VA 22902 111 West High Street P 434.295.5624 Charlottesville, VA 22902 F 434.295.8317 www.timmons.com RE: SDP201500044 - Branchlands Whistler House — Major Amendment — Comment Response Dear Ms. Ray: We have reviewed all of your comments from December 8, 2015 and made the necessary revisions. Please find our responses to the comments below in bold lettering. 8. [32.5.2(b)] Provide the maximum height of the proposed building as defined in the Zoning Ordinance. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. However, please note that there will be step -backs in the building as a solid building wall of that height is not permitted. The building height note has been updated to mention that step - backs are provided. See "Site Data" Sheet C0.0. 11. [32.5.2(b)] Provide the maximum amount of paved parking and vehicular circulation. Rev. 1: Comment not addressed. Provide this number for use in the landscape plan calculations. A table has been added to the cover verifying landscape parking requirements. See "TMP 61 Z -3 -5d Parking Area Landscape Summary" on Sheet C0.0. 14. [32.5.2(1)] Access to this site and much of the necessary parking seems to be provided on adjacent parcels; clarify if easements are already in place. Rev 1: Comment not fully addressed. Much of the parking is provided on TMP61Z -3 -5D; is an easement in place, or should this parcel be included in the application? A parking agreement is in the process of being made; when the document has been completed it shall be submitted to Zoning for review and approval. 19. [32.5.2(1)] The plan notes the vacation of an existing VEPCO easement; has this vacation been authorized? Rev 1: Comment not fully addressed. The comment response letter indicates this easement is in the process of being vacated; documentation must be provided once completed. CIVIL ENGINEERING I ENVIRONMENTAL I SURVEYING I GIs I LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE I CONSTRUCTION SERVICES We are in the process of getting written authorization from the easement holder saying they are willing to vacate the easement. Once we have it we shall submit it for review and approval. 20. [32.5.2(j,k,l)] Show all easements on the site plan and landscape plan sheets to demonstrate no site conflicts exist. Rev 1: Comment not fully addressed. ACSA will need to approve all proposed planting within the sewer easement. Acknowledged. 23. [32.5.2(n)] Dimension and provide the maximum height of all proposed retaining walls. Rev 1: Comment not fully addressed. Provide the maximum height of the walls on the north side of the building. Please also label and dimension the canopy over the building entrance. Retaining wall heights have been added to the northern retaining walls. The building canopy has been labeled and dimensioned. See "Layout & Utilities" Sheet C4.0. 32. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9] Provide a landscape plan that meets the requirements of 32.7.9 including a plant schedule listing plant species and size. Rev 1: Comment not addressed. See comments below. Acknowledged, See responses below. 33. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9] Provide notes to verify compliance with landscape plan requirements (32.7.9.5., 32.7.9.6, 32.7.9.7 and 32.7.9.8). Rev 1: Comment not addressed; show and provide notes indicating how the plan meets the sections listed. The modified parking lot on TMP61Z -3 -5D will need to be shown on the plan to demonstrate that street landscaping and parking lot landscaping requirements are adequately met (this may have been done with the site plan that created that parking lot, but will need to be shown on this plan since the parking lot is changing). Tree canopy information for all plants that will be 5' or taller should be provided to demonstrate the tree canopy requirement has been met. A table has been added to the cover verifying landscape parking requirements. See "TMP 61 Z -3 -5d Parking Area Landscape Summary" on Sheet C0.0. 34. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9] The demolition plan indicates the removal of three large trees on the adjacent parcel. Are these trees being replaced? Were they used to meet landscape requirements on the associated site plan? Rev 1: Comment not addressed. The comment response letter indicates that the trees will be replaced, but the landscape plan does not seem to show this; please clarify. There is also now another tree within the parking lot noted as being removed, but its replacement isn't referenced on the landscape plan. These trees are now shown on the landscape plan. They have been replaced with trees having a canopy that equals or is greater than the trees removed. See Sheet L 1.0. 35. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] Is any outdoor lighting proposed? If so, provide a photometric plan including a Iuminaire schedule. The photometric plan must provide the following: The photometric values should extend to the property lines to verify the spillover requirement is met. 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 and landscape 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 rods and property in residential or rural area zoning districts shall not exceed one -half foot - candle. Rev 1: Comment not fully addressed. Provide a cut sheet for the relocated light pole to verify it meets the current lighting regulations (must be full cutoff). Revise the photometric plan using a LLF of 1.0 for al fixtures to verify that the spillover on to the townhouse lots on Lilac Court is under 0.5 fc. The lights previously called out to be relocated are now being removed; see "Demolition Plan" Sheet C2.0. The photometric plan has been updated to use a LLF of 1.0, see Sheet E 1.0. 38. [SP201400010 Condition #7] Consult with Branchlands Property Owners Association regarding landscaping and fencing on the southwest side of the building. Rev 1: Comment still valid; please have the Branchlands Property Owners Association representative contact me with their comments after your meeting. Acknowledged. 39. [Comment] If any off -site easements are necessary, show them on the plan and consult with Engineering about documentation necessary prior to site plan approval. Rev 1. Comment still valid. We are in the process of consulting with engineering about what off site easements should be shown in documented. 40. [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. Rev 1: Comment still valid. ACSA and inspections must complete their reviews and grant their approval before the site plan can be approved. Engineering and Fire Rescue comments have been provided. The WPO application must also be approved. Acknowledged. Fire Rescue Comments by Robbie Gilmer: 1. Awaiting the Fire Flow Test for final approval. Results of the fire flow test have been provided with this submission. Justin Deel, Engineering Comment: 4. Show existing managed slopes on plan. Please make your drawings match the overlay district maps. Proposed retaining walls, cuts /fills, etc., on slopes that are marked as managed slopes must follow the design guidelines of ACC 18- 30.7.5. This cannot be confirmed, as the overlay is not being shown. (Rev. 1) The maximum single retaining wall height within the steep (managed) slopes overlay district is 6 feet [ 18- 30.7.5]. This plan proposes retaining walls within the managed slopes overlay district in excess of 6 feet in 2 locations; at the proposed retaining wall along the western portion of the site and at the proposed walls between the existing building and proposed building. Walls that are incorporated into the design of a building are not subject to this limitation. Please request that the applicant adjust the design at these locations to meet the design standards in 18- 30.7.5. The retaining walls have been updated to ensure that walls in the managed slopes overlay district are less than 6.0' in height. See "Grading Spot Shots" Sheet C4.1. We have included PDF copies of the plans and calculations for your review. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to give me a call at 434.964.7148. Sincerely, Craig Kotarski, PE Project Manager f� TIMMONS GROUP YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS. November 17, 2015 Ellie Carter Ray Senior Planner County of Albemarle Community Development 401 McIntire Road North Wing Charlottesville, Va. 22902 -4596 RE: SDP201500044 Branchlands Whistler House — Major Amendment - Comment Response Letter Dear Ms. Ray: We have reviewed all of your comments from October 2, 2015 and made the necessary revisions. Please find our responses to the individual comments below: Planning Division (Ellie Carter Ray): 1) [32.5.2(a)] Revise the title to indicate this plan amends SDP200100102. The title has been revised to indicate that this plan amends SDP200100102. See Sheet C0.0. 2) [32.5.2(a)] List previous ZMA and SP on the cover sheet (ZMA 198000026 & SP 198000063). The previous ZMA and SP have been listed on the cover sheet. See "Site Data — Zoning" on Sheet C0.0. 3) [32.5.2(a)] Setbacks need to be established with this plan; provide a minimum (and maximum, if you wish) front, side and rear setback requirement. It looks like the minimum setback for the SW property line was established with the SP to be 20'6 ", for clarity you may want to make it 21 V. The other side can have a different setback if desired. See next comment for guidance on front and rear setbacks. Setbacks have been added to this plan. The Front Setback shall be 0 Ft, the Rear Setback shall be 20 Ft and the Side Setback along the southwest property line shall be 20.5 Ft and 0 Ft for the northeast property line. See "Site Data" Sheet C0.0. 4) (32.5.2(a) & SP201400010 Condition #I] The proposed building is closer to the property lines in both the front and rear than what was shown on the approved application plan; please consult with Zoning for a determination on whether or not this conforms with the application plan and what the minimum setbacks should be to maintain conformity. Acknowledged. 5) [32.5.2(a)] Provide the total number of sheets. The total number of sheets has been provided. See Sheet C0.0. 0 6 C cu r V C C d E 0 v 0 a Cq Ln CPI N M n N 10 Vl Ln N V- V- I e 0 M C 0 E November 18, 2015 Page 2 of 7 6) [32.5.2(a)] Provide the zoning district and present use of abutting parcels. Provide the required information on all adjacent parcels; at least one isn't labeled. This information has been added to the plans. See "Existing Conditions" Sheet C2.0. 7) [32.5.2(b)] Provide information regarding the amount of open space provided; the approved SP application plan indicated 25% was provided but this site plan doesn't reference open space. The amount of open space provided has been shown on the plans. See "Site Data" Sheet CO.0. 8) [32.5.2(b)] Provide the maximum height of the proposed building as defined in the Zoning Ordinance. Building height has been provided. See "Site Data" Sheet CO.0. 9) [32.5.2(b)] Note where parking is being removed including how many spaces in each area. Clearly show where parking is being removed as well as where its being replaced (replaced should be indicated with black lines not grey). Parking removed has been shown on "Demolition Plan" Sheet C2.0. Proposed or replaced parking has been shown on "Layout and Utilities" Sheet C4.0. There is a net gain of I parking space. 10) [32.5.2 (b)SP2014000 10] Comments provided below and by Engineering may result in the loss of additional parking spaces; if so, consult with Zoning to determine if this is in conformity with the approved application plan. A parking determination may be required. Acknowledged, there is a net gain of I parking space no parking determination is required. I I) [32.5.2 (b)] Provide the maximum amount of paved parking and vehicular circulation. The number of proposed spaces has been added to the plans. See "Site Data - Parking" Sheet CO.0. Vehicular Circulation has been added to the plans, See "Layout and Utilities" Sheet C4.0. 12) [32.5.2(d)] Clearly show and label all managed slopes on the site. Managed slopes have been shown on the plan. See Sheet CO. I. 13) [32.5.2(i)] Provide all travelway dimensions. All travelways have been dimensioned. See "Layout and Utilities" Sheet C4.0. 14) [32.5.2(i)] Access to this site and much of the necessary parking seems to be provided on adjacent parcels; clarify if easements are already in place. Access easements are already in place. See "Existing Conditions" Sheet C2.0. 15) [32.5.2(i)] The entrance travelway is not a consistent width resulting is parking that is not parallel in configuration; if the blank grey area across the travelway at a consistent 24' or indicate angled parking spaces in this area. The layout has been updated to provide a one -way travel width of 24' and perpendicular parking. The one exception being where the travelway narrows to 20.8' due to the curbed island across from the building entrance. The parking stalls in this area are 10'x 18' to provide compliance with 4.12.16(C.1). November 18, 2015 Page 3 of 7 16) [32.5.2(i)& 4.12.16(c)(I)] The minimum travelway width adjacent to 9' wide parking is 24'. In some areas this standard is not met; either remove parking, increase parking space width to 10' or adjust the travelway to meet this standard. The parking layout has been updated all stalls are 9'x 18'. The one exception being where the travelway narrows to 20.8' due to the curbed island across from the building entrance. The parking stalls in this area are 10'x 18' to provide compliance with 4.12.16(C.1). 17) (32.5.2(1) &4.12.17(c)] The minimum two -way travelway width not adjacent to parking is 20'. In some areas this standard is not met; either provide 20' travelways or indicate one -way travel and direction. Travel way widths have been update. Areas that shall be one -way are indicated with striping and signage. See "Layout and Utilities" Sheet C4.0. 18) [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. Acknowledged. All existing and proposed easements have been shown on the site plan. 19) [32.5.2 (I)] The plan notes the vacation of an existing VESPCO easement; has this vacation been authorized? This easement is in the process of being vacated. 20) [32.5.2(j,k,l)] Show all easements on the site plan and landscape plan sheets to demonstrate no site conflicts exist. All easements have been shown on the site plan and landscape plans. 21) [32.5.2(m)] Show the distance to the centerline of the nearest existing street intersection from the proposed ingress /egress. The distance to Greenbrier Dr. and Incarnation Dr. have been added to the plans. See "Layout and Utilities" Sheet C4.0. 22) [32.5.2(n)] Dimension all walkways. All walkways have been dimensioned. See "Layout and Utilities" Sheet C4.0. 23) [32.5.2(n)] Dimension and provide the maximum height of all proposed retaining walls. Retaining wall dimensions and height have been added to the plans. See "Layout and Utilities" Sheet C4.0. 24) [32.5.2(n)] Dimension the dumpster pad and loading area. Dimensions have been added to the dumpster pad and loading area. See "Layout and Utilities" Sheet C4.0. 25) (32.5.2(n)& 4.12.18(d)] Delineate the loading area as required by 4.12.18(d). The loading area has been delineated per 4.12.18(d). See "Layout and Utilities" Sheet C4.0. 26) [32.5.2(n)] Dimension all curb radii. November 18, 2015 Page 4 of 7 All curb radii have been dimensioned. See "Layout and Utilities" Sheet C4.0. 27) [32.5.2(n)] Provide a legend for the hatch /shade patterns to indicate the proposed paving materials. Hatching for each paving material is shown on the corresponding pavement section. See Sheet C 1.0. 28) [32.5.2(i)& 4.12.15(f)] Provide an island at the end of the parking row adjacent to the emergency turn - around area (see Engineering comments). An island has been added in this area. See "Layout and Utilities" Sheet C4.0. 29) [4. 12.16 (e))] Bumper blocks are required where parking abuts a sidewalk less than 6' in width. All sidewalk widths adjacent to parking have been increased to 6' to eliminate the need for bumper blocks. See "Layout and Utilities" Sheet C4.0. 30) [32.5.2(r)] Provide a legend showing all symbols, abbreviations and hatch patterns used on the site plan. A legend has been added to the plans. See Sheet C 1.0. 31) [32.6.2(j)& 32. 7.9] The site layout on the landscape plan does not match the layout shown on other sheets; layout must be consistent throughout the plan set. These layouts have been updated to verify that they match. Refer to Sheet C4.0 and L- I. 32) [32.6.2(j)& 32.7.9] Provide a landscape plan that meets the requirements of 32.7.9 including a plant schedule listing plant species and size. The Landscape Plan has been updated. See Sheet L -1. 33) [32.6.2(j)& 32.7.9] Provide notes to verify compliance with landscape plan requirements (32.7.9.5, 32.7.9.6, 32.7.9.7 and 32.7.9.8). These notes have been added to the landscape plan. See Sheet L -1. 34) [32.6.2(j)& 32.7.9] The demolition plan indicates the removal of three large trees on the adjacent parcel. Are these trees being replaced? Were they used to meet landscape requirements on the associated site plan? These trees were shown on an as -built landscape plan for SDP-96-119. They will be replaced with the same species of tree. See Sheet L -1. 35) [32.6.2(k)& 4.17] Is any outdoor lighting proposed? Is so, 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. Manufacturers 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 I.0) must meet the County's definition of full cutoff f 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 and landscape plans to verify that no site conflicts exist. November 18, 2015 Page 5 of 7 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 distracts 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. A photometric plan and lighting cut sheets have been provided. See Sheets E 1.0 and E2.0. 36) [32.6.2(k)& 4.17] The demolition plan indicates one light pole is being relocated but the plan doesn't say where; please clarify. The proposed location of this light pole has been added to the plans. See "Layout and Utilities" Sheet C4.0. 37) [SP201400010 Condition #I] This plan must be in general accord with the approved application plan. The plan now includes a retaining wall between the building and the SW property line closest to the townhouses on Lilac Court. Since this was an area of emphasis during the SP review, consult with Zoning to determine if the proposed wall is in conformity with the approved application plan. A revised elevation drawing may be required. A meeting with Ron Higgins, Valerie Long and Craig Kotarski confirmed that the plan in its current form is in conformity with the approved application plan. 38) [SP201400010 Condition #7] Consult with Branchlands Property Owners Association regarding landscaping and fencing on the southwest side of the building. Acknowledged, a meeting with the Owners Association is being scheduled. 39) [Comment] If any off-site easements are necessary, show them on the plan and consult with Engineering about documentation necessary prior to site plan approval. Acknowledged. 40) [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. Acknowledged. Albemarle County Engineeringa (Justin Deel): 1) Note that a retaining wall, which was not on the conceptual plan associated with SP201400010, is now being proposed along the northwest boundary and western corner of the parcel. The wall reaches a maximum height of approximately I I feet (at the western corner) and is as close as approximately 7 feet to the parcel boundary. Aside from any zoning concerns that may arise due to the inclusion of such a wall, it is not recommended that retaining walls be any closer than a distance equal to the wall height from the property line. Regardless, sealed retaining wall plans must be provided. Also, the wall's proximity to the channel could potentially be an issue, and will be addressed in the VSMP review. Acknowledged, retaining wall was required for the outdoor programing of the site. November 18, 2015 Page 6 of 7 2) Please remove the VSMP package components (SWM, ESC, storm drainage) from the site plan. These items are being reviewed under the current VSMP/WPO application. Note that the WPO will need to be approved before the site plan is approved. These sheets have been removed from the site plan. 3) A drainage plan, including a drainage area map, computations, and profiles, must be provided and approved. The drainage plan can be part of the site plan or VSMP plan. Acknowledged, drainage plan is being review as a part of the VSMP/WPO package. 4) Show existing managed slopes on plan. Please make your drawings match the overlay district maps. Proposed retaining walls, cuts /fills, etc., on slopes that are marked as managed slopes must follow the design guidelines of ACC 18- 30.7.5. This cannot be confirmed, as the overlay is not being shown. Existing Managed Slopes have been added to the plans. See Sheet CO. 1. 5) Sidewalks abutting parking must be at least 6' wide [Albemarle County Design Standard Manual], unless bumper blocks or an unobstructed (grass) overhang are provided. Also, 4' sidewalk at the northern loading area; sidewalks must be at least 5 feet wide, if not abutting parking. Please adjust. See image Sidewalk widths abutting parking have been increased to 6'. The 4' walk next to the loading area has been updated to be 5' wide. See "Layout and Utilities" Sheet C4.0. 6) Parking: a. Please show all pavement markings. Is the drive aisle to remain one -way? All pavement markings have been shown on the plan. The drive aisle in front of the building is to remain one -way. Striping and signage will be provided as shown on the plan. See "Layout and Utilities" Sheet C4.0. b. All parking rows must be protected by curbing or curbed islands. Please remove or reconfigure the hatched spaces (below) so that they are fully protected by curbing and /or do not overlap with the emergency vehicle turnaround. Note that curbed islands must be at least Yin width. A curbed island has been provided in this area. See "Layout and Utilities" Sheet C4.0. c. The parking area to the east (? Below) cannot be used as parking if the parking to the west and the drive aisle are to be reconfigured as proposed. Angled parking may be provided at sixty, forty -five, or thirty degrees from the access aisle [ 18- 4.12.16(0)]. The parking and drive aisle in this area has been reconfigured to provide perpendicular parking. See "Layout and Utilities" Sheet C4.0. d. Parking space dimensions must be at least 10'x18' [ 18- 4.12.16(c. I)]. While your drive aisle may increase to at least 24 feet, it is only 21 feet at the entrance. Parking space sizes have updated to match the size required based on drive aisle width. See "Layout and Utilities" Sheet C4.0. e. The curbed island at the loading area (below) makes the travelway too narrow. The minimum is 20', if no parking. This also makes the existing spaces hatched below unusable. Where does parking resume here? There should be a curbed island at the first space if this is becoming a two -way travelway. November 18, 2015 Page 7 of 7 The drive aisle in this area narrows to 20.8' due to the curbed island. The parking in this area has been updated to 10'x18' to match the requirements of 4.12.16(c.1). Inspections (lay Schlothauer): I) Based on plans dated 08 -24 -2015 —Rearrange one of the five parking spaces near the main entrance so that it is van - accessible, barrier -free. Provide a sidewalk curb cut for this space. An accessible space has been provided across from the main entrance of the building. See "Layout and Utilities" Sheet C4.0. Fire Rescue (Robbie Gilmer): I) Show FDC location on the plans. FDC shall be within 100' of a fire hydrant. The FDC has been shown on the plans. See "Layout and Utilities" Sheet C4.0. 2) Fire hydrant spacing shall be 400' per travelway. Acknowledged. 3) Please add a note to the plans "Knox Box required please contact Albemarle County Fire Marshall Office during construction to determine location." This note has been added to the plans. See "Layout and Utilities" Sheet C4.0. 4) Fire flow test required before final approval. Acknowledged. ACSA (Alex Morrison): I) Submit 3 hard copies of the plan to the ACSA Attn: Michael Vieira, PE, for construction review. Acknowledged. Virginia Dept Of Transportation (Troy Austin): I) VDOT has no objection to the major site plan amendment submitted. Acknowledged We have provided a pdf of the revised plans for your review. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to give me a call at 434.327.1 688. Sincerely, Craig Kotarski, PE Project Manager