HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201500046 Review Comments 2016-03-08Short Review Comments Report for:
SDP201500046
SubApplication Type:
CVS STORE NUMBER 10746 (29N & RIO RD) - FINAL
Final Site Development Plan
Date Completed:09/22/2015
Reviewer:Rachel Falkenstein CDD Planning
Review Status:Pending
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:09/04/2015
Reviewer:Jay Schlothauer CDD Inspections
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:Based on plans dated August 12, 2015.
No comments or conditions.
Division:
Date Completed:10/01/2015
Reviewer:John Anderson CDD Engineering
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:09/16/2015
Reviewer:Margaret Maliszewski CDD ARB
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:I have received a copy of the revised final site plan for CVS with revision date of 8-12-15. The
comment response letter included with the plan included responses to ARB comments, but those
ARB comments were from a May 18, 2015 meeting. Several ARB meetings followed the May
meeting, so those comments are out of date. On August 17, 2015 the ARB approved the plan,
pending resolution of several conditions to be approved by staff. Those conditions are copied below
and the August 17 action letter is attached. These conditions are the ones that need to be addressed
at this time. Please note that these items include both site plan and architectural issues, so both site
plan and architectural drawings must be submitted for ARB staff review and approval. With your next
ARB (site and architectural) submittal, please include an updated comment response letter indicating
how your submittal addresses each of the issues from the August 17 ARB meeting.
1. Revise the awnings from vinyl to canvas or metal. Provide a color sample and revise the elevation
drawings accordingly.
2. Coordinate the door paint colors identified on the color and black & white elevations.
3. Provide information on the type of window glass proposed. Include the standard glass note on the
architectural drawings: “Visible light transmittance (VLT) shall not drop below 40%. Visible light
reflectance (VLR) shall not exceed 30%.”
4. Provide in the architectural drawings information detailing the screening of rooftop equipment.
Provide a roof plan showing equipment and screen locations. Indicate equipment and screen heights.
Include notes identifying the various design options proposed for the screens (color, trim, and panel
design, vertical or canted system).
5. Add the standard mechanical equipment note to both the architectural and site plans. “Visibility of
all mechanical equipment from the Entrance Corridor shall be eliminated.”
6. Revise the architectural elevations to eliminate the perimeter lighting of the building. Provide a
complete lighting plan for review.
7. Indicate on the plan the height of the overhead power line.
8. Revise the landscape plan to add ornamental trees in available areas along the Rt. 29 frontage.
9. Revise the landscape plan to clearly show all plant labels.
10. Revise the landscape plan to increase the planting height of the IN2 shrubs to 24” minimum.
11. Clarify on the site plan the material and color(s) proposed for the retaining walls. Provide a
manufacturer’s cut sheet and color sample for review. Provide specific information showing that the
proposed wall type and material allow for the planting that is shown.
12. Note that a separate application will be required for all wall and freestanding signs. Avoid
overscaled wall signs.
Division:
Page:1 of 2 County of Albemarle Printed On:December 28, 2016
manufacturer’s cut sheet and color sample for review. Provide specific information showing that the
proposed wall type and material allow for the planting that is shown.
12. Note that a separate application will be required for all wall and freestanding signs. Avoid
overscaled wall signs.
Date Completed:09/18/2015
Reviewer:Robbie Gilmer Fire Rescue Admin
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:Based on plans dated 8/12/15.
No comments or objections.
Division:
Date Completed:10/01/2015
Reviewer:Troy Austin VDOT
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:11/25/2015
Reviewer:Rachel Falkenstein CDD Planning
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:11/24/2015
Reviewer:John Anderson CDD Engineering
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:Minor revision, detail caption, ref. RMS document
Division:
Date Completed:12/08/2015
Reviewer:Troy Austin VDOT
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:01/21/2016
Reviewer:Alexander Morrison ACSA
Review Status:Pending
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:03/11/2016
Reviewer:Rachel Falkenstein CDD Planning
Review Status:Approved
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:03/08/2016
Reviewer:Margaret Maliszewski CDD ARB
Review Status:Approved
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Page:2 of 2 County of Albemarle Printed On:December 28, 2016
Noe Nioir
...,
t-'
tA
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Cu paper Virginia 22701
Charles A.Kilpatrick,P.E.
Commissioner
January 28,2016
Ms. Rachel Falkenstein
Senior Planner
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville,VA 22902
Re: SDP-2015-00046 CVS Store Number 10746 (Rte. 29& Rio Road Intersection)
Dear Ms. Falkenstein,
We have reviewed the final site plan for CVS Store Number 10746 to be located at the
intersection of Route 29 and Rio Road dated 4/3/15 with revisions dated 8/12/15 and 11/12/15 as
submitted by Kimley Horn and offer the following comments:
1. The allowable work hours as indicated on the MOT plan need to be revised in accordance
with the Culpeper District Allowable Work Hours policy. A copy of this policy has been
attached.
2. Previous review comments have been addressed.
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
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
Albemarle County
Service Authérit
Serving 4 Conserving
January 12, 2016
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Attn: Ryan Perkins, PE
1700 Willow Lawn Drive
Suite 200
Richmond, VA 23230
Re: Final Site Plan for CVS/ Pharmacy Store Number: 10746
Dear Mr. Perkins:
The plan, entitled "Final Site Plan for CVS / Pharmacy Store Number: 10746" dated
November 12, 2015, last revised December 22, 2015, is hereby approved for construction.
One set of the approved plan is enclosed for your records. Any previously approved plans
are voided with this approval. This approval is for basic compliance with the General
Water & Sewer Construction Specifications of the Albemarle County Service Authority
(ACSA) and does not relieve the contractor from responsibility for his work as it relates to
the plan and specifications.
The ACSA requires that a copy of the approved construction plan be on the job site.
The contractor is responsible for marking up a copy of the approved construction plan
showing as-built information and provide this data to your client at the completion of utility
installation. The final as-built plan shall be submitted in a format of one paper copy and
one mylar copy.
A preconstruction conference shall be scheduled with the project manager to
ensure coordination and answer any questions. This will be a short meeting to review the
project, materials, test methods and schedule, in order to expedite construction. Please
have the proper party call me at 977-4511 to schedule the meeting. All offsite easements
must be acquired before a preconstruction conference will be scheduled.
This approval is valid for a period of 18 months from this date. If construction is not
in progress at the end of this time period, the approval shall be void.
The contractor shall be responsible to comply with the no-lead regulation regarding
brass fittings that is effective on January 4, 2014 (Senate Bill 3874 which amends the Safe
Drinking Water Act). The contractor shall also be required to comply with the ACSA's
Approved Products List. The most current version of this list can be found on the ACSA's
website at www.serviceauthority.org/Specs/ApprovedProductsList.pdf.
168 Spotnap Road • Charlottesville, VA 22911 • Tel (434) 977-4511 • Fax (434) 979-0698
www.serviceauthority.org
IIIMMOMINIMEIMMinmenninir
%ma
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper,Virginia 22701
Charles A. Kilpatrick,P.E.
Commissioner
December 8, 2015
Ms. Rachel Falkenstein
Senior Planner
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: SDP-2015-00046 CVS Store Number 10746 (Rte. 29 & Rio Road Intersection)
Dear Ms. Falkenstein,
We have reviewed the final site plan for CVS Store Number 10746 to be located at the
intersection of Route 29 and Rio Road dated 4/3115 with revisions dated 8/12/15 and 11/12/15 as
submitted by Kimley Horn and offer the following comments:
1. The sight distance sight line shown sheet CS-501 appears to leave the right-of-way of
Route 29. This would require a sight distance easement across the adjacent property.
However, it appears that the sight triangle is shown further than 14.5' from the edge of
the travel lane. The sight triangle location should be verified and it needs to be
determined whether a sight distance easement is necessary or not.
2. Sheets CT-500, 501 and 502 were not included in the copy of the site plan submitted to
me for review. These sheets need to be provided for review.
3. Several sheets listed on the Sheet List Table on the cover page were not included with the
copy of the site plan provided for review.
If you need additional information concerning this project, please do not hesitate to contact me at
(434)422-9782.
Sincerely,
//lt Al4Itt
Troy Austin, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Culpeper District
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
�pF A
vt�r�1Q
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
Project:
CVS (Rio & 29N) —Final
Plan preparer:
Ashley Cooper /Cooper Planning, 1499 Lanetown Rd/Crozet, VA 2293
[ acooper(a)cooper- planning.com]; Ryan Perkins/Kimley -Horn Assoc., 1700
Willow Lawn Dr -Suite 200, Richmond, VA 23230 [ Ryan.Perkins a,kimley-
horn.com ]
Owner or rep.:
29 Rio XROAD LLC, 455 2' St, SE, 5" Floor, Charlottesville, VA 22902
Paul Sprouse /The Rebkee Company, 5871 City View Drive Midlothian, VA
[psprouse@rebkee.com ]
Plan received date:
3 Sep 2015
(Rev. 1)
16 Nov 2015
Date of comments:
1 Oct 2015
(Rev. 1)
24 Nov 2015
Reviewer:
John Anderson
Plan Coordinator:
Rachel Falkenstein
cc:
Mark Graham
A. Final Site Plan (SDP201500046)
1. Combining demolition and Phase 1 E &S, and grading and Phase II E &S makes it impractical and difficult
to request E &S removal. Please be advised that VSMP plan review comments that require revision to CE-
101 and CG -101 will require that site plan sheets be revised as well. VSMP review is pending. (Rev. 1)
Addressed. As follow -up, please remove sheets CE -102 (Phase 1, ESC) and CG -102 (Phase 2, ESC).
2. Remove sheet CE -501, CG -301. Mark through sheet numbers (or list removed) in site plan index. (Rev. 1)
Addressed.
3. CA -101, Drainage /Stormwater Note 9, though a standard note, leaves uncertain Elev. reference. Title sheet
references Datum: Horizontal —NAD 83; Vertical NAVD 88. Recommend edit Note 9, or remove it. (Rev.
1) Addressed.
4. Provide retaining wall (RW) design since wall is necessary to drive -thru. RW involves element of safety.
Ref. ISP comment #27, 20 -May 2015. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
Sheet CS -101
5. Add stop bar just prior to 2" white stripe at drive- thm/do not enter exit. Ref. STOP BAR detail, CS -501.
(Rev. 1) Addressed.
6. Add a proceed with caution sign (or similar) prior to stop bar. Locate in grass between curb and RW near
south corner of building to alert drive -thru patrons to blind curve and pedestrians. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
7. Add std. VDOT stop sign facing traffic entering from adjacent parcel to North, TMP 04500- 00- 00- 106A0.
(Rev. 1) Addressed.
8. Provide single yellow line (stripe) for drive -thru that traces dashed line, loading area to front parking lot.
Delineate drive -thru storage with pavement marking. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
9. Recommend add Note for drive -thru storage line. (Line striping note) (Rev. 1) Addressed.
10. Provide Alt. design for proposed l' R curb, loading area. 3' R not possible at this location. 1' R curb will
not survive. Consider options. One option: revise F R curb to transition to flush with asphalt pavement.
(Rev. 1) Addressed.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 3
11. Although Note 2 states all curb radii are 5' unless noted otherwise, this note may be overlooked. Label all
curb radii. Note: Min. curb R =3'. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
12. Label parking space width. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
13. Add stop sign for patrons exiting front parking. There is through traffic, west to east. Safety requires stop
condition at this location. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
14. Heavy -duty pavement section is appropriate for drive -thru. (Rev. 1) Partially addressed. As follow -up
(CS -101): revise caption of heavy duty pavement typical section to include /list Drive Thru.
15. Revise heavy -duty pavement section for main drive aisles. VDOT Pavement Design Guide Calculation
with ADT =1926 requires D,=16.71. (D,=13.83) (Rev. 1) Addressed.
16. Add drive -thru stop bar to site plan/construction detail image on CS -501. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
17. Coordinate Timbarrier details with VDOT, CS -501. Engineering will not recommend site plan approval
unless VDOT accepts Timbarrier design. Engineer should acquire /forward written acceptance to County.
(Rev. 1) Addressed. 12 -Nov 2015 Applicant response: "Since the TimBarrier StreetGuard model is designed to
provide an aesthetic alternative to traditional galvanized steel W -beam guardrail (specified by VDOT) and at operating
speeds of 25 mph or less, the product should provide the same level of traffic protection."
18. CG- 201 /Inlet spread calculations table: Use Std. VDOT nomenclature. Revise table inlet labels. (Rev. 1)
Addressed.
CU -101
19. Label inlets. Use std. VDOT nomenclature and letters used on CG -101. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
20. Label all storm drainpipes: Material, L, DIA, and letters used on CG -101. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
21. (Also CG -301) In tables /plan view, assign each storm drain pipe a reference letter or number. (Rev. 1)
Addressed.
22. Recommend (and have discussed with applicant) additional storm drain inlet near SE corner of front parking
lot. Strongly recommend eliminating MH centered on front parking lot. Any maintenance that requires
access to this MH (E) will require closure of drive -thru, and nearly the entire front parking lot. (Manholes
in street pavement are routinely disapproved by VDOT given paving and safety considerations.) Applicant
should be aware design diminishes circulation, and impacts safety and site use. Design, F -E -D, is a near-
worst option, in my view. If waterline avoidance is the goal, it appears possible to design for avoidance.
(ISP comment #43) (Rev. 1) Addressed.
23. Sewer cleanout touches curb: provide detail for CO in walk (CU -501) that considers and avoids trip hazard.
(Rev. 1) Addressed.
24. Sewer cleanout located in pavement: label 2 -45° bends. Provide detail for CO in pavement suitable for
location and wear, able to withstand parking lot drive aisle traffic. Detail should include CO rim elevation.
(Rev. 1) Addressed.
25. Label MH (E), if storm drain system MH design retained. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
26. CU- 201 /sanitary profile, building to SS connection: Label 2 -45° bends /CO in profile view. (Rev. 1)
Addressed.
CP -101
27. Retaining wall: Shift Bosque Elm so canopy drip -line does not intersect (break vertical plane of) upper
retaining wall, regardless of whether wall is CMU or gravity design. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
28. Recommend against 2 black gums, if canopy schematic is accurate, in location where canopy intersects
proposed RW fretaining wall is CMU /geogrid design. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
29. Show drive -thru stop bar. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
30. Eliminate Sawleaf Zelkova near driv -thru lane entrance. Plants with mature height > 30" at this location
will obstruct internal sight distance. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
31. Shift three junipers centered on storm pipe between inlets A and B. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
32. Traffic Management Plan and MOT require VDOT review and approval prior to County Engineering
recommending site plan approval. (Rev. 1) Acknowledged.
33. Site plan approval requires WPONSMP Approval —WPO review is pending. (Rev. 1) Acknowledged.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 3
34. Recommend bollards where drive -thru is in close proximity to building. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant
response: "Bollards have not been deemed necessary at this time."
35. Provide foundation drains for retaining walls, and connect to proposed piped conveyance system. (ISP
comment #44) (Rev. 1) Addressed.
Please feel free to call 434.296- 5832 —ext 3096 to discuss this project.
File: SDP201500046 -CVS FSP 112415revl
�pF A
vt�r�1Q
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
Project:
CVS (Rio & 29N) —Final
Plan preparer:
Ashley Cooper /Cooper Planning, 1499 Lanetown Rd/Crozet, VA 2293
[ acooper(a)cooper- planning.com]; Ryan Perkins/Kimley -Horn Assoc., 1700
Willow Lawn Dr -Suite 200, Richmond, VA 23230 [ Ryan.Perkins a,kimley-
horn.com ]
Owner or rep.:
29 Rio XROAD LLC, 455 2' St, SE, 5" Floor, Charlottesville, VA 22902
Paul Sprouse /The Rebkee Company, 5871 City View Drive Midlothian, VA
[psprouse@rebkee.com ]
Plan received date:
3 Sep 2015
Date of comments:
1 Oct 2015
Reviewer:
John Anderson
Plan Coordinator: Rachel Falkenstein
A. Final Site Plan (SDP201500046)
1. Combining demolition and Phase 1 E &S, and grading and Phase II E &S makes it impractical and difficult
to request E &S removal. Please be advised that VSMP plan review comments that require revision to CE-
101 and CG -101 will require that site plan sheets be revised as well. VSMP review is pending.
2. Remove sheet CE -501, CG -301. Mark through sheet numbers (or list removed) in site plan index.
3. CA -101, Drainage /Stormwater Note 9, though a standard note, leaves uncertain Elev. reference. Title sheet
references Datum: Horizontal NAD 83; Vertical NAVD 88. Recommend edit Note 9, or remove it.
4. Provide retaining wall (RW) design since wall is necessary to drive -thru. RW involves element of safety.
Ref. ISP comment #27, 20 -May 2015.
Sheet CS -101
5. Add stop bar just prior to 2" white stripe at drive - thru/do not enter exit. Ref. STOP BAR detail, CS -501.
6. Add a proceed with caution sign (or similar) prior to stop bar. Locate in grass between curb and RW near
south corner of building to alert drive -thru patrons to blind curve and pedestrians.
7. Add std. VDOT stop sign facing traffic entering from adjacent parcel to North, TMP 04500- 00- 00- 106A0.
8. Provide single yellow line (stripe) for drive -thru that traces dashed line, loading area to front parking lot.
Delineate drive -thru storage with pavement marking.
9. Recommend add Note for drive -thru storage line. (Line striping note)
10. Provide Alt. design for proposed 1' R curb, loading area. 3' R not possible at this location. F R curb will
not survive. Consider options. One option: revise 1' R curb to transition to flush with asphalt pavement.
11. Although Note 2 states all curb radii are 5' unless noted otherwise, this note may be overlooked. Label all
curb radii. Note: Min. curb R =3'.
12. Label parking space width.
13. Add stop sign for patrons exiting front parking. There is through traffic, west to east. Safety requires stop
condition at this location.
14. Heavy -duty pavement section is appropriate for drive -thru.
15. Revise heavy -duty pavement section for main drive aisles. VDOT Pavement Design Guide Calculation
with ADT =1926 requires D,=16.71. (Dp = 13.83).
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 2
16. Add drive -thru stop bar to site plan/construction detail image on CS -501.
17. Coordinate Timbarrier details with VDOT, CS -501. Engineering will not recommend site plan approval
unless VDOT accepts Timbarrier design. Engineer should acquire /forward written acceptance to County.
18. CG- 201 /Inlet spread calculations table: Use Std. VDOT nomenclature. Revise table inlet labels.
CU -101
19. Label inlets. Use std. VDOT nomenclature and letters used on CG -101.
20. Label all storm drain pipes: Material, L, DIA, and letters used on CG -101.
21. (Also CG -301) In tables /plan view, assign each storm drain pipe a reference letter or number.
22. Recommend (and have discussed with applicant) additional storm drain inlet near SE corner of front parking
lot. Strongly recommend eliminating MH centered on front parking lot. Any maintenance that requires
access to this MH (E) will require closure of drive -thru, and nearly the entire front parking lot. (Manholes
in street pavement are routinely disapproved by VDOT given paving and safety considerations.) Applicant
should be aware design diminishes circulation, and impacts safety and site use. Design, F -E -D, is a near-
worst option, in my view. If waterline avoidance is the goal, it appears possible to design for avoidance.
(ISP comment #43)
23. Sewer cleanout touches curb: provide detail for CO in walk (CU -501) that considers and avoids trip hazard.
24. Sewer cleanout located in pavement: label 2 -45° bends. Provide detail for CO in pavement suitable for
location and wear, able to withstand parking lot drive aisle traffic. Detail should include CO rim elevation.
25. Label MH (E), if storm drain system MH design retained.
26. CU- 201 /sanitary profile, building to SS connection: Label 2 -45° bends /CO in profile view.
CP -101
27. Retaining wall: Shift Bosque Elm so canopy drip -line does not intersect (break vertical plane of) upper
retaining wall, regardless of whether wall is CMU or gravity design.
28. Recommend against 2 black gums, if canopy schematic is accurate, in location where canopy intersects
proposed RW if retaining wall is CMU /geogrid design.
29. Show drive -thru stop bar.
30. Eliminate Sawleaf Zelkova near driv -thru lane entrance. Plants with mature height > 30" at this location
will obstruct internal sight distance.
31. Shift three junipers centered on storm pipe between inlets A and B.
32. Traffic Management Plan and MOT require VDOT review and approval prior to County Engineering
recommending site plan approval.
33. Site plan approval requires WPONSMP Approval —WPO review is pending.
34. Recommend bollards where drive -thm is in close proximity to building.
35. Provide foundation drains for retaining walls, and connect to proposed piped conveyance system. (ISP
comment #44)
Please feel free to call 434.296- 5832 —ext 3096 to discuss this project.
File: SDP201500046 -CVS FSP 100115
` 1►
r .ra
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1501 Orange Road
Culpeper, Vrginia 22701
Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E.
Commissioner
September 30, 2015
Ms. Rachel Falkenstein
Senior Planner
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Developoment
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: SDP -20I5 -00046 CVS Store at the Rte. 29 & Rio Rd. Intersection
Dear Ms. Falkenstein,
We have reviewed the final site plan for the proposed CVS store to be located at the intersection
of Rte. 29 and Rio Road dated 8112/15 as submitted by Kimley Horn and offer the following
comments:
I. The landscaping encroaches into the permanent VDOT easement. CVS will be
responsible for maintaining this landscaping.
2. Work within right- of-way along Rio Road for the taper construction will be restricted to
the hours of 8 PM to 6 AM.
3. It is our understanding that there is a Dominion VA Power easement on this parcel that
has not been shown on the site plan.
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
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
Phone 434 - 296 -5832
pY AL13�,2r
IH[;Stit
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, VA, 22902
Memorandum
Fax 434 - 972 -4126
To: Paul Sprouse (psprouse @rebkee.com)
From: Rachel Falkenstein, Senior Planner
Division: Planning
Date: September 22, 2015
Rev 1 Comments: November 25, 2015
Subject: SDP 201500020 CVS Store Number 10746 (29N & Rio) — Final Site Development Plan
The County of Albemarle Planning Division will recommend approval of the plan referenced above once the
following comments have been satisfactorily addressed (The following comments are those that have been
identified at this time. Additional comments or conditions may be added or eliminated based on further
review.): [Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference, which is to the Subdivision /Zoning
Ordinances unless otherwise specified.]
[Comment] This application was reviewed against Site Development Plan requirements only. There is a
Special Use Permit for the proposed drive through currently under review. Staff recommends the
applicant defer the initial site plan approval until the special use permit is approved as SP review may
lead to circulation and site layout changes.
Final: SP has been approved. Include conditions of approval on final site plan.
Rev1: Comment addressed
2. [Comment] Separate subdivision plat required to vacate interior property line. Approved plat required
prior to final site plan approval.
Final: Plat not yet received.
3. [32.5.2(a)] Show or list minimum setbacks.
Final: New setbacks were approved on 6/3/2015. See section 4.19 for new setback regulations.
Rev1: Comment addressed
4. [32.5.2(d)] Show areas of the site where existing slopes are steep slopes. Disturbance of the managed
steep slopes must meet design standards of section 30.7.5.
Final: slopes are labeled incorrectly. County refers to these slopes as managed slopes and allows
disturbance of these slope in accordance with section 30.7.5. Please revise description. Slopes
should be shown on demolition sheet.
Rev1: Comment addressed
5. [32.5.2(f)] Add note to state this site is not within a water supply watershed.
Final: Comment addressed.
6. [32.5.2(i)] Show Rio Road median and show traffic pattern on Rio Road more clearly.
Final: Comment addressed.
7. [32.5.2(i)] Provide width of Rio Road entrance and width of travelway on plans. Will there be any
pavement markings on this entrance /travelway other than stop bar? Could a crosswalk be added
here?
Final: Comment addressed.
8. [32.5.2(j)] Clarify easements on plan. What is 'existing permanent utility easement' shown on site plan
sheet? What is '10' landscape buffer'? Provide ownership of easements and if easements are existing
provide deed book and page number. Show easements consistently on site plan, utility plan, and
landscape plan sheets.
Final: Exhibit is helpful. Also show all easements /improvements on site plan sheets and landscaping
sheets. If proposed easements are to be dedicated to ACSA, please note such on plan.
Rev 1: Comment addressed
9. [32.5.2(n)] Label loading zone on plan and provide all dimensions.
Final: Comment addressed.
10. [32.5.2(p)] Amend scale of the landscape plan to 1 inch = 20 feet. It is difficult to read and measure at
current scale.
Final: Comment addressed.
11. [Street tree exception request] More information is needed to determine if this exception can be
granted.
Rev 1: Variation request approved.
Provide details on the VDOT easement including landscaping restrictions within this easement.
If easement has been recorded, provide deed book and page number. If easement is still
pending, provide correspondence from VDOT listing easement size, location and specific
restrictions.
Final: Comment addressed.
There appears to be a small 3 -4' strip of land between the utility /VDOT easements and the
parking area. Could small or medium street trees be provided here?
Final: One crepe myrtle is shown. Knowing that you can now add trees to VDOT easement, it
appears there may be space for additional small trees, especially if waterline location can be
shifted (see below). Provide height of overhead electric lines. Can more information be
obtained from VDOT on final location and height of OHE?
Is there an alternative location for the waterline easement to allow for more landscaping along
Route 29 to allow for additional plantings?
Final: Can easement be moved further to the north and connect to existing line at a right
angle rather than cutting diagonally through prominent landscaping area?
On a site restricted by utility easements and other restrictions, street trees are permitted
within the parking area. Consider locating street trees within parking area along Route 29.
These trees can also be counted toward the interior parking area requirements.
Final: It appears street tree requirements could easily be met with the replacement or
relocation of two parking spaces and placing trees in parking islands. Staff recommends this
approach be reconsidered.
12. [Minimum parking exception request] More information is needed to determine if this exception can
be granted.
Final: Parking exception granted.
a. Provide traffic generation figures from similar sized CVS stores.
b. Plans reference a shared entrance and parking easement. Is there a shared parking agreement
with adjacent TMP 45 -106?
c. Parking exception is under review by zoning staff. Zoning comments will be provided upon
receipt.
New Comments:
13. [4.17(a)] Each outdoor luminaire above 3000 lumens is required to be a full cutoff fixture. Type WS is
not permitted. Please change out this fixture for a full cutoff light.
Rev 1: Comment addressed
14. [4.17(a)] Provide manufacturer's information for all lamp types, specifically types S2, S4 & S6.
Rev 1: Comment addressed
15. [4.17(b)] Spillover lighting onto public roads shall not exceed one -half footcandle. Spillover is shown
at 0.6 footcandles at northeast corner of the property line (which presumably coincides with the edge
of the right -of -way). Reduce spillover to 0.5 footcandles or less at the edge of the public right of way.
Rev 1: Comment addressed
16. [32.6.1(h)] Include signature panel for each member of site review committee.
Rev 1: Include all members of site review committee in signature panel. See sample below.
AT.1RFK4ART.1P CYITTTVTY nF.PART'MF.NT APPRCIVAT.-
APPROVALS
DATE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PLANNM/ZON&NG
ENGINEER W
INSPECTIONS
ARB �
DEPARTMENT OF FIRE & RESCUE
i
ALBERMARLE COUNTY SERVICE AUTi10RITY N A
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
5!6/1
HEALTH DEPARTMENT
+S
Please contact Rachel Falkenstein in the Planning Division by using rfalkenstein @albemarle.org or 434 -296-
5832 ext. 3272 for further information.
3
Phone 434 - 296 -5832
pY AL13�,2r
IH[;Stit
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, VA, 22902
Memorandum
To: Paul Sprouse (psprouse @rebkee.com)
From: Rachel Falkenstein, Senior Planner
Fax 434 - 972 -4126
Division: Planning
Date: September 22, 2015
Subject: SDP 201500020 CVS Store Number 10746 (29N & Rio) — Final Site Development Plan
The County of Albemarle Planning Division will recommend approval of the plan referenced above once the
following comments have been satisfactorily addressed (The following comments are those that have been
identified at this time. Additional comments or conditions may be added or eliminated based on further
review.): [Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference, which is to the Subdivision /Zoning
Ordinances unless otherwise specified.]
1. [Comment] This application was reviewed against Site Development Plan requirements only. There is a
Special Use Permit for the proposed drive through currently under review. Staff recommends the
applicant defer the initial site plan approval until the special use permit is approved as SP review may
lead to circulation and site layout changes.
Final: SP has been approved. Include conditions of approval on final site plan.
2. [Comment] Separate subdivision plat required to vacate interior property line. Approved plat required
prior to final site plan approval.
Final: Plat not yet received.
3. [32.5.2(a)] Show or list minimum setbacks.
Final: New setbacks were approved on 6/3/2015. See section 4.19 for new setback regulations.
4. [32.5.2(d)] Show areas of the site where existing slopes are steep slopes. Disturbance of the managed
steep slopes must meet design standards of section 30.7.5.
Final: slopes are labeled incorrectly. County refers to these slopes as managed slopes and allows
disturbance of these slope in accordance with section 30.7.5. Please revise description. Slopes
should be shown on demolition sheet.
5. [32.5.2(f)] Add note to state this site is not within a water supply watershed.
Final: Comment addressed.
6. [32.5.2(i)] Show Rio Road median and show traffic pattern on Rio Road more clearly.
Final: Comment addressed.
7. [32.5.2(i)] Provide width of Rio Road entrance and width of travelway on plans. Will there be any
pavement markings on this entrance /travelway other than stop bar? Could a crosswalk be added
here?
Final: Comment addressed.
8. [32.5.2(j)] Clarify easements on plan. What is 'existing permanent utility easement' shown on site plan
sheet? What is '10' landscape buffer'? Provide ownership of easements and if easements are existing
provide deed book and page number. Show easements consistently on site plan, utility plan, and
landscape plan sheets.
Final: Exhibit is helpful. Also show all easements /improvements on site plan sheets and landscaping
sheets. If proposed easements are to be dedicated to ACSA, please note such on plan.
9. [32.5.2(n)] Label loading zone on plan and provide all dimension-
Final: Comment addressed.
10. [32.5.2(p)] Amend scale of the landscape plan to 1 inch = 20 feet. It is difficult to read and measure at
current scale.
Final: Comment addressed
11. [Street tree exception request] More information is needed to determine if this exception can be
granted.
a. Provide details on the VDOT easement including landscaping restrictions within this easement.
If easement has been recorded, provide deed book and page number. If easement is still
pending, provide correspondence from VDOT listing easement size, location and specific
restrictions.
Final: Comment addressed.
There appears to be a small 3 -4' strip of land between the utility /VDOT easements and the
parking area. Could small or medium street trees be provided here?
Final: One crepe myrtle is shown. Knowing that you can now add trees to VDOT easement, it
appears there may be space for additional small trees, especially if waterline location can be
shifted (see below). Provide height of overhead electric lines. Can more information be
obtained from VDOT on final location and height of OHE?
Is there an alternative location for the waterline easement to allow for more landscaping along
Route 29 to allow for additional plantings?
Final: Can easement be moved further to the north and connect to existing line at a right
angle rather than cutting diagonally through prominent landscaping area?
On a site restricted by utility easements and other restrictions, street trees are permitted
within the parking area. Consider locating street trees within parking area along Route 29.
These trees can also be counted toward the interior parking area requirements.
Final: It appears street tree requirements could easily be met with the replacement or
relocation of two parking spaces and placing trees in parking islands. Staff recommends this
approach be reconsidered.
12. [Minimum parking exception request] More information is needed to determine if this exception can
be granted.
Final: Parking exception granted.
a. Provide traffic generation figures from similar sized CVS stores.
b. Plans reference a shared entrance and parking easement. Is there a shared parking agreement
with adjacent TMP 45 -106?
c. Parking exception is under review by zoning staff. Zoning comments will be provided upon
receipt.
New Comments:
13. [4.17(a)] Each outdoor luminaire above 3000 lumens is required to be a full cutoff fixture. Type WS is
not permitted. Please change out this fixture for a full cutoff light.
14. [4.17(a)] Provide manufacturer's information for all lamp types, specifically types S2, S4 & S6.
15. [4.17(b)] Spillover lighting onto public roads shall not exceed one -half footcandle. Spillover is shown
at 0.6 footcandles at northeast corner of the property line (which presumably coincides with the edge
of the right -of -way). Reduce spillover to 0.5 footcandles or less at the edge of the public right of way.
16. [32.6.1(h)] Include signature panel for each member of site review committee.
Please contact Rachel Falkenstein in the Planning Division by using rfalkenstein @albemarle.org or 434 -296-
5832 ext. 3272 for further information.
3
KimIey Horn
November 12, 2015
Rachel Falkenstein
Plan Coordinator
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: CVS(Rio &29N)—Final Site Plan
Rio Road CVS
Comment Responses
Review Comments found on page:
Planning 1
Engineering 4
Albemarle County Service Authority 9
Virginia Department of Transportation 11
Planning
A. This application was review against Site Development Plan requirements only. There is a special
use permit for the proposed drive-thru currently under review. Staff recommends the applicant defer
the initial site plan approval until the special use permit is approved as SP review may lead to
circulation and site layout changes.
Final: SP has been approved. Include conditions of approval on final site plan.
Response: The conditions of approval have been included in the plan set. Please refer to the
cover sheet(Sheet CA-001)for details.
2. Separate subdivision plat required to vacate interior property line. Approved plat required prior to
final site plan approval.
Final: Plat not yet received.
Response: Acknowledged. Plat to be submitted following the next site plan submittal.
3. [32.5.2(a)] Show or list minimum setbacks.
Final: New setbacks were approved on 6/3/15. See section 4.19 for new setback regulations.
From email on 10/20/15: The location of the building as shown is not an issue. The ordinance states
there is no maximum front setback any lot abutting a principle arterial highway (Rt 29)and this would
apply to the whole lot—frontages on both Rio Rd and Rt29. However, the setback lines shown are
incorrect and should match the minimum setbacks from section 4.20 (alternatively you can list
setbacks in a note).
kimley-horn.com 1700 Willow Lawn Drive, Suite 200, Richmond, VA 23230 804 673 3882
KimIeyHorn Page 2
Response: The building setback line and site data table have been updated to show the 10'
minimum building setback allowed from the right of way. Refer to Sheet CS-101 for details.
4. [32.5.2(d)] Show area of the site where existing slopes are steep slopes. Disturbance of the
managed steep slopes must meet design standard of section 30.7.5.
From email on 10/20/15: Slopes are mislabeled on sheet CE-501. These should be labeled as
"managed steep slopes". Show slopes on existing conditions/demo sheets.
Response: The slopes have been relabeled on Sheet CE-501 to indicate that they are
"managed"steep slopes.Additionally, the slopes have been shown on Sheets CV-101 and CE-
101.
5. [32.5.2(j)] Clarify easements on plan. What is `existing permanent utility easement' shown on site
plan sheet? What is '10' landscape buffer?' Provide ownership of easements and if easements are
existing provide deed book and page number. Show easements consistently on site plan, utility plan,
and landscape plan sheet.
Final: Exhibit is helpful. Also show all easements/improvements on site plan sheets and
landscaping sheets. If proposed easements are to be dedicated to ACSA, please note such on plan.
Response: The utility easements are now shown on CS-101 and CP-101.
6. [Street tree exception request] More information is needed to determine if this exception can be
granted.
a. There appears to be a small 3-4' strip of land between the utility/VDOT easements and the
parking area. Could small or medium street trees be provided here? Final: One crepe myrtle
is shown. Knowing that you can now add trees to the VDOT easement, if appears there may
be space for additional small trees, especially if waterline location can be shifted (see below).
Provide height of overhead electric lines. Can more information be obtained from VDOT on
final location and height of OHE?
Response: The waterline and easement was adjusted slightly which will permit two additional
crepe myrtles to be installed at the center of the Route 29 frontage. The remainder of the
frontage is encompassed by utility easements,which do not permit trees.
Upon reviewing plans for the utility relocations,there is no mention as to the proposed
location and height of the OHE lines at this time.
b. Is there an alternative location for the waterline easement to allow for more landscaping
along Route 29 to allow for additional plantings? Final: Can easement be moved further north
and connect to existing line at a right angle rather than cutting diagonally through prominent
landscaping area?
Response: The proposed water line location is shown in the specified location for the
following reasons:
kimley-horn.com 1700 Willow Lawn Drive, Suite 200, Richmond, VA 23230 804 673 3882
Kimley>)Horn Page 3
• Location avoids conflicts with proposed storm sewer and is shown in the location
where ACSA has requested
• Alignment avoids the landscaping along Route 29 as much as possible
• Tie in point has to be located prior to the existing water meters which are to remain
• Conflicts must be avoided with Dominion Power easement and relocated power
pole/guy wire.
c. On a site restricted by utility easements and other restrictions, street trees are permitted with
the parking area. Consider locating street trees within parking area along Route 29. These
trees can also be counted toward the interior parking area requirements. Final: It appears
street tree requirements could easily be met with the replacement or relocation of two parking
spaces and placing trees in parking islands. Staff recommends this approach be considered.
Response: Due to existing utility easements, additional street trees are not proposed by the
developer.
7. [4.17(a)] Each outdoor luminaire above 3000 lumens is required to be a full cutoff fixture. Type WS
is not permitted. Please change out this fixture for a full cutoff light.
Response: The WS lighting fixtures have been eliminated and replaced with full cutoff fixtures.
Refer to Sheet CL-101 for details.
8. [4.17(a)] Provide manufacturer's information for all lamp types, specifically types S2, S4, & S6.
Response: Updated manufacturer's information has been added for all lamp types. Refer to
Sheet CL-102 for details.
9. [4.17(b)] Spillover lighting onto public roads shall not exceed one-half footcandle. Spillover is
shown at 0.6 footcandles at northeast corner of the property line(which presumable coincides with
the edge of the right-of-way). Reduce spillover to 0.5 footcandles or less at the edge of the public
right-or-way.
Response: The lighting plan has been updated to reduce spillover to 0.5 footcandles at the
edge of the public right-of-way. Refer to Sheet CL-101 for details.
10. [32.6.1(h)] Include signature panel for each member of the site review committee.
Response: A signature panel has been included on the cover sheet(Sheet CA-001)for the
Planning Department, Engineering Department, and Community Development Department.
kimley-horn.com 1700 Willow Lawn Drive, Suite 200, Richmond, VA 23230 804 673 3882
Kimley>>>Horn Page 4
Engineering
Final Site Plan:
11. Combining demolition and Phase 1 E&S, and grading and Phase II E&S makes it impractical and
difficult to request E&S removal. Please be advised that VSMP plan review comments that require
revision to CE-101 and CG-101 will require that site plan sheets be revised as well. VSMP review is
pending.
Response: Phase I and Phase II E&S have been separated from the demolition and grading
sheets, respectively. Refer to Sheet CE-101 for Phase I and Sheet CG-102 for Phase II.
12. Remove sheet CE-501, CG-301. Mark through sheet numbers (or list removed) in site plan index.
Response: The sheets have been removed as requested and the cover sheet has been
updated to denote the sheets included.
13. CA-101, Drainage/Stormwater Note 9, though a standard note, leaves uncertain Elev. reference.
Title sheet references Datum: Horizontal—NAD 83; Vertical NAVD 88. Recommend edit Note 9, or
remove it.
Response: The note was removed from the Drainage/Stormwater notes on Sheet CA-101.
14. Provide retaining wall (RW) design since wall is necessary to drive-thru. RW involves element of
safety. Ref. ISP comment#27, 20-May 2015.
Response: The retaining wall design has been added to the plan set for reference. Refer to
Sheets CS-502 and CS-503 for details.
Sheet CS-101:
15. Add stop bar just prior to 2"white stripe at drive-thru/do not enter exit. Ref. STOP BAR detail,
CS-501.
Response: The striping has been updated to include the "STOP"text prior to the 2' white
stripe to match the detail on Sheet CS-501.
16. Add a"proceed with caution"sign (or similar) prior to stop bar. Locate in grass between curb and
RW near south corner of building to alert drive-thru patrons to blind curve and pedestrians.
Response: A"Proceed with Caution"sign has been added in the drive through prior to the
blind curve. Refer to Sheet CS-101 for details.
kimley-horn.com 1700 Willow Lawn Drive, Suite 200, Richmond, VA 23230 804 673 3882
Kimley>>>Horn Page 5
17. Add std. VDOT stop sign facing traffic entering from adjacent parcel to North, TMP 04500-00-00-
106A0.
Response: A stop sign and stop bar have been added to control traffic entering from the
adjacent parcel. Refer to Sheet CS-101 for details.
18. Provide single yellow line(stripe) for drive-thru that traces dashed line, loading area to front
parking lot. Delineate drive-thru storage with pavement marking.
Response: The striping has been adjusted to provide a single yellow line for the drive through.
Additionally,the drive through has been delineated with additional pavement markings.
19. Recommend add Note for drive-thru storage line. (Line striping note)
Response: A note has been added to detail the striping for the drive through storage line.
20. Provide Alt. design for proposed 1' R curb, loading area. 3' R not possible at this location. 1' R
curb will not survive. Consider options. One option: revise 1' R curb to transition to flush with asphalt
pavement.
Response: The area has been revised to show mountable curb at the 1' radius with a
transition up to full reveal 6" curb over a distance of 12'. Refer to Sheets CS-101 and CG-101
for details.
21. Although Note 2 states all curb radii are 5' unless noted otherwise, this note may be overlooked.
Label all curb radii. Note: Min. curb R =3'.
Response: All curb radii have been labeled as requested.
22. Label parking space width.
Response: Additional dimensions have been added to better provide details regarding parking
space width.
23. Add stop sign for patrons exiting front parking. There is through traffic, west to east. Safety
requires stop condition at this location.
Response: A stop sign has been added to the front parking area as requested.
24. Heavy-duty pavement section is appropriate for drive-thru.
Response: Acknowledged.
kimley-horn.com 1700 Willow Lawn Drive, Suite 200, Richmond, VA 23230 804 673 3882
KimIey )Horn Page 6
25. Revise heavy-duty pavement section for main drive aisles. VDOT Pavement Design Guide
Calculation with ADT=1926 requires Dr=16.71. (Dp=13.83).
Response: The heavy-duty pavement section for the main drive aisles was revised to detail a
section with 2.0" SM-9.5A, 3.0" IM-25.0, and 10"VDOT Type I, 21A dense graded aggregate
base. This results in a Dp of 17.25 which exceeds the VDOT requirements. Refer to Sheet CS-
101 for details.
26. Add drive-thru stop bar to site plan/construction detail image on CS-501.
Response: A note has been added to the stop bar detail shown on Sheet CS-501 to denote the
differences in the drive through stop bar from the typical detail. The note specifies that the
bar shall be extended across the entire lane width as shown on Sheet CS-101.
27. Coordinate Timbarrier details with VDOT, CS-501. Engineering will not recommend site plan
approval unless VDOT accepts Timbarrier design. Engineer should acquire/forward written
acceptance to County.
Response: Through discussions with VDOT, it has been determined that the department is not
willing to provide input on the Timbarrier detail because the guardrail will not be located in a
VDOT right-of-way. Since the TimBarrier StreetGuard model is designed to provide an
aesthetic alternative to traditional galvanized steel W-beam guardrail (specified by VDOT) and
at operating speeds of 25 mph or less, the product should provide the same level of traffic
protection.
28. CG-201/Inlet spread calculations table: Use Std. VDOT nomenclature. Revise table inlet labels.
Response: The inlet spread calculation table has been updated to show VDOT nomenclature.
CU-101:
29. Label inlets. Use std. VDOT nomenclature and letters used on CG-101.
Response: Inlets have been labeled as requested.
30. Label all storm drain pipes: Material, L, DIA, and letters used on CG-101.
Response: Storm drain pipes have been labeled as requested.
31. (Also CG-301) In tables/plan view, assign each storm drain pipe a reference letter or number.
Response:All storm pipes have been assigned reference numbers as requested. Refer to
Sheet CU-101 and CG-301 for details.
kimley-horn.com 1700 Willow Lawn Drive, Suite 200, Richmond, VA 23230 804 673 3882
Kimley >>Horn Page 7
32. Recommend (and have discussed with applicant) additional storm drain inlet near SE corner of
front parking lot. Strongly recommend eliminating MH centered on front parking lot. Any
maintenance that requires access to this MH (E)will require closure of drive-thru, and nearly the
entire front parking lot. (Manholes in street pavement are routinely disapproved by VDOT given
paving and safety considerations.) Applicant should be aware design diminishes circulation, and
impacts safety and site use. Design, F-E-D, is a near-worst option, in my view. If waterline
avoidance is the goal, it appears possible to design for avoidance. (ISP comment#43)
Response: The manhole in the center of the parking lot has been eliminated and the waterline
has been relocated accordingly. Refer to Sheets CG-101 and CU-101 for details.
33. Sewer cleanout touches curb: provide detail for CO in walk(CU-501)that considers and avoids
trip hazard.
Response: The cleanout has been moved into the sidewalk. A detail is shown on Sheet CU-
101 to more accurately denote the design for cleanouts located in the walkway and drive aisle.
A typical cleanout detail has also been added to Sheet CU-501.
34. Sewer cleanout located in pavement: label 2-45° bends. Provide detail for CO in pavement
suitable for location and wear, able to withstand parking lot drive aisle traffic. Detail should include
CO rim elevation.
Response: A label has been added to denote the bends. A detail has also been added for the
cleanout located in the pavement. Refer to Sheet CU-101 for details.
35. Label MH (E), if storm drain system MH design retained.
Response: Manhole E no longer exists and the inlets have been renamed accordingly.
36. CU-201/sanitary profile, building to SS connection: Label 2-45° bends/CO in profile view.
CP-101
Response: The bends have been labeled in profile view on Sheet CU-201.
CP-101
37. Retaining wall: Shift Bosque Elm so canopy drip-line does not intersect(break vertical plane of)
upper retaining wall, regardless of whether wall is CMU or gravity design.
Response: The Bosque Elms have been shifted accordingly.
38. Recommend against 2 black gums, if canopy schematic is accurate, in location where canopy
intersects proposed RW if retaining wall is CMU/geogrid design.
kimley-horn.com 1700 Willow Lawn Drive, Suite 200, Richmond, VA 23230 804 673 3882
KimIey>)Horn Page 8
Response: The Black Gums have been shifted so that the canopy drip line of all but one tree
does not encroach over the retaining wall.
39. Show drive-thru stop bar.
Response: The drive through stop bar is now shown.
40. Eliminate Sawleaf Zelkova near drive-thru lane entrance. Plants with mature height> 30" at this
location will obstruct internal sight distance.
Response: The Zelkova's will be limbed up 8' above grade so that sight distance will not be
obstructed.
41. Shift three junipers centered on storm pipe between inlets A and B.
Response: The three junipers have been shifted so that they are not over the storm pipe.
42. Traffic Management Plan and MOT require VDOT review and approval prior to County
Engineering recommending site plan approval.
Response: Acknowledged.
43. Site plan approval requires WPONSMP Approval—WPO review is pending.
Response: Acknowledged.
44. Recommend bollards where drive-thru is in close proximity to building.
Response: Bollards have not been deemed necessary at this time.
45. Provide foundation drains for retaining walls, and connect to proposed piped conveyance system.
(ISP comment#44)
Response: The retaining wall design has been updated to provide foundation drains and a
note has been added to Sheet CG-101 to ensure connection to the storm system.The wall
design is shown on Sheets CS-501 and CS-502.
kimley-horn.com 1700 Willow Lawn Drive, Suite 200, Richmond, VA 23230 804 673 3882
„J.”
Kimley>>Horn Page 9
Albemarle County Service Authority
1. Remove the following sheets from your ACSA resubmittal:
• CS-301
• CS-302
• CL-101
• CL-102
• CT-500
• CT-501
• CT-502
Response: The sheets have been removed as requested and the cover sheet has been
updated to denote the sheets included in the submittal.
2. Return a completed irrigation application (no fee required)with your resubmittal so that the
irrigation meter can be sized.
Response: The irrigation application is included with the resubmittal. Any information left
blank has not yet been determined and will be provided as it becomes available.
3. Sheet CA-101
• Add the ACSA Water and Sewer General Conditions.
Response: The ACSA Water and Sewer General Conditions have been added to Sheet CA-101
as requested.
4. Sheet CU-101
• Show the existing water meter for 1718 Seminole Trail.
Response: The existing water meter has been shown as requested. Refer to Sheet
CU-101 for details.
• Show the existing water meter for 1700 Seminole Trail.
Response: The existing water meter has been shown and labeled appropriately.
Refer to Sheet CU-101 for details.
• Show the existing exclusion meter for 1700 Seminole Trail.
Response: The existing exclusion meter has been shown and labeled
appropriately. Refer to Sheet CU-101 for details.
• Show the existing water main and call it out to be removed.
Response: The approximate location of the existing water main has been shown
and a label has been added to denote that it should be removed.
• Call out the existing sanitary sewer lateral connection for 1700 Seminole Trail and add
notes to abandon the connection at the main.
kimley-horn.corn 1700 Willow Lawn Drive, Suite 200, Richmond, VA 23230 804 673 3882
may'
Kimley>)Horn Page 10
Response: The existing lateral connection has been shown and labeled with notes
to abandon the connection at the main. Refer to Sheet CU-101 for details.
• Call out the existing sanitary sewer lateral connection for 1710 Seminole Trail and add
notes to abandon the connection at the manhole.
Response: The existing lateral connection has been shown and labeled with notes
to abandon the connection at the manhole. Refer to Sheet CU-101 for details.
• Correctly show the existing water main in Rio Road.
Response: The existing water main in Rio Road has been revised to match the
approximate location marked on the prior review. Refer to Sheet CU-101 for
details.
• Add callout notes on the existing water main in Rio Road that state it is an 8" DIP water
main inside of a 14"casing pipe.
Response: Notes stating that the existing waterline is AN 8" DIP water main inside
a 14" casing pipe have been added. See Sheet CU-101 for details.
• Revise the sanitary sewer connection on the sewer main so it is called out as a saddle
connection.
Response: The sanitary sewer connection has been revised to a saddle
connection.
• Revise the callout note for the existing fire hydrant so it reads"Existing Fire Hydrant to
Remain. Contractor to adjust to grade if required by the ACSA Inspector".
Response: The note has been revised as requested.
• Add an insert showing the existing fire hydrant, CVS domestic service, and CVS irrigation
meter.
Response: An inset has been added to show the existing fire hydrant, CVS
domestic service, and CVS irrigation meter as requested.
• Revise the irrigation backflow notes so they specify an RPZ.
Response: An RPZ has been specified within the irrigation backflow notes.
• Revise the irrigation backflow notes so they do not provide for winter removal. The
ACSA prohibits the removal of this device after installation.
Response: The notes have been revised so that winter removal is not specified.
• Revise the water main location and connection along Rio Road as shown on the plans.
Response: The water main location and connection along Rio Road has been
revised as requested.
• Add an 8" gate valve at your water main connection along the frontage of Route 29
South.
Response: An 8" gate valve has been added at the water main connection along
Route 29 as advised.
5. Sheet CU-201
kimley-horn.com 1700 Willow Lawn Drive, Suite 200, Richmond, VA 23230 804 673 3882
Kimley>>>Horn Page 11
• Show the private water service crossing on the sanitary profile(lateral).
Response: The water service crossing has been shown and labeled on the profile
shown on Sheet CU-201.
• Update the minimum required cover on the water main profile to 3'.
Response: The minimum required cover has been updated to 3'. Refer to Sheet
CU-201 for details.
• Call out the saddle connection on the sanitary sewer profile.
Response: The saddle connection has been called out on the sanitary sewer
profile. Refer to Sheet CU-201 for details.
6. Sheet CP-101
• Relocate the proposed landscaping in the vicinity of the relocated water main along Rio
Road so the trees are located at least 10' from the proposed water main.
Response: The proposed landscaping has been located so that all trees remain
outside of the 20'waterline easement.
Virginia Department of Transportation
1. The landscaping encroaching into the permanent VDOT easement. CVS will be responsible for
maintaining this landscaping.
Response: Acknowledged.
2. Work within right-of-way along Rio Road for the taper construction will be restricted to the hours
of8PMto6AM.
Response: Acknowledged. A note has been added to Sheet CT-500 to reflect this
restriction.
3. It is our understanding that there is a Dominion VA Power easement on this parcel that has not
been shown on the site plan.
Response: The Dominion Power Easement has been included on the plans as requested.
Refer to Sheet CU-101 for details.
kimley-horn.com 1700 Willow Lawn Drive, Suite 200, Richmond, VA 23230 804 673 3882
44111e *We
"4;
• 4
'It 4 It
A„ t
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Rod
Culpeper Virginia 22701
Charles A.Kilpatrick,P.E.
Commissioner
September 30,2015
Ms. Rachel Falkenstein
Senior Planner
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Developoment
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville,VA 22902
Re: SDP-2015-00046 CVS Store at the Rte. 29 & Rio Rd. Intersection
Dear Ms. Falkenstein,
We have reviewed the final site plan for the proposed CVS store to be located at the intersection
of Rte. 29 and Rio Road dated 8/12/15 as submitted by Kimley Horn and offer the following
comments:
I. The landscaping encroaches into the permanent VDOT easement. CVS will be
responsible for maintaining this landscaping.
2. Work within right-of-way along Rio Road for the taper construction will be restricted to
the hours of 8 PM to 6 AM.
3. It is our understanding that there is a Dominion VA Power easement on this parcel that
has not been shown on the site plan.
If you need additional information concerning this project,please do not hesitate to contact me at
(434)422-9782.
Sincerely,
ittt)))t
Troy Austin, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Culpeper District
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
Ki er>Horn
August 12, 2015
CVS - Route 29 &Rio Road
1st submittal - Initial Plan- Comment/Responses for final Plan submittal
Review Comments found on page:
Planning 1
Planning—ARB 3
Fire/Rescue 5
Water& Sewer 6
VDOT 7
Engineering 7
ATTACHMENT A: FLOW TEST 13
Planning
1. This application was reviewed against Site Development Plan requirements only. There is a
Special Use Permit for the proposed drive thru currently under review. Staff recommends the
applicant defer the initial site plan approval until the special use permit is approved as SP review may
lead to circulation and site layout changes.
Response: the special use permit has since been approved
2. Separate subdivision plat required to vacate interior property line. Approved plat required prior to
final site plan approval.
Response: comment noted,plat will be submitted prior to final site plan approval
3. Show or list minimum setbacks. - 144 31 A l 2 f?_
(11 1.)
Response: these have been added to the cover sheet and are also shown on CS-101.
4. Show areas of the site where existing slopes are steep slopes. Disturbance of the managed steep
slopes must meet design standards of section 30.7.5.
Response: the ex. steep slopes are shown and a narrative is provided on sheet CE-501.
kimley-horn.com 1700 Willow Lawn Drive, Suite 200, Richmond, VA 23230 804 673 3882
Ki >>> Horn Page 2
5. Add note to state this site is not within a water supply watershed.
Response: this note is added to the cover sheet, under the project data heading.
6. Show Rio Road median and show traffic pattern on Rio Road more clearly.
Response: more detail has been added to sheet CS-101 to more clearly show the traffic pattern
7.Provide width of Rio Road entrance and width of travelway on plans. Will there be any pavement
markings on this entrance/travelway other than stop bar?
Response: dimensions have been added along the drive aisle.No add '1 markings are proposed
at this time.
8. Clarify easements on plan. What is `existing permanent utility easement' shown on site plan sheet?
What is '10' landscape buffer?Provide ownership of easements and if easements are existing provide
deed book and page number. Show easements consistently on site plan, utility plan, and landscape
plan sheets.
Response: the existing permanent easement was relabeled as the VDOT permanent easement,
the landscape buffer is the 10 ft parking setback and relabeled as such.A property exhibit sheet
(CA-201) has been created to more clearly show the easements as they overlap one another.
9. Label loading zone on plan and provide all dimensions.
Response: the loading zone has been labeled on CS-101.
10. Amend scale of the landscape plan to 1 inch=20 feet. It is difficult to read and measure at
current scale.
Response: the scale is now 1:20.
11. Street tree exception request—More information is needed to determine if this exception can be
granted.
a. Provide details on the VDOT easement including landscaping restrictions within this
easement. If easement is still pending, provide correspondence from VDOT listing easement
size, location and specific restrictions.
Response: the easement documents will be provided with this submittal under separate
cover.
b. There appears to be a small 3-4' strip of land between the utility/VDOT easements and the
parking area. Could small or medium street trees be provided here?
kimley-horn.com 1700 Willow Lawn Drive, Suite 200, Richmond, VA 23230 804 673 3882
Kimley)))Horn Page 3
Response: there is a small strip that is not encumbered by a County easement so an
ornamental tree has been shown in this area along Route 29.It is however located in the
VDOT easement which will require VDOT approval.
c. Is there an alternative location for the waterline easement to allow for more landscaping
along Route 29 to allow for additional plantings.
Response: The waterline was located in the parking lot in order to keep it away from
the landscape buffer.With the VDOT easement and the sanitary sewer easement an
alternate waterline layout would not be of any benefit.
d. On a site restricted by utility easements and other restrictions, street trees are permitted within
the parking area. Consider locating street trees within parking area along Route 29. These
trees can be also counted toward the interior parking area requirements.
Response: no additional parking spaces can be lost due to being below code already.
Trees are planted in the parking area wherever possible.
12. Minimum parking exception request—More information is needed to determine if this exception
can be granted.
a. Provided traffic generation figures from similar sized CVS stores.
Response: actual parking data is not available,ITE figures are referenced on the cover
sheet and in the parking waiver memo provided by Kimley-Horn.
b. Plans reference a shared entrance and parking easement. Is there a shared parking agreement
with adjacent TMP 45-106.
Response: there is a shared parking agreement allowing the property to the north to use
the 5 spaces provided at the northern end of the site. CVS does not have rights to any of
their parking.
c. Parking exception is under review by zoning staff. Zoning comments will be provided upon
receipt.
Response: the parking exception was granted on July 15,2015.
Planning -ARB
1. Show how the visibility of rooftop equipment will be eliminated. Provide site sections and details
on the proposed method of screening the rooftop equipment.
Response: The developer and architect have provided spec sheets of the roof top screening
proposed.If another copy is needed please contact Paul Sprouse at The Rebkee Company.
kimley-horn,com 1700 Willow Lawn Drive, Suite 200, Richmond, VA 23230 804 673 3882
KimIey>>Horn Page 4
2.Add the standard mechanical equipment note to the plan: "Visibility of all mechanical equipment
from the Entrance Corridor shall be eliminated."
Response: this note has been added to the site plan sheet(CS-101, note 8).
3.Provide a copy of the VDOT easement document. With the next ARB submittal,provide
information from VDOT outlining the types and sizes of landscaping allowed in the easement.
Response: the easement documents will be provided with this submittal under separate cover.
4. Shift the new water line to provide planting area for trees along the Rt. 29 frontage.
Response: the waterline cannot be shifted to provide additional planting area along Rt.29 as
the retaining wall cant be within the easement and public utilities wants the line to be outside of
the turn lane.
5.Revise the plan to clearly label all utility lines and the width of each easement. Indicate on the plan
the height of the overhead electric line.
Response: the property exhibit sheet was created to more clearly show the lines and width.It is
our understanding that the OHE will be relocated slightly as part of VDOTs work and it is our
assumption that it will be replaced to the required height standard.
6. Provide landscaping consistent with the EC guidelines to the extent allowed by the VDOT and
utility easements.
Response: Comment noted,the landscaping plan has been revised.
7. Provide the Rt. 29 frontage trees at 3 '/2"caliper at planting.
Response: the caliper of the trees have been increased as requested
8. Provide the landscape plan at the standard scale of 1"=20'.
Response: the scale has been revised to 1:20 as requested.
9. Increase the size of the trees along the entrance drive on the west side of the site to 2 '/2"caliper at
planting.
Response: the caliper of the trees have been increased as requested
10. Provide all perimeter shrubs at a minimum planting height of at least 24", including shrubs
adjacent to Rio Road and Route 29.
Response: the perimeter shrubs were increased to 24"as requested.
kimley-horn.corn 1700 Willow Lawn Drive, Suite 200, Richmond,VA 23230 804 673 3882
Kimle\o>Horn Page 5
11. Significantly enhance the shrub planting along the Rt. 29 frontage to better compensate for the
lack of shade and ornamental trees.
Response: the shrub plantings have been revised to create more depth and variability in species.
12.Add the standard plant health note to the plan: "All site plantings of trees and shrubs shall be
allowed to reach,and be maintained at,mature height;the topping of trees is prohibited. Shrubs and
trees shall be pruned minimally and only to support the overall health of the plant."
Response: This note was added to CP-l0l (note 4).
13.Adjust the quantities of plants and/or species so that the number of proposed plants for any one
species does not exceed 25%of the total proposed plant type.
Response: the percentages have been adjusted.
14.Revise the plan to make the retaining wall a sculptural element in the landscape, closely
coordinated with planting.
Response: the wall was revised from one large wall to a terraced retaining wall with plantings
along all three levels. The wall will be made of brick and match the CVS building.
15. Indicate on the site plan the material and color proposed for the retaining walls. Provide a
manufacturer's cut sheet and color sample. Provide specific information showing that the proposed
wall type and material allow for the planting that is shown.
Response: the wall is labeled as a 6 ft max terraced wall made of brick material to match the
CVS building. The design is not currently available and will be provided by others.Due to an
agreement with VDOT no geogrid is proposed at it would extend into their easement which is
not allowed. Therefore,no issues with planting are anticipated at this time as the wall will be a
gravity wall.
Fire/Rescue
1. If the building will have a sprinkler system the FDC shall be located on the address side of the
structure.
Response: the building will not be sprinklered.
2. Fire Flow test required before final approval.
kimley-horn.com- 1700 Willow Lawn Drive, Suite 200, Richmond, VA 23230 804 673 3882
Kimle0Horn Page 6
Response: a fire flow test was provided by ACSA and provided as an attachment to thee end of
this document.
3. Please add a note to the plans, "Contact Albemarle County Fire Marshal's Office to determine the
location of the Knox Key Secure Box 434-296-5833."
Response: this note was added to sheet CU-101 (Note 3)
Water&Sewer
1. Final water and sewer plans are required for review and approval by the ACSA. Please submit 3
copies of the plan, a water data sheet and a sewer data sheet to the attention of Jeremy Lynn, PD.
Response: Comment noted,plans will be submitted to ACSA with next submittal.
2. The waterline reconnection along the Rio Road frontage shall be shifted outside of the travel way.
Response: the waterline was shifted as close to the site as possible so that the easement and
retaining wall don't conflict. The valves are now located near the edge of the right turn lane.
3. The water and sewer connections to the building shall be reversed so that the lines do not cross in
the parking area.
Response: as discussed these connections cannot be reversed due to the interior layout of the
building.
4. The retaining wall(and associated footers)must be completely outside of the proposed waterline
easement.
Response: comment noted,the wall will be outside of the easement.
5.An irrigation application will be required to provide an irrigation meter to this site.
Response: An existing meter onsite is proposed to be re-used for irrigation.The irrigation
system for CVS is always design-build during construction so we will need further guidance on
when to submit this form in order to receive approval. Thanks
6. Fixture counts will be required to size the domestic water meter.
Response: fixture counts are provided under separate cover.
kimley-horn.com 1700 Willow Lawn Drive, Suite 200, Richmond, VA 23230 804 673 3882
Kiy>>)Horn Page 7
VDOT
1. Per Appendix F on the Road Design Manual,the minimum radius of commercial entrances is 25'
instead of the 20' shown for the entrance onto Route 29.
Response: the radius has been revised to 25 ft.
2. Per Appendix F of the Road Design Manual,the pavement structure of the commercial entrances
shall be comparable to that of the adjacent roadways. The pavement structure of Route 29 and Rio
Road should be verified and the structure of each entrance to the site may need to be revised.
Response: per conversations with VDOT the pavement structure for 29 and Rio Road are
unknown therefore the plans call for matching the section in the adjacent travel lane. Corings
will be performed at the start of construction or determined once more information on the GSI
project becomes available.
3. The retaining wall is located close to a utility easement along Rio Road. Prior to approval of the
final site plan,we will need to review the final design of the retaining wall to ensure that the retaining
wall system does not have an adverse impact on the utility easement. In particular,we need to verify
whether there will be tie-ins or a geo-grid for the retaining wall that will extend into the easement.
Response: Comment noted,no geogrid is planned for the top wall at this time
4. Can the existing connection with the adjacent site to the north nearest to Route 29 be removed?
Concern with this connection is that the proximity to Route 29 may potentially impact traffic from
Route 29 turning into the site. If this connection cannot be removed, can it be relocated further from
Route 29 or improved so that the width of connection and alignment match the width and alignment
of the travelway to the south that runs in front of the proposed building?
Response: no changes to the connection/entrance are proposed.
Engineering
A.Initial Site Plan (SDP201500016)
Design at NW corner of building is problematic; Engineering cannot approve. Issues include:
a. With curved rather than straight 24' access from entrance to the west, sight distance is obstructed
for vehicles reversing from any of the 5 parking spaces along north edge of the site. [18-4.12.15.d.]
b. Vehicles entering CVS from west entrance are unable to use drive-thru(if queue).
kimley-horn.com 1700 Willow Lawn Drive, Suite 200, Richmond,VA 23230 804 673 3882
eyp
>>Horn Page 8
c. Loading zone striping/dumpster enclosure access conflicts with circulation: drive-thru, site(west
entrance). [18-4.12.13.b.]
d. Insufficient stacking(100' Min, per Institute of Transportation Engineers: 5-car minimum). [18-
4.12.6,Drive-in lane serving any use]
Response: the layout has been revised and 6 stacking spaces have been provided.
CS-101
14. Show fire hydrant(FH)to remain/to be protected near south curb at Route 29 entrance.
Response: the fire hydrant is now shown on CS-101
15. Recommend 5' wide cross-walk to parking area located on property to the north, if properties
share parking.
Response: due to the grade change and lack of room on-site to lose landscape areas no
crosswalk is proposed.The drive aisle can be used to walk from site to site.
16. Show full extent of 565-ft line of sight @45 mph/Seminole Trail. Also, include traffic control
plan. It is County understanding that VDOT requires a traffic control plan prior to site plan approval
(Also,Traffic Control Note, CS-301).
Response: A traffic control plan is now provided at the end of the planset.Also,the full extents
of the line of sight can be found on sheet CS-501.
17. Pavement design inadequate: using weekday ADT=1926: DR=3.48(ln ADT)- 1.48(ln SSV)-
7.23 =17.04. DP=14.67. Please revise: DP>DR.
Response: ECS has revisited the pavement design and supplied us with updated sections. If
further details are warranted please contact K-H and we can coordinate with ECS.
18. Revise pavement sections such that subgrade elev. identical. Increase depth of light-duty
pavement section VDOT Type 1,21A, as needed.Proposed parking aisle/parking space subgrades
differ,which is infeasible from a construction(or inspection) standpoint.
Response: this is a CVS standard on most all of their sites and the developer wishes to keep the
different sections as HD pavement is not needed in parking spaces.
19. Revise all curb radii to 3'R, min.Also, double-check all curb radii; for example: R80.0,NW
corner;R48.5' (10.7' raised median,NE corner).
Response: the curb radii and labels have been fixed.There is one radii at the NWC of the site
that can't be increased to 3 ft.and is shown remaining as 1 ft.
20. Label loading zone.
Response: the loading zone is labeled on CS-101
21.Label fire lane.
kimley-horn.com 1700 Willow Lawn Drive, Suite 200, Richmond, VA 23230 804 673 3882
ey>>>Horn Page 9
Response: Fire lane signage has been shown on the western drive aisle coming from the Rio
Road entrance.Note#5 on CS-101 also addressed the requirement of the fire lane and
additional signage,if required by fire marshal.
22. Label FH to remain(on site plan sheet).
Response: this note has been added.
23. Specify design of timber guardrail.Meet or exceed VDOT standard.
Response: The Timbarrier Streetgard system has been called out on sheet CS-101 and a detail
is provided on sheet CS-501.
24. Show wire or rebar reinforcement, 5"concrete, Concrete Pavement Section.
Response:wire mesh is to be used for heavy duty pavement section only
25. Provide CG-12 ramp at raised island at bldg. exterior service/delivery door.
Response: the rear of the site was redesigned and there is a now a ramp leading to the service
door.
26.Recommend bollards where drive-thru is in close proximity to building.
Response: a 3 ft striped strip along the building is provided per CVS standard
27. Geotechnical retaining wall design required for final site plan approval(computations;
plan/profile; design/inspection/construction notes; safety rail details; drainage; backfill)—please call if
questions.
Response: the wall design will be provided under separate cover by another consultant prior to
final review.
CA-001
28.VSMP required for site plan approval.
Response: Comment noted.
CE-101
29. Phase 1 E&S Control and Demo Plan must show interim existing conditions since VDOT grade-
separated interchange improvements will be complete prior to commencement of CVS construction.
Response: CE-101 shows this condition.
30. Show CE as paved CE(PCE).Include paved construction entrance detail,Attached to comments.
Response: the CE is now called out as a PCE.
31. SF cannot be installed as a perimeter measure prior to demolition of concrete median. Revise.
kimley,-horn.com 1700 Willow Lawn Drive, Suite 200, Richmond, VA 23230 804 673 3882
t ley>>>Horn Page 10
Response: Silt fence is proposed in grass areas along Route 29 and along the northern limits of
the site.
32. Add sequence of construction notes to preserve existing storm inlets closest to Rte. 29 as long as
possible. These convey runoff offsite. Once existing inlets are demolished,provide sequence that
provides adequate ESC measures at points of entry to storm lines A to V1, and X2 to V4. Furnish
detail/s for ESC measure/s that capture and filter runoff during construction.Runoff to Rte. 29 is
impermissible. CE-101 provides inadequate perimeter measures. Insert Additional Notes between
construction sequence Notes 4 and 5.
Response: notes were added to keep the existing inlets closest to 29 operational as long as
possible. There is a note in planview as well point to the structure to remain,this note can also
be seen on CG-101.Diversion dikes will be installed if necessary as well as any additional inlet
protection that may be required as construction progresses.
33. Obtain temporary construction or grading easements from adjacent owners as necessary.
Response: there are existing access/construction easements in place already.
34. Revise Phase 1 probable construction sequence Note 1: Pre-construction meetings are held at
COB.
Response: this note has been revised on CE-101.
35. Explain label"Ex. Detention system to be removed."There is no mention of an existing detention
system in SWM Narrative, CG-301. There is(generic?) section titled Stormwater Detention
Structures on CS-301.
Response: there is an existing detention system serving the corner parcel,however,no details or
specifics on the system have been able to be located.Per discussions with VDOT the detention
system can be removed as no control for the site is modeled in the calculations for the storm
drain along Route 29.
36. Show stockpile location, if stockpile proposed.
Response: A temporary stockpile area is shown but due to the large amount of export required
for the site it is not anticipated to be needed for an extended period of time.
37.Provide SWPPP. Recommend County template.
Response: A SWPPP is provided under separate cover.
CE-501
38. SWM Narrative should reflect VPDES CGP/SWPPP inspection and maintenance requirements.
Project requires VPDES CGP(SWPPP).VSMP permit(CGP)required for site plan approval.
kimley-horn.com 1700 Willow Lawn Drive, Suite 200, Richmond, VA 23230 804 673 3882
Kimley >>Horn Page 11
Response: An "inspections and Maintenance"section has been added to sheet CE-501 per
VPDES requirements.
39.Project description states land disturbance is 1.54±Ac, but value listed as 1.59 Ac, elsewhere.
Reconcile.
Response: the LD was revised due to plan changes and is now 1.69 acres,so it is reflected as
such on all sheets that mention it.
40.Project description(4th paragraph)explains construction"operations are expected to begin once
the permitting process is complete."Revise to coincide with grade-separated interchange project
completion.
Response: The sentence was revised to read "once the permitting process is complete and once
VDOT completes all utility and roadway work along the properties frontage required for the
grade separated interchange project."
41. Include paved construction entrance detail. (Attached).
Response: provided on sheet CE-501 (bottom left)
CS-301
42. Provide Rte. 29 traffic control plan for VDOT review prior to site plan approval.
Response: Comment noted, refer to CT series of sheets in this site plan package.
CG-101
43. Recommend eliminate MH/E, and instead locate an additional storm drain inlet in curb at west
edge of parking lot,with storm pipes between inlet F,new inlet,and inlet D.
Response: in order to keep storm drain away from VDOT's easement and the utilities located in
the landscaped area we would propose to keep the manhole where currently shown.
44. Provide foundation drains for retaining walls, and connect to proposed piped conveyance system.
Response: to be included in wall design (by others)
45. Calculate and provide inlet spread at inlets A,B, C,D,F. Provide inlet spread/capacity
computations.
Response: the inlet spreads were calculated and are shown on sheet CG-201.
CG-301
46. Evidence of purchase of nutrient credits from Wildwood Farm is required prior to VSMP
Approval.
kimley-horn.com 1700 Willow Lawn Drive, Suite 200, Richmond, VA 23230 804 673 3882
ley>>>Horn Page 12
Response: Comment noted
47. Furnish VaRRM re-development spreadsheet,as .xls.
Response: this will be emailed to the reviewer.
48. Revise Total Phosphorus load reduction required to 0.11 (lb/yr), consistent with VaRRM
.xls/reported pre-/post-redevelopment ground cover.
Response: the spreadsheet has been updated to reflect the latest layout.A 20% reduction was
used due to the land disturbance for the project being greater than one acre.
49. Revise SWM Assumptions/Notes,Note 2,to address effects of removing existing detention. More
detail is required relative to existing SW detention system.
Response: VDOTs redesign of the Route 29 drainage system does not include the detention
system.Their stormwater design is based on the existing imperviousness of the site.
50. Revise SWM Note 4 to reference sheet CG-301.
Response: The note has been corrected.
51. Revise SW Quality Narrative to reflect 0.11 lb/yr phosphorus reduction, consistent with VaRRM
.xls
Response: the spreadsheet has been updated to reflect the latest layout.A 20% reduction was
used due to the land disturbance being greater than one acre.
52. Revise structure labels(storm drain design and hydraulic grade line calculations tables)to identify
which structures are existing(Ex.), and will remain.
Response: An "EX"was added to existing structures to remain
53. Submit VSMP Application.
Response: The VSMP application will be provided with this submittal.
kimley-horn.com 1700 Willow Lawn Drive, Suite 200, Richmond, VA 23230 804 673 3882
Kimley))>Horn Page 13
ATTACHMENT A:FLOW TEST
Hydrant Flow Date of Report
Ausuio 8/11/2015
Test Report
tsodimp frAle ChwirgAirmse 51)..zapit $M5 97745555
Location Rio Rd and 29
Date and Time of Test 8/11/2015 1:00:00 PM
Minutes of Flow 2
Pipe Size(Inches) 8
Pressure Hydrant 10546
Static Pressure(psi) 68
Residual Pressure(psi) 62
Flow Hydrant#1 12667 Pitot Pressure#1(psi) 42 Test Flow 1 906
Flow Hydrant#2 12673 Pitot Pressure#2(psi) 36 Test Flow 2 838
Flow Hydrant#3 Pitot Pressure#3(psi) Test Flow 3 0
Total Estimated Flow(gpm) 1744
Estimated Consumption(gal) 3488
AWWA Q20 Calculation(gpm) 0
(Value of zero indicates insufficient pressure drop for calculation)
Comments
Both hydrants were fully open
For method of cakulating pitot flow with a diffuser:see eq.la,Waiski and lutes article 1990 Journal Management and Operations AWWA
(All tests conducted using 2.5 discharge outlet unless otherwise specified)
Signature of Tester:
kimley-horn.corn 1700 Willow Lawn Drive, Suite 200, Richmond,VA 23230 804 673 3882
Rachel Falkenstein
From: Davies, Ashley<adavies@williamsmullen.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2D1511:O2AM
To: Rachel Falkenstein '
Subject: RE: CVS Final Site Plan
Hi Rachel,
It is very important to keep the review process moving forward on this project due to the complexities of tenant leases,
grade separated interchange work, and many other pieces of the puzzle. At this point we know that there are zero
issues from staff for the drive thru and a unanimous recommendation for approval from the Planning
Commission. When you wrote the Initial Approval Letter, I assume you included that condition at the time because you
were concerned that the site plan would change based on the Special Use Permit review. We now know, in all
likelihood,that the Site Plan will not change based on the final vote of the Special Use Permit. Things are coming
together in the way we had all hoped through lots of hard work by all the staff carefully reviewing this project.
The conditions delineated in the letter are required to be met prior to Final Site Plan approval. So we are satisfying the
conditions as they are referenced in this particular letter, and in my opinion,satisfying the code since it points us to the
letter—the letter shows that conditions must be met prior to approval. I am sorry if the letter is incorrect or not what
was intended, but it is the official document we received and have been working from.
If you are concerned that the letter doesn't match up with the code as written,we would be comfortable with you
issuing an updated letter with new language, so long as it removes condition#1. Another general observation about
32.4.1(A)—seems a little chicken and egg in that you can't determine whether most of the conditions from the letter are
met unless you actually review the plans, and to review the plans they must be submitted.
Anyway, my apologies for belaboring this point as I know you are just doing your job. I hope we can all work together to
get this pject over the finish line, and I appreciate your consideration.
Ashley
From: Rachel Falkenstein [nlaiUo:rfo|kenstein@a|bemade.org]
Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2015 11:22 AM
To: Davies, Ashley
Subject: RE: CVS Final Site Plan
Ashley,
You do have a good point about the letter, perhaps we should consider rewording our form letter for initial approvals.
However, the ordinance is what we have to go by here:
3A
—'-(�U` ' Prerequisites ^-~~~'' ^^~'' final site plan shall not be submitted unless: (i) an initial site plan was
approved fothe development d it remains valid; (ii) section 32.6;
and (iii)the final site plan satisfies all of the conditions delineated in the letter provided under section 32.4.2.5(c)
required to be satisfied priorplan.~ �
As I mentioned before you can submit your WPO at this time to get a head start, as this is often the longest piece of the
final review.
1
From: Davies,Ashley [mailto:adaviesPwilliamsmullen.com]
Sent: Friday,August 07, 2015 1:36 PM
To: Rachel Falkenstein <rfalkenstein@albemarle.org>
Subject: RE: CVS Final Site Plan
Hi Rachel,
This is the wording of the letter. It says will not be approved versus will not be submitted. In my opinion,this allows us
to submit a final site plan understanding that it won't be approved until all of the conditions are satisfied. We would like
to submit the Final Site Plan the week on August 17th, in order to keep the project moving forward. Let's get together
and discuss if we need to.
The final site plan will not be approved until the following conditions are met: 2 Planning Division Approval of:
(2 Copies are required to be submitted for review) 1. Compliance with an approved Special Use Permit
(SP2015-020)to allow the construction of the drive through use.
From: Rachel Falkenstein [mailto:rfalkensteinc albemarle.orq]
Sent:Thursday, August 06, 2015 1:55 PM
To: Davies, Ashley
Subject: RE: CVS Final Site Plan
Ashley,
I have gone ahead and scheduled this for the BOS meeting Sept 9. Does this work for your schedule?
As a follow-up,did you still want to try to meet with Balmun to discuss the project? If so, I could report back to the
Board that though we did not get the letter of support that we did meet with the property owner. I will leave this up to
you since the PC stated this could move forward without the letter of support and I understand Balmun may not be
interested in a meeting.
The final site plan cannot be submitted until the SP is approved.There is a provision in the ordinance (see language
below) stating that a final site plan shall not be submitted until it satisfies all the conditions delineated in the initial site
plan approval letter.One of these conditions was approval of the SP for the drive-through. However,there is nothing
that says you can't start on your WPO plan at this time.Often the VSMP approval can take longer than site plan review
so starting this now might give you a head start.
Thanks,
Rachel
32.4.3.1(A)Prerequisites to submittal. A final site plan shall not be submitted unless: (i) an initial site plan was
approved for the development and it remains valid; (ii)the final site plan satisfies all of the requirements of section 32.6;
and (iii)the final site plan satisfies all of the conditions delineated in the letter provided under section 32.4.2.5(c)
required to be satisfied prior to submitting the final site plan.
From: Davies,Ashley [mailto:adavies@williamsmullen.com]
Sent:Thursday,August 06,2015 1:23 PM
To: Rachel Falkenstein<rfalkenstein@albemarle.org>
Subject:CVS Final Site Plan
Hi Rachel,
2
Thanks for your report Tuesday nightthe Planning Commission. The client is**tiled by the unanimous vote to
recommend approval. Do you know when we will be scheduled for the Board of Supervisors?
Since the PC meeting went so well and it seems that we have worked through the site issues,the client would like to go
ahead and submit our final site plan. We understand that this would be at our own risk,and that the final site plan
could not be approved prior to SP approval for the drive through. Is there someone with whom we need to meet and
discuss this request, or is this something you would now feel comfortable with? Thanks for your feedback.
Ashley
Ashley Davies
Land Use Planner
Williams Mullen
321 East Main St.
Suite 400
Charlottesville,VA 22902-3200
T 434.951.5725
F 434.817.0977
adavies@awi ll iamsmu l len.com
www.williamsmullen.com
Follow us on Linkedin, Eacebook,Twitter and YauTube.
Sign up for legal email alerts here.
NOTICE: Information contained in this transmission to the named addressee is proprietary and is subject to attorney-client privilege and work product
confidentiality.If the recipient of this transmission is not the named addressee,the recipient should immediately notify the sender and destroy the
information transmitted without making any copy or distribution thereof.
3
i�g
ZlifdePr'l
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville,Virginia 22902-4596
Phone(434)296-5832 Fax(434)972-4126
July 15, 2015
Ashley Cooper
Williams Mullen
321 East Main Street, Suite 400
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: CVS Pharmacy#86047 at Rio &29
Tax Map 61, Parcel 123F •
• 1700 Seminole Trail
Dear Ms. Davies:
This letter is provided in response to your request for a parking reduction at the site referenced
above from 67 to 57 parking spaces to serve a pharmacy/drugstore use with drive through
window and 8,362 square feet of retail sales floor area (11,945 square feet gross floor area).
Under Section 4.12.6 of the zoning ordinance, a retail use not otherwise identified requires 1
parking space per 100 square feet of retail sales area for the first 5,000 square feet and 1 space
per 200 square feet of retail sales area above 5,000 square feet, resulting in the 67 required
spaces. Based on an analysis of relevant information, we hereby approve your request for a 10
space reduction, resulting in 57 parking spaces required for this use.
This approval is given for a 10 space reduction for a store with 8,362 feet of retail sales
area served by a drive through window. This approval is based on the reasons set forth
below:
• The parking warrant analysis you submitted dated April 3, 2015 cites parking demand
estimates by the Institute of Transportation Engineers for a pharmacy/drugstore with
drive through window based upon parking studies of existing sites. The observed peak
period of parking demand was 3.58 vehicles per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area;
therefore, 11,945 square feet of gross floor area is anticipated to generate a peak
parking demand of 43 spaces, well below the ordinance requirement of 67 spaces.
• The site is located on a transit line, making it reasonable to expect that some employees
and/or patrons will take transit to the site.
• The presence of a drive through lane on the site designed to accommodate up to six
vehicles will reduce the demand for on-site parking.
Anybody aggrieved by this determination, has a right to appeal it within 30 days of this notice,
in accordance with Virginia Code§ 15.2-2311; provided, however, that a 10 day appeal period
applies to appeals of decisions pertaining to temporary or seasonal commercial uses, and
such appeals shall be filed within ten 10 days after this decision. If you do not file a timely
appeal, this determination shall be final and unappealable.
An appeal may be taken only by filing an appeal application with the Zoning Administrator and
•
}
Nose Nrioo
the Board of Zoning Appeals, in accordance with Albemarle County Code§ 18-34.3, along
with a fee of$240 plus the actual cost of advertising the appeal for public hearing.
Applications for Appeal of the Zoning Administrator's Determination are available at the
Department of Community Development located at 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia
22902 or online at www.albemarle.orq/cdapps. This form applies to appeals of decisions of
the zoning administrator or any other administrative officer pertaining to the Zoning Ordinance.
Regulations pertaining to the filing of an appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals are outlined in
Albemarle County Code § 18-34.3, which may be reviewed online at
www.albemarle.orq/countvcodebza.
Please contact me if you have questions or require additional information.
Sincerely,
IG—
I
Amanda Burbage
Senior Planner
. j
•
nr..410111r�
:6:.:E7-614.t,i
.""''XIIIII
�'IRG1**
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,North Wing
Charlottesville,Virginia 22902-4596
Phone(434)296-5832 Fax(434)972-4126
June 19,2015
Ashley Davies
321 East Main St
Suite 400
Charlottesville,VA 22902
RE:SDP201500016 CVS(Rio&29N)—Initial Site Development Plan
Dear Ms. Davies:
The Agent for the Board of Supervisors hereby grants administrative approval to the above referenced
site plan.
This approval shall be valid for a period of five (5) years from the date of this letter, provided that the
developer submits a final site plan for all or a portion of the site within one (1)year after the date of this
letter as provided in section 32.4.3.1 of Chapter 18 of the Code of the County of Albemarle,and thereafter
diligently pursues approval of the final site plan.
An Erosion and Sediment Control Permit may be issued after the following approvals are received:
1. Approval an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan meeting the requirements of Chapter 17 of the
Code of the County of Albemarle.
2. Approval of a Stormwater Management Plan meeting the requirements of Chapter 17 of the Code.
3. Approval of all easements for facilities for stormwater management and drainage control.
4. Approval of a mitigation plan for the disturbance of Water Protection Ordinance buffers.
5. Submittal of a tree conservation checklist.
The final site plan will not be considered to have been officially submitted until the following items are
received:
1. A final site plan that satisfies all of the requirements of section 32.6 of Chapter 18 of the Code.
2. A fee of$1,500.
Please submit ten (10), copies of the final plans to the Community Development Department. The
assigned Lead Reviewer will then distribute the plans to all reviewing agencies.Once you receive the first
set of comments on the final site plan, please work with each reviewer individually to satisfy their
requirements. Provide proof of each reviewer's tentative approval once received. The Lead Review will
notify you when it is time to submit copies for signature.
The final site plan will not be approved until the following conditions are met:
1
Planning Division Approval of: (2 Copies are required to be submitted for review)
1. Compliance with an approved Special Use Permit (SP2015-020) to allow the construction of the
drive through use.
2. A site plan meeting all the requirements of section 32.6 of Chapter 18 of the Code.
3. [Comment]Separate subdivision plat required to vacate interior property line.Approved plat
required prior to final site plan approval.
4. [32.5.2(a)]Show or list minimum setbacks.
5. [32.5.2(d)]Show areas of the site where existing slopes are steep slopes. Disturbance of the
managed steep slopes must meet design standards of section 30.7.5.
6. [32.5.2(f)]Add note to state this site is not within a water supply watershed.
7. [32.5.2(i)]Show Rio Road median and show traffic pattern on Rio Road more clearly.
8. [32.5.2(i)] Provide width of Rio Road entrance and width of travelway on plans.Will there be
any pavement markings on this entrance/travelway other than stop bar?Could a crosswalk be
added here?
9. [32.5.2(j)]Clarify easements on plan. What is 'existing permanent utility easement'shown on
site plan sheet?What is '10' landscape buffer'?Provide ownership of easements and if
easements are existing provide deed book and page number. Show easements consistently on
site plan, utility plan, and landscape plan sheets.
10. [32.5.2(n)] Label loading zone on plan and provide all dimensions.
11. [32.5.2(p)]Amend scale of the landscape plan to 1 inch=20 feet. It is difficult to read and
measure at current scale.
12. [Street tree exception request] More information is needed to determine if this exception can
be granted.
a. Provide details on the VDOT easement including landscaping restrictions within this
easement. If easement has been recorded, provide deed book and page number. If
easement is still pending, provide correspondence from VDOT listing easement size,
location and specific restrictions.
b. There appears to be a small 3-4'strip of land between the utility/VDOT easements and
the parking area. Could small or medium street trees be provided here?
c. Is there an alternative location for the waterline easement to allow for more
landscaping along Route 29 to allow for additional plantings?
d. On a site restricted by utility easements and other restrictions,street trees are
permitted within the parking area. Consider locating street trees within parking area
along Route 29.These trees can also be counted toward the interior parking area
requirements.
Engineering Division Approval (1 Copy is required to be submitted for review)
See attached comments.
Architectural Review Board Approval (1 Copy are required to be submitted for review)
A Certificate of Appropriateness is required prior to final site plan approval.
1. Show how the visibility of rooftop equipment will be eliminated. Provide site sections and details
on the proposed method of screening the rooftop equipment.
2. Add the standard mechanical equipment note to the plan:"Visibility of all mechanical equipment
from the Entrance Corridor shall be eliminated."
3. Provide a copy of the VDOT easement document. With the next ARB submittal, provide
information from VDOT outlining the types and sizes of landscaping allowed in the easement.
4. Shift the new water line to provide planting area for trees along the Rt. 29 frontage.
5. Revise the plan to clearly label all utility lines and the width of each easement. Indicate on the
plan the height of the overhead electric line.
2
6. Provide landscaping consistent with the EC guidelines to the extent allowed by the VDOT and
utility easements.
7. Provide the Rt. 29 frontage trees at 3%"caliper at planting.
8. Provide the landscape plan at a standard scale of 1"=20'.
9. Increase the size of the trees along the entrance drive on the west side of the site to 2%" caliper
at planting.
10. Provide all perimeter shrubs at a minimum planting height of at least 24", including shrubs
adjacent to Rio Road and Route 29.
11. Significantly enhance the shrub planting along the Rt. 29 frontage to better compensate for the
lack of shade and ornamental trees.
12. Add the standard plant health note to the plan: "All site plantings of trees and shrubs shall be
allowed to reach,and be maintained at, mature height;the topping of trees is prohibited. Shrubs
and trees shall be pruned minimally and only to support the overall health of the plant."
13. Adjust the quantities of plants and/or species so that the number of proposed plants for any one
species does not exceed 25%of the total proposed for that plant type.
14. Revise the plan to make the retaining wall a sculptural element in the landscape, closely
coordinated with the planting.
15. Indicate on the site plan the material and color proposed for the retaining walls. Provide a
manufacturer's cut sheet and color sample. Provide specific information showing that the
proposed wall type and material allow for the planting that is shown.
Building Inspections Approval (1 Copy is required to be submitted for review)
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority(1 copy is required to be submitted for review)
Albemarle County Service Authority Approval(1 copy is required to be submitted for review)
1. Final Water and Sewer plans are required for review and approval by the ACSA. Please submit 3
copies of the plan,a water data sheet and a sewer data sheet to the attention of Jeremy Lynn, PE.
2. The waterline reconnection along the Rio Road frontage shall be shifted outside of the travel way.
3. The water and sewer connections to the building shall be reversed so that the lines do not cross
in the parking area.
4. The retaining wall(and associated footers)must be completely outside of the proposed waterline
easement.
5. An irrigation application will be required to provide an irrigation meter to this site.
6. Fixture counts will be required to size the domestic water meter.
Albemarle County Fire Rescue Approval(1 copy is required to be submitted for review)
1. If the building will have sprinkler system the FDC shall be located on the address side of the
structure.
2. Fire Flow test required before final approval.
3. Please add a note to the plans. " Contact Albemarle County Fire Marshals Office to determine the
location of the Knox Key Secure Box 434-296-5833"
Albemarle County Police Department—Courtesy CPTED Review (1 copy is required to be submitted for
review)
See attached comments.
3
Virginia Department of Transportation Approval (1 Copy is required to be submitted for review)
See attached comments.
If you have any questions about these conditions or the submittal requirements please feel free to contact
me at Extension 3272, rfalkenstein@albemarle.org.
Sincerely,
PVID
&-a-P
Rachel Falkenstein
Senior Planner
Planning Services
Enc: Engineering comments
CPTED Review comments
VDOT comments
4