Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201500046 Correspondence 2016-02-03 Rachel Falkenstein From: Mark Graham Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2016 12:34 PM To: Paul Sprouse; Rachel Falkenstein; Alan Taylor Subject: RE: CVS Site Plan Hi Paul, I discussed this with Alan before. With a conditional site plan approval of this type, we've already exercised all the possible discretion I have as the County's Agent(and probably gone further than we should). If you submitted a building permit application based on this site plan, we'd be forced to reject it until the BLA is recorded. To go any further crosses into possible malfeasance, as this would be a pretty clear violation of the Zoning Ordinance. I'm doing what we can to help, but you've reached the limit of our authority. I'm sorry, but that is where we are. Mark From: Paul Sprouse [mailto:psprouse@rebkee.com] Sent:Wednesday, February 03,2016 10:30 AM To: Rachel Falkenstein<rfalkenstein@albemarle.org> Cc: Mark Graham<mgraham@albemarle.org> Subject: RE: CVS Site Plan Rachel: We already submitted plans to the building department back in November for a courtesy review and they didn't see anything. Is there any way we can get around this requirement of having to wait to submit the package until the BLA plat is recorded? That will cause us a couple months of delay We have everything ready to submit now application, fee, building plans, and were just waiting on the signed site plans so we can submit two copies with our building permit package. Let me know if there is an exception that can be made so we don't have to wait for the plat to be recorded PRIOR to submitting plans. Isn't there a way they could still do the review and not release the building permit until the plat is recorded? Here is a copy of the updated plat that incorporates the comments that were sent out. Look forward to hearing back from you and any help would be appreciated! Paul Sprouse I The Rebkee Company 15871 City View Drive Suite 300 I Midlothian, VA 123113 D: 804-419-0747 I M: 804-387-4449 I F: 804-419-0759 psprouserebkee.com I www.rebkee.com From: Rachel Falkenstein [mailto:rfalkenstein@albemarle.org] Sent:Wednesday, February 03, 2016 10:20 AM To: Paul Sprouse<psprouse@re,bkee.com> ' Cc: Mark Graham <mgraham@albemarle.org> Subject: RE: CVS Site Plan Hi Paul, 1 I have received the site plans and sent out notice to reviewers to come in and sign to plans. You will have the signed/approved site plan in hand soon,once we obtain all the necessary signatures. I will be adding a note to the plans stating the BLA must be recorded prior to submittal of building permit application. You should be able to submit building plans for a courtesy review now, but you will not be able to officially submit a building permit application until the BLA is recorded. Let me know if you have further questions on this process. Thanks, Rachel From: Paul Sprouse [mailto:psprouse@rebkee.com] Sent:Tuesday, February 02, 2016 1:42 PM To: Rachel Falkenstein <rfalkenstein@albemarle.org> Subject: RE:CVS Site Plan Rachel: Hope all is well with you. We are excited to get everything in the works to get the site plan approval wrapped up for the CVS at Rio. Kimley-Horn submitted the signature sets yesterday so you should receive them this afternoon or tomorrow. I have a question related to the building plans being submitted that I was hoping you could help me out with: We understand that a building permit cannot be issued until the BLA plat is recorded, but will the building department still conduct their review? They keep telling us that they will not review the plans until we have site plan approval but technically I don't think we are going to have FINAL site plan approval until the BLA is recorded. I'm hoping that once you receive the plans and route for signature we can get a conditional site plan approval letter that would get the building dep't comfortable in reviewing our plans? I know this is somewhat of a unique situation but we just wanted to get the building plans reviewed, any comments addressed, and be ready to pull ALL permits once the BLA is put to record. Thanks for all of your help and look forward to hearing back from you! Paul Sprouse I The Rebkee Company 15871 City View Drive Suite 300 I Midlothian, VA 123113 D: 804-419-0747 I M: 804-387-4449 I F: 804-419-0759 psprouse(a�rebkee.com I www.rebkee.com From:<Ryan.Perkins@kimley-horn.com> Date:January 29, 2016 at 3:59:59 PM EST To:<psprouse@rebkee.com> Subject: Fwd:CVS Site Plan -Ryan Perkins Begin forwarded message: From: Rachel Falkenstein <rfalkenstein@albemarle.org> 2 Date:January 29, 2016 at 3:58:14 PM EST To: "Ryan.Perkins@kimley-horn.com" <Ryan.Perkins@kimley-horn.com> Cc: "Kelsey.Westwood@kimley- horn.com"<Kelsey.Westwood@kimley- horn.com>,Ashley Davies <adavies@williamsmullen.com> Subject:CVS Site Plan Ryan, See attached approval from VDOT.This was the last approval we were waiting on. I have received word that we can approve the plans prior to the approval of the boundary line adjustment plat. I think this has already been explained to the property owner, but I will reiterate this:a building permit cannot be issued for this site until the BLA is approved,or concessions will need to be made for a firewall down the property line and shared parking easements will need to be recorded across both parcels. When you are ready, please submit 4 copies of signed and sealed plan sets to the County.We will retain three copies of the signed plans and return one to you. Let me know if you have questions. Thanks. Rachel Falkenstein,AICP Senior Planner Albemarle County Community Development ph:434.296.5832 ext.3272 <SDP-2015-00046 CVS Comments - 1-28-16.pdf5 <Culpeper District Allowable Work Hours - July 2015.pdf� 3 Rachel Falkenstein From: Rachel Falkenstein Sent: Friday,January 29, 2016 3:58 PM To: Ryan.Perkins@kimley-horn.com Cc: Kelsey.Westwood@kimley-horn.com; Davies, Ashley Subject: CVS Site Plan Attachments: SDP-2015-00046 CVS Comments - 1-28-16.pdf; Culpeper District Allowable Work Hours -July 2015.pdf Ryan, See attached approval from VDOT.This was the last approval we were waiting on. I have received word that we can approve the plans prior to the approval of the boundary line adjustment plat. I think this has already been explained to the property owner, but I will reiterate this:a building permit cannot be issued for this site until the BLA is approved,or concessions will need to be made for a firewall down the property line and shared parking easements will need to be recorded across both parcels. When you are ready, please submit 4 copies of signed and sealed plan sets to the County.We will retain three copies of the signed plans and return one to you. Let me know if you have questions. Thanks. Rachel Falkenstein,AICP Senior Planner Albemarle County Community Development ph:434.296.5832 ext.3272 1 Rachel Falkenstein From: Davies, Ashley<adavies@williamsmullen.com> Sent: Friday, November 13, 2015 12:16 PM To: Rachel Falkenstein Subject: Landscape Waiver Discussion [IWOV-IWOVRIC.FID14032011 Hi Rachel, I know you have heard from our team quite a bit recently regarding the landscape waiver request. I wanted to reach out and see if it makes sense for us to meet in person. I think that you have all of the information from us to grant the waiver, but if there is anything specific that would be helpful, please let us know. It would also be good to know now if you don't plan to grant the waiver versus a month or so from now. From our perspective, we are at the final submittal of our site plan and have fully developed final building plans for review. We are baffled to find out that there is still a comment regarding landscaping. It is not reasonable for us to go back and run through every layer of the process—it isn't possible. We really need to wrap up the process and move forward. From our perspective,our landscape plan evolved immensely during the course of the site plan and ARB reviews. We honestly thought that our job was to work with the ARB to reach a landscape design that they could approve. Given the two Entrance Corridors and the Special Use Permit,we have completed a rigorous review process and developed a plan that has the support of the ARB. During those meetings,there was much discussion about the landscape requirements and what we were to provide in order to satisfy the request for a landscape waiver. Some specific ways we achieved approval of our landscape plan are: We changed the shrub type on Route 29 to a larger, more robust shrub that would fill out the space and create a buffer, we provided additional layers of plantings in groups and layers to fill out those spaces where trees cannot be planted, and we have added 3 ornamental trees in the one area where it is possible to plat them. Beyond that,the site is heavily landscaped and shade trees are provided along the 29 frontage in all the places where possible. In this process, County staff and the Board were satisfied with all of these efforts to create a landscape plan that was appropriate for two important Entrance Corridors in the County. I would ask you to carefully consider all of this information and get back to me. We believe we have made every reasonable attempt(and have succeeded) in creating a beautiful landscape plan for this site that more than accounts for two shade trees that cannot be planted. Please let me know if you'd like to meet and discuss any further. If you still intend to deny this request after everything we've provided and our ARB approval, please let me know now so we may begin to appeal this decision. I'm not trying to be confrontational, but we have timelines to abide by and we have done our best to work with the County every step of the way. Thanks for your consideration. Ashley Ashley Davies Senior Land Use Planner Williams Mullen 321 East Main St. Suite 400 Charlottesville,VA 22902-3200 T 434.951.5725 F 434.817.0977 adavies@williamsmullen.com www.williamsmullen.com Follow us on Linkedln, Facebook,Twitter and YouTube. 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 1 Rachel Falkenstein From: Paul Sprouse<psprouse@rebkee.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2015 1:55 PM To: Rachel Falkenstein Cc: adavies@williamsmullen.com; Ryan.Perkins@kimley-horn.com; Kelsey.Westwood@kimley- horn.com; Paul Sprouse Subject: RE: CVS-Rio Road-Route 29 planting [IWOV-IWOVRIC.FID1403201] Attachments: CU-101 UTILITY PLAN with easements.pdf Rachel,just so we are clear, it is not just the VDOT easement. See attached exhibit. We had provided this some time ago but just wanted to refresh everyone's memory on it. As you see this has to do with the existing and proposed sanitary, waterline and storm easement. Hope this helps shed some light on this. Thanks, Paul Sprouse I The Rebkee Company 15871 City View Drive Suite 300 I Midlothian, VA I 23113 D: 804-419-0747 I M: 804-387-4449 I F: 804-419-0759 psprouse(&rebkee.com I www.rebkee.com • From: Rachel Falkenstein [mailto:rfalkenstein@albemarle.org] Sent:Wednesday, November 11, 2015 12:21 PM To: Paul Sprouse<psprouse@rebkee.com> Cc:adavies@williamsmullen.com; Ryan.Perkins@kimley-horn.com; Kelsey.Westwood@kimley-horn.com Subject: RE:CVS-Rio Road-Route 29 planting [IWOV-IWOVRIC.FID1403201] Paul, While I agree with you that this is a unique site due to the GSI, but since VDOT has said they will allow trees within their easement, I don't think the "unusual situation"test applies to the street trees and landscaping. I will take a look at the information you provide with your resubmittal, especially as it pertains to the waterline. I will let you know if I think a meeting would be beneficial to discuss these issues further. Thanks, Rachel From: Paul Sprouse [mailto:psprouse@rebkee.com] Sent:Tuesday, November 10, 2015 11:23 AM To: Rachel Falkenstein <rfalkenstein@albemarle.org> Cc:adavies@williamsmullen.com; Ryan.Perkins@kimley-horn.com; Kelsey.Westwood@kimley-horn.com; Paul Sprouse <psprouse@rebkee.com> Subject: FW:CVS-Rio Road-Route 29 planting [IWOV-IWOVRIC.FID1403201] Hi Rachel: Thanks for your email. With this proposed CVS being at the critical nexus of the grade separated interchange, we absolutely have an unusual situation. This is a very small site that will bear the brunt of all the needs of VDOT and the GSI at this location. While other businesses are closing up shop to move elsewhere, CVS has taken an active stance to invest here. I can understand your desire to have landscape that conforms to the code, and we would have provided 1 41111111. that on 99%of the site. But I do put forth that this is an unusual site and potentially the most unusual location in the entire county. To date,we have adapted our landscape plan multiple times to gain the approval of the ARB for the landscape design on this site that has not one but two Entrance Corridor frontages. The Board recognized that each frontage will be different in character—Rio road is so heavily landscaped that one won't even be able to see the site from that perspective. Route 29 is essentially an urban off ramp. To buffer the site on this side, we have provided trees where possible and multiple layers of shrubs and plants. Our final site plan that will be submitted this week shows this heavily landscaped site with that includes the addition of three ornamental trees centered in the buffer area along Route 29. This is the compromise that we have worked towards for months. Again,we spent numerous meetings with the ARB developing this exact plan via their more stringent guidelines, and it is the best we can provide at this time. To review—this plan has the support of the CVS, it has the support of ARB, it has the support of the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors, and it has the support of Zoning. As you know,this is no small feat. To completely change the site plan disturbs every level of that approval in this jigsaw puzzle. We have worked hard to get where we are now, and we hope you understand that we are ready to complete the entitlement process. We hope that we can now say that the plan has full staff support. Again, I understand that you are doing your job to the best of your ability. I do not fault you for that, and I hope you will agree that this site is unusual and meets the standards for a landscape waiver. I hope that we have provided everything you need to make this determination, but let me know now if there is something else specific that you need to complete your review. I am happy to meet in person if we need to discuss further. As you know,we are on a schedule to get this approved and will have plans ready to submit tomorrow or Thursday at the latest. Thanks and look forward to hearing back from you at your earliest convenience. Paul Sprouse I The Rebkee Company 15871 City View Drive Suite 300 I Midlothian, VA 123113 D: 804-419-0747 I M: 804-387-4449 I F: 804-419-0759 psprouse(&rebkee.com I www.rebkee.com From: Rachel Falkenstein [mailto:rfalkensteinPalbemarle.org] Sent: Friday, November 06, 2015 9:28 AM To: Paul Sprouse<psprouse@rebkee.com>; Rvan.Perkins@kimlev-horn.com Cc: adavies@williamsmullen.com; Kelsev.Westwood@kimlev-horn.com Subject: RE:CVS-Rio Road-Route 29 planting Paul, Thanks for sending this information. I understand you are doing what you can to fit this use onto a difficult site. In order for me to sign off on the variation, I need documentation that the street trees cannot be provided because of an unusual situation [32.3.5(b)]. Having utilities along the front of a site is quite common and the ordinance provides some pretty strong language about this exact situation: 32.7.5.2 LOCATION OF UTILITIES ABOVE AND BELOW GROUND d.Allowing street trees and landscaping. Installation of utilities in or adjacent to the right-of-way shall not preclude the installation of street trees or required landscaping. The ordinance goes on further to say this: 2 32.7.9.5 LANDSCAPING ALONG STREETS __ d. ...If required street trees cannot be planted within the parking setback or within ten (10)feet of the street right-of- way due to sight distance, utility easements or other conflicting requirements,then the planting strip shall be enlarged to accommodate the trees. If this requirement creates a hardship by causing the relocation of required parking spaces, then the additional planting area may be counted toward the interior landscaping requirement. What I am looking for is further justification as to why the waterline needs to be in the exact alignment proposed and why it can't be shifted a bit to the west to allow parking islands. I have made this comment in previous comment letters and have simply been told that the waterline can't be moved and that "an alternate waterline layout would not be of any benefit."The information you provided below includes some more of the details I am looking for. Please elaborate a bit more on ACSA's requirement of this alignment and why the waterline can't run above or below the storm drain in the same alignment. I would suggest you provide this information with your next resubmittal for staff to review. If you find that you can move the waterline, I think the parking question could easily be posed to zoning staff and if zoning is amenable to the request,this can be treated as an amendment of your previous waiver. If the answer is no, then you've proven you have exhausted all options for street trees on this site. Thanks, Rachel From: Paul Sprouse [mailto:psprouse@rebkee.comj Sent:Thursday, November 05, 2015 11:31 AM To: Rachel Falkenstein<rfalkenstein@albemarle.org>; Ryan.Perkins@kimley-horn.com Cc:adavies@williamsmullen.com; Kelsey.Westwood@kimley-horn.com; Paul Sprouse<psprouse@rebkee.com> Subject: RE: CVS-Rio Road-Route 29 planting Rachel: I wanted to weigh in here as I think this has been covered in multiple meetings up to this point. I'm surprised this is still coming up because I thought it was pretty clear with everyone why an alternate location/alignment was going to be problematic. The Current proposed water line location is shown where it is for the following reasons: • This location avoids conflicts with proposed storm sewer and is shown in the location where the Service Authority's engineer is requesting the line be • The line avoids the landscaping along 29 as much as possible • We have to tie in prior to the existing water meters which are to remain • Avoiding conflicts with Dominion Power easement and relocated power pole/guy wire As for ANOTHER Parking Variance,that doesn't seem like a valid consideration at this point in time based on the reasons above. We have increased#of plants, Caliper size, etc. for the plants throughout this site as a result of planning and the ARB's feedback. For us to re-visit this again on account of a couple of trees doesn't seem like a good option. We have made a lot of concessions to date from the original site plan design, but this is not one that I feel we can overcome with the number of factors/conflicts associated with the water line alignment. Please consider what we have outlined above and let me know your thoughts. We are hoping to get plans resubmitted tomorrow to keep this project moving along. Paul Sprouse I The Rebkee Company 3 15871 City View Drive Suite 300 I Midlothian, VA 123113 D: 804-419-0747 I M: 804-387-4449 I F: 804-419-0759 psprouse(arebkee.com I www.rebkee.com From: Rachel Falkenstein [mailto:rfalkenstein@albemarle.org] Sent:Wednesday, November 04, 2015 9:33 AM To: Ryan.Perkins@kimley-horn.com Cc: Paul Sprouse<psprouse@rebkee.com>; adavies@williamsmullen.com; Kelsey.Westwood@kimley-horn.com Subject: RE: CVS-Rio Road-Route 29 planting Ryan, Thanks for sending this exhibit. I've looked it over and also discussed with a few colleagues. I do agree that with the utility alignment shown on the plans,you have probably maximized the plantings you can provide along Route 29. However, I would still like more information about the waterline alignment. I know in previous discussions you said that moving this is not an option. Please provide evidence as to why this can't be shifted a bit to the west to allow for street trees in parking islands? I know this would also bring into question the reduction in parking numbers, but I feel that if the waterline can be shifted and islands provided,the question at least needs to be asked of zoning staff if the parking can be reduced by one or two more spaces. Let me know if you would like to discuss this further.Thanks. Rachel Falkenstein,AICP Senior Planner Albemarle County Community Development ph:434.296.5832 ext. 3272 From: Ryan.Perkins@kimley-horn.com [mailto:Ryan.Perkins@kimley-horn.com] Sent:Tuesday, November 03, 2015 8:58 AM To: Rachel Falkenstein<rfalkenstein@albemarle.org> Cc:psprouse@rebkee.com; adavies@williamsmullen.com; Kelsey.Westwood@kimley-horn.com Subject: CVS-Rio Road-Route 29 planting Rachel, following up on our conversation last week regrading adding 3 crepe myrtles to the area long 29 that is not encumbered by utility easement.Attached is our latest landscape plan which we're hoping to resubmit along with our planset as soon as we get the okay from you that these adequately address your comment regarding meeting 29 tree requirements. Please let us know your thoughts.Thanks Ryan Perkins, P.E. Kirniey>>>Horn 1700 Willow Lawn Drive, Suite 200 1 Richmond, VA 23230 Direct: (804)672-47031 Mobile: (804)514-3631 4 Rachel Falkenstein From: Ryan.Perkins@kimley-horn.com Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 5:05 PM To: Rachel Falkenstein Cc: psprouse@rebkee.com; adavies@williamsmullen.com Subject: RE: CVS-Rio Road -questions on planning comments Thanks, I am on the road tomorrow so please try my cell 804-514-3631 Ryan Perkins, P.E. Kimley>>)Horn 1700 Willow Lawn Drive,Suite 200 I Richmond,VA 23230 Direct: (804)672-47031 Mobile:(804)514-3631 From: Rachel Falkenstein [mailto:rfalkenstein@albemarle.org] Sent:Tuesday, October 20, 2015 5:02 PM To: Perkins, Ryan<Ryan.Perkins@kimley-horn.com> Cc: psprouse@rebkee.com; adavies@williamsmullen.com Subject: RE: CVS-Rio Road -questions on planning comments Ryan, Sorry I missed your call. I will give you a call tomorrow to discuss once I get a chance to look at this. Rachel From: Ryan.Perkins@kimley-horn.com [mailto:Ryan.Perkins@kimley-horn.com] Sent:Tuesday, October 20, 2015 2:35 PM To: Rachel Falkenstein <rfalkenstein@albemarle.org> Cc: psprouse@rebkee.com; adavies@williamsmullen.com Subject: RE: CVS-Rio Road-questions on planning comments Rachel, Sorry about the longwinded message but here is the exhibit I reference that shows the area we have to plant. Please give me a call at your earliest convenience to discuss. Thanks Ryan Perkins, P.E. Kimley:)>Horn 1700 Willow Lawn Drive, Suite 200 1 Richmond, VA 23230 Direct: (804)672-47031 Mobile: (804)514-3631 From: Rachel Falkenstein [mailto:rfalkenstein@albemarle.org] Sent:Tuesday,October 20, 2015 10:42 AM To: Perkins, Ryan<Ryan.Perkins@kimley-horn.com> Cc: psprouse@rebkee.com; adavies@williamsmullen.com Subject: RE: CVS-Rio Road -questions on planning comments 1 Hi Ryan, See my responses below. Let me know if you still want to meet to discuss any of these further. Thanks, Rachel From: Ryan.Perkins@kimley-horn.com [mailto:Ryan.Perkins@kimley-horn.com] Sent:Thursday, October 15, 2015 2:15 PM To: Rachel Falkenstein<rfalkenstein@albemarle.org> Cc: psprouse@rebkee.com; adavies@williamsmullen.com Subject:CVS-Rio Road-questions on planning comments Rachel, I hope you enjoyed your vacation and I'm sure you will be busy your fist days back but I do have some questions on your latest plan comments. If you have availability to respond to this email,get on the phone,or meet in person early next week please let me know as we would like to submit a revised set ASAP. Below are my questions stemming from your comments: • Can you provide the approved conditions, don't believe I received a copy SP-2015-20 CVS at Rio and 29N 1. Development and use shall be in general accord with the following revised plans prepared by Kimley-Horn, Sheet CS-101 (1 of 3 in special use permit plan set) dated June 17, 2015 (hereafter"Layout Plan"), as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator.To be in general accord with the specified plans, development and use shall reflect the following major elements as shown on the plans: a. Relationship of drive-through lanes to the building and the parking lot b. Building location, orientation and mass c. Minor modifications to the plan that do not otherwise conflict with the elements listed above, may be made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. 2.The applicant shall install and maintain traffic control devices including, but not limited to, signage and pavement markings at the entrance and exit points of the drive-through lanes, subject to county engineer approval to ensure appropriate and safe travel patterns. 3.The use shall not commence prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness by the Architectural Review Board. 4.The use shall commence on or before September 9, 2018 or the permit shall expire and be of no effect. • New setback code-it appears now that we are not meeting the maximum setback requirement along Rio Road! what is needed to get beyond this issue knowing that we have been working on this site and SUP since early this year and can't change the layout now? 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). • Add additional trees along 29 frontage in VDOT easement-the problem isn't the VDOT easement it's the existing utility easement.We are trying to squeeze a second crepe myrtle beside the other one but that will be the extent of what we can provide. Please confirm that this will suffice for this comment An exception from the street tree requirement can only be granted upon finding that: (i)because of an unusual situation, including but not limited to the unusual size, topography, shape of the site or the location of the site; or(ii) when strict adherence to the requirements would result in substantial injustice or hardship by, including but not limited to, resulting in the significant degradation of the site or to adjacent properties, causing a detriment to the public health, safety or welfare, or by inhibiting the orderly development of the area or the application of sound engineering practices. 2 I am not satisfied that either(i) or(ii)are met for this request. Many properties in the County, especially along Route 29, have utilities along their frontage, so I don't think this could be classified as an unusual situation or hardship.The VDOT taking of the easement might have been able to be classified as an unusual situation, but VDOT has stated that trees are allowed in the easement, so this is no longer relevant. This site might be a candidate for a variation from the street tree requirement, but the substituted technique must be of comparable quality to what is required by ordinance. I think a few more small or medium trees need to be provided for the landscaping to be of comparable quality to large street trees. (See section 32.3.5 for more info on variations and exceptions). Alternatively, if two medium or large trees can be provided, perhaps in parking islands,then the street tree requirement would be met and there would not be a need for a variation or exception. • 3rd request to show area of steep slopes- I thought I addressed this with the last 2 submittals but can't seem to get beyond this comment. I have attached the sheet (CE-501) and highlighted the areas where I discuss this. Please let me know what else is needed as there are no areas of steep slopes on the site, it is a completely developed site today with retaining walls in the areas where they would have had steep slopes... Slopes are mislabeled on sheet CE-501.These should be labeled as "managed steep slopes". Show slopes on existing conditions/demo sheets. • Request to put islands where spaces are currently shown-CVS is under parked and already received the exception,there is no room to lose spots to islands and replace elsewhere on-site. Please confirm that this suffices See above comment regarding landscaping/parking. Thanks Ryan Perkins, P.E. >)Horn 1700 Willow Lawn Drive,Suite 200 I Richmond,VA 23230 Direct: (804)672-47031 Mobile: (804)514-3631 3 . 411.#