HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201800066 Review Comments Appeal to BOS 2019-02-07GIRGINIP`
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
October 17, 2018
Michele Wright
102 Trout Lily Dr.
Covington VA 24426
SDP201800066 Longhorn Steakhouse - Initial Site Plan
Ms. Wright:
The Site Review Committee has reviewed the development proposal referenced above. Initial comments
for the following divisions of the Department of Community Development and other agencies, as
applicable, are attached:
Albemarle County Planning Services
Architectural Review Board (ARB)
Albemarle County Engineering Services
Albemarle County Information Services (E911)
Albemarle County Building Inspections
Albemarle County Department of Fire Rescue
Albemarle County Service Authority
Virginia Department of Transportation [Comments pending to be forwarded once received]
Comments reflect information available at the time the development proposal was reviewed, and should
not be considered final. However, the Site Review Committee has attempted to identify all issues that will
be required to be resolved prior to Final Site Plan approval. Prior to initial site plan approval the special
exception shall be reviewed and approved by the Board of Supervisors. Please request a six month
deferral of the site plan by Monday, October 22" d to allow the special exception time to be processed. if
do not receive a deferral request by then I will move forward with a denial of the site plan. At a minimum
review comments 1 & 2 shall be addressed prior to initial site plan approval.
Please contact me at your earliest convenience if you have questions or require additional information.
Sincerely,
Senior Planner
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, VA, 22902
434-296-5832
Memorandum
To:
Michele Wright
From:
Christopher P. Perez, Senior Planner
Division:
Planning
Date:
October 17, 2018
Subject:
SDP201800066 Longhorn Steakhouse - Initial Site 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. [33.441 Special Exception for a Variation to Application Plan. The proposal relies on a special exception to vary the
application plan, SDP 197900007, to permit the redevelopment of the parking area to a restaurant. Prior to initial site
plan approval the special exception shall be reviewed and approved by the Board of Supervisors. Please request
deferral of the site plan by Monday, October 22nd to allow the special exception enough time to be processed. If I do
not receive a deferral request by then I will move forward with a denial of the site plan.
The proposal currently does not meet the Neighborhood Model Principles of the County's Comprehensive Plan, nor
does the proposal meet recommendations and design principles discussed in the Rio 29 Small Area Plan. Specifically
the proposal fails to meet the Neighborhood Model Principles of buildings and spaces of human scale and pedestrian
orientation, multi -modal transportation opportunities, and relegated parking.
As proposed the special exception will receive a recommendation of denial from staff and shall be scheduled for the
next available Planning Commission meeting for review prior to moving forward to the Board of Supervisors for
action.
In order to address the issues discussed above, staff requests the applicant revise the site plan by relocating the
proposed building along either Rte. 29, along the southern entrance road, or along the side facing Wells Fargo. To
facilitate two of these options a double -fronted building will be needed. Additionally, provide a shared multi -use path
(between 10' wide and 14' wide) from the existing sidewalk frontage Rte. 29 to the proposed building. Or provide a 5'
wide sidewalk along the vehicle entrance road off Rte. 29 to the proposed building. Whichever access chosen shall
meet ADA standards.
If you are amenable to the above recommended changes, please provide your agreeance to staff in writing along with a
concept plan or revised site plan depicting the proposed changes. If the above recommendations are addressed in full,
staff can support the request and will move the recommendation for approval forward to the Board of Supervisors.
The above recommendations were provided to the applicant on July 17h in follow-up written communication from the
pre -application meeting held on July 16th
2. [33.44(b)] Special Exception Application. Recent changes in the County ordinance require the property owner to sign
the SE application. In place of owner signature, if you have written documentation permitting Jack DeGagne to sign on
behalf of the property owner, please submit that documentation.
3. [32J.2.3(b), 32J.2.3(c)] Sidewalks and Pedestrian Walkways. On the plans depict and label the existing sidewalk
along Rte. 29.
4. [32.7.2.3(a), 32.7.2.3(b), 32.7.2.3(c)] Sidewalks or Pedestrian Ways. Provide a 5' sidewalk along the access road south
of the site to the proposed building. Ensure it connects to the existing sidewalk along Rte. 29. The pedestrian
connection shall meet ADA standards. If you provide the shared multi -use path as discussed in comment #1, this
comment is no longer relevant, as the County would prefer that connection.
5. [4.20] Parking Setbacks. There are 10 parking spaces fronting Rte. 29 which do not meet the minimum front setback
(two on the southern portion and 8 on the northern portion). While these spaces are existing they do not appear on any
approved site plan, thus they shall be removed.
6. [4.20] Parking. Clearly label the 85 parking spaces designated for the proposed restaurant use and those designated for
the rest of the shopping center.
7. [32.5.1(i)] Streets, Easements and Taavelways. Dimension all existing travelways directly adjacent to the lease area.
8. [32.7.9.5(d)] Landscaping. The plan depicts temporary construction easements along the property's Rte. 29 frontage
which were granted to VDOT; however, within these easements are required plantings. Are these easements vacated?
If not VDOT shall approve the plantings in this easement. If VDOT approval is not received the planting islands shall
be expanded and the required trees shall be planted outside the easement.
9. [32.7.9.6] Parking Lot Landscaping. Parking lot landscaping calculations are incorrect. The entire lease area shall be
utilized when making this calculation: (89,948SF*.05% = 4,497SF). Revise.
10. [32.7.9.6] Parking Lot Landscaping. For the 184 parking spaces provided, 19 parking lot trees are required; however,
only 7 were provided/counted. Revise.
11. [32.7.9.81 Tree Canopy. Revise the landscape schedule on sheet L1.1 to provide canopy SF counts for all plantings
above 5' at 10 year maturity. These figured will enable staff to determine if the canopy calculations for the site are met.
Canopy calculation information can be found in the County's Approved Plant Canopy List. I can provide this
document to you upon request. You can find this document on the County website too.
12. [4.17] Lighting. The spillover from the proposed site lighting exceeds the permitted 0.5 foot-candle requirements of the
ordinance for spillover onto a right-of-way. Revise.
13. [32.5.1(c), 32.6.2, 32.6.2(g)] Required Easements. Offsite storm sewer and sanitary sewer easements are required on
TMP 06100-00-00-13000. This property is not owned by the same owner as the subject property. Also, off lease
easements are required for public water, public sewer, storm water, and access. Prior to final site plan approval the
required easement shall be platted.
14. [32.6] The final site plan shall meeting all the requirements of section 32.6 of Chapter 18 of the Code.
VDOT Adam Moore
Comments pending, to be forwarded once received.
Fire and Rescue — Shawn Maddox
1. Will the building height exceed 30'? If so the designated travel lanes around the building must be 26' on one contiguous
side of the structure.
2. A hydrant needs to be added in the vicinity of the building.
3. If the building is going to be sprinklered then the FDC location must be shown and the hydrant placed within 100' of the
FDC.
4. A knox box will be required. Please add a note indicating the requirement and that placement can be coordinated with the
fire marshal's office.
5. A fire flow test will be required prior to final acceptance.
ACSA — Richard Nelson
1. Submit 3 copies to ACSA for review.
2. Include fixture counts.
3. Show existing water and sewer mains/gate valves.
4. Offsite easements will be required.
5. Backflow will be required.
6. A fire hydrant may be required on site.
7. Minimum slope for sewer mains are 0.5%.
Engineering —Matthew Wentland
1. A VSMP plan (using DEQ IIB criteria) will need to be submitted and approved prior to Final Site Plan approval. Please
refer to the County website for applications and checklists. A full review of the stormwater management and erosion
control was not done with these plans.
2. The erosion and sediment control sheets should be removed from the site plans and included with the VSMP plans.
3. Include a storm structure table on the plans (refer to the Final Site Plan checklist for an example). Additionally,
Engineering Policy limits the storm pipe velocity to 15 fps.
VSMP plan comments:
4. The disturbed area is labelled as 1.511 acres on sheet C5.1, however the narrative in the Water Quality section of the
Stormwater Management Report states that it is less than 1 acre. Please clarify these areas on the plans and VRRM
worksheet.
5. It appears more perimeter controls may be required, especially on the SE edge of the site where the runoff is being
directed by proposed curb. An additional phase for the ESC showing the site demo only is recommended, along with a
detailed construction narrative.
6. The SWPPP should be separate from the SWM report.
E911—Andrew Walker
1. Note that the new construction will have a Seminole Trl address (not a Rio Rd E address).
Building Inspections — Mike Dellinger
1. Parking spaces and access isles shall not have a surface slope greater than 1:48. Access isles shall be at the same level as
the parking space they serve.
ARB — Heather McMahon
The ARB took the following action at the October 15, 2018 ARB meeting:
Motion: Mr. Binsted moved to forward the recommendations outlined in the staff report to the Agent for the Site Review
Committee, as follows:
• Regarding requirements to satisfy the design guidelines as per § 18-30.6.4c(2), (3) and (5) and recommended conditions
of initial plan approval:
None. Note that a Certificate of Appropriateness is required prior to final site plan approval.
• Regarding recommendations on the plan as it relates to the guidelines: None.
• Regarding conditions to be satisfied prior to issuance of a grading permit: None.
• Regarding the final site plan submittal:
1. Revise the architecture to reference the building traditions and context of Albemarle County. Further study the front
elevation. Replace the orange stucco with stone. Resolve the top of the wall and the piers to reference traditional building.
The Longhorn example shown on page 15 of the staff report could serve as a precedent.
2. Provide the standard window glass note on revised architectural elevations: Visible light transmittance (VLT) shall not
drop below 40%. Visible light reflectance (VLR) shall not exceed 30%.
3. Include a detail of the guide rail in the site plan. Provide a design that has an appropriate appearance for the Entrance
Corridor and that is compatible with the existing railing on the site. Provide color/material samples.
4. Provide the standard mechanical equipment note within the General Notes (Sheet C2.1) of the site plan set and on the
Roof Plan (A3.1): Visibility of all mechanical equipment from the Entrance Corridor shall be eliminated.
5. Reduce all footcandles on the western property line to 0.5 (one-half) fc maximum.
6. Revise the lighting plan and photometrics to include all proposed exterior lighting, including wall -mounted and ground -
mounted lighting.
7. Provide the initial lumens for all proposed light fixtures in the luminaire schedule on the lighting plan (C41.).
8. Revise the photometric plan and the luminaire schedule on the lighting plan (C4.1) to reflect a LLF equal to 1.0.
9. Consider a lower color temperature for the proposed site lighting. Provide consistent color temperatures for site and
building lights.
10. Specify the color(s) for all proposed exterior light fixtures in the manufacturer's specifications or in the luminaire
schedule. Coordinate the color of proposed pole lights with existing pole lights nearby.
11. Revise the light pole diagram to reduce the height of the proposed pole lights to 20 feet, including the base.
12. Provide the standard lighting note on the lighting plan (C4.1) of the site plan set: Each outdoor luminaire equipped with
a lamp that emits 3,000 or more initial lumens shall be a full cutoff luminaire and shall be arranged or shielded to reflect
light away from adjoining residential districts and away from adjacent roads. The spillover of lighting from luminaires onto
public roads and property in residential or rural areas zoning districts shall not exceed one half footcandle.
13. Limit lighting to that which is needed for safety/security.
14. Provide full cut-off lights for any lamp emitting 3,000 initial lumens or more.
15. Eliminate lighting that illuminates the outline of any structure. Include cut sheets for all fixtures in the site plan.
16. Provide additional large shade trees along the entire length of the EC frontage, spaced 35' on center. Ensure that all
trees planted on the EC are a minimum of 3.5-inch caliper at planting, and specify this in the plant schedule on the
landscape plan (L1.1). Intersperse ornamental trees among the shade trees on the EC.
17. Ensure that there are no potential conflicts between the proposed placement of freestanding light fixtures and proposed
canopy trees.
18. Ensure that the placement of proposed trees will not conflict with the canopies of existing trees on the site.
19. Vary the shrubbery species for a more naturalistic appearance.
20. Provide an additional 12 shade trees to the interior of the parking area.
21. Add large shade trees at 2'/2" caliper, 40' on center, along the north perimeter of the parking lot.
22. Substitute the Douglas fir with an evergreen tree that is in a County -approved plant list.
23. Consider substituting a native evergreen shrub for the exotic Japanese holly.
24. Reduce the number of Sour gums (NS), Japanese Holly (ICC), and Arrowhead Viburnum (VD) to 25% of the total for
their typologies (i.e., tree or shrub) by introducing additional species.
25. For a more naturalistic appearance, vary the shrub species more, and vary the planting pattern by interspersing tree and
shrub species rather than planting them in single -species concentrations.
26. Provide the standard plant health note on all landscape plans submitted for review: 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.
27. Rectify the grading lines that intersect with existing trees and show the proposed tree protection fencing on the grading
plan (C2.4).
28. Note that a separate sign application submittal is required, but not before final site plan approval.
Mr. Van Der Werf seconded the motion.
The motion carried by a vote of 5:0.
Sincerely,
Christopher Perez
Senior Planner, Planning Division