HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201800048 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2019-04-03COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
Memorandum
To: Jonathan Q. Ritchie, P.E. (jritchie(&bohlereng com)
From: Tim Padalino, AICP — Senior Planner
Division: Planning Services
Date: April 3, 2019
Subject: Review Comment Letter #4 — SDP-2018-00048 (Wawa — Final Site Plan dated 2/22/2019)
The plan referred to above has been reviewed by the Planning Services Division of the Albemarle County
Department of Community Development (CDD) and by other members of the Site Review Committee (SRC).
The Planner the will approve the plan referred to above when the following items (below, from the Planner and from
other SRC plan reviewers) have been satisfactorily addressed and when all SRC plan reviewers have indicated in
writing their tentative approvals.
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 to the
Albemarle County Code.]
Albemarle County Planning Services (Planner) — Tim Padalino, tpadalino(kalbemarle.org — Requested Changes:
[Z.O. Section 32.5.2(a), 32.5.2(k), 32.5.2(n)]: The "Site Data" Table on Sheet C-103 ("General Notes and
Legend") indicates the "Site Area" is 1.44 acres (existing) and 1.52 acres (proposed). Proposed construction
activities (such as demolition and grading) and proposed permanent improvements (such as travelways, a
dumpster pad, and underground storm sewer and sanitary sewer infrastructure) are shown in the approximate
0.8-acre area that is currently located on the adjoining property to the north (TMP 032AO-02-00-OOlAO) owned
by Sentara Martha Jefferson Hospital (per Albemarle County GIS-Web).
These activities and improvements are currently not permissible in this area, as they would require control of
that portion of the Sentara Martha Jefferson Hospital property (through a recorded easement or through fee
simple ownership by way of a recorded boundary line adjustment plat). The County cannot approve Final Site
Plan SDP201800048 unless and until this issue is resolved. Please demonstrate control of this (approximate)
0.8-acre area, or submit a boundary line adjustment plat application for review.
Note: Staff acknowledge the note on Sheet C-202 ("Demolition Plan') stating `property line to be
vacated with boundary line adjustment" — however, a search of the County View application tracking
system indicates that no such application for a boundary line adjustment plat has been submitted,
reviewed, approved, or recorded.
Note: Staff acknowledge the letter from Ms. Amelia S. Black, DNP, MSN, RN, NEA-BC, Chief
Operating Officer for Sentara Martha Jefferson Hospital (dated June 18, 2017) intended to serve as
"evidence of Sentara's willingness to work with Mark and Wawa on this project. " However, the letter
does not provide authorization for SDP201800048 to include proposed construction activities or
proposed permanent improvements on TMP # 032-AO-02-00-OOIAO.
Page 1 of 6
Comment #1 Update (10/31): Partially addressed. An application for a boundary line adjustment plat
(SUB201800150) has been submitted and reviewed, and tentative approval has been provided. The County is
currently waiting for the signed, notarized signature copies of SUB201800150 to be delivered for approval
signature by the Agent at the applicant's discretion. Staff also acknowledge the comment response letter which
states the `Boundary Line Adjustment Plat will be provided and approved prior to Site Plan approval."
Comment #1 Update (12/28): Partially addressed. No update; see above. Staff acknowledges the response
comment letter dated 11/30 which states that "Signed, notarized signature copies of Boundary Line Adjustment
Plat SUB201800150 are currently being coordinated and signature will be provided prior to site plan
approval. " After final County approval and after recordation of boundary line adjustment plat SUB201800150,
please ensure the final site plan reflects the adjusted property boundaries and includes reference to Deed Book
and Page number(s) of recorded plat.
Comment #1 Update (4/2): Satisfactorily addressed — please see recommendation. Now that Boundary
Line Adjustment Plat SUB201800150 has been approved and recorded, staff recommends that the Site
Data Table on Sheet C-101 ("Cover Sheet") be revised to eliminate the distinction between the
"Existing" and "Proposed" Site Area; please list only the (updated) existing site area of the recently -
modified property.
2. [Z.O. Section 32.5.2(a)]: Property boundaries shown on Sheet C-201 ("ALTA/NSPS Land Title Survey") do not
match property boundaries shown on Sheet C-301 ("Site Plan") or on other sheets throughout the plan set.
• Note: Staff acknowledge the note on Sheet C-202 ("Demolition Plan') stating 'property line to be
vacated with boundary line adjustment" — however, a search of current applications indicates that no
such application for a boundary line adjustment plat has been submitted, reviewed, approved, or
recorded.
Comment #2 Update (10/31): Partially addressed. An application for a boundary line adjustment plat
(SUB201800150) has been submitted and reviewed, and tentative approval has been provided. The County is
currently waiting for the signed, notarized signature copies of SUB201800150 to be delivered for approval
signature by the Agent at the applicant's discretion. Staff also acknowledge that the comment response letter
which states the "Boundary Line Adjustment Plat will be provided and approved prior to Site Plan approval."
Comment #1 Update (12/28): Partially addressed. No update; see above. Staff acknowledges the response
comment letter dated 11/30 which states that "Signed, notarized signature copies of Boundary Line Adjustment
Plat SUB201800150 are currently being coordinated and signature will be provided prior to site plan
approval. " After final County approval and after recordation of boundary line adjustment plat SUB201800150,
please ensure the final site plan reflects the adjusted property boundaries and includes reference to Deed Book
and Page number(s) of recorded plat.
Comment #2 Update (4/2): Satisfactorily addressed — please see recommendation. Now that Boundary
Line Adjustment Plat SUB201800150 has been approved and recorded, staff recommends that the Site
Data Table on Sheet C-101 ("Cover Sheet") be revised to eliminate the distinction between the
"Existing" and "Proposed" Site Area; please list only the (updated) existing site area of the recently -
modified property.
3. [Z.O. Section 32.5.2(b)]: Please add the following information to the "Site Data" Table on Sheet C-103
("General Notes and Legend"):
A. area of proposed improvements:
i. 6,001 SF building area identified as a percentage of overall site
ii. total parking/circulation area: (in acreage) and (as a percentage of overall site)
B. total area of impervious surface cover: (in acreage) and (as a percentage of overall site)
C. area of paved parking and vehicular circulation: (in acreage) and (as a percentage of overall site)
Comment #3 Update (10/31): Addressed.
4. [Z.O. Section 32.5.2(m)]: Please show the distance to the centerline of the nearest existing street intersection
from proposed point(s) of ingress and egress; or indicate the location of this information (if it has been provided
since the Initial Site Plan review).
Page 2 of 6
Comment #4 Update (10/31): Addressed.
5. [Z.O. Section 32.5.2(n)]: Please show the proposed location(s) of outdoor trash containers, and add a
corresponding symbol to the Legend on Sheet C-103 ("General Notes and Legend").
Comment #5 Update (10/31): Addressed.
6. [Z.O. Sections 32.5.2(q) and 32.7.9]: Please revise Sheet C-701 ("Landscape Plan") to address and resolve the
following issues, and to more generally ensure and demonstrate that the proposed Landscape Plan complies
with Z.O. Section 32.7.9:
Comment #6 Update (4/1): ARB approval of the Landscape Plan for SDP-2018-00048 (via issuance of a
Certificate of Appropriateness ARB-2018-00155, associated with Final Site Plan SDP-2018-00048) is
required prior to CDD-Planning approval of Landscape Plan sheets and CDD-Planning approval of
overall Final Site Plan SDP-2018-00048. [Zoning Ordinance Section 30.6.4.]
A. The first row reads "Section 34-869 Tree Cover Requirements" but the correct reference appears to be
"Section 32.7.9.8(a)-1 Tree Canopy." Please revise this Section reference, the associated
Requirements and Calculations, and the Landscape Plan as may be necessary.
Comment #6-A Update (10/31): Addressed: 10% site coverage required; 10.8% provided.
B. The second row reads "Section 34-870 Streetscape Trees" but the correct reference appears to be
"Section 32.7.9.5 Landscaping Along Streets." Please revise this Section reference, the associated
Requirements and Calculations, and the Landscape Plan as may be necessary.
Comment #6-B Update (10/31): Partially addressed: (US 29) — 1 medium shade tree required for
every 40 feet of road frontage, with 6 understory trees provided for 230 feet of road frontage; and
(Proffit Road) — one large street tree required for every 50 feet of road frontage, with 3 trees provided
for 138 feet of road frontage. Staff also acknowledge the 47 Ilex verticillata proposed along Proffit
Road and additional landscaping near the intersection with US 29. However, the species of the three
proposed trees along Proffit Road is not specified; and a note near those three trees incorrectly states
"Proffit Road right of way / adjacent portion 138 LF / (4 trees required)." Please identify the tree
species (Cercidiphyllum japonicum?) and change "4" to "3" in the annotation. Staff also acknowledge
the 47 Ilex verticillata proposed along Proffit Road and additional landscaping near the intersection
with US 29.
Comment #6-B Update (12/28): Not addressed. Regarding "Landscaping Along Streets" requirements
for the Proffit Road street frontage:
i. Please identify the species of the three unidentified proposed trees along Proffit Road.
ii. Please revise the note near those three unidentified trees stating "4 trees required" to
be consistent with the calculation in the "Landscaping Compliance Chart" (only three
trees are required).
iii. Please indicate with a "*" the proposed landscaping materials which are intended to
satisfy the requirements for landscaping along Proffit Road (per Z.O. Section
32.7.9.5). The "Landscaping Compliance Chart" states that this "*" symbol is used to
indicate plant material(s) utilized to fulfill this requirement, but no such "*" symbol is
present on the proposed landscaping along Proffit Road.
Comment #6-B Update (4/1): Satisfactorily addressed — please see "Comment #6 Update (4/1)"
above.
C. The third row reads "Section 34-873 Parking Lots Screening and Interior Landscaping" but the
correct reference appears to be "Section 32.7.9.6 Landscaping Within a Parking Area." Please revise
this Section reference, the associated Requirements and Calculations, and the Landscape Plan as may
be necessary.
Comment #6-C Update (10/31): Partially addressed: Staff acknowledge that the required minimum
number of shade trees [based on the number of parking spaces and as required by Section 32.7.9.6(b)]
appears to be met through the 4 Quercus alba and 1 Acer rubrum proposed to be sited around the
periphery of the parking area. However, the "minimum area" requirements contained in Section
32.7.9.6(a) are not fully met; the minimum area is "at least five (5) percent of the paved parking and
Page 3 of 6
vehicular circulation area shall be landscaped with trees or shrubs." The Landscape Compliance Chart
on the Landscape Plan states that the "parking lot area" is 37,343 SF, which would mean that 1,867
SF of landscaping is required; but only 1,007 SF of landscaping is proposed. Additionally, the
parking lot area specified on the Landscape Plan (37,343 SF) appears to be discrepant with the Site
Data table on the Cover Sheet which states that the "Area of paved parking and vehicular circulation"
is "l.00 AC" or 43,560 SF. Please ensure consistency between Site Data table and Landscape
Compliance Chart; and please address the minimum area requirements.
Comment #6-B Update (12/28): Addressed: per email correspondence (dated 11/29, see attached).
D. The fourth row reads "Section 34-87(b)(2) Parking Lots — Screening and Interior Landscaping" but
the correct reference appears to be "Section 32.7.9.7 Screening." Please revise this Section reference,
the associated Requirements and Calculations, and the Landscape Plan as may be necessary.
Comment #6-D Update (10/31): Addressed.
E. " but the
eor-reet refefence appears to be "Section 32.7.9.7 Screening." Please revise this Section reference, the
associated Requirements and Caleulations, and the Landseape Plan as may be necessary.
Comment #6-E Update (10/31): Withdrawn (comment provided in error; redundant with 6-D).
7. [Z.O. Sections 32.5.2(q) and 32.7.9.6]: The "Zoning Ordinance Requirements" table on Sheet C-701
("Landscape Plan") indicates that two Waivers have been requested. To date, no such Waiver requests have
been received.
• Note: Based on the preceding review comment (regarding incorrect references to "Zoning Ordinance
Requirements, " Staff acknowledge the waivers referenced may potentially not be applicable or
required, subject to further revision and additional review of Sheet C-701.
Comment #7 Update (10/31): Addressed; comment response letter clarifies that no waivers are required or
requested.
8. [Z.O. Section 32.5.2(q)]: Please provide the specified traffic generation figures (trip generation estimates); or
indicate the location of this information (if it has been provided since the Initial Site Plan review).
Comment #8 Update (10/31): Staff acknowledge the annotation added to the Site Plan sheet (196 VPD exiting
towards Proffit Road and 786 VPD exiting onto US 29).
9. [Z.O. Sections 32.7.3(a), 21.3, 4.12.4(a), and 4.12.6]: The parking information contained in the "Site Data"
table on Sheet C-103 ("General Notes and Legend") is not correct and must be revised.
Specifically, the "Parking Required" tabulation states that 53 spaces are required; however, the applicable
required (minimum) number of off-street parking spaces for the proposed use have been identified as 30. This
figure was generated in consultation with CDD staff in the Zoning Division and Planning Division, using the
following definition in Chapter 4 ("General Regulations"), Section 12 ("Parking, Stacking, and Loading"),
Subsection 6 ("Minimum Number of Required Parking Spaces for Scheduled Uses"):
Food store: One (1) space per two hundred (200) square feet of gross floor area.
Per the information contained on the initial site plan, this calculates to a minimum requirement of [(I x 6,000
GSF)/200] = (6,000/200) = 30 parking spaces.
The number of proposed spaces is 54, which meets this minimum requirement. However, the proposed project
is also subject to maximum off-street parking limitations per 18-4.12.4(a) ("Parking Areas Maximum Number
of Parking Spaces"), which is as follows:
Maximum number of spaces. The number of parking spaces in a parking area may not exceed the number
of spaces required by this section by more than twenty (20) percent.
This calculates to a maximum limitation of (1.2 x 30 spaces) = 36 parking spaces. The number of proposed
spaces is 54, which does not comply with Z.O. 4.12.4(a). Therefore, you may address this issue by: a.) reducing
the number of proposed parking spaces; or b.) providing more detailed information about the proposed use(s) of
the primary structure, if the structure is to include multiple different "Scheduled Uses" (as identified in Z.O.
Page 4 of 6
4.12.6), for the purposes of (potentially) re -calculating the parking (min.) requirements and (max.) limitations in
a way that (potentially) allows for more parking spaces; or c.) requesting a "modification or waiver" pursuant to
Z.O. 4.12.2(c), which is an administrative review process. For reference, Z.O. 4.12.2(c) states (in part):
"Modification or waiver. The limitation on the maximum number of parking spaces required by subsection
4.12.4(a)... may be modified or waived ... in an individual case if the zoning administrator finds that the
public health, safety or welfare would be equally or better served by the modification or waiver and that
the modification or waiver would not otherwise be contrary to the purpose and intent of this chapter."
Comment #9 Update (10/31): Partially addressed. Staff acknowledge the submission of the Parking
Modification Justification Memorandum prepared by Kimley-Horn, requesting a parking waiver pursuant to
4.12.2(c) to allow for a total of 46 parking spaces. That memo / waiver request, as well as a copy of the revised
final site plan and the prior review comment letter, were transmitted to Zoning staff on 10/10. However, as of
the date of this review comment letter being finalized, that parking waiver is still under administrative review
by Community Development staff.
Comment #9 Update (12/28): Addressed. CDD-Zoning staff provided updated guidance (dated 11/14/2018,
see attached) clarifying that the required number of parking spaces and the provided number of parking spaces
are acceptable.
10. [Provided via email on 8/10/2018 in response to meeting at the Community Development
Department on 8/9/20181: A note must be added to SDP201800048 that confirms the proposed off -site
improvements/modifications do not compromise the MJ property's compliance with the applicable
minimum parking requirements. More specifically, please add a note to reference the "Layout Plan" (Sheet
8 of 15) and "Cover Sheet" (Sheet 1 of 15) of approved final site plan SDP201000029, and state that 165
parking spaces were required; 198 parking spaces were provided, and with these modifications shown on
SDP201800048 (the elimination of four (4) spaces) the minimum parking requirements are still met by MJ.
Comment Update (10/31): Addressed.
11. As identified in prior review comments from CDD-Planning and other applicable SRC members,
and per the following Code citations, the following remaining approvals are required prior to
approval of final site plan SDP-2018-00048:
A. [Z.O. Section 30.6.4]: Certificate of Appropriateness / ARB-2018-00155 (CDD-ARB);
B. [Z.O. Section 32.7.4.1.a]: Water Protection Ordinance Plan / WPO-2018-00056 (CDD-
Engineering);
C. [Z.O. Sections 32.7.4.2 and 32.7.5.31: Easement Plat / SUB-2018-00186* (CDD-Planning and
County Executive's Office);
D. [Z.O. Section 32.7.1.1]: Special Lot Plat / SUB-2019-00012* (CDD-Planning); and
E. Tentative approvals (review status of "No Objection") from all applicable SRC members for
final site plan SDP-2018-00048 (see below).
(*) Note: Administrative approval has been granted for SUB-2018-00186 and SUB-2019-00012;
signature copies of each plat must be submitted for County approval signatures (and for SUB-
2018-00186, the County Executive must execute the applicable easements and agreements).
Albemarle County Information Services (E911) - "No Objection" (7/20/18)
Elise Kiewra, ekiewragalbemarle.org — please note previous E911 recommendation: "New main entrance appears to
be off Seminole Trail. If this is the case a new address off Seminole Trail is recommended."
Albemarle County Building Inspections — "No Objection" (10/31/2018)
Michael Dellinger, mdellingergalbemarle.org
Albemarle County Department of Fire Rescue — "No Objection" (10/27/2018)
Shawn Maddox, smaddox(c�r�,albemarle.org
Page 5 of 6
Albemarle County Architectural Review Board (ARB) — Requested Changes
Heather McMahon, hmcmahonkalbemarle.org — see attached comments (3/27/2019)
Albemarle County Engineering Services (Engineer) — Requested Changes
David James, diameskalbemarle.org — see attached comments (3/29/2019); please note the Engineer comment stating:
"I have no objection to the plans as shown." The remaining Engineer review comments ("requested changes") appear
to be solely related to the required approvals that must occur prior to final site plan approval (WP0201800056 and
SUB201800186).
Review Comments Pending (as of 4/3/2019):
Albemarle County Service Authority
Richard Nelson, rnelson(c�serviceauthority.org — ACSA review comments will be forwarded upon receipt.
Virginia Department of Transportation
Adam Moore, Adam.Moore@vdot.vir ig nia.gov — VDOT review comments will be forwarded upon receipt.
Please contact Tim Padalino at the Department of Community Development at (434)-296-5832 ext. 3088 or
tpadalino&albemarle.org for further information or assistance.
Page 6 of 6
Review Comments for SDP201800048 lFinal — Non-residential—Administr
Project Name: Wawa - Final
Date Completed: Wednesday, March 27, 201 DepartmentlDi+visionlAgency: Review Sys:
Reviewer: LHeather McMahon U CBBARB Requested Changes El
ARB staff received revised site and architectural plans for the above -noted application on 3-7-19- ARB staff review indicates that }
the revisions do not meet the following Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines nor the requested changes made at the January 22,
2019 ARB meeting:
1_ Visibility of all mechanical equipment must be eliminated from the Entrance Corridor from the moment a Certificate of
Occupancy is issued_ Currently, the arrangement of five deciduous trees and 11 dwarf inkberry hollies (planted at heights of
24"-30") will not eliminate immediately the visibility of the proposed vent stack pad with bollards, the dimensions and elevation of
which have never been provided, in the northwest corner of the site_
a_ Provide a detail of the proposed vent stack and bollards on one of the Construction Details sheets in the site plan set,
providing all dimensions of the apparatus_
b_ Substitute the 5 proposed red maples and 11 dwarf inkberry hollies with Cryptomeria Japonica Yoshino and..or ThLija
'Green Giant_' Arrange in a layered semi -circle, spaced 15 feet on center_ Provide at least two deciduous trees to the north and
west of this arrangement to mitigate the vegetative screening-
2- The Landscape Compliance Chart on C-701 states that three canopy trees have been provided on the Seminole
TraillU_ _ Route 29 frontage_ Clarify on the landscape plan (C-701) which three canopy trees this note addresses_
3_ The Landscape Compliance Chart on C-701 states that 71 shrubs have been provided on the Proffit Road frontage_
Approximately 52 shrubs, 10 deciduous trees, and 17 evergreen trees have been counted on the Proffit Road frontage_ Clarify on
the landscape plan (Cr701) which shrubs are considered contributing to this calculation-
4- ARB staff reviewed the last revision of the landscape easement plat and easement agreement and requested changes
on 2l7/19_ An approved landscape easement plat is required prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness-
5- Light models S1 and S2 (decorative, wall -mounted sconces) are not full cut-off fixtures although they emit over 3,000
lumens_ According to the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 18, Section 4.17.4_a_4, 'If the total lumens emitted by proposed LED
lamps are three thousand (3,000) or greater as indicated in information provided by the manufacturer, the fixture shall be a full
cutoff luminaire_"
a_ Revise the choice of model to provide a full cutoff fixture_
b_ Provide the finish colors for models S1 and S2 in the manufacturer's specifications on C-706 and C-707_
6_ The highest footcandle value under the fuel pump canopy is 35, well above the maximum of 30 fc in the Entrance
Corridor_ Following the ARB meeting on January 22, 2019, some ARB members recognized the inconsistency of the request
with the Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines_ A maximum of 30 footcandles is recommended-
7- While the luminaire schedule provided on the lighting plan (C-705) states that all of the light models proposed will have
color temperatures at 40, the catalogue numbers provided on the manufacturer specifications on sheets C-706 and C-707
suggest that the proposed color temperatures range from 35K to 57K_ Rectify the discrepancies-
8- Revise the color of the light model W1 to better integrate with the wall material_ A bronze finish is recommended-
9- The depth of the proposed landscaping areas along the Rt_ 29 and the Proffit Road frontages do not allow for the viable
planting of large canopy trees that are required by the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 18, Section 32.7_9, and the Entrance Corridor
Guidelines_ In addition, the 3 white oaks and 4 Sweetshade Yellow4voods proposed for the Proffit Road frontage lie within 3 feet
of the center of an underground gas utility; recommended distances of large trees from underground utilities is a minimum of 7-8
feet.
a_ Provide increased landscaping area to provide all required plantings free and clear of proposed and extant utilities_
b_ Consider substituting Magnolia virginiana ( weetbay magnolias) for the proposed Cercis Canadensis (redbuds) on the
EC frontage_
10_ Address the landscape gap marked 'to be sodded" in the northwest corner of the site by providing landscaping-
11- Note that the location of the proposed monument signs on this site plan is for informational purposes only_ A separate
sign application will be required for final approval of sign location and design_ The sign application drawing should reference the
landscaping plants shown on the final site plan with the final approval date_
12_ Complete the plant health note provided on C-701: 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_ Eliminate the second note provided on C-702, 'Landscape materials are subject to change with final design_" The
substitution of plant species contrary to the approved final site plan will require a Letter of Revision and ARB review -
Note that a Certificate of Appropriateness is required prior to ARB approval the a final site plan_
Page: 1 -1 County of Albemarle Printed On: F57410 192 19
Review Comments for SDP201800048 IFinal — Non-residential—Administr
Project Name: Wawa - Final
Date Completed: Friday, March 29, 2019 DepartmentlDi+visionlAgency: Review Sys:
Reviewer: LDavid James �EICDD Engineering Requested Changes
I have no objection to the plans as shown_
Engineering review comments:
1_ V MP plan (WP0201800066) approval required prior to F P
approval-
_ Easement plat to be recorded prior to F P approval ( UB 01800186)-
Page: County of Albemarle Printed On: 0410 19 x 19