HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201800066 Review Comments Appeal to BOS 2019-06-19 (2)County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, VA, 22902
434-296-5832
Memorandum
To:
Michele Wright
From:
Christopher Perez, Senior Planner
Division:
Planning
Date:
June 19, 2019
Subiect:
SDP201800066 Lonehorn 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 22" d 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 17" in follow-up written communication from the
pre -application meeting held on July 16'
Concept Plan 1 and 2. After the initial review comments were received the applicant requested a deferral and
began a written dialog with staff to discuss how to meet the requirements and gain a recommendation of
approval for the special exception (see the attached email correspondence with the applicant from December 4,
2018 and March 19, 2019).
Rev 1. The Rio 29 Small Area Plan designates this site as being part of the Core Zone of the district, which is
bordered by a planned street network consisting of wider pedestrian accessways to accommodate the heavier
flow of pedestrian and bike traffic planned for this area. Shared use paths are required in this zone as it is
intended to have the highest development intensity of the district with a focus on pedestrian access.
The applicant has attempted to meet the pedestrian access and connectivity goals of the district by providing an
8' wide shared use path along the northern boundary of the lease area. The shared use path connects to the
existing sidewalks on Rte. 29 and permits pedestrians internal access to the site (east to west); however, the
shared use path does not continue southbound throughout the site, thereby failing to provide pedestrians safe
internal access from north to south. Instead pedestrians utilizing the path are guided to the vehicle travelway
accessing the site or are left to traverse the site's parking lot in order to move throughout the site.
In order to successfully satisfy the County's pedestrian access and connectivity goals for this planned area the
applicant shall provide a shared use path southbound along the eastern border of the lease area (adjacent to the
mall "ring road") and connect it to the required sidewalk along the southern egress for the site. Additionally,
the shared use path should be increased to 10' wide and provided with a 6' wide landscape strip between the
`°mall ring road" and the shared use path in order to buffer pedestrians from vehicles. Street trees meeting the
requirements of Section 32.7.9.5 are required in the landscape strip.
Prior to final site plan approval the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) shall approve the proposed
shared use path connection to the existing sidewalks within the Rte. 29 right-of-way, therefore ensuring that the
connection is permitted. If the proposed northern shared use path is not permitted then the applicant shall
provide in place of the required sidewalks along the southern egress of the site either a 10' wide shared use path
and a 6' wide landscape strip OR a 10' wide sidewalk and a 6' wide landscape strip, each landscape strip will be
provided the required street trees pursuant to Section 32.7.9.5 to buffer pedestrians. The total width of these
improvements shall be 16' wide.
[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. Rev 1. On May 23, 2019 the applicant submitted
additional information, a certificate of incumbency, to act as signing authority for the applicant to submit the
SE application. The certificate acknowledges that Washington Prime Group is affiliated with the ground lessee
of TMP 61-132, not the underlying property owner. Under County Code § 18-33.44(B), the application requires
the signature of the underlying owner(s). This certificate will not suffice. The SE application is still lacking the
appropriate signatures. I will continue my review on the proposal but need the requested documentation before
the Board of Supervisors takes an action on the request, that is unless the County Attorney and Zoning
Administrator agree to permit the application to move forward with owners' signature as a condition of
approval of the SE.
3. 132.7.2.3(b), 32.7.2.3(c)] Sidewalks and Pedestrian Walkways. On the plans depict and label the existing sidewalk
along Rte. 29. Rev 1. Comment addressed.
4. [33.44, 32.7.2.3(a), 32.7.2.3(b), 32.7.2.3(c)] Special Exception for a Variation to Application Plan. 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.
Rev 1. The 5' wide sidewalk along the southern egress road south of the site is required. Ensure it connects to
the existing sidewalk along Rte. 29 and the required shared use path discussed above. The pedestrian connection
shall meet ADA standards.
After our 6-17-19 meeting I met with the Planning Director and discussed your request to omit the 5' wide
sidewalk being required along the southern egress of the site. He and I agree that this sidewalk is necessary to
complete the street and provide pedestrians reasonably safe access to and from the site along the southern
egress road. At the meeting he suggested I discuss with you the reasons behind the change in my position from
the first time I reviewed the proposal, which was back in September/October of 2018 prior to the adoption of
the Rio 29 Small Area Plan.
During the latest review I analyzed the need for this sidewalk based on the existing and proposed pedestrian
network of the area in comparison to the now adopted Rio 29 Small Area Plan. The southern egress road is
within the Core Zone of the district and is planned as a local street. Local streets are required to have a 10' wide
pedestrian zone and a 6' wide landscape strip to buffer pedestrians. Outside of the Core Zone local streets are
required to be provided a 6' wide sidewalk and a 6' wide landscape strip. Street trees meeting the requirements
of Section 32.7.9.5 are required in the landscape strip. By requiring a 5' wide sidewalk along the southern egress
road I am trying my best to honor the initial review and still keep with the adopted Rio 29 Small Area Plan by
providing pedestrian access and connectivity along the southern egress road. Thus in this area I am requesting
the least intensive sidewalk permitted under the Zoning Ordinance requirements.
Additionally, because the primary pedestrian corridor for the shared use path required in the small area plan is
being relocated to the northern boundary of the site I feel comfortable supporting the flip of the sidewalk and
landscape strip along the southern egress road, thereby permitting the sidewalk to be located behind the curb.
However, if the shared use path is not permitted along the northern boundary of the site it will be required
along the southern egress road to the site. If it is provided along the southern egress road then the 6' wide
landscape strip will be required between the road and the 10' wide shared use path to buffer pedestrians, as this
will become the primary pedestrian corridor for the shared use path. Total width of these improvements shall
be 16' wide.
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. Rev 1. Comment addressed.
6. [4.12] Parking. Clearly label the 85 parking spaces designated for the proposed restaurant use and those designated for
the rest of the shopping center. Rev 1. Comment addressed.
7. [32.5.1(i)] Streets, Easements and Taavelways. Dimension all existing travelways directly adjacent to the lease area.
Rev 1. Comment addressed.
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. Rev 1. Comment addressed.
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. Rev 1. Comment addressed.
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. Rev 1. The revision omitted parking spaces. With 131 parking spaces
provided the minimum parking lot landscaping has been met.
11. [32.7.9.8] 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. Rev 1. Comment addressed.
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. Rev 1. Comment addressed.
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. Rev 1. Comment acknowledged.
14. [32.6] The final site plan shall meeting all the requirements of section 32.6 of Chapter 18 of the Code.
Rev 1. Comment acknowledged.
15. [32.7.9.5(e)] Shrubs Along Public Street. Provide a single row of 12" tall evergreen shrubs along the perimeter of the
parking area adjacent to Rte. 29 and the southern egress road where there is currently a large opening being produced
by the uneven spacing of the street trees (see diagram below).
16. [33.44, 32.7.9.51 Special Exception for a Variation to Application Plan and Street Trees. On 6-19-19 the applicant
asked for clarification on an alternative layout which provides the 10' wide shared use path and the 6' wide landscape
strip along the southern egress road and eliminates the northern shared use path currently depicted on the plans.
During this discussion it became apparent to staff that the applicant doesn't intend to provide street trees within the 6'
wide landscape strip. This type of item would usually be covered during the final site plan review of the landscape plan
once the plan was revised to depict/provide the shared use path and the landscape strip; however, I'll mention it now
and will include this as a condition of the SE for the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors to consider when
reviewing the SE request. Based on my calculations the number of street trees required on the eastern side is 7, and the
number of street trees required on the south side is 5. I offer the following draft condition: "Street trees meeting the
requirements of Section 32.7.9.5 are required within the 6' wide landscape strip adjacent to the shared use path. "
17. [33.441 Special Exception for a Variation to Application Plan. The variation to the application plan shall be approved
by the Board of Supervisors prior to the initial site plan receiving conditional approval.
18. [32.61 ARB approval of the final site plan is required. The above discussions regarding the alternative layout of the
shared use path may effect landscaping depicted on the current version of the landscape plan, this may effect the
visibility from the Entrance Corridor. Additional landscaping may be required by the ARB outside of the 6' wide
landscape strip along the southern egress road.
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
I recommend approval for SDP201800066 Longhorn Steakhouse - Initial Site Plan with the following conditions:
Submit 3 copies to ACSA for review.
Include fixture counts.
Show existing water and sewer mains/gate valves.
Offsite easements will be required.
Backflow will be required.
A fire hydrant may be required on site.
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.
2. Include a storm structure table on the Final Site Plan (refer to the Final Site Plan checklist for an example).
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. No objections
ARB — Heather McMahon
See attached review comments.
VDOT Adam Moore
See attached review comments.
Sincerely,
Christopher Perez
Senior Planner, Planning Division
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper, Virginia 22701
Stephen C. Brich, P.E.
Commissioner
June 19, 2019
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Attn: Christopher Perez
Re: Longhorn Steakhouse — Initial Site Plan
SDP-2018-00066
Review #2
Dear Mr. Perez:
The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use
Section, has reviewed the above referenced plan as submitted by Dynamic Engineering, revised
24 April 2019, and offers the following comments:
1. Provide details concerning the proposed retaining wall modification. Details will be sent
to the Culpeper District Structure & Bridge Section for review.
2. It appears that runoff will concentrate on the proposed pedestrian connection from both
sides. This will have to be properly managed; please provide detail.
If further information is desired, please contact Justin DeeI at 434-422-9894.
However, note that a VDOT Land Use Permit will be required prior to any work within the right-
of-way. The owner/developer must contact the Charlottesville Residency Transportation and
Land Use Section at (434) 422-9399 for information pertaining to this process.
Sincerely,
W� lk/ Ott-"
Adam J. Moore, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Charlottesville Residency
Virginial)OT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
Review Comments for SDP201800066 11nitial Site Plan
Project Name: LONGHORN STEAKHOUSE - INITIAL
Date Completed: Tuesday, June 18, 2019 DepartmentlaivisionlAgency: Review sus:
Reviewer: Heather McMahon CBBARB H See Recommendations
ARB-018-153: Longhorn Steakhouse, Preliminary Site Plan, was reviewed at the ARB meeting on 61171 019_
Motion: Mr Stoner moved to forward the recommendations outlined in the staff report to the Agent for the Site Review
Committee, amended as follows:
• Regarding requirements to satisfy the design guidelines as per § 18-30.6.4c( ), (3) and (5) and recommended
conditions of initial plan approval:
1_ 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_ Consider revising the porch
element-
_ Revise the Exterior Finish Legend on the architectural elevations (A5.1 and A5_2) to reflect only those materials and
colors that are proposed for this project_ Omit any superfluous notes-
3- Submit manufacturer's specifications for the storefront window system-
4- Provide renderings of the proposed pedestrian connection in the northwest corner of the site as seen from the EC
5_ Revise the demolition/tree conservation plan, grading plan, and landscape plan to show tree protection fencing outside
of areas to be disturbed and graded-
6- 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-
7- Provide the standard mechanical note on the General Notes (Sheet D2_1) of the site plan set: Visibility of all
mechanical equipment from the Entrance Corridor shall be eliminated-
8- Provide manufacturer's cut sheets for all proposed lighting models_ Provide the total lumens for all proposed light
fixtures with LED lamps, and lamp type and wattage for all non -LED lamps in the Irminaire schedule on the lighting plan fC4 1:;
9_ Rectify discrepancies, errors, and omissions in the Iuminaire schedule_ Provide the complete catalog number for
proposed fixtures, including but not limited to the finish color_
10_ Specify the color(s) for all proposed exterior light fixtures in the manufacturer's cut sheets or in the Iuminaire
schedule_
11_ Provide the full and complete standard lighting note on the lighting plan (C4.1) of the site plan set: Each outdoor
Iuminaire equipped with a lamp that emits 3,000 or more initial lumens shall be a full cutoff Iuminaire 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_
1_ Ensure that all proposed wall -mounted architectural lights are accounted for in the lighting plan (D4.1)_
13_ Limit lighting to that which is needed for safetylsecurity rather than emphasis on the building fagade illumination_
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_ Indicate the locations of all light fixtures on the lighting
plan (C4_2)_ Revise the photometrics to account for all proposed lighting_ Include cut sheets for all fixtures in the site plan
16_ Provide additional landscaping area to ensure that proposed street trees along the EC frontage }will not conflict }with
easements_
17_ Ensure that there are no potential conflicts between the proposed placement of freestanding light fixtures and
proposed canopy trees, particularly the placement of the proposed light in the center of the parking area }which overlaps with the
canopy of a Kentucky coffee tree proposed in a parking island_
18_ Ensure that the placement of proposed trees will not conflict }with the canopies of existing trees on the site_
19_ Ensure that the proposed locations of trees do not conflict }with the proposed and extant locations of utility lines_
0_ Note that a separate sign application submittal is required but not before final site plan approval_
Mr Wardell seconded the motion_
The motion was carried by a vote of 4:0 (Hancock absent)
Page: County of Albemarle Printed On: 10611912019
Christopher Perez
From: Christopher Perez
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2019 11:05 AM
To: 'Scott Collins'
Cc: Heather McMahon; Margaret Maliszewski
Subject: Longhorn Pedestrian Connections
Scott,
Longhorn Pedestrian Connections
It was good to attend the ARB work session meeting to see the latest ideas for the proposal. After the ARB
meeting I brought your idea back and discussed it with our master plan folks.
We liked the pedestrian connection being proposed in place of the stairway accessing Rte. 29; however, the
connection alone still won't be enough to function or meet the intent of the 10' shared use path for bikes and
pedestrians throughout the site, which is recommended in the adopted master plan. Your current proposal only
brings pedestrians from Rte. 29 into the site but doesn't allow them to access the site from the south of the site.
Staff s suggestions for sidewalk improvements as noted in the 12-4-18 email to Michele are still applicable.
However, you could propose other ideas to meet that same intent and function. Feel free to email me any ideas
you have and I'll provide you some initial guidance on each individual solution before you submit it in the site
plan.
Hope this helps
Christopher Perez I Senior Planner
Department of Community Development (County of Albemarle, Virginia
401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville, VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext. 3443
Christopher Perez
From: Christopher Perez
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2018 11:53 AM
To: 'Michele'
Cc: Heather McMahon; Margaret Maliszewski; Andrew Gast -Bray
Subject: Longhorn Steakhouse
Michele,
RE: Longhorn Steakhouse
As discussed the initial site plan is still deferred and shall be fully revised and reviewed prior to initial site plan
approval. The most recent submittal was a revision of the variation/SE request and the plan provided is to be
used as a concept plan for ARB and BOS consideration.
Heather has provided the following guidance: "After some consideration, Margaret and I believe we can take
the present application to the ARB as a Concept Plan/Advisory Review ffor a Special Exception Request] on
January 7. However, the submission still fails to meet the checklist for a Concept Plan/Advisory Review in one
regard: the site plan you submitted is missing "Existing and proposed topography and conceptual grading drawn
with contour intervals of 5-feet or less, and with sufficient offsite topography to describe prominent and
pertinent off -site features and physical characteristics, but in no case less than 50-feet outside of the site," noted
in section B.B. If you can provide me this information before December 10 at the latest, and preferably by this
Friday, December 7, my staff report and review will be complete; if not, then my staff report will mention this
lack of data. It may mean that my staff report recommends that the applicant revises the application to provide
this information for a subsequent review, or the ARB may ask for such information at the meeting. I just want to
make you aware of that.
One more thing: although Margaret, Chris, and I have not undertaken a full review of this submission, we are
aware of the ramp feature that is proposed for Rt. 29, to provide bicycle and pedestrian access directly to the site
from the right-of-way. While we believe this connection is important, we believe this design solution is not
appropriate for the Entrance Corridor and we will not recommend approval of the site plan to the ARB given
the magnitude of this feature on the Entrance Corridor. We encourage you to find alternate design solutions that
would require less pavement and railing. Please let me know if you have further questions."
I would like to use this opportunity to discuss the proposed pedestrian and bike connection. Whereas you have
provided a compact 10' shared multi use path from the sidewalk along the frontage to the site, and moved a
long way towards meeting the suggestions of staff, we think some improvements will improve what you are
providing and more likely to receive endorsement from the pertinent boards and commissions. After an initial
review staff does not feel this design forwards the intent of the 10' shared multi use path because it is not
convenient for cyclists to use. The short switchbacks require riders to get off their bikes and walk up the hill.
Staff thinks that there is a better, more usable design that would make it more convenient for all
users. Additionally, I have a feeling this design will not be aesthetically pleasing to the ARB upon their review
of the profile due to the large concentration of pavement and railings fronting the EC (as discussed above). To
these ends, I offer the following suggested change:
Provide a 6' wide sidewalk along the access road south of the site, provide a sidewalk min 5' bordering the
parking (I'd prefer 6'), and replace the proposed 30' ramp with a 5' wide staircase accessing the frontage (see
below).
----�--- .Y,
and
and
f
Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you
Christopher Perez I Senior Planner
Department of Community Development lCounty of Albemarle, Virginia
401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville, VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext. 3443
From: Christopher Perez
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2018 4:14 PM
To:'Michele' <michelew@ldreeves.com>; Heather McMahon <hmcmahon@albemarle.org>
Cc: Jack Degagne <JDegagne@darden.com>; Margaret Maliszewski <MMaliszewski@albemarle.org>
Subject: RE: ARB2018-153: Longhonr Steakhouse Initial, resubmission -- application incomplete
Michele,
I have some additional feedback on revisions to the plan that I will send you on Monday... please wait till you
hear from me before you make a decision on your next move with this plan....
Thank you
Christopher Perez I Senior Planner
Department of Community Development lCounty of Albemarle, Virginia
401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville, VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext. 3443
From: Michele <michelew@ldreeves.com>
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2018 12:48 PM
To: Heather McMahon <hmcmahon@albemarle.org>
Cc: Jack Degagne <JDegagne@darden.com>; Margaret Maliszewski <MMaliszewskiCc@albemarle.org>; Christopher Perez
<cperez@albemarle.org>
Subject: Re: ARB2018-153: Longhonr Steakhouse Initial, resubmission -- application incomplete
3
Ok. We are determining our best and most efficient course of action. We have everything available except the drainage
and grading and may decide to revise those immediately. Jack or I will update you.
Thanks,
Michele "Shelly" Wright
Ph 540.969.8221
michelew@ldreeves.com
On Nov 30, 2018, at 10:02 AM, Heather McMahon <hmcmahon@albemarle.org> wrote:
Hi Michele,
From our previous email conversations, I thought that you intended to submit a full, revised Initial Site
Plan set for review to both Planning staff (i.e., Chris) and to ARB staff; in which case, for the ARB review
process, your revised project would undergo the same level of review (i.e., full board review) as your
first submission. The checklist for a Preliminary Review of a Site Development Plan (which we also use
for Initial Site Plans) can be found here. I want to draw your attention to Part 13.13; what you have
submitted is missing the criteria for: existing and proposed topography; location and size of existing
proposed utilities and easements; and conceptual stormwater management plan. Without this data, my
review of an Initial Site Plan cannot be complete.
I have conferred with Chris, and I understand that you have submitted this in consideration of a special
exception. While the data your provided may suffice for such a review as a special exception, it does not
for ARB review of an Initial Site Plan. What you have submitted more closely aligns with the
requirements for an ARB Concept Plan/Advisory Review, the checklist for which can be found here. We
could take this to the ARB on January 7, 2019 as a Concept Plan, but you would still need to come to the
ARB again in the future with a full Initial Site Plan set.
So, my recommendation is that you defer indefinitely until you have a full Initial Site Plan Set in hand.
You will need to respond to this email and inform me that you wish to defer. If I hear from Chris in the
near future that what you have submitted meets his requirements, then we will re-evaluate how to
move forward.
Thanks,
Heather McMahon, Senior Planner
Albemarle County Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
434-296-5832 x3278
hmcmahon@albemarle.org
From: Michele <michelew@ldreeves.com>
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2018 9:18 AM
To: Heather McMahon <hmcmahon@albemarle.org>
Cc: Jack Degagne <JDegagne@darden.com>
Subject: Re: ARB2018-153: Longhonr Steakhouse Initial, resubmission -- application incomplete
Heather: We are on hold with the engineering related site plan review until the Special Exception is
approved. Since we have significant layout changes due to the mandated building position change and
new multi -use path, we do not want to do grading and drainage revisions until we at least have the first
Special Exception review for this week's resubmission.
Can the ARB progress without grading and drainage plans?
Thanks,
Michele "Shelly" Wright
Ph 540.969.8221
michelew@ldreeves.com
On Nov 29, 2018, at 3:22 PM, Heather McMahon <hmcmahon@albemarle.org> wrote:
Hello Michele and Jack,
I have just checked your application package for completeness and it is incomplete.
Review cannot commence until the missing information is provided and the application
is deemed complete. 8 hardcopies of a complete site plan set are required for a full
review of an Initial Site Plan. Your scheduled ARB meeting date may be postponed if
copies are not received in a timely manner.
Please see the attached checklist for the areas in which your application is deficit.
Furthermore, your previous submittal of an Initial Site Plan included the following:
Sheet #
Drawing Name
Dr
Da
CIA
CoverSheet
$/;
C2.1
General Notes/Tree Conservation Plan
8/:
C2.2
Demolition Plan
8/.
C2.3
Site Plan
8/:
C2.4
Grading Plan
8/:
C2.5
Drainage & Utility Plan A
8/.
C2.6
Drainage & Utility Plan B
8/:
C3.1
Utility Profiles (Storm)
8/:
C3.2
Utility Profiles (Sanitary)
C3.3
Utility Profiles (Sanitary)
C4.1
Lighting Plan
C4.2
Lighting Plan Details
8/.
C5.1
Soil Erosion & Sediment Control Plan
8/:
C5.2
Soil Erosion & Sediment Control Notes & Details
8/:
C6.1
Construction Details
8/:
C6.2
Construction Details
8/:
C6.3
Construction Details
8/:
C6.4
Construction Details
8/:
C6.5
Construction Details
8/:
C6.6
Construction Details
8/:
C7.1
Soil Boring Logs
8/:
C8.1
Vehicle Circulation Plan (WB-67)
8/:
C8.2
Vehicle Circulation Plan (Refuse)
1-1.1
Landscape Plan
8/;
1-1.2
Landscape Plan Notes & Details
g/
Sheet 1 of 2
Survey
7[
Sheet 2 of 2
Survey
7/:
A1.1
Dimensioned Floor Plan
8/:
A1.2
Noted Floor Plan
8/:
A3.1
Roof Plan
8/1'
A4.2
Schedule, Notes and Details
8/:
A5.1
Exterior Elevations
8/
A5.2
Exterior Elevations
8/
n.p.
Color renderings (2 pages)
6/:
P. 1-15
Sign permit drawings
6[
n.p.
Manufacturer's specifications on lighting
n•(
Material samples boards (2)
n•(
In contrast, this submittal includes the following:
n.p.
Color renderings (2 pages)
11,
T1.1
Title Sheet
8/1
C2.3
Site Plan
11,
C4.1
Lighting Plan
11,
1-1.1
Landscape Plan
11,
A3.1
Roof Plan
8/1
A5.1
Exterior Elevations
8/'
A5.2
Exterior Elevations
8/1
At the least, your site plan must include the following missing sheets for ARB review
(and they must be the latest revisions, facsimiles of those submitted to Chris Perez, the
lead planner on your Site Review Committee):
C1.1
Cover Sheet
C2.1
General Notes/Tree Conservation Plan
C2.2
Demolition Plan
C2.3
Site Plan
C2.4
Grading Plan
C2.5
Drainage & Utility Plan A
C2.6
Drainage & Utility Plan B
C4.1
Lighting Plan
C4.2
Lighting Plan Details
1-1.1
Landscape Plan
1-1.2
Landscape Plan Notes & Details
A1.1
Dimensioned Floor Plan
A1.2
Noted Floor Plan
Please let me know if you would like to defer this project or when I can expect to receive
8 hardcopies of a complete site plan set and architectural drawings.
Thanks,
Heather McMahon, Senior Planner
Albemarle County Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
434-296-5832 x3278
hmcmahon@albemarle.orR
<ARB2018-153 Preliminary SDP Checklist for Completeness.pdf>