HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201800048 Review Comments 2018-10-10 TM
() B O H LER 28 Blackwell Park Lane,Suite 201
Warrenton,VA 20186
PHONE 540.349.4500
ENGINEERING
October 10, 2018
Via Federal Express
Albemarle County
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,North Wing
Charlottesville,VA 22902-4596
Attn:Tim Padalino, AICP
Re: SDP2018-00048
Final Site Plan— 1st Review Response
Wawa
Seminole Trail&Proffit Road
Charlottesville,VA 22911
Albemarle County
BE#V162083
Dear Mr Padalino:
Bohler Engineering is pleased to submit on behalf of Renaud Consulting, the 2nd Submission Final Site
Plan for the Wawa Project in Charlottesville, Virginia The following is our comment response letter
addressing comments received from vanous departments. Each comment is addressed and responded to
as follows.
Albemarle County Planning Services (Planner)—Tim Padalino (tpadalino(a albemarle.ora)
Comment 1: [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 m the approximate
0 8-acre area that is currently located on the adjoining property to the north (TMP
032A0-02-00-001 A0) 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
CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECT MANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
WWW.BOHLERENGINEERING.COM
() BOHLER Tim Padalmo,AICP
GINEERING Wawa
Final Site Plan 1'`Review Comments
October 10,2018
Page 2 of 14
• 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
authonzation for SDP201800048 to mclude proposed construction activities or
proposed permanent improvements on TMP#032-A0-02-00-001AO
Response 1: Boundary Line Adjustment Plat will be provided and approved prior to Site Plan
approval.
Comment 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
Response 2: Boundary Line Adjustment Plat will be provided and approved prior to Site Plan
approval.
Comment 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: (m 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)
Response 3: The requested notes have been added to the Site Data Table on the Cover sheet.
Comment 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 smce the Initial Site Plan review).
Response 4: Distances to the centerline of the nearest existing street intersections on Rte. 29 and
Proffit Road can be found on the Site Plan Sheet.
Comment 5: [Z 0 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").
Response 5: Outdoor trash containers have been added to the Site Plan sheet. The appropriate
symbol has been added to the General Notes and Legend Sheet.
CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECT MANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
WWW BOHLERENGINEERING.COM
() B 0 H L E R Tim Pulalmo,AICP
ENGINEFRING Wawa
Final Site Plan 1'Review Comments
October 10,2018
Page 3 of 14
Comment 6: [Z.O. Sections 32.5.2(q)and 32.7.9]: Please revise the"Zoning Ordinance Requirements"
table on Sheet C701("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:
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.
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.
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
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
E. The fifth row reads "Section 34-87(c)(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.
Response 6: The Zoning Ordinance requirements have been updated to show the correct sections
with corresponding requirements and calculations. Please see Landscape Plan and
schedule directly relating to the Zoning Ordinance requirements.
Comment 7: [Z 0 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.
Response 7: The Zoning Ordinance requirements have been updated to show the correct sections
with corresponding requirements and calculations. Please see the Landscape Plan
and schedule directly relating to the Zoning Ordinance requirements. No waivers
are required with the updated ordinance requirements.
Comment 8: [Z.O. Section 32 5 2(q)]• Please provide the specified traffic generation figures (tnp
generation estimates), or indicate the location of this information(if it has been provided
since the Imtial Site Plan review)
Response 8: Traffic generation figures have been added to the Site Plan sheet.
CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECT MANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
WWW BOHLERENGINEERING.COM
() B O H L E R Tim Padalmo,AICP
E N G I E E R l G Wawa
Final Site Plan In Review Comments
October 10,2018
Page 4 of 14
Comment 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 m 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[(1 x 6,000 GSF)/200] =(6,000/200)=30 parking spaces.
The number of proposed spaces is 54,which meets this mimmum 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 pnmary structure,if
the structure is to include multiple different "Scheduled Uses" (as identified in Z.O.
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."
Response 9: A waiver to increase the maximum allowable parking has been submitted with this
application.
CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECT MANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
WWW.BOHLERENGINEERING COM
() B O H L E R Tim Padalmo,AICP
ENGINEERING Wawa
Final Site Plan l' Review Comments
October 10,2018
Page 5 of 14
Comment 10: A note must be added to SDP201800048 that confirms the proposed off-site
improvements/modifications do not compromise the adjoining property's compliance
with the applicable minimum parking requirements.More specifically,please add a note
that references the"Layout Plan"(Sheet 8 of 15)and"Cover Sheet"(Sheet 1 of 15)of
approved final site plan SDP201000029; and explain that 165 parking spaces were
required, 198 parking spaces were provided,and the proposed modifications shown on
SDP201800048 (the elimination of four(4) spaces on the adjoining property)would not
take the adjoining property out of compliance with the minimum parking requirements
identified m SDP201000029.
Response 10: The requested note has been added to the Site Data table on the General Notes and
Legend sheet.
Albemarle County Engineering Services-David James
Comment 1: VSMP plan approval required before the FSP can be approved.
Response 1: The WAWA WPO plan is being resubmitted for 2°d submission County Staff review
concurrently with this submission.
Comment 2: Remove the E&SC and SWM plan sheets from the FSP(Sheets C404-409,C601-C604).
Response 2: The requested sheets have been removed from the FSP Plan set.
Comment 3: Show all existing easements(access,drainage, sight,sanitary easements, etc.)with deed
book&page references
Response 3: A revised ALTA has been provided with site easements, please see Topographic
Survey sheet.
Comment 4: Show existing ROW line and width for streets with deed book&page references.
Response 4: Existing Variable width ROW lines are shown. Deed Book & page references are
being investigated and will be provided with Final Submission.
Comment 5: Offsite grading and improvements will need to be shown in an easement. Provide copy
of letter of intent to grant them from offsite property owner.
Response 5: A supplemental letter of intent from Ms. Amelia S. Black, DNP, MSN, RN, NEA-
BC, Chief Operating Officer for Sentara Martha Jefferson Hospital (dated June 18,
2017) was provided with the original FSP application. Offsite grading easements
are now shown,see Grading sheet. An Easement Plat is being prepared and is being
submitted under separate cover.
Comment 6: Proposed work outside of property limits to be shown in an easement.
Response 6: Proposed Temporary Offsite Construction Easements are now shown, see Site Plan
sheet. An Easement Plat is being prepared and is being submitted under separate
cover.
Comment 7: Show proposed easements and indicate whether they are public or pnvate(outside of
ROW)
Response 7: Proposed Stormwater, Stormwater Vault, Sanitary, Landscape, and Temporary
Construction easements are now differentiated,see Site Plan and Utility Plan sheets.
No public easements are proposed(all easements are outside of ROW).
CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECT MANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
WWW.BOHLERENGINEERING.COM
B O H L E R Tim Padalmo,AICP
ENGINEERING Wawa
Final Site Plan lst Review Comments
October 10,2018
Page 6 of 14
Comment 8: Show stormwater vault system in a SWF easement. Required width: 10'+(pipe dia. or
channel width)+2'+2(depth-5') {Design Manual, section 6}
Response 8: The SWF easement has been provided per Design Manual section 6, see Site Plan
and Utility Plan sheets.
Comment 9: Provide a drainage summary table similar to the sanitary schedule. Indicate type of
VDOT structure.
Response 9: Inlet, and headwater comps with structure schedule and sizing have been provided,
see Storm Computations sheet.
Comment 10: Show the existing Rt.29 pavement&edge/curb connecting from your proposed right
turn lane
Response 10: Additional edge of pavement labels have been provided,see Site Plan sheet.
Comment 11: Show VDOT designations for type of drainage structure/entrance, including curb&
gutter.
Response 11: Structure designations have been provided on the Inlet Comps table, see Storm
Computations sheet. Proposed curb in ROW at entrance and turn lane shall be CG-
6 unless requested otherwise by VDOT. Labels are included on proposed
mountable islands and called out as CG-3,see Site Plan sheet.
Comment 12: Provide curb&gutter details
Response 12: Curb and Gutter details are located on the Construction Details sheets.
Comment 13: Sheet C401 —
a. Proposed slopes greater than 3:1 to have low maintenance (not grass)
groundcover specified on the plans, which will not require mowing. {Design
Manual, section 8}
b Provide entrance landing that meet VDOT standard of 2% max grade and having
a 50' minimum length
Response 13: a. Ground cover within greater than 3:1 slope areas has been revised to be called out
as mulch on the Landscape Plan sheet.
b. The entrances have been optimized to mitigate slopes at the entrances, while also
providing site accessible slopes for truck movements. The current landings feature
4% slopes into 8%drive aisles.
Comment 14: A safety provision(a guardrail, wall or fence)required to be installed for walls over 30"
high.
Response 14: A guardrail is now proposed. See Grading Plan sheet.
Comment 15: Sheet C301 —Label wall max height.
Response 15: TWBW spots have been called out at the max wall height(3.28'). See Grading Plan
sheet.
Comment 16: Sheet C701 — You're showing trees in the path of dramage. Proposed trees should be
outside of drainage easements {Design Manual, section 6}
Response 16: Tree locations and shrub types within easements have been revised, see Landscape
Plan sheet.
CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECT MANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
WWW.BOHLERENGINEERING.COM
() B O H L E R Tim Padalmo,AICP
ENGINEERING Wawa
Final Site Plan I' Review Comments
October 10,2018
Page 7 of 14
Comment 17: Provide drain inlet in SE corner of parking lot. Also, drainage should not run across,
though, or backwater in dumpster areas [18-4.12.19].
Response 17: Slopes have been revised to increase drainage slopes out of the dumpster area, see
Grading Plan sheet.
Comment 18: Provide throat length for each DI.
Response 18: Inlet comps have been provided,see Storm Computations sheet.
Comment 19: Add note to the profiles/details that safety slabs (SL-1) shall be installed for any manhole
structures taller than 12'.
Response 19: The requested note has been added to the Utility Profiles sheet.
Comment 20: Add note to the profiles/details that concrete inlet shaping(IS-1) shall be in any structure
with a 4' or greater drop.
Response 20: The IS-1 detail is provided on the Construction Details sheet. The HGL
computations provided on the Storm Computations sheet utilize inlet shaping for
the computed grade lines.
Comment 21: It looks like some of storm pipes could be operating under pressure under design flow
HGL. The network should operate under open channel flow where no pressure situation
exists. (Design Manual, section 6}
Response 21: As discussed on 8/10 and 8/23 via email with County Engineering Reviewer—David
James; the existing downstream pipes currently experience pressure flow in the 10-
year storm. The proposed site infrastructure is limited by the existing offsite private
infrastructure condition and will need to also be under pressure flow in the 10-year
condition. The proposed development is not increasing the flow to this system. As a
result, proposed storm pipes shall be installed with watertight fittings and the
requested note has been added to the Utility Profiles.
Comment 22: Provide typical section, lining type requirement & design calcs. for the ditch alongside
Proffit Road.
Response 22: A ditch is not proposed along Proffit Road. The proposed drainage pattern
promotes onsite water into the site parking site and offsite water into the Proffit
Road existing gutter pan.
Albemarle County Inspections Services—Michael Dellinger
Comment 1: Retaining walls greater than 3 feet in height require a separate building permit. Walls
exceeding 4 feet in height require a stamped engineered design also
Response 1: A separate building permit will be coordinated under separate cover for the 3.28'
wall.
Comment 2: If building was constructed prior to Jan. 1, 1985, as asbestos report has to be submitted
for a demolition permit. If asbestos is found a separate demolition permit for asbestos
removal is needed in addition to the building removal Releases must be obtamed from
each utility company servmg the existing structure to obtain a demolition permit.
Response 2: This building was constructed in 1991 and is not applicable.
CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECT MANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
WWW.BOHLERENGINEERING COM
() B O H L E R Tun Padalmo,AICP
ENGINEERING Wawa
Final Site Plan 1"Review Comments
October 10,2018
Page 8 of 14
Architectural Review Board— Heather McMahon
Regarding requirements to satisfy the design guidelines as per § 18-30.6.4c(2), (3) and (5) and
recommended conditions of initial plan approval:
Comment 1: Provide 3'/i" large caliper shade trees and other landscaping in the general area currently
shown with five(5)parking spaces at the northwest corner of the site.
Response 1: The requested trees have been added at the northwest corner of the site. See
Landscape Plan sheet.
Comment 2: Relocate the air and vacuum equipment to eliminate visibility from the EC
Response 2: Air and vacuum equipment has been moved to the southern area of the parking lot
to eliminate visibility from the EC. See Site Plan sheet.
Comment 3: Provide a landscape easement on adjacent property to the north for screening of the
canopy.
Response 3: A landscape easement is proposed for screening of the canopy, see Grading Plan
sheet.
Comment 4: The lowest edge of the canopy roof shall not exceed 14'6".
Response 4: Comment currently being coordinated and will be resolved with ARB submission.
Regarding recommendations on the plan as it relates to the guidelines.
Comment 1: Consider substituting native tree and shrub species for those exotic species found in the
plant schedule.
Response 1: Exotic tree and shrub species have been replaced with native species. See
Landscape Plan sheet.
Comment 2: Consider adding shrubbery to the extenor of the building.
Response 2: Planter boxes have been added around the building. See Landscape Plan sheet.
Regarding the final site plan submittal:
Comment 1: Submit architectural elevations and plans of the building and fuel pump canopy for
review. Address the standards and cntena established in the Standards for Fuel Pump
Canopies as outlined in Appendix B of the EC Design Guidelines.
Response 1: Canopy has been revised to meet Appendix B, EC Design Guidelines. See Site Plan
sheet.
Comment 2: Submit material samples for review.
Response 2: Will be provided with Building Plan submission under separate cover.
Comment 3: The building and canopy architecture shall be compatible and shall be directly related.
Response 3: Will be provided with Building Plan submission under separate cover.
Comment 4: Consider the frontality of the building and its fenestration.
Response 4: Will be provided with Building Plan submission under separate cover.
CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECT MANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
WWW BOHLERENGINEERING.COM
RECEIVED
OCT 1 0 mA.
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
m
() B O H L E R Tim Padalmo,AICP
ENGINEERING Wawa
Final Site Plan 1st Review Comments
October 10,2018
Page 9 of 14
Comment 5: Revise the design to reduce the height of the stone veneer on the canopy piers to enhance
human scale.
Response 5: Will be provided with Building Plan submission under separate cover.
Comment 6: Relieve blankness on the north, south and west elevations by usmg architectural detail,
supplemented with landscaping.
Response 6: Landscaping revisions have been implemented to improve site appeal with this
application. See Landscape Plan. Architectural details to be addressed with
Building Plan submission under separate cover.
Comment 7: Provide manufacturer's specifications for proposed window glazing and samples for final
review.
Response 7: Will be provided with Building Plan submission under separate cover.
Comment 8: Provide the standard glass note on the elevations: Window glass in the Entrance
Corridors should meet the following criteria Visible light transmittance (VLT)shall not
drop below 40% Visible light reflectance(VLR)shall not exceed 30%.
Response 8: Will be provided with Building Plan submission under separate cover.
Comment 9: Revise the proposal so that both the canopy and the building maintain a presence on the
EC.
Response 9: The canopy and building have been updated to address recommendations. See Site
Plan sheet.
Comment 10: Revise the plan to include dumpster elevations and details. Provide samples of the
dumpster enclosure for review
Response 10: A dumpster detail is included on the Construction Details. Elevations to be
coordinated under separate cover.
Comment 11: Relegate loading areas and mechanical equipment from the EC.
Response 11: Loading areas and mechanical equipment have been located as far from EC as
possible. See Site Plan sheet.
Comment 12: Provide a roof plan with equipment heights for review if any proposed mechanical
equipment will be roof-mounted
Response 12: Roof plan will be provided under separate cover.
Comment 13: Provide the standard mechanical equipment note on the General Notes page (C-101) of
the site plan set and on the arclutectural drawings. Visibility of all mechanical equipment
from the Entrance Corridor shall be eliminated.
Response 13: The requested note has been added as General Note#31. See General Notes sheet.
Comment 14: Ensure that no footcandle values above 0 5 spill over from the property boundaries into
public rights-of-way. In particular, show the footcandle reading at the property line in the
vicinity of the light pole on the Profit Road side of the site.
Response 14: Lighting Plan has been revised. See Lighting Plan sheet.
CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECT MANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
WWW.BOHLERENGINEERING.COM
n
B Q H L E R Tim Padalmo,AICP
N G ! N E E R I N G Wawa
Final Site Plan 1st Review Comments
October 10,2018
Page 10 of 14
Comment 15: Provide manufacturer's specifications for all proposed light fixtures.
Response 15: Specifications have been provided. See Lighting Details and Construction Details
sheet.
Comment 16: Revise the canopy design to eliminate glare.
Response 16: Will be provided with Building Plan submission under separate cover.
Comment 17: Provide information to confirm that no illumination from the fuel pump canopy is emitted
above the horizontal plane
Response 17: A supplemental Exterior Lighting Layout prepared by Red Leonard Associates has
been provided with this application to confirm no illumination from the fuel pump
canopy is emitted above the horizontal plane. This study will be submitted
supplemental to the ARB application.
Comment 18: Show the maximum footcandle (fc) values on the photometric plan Revise all notes
accordingly.
Response 18: The maximum footcandle values are provided. See Lighting Plan sheet.
Comment 19: Reduce illumination so that the maximum footcandle(fc)value does not exceed 20 fc.
Response 19: The maximum footcandles throughout the site have been revised and no longer
exceed 20 fc except beneath the canopy. See Footcandle Calculation Summary on
Lighting Plan sheet and.
Comment 20: Calculate the photometncs using an LLF of 1 0 for all fixtures
Response 20: As coordinated with County Staff Senior Planner — Heather McMahon, it is
permissible to propose lighting with a more accurate metric of 1.03 suggested by
Red Leonard Associates,Inc. See Luminaire Schedule on the Lighting Plan sheet.
Comment 21: Ensure that light color is consistent throughout the site.
Response 21: Light colors have been revised. See Lighting Plan sheet.
Comment 22: Change the color of light models A4,B3, and B4 to dark brown, dark bronze,or black.
Response 22: Light models have been changed to dark bronze. See Lighting Plan sheet.
Comment 23: Ensure that the mounting heights of the freestanding pole lights includes the base and
reduce the total height to a maximum of 20' from grade.
Response 23: Mounting heights and details have been revised as requested. Please see
Construction Details sheet.
Comment 24: Provide standard lighting note on the lighting plan(C-700) within 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-halffootcandle.
Response 24: Note has been provided. See Lighting Plan sheet.
CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECT MANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
WWW BOHLERENGINEERING COM
() B O H L E R Tim PadaImo,A1CP
ENGINEERING Wawa
Final Site Plan 1"Review Comments
October 10,2018
Page 11 of 14
Comment 25: Clarify the manufacturer listed in the lummaire schedule on the lighting plan (C-700) for
D1
Response 25: Manufacturer has been provided. See Lighting Plan sheet.
Comment 26: Ensure that all LLF values in the lununaire schedule on the lighting plan (C-700) are all
equal to 1 0
Response 26: As coordinated with County Staff Senior Planner — Heather McMahon, it is
permissible to propose lighting with a more accurate metric of 1.03 suggested by
Red Leonard Associates,Inc. See Luminaire Schedule on the Lighting Plan sheet.
Comment 27: Consider substituting native tree and shrub species for those exotic species found in the
plant schedule.
Response 27: Exotic tree and shrub species have been replaced with native species. Sec
Landscape Plan sheet.
Comment 28: Correct the illustration on C-600,which currently calls out the AR as 'AB'.
Response 28: AR trees in plan view have been reviewed to accurately match schedule keynote
symbol and quantity. See Landscape Plan sheet.
Comment 29: Delineate the utility easements on the landscape plan (C-600) and the site & utility plan
(C-300). Increase planting area to ensure that there are no conflicts between the proposed
plants and extant/proposed utilities/easements.
Response 29: Easements are now delineated, and landscaping has been revised. See Landscape
Plan sheet.
Comment 30: Provide one additional intenor parking tree
Response 30: One interior parking tree has been added. Per updated Landscape Compliance
chart, interior parking tree requirement is met with 5 canopy trees and a waiver is
no longer requested.
Comment 31: Note that signage requires a separate application Ground cover, shrubs and/or trees will
be required to integrate the freestanding signs into the overall development.
Response 31: Separate signage application will be submitted under separate cover. Plantings
used to integrate the sign into the overall development are shown on the Landscape
Plan sheet.
Comment 32: Consider adding shrubbery to the exterior of the building.
Response 32: Planter boxes have been added around the building. See Landscape Plan sheet.
Comment 33: Reduce the number of BNH and IV to below 10 and 25 respectively (or below 25% of
typology totals)by introducing more plant variety.
Response 33: Quantities of BNH and IV have been reduced as requested. See Landscape Plan
sheet.
Comment 34: Provided the standard plant health note on the landscape plan(C-600)• 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 he pruned minimally and only to
support the overall health of the plant
Response 34: Requested note has been provided. See Landscape Plan sheet.
CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECT MANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
WWW.BOHLERENGINEERING COM
() B O H L E R Tim Padalmo,AICP
ENGINEERING Wawa
Final Site Plan 1st Review Comments
October 10,2018
Page 12 of 14
Albemarle County Fire—Shawn Maddox
Comment 1: A knox box will be required. Please add a note indicating the requirement and that the
installation location must be coordinated with the fire marshal's office at 434-296-5833
Response 1: Knox Box has been located at the western building entrance, see Site Plan sheet.
Comment 2: A fire flow test will be required prior to final approval
Response 2: A fire flow test will be coordinated prior to final approval.
Albemarle County Service Authority—Richard Nelson
General
Comment 1: Include original P.E. stamp and signature.
Response 1: Original seal&signature has been provided.
Comment 2: Provide fixture counts for meter sizing
Response 2: Fixture counts were sent to Richard Nelson on 8/23 to confirm meter sizing.
Comment 3: Remove the following sheets from ACSA submittal. 302-409, 503-604, 703, 704, 706.
Response 3: The requested sheets have been removed from the ACSA submittal set.
Comment 4: Submit 3 copies of plan set to ACSA(original submission only had 2 sets).
Response 4: 3 plan sets have been provided.
Comment 5: Confirm if there will be a fire suppression system
Response 5: The proposed building will not be sprinklered.
Comment 6: Add a note that backflow prevention will be required for domestic and fire line.
Response 6: A domestic line is proposed, and a backflow preventer note has been added to the
Utility Plan sheet.
Sheet C-202
Comment 1: ACSA GIS indicates there is a private sewer main connecting to ACSA sewer, as shown
on plan
Response 1: Sewer main is located,see Site Plan sheet.
Comment 2: The 6-inch cast iron sewer lateral shall be abandoned at the manhole tie-in.
Response 2: This 6" lateral needs to be removed eliminate crossing conflict with proposed storm
pipe A-3 to EX.A-2.
Comment 3: Call out disconnection of existing water.
Response 3: Disconnection of existing water has been called out,see Utility Plan sheet.
Sheet C-501
Comment 1: Confirm if the existing imgation meter will remain or be abandoned.
Response 1: There is no indication that there is an existing irrigation meter onsite.
CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECT MANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
WWW BOHLERENGINEERING.COM
() B Q H L E R Tim Padalmo,AICP
ENGINEERING Wawa
Final Site Plan 1"Review Comments
October 10,2018
Page 13 of 14
Comment 2: Show existing water meter and irrigation meter location.
Response 2: There is no indication that there is an existing irrigation meter onsite.
Comment 3: Show ACSA existing and proposed sewer easements.
Response 3: Easement locations have been provided, and additional proposed easements have
been added,see Topographic Survey sheet.
Comment 4: Correct"Grease Trap"to"Grease Interceptor".
Response 4: Label has been revised,see Utility Plan sheet.
Comment 5: Confirm why a segment of sanitary sewer is being relocated.
Response 5: Segment of sewer is being relocated to avoid loading plane of proposed building.
Comment 6: If sewer does not need to be relocated,a doghouse manhole can be installed to provide
connection to grease interceptor
Response 6: Segment of sewer is being relocated to avoid loading plane of proposed building.
Comment 7: Move light pole out of sewer easement, located near the Seminole"I rail entrance.
Response 7: Light pole has been relocated,see Landscape Plan sheet.
Sheet C-701
Comment 1: Trees are not allowed in ACSA easements.
Response 1: Trees have been relocated outside of ACSA easements, see Landscape Plan sheet.
Comment 2: As a general note,ACSA will not be responsible for replacing shrubs located within
ACSA easements.
Response 2: Acknowledged, ACSA will not be responsible for replacing shrubs within
easements.
Comment 3: Provide detail of proposed landscape wall
Response 3: Landscape wall detail is being coordinated with Geotechnical Engineer and will be
provided with subsequent submission.
Virginia Department of"I"ransportation-Adam J.Moore,P.E.
Comment 1: An Access Management Exception is currently under review,which must be approved
pnor to plan approval
Response 1: Currently processing AME will be approved prior to plan approval.
Comment 2: As discussed in our conversations with the applicant,the Proffitt Road entrance must be
converted to a right-In right-out with appropriate channelization island in accordance
with Appendix F of the Road Design Manual.
Response 2: The Prof& Road entrance has been revised to be a right-in right-out, see Site Plan
sheet.
CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECT MANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
WWW BOHLERENGINEERING COM
iu
() B O H L E R Tim Padalino,AICP
ENGINEERING Wawa
Final Site Plan 1u Review Comments
October 10,2018
Page 14 of 14
Albemarle County CDD Planning
Comment 1: A note must be added to SDP201800048 that confirms the proposed off-site
improvements/modifications do not compromise the adjoining property's compliance
with the applicable minimum parking requirements.More specifically,please add a note
that references the"Layout Plan"(Sheet 8 of 15)and"Cover Sheet"(Sheet 1 of 15)of
approved final site plan SDP201000029; and explain that 165 parking spaces were
required, 198 parking spaces were provided,and the proposed modifications shown on
SDP201800048(the elimination of four(4)spaces on the adjoining property)would not
take the adjoining property out of compliance with the minimum parking requirements
identified in SDP201000029.
Response 1: The requested note has been added to the Site Data table on the General Notes and
Legend sheet.
Should you have any questions regarding this project or require additional information, please do not
hesitate to contact me at(540)349-4500.
Sincerely,
Bohler E /nee ing V ITC
Jo•/an Q. Rit chic, P l
JR/bb
H 1161V162083\Administrative\Letters1181010 Final Site Plan 1st Review CRL.doc
CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECT MANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
WWW.BOHLERENGINEERING.COM
RECEIVED
OCT 1 0 2018
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
Kimley>>>Horn
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
To: Tim Padalino, Senior Planner
Albemarle County Community Development Dept.
From: Andrew Smith, P E.
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc
Ryan Perkins, P.E
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Date: August 28, 2018
Subject: Parking Modification Justification Memorandum
Wawa—Route 29 and Proffit Road
Albemarle County,Virginia
Introduction
This memorandum presents the justification for a parking modification for the proposed Wawa
convenience store and gas station located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Seminole
Trail (US Route 29) and Proffit Road (VA Route 649) in Albemarle County,Virginia.This
memorandum was prepared at the request of Albemarle County to serve as supporting
documentation for a modification to the maximum parking requirement for the site. Justification for
additional parking is required by the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance ("Code")when the
proposed parking for a site exceeds the minimum number of parking spaces required by section
4.12.6 of the Code by more than 20 percent.This parking modification is being requested by the
applicant to ensure that the site contains sufficient parking for the expected store patrons and
employees.
Background Information
The site is bounded by Seminole Trail (US Route 29) to the west, Proffit Road (VA Route 649)to the
south, and Sentara Martha Jefferson Hospital Center to the north and east.The development will
include a 6,049-square-foot convenience store, roughly 1,000 square feet of outdoor seating for
dining, and a gas station with 12 fueling positions.The most recent proposed site layout is attached.
This layout contains 47 total parking spaces.
In this part of Albemarle County, development density is relatively low and the primary mode of
travel is by automobile. In addition to the convenience store, one of the primary functions of the
site is as a gasoline refueling station for vehicles. Because of this, it is anticipated that the vast
kimley-horn.com 1700 Willow Lawn Drive, Suite 200, Richmond, VA 23230 804-673-3882
Page 2 of 6
majority of the trips made to the store from this area will be made in a personal vehicle. Access to
the site is limited almost entirely to personal vehicles because the site is not located along any bus
lines, and the area roadways have limited pedestrian facilities and do not contain any bicycle
facilities.
Parking Requirements
With regard to parking requirements in Albemarle County,the proposed development is
characterized as a "food store" The parking requirements for a food store, as specified by the
Albemarle County Code, are shown in Table 1.
Table 1: Required Parking Spaces—Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance
Minimum T Maximum Number of
Land Gross Floor Area Resultant Number
Parking Allowable Spaces
Use (square feet) of Required Spaces
Requirement (120%of Min.Spaces)
Food 1 space
Store 6,049 30 36
per 200 SF
The maximum number parking spaces is defined as 120%of the minimum parking requirement.The
proposed parking lot capacity is greater than the maximum number of allowable parking spaces for
a food store,therefore,justification for additional parking is required.
Parking Justification
The proposed Wawa convenience store and gas station is considered a "food store"with regard to
the required parking. However,the development differs from a food store in several ways.The
convenience store includes 1,000 square feet of dedicated outdoor seating as a dining area for
patrons who choose to dine on made-to-order or other prepared food on-site. In this regard,the
store operates similar to a restaurant.The County Code states that the parking requirements for a
restaurant is "thirteen (13)spaces per one thousand (1,000) square feet of gross floor area including
areas for accessory dancing."Therefore,the 1,000 feet of dining area would require an additional 13
spaces at a minimum. In combination with the requirement of 30 spaces for the gross floor area of
the convenience store,this results in a minimum requirement of 43 spaces and a maximum
allowable number of 52 spaces
The "food store" category also does not consider the gas station portion of the development This
type of convenience store and gas station will generate more vehicle traffic per square foot than a
supermarket or convenience store alone, which would also be categorized as food stores The
parking activity for this convenience store and gas station also differs from a food store because
some patrons of the Wawa store will come to the site solely to purchase convenience items inside,
while others come primarily to fill their vehicles with gas. However, a large portion of the customers
Page 3 of 6
who fill up with gas will also enter the convenience store,so they must be accommodated in the
overall parking count equation as well. Because this land use is a higher vehicle trip generator,this
site will require more parking than a typical convenience store requires,and it is crucial that the site
contains additional parking spaces over the maximum allowed by code.
Vehicle trips generated by the proposed Wawa were estimated based on the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE)Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition.A summary of the trip
generation is attached. It is expected that the site will generate 264 inbound and 263 outbound trips
in the AM peak hour of commuter traffic and 207 inbound and 206 outbound trips in the PM peak
hour of commuter traffic.The Trip Generation Manual is not intended to provide a direct indication
of the number of parking spaces that will be required during the peak hours or over the course of
the day, but it does provide an estimate of the peak activity the site will experience on a typical
weekday Based on the trip generation, it is unlikely that the maximum allowable number of spaces
for the store (36 spaces)will be able to accommodate the number of parked vehicles at any one
point in time during either of the peak hours of site activity If more than 14%of the traffic expected
to enter the site during the AM peak hour attempts to park at the same time,then 36 spaces will be
insufficient.
If there is insufficient parking for these customers,they will likely have to leave their cars at the
pumps,which creates longer lines for gas and disrupts the vehicular site circulation, possibly leading
to queueing that backs into public streets. It should also be noted that the entrance from Route 29
will be shared with the hospital. Keeping it free and clear of congestion is crucial to getting
emergency vehicles in and out of the hospital quickly and safely, especially during peak hours.
Providing additional parking reduces the chance that patrons will have to spend additional time
circulating or waiting for a parking space and reduces the chance that the patrons will park in
alternative locations on the site, both of which could also negatively affect site circulation and
entrances along major roads.Alternatively, if the number of parking spaces is insufficient, drivers
may also become frustrated and leave the site without parking,which would detrimentally affect
business.
In addition to parking provided for patrons, parking spaces must also be provided for the employees
of the store.Wawa will employ a total of approximately 30 to 40 people of which 60%are generally
full time and 40%are generally part time. At any one time, it is expected that 8 to 12 employees will
be on site and will require parking spaces.Assuming an average of 10 employees parked at the site,
only 26 spaces would be available for patrons of the convenience market. If a large portion of the
vehicles expected to enter the site during the AM or PM peak hour arrive around the same point in
time, or if a number of patrons park for a duration longer than a few minutes,the additional spaces
proposed by the project would help to accommodate more of the parking demand and allow for
quick and safe access to the proposed Wawa. Because of the number of trips generated by the site
Page 4 of 6
during the peak periods of store activity and the generally quick in-and-out nature of the business,
including a greater number of spaces on site will account for the hourly and daily variation of
vehicles that would be parked at the store
The site is near several other businesses and directly adjacent to a hospital center.As discussed
above,the Wawa is expected to attract a greater percentage of parking customers than a typical
food store. If adequate parking is not provided on-site,those customers may try to park off-site
rather than waiting for spots to be vacated. Parking off-site could potentially disrupt the adjacent
businesses and create conflicts with other property owners, or disrupt the hospital parking lot
where site circulation is critical during emergencies Providing additional spaces beyond the
maximum allowable parking ratio contained in the County Code helps prevent Wawa patrons from
potentially parking in adjacent parking lots during peak parking demand at the store.This would also
minimize pedestrian traffic crossing Proffrt Road,which lacks pedestrian facilities
Ideally, a Wawa convenience market and gas station would have enough parking to accommodate
15%-20%of the peak hour trips in addition to its employees. For a development of this size,that is
approximately 55-60 parking spaces. Because of the site constraints, only 47 spaces can be provided.
However, the 47 spaces will provide a vast improvement over the maximum of 36 spaces based
entirely on the square footage of the store as a food store.
Conclusion
Based on the operational characteristics of the proposed Wawa, the development differs from a
"food store" in that it contains a convenience market, outdoor dining area, and fueling station.The
Wawa will generate more vehicular traffic than a grocery store or convenience store of the same
gross floor area.Therefore,the site requires additional parking than allowable by the Albemarle
County Code for a food store of this size.This memorandum demonstrates that additional parking is
necessary to ensure that the site will contain sufficient parking for the expected store patrons and
employees during periods of peak parking demand throughout the day. Eleven additional parking
spaces beyond the maximum number of parking spaces allowed are requested by the applicant for
the Wawa site. While this is still slightly less than the ideal number of spaces for a Wawa of this size,
it still provides a significant improvement over the 36 spaces allowed by the Code.
Parking is essential to the success of Wawa business.The additional spaces will minimize the
potential for parking to be unavailable on-site and provide for better ease of access, vehicular
circulation, and internal and external site safety.This is in accordance with section 14.12.2 c of the
Code which states that a modification may be granted if the "public health, safety, and welfare
would be equally or better served by the modification "A parking modification for the Wawa site
would not be detrimental to the subject property,the adjacent properties, or other properties in the
vicinity In fact,the additional parking would provide a benefit by reducing the possibility of site
traffic "spilling over"from the site. The parking modification provides Wawa adequate parking to
Page 5 of 6
best serve their customers and minimize the effect to neighboring properties and adjacent
roadways.
Page 6 of 6
Attachments:
1. Proposed Site Layout
2. Trip Generation Table
RECENEtj
go I U
CoMM p�,E�
DEVE.► o
7M
B 0 H L ] J 28 Blackwell Park Lane,Suite 201
Warrenton,VA 20186
PHONE 540.349.4500
ENGINEERING
November 30, 2018
Via Federal Express
Albemarle County
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,North Wing
Charlottesville,VA 22902-4596
Attn. Tim Padalino,AICP
Re: SDP2018-00048
Final Site Plan—2nd Review Response
Wawa
Seminole Trail &Proffit Road
Charlottesville,VA 22911
Albemarle County
BE#V 162083
Dear Mr.Padalino:
Bohler Engineering is pleased to submit on behalf of Renaud Consulting, the 3rd Submission Final Site
Plan for the Wawa Project in Charlottesville, Virginia. The following is our comment response letter
addressing comments received from various departments Each comment is addressed and responded to
as follows:
Albemarle County Plannint Services(Planner)—Tim Padalino (tpadalinona,albemarle.ore)
Comment 1: [Z.O. Section 32 5 2(a), 32 5 2(k), 32.5 2(n)1 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
032A0-02-00-001A0) 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
CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECT MANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
WWW.BOHLERENGINEERING.COM
() BOHLER
Tim Padalino,A1CP
ENGINEERING Wawa
Final Site Plan 2nd Review Comments
November 30,2018
Page 2 of 8
• 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-A0-02-00-001A0
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."
Response 1: Signed, notarized signature copies of Boundary Line Adjustment Plat
SUB201800150 are currently being coordinated and signature will be provided prior
to Site Plan approval.
Comment 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."
Response 2: Signed, notarized signature copies of Boundary line Adjustment Plat
SUB201800150 are currently being coordinated and signature will be provided prior
to Site Plan approval.
Comment 6: [Z.O. Sections 32 5 2(q) and 32.7 9]: Please revise the "Zoning Ordinance
Requirements" table on Sheet C701 ("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:
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
CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS• PROJECT MANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS• LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
WWW.BOHLERENGINEERING.COM
,y
' B 0 H L E R Tim Padalino,AICP
ENGINEERING Wawa
Final Site Plan 2nd Review Comments
November 30,2018
Page 3 of 8
frontage. Staff also acknowledge the 47 Rex 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 japonacum?) 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.
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 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 "1.00 AC" or 43,560 SF Please
ensure consistency between Site Data table and Landscape Compliance Chart,
and please address the minimum area requirements
Response 6: Please note the above landscaping comments have been coordinated with County
staff and a revised landscape plan has been included in this submission.
Comment 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[(l x 6,000 GSF)/200] =(6,000/200)=30 parking spaces.
CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECT MANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
WWW.BOHLERENGINEERING.COM
() B O H L E R Tim Padalino,AICP
ENGINEERING Wawa
Final Site Plan 2nd Review Comments
November 30,2018
Page 4 of 8
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 pnmary structure, if
the structure is to include multiple different "Scheduled Uses" (as identified in Z.O.
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.
Response 9: In coordination with the Albemarle County Zoning Division as commented below a
parking requirement of 1 space / 100 SF is required. As a result, the proposed
parking spaces on site have been revised to 48 spaces and the Site Table updated
appropriately,see Cover Sheet and Site Plan sheet.
Albemarle County Zoning Division—Francis McCall(fmaccallna,albemarle.ore)
Comment 1: After reviewing your request for a waiver to the maximum allowed parking, Zoning has
reconsidered the parking calculation used for the use proposed with this plan. Instead of
the 1 space per 200 sqft of floor area, Zoning recommends that the site plan use the
following calculation,Revise the plan as noted below;
CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECT MANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
WWW.BOHLERENGINEERING.COM
. [f]
B O H L E R Tim Padalino, AICP
ENGINEERING Wawa
Final Site Plan 2nd Review Comments
November 30,2018
Page 5 of 8
Sheet C-101,
SHEET C-101
BUILDING AREA 6049 SF GFA
PARKING REQUIRED 1 SPACE PER 100 SF OF RETAIL SALES AREA FOR THE FIRST 5000 SF OF RETAIL SALES
AREA. RETAIL SALES AREA=80%OF THE GROSS FLOOR AREA(GFA)
6049'`0.8=4839
4839/100=48
PARKING PROVIDED 48 SPACES
Response 1: Acknowledged, the proposed parking spaces on site have been revised to 48 spaces
and the Site Table updated appropriately,see Cover Sheet and Site Plan sheet.
Sheet C-301 and any other showing the revised parking spaces;
Comment 2: The furthest row of parking shown on the plan to the ease of the building shows 10, ten-
foot wide spaces. Per the regulations, a parking space can be nine feet wide which will
allow for that row to reduce the ten-foot spaces to nine-foot wide spaces thus allows for a
48th space thus meet the noted parking requirement and not require a waiver. Note #3 in
the NOTES block under the SITE DATA table on SHEET C-101 is no longer needed as
the parking calculation will be shown in the table.
Response 2: The parking row described has been revised as described to include 11 spaces. Note
#3 on the site data table has been removed,see Cover Sheet and Site Plan sheet.
Albemarle County Engineering Services-David James (diames(aalbemarle.org)
Comment 1: VSMP plan approval required before the FSP can be approved.
(Rev.2) Comment still valid.
Response 1: Acknowledged
Comment 4: Show existing ROW line and width for streets with deed book&page references.
(Rev.2) Acknowledged. Applicant is still researching any deed reference for adjacent
streets.
Response 4: Please note no available deed references for adjacent streets were available with the
Title Report.
Comment 7: Show proposed easements and indicate whether they are public or private (outside of
ROW).
(Rev.2)Not addressed.
a Connection from STM EX-A4 and outfall to be shown in a 20' (Min) easement;
offset from centerline of structure.
b. STM E-6 and outfall appears to be receiving water from the public road (Rt 29),
and therefore should be should in a public easement
Response 7: All easements proposed are public unless otherwise noted.
a. A 20' public stormwater easement has been added from STM EX-A4 and outfall.
b. A 20' public stormwater easement has been added to storm pipe run E-6 to E-1.
CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECT MANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
WWW.BOHLERENGINEERING.COM
() B O H L E R Tim Padalmo, AICP
ENGINEERING Wawa
Final Site Plan 2nd Review Comments
November 30,2018
Page 6 of 8
Comment 8: Show stormwater vault system in a SWF easement. Required width: 10'+(pipe dia or
channel width)+2'+2(depth-5'). {Design Manual, section 6}
(Rev.2) Show a 10' offset for the easement minimum around SWF. Also show a 20'
(Min) easement around the outfall structures of SWF that extend to the edge of property.
Response 8: Per the Design Manual Section 6 computation provided above with the pipe
diameter equaling 5' and the depth equaling 8' the required easement width is
10'+(5)+2' + 2(8'-5')=23'. A 23' SWF easement has been provided.
Comment 9: Provide a drainage summary table similar to the sanitary schedule. Indicate type of
VDOT structure.
!erucere Deupptvagi 1,41114 iav - iwen Slope Rearska
Number h Ou
I 42 RCP 10 2410 43400 10000% Peo.e&
Cis.tU 2.i:Wc
Di-18 L=s 26 00 432 00 - !Si
Top
3 POr:A 400 420 00 40000 f 00% D=ir
Gide 200 420-00 413.00 150% D•ir
Swain
(Rev.2) Will need to verify the drainage design of inlet structures (TBA with review of
VSMP plan).
Response 9: Please note via coordination with County staff, it was determined the requested
information was previously provided on the plans therefore a drainage table has not
been provided.
Comment 11: Show VDOT designations for type of drainage structure/entrance, including curb &
gutter.
(Rev.2)Not Addressed. Show callouts on the site plan.
Response 11: As discussed on 11/27/2018 with Engineering Reviewer David James, the inlet
computations table provided on the Storm Computations sheet provides the
appropriate information. Leaders calling out the proposed curb in the right of way
can be found on the Site Plan sheet and the corresponding details are provided on
the Construction Details sheets.
Comment 12: Provide curb&gutter details with callouts wNDOT designation
(Rev.2) See#11 above.
Response 12: Leaders calling out the proposed curb in the right of way can be found on the Site
Plan sheet and the corresponding details are provided on the Construction Details
sheets.
CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECT MANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
WWW.BOHLERENGINEERI NG.COM
•
TA
BO H L E 1R Tim Padalino,AICP
ENGINEERING Wawa
Final Site Plan 2nd Review Comments
November 30,2018
Page 7 of 8
Comment 14: A safety provision (a guardrail, wall or fence) required to be installed for walls over 30"
high.
(Rev.2) I'm not seeing the guardrail called out (GR-2, etc.). The guardrail should be a
few feet in front of the wall. If the guardrail is up against the wall or integrated into the
wall a certified wall design would be required
Response 14: A guard rail is proposed between the eastern parking spaces and the proposed
landscape wall. A GR-2 guard rail detail has been provided on the Construction
Details sheets.
Comment 16: Sheet C701 — You're showing trees in the path of drainage. Proposed trees should be
outside of drainage easements. {Design Manual, section 6}
(Rev.2) Not addressed. Landscape plan — The trees located near STM E-2, STM F-2,
STM E-6, and between B-2 & B-3, between E-3 & E-4 would have to be removed if
within a drainage easement
Response 16: All trees have been relocated to be outside of easements,see Landscape Plan.
Comment 20: Add note to the profiles/details that concrete inlet shaping (IS-1) shall be in any structure
with a 4' or greater drop.
(Rev 2)Partially addressed. Add note to the profiles.
Response 20: The requested note has been added,see Utility Profiles sheet.
Comment 23: (Rev.2) Trench drains - Show dimensions in the details (sheet C-801), show profiles
(sheet C-502), and provide correct design(sheet C-503).
Response 23: A trench drain has been adequately sized, and profiled. The corresponding details
have been provided on the Construction Details sheet
Comment 24: (Rev.2)VDOT to extend ROW along Proffit Rd(Rt 649) improvements?
Response 24: ROW has now been dedicated as directed by VDOT staff, there are no associated
improvements required with this dedication. A dedication plat will be recorded
prior to Site Plan approval.
Architectural Review Board—Heather McMahon
Comment 1: The applicant must submit an ARB for Final Review of a Site Development Plan and
associated fees for full board review. A Certificate of Appropriateness is required for
final approval.
Response 1: Acknowledged; an ARB submission has been provided.
Albemarle County Service Authority—Richard Nelson
General
Comment 1: Provide updated water and sewer data sheets
Response 1: Water and Sewer data sheets have been submitted to reviewer via email on
11/29/2018.
Sheet C-202
Comment 1: Call-out abandonment of private sewer main.
Response 1: The existing sewer main shall be removed due to conflicts with proposed utilities
and has been called out as to be removed on the plans.
CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECT MANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
WWW.BOHLEREN GINEERI NG.COM
TM Tim LER
ENGINEERING Padalino, AICPWawa
Final Site Plan 2nd Review Comments
November 30,2018
Page 8 of 8
Comment 2: Call-out private sewer main and lateral connection in manhole to be sealed.
Response 2: A note has been provided on the Demolition Plan sheet stating, "Contractor to
remove portion of ex. san pipe and cap and seal remainder as shown on plan."
Sheet C-501
Comment 1: Show existing water meter and irrigation meter serving the site. Meters serving this site
are located on neighboring parcel 32A-02-1A. Email me and I can provide a map with
the correct meter.
Response 1: The existing meter and irrigation meter have been located with the map provided,
see Utility Plan sheet.
Comment 2: Confirm if irrigation meter will be abandoned.
Response 2: Irrigation Meter is proposed to be abandoned.
Comment 3: Call out yard hydrant with built in backflow prevention.
Response 3: Please note the yard hydrant has been called out to include backflow prevention.
Comment 4: Provide easement around proposed water meter
Response 4: A 20' easement has been provided for the vault,see Utility Plan sheet.
Sheet C-701
Comment 1: Remove trees from sewer easement.
Response 1: Trees have been removed from the existing sewer easement, see Landscape Plan
sheet.
Comment 2: Provide detail of proposed landscape wall.
Response 2: Landscape wall detail is being coordinated with Geotechnical Engineer.
Should you have any questions regarding this project or require additional information, please do not
hesitate to contact me at(540) 349-4500.
Sincerely,
Bohler E 'ne• ing V LLC
Jo,.1`�an S. Rit hie, P.E.
JR/Jb/bb
H\l6\V 162083\Administrative\Letters\181130 Final Site Plan 2nd Review CRL doc
CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECT MANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
WWW.BOHLERENGINEERING.COM
TM
B H L E R.
28 Blackwell Park Lane,Suite 201
Warrenton,VA 20186
PHONE 540.349.4500
ENGINEERING
March 5,2019
Via Federal Express
Albemarle County
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,North Wing
Charlottesville,VA 22902-4596
Attn: Tim Padalino,AICP
Re: SDP2018-00048
Final Site Plan— Review Response
Wawa
Seminole Trail&Proffit Road
Charlottesville,VA 22911
Albemarle County
BE#V162083
Dear Mr.Padalino:
Bohler Engineering is pleased to submit on behalf of Renaud Consulting, the 4th Submission Final Site
Plan for the Wawa Project in Charlottesville, Virginia The following is our comment response letter
addressing comments received from various departments. Each comment is addressed and responded to
as follows.
Albemarle County Planning Services(Planner)—Tim Padalino (tpadalino(dalbemarle.org)
Comment 1: [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 m the approximate
0.8-acre area that is currently located on the adjoining property to the north (TMP
032A0-02-00-001A0) 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.
CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECT MANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
WWW.BOHLERENGINEERING COM
() B O H L E R Tim Padalino,A1CP
ENGINEERING Wawa
Final Site Plan 2nd Review Comments
March 5,2019
Page 2 of 5
• 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-A0-02-00-001A0.
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 pnor 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.
Response 1: The Boundary Line Adjustment was recorded on 1/7/19. The associated Instrument
number is#201900000134. The associated Book/Page is 05127/0428-00432.
Comment 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 pnor 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.
CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECT MANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
WWW.BOHLERENGINEERING.COM
() B O H L E R Tim Padalmo,AICP
ENGINEERING Wawa
Final Site Plan 2nd Review Comments
March 5,2019
Page 3 of 5
Response 2: The Boundary Line Adjustment was recorded on 1/7/19. The associated Instrument
number is#201900000134. The associated Book/Page is 05127/0428-00432.
Comment 6: [Z.O. Sections 32.5.2(q) and 32 7 9]• Please revise the"Zoning Ordinance Requirements"
table on Sheet C701 ("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.
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 streetfrontage•
t. 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 0 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
Response 6: B.i.The species of trees have been identified on the plan.
B.ii.The compliance charts have been revised.
B.iii.The symbols for compliance have been updated as requested.
Albemarle County Engineering Services-David James (djames(ai)albemarle.org)
Comment 1: VSMP plan approval required before the FSP can be approved.
(Rev.2)Comment still valid.
Response 1: Acknowledged
CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECT MANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
WWW.BOHLERENGINEERING.COM
•
BO H L E R Tim Padalmo,AICP
Wawa
Final Site Plan 2nd Review Comments
March 5,2019
Page 4 of 5
Comment 11: Show VDOT designations for type of drainage structure/entrance, including curb &
gutter.
(Rev.2) Not Addressed. Show callouts on the site plan. (Rev.3) In the curb & gutter
details show 6"stone base(21-A or better)
Response 11: The requested callouts have been added to the Utility Plan sheet. The requested "6"
stone base"label has been added to the Construction Details sheet.
Comment 12: Provide curb& gutter details with callouts wNDOT designation.
(Rev.2) See#11 above (Rev 3) In the curb &gutter details show 6"stone base (21-A or
better).
Response 12: The requested "6" stone base" label has been added to the Construction Details
sheet.
Comment 25: (Rev. 3) Sheet C-502 (Sheet 15 on the WPO plan (San 1 & San 3 are labeled incorrectly
(reversed), change to San 3 & San 1 accordingly.
Response 25: Agreed. The sanitary labels on the Utility plan have been corrected.
Virginia Department of Transportation—Adam Moore
Comment 1: The right-in right-out channelization island at the Proffitt Road entrance does not meet
minimum geometric requirements per Appendix F. Please revise island or provide
movement diagrams showing that the proposed island sufficiently restricts left turns, both
in and out.
Response 1: As coordinated with Adam Moore on 1/4/19. The proposed channelization island
has been optimized to the extent possible to limit undesirable turning movements.
Per Appendix F Figure 4-4, the entrance dimension requirements are 15' lane
widths and a 50' island width. The proposed entrance features a minimum lane
width of 12' and an island width of 40'. Service vehicles for the Wawa site and
ambulances for the hospital shall enter from Route 29.
Comment 2: The existing nght of way line appears to encroach on Proffitt Road. Please provide
additional right of way extending to at least 1 foot beyond the curb
Response 2: As coordinated with Adam Moore on 1/4/19. The proposed ROW along Proffit
Road shown on the Final Site Plan is currently proposed at a minimum 1' behind
back of curb and is compliant with this comment. The future ROW dedication plat
shall be consistent with the current ROW dedication linework shown on the Final
Site Plan.
Albemarle County Service Authority—Richard Nelson
General
Comment 1: Provide updated water and sewer data sheets.
Response 1: Water and Sewer data sheets have been submitted to reviewer via email on
11/29/2018.
Sheet C-202
Comment 1: Call-out abandonment of private sewer main.
Response 1: The existing sewer main shall be removed due to conflicts with proposed utilities
and has been called out as to be removed on the plans.
CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECT MANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
1NWW.BOHLERENGINEERING.COM
B O H L E R Tim Padalino,AICP
N c; I ti t Wawa
Final Site Plan 2nd Review Comments
March 5,2019
Page 5 of 5
Comment 2: Call-out private sewer main and lateral connection in manhole to be sealed.
Response 2: A note has been provided on the Demolition Plan sheet stating, "Contractor to
remove portion of ex. san pipe and cap and seal remainder as shown on plan."
Sheet C-501
Comment 1: Show existing water meter and imgation meter serving the site. Meters serving this site
are located on neighboring parcel 32A-02-1A Email me and I can provide a map with
the correct meter.
Response 1: The existing meter and irrigation meter have been located with the map provided,
see Utility Plan sheet.
Comment 2: Confirm if irrigation meter will be abandoned.
Response 2: Irrigation Meter is proposed to be abandoned.
Comment 3: Call out yard hydrant with built in backflow prevention.
Response 3: Please note the yard hydrant has been called out to include backflow prevention.
Comment 4: Provide easement around proposed water meter.
Response 4: A 20' easement has been provided for the vault,see Utility Plan sheet.
Sheet C-701
Comment 1: Remove trees from sewer easement.
Response 1: Trees have been removed from the existing sewer easement, see Landscape Plan
sheet.
Comment 2: Provide detail of proposed landscape wall
Response 2: Landscape wall detail has been provided. See Construction Details sheet.
Should you have any questions regarding this project or require additional information, please do not
hesitate to contact me at(540) 349-4500.
Sincerely,
Bohler E ee ing V LLC
Jo i. *an •. Rit hie, P.E.
JR/jb/bb
H 1I6\V 162083\Administrative\Letters1190305 Final Site Plan 3rd Review CRL.doc
CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECT MANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
WWW BOHLERENGINEERING.COM
MA10 7 2011
COMMUNITY
"`-A icl fPMFNT
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
°' Department Community Development
$':1 , Planning Services Division
�:f r',: 401 McIntire Road North Wing•Charlottesville,Virginia 22902-4596
Phone. (434)296-5823 • Fax• (434)972-4035
Transmittal
From: Tim Padalino Date: 05/06/19
To: ODavid James- Eng 0
*Heather McMahon -ARB 0
()Richard Nelson- ACSA 0
0 0
0 0
JOB#/FILE NAME:SDP-2018-48 Wawa Final Site Plan (resubmittal#4 dated 2/22/2019)
We are sending you the following items: ® Attached or ❑ Under separate cover
❑ Copy of Letter ❑ Prints ® Plans
❑ Plats ❑ Specifications ® Other(see below)
# of Date Description 1
Copies
1 4/24/19 Wawa Final Site Plan (resubmittal#3)
1 4/26/19 Comment Response Letter
These are transmitted as checked below:
® For review and comments ® For approval ❑ Other
Remarks: The applicants have indicated these plans meet all prior review comments, and are
requesting confirmation of a "No Objection" status from each reviewer who has not previously
indicated thair infoaml approval.
Alternately,please identify any remaining review comments (required revisions) which you identify in
your review of these revised plans.
Either way, please provide your review status (with comments, as may be applicable) no later than
May 21,2019.
Please contact me with ally questions you may have. Thank you.
Comments are due in City View or email by: 05/21/19 Signature: Tim Padalino
•
n,
() (=)
H jER Warrenton,VA 20186
PHONE 540 349 4500
ENGINEERING
April 26, 2019
Via Federal Express
Albemarle County
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,North Wing
Charlottesville,VA 22902-4596
Attn: Tim Padalmo,AICP
Re. SDP2018-00048
Final Site Plan—4th Review Response
Wawa
Seminole Trail &Proffit Road
Charlottesville,VA 22911
Albemarle County
BE#V 162083
Dear Mr. Padalino.
Bohler Engineering is pleased to submit on behalf of Renaud Consulting, the 4th Submission Final Site
Plan for the Wawa Project in Charlottesville, Virginia. The following is our comment response letter
addressing comments received from various departments Each comment is addressed and responded to
as follows.
Albemarle County Planninu Services (Planner) —Tim Padalino (toadalino'a alhemarle.oru)
Comment 1: [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
032A0-02-00-00IA0) 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
CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECT MANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
WWW.BOHLERENGINEERING.COM
TM
() B O H L E R Tim Padalino,AICP
ENGINEERING Wawa
Final Site Plan 4th Review Comments
Apnl 26,2019
Page 2 of 4
• 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-A0-02-00-001AO
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.
Response 1: Please see Sheet C-101 as the tabulation has been revised to reflect both the BI.A
plat and ROW dedication plat.
Comment 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,
CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECT MANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
WWW.BOHLERENGINEERING.COM
r
laB O H L E R Tim Padalino,AICP
E N G I N E E R I N G Wawa
Final Site Plan 4th Review Comments
April 26,2019
Page 3 of 4
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
Response 2: Please see Sheet C-101 as the tabulation has been revised to reflect both the BLA
plat and ROW dedication plat.
Comment 6: [Z.O. Sections 32.5.2(q)and 32 7 9] Please revise the"Zoning Ordinance Requirements"
table on Sheet C701 ("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
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 0 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.
CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECT MANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
WWW.BOHLERENGINEERING.COM
() BOH LER
Tim Padahno,AICP
ENGINEERING Wawa
Final Site Plan 4'h Review Comments
April 26,2019
Page 4 of 4
Comment#6-B 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 pnor 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.]
Response 6: Acknowledged. The revised landscape plan has been submitted to the ARB for
approval.
Comment 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 pnor 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
(CDDEngineenng);
C. [Z.O. Sections 32 7 4 2 and 32 7 5.3]• Easement Plat/SUB-2018-00186* (CDD-
Planning and County Executive's Office),
D [Z 0 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 SUB2018-00186,the County Executive must execute the applicable
easements and agreements)
Response 11: Acknowledged.
Should you have any questions regarding this project or require additional information, please do not
hesitate to contact me at(540)349-4500.
Sincerely,
Bohler E d nee ing Vi LLC
Jo. /an I. Rit hie,P.E.
JR/jb/bb
H 1161V 1620831Admmistrative\Letters1190426 Final Site Plan 4th Review CRL doe
CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECT MANAGERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
WWW BOHLERENGINEERING.COM
Review Comments`7f � __SDP2 ffOUO48 nal—Nan-residential-Fdministrl�-I
Project Name: Wawa-Final
Date Completed: Thursday, May 23, 2019 Department/Division/Agency: Review Status:
Reviewer. Heather McMahon CDD ARB d Administrative Approval Lei
See CoA in laserfiche underARB2018-155.The approval is for the site plan set last revised on 5/15/19.
I
I I
Page:11 1 County of Albemarle Printed On: O61191201�