HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP202000006 Review Comments Minor Amendment 2020-05-26Countv of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, VA, 22902
Phone 434-296-5832 Fax 434-972-4126
Memorandum
To: John C. Wright, Bohler Engineering VA, LLC
From: Brent W. Nelson, Senior Planner
Division: Planning
Date: May 26, 2020
Subject: SDP202000006, Chick fil A Minor Site Plan Amendment
Rev. 1
The County of Albemarle Planning Division will recommend approval of the plan referenced above once the
following comments have been satisfactorily addressed (The following comments are those that have been
identified at this time. Additional comments or conditions may be added or eliminated based on further
review.): [Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference, which is to the Zoning Ordinances unless
otherwise specified.]
Albemarle County Division of Planning Services (Planner) - Brent W. Nelson
General
[32.5.2b] Information regarding the proposed use. Revise Sheet C-0.2 General Notes and Legend to
include the project description provided via emaR-
"This project proposes the following: construction of a +I`- 370 SF building addition to the rear of the
building as well as a smaller +/- 20 SF addition at the drive thru window; adding a second drive thru
lane to the north of the building, construction of two canopies in the drive thru for employee
protection; relocation of the accessible spaces to the east side of the building; and minor relocation of
the service laterals and equipment for the proposed addition. A letter of determination
(LOD201900033) in support of a modification to the minimum parking requirement from 60 to 52
spaces was granted on 12/16919."
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
2. T32.6.2 (h)] Contents ofTina; site plan. Revise Sheet C-0 to include a signature panel for signature by
each member, of the site review committee.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
Landscape
[32.7.9.41 Provide a signed Tree Conservation Checklist on the landscape drawings.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. A completed conservation checklist has been provided in the
site plan; however, the following remains to be addressed:
a) The signature on the conservation checklist must be the owner and not the developer.
b) Provide a hand signature, not a digital signature, on the checklist.
4. [32.7.9.4] Revise Sheet C-1.0 Boundary & Partial Topographic Survey and Demolition Plan to show all
required landscaping shown on the approved SDP 2006-90 Site Plan Amendment. Ensure species of all
plantings are specified. A number of plants shown on that plan are not shown as existing in this
proposed minor amendment. If approved plantings are no longer on site, show them as proposed with
this site plan. Shrubs on the east and south sides of the building along with six trees (three along Rt 29
and three along Woodbrook Drive) are not shown as existing.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed.
a) Address all ARB comments regarding previously approved landscaping not shown (see
Comment 2, ARB letter dated May 22, 2020)
Lighting
[32.6.2 (k)] Provide a photometric plan (including manufacturer's cutsheets) showing all light fixtures
(existing and proposed) including fixtures under the canopies.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed.
a) Revise the photometric plan to include a cutsheet for the proposed canopy lighting. The
proposed fixture must be a full cutoff style fixture due to the number of proposed lumens.
b) Revise the luminaire schedule to show a Light Loss Factor (LLF) of 1.0 for all fixtures to meet
county requirements.
Add the following note "Each outdoor luminaire equipped with a lamp emitting 3,000 or more initial
lumens shall be a full cutoff luminaire and shall be arranged or shielded to reflect light away from
residential districts and away from adjacent roadways. The spillover of lighting from luminaires onto
public roads and property in residential or rural areas zoning districts shall not exceed one half
footcandle. "
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed.
a) Revise this note on the photometric plan to correct typos and to include the entire note
verbatim.
7. Address all comments provided by other members of the Site Review Committee.
Rev. 1: Address all outstanding comments from ARB and ACSA reviewers
Albemarle County Engineering Division (Engineer) — Mathew Wentland
1. No objection.
Architectural Review Board — Paty Saternye
1. Comments provided — attached.
Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) — Richard Nelson
1. Comments provided —attached.
Albemarle County Fire Rescue —Shawn Maddox
1. No objection.
Albemarle County Building Inspections — Michael Dellinger
1. No objection.
Albemarle Fire Rescue —Shawn Maddox
1. No objection.
Please contact Brent W. Nelson in the Planning Division by using bnelsonC@albemarle.orp or 434-296-5832 ext.
3438 for further information.
Brent Nelson
From: Richard Nelson <rnelson@serviceauthority.org>
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2020 5:03 PM
To: Brent Nelson
Subject: RE: SDP 2020-6, Chick Fil A, Minor Site Plan Amendment, FW: Re -Submission from CDD
Portal - Transaction #00004128
CAUTION: This message originated outside the County of Albemarle email system. DO NOT CLICK on links or open
attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.
Hey Brent,
My comments for this Site Plan are below:
ACSA is not interested in having a publicly owned service under an ADA ramp. Relocate the meter to an acceptable
location.
I hope you are doing well also.
Thanks,
Richard Nelson
Civil Engineer
Albemarle County Service Authority
168 Spotnap Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22911
(434) 977-4511
From: Brent Nelson <bnelson@albemarle.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 4:28 PM
To: Richard Nelson <rnelson@serviceauthority.org>
Subject: FW: SDP 2020-6, Chick Fil A, Minor Site Plan Amendment, FW: Re -Submission from CDD Portal - Transaction
#00004128
Hi Richard - I hope you are doing alright during this crazy time. Just checking in with you as May 22"d is the deadline to
get comments.
Thanks and take care,
Brent W. Nelson
Senior Planner
Albemarle County
Community Development
434-296-5832 ext. 3438
bnelson@albemarle.org
From: Brent Nelson
Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2020 4:55 PM
or azB�
GIl�4*
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, VA 22902
(434) 296-5832
May 22, 2020
John Wright, P.E.
Bohler Engineering
28 Blackwell Park Lane, Suite 201
Warrenton, VA 20186
RE: ARB-2020-8: Chick-fil-A Woodbrook #1856
Dear Mr. Wright,
We have received the above -noted application for a county -wide Certificate of Appropriateness. The following revisions
are requested to make the proposal consistent with the design criteria that apply to the County -wide Certificate.
1. Provide material and color samples for the canopies, awnings and as specified elsewhere in these comments.
Rev. 1: Comment not yet y addressed. Address the following_
a) Material and color samples have been provided and noted on the elevations. However, a "Kawneer `Black"
sample was provided but does not appear to be utilized. Specify where this color and material will be utilized in
the elevation sheet.
b) The notes for the masonry materials state that the mortar is to match the existing. For both types of brick, a
specific manufacture color and style have been specified with the statement "GC to verify `Match Existing prior
to ordering". Address the following:
i. The brick colors and manufacturer have changed since the last submission. Provide a picture of a physical
sample that includes the manufacturer's name, the color and the style for both specified colors of brick. A
physical sample may be required.
ii. The brick manufacturer has changed to a different company from what was approved on the previous
approval. Although the comment in 10. f) i. was addressed since the manufacturer has changed that color
may no longer be correct. See i. above about supplying a photo of the material and color sample for both
colors of brick.
2. Show all existing required landscaping, as shown on the approved SDP2006-90 site plan amendment, on the
Boundary & Partial Topographic Survey and Demolition Plan sheets. There appears to be a number of plants shown
on the approved site plan that are not shown as existing in the proposed minor amendment. If approved plantings are
no longer on site, then show them as proposed with this site plan. There are shrubs on east and south side of the
building and six street trees, three along Rt. 29 and three along Woodbrook Drive, that are not shown as existing.
Also, ensure species of existing plantings are specified.
Rev. l: Comment not yet fully addressed. Address the following:
a) There are still trees and shrubs shown on the approved SDP2006-90 site plan amendment that are not shown as
either existing or proposed in this minor amendment. Some may need to be slightly relocated, or if the planting
bed is reduced in size the number of shrubs may need to be reduced, but they should be shown on the existing
conditions sheet or shown on the proposed landscaping sheet heet (if they do not currently exist).
b) There are existing shrubs at the front (east of the building). Shrubs were also shown in this location on the
approved site plan. However, none are shown in this area, as either existing or proposed (relocated after
construction) with this site plan amendment..
c) There is one existing cedar near the corner of the lot that is not shown on the site plan as existing but appears in
the approved site plan in a somewhat different location.
d) There is another cedar, shown n the approved site plan, near the corner of the lot that is still not being shown on
this site plan as being proposed that does not appear to exist.
e) There is still one large shade tree along Rt. 29 that is not shown as existing or proposed although it is shown on
the approved site plan.
f) Ensure species of existing plantings are specified. This does not appear to be provided on either the existing
conditions sheet or the landscape sheet.
g) [NEW COMMENT] Either revise the landscape schedule to include all existing and proposed plantings for the
site or provide a second landscape schedule for the existing landscaping. Ensure this is coordinated to incorporate
all trees and shrubs that exist (were previously approved) and are proposed where necessary to bring the site plan
back into compliance with the previous approval.
3. Provide tree protection fencing for existing landscaping that is to remain and show the tree protection fencing for the
landscaping adjacent to the area of the proposed improvements on sheets shoving landscaping, proposed grading and
erosion and sediment control.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed,
4. Provide the conservation checklist in the site plan.
Rev. 1: Comment not vet fully addressed. The conservation checklist has been provided in the site Dian and filled out.
However, address the following:
a) Before the site plan is approved provide a signature and not a digital _ signature on the conservation checklist.
b) The signature on the conservation checklist must be the owner and not the developer.
Add the following note to the plan: "All site plantings of trees and shrubs shall be allowed to reach, and be
maintained at mature height; the topping gftrees is prohibited Shrubs and trees shall be pruned minimalli' and onll
to support the overall health ofthe plant. "
Rev. 1: Comment addressed,
6. Provide a photometric plan and manufacturer's cut sheet for the site plan showing all light fixtures (existing and
proposed), including fixtures under the canopies.
Rev. 1: Comment not yet fully addressed. For the prosed luminaires address the following:
a) The proposed luminaire appears to be a wall mounted unit, based upon the manufacturer's cut sheet, but the units
shown in the photometric plan appear to be mounted to the underside of the canopies. Also, the catalog number
on the cut sheet does not appear to match that shown in the Photometric Plan's schedule. Please either revise the
proposed luminaire, and provided a new manufacturer's cut sheet, or clarify how a wall mounded light fixture will
be mounted to the underside of the canopy. Ensure the manufacturer's cut sheet matches the photometric plan.
b) Ensure that aW proposed light emitting 3,000 lumens or more is full cut off.
c) Incorporate the manufacturer's cut sheet into the site plan.
d) The Luminaire Schedule specifies a Light Loss Factor (LLF) of 0.95 and 0.72. To meet county requirements, the
LLF must be 1.0. Revise the Canopy Photometric Plan using a Light Loss Factor of 1.0 and note this on the plan.
e) Limit illumination levels for the proposed luminaires under the canopies to 20 fc maximum. A maximum of 43 is
shown in the photometric plan and the statistics chart.
f) Ensure that the proposed canopy luminaires specify a warm white light, which would be between 2,700 to
3,000K.
7. Add a general note that states "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. "
Rev. 1: Comment not vet fully addressed. The note has been added but needs to correctly and fully state the standard
note. Revise the note to state "luminaire" and not "laminate" and to include the full wording of the note including "..
adioinina residential districts and adiacent roads." Please note that most of these tvDograDhical errors or omissions
are on both sheet E1.5 and C-0.1.
Show all moved and relocated mechanical equipment on the site plan and label them in the elevations. Show how
visibilitv of all mechanical equipment will be eliminated from the EC.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed. MDP Panel. CT Cabinet & relocated gas meter are shown on the rear elevation of the
building and will not be visible from the EC.
9. Provide the mechanical equipment visibility note that states "Visibility of all mechanical equipmentfi-om the Entrance
Corridor shall be eliminated
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
10. Revise the building elevations to address the following:
a. Note #2 should specify that the color of any replacement coping is "To Match Existing".
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
b. Note #3 does not appear to be utilized in the elevations and should be removed.
:Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
v. in Notes 99 & 10 sr)ecifv, that the colors are "To match existing brick".
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
d. In the elevations label which items Notes ft, 16. 20, 21 & 25 apply to.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
e. In Note 423 gutters and deck panels are specified as white, but no white is shown on the rendering. Please
clarify if these components of the canopies will not be visible.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed..
f. In the Exterior Finish Scheduled address the following:
i. In "BR-2" the color specified is "Tan", but the approved color is "Tan Velour". Either revise BR-2 to
state "Tan Velour" or remove the specified color of "Tan" and in its place include "To Match
Existing Brick".
Rev. 1: Comment not yet fully addressed. See comment 1. b) for what to address.
'i. in "EC -I" add "To Match Existing"
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
iii. For "PT-7" provide a color sample.
Rev. 1: Comment not yet fully addressed. PT-7 is no longer shown on the elevation however the
comment response letter states "Color sample provided on Material Board". As specified in
comment 1. a) the "Kawneer 'Black" color and material sample that is provided on the sample board
does not appear to be assigned to any item shown on the elevations. On the previous submission PT-
7 was listed as the "Exterior Paint Refuse Enclosure". Please clarify
on these two topics and if the
are related. Ensure that all exhibits and samples are coordinated and clear.
iv. In "PT-9" specify the color of the paint and provide a color sampic,
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
v, in "PT-2 I'- two different colors are specified. 'M-iich color will be utilized for the canopies? If both
colors will be utilized then specify which components will be which color. Provide color samples.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
i. Revise the elevations to show the location of "Ll-IT-33" light fixture(s).
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
vii. Provide a color sample far"PT-2313" and note comment #15 beio-A
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
g. Show all existing and proposed light fixtures and label those that are proposed. The color of light fixtures
should be provided in the manufacturer's cut sheets included in the photometric plan.
Rev. 1: Comment not yet fully addressed. See comment #6 above for comments to be addressed.
I
11. The south elevation shows two proposed doors. However, no information is provided on the proposed doors. Include
in the elevations information on the material and color of these doors. Either state in a note or the "Exterior Finish
Schedule" that they are "To match existing" or specify the material and provide a color sample.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
12. Provide information on the VLT and VLR ratings for the proposed window and door glass. Ensure that the glass
meets the required limits. Add a note stating that the new doors and windows meet the following criteria: "Visible
light transmittance (VLT) shall not drop below 40%. risible light reflectance (VLJt) shall not exceed 30%.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
13. Provide photos of the proposed heating/mechanical equipment that is mounted to the underside of the canopies.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
14. Ensure all exhibits include the date of the exhibit, and any revision dates, in the title block.
Rev. 1: Comment not yet fully addressed. On the next submission address this comment again on any revised exhibits
and plans.
5. Note that a separate sign application is required for all proposed signage. Signs are not reviewed as part of the site
plan review process.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed. Applicant has acknowledged that they are aware of this requirement.
Within 15 days of the date of this letter, please send me a letter (by email is acceptable) indicating whether you will or
will not proceed with these revisions. If you choose not to proceed with these revisions, staff will be unable to approve
your application. If you choose to proceed with the revisions, please forward me one set of revised drawings together with
a memo summarizing the revisions you've made. Your decision to make the revisions will suspend the 60-day review
period associated with your original submittal. However, I expect to complete the review of your revised proposal within
2 weeks of your re -submittal.
If you have any questions about this action, please contact me as soon as possible. I look forward to receiving your
revisions and completing this review with an approval letter.
Sincerely,
Paty Satemye
Senior Planner
cc: ARB File