HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP202000006 Review Comments Minor Amendment 2020-08-26County 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
Rev. 2: Paty Saternye, Senior Planner
Division: Planning
Date: August 26, 2020
Subject: SDP202000006, Chick fil A Minor Site Plan Amendment - Rev. 2
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 - Rev. 2: Paty Saternye
Landscape
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)
b) Rev. 2: Comment not fully addressed. Address all ARB comments regarding previously
approved landscaping not shown (see Comment 2, ARB letter dated August 25, 2020)
Lighting
5. [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.
Rev. 2: Comment not vet addressed. Incorporate the manufacturer's cut sheet for each of the
proposed light fixtures into the site plan. If the cut sheets cannot fit on the existing sheets,
then a sheet should be added to the site plan.
b) Revise the luminaire schedule to show a Light Loss Factor (LLF) of 1.0 for all fixtures to meet
county requirements.
Rev. 2: Comment not fully addressed. The Light Loss Factor (LLF) has been revised to 1.0 for
most of the fixtures. However, CRUS-1 & CRUS-2 still have LLFs of less than 1.0. Revise the
luminaire schedule to show a LLFs of 1.0 for all fixtures to meet county requirements.
7. Address all comments provided by other members of the Site Review Committee.
Rev. 1: Address all outstanding comments from ARB and ACSA reviewers
Rev. 2: Comment not fully addressed. Address all outstanding comments from ARB and ACSA
reviewers
Architectural Review Board — Paty Saternye
1. Comments provided —(Rev. 1).
2. Comments provided —attached (Rev. 2).
Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) — Richard Nelson
1. Comments provided —(Rev. 1).
2. Comments provided —attached (Rev. 2).
Albemarle County Engineering Division (Engineer) — Mathew Wentland
1. No objection (Rev. 1).
Albemarle County Fire Rescue — Shawn Maddox
1. No objection (Rev. 1).
Albemarle County Building Inspections —Michael Dellinger
1. No objection (Rev. 1).
Albemarle Fire Rescue — Shawn Maddox
1. No objection (Rev. 1).
Please contact Brent W. Nelson in the Planning Division by using bnelson@albemarle.oro or 434-296-5832 ext.
3438 for further information.
Review Comments for SDP202000006 MinorAmendment
Project Name. Chick-Fil-A (Charlottesville) - Minor Amendment
Date Completed: Monday, July 06, 2020 DepartmenUDivisionlAgency: Review Status:
Reviewer: Richard Nelson
ACSA
Requested Changes
2020-07-22: (in email to planning reviewer) Additional comments (see below for first comment) added from ACSA:
2) The existing domestic meter is 1.5' with a 1.5' meter vault. This will need to be relocated outside of the proposed concrete.
3) The existing irrigation meter is located in the same island as the domestic meter. This will need to be relocated as well.
2020-07-06: (in email to planning reviewer)
1) PS-1.0 — Add note that the contractor is to contact the ACSA 3 business days prior to making the new service connection to
the existing ACSA water main, to schedule an inspector to be on site.
Pape: 1� County of Albemarle Printed On: 08123 02020
�� OF ALB
J� Y�
O
GIRmN��+YF
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, VA 22902
(434)296-5832
August 26, 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 fully addressed. Address the following:
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:
a. 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.
b. 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.
Rev. 2: Comment not yet fully addressed. Comment response letter states "See attached cut sheet for Brick
information and images. That exhibit does not anoear to have been submitted. Please submit it so staff can
evaluate whether it addressed comments 6.) and (i
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. 1: Comment not yet fully addressed. Address the following:
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.
Rev. 2: Comment not vet fully addressed. A large shade tree has been added to this area. However_ it annears to
be in too close a oroximitv to an existing large shade tree. Revise the location of the oronosed large shade tree to
be at least 20' from the existing large shade tree
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.
Rev. 2: Comment not yet addressed. This comment does not appear to have been addressed. The comment
response letter states that the species of existing tree are provided in both the plan and in a schedule. However,
the information does not appear to have been added. Address this comment. The caliper of the existingtrees ees is
shown in a label and should remain. However, the species of tree is not included.
g) Rev. 1: [NEW CONMENTI 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.
Rev. 2: Comment not yet fully addressed. No information on the species of the existing trees has been provide.
Address the comment and ensure that the existing trees and shrubs are provided in a landscape schedule including
all required information.
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) Incorporate the manufacturer's cut sheet into the site plan.
Rev. 2: Comment not yet addressed. Incorporate the manufacturer's cut sheet for each of the proposed light
(CRUS) fixtures into the site plan once it is ensured that it can address all of the other comments. Comment
Response letter states that the cut sheets have been included in the site plan. However, they do not appear to be
on any of the sheets submitted. If the cut sheets cannot fit on the existing sheets, then a sheet should be added to
the site plan.
b) 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.
Rev. 2: Comment not yet frilly addressed. The Light Loss Factor (LLF) has been revised to 1.0 for most of the
fixtures. However, CRUS-1 & CRUS-2 still have LLFs of less than 1.0. Address the following:
i. Revise the luminaire schedule to show a LLFs of 1.0 for all fixtures to meet county requirements.
ii. The use of dimmers to meet the requirement is not allowed. If the light fixtures cannot meet the
requirement without a dimmer than another fixture should be proposed.
iii. Ensure once another light fixture has been selected, and the LLF values have been revised to be 1.0, that
the Maximum Footcandles (fc) directly below each of the proposed light fixtures does not exceed the
maximum of 20 fc.
iv. Remove both notes that specify that a dimmer is being utilized to meet the requirements (LLF &
Maximum Footcandles). These requirements must be met without the use of a dimmer.
V. Please note that if an existing light fixture is not modified in any may, and the maximum footcandles are
above 20, those existing fixtures/luminaire do not need to be revised/changed. The comments above
apply to the proposed lighting fixtures. Because of this, the maximum footcandles in the statistics chart
may still show over 20 fc, as long as those values are not produced by any of the proposed light
fixtures/luminaires.
f) Ensure that the proposed canopy luminaires specify a warn white light, which would be between 2,700 to
3,000K.
Rev. 2: Comment not yet fully addressed. The CRUS fixture is listed at "Cool White" 5,000K light which does
not meet the color temperature requirement of 2,700 to 3,000k. Ensure that the proposed canopy luminaires
specify a warn white light, which would be between 2,700 to 3,000K. Although not shown in the schedule, the
LNC fixture is specified as 3,000K.
10. Revise the building elevations to address the following:
f. In the Exterior Finish Scheduled address the following:
iii. For "PT-T 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 they are related. Ensure that all exhibits
and samples are coordinated and clear.
Rev. 2: Comment not yet fully addressed. Comment response letter states that "Kawneer Black" is the color
for the storefront ST-1 and that a note had been added to the elevations. However, no note appears to have
been added to the elevations. Also, the version of the elevation that was submitted for this review only made
three changes to the exhibit: the date of the exhibit was removed (and not update), the manufacturer was
removed from BR-2, and both the manufacturer and the color were removed from BR-1. If other revisions
had been made the exhibit submitted may have been the wrong version. Ensure an updated versions of the
elevations exhibit is submitted.
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.
Rev. 2: Comment not vet fullv addressed. Revise the elevations. the site elan_ and all exhibits prior to the next
resubmittal to have the date of resubmittal/revision included in the title block.
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