HomeMy WebLinkAboutFDP201500002 Correspondence 2015-04-14Mechum's Trestle
99 Bloomfield Road • Charlottesville, VA 22902
April 14, 2015
Ms. Megan Yaniglos, APA
Principal Planner
Community Development Department
Planning Services
County of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4586
Subject: 1) Mechum's Trestle — Initial Site Plan Submission (SDP2014-052), dated 2.17.15
2) Mechum's Trestle — Request for Special Use Permit, dated 2.17.15
Reference: 1) COA LOD 2012-005, with Attachments A & B, dated 4.22.13
Dear Ms. Yaniglos;
We have received all comments generated in response to subject submissions, and offer the following
responses:
Engineering - Michelle Roberge:
Comment 1: In most cases, the surveyed flood plain limit line is determined in the office by scaling a line
on the survey that is estimated from the FEMA FIRM map. The FEMA FIRM maps are printed at a large
scale (1"=1000), so the line is truly approximate. We can increase accuracy by using FEMA GIS mapping,
and have made slight adjustments to the floodplain limits shown. The line shown on the plan is as exact
as it can be shown given the necessary scaling.
Comment #2: The WPO buffer limits were delineated and labeled on the plan sheets. Section 17-603A
allows for the pre-existing building to remain, and the repairs made to the building will not require any
land disturbance and therefore do not invoke the requirements of the WPC. Additionally, the parking
lot is nonconforming and to preserve that nonconforming status, no land disturbance is occurring in
relation to the parking lot. It is simply being maintained in its nonconforming state.
Comment #3: There is no proposed development or disturbance within the 50 foot stream buffer, as
delineated by Reference 1, and as depicted on the plans.
Comment #4: As delineated in Reference 1, parking lot as depicted is existing, non -conforming. It will
be repaired and maintained, as needed, but it is our understanding that we cannot make any changes to
the parking lot without jeopardizing its nonconforming status, nor are we required to make any such
changes to a nonconforming lot.
Comment #5: Delivery trucks and garbage trucks will not be scheduled to be on site during business
hours so they will have the entire parking area for circulation and loading.
Comment #7: As delineated in Reference 1, parking lot as depicted is existing, non -conforming. Its
usage will continue, unchanged, without disturbance or development. While mention has been made,
elsewhere in these comments, of using semi -permeable pavers as supplemental drainage to the flood
plain, this alteration would represent a significant disturbance to the parking lot, negating its non-
conformity. The existing 'best management practice' of this site is widespread sheet flow from the
parking lot to the existing vegetated slope/stream buffer.
Comment #8: The employee parking space idea would be acceptable. However, as stated above, the
garbage truck will service the site during off hours, so no conflicts are anticipated. Grading the dumpster
pad away from the stream would not provide significant benefit, in our opinion. The existing 'best
management practice' of the site is widespread sheet flow from the parking lot to the existing vegetated
slope/stream buffer, and it is our opinion that this should be maintained.
Comment #9: The parking lot is nonconforming and not subject to these requirements.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, loading spaces are required for retail and office but not restaurant. No
loading space proposed because loading will not occur during business hours.
Comment #10: As delineated in Reference 1, parking lot as depicted is existing, non -conforming. Its
usage will continue, unchanged, without disturbance or development. As an aside, curbing would
create drainage challenges along Route 240, alter the sheet flow to buffer mechanism already in place,
and would require construction/disturbance within the 100 foot stream buffer and floodplain.
Comment #11: The line in question is the existing asphalt pavement and existing gravel interface.
Comment #12: Grade irrelevant, as parking lot is existing, non -conforming.
Fire Rescue - Robbie Gilmer:
We cannot increase the 16' travel lane to 20' and we cannot increase the minimum radius in question to
25'. Emergency vehicles during business hours will be limited to the 24' drive aisle and will have to back
out. During off hours the parking lot is sufficient for circulation. As delineated in Reference 1, parking lot
as depicted is existing, non -conforming.
Planning Services — Megan Yaniglos:
Comment #4: The dumpster pad on the drawings is 10'x18', with 10'x10' allocated for the dumpster
space, and 8'for the apron.
Comment #5: We may revise the lighting element, and will state accordingly.
Comment #6 - Dumpster pad is labeled as concrete. The sidewalk material is not labeled, and will be
addressed.
Comment #7 - RWSA has responded to this issue separately, and there is no action required.
VDOT —Troy Austin:
Comment #5: The AM-E spacing exception was completed with the Initial Site Plan Submission. Per
request, this will be resubmitted on line.
RWSA —Victoria Fort:
Comment #4: Easements were obtained by the previous owner, and are still in effect. Proof of same
along the entire course of the force main are available upon request, and are memorialized in the
current deed.
Architectural Review Board —Margaret Maliszewski:
Recommendation to Revise Landscape Plan to show sufficient quantities of frontage, interior parking lot,
and perimeter parking lot trees:
Frontage: Five trees have been proposed, where guidelines call for 7; additional frontage trees cannot
be easily provided without encroachment on VDOT line of sight requirements, or jeopardizing the sole
well site on the property.
Interior Parking Lot: Parking lot is existing, non -conforming. Additional planting are constrained by
Fire/Safety requirements.
Perimeter: While existing large caliber trees will likely satisfy much of this requirement, additional
plantings will lily jeopardize the perimeter slope, and the health of new plantings and existing trees.
While stream bank mitigation has been proposed as a possibility, this activity is precluded by constraints
imposed by the parking lot's existing non -conformity.
Bill McKechnie
Mechum's Trestle, LLC
wmckechnie@comcast.net
434.906.5787
cc: Pete Caramanis, Esq.
Alan Franklin, PE
Eric Goetz, Architect