Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutARB202000008 Review Comments Minor Amendment 2020-09-10�� 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 Rev. 2 UPDATE: September 10, 2020 John Wright, P.E. Bohler Engineering 28 Blackwell Park Lane, Suite 201 Warrenton, VA 20186 RE: ARB-2020-8: Chick -fill -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: 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. Rev. 2: Comment not yet fully addressed. Comment response letter states "See attached cut sheet for Brick information and images. That exhibit does not appear to have been submitted. Please submit it so staff can evaluate whether it addressed comments (i) and (ii.). Rev. 2 UPDATE: Comment not vet fully addressed. Brick exhibits has been provided (email 9/1). However, the numbering system on the exhibit (BR-15 & BR-17) does not appear to be the same as the one used in the submitted elevations (BR-1 & BR-2). The brick exhibit may be a general exhibit utilized in many development projects, but please clarify why the numbering does not match and consider modifying the brick exhibit to have notes with leaders specifying that the two brick colors boxed in red correspond to which components in the elevation exhibit. 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 yet fully addressed. A large shade tree has been added to this area. However, it appears to be in too close a proximity to an existing large shade tree. Revise the location of the proposed large shade tree to be at least 20' from the existing large shade tree. g) Rev. 1: [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. 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. Rev. 2 UPDATE: Comment not yet fully addressed. The existing trees were provided on a separate plan sheet (C- 7.1). Address the following: i. There are labels for existing trees that are pointing to areas where no tree symbol appears to be shown. Ensure a tree exists in location the leader is pointing to. If it does then add the appropriate symbol. If it does not remove the label and leader. H. There multiple small tree symbols, the same size used for the ornamental trees, that have labels that specify they are large shade trees. Please clarify why the same size symbol is being utilized for both ornamental trees and large shade trees. Revise the symbols if appropriate. iii. Clarify why some trees and shrubs are represented as darker/thicker lines and others are shown as lighter/thinner lines on the existing landscaping sheet. If all of these trees and shrubs are "existing" why is there this difference. 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. Rev. 2 UPDATE: Comment not yet fully addressed. A letter from a light fixture manufacture, and a specifications sheet for a revised light fixture has been provided by email (9/4). This information is sufficient, since a dimmer is no longer proposed, if the photometric plan also shows that these fixture meet all requirements. Address the following: a. Add the manufacture cut sheet to the site plan. b. Update the photometric plan to include the revised fixture and ensure it meets all of the requirements. c. The letter from the light fixture's manufacturer states that the fixture will be ore -set. at the factory_ for both 4200 lumens and 3000k color temperature. The letter can either be inserted into the site plan, like the cut sheets, or a note can be added to the photometric plan that states that information. 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. fl 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" S.00OK 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 3.00OK. Although not shown in the schedule. the LNC fixture is specified as 3.00OK. 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 yet fully addressed. Revise the site plan, 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 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development REVISED APPLICATION SUBMITTAL This form must be returned with your revisions to ensure proper tracking and distribution. County staff has indicated below what they think will be required as a resubmission of revisions. If you need to submit additional information please explain on this form for the benefit of the intake staff. All plans must be collated and folded to fit into legal size files, in order to be accepted for submittal. TO: Paty Saternve DATE: PROJECT NAME: ARB2020-12 Brookhill Block 8B —Final Site Plan Submittal Type Requiring Revisions I I indicates submittal Code County Project Number # Co ies Erosion & Sediment Control Plan E&S Mitigation Plan MP Waiver Request WR Stormwater Management Plan SWMP Road Plan RP Private Road Request, with private/public comparison PRR Private Road Request — Development Area PRR-DA Preliminary Site Plan PSP Final Site Plan or amendment FSP Final Plat FP Preliminary Plat PP Easement Plat EP Boundary Adjustment Plat BAP Rezoning Plan REZ Special Use Permit Concept Plan SP-CP Reduced Concept Plan R-CP Proffers P Bond Estimate Request BER Draft Groundwater Management Plan D-GWMP Final Groundwater Management Plan F-GWMP Aquifer Testing Work Plan ATWP Groundwater Assessment Report GWAR Architectural Review Board ARB ARB202000012 1 + di ital Other: Please explain (For staff use only) Submittal Code # Copies Distribute To: Submittal Code # Co ies Distribute To: ARB 1 + digital Paty Satemye