Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutARB202000008 Correspondence 2020-10-13 (4)BOHLERI Albemarle County Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road North Wing Charlottesville, VA 22902 Attn: Paty Saternye Dear Ms. Saternye: 28 Blackwell Park Lane, Suite 201 Warrenton, VA 20186 o. 540.349.4500 October 7, 2020 Via Electronic Mail Re: ARB-2020-8 Minor Site Plan Amendment — 3rd Review Response Chick-fil-A Store #1856 350 Woodbrook Drive Charlottesville, VA 22901 Albemarle, County BE #V166505 Bohler is pleased to submit on behalf of Chick-fil-A, Inc., the Minor Site Plan Amendment 41h Submission for the Chick-fil-A Store #1856. The following is our comment response letter addressing comments received from your department dated September 10, 2020. Each comment is addressed and responded to as follows: Architectural Review Board — Paty Saternve Comment 1: Provide material and color samples for the canopies, awnings and as specified elsewhere in these comments. 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 yet fully addressed. Brick exhibits has been provided (email 911). 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 maybe 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. Response 1: Please see the "Face Brick" Exhibit dated 9/10/2020 with updated numbering. w . BohlerEngineering.com BOHLER9 Paty Saternye Chick-f I -A Store #1856 Minor Site Plan 3r1 Review Response October 7, 2020 Page 2 of 4 Comment 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. 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 (C7.1). 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. ii. 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. Response 2: Both landscape plans (C7.0 and C7.1) have been updated to revise the leaders and provide clarity on planting presentation. These two sheets were sent to Ms. Saternye on 9/14/2020 and she replied on 9/17/2020 that they appeared to be sufficiently addressed. Comment 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. 2: Comment not yet 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. 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 (914). This information is w . BohlerEngineering.com BOHLER9 Paty Saternye Chick-f I -A Store #1856 Minor Site Plan 3rd Review Response October 7, 2020 Page 3 of 4 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 pre-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 way, 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 warm 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,OOOk. Ensure that the proposed canopy luminaires specify a warm white light, which would be between Z700 to 3,000K. Although not shown in the schedule, the LNC fixture is specified as 3, 000K. Response 6: Comment 6.a: The manufacturer's cut sheets have been added to sheets E1.6 and E1.7. Comment 6.b.i: The luminaire schedule has been updated to show LLFs of 1.0. Comment 6.b.ii: The manufacturer's cut sheets and letter from manufacturer stating the fixture will be pre-set have been added to sheets E1.6 and E1.7. Comment 6.b.iii: The LLF factors have been revised and the max footcandles below the fixtures are acceptable. Comment 6.b.iv: Notes related to the dimmer have been removed. Comment 6.b.v: Acknowledged. w . BohlerEngineering.com BOHLER9 Paty Saternye Chick-f I -A Store #1856 Minor Site Plan To Review Response October 7, 2020 Page 4 of 4 Comment 14: Ensure all exhibits include the date of the exhibit, and any revision dates, in the title block. 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. Response 14:The site plan has been revised and the all exhibits contain the date of revisions included in the title block. 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 Engineering VA, LLC afWright, P.E. JCW/jb H:\16\V166505\Administrative\Letters\201007 Minor Site Plan Amendment 3rd Review CRL (ARB) .doc www. BohlerEngineering.com