Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP202000061 Correspondence 2021-02-05L I N E + G R A D E C I V I L E N G I N E E R I N G COMMENT RESPONSE LETTER February 511, 2021 TO: Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 ATTN: Paty Saternye, Senior Planner RE: Airport Road Sheetz Final Site Plan — SDP-2020-00061 2"" round Comment Response Letter Dear Ms. Saternye, On behalf of Airport Plaza, LLC we offer the following responses to comments dated January 121h, 2021. Responses are in bold italic text below each comment. Please note: comments have been renumbered. Original numbers are in parentheses. References to comment numbers refer to the new numbers unless otherwise noted. Planning — Poty Saternye 1. (Original Comment 2.) A site plan meeting all the requirements of section 32.6 of Chapter 18 of the Code. Rev. 1: Comment not yet fully addressed. Acknowledged, see responses to comments below. 2. (3.) General information. Revise the following: a. (i.) This site plan is based upon a boundary line adjustment. Therefore, address the following: a. A boundary line adjustment plat must be submitted (separate application, fee and submission) and approved prior to the approval of the final site plan. Rev. 1: Comment not vet addressed. Submit a boundary line adiustment Dlat (separate application & feel for review and approved prior to the approval of the final site plan A boundary line adjustment plat has been submitted and is currently under review. 3. (6.) Existing sewer and drainage facilities; Private & public easements; Existing and proposed utilities. Address the following: a. (b.) See engineering comments in reference to required storm drainage easements and modification that will be required. Rev. 1: Comment not vet addressed. Address the comment. Acknowledge, see response to engineering comments below. LINE GRADE CIVIL ENGINEERING 1134th STREET NE, STE. 100 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 LINE-GRADE.COM Airport Road Sheetz — SDP-2020-00061 2"d Round Comment Response Letter February 5`h, 2021 1 Page 2 b. (e.) An easement plat must be submitted (separate application, fee and submission) and approved prior to the approval of the final site plan. Rev. 1: Comment not yet addressed. Address the comment. An easement plat has been submitted and is currently under review. c. (f.) Include the abandonment of any easement in the proposed easement plat. Rev. 1: Comment not yet addressed. Address the comment. Acknowledged, see easement plat submission. (g.) A proposed gas line easement is shown. An easement plat will be required. Work with gas provider to establish this easement. Rev. 1: Comment not yet fully addressed. Comment response letter states that easement will be established prior to approval. Provide the deed book and page number for the recorded gas easement plat. This has been coordinated with the gas provider. The provider does not require an easement on the property for these service lines. Therefore, the previously proposed easement has been removed. See revised sheet C4.0. e. (h.) Rev. 1 [New Comment]: Revise the labels in the site plan, for all "proposed easements", to include the Deed Book and Page number for all newly recorded easement plats prior to final site plan approval. Also, revise the labels to say "New" instead of "Proposed". Once the easement plat has been approved and recorded, the labels will be updated according to the comment. No changes have been made to the labels at this time. 4. (7.) Ingress and egress; Streets, easements and travelways. Address the following: a. (f.) Rev. 1 [New Comment]: Revise the labels in the site plan, for all "proposed easements", to include the Deed Book and Page number for all newly recorded easement plats prior to final site plan approval. Also, revise the labels to say "New" instead of "Proposed. See response to comment 3.e. above. L I N E + GRADE CIVIL ENGINEERING 113 4`" STREET NE, STE. 100 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 LINE-GRADE.COM Airport Road Sheetz — SDP-2020-00061 2"d Round Comment Response Letter February 5`h, 2021 1 Page 3 5. (8.) Existing and proposed improvements. Address the following: a. (b.) Revise the plan to include a detail for the screening fence. Rev. 1: Comment not yet addressed. Address this comment. Comment response letter states that this will be addressed after ARB approval. A detail has been added to the plans as required. This detail matches what was previously presented to the County in the ARB submission package. Please note the plan now labels this as a 'screening wall' as opposed to screening fence, as this more appropriately describes this site feature. See sheet C4.1 for the detail. b. (d.) Revise the plan to include a detail for the dumpster enclosure. FINAL: Comment not yet fully addressed. Address the following: i. (1.) Revise the provided detail to include the height of the walls. Rev. 1: Comment not yet addressed. Address this comment. Comment response letter states that this will be addressed after ARB approval. This is usually shown with an elevation or section of the dumpster enclosure. A site specific section of this area has been added to the plans on sheet C4.1. The new section shows the height of the screening wall, the height of the gate, and the extent of the concrete paving of the pad to scale. See new detail "A" on revised sheet C4.1. ii. (2.) Ensure that all portions of the wall and gates have a minimum height of 6; (32.7.9.7(e)). The smaller of the two gates is labeled to have a height of 5'-2". Rev. 1: Comment not vet addressed. Address this comment. Comment response letter states that this will be addressed after ARB approval. See response to comment 5.b.i. above. The 5'-2" dimension is actually the width of the gate, not the height although this was not clear previously. The dimension has been revised for clarity. See revised sheet C4.1. iii. (3.) Ensure that the dumpster pad meets the minimum requirements. The concrete dumpster pad must be at least eight feet beyond the front of the dumpster, and therefore in front of the gate. Rev. 1: Comment not yet addressed. Address this comment. Comment response letter states that this will be addressed after ARB approval. Please note, the dumpster "pad" is concrete pavement under and in front of the dumpster enclosure and should not impact ARB review. See response to comment 5.b.i. above. On the section, it can be seen that the concrete pad extends more than S feet beyond the front of the dumpster. See revised sheet C4.1. L I N E + GRADE CIVIL ENGINEERING 113 4`" STREET NE, STE. 100 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 LINE-GRADE.COM Airport Road Sheetz — SDP-2020-00061 2"" Round Comment Response Letter February S`h, 20211 Page 4 c. (g.) Show all street/accessway signage on the plan, ensure it is shown on the layout and landscaping sheets, and ensure there are no conflicts with landscaping. Rev. 1: Comment not yet addressed. Address comment. Comment response letter said this would be addressed after ARB approval. Show all street/accessway signage on the plan, ensure it is shown on the layout and landscaping sheets, and ensure there are no conflicts with landscaping. There are no new street signage proposed, only relocations of existing signage. All signage and site appurtenances internal to the site are now shown on the site plan and landscape sheets to scale, and no conflicts with landscaping are present. See revised sheets C4.0 and C8.1. d. (h.) Rev. 1 [New Comment]: Please note that planning and ARB review these items for different criteria. Therefore, waiting until ARB approves the items above may lengthen the review timeframe of the project because additional comments may be required by planning. Acknowledged. 6. (9.) Landscape plan. A landscape plan is required in the final site plan that complies with section 32.7.9. A landscape plan was submitted but requires additional information for the final site plan. Such information should include, but is not limited to, the following: a. (g.) Include in the site plan a filled out, signed and dated conservation checklist. Rev. 1: Comment not yet fully addressed. Once the ownership has transferred ensure that the owner of the site also signs the Conservation Checklist in the appropriate location. Acknowledged. Once the ownership has transferred, the checklist will be updated with the appropriate signatures. b. (h.) Include in the existing conditions, grading and landscape sheets tree protection fencing around all existing trees that are to remain and include tree protection fencing details in the site plan. FINAL: Comment not yet fully addressed. Ensure that on all three sheets (existing conditions, grading & landscaping) that the: i. (1.) That the Tree Protection Fence line work is actually shown. It is shown in the Landscape Plan, but it does not appear to be shown in LINE the Grading and Drainage Sheet or the Site Plan Sheet. Only the limits GRADE of clearing and grading appears to be shown in those two sheets. Rev. 1: Comment not yet addressed. Address the comment. CIVIL ENGINEERING The tree protection fencing is now shown on the grading and drainage and site 1134ih STREET NE, STE. 100 plan sheets and is labeled. See revised sheets C4.0 and C5.0. CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA22902 LINE-GRADE.COM Airport Road Sheetz — SDP-2020-00061 2"d Round Comment Response Letter February 5`h, 2021 1 Page 5 7. (10.) Outdoor lighting. In reference to the photometric plan address the following: a. (b.) Revise the Luminaire Schedule to have LLF value for all fixtures and update the table accordingly. Rev. 1: Comment not yet addressed. LLF must be 1.0. Chart shows LLFs of between 0.525 and 1.04. Only one fixture is shown to have an LLF of 1.0. Revise the chart to ensure all LLFs area 1.0 and that all other values shown are revised accordingly. This topic was discussed in depth at the previous ARB meeting. The resolution resulted in comment #18 below (original ARB comment 8). This comment requires that LLFs be at least 1.0. All LLFs have been revised to meet this minimum value. See revised Luminaire schedule on sheet C9.0. b. (c.) Revise the Luminaire Schedule to have values for the total lamp lumens. FINAL: Comment not yet addressed. Revise the charts to contain Total Lamp Lumens and ensure that the column is labeled accordingly. Although the values may be shown in the chart, not chart column is labeled accordingly. Rev. 1: Comment not yet addressed. Address the comment. The luminaire schedule has been updated accordingly to include this column header. See revised luminaire schedule on C9.0. c. (d.) Ensure that the all product manufacturer cutsheets are provided in the site plan and include pictures or details that allow determination that they are "full cut off'. FINAL: Comment not yet fully addressed. Address the following: i. (1.) Provide manufacturer cutsheets, that include pictures, for fixture "B" (BKLT CH — LED-e69-FL-BZP-12) lighting fixture if it is to be included in the site plan. Otherwise remove it from the photometric plan and the Luminaire Schedule. Rev. 1: Comment not yet addressed. Address the comment. Luminaire "B" does not exceed 3,000lumens and is therefore not subject to the requirements listed in the County outdoor lighting code (specifically with regard to "cutoff"). This fixture is not an RLA product; it is a Sheetz standard that is used under the building entrance awnings. A cutsheet has been provided of the fixture on revised sheet C9.2. It is of note that on this cutsheet it can be seen that no lumens are emitted above 85 degrees from the plane of the luminaire (therefore expressing that this is indeed a full cutoff fixture). L I N E + GRADE CIVIL ENGINEERING 113 4`" STREET NE, STE. 100 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 LINE-GRADE.COM Airport Road Sheetz — SDP-2020-00061 2"d Round Comment Response Letter February 5`h, 2021 1 Page 6 ii. (2.) Revise the light fixtures so that none can be tilted. Lights that tilt are not considered full cut off. Therefore "F" (QSQ-AAXX- w/PGM-1 + 0SQ-A-NM-I5D-R-57K-UL-XX) does not meet the full cut off requirement and must be revised. Rev. 1: Comment not yet addressed. In the "Luminaire Location Summary" it specifies that Luminaires "A: and "F" will have a tilt. Lights that tilt are not considered full cut off and therefore do not meet the full cut off requirement and must be revised. Revise the light fixtures so that none can be tilted. This was also resolved in the last ARB meeting with the board and the lighting consultant. In summary, luminaire "A" does not tilt it is recessed in the underside of the canopy, which has a tilt of 5 degrees. Even taking the fixed angle of the luminaire into account luminaire "A" still has an uplight rating of zero, as can be seen in the BUG rating column in the luminaire schedule on sheet C9.0. It is notable that this specific fixture does not emit lumens past 60 degrees from the axis of maximum candlepower. Luminaire "F" is tiltable to allow lighting of the flagpole, which will light the United States flag from dusk to dawn, per the U.S. Flag Code. Therefore, luminaire "F" is exempt from cutoff regulations per Sec. 4.17.6.c. of the County Code. It is notable that the "BUG" rating system (Backlight-Uplight-Glare) replaced the older "cutoff" system in the industry around 2005. While legislation may not be updated to take advantage of this new system, a "U" rating of zero indicates no uplight is emitted. As can be seen in the luminaire schedule, all proposed luminaires have an uplight rating of zero and therefore will not contribute to skyglow. iii. (3.) Clarify how light fixture "F" is mounted and how it is at almost ground level when all the other OSQ series are mounted on a pole. Rev. 1: Comment not yet addressed. Address the comment. Luminaire "F" is mounted via an adjustable arm anchored to the ground. This serves to allow the luminaire to be tilted to light the flagpole. A cutsheet of the adjustable arm can be found on revised sheet C9.1. As mentioned above, this luminaire is exempt from County outdoor lighting requirements per Sec. 4.17.6.c. L I N E + GRADE CIVIL ENGINEERING 113 4`" STREET NE, STE. 100 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 LINE-GRADE.COM Airport Road Sheetz — SDP-2020-00061 2"" Round Comment Response Letter February 5`h, 20211 Page 7 d. (e.) FINAL: [NEW COMMENT] Revise the Symbols in the Luminaire Schedule to be the same color, darkness and shape as those shown in the Photometric Plan. It is hard to differentiate the colors from each other in the schedule and the colors in the schedule do not appear to match those in the plan. Also, at least one symbols not match ("F") between the two and other do not appear to match because of scale, color and darkness. Rev. 1: Comment not yet addressed. The symbols in the table are still much lighter than the ones in the layout. Also, it is important to note that once printed black and white on the site plan approval set (once it is ready for approval), and then scanned to be uploaded to out file storage system, it is likely that they will be hard to read and may not be visible at all. Increase the darkness of the symbols in the Luminaire Schedule. The symbols in the luminaire schedule have been revised to be darker and match the size and color of the symbols on the plan. Test prints in black and white have been performed to ensure symbols maintain visual fidelity. The luminaire labels have also been slightly enlarged to aid readability in reduced copies. See revised sheet C9.0. e. (h.) Rev. 1: [NEW COMMENT]: In the comment response letter ensure where on each sheet the comments have been addressed. Multiple responses in the comment response letter for the comments above state, "Please refer to revised photometric plan." However, it does not appear that some of them have been addressed. Acknowledged. The responses above strive to more specifically identify the location of pertinent changes. 8. (13.) See the SRC comments from most of the reviewers attached. All SRC reviewer comments must be sufficiently address prior to final site plan approval. Rev. 1: Comment not yet fully addressed. Fire Rescue, Inspections and RWSA have no objections. See attached comments from Engineering, VDOT, and ACSA. All reviewer comments must be sufficiently address prior to final site plan approval. Acknowledged. Engineering — David James 9. (1.) The VSMP plan will need approval prior to FSP approval. Rev. 1: Comment still valid. Acknowledged. See separate VSMP comment letter and VSMP plan resubmission. LINE GRADE CIVIL ENGINEERING 1134ih STREET NE, STE. 100 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 LINE-GRADE.COM Airport Road Sheetz — SDP-2020-00061 2"d Round Comment Response Letter February 5`h, 2021 1 Page 8 10. (2.) Record plat for SWIM facility easements, Access, Temporary Construction, Forest/Open Space, Drainage easements needed prior to FSP approval. Rev. 1: SWIM facility easements will need to be recorded alone with the deed prior to FSP approval. Acknowledged. A plat showing the proposed easements has been submitted and is currently under review. ARB — Khris Taaaart Note: please see the ARB submission package for additional items addressing these comments. 11. (1.) Revise the design of the store building to establish more coordinated material transitions, less of a utilitarian appearance on the Airport Road elevation, and an entrance tower with a prominent form. Address prominence and hierarchy in the tower form. Revisions must be reviewed by the ARB in a future work session prior to final approval. The prominence of the tower has been enhanced by completing its front to provide a more balanced and traditional form. This has been achieved by adding stone at the corner of the tower thus balancing the view from all angles. The height of the tower has been increased further for more prominence and differentiation from the balance of the building. The height of the signs has been raised to center it in the tower's upper field. See building elevations on sheets AI.0 and AI.1. 12. (2.) Revise the proposed glass so that the VLT does not drop below 40%. Sheetz would like to discuss any options or alternative methods to achieve the desired objective of this requirement. Increasing the VLT will require further analysis of the energy code due to the increase in demand of cooling requirements due to the higher VLT. One option that we are considering is window blinds four use at times of low angle sunlight if that is acceptable. 13. (3.) Add the standard window glass note to the architectural drawings. See response to comment 12 above. 14. (4.) Identify all other site elements associated with the car wash (i.e., vending machines, vacuums, air pumps, etc.) on the site plan. L I N E + All elements associated with the car wash are shown on the site plan. Sheetz GRADE does not have vending machines offering cleaning supplies or similar products offered at some car wash facilities. See revised sheet C4.0. C I V I L E N G I N E E R I N G 113 4`" STREET NE, STE. 100 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 LINE-GRADE.COM Airport Road Sheetz — SDP-2020-00061 2"d Round Comment Response Letter February 5`h, 2021 1 Page 9 15. (5.) Relocate or revise the color of the ice machine and relocate the store equipment behind the fence. The colors of the ice machines have been changed to a neutral tan color to blend in with the cultured stone of the building. The store equipment has been located behind the decorative fence. See revised sheets Al.0 and Al.1. 16. (6.) Add the standard mechanical equipment note verbatim to the site and architectural plans. The standard mechanical equipment note has been added to the site plan and architectural plans. See site plan note 4 on sheet C4.0. 17. (7.) Show tree protection fencing on the grading plan. Tree protection fencing is now shown and labeled on the grading plan. See revised sheet C5.0. 18. (8.) Revise the lighting plan to use LLFs of at least 1.0. Ensure that footcandle values do not exceed 30 fc beneath the canopy and 20 fc everywhere else on site. The lighting plan has been revised to provide LLFs of at least 1.0. Lighting levels do not exceed 30 fc under the canopy or 20 fc elsewhere on the site. See revised sheet C9.0. 19. (9.) If landscaping is will be shown on multiple sheets of the site plan set, then revise the plan to show the proposed landscaping consistently throughout. The site plan set has been revised to show the proposed landscaping consistently on each applicable sheet. 20. (10.) Revise the landscape plan to eliminate the utility conflict near the north end of the parking area along Rt. 29 without reducing the quantity of trees. The landscape plan has been revised to eliminate the utility conflict without reducing the quantity of trees. See revised sheet C8.1. 21. (11.) Sign applications are required for all proposed signs. Acknowledged. Sheetz will complete the design of the proposed signs and submit separate application(s) for them after the building elevations are approved. L I N E + GRADE CIVIL ENGINEERING 113 4`" STREET NE, STE. 100 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 LINE-GRADE.COM Airport Road Sheetz — SDP-2020-00061 2"d Round Comment Response Letter February 51h, 20211 Page 10 22. (12.) The preferred wall sign type is channel letters. Cabinet style signs may be used for freestanding signs; all cabinet type signs must have opaque backgrounds. Understood. The building mounted signs will be externally illuminated. The monument sign will have an opaque background. Further details will be provided with the sign applications. 23. (13.) Reduce the number of colors used in the signs to a maximum of three (including white). The number of colors used will be reduced to three (red, white, and black). The color detail will be provided with the sign applications. 24. Please provide: a. (1.) One full set of revised drawings addressing each of these conditions. Include updated ARB revision dates on each drawing. b. (2.) A memo including detailed responses indicating how each condition has been satisfied. If changes other than those requested have been made, identify those changes in the memo also. Highlighting the changes in the drawing with "clouding" or by other means will facilitate review and approval. c. (3.) The attached "Revised Application Submittal" form. This form must be returned with your revisions to ensure proper tracking and distribution. Acknowledged. see ARB submission package, as well as the attached Final Site Plan. ACSA — Richard Nelson 25. (1.) Submit 3 copies of the plan set to ACSA for review and approval. Acknowledge, see copies of the plan accompanying this submission. 26. (2.) Provide fixture counts for the domestic meter. A 2" water meter seems large. Fixture counts for the convenience store are now provided on sheet C0.2. The water meter for the car wash remains at 1.5" the convenience store meter has been downsized to 1.5" and a 1"meter for irrigation is now proposed alongside the two 1.5" meters. See revised sheet C0.2 and C6.0. 27. (3.) RWSA approval will be required. Per comment #8 above, RWSA has no comments or objections to the approval of this plan. L I N E + GRADE CIVIL ENGINEERING 113 4`" STREET NE, STE. 100 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 LINE-GRADE.COM Airport Road Sheetz — SDP-2020-00061 2"d Round Comment Response Letter February 51h, 20211 Page 11 28. (4.) Service connections for larger meters should match our typical construction standards (attached). The service connections for the 1.5" meters now reflect the typical details. The new service connection for the irrigation meter also reflects the typical details for a 1"meter. See revised sheets C6.0, C6.2, and C6.3. VDOT — Max Greene 29. (1.) Please show and label "mill and overlay' areas to adjacent travel lane in accordance with WP-2. WP-2 mill and overlay will extend the full lane width and a minimum 2' past all proposed work within the R/W. The mill and overlay areas have been adjusted to extend the full width of each adjacent travel lane and 2' past all proposed work within the right-of-way, per detail WP-2. The areas are now shown and labeled on sheets C3.0 and C8.0. L I N E + GRADE CIVIL ENGINEERING 113 4`" STREET NE, STE. 100 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 LINE-GRADE.COM