Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutARB201300008 Correspondence 2013-01-23 3 GARRETT ST, SUITE K CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22902 COLLINS ow v.r 434.293.3719 PH 434.293.2813 FX www.collins- engineering.com January 15, 2013 Margaret Maliszewski County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: NORTHTOWN PHASE 2A (GANDER MOUNTAIN) ARB- 2012 -148 Dear Margaret: Attached is the revised ARB application and below is the comment responses to your ARB review from January 11, 2013, which addresses the outstanding comments and feedback from the last ARB meeting on the project. 1. We have added the stone bases for the log supports on the front elevation of the project. 2. We have revised the color of the emergency exit doors to minimize the noticeability of them. 3. We have increased and extended the landscaping at the western end of the property line to provide a mix of evergreen and deciduous trees, and created a dense buffer. 4. We have darkened the color of the back of the entrance gable as requested. 5. Our elevations do not show the rooftop units because they are located behind the parapet wall. We are creating an exhibit that shows the location of these units on the building as requested. 6. We have included a note on the elevation plan that states that the mechanical units shall not be visible from the entrance corridor. 7. We have labeled the elevation drawing with north, south, east, and west as requested. 8. WE have revised the landscape plan to show large shade trees along the entrance corridor on a 35' spacing. 9. We have integrated the lighting fixtures on the building with the piers and wall composition. The lighting is reflected downward, and meets the 3,000 lumen requirement. The style and location of the lighting is centered with the columns. 10. We have updated the west elevation bays to be more consistent with the middle bay as requested. Than you again for the help, and please let me know if you need anything else. Sin rely, Scott Collins, PE Margaret Maliszewski From: Scott Collins [scott @collins- engineering.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2013 1:04 PM To: Margaret Maliszewski Subject: RE: ARB Gander Mountain Margaret - Thanks. I just got off the phone with Derrick. Yes, the parapet walls were already raised (and is reflected on the architectural elevations) to hide the units. The parapet walls are basically the same height as the mechanical units to ensure that they will not be seen from Rt.29. Thx. Scott From: Margaret Maliszewski [ mailto :MMaliszewski @albemarle.org] Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2013 12:50 PM To: Scott Collins Subject: RE: ARB Gander Mountain The email says, "The plan was to increase the parapet height on this building to be around 48" — 60" to hide them." How does that height compare to what is shown in the current submittal? From: Scott Collins [mailto:scott@collins - engineering.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2013 12:07 PM To: Margaret Maliszewski Subject: ARB Gander Mountain Margaret - Thank you again for the help on Gander Mountain. We are dropping off the additional (6) color renderings, the application, and the $1000 check today. The last remaining comment had to do with the roof plan of the mechanical units. Please see the email below from Gander Mountain about these units and let me know if this satisfies the comment about the location of the units, and the heights of the units in relationship to the parapet walls. Thx. Scott From: Derrick Matter [mailto:derrick.matter@ gandermountain.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 11:40 AM To: Scott Collins Cc: nick.messina @brooks- amaden.com Subject: RE: Gander Mountain No, we haven't even come close to starting construction documents yet. The plan was to increase the parapet height on this building to be around 48" — 60" to hide them. Our RTUs can range from 48" to 60" typically. They are never placed at the edge of the building so unless standing above the roof line they should not be seen. Derrick Matter 1 IANDERMTN. WE LIVE OUTDOORS 180 East Fifth Street, Suite 1300 St. Paul, MN 55101 651.325.4355 (office) 651.329.5518 (mobile) 651.325.2042 (fax) From: Scott Collins [mailto:scott@ collins- engineering.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 9:36 AM To: Derrick Matter Cc: nick.messina@@brooks- amaden.com Subject: Gander Mountain Derrick - Do you have any roof plans that show the location and heights of the rooftop units. We need to verify that they can not be seen from the corridor, and they are asking for the location and heights of these units. Thx. Scott This message may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply email and delete the message and any attachments. Thank you. Before printing, consider the environment. Please don't print this e -mail unless you really need to. 2 Todd Shifflett From: Todd Shifflett Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2013 8:56 AM To: 'scott©collins - engineering.com' Cc: Margaret Maliszewski Subject: Northtown Phase 11A Good Morning Scott, Per Margaret, the re- submittal for ARB2012 -148 that was received for Margaret actually needs an application with it. Thanks, Todd Todd Shifflett Intake /Support Specialist II Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Phone - (434) 296 -5832 ext. 4504 Fax - (434) 972 -4126 Email: tshifflett@albemarle.org 1 Noir , .oe / '". 1 11 7 \, County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, VA, 22902 Phone 434 - 296 -5832 Fax 434 - 972 -4126 Memorandum To: Scott Collins (scott @collins - engineering.com) From: Ellie Ray, CLA, Senior Planner Division: Planning Date: February 1, 2013 Subject: SDP 2013— 00002 Northtown Phase II -A — Final Site Development Plan 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 Subdivision /Zoning Ordinances unless otherwise specified.] 1. [Comment] It appears that a 24' access easement is being provided for the future Phase IIB. For your information, should this property be subdivided to split Phases IIA and IIB, a minimum 30' private street easement would be required, and private street approval would be necessary for frontage for Phase IIB. Similarly, if you plan to subdivide Phase IIA from Phase 1, the existing 24' access easement would need to be increased to a minimum of 30' to qualify for private street approval. 2. [Comment] The parking and building setback lines along Route 29 have two different labels. In one area they are refered to as 20' buffer and 50' building setback, and in another they are labeled 10' parking setback and 30' building setback; please correct on all sheets. 3. [32.5.2(a)] The boundary information provided does not include reference to TMP 045000000111B0, and the cover sheet provides the incorrect acreage for TMP 04500000011100; please verify and provide accurate existing boundary lines and acreage information. 4. [32.5.2(a)] Add AIA (Airport Impact Area) to the Zoning note. Please also document the waiver granted for disturbance of critical slopes including the associated conditions of approval by reference to the approval letter for SDP 200400045 dated October 28, 2005. 5. [32.5.2(b)] While the maximum building height on HC zoned land is 65', any building height in excess of 35' requires an additional 2' of setback for each 1' in height above 35'. The cover sheets states "'proposed building height is approximately 40' to highest peak ". It appears this is referring to the front facade treatment, which is exempt from the setback provisions. Please provide the actual maximum building height (not approximate) to verify that no additional setback is required. 6. [32.5.2(b) & 4.12.4(a)] The number of parking spaces provided may not exceed the number of spaces required by more than twenty (20) percent. The site plan indicates that the requirement is being exceeded by 54 %. Please either reduce the number of parking spaces to a maximum of 209, or request a waiver from this section of the ordinance. 7. [32.5.2(b)] Provide the maximum amount of impervious cover on the Cover Sheet. 8. [32.5.2(b)] Provide the maximum amount of paved parking and vehicular circulation area on the Cover Sheet and Landscape Sheet. 9. [32.5.2(1)] Please show the location of other existing and proposed utilities and utility easements, including telephone, cable, electric and gas easements. 1 10. [32.5.2(n)] Label the length of the loading /dumpster area. 11. [32.6.2(g)] Indicate all utility and drainage easements outside the right -of -way of public streets. Any new easements may be generally shown and dedicated by separate plat. All water and sewer facilities to be dedicated to public use and the easements for those facilities and shall be identified by a statement that the facilities are to be dedicated to the Albemarle County Service Authority. 12. [32.6.20) & Comment] The landscape plan submitted for ARB review is different from the plan shown in the Site Plan set; these plans must match before a full landscape plan review will be completed. The following comments are for reference when submitting the revised plan. 13. [32.6.2(j) & Comment] Many of plant labels have conflicts with other lines /labels on the sheet and are difficult to read; please make sure all labels are legible. 14. [32.6.20) & Comment] The plant counts provided for Cornus florida and Ilex x 'Nellie R. Stevens' appear to be incorrect; please verify and revise. 15. [32.6.20) & Comment] Many of the proposed plantings appear to have site conflicts. Some are shown outside of the site, some are in utility easements and some are directly on top of proposed utilities and drainage structures. Please move plants into more suitable locations or provide approval from the associated agency (VDOT, ACSA, etc) that they will allow the plantings within their property /easement. 16. [32.6.20), 32.7.9.4(b) & Condition of approval] Existing trees may be preserved in lieu of planting new plant materials in order to satisfy the landscaping and screening requirements of section 32.7.9 or to meet conditions of approval, subject to the agent's approval. It appears the Preliminary Site Plan and first Final Site Plan were approved with a condition that certain trees along the border of the 20' undisturbed buffer be marked and preserved. The landscape plan should show the trees to be preserved, the limits of clearing, the location and type of protective fencing, grade changes requiring tree wells or walls, and trenching or tunneling proposed beyond the limits of clearing. The conservation checklist refers to these elements, but they don't appear to be present on the plan. 17. [32.6.20) & 32.7.9.5(a)] An area of at least five (5) percent of the paved parking and vehicular circulation area shall be landscaped with trees or shrubs. Neither the areas of street trees and shrubs required by sections 32.7.9.5(d) and (e) nor shrubs planted between a parking area and the building shall be counted toward the minimum landscaped area for a parking lot. As noted above, the square footage of 'paved parking and vehicular circulation area' has not been provided. Additionally, the 5% requirement refers to square footage of planting space, not tree canopy (as provided on the plan submitted). Please provide all relevant information to verify this requirement is satisfied. 18. [32.6.20) & 32.7.9.5(b)] The 5% landscaped area required shall be planted with a mixture of shade trees and shrubs and shall include one (1) large or medium shade tree per ten (10) parking spaces or portion thereof, if five (5) spaces or more. The Acer rubrum, Platanus acerifolia, and Ulmus parvifolia are the only trees provided that are on the current list of recommended large or medium shade trees approved by the agent; therefore there are 31 parking lot trees provided, not 37 as indicated on the plan. 19. [32.6.20) & 32.7.9.7] Please extend the additional screening plants on top of the retaining wall to the end of the adjacent residential district. 20. [32.6.20) & 32.7.9.8] It appears that the site acreage used to calculate the tree canopy requirement is incorrect. The plan only lists the acreage for TMP 45 -110, when TMP 45 -110A should also be included; please revise. Additionally, provide information as to how the canopy numbers for the Taxodium distichum and Magnolia grandflora were determined. 21. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] Lighting comments provided with the ARB review apply to the Site Plan as well. Also, it appears that the lighting plan submitted for ARB review shows building mounted fixtures, while the plan included with the Site Plan set does not. All proposed lighting fixtures must be included on the lighting plan included in the Site Plan set. 2 vow- 22. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] Two of the pole fixtures are proposed directly on top of storm drain pipe; please correct this conflict. 23. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] Please indicate that the proposed pole fixture will have a flat lens. 24. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] The lighting plan indicates that a LLF of 0.75 was used to create the photometric plan. Albemarle County requires that the LLF be 1.0; revise the photometric plan using the proper LLF. 25. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] Provide the following standard lighting note on the lighting plan: Each outdoor luminaire equipped with a lamp that emits 3,000 or more initial lumens shall be a full cutoff luminaire and shall be arranged or shielded to reflect light away from adjoining residential districts and away from adjacent roads. The spillover of lighting from luminaires onto public roads and property in residential or rural areas zoning districts shall not exceed one -half footcandle. 26. [Comment] Provide documentation of all off -site easements, including grading and off-site plantings. 27. [Comment] Provide the deed book and page references for all existing utility easements located on the property. 28. [Condition of Preliminary Approval] Architectural Review Board issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness. 29. [Condition of Preliminary Approval] Virginia Department of Transportation approval of entrance design, signal improvements, frontage and turn lane improvements as well as any associated road plans and drainage plans. 30. [Condition of Preliminary Approval] Albemarle County Service Authority approval including approval of the design of the relocated sanitary sewer meeting ACSA standards with no portion located within storm water management facilities. 31. [Condition of Preliminary Approval] The 18' retaining wall on the northern side of the site cannot disturb the undisturbed buffer for a footing or reinforcing grid. The plan must be revised as necessary, or provide computations, details and construction methods to avoid disturbance of the buffer. The preliminary plan did not show a retaining wall where it is currently proposed in Phase IIA; this condition is applicable to the proposed wall as well. 32. [Condition of Preliminary Approval] Grading to the edge of the undisturbed wooded buffer on the sides of the site will likely cut tree root systems, damaging and eventually killing trees. On final plans, the grading should be moved back, or specific trees surveyed and marked on plans to ensure survivability of trees within the undisturbed buffer. 33. [Condition of Preliminary Approval] Fire Marshall approval. 34. [Condition of Preliminary Approval] Building Official approval. 35. [Condition of Preliminary Approval] The final site plan shall be subject to Planning Commission review. This submittal will be scheduled on the consent agenda once ARB approval is obtained and the majority of the site plan issues have been resolved. 36. [Comment] This site plan cannot be approved until Engineering, ACSA and VDOT completed their reviews and grant their approval; comments will be forwarded upon receipt. ARB, Fire /Rescue, inspections, and E911 comments have been provided. Please contact Ellie Ray in the Planning Division by using erav or 434 - 296 -5832 ext. 3432 for further information. 3 Nee ��o F , J I -" AL nlll ® iii tefi r 'IRGII 3 I P COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 February 28, 2013 Scott Collins CIO Collins Engineering 200 Garrett Street Charlottesville Va 22902 RE: ARB- 2013 -08: Gander Mountain at Northtown Center Tax Map 45, Parcels 110, 110A, 11 Dear Mr. Collins, The Albemarle County Architectural Review Board reviewed the above noted item at its meeting on Tuesday, February 19, 2013. The Board, by a vote of 3:0, approved the request, pending staff administrative approval of the following conditions: 1. Provide dimensioned architectural elevations (black and white line drawings) with all standard information: the visibility note, materials /color schedule, materials identification keyed to the drawings, the drawing scale, drawing /revision date, etc. 2. Revise the elevation drawings to show the location and height of rooftop equipment. Ensure that all equipment will not be visible. 3. Provide samples of the proposed EIFS colors (other than SW6150 and SW6151) for review. Revise the Sherwin Williams "sandtrap" to a color with less pink and more khaki. 4. Ensure that the visibility note will appear on the architectural drawings submitted with the building permit application. 5. Provide cut sheets on the plan for the wall pack fixtures. Include the wall packs in the photometric calculations. Ensure that the decorative wall lights meet the scale and proportion shown in the elevations. 6. Revise the luminaire schedule to include the wall packs and the decorative wall fixtures. 7. Revise the photometrics using an LLF of 1.0. 8. Revise the luminaire schedule to specify the flat lens for the shoebox fixtures. 9. Revise the luminaire schedule to include the lamp type and catalog numbers for all proposed fixtures. Ensure that the lamps will provide a consistent appearance throughout the development by specifying a consistent lamp type. (Metal halide appears to be a common lamp type in the development.) 10. Indicate if the entrance element is illuminated. If it is, add the information to the photometric plan. 11. Revise the lighting plan to eliminate lighting /utility conflicts. 12. Indicate whether or not the parking lot pole lights will be placed on bases. If bases will be used, indicate this on the plan and clarify on the plan that the 20' height includes the base height. 13. Clearly identify all utilities and easements on the site plan. Provide all landscaping on site and outside of easements without reducing the quantity of plants or the general character of the planting illustrated on the 1/15/13 plan. 14. Provide a grading plan. 15. Maintain all grading on site. 16. Clarify and coordinate the grading and planting near the existing individual trees to remain on the south side of the site. Show tree protection fencing and related relevant details. 17. Consider replacing the dogwoods at the building with an evergreen species or other scale appropriate tree with visual interest for year -round effect. 18. Extend the street trees along rain garden #3. Please provide: 1. Two full sets of revised drawings addressing each of these conditions. Include updated ARB revision dates on each drawing. 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. 3. The attached "Revised Application Submittal" form. This form must be returned with your revisions to ensure proper tracking and distribution. When staffs review of this information indicates that all conditions of approval have been met, a Certificate of Appropriateness may be issued. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, A - 77 Lf w »itkt Margaret Maliszewski Principal Planner cc: First Gold Leaf Land Trust; M Clifton Mcclure Etal Trustees P 0 Box 1333 Charlottesville Va 22902 Margaret Maliszewski From: Adam Long [adam @collins - engineering.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 11:12 AM To: Margaret Maliszewski Subject: RE: Northtown Phase IIA Sorry about the mix -up Margaret, 1 will have these items sent to the county now. Thanks, Adam Long From: Margaret Maliszewski [ mailto: MMaliszewskaaibemarle.orq] Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 8:43 AM To: Adam Long Subject: RE: Northtown Phase IIA If these items weren't included as hard copies in your submittal, please provide hard copies of the to -scale drawings. Also, your message indicates that a cut sheet was emailed, but the email attachments were an elevation and a wall section, not a cut sheet. From: Adam Long [mailto:adam@ collins- engineering.com] Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 4:17 PM To: Margaret Maliszewski Subject: Northtown Phase IIA Hey Margaret, We are sending down the ARB resubmittal for the Northtown Phase IIA project. Attached are the updated cut sheet and wall detail. Thanks, Adam Long, PE Project Engineer Collins Engineering, L.L.C. 200 Garrett Street, Suite K Charlottesville, VA 22902 PH: 434.293.3719 adamPcollins- engineering.com Margaret Maliszewski From: Adam Long [adam @collins - engineering.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2013 3:12 PM To: Margaret Maliszewski Subject: RE: Northtown Phase IIA Attachments: 2 - GRADING & DRAINAGE.pdf; 130320 alb. co. ARB response letter.docx Hey Margaret - I've attached a pdf of the grading plan and the comment response letter. I'm sorry these weren't delivered with the submittal package. If you require a hard copy of the grading plan, just let me know and I'll take care of it. Thanks! Adam Long From: Margaret Maliszewski [ mailto :MMaliszewski@albemarle.orq] Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2013 1:30 PM To: Adam Long Subject: RE: Northtown Phase IIA Adam, I cannot find in your submittal a memo outlining your responses to the conditions listed in the ARB action letter from the February 19 meeting (attached). Would you please forward that to me? Also, a grading plan was requested. I understand that the grading is on the landscape plan, but the plant symbols obscure some of the topo lines. Can you provide a grading plan without the landscaping? Thank you. Margaret From: Adam Long [mailto:adam @collins - engineering.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 11:12 AM To: Margaret Maliszewski Subject: RE: Northtown Phase IIA Sorry about the mix -up Margaret, I will have these items sent to the county now. Thanks, Adam Long From: Margaret Maliszewski [ mailto :MMaliszewski @albemarle.orcq] Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 8:43 AM To: Adam Long Subject: RE: Northtown Phase IIA If these items weren't included as hard copies in your submittal, please provide hard copies of the to -scale drawings. Also, your message indicates that a cut sheet was emailed, but the email attachments were an elevation and a wall section, not a cut sheet. From: Adam Long [mailto:adam @collins - engineering.com] Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 4:17 PM 1 , To: Margaret Maliszewski Subject: Northtown Phase IIA Hey Margaret, We are sending down the ARB resubmittal for the Northtown Phase IIA project. Attached are the updated cut sheet and wall detail. Thanks, Adam Long, PE Project Engineer Collins Engineering, L.L.C. 200 Garrett Street, Suite K Charlottesville, VA 22902 PH: 434.293.3719 adam @collins- engineering.com 2 COLLINS ,�, GARRETT ST, SUITE K CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22902 434.293.3719 PH 434.293.2813 FX www.collins- engineering.com March 8, 2013 Margaret Maliszewski Principal Planner Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: ARB- 2013 -08, Gander Mountain at Northtown Center Tax Map 45, Parcels 110, 110A, 111 Thank you for your comments dated February 28, 2013 on the above - referenced project. The updated plans reflect changes to address your comments as described below: 1. Elevations have been included in the ARB final submission plan package. 2. A typical wall section was included in the submittal package showing parapet height to expected maximum RTU height. Notes added to plans stating that no rooftop equipment shall be visible. 3. Color changed to SW7073 Balanced Beige. 4. Visibility note will appear on the architectural drawings submitted with the building permit application. 5. Cut sheets provided on plans. Wall packs have been included in the photometric calculations. Decorative wall lights meet the scale and proportion shown on the elevations plan. 6. Luminaire schedule updated to include the wall packs and the decorative wall fixtures. 7. Photometrics have been revised using an LLF of 1.0. 8. Luminaire schedule has been revised to specify a flat lens. 9. Luminaire schedule revised to include the lamp type and catalog numbers for the proposed fixtures. Lamps specified will provide a consistent appearance throughout the development. 10. Photometric plan updated to include entrance element illumination. 11. Lighting /utility conflicts have been eliminated from the lighting plan. 12. Lighting and base information included on the lighting plan. 13. Utilities and easements have been shown and labeled on the plan. Landscaping has been updated to remain on site and outside of the existing and proposed easements. 14. Grading plan has been provided. 15. All off -site grading has been eliminated. 16. Notes added and plan updated to provide a maximum amount of protection in the specified tree protection area. Tree protection fencing, limits of grading disturbance and limits of proposed tree clearing have been shown on the plan. Details have been added to the plan. 17. Updated landscape plan provided. 18. Street trees along rain garden #3 have been extended. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 434 - 293 -3719 Sincerely, Adam Long, PE Collins Engineering Margaret Maliszewski From: Margaret Maliszewski Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 9:23 AM To: 'Adam Long' Subject: RE: Northtown Phase IIA Adam, Please submit a hard copy of the grading plan. Also, I haven't completed my review so there may be additional comments, but maybe you can help speed things up by providing a little more clarification on the revisions you've made and your responses to the comment memo. Specifically, see the comments /questions that follow the highlights: 1. Provide dimensioned architectural elevations (black and white line drawings) with all standard information: the visibility note, materials /color schedule, materials identification keyed to the drawings, the drawing scale, drawing/revision date, etc. 2. Revise the elevation drawings to show the location and height of rooftop equipment. Ensure that all equipment will not be visible. 3. Provide samples of the proposed EIFS colors (other than SW6150 and SW6151) for review. Revise the Sherwin Williams "sandtrap" to a color with less pink and more khaki. • I don't have a sample of the "balanced beige" color. It was not included in your submittal. Please explain how the condition has been met. 4. Ensure that the visibility note will appear on the architectural drawings submitted with the building permit application. 5. Provide cut sheets on the plan for the wall pack fixtures. Include the wall packs in the photometric calculations. Ensure that the decorative wall lights meet the scale and proportion shown in the elevations. • The sizes of the decorative wall light provided in the cut sheet, in the current elevation drawing, and in the previous elevation do not match. Please explain how the condition has been met. 6. Revise the luminaire schedule to include the wall packs and the decorative wall fixtures. • There are 4 cut sheets on the lighting plan and three fixtures in the schedule. Please explain. 7. Revise the photometrics using an LLF of 1.0. 8. Revise the luminaire schedule to specify the flat lens for the shoebox fixtures. 9. Revise the luminaire schedule to include the lamp type and catalog numbers for all proposed fixtures. Ensure that the lamps will provide a consistent appearance throughout the development by specifying a consistent lamp type. (Metal halide appears to be a common lamp type in the development.) • For most of the proposed fixtures, the descriptions in the luminaire schedule don't match the available catalog numbers on the cut sheets. Please explain. • What is the lamp type for the BA fixture? Where is this indicated on the plan? 10. Indicate if the entrance element is illuminated. If it is, add the information to the photometric plan. • The photometrics have been changed, but no additional fixtures are indicated. What is the fixture type that has been added? What are the locations? Where does this information appear on the plan? 11. Revise the lighting plan to eliminate lighting /utility conflicts. 12. Indicate whether or not the parking lot pole lights will be placed on bases. If bases will be used, indicate this on the plan and clarify on the plan that the 20' height includes the base height. 13. Clearly identify all utilities and easements on the site plan. Provide all landscaping on site and outside of easements without reducing the quantity of plants or the general character of the planting illustrated on the 1/15/13 plan. 14. Provide a grading plan. • Please provide a hard copy. 15. Maintain all grading on site. 16. Clarify and coordinate the grading and planting near the existing individual trees to remain on the south side of the site. Show tree protection fencing and related relevant details. 17. Consider replacing the dogwoods at the building with an evergreen species or other scale appropriate tree with visual interest for year -round effect. 1 • It appears that you chose not to make this change, correct? 18. Extend the street trees along rain garden #3. Thanks. Margaret From: Adam Long [ mailto :adam ©collins- engineering.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2013 3:12 PM To: Margaret Maliszewski Subject: RE: Northtown Phase IIA Hey Margaret - I've attached a pdf of the grading plan and the comment response letter. I'm sorry these weren't delivered with the submittal package. If you require a hard copy of the grading plan, just let me know and I'II take care of it. Thanks! Adam Long From: Margaret Maliszewski [ mailto: MMaliszewski(aalbemarle.orq] Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2013 1:30 PM To: Adam Long Subject: RE: Northtown Phase IIA Adam, I cannot find in your submittal a memo outlining your responses to the conditions listed in the ARB action letter from the February 19 meeting (attached). Would you please forward that to me? Also, a grading plan was requested. I understand that the grading is on the landscape plan, but the plant symbols obscure some of the topo lines. Can you provide a grading plan without the landscaping? Thank you. Margaret From: Adam Long [ mailto :adamPcollins- engineering.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 11:12 AM To: Margaret Maliszewski Subject: RE: Northtown Phase IIA Sorry about the mix -up Margaret, I will have these items sent to the county now. Thanks, Adam Long From: Margaret Maliszewski [ mailto: MMaliszewski(aalbemarle.orq] Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 8:43 AM To: Adam Long Subject: RE: Northtown Phase IIA If these items weren't included as hard copies in your submittal, please provide hard copies of the to -scale drawings. Also, your message indicates that a cut sheet was emailed, but the email attachments were an elevation and a wall section, not a cut sheet. 2 . r From: Adam Long [mailto:adam(acollins- engineering.com] Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 4:17 PM To: Margaret Maliszewski Subject: Northtown Phase IIA Hey Margaret, We are sending down the ARB resubmittal for the Northtown Phase IIA project. Attached are the updated cut sheet and wall detail. Thanks, Adam Long, PE Project Engineer Collins Engineering, L.L.C. 200 Garrett Street, Suite K Charlottesville, VA 22902 PH: 434.293.3719 adamPcollins- engineering.com 3 wr Margar M aliszews ki From: Margaret Maliszewski Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 3:47 PM To: 'Adam Long' Subject: RE: Northtown Phase IIA Adam, I've completed my review and found one other item that needs correction. I believe you've already received the same comment from Ellie. There are still a few shrubs that are shown in the VDOT right -of -way. These will need to be moved on site, or we'll need documentation from VDOT that they are acceptable in the right -of -way. Thanks. Margaret From: Adam Long [mailto :adam @collins - engineering.com] Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 12:42 PM To: Margaret Maliszewski Subject: RE: Northtown Phase IIA Hey Margaret Thanks for your response. We are waiting on some information from the architect to wrap up these lighting issues ASAP, and I'm sending down a hard copy of the grading plan now. We would prefer to keep the dogwoods by the building, if possible. Thanks, Adam Long From: Margaret Maliszewski [ mailto: MMaliszewski@albemarle.orq] Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 9:23 AM To: Adam Long Subject: RE: Northtown Phase IIA Adam, Please submit a hard copy of the grading plan. Also, I haven't completed my review so there may be additional comments, but maybe you can help speed things up by providing a little more clarification on the revisions you've made and your responses to the comment memo. Specifically, see the comments /questions that follow the highlights: 1. Provide dimensioned architectural elevations (black and white line drawings) with all standard information: the visibility note, materials /color schedule, materials identification keyed to the drawings, the drawing scale, drawing/revision date, etc. 2. Revise the elevation drawings to show the location and height of rooftop equipment. Ensure that all equipment will not be visible. 3. Provide samples of the proposed EIFS colors (other than SW6150 and SW6151) for review. Revise the Sherwin Williams "sandtrap" to a color with less pink and more khaki. • I don't have a sample of the "balanced beige" color. It was not included in your submittal. Please explain how the condition has been met. 4. Ensure that the visibility note will appear on the architectural drawings submitted with the building permit application. 5. Provide cut sheets on the plan for the wall pack fixtures. Include the wall packs in the photometric calculations. Ensure that the decorative wall lights meet the scale and proportion shown in the elevations. 1 COLLINS GARRETT ST, SUITE K CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22902 Awe` 'awe 434.293.3719 PH 434.293.2813 FX www.collins- engineering.com April 3, 2013 Margaret Maliszewski Principal Planner Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: ARB- 2013 -08, Gander Mountain at Northtown Center Tax Map 45, Parcels 110, 110A, 111 Thank you for your comments dated March 29, 2013 on the above - referenced project. The updated plans reflect changes to address your comments as described below: 1. Elevation exhibit updated. The southern bay of the west elevation has been labeled "EIFS 2 Color: Sherwin Williams Cobble Brown SW6082" and all Balanced Beige color numbers have been changed to "SW7037 ". 2. Light fixture "BA" and the related cut sheet have been updated. Wall light meets the scale and proportion shown in the elevations exhibit. The proposed fixture is 26" tall by 8" wide and is in proportion with the architectural exhibit. 3. Lighting plan updated. All cut sheets have been labeled and referenced to the luminaire schedule and photometric plan. 4. All lamp types have been specified as "metal halide" and all fixtures have been specified as "bronze in color ". 5. The quantity and locations of the fixtures in the entrance element have been shown in a detail labeled "Canopy Lighting Detail ". Lamp type specified as "metal halide ", fixture specified as "bronze in color ". 6. Light fixture "BA" and related cut sheet have been updated. 7. Landscaping has been updated in the area requested. Indigenous canopy and screening trees have been included both above and below the wall, as requested. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 434 - 293 -3719 Sincerely, Adam Long, PE Collins Engineering `— OF AL wrr 8 p i g \IRGIT COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 March 29, 2013 Scott Collins Adam Long Collins Engineering 200 Garrett Street, Suite K Charlottesville VA 22902 RE: ARB- 2013 -08: Gander Mountain Dear Scott and Adam, I have reviewed your recent submittals for the above - referenced project. The following issues require resolution before I can issue a Certificate of Appropriateness. 1. On the architectural elevation sheet, in the southern bay of the west elevation, the wall area below the cornice is labeled "EIFS 1 Color: Sherwin Williams Balanced Beige SW7073." This appears to be a mistake and should read "EIFS 2 Color: Sherwin Williams Cobble Brown SW6082" based on the color elevations last reviewed by the ARB. Also, note that the color number for Balanced Beige is SW7037, not 7073. • Please confirm these two issues. 2. This issue remains from my March 21 comments: An ARB condition of approval stated, Ensure that the decorative wall lights meet the scale and proportion shown in the elevations. The sizes of the decorative wall light provided in the cut sheet don't match the size shown in the color elevation drawing the ARB reviewed. Also, the dimensions of the fixture shown on the more recent black and white line drawing do not match the dimensions given in the cut sheet or on the color rendering. • Revise the lighting plan to show a decorative wall light that meets the scale and proportion shown in the color elevations last reviewed by the ARB. 3. This issue remains from my March 21 comments: There are four cut sheets on the lighting plan and three fixtures in the schedule. • Revise the lighting plan to include the canopy fixture in the luminaire schedule. 4. This issue remains from my March 21 comments: An ARB condition of approval stated, Ensure that the lamps will provide a consistent appearance throughout the development by specking a consistent lamp type. (Metal halide appears to be a common lamp type in the development) • The four proposed fixtures all appear to have different lamp types. Revise the lighting plan to provide a consistent lamp type throughout the development. (Metal halide appears to be a common lamp type in the development) • Typically, catalog numbers are provided on the lighting plan for all proposed fixtures, allowing for the identification of fixture color. This hasn't been done on the Gander Mountain lighting plan. The standard color for the parking lot pole light you've proposed is bronze and a range of colors are available for the Westwood fixture. Confirm the bronze color for the pole light and indicate the color of the Westwood fixture on the plan. Bronze would be most appropriate. 5. This issue remains from my M 11 21 comments: Indicate if the entrance £,,,,,,,rent is illuminated. If it is, add the information to the photometric plan. The photometrics have been changed, but no additional fixtures are indicated. What are the locations? Where does this information appear on the plan? • Indicate the quantity and locations of the fixtures on the plan, confirm that the photometrics include the illumination from these fixtures, and indicate the proposed color /finish of the fixtures on the plan. 6. You've added a Progress Lighting fixture. The lamp for this fixture exceeds 3000 lumens and the fixture is not a full cutoff style. • Revise the lighting plan so that all fixtures emitting 3000 lumens or more are full cutoff fixtures. Include information on the plan sufficient to confirm this. 7. Ellie has brought to my attention the condition of final site plan approval that requires the "stream valley design" to be consistent with the design reviewed by the ARB on October 3, 2005. That plan showed the graded slopes in the stream valley replanted with "indigenous canopy and screening trees." Consequently, the graded slope between the wetlands and the proposed Redi -rock retaining wall should be planted with new trees. Please provide: 1. One set of revised drawings addressing each of these issues. Include updated revision dates on each drawing. 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. 3. The attached "Revised Application Submittal" form. This form must be returned with your revisions to ensure proper tracking and distribution. When staffs review of this information indicates that all conditions of approval have been met, a Certificate of Appropriateness may be issued. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Akr- Margaret Maliszewski Principal Planner cc: ARB- 2013 -08 A $s �oF L iI'1 11 9 -4 IRGINle' COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 April 8, 2013 Scott Collins /Adam Long Collins Engineering 200 Garrett Street, Suite K Charlottesville VA 22902 RE: ARB- 2013 -08: Gander Mountain Dear Scott and Adam, I have reviewed your submittal with revision date of April 3, 2013 for the above - referenced project. The following issues require resolution before 1 can issue a Certificate of Appropriateness. 1. This issue remains from the March 21 comments: An ARB condition of approval stated, Ensure that the decorative wall lights meet the scale and proportion shown in the elevations. You have revised the fixture, but the size of the fixture still does not match the size shown in the color elevation drawing presented to the ARB. The decorative light fixtures presented on the color elevations measures approximately 36" x 18 ". The fixture currently proposed measures 26" x 8 ". I have confirmed with the ARB chairperson that the 26" x 8" fixture is not acceptable. • Revise the lighting plan to show a decorative wall light that meets the scale and proportion shown in the color elevations last reviewed by the ARB. 2. You have added trees to meet the "stream valley design" condition of approval. However, the tree counts in the plant schedule do not match the quantity drawn on the plan. The schedule says 16 Red Maple and I count 14. The schedule says 15 River Birch and I count 16. • Please correct and coordinate the plant counts. Please provide: 1. One set of revised drawings addressing each of these issues. Include updated revision dates on each drawing. 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. 3. The attached "Revised Application Submittal" form. This form must be returned with your revisions to ensure proper tracking and distribution. When staffs review of this information indicates that all conditions of approval have been met, a Certificate of Appropriateness may be issued. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Margaret Maliszewski Principal Planner