Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutARB201300187 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2014-06-10• ^�- 11�illr IlIIf1.�• COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 June 10, 2014 Daniel R. Hines, PE Bohler Engineering 28 Blackwell Park Lane, Suite 201 Warrenton, VA 20186 RE: ARB- 2013 -187 Fifth Street Station Final Site Plan - Wegman's Dear Daniel, I've reviewed the plan with revision date of 5/15/2014 for the above - referenced project. Comments from the February 3, 2014 ARB meeting are listed below. Those that have been addressed are identified as such and listed in gray text. Those comments that still need to be addressed are identified as such and are listed in black text. 1. Revise the plan to indicate if the windows in the shorter towers are transparent glass or some other material. Indicate if the interior tower space is illuminated. This comment has been addressed. 2. Revise the plan to indicate if the clock in the tower is to be illuminated. If it is, provide details and clarify brightness. This comment has been partially addressed. A note has been added to the elevation drawings stating that the clock is to be internally illuminated. However, no details have been provided and the degree of brightness has not been clarified. Provide details on the illumination of the clock and clarify the degree of brightness. 3. Clarify if /how the concrete stains will match the corresponding materials listed on the materials board. This comment has been partially addressed. A revised materials sample board was provided at the February 3 meeting and it included more accurate representations of the concrete stain colors. Bohler's May 20 resubmittal memo states, "Please see comment responses from Architect." The Architect's responses were not provided. Please provide the architect's responses. 4. Revise the elevation drawings to distinguish between Brick 1 and Brick 2, and to accurately label the concrete stain colors. This comment has been addressed. 5. Provide a physical sample of the standing seam metal for review. Bohler's May 20 resubmittal memo states that a sample of the standing seam metal was provided at the February 3 meeting; however, no sample was retained. Please resubmit the sample. 6. Provide elevations with the roofline, equipment locations, and equipment heights shown. The elevations do not show the roofline, equipment locations, or equipment heights. This comment is meant to clearly show that the rooftop equipment will be fully screened by the parapets. Provide elevations with the roofline, equipment locations, and equipment heights shown. 7. Add the standard mechanical equipment note to the plan: "Visibility of all mechanical equipment from the Entrance Corridor shall be eliminated." This comment has been addressed. 8. Revise the photometric plan to eliminate spillover in excess of .5 fc, including at the entrance to the site from Bent Creek Road. This comment has been addressed. 9. Eliminate the OA fixture that is proposed off -site. This comment has been addressed. 10. Revise the photometric plan to carry the footcandle readings out to the property line on the I64 side of the site. This comment has been addressed. 11. Limit illumination to 20 fc maximum. This comment has been addressed. 12. Indicate on the plan if bases are proposed for the pole lights and indicate that the base height is included in the maximum 20' height. Bohler's May 20 resubmittal memo states that a note indicating the maximum 20' height including bases has been added to Sheets 15A -J. Please clarify the location of the note on these sheets. 13. Eliminate pole fixtures from the slope up to I64. This comment has been addressed. 14. Coordinate the plan and fixture schedule regarding the quantity of HC and HD fixtures. This comment has been addressed in part. There are 2 lights at Bent Creek Road that are not labeled. Are these HD fixtures? There is a stray HC label in Bent Creek Road. One light near the southwest corner of the building is not labeleld. Is this an HC fixture? 15. Revise the lighting plan to eliminate light pole and utility conflicts. Light poles are located on pipes in several locations, within easements in a few locations, and one pole is located on the vault. To move forward with these locations, confirmation from Engineering that these conflicts are acceptable is required. Alternatively, eliminate the light pole and utility conflicts. 16. Coordinate all drawings regarding the wall- mounted lantern fixtures. The plan shows 16 W3 and 7 W1 fixtures. The lighting schedule lists 18 W3 and 8 W1 fixtures. Lighting detail sheed 16D identifies a W2 fixture. 17. Add the standard lighting note to the 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." This comment has been addressed. 18. Locate all EC frontage trees within the limits of the parcel, not in the right -of -way. This comment has been addressed. 19. Intersperse flowering ornamental trees among the Sycamores along Avon Street. Bohler's May 20 resubmittal memo suggests viewing Sheet 13J or 9c in the Bent Creek Parkway Road Improvement Plan. The Bent Creek Parkway Road Improvement Plan was not submitted for review. Sheet 13J does not identify tree species or sizes. Provide the road plan for review. 20. Submit revised road plans for review. Label all trees, coordinate plant counts with quantities listed in the plant schedule, and clearly show trees coordinated with retaining walls. The Bent Creek Parkway Rroad Improvement Plan was not submitted for review. Provide the road plan for review. 21. Provide trees at a minimum of 21/2" caliper, spaced 40' on center, along the travelway that connects Bent Creek Road with the Wegman's parking lot. This comment has been addressed in part. Trees have been provided along the southern and northern ends of the eastern side of the road. Trees have not been provided where the retaining wall is located close to the road. Provide the trees in the required location, or find an alternate substitute location. 22. Provide medium trees, 2%2" caliper, spaced 25' on center along the sidewalk that runs through the parking lot to the northeast corner of the building. This comment has been addressed in part. The trees were provided at 1 -11/4" caliper. Revise the tree size to 21/2" caliper at planting. 23. Provide perimeter parking lot trees on the north side of the northern parking lot, 2%2" caliper at planting, 40' on center. This comment has been addressed in part. Trees have not been added on the northwest side of the parking lot due to retaining wall, easements and sight distance. Moving the trees to the interior of the parking row located along the wall would be an acceptable alternative. 24. Provide the parking space count on the plan. Provide large trees at the interior of the parking lot, one (1) for every 10 parking spaces, 2%2" caliper at planting. This comment has been addressed in part. Please indicate where the parking space count is listed on the plan. It appears that Dogwoods are used to count towards the interior tree requirement. Dogwoods are not considered large trees; large trees are required for interior parking lot trees. Please revise accordingly. 25. Continue the planting on the I64 side of the site the full length of the grading along the property line. This comment has been addressed. 26. Coordinate the quantities of ZS, PS and IG on the plan and in the plant schedule. This comment has been addressed. 27. Provide documentation showing that the planting and grading in the right -of -way is acceptable to VDOT. This comment has not been addressed. Evidence of VDOT approval is still required. 28. Add the standard landscape note to the plan: "All site plantings of trees and shrubs shall be allowed to reach, and be maintained at, mature height; the topping of trees is prohibited. Shrubs and trees shall be pruned minimally and only to support the overall health of the plant." This comment has been addressed. 29. Provide updated visualizations form I64 depicting updated proposed landscaping. This comment has not been addressed. Visualizations have not been received. Please note that it is staff s understanding that the ARB was referring to updates to the 3D images previously provided, not site sections, when this comment was made. 30. Install all plantings 3' from the top of the berm to ensure that lower foliage provides full screening. This comment has been addressed. Please provide: 1. Two full sets of revised drawings addressing each of these conditions. Include updated revision dates on the drawings. 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, Margaret Maliszewski Principal Planner cc: ARB- 2013 -187 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: Margaret Maliszewski DATE: PROJECT NAME: ARB- 2013 -187: Fifth Street Station Final Site Plan — Wegman's Submittal Type Requiring Revisions () indicates submittal Cade County Project Number # Copies Erosion & Sediment Control Plan (E &S) # Copies Distribute To: Mitigation Plan (MP) 2 Margaret Maliszewski 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) ARB2013 -187 Other: Please explain (For staff use only) Submittal Code # Copies Distribute To: Submittal Code # Copies Distribute To: ARB 2 Margaret Maliszewski