HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201400063 Review Comments Major Amendment, Final Site Plan 2014-12-22�'IRGII�ZP
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
October 3, 2014
Revl: November 11, 2014
Rev2: December 22, 2014
Justin Shimp, P.E.
201 E. Main Street, Suite M
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: SDP201400063 Bojangles at Rivanna Ridge — Major Amendment
Dear Sir:
Your Major Amendment application has been reviewed. In order for the amended site plan to be
approved the following revisions are required:
1. [32.5.2(a)] Provide boundary dimensions for the subject parcel.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
2. [32.5.2(a)] Add EC (Entrance Corridor) to the Zoning information.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
3. [32.5.2(a)] The conditions listed for SP201400004 are from the PC action letter; provide the
conditions from the Board of Supervisors action letter instead. Please also include the actual date in
Condition #4.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
4. [32.5.2(a)] The SP number for First Citizens Bank is SP02 -70, not 02 -76 (this was the previous SP
for a fast food drive -in); revise the note to indicate the correct SP.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
5. [32.5.2(a)] Include the Modifications and Requirements from the BOS action letter for ZMA98 -20 in
the Zoning notes.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
6. [32.5.2(a)] Provide the name of the owner(s), zoning district, tax map and parcel numbers and
present use of abutting parcels.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
7. [32.5.2(b)] The parking calculation provided is incorrect. The calculation for First Citizens Bank
should be one space per 225sf (instead of per 150sf; the 25sf per drive -in aisle `reduction' is
calculated in this manner not as a reduction in square footage of the building), which results in 7
required spaces. This makes the resulting overall requirement 120 spaces instead of 123; please
revise the parking notes.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
8. [32.5.2(d)] Show the small area of managed steep slopes on the property.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
9. [32.5.2(1)] One -way access aisles must have a minimum 12' width; a waiver request must be
submitted and approved for the proposed 11' drive -in aisle.
Rev1: A waiver request is under review for the 1' reduction in aisle width. The Executive
Summary for this waiver is complete and is awaiting review by the Department Head, Legal
and the County Executive's Office. Assuming all reviews are completed by the appropriate
deadline and no revisions are necessary, this item should go to the Board on consent on
December 3rd
Rev2: Comment addressed. The special exception to reduce the access aisle width to 11'
was approved by the Board of Supervisors on December 3rd, 2014.
10. [32.5.2Q,k,l)] Verify that the location(s) and dimensions of all existing or proposed utilities and utility
easements including water, sewer, drainage, telephone, cable, electric and gas are shown on the
plan. Provide the Deed Book and Page reference for any existing easements. Any proposed
easements should be labeled with the intended owner.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
11. [32.5.2(m)] Show the distance to the centerline of the nearest existing street intersection from the
proposed ingress and egress location.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
12. [32.5.2(n)] Dimension the dumpster pad.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
13. [32.6.20)] Verify that all utilities and utility easements are shown and labeled on the landscape plan.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
14. [32.6.20) & 32.7.9.4(a)] One shrub is shown directly on top of the proposed water line connection to
the building; please revise.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
15. [32.6.20) & 32.7.9.4(b)] 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 seems that some of the Landscape Plan requirements
are proposed to be met with existing vegetation. If this is the case, 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. In addition, the applicant shall sign a conservation checklist approved by the agent to insure
that the specified trees will be protected during construction. Except as otherwise expressly approved
by the agent in a particular case, such checklist shall conform to specifications contained in the
Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook, pp III -284 through III -297, and as hereafter
amended. This checklist must be signed, dated and included on the plans.
Rev1: Comment addressed. Existing trees are no longer being used to meet landscape plan
requirements.
16. [32.6.20) & 32.7.9.5] Street trees are required along Route 250. Provide street trees as indicated in
the ARB comments. Include a note documenting the number of street trees required and the number
provided.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
17. [32.6.20) & 32.7.9.6] Demonstrate that an area a minimum of 5% of the paved parking and vehicular
circular area is landscaped in shrubs and trees by labeling the landscaped areas with their square
footage. See section 32.7.9.6(a) for additional information on which areas can be counted toward this
requirement.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. The internal landscaped area requirement is calculated
using 22,446sf as the area of paved parking and vehicular circulation. However, the cover
sheet still lists 25,006sf as the area of parking /drive -thru. Clarify why the number used for the
landscape requirement is different than what's listed on the cover, and revise if necessary.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
18. [32.6.20) & 32.7.9.6] If 50 parking spaces support the proposed fast food restaurant, then five large
or medium shade trees are required within the landscaped areas mentioned in the comment above.
Yellowwood is designated as a small deciduous tree on the County Plant List, so only three large or
medium shade trees have been provided. Either provide two additional large or medium shade trees
or replace the yellowwood with a large or medium species.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
19. [32.6.20) & 32.7.9.7] The dumpster must be adequately screened from the public street; provide a
detail on the dumpster enclosure to demonstrate screening meeting 32.7.9.7 is proposed.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
20. [32.6.20) & ZMA Proffer] The landscape plan must be submitted to the Thomas Jefferson
Foundation to make sure that the plan provides, to their satisfaction, screening of all buildings and
parking areas visible from Monticello. See requirement #1 in letter dated October 28, 1998 for
ZMA1998 -20.
Rev1: Comment addressed. I verified that the Thomas Jefferson Foundation is satisfied with
the landscape plan in addition to the architectural plans.
21. [32.6.20) & 32.7.9.8] It appears that the tree canopy requirement is being met through a combination
of both existing and proposed trees. In order to use existing trees, more specific information must be
provided regarding which trees count toward this portion of the site versus the remainder as it looks
like most, if not all, of the existing trees are outside of the `project boundary'. Also, since the existing
trees are individuals instead of a large wooded area, species and tree canopy information for each
tree must be provided. Additionally, Spiraea x bumalda does not reach sufficient height to count
toward the tree canopy requirement; revise the tree canopy calculation and all associated notes.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. There is a minor error in plant counts and associated
error in tree canopy, there are 16 spiraea and 14 Ilex glabra, not 15 of each; revise accordingly.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
22. [32.6.20)] ARB approval of the landscape and lighting plans is required.
Rev1: Comment still valid.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
23. [ZMA Proffer] Architectural plans must be submitted to the Thomas Jefferson Foundation to make
sure that the plan provides, to their satisfaction, minimal visible impact on the Monticello viewshed.
See requirement #3 in letter dated October 28, 1998 for ZMA1998 -20.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
24. [Comment] This amendment cannot be approved until all comments from the Site Review
Committee (SRC) have been addressed. Any comments not available at the time of the SRC
meeting will be forwarded once received.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. ARB, ACSA and Engineering must all review and
approve the site plan, comments will be sent upon receipt.
Rev2: Comment not fully addressed. ACSA review is still forthcoming. Engineering
comments are provided. ARB has granted their approval.
25. [Comment] Sign locations are not reviewed or approved on Site Plan submittals unless an
associated sign permit is submitted at the same time; clarify if a sign application has been submitted.
Rev2: Comment addressed. No sign permit has been submitted for review; therefore, no sign
location is reviewed or approved with this Site Plan.
Staff has provided references to provisions of Chapter 18 of the Code of the County of Albemarle. The
Code is kept up to date by the County Attorney's office. The Code may found on the County Attorney's
website which may be found under "Departments and Services" at Albemarle.org.
In accord with the provisions of Section 32.4.3.5 of Chapter 18 of the Code if the developer fails to submit
a revised final site plan to address all of the requirements within six (6) months after the date of this letter
the application shall be deemed to have been voluntarily withdrawn by the developer.
If you have any questions about the comments please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
2U ('. 26t
Ellie Carter Ray, PLA
Senior Planner
Planning Division