Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201400063 Correspondence 2014-10-22 Ellie Ray From: Liz Russell [Irussell @monticello.org] Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 11:20 AM To: Will Gordon Cc: Kelly Strickland; Parke, David; Margaret Maliszewski;justin @shimp-engineering.com; Ellie Ray; Ann Taylor Subject: RE: Bojangles- Monticello Viewshed Mr. Gordon, It was a pleasure speaking with you about the preferred color for the membrane roof of the proposed Bojangles on Pantops. A tan or grey roof will meet our recommended guideline for muted roof colors and successfully mitigates any visual impact to the Monticello viewshed. I have no other concerns. Thank you for your willingness to work with the Thomas Jefferson Foundation to solve these issues. Sincerely, Liz Russell From: Will Gordon [mailto:will.gordon @bojangles.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 2:59 PM To: Liz Russell Cc: Kelly Strickland; Parke, David; Margaret Maliszewski; justin @shimp-engineering.com; Ellie Ray Subject: Re: Bojangles - Monticello Viewshed Liz, We do not have a problem doing tan or grey. I will look into what is most readily available from the roof- membrane manufacturer, with grey as your preference, and have David incorporate it into the plans. Please confirm that there are no other view-shed concerns from the TJ foundation, and we'll continue working with Margaret and her team under the assumption that everything is OK "from above". Thanks, Will Will Gordon Bojangles' Wilgo Bo, LLC (434) 981-1910 will.gordon @bojangles.com On Oct 14, 2014, at 10:00 AM, Liz Russell wrote: 1 Kelly and all, ..� Thank you for the clarification. White roofing materials are not preferred in the viewshed and although the parapets screen the membrane roof from Rt. 250, Monticello is actually "looking down" on the building from the back and at about a 330 ft. elevation difference. I'm doing some fly overs in Google Earth and I am not convinced that the Giant masks the view from some of the vantage points on the Mountaintop, primarily the view from the historic North Terrace deck, where over 400,000 visitors to Monticello conclude their tours. It is difficult to assess at this time due to the tree canopy. A monotone tan or grey roof would be preferable to any white surfaces; is there any way this could be modified? Thank you all for your consideration, Liz Original Message From: Kelly Strickland [mailto:kelly@shimp-engineering.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 10:14 AM To: Parke, David; Will Gordon; Liz Russell; Margaret Maliszewski Cc:justin @shimp-engineering.com; Ellie Ray Subject: RE: Bojangles - Monticello Viewshed Liz, Attached is a sight-line Exhibit. It appears that the massing of the Giant Shopping center will mask the view of the Bojangles building from Monticello. I drove by the site yesterday and the top of the 24'parapets will be at a similar elevation to the roof ridge for the next door First Citizens Bank, approximately 5-10' lower in elevation than the roof ridge of the Liberty Gas Station building, and approximately 5-10'higher in elevation to the Appleby's restaurant. Can you see these businesses from Monticello? Thanks, Kelly Strickland Shimp Engineering, PC 434.981.6029 Original Message From: Parke, David [mailto:dparke @esdarch.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 7:08 AM To: Will Gordon; Liz Russell; Margaret Maliszewski; Kelly Strickland Cc:justin@shimp-engineering.com; Ellie Ray Subject: RE: Bojangles - Monticello Viewshed To all: The Dura-Last single ply roof membrane occurs behind the parapets that fully screen the rooftop equipment from view. The membrane at horizontal roof surfaces is white, and the vertical surfaces are "tan". Thank you, 2 *we ‘41rie J. David Parke AIA,NCARB, LEEDS AP Vice President ESD Architecture & Interior Design 1300 South Mint Street, Suite 300 Charlotte,NC 28203 704.373.1900 ext.102/704.373.0902 Fax dparke@esdarch.com IMPORTANT NOTICE: This message (including any attachments)may be privileged and/or confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this e- mail in error please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete this message from your system. Any unauthorized use or dissemination of this message or the attachments in whole or in part is strictly prohibited. Any views expressed in this e-mail are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifies and with authority, states them to be the views of ESD Architecture &Interior Design. Original Message From: Will Gordon [mailto:will.gordon @bojangles.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2014 5:26 PM To: Liz Russell; Margaret Maliszewski; Kelly Strickland Cc:justin @shimp-engineering.com; Ellie Ray; Parke, David Subject: RE: Bojangles - Monticello Viewshed All: I have cc'd David Parke, our architect,to this email. He can assist. David,the site is in the viewshed of Monticello, a World Heritage Site. Aside from being a significant historical asset, it is also a large tourism draw for the region. We'll need to keep the rooftop muted. The canopies around the front of the dining room and over the drive thru window(250 frontage) are copper penny, not the roof. This is a change from the brands typical orange color. The roof is a "Dura Last" membrane commercial roofing system. I am not sure what colors are available, but I believe we have options. I hope this helps. Thanks, Will Will Gordon Bojangles' Wilgo Bo, LLC 703 East Jefferson Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 (434) 981-1910 will.gordon@bojangles.com 3 From: Liz Russell [lrussell @mon`lello.org] Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2014 4:11 PM To: Margaret Maliszewski; Kelly Strickland; Will Gordon Cc:justin @shimp-engineering.com; Ellie Ray Subject: RE: Bojangles - Monticello Viewshed Thank you Margaret, and thank you for the elevations. Regarding the metal roof- can you clarify if the entire roof is Pac Clad copper penny, or just the metal canopies. Thanks, Liz Original Message From: Margaret Maliszewski [mailto:MMaliszewski@albemarle.org] Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2014 4:03 PM To: Kelly Strickland; Will Gordon Cc: Liz Russell;justin @shimp-engineering.com; Ellie Ray Subject: RE: Bojangles - Monticello Viewshed All, The architectural elevations that were reviewed by the ARB in September are attached. A sample board was also provided by the applicant. Proposed materials were: Metal roof: Pac Clad, copper penny; Aluminum storefront, Kawneer, clear anodized; Brick: Triangle Brick Co., Old South Handform; EIFS: Sto Corp.,NA12-0023, Sto Powerwall 80296 fine finish. The file# is ARB-2014-106. If anyone would like to look at the file,please contact me ahead of time to let me know the day and time you want to come to the County Office Building. Alternatively, you can contact Esther Grace at 434-296-5832 x3823 or egrace @albemarle.org to make an appointment to see the file. Be sure to give her the file number you're interested in. The sample board does not fit in the file, so you'll need to let Esther know you want that, too. Let me know if you have other questions. Margaret Original Message From: Kelly Strickland [mailto:kelly @shimp-engineering.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2014 11:03 AM To: Will Gordon Cc: Liz Russell;justin @shimp-engineering.com; Ellie Ray; Margaret Maliszewski Subject: Bojangles - Monticello Viewshed Good morning Will, I just spoke with Liz Russell (copied here) from the Monticello Foundation, and she would like to stop by the County building next week to review architectural elements of the Bojangles restaurant, which lies within the Monticello Viewshed. She is familiar with the site location and in particular, she would like to review roof and awning materials and 4 colors; but I am not sure what information has already been submitted to Avers for review, or what additional information Liz may need. Margaret, I assume that you have a file available for Liz to review? Would this include roof materials and colors? Liz, attached is the site plan submittal to ARB, but this does not include any architectural details. Thanks, Kelly Strickland Shimp Engineering, PC 434.981.6029 5 3 � Ellie Ray From: Glenn Brooks Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2014 3:40 PM To: Ellie Ray Cc: Max Greene Subject: RE: Bojangles waiver for reduced width of drive-thu lane After our discussion, please go ahead with the 1' drive-through approval with no conditions. These issues can be raised with the site plan review. From: Glenn Brooks Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2014 2:12 PM To: Ellie Ray Cc: Max Greene Subject: RE: Bojangles waiver for reduced width of drive-thu lane I would prefer to coordinate this with the site plan review,which Max is doing. It does not seem like a 2' difference on this site would be significant(it could easily be absorbed in the curbed islands) but there are so many issues with this plan. I would suggest the following conditions; 1. Accommodate pedestrian movements. The only proposed cross-walk is from the dumpster pads to the drive- through window queue, neither of which are pedestrian destinations. There needs to be some recognition of the building entrances. A wrap-around drive-through design blocks pedestrians. 2. Eliminate the curb cut/flume which directs water across the common travelway on the south side. 3. Re-route the drainage system to remove the DI-7 grate in the south entrance. This should be a curbed island with signage for entry. 4. Provide curb returns in the entrance/exits so that proper signage and exit/entry movements can be maintained. 5. Move the dumpster location. It blocks entrance alignment and signage. 6. Revise exits to one lane. There must not be two lanes at exits,as they are competing for the same receiving lanes. From: Ellie Ray Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2014 4:02 PM To: Glenn Brooks Subject: FW: Bojangles waiver for reduced width of drive-thu lane Glenn, I just learned that my report for this will be due next Monday in order to get on the December 3rd BOS consent agenda. Can you let me know if you think you'll be able to complete your review by later this week? Thanks, Ellie Carter Ray,PLA,LEED GREEN ASSOCIATE Senior Planner Albemarle County Community Development ph: 434.296.5832 x. 3432 From: Ellie Ray Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 2:53 PM To: Glenn Brooks Subject: FW: Bojangles waiver for reduced width of drive-thu lane 1 *wire Glenn, Attached is a copy of the Bojangles one-way access aisle reduced width waiver request. It may be possible to get this on the November 12th BOS agenda, but only if our reviews are complete and the report written by mid next week. I think I heard that you are out tomorrow and Friday and I'm out Friday and Monday...but this seems like a fairly easy waiver review. I don't think there is any big rush on the part of the applicant, but let me know if you think you'll get your review done in the next few days so that I can arrange my schedule to make time early next week to write the report. Otherwise,this will be on the consent agenda for December 3rd Thanks, Ellie Carter Ray, PLA,LEER GREEN ASS:,:.IATE Senior Planner Albemarle County Community Development ph: 434.296.5832 x. 3432 From: Kelly Strickland [mailto:kelly @shimp-engineering.com] Sent: Monday, October 13, 2014 3:25 PM To: Ellie Ray Cc: Will Gordon;justin @shimp-engineering.com Subject: RE: Bojangles waiver for reduced width of drive-thu lane Ellie, Here's a copy of the waiver request. We'll get a signed copy to you later this week. We haven't heard anything further from Liz Russell at Monticello, but we'll follow up this week. Thanks, Kelly From: Kelly Strickland [mailto:kelly @shimp-engineering.com] Sent: Monday, October 13, 2014 11:47 AM To: eray @albemarle.orq Cc: 'Will Gordon';justin @shimp-engineering.com Subject: Bojangles waiver for reduced width of drive-thu lane Good Morning Ellie, Thanks for your time, comments, and feedback on the Bojangles Site Plan Amendment. In looking through Section 4 of the Zoning Ordinance, I find that Section 4.12.17-c.-2 is the ordinance requiring a 12' drive-thru lane width: "2. One-way access aisles. One-way circulation is allowed provided the circulation loop or pattern is contained within the site or sites. Public streets or private roads shall not be used as part of the circulation loop or pattern. The minimum travelway width for one-way access aisles shall be twelve(12) feet, with the following exceptions..." And Section 4.12.2-c.-2 is the section allowing a modification or waiver of the above requirement: "2. The zoning administrator may modify or waive a design requirement in sections 4.12.15, 4.12.16, 4.12.17, 4.12.18 and 4.12.19 only after consultation with the county engineer, who shall advise the 2 zoning administrator whelrgr the proposed waiver or modification) ould equally or better serve the public health, safety or welfare." And Section 4.12.2-d.allows the Applicant to appeal an "objectionable" decision made by the Zoning Administrator to the Board of Supervisors for reconsideration: "d. Review of modification or waiver. The denial of a modification or waiver, or the approval of a modification or waiver with conditions objectionable to the developer may be considered by the commission as part of its review of: (1) a plat, as provided in sections 14-220 and 14-225 of the Code; (2) a site plan, as provided in sections 32.4.2.6 and 32.4.3.6; or(3) a special use permit. The board of supervisors shall consider a modification or waiver only as follows..." We plan to prepare and submit today a waiver request to allow an 11' drive-thru lane at the Bojangles site. Will you please verify that the Zoning Administrator has the authority to approve the request"after consultation with the County Engineer",without any required action by the Board of Supervisors? Thanks, Kelly Strickland Shimp Engineering, PC 434.981.6029 3 Now Nur? • SHIMP PROJECT MANAGEMENT CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND PLANNING ENGINEERING December 10, 2014 Ms. Ellie Ray, Senior Planner Albemarle County Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Regarding: SDP 2014-00063—Bojangles at Rivanna Ridge—Major Amendment ARB 2014-00106—Bojangles Restaurant Final Final Site Development Plan Dear Ms. Ray, I have attached 6 copies of the Final Site Development Plan addressing the following comments: Planning comments dated November 11, 2014; Engineering Comments dated November 14, 2014, ARB comments dated November 20, 2014; and ACSA comments dated October 28, 2014. A few additional changes to the site plan have been provided that were not in response to County Comments: 1) wall sconce fixture and locations have been changed to match architectural drawings, 2)grease interceptor location has been changed to match architectural drawings, 3) the water service to the building has been relocated and upgraded to a 2"service line, 4) roof drains are provided, and 5) additional site details have been provided to match architectural drawings. Specific changes to the plan along with responses to County comments are outlined below. For clarity, we have only included outstanding comments, needing further response, and new comments (addressed comments are not included). Planning(11/11/14): 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 31d. A waiver was approved by the Board of Supervisors on December 3rd and this is noted on the cover sheet of the site plan amendment. 17. [32.6.2(j)&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 22,446 sf as the area of paved parking and vehicular circulation. However,the cover sheet still lists 25,006 sf 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. The current revision shows 21,932 sf of Parking/Drive-thru on the Land Use Schedule(Cover)and 21,932 sf of Total Paved Area in the Landscaping Requirement Table(on sheet C6). The Landscape Area requirement is met with 2,518 sf(11.5%). 21. [32.6.2())&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. The current revision shows 24 spiraea and 14 Ilex glabra. The additional spiraea are specified to landscape a larger island near the front of the store. 22. [32.6.2(j)] ARB approval of the landscape and lighting plans is required. Rev1: Comment still valid. ARB comments are addressed below. 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. ARB,ACSA and Engineering comments are addressed below. 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. A sign application has not been submitted at this time. ARB(11/20114): 1. Indicate on the lighting plan that the N3 fixture will have a flat glass lens. The wall sconce fixture(N3)has been changed to an architectural specification. The fixture is noted in the New Luminaire Schedule to have a "clear tempered flat glass lens." 2. Revise the landscape schedule to accurately reflect the number of plants drawn on the plan. 16 Spirea appear on the plan but 15 are noted in the schedule. 14 Shamrock Inkberry are shown on the plan and 15 are listed in the schedule. Please see response to comment#21 above. • Engineering (10102114): 1. Site Plan a. The drive-thru lane should have curbing. [18-12.15.g] Requires a modification or waiver 18-4.12.2.c for approval as shown. Otherwise a raised island with CG-7 mountable curbing should be installed. No Waiver was received for required curb. County Engineer insists on curbing around drive-thni lanes for safe separation between travel way and drive-thru lane. As discussed with County Staff,mountable curbing CG-3 has been provided between drive-thru lane and travelway closest to Abbey Road(where traffic is travelling in opposing direction to drive-thru). b. Please show curbing around the dumpster pad area or raise the pad with CG-7 mountable curbing. As discussed with County Staff,mountable curbing CG-3 has been provided in the dumpster pad and approach to dumpster pad to help delineate the one-way parking circulation. c. "Do Not Enter"sign is on wrong side of exit on South side of site. Additional Do Not Enter signs and directional entrance signs have been provided as discussed with County Staff. 2. Stormwater Management a. Please move the proposed drop inlet into the Drive-thru lane and out of the median. (requested by County Engineer) As mentioned above,mountable curbing(CG-3)is provided adjacent to Drive-thru lane and curb returns are shown to protect the drop inlet in the proposed location. b. Stormwater Management is handled with the existing Pantops/Giant Basin in rear of Shopping Center. VRRM Spreadsheet is not required, but SWPPP with PPP is required. SWPP with PPP applications with narrative descriptions(as discussed with County Staff)have been submitted for review. 3. Erosion Control Plan a. Plan appears to show disturbance in excess of 12,000 SF and a VSMP plan and fee is required. VSMP application has been submitted for review. ACSA(11113114): 1. It is recommended that you install a private backflow preventer to protect the building from the proposed yard hydrant. There are yard hydrants that are manufactured with a built in backflow prevention device. This statement is for informational purposes only and should not be viewed as a requirement of ACSA. This information will be passed on to the Architect and Owner for consideration. 2. No sewer connection to the dumpster pad is permitted. The sewer connection to the dumpster pad has been removed. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at your earliest opportunity. Justin may be reached at: Justin @shimp-engineering.com or by phone at 434-207-8086. Best Regards, 40.1 ustin Shimp, P.E. Shimp Engineering, P.C.