HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201500048 Review Comments Highway Department Approval 2016-03-28 Megan Yaniglos
From: DeNunzio, Joel D., P.E. (VDOT) <Joel.DeNunzio@VDOT.virginia.gov>
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2016 5:58 PM
To: Megan Yaniglos
Subject: RE: Mechum's Trestle -VDOT Comments (Troy Austin)
Megan,
That was approved today. They should be sending a copy to the applicant.
Thanks
Joel
Joel DeNunzio, P.E.
Residency Administrator
VDOT Charlottesville Residency
434-422-9373
joel.denunzio@vdot.virginia.gov
From: Megan Yaniglos [mailto:myaniglos@albemarle.org]
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2016 8:55 AM
To: DeNunzio,Joel D., P.E. (VDOT)
Subject: FW: Mechum's Trestle-VDOT Comments (Troy Austin)
Hey Joel,
Asking on behalf of applicant. Do you have an update for them?
Megan Yaniglos, A/CP
Principal Planner
Community Development Department
Planning Services
ph: 434.296.5832 ext. 3004
From:William McKechnie [mailto:wmckechnie@comcast.net]
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2016 8:50 AM
To: Megan Yaniglos<myaniglos@albemarle.org>
Cc: 'Alan Franklin'<afranklin@waterstreetstudio.net>; 'Melton C. McGuire'<verulamfarm@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: Mechum's Trestle-VDOT Comments(Troy Austin)
Hi Megan;
Would you mind pulsing Joel for an update? Our inquiries are not getting a response.
Thanks, Bill
William McKechnie
434.906.5787
wmckechnie@comcast.net
1
From: Megan Yaniglos[mailto:myaniglos@albemarle.org]
Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 3:01 PM
To:William McKechnie<wmckechnie@comcast.net>
Cc: 'Alan Franklin'<afranklin@waterstreetstudio.net>; 'Melton C. McGuire'<verulamfarm@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: Mechum's Trestle-VDOT Comments (Troy Austin)
I am sorry, I don't have that information.
From:William McKechnie [mailto:wmckechnie@comcast.net]
Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 2:59 PM
To: Megan Yaniglos<myaniglos@albemarle.org>
Cc:'Alan Franklin'<afranklin@waterstreetstudio.net>; 'Melton C. McGuire'<verulamfarm@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: Mechum's Trestle-VDOT Comments (Troy Austin)
Hi Megan;
Alan has contacted Joel in hopes that this can be expedited.
Do you have the name of the district administrator who must sign off as well?
Thanks, Bill
William McKechnie
434.906.5787
wmckechnie@comcast.net
From: Megan Yaniglos[mailto:myaniglos@albemarle.org]
Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 2:31 PM
To:William McKechnie<wmckechnie@comcast.net>
Cc: 'Alan Franklin'<afranklin@waterstreetstudio.net>; 'Melton C. McGuire'<verulamfarm@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: Mechum's Trestle-VDOT Comments (Troy Austin)
Bill,
I forwarded him your email that had all the timeline information in it, so I think he is aware that the Feb 8th was
the 3rd submittal.
Since this is a VDOT waiver, I am unsure of the timeline for their review. The best way to find out the timeline
would be to contact Joel.
Megan Yaniglos, AICP
Principal Planner
Community Development Department
Planning Services
ph: 434.296.5832 ext. 3004
From:William McKechnie [mailto:wmckechnie@comcast.netj
Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 11:49 AM
To: Megan Yaniglos<myaniglos@albemarle.org>
2
Norge
Cc: 'Alan Franklin'<afranklin@waterstreetstudio.net>; 'Melton C. McGuire'<verulamfarm@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: Mechum's Trestle-VDOT Comments(Troy Austin)
Megan—
What is the statutory length of the approval phase? What Joel may not know is that the February 8th submission is the
third time Alan has presented this exception for approval—technically,our clock started back in October,or earlier.
If it's a 30-day review period, it may not matter, as it is almost March 1. Do you know when their response is due?
Thanks, Bill
From: Megan Yaniglos [mailto:mvaniglos@albemarle.org]
Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 11:14 AM
To:William McKechnie<wmckechnie@comcast.net>
Cc:Alan Franklin<afranklin@waterstreetstudio.net>; 'Melton C. McGuire'<verulamfarm@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: Mechum's Trestle-VDOT Comments(Troy Austin)
Bill:
I have contacted Joel DeNunzio, the residency administrator at VDOT, to see if he could help with this. See his
response below. I have followed up and asked if the district administrator has the request, but have not heard
back yet. The County ordinance requires VDOT approval prior to signing final site plans, so I will not be able to
give approval, as VDOT is one of the signatories on the plan. I will let you know as soon as I hear something.
Thank you,
Megan Yaniglos, A/CP
Principal Planner
Community Development Department
Planning Services
ph: 434.296.5832 ext. 3004
Megan,
Troy showed me this exception request before he left and I supported the exception. This exception needs to
ultimately be approved by the district administrator with my support. Since the latest form was submitted on feb 8, it
looks like it is now within the approval phase. If the plan is approved prior to the approval of the exception,the risk is
that Vdot may not issue a permit for the entrance.
Thanks,
Joel
From:William McKechnie [mailto:wmckechnie@comcast.net]
Sent: Friday, February 26,2016 4:56 PM
To: Megan Yaniglos<myaniglos@albemarle.org>
Cc:Alan Franklin<afranklin@waterstreetstudio.net>; 'Melton C. McGuire'<verulamfarm@gmail.com>
Subject: Mechum's Trestle-VDOT Comments(Troy Austin)
Importance: High
Hi Megan;
3
vituov
As you know,the only approval we lack at this point is VDOT,concerning the access to the property. Per Troy's request,
Alan has completed and submitted the necessary form (Access Management—Exception)for Troy to sign at least 3
times, most recently on 2/8, per Troy's request(see various email threads,attached).
On more than one occasion (including at the meeting with the Planning Commission),Troy has said that he would
approve the AM-E, but he has yet to sign the document.
Alan indicates that Troy no longer works out of the VDOT/Charlottesville residency office as of 2/24. I have no idea how
this impacts his purview,or his ability to approve this particular AM-E, but I think we could use your help to run this to
ground.
Since we have promptly responded to Troy's comments multiple times,without response, is VDOT approval necessary?
Please advise—thanks,
Bill
William McKechnie
434.906.5787
wmckechnie@comcast.net
4
Megan Yaniglos
From: Alex Morrison <amorrison@serviceauthority.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2016 2:50 PM
To: Megan Yaniglos
Subject: RE: SDP2015-048- Mechum's Trestle
Megan,
My comments have been addressed and I hereby recommend approval of SDP2015-048.
Alexander J. Morrison, P.E.
Civil Engineer
Albemarle County Service Authority
168 Spotnap Road
Charlottesville,Virginia 22911
(0)434-977-4511 Ext. 116
(C)434-981-5577
(F)434-979-0698
From: Alex Morrison [mailto:amorrison@serviceauthority.org]
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 11:54 AM
To: myaniglos@albemarle.org
Subject: FW: SDP2015-048 - Mechum's Trestle
Megan,
See below for my previous comment about the water meter note that has not been addressed. In addition,the ACSA has
filed for and received RWSA capacity certification for this project.
Alexander J. Morrison, P.E.
Civil Engineer
Albemarle County Service Authority
168 Spotnap Road
Charlottesville,Virginia 22911
(0)434-977-4511 Ext. 116
(C)434-981-5577
(F)434-979-0698
From: Alex Morrison [mailto:amorrison@serviceauthority.orq]
Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 7:58 AM
To: 'Victoria Fort'; 'Megan Yaniglos(myaniglos@albemarle.org)'
Cc: 'Alan Franklin (afranklin@waterstreetstudio.net)'
Subject: RE: SDP2015-048 - Mechum's Trestle
Megan,
1
I have reviewed the site plan as well and will comment through the county in lieu of a formal construction review( no
extension of ACSA infrastructure is proposed).The ACSA is currently in the process of filing for RWSA capacity
certification for this project.The applicant shall add the following notes to the proposed water meter:
• Type: Sensus accuSTREAM (with Touch Read pad)
• Units: US Gals
• Multiplier: 100
• Size:To Be Sized By ACSA(supply fixture counts when available)
Most likely the applicant will be required to install a 1" water meter to properly meter the water use.Let me know if you
have any questions.Thank you.
Alexander J. Morrison, P.E.
Civil Engineer
Albemarle County Service Authority
168 Spotnap Road
Charlottesville,Virginia 22911
(0)434-977-4511 Ext. 116
(C)434-981-5577
(F)434-979-0698
From: Victoria Fort [mailto:vfort@rivanna.orq]
Sent:Tuesday, October 06, 2015 7:16 PM
To: Megan Yaniglos (myanicilos(aalbemarle.orq)
Cc: 'amorrison@serviceauthority.org'; Alan Franklin (afranklin@waterstreetstudio.net)
Subject: SDP2015-048 - Mechum's Trestle
Megan,
RWSA has reviewed the final site plan for Mechum's Trestle as prepared by Water Street Studio and dated 9/11/2015
and has the following comments:
General:
1. A flow capacity certification will be required prior to final site plan approval.
Sheet 4 of 9:
1. Notes added to this plan sheet regarding testing of the existing sewer force main need to be moved over into
the viewport to be visible. RWSA shall review and approve these notes prior to final site plan approval.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Thank you,
Victoria
Victoria Fort, P.E.
Civil Engineer
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority
695 Moores Creek Lane
Charlottesville,VA 22902
(P):(434)977-2970 ext.205
(F):(434)295-1146
2
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Alan Franklin(alanfranklin@waterstreetstudio.net
From: Megan Yaniglos-Principal Planner
Division: Planning Services
Date: October 16,2015
Subject: SDP-2015-048 Mechum's Trestle-Final Site Plan
The Planner for the Planning Services Division of the Albemarle County Department Community
Development will recommend approve the plan referred to above when the following items
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 to the Albemarle
County Code.]
Requirements:
1. [32.5.2(a)]Add the special use permit conditions and application number to the plan,
either on its own sheet or to the cover sheet. (SP2015-012)
2. [32.5.2(e)]The conservation checklist will need to be signed by the owner before final
approval.
3. [32.7.9] Shrubs cannot count toward the tree canopy. Remove from the calculation and
overall tree canopy calcs.
4. [32.7.9] On sheet 6 the chart/information for the Parking Lot Trees states "5 trees
required" but does not state how many are provided. Revise this note.
5. [17-1000] A Tier 4 groundwater assessment is required to be submitted. Provide this
information.
Please contact Megan Yaniglos at the Department of Community Development 296-
5832 ext. 3004 for further information.
1
I
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Megan Yaniglos, Planning
From: Justin Deel,Engineering
Date: 14 October 2015
Subject: Mechum's Trestle Final Site Plan(SDP-2015-00048)
The final site plan for Mechum's Trestle has been reviewed by Engineering. The following
concerns should be addressed prior to approval;
1. This plan proposed to expand the building structure. Expansion of nonconforming
structures within the WPO buffer are only permitted in the circumstances outlined in
County Code Section 18-6.3 [17-603]. Please address.
2. There are several omissions from the shown limits of disturbance; notably the building
expansion, sidewalks,much of the mulched areas,parking lot islands, fire department
access, etc. Please correct this to include all disturbances. Virginia Stormwater
Management Program(VSMP)regulations [9VAC25-870] defines land disturbance as "a
manmade change to the land surface that potentially changes its runoff characteristics".
Once the limits of disturbance are corrected it appears that the total land disturbance will
exceed 10,000 square feet, requiring a VSMP application [County Code Sec. 17-302];
please provide. Note that for land disturbing activities of less than 1 acre, on previously
developed land, the total phosphorous load reduction requirement is 10%below the
predevelopment phosphorous load [9VAC25-870-63A.2.b.]. The VSMP application
content requirements can be found in County Code Sec. 17-401.
3. The Floodplain Development Permit plan(FDP201500002)must be approved. Please
resubmit, addressing all items listed in the 30 April 2015 review letter. Notably,the
floodplain limit should be accurately located using field survey data.
4. The WPO buffer should then be shown reflective of the accurate floodplain limits. Note
that"the stream buffer shall extend to whichever of the following is wider: (i)one
hundred (100)feet on each side of any perennial or intermittent stream and contiguous
nontidal wetlands, measured horizontally from the edge of the contiguous nontidal
wetlands, or the top of the stream bank if no wetlands exist; or(ii)the limits of the flood
plain" [County Code Sec. 17-600 B].
5. Structures, improvements, and activities in the 100' WPO buffer may be authorized by
the County Engineer within the landward 50' of the buffer,provided that a mitigation
plan is submitted and approved [County Code Sec. 17-604]. Please include a mitigation
plan with in VSMP application. The content requirements of the mitigation plan can be
found in County Code Sec. 17-406. Activity within the streamside 50' of the WPO buffer
cannot be authorized by the County Engineer, please remove all.
6. The rear travelway does not meet the minimum aisle and stall widths for perpendicular
parking[18-4.12.16 c]. Please adjust.
Albemarle County Community Development
Engineering Review comments
Page 2 of 2
c. parking space size. Parking spaces shall he the minimum sizes, and have the
minimum aisle width,provided below:
1. Perpendicular parking. For perpendicular parking, the minimum space and aisle widths
shall he:
Width(ll.) Length(ft) Aisle Width(ft_)
10 18 20
9 18 24
7. Curbed islands (3' minimum) are required to protect all parking rows [Policy]. Please
provide. Curb and gutter may be necessary, dependent upon how the VSMP
requirements are addressed.
8. Please show critical slopes on proposed development plans, as they are only being shown
on the existing conditions sheet.
9. Please show proposed parking lot topography, even if it matches existing.
10. Please provide parking lot surface details/design.
11. Provide the date of the topographic survey.
12. Correct the plan title to say Final Site Plan.
Megan Yaniglos
From: Alex Morrison <amorrison@serviceauthority.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 7:58 AM
To: vfort@rivanna.org; Megan Yaniglos
Cc: 'Alan Franklin'
Subject: RE: SDP2015-048- Mechum's Trestle
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
Megan,
I have reviewed the site plan as well and will comment through the county in lieu of a formal construction review( no
extension of ACSA infrastructure is proposed).The ACSA is currently in the process of filing for RWSA capacity
certification for this project.The applicant shall add the following notes to the proposed water meter:
• Type: Sensus accuSTREAM (with Touch Read pad)
• Units: US Gals
• Multiplier: 100
• Size:To Be Sized By ACSA(supply fixture counts when available)
Most likely the applicant will be required to install a 1"water meter to properly meter the water use. Let me know if you
have any questions.Thank you.
Alexander J. Morrison, P.E.
Civil Engineer
Albemarle County Service Authority
168 Spotnap Road
Charlottesville,Virginia 22911
(0)434-977-4511 Ext. 116
(C)434-981-5577
(F) 434-979-0698
From: Victoria Fort[mailto:vfort@rivanna.org]
Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2015 7:16 PM
To: Megan Yaniglos (myaniglos@albemarle.org)
Cc: 'amorrison@serviceauthority.org'; Alan Franklin (afranklin@waterstreetstudio.net)
Subject: SDP2015-048 - Mechum's Trestle
Megan,
RWSA has reviewed the final site plan for Mechum's Trestle as prepared by Water Street Studio and dated 9/11/2015
and has the following comments:
General:
1. A flow capacity certification will be required prior to final site plan approval.
Sheet 4 of 9:
1
ioirse "4411
1. Notes added to this plan sheet regarding testing of the existing sewer force main need to be moved over into
the viewport to be visible. RWSA shall review and approve these notes prior to final site plan approval.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Thank you,
Victoria
Victoria Fort,P.E.
Civil Engineer
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority
695 Moores Creek Lane
Charlottesville,VA 22902
(P):(434)977-2970 ext.205
(F):(434)295-1146
2
Megan Yaniglos
From: Victoria Fort<vfort@rivanna.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2015 7:16 PM
To: Megan Yaniglos
Cc: Alex Morrison;Alan Franklin (afranklin@waterstreetstudio.net)
Subject: SDP2015-048- Mechum's Trestle
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Megan,
RWSA has reviewed the final site plan for Mechum's Trestle as prepared by Water Street Studio and dated 9/11/2015
and has the following comments:
General:
1. A flow capacity certification will be required prior to final site plan approval.
Sheet 4 of 9:
1. Notes added to this plan sheet regarding testing of the existing sewer force main need to be moved over into
the viewport to be visible. RWSA shall review and approve these notes prior to final site plan approval.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Thank you,
Victoria
Victoria Fort,P.E.
Civil Engineer
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority
695 Moores Creek Lane
Charlottesville,VA 22902
(P):(434)977-2970 ext.205
(F):(434)295-1146
1
✓
pF A�
^+"11
illyl!If�
FAIL!
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 1, 2015
Alan Franklin
418 East Main St
Charlottesville VA 22902
RE: ARB-2015-73: Medium's Trestle—Final
Dear Alan,
1. Add cut sheets for the D1 and G fixtures to the plan. (The catalog numbers for the D and D1 fixtures are very different,
suggesting a completely different fixture.)
2. Include in the luminaire schedule a note or the"F"designation from the catalog indicating that all C4 fixtures have a
flat glass lens.
3. The Zelkovas can grow 50' to 80' tall,so will likely grow into the overhead lines at the east end of the EC frontage.
Choose an alternate species for the two easternmost Zelkovas that will be better suited to the location. Star Magnolia or
Washington Hawthorn are among the approved trees for planting near overhead power lines.
4. Provide documentation of VDOT approval for the shrubs located in the Rt.240 right-of-way.
5. Some of the footcandle levels along the EC aren't legible. Revise the photometric plan to make all information legible.
6. The plant area preparation specifications and plant details arc still under review. Comments will be forwarded shortly.
7. The comment response letter clarified that pressure treated,kiln dried wood would be used for the brise soliel to avoid
the twisting and warping the ARB was concerned about. Please include this information as a note on the architectural
drawing.
Please provide:
1. One set 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,
f >vl
Margaret Maliszewski
Principal Planner
cc: Mechum's Trestle LLC, 99 Bloomfield Rd.,Charlottesville VA 22903
Ire
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-2015-73: Mechum's Trestle-Final
Submittal Type Requiring Revisions()indicates Submittal Code County Project Number # Copies
Erosion& Sediment Control Plan(E&S)
Mitigation Plan (MP)
Waiver Re.uest WR
Stormwater Management Plan(SWMP)
Road Plan (RP)
Private Road Re uest, with .rivate/ ublic com.arison 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-CD
Reduced Concept Plan(R-CP)
Proffers(P)
Bond Estimate Request(BER
Draft Groundwater Mana&ement Plan(D-GWMP)
Final Groundwater Management Plan(F-GWMP)
Aquifer Testing Work Plan (ATWP)
Groundwater Assessment Report(GWAR)
Architectural Review Board (ARB) ARB201 5-73
Other: Please explain
(For staff use only)
Submittal Code #Copies Distribute To: Submittal Code #Co ties Distribute To:
ARB 1 Margaret
Maliszewski
waterstreetstudio
September 8, 2015
Ms. Megan Yaniglos
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: SDP-2015-008; Mechum's Trestle- Final Site Plan First Submittal
Dear Megan,
This letter is to accompany the first Final Site Plan submittal and serve as response to
comments/conditions outlined in the Initial Site Plan approval letter on August 12, 2015:
Planning Division
1. A site plan meeting all the requirements of section 32.6 of Chapter 18 of the Code.
Response: The Initial Site Plan documents have been upgraded to serve as the Final Site
Plan documents.
2. A landscape plan meeting the requirements of section 32.7.9 of Chapter 18 of the Code, including
a tree conservation checklist.
Response: The Landscape Plan has been revised to address previous Planning and ARB
comments and included a tree conservation checklist.
3. [32.5.2(a)] The special use permit will need to be approved prior to approval of the final site plan.
Any conditions imposed with the special use permit must be incorporated and noted in the site
plan.
Response: The special use permit was approved by the BOS on July 8th, 2015.All
conditions imposed with the special use permit are incorporated and noted on the site
plan.
4. [32.5.2(a)] Variance 95-05 was approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals that had a condition
that stated"Any additional square footage which would encroach the required setback, or any
chance which is determined to be substantial by the Zoning Administrator, shall require
amendment of this variance."Based on the variance report, this is a setback reduction to seven
feet from Rt 680 and nine feet from Rt. 240. It is difficult to tell if this condition is being met.
Show the distance from each of these rights of way to the building to ensure the condition is
being met.
Response: The distance from each of the rights of way to the building is shown on Sheet 3
to show compliance with Variance 95-05.
5. [32.5.2(e)]The conservation checklist needs to be filled out, signed by the owner, and added to
the landscape sheet before final approval.
Response: The conservation checklist has been added to the Landscape Plan, Sheet 6. It
will be signed prior to final approval.
6. [32.5.2(n)]The dumpster pad does not meet the requirements. The concrete pad is required to
be eight(8) feet beyond the front of the dumpster.
Response: The concrete dumpster pad has been dimensioned to show compliance.
7. [32.5.2(n)]State that no outdoor lighting will be proposed on the cover sheet.
Response: A Photometric Plan, Sheet 8, has been included for the proposed site lighting
which is also shown on Sheet 6.
>>> 3`d street se charlottes lie, v;rgi22902 434.295.8177 t 'naCerstreetstu<,io.net
8. 132.5.2(n)]Indicate the paving material for the sidewalk and dumpster pad.
Response: A Site Detail sheet, Sheet 5, has been added to indicate paving materials for
sidewalks and dumpster pads.
Engineering Division
1. The 100 year flood plain limit is stated as approximate . It should not be an approximate line, but
rather what is shown on a FIRM. Please revise.
Response: We feel that this comment has been addressed via joint meeting with Michelle
Roberge and Amelia McCulley on April, 23, 2015,the attached April 14, 2015 response
letter from Bill McKechnie,and plan revisions.
2. This parcel is classified within a protected water supply area. Section 17-600(B) applies. The
WPO buffer is not delineated on the plan. Please address.
Response: We feel that this comment has been addressed via joint meeting with Michelle
Roberge and Amelia McCulley on April, 23, 2015,the attached April 14, 2015 response
letter from Bill McKechnie,and plan revisions.
3. "Development within a water supply protection area or other rural land. If the development is
located within a water supply protection area or other rural land, stream buffers shall be retained
if present and established where they do not exist on any lands subject to this chapter
containing perennial or intermittent streams, contiguous nontidal wetlands, and flood plains.
The stream buffer shall extend to whichever of the following is wider: (i) one hundred(100) feet
on each side of any perennial or intermittent stream and contiguous nontidal wetlands,
measured horizontally from the edge of the contiguous nontidal wetlands, or the top of the
stream bank if no wetlands
exist; or(ii) the limits of the flood plain. The stream buffer shall be no less than two hundred
(200) horizontal feet wide from the flood plain of any public water supply impoundment."
Response: We feel that this comment has been addressed via joint meeting with Michelle
Roberge and Amelia McCulley on April, 23, 2015,the attached April 14, 2015 response
letter from Bill McKechnie,and plan revisions.
4. Please note that structures, improvements and activities may be authorized by the administrator
within the landward 50 horizontal feet. It appears there is disturbance beyond 50 feet. See
Section 17-604(A).
Response: We feel that this comment has been addressed via joint meeting with Michelle
Roberge and Amelia McCulley on April, 23, 2015,the attached April 14, 2015 response
letter from Bill McKechnie,and plan revisions.
5. The site plan calls out a gravel or tar&chip parking lot. I do not recommend gravel as it will be
difficult to delineate the curvilinear parking and striping. I also do not recommend a tar&chip
parking lot. The EPA classifies coal tar pavements a carcinogen . Also, the parking lot is
adjacent to Lickinghole Creek and is within a water supply protection area. Please note per 4.
12.15(a.), all parking areas consisting of four(4) or more spaces shall be surfaced. The surface
materials for parking areas and access aisles shall be subject to approval by the county
engineer, based upon the intensity of usage and Virginia Department of Transportation
pavement design guidelines and specifications. The county engineer may approve the use of
alternative surfaces deemed equivalent in regard to strength, durability, sustainability and long
term maintenance for the intensity of the use.
Response: We feel that this comment has been addressed via joint meeting with Michelle
Roberge and Amelia McCulley on April, 23, 2015,the attached April 14, 2015 response
letter from Bill McKechnie,and plan revisions.
6. Please address the largest truck that will need to circulate the site. It appears even a garbage
truck will not safely circulate the site. Clarify. This will affect the parking layout.
Response: We feel that this comment has been addressed via joint meeting with Michelle
Roberge and Amelia McCulley on April, 23, 2015,the attached April 14, 2015 response
letter from Bill McKechnie,and plan revisions.
n1 3rd street se chadottesv,l e viu;nia 22902 434 295 8177 t way rsi,c?tstuaio.net
Noe
7. The minimum centerline radius of 120'is required to maintain sight distance for parking on the
inside of curved travel way. See Albemarle County Design Standards Manual.
Response: The centerline radius was increased to 120'.
8. Per 4.12.15(b.), please address the drainage system for site. Also, what type of facility will be
used to satisfy the treatment criteria of a VSMP?
Response: We feel that this comment has been addressed via joint meeting with Michelle
Roberge and Amelia McCulley on April, 23, 2015,the attached April 14, 2015 response
letter from Bill McKechnie,and plan revisions.Additionally,the proposed plan disturbs
less than 10,000 square feet.
9. The dumpster pad area blocks a parking space. I recommend that space to be employee
parking only. Also, the note states the dumpster pad is on existing grade. Please grade away
from the stream for runoff to be treated.
Response: We feel that this comment has been addressed via joint meeting with Michelle
Roberge and Amelia McCulley on April, 23, 2015,the attached April 14, 2015 response
letter from Bill McKechnie,and plan revisions. Additionally,the proposed dumpster pad
location was revised to eliminate the conflict.
10. Address 4.12. 15(e.)Accessibility to loading spaces, loading docks and dumpsters. Where is the
loading space? The design standards can be found in 4.12.18. Also, a loading space is 12'x25'.
Response: We feel that this comment has been addressed via joint meeting with Michelle
Roberge and Amelia McCulley on April, 23, 2015,the attached April 14, 2015 response
letter from Bill McKechnie,and plan revisions.
11. Address 4.12.15(g.) Curb and gutter in parking areas and along travel ways.
Response: We feel that this comment has been addressed via joint meeting with Michelle
Roberge and Amelia McCulley on April, 23, 2015,the attached April 14, 2015 response
letter from Bill McKechnie,and plan revisions.
12. "Curbs shall be established at the edges of parking areas or access aisles in the following
circumstances: (1) in all commercial or institutional developments requiring eight(8) or more
parking spaces; (2) in all multi-family dwelling and townhouse developments requiring eight(8)
or more parking spaces; (3) where necessary to control or direct stormwater runoff; (4) where a
sidewalk is located closer than four(4) feet from the edge of an access aisle; and(5) where
necessary to contain vehicular traffic to protect pedestrians and/or property. Gutters shall be
required where necessary to control or direct stormwater runoff. The county engineer may waive
or modify this requirement if deemed necessary to accommodate stormwater
management/BMP facility design or existing uses located in the Rural Areas (RA) zoning
district."
Response: We feel that this comment has been addressed via joint meeting with Michelle
Roberge and Amelia McCulley on April, 23, 2015,the attached April 14, 2015 response
letter from Bill McKechnie,and plan revisions.
13. What is the line through center of lot?
Response: The line in question is the existing asphalt pavement/gravel interface.
14. Sites with less than 6'of grade change should consider using smaller contour intervals.
Response: We feel that this comment has been addressed via joint meeting with Michelle
Roberge and Amelia McCulley on April, 23, 2015,the attached April 14, 2015 response
letter from Bill McKechnie,and plan revisions. 1 foot contour interval used for this site.
Final Site Plan
1. Address Virginia Stormwater Management Plan (VSMP Plan).
Response: The proposed plan disturbs less than 10,000 square feet.
ACSA
1. ACSA Jurisdictional Area Designation: Limited Service for sanitary sewer through the use of a
pump station and associated force main to serve the existing use (restaurant plus associated
apartment for employee), existing structure (with the exception of façade treatment and those
expansions which do not require variances or modifications to the ordinance), and existing
111 3,d street se ca a ottesv Virginia 229o2 434.295.8177 t waterstreetstudio.net
capacity(equivalent of 100 seat restaurant generating no more than 5,000 gallons per day only).
Response: No action required.
2. RWSA approval is required for the force main connection.
Response: A note has been added to Sheet 4.
3. The applicant shall show a private water meter on the waterline from the well on the site plan.
Notes shall be added that the final location shall be approved by the ACSA. The water meter,
installed by the applicant, shall be compatible with the ACSA's meter reading equipment. For
more information the applicant should contact Kenny Barrow at 434-977-4511, ext. 151.
Response: Private water meter and note added to plan Sheet 4.
Fire& Rescue
1. The travel lane in the parking lot shall maintain 20 ft clear travel way with a minimum radius of
25 ft. The radius of concern is the 10 ft radii on the island located near the dumpster pad.
Response: Comments addressed via and meetings/emails with Robbie Gilmer
changes to the plan such as clear access paths provided to the building from Route
240 and Route 680.
ARB - Preliminary
1. Revise the demolition plan to coordinate with proposed construction and planting along Rt.
680. Identify all trees to be removed.
Response: The demolition plan has been improved to address this comment.
2. Revise the plan to make all existing tree identifications legible.
Response: The demolition plan has been improved to address this comment.
3. Show tree protection fencing on the plans.
Response: Tree protection fencing added to demolition plan and landscape plan.
4. Revise the plan to show a treatment for the retaining wall that is coordinated with the
proposed building.
Response: The existing block wall in question, may actually be a screening wall. It does
not appear to function as a retaining wall. It is crumbling and dilapidated and is proposed
to be demolished to make way for new and improved landscaping.
5. Add the standard plant health 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."
Response: The note has been added to the landscape plan.
6. Provide a complete plant schedule for review.
Response: Plant Schedule provided on the landscape plan.
7. In areas where wooded area to remain is used to meet perimeter parking lot tree
requirements, identify existing individual large shade trees on the plan by size and species to
show that the minimum requirement can be met.
Response: Existing, individual large shade trees to remain have been identified by size
and species on Sheet 2 and Sheet 6.
8. Revise the landscape plan to show a sufficient quantity of trees—proposed and existing to
remain—distributed as necessary throughout the site, to meet frontage, interior parking lot
and perimeter parking lot quantity requirements.
Response: The landscape plan has been revised to address this comment.
9. Add a medium tree, 2 %"caliper at planting, in the vicinity of the north end of the sidewalk
near the dumpster.
Response: Tree added as requested.
iii 3`d street se charlottesv l!e, virga, a 22902 434.295.8177 t waterstre< <<`uuio.net
•
10. Indicate the height of the electric line that runs along the Rt. 240 side of the property. For
those trees close to the line, choose a species whose mature height will not interfere with the
electric line.
Response: The height of the existing overhead utility lines has been added to the
plans.Tree species were selected that we believed would not interfere with the
overhead utilities at mature height.
11. Provide 2 additional large shade trees in close proximity to the Rt. 240 property line.
Response: 2 additional large shade trees have been provided as requested.
12. Show all proposed site and building-mounted light fixtures on a lighting plan and provide all
related details for review.
Response: All proposed site lighting has been shown on Sheet 6 and Sheet 8.
13. Add the standard mechanical equipment note to both the architectural and site plans:
"Visibility of all mechanical equipment from the Entrance Corridor shall be eliminated."
Response: The note has been added to Sheet 6.
14. Show the locations of proposed mechanical equipment—both ground-and building-mounted
—and show how visibility of the equipment will be eliminated. Note that the preference is to
locate equipment so that visibility is eliminated without the need to add screening. If/when
screening is needed, it should be fully coordinated with the architecture of the building.
Response: The note has been added to Sheet 6 and the Architectural Plans show all
mechanical equipment to be on the roof.
15. Include a dumpster enclosure detail in the plan. Coordinate the material of the enclosure with
the material of the building.
Response: Dumpster enclosure detail added to the plans.
16. Provide architectural designs for review.
Response: Architectural Plans are provided,separately,with this submittal.
17. Show adequate tree protection fencing on, and coordinated throughout, the grading,
landscaping, and erosion control plans.
Response: Tree protection fencing added to demolition plan and landscape plan.
ARB -Final
1. Shift the roof access ladder to a location on the wall that is further away from the Rt. 240 EC.
Consider locating it in the setback at the north end of the east elevation.
Response: The roof access ladder has been relocated to the small offset wall near the
northeast corner of the building.
2. Add the standard window glass note to the architectural drawings.
Response: The standard window glass note has been added to the drawing.
3. Confirm that no mechanical equipment will penetrate the walls of the building.
Response: No mechanical equipment will penetrate the exterior walls of the building. It is
intended that all equipment be roof-mounted behind the parapet walls.
4. Add the standard mechanical equipment note to both the architectural and site plans.
Response: The note has been added to Sheet 6 of the Site Plans and to the Architectural
Plans.
5. Include all proposed exterior light fixtures, including building-mounted lighting, in the
luminaire schedule, cut sheets, and light locations on the plan.
Response: The spacing of the parapet coping lights has been increased from 8 feet on
center to 16 feet on center. An updated photometric plan, including light fixture cut
sheets, has been included,and we do not exceed .5 foot candles at the property line.
3rd street se ctia ..itesville, vi ;rola 229°2 434.295.8177 t watersireetsladio.nei.
6. Do not over-illuminate the site or building. Maintain light levels below 20 fc, preferably
approaching 10 fc if safety and security allow.
Response: Overall site illumination levels are well below 10 foot candles. The only spot
on the site above this level is the area under the entry canopy immediately in front of the
main entrance door.
7. Eliminate the lamps from the parapet coping on the east side of the building to eliminate
spillover beyond 0.5 fc at the property line.
Response: The parapet coping lamps have been eliminated from the east side of the
building, with the exception of one fixture near to the roof access ladder to provide some
ambient lighting for safety.
8. Indicate the height of the electric line that runs along Rt. 240 side of the property. Coordinate
the tree species nearest the EC with the height of the line.
Response: The height of the existing overhead utility lines has been added to the
plans. Tree species were selected that we believed would not interfere with the
overhead utilities at mature height.
9. Provide documentation of VDOT approval for the shrubs located in the Rt. 240 right-of-way.
Response: We are still working on approval from VDOT.
10. Clarify on the plan the methods that will be employed to ensure the health and longevity of
the trees proposed for the interior of the parking lot and the perimeter of the parking lot.
Response: Sheet 7 was added to the plan set which includes planting area preparation
specifications and planting details.
11. Confirm that the entire retaining wall on the east side is in ruins and will be removed.
Response: The existing block wall in question appears to have been a screening wall. It
does not appear to function as a retaining wall. It is crumbling and dilapidated and is
proposed to be demolished to make way for new and improved landscaping.
12. Revise the landscape plan to better diversify the shrub species.
Response: The landscape plan has been revised to specify three shrub species.
13. Confirm that the entire retaining wall on the east side is in ruins and will be removed.
Response: The existing block wall in question appears to have been a screening wall. It
does not appear to function as a retaining wall. It is crumbling and dilapidated and is
proposed to be demolished to make way for new and improved landscaping.
14. Add a call-out with an arrow identifying the quantity and species of the 7 zelkova proposed
along the EC frontage.
Response: Done.
15. Revise the "(6) PA"note to read "(7) PA".
Response: Done.
16. Show adequate tree protection fencing on, and coordinated throughout the grading,
landscaping, and erosion control plans.
Response: Tree protection fencing added to demolition plan,site plan and landscape
plan. Erosion Control Plans are not required.
17. Provide ground level evergreen landscape screening at the northeast corner of the building
(kitchen service entrance).
Response: (7) Dwarf Wax Myrtles were added to screen the kitchen service entrance.
18. Material selection and detailing of the brise soliel needs to be developed to avoid twisting and
splitting.
Response: The brise soliel over the east-facing windows in the northeast corner of the
building has been eliminated. Pressure-treated material which is kiln-dried after treatment
is immediately stainable and stable. It is our intent to use this material for the brise
soliel.
ni 3`d street se chE:r ottesv:lle, vi g a 22902 434.295.8177 t wztersireetsri,aio,net
VDOT
1. The guard rail shown at the new entrance should not extend radially along the entrance.
Instead, it should stop short of the entrance and a GR-9 end treatment provided.
Response: The proposed changes to the existing guardrail were revised per the
suggestions of this comment.
2. A sight line easement needs to be provided at the southeast corner of the parcel to maintain
an unobstructed sight line.
Response: The required sight distance easement shows on Sheet 3, 5, and 6.
3. Additional right-of-way should be provided at the intersection of Route 240 and Route 680 so
that the radius of this intersection is contained within right-of-way.
Response: Additional right-of-way dedication to VDOT has not been included on the
revised plans for fear that it would adversely affect the existing Variance 95-05 regarding
the building setbacks.
4. I question the ability of the street trees along Route 680 to survive without damaging the
retaining wall as the trees mature. They are proposed to be planted close to the retaining
wall.
Response: The existing block wall in question, may actually be a screening wall. It does
not appear to function as a retaining wall. It is crumbling and dilapidated and is proposed
to be demolished to make way for new and improved landscaping.
5. An AM-E spacing exception will be required for this proposed entrance. I will support
approval of this exception due to the frontage improvements proposed as part of this site
development.
Response: A digital copy of the AM-E spacing exception request will be provided to
VDOT for processing.
RWSA
1. The proposed development is within the Beaver Creek Darn Inundation Zone for a 12-hour
PMF with a dam breach. The dam was recently upgraded to high-hazard based on an
analysis of inundation areas, and it was determined that the spillway will require upgrades to
meet current DCR Dam Safety Regulations.
Response: No action required.
2. The proposed development is downstream of the Lickinghole Creek Dam;however, a recent
dam breach analysis (currently under review by DCR) showed that a culvert under the CSX
railroad downstream of the dam (upstream of the proposed restaurant) limits the amount of
flow that passes downstream. Due to this constriction and the relatively small size of the
impounded reservoir, a breach of the dam would have a negligible impact on flooding during
a 100-year storm and would not flood any existing or proposed structures in the event of a
sunny day breach.
Response: No action required.
3. The existing force main must be pressure tested and approved prior to the development
going online
Response: A note has been added to the plan requiring testing of the existing
pressure main prior to going online.
4. From available information, it is unclear whether the previous owner obtained an easement
for the 4" force main when it was installed. The applicant should obtain easements as
necessary to operate and maintain the sewer force main.
Response: The ownership group has copies of all easements required for the private
force main. Copies of all documents provided.
111 3rd street se cP 22902 434.295.8177 t 'n' terst'eeIciudio_net
10 copies of the site plans have been provided for your distribution. 3 copies of the site plans will be
submitted to ACSA directly. We hope that you find the plan submittal and response to be worthy of
approval. Please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions or need anything additional.
Sinc rely,
i
Alan Franklin, PE
Waterstreet Studio, LLC
cc: Bill McKechnie
111 3r6 street se charottesvi'Ie, v0g0nia 22902 434 295.8177 t waterstreetstudio.net