Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201600020 Review Comments 2016-08-31Short Review Comments Report for: SDP201600020 SubApplication Type: Texas Roadhouse - Major Amendment Zoning Compliance Date Completed:05/17/2016 Reviewer:Megan Yaniglos CDD Planning Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments: Division: Date Completed:04/20/2016 Reviewer:Jay Schlothauer CDD Inspections Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments:Based on plans revised March 25, 2016. Based on the number of required parking spaces (97), there must be four barrier-free parking spaces. Provide two more barrier-free parking spaces with their associated striped access aisle and curb cut. These spaces are to be located a close as practicable to the main building entrance. Division: Date Completed:05/12/2016 Reviewer:Margaret Maliszewski CDD ARB Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments:On March 7, 2016, the ARB approved this proposal with conditions. The plan with revision date of 3/25/16 does not address all of those conditions. Please see the ARB action letter dated March 11, 2016. Division: Date Completed:04/15/2016 Reviewer:Andrew Slack CDD E911 Review Status:Approved Reviews Comments:Approved. Division: Date Completed:05/12/2016 Reviewer:Matthew Wentland CDD Engineering Review Status:See Recommendations Reviews Comments:Based on plans revised March 25, 2016. 1. An approved VSMP submittal is required before approval. 2. Connecton of the dumpster drain to the sanitary sewer will require ACSA approval. Division: Date Completed:05/15/2016 Reviewer:Robbie Gilmer Fire Rescue Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments:Based on plans dated 3/25/16. 1. Please add a note "Knox Box required, Please contact Albemarle County Fire Marshal Office for location" 2. Fire Flow test required before final approval. Division: Date Completed:05/18/2016 Reviewer:Joel DeNunzio VDOT Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments: Division: Page:1 of 3 County of Albemarle Printed On:February 08, 2017 Date Completed: Reviewer:Alexander Morrison ACSA Review Status:Pending Reviews Comments:1. Previous comment: Provide the light fixture cut sheets and photometric plan as a part of the site plan set. The photometric plan and cut sheet for the parking lot fixtures were included in the site plan. However, the cut sheets for the wall fixtures were not included in the plan. Provide all light fixture cut sheets as part of the site plan set. 2. Previous comment: Lighting spillover exceeds .5 footcandles at the property line along Rt. 29. Revise the photometric plan to eliminate spillover in excess of .5 fc. Spillover was eliminated, but the LLF for Fixture B was reduced to .9. Spillover in excess of .5 fc at the property line along Rt. 29 must be eliminated and the LLF for all fixtures must equal 1.0. Revise the lighting plan to eliminate spillover in excess of .5 fc. at the proprety line along Rt. 29 and to calculate the photometrics using an LLF of 1.0 for all fixtures. 3. Previous comment: Indicate for review the color of the retaining wall and provide this information on the plan. I was not able to find information on the color of the retaining wall. Please indicate for review the color of the retaining wall and provide this information on the plan. If the information was already provided, please indicate the location within the plan where it can be found. Division: Date Completed:06/02/2016 Reviewer:Margaret Maliszewski CDD ARB Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments:1. Provide the light fixture cut sheets and photometric plan as a part of the site plan set. 2. Lighting spillover exceeds .5 footcandles at the property line along Rt. 29. Revise the photometric plan to eliminate spillover in excessof .5 fc. 3. Indicate for review the color of the retaining wall and provide this information on the plan. Division: Date Completed:06/22/2016 Reviewer:Megan Yaniglos CDD Planning Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments:1. The landscape calculations are confusing. Combine the EC and Seminole Trail tree requirements as they are one and the same. Remove tree requirements for Alb Sq, as that is not a street. 2. Add a signature panel to the cover sheet for signatures. Division: Date Completed:06/10/2016 Reviewer:Jay Schlothauer CDD Inspections Review Status:No Objection Reviews Comments:Based on plans revised May 27, 2016. No further comments or conditions. Division: Date Completed:06/23/2016 Reviewer:Matthew Wentland CDD Engineering Review Status:See Recommendations Reviews Comments:1. An approved VSMP submittal is required before approval. The VSMP plan is currently under review and is nearing approval. Division: Date Completed:06/22/2016 Reviewer:Robbie Gilmer Fire Rescue Review Status:No Objection Reviews Comments:Based on plans dated 5/27/16. No comments or objections. Division: Page:2 of 3 County of Albemarle Printed On:February 08, 2017 No comments or objections. Date Completed:06/23/2016 Reviewer:Joel DeNunzio VDOT Review Status:No Objection Reviews Comments: Division: Date Completed:06/24/2016 Reviewer:Margaret Maliszewski CDD ARB Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments: Division: Date Completed:08/31/2016 Reviewer:Margaret Maliszewski CDD ARB Review Status:Approved Reviews Comments: Division: Page:3 of 3 County of Albemarle Printed On:February 08, 2017 153 Cordaville Road Suite 210 Southborough,MA 01772 t: 508 229 0032 ATLANTA LOS ANGEiE7 NEW JERSEY CHICAGO NEW YORK reenbergFarrow DALLAS WISCONSIN RENTONV PHILADELPHIA FRESNO MEMPHIS SHANGHAI MEXICO CITY May 27, 2016 Megan Yaniglos, AICP Principal Planner Community Development Department Planning Services 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 434-296-5832, Ext 3004 Re: 111111111111111111111111-Texas Roadhouse Charlottesville, 455 Albemarle Square Dear Ms.Yaniglos This letter formally responds to the various department review comments for the plans submitted to the county on March 25, 2016 for the above referenced project. The comments are listed below in the order received and grouped by comment originator in italicized text. Our response to each comment is shown in bold. Jay Schlothauer, Inspections 4-20-2016 1. Based on the number of required parking spaces(97), there must be four barrier-free parking spaces. Provide two more barrier-free parking spaces with theirs associated striped access isle and curb cut. These spaces are to be located as close as practicable to the main building entrance. Response: Two additional ADA accessible spaces were provided, as requested. Margaret Maliszewki,ARB 5-12-2016 1. On March 7, 2016, the ARB approved this proposal with conditions. The plan with revision date of 3/25/16 does not address all of those conditions. Please see the ARB action letter dated March 11, 2016. Response: Revised plans were submitted to the ARB 5/18/16 in response to the ARB action letter dated 3/11/16. Due to changes pending from the Site Plan review,we will continue to coordinate with ARB and provide revised documents for their use once these revisions are complete. Matthew Wentland, Engineering 5-12-2016 1. An approved VSMP submittal is required before approval. Response: The materials noted missing or requiring revision on your VSMP review letter of 1 April 25,2016 are enclosed and include a separate response letter to your 4/25/16 letter, executed VSMP application and SWPPP. 2. Connection of dumpster drain to sanitary sewer will require ACSA approval. Response: We have discussed this specific issue with Alex Morrison from the ACSA,we are providing 2 Architectural sheets of details for the dumpster enclosure and roof for their review. (Plan sheets SA1 and Al) Robbie Gilmer, Fire Rescue 5-15-16 1. Please add a note "Knox Box required. Please contact Albemarle County Fire Marshal Office for location" Response: The Knox Box is shown in plan sheet C3.0 with keynote S32, as required. 2. Fire flow test required before final approval. Response: Fire flow test was performed on April 11, 2016 by Telgian Corporation indicating sufficient flow and pressure. The report is attached. Megan Yaniqlos, Planning Services 5-17-2016 1. [32.5.2(a)]The cover sheets states that this proposal is within the City of Charlottesville, revise to state Albemarle County, Virginia.Also, for the address"Albemarle County"is listed, this should be "Charlottesville". Response: The project name is related to the market it serves generally the adjacent high population center. The address was corrected to indicate Charlottesville,we also identified the county of jurisdiction-Albemarle County. 2. [32.7.9]Sheet L1.1 has large text, and is not legible. Revise so that the utilities and notes can be read. Response: Sheet L1.1 has been removed from the set as this was shown for purposes of the ARB submittal 3. [32.7.9]Sheet L1.0, the landscape calculations chart state that X number of landscaping is required, however listed in the provided column, is 0. Clarify. Response: These trees have not been provided due to the underground facility marked by an asterisk(*) 4. [32.7.9.6(b)]Sheet L1.0, trees required based on the number of parking spaces should be 4, not 3, you need to round up, not down for this calculation. Response: The provided number has been changed to 4; we were already providing this amount 5. [32.7.9]Sheet L1.0, there is a number of**symbols indicating further notes, however there does not appear to be additional notes. Clarify. Response: The double asterisks(**)have been removed as they were from an old ARB submittal 6. [32.7.9.5(e)]Where parking is visible from a public street, a row of low shrubs is required for screening. Provide additional shrubs along the full frontage since parking can be viewed through the trees. Response: Shrubs have been added to screen parking. 7. [32.7.9.7]Sheet C3.0 reference architectural details for the dumpster enclosure, this needs to be provided on the plan sheets. 2 Response: Two architectural detail sheets were added to the plan set, as requested. Full architectural plans will be submitted for building permit under different cover. 8. (4.17]Provide the cutsheets on the plan sheets for the light fixtures. Response: The cutsheets requested were added to the Photometric Plan, sheet PH1.0. 9. (4.17]Sheet PH1.0, there are areas where the footcandles at the property line exceed the ordinance amount. The footcandles should not be more than 0.5 at the property line. Response: The Photometric plan was revised to correct this oversight. Joel DeNunzio, DOT 5-18-2016 1. The Phase 1 Permanent VDOT Joint Use Utility Easement should be shown and labeled on plans. Response: We added a label to the site and utility plans to clarify Phase 1 Permanent VDOT Joint Use Utility Easement. 2. The VDOT ROW should be labeled on plans. Response:We added a label to clarify the location of the existing VDOT ROW line to all plan sheets. 3. The proposed stormdrain structure and 12"pipe at the site entrance should be moved out of the permanent VDOT easement, if possible. Response: We have located the structure and pipe to maintain maximum separation possible while still capturing runoff for the tributary area. 4. Please move the proposed Princeton Sentry Ginkgo tree at the site entrance further away from the VDOT underground stormwater detention system. Response: Princeton Sentry Ginkgo has been moved further from the underground tanks 5. The notes concerning the VDOT underground stormwater detention system should be updated, as it is an existing underground stormwater detention system. Response: The notes were corrected.as requested. 6. Please check plan scales. The permanent VDOT easement is 75 feet wide,yet scales to 72 feet on the plans. Response: Corrected as noted. Please keep in mind that a final survey will be completed for the recently installed pond and structures. The easements will also be updated to reflect the final survey. 7. Please clarify if the approximate 10 foot section of 18"pipe leading from the existing curb inlet will be remove. Response: It will be removed.We have revised the Demolition Plan sheet C2.0, as required. 8. Note that any structures or features within the permanent VDOT easements are subject to removal as necessary. Response: Noted 9. The proposed sediment trap cannot be constructed over the existing underground stormwater detention system within the permanent VDOT easement. Please relocate. Response: The sediment trap was relocated, as requested. If you should have any questions regarding the information on this letter, please do not hesitate to call my office at(857)305 0597 or email me at apimentel c(Dgreenbergfarrow.com. This project has our highest 3 priority and we will glad to continue to work directly with you to resolve outstanding comments or improve the design. Sincerely, Andre Pimentel Civil Project Manager Creenbergfarrow 153 Cordaville Road,Suite 210,Southborough,MA 01772 D 857.305.0597 T 508.229.0032 x8412 C 774.766.2856 4 COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1601 Orange Road Culpeper Virginia 22701 Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E. Commissioner May 18, 20I6 Ms. Megan Yaniglos Principal Planner County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: SDP -2016-00020 Texas Roadhouse Major Amendment Dear Ms. Yaniglos: We have reviewed the Texas Roadhouse Major Amendment Plan, dated 611512015, with revisions dated 7/2/2015, 1/22/2016, and 312512016, as submitted by Greenb u rg Farrow, and offer the following comments. 1. The Phase I Permanent VDOT Joint Use Utility Easement should be shown and labeled on pians. 2. The VDOT ROW should be labeled on plans. 3. The proposed stormdrain structure and 12" pipe at the site entrance should be moved out of the permanent VDOT easement, if possible. 4. Please move the proposed Princeton Sentry Ginkgo tree at the site entrance further away from the VDOT underground stormwater detention system. 5. The notes concerning the VDOT underground stormwater detention system should be updated, as it is an existing underground stormwater detention system. 6. Please check plan scales. The permanent VDOT easement is 75 feet wide, yet scales to --72 feet on the plans. 7. Please clarify if the approximate 10 foot section of 18" pipe leading from the existing curb inlet will be removed. 8. Note that any structures or features within the permanent VDOT easements are subject to removal as necessary. 9. The proposed sediment trap cannot be constructed over the existing underground stormwater detention system within the permanent VDOT easement. Please relocate. If additional information is needed concerning this project, please do not hesitate to contact me at (434) 422-9373. S inc y, ter/` Joel DeNunzio, P.E. Resident Engineer :'} Culpeper District Megan Yaniglos From: Alexander Morrison <amorrison@serviceauthority.org> Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2016 10:21 AM To: Megan Yaniglos Subject: SDP201600020:Texas Roadhouse- Major Amendment Attachments: SDP201600020_TexasRoadhouse_ExistingConditions_GISMap.pdf Megan, I have reviewed the above referenced application and have the following comments: • A Construction Plan Review submittal to the ACSA is required.Submit 3 copies of the plan, along with a water data sheet to the ACSA,Attn: Michael Vieira, PE,to begin the process. • Correctly depict the existing water and sewer infrastructure(see attached GIS map) • Propose a new fire hydrant within 100'of the FDC. 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 1 County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Paula Hubert (phubert@greenbergfarrow.com) From: Megan Yaniglos, AICP- Principal Planner Division: Planning Services Date: May 17, 2016 Subject: SDP -2016-020 Texas Roadhouse- Major Amendment 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)] The cover sheets states that this proposal is within the City of Charlottesville, revise to state Albemarle County, Virginia. Also, for the address "Albemarle County" is listed, this should be "Charlottesville" 2. [32.7.9] Sheet 1-1.1 has large text, and is not legible. Revise so that the utilities and notes can be read. 3. [32.7.9] Sheet 1-1.0, the landscape calculations chart state that X number of landscaping is required, however listed in the provided column, is 0. Clarify. 4. [32.7.9.6(b)] Sheet 1-1.0, trees required based on the number of parking spaces should be 4, not 3, you need to round up, not down for this calculation. 5. [32.7.9]Sheet 1-1.0, there is a number of ** symbols indicating further notes, however there does not appear to be additional notes. Clarify. 6. [32.7.9.5(e)] Where parking is visible from a public street, a row of low shrubs is required for screening. Provide additional shrubs along the full frontage since parking can be viewed through the trees. 7. [32.7.9.7] Sheet C3.0 reference architectural details for the dumpster enclosure, this needs to be provided on the plan sheets. 8. [4.17] Provide the cutsheets on the plan sheets for the light fixtures. 9. [4.17] Sheet PH1.0, there are areas where the footcandles at the property line exceed the ordinance amount. The footcandles should not be more than 0.5 at the property line. 1 Please contact Megan Yaniglos at the Department of Community Development 296-5832 ext. 3004 for further information.