HomeMy WebLinkAboutARB201700142 Presentation 2018-04-02This is the second work session on the Wawa Initial Site Development Plan; staff
received the most recent materials on Friday, March 30 and distributed them
electronically to the board that day; hence staff has not had a chance to fully review
those new materials, and the following is just a few observations.
As a recap, the ARB reviewed this Initial Site Development Plan for a Wawa fuel
station on February 12, 2018. The proposal is to construct a fuel station with a 6,001
sf building, a 6,000 sf fuel -pump canopy, and associated site improvements on 1.431
acres. The site will have maximum visibility from both sides of Seminole Trail (Route
29), the EC.
wwaws` ,
wa wa
At that meeting, the ARB discussed the site layout and the development in regard to
the parcel size (1.431 acres)...
2
APPENDIX B
11 SI�III
xla.imum Irnplh hx a.lnpk i.laml .an.ryv -
I J •�m•Ian nnIrum - Ix'aulu knpM1 - J .amhn nav' hall
FMI
M.,— knplh Iia. J.bk�.WW.anryn J2'
I-2'axnfun 1. hum -1 au1u"ph-2'.nmlixl—mu I,I-ph-2'.umfaat
—1—kl
ER-
M �a
Slaaimum knglh f a InPk ialrW amyl tw'
1' 3' wmfl aos fmm - IR ama "ph - I—fm ..d k - W auln "ph - 1'-11f
mlt bek�16a "ph -I'.vmf-. ba-kl
N'IDIII
Slas—xWN fa vnpkisland aa.xTie 2b', 3' lapin M1xxmxrbnpl-b'Isae.WN,-
.vib.laianaxl - J' IislanJ.xkhl - 2' I.vT ekaamcl - 6' I.'v . WNI - i' I.grn hxa
.v crhanp 11
IIF.IGII1 I loin pu.mlJ In hnuxn nl fa¢ul
slxa�mam a..•Ix.nl, h.,pm„ u' n-
`nx n nuldu
la.imum Inv -u M.FhI �. 3b
TT
f
FI!FF DLS"NSFR S V F
A V-1 va uT P Mgh lappu—d, -1- mimmum.anps MpM1ll. J'b' xW., 3`
LSLANDSVF
A lypral va u 12-11' W� I' a' WI
As well as how the size of the proposed fuel pump canopy met the standards for fuel
pump canopies as stipulated in Appendix B of the Entrance Corridor Design
Guidelines.
Y
M:
.. ..♦ I 141 .....�
111Yt CE-1) [!LLv�1g1
■
® -�.
Cr+/utix frrcr, WAWA W50 FS I VA M_wonei - STORE *8659
Rt 79 b P. t Rd., 01MbtMwBe. VA • W ftoj a ,17180068 • 07-077018
The applicants presented these architectural elevations at the February 12 meeting...
4
4 -
al 101
-
a11., Jill
As well as this gas canopy rendering.
.�,.
sRon ntvarw+ �•�—.-
10Caur ElEv4npr� ��
^iY
�., IOT HlVAIgI �_
MW
REM="Ara
5
Staff recommends that the ARB forward the following recommendations to the Agent for the Site Review Committee:
• Regarding requirements to satisfy the design guidelines as per § 18-30.6.4c(2),(3) and (5) and recommended conditions of initial plan approval:
o Prior to Initial Plan approval the following items shall be resolved to the satisfaction of the ARB:
1. Relegate the fuel pumps and canopy away from the Entrance Corridor.
2. Illustrate the utility casements on the landscape plan (C-600) and ensure that there arc no conflicts between the proposed planting placement
and utilities.
3. Reduce the dimensions of the fuel -pump canopy to comply with the Standards for Fuel Pump Canopies as outlined in Appendix B of the EC
Design Guidelines.
• Regarding recommendations on the plan as it relates to the guidelines:
1. Consider substituting native trcc and shrub species for those exotic species found in the plant schedule.
2. Consider adding shrubbery to the exterior of the building.
• Regarding conditions to be satisfied prior to issuance of a grading permit: None.
Regarding the final site plan submittal:
I . Submit architectural elevations and plans of the building and fuel pump for final review. Address the standards and criteria established in
the Standards for Fuel Pump Canopies as outlined in Appendix B of the EC Design Guidelines.
2. Submit material samples for final review.
3. Relieve blankness on the north, south and west elevations by using architectural detail, supplemented with landscaping.
4. Provide manufacturer's specifications for proposed window glaring and samples for final review.
5. Provide the standard glass note on the elevations: Window - glass in the Entrance Corridors should meet thefollowing criteria: Visible light
transmittance (VLT) shall not drop below- 40% Visible light reflectance (VLR) shall not exceed 30'9
6. Submit elevations, details, and samples of the dumpster enclosure for final review.
7. Revise the plan to include dumpster elevations and details. Provide samples of the dumpster enclosure for review.
8. Relegate loading areas and mechanical equipment from the EC.
9. Provide a roof plan with equipment heights for review if any proposed mechanical equipment will be roof -mounted.
10. Provide the standard mechanical equipment note on the General Notes page (C-101) of the site plan set and on the architectural drawings:
Visibili(v of all mechanical eyuipmeni from the Entrance Corridor shall be eliminated.
ll. Ensure that no footcandle values above 0.5 spill over from the property boundaries into public right-of-ways.
12. Provide manufacturer's specifications for all proposed light fixtures.
The result of the discussion at the February 12 meeting was a vote 4:1 to forward the
following recommendations to the Agent for the Site Review Committee regarding
requirements to satisfy the design guidelines and recommended conditions of initial
plan approval:
1. Relegate the fuel pump and canopy away from the EC
2. Illustrate the utility easements on the landscape plan and ensure that there are
no conflicts between the proposed planting placement and utilities
3. Reduce the dimensions of the fuel -pump canopy to comply with the Standards for
Fuel Pump Canopies as outlined in Appendix B of the EC Design Guidelines
The requirements must be resolved to the satisfaction of the ARB prior to Initial Plan
approval; hence, revisions and a subsequent full review (including a staff report) is
necessary.
6
Following the ARB meeting on February 121h, the applicants requested a work
session, which was held during the March 19, 2018 ARB meeting. In response to the
first requirement named by the ARB at the February 12th meeting — to relegate the
fuel pump and canopy away from the EC — the applicants presented the following
studies. The first, shown here, presents a "flipped" site layout in which the fuel pump
canopy is located on the eastern portion of the site and the building re -positioned on
the western portion, closest to the EC. It was the applicants' conclusion that this
layout, presented thusly, was infeasible in terms of circulation and would result in the
back of the building (plus two rows of parking and the dumpster pad) being
positioned near and facing the EC, which would be contrary to the EC design
guidelines.
7
The second study presented the current site layout rotated at a 90-degree angle.
Again, the applicants' conclusion was that this layout, presented thusly, was
infeasible.
8
VNs4 nd
mnpw.p rnan Ancench B
oma..-.�w.� Ganaov pavan
In regard to the third requirement named by the ARB at the February 12th meeting —
to reduce the dimensions of the fuel -pump canopy to comply with the Standards for
Fuel Pump Canopies as outlined in Appendix B of the EC Design Guidelines —the
applicant provided this study of a reduced canopy size versus the requested size
typical of Wawa canopies. The applicants' conclusion was that the larger, standard
Wawa canopy size was ideal for multiple reasons. The applicant did not address the
possibility of reducing the overall size of the canopy by reducing the number of fuel
dispensers.
9
Lastly, the applicants presented this rendering of the proposed fuel pump canopy
with the Wawa signature tilt. While the canopy height is, at it's apex, approximately
25' above grade, the applicant reminded the board through this rendering that the
canopy structure would be set below the grade of the EC by approximately 4-6 feet.
The ARB discussed alternative roof forms — such as a side gable — during the meeting
with the applicants.
At the March 191h work session the ARB provided the following comments for the
applicant's next submittal:
1. The applicant should continue to pursue measures to mitigate the visual impact
of the fuel pump canopy and to bring the design in line with the Entrance Corridor
design guidelines. Canopy location, orientation, mass, size, scale and roof shape
are some design elements that could be revised for reduced impact.
2. Some ARB members thought that the site layout could be revised to position the
canopy behind the building as viewed from the EC while still achieving a
functional site.
3. The building deserves attention. The building and canopy architecture should be
compatible and relate more directly. Consider the frontality of the building and
the fenestration. Show how the two elements can be more compatible.
10
�,..r���\� ��� �►moi ,�.�.
-- -Z44
t�
The applicants are returning for a second work session at this, the April 2, 2018 ARB
meeting. They have circulated the following studies for consideration by the board.
The first is a rendering of the fuel -pump canopy with a side gable roof form. This is,
presumably, in response to the ARB's direction from the March 191h meeting that "the
applicant should continue to pursue measures to mitigate the visual impact of the
fuel pump canopy and to bring the design in line with the Entrance Corridor design
guidelines. Canopy location, orientation, mass, size, scale and roof shape are some
design elements that could be revised for reduced impact."
The dimensions of this fuel pump canopy have been reduced so that the extents of
the canopy trim are 78' x 55' while the extents of the slab are 82' x 59'. This is a
reduction in canopy length from 96' to 78', while the width (55') is the same since the
previous submission. The height has been reduced to 14'-10.5" from grade to the
bottom of the truss while the apex of the ridge pole is 20'-8" above grade; this is a
4.42 foot reduction in overall height, as the previous submission's canopy's apex
measured 25'-2" above grade. The reduced heights still exceed those set in Appendix
B of the Design Guidelines, which stipulate a maximum height of 14'-6" from grade to
the bottom of the fascia, and a maximum fascia height of 36", for a total maximum
height of 17'-6".
111011T 6iVATA1 :...,
~ y lOT RiVATd
a..
HI EKI -n♦
RfC�
■
RLR S"ATON
C�r�dT irh GAS CANOPY A -FRAME STACKED 6 - MASQ11-R - STORE *8655
Rt. 296 ftft R0. Char$wewft VA • C&P PtcWa /2180068 • 0}261018
The applicants have created this rendering of the fuel pump canopy with a side gable
roof
12
As well as this model which shows the gable -roofed, 6 -pump fuel pump canopy in its
proposed location on the EC
13
In response to the second ARB direction made at the March 191h work session —that
some ARB members thought that the site layout could be revised to position the
canopy behind the building as viewed from the EC while still achieving a functional
site —the applicants have supplied this study.
14
They have also supplied a 54 -page document entitled "Gas and Convenience Stores of
Albemarle County: The Entrance Corridor" in which they have included a survey of
fuel stations on EC's throughout the county.
15
33 Sites in EC —Albemarle County
One site "Pre" ARB (Trading Post)
8 of 32 Sites have canopy and building on EC =25%
24 of 32 Sites have canopy on EC and building behind = 75%
32 of 32 Sites have the canopy on the EC = 100%
0 of 32 Sites have building behind canopy= 0%
Their conclusion is that only one quarter of those surveyed have the fuel pump
canopy and the building adjacent to the EC, while the majority (three-quarters) have
the building located behind the canopy, which fronts the EC. No site layouts have a
canopy relegated away from the EC.
Staff would like to note that many of the gas stations included in this survey pre -date
the establishments of the various ECs on which they are located, but those gas
stations (save one, the Trading Post) have been remodeled over time. Nonetheless, in
many cases, their site plans would pre -date the designation of the adjacent
thoroughfares as Ecs.
16
The report includes this chart.
Stan Binsted, who is unable to attend today's meeting, has supplied the following
remarks: "Interesting chart he provided of comparison of other fuel stations. Just an
observation - Average size of building for convenience store is 2,658 sf vs their
proposed size of 6001 sf. This would be the largest in the area. Building size
determines parking requirements and allowable canopy size. Our point last time was
too much building for this size site. Still appears that is the case. If building is
reduced in size, and parking is reduced, it might work. At 5000 sf building would be
2nd largest in the area (still considerably larger than most others) and would reduce
parking by 10 spaces. The building sf area ... does seem to be what is limiting other
site configurations. On the plus side, I do think they made significant improvement to
canopy."
17
GM/C-St—
Of We AlbwrMFOtrar0 Catt10ak
Slake
P—AMI
to
Rleaaned
Ad&—
74m!
Yeas Bulb
S2
lotal Canopy fi
BuNdIM RPW
Longth
Width
Y
Not MPW% S7
MM
H&W
&Le talon
I INS BouW-M—Rod Rok—SheW.0
2016
3,100
S.a00
16616
Ila
M
SASE
B
697
Wr Canopies
and bulMl mcmkak
2 3171 NOW Age
Costco GM
2015
148'
2.160
A
120
36
4.170
o
so
IIrW
oo—k/w - BuiMln behkd
36115 Rockfkh Gap
OP Marko
2013
4.036
4./60
93%
SO
474
3,360
6
S60
16' C
andbuidi m—idoc
4124%5—hole
Eaam/71t
2012
3,168
4,500
142%
/2S
N
3A10
S
600
Irl" C—"—arida
Buildin behkrd
530011 Rkhmond Rod
E— LVq Markel
2012
4.500
2,200
48%
9R
32
3,136
4
74
Irl' C
midwbuildin behind
676SIRo,h%h Ga
Sumo
2012
548
2.40
411%
M
20
44.0
3
760
16'Y C
�wrklw-BuikNn behind
7 MSS Seminole
Icon
2011
4.111111
1,172
76%
125
26
31750
S
GSO
ITS' Q
Buildi t hkM
t 1600S—A-le
2011
4.050
L1R
299%
R
S6
I,2R
6
Sat
1r10" C
andbulWl m arida
914705emhwle
11P
NOR
2.520
2.970
112%
R30
Z1111111113
960
16-V
nd abuidi mtmId.
10 5977 Scottsville Road
GreMtn Coumby Slake
en
268
IAN
4110
21%
N
20
410
2
248
10'6•
m corridor Wildingbehind
111129 Richmond Rod
SWI
M0
2.709
4.6W
173%
Bo
60
RAW
6
am
16'
onto klor - bulklikii behid
12 416 Plank Rand
C—...& Fam
200
3.168
2.068
65%
SS
So,
2A70
I
No
16' CaoM
m corridM - Bulkilkii behkd
13207 Rolkln Road
9P
2004
1,169
3,695
116%
92
46
4.237
6
70
16' C&PM
mconklor-Wild behkW
14 5995 Rockfish Gap
Hum / 8 mvllle Mw K
293
LS0
1.40
90%
N
N
LS36
3
S12
1S'r C,,M
on cokidak - Wild behkd
1S 22 IS Semloole
2002
2.160
I,t20
117%
0
42
3,360
6
SR
Irl•
adbul tarrklar
161172 Rkhmond Rod
2001
2.7113
I'm
122%
IR
12
]A%
6
S76
R'Y CanoploncorrMak-
Bubd behind
1724 Rolkln Rod
Mobil
2301
SAIL
6,96
102%
19
M
7,04
14
SW
W
mco 6ft - bWWIM behind
19 10" Rio Rod
Kagaroo
2000 1
L7001
2.400
M%
R
4
2,600
4
660
Irr Canally
on coal" - Bulkift behind
191248 Crakel Ave.
lop
290
3,332
LS48
456
4
20
LM
1 2
996
16Y
and bulift ono-Wor
20 1365 Por urn Ckc4
E—
2000
2.773
2AN
WI%
IN
N
2.SW
4
648
19'5" Canopymookkior
BuIldintibehind
M 31035cottMllehond
Liberty/ Vi.teMarket
2000
LBM
1-10
26%
4
N
1-106
2
SS2
16'Y
andbuiooOWak
2Z 27A kith Road
5ukoto/Wo—
1999
LAN
Loot
62%
4S
20
99
2
450
16'1' Canopyand
bW --klor
231111 Rho R9d
Gull
1999
2,60
3,720
152%
130
32
4.160
4
1048
16'5'
andbu1 mcarWa
N 60M Rohfhh Gap
Citso
19M
1.397
6"
46%
45
20
968
2
450
SS' C
mcm3dor Bulldlg behind
2S VAR R,ockfhhr Gap
GM GM
19M
L768
W
45%
36
N
W
1
W
16'1• C
—kim - Buiking b #,W
N 101 Rio Road
E—
19M
3AR
4.68
156%
n
461
4AI2
6
195
16-W C
orridw W1din behind
211192 Rkhmond Rod
Hoon/W
""
4.08
2,68
Mill
R
40
1,200
4
119
Irr Building beMnd
N 241 Wy Rod
E—/G~kaa k t
INS
2.30
L612
66%
62
20
1.Al2
3 1
S37
95'1' C
w.idw - Wddin t ehlnd
NIMSeminale
ShNI
1995
2,719
4.47
163%
R
68
4.40
7
620
16'10' C
n
.,ick. Wildingbehid
.04S30Monxanlca0
C
1993
1,162
W
74%
36
20
936
2 1
495
16' C
cmkim Wildin behlnd
If 2112 Wad
Shall
1992
2.725
2.592
%`%
IR
N
2.592
4
Me
195'1• C
mcakrldor Wildingbehind
12 460 Rood
Hum
1992
2.623
1,092
42%
4
20
U60
:
648
Is r
m cakMAak - build behind
13 3957 Math TIA
7 POM
1990
2.668
2.116
O6
102%va
R
36
R
N
W
4
I
OLL
tit
1MI'
ITS•
MOMWf• h911BW
mcwrkla - Buildl.g bMind
The report includes this chart.
Stan Binsted, who is unable to attend today's meeting, has supplied the following
remarks: "Interesting chart he provided of comparison of other fuel stations. Just an
observation - Average size of building for convenience store is 2,658 sf vs their
proposed size of 6001 sf. This would be the largest in the area. Building size
determines parking requirements and allowable canopy size. Our point last time was
too much building for this size site. Still appears that is the case. If building is
reduced in size, and parking is reduced, it might work. At 5000 sf building would be
2nd largest in the area (still considerably larger than most others) and would reduce
parking by 10 spaces. The building sf area ... does seem to be what is limiting other
site configurations. On the plus side, I do think they made significant improvement to
canopy."
17
New Wawa VS. "Comparable"
The report also includes this chart comparing the proposed Wawa with 4 other
Albemarle County gas stations, built between 1996 and 2016. Staff observes that,
while the square footage of the proposed fuel -pump canopy exceeds the average by
363 sq. ft., the proposed building (6,001 square feet) would exceed the average of
these four (3,244 square feet) by nearly double.
Also, staff would like to point out that the largest of the selected four gas stations, at
1915 BOULDERVIEW RD, has a 3,700 sq ft building and a 5,400 sq ft canopy on a 1.94 -
acre site — half an acre larger than the site proposed for a 6,001 sq ft building and
4,290 sq ft fuel pump canopy. With a height of 19'-3", the proposed Wawa canopy
would be taller by another foot and a half.
Gas/C-Store Study of the Albemarle EntranceCorridor
Store
Permited
Canopyto
Measured
Address Name
Year Built
SF
Total Canopy SE Building Ratio Len
Wi(b
SE
4ofMPD's SF per MPD Height Orientation
11915 Boulderview Road HoltzmanShelljl-11
2016
3101
SAN
146%
124
88
5,456
8 682
19'3' Canopies and building onWdor
23410 Seminole BP
2006
1528
2,820
112%
96
30
2,880
3 960
16'6" Canopy and building oncorrneor
31129RidIhmondRoad Shell
2006
2109
4,660
173%
80
60
4,800
6 800
16' Canopy on corridor- Buildingbehind
41192 Richmond Road Um/Wendy's
1996
4038
UN
A%
80
40
3,200
4 B00
189' Canopy on corridor - Buildingbehind
3,244
3,921
121%
95
55
5,118
5 986
169'
PROPOSEDWawa
6001
4,290
11%
1e'
SS'
4,290
i 115
14'10" Canopyoncorridor- Buildingbehind
The report also includes this chart comparing the proposed Wawa with 4 other
Albemarle County gas stations, built between 1996 and 2016. Staff observes that,
while the square footage of the proposed fuel -pump canopy exceeds the average by
363 sq. ft., the proposed building (6,001 square feet) would exceed the average of
these four (3,244 square feet) by nearly double.
Also, staff would like to point out that the largest of the selected four gas stations, at
1915 BOULDERVIEW RD, has a 3,700 sq ft building and a 5,400 sq ft canopy on a 1.94 -
acre site — half an acre larger than the site proposed for a 6,001 sq ft building and
4,290 sq ft fuel pump canopy. With a height of 19'-3", the proposed Wawa canopy
would be taller by another foot and a half.
WAWA W50 FS I VA - STORE •
SernrlRk Trac IUS /My 2916 ProIPo Rd. Charlolktvilk. VA • UP Prgetl a 2180068 • 0}162018
Lastly, the applicants have submitted these elevation of the proposed building. The
only perceivable difference is the addition of a hipped roof to the main block
19
-------------
r I ;
y* r tl
T�
WAWA W50 FS I VA M_wonei - STORE *8659
` Rt 29& Pmft Rd., Q�btMwBe. VA • C6R ft* -17180068 • 07-07.7018
The main block in the previous submission had a flat roof.
20
Vehicle not
completely under
overhang / within
Drive -aisle
0
0
N
Vehicle is entirely
under canopy
while fueling /
outside of
drive -aisle
Appendix B
Canopy Layout
IVehicles pulling in at
opposing directions
26 00' would conflict
6. 2'
Without adequate
center spacing vehicle
would require blind
back-up movement
into drive -aisle
78.001
Wawa Canopy
Layout
14.12'
34.00'
Adequate center
spacing allows for o
vehicle bypass LO
avoiding blind LO
96.00' back-up movement
Adequate spacing
for head in
parking without
vehicle overlap
r =`
/ o
/ ID
V p
D
D / D
D
� p
/ D D
Y
4 D p V 0
\
\
\
\
\
fJ� \
—0—
GV
x
�w� DV
OO
TOP OF STL TOWER
24'-0"
TOP OF PARAPET
22'-6"
BTM OF PORCH BM.
10--0"
FIN. F
0'-0•
TOP OF PEAK
33'-0'
DUTCH SEAM
METAL ROOF
BRICK FIELDSTONE BRICK TAVERN
----------------
-- ------ _---:
-- ------ —,. -
-.:r=rte_-..._ME
---
--- _ = "•
eis*� �crs :a��rre.w �c� ie�+.•�."'.�.iie�+.r��is��.i����e'���n+.����w�i�-s��..� ����-�f�
Roof/Parapet Cap
Atas Aluminum Corp
Slate Grey
Metro Brick
Fieldstone
#105
nuality -
Ohio Drystacla
Provence—T-
Trim 1 Fascia
White
Gutters/Porch/Soffits
Atas Aluminum Corp
Ascot White (10)
Thin Brick
Tavern Flash Red-
Marion
ed-Marion Ceramics
Door l Frames
White
mrricu>rui�rRflm�
nnunlnlnnnnn
=i
M�-rte
www �w �rs,e•..a-
METAL TRIM
COLOR = WHITE
METAL COPING
COLOR SLATE GREY
RIGHT (SOUTH) ELEVATION (FROFFIT RD.)
TOP OF PEAK
33'-0"
DUTCH SEAM
METAL ROOF
1111111111111
•
li•• •
fit-- -
M 'III
1
Z.
: . , ..�r= �"' tee+►. •� �■w+.t.�. �i..
- - FIN. FLOOR EI
U,.
MANUF, STONE VENEER
REAR (EAST) ELEVATION
DUTCH SEAM
METAL ROOF
BRICK TAVERN
I BRICK FIELDSTONE
NON
--- --- --
.w
------ — — — _
..---_ —.--—
--— _—
--rr —
--- =---- __ —---
----
- - - - -- ------ -----
& ��ersarz
Architects Engineers Planners
ORLANDO •PHILADELPHIA
�.1
r tom" i 1
LEFT (NORTH) ELEVATION
TOP OF PEAK OL
33'-0'
PAINTE76'W -H W7
TOP OF STL TOWER OL
24'-0' -
TOP OF PARAPET
22'-6'
BTM OF PORCH BEAM OL
10'-0'
STEEL COLUMNS I BEAMS
PAINTED WHITE
METAL TRIM
COLOR = WHITE
METAL COPING
COLOR SLATE GREY
H
LL
W
r
N
0
N
r
r �
CCD O
ANODIZED ALUMINUM STOREFRONT
❑ 0
II II
I
I
I I
II II
I I
I
RE TF
WALP
RE FR
WALK-IN
BEER
REFRIG.
No
TOP OF PEAK gh
33'-0'
DUTCH SEAM
METAL ROOF
BRICK FIELDSTONE
ELECTRICAL
ROOM
BRICK TAVERN
TOP OF PARAPET OL
22'-6'
TOP OF WALL PLATE ELV.
REVEAL ELV.
14'-0°
BTM. OF PORCH BM.OL
10'-0'
SILL PLATE ELV.
FIN. FLOOR ELV,
IL
- MANUF STONE VENEER
FRONT (WEST) ELEVATION ORT -2c3)
REAR
Nor
91'-B" (TO FACE OF FINISH)
40'4'
� o
REAR
VESTIBULE
I I
moDSERV❑E
WALK-IN
r000 sERd FREEZER
WAL4 I
METAL TRIM
COLOR = WHITE
0
METAL COPING
REFRIG.
COLOR: SLATE GREY
Ch
__
u
El 171
D ❑
--
ASSOCIATES yn�
a "
----�— MEN'Sj
--
a=
---- CHECKOUT ---- —_--
RESTROOM
—+
®---
:_—
-1-.-
—_ ==
-----
;M
--
.
RESTROOM
_ —.w
JAMITIRRM
VESTIBULE
kmk—i----
—T
EF--------
Roof/Parapet Cap
Atas Aluminum Corp
Slate Grey
Metro Brick
Fieldstone
#105
nuality -
Ohio Drystacla
Provence—T-
Trim 1 Fascia
White
Gutters/Porch/Soffits
Atas Aluminum Corp
Ascot White (10)
Thin Brick
Tavern Flash Red-
Marion
ed-Marion Ceramics
Door l Frames
White
mrricu>rui�rRflm�
nnunlnlnnnnn
=i
M�-rte
www �w �rs,e•..a-
METAL TRIM
COLOR = WHITE
METAL COPING
COLOR SLATE GREY
RIGHT (SOUTH) ELEVATION (FROFFIT RD.)
TOP OF PEAK
33'-0"
DUTCH SEAM
METAL ROOF
1111111111111
•
li•• •
fit-- -
M 'III
1
Z.
: . , ..�r= �"' tee+►. •� �■w+.t.�. �i..
- - FIN. FLOOR EI
U,.
MANUF, STONE VENEER
REAR (EAST) ELEVATION
DUTCH SEAM
METAL ROOF
BRICK TAVERN
I BRICK FIELDSTONE
NON
--- --- --
.w
------ — — — _
..---_ —.--—
--— _—
--rr —
--- =---- __ —---
----
- - - - -- ------ -----
& ��ersarz
Architects Engineers Planners
ORLANDO •PHILADELPHIA
�.1
r tom" i 1
LEFT (NORTH) ELEVATION
TOP OF PEAK OL
33'-0'
PAINTE76'W -H W7
TOP OF STL TOWER OL
24'-0' -
TOP OF PARAPET
22'-6'
BTM OF PORCH BEAM OL
10'-0'
STEEL COLUMNS I BEAMS
PAINTED WHITE
METAL TRIM
COLOR = WHITE
METAL COPING
COLOR SLATE GREY
H
LL
W
r
N
0
N
r
r �
CCD O
ANODIZED ALUMINUM STOREFRONT
❑ 0
II II
I
I
I I
II II
I I
I
RE TF
WALP
RE FR
WALK-IN
BEER
REFRIG.
No
TOP OF PEAK gh
33'-0'
DUTCH SEAM
METAL ROOF
BRICK FIELDSTONE
ELECTRICAL
ROOM
BRICK TAVERN
TOP OF PARAPET OL
22'-6'
TOP OF WALL PLATE ELV.
REVEAL ELV.
14'-0°
BTM. OF PORCH BM.OL
10'-0'
SILL PLATE ELV.
FIN. FLOOR ELV,
IL
- MANUF STONE VENEER
FRONT (WEST) ELEVATION ORT -2c3)
REAR
Nor
91'-B" (TO FACE OF FINISH)
40'4'
� o
REAR
VESTIBULE
I I
moDSERV❑E
WALK-IN
r000 sERd FREEZER
WAL4 I
0
REFRIG.
]�
(6-1 WATER
SERVICE
ROOM
STAGING
WASH
i� r o
COFFEE
--1 • — i— —I.
I- 't
FOOD
SERVICE _
o ❑ z
❑ 0
0 O LLI
U
❑ Q
o �
0 _
00
00
C%
FRONT FLOOR FLAN
W W U150 FB I VA M v2e».e� -STORE #56513
Rt. 29 & Proffit Rd.,, Charlottesville,, VA. C&P Project # 2180068 • 02-07-2018
■
0
]�
Ch
__
u
El 171
D ❑
ELAND ----
ASSOCIATES yn�
a "
----�— MEN'Sj
--
r
---- CHECKOUT ---- —_--
RESTROOM
—+
®---
—
OFRCE
-----
WOMEN'S—
--
___
RESTROOM
—_—_
JAMITIRRM
VESTIBULE
—T
EF--------
II I
II I
II I
P❑
I II
I II
I II
II I
I II
0)
T—_—_�
r__—___T________________________________________________________J�I
I�L_________________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------
n
F:-9 -----------------------------------------------------------J
F----�---------------
33'-7 1/2"22'-7"
35'-5 112"
FRONT FLOOR FLAN
W W U150 FB I VA M v2e».e� -STORE #56513
Rt. 29 & Proffit Rd.,, Charlottesville,, VA. C&P Project # 2180068 • 02-07-2018
■
OIL CLEAR HT.
14'-10 112'
T.O CANOPY AiL
B.O. TRUSSjk
14'-W
10 g
CRhael"g-'lelx"eSP14
Architects Engineers Planners
z
Wawa
....�'ic u.. A_ . _ �I-
Metal Door
White
Thin Brick��
M -Tavern Flash Red
Marion Ceramics
!R
!r
ti
Trim
White
WHITE PVC SLATS METAL GATE ,POSTS 8 FRAME
T- AOL
F� ON T t Lt V A T I ON WHITE METAL DOOR FRAME
T. 0. MASONRY
8'-8'
jh T. 0. SILL
5'-0'
T. 0. FLOOR SLAB
0'-0'
T O MASONRY
B'-8'
OIL T 0 SILL
5'-0'
T 0 FLOOR SLAB
0' -0 -
RIGHT ELEVATION
LEFT ELEVATION
T 0 MASONRY jl
8'-8'
T 0. SILL
5'-0'
T 0 FLOOR SLAB OIL
0'-0'
PRECAST
CONCRETE CAP
BRICK TAVERN
MANUFACTURED
STONE SILL
MANUFACTURED
STONE VENEER
PRECAST
CONCRETE BASE
PRECAST
CONCRETE CAP
BRICK TAVERN
MANUFACTURED
STONE SILL
MANUFACTURED
STONE VENEER
PRECAST
CONCRETE BASE
PRECAST
f CONCRETE CAP
T 0 MASONRY j1
RE/� R E LE \ / /� T I ON � PRECAST
t't Y �'t CONCRETE BASE
CxAS CANOPY StAGKED 6 - TRASH COMPOUND M 5 1 1-R -
Rt. 29 & ProffitRd.f Charlottesville, VA 9 C&PProj"ect#2180068 • OZ -07-2018
SCORE #56515
kit 4
d �
z
Wawa
....�'ic u.. A_ . _ �I-
Metal Door
White
Thin Brick��
M -Tavern Flash Red
Marion Ceramics
!R
!r
ti
Trim
White
WHITE PVC SLATS METAL GATE ,POSTS 8 FRAME
T- AOL
F� ON T t Lt V A T I ON WHITE METAL DOOR FRAME
T. 0. MASONRY
8'-8'
jh T. 0. SILL
5'-0'
T. 0. FLOOR SLAB
0'-0'
T O MASONRY
B'-8'
OIL T 0 SILL
5'-0'
T 0 FLOOR SLAB
0' -0 -
RIGHT ELEVATION
LEFT ELEVATION
T 0 MASONRY jl
8'-8'
T 0. SILL
5'-0'
T 0 FLOOR SLAB OIL
0'-0'
PRECAST
CONCRETE CAP
BRICK TAVERN
MANUFACTURED
STONE SILL
MANUFACTURED
STONE VENEER
PRECAST
CONCRETE BASE
PRECAST
CONCRETE CAP
BRICK TAVERN
MANUFACTURED
STONE SILL
MANUFACTURED
STONE VENEER
PRECAST
CONCRETE BASE
PRECAST
f CONCRETE CAP
T 0 MASONRY j1
RE/� R E LE \ / /� T I ON � PRECAST
t't Y �'t CONCRETE BASE
CxAS CANOPY StAGKED 6 - TRASH COMPOUND M 5 1 1-R -
Rt. 29 & ProffitRd.f Charlottesville, VA 9 C&PProj"ect#2180068 • OZ -07-2018
SCORE #56515
This is an Initial Site Development Plan for Wawa fuel stations; the proposal is to
construct a fuel station with a 6,001 sf building, a 6,000 sf fuel -pump canopy, and
associated site improvements on 1.431 acres. The site will have maximum visibility
from both sides of Seminole Trail (Route 29), the EC.
The site is situated at the northeast corner of one of the County's most prominent
intersections, Route 29 and Airport Road/Proffit Road. Commercial and industrial
enterprises as well as services characterize the area: 84 Lumber, Store -It -Right self -
storage, and Martha Jefferson Hospital clinic lie to the north of the parcel, along
Route 29; Southern States lies to the east of the parcel, accessed from Proffit Road; a
shopping center with a Walgreen's pharmacy and Advance Auto Parts retail store lies
on the south side of Proffit Road; a BP gas station and a Wells Fargo bank lie to the
southwest; and a retail strip featuring Alpha Medical Aids and Budget Truck Rental lie
to the west of the parcel and Route 29.
The west half of the parcel is cleared but undeveloped; the east half of the parcel was
developed as a bank circa 1991. This proposal calls for the demolition of the building
and the removal of all extant trees on the site.
Although no architectural drawings of the proposed building or fuel pump canopy
have been submitted, other Wawa fuel stations in the region exhibit a contemporary
design aesthetic as well as vocabulary that pronounces the building's retail function:
above is an example, the likes of which can be seen in Gainesville, Virginia as well as
locations west of Richmond, Virginia. This example of a Wawa canopy exhibits a high-
tech design that is not consistent with the historic architecture of the area. Its overtly
angled roof will make it difficult — if not impossible — to meet lighting and fuel pump
canopy guidelines. It is also stated in the Design Guidelines (#15) that "Trademark
buildings and related features should be modified to meet the requirements of the
Guidelines."
In this Initial site plan, the proposed fuel pumps and canopy are adjacent to the EC,
on the west side of the site, while the proposed building is located in the eastern half
of the site, farther from the EC. Many standard fuel pump canopy designs have no
architectural forms or features that provide human scale or compatible massing. A
canopy without such design is better located behind the building as viewed from the
EC, because the building can more readily accommodate human massing, scale, and
detail.
4
There are two fuel stations in the area in which the architectural design integrates the
fuel pump canopy with the building. These former Texaco stations (the upper one on
Route 250 E/Pantops, the bottom one on the southwest corner of the intersection of
Route 29 and Airport/Proffit roads) are the most successful examples of fuel station
design in Albemarle County in terms of meeting the Entrance Corridor Design
Guidelines because the fuel canopy neither overwhelms nor obscures the building
and the building retains its prominence on the site.
APPENDIX B
.n.l...J• l.v hwf Po•m f'ulvw..
hla.unum I-, ". a.mpk "I'. canq.-_`e'
I-r—fun.ane hang -I.', ,kmplh - Tp fm—h.A.
F-
hla.imum I.V& for • d•whk ,Un cany, • J_'
I•_' —ft. am.e hwl - I p aum knph-"ca•mfun nme m•Llk - I N' aula.Irnph - :'.xmfan
mn' M L.
I �•
h4.imum fold ke • b pk �dat•J tangy • IJ!
-.mf-Bons•IM'una knplh•J'cmnf-nme mWk- IN'auto",th• i' w fm
nmc hacl- IN'— Irnpth -J'f nxr Ivchl
x ID rn
NWunum.dN fm unpk �+IW c�mp•n--'e' I- J'lupm dam a.crhanpl • e'Ica .xhhl
_' Icud, clmranel • J' Ii.kN.xhhl • =' Icmn clevu.el � e' I.m .id(hl • J' luprn Jmw
mnhanp 11
IIFI(d1i Ih N,hhEhn• 14Irof fgr'ul
%b,... a.«pohk ,pn1 �. e-
1A III I(:111
hla.imum lur'v neipnl is b"
NEL DENSER SV L
A I,p —. TPtillthe minimum canwry M,N 1. 1'e".uk. J!'
dap
LSIAND WE
A fyplWn n13 -Id' lung J'.�Je_u" 1.11
Again, in this proposal, the fuel pump canopy is the most conspicuous accessory
structure on the site plan, as large in its footprint as the building. It is anticipated that
the canopy and fuel pumps will visually overwhelm the site and the building. A
smaller canopy and a location behind the store would establish greater integration
along the corridor. Therefore, staff has recommended that the applicant reduce the
dimensions of the fuel -pump canopy to comply with the Standards for Fuel Pump
Canopies as outlined in Appendix B of the EC Design Guidelines as well as relegate
the fuel -pump canopy away from the EC.
In sum, staff has recommended that the ARB forward the following recommendations
to the Agent for the Site Review Committee regarding requirements to satisfy the
design guidelines as per § 18-30.6.4c(2), (3) and (5) and recommended conditions of
initial plan approval:
Prior to Initial Plan approval the following items shall be resolved to the
satisfaction of the ARB:
Relegate the fuel pumps and canopy away from the Entrance Corridor.
Illustrate the utility easements on the landscape plan (C-600) and
ensure that there are no conflicts between the proposed planting
placement and utilities.
6
Reduce the dimensions of the fuel -pump canopy to comply with the
Standards for Fuel Pump Canopies as outlined in Appendix B of the EC
Design Guidelines.
Furthermore, in consideration of these recommendations, staff believes the following
should be today's primary points of discussion:
1. The merit of relegating the fuel pump canopy away from the EC by moving the
building closer to the EC.
2. The proposed landscape plan and potential utility conflicts.
6
=`11
N
E
BENCHMARK \
X -CUT
ELE ..=545.57
,Ar -B UJAWA
TN ITI{K- SL -T -E
FEP�UftYC4 12, 2olg 1-L[�TIIJC
P/N.. 32-38
AIRPORT PLAZA LLC
D.B. 4622 PG 319
USE RETAIL STORE
AQ—
h�
016p� A ti
41e�0, `rOeJ016ptip�
0
701
17,Z' PC
It
epyeek
TRACT 2
D.B. 661 PG.
10 0�
I
ari
Z.
3 PXAB C MOA
APPROX = "15'/RGINIAJ /
POWER EA ENT / 31
P/N. 32-37C a.a lns 3s7 / h
WGN PROFF/TT LLC C.0 WALGREEN
CO REAL ESTATE TAX DEP
D.B. 3790 PG 692 ' e33'
USE. BETA/L STORE
J ® 7n, .h3ry
vthiU.v-zk 46T- SZ$ rw E 'la S'{3 Iti LJ �� y/h�lY qAM
I 'eve Zo' r� E s v '�/iQB� f' ®d D a�
�) s ��pe ASPygCT gOTy A/GHT— .649
=7 SH2T,
oUSTEp p�EEUBI/C RC� g FIY
>S3y 531/530j?�llRH 5ZTt 7 53U
7sfuPQ 1* nl sid 5yZ 53; it1f V7z"
PIN.- 4684-4
JA—ZAN LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
D.B. 1144 PG. 382
USE VACANT COMMERCIAL
REQUIREMENTS
LANDSCAPE SCHEDULE
COMPLIANCE
ALL DEVELOPMENTS, PUBLIC OR
KEY
OTY.
BOTANICAL. NAME
i
CAL.
CONT.
TREE CANOPY
TREE CANOPY
COVERAGE
sxwEira£s
THE PRESERVATION AND
q S"
34-869
PLANTING OF TREES ON THE SITE
M
r�APP LOCA`
ACCESS EME
l
ACE Bl +
[J I
17,Z' PC
It
epyeek
TRACT 2
D.B. 661 PG.
10 0�
I
ari
Z.
3 PXAB C MOA
APPROX = "15'/RGINIAJ /
POWER EA ENT / 31
P/N. 32-37C a.a lns 3s7 / h
WGN PROFF/TT LLC C.0 WALGREEN
CO REAL ESTATE TAX DEP
D.B. 3790 PG 692 ' e33'
USE. BETA/L STORE
J ® 7n, .h3ry
vthiU.v-zk 46T- SZ$ rw E 'la S'{3 Iti LJ �� y/h�lY qAM
I 'eve Zo' r� E s v '�/iQB� f' ®d D a�
�) s ��pe ASPygCT gOTy A/GHT— .649
=7 SH2T,
oUSTEp p�EEUBI/C RC� g FIY
>S3y 531/530j?�llRH 5ZTt 7 53U
7sfuPQ 1* nl sid 5yZ 53; it1f V7z"
PIN.- 4684-4
JA—ZAN LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
D.B. 1144 PG. 382
USE VACANT COMMERCIAL
11
II
II
II
11
cr
J'I C
II
I
ZONING ORDINANCF RFOITTREMFNTS
SECTION
REQUIREMENTS
LANDSCAPE SCHEDULE
COMPLIANCE
ALL DEVELOPMENTS, PUBLIC OR
KEY
OTY.
BOTANICAL. NAME
COMMON NAME
CAL.
CONT.
TREE CANOPY
TREE CANOPY
COVERAGE
sxwEira£s
THE PRESERVATION AND
q S"
34-869
PLANTING OF TREES ON THE SITE
M
/
ACE Bl +
REYYNI£
la4' Mr
m
1n
m5
r
1J
&T1MN�1(H M£ t
HEmiAGE RNERBIRCM
610
a.
BE PROVIDED AS FOLLOWS:
C.K
15
JwWWY:
unNESEM1snA
lar.
srs
m
vm
/
GT4(C-0 _J
M.NUENHNRISEESN((i0
7nr'CAL
BrB
A ROW, AT INTERVALS SUFFICIENT
55 LF ADJACENT TO PARKING LOT
YMIR-
'WgAL
m
—OTPI
n ,1 f0 T=7 BNN
Ls cv..
(1)
PORTION
1 TREE PER 15 LF REQ FOR PARKING LOT
01
ONE (1) LARGE TREE SHALL BE
ADJACENT PORTION
COMPLIES
REQUIRED FOR EVERY FORTY (40)
OKK W&TPES
TOTAL TREES REQUIRED
9 9TREES
PORTION THEREOF, IF
PROVIDED
W
01MYNIMS NCUS .�-
NNDEPAHM£IIEE
88
0"B
1S
BC
MOTH,
5
STREETSCAPE
TREES
WHERE PERMITTED, ONE (1)
MEDIUM TREE SHALL BE
PROFFIT ROAD
AD US USF
RTE 848
0
REQUIRED FOR EVERY
138 LF OF RAD
-WAV
TWENTY-FIVE (25) FEET OF ROAD
161 LF ADJACENT TO PARKING LOT
oEQouousslRlxs
1 TREE PER 40 LF REQ FOR ROW ADJACENT
OR MORE.
PORTION
N
1 TREE PER REQ FOR PARKING LOT
OMVRC#NIGH GNUIEt —
GW UIEETIPTE
Jr3l'�
COW
SUBiOTk'.
C
EDGE OF A PARKING LOT (AS SET
18 TOTAL TREES REQUIRED
FORTH WITHIN SECTION 34-873,
16 TOTAL TREES PROVIDED
ONE (1) LARGE TREE SHALL BE
BERCAEEN3HRIBS
(15) FEET OF STREET FRONTAGE.
NIC
Vill,
LIE% 81CTA'
mwitgtmva,HOLLY
APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS OF
5% AREA REQUIRED = 2,1 01 SF
Tw
- �.ws wNm�r �
wumsrEw
sa5r �,
ete
VR
PROVIDED: 776 SF
YBUTA'INA% M
IFAIIEPIFAS rBI1RXUY
34'
0�5
susTmu:
6 r b - w z- = 2� . � _% -
v ,5 ZS 7.
LANDSCAPED AREA').
WAIVER
34-073
(2) INTERIOR LANDSCAPED AREAS
7TREES REQUIRED
REQUESTED
PARKING LOTS-
SHALL CONSIST OF AT LEAST ONE
21 SHRUBS REQUIRED
DUETO
OPERATIONAL
SCREENING AND
INTERIOR
11
II
II
II
11
cr
J'I C
II
I
ZONING ORDINANCF RFOITTREMFNTS
SECTION
REQUIREMENTS
CALCULATIONS(REQUIRED/PROPOSED)
COMPLIANCE
ALL DEVELOPMENTS, PUBLIC OR
REQUIRED:
PRIVATE, REQUIRING SUBMISSION
67,665 SF SITE AREA
AND APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN
SHALL INCLUDE PROVISIONS FOR
6,766 SF TREE CANOPY REQUIRED
THE PRESERVATION AND
34-869
PLANTING OF TREES ON THE SITE
B,fiBfi SF TREE CANOPY PROVIDED
TREE COVER
TO THE EXTENT THAT, AT TEN (10)
14 3% TREE CANOPY TOTAL
COMPLIES
REQUIREMENTS
YEARS FROM PLANTING, MINIMUM
TREE CANOPIES OR COVERS WILL
BE PROVIDED AS FOLLOWS:
URB -10%
STREETSCAPE TREES SHALL BE
SEMINOLE TRAIL U.S RTE 28
PLANTED WITH EVEN SPACING IN
175 LF OF RIGHT-OF-WAY
A ROW, AT INTERVALS SUFFICIENT
55 LF ADJACENT TO PARKING LOT
TO ALLOW FOR THEIR HEALTHY
GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT.
1 TREE PER 40 LF REQ FOR ROW ADJACENT
(1)
PORTION
1 TREE PER 15 LF REQ FOR PARKING LOT
ONE (1) LARGE TREE SHALL BE
ADJACENT PORTION
COMPLIES
REQUIRED FOR EVERY FORTY (40)
FEET OF ROAD FRONTAGE, OR
TOTAL TREES REQUIRED
9 9TREES
PORTION THEREOF, IF
PROVIDED
TWENTY-FIVE (25) FEET OR MORE;
OR,
'4' INDICATES PLANT MATERIAL UTILIZED
34.870
(2)
TO FULFIL THE REQUIREMENT
STREETSCAPE
TREES
WHERE PERMITTED, ONE (1)
MEDIUM TREE SHALL BE
PROFFIT ROAD
AD US USF
RTE 848
REQUIRED FOR EVERY
138 LF OF RAD
-WAV
TWENTY-FIVE (25) FEET OF ROAD
161 LF ADJACENT TO PARKING LOT
FRONTAGE, OR PORTION
THEREOF, IF TWENTY (20) FEET
1 TREE PER 40 LF REQ FOR ROW ADJACENT
OR MORE.
PORTION
1 TREE PER REQ FOR PARKING LOT
COMPLIES
(3)
ADJACENT PORTION ON
WHERE REQUIRED ALONG THE
EDGE OF A PARKING LOT (AS SET
18 TOTAL TREES REQUIRED
FORTH WITHIN SECTION 34-873,
16 TOTAL TREES PROVIDED
ONE (1) LARGE TREE SHALL BE
REQUIRED FOR EVERY FIFTEEN
(15) FEET OF STREET FRONTAGE.
(1) IN ADDITION TO THE OTHER
AREA OF PARKING LOT: 42,011 SF
APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS OF
5% AREA REQUIRED = 2,1 01 SF
THIS SECTION, AN AREA EQUAL
TO FIVE (5) PERCENT OF THE
INTERIOR PARKING LOT LANDSCAPING
GROSS AREA OF A PARKING LOT
PROVIDED: 776 SF
SHALL BE LANDSCAPED WITH
TREES OR SHRUBS ('INTERIOR
54 SPACES TOTAL
LANDSCAPED AREA').
WAIVER
34-073
(2) INTERIOR LANDSCAPED AREAS
7TREES REQUIRED
REQUESTED
PARKING LOTS-
SHALL CONSIST OF AT LEAST ONE
21 SHRUBS REQUIRED
DUETO
OPERATIONAL
SCREENING AND
INTERIOR
(1) TREE, AND AT LEAST THREE (3)
SHRUBS, PER EIGHT (8) PARKING
REQUIREMENTS
LANDSCAPING
SPACES OR PORTION THEREOF.
4 EES PROVIDED
OF THE USER
INTERIOR LANDSCAPED AREAS
21 SHRUBS PROVIDED
WITH AN AREA OF LESS THAN 300
SQUARE FEET SHALL BE PLANTED
WITH AT LEAST ONE (1) MEDIUM
TREE; THOSE HAVINGAN AREA OF
— INDICATES PLANT MATERIAL UTILIZED
300 SOU ARE FEET OR MORE
SHALL CONTAIN AT LEAST ONE (1)
TO FULFIL THE REQUIREMENT
LARGE TREE, OR TWO (2) MEDIUM
TREES.
(2) THE REQUIRED BUFFER SHALL CONSIST
SEMINOLE ROAD
OF S3 SCREEN MATERIALS I'STREEr
11 SHRUBS REQUIRED
PLANTINGS' I, OTHER THAN TREES, BUT
11 SHRUBS PROVIDED
SHALL NOT INCLUDE ANY PUJITINGS OF A
SIZE OR'TERIAL THAT WILL OBSTRUCT
PROFFIT ROAD
34873(1)(2)
ANY REQUIRED SIGHT DISTANCES. THE
33 SHRUBS REQUIRED
PARKING LOTS-
LANDSCAPED BUFFER SHALL INCLUDEAT
33 SHRUBS PROVIDED
SCREENING AND
LEAST THREE (3) STREET PUVITINGS FOR
INTERIOR
EVERY FIFTEEN (15) FEET OF FRONTAGE,
LANDSCAPING
SPACED AT INTERVALS OF NOT MORE
COMPLIES
THAN FOUR (4) FEET, ALL PLANTINGS
SHALL HAVE MINIMUM HEIGHT OF
EIGHTEEN (18) INCHES WHEN PLANTED.
PLANTINGS SKALL BE EVENLY SPACED IN
A ROW, AT INTERVALS SUFFICIENT TO
ALLOW FOR THEIR HEALTHY GROWTH AND
DEVELOPMENT.
(Z THE REQUIRED BUFFER
NORTHEAST PROPERTY LINE 187 LF
SHALL CONSIST OF S-2 SCREEN
MATERIALS.ONE (1) LARGE
13 TREES REQUIRED
TREEANOTHREE (3) SHRUBS
38 SHRUBS REQUIRED
SHALL BE PLANTED FOR EVERY
34-873(CK2)
FIFTEEN (15) FEET OF LENGTH
13 TREES PROVIDED
COMPLIES
PARKING LOTS-
OF THE PROPERTY LINE. PLANTS
38 SHRUBS PROVIDED
SCREENINGAND
SHALL BEEVENLYSPACEDINA
INTERIOR
ROW, AT INTERVALS SUFFICIENT
LANDSCAPING
TO ALLOW FOR THEIR HEALTHY
GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT.
PARKiNGJ—OT AREA
INTERIOR PLANTING AREA
NOTE:
LANDSCAPE MATERIALS ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITH FINAL DESIGN.
20 111 5 0 20
1 "= 20'
w rn
pt uw
H�
zoos
HHH I.1-
ju Wo..:; Bis
O�
® gg m m O
REVISIONS
REV DATE COMMENT BY
KNOW WHAT'S BELOW
ALWAYS CALL 811
BEFORE YOU DIG
It's f- It's free. Its the Law.
NOT APPROVED FOR I
l CONSTRUCTION )
PROJECT No.: V182083
DRAWN BY: LEO
CHECKED BY: SS
DATE: 12/19/17
SCALE: 1" =20'
CAD I.D.: LPO
T PROJECT:
INITIAL SITE PLAN
FOR
Wawa°
LOCATION OF SITE
SEMINOLE TRAIL
AND PROFFIT RD.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
VIRGINIA
I[M BOHLERT.
I
BLACKWELL PARK LANE, SUITE 20111
WARRENTON, VIRGINIA 20186
Phone: (540) 349_4500
Fax: (540)349-0321 11
12119/2017
r SHEET TITLE.
LANDSCAPE
PLAN
SHEET NUMBER'.
C-6®®