Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201800064 Review Comments Initial Site Plan 2018-10-02COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 October 2, 2018 Mr. Scott Collins, P.E. — Collins Engineering 200 Garrett Street, Suite K, Charlottesville, VA 22902 (434)-293-3719 / scottncollins-en ing eering com RE: Site Review Committee Comment Letter for SDP-2018-00064 (MicroAire — Initial Site Plan) Dear Mr. Collins: The Planner for the Planning Division of the Albemarle County Community Development Department (CDD) and other members of the Site Review Committee (SRC) have reviewed the development proposal referenced above. Initial review comments from the following SRC members are attached: Albemarle County Planning Services (Planner) Albemarle County Architectural Review Board (ARB) — (attached) Albemarle County Engineering Services (Engineer) — (attached) Albemarle County Information Services (E911) — (attached) Albemarle County Building Inspections — (attached) Albemarle County Department of Fire Rescue — (attached) Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) — PENDING Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) — PENDING Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference to Chapter 18 of the Albemarle County Code (Zoning Ordinance), unless otherwise specified. (The following comments are those that have been identified at this time; additional comments may be added or eliminated based on further review.) The Lead Reviewer will either approve with conditions or deny the Initial Site Plan within 15 days of the Site Review Meeting. Please contact me at your earliest convenience if you have questions, or require additional information or assistance. Sincerely, Andy Reitelbach Senior Planner / areitelbach&albemarle.org / (434)-296-5832 x 3261 Albemarle County Planning Services (Planner) — Andy Reitelbach, areitelbachng,albemarle.org — Requested Changes: 1. [32.5.2(a)] Show the setback lines, on sheets 2, 3, 4, and 6 along the western and southern portions of this property. It appears only the eastern and northern setback lines are shown currently. 2. [32.5.2(a)] Include the north point arrow on all sheets showing the property. 3. [32.5.2(a)] Please amend the watershed note on Sheet 1 to state clearly that these are not water supply watersheds. 4. [35.5.2(n)] Please either include the proposed phase 2 parking lot in this site plan as one complete development or remove it from the plan. There may be a note overlaying the general area of the proposed phase 2 parking lot that this area is proposed for a future parking lot; however, the actual dimensions of the lot and the individual parking spaces should not be included. The presence or absence of this lot affects other conditions of review, including the amount of parking allowed and the landscaping requirements. As it is currently shown, the proposed phase 2 parking lot does not meet setback requirements, as the northeastern portion of the proposed lot, as well as the proposed retaining wall, extend over the 30' setback line. Also, depending on the decision regarding the phase 2 parking lot, please revise the notes on the cover sheet to include the most accurate calculations, including the "parking," "impervious areas," "maximum lot coverage," and "maximum amount of paved parking and vehicular circulation" notes. [32.5.2(b), 4.12.4(a)] In addition, please be advised that there is a maximum number of parking spaces allowed, which is 20% above the required number, in accordance with section 4.12.4(a) of the zoning ordinance. If the proposed phase 2 of the parking lot is included, the number of parking spaces would exceed the maximum allowed. The proposed parking in the first phase of 218 spaces (although it appears that there are actually 222 spaces proposed — please see comment #7), plus the proposed additional 43 spaces in Phase 2 would exceed the 20% allowance. In order to exceed this maximum, a parking exception request would have to be submitted to the County's Zoning Administrator. 6. [32.5.2(a)] The proposed parking lot extends past the parking lot setback lines in two locations. The curvilinear parking in the northwest corner near Airport Road crosses the setback line. In addition, as mentioned above, the eastern portion of the parking lot in the proposed Phase 2 of the project crosses the setback line, as does the retaining wall for these parking spaces. Revise the parking lots to ensure they meet the setback requirements, on sheets 3, 4, and 6. 7. [32.5.2(b)] In the parking schedule on the cover sheet, clarify the required parking under the warehouse use. It states 200 spaces for employees (100 for warehouse employees and 100 for office employees); however, office use calculates the number of parking spaces based on square footage, not number of employees, so it should be only the 100 spaces under the warehouse use, as well as the 93 under the office use. For the note about the number of spaces for the proposed phase 2 parking lot, either remove the note, or include those spaces in the provided parking, as mentioned in previous comments. Please be reminded of the need for a parking exception request if those spaces are retained in the calculations. In addition, revise the parking schedule, as there are actually 222 parking spaces shown on the plan. There are four additional parking spots in the large lot at the front which are not counted. See comment #20 for more information. 8. [32.5.2(a)] The labels for adjacent parcels and property owners do not match across the sheets. Parcels are shown in different places, or with different ownership names and zoning districts from what is included on other sheets. Please revise the parcel labels so that they match across all sheets. In addition, include the present use of each of the abutting parcels in the labels. 9. [32.5.2(b)] Provide, on the cover sheet, the percentage of the site that is impervious surfaces, as well as the floor area ratio for the site. 10. [32.5.2(b)] Provide the proposed height of the structure, including the proposed number of stories, with both the existing manufacturing area and the new office space. I L [32.5.2(b)] Please clarify that the "Maximum amount of paved parking and vehicular circulation" is for the landscaping purposes. 12. [32.5.2(d)] Reviewing the County's GIS information for this property, the managed steep slopes appear to extend a little farther to the north, along the eastern property line, than they are shown on this plan. Extend the shading limits, on sheets 2 and 4, for the managed slopes to include the entire area where they are shown on the County's GIS system. Also, on sheet 2, identify the managed steep slopes around the stormwater management basin as such. 13. [32.5.2(i)] Provide the right-of-way width for Airport Road on sheets 2, 3, and 4, as well as the state route number on sheets 3 and 4. 14. [32.5.2(i)] Identify as existing the two southern entrances to the property on Grand Forks Boulevard. 15. [32.5.2(n)] Provide the dimensions of the proposed building expansion on sheets 3, 4, and 6, as well as the proposed height of the new structure. Also, the proposed square footage of the expansion is different on sheets 4 and 6 from what is stated on the cover sheet and sheet 3 — 12,739 square feet vs. 18,600 square feet. 16. [32.5.2(n)] Clarify the width of the proposed sidewalk along the north side of the new addition, adjacent to the parking lot. On sheet 3, it is stated as 7.7' feet. On sheets 4 and 6, it is shown as only 6 feet wide. In addition, identify the width of the proposed sidewalk that extends north toward Airport Road to a maple tree, from the proposed addition, between the large parking lot and the smaller parking lot. 17. [32.5.2(n)] There are numerous discrepancies between sheets 2 and 3 on the locations of outdoor lighting, and what is proposed to remain or be relocated. In addition, there are some proposed light poles located in the middle of parking spaces. Fix these discrepancies. Near the middle entrance to the property, a light pole is proposed to be relocated on sheet 2. However, on sheet 3, it is stated as "existing light to remain." There is a light pole proposed to remain in the small parking lot at the northwest corner of the building. However, on sheet 3, it is shown in the middle of a parking space. In addition, on sheet 3, there are two relocated lights shown in the middle of parking spaces in the two center rows of parking, next to the islands closest to the building. 18. [32.5.2(n), 4.171 Please provide a full lighting plan with the final site plan in compliance with Section 4.17 of the Zoning Ordinance. 19. [32.5.2(n)] The width of the parking lot aisle closest to the north of the proposed addition is only 18.4 feet. Aisle widths can be no narrower than 20'. In addition, no aisle width is shown for the phase 2 lot, the proposed new aisle closest to Airport Road, or the small parking lot to the northwest of the office addition. Include these widths. Also, include the depth and width of the parking spaces for the lot adjacent to the stormwater management basin, the aisle closest to Airport Road, and the new parking areas on the eastern side of the property. Please be advised that the row of parking spaces along the far eastern side of the property (adjacent to the proposed future lot), as well as the lot adjacent to the stormwater pond, appear to be only 16 feet in depth. Although this reduction is allowed if there is sufficient space for overhang, it appears that there will be another row of parking placed opposite during Phase 2 (eastern portion of lot) and a sidewalk (lot near stormwater pond). Keep in mind that there must be sufficient space in a median or planting strip to allow for an overhang of two feet if the spaces are reduced to 16 feet. 20. [32.5.2(n)] In two sections of the large parking lot (center rows, close to the proposed building addition), it is labelled that there are 12 parking spaces. However, when counting them, there are actually 14 spots in each section. Please revise. 21. [32.5.2(n)] There is an existing maple tree at the northwest corner of the office addition that is proposed to remain; however, it is shown as being paved over by the sidewalk. In addition, there is a redbud tree at the northeast corner of the new parking lot that is shown in the middle of a parking space, on both sheets 3 and 4. Please either remove these trees or include this space as landscaping islands. 22. [32.5.2(n)] Clarify why "gravel" is shown in the parking lot islands on sheet 3, as these areas are shown to be landscaped in the landscape plan on sheet 6. 23. [32.5.2(n)] More accessible parking spaces are required. As such, designate additional spaces on the plan. 24. [32.5.2 (n)] Please state the proposed surface materials for all parking lots, travel ways, walkways, etc. in a label on the site plan drawings. 25. [32.5.2(n)] There is a note on sheet 3, overlaying Airport Road and pointing to the proposed new parking lot, that states, "proposed 1" overlay of existing asphalt parking lot." However, some of this parking lot, including that area closest to Airport Road, is not existing and is a proposed new parking area with land disturbance. Please revise. 26. [32.7.9] On sheet 2, the existing conditions plan, please show which trees and other landscaping are proposed to be removed. 27. [32.7.9] Please provide individual landscaping schedules for required landscaping in accordance with Sections 32.7.9.5, 32.7.9.6, 32.7.9.7, 32.7.9.8 of the Zoning Ordinance. Each schedule should state the Botanical Name and Common Name of each species proposed, the proposed caliper and height at time of installation, and the canopy coverage area per plant species. The canopy area for each species can be found on the Albemarle County Recommended Plants List and Albemarle County Plants Canopy Calculations tables. PDFs of these documents can be accessed through the Department of Community Development webpage: LINK. Additional comments may be provided regarding landscaping once a more complete landscape plan has been submitted. a. [32.7.9] Indicate what landscaping is being used to fulfill the requirement for the required parking lot landscaping. Provide calculations showing how the "maximum amount of paved parking and vehicular circulation" of 5% requirement for landscaping is being met. This requirement will be different depending on whether or not the proposed phase 2 parking lot is included on this plan. See 32.7.9.6 in the Zoning Ordinance. b. [32.7.9] Please provide calculations for tree canopy coverage, including if any existing trees are proposed to count toward this requirement. Also, any plant under five feet in height (32.7.9.8(b), including shrubs, does not count toward the required canopy coverage amount. Additional tree canopy coverage must be provided. Canopy coverage must be 10% of the overall site. 28. [32.7.9] On the landscape plan, provide the length of the parcel's frontage along both Grand Forks Boulevard and Airport Road so that staff may accurately calculate the number of street trees required. In addition, street landscaping must be provided along the entire length of Grand Forks Boulevard. 29. [32.7.9] Landscaping must be provided along the eastern portion of the parcel to screen the parcel from the property to the east, which is zoned RA, Rural Areas, in accordance with 32.7.9.7 of the Zoning Ordinance. Industrial uses must be screened from Rural Areas, and parking lots must be screened from Rural Areas. 30. [32.7.9] In the existing landscape calculations, it lists there being 20 Primus yedoensis. However, it appears that there are 25 shown on the plan. 31. [32.5.2(e)] Please provide more details about the existing landscape features as described in Section 18- 32.7.9.4(c). If existing trees and plant material will be used in lieu of planting new material, please see the Albemarle County Conservation Plan Checklist and Chapter 3.38 of the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control handbook. The Conservation Plan Checklist will need to be signed by the owners and provided as an exhibit on the final site plan for Block 3A. 32. [32.7.9.91 Please add a note to the Landscape plans stating, "All landscaping shall be installed by the first planting season following the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy within the development." 33. 132.7.9.91 Please add a note to the Landscape plans stating, "All landscaping and screening shall be maintained in a healthy condition by the current owner or a property owners' association, and replaced when necessary. Replacement material shall comply with the approved landscape plan." [32.6.2 (h)] Please provide a signature panel with a line for each member of the Site Review Committee. Albemarle County Engineering Services (Engineer) Matthew Wentland, mwentlandgalbemarle.org — Requested Changes (9/27/18); see attached comments. Albemarle County Information Services (E911) Andrew Walker, awalker&albemarle.org —No Objection (9/5/18). Albemarle County Building Inspections Michael Dellinger, mdellingerkalbemarle.org — Requested Changes (9/4/18); see attached comments. Albemarle County Architectural Review Board (ARB) Margaret Maliszewski, MMaliszewskigalbemarle.org — Requested Changes; ARB conducted 10/1/18; see the attached comments. Albemarle County Department of Fire Rescue Shawn Maddox, smaddox(cr�,albemarle.org — Requested Changes (9/23/2018); see attached comments. Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) Richard Nelson, rnelsongserviceauthority.org — PENDING; review comments will be forwarded upon receipt. Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Adam Moore, Adam.Moore(kvdot.vir ig nia.gov — PENDING; review comments will be forwarded upon receipt. Review Comments for SDP201800064 Initial Site Plan �a � Project dame: I MIGROAIRE - INITIAL Date Completed: I Thursday, September 27, 2018 cY: De artmentOlvision/A en Review Status: p 9 -- — - I —_. ---, Reviewer: Matthew Wantland T�S G�❑ Engineering � ' Reyuested Changes 1. An approved VSMP submittal will be required prior to Final Site Plan approval. The nutrient credit purchase will also be required. 2_ Any changes to the SWM Facility easement will need to be platted and approved prior to FSP approval. 3_ Engineering recommends bollards or another type of barrier behind the flush curb at the building entrance- 4- ARed Maple is located on top of storm pipe 3 and should be mowed. 5. The aisle width in front of the proposed addition is shown as 18.4'_ The rrnnimum width for T wide spaces is 24'_ [18.4.12.1fic] Review Comments for SDP201888864 lmtial site Plan L� Project Name: MICROAIRE - INMAL Date Completed: Wednesday, September 05, 2 9 De DepartmentlDivisiorVAgency: Review Status: Andrew Walker CDD E9�1 }�' Reviewer: �'��_,� _.f� No ----- Review Comments for SDP201800064 Initial site Plan Project Name: I MICROAIRE - INMAL Date Completed: Tuesday, September 04, 2018 Department/Divislonr<Agency: Review Status; Michael Dellinger * 'E CDD Inspections Requested Changes v; Reviewer: 9 P With proposed number of parking spaces. 4 accessible parking spaces are required. Per 2012 IBC 8 total are required. Only see 5 provided. Retaining walls greater than 3 feet in height require a separate building permit. Walls exceeding 4 fleet in height require an stamped engineered design also. Parking spaces and access isles shall not have a surface slope greater than 1.48. Access isles shall be at the same level as the parking space they serve. Review Comments for SDP201800064 Initial Site Plan Project Name: MICROAIRE - INITIAL Date Completed: Monday, October 01, 2018 DepartmentlDivisionlAgency: Review Status: Reviewer: Margaret Maliszewsla CDDARB No©bjection At the October 1, 2018 meeting, the ARB took the following action: Motion: Mr. Binsted moved to approve the consent agenda and forward the recommendations outlined in the staff report for the Initial Site Plan to the Agent for the Site Review Committee, as follows_ ARB-2018-119: Microaire initial Site Plan — Initial Site Development Plan (TM/Parcel 032000000041D2) • Regarding requirements to satisfy the design guidelines as per § 18-30.6.4c(2), (3) and (5) and recommended conditions of initial plan approval: None_ • Regarding recommendations on the plan as it relates to the guidelines: None. • Regarding conditions to be satisfied prior to issuance of a grading permit: None. • Regarding the final site plan submittal: ACertificate of Appropriateness is required prior to Final Site Plan approval. Address the following issues in addition to all items on the ARB Final Site Plan checklist. 1. Proposed architectural designs are required with the final ARB site plan submittal. 2. Show the locations of proposed rooftop mechanical equipment on the architectural plans and elevations to confirm the lack of visibility from the EC- 3- Provide a photometric plan and all related details with the final site plan submittal. Show that relocated poles and fixtures meet ordinance requirements and EC guidelines. 4. Revise the landscape plan to provide large shade trees, 3W caliper at planting, 35' on center, the full length of the EC frontage. Provide interspersed ornamentals, using a mix of new and existing trees to establish and integrated, orderly appearance_ Locate evergreen shrubs to provide a consistent screen along the parking lot. 5. Provide trees along pedestrian ways where parking lot trees are not already provided. 6. Provide perimeter parking lot and interior parking lot trees as outlined in the EC guidelines. Revise the plan to clearly show this planting for both the current and future parking areas. T. Provide evergreen shrubs to form a consistent screen along the EC side of the parking lot. 8. Coordinate the number of cherry trees and holly shown on the plan and listed in the legend. 9_ Throughout the plan set indicate a single, accurate building area for the proposed addition. 10. Identify existing trees to be removed on the existing conditions/demolition plan_ 11. If approval of the future parking area is desired with the current site plan, revise the plan to show all details for the future parking area_ Mr. Hancock seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 5:0. Review Comments for SDP201800064 Ljtiai site Plan Project Name: MICROAIRE - INITIAL Date Completed: Sunday. September 23, 2018 Department/Divislon/Agency: Review Status: Shawn Maddox Fire Rescue *+ Requester! Changes Reviewer: --- -- _ ue _w 1. Will the building height exceed 30"? If so there must be a 26 clear unobstructed travel way along one contiguous side of the building. 2. If the building is to be sprmklered the FDC must be shown on the plan. It should be located next to the hydrant to prevent obstructing the travel way with hose lays. 3. Fire lane shall be marked in front of the hydrant and the building entrance located near the hydrant. 4. Add a hydrant in the parking area. There is currently only one hydrant on site. Any use of this hydrant for vehicle fires, outside fires, or a large fire involving the structure would restrict travel lanes. 5_ A knox box is required. Please add a note that location can be coordinated with the fire marshal's office. fi_ Afire flaw test will be required prior to final acceptance.