HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201900033 Correspondence 2019-11-13SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C.
Design Focused Engineering
November 12, 2019
Paty Saternye, Senior Planner
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
RE: Response Letter #2 for SDP201900033 Northside Material Recovery Facility
Dear Paty,
Thank you for your review of the final site plan request for Northside Material Recovery Facility. This
letter contains responses to County comments dated June 21, 2019. Our responses are as follows:
1. Responses to CDD Planning (Paty Saternye) ,
2. Responses to CDD Engineering (Emily Cox and Frank Pohl),
3. Responses to CDD Zoning (Rebecca Ragsdale),
4. Responses to ARB-2019-70 (Margaret Maliszewski),
5. Responses to ACSA (Richard Nelson), and
6. Responses to VDOT (Adam Moore), are included.
Planning
Paty Saternye — Senior Planner
[4.18.04, 5.1.51, 5.1.52, & 26.5(C)] The Special Exceptions (SEs) that were requested were
approved with conditions by the BOS on May 1, 2019. Address the following in reference to the
conditions of approval for the SEs.
a) [SE Condition #3(f) & 4(b)] Add a note to the site plan that specifies how conditions 3(f) &
4(b) will be met and the method of measurement that will be utilized. If any permanent
physical object(s) will be utilized for these measurements then show them on the site plan and
label them accordingly.
Rev. 1: Comment not yet fully addressed. A note has been added. However, it does not
specify the full requirements of conditions 3(f) and 4(b) and it also integrates a timing from
33(d) that does not apply to 3( or 4(b). Therefore, must be revised. Address the following
i. The timing of 3( is "...prior to commencement of use and upon request b,r} the
Zoning Administrator", not 120 days after final site plan approval.
ii. Include in the note WHAT visible markers are proposed that will "...be utilized to
measure and limit the height of the stockpiles."
iii. Specify in the note that the "visible marker shall be utilized to measure and limit the
height of the stockpiles."
iv. If the form of visible markers is permanent in nature, then shown them on the site
plan and label them accordingly.
RESPONSE: See note #1 on sheet C4 with the requested changes. Additionally, a visible marker
(moveable) is identified in the site plan and labelled on sheet C4; and a detail is provided on sheet
C6.
912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com
f) [SE Condition #8] An offsite easement for the proposed opaque security fence on the
adjoining parcel, that is not part of this site plan, is required. Submit the easement for review
and approval. Approval and recordation of this easement will be required prior to site plan
approval.
Rev. 1: Comment not vet fully addressed. Address the following:
a) Submit the easement plat and deed for review and approval. Approval and recordation of
this easement will be required prior to site plan approval.
b) Revise the label, that is on sheets C4 and C5, for the connection of the new fence to the
existing fence within TMP 32-67 to include the working "Future Maintenance Easement
to..." the full label would be "Future Maintenance Easement to Connect new 7' Opaque
Chain Link Fence to Existing Fence on TMP 32-67."
c) Remove the text for the size of the easement ("85' x 10"') from within the easement area.
The size of the easement will be determined during the review of the plat for the fence
maintenance easement, when the location of the existing fence is clearly and accurately
shown.
d) Please note that the location of the existing fence, on TMP 32-67, should be shown on the
proposed easement plat to ensure that the length and width of the proposed easement will
be sufficient for the existing and proposed fences to be connected.
RESPONSE: The opaque security fence has already been constructed on the site and connected
to the existing off -site fence. An easement is no longer required.
[32.5.2(i), 32.5.2(n), 32.5.2(m)] Streets, easements, and travel ways & Ingress and Egress.
Address the following:
e) A note on the coversheet of the site plan states "Parking shall be provided on the adjacent
TMP 32-67." Address the following:
i. Provide revised parking calculations for the existing uses(s) on TMP 32-67 and
demonstrate that there is sufficient parking available to meet the parking
requirements for the proposed use on this site plan.
Rev. 1: Comment not yet fully addressed. Revise the portion of the parking calculation for
SDP2004-26 on the cover sheet to show:
1) That 28 parking spaces are designated as "Inventory spaces" on SDP2004-26 (Hall's
Autobody Site Plan) and therefore should not be included in the "Available Spaces".
2) That the 4 required parking, spaces for this site plan will be provided within TMP32-
67 and will further reduce the "Available Spaces" for SDP2004-26.
3) That the "Available Spaces" will be only 3, because of the two items above, after this
site plan is approved.
4) Please note that once this site plan is approved it will be included in the project folder
for SDP2004-26 to document the revision to SDP2004-26's narkinLy calculations.
RESPONSE: See sheet Cl. The requested changes are provided in the parking schedule.
ii. Provide the instrument that will assure continuation of the off -site parking for this use
(4.12.8(e)).
Rev. 1: Comment not yet addressed. The comment response stated, "The owner, who
is also the owner of the off -site parking will provide, prior to final approval of the
site plan, an instrument that will assure continuation." Please note that the instrument
must be approved by the County and recorded prior to the final site plan being
approved since the parkin is s required for this site plan.
RESPONSE: An off -site parking agreement will not be provided.
912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com
12. [32.5.2 j & 32.5.2(k)] Existing sewer and drainage facilities; proposed sewer and drainage
facilities. Address the following:
a) Address the following:
i. Submit for review a plat that vacates the existing drainage easement that runs parallel
to the northside drive for most of its length. This plat must be approved and recorded
prior to the final site plan being approved since the existing easement conflicts with
trees that are to be preserved for screening.
Rev. 1: Comment not yet fully addressed. The comment response stated, "The
vacation plat is beingsprepared for submittal." This plat must be submitted, reviewed,
approved and recorded prior to the final site plan being approved since the existing
easement conflicts with trees that are to be preserved for screening.
RESPONSE: The requested plat has been submitted for review and the instrument numbers will
be added to the final site plan once the plat is approved and recorded.
ii. It appears that the Hall's Autobody site has its SWM pond outfall right on the edge of
this property (SDP2004-26). This may be associated with the existing drainage
easement. Address how the off -site stormwater will be handled or provide
information on the alternative outfall direction for the pond and any required
easements to the satisfaction of the County Engineer.
Rev. 1: Comment not yet fully addressed. The comment response stated, "A new
outfall is proposed for the pond and a revised easement plat is being prepared." These
items have not yet been added to the Final Site Plan. Show any provement and
proposed easements on the final site plan. Required easements must be submitted,
reviewed, approved and recorded prior to final site plan approval.
RESPONSE: The existing SWM pond, located on TMP 32-67 and shown on (SDP2004-26)
outfalls as sheet flow across the site and is captured in the SWM pond associated
with this site plan. The existing drainage easement serves no functional purpose.
c) [From previous comment 18] See the attached ACSA comments. If the ACSA comment(s)
require changes or addition add them, and any easements required, to the site plan.
Rev. 1: Comment not vet fullv addressed. ACSA comments are still oendinLy. If the ACSA
comment(s) require changes or addition add them, and any easements required, to the site
plan.
RESPONSE: We received an e-mail from ACSA (Richard Nelson) on November 8 stating that
he has no comments.
d) Rev. 1: [NEW COMMENT] As was specified in the WPONSMP comment #3 (on 6/12 &
8/9/19), a stormwater maintenance easement is required for the proposed stormwater pond.
This easement plat, and associated deed, must be submitted, reviewed, approved and recorded
prior to final site plan approval.
RESPONSE: The requested plat showing a revised easement has been submitted for review. The
instrument numbers will be added to the final site plan once the plat is approved
and recorded.
25. [32.5.2(e), 32.5.2(p), 32.6.20) & 32.7.9] Provide a full landscape plan that provides all required
landscaping, calculations and meets the landscaping requirements for 32.7.9. Ensure all
calculations and graphics correctly represent the existing and proposed plantings and planting
areas. Address the following:
f) Rev. 1: [NEW COMMENT] On sheet C4 the screening trees on top of the proposed have
been removed or their laver turned off. However, the label for the trees remains. Revise the
site elan to either turn the trees back on or remove the label on sheet C4. The trees and their
912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com
label should remain visible on sheet C5.
RESPONSE: The note, which stated "NEW 6' TALL ARBORVIDAE TREES" has been
removed from the site plan. The 40 trees on top of the berm are labeled,
specified, and spacing dimensions are provided, on sheet C5.
g) Rev. 1: [NEW COMMENT] On sheet C4 and C5 there appears to be new impacts to
preserved trees where the stormwater outfall has extended to the property line. However, the
area of trees is still shown as preserved. Revise the site plan so that trees that cannot be
preserved are not shown as preserved and are also not included in the canopy calculation.
RESPONSE: The requested revisions are provided on sheets C4 and C5, and the calculation has
been updated accordingly.
27. [32.5.2(e), (n), 32.6.20) & 32.7.9.4 (b) & (c)] Address the following:
a) Preserve all existing trees that are to remain. Address the following:
ii. Conservation checklist. A conservation checklist has been provided. However, the
following must still be addressed:
1) The checklist must be signed and dated by the owner(s) of the parcels.
Rev. 1: Comment not yet addressed. Address the comment.
RESPONSE: The owner has signed the Conservation Checklist, a copy of which is provided on
Sheet C6.
b) Provide the labels for the existing trees to be preserved in the northeast portion of TMP 32-
73, which is adjacent to TMP 32-22C4.
Rev. 1: Comment not vet fullv addressed. Hatching for the existing trees on the boundary line
between TMP 32-22C3 and TMP 32-67 has been removed. Clarify if that area of existing
trees will remain and be preserved. If it is to be preserved hatch it and provide tree protection
during construction. If it is not to be preserved add a label specifying that and ensure it is not
included in the area of preserved trees in the canopy calculation.
RESPONSE: The existing trees which are located on the northern portion of TMP 32-73 and
contiguous with trees located on TMP 32-22C4 do not provide screening from
the entrance corridor and are not proposed to be preserved. The existing trees
which are located on the western portion of TMP 32-73 and contiguous with
trees located on TMP 32-72 do provide some screening from the entrance
corridor and are proposed to be preserved.
31. [Comment] See attached comments from most reviewers. VDOT and ARB comments will be
provided once they are available.
Rev. 1: Comment not yet fully addressed. See the attached comments from most reviewers.
ACSA comments will be provided once they are available.
RESPONSE: Please see additional responses to comments below
32. Rev. 1: [NEW COMMENT] The County Engineer has no objection to the requested waiver for
18-4.12.15(a) Surface Materials Considering. This waiver request is approved. Revise the notes
on the cover sheet in reference to the waiver request since it is no longer pending.
RESPONSE: The waiver note on the cover sheet has been revised accordingly.
33. Rev. 1: [NEW COMMENTI The response to VDOT comment states. "A sight distance plan and
profile exhibit will be provided for review under a separate cover." Address the following_
a) See engineering's comment on the exhibit for the proposed sight distance easement.
b) Ensure site distance easement is shown on the site plan as approved by VDOT.
RESPONSE: The sight distance exhibits have been provided on the site plan on Sheet C7.
912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com
34. Rev. 1: [NEW COMMENT] Revise the elevation labels on the nronosed tonoeranhv to be
correct. The elevation labels appear to have Wographical errors, sometimes even having two
different elevations on the same topo line. The area around the proposed berm appears to have the
most errors.
RESPONSE: The elevations labels have been revised accordingly.
35. Rev. 1: [NEW COMMENT] Revise the site plan to turn back on hatch lavers on sheets C3 and
C4 that appear to have been turned off accidentally. These hatches were representing the
following:
a) Existing
b) Existing. s�piles,
c) Existing_ asphalt and gravel,
d) Stormwater management pond, and
e) An area of preserved trees along the boundary with TMP 32-67.
RESPONSE: Sheets C2 and C3 have been revised accordingly.
36. Rev. 1: [NEW COMMENT] Revise the section labels for the "Entrance Paving Detail" on sheets
C4 and C6 to be correct. Address the following:
a) On C4 it should be shown, in the circle, 7/C6 and not as 6/C6.
b) On C6 it should be shown, in the circle, 7/C6 and not as 7/C7.
RESPONSE: The detail references and detail labels have been revised to match accordingly.
37. Rev. 1: [NEW COMMENT] The response to the ACSA comment #2 states, "The site needs
permanent water service for dust control." However, the Utilities coversheet note still specifies
that water is not proposed with the site plan. Please clarify this discrepancy and update the site
plan as appropriate.
RESPONSE: The note stating that water is not proposed on site has been removed from the
Cover Sheet. The note regarding dust control using a metered connection to the
existing fire hydrant remains.
Engineering Comments:
1) VSMP Plan (WPO201500001) must be amended and approved before final site plan can be
approved.
RESPONSE: The requested VSMP amendment has been submitted for review.
2) Plans should be signed, sealed and dated by professional [ 18-32.6.1 ].
Rev. 1: Comment Acknowledged.
3) Specify the type of stone for the stone access aisle cross-section. [Sheet C6].
Rev. 1: Comment Addressed.
4) Provide a cross-section of the proposed berm.
Rev. 1: Comment Addressed.
5) Rev. 1: Please provide a copy of the exhibit that shows adequate sight distance at the entrance.
RESPONSE: The sight distance plan and profiles is provided on sheet C7 of the FSP.
912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com
VDOT Comments:
1) Please extend the mill and overlay to the adjacent travel lane on plans in accordance with WP-2,
and show limits of mill and overlay.
RESPONSE: The mill and overlay extents are provided on Sheet C4. The WP-2 detail is
provided on Sheet C6.
2) Previous comment remains applicable, please provide sight distance plan and profile.
RESPONSE: The sight distance plan and profile is provided on Sheet C7.
If you have any questions or concerns about these revisions, please feel free to contact me at
Kellykshimp-en in�g com or by phone at 434-227-5140.
Regards,
6 �IYYh"rydaWd
Kelly Strickland
Shimp Engineering, P.C.
434.981.6029
912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com