HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201900069 Review Comments Minor Amendment 2020-01-17ALg�,�9�r
vIRGiN1P
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Tom Thorpe (tthorpe(a�aftonscientific.com)
From: Paty Saternye — Senior Planner
Division: Planning
Date: January 17, 2020
Subject: SDP201900069 (Afton Scientific — Minor Site Plan Amendment)
The County of Albemarle Planning Division will recommend approval of the plan referenced
above once the following comments 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, which is to the Subdivision/Zoning Ordinances unless otherwise
specified.]
[Comment] Revise the coversheet to including the following information in reference to the
previous and current review project numbers.
a. Under "Minor Site Plan Amendment" in the title add "SDP201900069", which is the project
number for this project.
b. Add a note on the site plan cover sheet that specifies the previously approved site plans
(SDP2000-77 & SDP1993-23) and all four of the LORs.
2. [LOR #2 & #4] The proposed minor site plan amendment appears to not match the LORs that
have been previously approved. Address the following:
a. [LOR #2] The concrete slab approved in LOR #2 appears to be approximately 7.5' wider
than that as shown on the approved LOR. The "New Slab" on the approved LOR was only
supposed to be 14.5' in width and not 22'. Address the following:
i. Clarify if the slab shown on the site plan is accurately drawn. If the slab is not as
approved additional comments may be required.
ii. Add dimensions to the two concrete slabs (LOR #1 & 2) on the north end of the building.
b. [LOR #4] The site plan does not show all of the improvements approved in LOR #4.
Address the following:
i. A handrail was approved on the stairs from the parking lot to the terrace. Revise the site
plan to show this handrail or specify that it was never built. If it was never built additional
comments may be required.
ii. The trellis shown on the LOR #4 drawings is not shown on the site plan. From the
original request letter for the LOR it appear there was not the intention to build the trellis
at that time. If it is not to be built, then it does not need to be shown included in the site
plan. If it may be built in the future more comments may be required.
iii. There is an existing waterline shown in the LOR #4 submission documents that is shown
in a different location on this site plan, and this site plan has it labeled as "Approximate
waterline, not marked in field." Clarify which of these locations is more accurate and use
that location on site plan.
3. [Comment] A list of requested changes is needed for a Minor Amendment. The "Scope of
Work" note on the coversheet partially addresses this requirement. Address the following:
a. Revise "Scope of Work:" to be "Minor Amendment changes to SDP2000-77:"
b. Under "Minor Amendment changes to SDP2000-77:" List all previously approved LOR
separately in a bulleted list. A brief description of the changes approved with each LOR is
important.
c. In the bulleted list mentioned above, individually list the two changes already specified under
"Scope of Work:".
d. Include in that bulleted list all other changes, not approved in the 4 previous LORs, that
where not approved with SDP2000-77 (see attached PDF of approved site plan). Any and
all changes not already approved must be listed here. They include (but may not be limited
to):
i. The removal of street trees and their replacement with shrubs along Avon Street
Extended. Including a very brief description on why that change was made and allowed
would be helpful.
ii. Specify that the landscaping has been revised. Trees and shrubs have been removed
around the site. New trees and shrubs will be added with this site plan amendment in
order to compensate for those previous changes from the approved site plan. See
comments on landscaping below.
iii. The addition of a dumpster enclosure and pad. Although the hatching on sheet C2.0
appears to be showing the dumpster pad as being approved with a LOR it does not
appear to be included in four LORs.
iv. Changes to the parking layout, striping, removal or addition of stop blocks.
v. Changes to the parking calculations and requirements.
e. There is a phase line in SDP2000-77. It is a requested change to the site plan to no longer
include this phasing in the site plan? If so, list it as one of the changes with the minor
amendment.
4. [Comment] There are items shown on the site plan that were not approved with the original site
plan or with LORs 1 through 4. Address the following:
a. Provide any documentation on the approval for the dumpster enclosure and pad to the
reviewer. Also, show it and list it in this site plan amendment as a change being proposed
with the amendment.
b. In sheet C2.0 cloud all areas of changes (proposed or already existing) since SDP2000-77
that was not approved on the LORs (see comment #3 above for more detail on changes).
LORs are fine hatched as long as the dumpster, which does not appear to have been
approved by LOR, is no longer part of that hatched area.
c. Many of the parking spaces, especially along Avon Street Extended, do not appear to meet
the dimensions specified on the approved site plan (SDP2000-77) or the current ordinance.
Ensure the spaces are as approved or meet current requirements. Although the lines
shown on the proposed amendment may be as they are currently painted (as built) those
paint lines will need to be revised, to meet this site plan amendment once it is approved.
Address the following:
i. Revise the parking space width and depth to meet the previously approved size or the
current zoning ordinance. SDP2000-77 shows both 9'x18' spaces and 9'x16' spaces
(when there is at least 2' of open space (without shrubs or trees) in front of the space).
There are many spaces that do not appear to be either 9' wide or 16' deep.
ii. Any area that is not the correct width or depth should be painted with stripes to specify
that it is not a parking space.
iii. The hatched areas between two rows of 16' deep parking spaces must be at least 4' in
depth. Add this dimension in both areas in which this hatching has been added between
spaces.
iv. Provide the required parking space typical dimensions. Ensure that each section of
parking, and any time the space depth is different, are separately dimensioned.
d. Revise the parking calculations as follows:
i. The number of spaces provided does not appear to be correct. After updating the
parking space dimensions and linework as specified above and removing any parking
spaces that do not meet the requirements, update then number of spaces listed as
provided in the "Project Summary".
ii. The office parking calculations should be shown (ex. "5,148 GFA x 0.8=4,118 NFA" and
"4,118 NFA/200 SF=21 Spaces") in the "Parking Required:" portion of the "Project
Summary".
iii. The parking required for the office portion of the building appears to have been
calculated based on the Gross Floor Area (GFA) versus the Net Floor Area (NFA). If
this is the wish of the applicant than please discuss how to correctly state that on the
site plan. Otherwise revised the calculation to be for the NFA as the requirements
state.
iv. The parking required for the industrial portion of the building does not include the
required spaces for the customers/public. There is supposed to be 1 space for every
500 SF of area open to the public, but there is also a minimum of 2 customer spaces.
Include this as part of the calculation for the industrial parking requirements and ensure
the customer parking requirement is met.
e. Wheel stops were provided on many parking spaces in the approved site plan. No wheel
stops are shown on this site plan. Two areas of parking have been revised (since the site
plan) to have what appears to be a 4' hatched area between the spaces. So, wheel stops
are not required there. However, some of the wheel stops are still required. Address the
following:
i. For the parking spaces along Avon Street Extended show wheel stops. There does not
appear to be any curb and gutter and the hill down to the road creates a safety issue.
Wheels stops were also shown in this area of the approved site plan.
ii. The sidewalk, on either side of the proposed building addition, is only 5' wide therefore
wheel stops are required for those parking spaces. Wheels stops were also shown in
this area of the approved site plan.
iii. Include a wheel stop detail on sheet C2.1.
iv. The sidewalk, on west side of the building, is only 5' wide therefore wheel stops are
required for those parking spaces. Wheels stops were also shown in this area of the
approved site plan.
f. A dimension is required for the width of the access way that wraps around the northern side
of the building, at the point of least width. This dimension was shown as 20' on the
approved site plan.
g. See Inspections comment on the number of handicapped spaces provided in the plan.
h. The landscaping plan has changed from the approved site plan. Address the following:
i. Provide a landscape schedule that specifies at least the information specified on the
approves site plan (SDP2000-77: Tree species, quantity, caliper and symbol).
ii. Ensure that the labeling for each tree type is specified in the landscape schedule so that
it can be determined the tree species the labels on the existing trees are representing.
iii. Ensure that all existing or proposed tree or shrub has a label, for the tree type, that is
referenced in the landscape schedule.
iv. Show the tree line for the existing trees in the slope going down to Moore's Creek.
v. The tree canopy provided is specified on the site plan. However, it specifies "existing
tree coverage preserved". However, no trees are shown as preserved on the site plan.
If this is referring to the existing tree cover, going down the hill to Moore's Creek,
address the comment above and then:
1. Clearly label the trees as "Existing and to be Preserved".
2. Include in that label if they are "deciduous", "evergreen" or a "deciduous/evergreen"
mix.
3. Ensure that the area enclosed in the tree line (see comment above) is the area that is
listed in the "Tree Canopy Cover" note or clarify if the individual trees on the site are
included in area specified.
vi. Show the shrubs along Avon Street Extended that were planted in place of the street
trees. It is noted that zoning had accepted this change as not being a violation since it
was to address concerns from VDOT. However, the landscaping that replaced those
trees still must be shown on the site plan.
vii. In the approved plan there were three additional trees (pines) along the Avon Court road
frontage. If they are not to be replanted, then plant two more Large Shade Trees along
Avon Court to meet the current street tree requirement. These should be parallel to the
road, line up with the existing tree that is about 30' from the travel lane (which may be a
willow oak) and within the parcel. These must be at
viii. In the approved plan there were 3 Japanese Yews and three Red or Austrian Pines
along the Avon Court parcel boundary. These evergreens were meeting a requirement
for mitigation the view of the parking lot. If they are not to be replanted, then at a
minimum shrub should be planted between Avon Court and the parking lot at 5' on
center and at a height of 12' at time of planting.
ix. Provide additional landscaping within the parking area. Less large or medium shade
trees are provided within parking islands, or in close to the parking spaces, than on the
approved site plan as well as in the current regulations. For the number of parking
spaces currently shown there should be a total of 8 large or medium shade trees in the
parking area. Street trees are not to be counted towards meeting this requirement.
Also, there is no key or legend that identifies the trees that are in the parking lots. Until a
key is provided it cannot be determined if the trees still shown are the correct species.
x. Ensure that all existing landscaping on the parcel, and in the VDOT right of way, is
shown and labeled. It is possible that some of the existing landscaping may be able to
meet some of the requirement mentioned above.
i. The free standing light poles, and light fixtures, were not shown on the approved site plans
and therefore should be listed as being added to this site plan.
j. There is an area shown on the approved site plan, going down to Moore's Creek, that is no
longer being shown on this site plan amendment. Address the following:
i. Show the whole parcel, down to Moore's Creek on this site plan. If it is necessary to
show an inset to accomplish that it would be appropriate to do so.
ii. Show and label the 100 year Flood Plain limits.
iii. Show and label the Dam Inundation Area line and specify if it is state or federal.
iv. Show the full extents of the Steep Slopes overlay district. Address the following:
1. The site plan shows "Critical Slopes (Per County GIS)". However, Critical Slopes are
now only in the RA zoned areas of the County. In the Development Areas they are
now designated as "Steep Slopes" and are specifically "Managed" or "Preserved"
Steep Slopes. Revise all labels accordingly.
2. Provide labels or a legend for the hatched areas of the steep slopes to specify if they
are managed or preserved. It appears that the hatches on the site plan already show
two different hatches for managed and preserved steep slopes but there is no key or
legend clarifying what the two different hatches represent.
5. [Comment] Clearly show all changes to the site not previously approved as changes in this
minor amendment. Address the following:
a. Show all proposed changes in darker/thicker lines than the "existing". Please note that any
change not approved with a previous site plan (SDP2000-77) or LORs is considered a
"proposed" change for this minor amendment even if it has already been built. This minor
amendment is to request not only the changes you are about to make but to bring the site
plan into compliance with what has been done without receiving approval from the County.
b. Put revision clouds around all of changes mentioned in "a." above. If it appears that this
clouding may be too extensive to be helpful, please discuss this with the planning reviewer
prior to resubmission.
4
6. [32.5.2(a) & 32.6.2(a)] Address the following in reference to general information on the site plan:
a. Revise the zoning information to also specify that this parcel is in the:
i. Airport Impact Area
ii. Dam Inundation Area
iii. Flood Hazard Area (and include FEMA note)
iv. Steep Slopes: Managed and Steep Slopes: Preserved overlay district.
b. Revise the setbacks to fully and accurately specify the setback requirements.
i. The streets that the parcel is located on are Avon Street Extended and Avon Court.
Reference to "Seminole Lane" is not correct.
ii. The minimum front setback is stated correctly as 10' but expand upon that to state "...from
the right-of-way or the exterior edge of the sidewalk if the sidewalk is outside of the right-
of-way." And note that it applies to both streets and not just one.
iii. The maximum front setback is stated correctly as none. But please note the front setback
requirements (both minimum and maximum) apply to both road frontages. The way it is
shown on the site plan it appears the minimum applies to only one road and the maximum
applies only to the other one.
iv. Side and rear setbacks for buildings are the same, so could be stated together. However,
the description of the setback needs to be expanded. "None Required" is not complete.
There is a 50' setback for buildings if the adjoining lot is zoned residential, rural areas, or
Monticello Historic District. Although the adjoining lots to not currently fall into that
category this information should be included.
v. Side and rear setbacks for parking are the same, so could be stated together. However,
the description of the setback needs to be expanded. "None Required" is not complete.
There is a 30' setback for buildings if the adjoining lot is zoned residential, rural areas, or
Monticello Historic District. Although the adjoining lots to not currently fall into that
category this information should be included.
vi. It should also be stated that if the abutting property is zoned commercial or industrial, any
primary structure shall be constructed and separated in accordance with the current
edition of the Building Code."
c. For two of the adjoining lots, expand upon the labels for the adjoining lots to include the
zoning district and the present use.
d. For the adjoining parcels adjoining within the City of Charlottesville provide the names of the
owners, zoning district, tax map and parcel number and present use.
e. List the "proposed uses" in the "Project Information" on the cover sheet.
7. [Comment] See the attached comments from the other reviewers. The site plan will not be
approved without the approval of the other reviewers.
Staff has provided references to provisions of Chapter 18 of the Code of the County of
Albemarle. The Code is kept up to date by the County Attorney's office. The Code may be
found on the County Attorney's website which may be found under "Departments" at
Albemarle.org.
In accord with the provisions of Section 32.4.3.5 of Chapter 18 of the Code if the developer
fails to submit a revised final site plan to address all of the requirements within six (6) months
after the date of this letter the application shall be deemed to have been voluntarily withdrawn
by the developer.
Please contact Paty Saternye in the Planning Division by using Psaternye(aD-albemarle.org or
434-296-5832 ext. 3250 for further information.
Review Comments for SDP201900069 MinorAmendment
Project Name: Afton Scientific - Minor
Date Completed: Monday, December 09, 2019 DepartmentIDivisionfAgency: Review Sys:
Reviewer: Michael Dellinger CDD Inspections El Requested Changes
(4) accessible parking spaces required_
Add the following to the general notes page:
All roof drains shall discharge in a manner not to carise a priblic nriisance and not over sidewalks_
Add the following note to the general notes page:
Briilding or structures built before January 1, 1985 must have an asbestos survey performed in order to apply for a permit_
,asbestos removal permits are required if positive for such from Albemarle County and VDOLI_ Contact VDOLI for additional
requirements and permits for demolition projects_
Page: County of Albemarle Printed On: O'I1'151 2020
Review Comments for SDP201900069 MinorAmendment
Project Name: Afton Scientific - Minor
Date Completed: Monday, December 02, 2019 DepartmentlDivisionfAgency: Review Sys:
Reviewer: Matthew Wantland CDD Engineering No Obje-:tion
Page: County of Albemarle Printed On: O'I1'151 2020