HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201900069 Review Comments Minor Amendment 2020-05-26`, �ii ir�rfr r
I f
� r
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Tom Thorpe (tthorpe(@aftonscientific.com)
From: Paty Saternye — Senior Planner
Division: Planning
Date: January 17, 2020
Rev. 1: May 26, 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.]
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 #4] The site plan does not show all of the improvements approved in LOR #4.
Address the following:
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.
Rev. 1: Comment not vet fully addressed. Although the comment response letter states
that the trellis was not built and there is currently no intention of adding the trellis the
note on the coversheet states "As well as a trellis to be built in the future". Please clarify
this discrepancy and do one of the following.
a) IF the trellis is not to be built in the future then the following applies. It appears that
the concrete wall, and some form of a fence, have been constructed in the terrace
area based upon LOR #4. Therefore. for the portion of LOR #4 that has been built
the labels (like shown on sheet X1.7 but revised for what was built) in the existing
conditions sheet and a detail (like shown on sheet X1.8 but revised for what was
built) needs to be included in the details sheet of the current site plan (SDP2019-69).
The attached previously approved LOR is not a substitute for adding this information
into the proposed site plan.
b) IF the trellis will, or may, be built in the future then follow the comment above for the
existing conditions sheet. Then also, in the proposed layout sheet, show the future
trellis being added. A note should be added in that sheet that states "To be added in
the future by others". In the details provide one detail for what was already built and
then provide the proposed revision (should be the same as sheet X1.8). Ensure that
that the second detail is labeled as "Future Trellis Addition". Please note that the
labels and information shown in both of the LOR #4 sheets (X1.7 & X1.8) should be
included in this site plan. Attaching the previously approved LOR is not a substitute
for adding this detail into the proposed 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. 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.
Rev. 1: Comment not vet fully addressed. Address the following:
ii. Revise the description of LOR #2 to state the approved concrete pad width. A way to
do this, without causing future confusion, would be to state, "Addition of 14.5' x 40'
concrete pad adjacent to 6.5' existing sidewalk."
iii. Add the four LORs to the "Project History" on sheet CO. 1.
b. In the bulleted list mentioned above, individually list the two changes already specified under
"Scope of Work:".
Rev. 1: Comment not vet fully addressed. Address the following:
i. Revise the note to add back in the mention of the addition of "asphalt paving". That
change is still proposed on the site plan.
ii. Revise the note to change "edition" to "addition".
c. 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):
ii. 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.
iii. 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.
iv. 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.
v. Changes to the parking layout, striping, removal or addition of stop blocks.
vi. Changes to the parking calculations and requirements.
Rev. 1: Comment revised. Remove this section on the cover sheet. Staff will include a note
in the permanent file on the first bulleted item, with the details of the past history. All the
other items have been sufficiently incorporated in the site plan with notes and clouds and
therefore no longer need to be specifically listed here.
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.
Rev. 1: Comment not vet fully addressed. The note has been added to the cover sheet.
Also include a dumpster enclosure detail within the site plan showing the height, material,
pates etc.
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.
Rev. 1: Comment not vet fully addressed. Address the following:
a) Shift the 9 parking spaces along the edge of Avon Court to be closer to Avon Street
Extended. The parking space on the right does not appear to meet the minimum
width requirements but there is additional area on the left side that can be utilized.
b) Clarify if the two handicapped (HQ spaces near the entrance to Avon Court are
begin changed to be three regular spaces. The two proposed paint lines on either
side of the hatched access aisle make it unclear if these will remain as HC spaces
or regular spaces. If they are to stay as HC spaces the ADA space size
requirements govern their size. If they will be regular spaces the HC parking
markings should be removed.
c) Either remove the single parking space near the northern edge of the property, next
to the ash tree and in the vicinity of the dumpster, or remove it from the Proposed
Plan layout. It does not appear to meet the minimum parking space size
requirement. Please note that it does not appear that there is sufficient width of the
travel way to extend the space to the required depth. That travel way must be 24'
wide since the parking spaces on the other side of it are only 9' wide.
d) There are 22 parking spaces within TMP 77-9A shown on this site plan. They also
do not appear to match the parking space layout shown on SDP2008-30. Add a
label in this area that states. "This area of Darkina is not beina reviewed with this
site plan and is part of SDP2008-30."
d. Revise the parking calculations as follows:
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.
Rev. 1: Comment not vet fully addressed. The calculation for the industrial parking
requirement appears to be correct, but the information required to determine if it is
correct has not been included in the calculation on the site plan. Add a note below the
calculation stating that no portion of the building is open to the public.
g. See Inspections comment on the number of handicapped spaces provided in the plan.
Rev. 1: Comment not vet fully addressed. Inspections has an additional comment
(5/22/2020) based upon the addition of the temporary building. See their attached
comment.
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).
Rev. 1: Comment not addressed. Address the following:
a) The landscape plan appears to not be based upon SDP2000-77 but on an earlier
site plan (1991) that was attached to the site plan submission. This has only a
small impact on the landscaping within the parcel, but one tree (MSA near
dumpster) and one shrub (yew near entrance) are different. Revise the landscaping
and landscaping labels to be based on SDP2000-77. See elsewhere in these
comments on impact outside of the parcel.
b) Applicant has chosen to put information in labels instead of a schedule. Since this
is based upon a previously approved plan prior to current requirements this will be
allowed. However, all of the information shown in the previously approved plan
must be provided. The caliper of the tree at the time of planting is not provided and
is required. Revise the labels for all trees that are to include the caliper of the tree
at the time of planting or provide a schedule that includes this information along with
the tree type and quantity. Please note that 1 1/2" caliper trees were the specified
minimum on the approved site plan. This information must be provided to not only
match the previously approved site plan but also to provide the necessary
information for any required tree replacements needed in the future.
iii. Ensure that all existing or proposed tree or shrub has a label, for the tree type, that is
referenced in the landscape schedule.
Rev. 1: Comment not vet fully addressed. A tree schedule has not been provided, and
not all of the information provided in the tree schedule on the approved site plan has
been included in the labeling for each existing and proposed trees. See comment "ii."
Above on how to address this comment.
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:
2. Include in that label if they are "deciduous", "evergreen" or a "deciduous/evergreen"
mix.
Rev. 1: Comment not vet addressed. This comment is in reference to large
preserved tree area on the north side of the parcel and not the individual trees within
the developed portion of the site. Address this comment by labeling the "Existing
Tree Canopy to be Preserved" as either "deciduous", "evergreen" or
"deciduous/evergreen mix".
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.
Rev. 1: Comment not vet fully addressed. Revise the location of the proposed willow
oak furthest southeast along Avon Court to not impact the existing business sign. The
trunk appears to be less than 5' from the monument sign and will be blocking the view of
the sign.
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.
Rev. 1: Comment not vet fully addressed. Although the 4 Japanese Yews shown on the
approved site plan are shown as being replaced (see below) they do accomplish the
visual mitigation that would have been provide by evergreen trees between Avon Court
and the parking. Fully address this comment as specified above.
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.
Rev. 1: Comment not vet fully addressed. Address the following:
a) Show the existing shrubs along Avon Street Extended in the "existing conditions and
demolition plan" sheet.
b) If none of the 4 yews at the entrance from Avon Court are currently existing, then
thev should not be shown in the existina conditions sheet.
c) The proposed plan sheet should either show no landscaping (existing or proposed
since there is a separate landscaping sheet) or show all existing and proposed
landscaping. Currently it is showing must existing landscaping even though it is a
"Proposed plan" sheet.
d) The Proposed Layout sheet should not show trees that were "removed per VDOT".
They are neither existing nor proposed and therefore should not be shown in the
plan at all.
e) Removed any reference to trees "removed per VDOT" in the site plan. As specified
in a phone call on 5/18 county staff will include a note in the permanent file about
those previously allowed changes.
f) As specified in the comment elsewhere (and in a phone call on 5/18), in reference to
the "Site chanaes not associated with SDP2000-77" note. special treatment of these
items not previously approved is no longer being requested. Revise the labels for
these two shrub areas (along Avon Street Extended and the yews near the entrance)
to match those of other existing and/or proposed landscaping. What is ultimately
provided will be compared against the previously approved plan, but reference to
that previous approval in the labels is no longer requested.
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:
iii. Show and label the Dam Inundation Area line and specify if it is state or federal.
Rev. 1: Comment not yet fully addressed. Revise the labels to specify if they are the
state or the federal Dam Inundation Area boundaries.
iv. Show the full extents of the Steep Slopes overlay district. Address the following:
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.
Rev. 1: Comment not vet fully addressed. There is a small area of "manacled" steep
slopes on the property in the vicinity of the terraced patio. Show this area, hatch it,
and label it. There appears to be some hatching in the appropriate area, but it is not
labeled, and the hatch symbol selected for "managed" steep slopes is not obvious.
Even if the area is no longer graded as it once was, when designated as "managed
steep slopes", this is an overlay district and the district applies even after the grading
has been modified.
Rev. 1 [NEW COMMENTI: Show the location of all loading spaces in the site plan. Address
the following:
i. Show the spaces including hatching and labels.
H. Include a calculation on the site plan soecifvina the reauired and existina (or proposed)
loading spaces.
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.
Rev. 1: Comment not yet fully addressed. Although specific comment above was addressed
the overall zoning of "Light Industrial" was not correctly stated. It is "LI" (the letter "I") not "L-
1". Revise this information in the zoning portion of the cover sheet.
b. Revise the setbacks to fully and accurately specify the setback requirements.
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.
Rev. 1: Comment not vet fully addressed. Although staff can allow the reduction in detail
level requested by the applicant, the information provided on CO.1 is not correct. Revise
the "(Adjacent to R1)" to instead read either "(Adjacent to LI and B-2)".
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.
Rev. 1: Comment not vet fully addressed. The information added to sheet CO.1 was for
Albemarle County parcels, which had already been provided on sheet C1.0, and not the City
of Charlottesville. Address the comment for the adjacent parcels within the City of
Charlottesville. There are two adjoining parcels within the City on the other side of Moore's
Creek. Please provide this information on the existing conditions Sheet C1.0, as was done
for the County parcels. They have the parcel numbers of 590371000 & 590370000 and are
zoned B-2.
7. [Comment] See the attached comments from the other reviewers. The site plan will not be
approved without the approval of the other reviewers.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed. Comments for Inspections were addressed, but the addition of the
temporary building has required additional comments. See the attached comment from
inspections.
8. Rev. 1: [New Comment — 5.81 Temaorary Industrialized Buildina. The "Proposed Temgora
Modular Building" was not included in the 1st submission of this minor site plan amendment.
Therefore, if it continues to be included in this minor amendment all requirements for 18-5.8 must
be met and additional revisions to the site plan are required. Address the following:
a. It has been suggested by zoning that the temporary industrialized building might be handled
as a "Letter of Revision" (LOR) after the minor site plan amendment has been approved. In
that case the LOR, the zoning clearance, and the building permit could be processed
together. By proposing the temporary building in the 211 submission of this minor
amendment additional information is required that was not requested in the 1st round of
comments.
b. 5.8(b) Provide a written statement from the owner to the zoning administrator explaining the
purpose of the temporary industrialized building, the activities to be conducted therein, and
the duration that the temporary industrialized building will be located on site. This letter
should be submitted separately and also incorporated into the site plan.
c) 5.8(d) Conditions to address the impacts arising from the temporary industrialized buildinq
must be incorporated into the site plan for review and approval to meet 5.8. Address the
following:
i. Include the in the label for the temporary industrialized building the period of time that
the building will be allowed to be on site. Ensure it is no more than specified in 5.8(f).
ii. Include in the site plan information about the required skirting (see 5.8(e)). This should
be included as both part of the label for the building as well as a detail showing the
skirting. Ensure it meets the requirements specified in 5.8(e).
iii. Screenina for the temporary buildina needs to be shown and reviewed. There is
existing landscaping on the adioininq parcel TMP 77-9A which may meet some of that
requirement. Please note that SDP2000-77 showed landscaping in this area but it
appears changes have been made. Therefore, information on the last approved final
site plan for TM 77-9A (SDP1993-85), and its landscaping, must be researched will
be forwarded to the applicant once it is scanned.
iv. Both a building permit and a zoning clearance are required for a temporary
industrialized building. That process takes place after the approval of the minor
amendment.
9. Rev. 1: [New Commentl Staff appreciates having access to the previously approved minor
amendment and LORs. However, then are not part of this site plan and attaching them to it does
not limit the amount of information that is required to be within the proposed site plan itself. The
attached documents will not be considered, or kept, as part of the approved site plan packet.
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(a-albemarle.org or
434-296-5832 ext. 3250 for further information.
Review Comments for SDP201900069 MinorAmendment
Project Name: Afton Scientific - Minor
Date Completed: Wednesday, March 25, 2020 Revised 5-22-2020 for temp. building. Review Status:
Reviewer: Michael Dellinger CDD Inspections F-1 Requested Changes
2020-05-22: Comment revised= Provided a description of what the temporary building will be used for_ Additional comments may �
be required depending on the use_
2020-03-25: Initial comment "no objection"
Page: County of Albemarle Printed On: 05122J2020