HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP202000005 Review Comments Minor Amendment 2020-05-28i
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Line and Grade Civil Engineers (dhyer(cD-line-grade.com)
From: Paty Saternye — Senior Planner
Division: Planning
Date: March 11, 2020
Rev. 1: May 28,2020
Subject: SDP2020-5 (874 Rio Road — 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.]
4. [32.5.1(c), 32.5.2(a) & 32.6.1(e)(1)] Revise the site plan to include the bearing and distances
dimensions for the parcel provided on the approved minor amendment SDP1997-91.
Rev. 1: Comments not vet fullv addressed. The bearina and distance alona the northern
Drooerty line cannot be read because of other linework on too of it. Revise the text location so
that it can be read on sheet C1.0.
5. [32.5.1(c), 32.5.2.(d), 32.6.1(e)(2) & 32.6.2(c)] Revise the site plan to show the proposed
contours.
Rev. 1: Comments not vet fullv addressed. Revise the site plan to show the existina contours on
the sheet that shows proposed contours. Address the following:
a) Existing contours appear to be shown only on the front of sheet C1.0. Show the existing
contours for the full parcel on this sheet.
b) Existing contours appear to be shown only on the front of sheet C2.0. Show the existing
contours for the full parcel on this sheet so that it is shown how the proposed contours tie
into the existing contours.
7. [32.5.2(a)] Revise the site plan to:
c. Include scans of the ZMA approval and proffer.
Rev. 1: Comments not vet fullv addressed. The ZMA for this Droiect. which is correctly listed
on the cover sheet is ZMA1996-04. However, the ZMA and associated proffers on sheet
CO.1 are ZMA 1984-6. Revise sheet CO.1 to show the most current, and for the PDMC,
ZMA and proffer information.
9. [32.5.2(b), 32.5.2(n) & 32.6.20)] Revise the site plan landscaping to:
a. Show all existing landscaping for the whole site in the existing conditions sheet C1.0 and
included the required information/labeling for the existing plantings.
Rev. 1: Comments not vet addressed. Show the existina tree species on sheet C1.0.
Meet all of the same landscaping requirement met in the approved site plan. It appears that
although some landscaping remains on the site, even though it is not shown on sheet C1.0,
there is other landscaping that is no longer on planted within the site that was a requirement
of the approved site plan. One example is a tree in one of the parking lot landscape islands.
If there are some locations where there are reasons the tree or shrub cannot be replanted, or
some species the owner no longer wishes to have on site, work with the planning reviewer to
find an appropriate alternative location or species. Any tree not currently planted on site, that
needs to be replanted to meet the previously approved landscaping requirements, should be
shown as "proposed" with this minor site plan amendment.
Rev. 1: Comments not vet fully addressed. See the comment below in reference to the
difference between SDP1997-91 plan and what is proposed. Also, revise the landscape plan
to provide one additional "Large Shade Tree" along one of the two roads. There is one less
than provided in SDP1997-91.
Rev. 1: [NEW COMMENTI Revise the site plan to show the correct "Original Proposed" trees
as follows:
i. In the upper left, adjacent to Rio Road, you show a "Current: None, Orig. Prop. (1)
Bradford Pear". However, SDP1997-91 actually shows a "Sourwood" in that location.
Revise the original tree information and propose a tree that is a deciduous shade tree.
Since Sourwoods are small shade trees small is acceptable, but medium and large
would be as well.
ii. Just below of that tree location is another label that states, "Current: Dogwood, Orig.
Prop. (1) Bradford Pear". However, SDP1997-91 actually shows a "sourwood" in that
location. Revise the label to specify that sourwoods were originally proposed.
iii. Just below of that tree location is another label that states, "Current: Willow Oak, Orig.
Prop. None". However, SDP1997-91 actually shows a "Willow Oak" in that location.
Revise the label to specify that a Willow Oak were originally proposed.
iv. No label is provided in the lower right corner of the site where a "Sourwood" was
proposed in SDP1997-91. Also, since no tree is currently in the location or shown as
proposed in this location it may be an opportunity to plant a tree to make up for one of
the missing trees.
v. There are two Leland Cyprus proposed adjacent to the dumpster enclosure. One of
them is located too close to the enclosure fence and should be moved in order to not
cause damage to the enclosure or block trash pick up.
vi. Just to the right of the proposed Leland Cyprus trees by the dumpster is a label that
states, "Current: (1) Redbud, Orig. Prop: (1) Willow Oak". However, SDP 1997-91
shows a "redbud". Revise the original tree information to state it was a "redbud".
e. Rev. 1: [NEW COMMENTI There is a redbud tree in the lower right corner of the landscape
plan that is labeled as if it is part of this project, however it is actually located on the adjacent
parcel. Revise the plan to not treat plantings on the adjacent parcels as if they are meeting
the requirements for this site plan.
f. Rev. 1: [NEW COMMENTI In the Original vs. Existing Planting Summary address the
following:
vii. Revise the charts to address the discrepancies specified above in what is shown as
Original Proposed.
viii. Revise "Street trees" to be "Trees planted along streets". "Street trees" are currently
required to be "large shade trees" and many on this site plan are not. So, revising that
wording could avoid future confusion.
ix. Do not utilize a bonus factor in the calculations for the tree canopy. These trees were
not existing on site prior to approval of this site plan. This project is lust revising an
existing approved site plan. Revise the calculations to adjust for this change. A canopy
calculation to meet 10% of the site was not included in SDP1997-91. Therefore, as
long as the requirements shown in the previously approved site plan are still met this
calculation does not need to be shown. However, in that case the canopy provided by
the existing and proposed TREES combined should match or exceed what was
originally approved.
x. Revise the Original vs. Existing Planting Summary to show the caliper of the tree at
planting. Although this information is included in the Planting Schedule at the bottom of
the sheet that chart is only for proposed plantings and does not include the information
for the existing plants.
g. Rev. 1: [NEW COMMENTI A Parking Area Landscaping calculation was not included in
SDP1997-91. Therefore, as long as the previous requirements are met this is not required
in this site plan amendment. Please note though that "Parking Area Landscaping" is not
the canopy of the trees in the parking area. It is the square footage of the landscaped beds
in the parking area. Either remove this portion of the calculations or revise it to specify the
correct type of areas.
h. Rev. 1: [NEW COMMENTI Remove the street tree calculation, since it are not required
based upon the previous approved site plan, or ensure that it is are correct. The street tree
chart is specifeng a significant number of existing "medium street trees". However,
dogwoods and redbuds classified as ornamentals and sourwoods are classified as small
shade trees. None of these species are classified as "medium shade trees" by the county
and do not meet the requirement for street trees.
i. Rev. 1: [NEW COMMENTI Remove the previously approved site plan from the proposed
site plan sheets.
14. [32.5.2(n) 32.6.1(e)(6),& 32.6.2(i)] Revise the site plan to:
b. Revise the HC parking space detail to show the actual sizes of the spaces shown in the site
plan. The detail shows van spaces 8' wide with an 8' wide access hatched area but the plan
shows 11' wide spaces with a 5' wide access hatched area. Both are allowed, but the detail
should match what is built.
Rev. 1: Comments not vet fully addressed. A detail with a van space utilizing 11' wide spaces
and 5' wide access hatched area, to match what is on site, should be provided. The "car"
version with the 8' space and 5' hatched area does not meet the minimum requirements for a
van accessible space.
d. Provide information on the timing temporary construction fencing. This fencing appears to
reduce the available parking by 8 spaces, 5 below the minimum required, and therefore
cannot be allowed while the business is open. If this temporary construction fence will be
removed before the business is open, and before the certificate of occupancy is granted, then
add a note or label to sheet C1.0 that specifies that.
Rev. 1: Comments not vet fully addressed. Revise the note that was added to sheet C1.0 to
have at the end of it "... and prior to the certificate of occupancy being -granted."
e. Rev. 1: [NEW COMMENTI Revise the "Parking Provided" calculations on the cover sheet to
state "Total Provided Parking" instead of "Total Required Parking" and remove the calculation
and ADA reference since thev are alreadv shown in the "Parkina Reauired" sections above.
16. [32.5.2(n)] Revise the site plan to:
b. Clarify why the existing sidewalks do not appear to extend all of the way from the curb to the
building on the proposed site plan. Both the approved site plan and the as built conditions
seem to show that there is no landscaped area between the sidewalk and building.
Rev. 1: Comments not vet addressed. Comment response letter states "Comment noted.
See revised plans." However, any change to clarify this issue is not apparent. The line work
and sidewalk hatching on sheets C1.0, C2.0, C3.0 & C4.0 all do not appear to show a 6'
sidewalk around the building on the southeast and southwest sides. It looks like it is either 3'
on the southwest side and 6' on the northwest side or 6' on the southwest side and 10' on
the southeast side. They do not look the same width, there is an extra line (maybe the roof
overhang) that has sidewalk hatch within it on one side and not within it on the other side.
There appears to be an error in the CAD drawing that needs to be revised. Revise the plan
to show what is built and ensure it is fully dimensioned on both the southeast and the
southwest sides of the building. Please note that site visit photos do not appear to show 10'
wide sidewalk on the southeast side of the building.
h. Rev. 1: f NEW COMMENTI Show the concrete dumpster pad, that extends the minimum
required distance beyond the gates, in the plan view sheets of the site plan. It is shown in
the detail but not the plan views.
17. [32.5.2(r)] Revise the site plan to ensure the legend is complete and correct and that the hatches
in the drawing correspond to those hatches/symbols. On sheet C1.0 there is a hatch for "Limits
of Pavement Patch Repairs" that is not utilized in that sheet. However, a hatch is used in C2.0
that appears to be an area of grass or groundcover that appears to be using that same hatch
symbol. Ensure the hatches are used in the areas that they are designating, are not too similar
to hatching for other uses, and if appropriate add another legend to sheet C2.0 to designate what
the hatches on that sheet are representing.
Rev. 1: Comments not vet fully addressed. On sheet C1.0 one of the hatch patterns shown in
the legend has been revised and relabeled. However, the "Limits of Pavement Patch" hatch is
still not being shown/utilized in the plan view. Either clarify that this hatch is not supposed to be
utilized or show it in the areas in auestion on the plan view.
19. [Comment] It appears that off -site easements will be required for changes proposed in this site
plan amendment. Both construction grading and a permanent security fence are shown on the
adjoining lot (TMP61-124131) on sheet C2.0. All off -site easement plats and deeds must be
submitted to the county (under separate application and fee) for review, approved, recorded and
proof of recordation provided to the reviewer prior to approval of this site plan amendment.
Rev. 1: Comments not vet fully addressed. The security fence has been moved to be within the
parcel but only 1' from the property line. Ensure that construction of the fence can be
accomplished this close to the property line without requiring any impact to the adioininq parcel.
There appears to be a concrete base proposed for the fence, based upon the detail. If any
impact to the adioininq parcel will be required to construct the fence foundation, then address the
comment in reference to the required off -site easement.
20. [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: Comments not vet fully addressed. Attached please find the ARB, ACSA and RWSA
comments. This site plan will note be approved without the approval of all other reviewers.
21. Rev. 1: f NEW COMMENTI Please note that adding a sheet from a previously approved plan is
not "including" the information requested and required in the site plan. Please ensure all
required information is integrated into the site plan and not lust attached.
22. Rev. 1: f NEW COMMENTI Provide the "Maximum number of employees" in the project
summary on the cover sheet. This information was included in the approved site plan.
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 SDP202000005 MinorAmendment
Project Name: 874 Rio Road - Minor
Date Completed: Thursday, May 21, 2020 DepartmentIDivisionfAgency: Review Sys:
Reviewer: Margaret MaliszewskiFIEDDARB Requested Changes
Identify the three rectangles added to the plan of the northwest of the new generator_
n
Page: County of Albemarle Printed On: 051281 0020
Review Comments for SDP202000005 iMinorAmendment
Project Name: 874 Rio Road - Minor
Date Completed: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 DepartmentlDi+visionlAgency: Review Sys:
Reviewer: Victoria Fort -E RWSA No Objection
00-04-8: RA has reviewed 874 Rio Road minor site plan amendment with the most recent submission dated March 27th
00 and has no further comments_
Page: County of Albemarle Printed On: 051281 0020
Review Comments for SDP202000005 iMinorAmendment
Project Name: 874 Rio Road - Minor
Date Completed: Wednesday, May 27, 2020 DepartmentlDi+visionlAgency: Review Sys:
Reviewer: Richard Nelson ACSA I No Objection
0 0-05- 7: (from email to planner) I recommend this site plan for approval_
n
Page: County of Albemarle Printed On: 051281 0020