The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSDP201900069 Review Comments Minor Amendment 2020-08-27Y`�llf .1(yf( 1; County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Tom Thorpe (tthorpe((Daftonscientific.com) From: Paty Saternye — Senior Planner Division: Planning Date: January 17, 2020 Rev. 1: May 26, 2020 900069 (Afton Scientific — Minor Site Plan 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. [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: 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... i. Revise the parking space width and depth to meet ... Rev. 1: Comment not yet fully addressed. Address the following:... updated to the correct scaling. 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: 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... 1) Please note that the number and type of "trees" shown in the Landscape Plan seems to be sufficient to meet the minimums previously approved in SDP2000-77. The items below are to ensure chart that is included is accurate and to adjust the 2) Pei c. Only 17 trees are shown in the Landscape Plan (existing + proposed) and Vet the total number of trees shown in the "Combined Totals" chart is 46. The combined total cannot be more than what is shown. If I have misinterpreted the purpose of this table, please clarify. d. In the "Approved Site Plan (SDP200077)" portion of the chart, I interpret the "Total Quantity Currently on Site" to be trees that are currently existing on site and were also approved and shown in SDP2000-77. If I am misinterpreting this, please clarify. e. The canopy calculations are not required for this site plan because they were not part of the approved site plan this is amending. IF you wish to continue to show the canopy sizes please ensure that the "area of canopy" listed for each species of trees is what canopy of that species ( if 1 112" caliper at time of planting) would be after 10 years of growth. f. Ensure that all plantings listed in the chart are shown and labeled in the Landscaping Plan, and if they are existing, they should also be shown and labeled in the Existing Conditions sheet. If more plantings exist than are being shown that may be why some of the numbers do not appear correct. g. Please revise the # "5" to be a "5" instead of an 'S". 3) The label for the shrubs along Avon Street Extended does not vet include their species. They have also not been included in the landscape schedule. They are required landscaping, since they are planted in place of the previously approved trees that were removed. Therefore, there quantity and species must be included in the Landscape Plan and planting schedule. 4) See comment "viii." Below about shrubs that are required to mitigate the view of the 9 parking spaces along Avon Court, and near the monument sign. 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 yet 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 tree. See comment "ii" Above on how to address this comment. Rev. 2: Comment not vet fully addressed. See comment "ii." above. 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 yet 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. j. There is an area shown on the approved site plan, going down to Moore's Creek, that is no being shown on this site plan amendment. Address the following:... Slopes'. Please revise this note to state "Steep Slopes'. k. 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. Rev. 2: MEW COMMENT] Revise the note, pointing to the front entrance area of the building, on the Landscape Plan that says, "Dwarf Japanese Holly have been removed per ARB entrance Corridor approval" to instead say. "Dwarf Japanese Holly have been removed. ARB entrance Corridor guidelines are not currently being applied to this section of Avon Street Extended". The applicant has been allowed to remove those shrubs. However, it is my understanding that it was not part of an "approval" but must a revision to the area where the ARB Entrance Corridor Guidelines are currently being applied. There was an application (ARB2017-103 Office Renovations- Afton Scientific) where this was initially being reviewed and may have been "approved" but it was decided by the County that the project and approval was not required. Please clarity if there is other information I am not considering. 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 psaternveO-albemarle.org or 434-296- 5832 ext. 3250 for further information. 11 I II II .I I II tr'rlCacri V Cell .p -11 SHIP 1 lid 4 9Far ORIGINAL VS. EXISTING PLANTING SUMMAR Approved Site Plan !SOP20W77) Landscape Moterrots Min. Key Botanical Name Common Name Caliper YC Prunus x yedoen-cJs Yoshino Cherry 1-1/2" WO Quercus Pheffos Willow Oak 1.1/2" MSA Frownus pennsylvonico 'Morsholl' Marshall Seedess Ash 1.1/2" P Puws Resinoso Red Pine 1-1/2" C Molus Crabapple 1-1/2" j H Crotoepr.s Hawthorn 1.1/2" DJH flex Crer weren't these removed) Dwarf Japanese Holly n/a JN flex Crenoto iapanese Holy n/a JY Toxus Cuspidoto Japanese Yew n/a �I J Trees Pbnted but not bldkoted on the Onlq& l Slit Plan Key Staninl Noma YC Prunus x yedoensls WO Quercus Pheffos MSA Froxinus pennsylvornca 'Morsholl P Pinus Resrnoso C Molus H Crotoegus DJH flex CrencroCompocto �. JH flex Crenoto JY Torus Cuspidoto 1 ` � _P SLOPES (PRIES T SLOPES ( I Common Name Yoshino Cherry Willow Oak Marshall Seedess Ash Red Pine Crabapple Hawthorn Cherry Flowering Dogwood Dwarf Japanese Holly Japanese Icily Japanese Yew Y C I interpret this to mean what is shown n your existing conditions sheet. 4- Total Quanta Original Parking Trees Planted rently an Quantity Trees Along Sbett Cur 2 1 �w5 4 20 1 16 W 0 1 1 i 0 1 I / J J 1 0 F. ) 3 Total Preserved Canopy as of Canopy Smut Total Calm" wr tin), Facto► Area 64 SF 2.0 64 SF 95 SF 1.0 950 SF 95 SF 1.0 380 SF 1.0 0 SF 1.0 0 SF 9S SF 10 9S SF 1.0 0 SF 1.0 0 SF 1 3 0 SF ea (From O*nal Plan) 1,489 SF Mitt. Speeding Parking Trees Plantrd Proposed df41 Canopy , Caliper Tne/Shrub Trees Along Streets Quantity (perl�ee(t Area 1-1/2" I 1 64 SF 64 sF 1-1/2" S S 9S SF 47S SF ve 0 95 SF 380 SF 11/2' 0 0SF 0 0 SF 1-2/2" 0 95 SF 0 SF 2 2 1-u2'• 1 1 n/a 0 0 SF n/a 0 0 SF n/a S S 0 SF Total Provided Additional Canopy Area (M S4ppkmntto Original pion) _ 919 SF — Co_nt fined Totob of Original Species SNF Remo4ung, and Additional Species to be PMomro / R `T X ' Min- Se wning Parking Trees Planted Area of Canopy — Kay OOta11iQINMM Common Name Caliper TM/Shrub Trees Along Streets Total Quantity , (per tree) YC Prumus x yedoensis Yoshm Cherry 1-1/2" , 1 64 SF WO Quercus Phellos Willow Oak 1-112" 8 9S SF MSA Fraxinus pennsytvaruca'Marshall' Marshall Seedless Ash 1-1/2" T. tJ 95 SF P Penus Reynosa Red Pine 1-1/2" 0 C Malus Crabapple 1-112" 0 H Crataegus Hawthorn 1-1/2" 0 9S SF Prunus Av+um Cherry 1.112" 2 0 Carnus Florida Flowering Dogwood 1-1/2" 1 ED) DJH :Irx Crenata Compacta Dwarf J4panr•se Holly n/a 0 JH Irx Crenata lapanese -lolly n/a 0 JY Taxus Cuspidata Japanese Yew n/a *6 11 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Total Preserved ► PriNndBd Canes Alai Notes I\— Not on approved plan 1 - The Calculated Canopy Area is what will be used as the basis of estimating preserved caonpy areas, below so not required now. 10 Not on approved plan so not required now _ Not on approved plan so not required now. DANIEL C. NYFP �� I 1-lc. No. 4`'` Total Canopy Area S/ONAL 128 5F 1,475 SF 7605E PPROVED DCH 0 SF 9S55F 1141 EMISSION NO. 2 S ROJE Not on approved plan Dar so not required now, D SF H E v V v rN to y r 0SF I N E + GRADEI xmA --------------- I There appear to be 17 trees shown on the Landscaping Plan (existing + proposed). My numbers above match that. ■ Also, if there are shrubs you are counting. but not showing & labeling in the site plan. that is why my calculations are not matching yours on the shrubs. If they are not shown in the site plan they can not be counted towards the site plan. Review Comments for SDP201900069 MinorAmendment Project Name: Afton Scientific -Minor Date Completed: Tuesday, July 07, 2020 DepartmentlDivision/Agency: Review Status: Reviewer: Michael Dellinger CDD Inspections� No Objection Page: 1� Countyof Albemarle Printed On: 08/27/ 0020