HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP202000067 Correspondence 2020-10-14 (2)SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C.
Design Focused Engineering
October 13, 2020
Paty Satemye, Senior Planner
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
RE: Response Letter #3 for SDP201900033 Northside Material Recovery Facility
(Letter #1 for SDP202000067)
Dear Paty,
On September 24, we received a notice that pursuant to Section 32.4.3.5(b) of Chapter 18 of the
Albemarle County Code, SDP2019-00033 has been withdrawn by the developer. Yesterday (October 12,
2020), we submitted a new application and fee and a revised site plan for the Northside Material
Recovery Facility. Based on the last comments for SDP2019-00033, dated November 22, 2019, we have
prepared the following responses for your review with the new submittal:
1. Responses to CDD Planning (Paty Satemye) ,
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).
It is our understanding that all comments from ACSA (Richard Nelson) and VDOT (Adam Moore) have
been addressed.
Planning
Paty Saternye — Senior Planner
1. [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
3(d) that does not apply to 3(f) or 4(b). Therefore, must be revised. Address the following:
i. The timing of 3(f) is "... prior to commencement of use and upon request by 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."
912 E. High Sr. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com
iv. If the form of visible markers is permanent in nature, then shown them on the site
plan and label them accordingly.
Rev. 2: Comment not vet fully addressed. Address the followin
i. See and address the comments from Zoning.
ii. In addressing Zoning comments, ensure that the following are also revised:
a. Note # 1 on Sheet C4
b. The Visible Marker Detail on Sheet C6, including its title,
c. The section labels on Sheet C4
d. The visible marker symbol (shown on both sheets C4 & C5), and provide
additional markers, and
e. Ensure all stock piles are provided with their permanent markers and section
labels. Stockpile Area #4 did not have any labels for visible markers in this last
submission.
RESPONSE: Please see responses to Zoning comments below. See note #1 on sheet C4 with the
requested changes. A visible marker (moveable) detail and labels have been updated to correctly
reflect the marker construction and stockpile areas (including Stockpile Area #4) on sheets C4
and C5. The section and detail labels on sheet C4 and C5 have been re -labeled to correctly
reference the section and details on sheet C6.
8. [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 parking calculations.
Rev.2: Comment not yet fully addressed. In the parking calculation, where the four spaces are
subtracted for this use, change the word "Requested" to be "Reserved for SDP2019-33
Parking".
RESPONSE: See sheet Cl. The requested change is 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
912 E. High St. Charlohesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com
must be approved by the County and recorded prior to the final site plan being
approved since the parking is required for this site plan.
Rev. 2: Comment not yet fully addressed. An instrument to address off -site parking
was submitted on 11/21/2019 and will be reviewed. This instrument must be
approved by the County and recorded prior to the final site plan being approved since
the parkin is s required for the site plan.
RESPONSE: An off -site parking agreement has been approved and recorded. We don't have a
copy of the recorded document. Let us know if you would like us to provide it.
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 being prepared 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.
Rev. 2: Comment not yet fully addressed. The submitted easement 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,
RESPONSE: The vacation plat has been approved and recorded in DB 5255 PP 690-701.
27. [32.5.2(e), (n), 32.6.20) & 32.7.9.4 (b) & (c)] Address the following:
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 yet fully 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.
Rev. 2: Comment not yet fully addressed. See ARB and Zoning comments in reference to the
areas of preserved trees that were removed from preservation in the 11/12/19 resubmission.
RESPONSE: Please see responses to ARB and Zoning comments below.
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.
Rev. 2: Comment not yet fully addressed. See the attached comments from all remaining
reviewers.
912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com
RESPONSE: Please see responses to Zoning, Engineering, and ARB comments below.
34. Rev. 1: [NEW COMMENT] Revise the elevation labels on the proposed topography to be
correct. The elevation labels appear to have typographical errors, sometimes even having two
different elevations on the same topo line. The area around the proposed berm appears to have the
most errors.
Rev. 2: Comment not yet fully addressed. There are approximately six t000g_ravhical lines, in the
area of the proposed screening berm, that show two different elevations on the same line. An
example is that the topographical line for 532 is labeled as "32" on one end of the line and then
labeled "02" on the other end. Revise the elevations so that they are correct and consistent.
RESPONSE: The elevations labels 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.
Rev. 2: Comment not yet fully addressed. Address the following:
a) On Sheet C5 the label (8/C6) for the section through the berm no longer matches the revised
section (9C6) number specified on Sheet C6. No section number is shown for the berm on
sheet C4, even though labels for the other sections are provided there.
b) On Sheet C5 there appear to be multiple section labels for 4/C6 & 5/C6 floating around in
areas that the section details would not apply. Revise the site plan to ensure all section labels
are shown in the correct areas.
RESPONSE: The detail and section references and labels have been revised to match
accordingly.
38. Rev. 2: [NEW COMMENT] Prior to approval of the site plan the deed book and page number for
the recorded easement plat must be added to the site plan in the blanks provided.
RESPONSE: The deed book and page number references have been inserted in the site plan as
requested.
Engineering Comments:
1) VSMP Plan (WP0201500001) must be amended and approved before final site plan can be
approved.
Rev. 1: Comment not addressed.
Rev. 2: Comment not addressed. WPO plan approval is pending SWM agreement recordation and
nutrient credit purchase.
RESPONSE: The maintenance agreement is recorded in Deed Book 5249 beginning on Page
614 and it is our understanding that the nutrient credits have been purchased.
Please let us know if you need further verification.
912 E. High St. Charlohesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com
6) Rev. 2: SUB201900175 plat and deeds must be recorded before final site plan can be approved.
RESPONSE: Deed Book and Page Number references have been added to the site plan for the
plat and easements associated with SUB201900175.
Zoning Comments:
- Section 4.12.16(e) requires an instrument be recorded that ensures the continuation of
required parking on TMP 32-67. All properties for the proposed use and the parcel using the
required parking must be subject to/sign the instrument assuring the parking.
RESPONSE: An off -site parking agreement has been approved and recorded. We don't have a
copy of the recorded document. Let us know if you would like us to provide it.
- The tree preservation areas shall match the special exception condition #3 and the ARB
approval letter dated August 9, 2019 and plans dated August 1, 2019.
RESPONSE: The tree preservation areas have been revised to match the special exception
condition #3 and the ARB approval letter as requested.
- The piles are limited to 24' and 28' so each marker must have those measurements delineated
and certified by a surveyor to comply with special exception conditions. Permanent markers
must be installed at the upper and lower elevations of each stockpile. Marker locations shall
be identified on the site plan. As part of verifying conditions, the county will confirm the
marker height and location for each stockpile by requiring surveyor certification.
RESPONSE: The conditions of approval for the special exception request associated with this
site plan do not stipulate that the `visible markers" must be permanent. We have
provided a detail on sheet C6 for a "moveable visible marker" and locations on
sheets C4 and C5 for the placement of these markers. It is understood and noted
on the site plan that height of the stockpiles must be certified by a registered
surveyor.
- Zoning clearance must be issued prior to commencement of the use.
RESPONSE: It is our understanding that the use commenced under a previous plan and this
site plan allows the use to continue in accordance with the conditions stipulated
in the special exception approval.
ARB Comments:
,)um� all existing wooded area on 32-73 to be preserved, to be consistent with ARB
approvals.
RESPONSE: The preserved wooded areas on TMP 32-73 have been revised to be consistent
with ARB approvals.
912 E. High St. Charlohesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com
If you have any questions or concerns about these revisions, please feel free to contact me at
Kellykshimp-en ing eering com or by phone at 434-227-5140.
Regards,
6V
Kelly Strickland
Shimp Engineering, P.C.
434.981.6029
912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com