HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP202000049 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2020-11-06Phone 434-296-5832
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4579
Memorandum
To: Scott Collins (cs o!L@collins-en ing eering com)
From: Paty Satemye, Senior Planner
Division: Planning
Date: August17,2020
Rev. 1: November 5, 2020
Subject: SDP 202000049 Mill Creek Industrial Park — Lot I I — Final Site Development Plan
Fax 434-9724126
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.]
Initial Site Plan Comments (from approval letter dated 3/16/16):
1. [32.5.2(a)] The owner information provided does not match that shown in County real estate records, verify that
accurate owner information is provided.
Final: Comment not yet addressed. Address comment.
Rev. 1: Comment not vet addressed. Countv GIS still shows "1205 Stonev Ridge LLC" as the current owner. "Mill
Creek Industrial Development LLC" is listed as the Owner as of Jan 151(previous owner). Please address the comment
or provide documentation showing that "Mill Cree Industrial Development LLC" is still the current owner as shown on
the cover sheet of the site plan
2. [32.5.2(a)] It appears that the proposed parking does not meet the required parking setback from Stoney Ridge Road,
please show the building and parking setback lines, and revise the layout to meet this requirement (or apply for a
special exception).
Final: Comment not yet addressed. Address comment.
Rev. 1: Comment not vet fullv addressed. Revise the "10' Front Setback" label to state " 10' BuildlnR/ParkinR
Setback"
5. [32.5.2(b)] Clarify if the "offices" proposed are in support of the industrial use. Industrial Offices serving this use are
allowed by -right (see definition), but Independent offices are not.
Industrial Offices: Offices that are owned and operated by the same business entity engaged in a
Laboratories/Research and Development/Experimental Testing, Manufacturing/Processing/
Assembly/Fabrication/Recycling, or a Storage/Warehousing/Distdbudon/Transportation use located in
Albemarle County or the City of Charlottesville, where the offices provide services to the industrial use but which
need not be on the same site as the industrial use. For the purposes of this definition, "Offices that are Owned and
operated by the same business entity" does not mean offices that are part of an entity that is in an affiliated
business entity relationship or a parent -subsidiary relationship with the entity engaged in the industrial use.
Final: Comment not yet addressed. See comment #20 below in reference to Phase II not being allowed based upon the
approved initial site plan. Phase I only proposes a "commercial office building". Any independent or commercial
office use is not allowed in this development without a Special Use Permit. Either revised Phase I to be for an
approved use under the current zoning or a Special Use Permit (SP) or Zoning Map Amendment (ZMA) will be
required. If a new SP or ZMA Amendment is required a new initial site plan, for the use allowed by the SP or ZMA
Amendment must be submitted and approved prior to final site plan submittal. If the "offices" proposed in Phase I are
"industrial offices" (as defined in 3.1) serving an industrial use then contact the planning review coordinator for further
information.
Page 1 of 3
Rev. 1: Comment not vet fully addressed. Address the following:
a) Revise the 'PROPOSED USE" to be "2,000 square foot building. Proposed use of building is
Storage/Warehousing/Distribution/Transportation and or Industrial offices."
b) Revise building label on all plan view sheets to specify "Proposed 2,000 SF Building" and not "Proposed 2,000 SF
Industrial Office Building". More uses than "industrial office" are specified in the "Proposed Use" on the
coversheet.
c) Please note that at time of zoning clearance any office space within the building will have to be proven to be
"industrial offices" based upon that definition.
10. 132.5.20, k)] Verify that all lines and all necessary easements for proposed water, sewer and drainage facilities have
been shown on the plan.
Final: Comment not yet fully addressed. Address the following:
d) If any easements are proposed with this site plan the easement plat and all required deeds must be recorded prior to
the final site plan approval.
Rev. 1: Comment not vet fully addressed. Submit a new application fee and plat for all proposed easements. The
easement plat must be reviewed, approved, recorded and the deed book and page number of the plat and deeds
must be provided to the County prior to Final Site Plan approval.
13. [32.5.2(n)] Dimension the retaining walls.
Final: Comment not yet addressed. Show the safety railings on the portions of the retaining walls that will require
them.
Rev. 1: Comment not vet fullv addressed. Revise the label on sheet 3 for the proposed safetv railing to state that the
detail is shown on sheet 6 (Notes and Details) and not the "grading sheet".
15. [32.5.2(p)] Provide a landscape plan that meets all requirements of section 32.7.9 with the Final Site Plan. Be aware
that the proposed utilities along Stoney Ridge Road may make it difficult to meet the street tree requirement.
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following:
a) Only 4 large shade trees are provided along the street frontage, but 6 are listed in the calculations as being
provided. Yoshino Cherry tree are not large shade trees and therefore do not meet that requirement. Provide the
required number of large shade trees along the street frontage.
Rev. 1: Comment not vet fully addressed. Comment was addressed however engineering comments will require
the relocation of three large shade trees. After addressing the engineering comments ensure that the street tree
requirement is still met.
e) Provide a limit of clearing and grading lines in Grading & Utilities Plan and Landscape Plan sheets.
Rev. 1: Comment not vet fully addressed. Provide a limit of clearing and grading lines in Grading & Utilities Plan
sheet. The linework and label for the limits of clearing and grading do not appear to have been added to this sheet
yet.
g) Show the free standing light locations in the landscape plan and ensure there are no conflicts. The light fixture on
the southern side of the loading dock area appears to be conflicting with an evergreen tree.
Rev. 1: Comment not yet fully addressed. Ensure comment is still met after addressing other comments that
require relocating trees and a light pole.
h) Rev. 1: [New Comment] See engineering comments about the location of some of the required trees. Relocate
trees to meet engineering requirements while continuing to meet all of the specific landscaping requirements.
Additional comments for Final Site Plan:
22. 132.5.2(n) & 32.6.2(k) & 4.171 Address the following in reference to the manufacturer's cut sheets and the
Luminaire Legend and Schedule:
b) Revise the color temperature of the WP luminaire to be a "warm white" between 2000 and 3000.
Rev. 1: Comment not vet fully addressed. Although 3,000 K is specified in a note, and in added text to the
manufacturers cut sheet, the cut sheets to not appear to include that option. Clarify why 3,000 K is possible when
it is not shown as an option.
d) The free standing light appears to have tilting options (see "Mounting" section of description). These lights can
not be tilted. Add a note specifying this on the photometric plan. The lights must shine directly down in order to
be "full cut-off' fixtures which are required for lights over 3,000 lumens.
Page 2 of 3
e) Show the free standing light locations in the landscape plan and ensure there are no conflicts. The light fixture on
the southern side of the loading dock area appears to be conflicting with an evergreen tree.
Rev. 1: Comment not yet fully addressed. Ensure comment is still met after addressing other comments that
require relocating trees and a light pole.
f) Rev. 1: [New Comment] Revise the locations of the free standing lights such that they are not located in the
stormwater drainage improvements. The light fixture in the vicinity of the curb cut appears to be located on top of
the ripW for the drainage.
24. 132.6.1(e)(6) & 32.6.1(j)] Address the following:
d) Ensure the 2' area at the front of 16' parking space that has the drainage inlet in front of it is appropriately labeled
as well. Although it may not be a grassy area it is still part of the required 2' of clear area in front of the parking
space.
Rev. 1: Comment not vet fully addressed. See engineering comment # 12 about safety concern with the parking
space in front of the curb cut for stormwater drainage. This space, or the curb, must be modified for safety
reasons.
25. [32.5.2(b)] Address the following:
a) The parking calculation will be evaluated once a use allowed in the zone is proposed and the parking calculation
for that use is provided.
Rev. 1: Comment not vet fully addressed. Revise the calculation to include a minimum of 2 parking spaces for
customer parking as stated in 4.12.6.
26. [Comment] Revise retaining wall height note on cover sheet to state the actual maximum retaining wall height. The
not currently lists both 0 to 8' "anticipated" but also states "shall not exceed 10"'.
Rev. 1: Comment not yet fully addressed. Ensure top of wall and bottom of wall labels are included and label at a
minimum the tallest and shortest points of the wall. The TW and BW labels appear to have been removed.
27. [Comment] This site plan cannot be approved until all reviewers grant their approval. E911 and RWSA have no
objection. See the attached comments from all of the other reviewers.
Rev. 1: Comment not vet fully addressed. This site plan cannot be approved until all reviewers grant their approval.
See the attached comments from all of the other reviewers.
28. Rev. 1: [New Comment] Provide a north sheet on every sheet showing a Plan view of the site. Sheets 2, 4, 6 & 8
appear to no longer include a north arrow.
29. Rev. 1: [New Comment] Ensure site plan is black and white. On sheet 4, note 8 appears to have had some text added
and it is red in color. Revise the text to be black.
30. Rev. 1: [New Comment] Show and label the handicapped sign location on sheet 3 (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 found on the County Attorney's website which may be found under
"Departments and Services" 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 psatemve(a),albemarle.org or 434-296-5832 ext. 3250 for
further information.
Page 3 of 3
SDP202000049 - Mill Creek Industrial Lot 11— Final—Oct2020
Engineering comments (David lames):
1. Submit a VSMP application & plan if you haven't already. Disturbance over 10,OOOsf. 117-302)
Addressed.
2. It appears that the parcel boundary line appears different than what's shown in County GIS, and
will need to confirm with real estate if property line shown is accurate.
Addressed.
3. Show areas of off -site disturbance in an easement (i.e. entrance improvements). Signed letter of
permission from an offsite owner is sufficient, but only for the purposes of this review, or record
a plat.
Acknowledged. VDOT approval on entrance improvements in ROW & VDOT entrance permit
required.
4. Submit design plans & comps for walls over 4' high prior to FSP approval.
Acknowledged; required with building permit application.
5. Cover —
a. Sign & date seal.
b. The stated sheet layout of 1" = 30' do not appear to be accurate.
Addressed.
6. Sheet 3 —
a. Remove curb before CG-12 and show access apron.
b. Show safety railing for walls over 30" high.
Addressed.
7. Sheet 4 — Provide reverse slope bench and/or surface water diversion for the graded slopes. {18-
30.7.5)
Addressed.
8. Sheet 5 —
a. Show ground cover (not grass) for disturbed slopes over 3:1 grade.
b. Remove proposed trees and place trees outside of public drainage easements.
Addressed.
9. Sheet 8 — Storm STR 4 to 2 the line is 12" dia. and will need an additional MH access (over 50'
length) [VDOT DM 9.3.6, table 9.3], or use a 15" dia.
Acknowledged; NA.
10. The VSMP plan will need to be approved prior to FSP approval.
11. Submit plat to record drainage & SWM facility & access easements prior to FSP approval.
12. Sheet 3 —The curb cut gaps are too wide (safety concern). Site plans require curb & gutter. A
solution would be to provide narrower (2') and multiple openings instead.
13. Sheet 5 - These three trees are not acceptable near SWM basin embankment. Consider placing
shrubs or small trees instead.
Ize
g) AB
\-qci) IV
\ (8)
14. Sheet 8 - The profile (STIR 8 — EX 1) show 4:1 side slopes and appear to be inaccurate; 3:1
measured. 3:1 is acceptable.
Review Comments for SDP202000049 Final Site Development Plan
Project Name: I Mill Creek Industrial Lot 11 - Final - Digital
Date Completed: Thursday, October 22, 2020 Department/Division/Agency: Review Status:
Reviewer: Richard Nelson ACSA Requested Changes
Pape: 10 County of Albemarle Printed On: rl 10512020
Review Comments for SDP202000049 Final Site Development Plan
Project Name: Mill Creek Industrial Lot 11 - Final - Digital
Date Completed: Friday, November 06, 2020 Department/Division/Agency: Review Status:
No Objection El
Reviewer: Shawn Maddox
J=J Fire Rescue
Pape: 10 County of Albemarle Printed On: 1 Y0612020
Stephen C. Brich, P.E.
Commissioner
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1401 East Broad Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
October 27, 2020
Patricia Saternye
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: SDP-2020-00049 — Mill Creek Industrial Park Lot 11
Rev. #2
Dear Ms. Saternye:
(804) 786-2701
Fax: (804)786,2940
The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use
Section, has reviewed the above referenced Mill Creek Industrial Park Lot 11, as submitted by
Collins Engineering, dated September 21, 2020 and find it to be generally acceptable.
A VDOT Land Use Permit will be required prior to any work within the right of way. The
owner/developer must contact the Charlottesville Residency land Use Section at (434) 422-9399
for information pertaining to this process.
If you have further questions please contact Max Greene at (434) 422-9894.
Sincerely,
Adam J. Moore, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Charlottesville Residency
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
Review Comments for SDP202000049 Final site Development Plan
Project Name: Mill Creek Industrial Lot 11 - Final - Digital
Date Completed: Wednesday, October 07, 2020 Department/Division/Agency: Review Status:
Reviewer: Michael Dellinger CDD Inspections No Objection
Page: Fl� County of Albemarle Printed On: 1 V051 0020