HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201800032 Review Comments Minor Amendment 2018-05-25 1
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, VA, 22902
Phone 434-296-5832 Fax 434-972-4126
Memorandum
To: Craig Kotarski, P.E. (craig.kotarski@timmons.com)
From: Paty Saternye, Senior Planner
Division: Planning
Date: May 25, 2018
Subject: SDP 201800032 GROPEN Design and Fabrication Facility - Minor
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.]
1. [26.2(a)] Reduce the maximum number of employees on the site plan to 32. There are two
issues limiting the number of employees on the site that cannot be studied in the time frame for
which the applicant requires approval of this site plan. Those two issues are:
a) The Department of Health has commented (see attached) that at this time they cannot
approve more than 32 total employees on the existing septic system. Therefore, for approval
of this minor amendment in the time frame the applicant requires they have specified that they
will reduce the number total number of employees within the parcel down to 32.
b) Because this parcel utilizes a private well instead of public water there is a limit on the amount
of water usage. Section 26.2(a) of County Code limits how much water can be used per acre
per day when on a private well without requiring a special use permit. The previously
approved site plan showed a total of 32 employees. Any increase in employees beyond that
number would trigger review of the site under 26.2(a). Also, please be aware that there are
possible changes to the County Code that could be put in place in the near future that will also
impact water usage when utilizing a well. A zoning staff member will be contacting the
applicant to discuss this issue. For future reference, connection to the public water system
would eliminate this issue.
2. [32.5.2.a & 32.6.2(a)] Revise the following general information:
a) Since the address of the engineer has changed, a cloud should be put around and a number
label should be placed at the new address and the change in address should be added to the
minor site plan amendment changes list.
b) Above the “Minor Amendment To..” in the title add “SDP201800032” as the project number for
the minor amendment.
c) The sheet index should not have been reduced down to the sheets included in this minor
amendment submission. Revise the sheet index to look like, and include all of the information
in, the Previous Major Amendment (SDP201600019) with the one exception mentioned below.
d) Continue to include the new sheet C7.0 in the sheet index, since this new sheet is required
and included. However, revise the name of the sheet, since that name was already used in
the full sheet set from the major site plan amendment SDP201600019. “Overall Proposed
Plan” may be an appropriate sheet name.
2
3. [32.5.2.a & 32.6.2(a)] Address the following in reference the “Minor Site Plan Amendment
Proposed Changes:” listed on the coversheets and labeled throughout the site plan amendment:
a) On sheet C2.0 the cloud for the removal of the fuel tanks and the oil tanks only encircles the
fuel tanks. The “C2” label does not appear to be associated with the removal of the oil tanks
and it should be.
b) Revise the note for the “C3” change to specify “See sheets C4.0, C5.0 & C7.0”.
c) Revise the note for the “C4” change to specify “See sheets C4.0, C5.0 & C7.0”.
d) Revise the note for the “C6” change to specify “See sheets C4.0, C5.0 & C7.0”.
e) Revise the note for the “C9” change to specify “See sheets C4.0, C5.0 & C7.0”.
f) Please note that the change for “L1” and “L2” only increase the London Plane Trees by 4, but
it appears from the Plant Schedule on sheet L1.00 that four new London Plane Trees have
been added (see below). Ensure that the Narrative of Changes correctly represents the
changes being made.
4. [32.6.2(h)] Remove the signature panel for the reviewers but leave the space empty. Since this
is a minor site plan amendment only the planning reviewer signs and that signature is handled by
a stamp.
5. [32.5.2(b) & 32.6.2(i)] Address the following in reference to parking and employees:
a) Revise the “Parking required:” calculation and the number of spaces provided (if necessary).
Address the following items:
i. Although the parking calculation utilized for the “industrial use” is correct a different
calculation must be used for the other uses now on the site. The “Contractor’s
(Construction office, shop, equipment storage and materials yard)” is the parking
calculation that should be utilized for those other uses, based on what has been
communicated to the County about them. That calculation is “One (1) space per employee
assigned to work on-site plus one (1) space per facility vehicle.”
ii. Ensure spaces for the facility vehicles for each of the “Contractor’s” businesses on the
parcel are provided.
iii. Revise the parking calculation on the coversheet to have different sections that are labeled
for the industrial use employee parking, the industrial use public parking, the contractor’s
use employee parking and the contractor’s use facility vehicle parking.
iv. Although the area open to the public was listed in the calculation, the number of required
spaces for that portion of the calculation was not included in the total number of spaces
required. When revising the total for the required parking spaces ensure all aspects of the
required parking are part of that total.
b) Although the number of employees have been increased the ITE chart in the bottom left of the
coversheet has not been updated to reflect this changes. Update the ITE chart.
c) Add a cloud and change number around the ITE chart and include the change in the chart in
the minor amendment change list.
3
6. [32.5.2(j), 32.5.2(d) & 32.6.2(a)] Address the following in reference to the existing conditions
sheets:
a) Include in the sheet set “C0.1 Overall Plan” which shows the existing conditions for the whole
parcel and ensure that any of the previously existing conditions that were not part of the Major
amendment (SDP201600019), or where not shown correctly in that site plan, are included in
this minor amendment (SDP201800032).
i. The existing well and septic lines to the “Metal Building/Garage”.
ii. The reserve drainfield. The reserve drainfield was shown as being near Route 20
on SDP201600019. However, the reserve drainfield is shown as being near the
30” magnolia on the Health Department paperwork and approvals. The minor site
plan amendment should show the reserve drainfield in the correct location.
iii. The existing tree line in the upper left corner of the site (southwest corner) was
shown incorrectly. Revise the tree line to show the tree line as it exists.
b) Ensure all changes to sheet C0.1 are clouded and have the appropriate number for the minor
site plan amendment changes.
c) Ensure that sheet C0.1 still shows the legend and the hatching for the managed slopes that
were included in the previous site plan amendment.
d) Rename C0.1 to be “Overall Existing Plan”.
e) Ensure that the items specified above are also shown correctly on sheet C2.0, are clouded
and have the appropriate number for the minor site plan amendment changes.
7. [32.5.2(j) & 32.6.2(a)] Revise the plan to show the correct reserve drainfield location on all sheets.
It appears on sheets C4.0, C5.0, C7.0 & L1.00.
8. [32.5.2(n) & 32.6.2(a)] Revise site plan sheets C4.0, C5.0 and C7.0 to show all of the gates in the
proposed fences. Some of them are not shown.
9. [32.5.2(p) & 32.6.2(j)] Address the following in reference to the Landscape Plan sheets and how
landscaping is shown on other sheets:
a) The Tree Protection Fencing (TPF) line appears to have been removed for about half of the
southern property line, shown on the left side of the sheet, on sheet L1.00. Ensure this tree
protection fencing is shown for its full length and extents.
b) The plant schedule appears to add four London plane trees to the site plan. However, only
three tree symbols for that type of tree seem to have been added to the site plan. Add another
London plane tree symbol to the site plan or update the plant schedule.
c) Since the total proposed plant canopy has changed the Plant Schedule total should be
clouded.
d) There is an existing tree, adjacent to the proposed parking spaces along Route 20, that is
labeled “Existing Volunteer to Remain. However, this tree appears to be very close to the
underground propane tank that was added to the site. Do one of the following:
i. Change that tree from an existing to remain tree to a proposed tree. Provide the
correct symbol and label and include it in the proposed landscape schedule.
ii. Add a note to the landscape plan that states, “All existing trees to remain will be
replaced in kind if damaged by proposed improvements.”
e) Provide sheet L1.10 and revise it for the changes that are taking place with this site plan
amendment and/or to correct things not shown in the previous amendment. This should
include revisions to all provided and required calculations as well as areas. Parking spaces,
parking perimeter, tree save area and provided canopy totals have all changed.
f) Revise sheet L1.10 to show the updated landscape layout including all landscaping changes
and additions specified in the comments.
10. [32.6.1(e)] Revise sheet C5.0 to include the missing information on the spot elevations, FEE, BS,
TS. Etc. Many text labels are not included that were included in the previous site plan.
4
11. [Comment] The Code Enforcement Officer, when reviewing the site found the following itesm that
do not reflect what is shown on the approved site plan. These items must either be adjusted on
site or adjusted in the site plan to match the site. Address the following:
a) Ensure parking spaces meet the minimum size requirement. Some of the parking spaces
along the edge of Route 20 do not meet the minimum depth of 18’ or the minimum width of 9’
and therefore cannot be counted towards the provide parking spaces unless they are adjusted
to meet the minimum required sizes. Also, a reduction in depth cannot be granted when there
is an obstruction within the first 2’ of the edge of the pavement/space. Ensure that the drive
aisles continue to meet the required width of 24’ if modifications are made in the drive aisle in
order to rectify the parking space issues.
b) Ensure all bollards shown on the site plan are installed on site. The bollards around the
dumpster pad area have not yet been installed.
c) The 12’x9’ shed was not shown in the previously approved site plan, but it is shown in the
submitted amendment that is currently under review. Therefore, that issue should be rectified
with this site plan amendment, once it is approved.
12. [Comment] Attached find the comments from the other reviewers. This site plan amendment
cannot be approved until the Health Department has approved the 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 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 psaternye@albemarle.org or 434-296-
5832 ext. 3250 for further information.
May 22, 2018
Paty Saternye, Senior Planner
Albemarle County Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: Gropen Design & Fabrication
Minor Site Plan Amendment
SDP2018-32
Ms. Saternye:
As requested by your department, I have reviewed the subject site plan, dated 5/7/18, for
compliance with VDH regulations, and have the following comments:
1. Correct locations of all existing septic system components and reserve drainfield area, to
reflect recent design and construction as documented by Old Dominion Engineering.
2. Sheet C0.0 shows an employee total of 38 in regards to parking space calculations. The
existing septic system is currently designed and approved for a maximum of 32
employees. The owner has been advised to either reduce the proposed number of
employees, or contact a professional engineer to expand the existing system to allow for
the additional employees.
Recommendation: Withhold approval of plan until corrections are made to drainfield
locations, and until employee numbers are reduced to a maximum of 32,
or our office has issued a permit for drainfield expansion.
If there are any questions or you wish to discuss, please give me a call, 434-972-4306.
Sincerely,
Alan Mazurowski
Environmental Health Supervisor
Thomas Jefferson Health District
alan.mazurowski@vdh.virginia.gov