Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201300056 Correspondence Major Amendment, Final Site Plan 2015-08-28 . ;, Christopher Perez From: Christopher Perez Sent: Friday,August 28, 2015 4:03 PM To: 'ed@blackwellengineering.com' Cc: John Anderson; 'sknightrivanna@gmail.com'; 'Anna Fast; 'basil@blackwellengineering.com' Subject: SDP2013-56 Rivanna Community Church—Major Amendment Attachments: 8-28=15 CD4 Rivanna Community Church Major Amendment Site_Plan_Comments.pdf Mr. Blackwell, SDP2013-56 Rivanna Community Church—Major Amendment Attached are the comments for the above referenced site plan. It appears we're coming down to the end of this project, or getting very close to the end. I offer the following as a summary of the attached comment letter. Planning's remaining comments are as follows: 1) The cutsheet for the lighting was provided with the comment response letter; however, it needs to be included in the site plan. Assure the cut sheet is provided on the signature copies of the site plan. 2) While the Conservation Checklist has been provided,it is not signed. Assure it is signed by the owner on the signature copies of the site plan. * Assure all of Engineering's site plan comments are addressed. Also,the site plan cannot be approved until the WPO plan is approved. WPO2015-51 is under review by Engineering's John Anderson(he has been CCed to this email). Engineering has remaining comments see Max's Aug 7th comments - attached. Thank you Christopher P.Perez I Senior Planner Department of Community Development'County of Albemarle,Virginia 401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext.3443 1 it Not COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road,North Wing Charlottesville,Virginia 22902-4596 Phone(434)296-5832 Fax(434)972-4126 August 28, 2015 Ed Blackwell 566 East Market Street Harrisonburg VA 22801 RE: SDP-201300056 Rivanna Community Church—Major Site Plan Amendment Mr. Blackwell: Your Major Amendment application has been reviewed. In front of each comment 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 Attomey's website which may be found under"Departments and Services"at Albemarle.org. In order for the amended site plan to be approved the following revisions are required: 1. I;` It ,1•II . . Ila, Oh" ,'1" r ' L,:Cj t l I' 'I c �. ':�. •'�i 'I. L I1 '4 Il ,I ('� cya n,1111 140I L.1 II 1 'I \\ . I ,I., �iil lilt Il ILI u !:I L. L. ( ',r, .:a. ,. .I(tdetssctl. 2. 132 , ' " r 1I ! : ,• silt plan n,r1 . 'I n'1.,1 "+ :I I ,.,_!. , I blue Int. In11 ul6.1 hi, I,•,I'", ". a l:d Ill the owl], I,I, . •U „tile, leiW'tl,a, .Intl C(1pICS (.ln b1 (•III 1...�1 I', A ILIA. Mill 111 1,• I I , I ,i 1,1 „I.f: J, W.I, I. -ill, fit ' al Ull(11. 3. I P.i.2 t.: ; ,. : 101 'n"Iv 1 41i•,I' „I ' 1, \\ 1111in lfk rt. ;)till :UM 1dC an Lyr.un_,' I1110I,' ,IIt• tl .; Ie111,t tllc on'it. it lit 'I ,;I'cl .III \I'.?, ' : 11,IItio11S S.T1.111': 'a' the 'II^1.I .. ,,, 1, 1' II, .iI,'.'1 • 11",I 1. ut:i.c„c:i. 4. I''.6.21!,il : ' d,),,, II'1,'I `a: I'I ill I„ the Silt . ti;;1"., I , ,11 I •iilyvt all' ( II'1•,11 I Ii1'I" 1 ()1'i, e , . ,Tall d,I al. (h" 1 ,iclln" fiu1111,1'",11.11 l ilt ' '1 ; Iighhi' 11'1!, -hall I'C IL(IUII„i 1 I sistir1U >IIC ;iclnlitII Ili irlIn - II. " 1 ,In Zhu current ,ite flan unticl n11:,, 6 I ,ne`. I,gl,l1 he ii ,'cell,:rd and iiiioroleil :1111'r:vl,rucl) ,!port,, Iin.Il site wail. 1 i,. , •,Ltur ,hill IClrvuu tin the ,,lc ('I,ln ,1, .k111,IC(1. If,ile IieLl '111., i, hcingpropl,,u,l,t(, I',, in -till to in..lu,l1 ant additional lightinu heiii_ added, or c',IstL1'. Ilt'IItine h"lIi ILL Laic,' 1„ nett lu(.uinl ' 'n the site, or mudilical Inns to exisiin„_ ilt;h tic! (other than Ienwl al uli lis'htsjj_tlieu a 11elaing plan sftlill he requred. 1 Rev 3.All portions of the above comment have been adequately addressed, except that the cutsheet for the light needs to be included in the site plan.Assure the cut sheet is provided on the signature copies of the site plan. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 2 O11 [Ile slit• p1:111 .1i111.I anti I,SIVI '1'i lillll!1 CtI 'U hill to 1'C,4lin l•III% /ollLJ 1'II!our,. 1?^. 1. \'? lin.len: I 1411. 1 _1 1>L ',[ I..01 ,'I 1 1` it + t. 11.. I, I It, ,(.1 I 1 I'I .l( hill .'I' 11, II.' (♦i:'i1 ,\ ' 1 .., ')\,1 ' ,Ill„II \\IIit ii Ircc'. :h ' tr.lt'lt 'I I\'lit' '.tl ` ) iII't lc rlL''.Cf\L' lfll';., 111.. ❑1 (!Id�C '.11 I ;I. ,, li' I' 1 +1 n • 1 r! I`Iz \ i'Ir:i ,Il ' II1+I1, II„• •c , 'I1: plan. ?tr1 1. t: rll. 10. I11.6.2(j) v4 ,L. I,1 ..I1•I1 .I I 1 _ • !.I. ..1 , ,..'..I. I, 0 "Ili i ,,I., ,1.\ i,l, 1 \ i.Il . I. 1 , I I. 1' 1 1 II t , '.I. 1. 1.1 1.1 . ':1 1` t , ;rail C. . .' 1 1 r, Frt. . ?..r,I l' `;r_l 1i•5 Sifc i1,;, 1 1,t1'.uhrl.fl( i . !311 ll .. . . }cv0111.1 , t;. i1.. . 1.`[' 1 1; '1' ,. 111• (y ua y l� , 411:Y , 1.1. : 111' „ 't ' .',11 14-.'f' '. , ♦ . :'li' J,i if14 1.1 I'' r ;it ,, . I ., .,1 ,, ,. *'Y . c•I:`,17`, r.I l'. r, ,. I1.�, .il. a '1 11 .II1. •. , , i ,r I ,n\ , t. t.' I . I!Ii 1, 1 I 111` • . ,I 1. _ lil 1 11 I. ' I I' 1. I ' , I , r .41 1dY11I b. I„:♦ 11 ♦'. 111 ,. IL'III - ' ,l'%4iI: t ill?a If „Y ,til=1,p1'4 1 :' z ,1p''.1'y0:; 11 :r 1['../ 'Y.. . 1 < r I'' 1 1 1 r 171%1 ;:a,' , 11 (I is i u'., dil. , 1 ,t n.Ill.'110.1 r, I. . Alt .lr . ,'f 11 ;,l (^i puvrn' f.t. ;c I 'I I, , r,:♦Ii i 1 . I 1 t.`V•_ ,11'4,11. ' . , '.11d -111.'Il-. ,. . '1-11 bCa11111. r ,l -Ii old lit 1,I;11i' \:111 ;1 Mid the Inlll.11u .ii111 hC l'oin1Cll !n'A:1'1 I is Ill111ll;1l O11 !I l.isv;11',ti 'rrea for ;1 3 12. 13. • 2. Conservation checklist.The applicant shall sign a conservation checklist approved by the agent to ensure that the specified trees will be protected during construction. Except as otherwise expressly approved by the agent in a particular case,the checklist shall conform to the specifications in the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook,pages I1I-393 through 111-413,and as hereafter amended. (Anna,for your convenience staff has attached the checklist to this letter,please assure it's provided on the site plan and signed by the owner). Rev 3. While the checklist has been provided it is not signed.Assure it is signed by the owner on the 4 signature copies of the site plan. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 5 24. 14.12.6I Pin Aul,u 14 Jluirarriii.' In Ills tillnl ,uuas Itl'1n111101 In the c,tniprehcnti'vi plan Lhc nunlhs'I Ili ll .11u"._'1 ':I'u i, 'ubnlhten Ill Ito. . Lurch OIL Iiill;ll` r ,I' rcp1'It , .I . I, ;'II tl_ci 1i11rk .l i III. /I"1 11' 'iiPii,11 ;1 . 1.0 11111111 . 1'I1`i !Li 14' ,.. i. 1 il '� 'I S I" ,, It '11•.11 IIL. I . . ,. . . 1111 Ltli '., n I, '.ht '11.11A'1' . i _ ,nl` 71' d 11't Iln. 111,11'.,. ILI1` 01; 1'1.'11 1, n' ,. i . I,-•,II, liarl.irrv_ clenr'tr!b. inn t,lhu Ien Im inlnrin.ttlm 'Ni'tlnm, I1,011fIQ .ItitlV lt' h. 11CL'I'L-tl `,l r1 11 ''I-1h"I 'Ptil CI1!'inicr t c!.zni l\ Lila -:1,- ;, .' 1 ul;ll.,' i t I,,I;n'.n u"' . 1 ,lan;d un n1 ! ,n,to: (lii it\r.l .;II. ,h p1 iA dc'I II "I 111: 'de.'.r "' lPIA el- HI �11 I n the <url! llt - ,I Ihi itnnluv11,•n .it1: I11-II 'ad ilk 'Itll'latu'i ' 'q!Iiri. I';41101.'.+ ',itch fir �.Ir l•In:nc t. I,il'. ,'I nl , .. • 1.1' 'i',i F' I Il' III ,,Ii r,iA l:!t. I- .. 4.11041 25. I_:.. r_` (n}, i? ICr' ,y?,_ 1,1)I 1 ll'I'. .to ,, . ;I141 • , 'an di �1.eu 1,1 . .\t t!. 11' .II I. 1'] v'ft•� 26. n'. r,•;, _. i , I I i I ,. ' tli l'i ili ,li,• i'i �� I.. .-i' .'11 I•I _ 'n 0 III A ;i:. .'i '._. .. 27. • ' „ ' 28. l.i.:.:i ), f ., _. .it.1 F: . t . , ., i ul Ill ._ r, of Jit t' t1I'.. h' . 1.0 1, .I.'p t r. 1.11, iI' yl . , .I 1111, ..c. ILI\'ll 'I.1 \ • . 30. 14 III;:;I,1'ta i. _ „ i 11. 10 , I, , ` 1' 31. . 3:.J ?auI i , 0,1 '\d'I . I il. . I _, , 'l" .i N t'itsl, yi , _ 32. )2.2.6.2 ', II' Io , ' .. . ,un, , IIt' i I ; 01t1ii .. . t, 'nil_'1I ' n ' 1. , 1. _11, '1 Ic 1'., Jnt( cl':Inr,:1 'Pie; I'tr,'lll'L, . �' i '. , ��I"t ,,1 ' 11p, µ.p_,i I.I 111 'Jl\'Lit l`i I:I. I 11 ,1•Ili. I' ii .i I1il :It L 11 n.: '• .cIii it11:,i ill." WI cr '.. . . i, r t • 'I op: i2c1 I ?'tnunl"i'• • 6 33. in .lrc ,ii 1,nh the pill I:i01111! `,cctl„n 11.4 ` t'I ( 11(lpit•r 18 ul Ih: f „Jc II lllr kit“ 1,-r. : IIS I ; "Ih!n;l .1 , l -ti IL,.11 .,ilt• (11,11, i1 '%' 'll 01 111I• rL tim, ,n , `i illlvl .I . .•3 „ '1 . :'4 'IP. .1 ' ;, . II 'I l �, ,'(,�,! .. f'. it 111 l`, '1., ' `i H I; ' 1,. 11‘C1 L` i1: t' =:I-A.i! :Sllli .dill,il tee) innerrnine. II _J :11-1,1 ir. l i1[1' I i.,, II ll iai ii (u-„ I 1\, hi `\LIi.; ,, • , JI'I" , . .Ab, N-I ,`ri'41 , ind ,Ilt• ',Lin it'', I. I,1, II n 'Hlli!`I: , C'i_„ ttl�tlll.lii,` J,I,'I ram•,'.: \'Th()T qiNtul "•,` ,51';111111,2, I, ,nr, , • ,. , , `+I 0, . Engineering—Max Greene See attached comments dated August 7,2015 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 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. If you have any questions about the comments please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Christopher P.Perez Senior Planner 434.296.5832 ext. 3443 af goi COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road,Room 227 Charlottesville,Virginia 22902-4596 Phone(434)296-5832 Fax(434)972-4126 Project: Rivanna Community Church-Major SDP201300056 Plan preparer: Blackwell Engineering,PLC [fax 540-434-7604] Owner or rep.: Steve&Kathy Hood et als Rivanna Community Church Plan received date: 5 December 2014 Rev. 27 July 2015 Date of comments: 27 January 2015 7 August 2105 Reviewer: Max Greene The Major Site Plan(SDP201300056)submitted 27 July 2015 has received Engineering Review and does not appear to meet Albemarle County minimum checklist items for approval. Please adequately address the following comments for final approval: A. Road and drainage plans 1. VDOT has no objection to the change in site usage and entrance design geometry. B.VSMP plans: I. VSMP Plans will need to be submitted for review. [17-302] The link to the application forms: http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/forms center/departments/Community Development/forms/Engineering a nd WPO Forms/Albemarle County VSMP Letter 07-08-20 14.pdf http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/forms center/departments/Community_Development/forms/Engineering a nd WPO Forms/WPO VSMP Virginia Stormwater Management Program Application.pdf VSMP plans have been submitted for review and are County Number WP0201500051. Please see WP0201500051 for comments and approval. C.Previous uncompleted comments by Michael Koslow: 1. Please show the location,elevation and datum for topography. Existing site topography will be at least field verified and certified on the plan as to accuracy. Comment appears adequately addressed at this time. 2. SWM easement is required around the basin. Comment does not appear adequately addressed at this time. Plan cannot be approved without adequate easements in place to protect the existence of the SWM facility. 3. Water line crossing is not shown on SWM pipe profile. Comment has been partially addressed. The depth of pipes are not indicated on the profile sheet. Clearance of pipes could not be verified for design approval. Once these comments have been addressed,please submit 2 copies of the revised plans,calculations,and narratives to Current Development Engineering. Current Development Engineering is available from 2:30-4 PM on Thursdays to discuss these review comments. Please contact Max Greene at 434-296-5832 ext.3283 or email mgreene@albemarle.org to schedule an appointment. . Page I of3 /� VIRGINIA Albemarle County Health Department DEPARTMENT PO BOX 7546 1 H OF HEALTH Charlottesville,VA 22906 (434)972.62I9 Voice Protecting You and Your Environment 972-43 10 Pax PE Construction Permit August 20,2015 Rivanna Community Church 601 Earlysville Green Earlysville,VA 22936 . RE: Site Address: 601 Earlysville Green, Earlysville, VA 22936 Tax Map: 31-32 I-IDID: 101-15-0347 Reserve: reserve area provided System Capacity: Non-Residential, 1250 gallons per day(Flow Equalized to 650 gpd) Dear Rivanna Community Church : This letter and the attached drawings,specifications, and calculations (35 pages)dated July 28, 2015,constitute your permit to install a sewage disposal system on the property referenced above. Your application fora permit was submitted pursuant to §32.I-163.5 of the Code of Virginia,which requires the Health Department to accept private soil evaluations and designs from an Onsite Soil Evaluator (OSE)or a Professional Engineer working in consultation with an OSE for residential development. VDH is not required to perform a field check to verify the private evaluations of OSEs or PEs and such a field check may not have been conducted for the issuance of this permit. The soil absorption area ("site"),sewage system design,has been certified by Richard L. Blackwell,III PE as substantially complying with the Board of Health's regulations (and local ordinances if the locality has authorized the local health department to accept private evaluations for compliance with local ordinances).This permit is issued in reliance upon that certification. VDI-1 hereby recognizes that the soil and site conditions acknowledged by this permit are suitable for the installation of an onsite sewage system.The attached plat shows the approved area for the sewage disposal system; there are additional records on file with the Albemarle County Health Department pertaining to this permit, including the Site and Soil Evaluation Report.This construction permit is null and void if any substantial physical change in the soil or site conditions occurs where a sewage disposal system is to be located. If modifications or revisions are necessary between now and when you construct your dwelling, please contact the OSE/PE who performed the evaluation and design on which this permit is based. Should revisions be necessary during construction,your contractor should consult with the OSE/PE that submitted the site evaluation or site evaluation and design.The OSE/PE is authorized to make minor adjustments in the location or design of the system at the time of construction provided adequate documentation is provided to the Albemarle County Health Department. The OSE/PE that submitted the certified design for this permit is required to conduct a final inspection of this sewage system when it is installed and to submit an inspection report and completion statement.As the owner,you are responsible for giving reasonable notice to the OSE/PE of the need for a final inspection. If the designer is unable to perform the required inspection,you may provide an inspection report and Tax Map/GPIN: 31-32 Page 2 of 3 HDID: 101-15-0347 completion statement executed by another OSE/PE.The Albemarle County Health Department is not required to inspect the installation but may perform an inspection at its sole discretion.No part of this installation shall be covered until it has been inspected by the OSE/PE as noted herein.The sewage system may not be placed into operation until you have obtained an Operation Permit from the Albemarle County Health Department. This Construction Permit is null and void if conditions are changed from those shown on your application or if conditions are changed from those shown on the Site and Soil Evaluation Report and the attached construction drawings,specifications,and calculations. VDH may revoke or modify any permit if,at a later date, it finds that the site and soil conditions and/or design do not substantially comply with the Sewage Handling and Disposal Regulations, 12 VAC 5-610-20 et seq., or if the system would threaten public health or the environment. This permit approval has been issued in accordance with applicable regulations based on the information and materials provided at the time of application. There may be other local,state,or federal laws or regulations that apply to the proposed construction of this onsite sewage system. The owner is responsible at all times for complying with all applicable local,state,and federal laws and regulations. if you have any questions, please contact me. This permit expires on February 18,2017.This permit is not transferable to another owner or location. Sincerely, 47, Josh Kirtley Environmental Health Technical Specialist Albemarle County Health Department Cc: Blackwell, Richard L., III PE Tax Map/CPIN it 31-32 Page 3 of 3 HDIDN: 10I-15-0347 WHAT YOU WILL NEED TO GET YOUR SEPTIC SYSTEM OPERATION PERMIT • Your system must have a satisfactory inspection at the time of installation.This will be done by either a representative of the local Health Department,a private OSE, or a PE, depending on the designer of your permitted system. If your system is designed/inspected by an OSE or PE,they must submit a copy of the inspection results,complete with an as-built diagram,to the Health Department. • Please ensure that your contractor turns in a Completion Statement to the local Health Department after installation. • If your permit is for an alternative system,you must sign, have notarized,and record the attached Notice • of Recordation in your locality's land records.Please bring proof of this recordation to the local Health Department Allow 5 business days after the last piece of documentation is received for the Operation Permit io be issued.To avoid delays,clearly label each piece of documentation with the property Tax Map/GPIN number and HDID number shown above and on your construction permit.Please note that due to the individual circumstances ofyoar permit there may be additional required items not covered by this checklist. If you have any questions about any of the items on this list, please do not hesitate to contact the Albemarle County Health Department at(434)972-6219. Page 1 of 3 D H/1 V i RG I N I A Albemarle County Health Department DEPARTMENT PO BOX 7546 OF HEALTH Charlottesville,VA 22906 (434)972-6219 Voice Protecting You and Your Environment 972-4310 Fax PE Construction Permit August so,20I5 Rivanna Community Church 601 Earlysville Green Earlysville,VA 22936 RE: Site Address: 601 Earlysville Green, Earlysvillc, VA 22936 Tax Map: 31-32 ARID: 101-15-0347 Reserve: reserve area provided System Capacity:Non-Residential, 1250 gallons per day(Flow Equalized to 650 gpd) Dear Rivanna Community Church : This letter and the attached drawings,specifications,and calculations(35 pages)dated July 28, 2015,constitute your permit to install a sewage disposal system on the property referenced above. Your application for a permit was submitted pursuant to §32.1-163.5 of the Code of Virginia,which requires the Health Department to accept private soil evaluations and designs from an Onsite Soil Evaluator (OSE)or a Professional Engineer working in consultation with an OSE for residential development. VDH is not required to perform a field check to verify the private evaluations of OSEs or PEs and such a field check may not have been conducted for the issuance of this permit. The soil absorption area ("site"),sewage system design,has been certified by Richard L. Blackwell,III PE as substantially complying with the Board of Health's regulations (and local ordinances if the locality has authorized the local health department to accept private evaluations for compliance with local ordinances). This permit is issued in reliance upon that certification.VDII hereby recognizes that the soil and site conditions acknowledged by this permit are suitable for the installation of an onsite sewage system.The attached plat shows the approved area for the sewage disposal system: there are additional records on file with the Albemarle County Health Department pertaining to this permit, including the Site and Soil Evaluation Report.This construction permit is null and void ifany substantial physical change in the soil or site conditions occurs where a sewage disposal system is to be located. If modifications or revisions are necessary between now and when you construct your dwelling, please contact the OSE/PE who performed the evaluation and design on which this permit is based. Should revisions be necessary during construction,your contractor should consult with the OSE/PE that submitted the site evaluation or site evaluation and design.The OSE/PE is authorized to make minor adjustments in the location or design of the system at the time of construction provided adequate documentation is provided to the Albemarle County Health Department. The OSE/PE that submitted the certified design for this permit is required to conduct a final inspection of this sewage system when it is installed and to submit an inspection report and completion statement.As the owner,you are responsible for giving reasonable notice to the OSE/PE of the need for a final inspection. If the designer is unable to perform the required inspection,you may provide an inspection report and Tax Map/GPIN: 31-32 Pagc'2 of 3 HDID: 101-15-0347 completion:statement executed by anotherOSE/PE.The Albemarle•County Health Department is not required-to inspect the installation but may perform an inspection at sole discretion.No part of this installation shall be:covered until it has been inspected by the OSE/PE as noted herein.The sewage system may not:be placed into operation until you haveobtained an Operation Permit front the Albemarle CountyHealth'Departmcnt. This Construction Permit is null and void if conditions arc changed front those shown on your application or if conditions are changed.from those shown on the Site and SoilEvaluation Report and the attached construction drawings,specifications,and calculations•'VDH may revoke or modify any permit if,ana.Iater date,it finds that the site and soil conditions and/or design do not substantially comply with the Sewage Handling and Disposal Regulations, I2'VAC 5-610-20 et seq.,or if the system would' threaten public health or the environment. This permit approval has been issued in-accordance with applicableaegulations'based on the information and materials provided at the time of application. There may be other local,state,or federal laws or regulations that apply to the proposed construction of this ensile sewagesystem. The owner is responsible at:all times for complying with all applicable local,state,and federal laws and regulations.If you have-any:questions,:please contact me. This permit expires on February IS,2017.This permit is not transferable to another owner or location. Sincerely, Josh Kirtley Enviromnental Health Technical Specialist Albemarle County Health Department Cc: Blackwell,Richard L., III PE Tax MapIGPIN#: 31-32 Page 3:of3 }IDID#: 10.1-1.5.0347 WHAT YOU WILL NEED TO GET YOUR SEPTIC SYSTEM OPERATION PERMIT • Your system must have a satisfactory inspection at the time of installation.This will be done byeither a representative of the local Health Department,a private OSE,or a PE,depending on the designer of your permitted system.of your system'is designed/inspected by an OSE or they must submit a.copy of the inspection results, complete with an as-built diagram,to the Health Department. • Please.ensure.that your contractor turns in a Completion Statement to the local Health Department after installation. • If your:perniit is for an alternative system,you must sign,.have notarized,and record the,attached Notice of Recordation'in,your locality's land records. Please bring proofof this recordation to the local Health Department Allow"5 business days,after the last piece of documentation is received for the'dperation.Pernmitto be issued.To avoid delays,cicariy%label each piece of documentation with the property Tax Map/GPIN number and HDID number shown above and on your construction°permit.Please note that due to the individual cvczanstances of your permit there may be.additional required items not covered by this .c/wokh5t. If you have any questions about any of the items on this list,please donothesitate to contact the Albemarle County Health Department at (434)072=6219. Christo her Perez From: Kirtley, Joshua (VDH) <Joshua.Kirtley©vdh.virginia.gov> Sent: Friday. August 28, 2015 1:34 PM To: Christopher Perez Subject: FW: 6263-14 Rivanna Community Church Attachments: Rivanna Community Church (VDH ID 101-15-0347).pdf Josh Kirtley Environmental Health Technical Consultant Onsite Sewage and Water Programs Thomas Jefferson Health District 1138 Rose Hill Drive Charlottesville,Virginia 22903 Office(434)972-6288 From: Kirtley, Joshua (VDH) Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2015 5:48 PM To: 'Rick Blackwell' Cc: 'Dawn Hite' Subject: RE: 6263-14 Rivanna Community Church Good afternoon, Rick and Dawn. Hope that you're doing well. Attached you will find a PDF of the approval letter for the Rivanna Community Church project. Please review and let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Have a good evening, Josh Josh Kirtley Environmental Health Technical Consultant Onsite Sewage and Water Programs Thomas Jefferson Health District 1138 Rose Hill Drive Charlottesville,Virginia 22903 Office(434) 972-6288 From: Rick Blackwell [mailto:rick@blackwellengineering.com] Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2015 10:54 AM To: Kirtley, Joshua (VDH) Cc: Rick Blackwell; sknightrivanna@gmail.com; Rivanna Church Subject: 6263-14 Rivanna Community Church Josh, per our conversation the attached site sketch shows the bottom three lines to not be used/capped off. Let me know if you need anything else. Rick Blackwell Senior Environmental Engineer 1 BlagkWell Engineering 56&6 East Market Street Harrisonburg, VA 22801 540-432-9555 (Office) 540-434-7604 (Fax) www.blackwellengineerinq.com 2 .. rill ) BLACKWELL ENGINEERING, PLC i 566 E.MARKET STREET • HARRISONBURG.VIRGINIA 22801 • (540)432-9555 FAX(540)434-7604' Transmittal Letter To: Christopher Perez, Senior Planner T.T. Basil Finneban Albemarle County—Department of July 21, 2015 Company: Community Development Date: 401 McIntire Road Address: Charlottesville,VA 22902 Pages: See below Rivanna Community Church Job Name: Third Site Plan Submittal Job Number. 2346 SDP2013-56 F Plans -r Specs r Report r Proposal f-• Letter I✓ Calculations f— Invoice r Other Items: 1. Response Letter to Second Review Comments — 1 copy 2. Cut Sheet for Proposed Wall Light— 1 copy 3. Site Plan —7 sets (includes VSMP Plans) 4. Erosion and Sediment Control Narrative—3 copies 5. VSMP Application — 1 copy (signed by property owner+ $290 Application Fee) Three Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan & Pollution Prevention Plans For Your: r Approval r Use r Information r Distribution r— Signature r✓ Review r Records r Per your request • Comments: _ Cc: Scott Knight, Pastor-Rivanna Community Church Sent Via: r US Mail r✓ Delivery r Overnight r Email r Fax r Pick up r Other CIVIL ENGINEERS SPECIALIZING IN LAND DEVELOPMENT.ENVIRONMENTAL NEEDS AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVING COMMERCIAL.. INDUSTRIAL AND MUNICIPAL CLIENTS BLACKWELL ENGINEERING, PLC Imo) 566 E.MARKET ST. • HARRISONBURG,VIRGINIA 22801 • (540)432-9555 • FAX(540)434-7604 July 21,2015 BE#2346 Christopher Perez, Senior Planner Albemarle County—Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville,VA 22902 Subject: SDP-2013 00056 Rivanna Community Church Major Site Plan Amendment to SDP84-029 Third Submittal Dear Chris, The following are in response to second review comments dated January 8 and 27,2015. Planning (January 8,2015) 4. Proposed wall lights and fixates are labeled on Sheet 2. Cut sheet for the proposed wall lights is enclosed. A photometric plan is shown on Sheet 2. 5. A photometric plan is shown on Sheet 2. 10. Plant list has been revised on Sheet 7. Shrubs fronting parking spaces have been moved and dimensioned to 4' from edge of pavement on Sheet 7. 13. Tree canopy calculations are revised on Sheet 7. 13a. 1. Limits of clearing and tree protection are shown on Sheet 6. 2. A Conservation Plan Checklist is shown on Sheet 7. Building Inspections (January 8, 2015) The proposed firewall is labeled on Sheet 2. Engineering (January 27,2015) B. VSMP analysis is included in the E&SC Narrative. A VSMP application is enclosed. C. 1. Source of topography and accuracy certification is noted on Sheet 3. 2. Proposed SWM easement is shown on Sheet 3. 3. Approximate locations of sanitary sewer and waterline crossings are shown in profile on Sheet 5. Health Department (January 8, 2015) Referenced comments have not been received by Blackwell Engineering and are assumed to still be pending. Joshua Kirtley has been contacted several times by Rick Blackwell regarding the existing septic system and information exchanged. Application is being made to the Health Department. Please call me if you have any questions or require additional information. Cordially, 1441, sil Finneg Senior Designer Cc: Scott Knight,Pastor-Rivanna Community Church CIVIL ENGINEERS SPECIALIZING IN LAND DEVELOPMENT,ENVIRONMENTAL NEEDS AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVING COMMERCIAL,INDUSTRIAL AND MUNICIPAL CLIENTS �a 'a r,), Portfolio 7-in H Matte Black Dark t. Sky Outdoor Wall Light of m • :x y' • qcr -yfe • ste • . . 7-in H Matte Black Dark Sky Outdoor Wall Light • Helps to keep the night skies dark while providing light where you need it • Black finish and casual design will compliment many styles • Requires one 65-watt medium base reflector bulb • Works with dimmable circuit when using the max.60 watt incandescence bulb • All mounting hardware and instructions are included for an easy installation • Damp location rated PRODUCT DETAILS 65 Watt Bulbrite®BR30 Frost E26 Shatter Resistant Reflector Flood Bulb is Ideal for restaurants,catering halls, food storage,and preparation areas. Bulbrite®BR30 Frost E26 Shatter resistant reflector flood bulb in warm white color operates at 60 Watts with a lumens of 550.Bulb with an average rated life of 4000 hrs Is Ideal for restaurants and preparation areas,sold as 4 per pack. • Pack Size:4/Pack • Energy used:65 watt(65 watts incandescent equivalent) • Bulb shape:8R30 • Bulb base:Medium screw(E26) • Lamp designation:65BR3017F • Color.Warm white • Color temperature:2700 K •Voltage:130 V •Average rated life:4000 hrs • Lumens:550 • CRI:100 • M.O.D.:33/4" • M.O.L.:5 1/8" • Finish:Frost tough coat • Beam spread:Flood • Bulb technology.Incandescent •Application:Ideal for restaurants,catering halls,food storage and preparation areas • Special coating prevents the spread of shattering glass in the event lamp is broken • Reduces the chance of breakage from thermal shock such as water contact • Meets Federal Regulations:of FDA,NSF,NEC and Food Protection Unicode Christopher Perez / From: Christopher Perez • Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 9:28 AM To: 'basil@blackwellengineering.com' Subject: SDP2013-56 Rivanna Community Church Major Amendment Basil, SDP2013-56 Rivanna Community Church Major Amendment As discussed being you received Max Green's comments (Engineering) on Jan 27th 2015,the six months for resubmittal should begin from that date you received his comments. Thus that would put your six month resubmittal deadline to July 27,2015. This same logic would not translate to comments from the Health Department as you need to work directly with them to submit the application they need...etc Hope this helps. Christopher P.Perez I Senior Planner Department of Community Development!County of Albemarle,Virginia 401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext.3443 1 ririmm COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE S,�f� Department of Community Development ash Cep ' O 401 McIntire Road,Room 227 4 Charlottesville,Virginia 22902-4596 Phone(434)296-5832 Fax(434)972-4126 Project: Rivanna Community Church-Major SDP201300056 Plan preparer: Blackwell Engineering,PLC [fax 540-434-7604] Owner or rep.: Steve& Kathy Hood et als Rivanna Community Church Plan received date: 5 December 2014 Date of comments: 27 January 2015 Reviewer: Max Greene The Major Site Plan(SDP201300056)submitted 5 December 2014 has received Engineering Review and does not appear to meet Albemarle County minimum checklist items for approval. Please adequately address the following comments for final approval: A.Road and drainage plans 1. VDOT has no objection to the change in site usage and entrance design geometry. B. VSMP plans: 1. VSMP Plans will need to be submitted for review. [17-302] The link to the application forms: http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/forms_center/departments/Community Development/forms/Engi neering and WPO_Forms/Albemarle_County VSMP_Letter 07-08-2014.pdf http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/forms center/departments/Community_Development/forms/Engi neering and_WPO_Forms/WPO VSMP Virginia Stormwater Management_Program_Application.pdf C. Previous uncompleted comments by Michael Koslow: 1. Please show the location,elevation and datum for topography. Existing site topography will be at least field verified and certified on the plan as to accuracy. 2. SWM easement is required around the basin. 3. Water line crossing is not shown on SWM pipe profile. Once these comments have been addressed, please submit 2 copies of the revised plans,calculations,and narratives to Current Development Engineering. Current Development Engineering is available from 2:30-4 PM on Thursdays to discuss these review comments. Please contact Max Greene at 434-296-5832 ext. 3283 or email mgreene@albemarle.org to schedule an appointment. Christopher Perez From: Christopher Perez Sent: Friday, February 12, 2016 7:46 AM To: 'elder.beth@gmail.com' Subject: Rivanna Community Church Ms.Elder, wor-044 SDP2013-56 Rivanna Community Church Thanks for the phone call about the above referenced project and the 6 months inactive clause in the ordinance(sec 32.4.3.5)for automatic withdraw.I wanted to send you an email to let you know the status of your project.The last comments for the above site plan went out on 8-28-15,because you are actively working on addressing Max Greene/Mike Koslow's comment about the required stormwater management easement,through your submittal of SUB2015-208,the 6 months would truly be from the easement plat and not the site plan.The last communication for the easement plat was sent to Basil Finnegan, Scott Knight,and Dawn Hierhozer on 12-16-15 with all comments being addressed and the plat being ready for signatures.I understand the church is in the process of getting signatures on that document. Please have that submitted to our office before 6 months from the 12-16-15 date. The Church is so close to getting this project completed...do not loose heart, the finish line is right around the corner. Let me know if you have any further questions. Thanks Christopher P.Perez I Senior Planner Department of Community Development'County of Albemarle,Virginia 401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext.3443 C b\ 4:01" 1 Christopher Perez From: Christopher Perez Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2015 1:07 PM To: 'BE@blackwellEngineering.com'; basil@blackwellengineering.com'; 'ed@blackwellengineering.com' Cc: 'lbseps@gmail.com'; 'sknightrivanna@gmail.com'; 'Anna Fast' Subject: Major Site Plan for Rivanna Community Church_SDP201300056 Attachments: CD Rivanna Community Church Major Amendment Site_Plan_Comments_1-8-15.pdf; Conservation Plan Checklist.doc Mr. Blackwell, Attached are the comments for Major Site Plan for Rivanna Community Church_SDP201300056. Pending Engineering and Health Department's comments, once received staff will forward them to you. Christopher P.Perez I Senior Planner Department of Community Development'County of Albemarle,Virginia 401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext.3443 From: Christopher Perez Sent:Tuesday, December 03, 2013 6:48 PM To: 'BE@blackwellEngineering.com'; 'basil@blackwellengineering.com'; 'ed@blackwellengineering.com' Cc: 'lbseps@gmail.com'; 'sknightrivanna@gmail.com' Subject: Major Site Plan for Rivanna Community Church_SDP201300056 Mr. Blackwell, Attached are the comments for Major Site Plan for Rivanna Community Church_SDP201300056. Upon final review of applicable fees for the project it appears that the required SRC notification fee has not been paid for this project. Please pay the required SRC notification fee of$200 prior to the site review committee meeting on Thursday 12-5-13. Thanks Christopher P.Perez I Senior Planner Department of Community Development'County of Albemarle,Virginia 401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext.3443 From: Christopher Perez Sent: Monday, December 02, 2013 4:43 PM To: 'BE@blackwellEngineering.com'; 'basil@blackwellengineering.com' Cc: 'lbseps@gmail.com'; 'sknightrivanna@gmail.com' Subject: RE: Major Site Plan for Rivanna Community Church_SDP201300056 Mr. Basil Finnegan, With regard to my comment#1, outdoor lighting. During my review of the site plan I uncovered an approved final site plan for the Rivanna Community Church property which was misfiled, SDP84-029 Earlysville Green Dentist Office Site Plan. This approved site plan depicts the existing lighting onsite which was the subject of our discussions about lighting. Thus with this revelation no lighting plan shall be required for the existing site I. ` Y J � lighting as all lighting shown on the current site plan under review had previous y been depicted and approved on a previously approved fmal site plan. The existing lighting shall remain on the site plan as depicted. However if site lighting is being proposed to be modified to include any additional lighting being added, or existing lighting being relocated to new locations on the site, or modifications to existing lighting(other than removal of lights), then a lighting plan shall be required. During our recent discussions you asked about wall lighting for the new buildings near their exits (pack lighting)...etc. Currently the site plan does not depict any proposed wall lighting. If wall lighting is proposed, please depict it on the plan. Also on the plan provide the cut sheets from the manufacturer's catalog for these fixtures. The cut sheet should clearly show the lumen levels of the fixture. If it is 3000 lumens or above the fixture is required to be full-cutoff. Regardless of the lighting type,the cut-sheet should provide a diagram of the light type, fixture type/style,wattage,tilt, color/finish, lumen levels and a diagram of how far and what direction the light is visible. If the light fixtures being used have a visibility distance that can reach the road then a photometric plan shall be provided for these new lights to measure spill over. If the manufacturers details do not provide visibility distances then these new lights shall be provided on a photometric plan to measure light trespass on the street. I shall provide the above comment in the formal comment letter which I hope to send to you by COB tomorrow. Hope this helps clear things up. Also, attached is the Site Review Committee (SRC) notification letter which was sent on Nov 14 which informs you about the Dec 5th SRC meeting. Christopher P.Perez I Senior Planner Department of Community Development'County of Albemarle,Virginia 401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext.3443 From: Christopher Perez Sent:Tuesday, November 05, 2013 5:24 PM To: 'BE@blackwellEngineering.com' Cc: 'Ibseps@gmail.com'; 'sknightrivanna@gmail.com'; 'basil@blackwellengineering.com' Subject: Major Site Plan for Rivanna Community Church_SDP201300056 Mr. Blackwell, Planning staff has conducted a preliminary review of the Major Site Plan for Rivanna Community Church_SDP201300056. It appears that the plan is missing two substantial items which are required prior to Planning's complete review of the site plan,these items must be provided and reviewed prior to „„ri approval of the plan. Namely the plan is missing an Outdoor tighting,Plan and a Landscaping Plan. These items are required of all final site plans. Below I have provided more detailed comments which reference the sections of the ordinance as well as provide guidance on a couple nuances of this site. The site plan will continue to be reviewed by all members of the Site Plan Review Committee (SRC); however, I wanted to give you advanced notice of these large items in hopes to provide you ample time to develop the documents, or to hire a third party to develop these required items. The below comments will be a part of my comments for SRC December 5th but with this advanced notice this should be no trouble for you. If you have any questions please give me a call. Thanks 1_ [32.6 2(k)] Outdoor.L'ghting The site depicts lighting which was not;depicted nor approved onxthe' approved final site plan. On the:plan provide an outdoor lighting plan which complies with section 417 to include a photometric plan arid]ocation, description,andphotograph or diagram of each type of outdoor luminaire, Revise. 2 2. .[32.6.20)]] Landscape plan. A landscape plan that complies with section j2.7.9 is required. Provide a landscape plan which meets these requirements. Revise. 3. [Comment] When the landscape plan is developed pursuant to section 32.7.9 assure that the required screening at the rear of the property pursuant to Section 21.7c is provided. 4. [Comment] On the plan assure the required 20' buffer to residentially zoned property is depicted. 5. [32.5.2e] Landscape features. Provide the existing landscape features on the entire site as described in section 32.7.9.4(c). 6. [32.5.2b] Information regarding the proposed use. As landscaping(parking lot landscaping) is required for the site,provide the maximum amount of paved parking area and other vehicular circulation areas. Also, on the plan provide the maximum amount of impervious cover on the site. Christopher P.Perez I Senior Planner Department of Community Development'County of Albemarle,Virginia 401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext.3443 • `� $-A hl ill-'► x COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 Mclntire Road,North Wing Charlottesville,Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434)296-5832 Fax(434) 972-4126 January 8, 2015 Ed Blackwell 566 East Market Street Harrisonburg VA 22801 RE: SDP-201300056 Rivanna Community Church—Major Site Plan Amendment Mr. Blackwell: Your Major Amendment application has been reviewed. In front of each comment 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 order for the amended site plan to be approved the following revisions are required: 1. [Comment] SRC notificaflon fins, It appears that the applicant neglected.to pay the SRC notfielation fee prior to the SRC meeting. Please pay the required SRC notification lee of $200.No further review of the plat] will coinense till the fee is paid. Rev 1. Comments addressed. 2. 132.5.1(a),32.5.2(a)] The site plan needs to be printed with black or blue ink, not color. This requirement is noted in the ordinance and assures reductions and copies can be easily made. Revise the plan to be printed in blue or Hack ink, 11o1 in color. Rev 1. Comments addressed. 3. [32.5.2 (a); 32.5.2 (e)] General intbrrnution. Within the site plan provide an existing conditions sheet that depicts the entire parcel and all existing conditions separate from the proposed modifications sheet. Revise. Rev 1. Comments addressed. 4. [32.6.2(k)] The approved fmal site plan for this site, SDP84-029 Earlysville Green Dentist Office Site Plan, depicts the existing lighting onsite. Thus no lighting plan shall be required for the existing site lighting as all lighting shown on the current site plan under review had previously been depicted and approved on a previously approved fmal site plan. The existing lighting shall remain on the site plan as depicted. If site lighting is beingproposed to be modified to include anv additional lighting being added, or existing lighting being relocated to new locations on the site, or modifications to existing lighting (other than removal of lights),then a lighting plan shall be required. 1 . During our recent discussions the applicant asked about wa_` __oliting for the new buildings (pack lighting)...etc. Currently the site plan does not depict any proposed wall lighting. If wall lighting is proposed, please depict it on the plan. Also on the plan provide the cut sheets from the manufacturer's catalog for these fixtures. The cut sheet should clearly show the lumen levels of the fixture. If a light fixture is 3000 lumens or above the fixture is required to be full-cutoff. Regardless of the lighting type, the cut- sheet should provide a diagram of the light type, fixture type/style, wattage, tilt, color/fmish, lumen levels and a diagram of how far and what direction the light is visible. If the light fixtures being used have a visibility distance that can reach the road then a photometric plan shall be provided for these new lights to measure spill over. If the manufacturers details do not provide visibility distances then these new lights shall be provided on a photometric plan to measure light trespass on the street and adjacent residential lots. Rev 1. Comments not addressed. Fourteen new wall light fixtures are being added to the addition, as such a lighting plan is required. Revise to provide all information discussed above including a photometric plan. • 5. 132.6.2(k) & 4.17] If a photometric plan is required it shall show footcandle information to the property line of all adjacent residential parcels and the public right-of-way to demonstrate that the spillover will not exceed 0.5 footcandle. Rev 1. Comments not addressed. Fourteen new wall light fixtures are being added to the addition, as such a lighting plan is required. Provide a photometric plan to the adjacent residential property lines and the public right of ways. Revise. 6. [32.6.2(k) & 4.171 Provide the following standard lighting note on the plan: "Each outdoor lurninaire equipped with a lamp that emits 3.000 or more initial lumens shrill be ct flu/cutoff luminaire and shall be arranged or shielded to reflect light auaty front adjoining residential districts and awayf om adjacent roads. The spillover of lighting front luminaires onto public roads and property in residernial or rural areas zoning districts shall not exceed one-halt,lvolcandle. Rev 1. Comment Addressed. • 7. [32.5.2e, 32.5.2p, 32.6.2(j)],32.7.9.41 Landscape plan. A landscape plan that complies with.section 32.7.9 is required prior to Major Site Plan Amendment approval. Revise. Rev 1. Comment Addressed. 8. [32.5.2e, 32.6.2011 listing Landscape features. On the landscape plan provide the existing landscape features for the entire site as described in section 32.7.9.4(c). To include all existing landscaping at the rear of the property abutting the residential lots, landscaping around the basin at the rear of the properly, all landscaping along Earlysville Forest Drive, and any landscaping throughout the site. Also, if any of these landscape features are being removed depict this on the plan. Rev 1.. Contmeirt Addressed. 9. [21.7(c), 32.5.2(a), 32.6.2(j), 32.7.9.4(b), 32.7.9.7] 137,0r zone adjacent to residential and rural areas districts. No construction activity including grading or clearing of vegetation shall occur closer than twenty(20) feet to any residential or rural areas district. On the site plan depict and label the required 20' buffer to residentially zoned property. Rev 1.. Comment Addressed. If the applicant believes that existing trees on the rear of this property meet the screening requirements prodded for in section 32.7.9.7, on the site plan provide a tree conservation plan which meets the requirements of 32.7.9.4(b) to preserve these trees in place of 2 • . planting new tree. if new plantings shall he provide :.: screen the 'use from the residential lots, depict these plantings on the landscape plan. Rev 1. CommentAddressed. 10. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.5] Landscaping Along Streets. Street trees are required along all existing public street frontage; these trees must be within the parking setback. On the landscape plan provide the required street trees along Rte 743 pursuant to section 32.7.9.5. Rev 1. The required steet trees have been depicted on the plan appropriately; however, the plant list on sheet 7 should be revised to address the following: * For the sized `Betula Nigra' proposed,the canopy cals are truly 397 SF per tree. * For the `Carpinus Betulus...' the canopy area for a tree of 6' -8' tree size is truly 69 SF per tree. Thus you may reduce the size of that tree to 6' - 8' and bump up the canopy calcs to 69 SF per tree. * For the sized `Lagerstroemia Indica' proposed,the canopy cals are truly 77 SF per tree. * For the sized `Zelkova Serrata...' proposed,the canopy cals are truly 452 SF per tree. Also, in the area of the entrance closing on Rte 743 there are 11 additional parking spaces being added/modified, as such these new spaces face Rte 743 and parked cars will be visible from the right of way. In this area provide additional plantings of shrubs between the street and the parking area pursuant to 32.7.9.5(e). This requirement is in addition to the street tree requirements mentioned above. Also, there are 3 parking spaces fronting Earlysville Forest Drive which do not have any landscaping between them and the right- of-way. In this area provide additional plantings of shrubs between the street and the parking area pursuant to 32.7.9.5(e). Rev 1. The required shrubs fronting the parking spaces have been depicted on the plan appropriately; however, if possible it may be appropriate to move them a foot or two closer to the street to allow for them to grow without having parked cars hit/rub them, strunting their growth. Also,the plant list on sheet 7 should be revised to address the following: * For the `Ilex Cornuta' assure the plant list provides the minimum size at planting, which is required to be a min of 12 inches in height when planted. 11. [32.5.2b, 32.6.2(i) & 32.7.9.6(a)j Parking Lot landscaping Parking kit landscaping is required for the site. On the plan provide the amount ol'paved parking area and other vehicular circulation.areas thistle. An area of at least five (5)percent of the paved parking and vehicular circulation area shall be landscaped With trees or shrubs. Neither the areas of street trees and shnibs required by sections 32.7.9. (d) and (6) planted between a parking area and the buildingshall be counted toward the minimum landscaped area for a parkin<g lot. Revise. Rev 1_ Comment addressed. 12. [32.6.2(j) & 12.7.9.6(h)1 Parking Lot lanJ5capniw The live (5) percent landscaped area required shall be planted with a mixture of shade trees and shrubs and shall include one (1.) large or medium'Shade nee per len (I.0) parking.spac'cs ar portiontliereol: if five (5) spaces or more. Nine (9) trees are required for 90 parking spaces. Please select trees from • the approved list or note specific. existing trees that meet this requirement. 3 • • Rev I. Continent addressed. 13. [32.7.9.8] Tree Canopy. The use is being developed as a Commercial use, as such the minimum tree canopy is ten (10)percent. Provide tree calculations for the site pursuant to 32.7.9.8(b). Rev 1.As proposed the site meets it's tree canopy talc requirement of 18,081 SF, which is 10% of the gross acreage of the site; however, the calculations on sheet 7 appear to utilize incorrect canopy calculations as discussed in comment#10 above. These shall be revised to clearly show the site's true canopy calcs.Also,the calculations on sheet 6 for the `CK' and the 'PS' appear incorrect as the calculations do not take into acounty 20 years of growth, nor do they utilize the correct canopy calculations for the tree types.Anna, please make the corrections we discussed over the phone. If you have questions give me a call. Based on the information provided staff suggests the tree canopy calcs on sheet 7 be revised as follows: "Gross Acreage of the Site: 180,816 SF Required Tree Canopy for the site (10% gross agreage): 18,081 SF Canopy of Proposed Plantings at 10 years: 5,276 SF Existing Woodland Area Preserved at the rear of the property: 18,478 SF Canopy Bonus of Existing Preserved Trees 10,450 SF Total Tree Canopy Provided Onsite: 34,204 SF " 13a. [New Comment] The applicant intends to utilize 18,478 SF of existing woodland as noted on sheet 7 towards the required landscape canopy tales, they also are seeking Canopy bonus of 10,450 SF. Pursuant to Section 32.7.9.4(b)this is permitted;however,the following is required to be provided on the site plan to qualify the existing landscaping: 1.Areas and other features shown on landscape plan.The landscape plan shall show the trees to be preserved,the limits of clearing,the location and type of protective fencing, grade changes requiring tree wells or walls, and trenching or tunneling proposed beyond the limits of clearing. 2. Conservation checklist.The applicant shall sign a conservation checklist approved by the • agent to ensure that the specified trees will be protected during construction.Except as otherwise expressly approved by the agent in a particular case,the checklist shall conform to the specifications in the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook,pages III-393 through III-413,and as hereafter amended. (Anna,for your convenience staff has attached the checklist to this letter,please assure it's provided on the site plan and signed by the . owner). 14. [;12.6.2(l) & Comment] On the landscape sheet provide a legend of all symbols and abbreviations used on the landscape plan. Rev 1. Comment Addressed. 15. [32.5.2(a)] Setbacks. On the site plan provide a note which references the setback for the C-I zoning. Also include the 20' undisturbed buffer for residentially zoned property within this setback note. Rev 1. Comment Addressed. • • 16. 132.5.2a, 21.70 veneral infinmenion. On the plan pro . and label We minimum setback lines and yards on the plan. Also depicted and labeled the required 20' puffer to residentially zoned property. Rev I. Comment Addressed. 17. [32.6 20) & Comment] Please show utilities and associated easements on the landscape planter verify that no conflic,is-exist with planting locations. Rev 1. Comment Addressed. 18. 'Comment] Sheet 1 depicts a "Wall Mounted lIC size on the front of the existing building. Is this an existing sign or a proposed sign. Sign locations are not reviewed or approved on site plan applications. Rev 1. Comment Addressed. 19. [32.5.2b] .Inffrrrnalion regarding the proposed use. On the plan provide the maximum amount of impervious cover on the site. Rev 1. Comment Addressed. 20. [32.5.24 General information. While the site plan provides topography, staff was unable to locate the source Of the topography on..the plan. Provide the source of the topography. If the source is provided please specifiy where on the site plan. Rev 1. Comment Addressed. 21. 132.5.2(a)] General information. On the plan provide the present uses of abutting parcels, to include: the Auto'shop located on TMP 31A-A, and the residential lots located on 31A-b-5 through 31A-b-7 . Rev I. Comment Addressed. 22. I32.5.2n] Existing and proposed improvements. On the plan label and show the location and diminsions the trash containers/dumpster pad (trash disposal methods), and landscaped areas. Also, on the plan there is ared dotted area around'the two existing stnretmts. Staff is tumble to decifer what is going on with this area as the legend does not define this type of symbol. Also, on the plan please specific what is depicted as red hatching within the parking lot on the corner of Earlysville Forest Drive and State Route 743.Please label this feature. Revise. Rev 1. Comment Addressed. 23. [32.5.2n1 Proposed improvements'. On.the site plan please clarify What is meant by "Proposed Future Sanctuary" vs"Proposed Fellowship Hall". Is-the proposed.future sanctuary to be included in the site plan review? If not, remove it from the plan. If so, revise to omit "future" throughout the plan and lable it "proposed sanctuary". Also, the peaking calculations on sheet 1 refer to "proposed buildings 1". Assure this is revised to be accurate, as currently there are 2 proposed buildings and 2 existing buildings shown on the site plan. Rev I. Continent Addressed. 24. [4.1.2.6] Parking requirements. In the rural areas identified .in the comprehensive plan, the number of proposed spaces shall be shown in a parking study submitted by the church; the number of required spaces shall be determined by the zoning administrator, who shall consider the recommendations in the parking study, traffic generation figures either known to the industry or estimated by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, peak parking demands. and other relevant information. Nothing herein requires the parking study to be prepared by a transportation engineer. • Currently the site plan utilizes Development Area calculations of 1 space per 3 fixed seats 5 as provided for it the ordinance: however, this site ...—_ i the Ruin] Areas of the comprehensive plan and the ordinance requires a parking study for the Zoning Administrator to make a determination, about parking for the site. Provide. the required parking study. Rev 1.. Comment Addressed. 25. [32.5.2 (a), 32.5.2 (e), 32.5.2 (i)I Three access easements are shown on sheet 1: "Non- exclusive easement lrir joint:u e by TAW 31-32 and 31A J " "Non-exclusive easement:fir atcess,fnr use hi 'I4/P 3l.0.1.4 '. and "Exclusive easement flu access and parking fur exclusive use by Y•1'f.P 31A-A". Please clarify if these are existing or. proposed access easements. If they arc existing easements, indicate the deed hook and page number, for them. Rev 1. Comment Addressed, they are existing. 26.[32.5.2(n),32.6.2(i)1 Onthe plan dimension the lightly paved driveway connecting the two parking lot areas, the iravelways and parking spaces throughout the site. Rev 1. Comment Addressed. 27. [32.5.6(i)] On theplan dimension the width Of the existing entrance into the site. Rev 1. Comment Addressed. • • 28. [32.5.2a] General infin taiion. County records indicate the owner name for parcels 31 A-1. is Roger W.Perkins and for parcel 31-32 is Steve& Kathy Hood et als Trustees Rivanna Conunuaity Church respectively. However the site plan indicates the owner names are Whvte's Supermarket and Farlysville Green. Revise.Rev 1.. Comment Addressed. 29. 132.6.2(h)] Signature panel. Provide the required signature hotel for County approval by each member of the Site Review Committee. Rev 1.. Comment Addressed. 30. [Comment] On sheet I provide.the site plan number: "SDP201 3-56 Rivanna Community Church Major Amendment to S0P84-029"Rev 1.. Comment Addressed. 31. [32.5.2(01 On sheet I the magisterial district is labeled asRivamna \4agisteria] District; 'however, it is truly Whitehall Magisterial District. Revise. Rev'1.. Comment Addressed. 32. [32.6.2e(1.)] The plan.adempts to close an existing entrance on Rte 743 and install a ditch to match existing downstream ditch. On the site plan provide the profiles of all ditches and channels whether proposed or existing, showing existing and proposed grades. and invert of ditches, cross pipes or utilities; typical channel cross sections fornew construction;and actual c oss sections for existing channels intended.to remain. Rev 1. Comment Addressed. 33.14) accord with the provisions of Section 32.4.3.5 of Chapter 1.8 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. Rev 1. Applicant received an extension and submitted within allowable timefr•ame. If you have any questions about the comments please feel free to contact me. Below I have provided comments from the various Site Plan Committee (SRC) reviewers. Prior to final site plan approval their comments shall have been adequately addressed. 6 • VDOT— Troy Austin See attached comment letter dated 12-23-14. Building Inspections—Jay Schlothauer -Assuming that the church will be of wood-framed construction,no portion of it may exceed 6,000 sq. ft. Indicate the locations of firewalls so that no portion exceeds 6,000 sq. ft. Fire and Rescue—Robbie Gilmer No objection Engineering—Max Greene Comments pending, will be forwarded once received. Health Department—Joshua Kirtley Comments pending, will be forwarded once received. Please contact Mr. Kirtley for further details at(434) 972-6288 as it appears they do not have the necessary application and plans for the proposed drainfields. 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 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. If you have any questions about the comments please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Christopher P. Perez Senior Planner 434.296.5832 ext. 3443 a. a ��V v COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1001 Orange Road Culpeper Yana 22701 Charles A.Kilpatrick,P.E. Commissioner December 23,2014 Mr. Christopher Perez Senior Planner County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville,VA 22902 Re: SDP-2013-00056 Rivanna Community Church—Major Amendment Dear Mr. Perez: We have reviewed the site plan for the Rivanna Community Church signed by the design engineer, Blackwell Engineering,PLC on 11/28/14 and offer the following comments: 1. It is our understanding that the Church will not provide weekday day care services. 2. VDOT has no objection to the site plan as submitted. Should the Church decide to provide weekday day care services,the turn lane warrants for the entrance will need to be reevaluated based on the increase in trip generation for the site. If you need additional information concerning this project,please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, 11/ Troy Austin, P.E. Area Land Use Engineer Culpeper District WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING • County of Albemarle • Conse_ _s-on Plan Checklist—To be placed on Land; Plans • (Handbook,pp HI-284-111-297 for complete speck kalilons) 1. The following items shall be shown on the plan: ❑ Trees to be saved; ❑ Limits of clearing(outside dripline of trees to be saved); ❑ Location and type of protective fencing; ❑ Grade changes requiring tree wells or walls; • - ' ❑ Proposed trenching or tunneling beyond the limits of clearing. 2. Markings: ❑ All trees to be saved shall be marked with print or ribbon at a height clearly visible to equipment operators. ❑ No grading shall begin until the tree marking has been inspected and approved by a County Inspector. 3. Pre-Construction Conference: U Tree preservation and protection measures shall be reviewed with the contractor on site. 4. Equipment Operation and Storage: ❑ Heavy equipment,vehicular traffic and storage of construction materials including soil shall not be permitted within the driplines of trees to be saved. 5. Soil Erosion and Stormwater Detention Devices: ❑ Such devices shall not adversely affect trees to be saved. 6. Fires: U Fires are not permitted within 100 feet of the dripline of trees to be saved. 7. Toxic Materials: U Toxic materials shall not be stored within 100 feet of the dripline of trees to be saved. 8. Protective Fencing: U Trees to be retained within 40 feet of a proposed building or grading activity shall be protected by fencing. U Fencing shall be in place and shall be inspected and approved by a County Inspector prior to grading or construction. 9. Tree Wells: ❑ When the ground level must be raised within the dripline of a tree to be saved,a tree well shall be provided and a construction detail submitted for approval. 10. Tree Walls: ❑ When the ground level must be lowered within the dripline a tree to be saved,a tree wall shall be provided;and a construction detail submitted for approval. 11. Trenching and Tunneling: ❑ When trenching is required within the limits of clearing,it shall be done as far away from the trunks of trees as possible.Tunneling under a large tree shall be considered as an alternative when it is anticipated that necessary trenching will destroy feeder roots. 12. Cleanup: ❑ Protective fencing shall be the last items removed during the fmal cleanup. 13. Damaged Trees: ❑ Damaged trees shall be treated immediately by pruning,fertilization or other methods recommended by a tree specialist. NOTE:IT IS THE DEVELOPER'S RESPONSIBILITY TO CONFER WITH THE CONTRACTOR ON TREE CONSERVATION REQUIREMENTS. OWNER SIGNATURE (DATE) CONTRACT PURCHASER SIGNATURE (DATE) Christopher Perez From: Christopher Perez Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2015 1:28 PM To: 'Kirtley, Joshua (VDH)' Subject: RE: Rivanna Community Church - site plan Josh, Thanks for the update. I now understand what is afoot. I'll give them your info in my comment letter. Please note the site plan only lists 250 seats for the church after the addition is added. Christopher P.Perez I Senior Planner Department of Community Development'County of Albemarle,Virginia / 401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext.3443 c From: Kirtley, Joshua (VDH) [mailto:Joshua.Kirtley@vdh.virginia.gov] Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2015 1:21 PM To: Christopher Perez CoSubject: RE: Rivanna Community Church - site plan Good afternoon, Chris. I spoke to Blackwell Engineering today regarding the septic design for the above mentioned project. They informed me that they are waiting for the go ahead from the Church to complete the septic design work. Until I've had a chance to review the septic modification design for the proposal, I am unable to proceed further with the review. Essentially, I need to confirm that what Mr. Blackwell is proposing is the same as what the Church is requesting. Until I see the design from Mr. Blackwell, I can't say for sure that the two are the same. It would be a heck of a note for Mr. Blackwell to design a system for 200 seats and the Church was requesting 400. I don't mind dealing with the applicant, so feel free to give them my contact information. I just wanted to follow up with you to let you know where we stand at this point. Let me know if you have any questions or need anything further. Josh Josh Kirtley Environmental Health Technical Consultant Onsite Sewage and Water Programs Thomas Jefferson Health District 1138 Rose Hill Drive Charlottesville,Virginia 22903 Office(434)972-6288 From: Christopher Perez [mailto:cperez@albemarle.orq] Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2015 4:01 PM 1 To: Kirtley, Joshua (VDH) Subject: Rivanna Community Church - site plan Josh, SDP2013-56 Rivanna Community Church—major site plan amendment As discussed, I know that Anna Fast has been working on this project. annamryan@gmail.com Also,Basil Finnegan has been working on this project. T.Basil Finnegan Senior Designer Blackwell Engineering, PLC 540-432-9555 (Office) 540-434-7604 (Fax) www.blackwellengineering.com Christopher P.Perez I Senior Planner Department of Community Development'County of Albemarle,Virginia 401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext.3443 2 rivanna community church November 26,2014 Mr. Christopher Pcrc Senior Planner County of Albemarle Cranny Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 Subject: SDP-201300056—Parking Study fur Riven=Community Church Dear Christopher. In response to site plan review comment number 24 dated December 3. 2013 the following perking study is offered. Our church currently has an estimated 130 participants,mostly made up of families. The church is currently contained in one building 013,100 gross Sr, with 160 movable seats and on a typical Sunday. We currently average about 4 visitors per service at 2 vehicles, We have counted the number of cars on various occasions (small church gatherings and larger church gatherings such as Christmas) at maximum capacity during the larger events we averaged 54 vehieles: however, on the typical Sunday we only averaged 47 vehicles. With this expansion we plan to expand the church by 8,300 gross SF to a total of 12.100 gross SF and ine ream our seating capacity to 0 total of 250 scats in the proposed Sanctuary. The proposed Fellowship Hall will be used by existing parishioners who attend the church for coffee, conversation, lellowship,and poiltteks. We hope to increase our parishioner base to 250 participants over the next S years. We believe that the additional space will generate the need for 85 required parking spaces based on our calculations provided ehove, thus we have provided 85 parking spaces based on these calculations, four of which are designated as handicap spaces. This calculation is further supported by the feel that our current vehicle count is higher than it would otherwise be for two reasons: Currently, local bakers use our south parking lot as a park and ride, When the Earlysville Road entrance to this perking lot is closed, we expect that those vehicles will park elsewhere, In addition, our north parking lot often holds vehicles from Farlysville Auto. This is not a problem for us now. but as we grow. we may need to insure auto customers don't leave their vehicles in our parking urea on Sundays. Sincerely. Scott Knight. Pastor Ce: Ed Blackwell-Blackwell Engineering Fee E./velvet oorae EsirittOn VA Z231)0 454 575 00 I t •. ' ' COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE °F Al Department Community Development �- naw. Zoning & Current Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 • Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 �irtctr?�/ Phone: (434) 296-5823 • Fax: (434)972-4035 Transmittal From: Christopher Perez Date: 12/05/14 / / To: OTroy Austin- VDOT OGlenn Brooks - County Engineer o5k Ky ey0111.11110111111111011116 ORobbie Gilmer-Fire and Rescue 0 OJay Schlothauer- Inspections 0 0 JOB #/FILE NAME:SDP-2013-0056 - Rivanna Community Church - Major Site Plan Amendment We are sending you the following items: ® Attached or ❑ Under separate cover ® Copy of Letter ❑ Prints ® Plans ❑ Plats ❑ Specifications ❑ Other # of Copies Date Description 1 12/1/14 Rivanna Community Church - Major Site Plan Amendment These are transmitted as checked below: ® For review and comments ® For approval ❑ Other Remarks: Comments are due in City View or email by: 12/26/14 Signature: Christopher Perez BLACKWELL ENGINEERING, PLC 566 E.MARKET ST. • HARRISONBURG,VIRGINIA 22801 • (540)432-9555 • FAX(540)434-7604 December 1, 2014 BE#2346 Christopher Perez, Senior Planner Albemarle County-Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville,VA 22902 • Subject: SDP-201300056 Rivanna Community Church Major Site Plan Amendment to SDP84-029 Second Submittal Dear Chris, The following are in response to your first review letter dated December 3, 2013: t4/C notification fee was paid on December 4, 2013, check number 2069. 'lans are now printed in black.An existing conditions sheet has been added as Sheet 1. . ...-the- Pei L"` 1', [L � OP Comment acknowledged. No additional site lighting is proposed • we_ vo 1-:-1 Comment acknowledged. No photometric plan is proposed. , Lighting note has been added as Note 22 on Sheet 4. X. Landscape plan is now included as Sheets 6 and 7. 8. Existing landscape features are shown on the landscape plan Sheet 6. , 9 The buffer zone adjacent to residential lots is now shown on Sheet 2. Tree conservation plan is shown on the Landscape Plan. 10. Landscaping along streets is shown on the Landscape Plan. 11. Parking lot landscaping is shown on the Landscape Plan. 12. Parking lot landscaping is shown on the Landscape Plan. 13. Tree canopy calculations are shown on the Landscape Plan. 14. A legend is shown on the Landscape Plan. tA'S`The setbacks for C-1 zoning are tabulated on Sheet 2 and the buffer zone is shown /e nd labeled. -1/6. The setbacks are shown and labeled on Sheet 2. -1 7. Utilities and easements are shown on the Landscape Plan. ]v$-The proposed"wall mounted handicap sign" is required for parking lots and has �en installed. The amount of impervious cover is now shown on Sheet 2. 7l he source of the topography is now shown on Sheet 3. t1�1. Land uses of abutting parcels are now shown on Sheets 1-3. 22. T imensions of the dumpster pad,landscape area and shaded area around the existing buildings have been labeled on Sheet 1. Two residential-sized manually- portable refuse containers are used by the Church and no dumpster is proposed. The cross hatched area of the parking lot near the intersection of Earlysville Road and Earlysville Forest Drive denoted an area proposed to be striped. It has been removed and is proposed to be replaced with grass. CIVIL ENGINEERS SPECIALIZING IN LAND DEVELOPMENT,ENVIRONMENTAL NEEDS AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVING COMMERCIAL,INDUSTRIAL AND MUNICIPAL CLIENTS Christopher Perez December 1, 2014 Page 2 j37 . Proposed sanctuary label has been revised to omit the word"Future." The area formerly under roof between the two existing buildings has been enclosed. The parking is based on the number of seats in the proposed sanctuary. 24. The parking study provided by the church is enclosed. 25. The three access easements are all existing. Deed book and page numbers have been added the labels. 13ArThe width dimension of the proposed drive connecting the two parking lots, existing travel aisles and parking spaces are labeled on Sheet 2. .rriThe width dimension of the existing entrance has been labeled at the narrowest point on Sheet 2. vf18. The current landowner names for both parcels have been revised. .9. Signature panel has been added to Sheet 1. Site plan number has been added to Sheet 1. ✓3'r. The Magisterial District has been revised on Sheet 1. ' -Ditch profile and cross section has been added to Sheet 5. JAT.TOMment acknowledged. Engineering A. Existing Conditions Information 1) A project benchmark label with elevation has been added to Sheet 3. 2) Existing easements are indicated by italicized labels and deed book page numbers added to Sheet 1. Proposed additional sight distance easement is labeled on Sheet 2. 3) Parcel owner information has been revised on Sheet 1. 4) Source of topography is shown on Sheet 3. Treeline, fence and additional topographic elements have been added to the plan. Trees are shown on the landscaping plan. B. Proposed Plan View Information 1) The proposed detention pond has been removed and underground pipe storage is now proposed. 2) A proposed storm water management access easement is shown on Sheet 3. Access to the facility is provided at the end of the existing parking lot. 3) Closure of existing entrance on Earlysville Road is a VDOT requirement. Emergency services entrance on Earlysville Forest Drive is a Fire and Rescue requirement. VDOT permission would be in the form of their approval of the site plan. 4) Longitudinal slopes of existing parking lots are approximately 2.5%. Existing contours have been revised to show contours proposed in 1985 as existing. 5) Existing storm drain piping is shown with dashed lines and proposed with solid lines. 6) All drainage structures are labeled. 7) Manufacturer's details for non-VDOT inlets are shown on Sheet 5. Christopher Perez December 1, 2014 Page 3 C. Drainage.Profiles 1) Drainage profiles are shown on Sheet 5. 2) :A modified endwall is proposed as the stormwater detention outlet control structure and is shown on Sheets 3 and 5. D. Drainage Computations 1) Drainage area maps are enclosed. 2) Drainage calculations are enclosed. E. Tier III Groundwater Assessment 1) The groundwater assessment is enclosed. VDOT 1. The Church has no plans to provide weekday day care services. Should the Church decide to offer day care services turn lane warrants will be re-evaluated. 2. In response to Fire and Rescue comment 1, a proposed emergency services entrance on Earlysville Forest Drive is shown on Sheet 2: Access Management Exception Request Form AM-E was sent to Troy Austin at VDOT on January 29, 2014. Building Inspections Comment acknowledged. The site plan includes both the Fellowship Hall and the Sanctuary. The Sanctuary has been relabeled from Future to Proposed. Fire and Rescue 1. A proposed secured emergency services entrance on Earlysville Forest Drive is shown on Sheet 2. Access Management Exception Request for corner clearance has been filed with VDOT. 2. Comment acknowledged. Site plan accommodates a fire truck's inner turning radius of 25' on the proposed travelways. 3. Comment acknowledged. A key box will be installed in an approved location as part of the building permit process. E911 Comment acknowledged. ACSA Comment acknowledged. Christopher Perez _ �J December 1, 2014 O1A-A/ MIL -11, %1 f� Page 4 ____-- --71-_,.....<7-:-- ---------„,,,yc .. J � v l th Department `, 1. The capacity of the existing septic system to serve a 250-person c urch has been evaluated by Blackwell Engineering and an application for a m ification to the existing system was sent to Joshua Kirtley on November 25 14. 2. Revisions to the existing septic system are now pro on Sheet 2. The church is served by an existing private well. Please call me if you have any questions or require additional information. Cordially, //301....4.1A.,,,aa T. Basil Finnegan Senior Designer Cc: Scott Knight,Pastor-Rivanna Community Church plication for ' Major or Minor Site Plan Amendments ,, ,y,,• Existing Site Plan Name&Number: SOP Z 01 ` 5(o Tax map and parcel(s): 31 — '3 2 Zoning: C t CO IM r\E CA Au Contact Person(Who should we call/write concerning this project?): e p ',L RGX W(c L L / Address S(n(D EAST aI��ELEr St City ARC\SOt r U2(�State V A Zip 2ZSOl Daytime Phone(51. 43 2 — (. Fax#(9M) +34--7too l eA tt.0 ekt3trLeQrm`0. •coM Owner of Record: 5' eve" & VAT ttX t-1Oo D , E t ALA. , T usTEES R t vrtN avA- comfit vki Ir( Cclu9 cick Address (q Ok pE Pr2LYSV t L L F G RF FN City E l-.`(S V t L% State VA Zip 2 2 13(e Daytime Phone(+31' 1 IS — by l\ Fax#( ) E-mail S 1�hr 31,k*r t M aT.\ •C-61""\ Applicant(Who is the Contact person representing?): R tv CDm uk.1 kT j Cdu2 k1 J Address (A O\ Sv\\.l--E C REE City€114 .L kS V 11.L.E State Y 1 Zip 2 7—ct 3 G. Daytime Phone(f 4 75- OC(( Fax#( ) E-mail FEES air Major Amendment ❑ Minor Amendment(alterations to parking,circulation,building =$1500 Vistp OCT Z6(3 size,location)=$500 7/folded copies of plan are required 8 folded copies of plan are required U Relief from conditions of approval; modification or waiver of requirements=$425 Notices required by Section 32.4.2.1 (f) Preparing and mailing or delivering up to fifty(50)notices=$200.00 Preparing and mailing or delivering,per notice more than fifty(50)=$1.00 plus the actual cost of first class postage. GROUNDWATER ASSESSMENT (Required for all non-residential site plans not serviced by public water) Was a Groundwater Assessment conducted for the existing site plan? U YES aKNO If NO and the new plans show a use using less than 2,000 gallons/day(average) I!" Tier 3 Groundwater Review=$510 If NO and the new plans show a use using greater than 2,000 gallons/day(average) ❑ Tier 4 Groundwater Review=$1,100 If YES and the use goes from using less than to more than 2,000 gallons/day(average) U Tier 4 minus Tier 3=$590 If YES and the use does not change from using less than to more than 2,000 gallons/day(average) ❑ No fee FOR OFFICE USE ONLY SDP# nr� Fee Amount$ 6/0•0 O Date Paid 12-1 11 l By who? l cool fin' Receipt# "I 7 ?Ck# j 9 Z 13y: /VC On urn 14•y Clow - County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville,VA 22902 Voice: (434)296-5832 Fax: (434)972-4126 7/16/2013 Page 1 of 2 RECEIVED 'C 0 1 701 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT • Comments/Attachments: RE (-)%% .\-Cc ivy C-01.) cOmrn1J S "9Pr7 TD - 3 - 20 2E5SEt / Owner/Applicant Must Read and Sign i Maior Amendment This major amendment as submitted contains all of the information required by Section 32.5(Initial Site Plan)and Section 32.6(Final Site Plan)of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. I understand that plans which lack information required by said sections shall be deemed incomplete and shall be denied by the agent within ten(10)days of submittal as provided in Section 32.4.2.1 or Section 32.4.3.1 as the case may be. ❑ Minor Amendment This minor amendment as submitted contains all of the information required by Section 32.5 (Initial Site Plan)and Section 32.6(Final Site Plan)of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. Placei9ls next to box you check below. I am consenting to all correspondence from Albemarle County be in any of the following forms in writing;by first class mail,by personal delivery,by fax or,by email. U I am not consenting to all correspondence from Albemarle County in the form of fax or email. 711 Les Signature of Owner,Contract Purchaser,Agent Date H- 'AA g,L.# L/ Y. g1Soo1( Print Name l) Daytime phone number of Signatory 7/16/2013 Page 2 of 2 RECEIVED ['fi 0 1 2014 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT • - ' . . . . - . . ., - - - , . ___ • ;." ' • itki ,r,rn --- 6-1.1s-s`-- 1,- el- ,!?.,..:43-- -rstp-,:r: ,,,!..Sz' g",nels ito-lil(-0,i. '.07`,. --er.,;:a.,.1---:';=..: c-gro-,gs , i.,,Alci -.la:: ...,-...,:-..covv.. _;41;64-r-,5:titgli'3;r:14..:?..-. ,tr.,64.0;t• ";'`11:', . gg . '7'1. t'R:g:. Err,tya:15Z.'.71/4t1. -c-a-lelti.'0-zd, p`,.' 'f.:- ,(-4...-0t' '.,yag' '. nr„ ttic 2,;•• z,...., -1n. .----, .n_lt.,..,.- „ ,, a,1,..,."...Tip 1:n1-5. :A4'14. -,:-.1a.: =1, ' `,,co:;-.5":, 9r4-4.0 '2=7- -.'..!-2; -R. = 7,,a,...;*.i,,v; -71.0.,;:r 4%%.44,1,A;. „,- - -c.. ...:-Tt ,t'l.c'i=v, 49= w '.. . 4- . .,,, Lm ,:r.trah,. 4,; gm, . ..:-..:.1.,,,..",-;;C*;', -Y.EL-;":P :Sr.: ;32 -n7 r-41...... `...,',Er. raat_.... E.,.." 43 illt ....;n:, ,', 1 `Ri- lira, :•-ir„ 49,:z-ti; --.4 m r. -W.17: 7.,1- 1,-.,-;54: J.,: .7,1(2:.tqlie. s, „,...:2-,,,,,;, .::.---..,4 its. -,:..,:o.2. ....9.• 7,'' .,a......,-7.= V,Ig-g,-,t2isp.:0 :tit ti-f. "40:44; ,F4 ?..14.'• ,-St: ,,"6-'- -71,...s;:a„';,4-74.,..,rar C.i• - -0i2e..,,... - -,0.4..g.:Jobtf.-4-4-:•:,*:-:.s::':-fa .,7,-. e ,--;-,g, • i!,,e2.8•:. •0,.-•so - - ."z„itai- --,z-tit--I : .,•ii- : s 5rt-t,mmta,-.:0. —,.- ,.-=', , ,e, ,,in--„-. r' ,..1/411 X•15 3': 'I - L 'it 1-t".;V:..rtlicrt5,W1.17;.;°1.",-,il.' c,.. '• ' :.t"..M- a ta. N ..a: -,:o,„ .r.i.c;:: rn- ,,...r/4 . ' .,:g3,-#tr,.'....,,,,,l, .z_ : B..aeC.,• -t., :F.:, in :4va..g.so.-1- g^"E-4.=;ii. ',19". 'a."-"a 4.--.!:-P..,7.q- rraL. "a 6.'Z.' ,^1:21/4, NI. "r; thol 1 ..... =,r" :1:41i: ' "." El --Lit!...-i9 f,•!," 'tr.'', ">..;"•*:".E.,-"=•7:1 --. `te.w., -^-."2" rt-. .. s"'"-0-eirs'' n''"'-(-; —.1=1'- - '6"B.47-':2rgjIm g , . -17-7-rs.-1"?',„-sr.',,c1--:t,,,,:58,..,1-2r-s:,fil-14",..4.4,14 .=-"„g,rt.,..0,;,...,9 -•ic -..1 .."7." 7 La rip'-'+ 1 71:L47 n 7' '7 " 7 0-1 ,.....a .,..,!-E. 4... -___-t,- 6 _ ....g•_, •„;„.4...e; , 8 • g':,,,-, : ..!-::. =,: -:: P...i ' .., O. . . - .“.:nra, 30:, -t.vo,- CL . --4-#.1, . ..........i.w. R :mi..._: --. Ac.-4 t2,„:„:tzgli;:is, , -:-4:- :at, yi,i ': -1/4'scs, gtsti! ..- .—vficki ,30fg...L..0. -.''. .,at., 122r. ' 3:,,: - -a ., .'8% .. ,, " ' 4E6 i4w.-g.i.er.r.sw,iiive a-'', .:',..st.9-ifro 4E7, 3-cr.: 41c-7tr•E,-....-iTa''°-4f1:44 ',8' 45.*- :-,a4g;-Br— Kir: , ......-in.:T+=.71.ua•,-"Ig"-4:3/-6.15:,...... ,,4,,,....„....., : :...., : ......„ ..24..,o."'-'-'':•••!!„.,....-.e...-Ar":..e."-IP.,. in 'Ifa fir' 'a- .'""---:" "&""ni !", IT, lia- "et: , '''' . '.:,.....;".4"-""...•"15''' "":1.-:-.7:4T3e"-"rt"'""1-c-'--1 iflili-Cr. 'fir:. nt.‘"7"Z#5. ai- - .",43 ' .21 2,11:6.-",:r.:1.-tat,,e,",t1R","Li,=„1.,5."'*_."...',1, fec.......ci -.!..","..-rt.]: ".'„Itr(zre,h.a' 'fiAL, 27"' f=.- IP' --ri 74. ^* , --.,„- ; ....AL' ' 7 ,,(4 !lc 7...:74'01,;"frill'I.--577'. '02 --ejr-7 :-7CTZZIL.=77 ':-.K :1'- ';'n P;27'1gi ti...'n'1'.'5' . a. . :-.4:•" 1 . 1g illriA,p2r4tit4:3::CL.2t.9g... -1a-,0_Ls.,tr, .ti -E-,-- - . . s. _ . -IL R-.. ,• .• -: i ,,..p .-.4tyk,t, gis*.:".! * hsig: . . i ai- , ._ _-,--:-„0,-.. -•,,i'',.. ::::-..-, . Eit,.--t?' i. .:," = ;t6;;;WI.-.11, t. Tricactrilo,ai :±9„:d.ci-I. - • - - ..,.da.50:-,--:•*-, g-,,L.4%ig'.4.:14;:vki:-:ri s-ttg.24.'09a7 ' t.,-7- 1.-... pg,g,,4° 0-"T4 tf:•.-.d-- or, _ ta - -..,- , ,_ _ , la • .ra.!,:.e,,,--,.77.,-_-1--,ss- ,,-4.7..,- I t P“--1, '..-§' :c3 ;" I - '1;/-4-icitig':(84n,.5- -,.tz'-:2•::-P4T1:7, „-.11:•, --,-,:t,:.r:r-0, : W, r•-''''''' 1.1,.S#';:='''"'"koa..T"T3-:Ire.:;1;70*-.E.:tz" tglirTY,gy„&v,- Ja ,,, E - , L .',...eg n 4-t.L.PA 74%11-"Zt ' ":fr '; t.X.,;.1=1.10_,;0 2--0.,52, Z..[1-1(110:-.n.:1 ItP' .,S-..; .0..,,-4:,...__ ,o-,T• ,;:-.4:-..„‘., -,71, 1, „.„. „. ,..,a-, • , „,.. t.= 2„gr): „ .,07,-. ^ ... ,,,,,g,.-.4;;,.t.7. - lit . . • ;'n,.‘" ' 5'1.1- thria;,„81- .,, c4, , -AT b-gc: :.- - rL _,..,.._ ;' '`" wAps:,-7, Vol, pe:,” •:,(2.0- .. , , • _- - _ - --, 03 BLACKWELL ENGINEERING, PLC 566 E.MARKET STREET • HARRISONBURG,VIRGINIA 22801 • (540)432-9555 FAX(540)434-7604 Transmittal Letter To: Christopher Perez, Senior Planner From: T. Basil Finnegan Albemarle County—Department of Company: Community Development Date: December 1,2014 401 McIntire Road Address: Pages: See below Charlottesville,VA 22902 Rivanna Community Church Job Name: Second Site Plan Submittal Job Number. 2346 SDP2013-56 P. Plans r Specs r Report f Proposal ✓ Letter r Calculations f Invoice r Other Items: 1. Response Letter to First Review Comments — 1 copy 2. Application for Major Site Plan Amendment— 1 copy 4r. 51414 5Gert' 3. Site Plan — 7 sets 4. Tier Ill Groundwater Assessment— 2 copies INCLUDE 5. Tier Ill Groundwater Review Fee — $510 CI 6. Site Characterization Report Addendum #3 for Kelley's Korner— 1 copy 7. Parking Study — 2 copies For Your: ✓ Approval r Use r Information r Distribution f Signature r Review r Records r Per your request Comments: Cc: Scott Knight, Pastor-Rivanna Community Church Sent Via: r US Mail )✓ Delivery I` Overnight r Email r Fax r- Pick up r Other CIVIL ENGINEERS SPECIALIZING IN LAND DEVELOPMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL NEEDS AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVING COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL AND MUNICIPAL CLIENTS Christopher Perez From: Christopher Perez Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2014 11:07 AM To: 'basil@blackwellengineering.com' Cc: Glenn Brooks; Todd Shifflett Subject: RE: Rivanna Community Church-Site Plan Resubmittal (BE#22346) Basil, The extension letter I wrote for your application had extended your site plan to Nov 30th for resubmittal. Because the 30th is a Sunday,the true deadline would be Monday Dec lst.Not to mention we are on Thanksgiving holiday starting today(Wed) at noon, and won't be back into the office till the 1st of Dec. Hope that helps clear things up. To answer your questions about submittals, see the following responses: 1)Please submit 7 copies of the revised site plan. Please submit 2 copies of the parking study.No additional fees or applications required. Just assure intake knows your SDP # and that it's a resubmittal. o answer your questions about how many copies to submit of the"SWM and E&SC calculations(30+ ges)"—You will need to make a WPO application,pay the fee, and submit the WPO plans which show(E&S plans and SWM plans) separately from the site plan. Links related to making a WPO application are provided below, which were pulled directly from our website: WPO Application Process http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/forms center/departments/Community Development/forms/apnlicatio ns/WPO_Application Process.pdf WPO Application and fees http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/forms center/departments/Community Development/forms/applicatio ns/WPO VSMP Virginia Stormwater Management Program Application.pdf Please provide 2 copies of the WPO plans for review. /) How many copies of the "Tier III Groundwater Assessment(50+pages)". it Groundwater Tier III Application is on the bottom of the site plan amendment application. Please fill this eout and submit the$510 fee. http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/forms center/departments/Community Development/forms/applicatio ns/Site Plan - Amendment Application.pdf Per discussions with Engineering please provide 2 copies of this document. Also,please be advised that Mike Koslow was the Engineer assigned to this project initially; however, as you know he's no longer with us and your project will be reassigned once received. If you have further questions about what to submit for your WPO application and or your Tier III application. Please coordinate this.with Engineering. Hope that helps. Christopher P.Perez I Senior Planner Department of Community Development'County of Albemarle,Virginia 1 401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 229t — .434 296.5832 ext.3443 From: Basil Finnegan [mailto:basilthblackwellenoineerina.com] Sent:Tuesday, November 25, 2014 4:53 PM To: Christopher Perez Subject: Rivanna Community Church - Site Plan Resubmittal (BE# 22346) Christopher, Nearing second submittal for SDP2013-56 Major Amendment to SDP84-029. How many copies of site plan(7 sheets), SWM and E&SC calculations (30+pages), Tier III Groundwater Assessment(50+pages),parking study, etc., shall we send? • Regards, 7. (Basil Finnegan Senior Designer Blackwell Engineering, PLC 540-432-9555 (Office) 540-434-7604 (Fax) www.blackwellengineering.com 2 Christopher Perez From: Michael Koslow Sent: Friday, October 25, 2013 2:25 PM To: sorokeps@aol.com Cc: Christopher Perez Subject: Rivanna Community Church-groundwater assessment requirements Per our conversation today, please see p.3 of the county's Design Standard Manual for the requirements for Tier 1-4 Groundwater assessments. Thanks; Cordially, Michael Michael Koslow, PE County of Albemarle Community Development Department 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville,VA 22902 434-296-5832 ext.3297 434-972-4126(fax) mkoslow@albemarle.org 1 41IM XJ©.rr . COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville,Virginia 229024596 Phone(434)296-5832 - Fax(434)972-4126 Project: Rivanna Community Church—Major SDP201300056 Plan preparer: Blackwell Engineering,PLC [fax 540-434-7604] Owner or rep.: Rivanna Community Church Plan received date: 22.October 2013 Date of comments: 2 December 2013 Reviewer: Michael Koslow Review coordinator: Chris Perez The first major amendment to the final site plan and comps submittal(SDP201300056) submitted 17 October 2013 has received Engineering Review and does not appear to meet Albemarle County minimum checklist items for approval. This review does not include a review of Erosion& Sediment Control,Mitigation, or Stormwater Management. Please adequately address the following comments for final site plan approval: A. Existing Conditions Information 1) Please include a benchmark location, elevation, and datum for topography. An existing utility or other known position such as DI near existing entrance shown at elevation 630.0 will suffice if noted with elevation to nearest hundredth of a foot. 2) Three access easements are shown on sheet 1. Please clarify if these are existing or proposed access easements. If they are existing easements,please indicate the deed book and page number for them. If they are proposed easements,please indicate as much on the plans. 3) Please clarify owner names for parcels 31A-1 and 31-32. Plans indicate the owner names are Whyte's Supermarket and Earlsville Green respectively. However, County GISWeb indicates the owner names are Roger W.Perkins and Steve&Kathy Hood et als Trustees Rivanna Community Church respectively. 4) Existing topography appears out of date and does not include existing utility lines. Per site visit on 11/11/2013,updated topography was given to the church from adjacent property owner. Recommend including this topography with future submittals. Missing topo items include riprap for 18"outlet pipe to existing dry detention pond, screening trees on the east side of the property,and fence adjacent to existing auto repair shop adjacent to church's parking lot. Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 3 B. Proposed Plan View Information 1) A minimum of 10 ac of contributing drainage area is needed for a permanent pool facility. Recommend changing facility type to dry detention pond(this would be a requirement for stormwater management plan review)or a modification of the existing dry pond with a shared maintenance agreement among contributing property owners. 2) Please propose a stormwater management easement for proposed stormwater management facility and access roads to it(see also comment B 1). 3) Please propose a temporary grading easement or written VDOT permission for proposed entrance closure. 4) Existing parking area appears to include spaces on a slope greater than 5%. Please provide a re-graded parking lot or an exception request to review coordinator. 5) Please indicate all existing and proposed storm sewers. 6) Please label all existing drainage structures with a unique number for calculations and reference. 7) Please provide a manufacturers detail for all non-VDOT standard inlets(appears to apply to structure its 4 and 5)on plans. For maintenance purposes,the county prefers domed grates. C. Drainage Profiles 1) Please provide drainage profiles for all proposed drainage structures and pipes. Please indicate all existing and proposed utility crossings under or over proposed pipes on drainage profiles. 2) Please indicate proposed end sections and outlet protection for all proposed pipe outlets on drainage profiles and in plan view. D. Drainage Computations 1) Please include drainage maps and computations for existing structures proposed to accept drainage from shared parking areas proposed. 2) Please include hydrologic coefficients and times of concentration for all existing and proposed site drainage areas on drainage area map. • • 1 Engineering Review Comments Page3of3 E. Tier III Groundwater Assessment 1) Per p.3 from the County's Design Standards Manual,please supplement the provided Envrionmental Site Assessment to include item#s: Id)A graphics section containing surrounding property 1000 ft beyond property lines with wells and septic system locations If)A graphic depiction of groundwater recharge areas and flow. 2g)A narrative containing groundwater management plan addressing practices during and after construction,in addition to a contingency plan if wells dry up or become contaminated. Current Development Engineering is available from 2:30-4 PM on Thursdays to discuss these review comments. Please contact Michael Koslow at 434-296-5832 ext. 3297 or email mkoslow@albemarle.org to schedule an appointment. ,l C .. _ac c ..t.310 CC 02tri ry WI'FI { r' 3F +: - n c iy'i'fat eh. ,€«I,.r 1%. saY5,11i ..a:tAl Y1aC.isi;t:< S.)I.,..:-v3 H rr.2_f n r3 lei el '0 r A.OF A 111 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road,North Wing Charlottesville,Virginia 22902-4596 Phone(434)296-5832 Fax (434)972-4126 May 30,2014 6001 (( A).,) .3� Scott Knight 601 Earlysville Green _-- Earlysville VA 22936 Re: SDP201300056—Rivanna Community Church-Major Dear Scott: You requested via e-mail on May 27,2014 to defer your project for the six(6)month time period,in order to submit revised plans for SDP201300056—Rivanna Community Church.The Site Plan Ordinance was amended in 2012,and became effective January 1,2013.This amendment limits the amount of time an applicant has to respond to comments provided by the County. Section 32.4.3.5(a)of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance states: "Request to defer by developer.A developer may request that review or action on its application for a final site plan be deferred for a specified period up to six(6)months.If during the deferral period the developer does not request the agent to take action on the final site plan as provided in section 32.4.3.6 within six(6)months after the date the deferral was requested, the application shall be deemed to have been voluntarily withdrawn" Section 32.4.3.5(b)of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance states: "If a developer fails to submit a revised final site plan to address all of the requirements within six(6)months after the date of the letter from the agent as provided in section 32.4.3.4, the application shall be deemed to have been voluntarily withdrawn by the developer." Based on your attached request and our knowledge of the project,we understand that additional time is needed to address outstanding issues with the plan.I trust this 6 month deferral will enable you to complete the work necessary to bring SDP201300056 to final approval.Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions. Sincerely, Christopher P.Perez,Senior Planner Christopher Perez From: Scott Knight[sknightrivanna@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 2:19 PM To: Christopher Perez Subject: Re: Rivanna Community Church Project Questions Chris, Hope you had a great holiday weekend. Just checking in to see if we need to do anything in order to obtain an extension of our Site Plan Revision and who we needed to talk to regarding a temporary trailer. Thanks very much, Scott On Thu, May 22,2014 at 8:57 AM, Scott Knight<sknightrivanna@u,gmail.com>wrote: Chris, Thanks so much for your time on the phone. As we discussed,we are looking for some kind of extension,no longer than 6 months,to submit our revised final site plan in response to the comments given to us on 12/3/2013. Is there something that we need to do in order acquire an extension? Would you also please let me know who I need to talk to regarding a temporary trailer to accommodate some Sunday School classrooms and an office. We plan to have electricity to the building,but we will not need plumbing as we have other facilities on the property. Finally, would you please pass along Glen Brooks contact information. Thanks again, Scott This message was composed with voice recognition software. Please excuse the brevity and any spelling or grammar errors? i Christopher Perez From: Scott Knight [sknightrivanna©gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 27. 2014 2:19 PM • To: Christopher Perez Subject: Re: Rivanna Community Church Project Questions Chris, Hope you had a great holiday weekend. Just checking in to see if we need to-. . ...AAMIt+; _._!er to obtain an extension of our Site Plan Revision and who we nee. -. . el to regarding a temporary trailer. Thanks very much, Scott On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 8:57 AM, Scott Knight<skni.htrivanna ail.co ote: Chris, Thanks so much for your time on the phone. As we discussed,we - ooking for some kind of extension,no longer than 6 months,to submit our revised final site plan in - ponse to the comments given to us on 12/3/2013. Is there something that we need to do in or. acquire an extension? Would you also please let me know who I nee. . talk to regarding a temporary trailer to accommodate some Sunday School classrooms and an office. W' plan to have electricity to the building, but we will not need plumbing as we have other facilities on t property. Finally, would you please pass along f len Brooks contact information. Thanks again, Scott ‘,/, s �,rA` . / sib I. or-it k43 Sfs `1. C This message was composed with voice recognition so are. Please excuse the brevity and any spelling or grammar errors? I itriar\ LI ‘fr^ Acti- ott—)s 1 Christopher Perez From: Michael Koslow Sent: Friday, December 06, 2013 12:27 PM To: Basil Finnegan Cc: Christopher Perez Subject: Rivanna Community Church -items identified at SRC meeting 12/5/2013 Attachments: Estimated Groundwater Flow Direction Map.pdf; Tier Ill Report.pdf; CDDE1 _MAJ_MAK_SDP201300056_Rivanna_Com munity_Chu rch_Major.doc Hi Basil, Per the site review committee meeting for the church yesterday,please see the following information: 1) For Site plan amendment approval, owner will also need Water Protection Ordinance WPO laps which delineate the Erosion& Sediment Control plan and the Stormwater Management(quality and quantity management)plan. The application is here. Please note, we will not process an initial WPO application without the owner's signature. Unlike the site plan amendment process,the WPO plan review requires an application and fee for each submittal. If your office would prefer to meet prior to submitting to coordinate the items needed for WPO approval,we typically setup meetings on Thursday afternoons from 2-4:30. We could also coordinate �aphone or skype meeting if you'd prefer to save the travel time. —Do c Cetit4fr,, e,,_ .> Lis-1 > .. /T help with preparation of the revisions for the Tier III Groundwater Assessment, I've attached an ( )Fo xample of a previously approved Tier III Groundwater Assessment for Houndstooth subdivision. In this case,they were initially missing the groundwater recharge map (item 1 f from the requirements identified on p. 3 of the Design Standards Manual). The applicant followed up with the map(hence two attachments). 3) Regarding the parking lot slope requirement,the appli,.hie node is 1 R-4.12.15.c. Per that section of code, it appears that up to 6 parking spaces are non-cc However,after discussing this with Chris Perez, we b cing lot slopes after receipt of updated topo and the parkin after review of them this comment(see item B4 from revie __ .ger apply. 9V9 mL,41...Ali,vIc is-l Cordially, Michael I 1l y -/I/L. 5 pllt n Michael Koslow, PE County of Albemarle L,,,.,, Community Development Department K /i ec 1 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 434-296-5832 ext. 3297 434-972-4126 (fax) mkoslow@albemarle.org , _.,'D 913 1 3 -56- f) (,) f),to/6k i6vv,,,,s., LID,,,,Ai 1 n1�� ,1 I � �� e / �c%5 • Christopher Perez From: Christopher Perez Sent: Friday. December 20, 2013 8:50 AM To: 'BE@blackwellEngineering.com'; 'basil@blackwellengineering.com'; 4. 'ed@blackwellengineering.com' Subject: RE: Major Site Plan for Rivanna Community Church_SDP201300056 Attachments: Soil Reports Rivanna Community Church .pdf Basil, Attached is the Soil Report for the Rivanna Community Church property from Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District.This file was incorrectly attached to another project under review by the county,when that reviewer looked at their file they found this soil report. Sorry for the delay. No action is needed,this document is provided for your records. Christopher P.Perez I Senior Planner Department of Community Development'County of Albemarle,Virginia 401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext.3443 1 • RWWNR Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District 706 Forest St, Ste G Charlottesville, VA 22903 975-0224 Nov 18, 2013 TO: Christopher Perez Planning Department RE: Soils Report for: Rivanna Community Church Rivanna Community Church 4133 31A-QA-14� 515 7-31A--`-31 I 31-47C2 �� 790 �37-47B31 31. Legend 31-35 4230 �/�/ 31A--OA-26 ,/ 665 31A--OC-11740 t �// 4106 �-- 650 �1 T� Note Some Items on map may not appear legend) /31A-0A-631A--OA-30 / T4 j \ '�,,31A--0C-3 C' 31-47 ` ' 31A--0A-27 V' © Robe,-- 4136 V `�31A--QC-10 O / 94220 31A--0A-297/ , , /' 4113 64031A--OC-4r ��i. 745 / � ,'."" 31-12 31A QA 5 �, � � Q-� liNow. 31-34 4210 4205 645 31A--0C-9„ �� 31A--00-5 7•F:REST'n31A--0A-431A--0A 28 3`1A--QC-S 720 <+ 7 v"LR' i"ao"°"°"® nO `31A--OA-3 `,, \ �Q „31A--OD-4 i;'•FL` B c \/ ' 3v /\ 620 k 63531A--QC 6 \ +-\ 'P 4091 31A-0A`2 / 31A :OC-8714 ?757w$ 4094 /\ 610 625 ? /�'g` pQ 318-27 31-12A 31A--OA-1\ o a<b OC 7 700 715 �'/ 7g5 805 60 0 615 �� 31 A-0 D-2; ------ Q y 4170 / ` 4155\ % (1 ��. \ 605 05 31A--08/ 4160 3`\4--OD-1 31A--0B-1 31A--0B-6 , 4200 31-14H \ 4150@ { 31g-3 1 4082 31A-A600 ,P,/ 4190 49 j' 31 B-2 31 B-4 � ' r� �` 720 31-32609 7 /f !� jQ0? 5`??, 31B-1 �s� 4185 // 4036 `4 // , 4y 4‘ 31 B-5 31-14 '`Eartysville PastFO:ffiice O,q. 9Y,- �J� ry TM: 31 40183'-1413�Y,318C4'�i O'. ‘�,<. IQ>" 4175 0 4006 C ) 690+ 'L 31B-6 r 31-1403 1731-15 . �42i 31B-C1-101+ 31B-B 500 rr, 505 31-14J� � '<'y ,; 695 SLR , -1F 77 '0 660 �2&� /.....„,,,,,,,....,,,....:„.318 B-7 4110 510 {- 31-14D4 i 31-14D1 yC 5254100tc` p1O. O3t r .4 �.t k,//// Off,. �{, ,. S 0 CI �U 31-16 520 wP 31 B-A 'r.�"ISO '� A II rill 1 31-14D -_ -'f// 743 31-16B 31-14C 126 368 ft 31-60 - I 4E A ; ✓1=1 / s c�©� Geographic DataGIS-Web Services 31-86 a vww.albemana.o g 31-85 11` (434)2965832 4000 „ Mau s for Display Purposes Only•Panal Imagery from the Commonwealth of Wpm and Other Sources November 18,2013 . 3 Soil Map—Albemarle County,Virginia 4 (Rivanna Community Church) iN R0910 771H30 721950 727970 720990 771010 R1030 721050 n1o70 n1o90 ;ONp} a �� `t E., q'' $ ` J*"t{}�"`„1,S t :.4 a4. § ,, °. . 'B- i .4 `f L i s a "S'+. 1 S" ti,_ win .* yr4�` , &. :.pr_€“. 4, a t � A• < A xr # r 4.•+' '' *6 :,S.yg °b-"mot }i,b • x 8 Ja. ar r vp-_ _•- r : r R y{-�� ♦ 4r t s a '4b r � x A'L 1: ' eta 'MI, .5, ', 8 .: ;' ., , . f y4+y�'p _�a� ", w ‘N.:: pit, figr,. Yp •.ter �` 4 _g�+A stb. At) . +`' I: 0 0-,".., 'n . k ��..pp i t) 1,: Six ^ ast • I!'fn"_ +° Pry -$1.1.7t " ,. •¢,r : „ ne.- .e,.. ' .y ' n 4 ktiRq,, ,�ys,@n f 3.'9ir ° ; ! „ ! �' Y dry as r , 0 ,•' W#^ +q 4 r . 43 o- Y .'rn xi 'X,!M'DC ar 7 t'*v,� t, -a, �q. ,$syb n "v ¢F .. RW 01. r iti uiA "Lyz F # j x�y ° ` o <�'� _• ti • � y•1.0 I..t. k r. ( �aa . .� ' r fir"`— * kr"'F'1 w 4 7 l .'' + .. ' 11., aN%1`N _ xN i fi. Lo . . ''.a" - 720910 72930 770950 70970 7209% 721010 721030 21050 721070 721090 3 N Map Sak:1:1,130 iprhtei on Alan ape(11"x8.5wsheet Meters 90 N. 0 15 30 fi0 A 0 100 200 W 3 Map pro jem50on:Web Maatar canewmadinates:WG554 Edge des:UlM Zane 17N WGS84 USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey a Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey • Soil Map—Albemarle County,Virginia (Rivanna Community Church) MAP LEGEND MAP INFOF Arear�-of� Interest(AOI) Spoil Area The soil surveys that comprise your I 1 Area of Interest(AOI) Stony Spot soils Warning:Soil Map may not be valid • Very Stony Spot I Soil Map Unit Polygons Enlargement of maps beyond the si O. Wet Spot misunderstanding of the detail of m; ,Fly Soil Map Unit Lines placement.The maps do not show p Other Soil Map Unit Points soils that could have been shown a Special Line Features Special Point Features .�, Please rely on the bar scale on eac to, Blowout Water Features measurements. Streams and Canals ci Borrow Pit Source of Map: Natural Resource Transportation. Web Soil Survey URL: http://web Clay Spot 444 Rails Coordinate System: Web Mercab 0 Closed Depression ti Interstate Highways Maps from the Web Soil Survey are X Gravel Pit O US Routes projection,which preserves directio distance and area.A projection that Gravelly Spot Major Roads Albers equal-area conic projection,: 4' Landfill p-.. calculations of distance or area are c:J Local Roads A. Lava Flow Background This product is generated from the l the version date(s)listed below. • Marsh or swamp „t Aerial Photography Soil Survey Area: Albemarle Cou • Mine or 0uarry Survey Area Data: Version 9,Jar @ Miscellaneous Water Soil map units are labeled(as space Perennial Water or larger. v Rock Outcrop Date(s)aerial images were photogr 2011 Saline Spot Sandy Spot The orthophoto or other base map compiled and digitized probably diff Severely Eroded Spot imagery displayed on these maps., of map unit boundaries may be evic • Sinkhole 31) Slide or Slip rf Sodic Spot USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey as Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey • Map Unit Description(Brief,Generated)—Albemarle County,Virginia Rivanna Community Church Map Unit Description (Brief, Generated) The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area.The map unit descriptions in this report, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit. A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils. The Map Unit Description (Brief, Generated) report displays a generated description of the major soils that occur in a map unit. Descriptions of non-soil (miscellaneous areas) and minor map unit components are not included.This description is generated from the underlying soil attribute data. Additional information about the map units described in this report is available in other Soil Data Mart reports, which give properties of the soils and the limitations, capabilities, and potentials for many uses.Also,the narratives that accompany the Soil Data Mart reports define some of the properties included in the map unit descriptions. Report—Map Unit Description (Brief, Generated) Albemarle County, Virginia Map Unit: 36B—Hayesville loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes Component: Hayesville (80%) The Hayesville component makes up 80 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 2 to 7 percent. This component is on hillslopes, piedmonts. The parent material consists of residuum weathered from granite and gneiss. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches.The natural drainage class is well drained.Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is high.Shrink-swell potential is low.This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 2 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 2e. This soil does not meet hydric criteria. Map Unit: 36C—Hayesville loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 11/19/2013 i Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 2 • Map Unit Description(Brief,Generated)—Albemarle County,Virginia Rivanna Community Church Component: Hayesville (80%) The Hayesville component makes up 80 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 7 to 15 percent. This component is on hillslopes, piedmonts. The parent material consists of residuum weathered from granite and gneiss. Depth to a root restrictive • layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is well drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high.Available water to a depth of 60 inches is high. Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 2 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 4e. This soil does not meet hydric criteria. Data Source Information Soil Survey Area: Albemarle County, Virginia Survey Area Data: Version 9, Jan 20, 2010 USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 11/19/2013 is Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 2 • Dwellings and Small Commercial Buildings—Albemarle County,Virginia Rivanna Community Church . Dwellings and Small Commercial Buildings Soil properties influence the development of building sites, including the selection of the site,the design of the structure,construction,performance after construction, and maintenance.This table shows the degree and kind of soil limitations that affect dwellings and small commercial buildings. The ratings in the table are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect building site development. Not limited indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for the specified use. Good performance and very low maintenance can be expected. Somewhat limited indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and moderate maintenance can be expected. Very limited indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use.The limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive installation procedures. Poor performance and high maintenance can be expected. Numerical ratings in the table indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00). Dwellings are single-family houses of three stories or less. For dwellings without basements, the foundation is assumed to consist of spread footings of reinforced concrete built on undisturbed soil at a depth of 2 feet or at the depth of maximum frost penetration, whichever is deeper. For dwellings with basements, the foundation is assumed to consist of spread footings of reinforced concrete built on undisturbed soil at a depth of about 7 feet. The ratings for dwellings are based on the soil properties that affect the capacity of the soil to support a load without movement and on the properties that affect excavation and construction costs.The properties that affect the load-supporting capacity include depth to a water table, ponding, flooding, subsidence, linear extensibility (shrink-swell potential), and compressibility. Compressibility is inferred from the Unified classification. The properties that affect the ease and amount of excavation include depth to a water table, ponding, flooding, slope, depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, hardness of bedrock or a cemented pan, and the amount and size of rock fragments. Small commercial buildings are structures that are less than three stories high and do not have basements. The foundation is assumed to consist of spread footings of reinforced concrete built on undisturbed soil at a depth of 2 feet or at the depth of maximum frost penetration, whichever is deeper. The ratings are based on the soil properties that affect the capacity of the soil to support a load without movement and on the properties that affect excavation and construction costs.The properties that affect the load-supporting capacity include depth to a water table, ponding, flooding, subsidence, linear extensibility (shrink-swell potential), and compressibility(which is inferred from the Unified classification).The properties that affect the ease and amount of excavation include flooding, depth to a water table, ponding, slope, depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, hardness of bedrock or a cemented pan, and the amount and size of rock fragments. USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 11/19/2013 a Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 2 • Dwellings and Small Commercial Buildings—Aioemare County,Virginia Rivanna Community Church Information in this table is intended for land use planning, for evaluating land use alternatives, and for planning site investigations prior to design and construction. The information, however, has limitations. For example, estimates and other data generally apply only to that part of the soil between the surface and a depth of 5 to 7 feet. Because of the map scale, small areas of different soils may be included within the mapped areas of a specific soil. The information is not site specific and does not eliminate the need for onsite investigation of the soils or for testing and analysis by personnel experienced in the design and construction of engineering works. Government ordinances and regulations that restrict certain land uses or impose specific design criteria were not considered in preparing the information in this table. Local ordinances and regulations should be considered in planning, in site selection, and in design. Report—Dwellings and Small Commercial Buildings [Onsite investigation may be needed to validate the interpretations in this table and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site.The numbers in the value columns range from 0.01 to 1.00. The larger the value, the greater the potential limitation. The table shows only the top five limitations for any given soil. The soil may have additional limitations] g . _, --' Dwellings and Small Commercial Buildings—Albemarle County,'Virginia Map symbol and soil Pct.of Dwellings without basements' Dwellings with basements Small commercial buildings name rnap .. _. unit Rating class and Value Rating,class and Value Rating class and Value limiting features limiting features - limiting features 36B—Hayesville . . ... _.. _ ... loam,2 to 7 percent slopes Hayesville 80 Not limited Not limited Somewhat limited Slope 0.13 36C—Hayesville loam,7 to 15 percent slopes Hayesville 60 Somewhat limited Somewhat limited Very limited Slope 0.37 Slope 0.37 Slope 1.00 Data Source Information Soil Survey Area: Albemarle County, Virginia Survey Area Data: Version 9, Jan 20, 2010 USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 11/19/2013 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soli Survey Page 2 of 2 I Roads and Streets,Shallow Excavations,and Lawns and Landscaping—Albemarle County, Rivanna Community Church Virginia Lawns and landscaping require soils on which turf and ornamental trees and shrubs can be established and maintained. Irrigation is not considered in the ratings. The ratings are based on the soil properties that affect plant growth and trafficability after vegetation is established.The properties that affect plant growth are reaction; depth to a water table; ponding; depth to bedrock or a cemented pan;the available water capacity in the upper 40 inches; the content of salts, sodium, or calcium carbonate; and sulfidic materials. The properties that affect trafficability are flooding,depth to a water table, ponding,slope,stoniness, and the amount of sand, clay, or organic matter in the surface layer. Information in this table is intended for land use planning, for evaluating land use alternatives, and for planning site investigations prior to design and construction. The information, however, has limitations. For example, estimates and other data generally apply only to that part of the soil between the surface and a depth of 5 to 7 feet. Because of the map scale, small areas of different soils may be included within the mapped areas of a specific soil. The information is not site specific and does not eliminate the need for onsite investigation of the soils or for testing and analysis by personnel experienced in the design and construction of engineering works. Government ordinances and regulations that restrict certain land uses or impose specific design criteria were not considered in preparing the information in this table. Local ordinances and regulations should be considered in planning, in site selection, and in design. Report—Roads and Streets, Shallow Excavations, and Lawns and Landscaping [Onsite investigation may be needed to validate the interpretations in this table and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site.The numbers in the value columns range from 0.01 to 1.00. The larger the value, the greater the potential limitation. The table shows only the top five limitations for any given soil. The soil may have additional limitations] Roads and Streets,Shallow Excavations,and Lawns and Landscaping—Albemarle County,Virginia Map symbol and soil PcL of Local roads and streets Shallow excavations Lawns and landscaping name map unit Rating class and Value Rating class and Value Rating class and Value limiting features limiting features .limiting features 36B—Hayesville loam,2 to 7 percent slopes Hayesville 80 Somewhat limited Somewhat limited Not limited Frost action 0.50 Cutbanks cave 0.10 Low strength 0.08 USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 11/19/2013 a Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 3 • • Roads and Streets,Shallow Excavations,and Lawns and Landscaping—Albemarle County, Rivanna Community Church _ Virginia Roads and Streets,Shallow Excavations,and Lawns and Landscaping—Albemarle County,Virginia Map symbol and soil Pct.of Local roads and streets Shallow excavations Lawns and landscaping name ,map •" " •• unit Rating',class and Value Rating class'and - Value Rating class and Value limiting features limiting features limiting features 36C—Hayesville loam,7 to 15 percent slopes Hayesville 80 Somewhat limited Somewhat limited Somewhat limited Frost action 0.50! Slope 0.37 Slope 0.37 Slope 0.37 Cutbanks cave 0.10 Low strength 0.08 Data Source Information Soil Survey Area: Albemarle County, Virginia Survey Area Data: Version 9, Jan 20, 2010 USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 11/19/2013 a Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3 • Sewage Disposal—Albemarle County,Virginia Rivanna Community Church Saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat)is a critical property affecting the suitability for sewage lagoons. Most porous soils eventually become sealed when they are used as sites for sewage lagoons. Until sealing occurs, however, the hazard of pollution is severe. Soils that have a Ksat rate of more than 14 micrometers per second are too porous for the proper functioning of sewage lagoons. In these soils, seepage of the effluent can result in contamination of the ground water. Ground- water contamination is also a hazard if fractured bedrock is within a depth of 40 inches, if the water table is high enough to raise the level of sewage in the lagoon, or if floodwater overtops the lagoon. A high content of organic matter is detrimental to proper functioning of the lagoon because it inhibits aerobic activity. Slope, bedrock, and cemented pans can cause construction problems, and large stones can hinder compaction of the lagoon floor. If the lagoon is to be uniformly deep throughout, the slope must be gentle enough and the soil material must be thick enough over bedrock or a cemented pan to make land smoothing practical. Information in this table is intended for land use planning, for evaluating land use alternatives, and for planning site investigations prior to design and construction. The information, however, has limitations. For example, estimates and other data generally apply only to that part of the soil between the surface and a depth of 5 to 7 feet. Because of the map scale, small areas of different soils may be included within the mapped areas of a specific soil. The information is not site specific and does not eliminate the need for onsite investigation of the soils or for testing and analysis by personnel experienced in the design and construction of engineering works. Government ordinances and regulations that restrict certain land uses or impose specific design criteria were not considered in preparing the information in this table. Local ordinances and regulations should be considered in planning, in site selection, and in design. Report—Sewage Disposal [Onsite investigation may be needed to validate the interpretations in this table and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site. The numbers in the value columns range from 0.01 to 1.00. The larger the value, the greater the potential limitation. The table shows only the top five limitations for any given soil. The soil may have additional limitations] Sewage Disposal—Albemarle County,Virginia Map symbol and soil name Pct.of Septic tank absorption fields Sewage lagoons map unit - - ---- - Rating class and limiting Value Rating class and limiting Value features features 36B—Hayesville loam,2 to 7 percent slopes Hayesville 80 Very limited Somewhat limited Seepage,bottom layer 1.00 Slope 0.68 Slow water movement 0.50 Seepage 0.50 US„�D. Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 11/19/2013 a Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 3 • • Sewage Disposal—Albemarle County,Virginia Rivanna Community Church Sewage Disposal—Albemarle County,Virginia Map symbol andsoil name Pct.of Septic tank absorption fields Sewage lagoons map unit, .. . ;�• Rating class and limiting Value. Rating class and limiting Value :. . ., •.: features ,^. -; features 36C—Hayesville loam,7 to 15 percent slopes Hayesville 80 Very limited Very limited Seepage,bottom layer 1.00 Slope 1.00 Slow water movement 0.50 Seepage 0.50 Slope 0.37 Data Source Information Soil Survey Area: Albemarle County, Virginia Survey Area Data: Version 9, Jan 20, 2010 • USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 11/19/2013 a Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3 Physical Soil Properties—Albemarle County,Virginia Report—Physical Soil Properties Physical Soil Properties—Albemarle County,Virginia Map symbol Depth Sand Silt Clay Moist Saturated Available Linear Organic Erosiorj and soil name ;:. bulk hydraulic ;iwater extensibility matter factors density conductivitycapacity Kw Kf In Pct Pot Pct g/cc micro m/sec In/In Pot Pot 36B— Hayesville loam,2 to 7 percent slopes Hayesville 0-7 -43- -40- 10-18-25 1.35-1.60 14.00-42.00 0.12-0.20 0.0-2.9 1.0-3.0 .20 .20 • 7-58 -30- -30- 30-40-50 1.20-1.35 4.00-14.00 0.15-0.20 0.0-2.9 0.5-1.0 .24 .24 58-67 -56- -15- 20-30-40 1.30-1.40 4.00-14.00 0.12-0.20 0.0-2.9 0.0-0.5 .20 .20 67-83 -69- -16- 5-15-25 1.45-1.65 14.00-42.00 0.11-0.15 0.0-2.9 0.0-0.5 .17 .17 36C— Hayesville loam,7 to 15 percent slopes Hayesville 0-7 -43- -40- 10-18-25 1.35-1.60 14.00-42.00 0.12-0.20 0.0-2.9 1.0-3.0 .20 .20 • 7-58 -30- -30- 30-40-50 1.20-1.35 4.00-14.00 0.15-0.20 0.0-2.9 0.5-1.0 .24 .24 58-67 -56- -15- 20-30-40 1.30-1.40 4.00-14.00 0.12-0.20 0.0-2.9 0.0-0.5 .20 .20 67-83 -69- -16- 5-15-25 1.45-1.65 14.00-42.00 0.11-0.15 0.0-2.9 0.0-0.5 .17 .17 Data Source Information Soil Survey Area: Albemarle County, Virginia Survey Area Data: Version 9, Jan 20, 2010 USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey a Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey • Physical Soil Properties—Albemarle County,Virginia Rivanna Community Church , Erosion factor T is an estimate of the maximum average annual rate of soil erosion by wind and/or water that can occur without affecting crop productivity over a sustained period. The rate is in tons per acre per year. Wind erodibility groups are made up of soils that have similar properties affecting their susceptibility to wind erosion in cultivated areas. The soils assigned to group 1 are the most susceptible to wind erosion, and those assigned to group 8 are the least susceptible. The groups are described in the"National Soil Survey Handbook." Wind erodibility index is a numerical value indicating the susceptibility of soil to wind erosion,or the tons per acre per year that can be expected to be lost to wind erosion. There is a close correlation between wind erosion and the texture of the surface layer, the size and durability of surface clods, rock fragments, organic matter, and a calcareous reaction. Soil moisture and frozen soil layers also influence wind erosion. Reference: United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. (http://soils.usda.gov) • • USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 11/19/2013 a Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 4 • P 11, • Soil Features—Albemarle County,Virginia Rivanna Community Church , • Soil Features This table gives estimates of various soil features. The estimates are used in land use planning that involves engineering considerations. A restrictive layer is a nearly continuous layer that has one or more physical, chemical, or thermal properties that significantly impede the movement of water and air through the soil or that restrict roots or otherwise provide an unfavorable root environment. Examples are bedrock, cemented layers, dense layers, and frozen layers.The table indicates the hardness and thickness of the restrictive layer, both of which significantly affect the ease of excavation. Depth to top is the vertical distance from the soil surface to the upper boundary of the restrictive layer. Subsidence is the settlement of organic soils or of saturated mineral soils of very low density. Subsidence generally results from either desiccation and shrinkage, or oxidation of organic material,or both,following drainage.Subsidence takes place gradually, usually over a period of several years. The table shows the expected initial subsidence,which usually is a result of drainage,and total subsidence,which results from a combination of factors. Potential for frost action is the likelihood of upward or lateral expansion of the soil caused by the formation of segregated ice lenses(frost heave)and the subsequent collapse of the soil and loss of strength on thawing. Frost action occurs when moisture moves into the freezing zone of the soil. Temperature, texture, density, saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat), content of organic matter, and depth to the water table are the most important factors considered in evaluating the potential for frost action. It is assumed that the soil is not insulated by vegetation or snow and is not artificially drained. Silty and highly structured, clayey soils that have a high water table in winter are the most susceptible to frost action. Well drained, very gravelly, or very sandy soils are the least susceptible. Frost heave and low soil strength during thawing cause damage to pavements and other rigid structures. Risk of corrosion pertains to potential soil-induced electrochemical or chemical action that corrodes or weakens uncoated steel or concrete. The rate of corrosion of uncoated steel is related to such factors as soil moisture, particle-size distribution, acidity, and electrical conductivity of the soil.The rate of corrosion of concrete is based mainly on the sulfate and sodium content, texture, moisture content,and acidity of the soil.Special site examination and design may be needed if the combination of factors results in a severe hazard of corrosion. The steel or concrete in installations that intersect soil boundaries or soil layers is more susceptible to corrosion than the steel or concrete in installations that are entirely within one kind of soil or within one soil layer. For uncoated steel, the risk of corrosion, expressed as low, moderate, or high, is based on soil drainage class, total acidity, electrical resistivity near field capacity, and electrical conductivity of the saturation extract. For concrete, the risk of corrosion also is expressed as low, moderate, or high. It is based on soil texture, acidity, and amount of sulfates in the saturation extract. USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 11/19/2013 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 2 Soil Features—Albemarle County,Virginia Report—Soil Features + s '" • ` ' "6 Soil Features=Albemarle'.County,•Virginia - ' Map symbol and Restrictive Layer Subsidence Potential for frost soil name action " .Kind ,° Depth to Thickness Hardness Initial Total Unco top ., - In In In In 36B—Hayesville loam,2 to 7 percent slopes Hayesville — — — — Moderate Modera 36C—Hayesville loam,7 to 15 percent slopes Hayesville — — — — Moderate Modera Data Source Information Soil Survey Area: Albemarle County, Virginia Survey Area Data: Version 9, Jan 20, 2010 USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey a Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey �i .� I 4 0,,, . , .„...,...., s -,,,,eik. u„-cti.,..: 4 i�� COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE `,,, D partment of Community Development .. 401 McIntire Road,North Wing 818 1 n- ,,,,I lek5 Charlottesville,Virginia 22902-4596 Phone 4)296-5832 Fax(434)972-4126 - 12-03-13 Ed Blackwell 566 East Market Street Harrisonburg VA 22801 RE: SDP-201300056 Rivanna Community Church—Major Site Plan Amendment Mr. Blackwell: Your Major Amendment application has been reviewed. In front of each comment 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 order for the amended site plan to be approved the following revisions are required: 1. [Comment] SRC notification fees. It appears that the applicant neglected to pay the SRC �i notficiation fee prior to the SRC meeting. Please pay the required SRC notification fee of it\,Vs\3 $200.'No further review of the plan will comense till the fee is paid. 2. [32.5.1(a),32.5.2(a)] The site plan needs to be printed with black or blue ink, not color. This requirement is noted in the ordinance and assures reductions and copies can be easily made. Revise the plan to be printed in blue or black ink, not in.color. 3. [32.5.2 (a); 32.5.2 (e)] General information. Within the site plan provide an existing conditions sheet that depicts the entire parcel and all existing conditions separate from the proposed modifications sheet. Revise. 4. [32.6.2(k)] The approved final site plan for this site, SDP84-029 Earlysville Green Dentist Office Site Plan, depicts the existing lighting onsite. Thus no lighting plan shall be required for the existing site lighting as all lighting shown on the current site plan under review had previously been depicted and approved on a previously approved final site plan. The existing lighting shall remain on the site plan as depicted. . If site lighting is being proposed to be modified to include any additional lighting being added, or existing lighting being relocated to new locations on the site, or modifications to existing lighting(other than removal of lights),then a lighting plan shall be required. During our recent discussions the applicant asked about wall lighting for the new buildings (pack lighting)...etc. Currently the site plan does not depict any proposed wall • -lighting.If wall lighting is proposed,.please depict it on the plan. Also on the plan 1 • provide the cut sheets from the manufacturer's catalog for these fixtures. The cut sheet should clearly show the lumen levels of the fixture. If a lioght fixture is 3000 lumens or above the fixture is required to be full-cutoff. Regardless of the lighting type,the cut- sheet should provide a diagram of the light type, fixture type/style, wattage, tilt, color/finish, lumen levels and a diagram of how far and what direction the light is visible. If the light fixtures being used have a visibility distance that can reach the road then a photometric plan shall be provided for these new lights to measure spill over. If the manufacturers details do not provide visibility distances then these new lights shall be provided on a photometric plan to measure light trespass on the street and adjacent residential lots. 5. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] If a photometric plan is required it shall show footcandle information to the property line of all adjacent residential parcels and the public right-of-way to demonstrate that the spillover will not exceed 0.5 footcandle. 6. [32.6.2(k).& 4.17] Provide the following standard lighting note on the plan: "Each outdoor luminaire equipped with a lamp that emits 3,000 or more initial lumens shall be a full cutoff luminaire and shall be arranged or shielded to reflect light away from adjoining residential districts and away from adjacent roads. The spillover of lighting from luminaires onto public roads and property in residential or rural areas zoning districts shall not exceed one-halffootcandle." 7. [32.5.2e,32.5.2p,32.6.2(0],32.7.9.4] Landscape plan. A landscape plan that complies with section 32.7.9 is required prior to Major Site Plan Amendment approval.Revise. 8. [32.5.2e, 32.6.2(j)] Existing Landscape features. On the landscape plan provide the existing landscape features for the entire site as described in section 32.7.9.4(c). To include all existing landscaping at the rear of the property abutting the residential lots, landscaping around the basin at the rear of the property, all landscaping along Earlysville Forest Drive, and any landscaping throughout the site. Also, if any of these landscape features are being removed depict this on the plan. 9. [21.7(c), 32.5.2(a), 32.6.2(j), 32.7.9.4(b), 32.7.9.7] Buffer zone adjacent to residential and rural areas districts. No construction activity including grading or clearing of vegetation shall occur closer than twenty(20) feet to any residential or rural areas district. On the site plan depict and label the required 20' buffer to residentially zoned property. If the applicant believes that existing trees on the rear of this property meet the screening requirements provided for in section 32.7.9.7, on the site plan provide a tree conservation plan which meets the requirements of 32.7.9.4(b) to preserve these trees in place of planting new trees. If new plantings shall be provided to screen the use from the residential lots, depict these plantings on the landscape plan. 10. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.5] Landscaping Along Streets. Street trees are required along all existing public street frontage;these trees must be within the parking setback. On the landscape plan provide the required street trees along Rte 743 pursuant to section 32.7.9.5. Also, in the area of the entrance closing on Rte 743 there are 11 additional parking spaces being added/modified, as such these new spaces face Rte 743 and parked cars will be visible from the right of way. In this area provide additional plantings of shrubs between 2 • the street and the parking area pursuant to 32.7.9.5(e). This requirement is in addition to the street tree requirements mentioned above. Also,there are 3 parking spaces fronting Earlysville Forest Drive which do not have any landscaping between them and the right-of-way. In this area provide additional plantings of shrubs between the street and the parking area pursuant to 32.7.9.5(e). 11. [32.5.2b,32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.6(a)] Parking Lot landscaping. Parking lot landscaping is required for the site. On the plan provide the amount of paved parking area and other vehicular circulation areas onsite. An area of at least five (5)percent of the paved parking and vehicular circulation area shall be landscaped with trees or shrubs.Neither the areas of street trees and shrubs required by sections 32.7.9.5(d) and(e)planted between a parking area and the building shall be counted toward the minimum landscaped area for a parking lot. Revise. 12. [32.6.2(j) &32.7.9.6(b)] Parking Lot landscaping. The five (5)percent landscaped area required shall be planted with a mixture of shade trees and shrubs and shall include one (1) large or medium shade tree per ten(10)parking spaces or portion thereof, if five (5) spaces or more.Nine (9)trees are required for 90 parking spaces. Please select trees from the approved list or note specific existing trees that meet this requirement. 13. [32.7.9.8] Tree Canopy. The use is being developed as a Commercial use, as such the minimum tree canopy is ten(10)percent.Provide tree calculations for the site pursuant to 32.7.9.8(b). 14. [32.6.2(j) & Comment] On the landscape sheet provide a legend of all symbols and abbreviations used on the landscape plan. 15. [32.5.2(a)] Setbacks. On the site plan provide a note which references,the setback for the C-1 zoning. Also include the 20' undisturbed buffer for residentially zoned property within this setback note. 16. 132.5.2a, 21.7c] General information. On the plan provide and label the minimum setback lines and yards on the plan. Also depicted and labeled the required 20' buffer to residentially zoned property. 17. [32.6.2(j) & Comment] Please show utilities and associated easements on the landscape plan to verify that no conflicts exist with planting locations. 18. [Comment] Sheet 1 depicts a"Wall Mounted HC sign" on the front ofthe existing building. Is this an existing sign or a proposed sign. Sign locations are not reviewed or approved on site plan applications. 19. [32.5.2b] Information regarding the proposed use. On the plan provide the maximum amount of impervious cover on the site. 20. 132.5.2a] General information. While the site plan provides topography, staff was unable to locate the source of the topography on the plan. Provide the source of the topography. If the source is provided please specifiy where on the site plan. 3 • 21. [32.5.2(a)] General information. On the plan provide the present uses of abutting parcels, to include: the Auto shop located on TMP 31A-A, and the residential lots located on TMP 31A-b-5 through 31A-b-7 . 22. [32.5.2n] Existing and proposed improvements. On the plan label and show the location and diminsions the trash containers/dumpster pad (trash disposal methods), and landscaped areas. Also, on the plan there is a red dotted area around the two existing structures. Staff is unable to decifer what is going on with this area as the legend does not define this type of symbol. Also, on the plan please specific what is depicted as red hatching within the parking lot on the corner of Earlysville Forest Drive and State Route 743. Please label this feature. Revise. 23. [[32.5.2n] Proposed improvements. On the site plan please clarify what is meant by "Proposed Future Sanctuary"vs"Proposed Fellowship Hall". Is the proposed future sanctuary to be included in the site plan review? If not, remove it from the plan. If so, revise to omit"future"throughout the plan and lable it"proposed sanctuary". Also,the parking calculations on sheet 1 refer to "proposed buildings 1". Assure this is revised to be accurate, as currently there are 2 proposed buildings and 2 existing buildings shown on the site plan. 24. [4.12.6] Parking requirements. In the rural areas identified in the comprehensive plan,the number of proposed spaces shall be shown in a parking study submitted by the church; the number of required spaces shall be determined by the zoning administrator, who shall consider the recommendations in the parking study, traffic generation figures either known to the industry or estimated by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, peak parking demands, and other relevant information. Nothing herein requires the parking study to be prepared by a transportation engineer. Currently the site plan utilizes Development Area calculations of 1 space per 3 fixed seats as provided for in the ordinance; however, this site is in the Rural Areas of the comprehensive plan and the ordinance requires a parking study for the Zoning Administrator to make a determination about parking for the site. The parking study should provide calculations to support the proposed and required parking onsite. In the study, provide data which can be reviewed to aid the Zoning Administrator in making a determination about the proposed parking for the site. The parking study should also provide a narrative as to why the applicant believed the parking calculations provided will work. For example possible narratives for the study may include something to the following: Our church currently has an estimated participants, mostly made up of families. The church is currently contained in 1 building of SF, with_ fixed seats and on a typical Sunday for this church we average visitors per service at vehicles. We have counted the number of cars on various occations (small church gatherings and larger church gatherings such as Christmas) at max capacity during the larger events we averaged_vehicles; however, on the typical Sunday we only averaged_vehicles. With this expansion we plan to expand the church to _ SF and increase our seating capacity to a total of seats. The proposed fellowship hall will be used by existing parishioners who attend the church for - . We hope to increase our parishioner base to be particpants over the next _ years. We believe that the 4 additional space will generate the need for _ required parking spaces based on our calculations provided above, thus we have provided parking spaces based on these calculations...etc Provide the required parking study. 25. [32.5.2 (a), 32.5.2 (e), 32.5.2 (i)] Three access easements are shown on sheet 1: "Non- exclusive easement for joint use by TMP 31-32 and 31A A", "Non-exclusive easement for access for use by TMP 31A A", and "Exclusive easement for access and parking for exclusive use by TMP 31A A". Please clarify if these are existing or proposed access easements. If they are existing easements, indicate the deed book and page number for them. If they are proposed easements, please indicate as much on the plans. If these easements are proposed, Easement Plats will need to be submitted to this office for review and approval of which both property owners will need to sign the plats. If they are proposed the plat and parking agreement will be required to be reviewed and approved by Planning/Zoning/the County Attorney's Office prior to site plan approval. 26. [32.5.2(n),32.6.2(i)] On the plan dimension the lightly paved driveway connecting the two parking lot areas,the travelways and parking spaces throughout the site. 27. [32.5.6(i)] On the plan dimension the width of the existing entrance into the site. 28. [32.5.2a] General information. County records indicate the owner name for parcels 31A-1 is Roger W.Perkins and for parcel 31-32 is Steve&Kathy Hood et als Trustees Rivanna Community Church respectively. However the site plan indicates the owner names are Whyte's Supermarket and Earlysville Green. Revise. 29. [32.6.2(h)] Signature panel. Provide the required signature panel for County approval by each member of the Site Review Committee. 30. [Comment] On sheet 1 provide the site plan number: "SDP2013-56 Rivanna Community Church Major Amendment to SDP84-029" 31. [32.5.2(a)] On sheet 1 the magisterial district is labeled as Rivanna Magisterial District; however, it is truly Whitehall Magisterial District. Revise. 32. [32.6.2e(1)] The plan attempts to close an existing entrance on Rte 743 and install a ditch to match existing downstream ditch. On the site plan provide the profiles of all ditches and channels whether proposed or existing, showing existing and proposed grades, and invert of ditches, cross pipes or utilities; typical channel cross sections for new construction; and actual cross sections for existing channels intended to remain. 33.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: 5 If you have any questions about the comments please feel free to contact me. Below I have provided comments from the various Site Plan Committee (SRC)reviewers. Prior to final site plan approval their comments shall have been adequately addressed. Engineering—Mike Koslow See attached comment letter. VDOT— Troy Austin � lt� -fit • See attached comment letter. Building Inspections—Jay Schlothauer - Submittal appears to be for proposed Fellowship Hall only. No comments or conditions. Fire and Rescue—Robbie Gilmer 1. In reference to the back parking lot. VSFPC 503.2.5 Dead ends. Dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet(45 720 mm) in length shall be rovided with an approved area for turning around fire apparatus. ` Sec{ ,„ -j'�.T )Lv /P e goa., h Moke-H-e* 4tecr. 2. In reference to theliant parking lot access. VSFPC 503.2.4 Turning radius. The required turning radius of a fire apparatus access road shall be determined by the fire code official. Alb a.Qrle County requires a minimum of a 25 ft radii for access travel ways, l Sup 't 3. VSFPC 506.1 here required. ere access to or within a structure or an area is restricted because of secured openings or where immediate access is necessary for life-saving or fire- fighting purposes, the fire code official is authorized to require a key box to be installed in an approved location. The key box shall be of an approved type listed in accordance with UL 1037 and shall contain keys to gain necessary access as required by the fire code official. Please Contact the Albemarle County Fire Prevention Office during construction to get an approved location. E911—Andrew Slack 1. Approved ACSA—Alex Morrison - Project is not in the ACSA's Jurisdictional Area: Health Department—Joshua Kirtley - The Health department has concerns with the proposed project described above in regards to the septic capacity for the proposed use. I recall speaking to someone with the Church a while back and I indicated to them that they should have a PE perform a capacity �� �� assessment and forward that to me. To date, our office has not received documentation 6 from a PE stating that the existing system can accommodate the use. V - Also, the Church is to be served by a newer septic system that VDH has not issued an Operations Permit on. I believe the problem is paperwork related and something that the new owners should get addressed before moving forward with this project. I also question whether or not the Church is served by public water or if they are served by a private well. it: J/ Sincerely, n,l Christopher P. Perez ` Senior Planner 6 17jj^�j\_ dit Mirk COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville,Virginia 22902-4596 Phone(434)296-5832 Fax(434)972-4126 Project: Rivanna Community Church—Major SDP201300056 Plan preparer: Blackwell Engineering,PLC [fax 540-434-7604] Owner or rep.: Rivanna Community Church Plan received date: 22 October 2013 Date of comments: 2 December 2013 Reviewer: Michael Koslow Review coordinator: Chris Perez The first major amendment to the final site plan and comps submittal(SDP201300056) submitted 17 October 2013 has received Engineering Review and does not appear to meet Albemarle County minimum checklist items for approval This review does not include a review of Erosion& Sediment Control,Mitigation, or Stormwater Management. Please adequately address the following comments for final site plan approval: A. Existing Conditions Information 1) Please include a benchmark location,elevation,and datum for topography. An existing utility or other known position such as DI near existing entrance shown at elevation 630.0 will suffice if noted with elevation to nearest hundredth of a foot. 2) Three access easements are shown on sheet 1. Please clarify if these are existing or proposed access easements. If they are existing easements,please indicate the deed book and page number for them. If they are proposed easements,please indicate as much on the plans. 3) Please clarify owner names for parcels 31A-1 and 31-32. Plans indicate the owner names are Whyte's Supermarket and Earlsville Green respectively. However, County GISWeb indicates the owner names are Roger W.Perkins and Steve&Kathy Hood et als Trustees Rivanna Community Church respectively. 4) Existing topography appears out of date and does not include existing utility lines. Per site visit on 11/11/2013,updated topography was given to the church from adjacent property owner. Recommend including this topography with future submittals. Missing topo items include riprap for 18"outlet pipe to existing dry detention pond, screening trees on the east side of the property,and fence adjacent to existing auto repair shop adjacent to church's parking lot. Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 3 B. Proposed Plan View Information 1) A minimum of 10 ac of contributing drainage area is needed for a permanent pool facility. Recommend changing facility type to dry detention pond(this would be a requirement for stormwater management plan review)or a modification of the existing dry pond with a shared maintenance agreement among contributing property owners. 2) Please propose a stormwater management easement for proposed stormwater management facility and access roads to it(see also comment B 1). I, '1/453) Please propose a temporary grading easement or written VDOT permission for Uv proposed entrance closure. ` , ® Existing parking area appears to include spaces on a slope greater than 5%. V\. lease provide a re_-`graded parking lot or an exception re uest to revip coordinator. n 84 5) Please indicate all existing and proposed storm sewers. 6) Please label all existing drainage structures with a unique number for calculations and reference. 7) Please provide a manufacturers detail for all non-VDOT standard inlets(appears to apply to structure#s 4 and 5) on plans. For maintenance purposes,the county prefers domed grates. C. Drainage Profiles 1) Please provide drainage profiles for all proposed drainage structures and pipes. Please indicate all existing and proposed utility crossings under or over proposed pipes on drainage profiles. 2) Please indicate proposed end sections and outlet protection for all proposed pipe outlets on drainage profiles and in plan view. D. Drainage Computations 1) Please include drainage maps and computations for existing structures proposed to accept drainage from shared parking areas proposed. 2) Please include hydrologic coefficients and times of concentration for all existing and proposed site drainage areas on drainage area map. Engineering Review Comments Page 3 of 3 E. Tier III Groundwater Assessment 1) Per p.3 from the County's Design Standards Manual,please supplement the provided Envrionmental Site Assessment to include item#s: • 1d)A graphics section containing surrounding property 1000 ft beyond property lines with wells and septic system locations lf)A graphic depiction of groundwater recharge areas and flow. 2g)A narrative containing groundwater management plan addressing practices during and after construction,in addition to a contingency plan if wells dry up or become contaminated. Current Development Engineering is available from 2:30-4 PM on Thursdays to discuss these review comments. Please contact Michael Koslow at 434-296-5832 ext. 3297 or email mkoslow@albemarle.org to schedule an appointment. R - i tie_ tit "Alt ,roc COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1601 Orange Road Culpeper,Virginia 22701-3819 Gregory A.Whirley Commissioner of Highways December 2, 2013 • Mr. Christopher Perez Senior Planner • County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville,VA 22902 Re: SDP-2013-00056 Rivanna Community Church—Major Amendment Dear Mr. Perez: We have reviewed the site plan for the Rivanna Community Church dated June 2013 and sealed on October 15, 2013 as submitted by Blackwell Engineering,PLC and offer the following comments: 1. It is our understanding that the Church will not provide weekday day care services. 2. VDOT has no objection to the site plan as submitted. Should the Church decide to provide weekday day care services, the turn lane warrants for the entrance will need to be reevaluated based on the increase in trip generation for the site. If you need additional information concerning this project,please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Troy Austin,P.E. Area Land Use Engineer Culpeper District • VirginiaDOT.org WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING Christopher Perez From: Christopher Perez Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2013 6:48 PM To: 'BE@blackwellEngineering.com'; basil@blackwellengineering.com; 'ed@blackwellengineering.com' Cc: 'Ibseps@gmail.com'; 'sknightrivanna@gmail.com' Subject: Major Site Plan for Rivanna Community Church_SDP201300056 Attachments: CD1_12-3-13.pdf Mr. Blackwell, Attached are the comments for Major Site Plan for Rivanna Community Church_SDP201300056. Upon final review of applicable fees for the project it appears that the required SRC notification fee has not been paid for this project. Please pay the required SRC notification fee of$200 prior to the site review committee meeting on Thursday 12-5-13. Thanks (14A V )- 5+ 3 Christopher P.Perez I Senior Planner Department of Community Development'County of Albemarle,Virginia 401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext.3443 From: Christopher Perez Sent: Monday, December 02, 2013 4:43 PM To: 'BE@blackwellEngineering.com'; 'basil@blackwellengineering.com' Cc: 'Ibseps@gmail.com'; 'sknightrivanna@gmail.com' Subject: RE: Major Site Plan for Rivanna Community Church_SDP201300056 Mr. Basil Finnegan, With regard to my comment#1, outdoor lighting. During my review of the site plan I uncovered an approved final site plan for the Rivanna Community Church property which was misfiled, SDPS4-029 Earlysville Green Dentist Office Site Plan. This approved site plan depicts the existing lighting onsite which was the subject of our discussions about lighting. Thus with this revelation no lighting plan shall be required for the existing site lighting as all lighting shown on the current site plan under review had previously been depicted and approved on a previously approved final site plan. The existing lighting shall remain on the site plan as depicted. However if site lighting is being proposed to be modified to include any additional lighting being added, or existing lighting being relocated to new locations on the site, or modifications to existing lighting(other than removal of lights), then a lighting plan shall be required. During our recent discussions you asked about wall lighting for the new buildings near their exits(pack lighting)...etc. Currently the site plan does not depict any proposed wall lighting. If wall lighting is proposed, please depict it on the plan. Also on the plan provide the cut sheets from the manufacturer's catalog for these fixtures. The cut sheet should clearly show the lumen levels of the fixture. If it is 3000 lumens or above the fixture is required to be full-cutoff. Regardless of the lighting type,the cut-sheet should provide a diagram of the light type, fixture type/style,wattage,tilt, color/finish, lumen levels and a diagram of how far and what direction the light is visible. If the light fixtures being used have a visibility distance that can reach the road then a photometric plan shall be provided for these new lights to measure spill over. If the manufacturers details do not provide visibility distances then these new lights shall be provided on a photometric plan to measure light i trespass on the street. I shall provide the above comment in the formal comment letter which I hope to send to you by COB tomorrow. Hope this helps clear things up. Also, attached is the Site Review Committee(SRC)notification letter which was sent on Nov 14 which informs you about the Dec 5t" SRC meeting. Christopher P.Perez I Senior Planner Department of Community Development'County of Albemarle,Virginia 401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext.3443 From: Christopher Perez Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 5:24 PM To: 'BE@blackwellEngineering.com' Cc: 'Ibseps@gmail.com'; 'sknightrivanna@gmail.com'; 'basil@blackwellengineering.com' Subject: Major Site Plan for Rivanna Community Church SDP201300056 Mr. Blackwell, Planning staff has conducted a preliminary review of the Major Site Plan for Rivanna Community Church_SDP201300056. It appears that the plan is missing two substantial items which are required prior to Planning's complete review of the site plan,these items must be provided and reviewed prior to approval of the plan.Namely the plan is missing an Outdoor Lighting Plan and a Landscaping Plan. These items are required of all final site plans. Below I have provided more detailed comments which reference the sections of the ordinance as well as provide guidance on a couple nuances of this site. The site plan will continue to be reviewed by all members of the Site Plan Review Committee (SRC); however, I wanted to give you advanced notice of these large items in hopes to provide you ample time to develop the documents, or to hire a third party to develop these required items. The below comments will be a part of my comments for SRC December 5th but with this advanced notice this should be no trouble for you. If you have any questions please give me a call. Thanks 1. 132.6.2(k)] Outdoor Lighting. The site depicts lighting which was not depicted nor approved on the approved final site plan. On the plan provide an outdoor lighting plan which complies with section 4.17, to include a photometric plan and location, description, and photograph or diagram of each type of outdoor luminaire. Revise. 2. [32.6.20)]] Landscape plan. A landscape plan that complies with section 32.7.9 is required. Provide a landscape plan which meets these requirements. Revise. 3. [Comment] When the landscape plan is developed pursuant to section 32.7.9 assure that the required screening at the rear of the property pursuant to Section 21.7c is provided. 4. [Comment] On the plan assure the required 20' buffer to residentially zoned property is depicted. 5. [32.5.2e] Landscape features. Provide the existing landscape features on the entire site as described in section 32.7.9.4(c). 6. [32.5.2b] Information regarding the proposed use. As landscaping(parking lot landscaping) is required for the site, provide the maximum amount of paved parking area and other vehicular circulation areas. Also,on the plan provide the maximum amount of impervious cover on the site. Christopher P.Perez I Senior Planner 2 Department of Community Development'County of Albemarle.Virginia 401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext.3443 3 • COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road,North Wing Charlottesville,Virginia 22902-4596 Phone(434)296-5832 Fax(434)972-4126 12-03-13 Ed Blackwell 566 East Market Street Harrisonburg VA 22801 RE: SDP-201300056 Rivanna Community Church—Major Site Plan Amendment Mr.Blackwell: Your Major Amendment application has been reviewed.In front of each comment 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 order for the amended site plan to be approved the following revisions are required: 1. [Comment]SRC notification fees. It appears that the applicant neglected to pay the SRC notficiation fee prior to the SRC meeting.Please pay the required SRC notification fee of $200.No further review of the plan will comense till the fee is paid. 2. [32.5.1(a),32.5.2(a)] The site plan needs to be printed with black or blue ink,not color. This requirement is noted in the ordinance and assures reductions and copies can be easily made.Revise the plan to be printed in blue or black ink,not in color. 3. [32.5.2 (a);32.5.2 (e)] General information. Within the site plan provide an existing conditions sheet that depicts the entire parcel and all existing conditions separate from the proposed modifications sheet. Revise. 4. [32.6.2(k)] The approved final site plan for this site, SDP84-029 Earlysville Green Dentist Office Site Plan, depicts the existing lighting onsite. Thus no lighting plan shall be required for the existing site lighting as all lighting shown on the current site plan under review had previously been depicted and approved on a previously approved fmal site plan. The existing lighting shall remain on the site plan as depicted. If site lighting is being proposed to be modified to include any additional lighting being added, or existing lighting being relocated to new locations on the site, or modifications. . to existing lighting(other than removal of lights),then a lighting plan shall be required. - During our recent discussions the applicant asked about wall lighting for thenew ... .. buildings (pack lighting)...etc. Currently the site plan does not depict any proposed wall lighting. If wall lighting is proposed,,please depict it on the plan. Also on the plan .c 1 provide the cut sheets from the manufacturer's catalog for these fixtures..The cut sheet should clearly show the lumen levels of the fixture.If a lioght fixture is 3000 lumens or above the fixture is required to be full-cutoff. Regardless of the lighting type,the cut- sheet should provide a diagram of the light type,fixture type/style,wattage,tilt, color/finish,lumen levels and a diagram of how far and what direction the light is visible. If the light fixtures being used have a visibility distance that can reach the road then a photometric plan shall be provided for these new lights to measure spill over. If the manufacturers details do not provide visibility distances then these new lights shall be provided on a photometric plan to measure light trespass on the street and adjacent residential lots. 5. 132.6.2(k) &4.17] If a photometric plan is required it shall show footcandle information to the property line of all adjacent residential parcels and the public right-of-way to demonstrate that the spillover will not exceed 0.5 footcandle. 6. [32.6.2(k) &4.17] Provide the following standard lighting note on the plan: "Each outdoor luminaire equipped with a lamp that emits 3,000 or more initial lumens shall be a full cutoff luminaire and shall be arranged or shielded to reflect light away from adjoining residential districts and away from adjacent roads. The spillover of lighting from luminaires onto public roads and property in residential or rural areas zoning districts shall not exceed one-halffootcandle." 7. [32.5.2e,32.5.2p,32.6.2(j)],32.7.9.4]Landscape plan. A landscape plan that complies with section 32.7.9 is required prior to Major Site Plan Amendment approval. Revise. 8. [32.5.2e, 32.6.2(j)] Existing Landscape features. On the landscape plan provide the existing landscape features for the entire site as described in section 32.7.9.4(c). To include all existing landscaping at the rear of the property abutting the residential lots, landscaping around the basin at the rear of the property, all landscaping along Earlysville Forest Drive, and any landscaping throughout the site. Also, if any of these landscape features are being removed depict this on the plan. 9. [21.7(c), 32.5.2(a), 32.6.2(j), 32.7.9.4(b), 32.7.9.7] Buffer zone adjacent to residential and rural areas districts. No construction activity including grading or clearing of vegetation shall occur closer than twenty(20) feet to any residential or rural areas district. On the site plan depict and label the required 20' buffer to residentially zoned property. If the applicant believes that existing trees on the rear of this property meet the screening requirements provided for in section 32.7.9.7, on the site plan provide a tree conservation plan which meets the requirements of 32.7.9.4(b) to preserve these trees in place of planting new trees. If new plantings shall be provided to screen the use from the residential lots,depict these plantings on the landscape plan. 10. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.5] Landscaping Along Streets. Street trees are required along all existing public street frontage;these trees must be within the parking setback. On the landscape plan provide the required street trees along Rte 743 pursuant to section 32.7.9.5. Also,in the area of the entrance closing on Rte 743 there are 11 additional parking spaces • being added/modified, as such these new spaces face Rte 743 and parked cars will be : visible from the right of way. In this area provide additional plantings.of shrubs between__ :'_ 2 the street and the parking area pursuant to 32.7.9.5(e). This requirement is in addition to the street tree requirements mentioned above. • Also,there are 3 parking spaces fronting Earlysville Forest Drive which do not have any landscaping between them and the right-of-way.In this area provide additional plantings of shrubs between the street and the parking area pursuant to 32.7.9.5(e). 11. [32.5.2b,32.6.2(j)&32.7.9.6(a)]Parking Lot landscaping. Parking lot landscaping is required for the site. On the plan provide the amount of paved parking area and other vehicular circulation areas onsite.An area of at least five(5)percent of the paved parking and vehicular circulation area shall be landscaped with trees or shrubs.Neither the areas of street trees and shrubs required by sections 32.7.9.5(d)and(e)planted between a parking area and the building shall be counted toward the minimum landscaped area for a parking lot.Revise. 12. [32.6.2(j) &32.7.9.6(b)]Parking Lot landscaping. The five(5)percent landscaped area required shall be planted with a mixture of shade trees and shrubs and shall include one • (1)large or medium shade tree per ten(10)parking spaces or portion thereof,if five(5) spaces or more.Nine(9)trees are required for 90 parking spaces. Please select trees from the approved list or note specific existing trees that meet this requirement. 13. [32.7.9.8] Tree Canopy. The use is being developed as a Commercial use, as such the minimum tree canopy is ten(10)percent.Provide tree calculations for the site pursuant to 32.7.9.8(b). 14. [32.6.2(j) & Comment] On the landscape sheet provide a legend of all symbols and abbreviations used on the landscape plan. 15. [32.5.2(a)] Setbacks. On the site plan provide a note which references the setback for the C-1 zoning.Also include the 20' undisturbed buffer for residentially zoned property within this setback note. • 16. [32.5.2a, 21.7c] General information. On the plan provide and label the minimum setback lines and yards on the plan. Also depicted and labeled the required 20' buffer to residentially zoned property. 17. [32.6.2(j) & Comment] Please show utilities and associated easements on the landscape plan to verify that no conflicts exist with planting locations. 18. [Comment] Sheet 1 depicts a"Wall Mounted HC sign"on the front of the existing building. Is this an existing sign or a proposed sign. Sign locations are not reviewed or approved on site plan applications. 19. [32.5.2b] Information regarding the proposed use. On the plan provide the maximum amount of impervious cover on the site. 20. [32.5.2a] General information. While the site plan provides topography, staff was unable to locate the source of the topography on the plan. Provide the source of the topography. If the source is provided please specifiy where on the site plan. 3 21. [32.5.2(a)] General information. On the plan provide the present uses of abutting parcels, to include: the Auto shop located on TMP 31A-A, and the residential lots located on TMP 31A-b-5 through 31A-b-7 22. [32.5.2n]Existing and proposed improvements. On the plan label and show the location and diminsions the trash containers/dumpster pad(trash disposal methods),and landscaped areas.Also, on the plan there is a red dotted area around the two existing . structures. Staff is unable to decifer what is going on with this area as the legend does not define this type of symbol.Also,on the plan please specific what is depicted as red hatching within the parking lot on the corner of Earlysville Forest Drive and State Route • 743. Please label this feature.Revise. 23. [[32.5.2n]Proposed improvements. On the site plan please clarify what is meant by "Proposed Future Sanctuary"vs"Proposed Fellowship Hall". Is the proposed future sanctuary to be included in the site plan review? If not,remove it from the plan. If so, revise to omit"future"throughout the plan and lable it"proposed sanctuary". Also,the parking calculations on sheet 1 refer to "proposed buildings 1". Assure this is revised to be accurate, as currently there are 2 proposed buildings and 2 existing buildings shown on the site plan. 24. [4.12.6] Parking requirements. In the rural areas identified in the comprehensive plan,the number of proposed spaces shall be shown in a parking study submitted by the church; the number of required spaces shall be determined by the zoning administrator,who shall consider the recommendations in the parking study, traffic generation figures either known to the industry or estimated by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, peak parking demands, and other relevant information. Nothing herein requires the parking study to be prepared by a transportation engineer. • Currently the site plan utilizes Development Area calculations of 1 space per 3 fixed seats as provided for in the ordinance; however, this site is in the Rural Areas of the comprehensive plan and the ordinance requires a parking study for the Zoning Administrator to make a determination about parking for the site. The parking study should provide calculations to support the proposed and required parking onsite. In the study, provide data which can be reviewed to aid the Zoning Administrator in making a determination about the proposed parking for the site. The parking study should also provide a narrative as to why the applicant believed the parking calculations provided will work. For example possible narratives for the study may include something to the following: Our church currently has an estimated _ participants, mostly made up of families. The church is currently contained in 1 building of_SF, with_ fixed seats and on a typical Sunday for this church we average visitors per service at _ vehicles. We have counted the number of cars on various occations (small church gatherings and larger church gatherings such as Christmas) at max capacity during the larger events we averaged_vehicles; however, on the typical Sunday we only averaged_vehicles. With this expansion we plan to expand the church to SF and increase our seating capacity to a total of_ seats. The proposed fellowship hall will be used by existing parishioners who attend the church for - We hope to increase our.:..:. parishioner base to be particpants over the next _ years.. We believe,ihat the_ _..: additional space will generate the need for _ required parking spaces based on our calculations provided above, thus we have provided_parking spaces based on these calculations...etc Provide the required parking study. 25. [32.5.2 (a), 32.5.2 (e), 32.5.2 (i)] Three access easements are shown on sheet 1: "Non- exclusive easement for joint use by TMP 31-32 and 31A A", "Non-exclusive easement for access for use by TMP 31A A", and "Exclusive easement for access and parking for exclusive use by TMP 31A A". Please clarify if these are existing or proposed access easements. If they are existing easements,indicate the deed book and page number for them. If they are proposed easements, please indicate as much on the plans. If these easements are proposed, Easement Plats will need to be submitted to this office for review and approval of which both property owners will need to sign the plats. If they are proposed the plat and parking agreement will be required to be reviewed and approved by Planning/Zoning/the County Attorney's Office prior to site plan approval. 26. [32.5.2(n),32.6.2(i)] On the plan dimension the lightly paved driveway connecting the two parking lot areas,the travelways and parking spaces throughout the.site. 27. [32.5.6(i)] On the plan dimension the width of the existing entrance into the site. 28. [32.5.2a] General information. County records indicate the owner name for parcels 31A-1 is Roger W.Perkins and for parcel 31-32 is Steve&Kathy Hood et als Trustees Rivanna Community Church respectively.However the site plan indicates the owner names are Whyte's Supermarket and Earlysville Green.Revise. 29. [32.6.2(h)]Signature panel. Provide the required signature panel for County approval by each member of the Site Review Committee. • 30. [Comment] On sheet 1 provide the site plan number: "SDP2013-56 Rivanna Community Church Major Amendment to SDP84-029" 31. [32.5.2(a)] On sheet 1 the magisterial district is labeled as Rivanna Magisterial District; however,it is truly Whitehall Magisterial District.Revise. 32. [32.6.2e(1)] The plan attempts to close an existing entrance on Rte 743 and install a ditch to match existing downstream ditch. On the site plan provide the profiles of all ditches and channels whether proposed or existing, showing existing and proposed grades, and invert of ditches, cross pipes or utilities;typical channel cross sections for new construction; and actual cross sections for existing channels intended to remain. n 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 • Y \ six(6)months after the date of this letter the application shall be deemed to have been voluntarily withdrawn by the developer. If you have any questions about the comments please feel free to contact me. Below I have provided comments from the various Site Plan Committee(SRC)reviewers. Prior to final site plan approval their comments shall have been adequately addressed. Engineering—Mike Koslow See attached comment letter. VDOT—Troy Austin See attached comment letter. Building Inspections—Jay Schlothauer • -Submittal appears to be for proposed Fellowship Hall only. No comments or conditions. Fire and Rescue—Robbie Gilmer 1. In reference to the back parking lot.VSFPC 503.2.5 Dead ends.Dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet(45 720 mm)in length shall be provided with an approved area for turning around fire apparatus. 2. In reference to the front parking lot access. VSFPC 503.2.4 Turning radius. The required turning radius of a fire apparatus access road shall be determined by the fire code official. Albemarle County requires a minimum of a 25 ft radii for access travel ways. 3. VSFPC 506.1 Where required.Where access to or within a structure or an area is restricted because of secured openings or where immediate access is necessary for life-saving or fire- fighting purposes,the fire code official is authorized to require a key box to be installed in an approved location. The key box shall be of an approved type listed in accordance with UL 1037 and shall contain keys to gain necessary access as required by the fire code official. Please Contact the Albemarle County Fire Prevention Office during construction to get an approved location. E911—Andrew Slack • 1.Approved ACSA—Alex Morrison - Project is not in the ACSA's Jurisdictional Area. Health Department—Joshua Ridley - The Health department has concerns with the proposed project described above in regards to the septic capacity for the proposed use. I recall speaking to someone with the Church a while back and I indicated to them that they should have a PE perform a capacity assessment and forward that to me.To date, our office has not received documentation from a PE stating that the existing system can accommodate the use. - Also,the Church is to be served by a newer septic system that VDH has not issued an Operations Permit on. I believe the problem is paperwork related and something that the new owners should get addressed before moving forward with this project. I also question whether or not the Church is served by public water or if they are served by a private well. Sincerely;� �� - - Christopher P.Perez Senior Planner __ _ • �illpy\ . *©__ I COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville,Virginia 22902-4596 Phone(434)296-5832 Fax(434)972.4126 Project: Rivanna Community Church—Major SDP201300056 Plan preparer: Blackwell Engineering,PLC [fax 540.434-7604] Owner or rep.: Rivanna Community Church Plan received date: 22 October 2013 Date of comments: 2 December 2013 Reviewer: Michael Koslow Review coordinator: Chris Perez The first major amendment to the final site plan and comps submittal(SDP201300056)submitted 17 October 2013 has received Engineering Review and does not appear to meet Albemarle County minimum checklist items for approval. This review does not include a review of Erosion& Sediment Control,Mitigation,or Stormwater Management. Please adequately address the following comments for final site plan approval: A. Existing Conditions Information 1) Please include a benchmark location,elevation,and datum for topography. An existing utility or other known position such as DI near existing entrance shown at elevation 630.0 will suffice if noted with elevation to nearest hundredth of a foot. 2) Three access easements are shown on sheet 1. Please clarify if these are existing or proposed access easements. If they are existing easements,please indicate the deed book and page number for them. If they are proposed easements,please indicate as much on the plans. 3) Please clarify owner names for parcels 31A-1 and 31-32. Plans indicate the owner names are Whyte's Supermarket and Earlsville Green respectively. However, County GISWeb indicates the owner names are Roger W.Perkins and Steve&Kathy Hood et als Trustees Rivanna Community Church respectively. 4) Existing topography appears out of date and does not include existing utility lines. Per site visit on 11/11/2013,updated topography was given to the church from adjacent property owner. Recommend including this topography with future submittals. Missing topo items include riprap for 18"outlet pipe to existing dry detention pond, screening trees on the east side of the property,and fence adjacent to existing auto repair shop adjacent to church's parking lot. 1 Engineering Review Comments Page2of3 B. Proposed Plan View Information 1) A minimum of 10 ac of contributing drainage area is needed for a permanent pool facility. Recommend changing facility type to dry detention pond(this would be a requirement for stormwater management plan review)or a modification of the existing dry pond with a shared maintenance agreement among contributing property owners. 2) -Please propose a stormwater management easement for proposed stormwater management facility and access roads to it(see also comment B 1). 3) Please propose a temporary grading easement or written VDOT permission for proposed entrance closure. 4) Existing parking area appears to include spaces on a slope greater than 5%. Please provide a re-graded parking lot or an exception request to review coordinator. 5) Please indicate all existing and proposed storm sewers. 6) Please label all existing drainage structures with a unique number for calculations and reference. • 7) Please provide a manufacturers detail for all non-VDOT standard inlets(appears • to apply to structure#s 4 and 5)on plans. For maintenance purposes,the county prefers domed grates. C. Drainage Profiles 1) Please provide drainage profiles for all proposed drainage structures and pipes. Please indicate all existing and proposed utility crossings under or over proposed pipes on drainage profiles. 2) Please indicate proposed end sections and outlet protection for all proposed pipe outlets on drainage profiles and in plan view. D. Drainage Computations 1) Please include drainage maps and computations for existing structures proposed to accept drainage from shared parking areas proposed. 2) Please include hydrologic coefficients and times of concentration for all existing and proposed site drainage areas on drainage area map. • 1 L • Engineering Review Comments Page 3 of 3 E. Tier III Groundwater Assessment 1) Per p.3 from the County's Design Standards Manual,please supplement the provided Envrionmental Site Assessment to include item#s: 1d)A graphics section containing surrounding property 1000 ft beyond property lines with wells and septic system locations • 10 A graphic depiction of groundwater recharge areas and flow. 2g)A narrative containing groundwater management plan addressing practices during and after construction,in addition to a contingency plan if wells dry up or become contaminated. Current Development Engineering is available from 2:30-PM on Thursdays to discuss these review comments. Please contact Michael Koslow at 434-296-5832 ext.3297 or email mkoslow@albernarle.org to schedule an appointment. • r:bi.I:nb.u'::)..i:' ini.nrea•::ur••.-AstP''!tl :cMe,.mn.,Cinurh r;.nat 'u.•.. ..,...,•:•Itt'I , ::1 ....... . .:!I:1,:.n., da all,;,, m...cn.... ..n_� aj:ilnt .. CO IVICen R'AtTH of VIRQINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION • 1601 Orange Road • Culpeper,Virginia 22701.3B19 Gregory A.Whirley Commissioner of Highways December 2,2013 Mr. Christopher Perez SeniorPlanner County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road ' Charlottesville,VA 22902 Re: SDP-2013-00056 Rivanna Community Church—Major Amendment Dear Mr.Perez: We have reviewed the site plan for the Rivanna Community Church dated June 2013 and sealed on October 15,2013 as submitted by Blackwell Engineering,PLC and offer the following comments: 1.. It is our understanding that the Church will not provide weekday day care services. 2. VDOT has no objection to the site plan as submitted. Should the Church decide to provide weekday day care services,the turn lane warrants for the entrance will need to be reevaluated based on the increase in trip generation for the site. If you need additional information concerning this project,please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Troy Austin,P.E.. Area Land Use Engineer Culpeper District VirainiaDOtorg k'E KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING I'a_ . Christopher Perez From: Kirtley, Joshua(VDH) (Joshua.Kirtley@vdh.virginia.gov] Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 20133:18.PM To: Christopher Perez Subject: Rivanna Community Church Comments(SDP201300056) Good afternoon, Chris. Hope that you're doing well. I wanted to let you know that there may be some concerns with the proposed project described above in regards to the septic capacity for the proposed use. I recall speaking to someone with the Church a while back and I indicated to them that they should have a PE perform a capacity assessment and forward that to me. To date, our office has not received documentation from a PE stating that the existing system can accommodate the use. Also, the Church is to be served by a newer septic system that VDH has not issued an Operations Permit on. I believe the problem is paperwork related and something that the new owners should get addressed before moving forward with this project. I also question whether or not the Church is served by public water or if they are served by a private well. I will keep you in the loop as to any developments but please note my comments above. Have a good afternoon, Josh Josh Kirtley Environmental Health Technical Consultant Onsite Sewage and Water Programs Thomas Jefferson Health District 1138 Rose Hill Drive Charlottesville,Virginia 22903 Office (434) 972-6288 \r Christopher Perez From: Alex Morrison [amorrison@serviceauthority.org] Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 11:54 AM To: Christopher Perez Subject: RE: SDP201300056 Rivanna Community Church - Major Amendment Chris, I will send out an official comment sheet on Monday but wanted to let you know it is not in the ACSA's Jurisdictional Area and I will have no comments on the sheet. Alexander J. Morrison, EIT Civil Engineer aratie Cnt Service Aiutherit 168 Spotnap Road Charlottesville,VA 22911 Office: (434)977-4511 EXT: 116 This email may contain confidential information that should not be shared with anyone other than its intended recipient(s). From: Christopher Perez [mailto:cperez@@albemarle.orq] Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2013 1:20 PM To: Alex Morrison Subject: SDP201300056 Rivanna Community Church - Major Amendment Alex, Just checking in on the status of your review of the SRC item, SDP2013O0O56 Rivanna Community Church - Major Amendment, which will be heading to next week's SRC meeting on Thursday the December 5, 2013. I plan to send my comments out on Tuesday the 3rd, so if you provide them to me by then I'll include them in my letter. Thanks. Christopher P.Perez I Senior Planner Department of Community Development(County of Albemarle,Virginia 401 McIntire Road l Charlottesville,VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext.3443 Review Comments • Project Name: Rivann Community Church-Major Major Amendment Date Completed: Monday, December 02, 2013 Reviewer: Robbie Gilmer Department/Division/Agency: Fire Rescue • Reviews Comments: Based on plans dated 10/15/17 1. In reference to the back parking lot. VSFPC 503.2.5 Dead ends. Dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet(45 720 mm) in length shall be provided with an approved area for turning around fire apparatus. 2. In reference to the front parking lot access.VSFPC 503.2.4 Turning radius. The required turning radius of a fire apparatus access road shall be determined by the fire code official.Albemarle County requires a minimum of a 25 ft radii for access travel.ways. 3. VSFPC 506.1 Where required. Where access to or within a structure or an area is restricted because of secured openings or where immediate access is necessary for life-saving or fire-fighting purposes, the fire code official is authorized to require a key box to be installed in an approved location. The key box shall be of an approved type listed in accordance with UL 1037 and shall contain keys to gain necessary access as required by the fire code official. Please Contact the Albemarle County Fire Prevention Office during construction to get an approved location. Review Status: Requested Chances Review Comments - Project Name: Rivann Community Church -Major Major Amendment Date Completed: Monday, December 02, 2013 Reviewer: Jay.Schlothauer Department/Division/Agency: Inspections Reviews • Comments:- .. Based on plans dated June 2013. Submittal appears to be for proposed Fellowship Hall only. No comments or ocnditions. Review Status: No Objection • Review Comments Project Name: Rivann Community Church - Major Major Amendment Date Completed: Friday, November 22, 2013 Reviewer: Andrew Slack Department/Division/Agency: E911 Reviews Comments: Review Status: Approved f; •.41 - rota t.71 y , Y • Fes•.'-, COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1601 Orange Road Culpeper,Virginia 22701-3819 Gregory A.Whirley - Commissioner of Highways December 2, 2013 Mr. Christopher Perez Senior Planner County of Albemarle • Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville,VA 22902 Re: SDP-2013-00056 Rivanna Community Church—Major Amendment Dear Mr. Perez: We have reviewed the site plan for the Rivanna Community Church dated June 2013 and sealed on October 15, 2013 as submitted by Blackwell Engineering,PLC and offer the following comments: 1. It is our understanding that the Church will not provide weekday day care services. 2. VDOT has no objection to the site plan as submitted. Should the Church decide to provide weekday day care services, the turn lane warrants for the entrance will need to be reevaluated based on the increase in trip generation for the site. If you need additional information concerning this project,please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, <Aira kja Troy Austin,P.E. Area Land Use Engineer Culpeper District VirginiaDOT.org is WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING '.- Christopher Perez From: _ Christopher Perez Sent: Monday, December 02„2013 4:43 PM To: 'BE@blackwellEngineering.com'; 'basil@blackwellengineering.com' Cc: 'Ibseps@gmail.com'; 'sknightrivanna@gmail:com' Subject: RE: Major Site Plan for Rivanna Community Church_SDP201300056 Attachments: src notification 12-5-13.pdf Mr. Basil Finnegan, With regard to my comment#1, outdoor lighting. During my review of the site plan I uncovered an approved final site plan for the Rivanna Community Church property which was misfiled, SDP84-029 Earlysville Green Dentist Office Site Plan. This approved site plan depicts the existing lighting onsite which was the subject of our discussions about lighting. Thus with this revelation no lighting plan shall be required for the existing site lighting as all lighting shown on the current site plan under review had previously been depicted and approved on a previously approved final site plan. The existing lighting shall remain on the site plan as depicted. However if site•lighting is being proposed to be modified to include any additional lighting being added; or existing lighting being relocated to new locations on the site, or modifications to existing lighting (other than removal of lights), then a lighting plan shall be required. During our recent discussions you,asked about wall lighting for the new buildings near their exits (pack lighting)...etc. Currently the site plan does not depict any proposed wall lighting. If wall lighting is proposed, please depict it on the plan. Also on the plan provide the cut sheets from the manufacturer's catalog for these fixtures. The cut sheet should clearly show the lumen levels of the fixture. If it is 3000 lumens or above the fixture is required to be full-cutoff. Regardless of the lighting type,the cut-sheet should provide a diagram of the light type, fixture type/style,wattage,tilt, color/finish, lumen levels and a diagram of how far and what direction the light is visible. If the light fixtures being used have a visibility distance that can reach the road then a photometric plan shall be provided for these new lights to measure spill over. If the manufacturers details do not provide visibility distances then these new lights shall be provided on a photometric plan to measure light trespass on the street. I shall provide the above comment in the formal comment letter which I hope to send to you by COB tomorrow. Hope this helps clear things up. Also, attached is the Site Review Committee (SRC)notification letter which was sent on Nov 14 which informs you about the Dec 5th SRC meeting. Christopher P.Perez I Senior Planner Department of Community Development(County of Albemarle,Virginia 401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext.3443 From: Christopher Perez Sent:Tuesday, November 05, 2013 5:24 PM To: 'BE@blackwellEngineering.com' Cc: 'Ibseps@gmail.com'; 'sknightrivanna@gmail.com';'basil@blackwellengineering.com' Subject: Major Site Plan for Rivanna Community Church_SDP201300056 Mr. Blackwell, i Planning staff has conducted a preliminary review of the Major Site Plan for Rivanna Community Church_SDP201300056. It appears that the plan is missing two substantial items which are required prior to Planning's complete review of the site plan, these items must be provided and reviewed prior to approval of the plan.Namely the plan is missing an Outdoor!Lighting Plan and a Landscaping Plan. These items are required of all final site plans. Below I have provided more detailed comments which reference the sections of the ordinance as well as provide guidance on a couple nuances of this site. The site plan will continue to be reviewed by all members of the Site Plan Review Committee (SRC);however, I wanted to give you advanced notice of these large items in hopes to provide you ample time to develop the documents, or to hire a third party to develop these required items. The below comments will be a part of my comments for SRC December 5th but with this advanced notice this should be no trouble for you. If you have any questions please give me a call. 'Thanks 1 [32 approved ] Outdoore Lighting The esit ro depicts anightmg which was not•,depicted nor,approved on•the p _p poutdoor lighting plan which complies with section 4.17 to"include raphotometric plan and location, description, and photograph or diagram of each type of outdoor luminaire.Revise. 2. [32.6.2(j)]] Landscape plan. A landscape plan that complies with section 32.7.9 is required. Provide a landscape plan which meets these requirements. Revise. 3. [Comment] When the landscape plan is developed pursuant to section 32.7.9 assure that the required screening at the rear of the property pursuant to Section 21.7c is provided. 4. [Comment] On the plan assure the required 20' buffer to residentially zoned property is depicted. 5. [32.5.2e] Landscape features. Provide the existing landscape features on the entire site as described in section 32.7.9.4(c). 6. [32.5.2b] Information regarding the proposed use. As landscaping (parking lot landscaping) is required for the site,provide the maximum amount of paved parking area and other vehicular circulation areas. Also, on the plan provide the maximum amount of impervious cover on the site. Christopher P.Perez I Senior Planner Department of Community Development(County of Albemarle,Virginia 40I McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext.3443 2 (Page 1 of 4) • E:'!( 825 ?WO 025 DRAINAGE EASEMENT AGREEMENT This agreement, made this 30th day of November, 1984, by and between M. 0. WHYTE and MARY JANE WHYTE, his wife, hereinafter referred to as the 'Owner', and the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, hereinafter referred to as the 'County'; WITHESSET H: That for and in consideration of One Dollar ($1.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the Owner does hereby GIVE, GRANT and CONVEY unto the County a perpetual easement and right of way for the purpose of installing, constructing, maintaining, repairing, altering, replacing and removing a public drainage ditch and/or culvert(s) and other appurtenant facilities and for the purpose of depositing water within the boundary of the permanent easement hereby conveyed under, through, upon, over and across the property of the Owner situate in the County of Albemarle, as shown on a plat prepared by R. 0. Snow and R. W. Ray, Inc., dated December 7, 1984, revised December 20, 1984, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The Owner hereby establishes an easement for driveway and parking on Tax Map 31, Parcel 32 for the benefit of Tax Map 31A, Parcel A. There is further established a thirty foot (30') access easement across Tax Map 31, Parcel 32 from Earlysville Forest Drive to Tax Map 31A, Parcel A. The Owner, however, reserves the right to relocate this thirty foot (30') access easement as necessary to develope Tax Map 31, Parcel 32. The Owner further establishes a site easement over Parcel A labeled '?5Q' rite easement line' on ,//) amid attached plat. w1aJ,. .4MLP'IM1 S wtwww armament A1,10 .301/0iOw[ AS LAZY C...IINO'�l�Z Ills Book: L25 Pace: iyEc._•'(( 32_7 Seq: (Page 2 of 4) • soak $w5 ate ooab The Owner hereby dedicates the thirty foot (30') strip to public use for future road improvements as shown on said attached plat. WITNESS the following signatures and seals: (SEAL) K. tih e SEAL) ry J yte STATE OF VIRGINIA AT LARGE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, to-wit: The .oregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this I( day of , 1985, by M. 0. WHYTE and MARY JANE WHYTE. My commission expires: , �, .� •- . w' Notary •'n. c <10(1 .s..it , ••••,.•AY * *.,e..W.. .,R 2 m,....d .r wr ba` tt 19S5-00000257 Seq: (Page 3 of 4) A ' - Gook 87 J c.v.)0 ), - r11" :AtA / f 2 3 ,,.u, ' �r:. ..... /_ • r.NI Of• TPO 00 R A?0 0 R:fS9S 00 vi .� %%Co'Cie IM .. as titn°0�Zf•• 3•'.H'.`;,•4 A N. y._ « f'1 i [ ..t 4" O ROGER INRAY \ Ci Lpr U No 1331 \ oro a `or 9 0 . s5 J`..t i p Apr. 3' , . N!bE ' OT �. 17 40 !• r f r 91 2 h. So j, '.i, c,„A•,E•� • T.M.3A PARCEL A r Lo '• inn 2.16 AC. Nv.°7'f I r •E T91' j11 4 i 3� :.y32 '593 '0DO ! l' .,, 011 1 1 _ JB453•314 1t4r� r., 10% I 1 • r n faA'0 I �JT'+2'!8 M :i• R7M . ,D H ,,, , ill 93 1~ 5 ; . w O s.•.10T.1 , JRA.VAGE ESMr '0 " rr4 se ; ' ' 8r 750I• N44'11.4 ^ 4 1 Ts.05 ~ 1 r 5002 ' r-• . 12.Pfc.''at De— 7. jg429 t o R 11r4�IRL 1100J N 1 ' I W O ." If. i �O I •`EASEVENt PIP Ob`. ' n 'v I 'N4°IS2C•N I,k1VEAA/ A N i w '• 95•r YARArNG\ O 'Inj Ws°iS c "Fir Pr..'" .., r:�+ti. I Q rr I) l} I • • ♦ r O ( 0 29 AC. w= { i ' a 1D'sTRI► I11NCATm . itW TO atA IC USE 4 vl t T.M. 31-PARCEL32 ") ' o s 4.15 ACRES ` 21 • • " oe PIA? i o ' m • alw . z I v W I. 2 _t di N J -.I30 2923415 212 TT 'RON.GJRO ST. RT. ¢6Q ' 544031'32"w 46 21 EA*L1WILLE 'GNAT ORME PLAT SHOWING DEDICATION OF 30' STRIP ACROSS PARCEL 32 TM 31 EASEMENT FOR DRAINAGE ' DRIVEWAY, PARKING 8 ACCESS ON PARCEL 32 TM 31 EASEMENT FOR DRAINAGE 8 SIGHT DISTANCE ACROSS PARCEL A T.M. 3M PARCEL 32 T.M. 31 8 PARCEL A TM. 3IA , THE P.?OPER T Y OF M.O. WHYTE PROPERTY LOCATED ON ST. RT. 743 8 VIEWMONT ROAD JUST SOUTH OF EARL.YSVILLE ALBEMARLE COUNTY,VIRGINIA SCALE : I" = 100' DATE : 12-07-84 REVISED:12-20-84 r U sNGM G 6 tr P INC c..AR.o+Tt2V:LLt ,vA 5.0t24 Boor: EL:, Page: F..:eNuo.ar: 7.985-00000257 Seq: (Page 4 of 4) • T:( 825 nx0028 Ira VIRGINIA: Ix THE CLERK'S OFFICE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ALBEMARLE : IRIS DUD WAS PRESENTED, AND WITS CERTIFICATE ANNE7h. ADMITTED STATE TAR ,� LOCAL TAR TRANSFER FEE TORTE: SHELBY J. NARSNALL, CLEAR CLERFIAT Fa Io.0 L R. ram.' PUT a.oG� IT: �+ i GRANTOR'S TAX DEPUTY CLERK TOTAL b.00 r k � _ __ Book: 225 Pape: 25 FLSeNtmer: 1955-00000257 Sec: 4 Christopher Perez From: Ann Mallek Sent. . Wednesday, November 13, 2013 10:19 AM To: Christopher Perez Subject: Fwd: October 21, 2013 (SDP).doc Attachments:. October 21, 2013.(SDP).doc; ATT00001.htm Just wanted to let you know they have already demolished the roof and partitions. Don't know if that makes a difference- in how we proceed. Hope they did not throw away the new commercial kitchen in the north end. Ann • . Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From:Carla Harris-CDD<CHARRIS@albemarle.org> Date: November 13,2013 at 9:48:46 AM EST To:SRC-SDP SUB<SRC-SDPSUB@albemarle.org>,SRC-SP ZMA<SRC-SPZMA@albemarle.org>, "SRC, Src Mailing List"<SRCSrcMailingList@albemarle.org> Subject:October 21,2013(SDP).doc Attached you will find the project that I should have sent. I apologize for the multiple emails. Thanks much— Carla i Christopher Perez From: Christopher Perez Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 5:24 PM • To: 'BE@blackwellEngineering.com' Cc: 'Ibseps@gmail.com'; 'sknightrivanna@gmail.com'; basil@blackwellengineering.com' Subject: Major Site Plan for Rivanna Community Church_SDP201300056 Mr. Blackwell, Planning staff has conducted a preliminary review of the Major Site Plan for Rivanna Community Church_SDP201300056. It appears that the plan is missing two substantial items which are required prior to Planning's complete review of the site plan,these items must be provided and reviewed prior to approval of the plan. Namely the plan is missing an Outdoor Lighting Plan and a Landscaping Plan. These items are required of all final site plans. Below I have provided more detailed comments which reference the sections of the ordinance as well as provide guidance on a couple nuances of this site. The site plan will continue to be reviewed by all members of the Site Plan Review Committee(SRC);however, I wanted to give you advanced notice of these large items in hopes to provide you ample time to develop the documents, or to hire a third party to develop these required items. The below comments will be a part of my comments for SRC December 5th but with this advanced notice this should be no trouble for you. If you have any questions please give $- a call. Thanks . [ .6.2(k)] Outdoor Lighting. The site depicts lighting which was not depicted nor approved on the .pproved final site plan. On the plan provide an outdoor lighting plan which complies with section 4.17, to include a photometric plan and location, description, and photograph or diagram of each type of outdoor luminaire. Revise. 2. [32.6.2(j)]] Landscape plan. A landscape plan that complies with section 32.7.9 is required. Provide a landscape plan which meets these requirements. Revise. 3. [Comment] When the landscape plan is developed pursuant to section 32.7.9 assure that the required screening at the rear of the property pursuant to Section 21.7c is provided. 4. [Comment] On the plan assure the required 20' buffer to residentially zoned property is depicted. 5. [32.5.2e] Landscape features. Provide the existing landscape features on the entire site as described in section 32.7.9.4(c). 6. [32.5.2b] Information regarding the proposed use. As landscaping(parking lot landscaping) is required for the site, provide the maximum amount of paved parking area and other vehicular circulation areas. Also, on the plan provide the maximum amount of impervious cover on the site. hristopher P. Peru,!Senior Planner epartment of Community Development(County of Albemarle.Virginia 4i McIntire Road I.Charlottesville,VA 22902 43 296.5832 ext.3443 Christopher Perez From: Michael Koslow Sent: - Friday, October 25, 2013 2:25 PM To: sorokeps@aol.com Cc: Christopher Perez Subject: Rivanna Community Church -groundwater assessment requirements Per our conversation today, please see p. 3 of the county's Design Standard Manual for the requirements for Tier 1-4 Groundwater assessments. Thanks; Cordially, Michael, Michael Koslow, PE, County of Albemarle Community Development Department 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville,VA 22902 434-296-5832 ext.3297 434-972-4126 (fax) mkoslow@albemarle.org Christopher Perez From: Christopher Perez Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2013 12:36 PM To: 'sknightrivanna@gmail.com' Cc: Todd Shifflett; Michael Koslow; David Benish; 'BE@blackwellEngine a. • Subject: RE: SDP201300056- Rivanna Community Church Attachments: MAJOR AMEND Site Plan_-_Amendment_Applicatio ,pd ; Completed Initial Site Plan Application for reference .pdf yvy�S 1 p,�nlI Scott Knight, �+ S PCPV—o�-a1 This email shall serve as a follow-up/recap of our recent phone call about the submittal of yo site plan, SDP201300056 -Rivanna Community Church. After having received the site plan staff was able to pull some of the history files for your .---VA- ;r reviewing these files it appears your property already has an approved final site plan on ' , S I P:-048 us the . review for the additional items you propose to put on the property would go through the aj• S t- ' an Amendment procedure rather than the initial site plan procedure.Notably you submitted an nits. Site plan • application with a fee of$1,317.75; however, a Major Amendment costs $1,500. Please pay the difference between the Major Amendment and the Initial Site Plan. Contact Todd Shifflett if you have any additional questions on the revised fee amount. Also, as discussed please fill out the application for a Major Site Plan Amendment(see attached), submit a completed application with the fee noted above to Community Development's intake staff. For your convenience I attached your existing application for reference and to help you fill out the Major Site Plan Amendment form. Also,please note that the Major Site Plan Amendment procedure still takes the plan through the Site Plan Review Committee (SRC) review; however the ordinance requires the plan to provide all applicable information required for an initial and a final plans be provided on the plan. I'll be conducting my initial review of the plans within the next 8 days to fully determine if all required information is provided in the plan sets. If not, I'll provide you a letter with any deficiencies which must be revised prior to SRC review or scheduling of the SRC meeting. Please note that SRC notifications will require additional fees for adjacent neighbor notifications/mailing. I have spoken to our administrative staff about the fees and at this time we're unable to generate the exact fee amount for the notifications, we'll follow-up with you about this before the notifications go out, we estimate it will be around $250 or so. The administrative staff has noted that the letters will be mailed within the next 2 weeks. VL.94-f eta/a-a --/3 / 4/ /ia•#+ cair r s02CA Also, as discussed being a groundwater study was already conducted on this site, and your Engineer does not anticipate the water usage will exceed 2,000 gallons/day (average) it does not appear a fee for this is required at this time. However County Engineering staff will need copies of your previous groundwater studies submitted with the application. If you have any questions about what the County Engineering department needs please call Mike Koslow at 434.296.5832 ext 3297 Please Submit the , rl items to the spr PsY•. .'. n- • . 1OC‘k Christopher P.Perez I Senior Planner Department of Community Development(County of Albemarle,Virginia 401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext.3443 • s Christopher Perez From:, Christopher Perez • Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 5:02 PM To: Stephanie Mallory Cc: Carla Harris- CDD " Subject: SDP201300056- Rivanna Community Church Attachments: MAJOR AMEND Site_Plan_-_Amendment_Application:pdf Stephanie, • I have received an initial site plan application for Rivanna Community Church(SDP201300056-Rivanna Community Church); however,per a brief review of the project which was submitted and discussions with various staff we believe this should actually be a Major Amendment rather than an initial site plan: Regardless this project still goes through SRC thus fees are required for the notifications...being I'm about to send the applicant a request to revise the fees for project review and require them to submit a new application I wanted to have all my fee-ducks in a row and provide them to the applicant at once. Thus will you provide me the SRC notification fees for the mailing on this project. Thanks Christopher P.Perez'Senior Planner Department of Community Development'County of Albemarle,Virginia 401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext.3443 From: Christopher Perez Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 4:58 PM To:Todd Shifflett Cc: Carla Harris - CDD; Stephanie Mallory Subject: SDP201300056 - Rivanna Community Church Todd, I have received an initial site plan for Rivanna Community Church (5DP201300056-Rivanna Community Church); however, per a brief review of the project which was submitted and discussions with various staff we believe this should actually be a Major Amendment rather than an initial site plan. How should we go about correcting this issue with the fee and the application? Do we have to go through a refund process or can we add money to the fee which has already been paid? They paid$1,317.75 and submitted an initial site plan application. The fee for a Major Amendment is truly$1,500 Also,"th'ey will need_to Pay*notification fees for the mailing(I'll get with Stephanie or Carla on what'the fees are for this project): Also,we'll need the applicant to determine which groundwater assessment fee applies to their site when they submit the correct fee. Christopher P.Perez I Senior Planner Department of Community Development'County of Albemarle.Virginia 401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext.3443 1 4110 II Christopher Perez From: Christopher Perez Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 4:58 PM To: Todd Shifflett Cc: Carla Harris-CDD; Stephanie Mallory Subject: SDP201300056 - Rivanna Community Church Attachments: MAJOR AMEND Site_Plan_-_Amendment_Application.pdf Todd, I have received an initial site plan for Rivanna Community Church (SDP201300056- Rivanna Community Church); however, per a brief review of the project which was submitted and discussions with various staff we believe this should actually be a Major Amendment rather than an initial site plan. How should we go about correcting this issue with the fee and the application? Do we have to go through a refund process or can we add money to the fee which has already been paid? They paid$1,317.75 and submitted an initial site plan application. The fee for a Major Amendment is truly$1,500 Also,they will need to pay SRC notification fees for the mailing (I'll get with Stephanie or Carla on what the fees are for this project). Also, we'll need the applicant to determine which groundwater assessment fee applies to their site when they submit the correct fee. Christopher P.Perez I Senior Planner Department of Community Development'County of Albemarle,Virginia 401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext.3443 atg-_-(1,R_ 04".6.1J/- 2013 Submission and Review Schedule Site Plans Deadline for Filing Architectural Review Site Review (3 P.M.) Board Meeting (If necessary) Monday Monday Thursday Jan 07 Tue Feb 19 Feb 21 Tue Jan 22 Mar 04 Mar 07 Feb 04 Mar 18 Mar 21 Tue Feb 19 Apr 01 Apr 04 Mar 04 Apr 15 Apr 18 Mar 25 May 06 May 09 Apr 08 May 20 May 23 Apr 22 Jun 03 Jun 06 May 06 Jun 17 Jun 20 May 20 Jul 01 Wed Jul 03 Jun 03 Jul 15 Jul 18 Jun 24 Aug 05 Aug 08 Jul 08 Aug 19 Aug 22 Jul 22 Tue Sep 03 Sep 05 Aug 05 Sep 16 Sep 19 Aug 26 Oct 07 Oct 10 Sep 09 Oct 21 Oct 24 Sep 23 Nov 04 Noy,(17 Oct 07 Nov 18lov 21 Oct 21 Dec 02 Dec 05 Nov 04 Dec 16 Dec 19 Nov 25 Jan 06 Jan 9 2014 Dec 09 Tue Jan 21 2014 Jan 23 2014 Dec 23 Feb 3 2014 Feb 6 2014 Bold Italics means that the submittal day or meeting date is different because of a holiday. r f // Ellen Soroka \� -31A==OA-5 � �`. = )� f J 1'k' 31'TArC'972� �/ � 31A�OD-5 g f} (�/ 7 Le end \ 31A Op-A� �`ir 31A-OA 28 ' I /3..i/A4:„....,5., yy� it• l 3•1A-O D) WoreSome items on map may not appearin legend) 31-3444dit 31A'--0C-6�, \ \\31k--0A-3 f/ ,.. ateo = �Oow r62037/ 31 A--0C-B 725' / /4091. )_ � / � •b �,�J� j�t,� /31A=-0D-3� 6to' iram,�,cE�o~\l., . j1A 0A 2 1 .�O ,J1,,/ i Q� / ;j�� / / ;r ro�,w4094 640,10` / O�� 625 ' 6^ry ` o /-./ 4�31 B-F e .tiO� 715 0 / -7'"" oll, 31A--0c.�i4-1, / ��pv/ 3/1A=0B 3 0� T00 /1A=0D2 `�.by,S.�✓ ��00 i i61 ,�) fI / ••� Boob L�F�l, / �`� ° ...S / 31A--0B-2 S ' 4155� +i�� r ....o.„a3 / it• 608 31A--OB-54170,; 7 T,R0/ �v�• as .3 Ira .�,,,,4741 t605� 0 Go �� �/ '� '"'41, �_ Q J 4150 '_/31 B A `i 31A-A `s�j- 6600 <��\ '',,,,, MEH .„,. qT� / w 8 -R \� u R<ti �`—� Ls's,, TM:31 ' 31-32 605 l / • �, y 612 ft—z_ 31 B_1 % ,, •11., • ( ) (/ \ K 36s 1111‘.**... ‘-‘‘, \ lirN, \ • . Fq, w ` 27WA-1,979-00007 ,Earlysv)Ile Post Office \s, !n 7N%'' %,,A,'A 4 .1,4 4T:' .4\..\,\,,\\.N.„.,„.i&'V\,,,e 1508 ( .:. . /,.' ....., b,7, ,`` 4018. 31B-C4/ 2.:.. 1 \03, r _‘_,\i_.-N, ` \ \ 4006 \\� �:690+31B-;C1\101+ S r i�,� ` �� \! 31 15, ,\ ,. _ N� +W316\C1'-2 \600 88E i �1 \ ® 7imA=1979-00007 ^ \ sp S �� 316=Cd 695 , 60 31-14D3. ,. 17e\�O F 6 2 - p+? Vt , '\ 31-14J_ c0` QR�ys 48� l+ ` s ��-1 `+" - lr 4,,,,,,,,:,,,x,, 660 -....,, 0� ,0 616KAiti*bey ` C 6s lb\ 31-16 L_26r_ ,-, `ev, 6, Nitre -----\ * Icr 203 ftyti t,, \ 1 GIS-Web ' ` -�':�`- r' Geogwphic Data Services 77T � _ ---31-166 \ a 2e96-se32� Map is for Display Put - r•Aenal Imagery from the Commonwealth of Veginia and Other Sources 1 `�' May 29,2013 • ; `1 — t— > a cn9v<r _ \ �` __` ill 1, w w "'_______ 14� ♦ \ 'III \ • ^ Ir -1 \ \ 'l; I I . I _:.-asnc.7V4 .02:/.3lUl 1 ; 1 .^'9-- \ '7 1 / r 1 rimemn fUman mown" II _________��_ ,,„,9 \\ 1\ 1 � emu ._J,1, t J,/>1P0)AfJU Y&ter/rel1 / -III It t.__"-A� �trt • 1 1 I . sii/ALtlin7d-am`o1'7rnr - _ _ 1-Y i-�--- ) I \\ g/. t i ' denrrhoflh,W7 II�--�- _ �I k, I \.\ I 11 \,( �i\\ ���`I� III . /Y7 3ll/Ar�l./7 2.W#d 1 /VOW;Of I ' III ��e e s.-1-- y \ 'I A V \, __� . . (ii4/l�ikl�'4V L ---I - \. �i`\ .�. 1 J., - . .. . - �g� ; ' c° \I mow_ � `` \ �' _ th 'la - - - - ` - I ' - / I (;n q ;\ It d F / ^ / \ ' `,.. . :: --4; , 11 .......` .. m F§ 'I a 17 J �� . , . a PI �\\ 'I��. ! nm ,1 ima „.,,, ,..,,.._., , _......,..._____ „....„...._____. ___________. .„:„. --- ' - r.I ' ✓/ _ �� �. Yip, .�. 4_,,,A ... ..- to =111 .ram .✓ _ �� / a \ \ --.i 7. .' ,.I I1 1 — • ' -- —i I ;,,.' ; 1 t, a. �o l - 1 I i-r-1 ill it _\ 11 11 1\. \ CT; C Ilk\\ Ill �• 1 y • ,�o . Iap .1 I ii— / ill, ,;::.'\ ; r,. Rn' \ I I `f" r acza • 3 ES I 1 Ni 1: I 1 a \ \ \' I I I e 111 `_ ' / III I. 1\ 1� I' - '\ \ '� , jl Cli,{ri p'" 'I I i I� Y If / If•II I I' • 1\q1 ^L_ - -1 1' "'. 1 2y r� a II 461,�'il 'I I _ _,�. __ •• /) /1 r L : i • • ) �'nmi- ^ "- v -.. ash ).il �� e .old - ' � IA - _ it r ' Sluaee w 741$ • Z ea]-- - / 1 4 • • ill% l • ,f , ., ‘,... ,, I • t, .,' • P.... . .... ,,, '. :•• * .- ••7. .• - •Y '!I • , 4, a 1, 1 4, 1 i t . •,,, , ...• *".•••.....'. ., . ..1.,.0 / • . . •/ ) (4 • • . . . . . . .. —...\ sk. /if' ' '• ' . Or / . - 2 , / ,%. .. . • ..‘ / • / I ,- .,. N . '' '.>4 . / . .• / . '•4,.. 0 0 ir 0 / / / / , . , . ,... „. / / , .. . ,.// . , /„ ;,/ , / .. , . / .. . / . , /. . N , N , ,... / N. , ,... , , .../ , „ , /,/ . . . / . ,./. „ . .‘ . N.. . ..,...., N......., • ',;.'V.. 44'. / / ,i( ..4/.,. •54' ,.',•'.. w,;,1,, -.. t;;•„ ..,7 ,., ,. . - • 11' . , . __----- ....•- _------ _-- ____------------ I 1 . /1/I • 1 .... . „ - 1 „ 0 a° .--...4.'444111 ---1.1..:1 - ii I ___ 0 - -4 ti=1 __ 77.... •46... r < en _____...... 1 0 . .. ....,,.. -,.........„_: . . . • . , , . r 4..i. 0 ,..,•..11**4 q, .' Z r I . I i % 1 . • • Christopher Perez From: Christopher Perez Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 10:29 AM To: 'Ellen Phillips Soroka' Cc: Ron Higgins Subject: Followup responce from Monday 1-28-13 (4-5pm) Pre-application meeting Attachments: Site_Plan_Review Manual.pdf; Site_Plan_Schedule.pdf; Albemarle_County_Code_Ch18 _Zon ing21_Commercial_Districts.pdf Ellen, It was a pleasure meeting with your organization. below 1 have provided the items we discussed at Monday 1- 28-13 (4-5pmipre-application meeting to facilitate your request to build a new church on the C-1 property. The Minks_below and the attached PDFs are the same docs, I provided both for your convenience. Site Plan Review Manual (this lays out the various submittal types and provides their applications and checklists for the reviews) http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/forms center/departments/Community Development/forms/Site_Plan s/Site_Plan Review_Manual.pdf As discussed at the pre-application meeting you can submit a pre-application plan(which is a 10 day review in which staff will review for any"big apparent issues that you'd need to address on the initial plan". and previously stated this preapplication plan is not mandatory);regardless you'll need to submit an initial site plan for review. ' Site Plan Submittal Schedule for 2013 http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/formscenter/departments/Community Development/forms/schedules /Site Plan Schedule.pdf The following Section of the ordinance which are pertinent to your zoning district: Zoning Ordinance Section 22 related to the C-1 Zoning http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/FormsCenter/Departments/County Attorney/Forms/Albemarle_Cou my Code Ch18 Zoning22 Commercial Cl.pdf Zoning Ordinance Section 21 Related to Commercial Zoning in general (both 22 and 21 apply) http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/FormsCenter/Departments/County Attorney/Forms/Albemarle Cou nty_Code Ch18 Zoning21 Commercial Districts.pdf Thanks For the portion of your request to modify the existing building's interior you'd need to speak to the Building Inspections Department: Keith Huckstep at 434.296.5832 ext. 3241 Christopher P.Perez I Senior Planner Department of Community Development(County of Albemarle,Virginia 401 Mclntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext.3443 From: Ellen Phillips Soroka [mailto:IbsepsCagmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 9:52 AM • To: Christopher Perez Subject: ? Is there a problem?No problem,rather I have not had a chance to return to your request from Monday at 5pm. It would be really helpful to get those links today. Thanks, Ellen Ellen Phillips Soroka FAAR'02 light building 3906 Stony Point Road Keswick, VA 22947 434 9734529 434 3278477 cell From: Ellen Phillips Soroka [mailto:lbseps(a>gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 4:13 PM To: Christopher Perez Subject: reminder Just a reminder that we need links to the various forms we need to fill in order to change occupancy from Commercial to Assembly space, especially if we alter one of the spaces at 605 Earlysville Green to accommodate a temporary sanctuary,Preliminary Site and Site Plan review for alteration to an existing commercial site, and finally (but in the distant future) fees and forms for a building permit. Thanks again, Ellen Ellen Phillips Soroka FAAR'02 light building 3906 Stony Point Road Keswick, VA 22947 434 9734529 434 3278477 cell Forwarded message From: Ellen Phillips Soroka<lbseps@gmail.com> Date: Mon,Jan 28,2013 at 9:25 PM Subject: 605 Earlysville Green To: cperez@,albemarle.org Hi Chris: 2 I just wanted to thank both of you for your preparedness and help in light of our proposing a church at 605 Earlysville Green. The meeting today was extremely helpful! You offered to send links to the various departments and application forms we'd need in order to prepare for a preliminary site plan meeting, and a site plan in the renovation of a commercial site to an assembly space. Once again, Thank you very much, Ellen Phillips Soroka 3 1 .. ° d a' ' e TMP 03100-00-00-03200 (f feral 4.5 acres 605 Earlysville Green (Neighborhood shopping center) Zoned Cl —Churches permitted by right(adjacent to a PUD and Village Residential) Well/Septic ''57e pl as,a a)4( Water Supply Protection Area Airport Impact Area 7 -7 ,7A,. d --- o ZMA1968-001,$4144042,,9449O `;"SDP1983-48, SDP1984-29, SDP1990-6 •;'''J /Z Ilk .� 4160• 3 '•--0:= , 31A-0B'6 . c / 415C * ♦0I k; 44I17 , . ' `i 31A-A . - Cl2cy / , '‘, %/ / t, ' '`,4-'t,, . . s ,. . . ,,,,:,:",,,,,,:/'/,,i„? ''. :.:., , ,\ // elk**.:70 . vN -TM:31 607 1 '' .' 605 fit, ,z • \ 603 `` j.Y 41: .s'.7r h', 601 `►' iir i 160011 +tit? � ' ' I } i °� . ' 4 ` k £Q • • 1 , •t..oy ,, .,„ �� $, ` - �ii 4018 , .,4 ,� , ETarlysvll t0 r yy Sections of the Ordinance that are applicable: 1) Site Plan -Section 32—if a new entrance, construction or parking are being proposed. Section 21 and 22—min landscaping requirements per 32.7.9 Offstreet parking per 4.12 Setbacks: 30' building setback to public r/w 10' parking setback to any public r/w 50' building setback to any residential or rural areas district 20' parking setback to any residential or rural district 20' undisturbed vegetative buffer adjacent to residential and rural area districts Parking Requirements Chapter 18 Section 4 Church: feet,f are., .f asse. b y, whichever-shall-be-greater-7 In the rural areas identified in the •corn rehensive-lan-the number of proposed-spaces shall be shown in aparkin studysubmitted` -----— P P , P g Y— by the church; the number of required spaces shall be determined by the zoning administrator, who shall consider the recommendations in the parking study,traffic generation figures either known to the industry or estimated by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, peak parking demands, and other relevant information. Nothing herein requires the parking study to be prepared by a transportation engineer. (Amended 2-5-03) Reviewers VDOT-Entrance approval required Health Dept-Septic system approval required Building Official Zoning Engineering Planning -"'"•-/31A--0C-9 .4700 31A-:0C-10 /' 31-‘k.-0 0-5 n A-4 31A.--0A-28 40 ,'735• Le d gen 31A-0C-5 (Note Some dems on map may not appear In legend) (.."..",\\ 31-34 ,\,•...,......_"/"V 31A--0D-4 •-, / to 1, ,............. \ .4z- 31ALO D-3 2'''IV,',11"" ,-: 4091(-) - - 31A-0A-2 0 p.....“..., 4094/ -;610', 31A--0k1 - . , .t, o - 0) .:0 „'625', • t.- 31A-0B-3 Qi '7)7. 31 A--0C-7/'. ,700: . , 42' co .4- •4,- ,c) Is, ,715•"" irz. 31kf-0 D-2 ,K 0q- 31 B-F c, Ten,Wis .„,........, Zen,* Ryll 1•41 N..R•••••• RI Ram.. ,•,.•.,*. .re...mn. 4C., '"'''.....•••..nm•.............................. •'RI= ' "<P'' , •615 ' •"7! ilk' , + •R IS fia•••••I Pa thil Devoiern , A 0 ,,......-...... ----.- -- - ':'-• 04, , . 4155< 40, . ...--- .-....„....... 31-14H 31A0B2--" . 31AA1154170 J---wx iib .....,.--- ..........-*. 31A--00-1 ,....-i/ -----.. . L17....” / '-,6°5' V v.... ,,, ,--, /4 1 6 0 O' ••••1,••••V Pario.........0 Tc..../•...... 31A--0B-1 27%- $''''' "",,,,,,,, /1t,• r i 40).4"-„--' , R f, -, SIB-A 4150,' ,-. C.-- 1 -5,*-44' '41! :,",r,..T — 1A--0 8-7 .....-0„,q,57h 31A-A',E21,,...:,,t,,i,,, .._ ,..,_ ,:„ ..-,. A <7,1, e, 9D ,,,, • . , C-. 1 , . '-1,' - ./,' • ,' •.. \ ,24 N , - TM:31 - !-<4'.31-32 '607, 4g.t. '.'/ 601 3 N ' 1 B-C2 31 B-B ''...."7,-...c..:,•,,, - ,:, '4,,,•,:.,,,,,‘„.., ,f,i. ,'/' '. a>,lik"*.,A110 ,.., , . 0 4036 't• 0- co . .12:- 4018 -,-.''.: - ' Eat Ixsville Post Office -id,. (-) 31-14 , • 4006 i '-;•'.'4' .: n3 rl.)‘690- 113--c 1-102+ 5 0 31B--C1-101+ c ' , •Qi „ : 31 B-C 11111k, 'A. Al 31-14‘J /660"...."'"... 31-1404 Y 31 26 205 -16 : ' - • s.4„. (q•-. 410 + '''.. GIS Web , Geographic Data Seraces www albernarle org (.134)296-5832 , ft 3'd 1-16B January 28,2013 Map lap,Display Purposes Only•Aerial Imagery leers the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources