Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201800003 Letter of Revision 2020-07-09 (3)SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. Design Focused Engineering July 8, 2020 Paty Saternye County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 RE: Response Letter #1 for SDP2018-03 Hansen Road Church — Letter of Revision #2 Dear Paty, Thank you for your review of the second Letter of Revision request for Hansen Road Church. This letter contains responses to County comments dated July 6, 2020. Our responses are as follows: 1. Responses to Paty Saternye, Planning, are attached 2. Responses to Michael Dellinger, Building Inspections, are attached 3. Responses to Richard Nelson, ACSA, are attached 4. Responses to Emily Cox, Engineering, are attached Planning Paty Saternye 1. Please note that the proffer states: • That the "Owner shall dedicate a non-exclusive easement on and across the pedestrian path for public use." And that • "The property owner shall maintain the path improvements..." Based upon the zoning comment (and email on 6/5/2020), and the wording of the proffer, the order for approvals will be as follows: a) The LOR is approved showing the proposed trail improvements but no easement. b) The trail is built to meet all of the requirements specified in the proffer. c) The trail is surveyed, and its exact location and width is determined and verified. d) The easement plat is revised to show the exact location of the 6' easement over the as -built location of the trail. A maintenance agreement is drafted and approved with the owner of the parcel maintaining the trail. The easement plat is approved and then both the plat and the maintenance agreement are recorded. e) The CO for the building can be issued. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. The trail has been built and surveyed, and the surveyor is currently working on revisions to the easement plat to show the 6' easement over the exact location of the trail. A maintenance agreement is also currently being drafted. 2. Although it is not included in the submitted LOR#2 request letter, the letter of revision narrative added #5 that states "Note: upon completion of the path, its location must be surveyed and a 6 ft easement must be recorded around its exact location." The note is appropriate, and directly relates to the approval process specified by zoning, but address the following: a. Move the note to the notes are of the cover sheet instead of just being included in the Letter of Revision Narrative. This is not a change with the LOR but a requirement in the approval process prior to the certificate of occupancy. b. Revise the entry in the "Letter of Revision Narrative" to instead specify that the note has been added to the cover sheet. 912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com RESPONSE: The note has been moved to the cover sheet under "Required Improvements." The LOR Narrative has been updated (#17) to state that this note has been added. Revise the Site Plan and Grading Plan sheets so that they: a. No longer show the previously proposed location of the storm drainage structure along Hansen Road. b. That the labels for the proposed structure are moved to the revised location. RESPONSE: The old location of storm structure Al is no longer shown. The label "Al" is shown at the revised location. 4. Address the following in reference to the revisions to the handicapped parking spaces at the front entrance to the building: a. Revise the parking space to be a full 18' deep. b. Revise the remaining parking space, adjacent to the sidewalk that is at the same level as the parking area, to have a bumper/stop block or revise the sidewalk width to be 6'. RESPONSE: The parking space is now shown 18' deep, thank you for catching that. A bumper block has been added in front of the parking space. 5. Provide a pedestrian connection between the upper level of the staircase from Hansen Road and the church. RESPONSE: The stairs actually connect to a sidewalk that continues across the island. This was mistakenly left out of the last submittal. 6. Revise the following in reference to the street trees along Rolkin Road and the adjoining landscaping: a. Revise the location of the street trees along Rolkin Road that were not adjusted when the section of the trail adjacent to them was moved closer to the road. The seven trees are now 11 or more feet from the trail and 17' from the curb. They should be located no further from the trail than 5' unless there is a conflict with a storm drain, or utility, that necessitates an increased distance. b. Revise the location of the trees located to the bottom right corner of the retaining wall for the future building location. There are two white pines, one southern magnolia, a sweet gum, a white oak and a redbud in very close proximity to two of the relocated street trees. Since the street trees are required to be large shade trees, and five out of six of the non - street trees adjacent are large, they should not be planted in such close proximity to each other. Allow a minimum of 25' between the relocated large shade street trees and other large trees. Please note, these trees are part of the landscaping plan approved by the Thomas Jefferson (TJF) to mitigate the view from Monticello. Therefore, the relocation of these trees should still be in the same general vicinity to avoid any need for further review from TJF. RESPONSE: The street trees along Rolkin Road have been shifted closer to the revised pedestrian path location. The trees near the bottom right corner of the retaining wall have been spaced out as much as possible while keeping them in the same general area. 7. Revise the LOR request letter, and the Letter of Revision Narrative, to adjust for all changes necessitated as specified above. RESPONSE: The LOR request letter and narrative have been updated to include all changes resulting from these comments as well as the added lighting and drainage map changes. 8. Attached please find the comments from the other reviewers. Approval from all reviewers is 912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com require before approval of the LOR. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. All comments have been addressed. 9. Added per email on July 7, 2020: The landscaping needs to be adjusted for the relocated staircase. There are proposed shrubs directly under it. RESPONSE: Three shrubs have been relocated from beneath the staircase. This has been noted on the plans. Building Inspections Michael Dellinger 1. Relocation of accessible features requires a building permit to verify code compliance. Need seven (7) accessible spaces, two (2) of which need to be van accessible. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Our client has a building permit and will schedule an inspection for the HC spaces. There are 7 total, 3 of which are van accessible. 2. All accessible parking spaces, access aisles, and accessible route shall be installed in accordance with ICC ANSI A117.1-09. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Accessible parking spaces shall be located on the shortest accessible route of travel from adjacent parking to an accessible building entrance. In parking facilities that do not serve a particular building, accessible parking spaces shall be located on the shortest route to an accessible pedestrian entrance to the parking facility. Where buildings have multiple accessible entrances with adjacent parking, accessible parking spaces shall be dispersed and located near the accessible entrances. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. The handicap spaces are all located in the shortest possible route from the available parking to the building. 4. At least one accessible route shall connect accessible buildings; accessible facilities, accessible elements and accessible spaces that are on the same site. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. 5. If a passenger loading zone was created then additional requirements are required under Chapter 5 of the referenced code above. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. No passenger loading zone was created. The new striped space is for various church activities. ACSA Richard Nelson 1. Please submit a detail for the staircase that was constructed within the ACSA easement, including footers. We will need to assess whether we will allow an encroachment agreement for the staircase within our easement. RESPONSE: The staircase was cut into the grade and has no footers. Per phone conversation, an encroachment agreement will be signed by the church. 912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com Engineering Emily Cox 1. Please provide signed engineered drawings for the retaining wall. RESPONSE: The retaining wall was built per the same engineered details for the attached terrace wall. 2. Retaining wall will need a building permit. RESPONSE: The retaining wall is covered under the building permit for the terrace wall since they are connected. 3. Please confirm the location of Storm Al matches the location on the WPO amendment. Update per email June 24, 2020: You can provide the calculations with the next LOR submittal. RESPONSE: The storm structure Al was relocated after the WPO amendment. An updated drainage map is included with updated LD-204 calculations. If you have any questions or concerns about these revisions, please feel free to contact me at kendrakshimp-en ineering com or by phone at 434-227-5140. Regards, Kendra Patrick Shimp Engineering, P.C. 912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com