The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSP201800001 Correspondence 2023-01-25Megan Nedostup From: Shawn Maddox Sent: Friday, March 02, 2018 3:27 PM To: Megan Nedostup Subject: Re: Keswick SP My understanding is that it would be connected to the well and they will also make the pool available for fire suppression water supply if needed. They did ask multiple times if we would support a boundary adjustment of the service authority's area and we would if asked. From: Megan Nedostup Sent: Friday, March 2, 2018 3:22 PM To: Shawn Maddox Subject: RE: Keswick SP Thanks Shawn. Do you know how that tank will be filled/replenished? Will it be connected to the well? From: Shawn Maddox Sent: Friday, March 02, 2018 3:18 PM To: Megan Nedostup <mnedostup@albemarle.org> Subject: Re: Keswick SP Good afternoon Megan - those hydrants have never been adequate for fire suppression and Fire Rescue has always treated the property as a rural water supply location, (meaning we automatically dispatch tankers to bring water). Current testing by the owners engineer confirms this. Based on my last discussion with the owner and his engineers they are considering an approximately 60,000 gallon tank, (above ground or below ground is being discussed), that will provide 1,000 gallons per minute for one hour. I would need to get with their sprinkler design professional to tell you exactly what the new fire flow demand would be. I hope this helps. Shawn From: Megan Nedostup Sent: Friday, March 2, 2018 2:09 PM To: Shawn Maddox Subject: RE: Keswick SP Shawn, This use is limited by the capacity of the water and sewage system per the ordinance. Can you give me information about the required flow for what they are proposing? Since this is a central system, I am concerned that they will not be able to meet the needs of the fire, existing residences, and the inn uses. At the community meeting on Tuesday, residents of the Keswick subdivision mentioned that the hydrants out there were dry, which I am not sure if that's accurate or not. However, we need to make sure that they have adequate water for all the uses that feed out of the system. Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Megan Nedostup, AICP (former Yanlglos) (pronounced nuh-DAHSf-up) Principal Planner Community Development Department Planning Services ph: 434.296.5832 ext. 3004 From: Shawn Maddox Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2018 5:09 PM To: Megan Nedostup <mnedostup@albemarle.org> Subject: Re: Keswick SP Hi Megan - thanks for checking on it! I actually met with Craig and a bunch of other folks the owner brought in for some design meetings. They are doing to address all water supply and access concerns during the site plan phase. They have agreed to meet all of our fire code requirements and have been updating me as they work through the design. Shawn From: Megan Nedostup Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2018 1:55 PM To: Shawn Maddox Subject: Keswick SP Hi Shawn, I saw that you have no objection in CV for the Keswick SP. I wanted to make sure there weren't any fire concerns with this inn, and the subdivision residences being served by the same central water system. Thanks, Megan Nedostup, AICP (former Yaniglos) (pronounced nuh-DAHST-up) Principal Planner Community Development Department Planning Services ph: 434.296.5832 ext. 3004 Megan Nedostup From: Kirtley, Joshua (VDH)<Joshua.Kirtley@vdh.virginia.gov> Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 2:46 PM To: Megan Nedostup Subject: RE: Special Use Permit- Keswick SP2018-001 Megan: It appears that the only calculations presented in the report are for the existing uses on the property. They do not seem to take into consideration further development outside of their current proposal. As far as whether or not future homes could have their own sewage disposal system and private well, that can only be determined on a case by case (lot by lot) basis. Technology and regulations have certainly developed to where it could be possible within the current regulatory fabric whereas it wasn't an option back when the lots were platted. Drainfield suitability is site dependent and must be made on an individual basis. At this point, one cannot say with 100% certainty that any of the individual lots are suitable for an onsite SDS and private well. Josh Josh Kirtley Environmental Health Technical Consultant Onsite Sewage and Water Programs Thomas Jefferson Health District Office (434) 972-6288 From: Megan Nedostup [mailto:mnedostup@albemarle.org) Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 1:39 PM To: Kirtley, Joshua (VDH) <Joshua.Kirtley@vdh.virginia.gov> Subject: RE: Special Use Permit- Keswick SP2018-001 Thank you Josh, I just want to clarify that you are saying that it does not appear that the calculations take into account the existing subdivision lots that have not been developed, correct? If yes, would the future houses be able to have their own well and septic and not be a part of the system? Megan Nedostup, A/CP (former Yaniglos) (pronounced nuh-DAHST-up) Principal Planner Community Development Department Planning Services ph: 434.296.5832 ext. 3004 From: Kirtley, Joshua (VDH) [mailto:Joshua.Kirtley@vdh.virginia.gov] Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 1:31 PM To: Megan Nedostup <mnedostup@albemarle.org> Subject: FW: Special Use Permit- Keswick SP2018-001 Good afternoon, Megan. VDH does not have authority over the permitting process for any additional connections made to an existing DEQ permitted treatment system. See Marcia's email below. At this point, it's a matter of ensuring that both the water and wastewater supplies have adequate capacity for the proposed expansion. The applicant has provided a report which lists the water capacity at 76,000 gpd and the sewage treatment plant capacity to be 60,000 gpd. The report goes on to estimate the water demands after Phase IB of this project to be 74,300 gpd. At first glance, it appears that the water supply demand will exceed the sewage treatment plant capacity. I would question how much of the current and estimated water use is used for irrigation, pool filling, etc and therefore never makes it to the treatment plant in the form of sewage. Taking into consideration the existing water use and the proposed additions, along with the permitted capacity of the STP, I would tend to think that they should be able to justify the proposal with further corespondance. I say this because they appear to be well under the permitted capacity based on a peak daily average and I'm assuming that a certain portion of the water that is used never makes its way to the STP. I also believe that they can itemize the additional uses to justify the expanded services. Please note that the projected water use and wastewater treatment capacity doesn't appear to take into consideration any future development on the property. If you have any questions, or if I can clarify anything, please let me know. Have a good afternoon, Josh Josh Kirtley Environmental Health Technical Consultant Onsite Sewage and Water Programs Thomas Jefferson Health District Office (434) 972-6288 From: Degen, Marcia (VDH) Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 4:50 PM To: Kirtley, Joshua (VDH) <Joshua.Kirtley@vdh.virginia.gov> Subject: RE: Special Use Permit- Keswick SP2018-001 Hi Josh, So VDH has no authority to issue any permits for a DEQ permitted facility. If a construction permit is needed for the connection, DEQ would issue it. I was trying to find info on the process on the DEQwebsite, but couldn't find it. It used to be that as long as there was capacity, DEQ would issue a construction permit for the connection but with this small a system, they may not require anything. Just have them contact their permit writer at DEQ to see what DEQ wants'. You can also let DEQ know as well to give them a heads up. If you're not sure who to contact, you can always contact the water permit manager at the DEQ office, give them the permit name/number, and let them know what's going on. I like easy questions. Keep em coming.... Marcia From: Kirtley, Joshua (VDH) Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 4:02 PM To: Degen, Marcia (VDH) <Marcia.DeQen@vdh.virginia.gov> Subject: FW: Special Use Permit- Keswick SP2018-001 Good afternoon, Marcia. Hope that you're doing well. I was wondering if you could help me out with a few questions that I have regarding a discharge system here in Albemarle. Keswick Hall is served by a DEQ issued discharge permit for up to 60,000 gpd with a permit is in good standing. They are proposing to build a couple of additional buildings for a new restaurant and a new hotel wing, but the additional flow will not push them past their permitted limit. At this time, they are operating well below their permitted limit (approx. 32-34,000 gpd). A couple of questions for you: 1. Which agency is responsible for the sewer connections to the existing collection system? Would VDH need to approve minor modification permits for these additional lines? 2. If VDH is responsible for issuing the minor modification permits, what information should be required? I'm hoping to keep is simple, but at the same time, I don't have information about the collection system. Should we get information on this? 3. Is there a process to let DEQ know about the proposed construction? I don't want them to be "surprised" even though the resulting additional water use will still be well below the permitted limit (per conversation with the PE group). This project is in the early phases, but I've been asked to review the proposal and to provide comments for the County. As always, I appreciate your time. Josh Josh Kirtley Environmental Health Technical Consultant Onsite Sewage and Water Programs Thomas Jefferson Health District Office (434) 972-6288 From: Bruce Strickland [mailto:Bruce.Strickland@timmons.com] Sent: Monday, February 26, 2018 3:27 PM To: Kirtley, Joshua (VDH) <Joshua.Kirtley@vdh.vireinia.gov> Subject: RE: Special Use Permit- Keswick SP2018-001 Josh, Great to finally catchup with you. As requested, I have attached the latest NPDES permit for the Keswick WWTP along' with a fact sheet provided by DEQ. Please contact me if any additional information is needed. Thank you, Bruce Bruce W. Strickland, Jr., P.E. Water Infrastructure Engineer TIMMONS GROUP ( www.timmons.com 1001 Boulders Parkway, Suite 300 1 Richmond, VA 23225 Office: 804.200.6389 1 Fax: 804.560.1016 bruce. strickl a nd (cDti m m ons.com Your Vision Achieved Through Ours From: Kirtley, Joshua (VDH) [mailto:Joshua.Kirtley(@vdh.virginia.go_v) Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2018 6:09 PM To: Craig Kotarski <Craig.Kotarski@timmons.com> Cc: Megan Nedostup <mnedostup@albemarle.org>; Bruce Strickland <Bruce.Strickland@timmons.com> Subject: RE: Special Use Permit- Keswick SP2018-001 Thanks, Craig. Bruce: Please give me a call at your convenience to discuss. Have a good evening, Josh Josh Kirtley Environmental Health Technical Consultant Onsite Sewage and Water Programs Thomas Jefferson Health District Office (434) 972-6288 From: Craig Kotarski [maiIto: Craig. Kota rski@timmons.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2018 3:21 PM To: Kirtley, Joshua (VDH) <Joshua.Kirtlev vdh.virginia.gov> Cc: Megan Nedostup <mnedostup@albemarle.org>; Bruce Strickland <Bruce.Strickland@timmons.com> Subject: RE: Special Use Permit- Keswick SP2018-001 Josh, Not to keep passing you off, but I am copying in Bruce Strickland who is working on the water systems at Keswick. Bruce has a solid understanding of what capacities still exist and can coordinate a meeting on site at Keswick. He is out of the office for the next day or so, at a conference, but had previously been coordinating some items with Steve Kvech at VDH. Best, Craig Craig Kotarski, P.E., LEED AP Principal TIMMONS GROUP I www.timmons.com 608 Preston Avenue, Suite 200 1 Charlottesville, VA 22903 Office: 434.327.1688 1 Fax: 434.295.8317 Mobile: 434.964,7148 1 craig.kotarskiO-timmons.com Your Vision Achieved Through Ours To send me files greater than 20M8 click here. From: Megan Nedostup[mailto:mnedostuoi'r)albemarle.ore] Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2018 11:56 AM To: Josh Kirtley <Joshua.kirtlev@vdh.virginia.gov>; Craig Kotarski <Craig.Kotarski[n)timmons.com> Subject: Special Use Permit- Keswick SP2018-001 Josh: I am forwarding your contact information to Craig with Timmons (copied on this email) to follow up with you on a possible site visit for Keswick. Please keep me in the loop if a day/time is scheduled in case 1 am able to join. Josh Kirtley Environmental Health Technical Consultant Onsite Sewage and Water Programs Thomas Jefferson Health District Office (434) 972-6288 Thank you, Megan Nedostup, A/CP (former Yaniglos) (pronounced nuh-DAHST-up) Principal Planner Community Development Department Planning Services ph: 434.296,5832 ext. 3004 .+ r :n Keswick Hall Community Meeting Keswick Hall Special Use Permit Request, SP 2018-0001 February 8, 2018 Dear Neighbor, On behalf of Historic Hotels of Albemarle, LLC and Keswick Club, LLC, the owners of Keswick Hall and Golf Course, we invite you to attend a Community Meeting on February 27 at 5:30pm. The meeting will be held at the East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Company Banquet Hall, located at 3501 Steamer Dr, Keswick, VA 22947. The purpose of the community meeting will be the present information regarding our request to amend the existing Special Use Permit ("SP") governing the property, which consists of approximately 174 acres and is comprised of Albemarle County Tax Map and Parcels 08000-00-00-00-008Z0 and 08000-00-00-00900. The Keswick property is located within the Rural Areas ("RA") zoning district of Albemarle County; Lodges and Swim, Golf and Tennis Clubs are allowed pursuant to a Special Use Permit in the RA district. The property was first approved for a Special Use Permit in 1978, with the most recent amendment to the SP being SP 2008-42, which allowed for the expansion of the Inn, including up to 123 permitted rooms (75 in addition to the existing 48 keys) and a 13 room spa, among other improvements. County staff is requiring amendments to the existing SP because the location of the hotel expansion and spa has shifted. The current request is for fewer guest rooms and fewer spa rooms than what was previously approved. The owners also intend to move Fossett's from inside the Inn to a proposed addition of the Clubhouse. The expansion of the Inn use will be accommodated through upgrades to the existing Energy Plant that is adjacent to the Clubhouse and a new Laundry and Maintenance Facility. During the meeting, we will provide an opportunity for residents to receive information and ask questions about the proposed project, County review procedures, and relevant regulations and policies of the County applicable to the proposed project. The applicant and County Staff will be available at the meeting to answer questions about the project and the review process. The meeting will start at 5:30pm with a project overview presentation and a questions and answers session afterwards. The Fire Station is located just off Route 250. Turn onto Glenmore Way, and then take a left onto Steamer Drive. To access the parking lot during construction, turn right at beginning of building and proceed behind building, turn left and follow rear of building to event parking that is on the east side of the building. If you are unable to attend but have questions regarding the project, please feel free to contact me at vlono(&williamsmullen.com or 434-951-5709. We look forward to seeing you there. Sincerely, Valerie Long 35578622_1 Megan Nedostup Subject: Keswick water/wastewater coordination a Location: A Start: Wed 4/11/2018 9:30 AM End: Wed 4/11/2018 10:00 AM Recurrence: (none) Meeting Status: Accepted Organizer: Andrew Knuppel Required Attendees: Megan Nedostup; David Benish; Francis MacCall Meet briefly to coordinate comments related to Keswick's water/wastewater systems and make sure we're all the on the same page. See my thoughts (below). Clarify relationship between ordinance text and SP process/conditions for expansion. o David is drafting a memo to Amelia to confirm the interpretation discussed on 3/30. o Any other next steps? Timing/phasing/triggers of necessary system expansions, BOS approval. o AK will comment: we will plan to recommend implementation of system expansions as conditions of approval. Conditions shall coordinate with phases and alternatives outlined in the Water/Wastewater Facilities Plan, similar to below: Base Improvement W1 (internal fire protection) approved by BOS before Phase 1A bldg. permit issuance, completed for CO. • Base Improvement W2 (new well, storage tank) approved by BOS before Phase 1B (new wing) bldg. permit issuance, completed for CO. • Applicant thinks it can wait until Phase 2, but I think we could address subdivision concerns by doing this now. Example language: "The applicant shall seek and obtain all necessary approvals by the Virginia Department of Health and the County Board of Supervisors for a water system improvement egwvalent-to-or-exceeding the designed standards of "Base Improvement W1: Dedicated Internal lire-�ion" as described in the "Water and Wastewater Facilities Plan 2017 Update for Keswick Hall & Golf Club" dated December 1, 2017 and revised March 19, 2018 (hereinafter the `2017 Water/Wastewater Plan') before a building permit for the proposed improvements described in Phase 1A of the aforementioned plan may be issued. No certificates of occupancy for the improvements in Phase IA shall be issued prior to the completion of the aforementioned water system improvement." See pg. 5-16 of the Water/Wastewater Plan for applicant's phasing justifications. Is this satisfactory for this comment cycle since they're looking to schedule a PC date? o Does conditioning the new well and storage tank with Phase 1B seem roughly proportional to Phase 16's impacts? • The current limiting factor of the water system is storage per U5.3, with a 38,000 gal effective storage capacity limiting the permitted system capacity to 76,000 gpd (VDH waterworks states storage must be equivalent to 50%of design capacity). • Under the projected peak demand for Phase 1B (74,300 gpd) there would only be 1,700 gpd of permitted system capacity in excess, equivalent to 850 gallons of effective storage capacity. VDH needs 200 gal of effective storage capacity for human consumption per equivalent residential connection (ERC) per https://law.lis.virginia.gov/admincode/titlel2/agencv5/chapter590/section690/ ). • After buildout of 18, not more than 4 new ERCs could occur. From a first glance at GIS-Web, 4 unbuilt lots approved and platted pursuant to SP2000-33 and SUB2005-47 are not owned by Keswick (80-101, 80-10M, 80-1013, 80-9T). Would building 5 of the 77 "future" single family residences require nonexistent storage capacity? o Wastewater appears to be OK through Phase 3 — we won't worry about conditioning specific phasing at this time. • Nothing beyond Phase 1B is to be approved under this SP. o Concept plan does not show Phases 2 or 3, and the applicant is not addressing impacts related to these phases at this time. No point in addressing their water/wastewater impacts yet. Last week we met to discuss whether the proposed Keswick Inn modifications in the SP201----- application is a permitted use under the interpretation of 2715 below. This question is based on the knowledge that past and current studies of the utility systems (specifically water) have have shown, given all of the potential users/properties with the rights use the system, that the water system would need to be expanded. That situation could be interpreted as inconsistent with language of 27B stating "...provided the restaurant or inn is served by existing water and sewerage systems having adequate capacity for both the existing and proposed uses and facilities "served by existing water and sewerage system having adequate capacity... without expansion of either system." 10.2.2.27 Restaurants, taverns, and inns that are: b. Nonconforming uses, provided the restaurant or inn is served by existing water and sewerage systems having adequate capacity for both the existing and proposed uses and facilities without expansion of either system. I believe our conclusion at the end of that meeting was that is that: • Any future estimated/projected expansion does not prohibit the application for expansion. If capacity exists within the system to serve the restaurant or inn at the time of a SP request, the application for use can be accepted for review. • Impacts of projected/future capacity issues would be considered as part of the SP request. I'm OK with this conclusion but I still have a little uneasiness about this: It seems that including the language in 27b "...for both the existing and proposed uses.." might have been intended to capture not only existing and proposed uses and facilities at the restaurant/inn, but also the other proposed/future users of the system (included to acknowledge and capture other existing and future users of the systems besides the restaurant -inn). Our conclusion, I think, was that this phrase only applies to the existing and proposed restaurant/inn uses. It would seem that this must have been the basis for prior interpretations of this sections when other SPs were reviewed in the 2000s. Are we still OK with this construction? Also: Have our interpretations of this section, past and present, completely negated any substantive value/purpose of the "without expansion" terminology? It seems like at one time it might have the most critical and measurable component of the section, and it now rendered superfluous. 1 11 COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1601 Orenpe Hoed Culpeper VryiNa 22701 Stephen C. Brrch, P.E. Commissioner April 6, 2018 County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Attn: Megan Nedostup Re: Southwood TIA ZMA 2018-00003 Review #1 Dear Ms. Nedostup: The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use Section, has reviewed the above referenced study as submitted by Timmons Group, dated 19 February 2018, and offers the following comments: 1. Please revise the study to include the correct number of proposed residential units. 2. The trip generation, as proposed in the study requires that this become a VDOT- mandated study (previously referred to as Chapter 527) as it will generate more than 5,000 trips per day. 3. Due to the change in type of study required, the Department will require a meeting to revise the scope of the project in accordance with the applicable regulations. 4. The study suggests that the proposed impacts will have negative impacts on the operations of multiple intersections to the east of the proposed primary entrance. Mitigation for these impacts should be discussed in the re-scoping meeting and analysis of any proposals included in the revised TIA. 5. The proposed road cross sections and designs shall be in accordance with the VDOT Road Design Manual, Appendix B I and all other applicable standards. 6. Sidewalk widths shall be 5 feet where adjacent to a buffer strip and 8 feet where adjacent concrete curb. 7. Buffer strips are a minimum of 3 feet in width unless they are proposed to have trees planted within them. If trees are proposed for the butter strips they shall be 6 feet in width. VirginiaDOT.org WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING April 6, 2018 Megan Nedostup Page 2 Please contact me at (434)422-9782 to schedule a re-scoping meeting for the TIA and provide a comment response letter with subsequent submissions. Sincerely, Adam J. Moore, P.E. Area Land Use Engineer Charlottesville Residency VirginiaDOT.org WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING l