The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSDP201300064 Review Comments 2014-06-10Review Comments Project Name: Church of Our Savior Final Site Development Plan Date Completed: ITuesday, June 10, 2014 Reviewer: Christopher Perez Department /Division /Agency: CD Reviews Review Status: Approved Review Comments Project Name: Church of Our Savior Final Site Development Plan Date Completed: IMonday, May 12, 2014 Reviewer: Christopher Perez Department /Division /Agency: CD Reviews Review Status: No Objection Christopher Perez From: Robbie Gilmer Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2014 10:10 AM To: Alan Franklin Cc: Christopher Perez; Geoffrey Kilmer Subject: RE: Church of Our Savior Final Site Plan Approval Alan, Thank you for addressing my comment on the Church of Our Savior Site Plan. Chris- This will meet Fire Rescue's approval. Thank you, Robert Gilmer Assist. Fire Marshal Albemarle County Fire Rescue 460 StageCoach Road Charlottesville, Va. 22901 Office 434 - 296 -5833 Cell 434 - 531 -6606 From: Alan Franklin [ mailto :afranklin(aDwaterstreetstudio .net] Sent: Monday, May 05, 2014 11:48 AM To: Robbie Gilmer Cc: Christopher Perez; Geoffrey Kilmer Subject: Church of Our Savior Final Site Plan Approval Please ignore the previous email, I sent the wrong file. Robbie, Based on site plans dated 3/14/14 you had the following comment. 1. The emergency access gate from School House Lane Shall have a sign No Parking Fire Lane. Please find the attached revised site plan sheet addressing your comment. We are trying to navigate our way to the final approval process as quickly as possible now that we are close to the finish line and would appreciate it if you could forward your approval to Christopher Perez if you feel that your comments have been adequately addressed. We have clouded the revised note for convenience. Please let me know if you need a hard copy of the plan. Thanks, Alan Franklin, PE waterstreet studio 418 East Main Street Charlottesville VA 22902 434.295.8177 www.waterstreetstudio.net I facebook I twitter Review Comments Project Name: Church of Our Savior Final Site Development Plan Date Completed: JFriday, April 18, 2014 Reviewer: Max Greene Department /Division /Agency: Engineering Reviews Review Status: No Objection Review Comments Project Name: Church of Our Savior Final Site Development Plan Date Completed: 1wednesday, April 09, 2014 Reviewer: Alexander Morrison Department /Division /Agency: ACSA Reviews 4 -9 -14 email from alex morrison - I have been working with the applicant directly to coordinate the plan with RWSA since it involves some of their infrastructure. I will advise once I give approval. Thanks Review Status: See Recommendations Review Comments Project Name: Church of Our Savior Final Site Development Plan Date Completed: IMonday, April 07, 2014 Reviewer: Robbie Gilmer Department /Division /Agency: Fire Rescue Reviews Based on plans dated 3/14/14 1. The emergency access gate from School House Lane Shall have a sign No Parking Fire Lane. Review Status: Requested Changes County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Alan Franklin From: Christopher P. Perez- Senior Planner Division: Zoning & Current Development Date: April 7, 2014 Subject: SDP201300064 Church of Our Saviour — Final Site Plan The Planner for the Zoning & Current Development Division of the Albemarle County Department Community Development will recommend approve the plan referred to above when the following items have been satisfactorily addressed. (The following comments are those that have been identified at this time. Additional comments or conditions may be added or eliminated based on further review.) [Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference to the Albemarle County Code.] [315.2(2)j Stall'f Naas reviewed and approved a l:. ine acalion plal to corabin tli.e: !Nvo ch:carch lot (1M" 61-1.44 and 61- 1461)1. 1'o assize ihis plat has been. recorded. €.era the Si le 1)1' all prOvi.& :1:: }eed. Boy €: >k a a.cl € f t we recorded plate Wla.ich laic ilitated this cambination of tax maal? parcels. 1'his in-formation. shall be caapttared on sheet: 'l underi site da la, tax in ap parcel n UT11 er.Also, assure saeet. 2;1 glstu» is updated lo reflect Parcel,.; aiRd t ost £eLCnt did «§se& 2. [32.45,2(=)[ .1 [ie proposed School 1-louse 1:.,ano depicted car) I . lie approved initial sits; pl.aari :l r"'e been on- lifted :l'roun flie :l: n al site; plaara.. Tl ,evlse: plat. toy .lh-ovide di.:Ino;t1.:>1.ons of the exisiing � nLnuice Ouid accessafl l.� ..1`o §:trt .l':1.1112:t.1rk�5:$o)iI JZoatl`l. Keys . , Comment addragsed 3. [32.7.2.1(a) and Condition of Initial Site Plan approval] The proposed modifications /upgrades to School House Lane depicted on the approved initial site plan have been omitted from the final site plan. As such the applicant shall propose an acceptable physical barrier to disconnect/ prohibit through traffic to the unimproved road. VDOT has recommended a landscaping strip along the property line /or parking area at the rear of the site. This may be an acceptable; however, the applicable solution should also be approvable by Engineering, Planning, and Fire and Rescue. Please coordinate this aspect of the plan with applicable reviewers. Rev 1. Planning staff has no issues with the proposed barrier. Pending approval by Engineering and Fire and Rescue. 4.. [32.5.2(b.), <1; .61, Per the parldrig c:aaleLlaati€ m on sheet L tl' e parking requirements flor the c:l urch are 58 spaces required aaud 68 paved spaces provided- h(..n.%--ever. sea l' 1 vas o C nali.le locate Wpaved spaces, ...1n s .. eet .3 '1).Case 1111M. r eai€ i. space o n plan to a;�stare �:�ac1a sparc;e is aa�;cc�tlratecl'i'c'$r. €.��s . ��minenz- addressed [315101, 11161 Gil the plan dielini.its oflhk overffi.n%, parking area.. ]Zei,L Comment adbrued 6, 132-5Aa)] Oil sheet I, under site'Dat'?... assure ffie Zoni Sig of the Property a Iso provides inforr'llation that this parcel. is sul}ject U.) Z-11-NiA.20 12-6 and has F1 roB.ers associaled�� ,.itbi i.L Rev]. Comment adkeuedf 7, C€ mme-ni On sheet 1, under the title of the plan, al;;s ri the SDP nuniber of the prqject is revised lo accurately reflect the true final site plan. nurriber, SIR201300064. R.evise, Reis L Comment adih-esseet 13151(a)] On sheet I, under Site 'Data.. Waiver./Variation, sta•f-feels it's appropriato U) add IbMAhe approvals by tbe :.Y)S oi:i 1.0-94'.3 were iri Sl)P2012- 49. Rev.1. Comment addresset Landscaping 9, [31U(J;)M 317A4(kol 1`,xisdng, trees inay be preserved in lieu of plasting plarit materials in order to satisfy the landscapi-iig and screening requirenaents of Scotian 32.7.9. subJeci to the agent's approval. 'Phe "Free Canopy calculalions pro-Vided firer the site appear to be correct; bowever. in order to qualify the exisdug ire es the applicani also needs I(.) provide the locaian Enid type of protective fencing; on the plan, Enid. the applicani shall sigpl a coiEerwdiwi check.1ist to ensure thatthe preserved trees will. be protected during construction. The dwcklisi shall confibrin to the specification's in ifie 'Rybda Ero.. ionand Sec iinent (:,lontrol 1-kuidbook, pages IH-393 thmugh 10413, and as hereafter aniended. Please note that the co.n.servation. plan checklist rnits-I be included in the plan set, not as a sc}irate document-Reviso. Rev]. nmunent ushysind .1 0. [3161(;)] W sheet 7 of I.(% in. the P.1wit Schedule and Values, the size of the. AnelanNer c Antunn Brilliance' Canada Servieeborryis listed as 1.5 2" calipar; IIOWeVU, the (.'Mnty's Appawed Mull CAmolpy 1,ist utilizes 6-7 height to d(A, unine the AnAwn catlopy. 1?lease revise to wilize 1he correct niea.swrernents to alJowstaft' to COLMt the Enid asSffe Lhe correct plan.1 can.opy -J or the- plantings, Rev .1. Commew addrevs-ed [32,6.2(1)1 On. sheet 7 of 10, in the Rant Schedule and (�,�aaopy Valuet, ille canopy provided. l.(.)r Rotundiloba' is 24.9 4:1:` per plam; ho never, the County's Approved..Plaal Canopy.1-ist Me cmwpy lx this tree as 206 SIF per phML Please revise to utilize the correct canopy, Notably the f.iquidambar s.tyriciflua version of this plant is provided for 249 SF of canopy per plant. Revise..Rev], C, 'Vnnmevt whiressed, 12. 132A.2()] (')n she el- 7 of I O� in the Plant Schedule and Canopy Val ues L.iquidainbar slyriciflua ' *R.otundiloba' is labeled as :LS; hoA--ever staf."I., is wiable to locate the Iwo platitings. 1his:rnay be a, typographical error and Lheldbel shOUld truly be 1.J.Zas ti'vo pl.anls are located near the new bu.Hdhg SUell a label—Revise ifappropriato. Rer Engineering Comments -- Max Greene Comments pending. VDOT Comments — Troy Austin See attached comments RWSA Comments — Victoria Fort Sheet 2: 1. Change the label on the water line located in Rio Road from "Ex. ACSA Water Main" to "Ex. RWSA 18" Water Main." Sheet 3: 1. Change the label on the water line located in Rio Road from "Ex. ACSA Water Main" to "Ex. RWSA 18" Water Main." 2. RWSA must be present during abandonment of the existing water service connection in Rio Road and tapping of the water main for the new water service connection. ACSA will provide an abandonment detail and notes for this plan sheet. Attached is the standard template for an RWSA deed of easement for your preparation and review. Please let me know if you have any questions or if you would like additional information from me regarding the easement or my comments above. Fire and Rescue Comments - Robbie Gilmer Comments pending. ACSA — Alex Morrison Per discussions with Alex, ACSA is working directly with the applicant. Upon approval by ACSA, please forward Planning staff such documentation. If you have any questions about any of the comments please contact Christopher P. Perez at the Department of Community Development 296 -5832 ext. 3443 for further information. � A tti a DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1601 Orange Road. . culpeper „Y.rginia 22701 Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E. Commissioner April 1, 2014 Mr. Christopher Perez Senior Planner County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: SDP - 2013 -00064 Church of Our Savior— Final Site Plan Dear Mr. Perez: We have reviewed the final site plan for the Church of Our Savior New Annex Building dated 11122113 with revisions dated 12/26/13, 21.4114, and 3/17/14 as submitted by Waterstreet Studio and offer the following comments: 1. The sight distance shown in the sight distance exhibit does not meet minimum sight distance requirements. The available sight distance should be verified and corrected on the site plan as applicable. 2. All other review comments have been addressed.. 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 WE KEEP VIRGINIA! MOVING COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1601 Orange Road Culpeper. Vrg1na 22701 Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E. Commissioner April 1, 2014 Mr. Christopher Perez Senior Planner County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: SDP - 2013 -00064 Church of Our Savior — Final Site Plan Dear Mr. Perez: We have reviewed the final site plan for the Church of Our Savior New Annex Building dated 11/22/13 with revisions dated 12126113, 214!14, and 3117114 as submitted by Waterstreet Studio and offer the following comments: 1. The sight distance shown in the sight distance exhibit does not meet minimum sight distance requirements. The available sight distance should be verified and corrected on the site plan as applicable. 2. All other review comments have been addressed. 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 WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING Christopher Perez From: Victoria Fort [vfort @rivanna.org] Sent: Friday, March 28, 2014 8:03 AM To: Christopher Perez Cc: Alex Morrison; Alan Franklin ( afranklin @waterstreetstudio.net) Subject: SDP201300064 Church of Our Saviour Attachments: RWSA Deed of Easement Template - Last Revised 2- 18- 09.DOC Chris, RWSA has reviewed the final site plan for Church of Our Saviour as prepared by Water Street Studio with most recent revision dated 3/17/2014 and has the following comments for the engineer: Sheet 2: 1. Change the label on the water line located in Rio Road from "Ex. ACSA Water Main" to "Ex. RWSA 18" Water Main." Sheet 3: 1. Change the label on the water line located in Rio Road from "Ex. ACSA Water Main" to "Ex. RWSA 18" Water Main." 2. RWSA must be present during abandonment of the existing water service connection in Rio Road and tapping of the water main for the new water service connection. ACSA will provide an abandonment detail and notes for this plan sheet. Attached is the standard template for an RWSA deed of easement for your preparation and review. Please let me know if you have any questions or if you would like additional information from me regarding the easement or my comments above. Thank you, Victoria Victoria Fort, EIT Civil Engineer Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority 695 Moores Creek Lane Charlottesville, VA 22902 (P): (434) 977 -2970 ext. 205 (F): (434) 295 -1146 County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Alan Franklin - -- — From: Christopher P. Perez- Senior Planner Division: Zoning & Current Development Date: February 21, 2014 Subject: SDP201300064 Church of Our Saviour — Final Site Plan The Planner for the Zoning & Current Development Division of the Albemarle County Department Community Development will recommend approve the plan referred to above when the following items have been satisfactorily addressed. (The following comments are those that have been identified at this time. Additional comments or conditions may be added or eliminated based on further review.) [Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference to the Albemarle County Code.] 1. [32.5.2(a)] Staff has reviewed and approved a Boundary Line Vacation plat to combine the two church lots (TMP 61 -144 and 61- 146D). To assure this plat has been recorded; on the site plan provide Deed Book and Page Reference Number of the recorded plat which facilitated this combination of tax map parcels. This information shall be captured on sheet 1 under site data, tax map parcel number. Also, assure sheet 2, Existing Conditions sheet is updated to .reflect appropriate Tax Map Parcels and most recent recordation information. 2. [32.5.2(i)] The proposed modifications /upgrades to School House Lane depicted on the approved initial site plan have been omitted from the final site plan. Revise plan to provide dimensions of the existing entrance and access aisle from Huntington Road. [32.7.2.1(a) and Condition of Initial Site Plan approval] The proposed modifications /upgrades to School House Lane depicted on the approved initial site plan have been omitted from the final site plan. As such the applicant shall propose an acceptable physical barrier to disconnect/ prohibit through traffic to the unimproved road. VDOT has recommended a landscaping strip along the property line /or parking area at the rear of the site. This may be an acceptable; however, the applicable solution should also be approvable by Engineering, Planning, and Fire and Rescue. Please coordinate this aspect of the plan with applicable reviewers. 4. [32.5.2(b), 4.12.6] Per the parking calculations on sheet 1, the parking requirements for the church are 58 spaces required and 68 paved spaces provided; however, staff was unable to locate 68 paved spaces. On sheet 3 please number each space on the plan to assure each space is accounted for. 5. [32.5.2(b), 4.12.61 On the plan please clearly label the limits of the overflow parking area. 6. [32.5.6(a)] On sheet 1, under Site Data, assure the Zoning of the property also provides information that this parcel is subject to ZMA2012 -6 and has Proffers associated with it. 7. [Comment] On sheet 1, under the title of the plan, assure the SDP number of the project is revised to accurately reflect the true final site plan number: SDP201300064. Revise. 8. [32.5.6(a)] On sheet 1, under Site Data, WaiverNariation, staff feels it's appropriate to add that the approvals by the BOS on 10 -9 -13 were in association with SDP2012- 49. Landscaping 9. [32.6.20), 32.7.9.4(b)] Existing trees may be preserved in lieu of planting new plant materials in order to satisfy the landscaping and screening requirements of section 32.7.9, subject to the agent's approval. The Tree Canopy calculations provided for the site appear to be correct; however, in order to qualify the existing trees the applicant also needs to provide the location and type of protective fencing on the plan, and the applicant shall sign a conservation checklist to ensure that the preserved trees will be protected during construction. 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. Please note that the conservation plan checklist must be included in the plan set, not as a separate document. Revise. 10. [32.6.20)] On sheet 7 of 10, in the Plant Schedule and Canopy Values, the size of the Amelanchier c `autumn Brilliance' Canada Serviceberryis listed as 1.5 — 2" caliper; however, the County's Approved Plant Canopy List utilizes 6 -7' height to determine the minimum canopy. Please revise to utilize the correct measurements to allow staff to count the plantings and assure the correct plant canopy for the plantings. 11. [32.6.20)] On sheet 7 of 10, in the Plant Schedule and Canopy Values, the canopy provided for Liquidambar styriciflua ` Rotundiloba' is 249 SF per plant; however, the County's Approved Plant Canopy List the canopy for this tree as 206 SF per plant. Please revise to utilize the correct canopy. Notably the Liquidambar styriciflua version of this plant is provided for 249 SF of canopy per plant. Revise. 12. [32.6.20)] On sheet 7 of 10, in the Plant Schedule and Canopy Values Liquidambar styriciflua ` Rotundiloba' is labeled as LS; however staff is unable to locate the two plantings. This may be a typographical error and the label should truly be LR as two plants are located near the new building with such a label. Revise if appropriate. Engineering Comments — Max Greene 1. Please clarify the areas of gravel removal on the site plan that is proposed to be grassed or revegetated. 2. Please field verify topography has not changed since surveyed in June of 2011 and show on plan date of verification/certification. ACSA — Alex Morrison Per discussions with Alex, ACSA is working directly with the applicant. Comments have been provided. VDOT Comments — Troy Austin See attached comments RWSA Comments — Victoria Fort See attached comments ARB Comments — Margaret Maliszewski Approved 2- 18 -14. E911— Andrew Slack No objections Building Inspections — Jay Schlothauer No objections Fire and Rescue Comments - Robbie Gilmer No objections If you have any questions about any of the comments please contact Christopher P. Perez at the Department of Community Development 296 -5832 ext. 3443 for further information. C OMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1601 Orange Road Culpeper, Virginia 22701 -3819 Gregory A. Whlrley Commissioner of Highways January 6, 2014 Mr. Christopher Perez Senior Planner County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: SDP - 2013 -064 Church of Our Savior — Final Site Plan Dear Mr. Perez: We have reviewed the final site plan for the Church of Our Savior New Annex Building dated 11/22/13 as submitted by Waterstreetstudio and offer the following comments: 1. The sight lines, dimensions of the entrance, and distance to Rio Road should be provided for the existing entrance onto Huntington Road so that adequacy of the existing entrance can be verified based on the proposed intensification of the entrance. 2. The intention is that the existing entrance onto Huntington Road be used for access to this site. As such, there needs to be a physical disconnect between the gravel parking area and the lane to Rio Road. I would suggest some form of landscaping along the property line and /or parking area. 3. The site trip generation should be provided including the proposed improvements. If you need additional information concerning this project, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Tro Austin, P.E. Area Land Use Engineer Culpeper District VirginiaDOT.org WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING Christopher Perez From: Victoria Fort [vfort @rivanna.org] Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2014 5:23 PM To: Alex Morrison Cc: Christopher Perez; Alan Franklin ( afrank lin @waterstreetstudio.net) Subject: SDP201200049 Church of Our Saviour Final Site Plan Attachments: RWSA General Notes.doc Alex, RWSA has reviewed the final site plan for Church of our Saviour as prepared by Water Street Studio and dated 11/22/2013 and has the following comments for the engineer: General Comments: 1. Please include the RWSA General Water and Sewer Notes (attached) on the plans. Sheet 3 of 10: 1. Call out a minimum of 18" of vertical separation at the crossings of the HDPE storm sewer and the 1 %" private sewer force main with the RWSA water line. Test pits may be required to confirm the depth of existing utilities. 2. RWSA asks that the VDOT standard CG -6R curb and gutter proposed at the entrance to the new building be replaced with mountable curb to allow RWSA vehicular access to the water line easement. Sheet 4 of 10: 1. Show the location and depth of the RWSA waterline on Storm Drain "A" Profile. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks a lot, Victoria Victoria Fort, EIT Civil Engineer Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority 695 Moores Creek Lane Charlottesville, VA 22902 (P); (434) 977 -2970 ext. 205 (F): (434) 295 -1146 Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority (RWSA) General Water & Sanitary Sewer Notes Updated February, 2011 1) All materials and methods of construction shall comply with the latest version of the General Water and Sewer Construction Specifications as adopted by the Albemarle County Service Authority on January 15, 1998, except as modified below or modified in Special Notes. 2) RWSA shall approve all construction materials and methods of construction. A preconstruction conference shall be held with RWSA prior to the start of any work. 3) The contractor shall be responsible for notifying Miss Utility (1- 800 - 552 - 7001). 4) RWSA Engineer (Victoria Fort at (434) 977 -2970 ext. 205) shall be notified three business days prior to the start of construction. 5) All work is subjectto inspection by RWSA staff. No tie -ins to the existing system shall be made without coordination with and the presence of RWSA staff. No work shall be conducted on RWSA facilities on weekends or holidays without special written permission from RWSA. 6) For sanitary sewer line construction: RWSA may require bypass pumping for tie -ins to the existing system. All doghouse manholes must be pressure - tested before a connection is made to the system. 7) The location of existing utilities as shown on the plans is from data available at the time of design and is not necessarily complete or accurate. The Contractor shall be responsible for the verification of the location, size and depth of all existing utilities, both surface and subsurface. The Contractor shall immediately notify the Engineer of any discrepancies between the plans and field conditions. The Contractor shall use due diligence to protect all utilities and structures from damage at all times, whether shown on the plans or not. Damage to any existing utilities shall be repaired by the Contractor to the original condition at no additional cost to the Owner. 8) Erosion and sediment control facilities shall not be permitted in the RWSA easement without special written permission from RWSA. No grading shall be permitted in the RWSA easement unless permitted otherwise by RWSA in writing. 9) No blasting shall be permitted within 100 feet of RWSA facilities without written permission and RWSA approval of the blasting plan. Ground monitoring during blasting and a pre -blast survey may be required. For blasting within 100 feet of any operative RWSA sewerlines, bypass pumping and /or pre- and post -CCTV may be required. RWSA may also require certification from a licensed professional engineer stating that the proposed blasting will not damage any RWSA facilities. Damage to any utilities due to blasting shall be repaired by the Contractor to the original condition at no additional cost to the Owner. 10) The contractor shall observe minimum separation requirements for utility crossings. When a crossing is made under an existing facility, adequate structural support shall be provided for the existing pipe. The area of the crossing shall be backfilled with compacted 57 stone to the springline of the existing pipe. 11) New water main installations shall be pressure tested, chlorinated, flushed and have water samples approved prior to making any permanent connection to the public water system. Approved methods of filling and flushing new water mains will be required to prevent any contamination of the public water system. 12) All easements for new RWSA facilities shall be recorded prior to placing the new facilities into service. 13) No permanent structural facilities will be permitted in the RWSA easement. This includes building overhangs, retaining walls, footers for any structure, drainage structures, etc. 141 Trees are not permitted in the RWSA easement. Review Comments Project Name: Church of Our Savior Final Site Development Plan Date Completed: Friday, February 21, 2014 Reviewer: Christopher Perez Department /Division /Agency: CD Reviews On 1 -16 -14 the applicant provided landscaping plans, in which they utilized existing trees to count towards required trees for Canopy calculations. CPP the rveiew will begin from this date. Review Status: Requested Changes COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 February 18, 2014 Eric P. Goetz Goetz Design Group 968 Mountain Road Afton VA 22920 RE: ARB- 2013 -156: Church of our Savior Annex Dear Eric, I received your recent resubmittal for the above -noted application, which included Sheet 7 of the site plan with revision date of 2/4/2014. The revisions included in this submittal resolve the outstanding conditions of ARB approval. You may consider this letter your Certificate of Appropriateness. This approval is predicated on the fact that the design and materials, as proposed and exhibited for review, will be used. The acceptance of approval implies that the applicant has agreed to execute the design as indicated on the site plan, attachments, materials, samples, and other submittal items presented. Any change in the approved design or materials will require an amendment to the plan and must be reviewed and approved by the Architectural Review Board. Please note the following: 1. This application is approved with the condition that mechanical equipment shall not be visible from the Entrance Corridor. 2. Changes made to the site or architectural plans after issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness can delay the signing of the final site plan and the approval of building permits. It is in the applicant's best interest to notify ARB staff of such changes and to initiate the review of amendments to ARB- approved plans to avoid future delays. 3. Certificates of Appropriateness are valid for the same period that the corresponding site plan is valid. If there is no site plan required for the proposed work, the Certificate of Appropriateness is valid for 3 years. Applicants requesting an extension of the period of validity must do so in writing. The letter must be received by the Director of Planning prior to the expiration date. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Margaret Maliszewski Principal Planner cc: ARB- 2013 -156 Alan Franklin, Water Street Studio, 111 Third Street SE, Charlottesville, VA 22902 Review Comments Project Name: Church of Our Savior Final Site Development Plan Date Completed: 1wednesday, January 29, 2014 Reviewer: Margaret Maliszewski Department /Division /Agency: ARB Reviews 1. The LS designation in the plant schedule is used twice. The LS tree should be LR. 2. The (4) -CK arrow points to the wrong tree. It should point to the tree directly above the one it currently points to. Review Status: Requested Changes Review Comments Project Name: Church of Our Savior Final Site Development Plan Date Completed: Imonday, January 13, 2014 Reviewer: Alexander Morrison Department /Division /Agency: ACSA Reviews Alex said he was working directly with Alan Franklin-and will provide his approval once its ready to go. Review Status: See Recommendations Review Comments Project Name: Church of Our Savior Final Site Development Plan Date Completed: Imonday, January 13, 2014 Reviewer: Andrew Slack Department /Division /Agency: E911 Reviews Approved Review Status: Approved Christopher Perez From: Victoria Fort [vfort @rivanna.org] Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2014 5:23 PM To: Alex Morrison Cc: Christopher Perez; Alan Franklin (afranklin @waterstreetstudio.net) Subject: SDP201200049 Church of Our Saviour Final Site Plan Attachments: RWSA General Notes.doc Alex, RWSA has reviewed the final site plan for Church of our Saviour as prepared by Water Street Studio and dated 11/22/2013 and has the following comments for the engineer: General Comments: 1. Please include the RWSA General Water and Sewer Notes (attached) on the plans. Sheet 3 of 10: 1. Call out a minimum of 18" of vertical separation at the crossings of the HDPE storm sewer and the 1 %" private sewer force main with the RWSA water line. Test pits may be required to confirm the depth of existing utilities. 2. RWSA asks that the VDOT standard CG -6R curb and gutter proposed at the entrance to the new building be replaced with mountable curb to allow RWSA vehicular access to the water line easement. Sheet 4 of 10: 1. Show the location and depth of the RWSA waterline on Storm Drain "A" Profile. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks a lot, Victoria Victoria Fort, EIT Civil Engineer Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority 695 Moores Creek Lane Charlottesville, VA 22902 (P): (434) 977 -2970 ext. 205 (F): (434) 295 -1146 Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority (RWSA) General Water & Sanitary Sewer Notes Updated February, 2011 1) All materials and methods of construction shall comply with the latest version of the General Water and Sewer Construction Specifications as adopted by the Albemarle County Service Authority on January 15, 1998, except as modified below or modified in Special Notes. 2) RWSA shall approve all construction materials and methods of construction. A preconstruction conference shall be held with RWSA prior to the start of any work. 3) The contractor shall be responsible for notifying Miss Utility (1- 800 -552- 7001). 4) RWSA Engineer (Victoria Fort at (434) 977 -2970 ext. 205) shall be notified three business days prior to the start of construction. 5) All work is subject to inspection by RWSA staff. No tie -ins to the existing system shall be made without coordination with and the presence of RWSA staff. No work shall be conducted on RWSA facilities on weekends or holidays without special written permission from RWSA. 6) For sanitary sewer line construction: RWSA may require bypass pumping for tie -ins to the existing system. All doghouse manholes must be pressure- tested before a connection is made to the system. 7) The location of existing utilities as shown on the plans is from data available at the time of design and is not necessarily complete or accurate. The Contractor shall be responsible for the verification of the location, size and depth of all existing utilities, both surface and subsurface. The Contractor shall immediately notify the Engineer of any discrepancies between the plans and field conditions. The Contractor shall use due diligence to protect all utilities and structures from damage at all times, whether shown on the plans or not. Damage to any existing utilities shall be repaired by the Contractor to the original condition at no additional cost to the Owner. 8) Erosion and sediment control facilities shall not be permitted in the RWSA easement without special written permission from RWSA. No grading shall be permitted in the RWSA easement unless permitted otherwise by RWSA in writing. 9) No blasting shall be permitted within 100 feet of RWSA facilities without written permission and RWSA approval of the blasting plan. Ground monitoring during blasting and a pre -blast survey may be required. For blasting within 100 feet of any operative RWSA sewerlines, bypass pumping and /or pre- and post -CCTV may be required. RWSA may also require certification from a licensed professional engineer stating that the proposed blasting will not damage any RWSA facilities. Damage to any utilities due to blasting shall be repaired by the Contractor to the original condition at no additional cost to the Owner. 10) The contractor shall observe minimum separation requirements for utility crossings. When a crossing is made under an existing facility, adequate structural support shall be provided for the existing pipe. The area of the crossing shall be backfilled with compacted 57 stone to the springline of the existing pipe. 11) New water main installations shall be pressure tested, chlorinated, flushed and have water samples approved prior to making any permanent connection to the public water system. Approved methods of filling and flushing new water mains will be required to prevent any contamination of the public water system. 12) All easements for new RWSA facilities shall be recorded prior to placing the new facilities into service. 13) No permanent structural facilities will be permitted in the RWSA easement. This includes building overhangs, retaining walls, footers for any structure, drainage structures, etc. 14) Trees are not permitted in the RWSA easement. Review Comments Project Name: Church of Our Savior Final Site Development Plan Date Completed: 1wednesday, January 08, 2014 Reviewer: Jay Schlothauer Department /Division /Agency: Inspections Reviews Based on plans dated November 22, 2013. No comments or conditions. Review Status: No Objection COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1601 Orange Road Culpeper, Virginia 22701 -3819 Gregory A. Whirley Commissioner of Highways January 6, 2014 Mr. Christopher Perez Senior Planner County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: SDP - 2013 -064 Church of Our Savior — Final Site Plan Dear Mr. Perez: We have reviewed the final site plan for the Church of Our Savior New Annex Building dated 11/22/13 as submitted by Waterstreetstudio and offer the following comments: 1. The sight lines, dimensions of the entrance, and distance to Rio Road should be provided for the existing entrance onto Huntington Road so that adequacy of the existing entrance can be verified based on the proposed intensification of the entrance. 2. The intention is that the existing entrance onto Huntington Road be used for access to this site. As such, there needs to be a physical disconnect between the gravel parking area and the lane to Rio Road. I would suggest some form of landscaping along the property line and/or parking area. 3. The site trip generation should be provided including the proposed improvements. If you need additional information concerning this project, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Tro Austin, P.E. Area Land Use Engineer Culpeper District VirginiaDOT.org WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING t7 �XIII K 61KITW I 0 1.10431 _/_:\ 711 Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 December 20, 2013 Eric P. Goetz Goetz Design Group 968 Mountain Road Afton VA 22920 RE: ARB- 2013 -156: Church of our Savior Annex Dear Eric, I received a site plan with revision date of 11 -22 -13 for the above -noted application. I've reviewed the plan and it appears that several of the comments from my October 22, 2013 letter have not been addressed. The following revisions are required to make the proposal consistent with the design criteria that apply to the county -wide Certificate. 1. Please add the following notes to the site plan: a. "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 half footcandle." b. "All site plantings of trees and shrubs shall be allowed to reach, and be maintained at, mature height; the topping of trees is prohibited. Shrubs and trees shall be pruned minimally and only to support the overall health of the plant." 2. Please add the following note to the site and architectural plans: "Visibility of all mechanical equipment from the Entrance Corridor shall be eliminated." 3. The plant schedule does not correspond to the plants drawn on the plan. Please correct and coordinate. 4. The work previously proposed near /along Rio Road has been eliminated from the proposal. However, two trees located south of the "one -story frame with basement" building are still identified as to be removed. Please clarify /correct. Please provide: 1. One full set of revised drawings addressing each of these conditions. Include updated revision dates on the drawings. 2. A memo including detailed responses indicating how each condition has been satisfied. If changes other than those requested have been made, identify those changes in the memo also. Highlighting the changes in the drawing with "clouding" or by other means will facilitate review and approval. 3. The attached "Revised Application Submittal" form. This form must be returned with your revisions to ensure proper tracking and distribution. When staffs review of this information indicates that all conditions of approval have been met, a Certificate of Appropriateness may be issued. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Margaret Maliszewski Principal Planner cc: ARB- 2013 -156 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development REVISED APPLICATION SUBMITTAL This form must be returned with your revisions to ensure proper tracking and distribution. County staff has indicated below what they think will be required as a resubmission of revisions. If you need to submit additional information please explain on this form for the benefit of the intake staff. All plans must be collated and folded to fit into legal size files, in order to be accepted for submittal. TO: PROJECT NAME: ARB- 2013 -156: Church of Our Saviour Annex DATE: Submittal Type Requiring Revisions O indicates submittal Code County Project Number # Copies Erosion & Sediment Control Plan E &S # Copies Distribute To: Mitigation Plan (MP) 1 M. Maliszewski Waiver Request (WR) Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) Road Plan (RP) Private Road Request, with private /public comparison (PRR) Private Road Request — Development Area (PRR -DA) Preliminary Site Plan PSP Final Site Plan or amendment FSP Final Plat (FP) Preliminary Plat (PP) Easement Plat (EP) Boundary Adjustment Plat (BAP) Rezoning Plan (REZ) Special Use Permit Concept Plan (SP -CP) Reduced Concept Plan (R -CP) Proffers (P) Bond Estimate Request (BER) Draft Groundwater Management Plan (D -GWMP) Final Groundwater Management Plan (F -GWMP) Aquifer Testing Work Plan (ATWP) Groundwater Assessment Report (GWAR) Architectural Review Board (ARB) ARB- 2013 -156 1 Other: Please explain (For staff use only) Submittal Code # Copies Distribute To: Submittal Code # Copies Distribute To: ARB 1 M. Maliszewski Review Comments Project Name: Church of Our Savior Final Site Development Plan Date Completed: Friday, December 20, 2013 Reviewer: Robbie Gilmer Department /Division /Agency: Fire Rescue Reviews Based on plans dated 11/22/13 No Comments or Objections Review Status: No Objection Review Comments Project Name: Church of Our Savior Final Site Development Plan Date Completed: 1wednesday, December 18, 2013 Reviewer: Max Greene Department /Division /Agency: Engineering Reviews 'Please clarify the areas of gravel removal on the site plan that is proposed to be grassed or revegetated. 'Please field verify topography has not changed since surveyed in June of 2011 and show on plan date of verification /certification. 'SWM requirements could not be determined with this submittal. Review Status: Requested Changes