Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201300009 Review Comments 2013-07-01 EIIie Ray From: EIIie Ray Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 9:55 AM To: 'Darren Curtis' Cc: Blake Abplanalp; 'Donald Booth'; Herb Braun Subject: RE: SDP201300009 - Seminole Trail Fire Station - Major Amendment Darren, All of my comments have been addressed, you may submit signature sets at your convenience. Thanks, Ellie Carter Ray, PLA Senior Planner Albemarle County Community Development ph: 434.296.5832 x. 3432 From: Darren Curtis [mailto:dcurtis@diginc.com] Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 9:22 AM To: EIIie Ray Cc: Blake Abplanalp; 'Donald Booth'; Herb Braun Subject: RE: SDP201300009 - Seminole Trail Fire Station - Major Amendment Ellie, Please find attached the comment response letter and revised Sheet C.1.04 for the second set of revisions to the 100% plans. If you have any questions or concerns please do not hesitate to contact me. Please let me know when you have completed your review and we will send you 4 complete sets for signatures. Thank you for your help on this project. Sincerely, Darren R. Curtis, PLA, LEED AP Landscape Architect ENGINEERS. ARCHITECTS . PLANNERS 449 t.trLaws C ct£ • YW.,...'r ,Snurq. VA 231K arir 1 P txcne 757 253 0673 • Fax 757 253 23* te r. t t #J#YlJill .) rtt!* C tpftlit " xt rtlJrY' From: EIIie Ray [mailto:eray@lalbemarle.orci] Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 4:18 PM To: Blake Abplanalp; dbooth@adiginc.com; Darren Curtis Subject: SDP201 -: e 4 19 - Seminole Trail Fire Station - Major Amendmen All, Please find attached my comments for the .ed e referenced app : _.. n. I have included a copy of VDOT approval in case you didn't receive it separately. -:sneering also has no objection. My r- aining comments may be able to be 1 a:r ...,.► J — INN — .rrr ..wasrordIN.. r ,_r.irltl► — AMP' /NC July 1, 2013 www.djginc.com Ms. Ellie Carter Ray, CLA Planning Division, Sr. Planner Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, VA 22902 -4596 RE: Seminole Trail Fire Station Site Plan Major Amendment DJG #: 2130150 Dear Ms. Ray: The following is our response to the second round of 100% plan review comments for the subject project: 1. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] Please show the proposed light fixtures on the site plan to verify that no site conflicts exist. Revl: Comment not fully addressed. It is unclear if the proposed light pole on the Berkmar Drive side of the parking lot is located on top of an existing gas line; it appears a section of the gas line is being removed, but it's difficult to tell exactly which section and that change isn't reflected on the site plan. Please clarify what section of gas line will remain and relocate the light pole if there is a conflict Rev2: Comment not fully addressed. Please revise the note provided to indicate that the ultimate location of the light pole should be 2' clear, both horizontally and vertically, from the field verified location of the gas line. For future reference, lithe ultimate light pole location is significantly different from that shown on the plan, a Letter of Revision will be required with a revised photometric plan. Note #14 on sheet C.1.04 has been revised. 2. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] The photometric plan must 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: Comment not fully addressed. Footcandle information is still not provided along the entire Berkmar Drive right -of -way frontage or all of the adjoining residential parcels. Please provide 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. Rev2: Comment addressed. However, is seems possible that the photometric plan does not include all of the fixtures in the footcandle values provided. For example, there are no footcandle values in the area around several of Fixture E. Please verify that all fixtures have been included in the calculations provided; if not, please revise the photometric plan to include all fixtures. ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS • PLANNERS VOICE: (757) 253 -0673 • FAX: (757) 253 -2319 • FROM NORFOLK / VIRGINIA BEACH: (757) 874 -5015 449 McLAWS CIRCLE • WILLIAMSBURG, VA • 23185 Ms. Ellie Carter Ray, PLA July 1, 2013 Page 2 of 2 The exterior lighting calculations have been checked, and all fixtures have indeed been included in the calculation provided on the Footcandle Plan. Type E fixtures provide light immediately at exits and are not intended to provide general site illumination. We hope you find these responses acceptable. If you have any questions or comments regarding this response or the revised plans, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Darren R. Curtis, PLA, LEED AP Landscape Architect HB:ab Cc: Michelle Roberge Blake Abplanalp (1•) (r) (-/) J < w i IIII tY H c � o a zaS ' a s a 0 V i I c W U W ua'�, ...ti �� e w -Q Z u MU) °x a. IIII II W W a s N ` e m w Q F= > � o < o a II H. Z n � r��a• J Q Q W N S w c N • I1��� Z = Z • o Q��O > F CC U oyNN v c °. a > < w w s m V • ( IIII II�1 Z ce -- .a 3 l ' �, U e W w C[ 2 N ° 0 3 J Q F 3m4 a w n� • z w w o x a �a8:��k$� J ` U 44 yW� WW c � •{ ¢ S c° IIJJ � _ ° w ° -` vii = - - ;, - 1 o W ° - w x a ¢ Z Y w j n 6 d o 0 6 0 Fa :' < w L = N = K c' l ' 'A' 3' V'i O O 4w I� EE iti s s 1a . rt I `^ w U s° z N a o ti •,- U o - °$ F$ o S 8 W r w `. = 2 P. a f k X c \n r $ i< a S 9 $ m w z $ N "' a o `" w a o °a w$ °o $ o g€ z li x �' m v 3 w a 3 m 3 3 S a s a a i� as i i B ° m n . v> > if g 4 $ z m 1 -- I — s € E g a 1 6 e I r I II Ir b E 1 e '1 6 X 3 X 3 e ' @ x e � F , ` 3 j , c., u © 4,z 2 w H o P io !o L ,S g g„ i g a I a a g „ r 3 f w w T —. -1 I , ° — s , I � 13 J _� dg 0 _� l lb l P $ @ 1 1 i ,,4 $ 1 s g f i t i I = [5 @ i p a 8 "1 ! 1 $ 9 ,! 1I ii £s € =€ ; ; s5 1 e Ff x 1 ;k � E g . � E 1 K '�F 3111 � `o S E k� I � a G �.. � y 8 8 ; `s py � ' ° 55 P �9 6� - .. € T i i 2 3 i 3 V _ 1 '. $ 6 r4 o a _ 6 3 5 k1 X ! a 1 _f, wb 5 $ o a i o ,y ,1 VI O h; O 6 V1 aO -zz 0 L V, :`,','I 7 F FUO 2 = F .444 o G z j u r. ¢ Z ' 1 t \\F \ ' \ -- 1 d N � a0 ¢ = F� •m VViF wou i, ___ ''`4 • z° ;na O N _ n O"O'•' 4 I 0 o o z �� $ <00 O w0 z l.�I \ I I $� �np a O =� OOa G ', ° c ` '_, °O II o � N I Or - O �ZF� a a O �o ¢ k 0 N� c' 'E PaIII! \ I 11 ° - \ Wwz m i 2 Z ; : Fz Z ; gV w 2- O_ 'is s A n VI OO $ °x , , II ' 1 In z� I a ma = _ a= 4 '_4- o' 2- ~ Z 1 O d i ' I.,1 x � II w _ ° �i Z °a OLZ In { j` , sa3's />on_ ,� � 1� w Qao m& o ���a o ono i� �o , ' 1 -I - - r o r - - , - - T - ' \ ,y II I z� `_ ' w ^ ° �� o ��� was z ' ,/ ,, n\ z 3 9w � Y I L I l.,' ■ r � I,'� 0 3u ov =i ~ `� L Z Q SU ° t� k ' � ..� { I 229 U r' wzw O gq w I ( 4 11 : . !" A ( �l ' w m - o s S c�vl ¢ it ° ✓ ZC. a eL4�.B> I r 11 �r o w a w a II � , \ , `w � � � I _ w zk .z ° F - ° `�. °1•, mU S w� � a. 'i I' c,,"�,v,A \, �*! 1 r <l�•,9 - Q z z$ ° 4 4T4'`_°,6 og g• -- S ci I bl-4 II o � . 1 \1 �,� � ',4 , 4k' 1 ', m a " ' mk w z � a .� $tea 3 �'$ im ° ,10 z �i i, / ',1; 6, ' HI _ :_l - , %sa \ ,�_ ♦ a \ $ I \ I ' \ o zo 3 Z 4`,6,j,` ��~ � ��' =rte ° M J q K� ( ,21 \ ' � � l Y , I �, { , w In aJ� q w S _ zw$a miFr ,z L=.-' w W I" a\ J = \\ v �W° •g _ �5� k h \ 1 s- I' Q lI`: i \ o $"'&.a c _ i6 � 6 ° 1 $ z z ' \ ;, 4 ' � ? IIII 1' , \ ∎ 1 1 l ,°I � \' I ,,t \ ° -E E gg ' cj� o",4 E, ao� J6UZ oa r wa ih � a !i� asii o '''.6"'<f.', ° ° � sw w � w P 2 z, ' a i \ \. I ° i11- oU. z °o �om v¢""iz`"0 -ww ii E1 m om° �[ Y I�' 1 o il" 1 J E * y, �c ° o Q V X "c — 3 y ¢653 tiz z ° a r ,. ' I a ' � ov1o o U o ° °� $' Jr '° o3 w �- \ I , � ih� 4 - 4 • \ . I I I \ , t \ " . � - ' \ E Eggs r °o J ro° - az ° ° N V ,orc'w 9 o �° ��.. \ � 1 � a�.. � ,h � . �3 a �'�� � ,,,.• / � V ,�� ���, /I \ ° t/] id= v�"vr `� P z z ,<_ a q�o� � T mz w > > e � ♦r - OO 1.•" z ° - - of i sf- 1 ` a 17i 7 - ni �c>x n . _ ' ,� - W aS II n? w oawk' °x oa� az o°i§ zao Y a % I `' . I . �' _ --- °\� g ' E 1 _ 1�' \ T 1 "�5 \Q 'm�6'mrd w $m -5 s ° ` a oar as ' 54 3� c�i a 3 c+ _ y o k' o y'w - 1x'- � `•'a °Im., _ -N ., - � , 4 0 1 Y ��' r j %" cwi 'r M�� 1 $ , z u ,n U a o , n .r ,.7, m 1` m a, . _ - N. try /J////. ` I j �� I A R V _ M �� � _ <Nt S � I� +wt � h \�1 + illlili(�IIIIIIII� j i �T + � ' wir do 2 w ., az N' • 12 , 1 \' \ P \ �/' o r as l n c 62 ._ in eT a " 3 j � NLL ° w v . � j' T �' w\ ' \ \\g \ H 'r a � / • � 0 w c'S 4 � i= m I �' _ - \ • ji b A te ) 1� - --,j1 ,, r i -� o � - - r' r �F _ ' — (1: l a ut = ,1 \� �� \,� _uJ '1- - -- {{ z �i- _ __ -, _ d \ X Ids q.- w �i+, --- `N' _ - \ ' r I _ i "q - to `O \ ' . _ \\ • bi 01 ',� i . -brs - A ° = a te ► '• � I f : ' . 1,9 - \ _ � " ' `- _ ,j N • b - !i i io F rn J � ` 1 _ .— - 4 : __J— a ,1: , ° \ a t .' 13�x - �. ., - p'. l -IY, _::-• __o \' 6 2 2 / - Y Cl_ N X � •g\ \ \ _ _ / \ w \ `-; 4 '' \ (4 1;i i '7' 6 F 1 , s,G \\ \ \ \ ` ,„, ( j h \ \ G\ , ee \� / h \ 1 \ , Ellie Ray From: Ellie Ray Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 4:18 PM To: Blake Abplanalp; 'dbooth @djginc.com'; 'Darren Curtis' Subject: SDP201300009 - Seminole Trail Fire Station - Major Amendment Attachments: CDP3_sdp_ECR_Seminole Trail Fire Station.pdf; SDP - 2013 -00009 Seminole Trail Fire Station - VDOT Approval - 6- 26- 13.pdf All, Please find attached my comments for the above referenced application. I have included a copy of VDOT approval in case you didn't receive it separately. Engineering also has no objection. My remaining comments may be able to be handled through email, depending on whether or not a revised photometric plan is needed (see #29). Feel free to contact me if you have any questions, concerns, or need further clarification. Thank you, Ellie Carter Ray, PLA Senior Planner Albemarle County Community Development Planning Division 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 ph: 434.296.5832 x. 3432 fax: 434.972.4126 1 � a3®�� �RGIN� COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 Memorandum To: Donald Booth (dbooth @djginc.com) From: Ellie Ray, CLA, Senior Planner Division: Planning Date: March 18, 2013 Rev1: May 8, 2013 Rev2: June 27, 2013 Subject: SDP2013 -00009 Seminole Trail Fire Station — Major Amendment The County of Albemarle Planning Division will recommend approval of the plan referenced above once the following comments have been satisfactorily addressed (The following comments are those that have been identified at this time. Additional comments or conditions may be added or eliminated based on further review.): [Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference, which is to the Subdivision /Zoning Ordinances unless otherwise specified.] 1. [32.5.2(a)] The boundary information provided does not include a boundary dimension along Berkmar Drive; please provide all boundary line information, Rev1: Comment addressed. 2. [32.5.2(a)] Add AIA (Airport Impact Area) to the Zoning note. Please also document any necessary waiver requests. Rev1: Comment addressed. 3. [32.5.2(a)] Provide the County and State; change the 'Charlottesville' references to 'Albemarle County'. Revi: Comment addressed. 4. [32.5.2(a)] Provide one datum reference for elevation. Revel: Comment addressed. 5. [32.5.2(a)] Show departing lot lines. Revi: Comment addressed. 6. [32.5.2(a)] Show all parking setback, building setback, and buffer lines on all sheets. Revel: Comment not fully addressed. Please revise the setback notes on the Cover Sheet to say `residential districts' instead of `R -1'; the adjacent properties are Zoned R -2 and the same standard applies to all residentially zoned districts, Additionally, it appears that there is a deck proposed on the back of the building that violates the building setback. Decks are allowed to extend a maximum of 4' into the required setback, but it seems the proposed deck extends approximately 10'; please revise. Rev2: Comment addressed. 7. [32.5.2(a) & 21.7(c)] 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. Screening shall be provided as required in section 32.7.9. It appears that some grading is proposed in this 20' buffer please verify and either remove the proposed grading or apply for a waiver of this requirement. Revel: Comment addressed. The waiver request was approved by the Board of Supervisors at the May 1, 2013 meeting. • d 8. [32.5.2(a)] Provide the source of the boundary line survey. Rev1: Comment addressed. 9. [32.5.2(b)] Provide the maximum total square footage of the building with proposed additions. Rev1: Comment addressed. 10. [32.5.2(b)] While the maximum building height on 01 zoned land is 65', any building height in excess of 35' requires an additional 2' of setback for each 1' in height above 35'. The cover sheets states the maximum height is 41.5'. The County's building height definition reads as follows, 'The vertical distance measured from the level of the curb or the established curb grade opposite the middle of the front of the structure to the highest point of the roof if a flat roof; to the deck line of a mansard roof: or the mean height level between the eaves and ridge of a gable, hip or gambrel roof. For buildings set back from the street line, the height shall be measured from the average elevation of the ground surface along the front of the building'. Please verify the maximum building height to determine if additional setback is required. Rev1: Comment addressed. Zoning determined the height to be Tess than 35'. 11. [32.5.2(b) & 4.12.4(a)] Zoning will determine the number of required parking spaces for this use. The original site plan was approved with 71 required parking spaces. This number was largely due to the hosting of bingo games and dances for fundraising. Do these types of events still take place on this parcel? How many staff are generally on -site at the same time? Zoning may need additional information to make their determination. Rev1: Comment addressed. Zoning determined that 32 parking spaces are required; the site plan provides for 37 spaces. 12. [32.5.2(b)] Provide the maximum amount of impervious cover on the Cover Sheet. Rev1: Comment addressed. 13. [32.5.2(b)] Provide the maximum amount of paved parking and vehicular circulation area on the Cover Sheet. Rev1: Comment addressed. 14. [32.5.2(d)] A critical slope waiver is required to disturb any slope in excess of 25 %. Engineering and Planning have reviewed the proposed disturbance and will recommend approval of this waiver. This waiver must be approved by the Board of Supervisors (on Consent Agenda) prior to site plan approval. Rev1: Comment addressed. The waiver request was approved by the Board of Supervisors at the May 1, 2013 meeting. 15. [32.5.2(1)] Please provide the right -of -way width for Berkmar Drive. Rev1: Comment addressed. 16. [32.5.2(n)] Clarify where the fence ends: does it extend along all adjacent residential parcels? Rev1: Comment addressed. 17. [32.5.2(n)] The retaining wall note refers to a sheet not included in this plat set: please dimension the walls, provide maximum height(s), and provide a railing detail. Rev1: Comment addressed. 18. [32.5.2(n)] Dimension the travelway closest to the building. Rev1: Comment addressed. 19. [32.6.2(g)] Indicate all utility and drainage easements outside the right -of -way of public streets. Any new easements may be generally shown and dedicated by separate plat. Ali water and sewer facilities to be dedicated to public use and the easements for those facilities and shall be identified by a statement that the facilities are to be dedicated to the Albemarle County Service Authority. Rev1: Comment addressed. 20. [32.6.2(j) & 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 or to meet conditions of approval, subject to the agent's approval. It appears that several of the Landscape Plan requirements are proposed to be met with existing vegetation. The landscape plan should 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. In addition, the usie Neale applicant shall sign a conservation checklist approved by the agent to insure that the specified trees will be protected during construction, Except as otherwise expressly approved by the agent in a particular case, such checklist shall conform to specifications contained in the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook pp III -284 through III -297, and as hereafter amended. This checklist must be signed, dated, and added to the landscape plan sheet, Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. It appears that both water lines and storm drain extend into areas labeled for tree protection. The iimits of disturbance are slightly different on the various sheets, but the overall disturbance should be reflected on the site plan. Please modify the tree protection lines to be outside of any areas of disturbance, and revise the "existing tree canopy to remain" calculation accordingly. Rev2: Comment addressed. 21. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.5] Street trees are required along all existing public street frontage: these trees must be within the parking setback, It appears that two additional street trees are required in the area east of the proposed secondary entrance. Rev1: Comment addressed. However, the tree that is located in the area between the two entrances appears to be in a storm drain easement. All landscaping should be located outside of utility easements. Rev2: Comment addressed. 22. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.5(e)] When a parking area is located so that the parked cars will be visible from an off -site street, the agent may require additional planting of low street shrubs between the street and the parking area. It appears that this requirement is proposed to be met with existing vegetation: please provide the information requested above regarding preserving existing trees in lieu of planting new plant material. Rev1: Comment addressed. 23. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.6(a)] 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) nor shrubs planted between a parking area and the building shall be counted toward the minimum landscaped area for a parking lot. As noted above, the square footage of 'paved parking and vehicular circulation area' has not been provided. Rev1: Comment addressed. The parking layout is an existing condition and is not required to be modified. Additionally, the area between the two entrances could be counted toward this requirement though it is not included in the calculation provided. 24. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.6(b)] The 5% 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. Four (4) trees are required for 37 parking spaces. Additionally, Corpus florida is not on the current list of recommended large or medium shade trees approved by the agent. Please select trees from the approved list or note specific existing trees that meet this requirement. Rev1: Comment addressed. The parking layout is an existing condition and is not required to be modified. Additionally, there are numerous trees around the parking lot that are being maintained that could be used to satisfy this requirement. 25. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.7] As mentioned above. please clarify if the existing fence extends along all residential parcels or if additional screening is necessary. Please also demonstrate how the dumpster will be screened from Berkmar Drive. Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. Thank you for clarifying the fence location. However, the dumpster must be screened from Berkmar Drive. Please indicate how the dumpster will be screened.; if using a fence, label the height and provide a detail. Rev2: Comment addressed. 26. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.8] It appears that the tree canopy requirement is proposed to be met with existing trees; please provide the information requested above regarding preserving existing trees in lieu of planting new plant material. Rev1: Comment addressed. However, as indicated above, the tree canopy calculation may need to be revised to reflect the loss of existing trees for water and storm drain installation. Rev2:: Comment addressed. 27. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] Please show the proposed light fixtures on the site plan to verify that no site conflicts exist. Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. It is unclear if the proposed Tight pole on the Berkmar Drive side of the parking lot is located on top of an existing gas line; it appears a section of the gas line is being removed, but it's difficult to tell exactly which section and that change isn't reflected on the site plan. Please clarify what section of gas line will remain and relocate the light pole if there is a conflict. Rev2: Comment not fully addressed. Please revise the note provided to indicate that the ultimate location of the light pole should be 2' clear, both horizontally and vertically, from the field verified location of the gas line. For future reference, if the ultimate Tight pole location is significantly different from that shown on the plan, a Letter of Revision will be required with a revised photometric plan. 28. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] Provide cut sheets for each proposed fixture (that reference the catalog numbers provided) that demonstrate that the fixture is full cutoff. Revl: Comment not fully addressed. Cut sheets should be provided as part of the site plan set, not a separate document. Additionally, the cut sheets for fixtures A, B, C and E don't specifically reference a flat lens; please verify that no portion of the bulb or lens will extend below the housing of the fixture. Fixture D is below 3000 lumen and therefore not subject to the full cutoff standard. Rev2: Comment addressed. 29. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] The photometric plan must 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. Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. Footcandle information is still not provided along the entire Berkmar Drive right -of -way frontage or all of the adjoining residential parcels. Please provide 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. Rev2: Comment addressed. However, is seems possible that the photometric plan does not include all of the fixtures in the footcandle values provided. For example, there are no footcandle values in the area around several of Fixture E. Please verify that all fixtures have been included in the calculations provided; if not, please revise the photometric plan to include all fixtures. 30. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] The lighting plan indicates that a LLF of 0.65 was used to create the photometric plan. Albemarle County requires that the LLF be 1.0: revise the photometric plan using the proper LLF. Revi: Comment addressed. 31. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] Provide the following standard lighting note on the lighting 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 -half footcandle. Revi: Comment addressed. 32. [Comment] Provide the deed book and page references for all existing utility easements located on the property. Rev1: Comment addressed. 33. [Comment] This amendment cannot be approved until ACSA and VDOT completed their reviews and grant their approval: comments will be forwarded upon receipt. Engineering, Fire /Rescue, inspections, and E911 comments have been provided. Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. This amendment cannot be approved until VDOT completes their review and grants their approval; comments will be forwarded upon receipt. Engineering comments have been provided. ACSA, Fire /Rescue, inspections, and E911 all have no objection. Rev2: Comment addressed. 34. [Comment] Sheet 0-201 should be labeled Sheet 7 of 11 (or the total number of sheets in the plan set), not 53. Rev2: Comment addressed. 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 accord with the provisions of Section 32.4.3.5 of Chapter 18 of the Code if the developer fails to submit a revised final site plan to address all of the requirements within six (6) months after the date of this letter the application shall be deemed to have been voluntarily withdrawn by the developer. Please contact Ellie Ray in the Planning Division by using eray@albemarle.org or 434 - 296 -5832 ext. 3432 for further information. pF ALe A . :1.111 ._,, COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 Memorandum To: Donald Booth (dbooth @djginc.com) From: Ellie Ray, CLA, Senior Planner Division: Planning Date: March 18, 2013 Rev1: May 8, 2013 Subject: SDP2013 -00009 Seminole Trail Fire Station — Major Amendment The County of Albemarle Planning Division will recommend approval of the plan referenced above once the following comments have been satisfactorily addressed (The following comments are those that have been identified at this time. Additional comments or conditions may be added or eliminated based on further review.): [Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference, which is to the Subdivision /Zoning Ordinances unless otherwise specified.] 1. [32.5.2(a)] The boundary information provided does not include a boundary dimension along Berkmar Drive; please provide all boundary line information. Rev1: Comment addressed. 2. [32.5.2(a)] Add AIA (Airport Impact Area) to the Zoning note. Please also document any necessary waiver requests. Rev1: Comment addressed. 3. [32.5.2(a)] Provide the County and State; change the 'Charlottesville' references to 'Albemarle County'. Rev1: Comment addressed. 4. (32.5.2(a)] Provide one datum reference for elevation. Rev1: Comment addressed. 5. [32.5.2(a)] Show departing lot lines. Rev1: Comment addressed. v IV[32.5.2(a)] Show all parking setback, building setback, and buffer lines on all sheets. Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. Please revise the setback notes on the Cover Sheet to say `residential districts' instead of `R -1'; the adjacent properties are Zoned R -2 and the same standard applies to all residentially zoned districts. Additionally, it appears that there is a deck proposed on the back of the building that violates the building setback. Decks are allowed to extend a maximum of 4' into the required setback, but it seems the proposed deck extends approximately 10'; please revise. 7. [32.5.2(a) & 21.7(c)] 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. Screening shall be provided as required in section 32.7.9. It appears that some grading is proposed in this 20' buffer: please verify and either remove the proposed grading or apply for a waiver of this requirement. Rev1: Comment addressed. The waiver request was approved by the Board of Supervisors at the May 1, 2013 meeting. • 8. [32.5.2(a)] Provide the source of the boundary line survey. Rev1: Comment addressed. 9. (32.5.2(b)] Provide the maximum total square footage of the building with proposed additions. Rev1: Comment addressed. 10. [32.5.2(b)] While the maximum building height on 01 zoned and is 65', any building height in excess of 35' requires an additional 2' of setback for each 1' in height above 35'. The cover sheets states the maximum height is 41.5'. The County's building height definition reads as follows, The vertical distance measured from the level of the curb or the established curb grade opposite the middle of the front of the structure to the highest point of the roof if a flat roof, to the deck line of a mansard roof; or the mean height level between the eaves and ridge of a gable, hip or gambrel roof. For buildings set back from the street line, the height shall be measured from the average elevation of the ground surface along the front of the building'. Please verify the maximum building height to determine if additional setback is required. Rev1: Comment addressed. Zoning determined the height to be Tess than 35'. 11. [32.5.2(b) & 4.12.4(a)] Zoning will determine the number of required parking spaces for this use. The original site plan was approved with 71 required parking spaces. This number was largely due to the hosting of bingo games and dances for fundraising. Do these types of events still take place on this parcel? How many staff are generally on -site at the same time? Zoning may need additional information to make their determination. Rev1: Comment addressed. Zoning determined that 32 parking spaces are required; the site plan provides for 37 spaces. 12. [32.5.2(b)] Provide the maximum amount of impervious cover on the Cover Sheet. Rev1: Comment addressed. 13. [32.5.2(b)] Provide the maximum amount of paved parking and vehicular circulation area on the Cover Sheet, Rev1: Comment addressed. 14. [32.5.2(d)] A critical slope waiver is required to disturb any slope in excess of 25 %. Engineering and Planning have reviewed the proposed disturbance and will recommend approval of this waiver. This waiver must be approved by the Board of Supervisors (on Consent Agenda) prior to site plan approval. Rev1: Comment addressed. The waiver request was approved by the Board of Supervisors at the May 1, 2013 meeting. 15. [32.5.2(1)] Please provide the right -of -way width for Berkmar Drive. Rev1: Comment addressed. 16. [32.5.2(n)] Clarify where the fence ends; does it extend along all adjacent residential parcels? Rev1: Comment addressed. 17. [32.5.2(n)] The retaining wall note refers to a sheet not included in this plat set; please dimension the walls, provide maximum height(s), and provide a railing detail. Rev1: Comment addressed. 18. [32.5.2(n)] Dimension the travelway closest to the building. Rev1: Comment addressed. 19. [32.6.2(g)] Indicate all utility and drainage easements outside the right -of -way of public streets. Any new easements may be generally shown and dedicated by separate plat. All water and sewer facilities to be dedicated to public use and the easements for those facilities and shall be identified by a statement that the facilities are to be dedicated to the Albemarle County Service Authority. Rev1: Comment addressed. I /20. [32.6.2(J) & 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 or to meet conditions of approval, subject to the agent's approval. It appears that several of the Landscape Plan requirements are proposed to be met with existing vegetation. The landscape plan should 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. In addition, the applicant shall sign a conservation checklist approved by the agent to insure that the specified trees will be protected during construction. Except as otherwise expressly approved by the agent in a particular case, such checklist shall conform to specifications contained in the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook, pp III -284 through III -297, and as hereafter amended. This checklist must be signed, dated, and added to the landscape plan sheet. Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. It appears that both water lines and storm drain extend into areas labeled for tree protection. The limits of disturbance are slightly different on the various sheets, but the overall disturbance should be reflected on the site plan. Please modify the tree protection lines to be outside of any areas of disturbance, and revise the "existing tree canopy to remain" calculation accordingly. v 21 / 132.6.20) & 32.7.9.5] Street trees are required along all existing public street frontage; these trees must be within the parking setback. It appears that two additional street trees are required in the area east of the proposed secondary entrance. Rev1: Comment addressed. However, the tree that is located in the area between the two entrances appears to be in a storm drain easement. All landscaping should be located outside of utility easements. 22. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.5(e)] When a parking area is located so that the parked cars will be visible from an off -site street, the agent may require additional planting of low street shrubs between the street and the parking area. It appears that this requirement is proposed to be met with existing vegetation; please provide the information requested above regarding preserving existing trees in lieu of planting new plant material. Rev1: Comment addressed. 23. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.6(a)] 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) nor shrubs planted between a parking area and the building shall be counted toward the minimum landscaped area for a parking lot. As noted above, the square footage of `paved parking and vehicular circulation area has not been provided. Rev1: Comment addressed. The parking layout is an existing condition and is not required to be modified. Additionally, the area between the two entrances could be counted toward this requirement though it is not included in the calculation provided. 24. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.6(b)] The 5% 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. Four (4) trees are required for 37 parking spaces. Additionally, Corpus florida is not on the current list of recommended large or medium shade trees approved by the agent. Please select trees from the approved list or note specific existing trees that meet this requirement. Revi: Comment addressed. The parking layout is an existing condition and is not required to be modified. Additionally, there are numerous trees around the parking lot that are being maintained that could be used to satisfy this requirement. 3i 32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.7] As mentioned above, please clarify if the existing fence extends along all residential parcels or if additional screening is necessary. Please also demonstrate how the dumpster will be screened from Berkmar Drive. Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. Thank you for clarifying the fence location. However, the dumpster must be screened from Berkmar Drive. Please indicate how the dumpster will be screened; if using a fence, label the height and provide a detail. . [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.8] It appears that the tree canopy requirement is proposed to be met with existing trees; please provide the information requested above regarding preserving existing trees in lieu of planting new plant material. Rev1: Comment addressed. However, as indicated above, the tree canopy calculation may need to be revised to reflect the loss of existing trees for water and storm drain installation. 27. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] Please show the proposed light fixtures on the site plan to verify that no site conflicts exist. Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. It is unclear if the proposed light pole on the Berkmar rive side of the parking lot is located on top of an existing gas line; it appears a section of (4 gas line is being removed, but it's difficult to tell exactly which section and that change A, JiX isn't reflected on the site plan. Please clarify what section of gas line will remain and relocate NOC6 jci, the light pole if there is a conflict. a �.u� (9- ta.ILL ►L,v � LO2 t o L f1.M . 1,t e l 4.2'' -4-A-" )i & 4.17] Provide cut sheets for each proposed fixture (that reference the catalog numbers ,r- provided) that demonstrate that the fixture is full cutoff. Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. Cut sheets should be provided as part of the site plan set, not a separate document. Additionally, the cut sheets for fixtures A, B, C and E don't specifically reference a flat Tens; please verify that no portion of the bulb or lens will extend below the housing of the fixture. Fixture D is below 3000 lumen and therefore not subject to the full cutoff standard. 1- [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] The photometric plan must 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. r \ C 1 1 0 Comment not fully addressed. Footcandle information is still not provided along the (-1 `ij ' 5 entire Berkmar Drive right -of -way frontage or all of the adjoining residential parcels. Please provide footcandle information to the property line of all adjacent residential parcels and the --- right -of -way to demonstrate that the spillover will not exceed 0.5 footcandle. VU 30. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] The lighting plan indicates that a LLF of 0.65 was used to create the photometric plan. Albemarle County requires that the LLF be 1.0; revise the photometric plan using the proper LLF. Rev1: Comment addressed. 31. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] Provide the following standard lighting note on the lighting 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 -half footcandle. Rev1: Comment addressed. 32. [Comment] Provide the deed book and page references for all existing utility easements located on the property. Revl: Comment addressed. omment] This amendment cannot be approved until ACSA and VDOT completed their reviews and grant their approval; comments will be forwarded upon receipt. Engineering, Fire /Rescue, inspections, and E911 comments have been provided. Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. This amendment cannot be approved until VDOT completes their review and grants their approval; comments will be forwarded upon receipt. Engineering comments have been provided. ACSA, Fire /Rescue, inspections, and E911 all have no objection. [Comment] Sheet C -201 should be labeled Sheet 7 of 11 (or the total number of sheets in the plan set), not 53. 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 accord with the provisions of Section 32.4.3.5 of Chapter 18 of the Code if the developer fails to submit a revised final site plan to address all of the requirements within six (6) months after the date of this letter the application shall be deemed to have been voluntarily withdrawn by the developer. Please contact Ellie Ray in the Planning Division by using erav c(Dalbemarle.orq or 434 - 296 -5832 ext. 3432 for further information. June 12, 2013 Div Ms. Ellie Carter Ray, CLA Planning Division, Sr. Planner INC. Department of Community Development wwwdjginc.com 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, VA 22902 -4596 RE: Seminole Trail Fire Station Site Plan Major Amendment DJG No. 2130150 Dear Ms. Ray, The following is our response to the 100% plan review comments for the subject project: A. Erosion Control Plan (WP020 1 3 000 1 0) I. Please show the proposed water and sewer easements as a heavy dashed lined on sheet C-104 & C -105. The proposed easements have been darkened on sheet C -104 (now sheet C.1.04) and C -105 (now sheet C.1.05) 2. Please show the proposed gas line as a heavy linetype on sheet C -104 & C -105. The proposed gas line line style has been darkened on sheet C.1.04 and C.1.05. 3. Change note 4.1 to "Install new storm piping and structures shown in phase III plan as necessary for phase II construction... " Note 4.1 has been changed on sheet C.1.01. 4. On sheet C -103, please show outlet protection symbol for all outfalls. Outfall protection symbols have been added to the outfalls on sheet C -103 (now sheet C.1.03). 5. On sheet C -103, please show the inlet protection label for DI -2. Also, please fix the leaders labeling DI - & 6. Inlets labels have been added and modified on Sheet C.1.03. ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS • PLANNERS VOICE: (757) 253 -0673 • FAX: (757) 253 -2319 • FROM NORFOLK / VIRGINIA BEACH: (757) 874 -5015 449 McLAWS CIRCLE • WILLIAMSBURG, VA • 23185 Ms. Ellie Carter Ray, PLA June 12, 2013 Page 2 of 7 6. On sheet C -103, please label the drainage easements, "Proposed permanent drainage easement.'' Drainage easements have been labeled on sheet C.1.03. 7. It appears the grading for the concrete pad (north of bldg) will not allow far east door to open. Please revise. The door in question is located in a portion of the building that is higher than the finished floor shown on the plans. A note referencing this has been added to sheet C.1.05. 8. Please show, at a minimum, a 0.1 ' positive flow drop between the the invert in and invert out on each stormdrain structure. A 0.10 drop between inverts has been added to the storm structure chart on Sheet C.1.05 and in the profiles on sheet C.2.01. Pipe slopes have also been modified to account for this change. 9. On sheet C -502, please change the stone size to 6". Stone size has been changed to 6" on the outlet protection detail on sheet C.5.02. B. Stormwater Management Plan (WPO201300010) 1. Please clearly show a sump area for the 35 ' -4 " pvc pipe, by showing 3 spot elevations around it and adding a note that explains this sump area. Spot elevations and a note have been added to sheet C.1.05. Also the 545 contour was added to the plans. C. Site Development Plan (SDP201300009) 1. [Comment]The access road to the parking lot is too steep. Per 18- 4.12.17the entrances cannot exceed 4 %, but this will be difficult. I recommend reducing the slope where it is 20% to aboutl2 %. [Revision 1JThe profile does not show the sag curve with the low point at the intended flow line. Please revise design to show the low point at flow line. Please see attached profile for the current flow line location. A sag curve has been added to the profile on sheet C.2.01 and is reflected in the grading on sheet C.1.05. Ms. Ellie Carter Ray, PLA June 12, 2013 Page 3 of 7 2. [Comment]The vehicle access aisles to the parking lot cannot exceed a 10% grade per section 4.12.17. This will also be difficult, but a12% is a reasonable alternative. Please request a waiver in writing and provide all the necessary information to juste that no reasonable design alternative exists. [Revison 1JThe profile does not show the sag curve with the low point at the intended flow line. Please revise design to show the low point at flow line. Please see attached profile for the current flow line location. A sag curve has been added to the profile on sheet C.2.01 and is reflected in the grading on sheet C.1.05. D. Planning Division 1. (Comment 6) [32.5.2(a)J Show all parking setback, building setback, and buffer lines on all sheets. Revl: Comment not fully addressed. Please revise the setback notes on the Cover Sheet to say 'residential districts' instead of 'R -1 the adjacent properties are Zoned R -2 and the same standard applies to all residentially zoned districts. Additionally, it appears that there is a deck proposed on the back of the building that violates the building setback. Decks are allowed to extend a maximum of 4' into the required setback, but it seems the proposed deck extends approximately 10 please revise. The reference to R -1 has been changed to "residential district" on sheet G.1.02. The deck has been modified on sheet C.104 to protrude less than 4' into the setback. 2. [32.6.20) & 32.7.9.4(b)J 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 or to meet conditions of approval, subject to the agent's approval. It appears that several of the Landscape Plan requirements are proposed to be net with existing vegetation. The landscape plan should 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. In addition, the applicant shall sign a conservation checklist approved by the agent to insure that the specified trees will be protected during construction. Except as otherwise expressly approved by the agent in a particular case, such checklist shall conform to specifications contained in the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook, pp 111-284 through 111-297, and as hereafter amended. This checklist must be signed, dated, and added to the landscape plan sheet. Revl: Comment not fully addressed. It appears that both water lines and storm drain extend into areas labeled for tree protection. The limits of disturbance are slightly different on the various sheets, but the overall disturbance should be reflected on the site plan. Please modify the tree protection lines to be outside of any areas of disturbance, and revise the "existing tree canopy to remain" calculation accordingly. Ms. Ellie Carter Ray, PLA June 12.2013 Page 4 of 7 Tree protection and silt fence lines have been modified on sheets C.1.01, C.1.02, C.1.03, and C.1.04. Tree demolition has been modified as well, and is reflected in the "existing tree canopy to remain" calculation on sheet G.1.02. 3. [32.6.20) & 32.7.9.51 Street trees are required along all existing public street frontage; these trees must be within the parking setback. It appears that two additional street trees are required in the area east of the proposed secondary entrance. Revl: Comment addressed. However, the tree that is located in the area between the two entrances appears to be in a storm drain easement. All landscaping should be located outside of utility easements. The tree has been moved out of the storm drain easement on sheet C.1.04. The tree was moved back away from the street because in order to move the tree completely out of the easement and closer to the street, it would have been located too close to the proposed curb. (Line of sight would have been affected as well as future conflict with pavement and tree roots.) 4. [32.6.20) & 32.7.9.7] As mentioned above, please clarify if the existing fence extends along all residential parcels or if additional screening is necessary. Please also demonstrate how the dumpster will be screened from Berkmar Drive. Revl: Comment not fully addressed. Thank you for clarifying the fence location. However, the dumpster must be screened from Berkmar Drive. Please indicate how the dumpster will be screened; if using a fence, label the height and provide a detail. A dumpster enclosure has been added to sheet C.1.04, and a detail of the enclosure has been included on sheet C.5.03. 5. [32.6.20) & 32.7.9.8] It appears that the tree canopy requirement is proposed to be met with existing trees; please provide the information requested above regarding preserving existing trees in lieu of planting new plant material. Revl: Comment addressed. However, as indicated above, the tree canopy calculation may need to be revised to reflect the Loss of existing trees for water and storm drain installation. Tree canopy calculation has been modified on sheet G.1.02. 6. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] Please show the proposed light fixtures on the site plan to verify that no site conflicts exist. Rev 1: Comment not fully addressed. It is unclear if the proposed light pole on the Berkmar Drive side of the parking lot is located on top of an existing gas line; it appears a section of the gas line is being removed, but it's difficult to tell exactly which section and that change isn't reflected on the site plan. Please clarify what section of gas line will remain and relocate the light pole if there is a conflict. Ms Ellie Carter Ray, PLA June 12, 2013 Page 5of7 Gas line to be removed and to remain has been labeled on sheet C.1.04. A note has been added to sheet C.1.04 that explains the approximate location of utilities shown and to avoid conflict with existing gas line. 7. [32.6.2(k) & -1.17] Provide cut sheets for each proposed fixture (that reference the catalog numbers provided) that demonstrate that the fixture is full cutoff. Revl: Comment not fully addressed. Cut sheets should be provided as part of the site plan set, not a separate document. Additionally, the cut sheets for fixtures A, B, C and E don't specifically reference a flat lens; please verb that no portion of the bulb or lens will extend below the housing of the fixture. Fixture D is below 3000 lumen and therefore not subject to the full cutoff standard. Cut sheets have been provided on sheet FC.1.02. All fixtures are full cutoff with flat lenses. No portion of the bulb or lens will extend below the housing. 8. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] The photometric plan must 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. Revl: Comment not fully addressed. Footcandle information is still not provided along the entire Berkmar Drive right -of -way frontage or all of the adjoining residential parcels. Please provide 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. Electrical footcandle site plan has been revised to show footcandle information to the extents of the property lines on all sides. 9. [Conmrent] This amendment cannot be approved until ACSA and VDOT completed their reviews and grant their approval; comments will be forwarded upon receipt. Engineering, Fire /Rescue, inspections, and E911 continents have been provided. Revl: Comment not fully addressed. This amendment cannot be approved until VDOT completes their review and grants their approval; comments will be forwarded upon receipt. Engineering comments have been provided. ACSA, Fire /Rescue, inspections, and E911 all have no objection. VDOT has completed their review and their comments have been addressed on the revised plans and in this letter. 10. [Comment] Sheet C -201 should be labeled Sheet 7 of 11 (or the total number of sheets in the plan set), not 53. The total sheet count on Sheet C.2.01 has been modified. • vow Ms. Ellie Carter Ray, PLA June 12, 2013 Page 6 of 7 E. VDOT I. VDOT Standard WP -2, Pavement Widening should be used for the New & Existing Pavement Transition. The pavement transition detail has been replaced with the VDOT standard WP -2 detail on sheet C.5.02. 2. The pavement design does not specify the aggregate base material or the surface material. These items need to be specified The asphalt pavement detail located on sheet C.5.02 specifies these materials. 3. The 3.5" of surface asphalt exceeds the maximum thickness of all surfaces sections per the Pavement Design Guide for Subdivision and Secondary Roads. Detail showing 3.5" of surface material has been removed. The asphalt pavement detail located on sheet C.5.02 depicts 1.5" of surface material. 4. I questions that the proposed pavement section will be adequate for heavy fire equipment traffic. This needs to be looked at by the designer. Pavement section shown has been selected based on information provided in the geotechnical report. According to a letter provided by Troy Austin, dated 6/10/13, VDOT approves the proposed pavement section. 5. The entrance profiles show straight grade changes. These entrances should be designed with vertical curves especially the parking lot entrance where the grade is changing from a -1.50% grade to a 10.52% grade. Vertical curves have been added to the entrances and are depicted in the profiles on sheet C.2.01 and in the grading on sheet C.1.05. 6. An AM -2 exception request has been submitted for the 50' spacing separation between the two entrances, but no justification has been provided. It appears to me that the entrance to the parking lot could be moved north at least 40'to satisfy the spacing requirement. The AM -2 exception request has been resubmitted to VDOT with an accompanying letter explaining the justification for the request. According to a letter provided by Troy Austin, dated 6/10/13, VDOT will approve the AM -2 exception. Formal approval is required from the District Administrator. Ms. Ellie Carter Ray, PLA June 12, 2013 Page 7 of 7 7. Is the drop inlet and the entrance adequate to handle the runofffrom the site? Hydrology calculations should be provided and reviewed to verify. Stormwater calculations have been provided to VDOT for review. According to a letter provided by Troy Austin, dated 6/10/13, VDOT considers the proposed storm structures adequate. We hope you find these responses acceptable. If you have any questions or comments regarding this response or the revised plans, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Darren R. Curtis, PLA, LEED AP Landscape Architect Cc: Michelle Roberge EIIie Ray From: EIIie Ray Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 4:48 PM To: Blake Abplanalp Subject: RE: fire station vertical curves Hey Blake, I just wanted to let you know that Michelle has been working with Darren some over the phone trying to help them address some of her comments without formal submittals, so the timing of 'reviews' and 'comments' has gotten a little wacky. From what I can determine, they didn't submit a WPO application with the initial submittal...in fact, the formal application wasn't submitted until May, but Michelle went ahead and reviewed the sheets we had and provided comments in February on the initial submittal. Then, when SDP revisions were submitted, again with no WPO application, she let them know the application was due and held off on the WPO review until the application was received. Anyway, apparently, these comments were something she requested previously but hadn't been addressed due to the 'off schedule' submittals between the SDP and WPO. Hopefully this makes sense. I spoke with her a few minutes ago and she seemed to indicate that once this item was addressed that she should be good to go, so hopefully with this impending submittal we can wrap things up. Thanks, EIIie Carter Ray, PLA Senior Planner Albemarle County Community Development ph: 434.296.5832 x. 3432 From: Darren Curtis [mailto:dcurtis@diginc.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 3:25 PM To: Blake Abplanalp Cc: 'Donald Booth'; Ellie Ray Subject: RE: fire station vertical curves Blake, I am under the impression that these are changes that Michelle generated in response to an email that I sent on 5/16, wherein I attached a pdf of the profile and grading plan revised per her direction. In other words, yes, they are new. I attached that email for your reference. Darren R. Curtis, PLA, LEED AP Landscape Architect ""» = ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS *PLANNERS r i .611 a 449 M:Laws Cstc e • aamsbur . VA 23185 a.._. Phone 757.253 0673 • Fax 757 253 2319 ivies d; inc corn From: Blake Abplanalp [ mailto :babplanalp(aalbemarle.orq] Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 3:18 PM To: Darren Curtis 1 Cc: Donald Booth; Ellie Ray Subject: RE: fire station vertical curves Darren, these are NEW changes? From: Darren Curtis [mailto:dcurtisladiginc.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 2:38 PM To: Blake Abplanalp Cc: 'Donald Booth' Subject: FW: fire station vertical curves Blake, I called Michelle w/ Community Development this morning to determine how many copies she required for the WPO review, and she told me that she had some revisions to the profiles. Attached is the pdf of changes she sent me this morning. I have knocked these out and sent her a pdf of the revised drawing and asked that she call me as soon as possible to discuss. I am hoping that she gets back to me by the end of the day, so I can make the copies and get the plans out to Ellie tomorrow. If she does not call I will call her early tomorrow morning. I will keep you updated. Please call me if you have any questions or concerns. Darren R. Curtis, PLA, LEED AP Landscape Architect E<NCiNEERS • ARCHITECT; • PLANNERS : 449 1:L +tart. C • Wt! „,a. rN u't .'VA 2315 �.v w� ' n f' •� a %7 + i x 757 253 2319 At' ASV. u`j jf'1 . .emu"^ r efie/5/4eir fly eJ= ) l 1'tllt i! # i f rtf7 // wttf rIt1 r From: Michelle Roberge [mailto:mroberge @ albemarle.orq] Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 10:08 AM To: Darren Curtis Subject: fire station vertical curves Hi Darren, Please revise your profile and grading. Thanks. - Michelle Michelle Roberge Department of Community Development County of Albemarle, Virginia 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext. 3458 2 I ,, COMMONWEALTH of VIRcINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1601 Orange Road Culpeper, Virginia 22701 -3819 Gregory A. Whiney Commissioner of Highways June 10, 2013 Ms. Ellie Carter Ray, PLA Senior Planning County of Albemarle Community Development Department 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA Re: SDP -2013 -00009 Seminole Trail Fire Station Dear Ms. Ray, I reviewed the subject site plan dated February 1, 2013 and offer the following comments: 1. Approval of the AM -2 exception request for the spacing requirement between the two entrance shown has been recommended. PIease note that formal approval of the spacing exception is given by the District Administrator. 2. Based on the Geotechnical Study dated September 12, 2012 as provided by Froehling & Robertson, Inc., the entrance pavement design will be allowed. 3. Based on the Stormwater Calculations dated April 17, 2013 as provided by DJG, Inc., the storm sewer system is found to be adequate. 4. Two complete sets of the 100 °o complete site plan need to be provided to this office so that the inspector has the correct set of plans in the field. If you need additional information concerning this project, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, A. at (( Troy Austin, P.E, Area Land Use Engineer Culpeper District VirginiaDOT.org WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING Ellie Ray From: Blake Abplanalp Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 3:26 PM To: Trevor Henry Cc: Dennis Hahn; Ellie Ray; Jack Kelsey Subject: FW: Seminole Fire station Please scroll down and see below in yellow highlights and more importantly in blue highlights. Blake From: Austin, Nathran. (VDOT) [ mailto: Nathran .Austin(thvdot.virginia.gov] Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 3:16 PM To: Darren Curtis Subject: RE: Seminole Fire station Darren, I was planning on responding to all outstanding issues on Friday, May 31 as I will be out of the office tomorrow and Thursday in training. I was looking at the report prepared by F &R and was expecting to see an pavement design based on VDOT's Pavement Design Guide for Subdivision and Secondary Roads (2009 revision). Since F &R's P.E. has signed off on the design, 1 am willing to accept it as submitted. Please note that the CBR used for design was 8 and F &R indicated that this needed to be verified prior to asphalt work beginning, so it may be necessary to revise the design depending on the actual CBR found. I have not had an opportunity to review the drainage yet. I'm not sure that the grade of the entrance will change to 19.5% by shifting it 40', but I have the disadvantage of having to scale the distances from the plan. I do agree that moving the entrance will increase the grade from 10.8% to something steeper unless the lot is regraded. I'm not entirely sure why the impervious surface would increase by 400 square feet. I'm also not sure why there would be a loss of 9 additional parking spaces. Obviously, the location of the entrance shown on the site plan could be utilized for parking if it were relocated. This being said, I am inclined to recommend approval of the AM -2 request do to the steepness of the entrance if relocated and the grading limitations due to the proximity to the property to the north. Hopefully I can have a formal response by Friday. Troy Austin, P.E. Area Land Use Engineer Virginia Department of Transportation Land Development — South Culpeper District P.O. Box 1017 11430 James Madison Highway Troy, VA 22974 Phone: (434) 589 -5871 Fax: (434) 589 -3967 From: Darren Curtis [mailto:dcurtis(&djginc.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 2:02 PM To: Austin, Nathran. (VDOT) Cc: babplanalp©albemarle.orq; 'Donald Booth' Subject: RE: Seminole Fire station 1 Troy, I was wondering if you could give me an update as to the status of the Seminole Fire station review, as it pertains to the stormwater calculations as well as the asphalt section provided in the geotech report. Thank you, Darren R. Curtis, PLA, LEED AP Landscape Architect ,..:, , ,...,,, ENGtNEE S • ARCHITECTS • PLANNERS . i 17.7= 449 MCLa aS C° €: • I ::cams ur . VA 23186 .wiriftwilliW . Pitons 757.253.0673 • Fax 757 253 231t r , /r/ °ortr r a ! a,1 r a t ,, ,+ r• , e-,,, r'7 xi= rrr �xrc*r* From: Austin, Nathran. (VDOT) [ mail to: Nathran .AustinCavdot.virginia.gov] Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 8:40 AM To: Darren Curtis Subject: RE: Seminole Fire station storm calcs Darren, I have received both e- mails. Thank you. I know that there is a push for this project to get started. I will try to review this information today or tomorrow. Troy Austin, P.E. Area Land Use Engineer Virginia Department of Transportation Land Development — South Culpeper District P.O. Box 1017 11430 James Madison Highway Troy, VA 22974 Phone: (434) 589 -5871 Fax: (434) 589 -3967 From: Darren Curtis [mailto:dcurtis(adiginc.com] Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 8:34 AM To: Austin, Nathran. (VDOT) Cc: 'Donald Booth' Subject: RE: Seminole Fire station storm calcs Troy, The Seminole Fire station storm calcs are attached. The calculations for drop inlet 6 are on page 85. Please let me know that you received these emails. Thanks again, Darren R. Curtis, PLA, LEED AP 2 Landscape Architect ".11110. ENGINEERS • ARCHITEC7S • PLANNERS •••, ••••, ATE. 449 LicLaw$ C.:(Ce * W::. VA 23185 riarawsraw~ //NO 111111116111111I pn one 757 253 0673. ok F 757 253 231e, 4111111, 41111111111P fr,C %WM. dlgortc.1',:orn f • . .,- r .r p.# r r f From: Darren Curtis [mailto:dcurtisCadiginc.com] Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 8:17 AM To: 'Nathran.Austin@vdot.virginia.gov' Cc: 'Donald Booth'; 'Sara Firman' Subject: Seminole Fire station Geotech report Troy, Please find attached the geotech report. We are scanning the storm calc book to a pdf and I will send that to you as soon as possible. Thanks for your help, Darren R. Curtis, PLA, LEED AP Landscape Architect ENGINEERS. ARCHTECTS • PLANNERS 46* 44 " 447; 4444 4 " ; 449 rVicLawS C:mk! * Wt:Aarrisburg, VA 23185 •■•■•■ 0011111111 " 11 W 111111 Phone 757 253 0673 • Fax 757 532319 4111111F AIMIPPr IMAM dosric corn i.; /per .. 1:;* .r r 3 EIIie Ray From: Blake Abplanalp Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 3:54 PM To: Donald Booth; Darren Curtis; 'jconnolly @djginc.com' Cc: Trevor Henry; Ellie Ray; Jack Kelsey Subject: RE: VDOT Gents, I just got off of the phone with Troy from VDOT and the following is what we discussed: ❖ Item # 6 — AM -2 Exception request. He spoke to Joel about this earlier and despite the fact that Joel doesn't have a problem with the spacing he still wants written justification of why we can't move the new entrance. We need to demonstrate to him why it would be a major problem to not adhere to the spacing recommendations. He said he wants to be covered when and if people above their office review their comments. ❖ Item # 2 — What he is asking for here is what type of material is specified. He says nothing is in the specs or plans calling out what these two items are. • Item # 3 — He says that the maximum surface asphalt allowed is 2 ". We can have 3.5" of asphalt but it can't be 3.5" of surface asphalt. ❖ Item # 4— He can't tell if the paving is adequate until he has the answers to item # 2. ❖ Item # 7 — He hasn't received copies of the hydro calcs that were submitted to Community Development. Can you e -mail him a copy? Blake Abplanalp Senior Project Manager County of Albemarle Office of Facilities Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 228 Charlottesville, VA 22902 -4596 PH - 434 -872 -4501, Ext. 3244 Fax - 434 - 972 -4091 Cell - 434 -825 -1663 babplanalpPalbemarle.org w A Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. 1 EIIie Ray From: Blake Abplanalp Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 2:28 PM To: 'Donald Booth'; Darren Curtis Cc: Trevor Henry; EIIie Ray Subject: VDOT Attachments: SDP March 21st 2013 Comments.pdf Donald & Darren, I previously sent you the remarks I just received from VDOT's new engineer. Attached is the March 21, 2013 comment sheet from Joel DeNunzio from VDOT that did not mention the distance between the entrances issue (item # 6) at all. I'm pretty sure that this was run by Joel DeNunzio before we moved forward. I'm wondering if Joel and Troy are on the same page on this? Blake Abplanalp Senior Project Manager County of Albemarle Office of Facilities Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 228 Charlottesville, VA 22902 -4596 PH - 434 - 872 -4501, Ext. 3244 Fax - 434 - 972 -4091 Cell - 434 - 825 -1663 babplanalp@albemarle.org �A Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. 1 COMMONWEALTH of 1 N:.' /k DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1601 Orange Road Culpeper, Virginia 2270 1 -381 9 Gregory A. Whirley Commissioner of Highways March 20, 2013 Mr. Glenn Brooks Department of Engineering and Development 401 McIntire Rd. Charlottesville, VA 22902 Subject: Site Review Meeting Comments March 21" site review meeting Dear Mr. Brooks: Below are VDOT's comments on the Site Plans for the March 21 2013 Site Review Committee Meeting: SDP - 2013 -00008 New Hope Community Church (Phase I)- Initial Site Plan (Megan Yaniglos) 1. The posted speed for Route 606 in this section is 35 mph. The necessary sight distance for 35 mph is 390 feet in accordance with the VDOT Road Design Manual Appendix F -35. Please include a vertical profile of the sight line and existing ground. 2. Final site plan will need to include the entrance profile in accordance with the CG -11 standard. 3. A Land Use Permit will be required for construction within the Route 606 right of way. SDP - 2013 -00009 Seminole Trail Fire Station —Major Amendment (Ellie Ray) 1. Show sight distances for proposed entrances in accordance with the VDOT Road Design Manual Appendix F. 2. Entrance profiles in accordance with the VDOT Standard CG -11 need to be shown for both entrances. SDP -2013 -00011 Old Trail Village Block 2B — Major Site Plan Amendment (Johnathan Newberry) 1. The minimum effective entrance radii are 25 feet. This plan shows a radius of 15 feet at the entrance and does not appear to properly tie into the drainage structure. The drainage structure needs to be relocated and the radius increased. 2. Show the entrance profile in accordance with the VDOT CG -11 Standard. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, Joel DeNunzio, P.E. Area Land Use Engineer VDOT Culpeper VIEW EIIie Ray From: Austin, Nathran. (VDOT) [Nathran .Austin @vdot.virginia.gov] Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 1:14 PM To: Ellie Ray Cc: Blake Abplanalp Subject: SDP - 2013 -00009 Seminole Trail Fire Station Attachments: SDP 2013 00009 Seminole Trail Fire Comments 5 16 13.pdf Troy Austin, P.E. Area Land Use Engineer Virginia Department of Transportation Land Development — South Culpeper District P.O. Box 1017 11430 James Madison Highway Troy, VA 22974 Phone: (434) 589 -5871 Fax: (434) 589 -3967 1 COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1601 Orange Road Culpeper, Virginia 22701 -3819 Gregory A. Whirley Commissioner of Highways May 16, 2013 Ms. Ellie Carter Ray, PLA Senior Planning County of Albemarle Community Development Department 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA Re: SDP - 2013 -00009 Seminole Trail Fire Station Dear Ms. Ray, I reviewed the subject site plan and offer the following comments: 1. VDOT Standard WP -2, Pavement Widening should be used for the New & Existing Pavement Transition. 2. The pavement design does not specify the aggregate base material or the surface material. These items need to be specified. 3. The 3.5" of surface asphalt exceeds the maximum thickness of all surfaces sections per the Pavement Design Guide for Subdivision and Secondary Roads. 4. I questions that the proposed pavement section will be adequate for heavy fire equipment traffic. This needs to be looked at by the designer. 5. The entrance profiles show straight grade changes. These entrances should be designed with vertical curves especially the parking lot entrance where the grade is changing from a -1.50°0 grade to a 10.52 °o grade. 6. An AM -2 exception request has been submitted for the 50' spacing separation between the two entrances, but no justification has been provided. It appears to me that the entrance to the parking lot could be moved north at least 40' to satisfy the spacing requirement. 7. Is the drop inlet and the entrance adequate to handle the runoff from the site? Hydrology calculations should be provided and reviewed to verify. 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 EIIie Ray From: Ellie Ray Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2013 3:40 PM To: 'dbooth @djginc.com'; Blake Abplanalp; 'Darren Curtis' Subject: SDP201300009 - Seminole Trail Fire Station - Major Amendment Attachments: CDP2_sdp_ECR_Seminole Trail Fire Station.pdf; 2013 -05 -08 Reviewer Comments - REV1.pdf; E2_sp_Seminole Trail Fire Station.pdf; SDP201300009- May 1 2013 BOS Waiver Approval Letter.pdf All, Please find attached my comments for the above reference application. I have included a PDF with Engineering comments and a separate PDF with the other comments received to date. We are awaiting VDOT comments. A copy of the waiver approval letter is also included. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions, concerns, or need further clarification. Thank you, Ellie Carter Ray, PLA Senior Planner Albemarle County Community Development Planning Division 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 ph: 434.296.5832 x. 3432 fax: 434.972.4126 1 , AL .J • I ll ll�� _ frInG1.0 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 Memorandum To: Donald Booth (dbooth @djginc.com) From: Ellie Ray, CLA, Senior Planner Division: Planning Date: March 18, 2013 Rev1: May 8, 2013 Subject: SDP2013 -00009 Seminole Trail Fire Station — Major Amendment The County of Albemarle Planning Division will recommend approval of the plan referenced above once the following comments have been satisfactorily addressed (The following comments are those that have been identified at this time. Additional comments or conditions may be added or eliminated based on further review.): [Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference, which is to the Subdivision /Zoning Ordinances unless otherwise specified.] 1. [32.5.2(a)] The boundary information provided does not include a boundary dimension along Berkmar Drive; please provide all boundary line information. Rev1: Comment addressed. 2. [32.5.2(a)] Add AIA (Airport Impact Area) to the Zoning note. Please also document any necessary waiver requests. Rev1: Comment addressed. 3. [32.5.2(a)] Provide the County and State; change the 'Charlottesville' references to 'Albemarle County'. Rev1: Comment addressed. 4. [32.5.2(a)] Provide one datum reference for elevation. Rev1: Comment addressed. 5. [32.5.2(a)] Show departing lot lines. Rev1: Comment addressed. 6. [32.5.2(a)] Show all parking setback, building setback, and buffer lines on all sheets. Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. Please revise the setback notes on the Cover Sheet to say `residential districts' instead of `R -1'; the adjacent properties are Zoned R -2 and the same standard applies to all residentially zoned districts. Additionally, it appears that there is a deck proposed on the back of the building that violates the building setback. Decks are allowed to extend a maximum of 4' into the required setback, but it seems the proposed deck extends approximately 10'; please revise. 7. [32.5.2(a) & 21.7(c)] 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. Screening shall be provided as required in section 32.7,9. It appears that some grading is proposed in this 20' buffer; please verify and either remove the proposed grading or apply for a waiver of this requirement. Rev1: Comment addressed. The waiver request was approved by the Board of Supervisors at the May 1, 2013 meeting. �~� B. [32[32.5.2(a)] .2�� Provide the �n�roe the boundary line survey. Rwv1: Comment addressed. S. [32.5.2(b)] Provide the maximum total square footage of the building with proposed additions. Rmv1: Comment addressed. 10. [32.5.2(b)] While the maximum building height on C1 zoned land is 65', any building height in excess of 35 requires an additional 2 of setback for each 1' in height above 35. The cover sheets states the maximum height is41.5' The County's building height definition reads as foliows, The vertical distance measured from the level of the curb or the established curb grade opposite the midd/e of the front of the structure to the highest point of the roof if a 0a/ roof; to the deck line of a mansard roof: or the mean height level between the eaves and ridge of a gable, hip or gambrel roof. For bulldings set back from the street line, the height shall be measured from the average elevation of the ground surface along the front of the building'. Please verify the maximum building height to determine if additional setback is required. Rmv1: Comment addressed. Zoning dotermined the height to be Iess than 35'. 11. [32.5.2(b) & 4.12.4(a)] Zoning will determine the number of required parking spaces for this use. The original site plan was approved with 71 required parking spaces. This number was targely due to the hosting of bingo games and dances for fundraising, Do these types of events still take place on this parcel? How many staif are generaHy on-site at tho same time? Zontng may need additional information to make their determination. Rwv1: Comment addressed. Zoning determined that 32 parking spaces are required; the site plan provides for 37 spaces. 12. [32.5.2(b)] Provide the maximum amount of impervious cover on the Cover Sheet, Rmv1: Comment addressed. 13. [32'5'2(b)] Provide the maximum amount of paved parking and vehicular circulation area on the Cover Sheet. Ftevl: Comment addressed. 14. [32.5.2(d)] A critical slope waiver is required to disturb any slope in excess of25Y6. Engineering and Planning have reviewed the proposed disturbance and will recommend approval of this waiver. This waiver must be approved by the Board of Supervisors (on Consent Agenda) prior to site plan approval. Revi: Comment addressed. The waiver request was approved by the Board of Supervisors at the May 1, 2013 meeting. 15. [32.5.2(1)] Please provide the right-of-way width for Berkmar Drive, Rev1: Comment addressed. 16. [32.5.2(n)] Clarify where the fence ends; does it extend along all adjacent residential parcels? Rmv1: Comment addressed. 17. [32.5.2(n)] The retaining wall note refers to a sheet not ncluded in this plat set; please dimension the vvaUu, provide maximum heiQht(o), and provide a railing detail. Rmvl: Comment addressed. 18. [32.5.2(n)] Dimension the travetway ctosestto the building. Rmv1: Comment addressed. 19. [32.6.2(g)] Indicate all utility and drainage easements outside the right-of-way of public streets. Any new easements may be generally shown and dedicated by separate plat. All water and sewer facilities to be dedicated to public use and the easements for those facilities and shall be identified by a statement that the facilities are to be dedicated to the Albemarle County Service Authority. Rev1: Comment addressed. 20. [32.6.2(j) & 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 requiremerits of sectiori 32 or to mect corTditions of approva|, subject to the agent's approval. It appears that several of the Landscape Plan requirements are proposed to be met with existing vegetation. The landscape plan should show the trees to be preserved, tht emits of clearing, the location and type of pr.,,ective fencing, grade changes requiring tree wells or walls, and trenching or tunneling proposed beyond the limits of clearing. In addition, the applicant shall sign a conservation checklist approved by the agent to insure that the specified trees will be protected during construction. Except as otherwise expressly approved by the agent in a particular case, such checklist shall conform to specifications contained in the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook, pp III -284 through III -297, and as hereafter amended. This checklist must be signed, dated, and added to the landscape plan sheet. Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. It appears that both water lines and storm drain extend into areas labeled for tree protection. The limits of disturbance are slightly different on the various sheets, but the overall disturbance should be reflected on the site plan. Please modify the tree protection lines to be outside of any areas of disturbance, and revise the "existing tree canopy to remain" calculation accordingly. 21. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.5] Street trees are required along all existing public street frontage; these trees must be within the parking setback. It appears that two additional street trees are required in the area east of the proposed secondary entrance. Rev1: Comment addressed. However, the tree that is located in the area between the two entrances appears to be in a storm drain easement. All landscaping should be located outside of utility easements. 22. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.5(e)] When a parking area is located so that the parked cars will be visible from an off -site street, the agent may require additional planting of low street shrubs between the street and the parking area. It appears that this requirement is proposed to be met with existing vegetation; please provide the information requested above regarding preserving existing trees in lieu of planting new plant material. Revi: Comment addressed. 23. [32.6.26) & 32.7.9.6(a)] 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) nor shrubs planted between a parking area and the building shall be counted toward the minimum landscaped area for a parking lot. As noted above, the square footage of 'paved parking and vehicular circulation area' has not been provided. Rev1: Comment addressed. The parking layout is an existing condition and is not required to be modified. Additionally, the area between the two entrances could be counted toward this requirement though it is not included in the calculation provided. 24. (32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.6(b)] The 5% 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. Four (4) trees are required for 37 parking spaces. Additionally C©rnus florida is not on the current list of recommended large or medium shade trees approved by the agent. Please select trees from the approved list or note specific existing trees that meat this requirement. Rev1: Comment addressed. The parking layout is an existing condition and is not required to be modified. Additionally, there are numerous trees around the parking lot that are being maintained that could be used to satisfy this requirement. 25. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.7] As mentioned above, please clarify if the existing fence extends along all residential parcels or if additional screening is necessary. Please also demonstrate how the dumpster will be screened from Berkmar Drive. Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. Thank you for clarifying the fence location. However, the dumpster must be screened from Berkmar Drive. Please indicate how the dumpster will be screened; if using a fence, label the height and provide a detail. 26. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.8] It appears that the tree canopy requirement is proposed to be met with existing trees; please provide the information requested above regarding preserving existing trees in lieu of planting new plant material. Rev1: Comment addressed. However, as indicated above, the tree canopy calculation may need to be revised to reflect the Toss of existing trees for water and storm drain installation. 27. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] Pleass show the proposed light fixtures on the site Nian to verify that no site conflicts exist. Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. It is unclear if the proposed Tight pole on the Berkmar Drive side of the parking lot is located on top of an existing gas line; it appears a section of the gas line is being removed, but it's difficult to tell exactly which section and that change isn't reflected on the site plan. Please clarify what section of gas line will remain and relocate the light pole if there is a conflict. 28. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] Provide cut sheets for each proposed fixture (that reference the catalog numbers provided) that demonstrate that the fixture is full cutoff. Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. Cut sheets should be provided as part of the site plan set, not a separate document. Additionally, the cut sheets for fixtures A, B, C and E don't specifically reference a flat lens; please verify that no portion of the bulb or lens will extend below the housing of the fixture. Fixture D is below 3000 lumen and therefore not subject to the full cutoff standard. 29. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] The photometric plan must 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. Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. Footcandle information is still not provided along the entire Berkmar Drive right -of -way frontage or all of the adjoining residential parcels. Please provide 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. 30. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] The lighting plan indicates that a LLF of 0.65 was used to create the photometric plan. Albemarle County requires that the LLF be 1.0; revise the photometric plan using the proper LLF. Rev1: Comment addressed. 31. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] Provide the following standard lighting note on the lighting 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 -half footcandle. Rev1: Comment addressed. 32. [Comment] Provide the deed book and page references for all existing utility easements located on the property. Rev1: Comment addresse.. 33. [Comment] This amendment cannot be approved until ACSA and VDOT completed their reviews and grant their approval; comments will be forwarded upon receipt. Engineering, Fire /Rescue, inspections, and E911 comments have been provided. Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. This amendment cannot be approved until VDOT completes their review and grants their approval; comments will be forwarded upon receipt. Engineering comments have been provided. ACSA, Fire /Rescue, inspections, and E911 all have no objection. 34. [Comment] Sheet C -201 should be labeled Sheet 7 of 11 (or the total number of sheets in the plan set), not 53. 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 accord with the provisions of Section 32.4.3.5 of Chapter 18 of the Code if the developer fails to submit a revised final site plan to address all of the requirements within six (6) months after the date of this letter the application shall be deemed to have been voluntarily withdrawn by the developer. Please contact Ellie Ray in the Planning Division by using eray(a�albemarle.org or 434 - 296 -5832 ext. 3432 for further information. i feu ' GAL fro I Lt In ` )E T A ACID �f (F ALB 4�` N.7 " Li p �n4 - E l and 7 0V 8 =r ev: .,. (�j61L- (_J .4C' (C._ -� 1 2 r'1� SCGrl¢ f frIRGI Ln-`-( A a_ F-IG'u C' k.,) /5 tee A COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE G �� - ��u Department of Community Development ) �V what tar i -(a P ( 8i ) 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Vn "7 C+L\,- Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 6 � � Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 March 18, 2013 � � 1 a ���� C LA L !-1 :i jc m Donald Booth kk5D DJG Inc.t1 tuS i -� tZ� 449 McLaws Circle T p ftzt_A -- Foi- Williamsburg, VA 23185 RE: SDP2013 -00009 Seminole Trail Fire Station - Major Amendment Dear Sir: Your Major Amendment application has been reviewed. In order for the amended site plan to be approved the following revisions are required: vY. `132.5.2(a)] The boundary information provided does not include a boundary dimension along Berkmar Drive; please provide all boundary line information. 1.2' [32.5.2(a)] Add AIA (Airport Impact Area) to the Zoning note. Please also document any necessary waiver requests. L3i[32.5.2(a)] Provide the County and State; change the 'Charlottesville' references to 'Albemarle County'. ® 0 inca.,.� c JLt L a im % CLALL1 , LLL+ l ci 'Cook c_C ;11ua 1.-4 Provide one datum reference for elevation. v&" [32.5.2(a)] Show departing lot lines. 6. [32.5.2(a)] Show all parking setback, building setback, and buffer lines on all sheets. . — fli2__.i ic1 o-t t�_IL. UcrrE5 ai-1 C 1 ee -Ea n_ 1-t-o " j - d-in-tx bt.o Gl Cit t &j " un- 2. +pew 7 [32.5.2(a) & 21.7(c)] Buffer zone adjacent to residential and rural areas districts. No construction w4 •i activity including grading or clearing of vegetation shall occur closer than twenty (20) feet to any ,, e residential or rural areas district. Screening shall be provided as required in section 32.7.9. It appears that some grading is proposed in this 20' buffer; please verify and either remove the proposed grading or apply for a waiver of this requirement. e .W \_8:--- Provide the source of the boundary line survey. 1.9 [32.5.2(b)] Provide the maximum total square footage of the building with proposed additions. v1'0. [32.5.2(b)] While the maximum building height on 01 zoned land is 65', any building height in excess of 35' requires an additional 2' of setback for each 1' in height above 35'. The cover sheets states the maximum height is 41.5'. The County's building height definition reads as follows, The vertical distance measured from the level of the curb or the established curb grade opposite the middle of the front of the structure to the highest point of the roof if a flat roof. to the deck line of a mansard roof. or the mean height level between the eaves and ridge of a gable, hip or gambrel roof. For buildings set back from the street line, the height shall be measured from the average elevation of the ground surface along the front of the building'. Please verify the maximum building height to determine if additional setback is required. [32.5.2(b) & 4.12.4(a)] Zoning will determine the number of required parking spaces for this use. The original site plan was approved with 71 required parking spaces. This number was largely due to the hosting of bingo games and dances for fundraising. Do these types of events still take place on this parcel? How many staff are generally on -site at the same time? Zoning may need additional information to make their determination. .-12 [32.5.2(b)] Provide the maximum amount of impervious cover on the Cover Sheet. 0- 3- [32.5.2(b)] Provide the maximum amount of paved parking and vehicular circulation area on the Cover Sheet. 1 [32.5.2(d)] A critical slope waiver is required to disturb any slope in excess of 25 %. Engineering and 1Planning have reviewed the proposed disturbance and will recommend approval of this waiver. This A e 4 waiver must be approved by the Board of Supervisors (on Consent Agenda) prior to site plan approval. / [32.5.2(I)] Please provide the right -of -way width for Berkmar Drive. J HeLICL —q*6. [32.5.2(n)] Clarify where the fence ends; does it extend along all adjacent residential parcels? ,q `b-` .t cite "_/ e - aukr ti-r. [32.5.2(n)] The retaining wall note refers to a sheet not included in this plat set; please dimension the LX--i,S walls, provide maximum height(s), and provide a railing detail. 1-1'S[32.5.2(n)] Dimension the travelway closest to the building. . [32.6.2(g)] Indicate all utility and drainage easements outside the right -of -way of public streets. Any new easements may be generally shown and dedicated by separate plat. All water and sewer �1 2 facilities to be dedicated to public use and the easements for those facilities and shall be identified by a statement that the facilities are to be dedicated to the Albemarle County Service Authority. • 20. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.4(b)] Existing trees may be preserved in lieu of planting new plant materials in J order to satisfy the landscaping and screening requirements of section 32.7.9 or to meet conditions of � ij ,. approval, subject to the agent's approval. It appears that several of the Landscape Plan / requirements are proposed to be met with existing vegetation. The landscape plan should show the 4• ' r " e4'rees to be preserved, the limits of clearing, the location and type of protective fencing, grade .9► ' changes requiring tree wells or walls, and trenching or tunneling proposed beyond the limits of �.,t• - _ clearing. In addition, the applicant shall sign a conservation checklist approved by the agent to insure '� that the specified trees will be protected during construction. Except as otherwise expressly approved ,� „. , P P 9 P P Y PP � by the agent in a particular case, such checklist shall conform to specifications contained in the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook, pp III -284 through III -297, and as hereafter amended. This checklist must be signed, dated, and added to the landscape plan sheet. �� Lt .) - . .�rei -t OS tL1T? t p L t P+ ' [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.5] Street trees are required along all existing public street frontage; these trees fr' must be within the parking setback. It appears that two additional street trees are required in the area ,.- �� east of the proposed secondary entrance. 2 [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.5(e)] When a parking area is located so that the parked cars will be visible from an off -site street, the agent may require additional planting of low street shrubs between the street and the parking area. It appears that this requirement is proposed to be met with existing vegetation; please provide the information requested above regarding preserving existing trees in lieu of planting new plant material. f1-x,% ow -- exia`fl !�Dc.-FUt`T4p4,.! AL' ^ LI"1 - , Jr ` . w. ” -713 itr TN4Z ps . 23. [32.6.20) & 32.7.9.6(a)] An area of at least five (5) percent of the paved parking and vehicular miNgerkol , - c 7 2. � circulation area shall be landscaped with trees or shrubs. Neither the areas of street trees and shrubs � ; 1o1.'r � F gyp f' ' \ required by sections 32.7.9.5(d) and (e) nor shrubs planted between a parking area and the building 1 A-i Jc v+`) 4 pJ- shall be counted toward the minimum landscaped area for a parking lot. As noted above, the square e+t� / . p S footage of `paved parking and vehicular circulation area' has not been provided. \ \\ -R+-s U(L auLaGZ (5-1(5-11_6/1 - t16I we to /Tex/ .4i) ) M.4c� ivu_cd -fa Aafd 2" �'� //3 �Ow - 4 , 24. [32.6.20) & 32.7.9.6(b)] The 5% landscaped area required shall be planted with a mixture of shade Q.& \,. , nil ,,,L trees and shrubs and shall include one (1) large or medium shade tree per ten (10) parking spaces or een, ✓.1 ,J o 0� portion thereof, if five (5) spaces or more. Four (4) trees are required for 37 parking spaces. (' ov t Pk GD Additionally, Corpus florida is not on the current list of recommended large or medium shade trees e ° %, \ ' ' 01/ i \,‘S‘ (S K4> - .0 Mr approved by the agent. Please select trees from the approved list or note specific existing trees that meet this requirement. [32.6.2(1) & 32.7.9.7] As mentioned above, please clarify if the existing fence extends along all ► �`'y 1 residential parcels or if additional screening is necessary. Please also demonstrate how the U dumpster will be screened from Berkmar Drive. � / • . [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.8] It appears that the tree canopy requirement is proposed to be met with existing trees; please provide the information requested above regarding preserving existing trees in lieu of planting new plant material. 27. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] Please show the proposed light fixtures on the site plan to verify that no site conflicts exist. a c 1 `Fop d F t✓.K . z4 U LI E C) DUE I (-3 U Lk t f3 ET soe - Ree- ^e--► pee- t 4Vt t WA 1V C- ►.28. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] Provide cut sheets for each proposed fixture (that reference the catalog numbers GP-A► provided) that demonstrate that the fixture is full cutoff. . Lie e. r --toed L L __L -Fo , . lti low 1.1x1 C 4 - 29. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] The photometric plan must 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. LIB- , LJ 6 x ,30' [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] The lighting plan indicates that a LLF of 0.65 was used to create the photometric plan. Albemarle County requires that the LLF be 1.0; revise the photometric plan using the proper LLF. L.3< [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] Provide the following standard lighting note on the lighting 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 -half footcandle. al [Comment] Provide the deed book and page references for all existing utility easements located on the property. 33. [Comment] This amendment cannot be approved until ACSA and VDOT completed their reviews 4 and grant their approval; comments will be forwarded upon receipt. Engineering, Fire /Rescue, inspections, and E911 comments have been provided. e 1114-ACSA - t_40 bbgcr►0►4 — 1 J - N .d. 2 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 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. If you have any questions about the comments please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, it-En � pc. r. '1 , u * , A,l� ► %-% - Ellie Carter Ray, CLA V � Senior Planner — W II . Planning Division * �/Q — j 44 L 4-1-1-TS 0 F- A % � A 1 L.4 cis O -- l t!( 1, I, ‘--t 0T J u- a UT c(, 1._..3 �. �. bob 111 :f. j4, : gib 1 /RC.I COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 Mclntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 Project: Seminole Trail Fire Station Plan preparer: DJG Inc [fax 757 -253 -2319] Owner or rep.: County of Albemarle [434-872-4501] Plan received date: 19 Apr 2013 Date of comments: 8 May 2013 Reviewer: Michelle Roberge A. Site Development Plan (SDP201300009) 1. [Comment] The access road to the parking lot is too steep. Per 18- 4.12.17 the entrances cannot exceed 4 %, but this will be difficult. I recommend reducing the slope where it is 20% to about 12 %. [Revison 1] The profile does not show the sag curve with the low point at the intended flow line. Please revise design to show the low point at flow line. Please see attached profile for the current flow line location. 2. [Comment] The vehicle access aisles to the parking lot cannot exceed a 10% grade per section 4.12.17. This will also be difficult, but a 12% is a reasonable alternative. Please request a waiver in writing and provide all the necessary informatation to justify that no reasonable design alternative exists. [Revison 1] The profile does not show the sag curve with the low point at the intended flow line. Please revise design to show the low point at flow line. Please see attached profile for the current flow line location. 3. [Comment] The parking area cannot exceed 5% grade anywhere, in any direction per section 4.12.15. [Revison 11 Comment addressed with planning. 4. [Comment] The SW corner of the emergency access where it meets Berkmar Drive appears to show a 10' shoulder that just ends. I recommend the 50' radius, with curb and gutter to adjoin Berkmar Drive. [Revison 1] Comment addressed. This area is intended for firetrucks to easily maneuver trucks into fire station. 5. [Comment] Please provide a bumper block for the handicap parking adjacent to sidewalk. [Revison 1] Comment addressed. Sincerely, 1 Michelle Roberge 1 ELEV ELEV 1 � Io,B�� O. 540 1 m° I`"� 'J�- _ EXISTING, GRADE I I 540 . 1 '_'•', COUNTY C — � r 536 ! — r ___ , — == r .r �= � — ; — 535 ; �' / g2 PROPt35ED GRADE .. _ - $ 14°4114' ' - - — _, �_ s SEMIN( 532 �_ - - - -- • ,�,, — -- 532 FIRE S _--_ - - •1.50: 'i 1 j - ' ADDI �� 1 ___1__ . -. RENO\ -,_ FLO LINE. I` 528 — 528 I a - 1 - w 1 i. w i j W N ' I I CHARLOU K N 0 +00 1 +00 R EV IS HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1 "_20' E == VERTICAL SCALE: 1 "_ PARKING LOT ENTRANCE CENTERLINE PROFILE 11 Ill ELEV s ^^ 1 1 P OSED GRADE 532 EXffING GRADE 53[ RIGHT TURN ILANE i � – — – – - I 528 l , , . . - 585 % - 52f tii; FL)41 o E a Y • L51•4 ¢ co E Z O7 Z . • J w it w OFW- nU - .0 I, ■ 'c,U + W -' ¢ ' N W N + ¢ ¢ � ¢� •1. 'SS ¢,--, 0 +00 1 +00 HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1 " =20' BAY ENTRANCE CENTERLINE PROFILE VERTICAL SCALE: 1 " =4' ELEV ELE\ _,._T_ 540 EXISTING GRADE 54 { Review Comments Project Name: SEMINOLE TRAIL FIRE STATION - MAJOR Major Amendment Date Completed: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 Reviewer: Shawn Maddox Department/Division /Agency: Fire Rescue Reviews Comments: Fire Rescue has no objections. Thank you for addressing the comments in the initial review. SNM Review Status: No Objection Review Comments Project Name: SEMINOLE TRAIL FIRE STATION - MAJOR Major Amendment Date Completed: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 Reviewer: Jay Schlothauer Department/Division /Agency: Inspections Reviews Comments: Based on plans dated April 17, 2013. No further comments or conditions. Review Status: No Objection April 17, 2013 MIMI =1 A w r a w, Arer III III MN ANW J / MMMIIII411111, `UMW Ms. Ellie Carter Ray, CLA /NC Planning Division. Sr. Planner Department of Community Development www.djginc.com 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, VA 22902 -4596 RE: Seminole Trail Fire Station Site Plan Major Amendment DJG No. 2130150 Dear Ms. Ray, The following is our response to the plan review comments for the subject project: A. Erosion Control Plan (WP0201300010) 1. Sheet C -101, which combines the three phases of the demo plan and E &S plan, is difficult to follow. 1 recommend providing in -sets within the sheet to clearly show the limits of disturbance, demo, and erosion control measures within each phase. For example, the drainage inlets are showing to he removed, hut it also shows inlet protection. The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan has been separated into three (3) sheets (C -101, C- 102, C -103) that depict each phase of the demolition work. Phases two (2) and three (3) also depict the new work that will be completed in the previous phases. 2. Please show one construction entrance, for all phases. Please use our detail found in the Albemarle County Design Standards Manual. hitp://www.albetnarle.org/department. asp ?department = cdd &relpage =13525 A construction entrance is shown for each phase. The VESCH construction entrance detail has been replaced with the Albemarle County Design Standards detail for a Construction Entrance/ Paved Wash Rack. 3. It appears the note 3.1 on C -101 regarding the replacement of drainage inlets and pipes will he done in phase 11, yet the plans show it will he completed in phases II and III. Clearly show the replacement of pipes and structures in one phase with the adequate erosion control measure. Also add a note in the construction sequence to show how fire trucks can access the hay area while the pipe trenches are being constructed and stabilized, if this hay area is constructed in a different phase. The three phases of construction are now shown on three sheets. The stormwater piping will be installed in phase H. The construction sequence has been modified to reflect the plans and to specify trenching and backfilling in sections to permit constant access to the fire station bays. ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS • PLANNERS VOICE: (757) 253 -0673 • FAX: (757) 253 -2319 • FROM NORFOLK / VIRGINIA BEACH: (757) 874 -5015 449 McLAWS CIRCLE • WILLIAMSBURG, VA • 23185 M, ['Hie Carter Ra\. C'I_A April 17. 21113 Page 2 of 13 4. While phase 11 is in construction, please shown hoer pedestrians parked in the existing parking lot can safely walk to the building. A pedestrian route from the building to the parking lot is shown on sheet C -102. 5. The areas of Berkmar Drive being demolished does not match the areas Of new pavement. P /ease thatch the areas to be demolished 10 the areas of new pavement. The area of Berkmar Drive to be demolished now matches the area of new pavement. 6. The stockpile location is outside your proposed limits of disturbance. Please provide a temlporary easement or a letter of permission fOr that property. If this is a marsh area, it may he difficult to bring vehicles in and out. Also, it appears the route . from the stockpile to the site is along Berkmar Drive. Please address hoii you will prevent sediment, from entering Berkmar Drive. The adjacent property is owned by the County of Albemarle therefore no temporary easement or letter of permission is required. The route from the site to the stockpile has been adjusted so that trucks will remain on County property. This is depicted on Sheet C- 102. -. It appears that part of Berkmar Drive -will also he disturbed. .4 permit, from 1/DOT is required to work on the ROW. Noted. 8. Please provide tree protection, for oak trees north of site and south of parking lot. Tree protection has been provided along the entire north side off the property and south of the parking lot. Tree protection is shown on the Erosion and Sediment Control Plans as well as the Site / Landscape plan. 9. Please shoe' dust control. temporary seeding and permanent seeding symbols on sheet (' -101. Dust control, temporary seeding and permanent seeding symbols are now shown on the Erosion and Sediment Control Plans. B. Stormwater Management Plan (WPO201300010) 1. Per section 4.12.1 5 h), parking area grading and drainage systems shall he designed and constructed to nlinimi:e, 10 the greatest extent practical. the amount of surface runoff exiting or entering through entrances to public streets. 11 appea that bosh access roads will drain to a public street. Minimize the amount of runoff entering the public streets by placing additional inlets al wrest side of access roads. Revise the grading. See additional continents below that will impact grading of access toad. M Ellie Carter Rai. C'1 A Apnl17.2013 Past 3 of 13 Per an email from Michele Roberge on 4- 10 -13, the flow line has been pulled hack from the roadway, and a drop inlet has been provided on the west side of the parking lot entrance. 2. Per section 4.12.1 7 a), vehicle access aisles that are not adjacent to parking spaces, shall not exceed a grade of ten (10) percent. It will he difficult to achieve this, but 12% is a reasonable alternative. Please request the waiver in writing and provide all information necessary to justift that no reasonable design alternative exists. Per Albemarle County Community Development, a waiver is not required for the entrances. 3. Per .section 4.12.1' h). an adequate landing and'or grade transition shall he provided, for vehicle access aisles al the intersection with public streets or private roads to allow for the stopping of vehicles and sight distance... As a guideline, the approach grade should not exceed, four percent for a distance of not less than_ forty (40), feel me asured, from the edge of the street or road being intersected. This is difficult to achieve but designing a vertical curve will provide an adequate landing and a loin sent, for runoff to drain into additional inlets referred to in comment 1. Per an email from Michele Roberge on 4- 10 -13, the flow line has been pulled back from the roadway, and an inlet has been provided on the west side of the parking lot entrance. The inlet was located as close to Berkmar Road as possible without installing it in the radius of the entrance. 4. }'D -1 is shown 017 grade. 1 recommend changing the contours slightly to .choir .sump conditions. YD -1 has been removed and a drop inlet is proposed on the southwest corner of the end of the turn lane. Grading has been adjusted to drain to this drop inlet. 5. Please provide 0 bumper Klock, for the handicap parking adjacent to the .sidewalk. Concrete blocks are required, for parking stalls with a sidewalk less than 6', Show the curb and gutter, for this parking stall with a handicap ramp in the unloading area. Also .show spot elevations, for corners of sidewalk to avoid runoff north of site. The unloading area is flush with sidewalk therefore no ramp is necessary. A bumper block has been provided for the handicapped space closest to the building. Spot grades have been provided on the sidewalk to depict runoff toward the parking lot and additional spot grades have been added along the edge of pavement and curb to clarify how the parking area matches the grade of the sidewalk. 6. Please provide the outlet protection calculations. Outlet protection calculations have been added to the Stormwater Calculations booklet. Nor "mar Nis. Illic Carter Ra■. CI A April 17. 2013 Page 4 of 13 Please provide the manufacturer's certification and approval for your proposed Fiherra design. A letter verifying Filterras' approval of the stormwater design has been added to the Stormwater Calculations booklet. S. A lso provide the removal rate computation found on our website 10 meet the )rater quality criteria. hltp:/ 'www. alhenlarle. org /dept forms. asp:'departnle nt = cdengllpo The removal rate computations have been added to the Stormwater Calculations booklet. 9. Please provide the manufacturers certification and approval Jbr vonr proposed cistern. The manufacturer's letter of approval for the proposed cistern has been added to the Stormwater Calculations Booklet. 10. Please .show the stormdrain profile for }D -1 to outlet 2. The stormdrain profile from the new DI -5 to outlet 2 has been added to Sheet C -201. YD -1 has been removed from the design and a DI -6 is proposed. 11. Please show the waterline crossing between DI -4 and outlet 1 on the stormdrain profile nn sheet C -503. Existing and proposed water line crossings have been added to the stormdrain profile on Sheet C -201. 12. Call out the spot elevations at corners of concrete pavement abutting the south of the bldg. Also show the flow of runoff on pavement. Spot elevations and flow arrows have been added to the grading plan. 13. .4 building permit is required for relaining walls. Please refer to our Albemarle County Design Standards Manual as a guide on what is required on plans. It appears the wall elevations are staggered. Please show the bottom of wall elevations as well. Noted. Spot grades at the bottom of wall have been added to the grading plan. See enlarged plan on Sheet C -105. 14. The access road to the parking lot is 100 steep where it meets Berkmar- Drive. I recommend reducing the slope where it is about 20% to about 12%44% to smoothen out the transition between the access road and Berknrar Drive. The entrances have been revised with a maximum slope of 13 %. Ms. I-Ilie Carter Rai. (1 A April 17.2013 Page 5ofI3 15. Please show how the 12 pvc pipe will comical() the roof drains. The 12" PVC pipe is now shown connecting to the roof drains which exit near the main entrance suspended from the bay ceiling. All roof drains are routed through the building interior and exit the facility on the east side of the apparatus bays. 16. ff'hai is the .solid line north of site overlapping the porch with stairs? Solid line has been deleted. 1 Provide a rain 20' drainage caseme nls, for proposed stornrsewe r. A 20' drainage easement is shown around all proposed storm sewer piping. 18. The stair from the, flag pole area to building entrance is over I '. 1 recommend reducing height. There are two steps proposed in this location. Spot elevations have been added to the grading plan to clarify this. 19. It appears that runoff will flow down to second landing and 11'111 pond. Please add a slight • positive drainage in this landing. Proposed grades in this area have been modified to depict positive drainage. 20. The chart on sheet C-503 for DI -1 is .showing a type b DOT DI-21. which is a Apo. Please revise. Typo has been corrected. Chart has been moved to Sheet C -105. C. Planning Division 1. [32.5.2(a)] The boundary information provided does not include a boundary dimension along Berknlar Drive: please provide all boundary line information. The chord length and radius has been provided for this boundary line. The long chord hearing and distance has been added to the survey notes on Sheet C -101. 2. [3 2.5. 2(a)] Add AIA (Airport Impact Area) 10 the Zoning note. Please also document any necessary waiver requests. Acknowledgement that the site is in the Airport Impact Area has been added to the Title Sheet. Waiver requests have also been listed on the Title Sheet vow Ms lie Carter Ras. CI :\ April 17. 2013 Page 6 oI 13 3. /3 2.5.2(a)J Provide the County and State: change the 'Charlottesville' references to '.Albemarle Counts''. "Charlottesville" as shown in the project title has been changed to "Albemarle County ". 4. [32.5.2(a)J Provide one datum reference for elevation. The datum reference has been added to the survey notes. 5. [32.5.2(a)J Shur departing lot lines. Departing lot lines are now shown on all plan sheets. 6. /32.5.2( Show all parking setback. huilding setback. and buffer lines on all sheets. All parking setback, building setback, and buffer lines are shown on all plan sheets. 7. /32.5.2(a) & 21. 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. Screening shall he provided as required in section 32.7.9. it appears that some grading is proposed in this 20' buffer: please verifi' and either remove the proposed grading or apply for a waiver of this requirement. Grading in the 20' buffer shall be to accommodate the removal of the existing pavement in that area only. New plantings are proposed in the buffer. A waiver is being submitted by Albemarle County Community Development for the minor grading and 12 square feet of sidewalk in the 20' buffer. 8. [3 2.5.2(a)J Provide the source of the houndary line survey. The source of the boundary line survey has been added to the Survey Notes on Sheet C -101. 9. /32.5.2(h)J Provide the n total square footage of the building frith proposed additions. Maximum (total) square footage of the existing building with the proposed additions has been added to the Title Sheet. 10. f32.5.2(h)J While the maximum building height on ('1 zoned land is 65', ant' building height in excess of 35' requires an additional 2' of setback for each I ' in height above 35'. The cover sheets stales the nnavmnm height is 41.5'. The County's huilding height definition reads as follows. The vertical distance measured from the level of the curb or the established curb grade opposite the middle of the, front of the structure to the highest point of the roof ilea flat roof, to the deck line of a mansard roof; or the mean height level between the eaves and ridge Oa gable. hip Ms. 1111e Carter Ra\. CI A \prig 17. 2013 Page 7 of 13 or gambrel roof. For buildings set hack from the street line, the height shall he measured from the average elevation of the groin d .surface along the, front of the building'. Please verifi' the 111aCill111/11 building height to determine if additional setback is required. Maximum building height has been added to the Title Sheet. 11. f 3 2.5?(h) & 4.12.4(a)J Zoning will determine the number of required parking spaces, for this use. The original site plan was approved with 7 1 required parking spaces. This number was largely due to the hosting of bingo games and dances for fundraising. Do these types of events still take place on this parcel:' How many staff are generally on -site at the same tinge? Zoning may need additional information to Intake their determination. Zoning has determined that 32 parking spaces are required. The design proposes 37 spaces to remain. 12. 132.5.2(h fl Provide the nmaYin711n1 0711011111 of impervious cover nn the ('over Sheet. The maximum amount of impervious cover has been added to the Title Sheet. 13. [32.5.2(h)] Provide the maximum amount of paved parking and vehicular circulation area (Mille Cover Sheet. The maximum (total) amount of paved parking and vehicular circulation area has been added to the Title Sheet. 14. /32.5.2(d)J A critical slope waiver is required to disturb any slope in excess 01 25%. Engineering and Planning have reviewed the proposed disturbance and will recommend approval of this waiver. This waiver mat he approved hi' the Board of Supervisors (on Consent Agenda) prior to site plan approval. A waiver is being submitted by Albemarle County Community Development for the disturbance of 25% slopes on the property. 15. [ 32.5?(1)J Please provide the right -of -way it idth for Berkmar Drive. The right of way width of Berkmar Drive varies. This information has been added to the plans. 16. [32.5. 2(n1J ('larifi' inhere theJence ends; does it extend along all adjacent residential parcels:' A notation delineating the end of the fence has been added to the drawings. Now h1�. Folic Carter RaN, C'I.A April 17. 21113 Paee R of 11 17. [32.5 '( The retaining wall mote refers to a sheet not included in this plat set: please dimension the walls, provide nl(a11111n)1 height(s'). and provide a railing detail. The retaining wall note has been corrected. Wall thickness and maximum height has been added to Sheet C -104. A railing detail was provided on sheet C- 501. This detail has been updated and is now located on Sheet C -502. 18. [32.5.2(n)] Dimension the iravelwai closest to the huilding. The travelwav closest to the building has been dimensioned on Sheet C -104. 19. (32.6.2(g)J Indicate all utility and drainage easements outside the right -of -trot' of public streets. Any new easements may he generally shown and dedicated by separate plat. All crater and sewer facilities to be dedicated to public use and the easelllents,for those facilities and shall be identified by a statement that the facilities are to he dedicated to the Albemarle County Service Authority. No easements currently exist on the subject property. New easements will be dedicated via separate plat and are graphically indicated on Sheet C -104. 20. [32.6?(j) & 32.7.9.4(b8 Existing trees may he preserved in lieu of planting new pl materials Ill order to satisf• the landscaping and screening requirements of section 32. " . 9 or 10 meet conditions of approval, subject to the agent's approval. 11 appears that several of the Landscape Plan requirements are proposed to he meet with existing vegetation. The landscape plan should show the trees to be preserved, the limits of clearing, the location and h pe of protective , fencing, grade changes requiring tree wells or walls, and trenching or tunneling proposed beyond the limits of clearing. In addition, the applicant shall sign a conservation checklist approved by the agent to insure that the specified trees will he protected during con.struc'tion. Except us otherwise expressly approved hi' the agent in a particular case, .such checklist shall conform to specifications contained in the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook. pp III -284 through 111-297, crnd as he reafie r amended. This checklist muse he signed, dated, and added to the landscape plan sheet. The landscape plan and the site plan are combined on sheet C -104. Trees to be preserved, the limits of clearing, and the location of Tree Protection Fencing is shown on this Sheet. Tree protection is also shown on the Erosion and Sediment Control Plans, and the Tree Protection Detail depicting the type of fencing is on Sheet C -501. There are no grade changes requiring tree wells or walls, or trenching or tunneling proposed beyond the limits of clearing. The conservation checklist has been signed by Blake Abplanalp and has been added to Sheet C -104. Nth Ellie Carter Ra'. C'LA April 17. 2013 Page 9 of 13 21. [3 2.6.2(j) & _i 2. 7.9.5J Street trees are required along all existing public street frontage: these teeS nnust he within the parking setback. It appears that two additional street trees are required in the area east of the proposed secondary entrance. Two additional street trees are proposed East of the parking lot entrance and are shown on sheet C -104. 22. [3 2.6. 2(j) & 32.7 9. 5(e)] When a parking area is located so that the parked cars will he visible from an off -site street, the agent may require additional planting of loin street shrubs between the street and the parking area. It appears that this requirement is proposed t0 he islet with existing vegetation: please provide the Information requested above regarding preserving existing trees in lieu of planting new plant material. The quantity of vegetation to remain in this location has been added to the Title Sheet. 23. [3 2.6.2(j) & 32. ". 9.6(a)] An area of at least five (5) percent of the paved parking and vehicular circulation area shall he landscaped with trees or shrubs. Neither the areas of street trees and shrubs required by sections 32. and (e) nor shrubs planted between a parking area and the building shall he counted toward the minllrllrlrl landscaped area for a parking lot. noted above, the .square footage of 'pared parking and vehicular circulation area has 1701 been provided. The square footage of `paved parking and vehicular circulation has been added to the Title Sheet. The parking lot base will not be disturbed for this project and is therefore considered existing per Albemarle County Community Development. One existing island with two trees is proposed for demolition. The proposed design will add an island of comparable size and two new trees. 24. [3 2.6.2(1) & 32.7.9.6(h)] The 5% landscaped area required shall he 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. Four (4) trees are required for 3 parking Apices. Additionally, Cornus florida is not on the current list of recommended large or medium .shade trees approved by the agent. Please select trees, from the approved list or note specific existing trees that meet this requirement. The parking lot base will not be disturbed for this project and is therefore not subject to the landscape requirements for new parking lots. Cornus florida has been replaced with Sophora japonica. • Nor "my Nis [Hie carter Ras. CI A April 17. 2013 Page 10 of 13 25. [32.6.2(/) & 32. 7 As mentioned above, please clari fi' if the existing fence extends along all residential parcels or if additional screening is necessary. Please also demonstrate how the dtnnpster will he screened from Berkmar Drive. Additional screening has been provided along the residential parcels, and is shown on Sheet C -104. 26. [32.6.20 & 32.79.8] 11 appears that the tree canopy requirement is proposed to he !net with existing trees; please provide the information requested above regarding preserving existing trees in lieu of planting new plant material. Tree canopy calculations have been provided on the Title Sheet, and limits of clearing and grading are shown on the plans. Tree protection has been added to Sheet C -104. 27. [32.6.2(k) & 4.1 Please show the proposed light . fixtures nn the site plan to verifi• that no site conflicts exist. Proposed light fixtures have been added to the plans. 28. [32.6?(k) & 4.17 Provide cut sheets, for each proposed fixture (That reference the catalog numbers provided) that demonstrate that the . fixture is, full cutoff. Cut sheets for each proposed lighting fixture are provided. Each lighting fixture is a full cutoff type. 29. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] The photometric p1c1n must shoo' 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 fnotcandle. The photometric plan has been changed to indicate the footcandle level at the property line. The footcandle spillover does not exceed .5 footcandles. 30. [32.6. 2(k) & 4.17] The lighting plan indicates that a LLF of 0.65 was used to create the photometric plan. Albemarle County requires that the LLF he 1.0; revise the photometric plan using the proper LLF. The LLF has been changed to 1.0, please note that this change will provide initial footcandle levels and not maintained levels. "sr/ 411000. 11ti 1.l1ic Carter Ka■ . (1.A April 17. 2013 I'age 11 of 13 31. /3 2.6?(k) & -1.1; J Provide the, fallowing standard lighting note on the Lighting plan: Each outdoor luminxlire equipped with a lamp that emits 3,000 or more initial lumens shall he a fall cutoff luminaire and shall he arranged or shielded to reflect light awavlii-oln adjoining residential districts and away,from adjacent roads. The spillover ofIighting,fran, linninaires onto public roads and property in residential or rural areas ;oniing districts shall not exceed one -half footcandle. The above note has been added to the photometric plan. 32. [C'onmieni f Provide the deed hook and page references for all existing utility easements located on the property. No current easements have been identified on the subject parcel. 33. [Comment] This amendment cannot he approved until AC'SA and VDOT completed their reviews and grant their approval: comments will he forwarded upon receipt. Engineering. Fire Rescue. inspeciion.s. and E911 comments have heen provided. Noted. D. Site Development Plan (SDP201300009) 1. The access road to the parking l0! is too steep. Per 18- 4.12.17 the entrances cannot exceed 4%. but this frill he difficuh. 1 recommend reducing the slope where it is 20%10 about 12%. The entrances have been revised with a maximum slope of 13 %. 2. The vehicle access aisles to the parking /01 cannot exceed a 10J'i grade per section 4.12.1 This will also he difficult, hut a 12% is cl reasonable alternative. Please request a waiver in writing and provide all the necessary i to justifV that no reasonable design alternative exists. The parking lot base will not be disturbed for this project and is therefore considered existing per Albemarle County Community Development. No waiver is required. 3. The parking area cannot exceed 5% grade' an>vw here , in any direction per .section 4.12.15. The parking lot base will not be disturbed for this project and is therefore considered existing per Albemarle County Community Development. Ms I Ilic Carter Rai. Cl .A April 17. 2013 Page 12 of 13 4. The SW corner of the eme rgencv access where it meets Berkmar Drive appears to show a 10' .shoulder that just ends. I recommend the 50' radius. with curh and gutter to adjoin Berkmar Drive. The deceleration lane with additional 14' wide "hammerhead" is provided beyond the entrance to allow fire trucks to back into the apparatus bay area without reentering Berkmar drive. A dashed line depicting a 50' radius from the bay entrance to Berkmar Drive has been added to Sheet C -104 to verify that the proposed design satisfies VDOT and Community Development driveway standards. 5. Please provide a bumper block, for the handicap parking adjacent to sidewalk. A bumper block has been added to sheet C -104 and a detail has been added to Sheet C -502. E. Inspections 1. Rearrange the handicapped accessible parking spaces so that at least one of them is van-- accessible (8' bide striped access aisle). The handicapped parking has been revised to account for one van accessible space. F. Fire Rescue 1. FDC shall he located on the south side of the huildingfacing Berkmar Drive. The Fire Department Connection has been relocated to the South side of the building, and is shown on Sheet C -104. 2. Fire Hydrants Spacing shall he 400 ft per prepared travehrav around the building. An existing fire hydrant is located approximately 45' from the building. G. VDOT 1. Show sight distances, for proposed entrances in accordance with the VDOT Road Design /Manual Appendix F Sight distances have been added to Sheet C -104. Nis I Ilir Carter Rai. ('1 A April 17.'_1113 Page 13 of 13 2. Entrance profiles in accordance with the I"DOT Standard C(; -11 need to he shown for hotll entrances. Entrance profiles have been added and can be found on Sheet C -201. We hope you find these responses acceptable. If you have any questions or comments regarding this response or the revised plans. please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Darren R. Curtis, PLA, LEED AP Landscape Architect Cc: Michelle Roberge Blake Abplanalp EIIie Ray From: Darren Curtis [dcurtis @djginc.com] Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 2:17 PM To: Ellie Ray Subject: RE: STVD - 20' buffer Thank you! Darren R. Curtis, PLA, LEED AP Landscape Architect €NGINEERS • ARCHITECTS • PLANNERS i r alik ir m e a n 449 McL ws Ceti* • M::41c i b rg. VA 23185 Phone 77.253,0673 • Fax 757.253 2319 41111W 11111111111. AMP wsr..digirsc. corn E °t`tlrsrJr`rr }` f tt e',.r•rk/"%rrr From: EIIie Ray [mailto:eray(aalbemarle.orq] Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 2:15 PM To: Darren Curtis Cc: Blake Abplanalp Subject: RE: STVD - 20' buffer Darren, I didn't see it last week, but I think the general idea looks good. I don't think euonymus alatus is on the County's approved plant list, I'm guessing because in some areas it is considered invasive. Anyway, here is a link to our list (shrubs are a few pages in): http: / /www.albemarle.org/upload /images /forms center /departments /Community Development /forms /applications /A pproved Plant Canopy Calculations 02- 05- 03.pdf Let me know if you need anything else! Ellie Carter Ray, PLA Senior Planner Albemarle County Community Development ph: 434.296.5832 x. 3432 From: Darren Curtis [mailto:dcurtis@@diginc.com] Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 1:45 PM To: EIIie Ray Cc: Blake Abplanalp Subject: FW: STVD - 20' buffer Ellie, I sent the email below to Blake last week. I was wondering if it made its way to you and if you had an opinion. Thank you, 1 Darren R. Curtis, PLA, LEED AP Landscape Architect — ENGINEERS* ARCHITECTS • PLANNERS AMP "I* :s .:r ‘ 111.' . 449 McLaws Clete* Vt.3 . h butg. VA 2318 wr wr wwr 11111111/11111/1111r MN' r Phone 757253 0673 • Fax 757 253 2319 #• y t t /!t( /11: }. ri) tllf %itr l,�tf#l.t`!!t` From: Darren Curtis [mailto:dcurtis(adiginc.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2013 5:06 PM To: babplanalp(aalbemarle.orq Cc: 'Donald Booth'; Herb Braun (HBraun(adiginc.com) Subject: STVD - 20' buffer Blake — I will be out of the office tomorrow and do not have time right now to CAD the requested plantings in the buffer, so I put together a quick sketch of what I thought might be appropriate. Hopefully Ellie can interpret my doodles. My logic behind what is shown is based on the visibility of the residential development just north of the parking lot and the state of the fence. See picture attached. This area I thought would benefit from an actual imposing screen which is why I utilized Fosters Holly in a row. The area near the existing dumpster is actually much more adequately screened than the survey implies. I attached a pic of this area as well. I modified the existing tree line on the survey to reflect more accurately what is there. However, there is a void where vegetation is somewhat sparse, which is where I added the American holly and a few shrubs with seasonal color. This is a rough idea of what I had in mind. Please let me know if I am on the right track. Please direct any urgent correspondence tomorrow to Donald. Thanks, Darren R. Curtis, PLA, LEED AP Landscape Architect ENGINEERS* ARCHITEC7S a PLANNERS ar w w 4 M. claaws Orcie a Wt :: a rs'tu'q. VA 23185 arrr __ _ Phone 757.253 0673 • fax 757 253 .2319 41111111111W live MAN'. diginc t +/r rrrtr ' rrr r ` ' < ✓ : , airr /` rrre. r 2 AMP "11111110, LI .,,/$ _ \N ( , , ,, , . 1 I 5 I,- ....... C_ X Ib''r 0 • : D' A / - CO / --a-- / ! : \ •-•-••••,--• , I ii tk / , 41 • ' / I A. ...•-•■ ...---... ,. \ ,,, , --- / .... 1 !.....- -..„ ' !„'!' •‘' A :LS :(CEA3- 1 ' ■ / I \ ')t(/h9A1•11)-71\11 ./ / „....--- \ / / in12 / / / 1 7 - ,i'2 •)) / 4/11 / ''1. r ) -- ' -L D \■) n ! 0 ,-,t , XT. -I - ,2 1 / / I 1 IP / / l ---- / !.) „, 1 ( / `(>1 t,-; ' ' ' 1 , ...... ,...... Lc') / , / 1 ; , I / / - ' / / 7 - 2 ". -, t b ZD L% ><-'....- / / L, j ,_ m a z :-:-7..., / -,,,,, / / 1 " ' (r) ^-...—... . I-J .,4 i /I 1-2" / ,, ..., z c.) c c _ z a _ LI ,.`;:,:,, :-... . ------- i „,,, ../. (r , 1 i O , _ _ '-' ¢ g a - . / 4 1,.. n --I u., c.) 0 C) CC I - I 151 / z UJ ti c: o l_t_ z. 4", '2 --;:- n (r) L. z i w •i r), ......,... _ 0 c 0 „0 = ., j r '' 7 ,-- 1 z ---- i>1 a. ').- ec co,,c //' Ire, ,_. / A i / i -- / / l o / w , 2 , ,, i. (.... i . 4 1111116-- 1 / / ith jiraINI1611111MM.M111111111111=11111. .. , 0,,k) , :,.. ,- , / I — i / ..,,‘ ., -.,,.. , ---1 It ..• . 441 ( ,..-/ I-'..- 1 , li / . . -- ----C.7'. • Or • / Y loct- n .*. 1/4. -1 . ''. 'X . *' 11 /(i) a ;:', ,C / E ,o, '‘? / , / . , 75' 1/ ?-s , •,,,, . i' ---,...÷ , -% - • . ,. --„,,<N.;N , E / " _ A , ---- e: • N N N NN, / E..: Ic.5 IN 7 ... Cri- FE ;I, /'' '-c5- ES a in < ci In z L.r) 0 II , LP ,' \. .:_ i 3, t . : 7):1:: • s C : ): . . . . . . . c 1 :.I.c 1 N, -,-,/ • %. ' , ---- ::_-_- A .,...._ .- Lil :i . A4 \ ''' I -.. .• N C t ---- Al. ...7 LLJ 0 o,.. ' 1/4 - ,,- "-- .' f_ --- .. c h z '---- ------, -- - - 1-- ---- (-) ■,-; 0 1111kn, -''• • 6-f - c c.r) - - Kt , tr CD LT- alli -41 7 ------- CC ---- 0 • - -1---/ c ,-. ___.„--- .:, . • . *2 C EIIie Ray From: Michelle Roberge Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 10:39 AM To: Darren Curtis Cc: Ellie Ray Subject: RE: SDP201300009 Seminole Trail Fire Station Attachments: fire station.pdf Hi Darren, For the cistern certification, you can provide a letter from the manufacturer that certifies the design /what you are proposing or superimpose the manufacturers plan /design with details into your plan. For the drainage issue, see the attachment. I think this will work best to capture most runoff from entrances and you don't have to move the inlet. This is what I was looking for. Thanks, Michelle Roberge From: Darren Curtis [mailto:dcurtis(adiginc.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2013 2:08 PM To: Ellie Ray Cc: Michelle Roberge Subject: RE: SDP201300009 Seminole Trail Fire Station Ellie - I apologize for contacting you mistakenly (twice). Michelle — could you please let me know if the yard inlet is acceptable as well as what you were looking for in regards to the Cistern certification? Thank you, Darren R. Curtis, PLA, LEED AP Landscape Architect ENGINEERS • ARCH :TECTS • PLANNERS , :'r _ a t. - 449 Mc.L.aws Cyr .fe • Ws ?hams urg. VA 2 185 4 4110 �.�rr Phone 757.253 0673 • Fax 757 253.2315 , �r rrION//r aiiIP r V. M.* digs; c corn mo t' (1,4 e^rt,r r�/ e :; € lx"'t�+ - ter ° r # '� t ' r xx r° From: Ellie Ray [mailto:eray@albemarle.orq] Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2013 10:58 AM To: dcurtis@ diginc.com Cc: Michelle Roberge Subject: FW: SDP201300009 Seminole Trail Fire Station Curtis, This is also a question for Michelle, 1 have copied her on this email. 1 Michelle — do you mind answering thlrquestion? .... Thanks, Ellie Carter Ray, PLA Senior Planner Albemarle County Community Development ph: 434.296.5832 x. 3432 IN From: Darren Curtis [mailto:dcurtis(adiginc.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2013 10:45 AM To: Ellie Ray Cc: 'Donald Booth'; Herb Braun Subject: RE: SDP201 00009 Seminole Trail Fire Station / Ellie, I forgot to mention — for the revious submittal, there was a drop inlet I cated at the end of the swale along Berkmar. Per the review, we relocated this inlet along the driveway on the prop rty, adding a gutter and changing it to a curb drop inlet. Recently, Blake forw me a sketch that showed this urb drop inlet being relocated back to the corner along Berkmar. In order to get slope on the pipe that outfalls this tructure, we need to make this a catch basin (as it was initially). (There is 12" less separation required between t,e rim and the pipe on a catch basin than a drop inlet) Do you have any issue with this? I att shed your sketch for re rence. Thanks for your input. Darren R. Curtis, PLA, LEED AP Landscape Architect ENGINEERS • ARCHIT < T$ • PLANNERS : .:..:. � ,.:: 449 McLays ;rc. }v • W;::'.arsb arg. VA 23185 �► ,� AI �t Ar' ► / MM. Ph n 757 ,25 13673 Fax ! 53.2 $ ° ,illl/ t vA a: d;gtn corn !' !,"l rail , r y . '', > , i °r et iv r• . •, t7 tt ,, , r '` . rr r r From: Ellie Ray [mailto:eray@albemarl:.orq] Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 3:26 PM To: dcurtis(a>diginc.com Cc: Michelle Roberge Subject: SDP201300009 Seminole./ rail Fire Station \ The tree protection should b shown on both the E &S sheet and whatever sheet shows the landscaping, which I think is the grading sheet. For this roject, the existing trees are satisfying some of the landscape plan requirements, so I think it's important that it be s own there as well. The cistern comment t at you mentioned was actually made by the reviewing Engineer for the WPO application (WPO201300010), Michelle Roberge. I have copied her on this email. Please contact heyor further information regarding that comrhent. Please let me know if you need anything additional. 2 Ellie Ray From: Blake Abplanalp Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2013 4:08 PM To: Ellie Ray Subject: Waiver Request - Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Department Attachments: STVD_ Sidewalklssue.pdf Ellie, Per our conversation, I would like to request a Waiver Request (s) to be included on the BOS 5/1/13 Consent Agenda for the Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Department Addition and Renovation project. The waiver request (s) would include the following items: ❖ Disturbance of the 20' buffer zone at the back of the parking lot in close proximity to the location of the new ADA compliant parking spaces. The extent of the disturbance would be removal of an existing 10' x 10' concrete dumpster pad and the subsequent minor grading and seeding to repair the depression in this area where the dumpster pad had been. ❖ A small corner section (approx. 12 Square Feet) of new concrete sidewalk that extends into the 20' buffer zone at the location where the ADA compliant parking spaces connect to this sidewalk. (see attached blown -up portion of drawing) Both of these items and their locations are behind fencing and some deciduous trees and bushes but we will add additional plantings for "protection" or screening purposes to enhance the site. This will be reflected on our drawings. The other waiver request we discussed was for critical slopes and that is being prepared by your office. Please let me know if you require any additional information. Thank you very much for your time and efforts in regard to this matter. Sincerely, Blake Blake Abplanalp Senior Project Manager County of Albemarle Office of Facilities Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 228 Charlottesville, VA 22902 -4596 PH - 434 - 872 -4501, Ext. 3244 Fax - 434 - 972 -4091 Cell - 434 - 825 -1663 babplanalp @albemarle.org FT Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. 1 ___ \ "MO, ., ,,i 5 -7 " . ------ ':-. ,LIT .54E - / SW , t/, \. , i '''..- , N----- \ , , .(,,,,EilFs A /:,/,/, ,/,/, ://: ' - . // / / ; 4c-N:,,,,,,i, , , W ,,, , ;), ,,, ,,,/,/ /,' ..,, i'sr ., . . - A‘j ' 544,1 't . •*. r • 1 . AN . EIIie Ray From: Rebecca Ragsdale Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2013 3:59 PM To: Blake Abplanalp Cc: Ellie Ray; Trevor Henry Subject: RE: Seminole Trail Fire Station - Major Amendment Blake - Thanks for this information and letter from the station you provided today. It was very helpful in making the determination on minimum required parking for the site. Fire stations are not a scheduled use in the Zoning Ordinance Section 4.12.6, which means the ordinance has no specified calculation for that use's minimum required parking. The minimum required number of spaces must be determined by the zoning administrator in accordance with Section 4.12.7, which considers individual station needs. Based on the information you have provided below, the minimum number of required spaces for the site will be 32: 22 The maximum occupancy of the training room is 66 people. Areas of public assembly require 1 space /3 seats. 10 The maximum number of employees for a normal shift is 10 and would only be up to 20 under emergency circumstances. 32 Total number required Please let me know if you have any questions. Rebecca Ragsdale, Senior Planner County of Albemarle Department of Community Development - Zoning Services 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 (434) 296-5832 Ext. 3226 Fax (434) 972 -4012 E -mail: rragsdale @albemarle.org From: j3lake Abplanalp Sent: Fri , April 05, 2013 2:31 PM To: Rebecca • : •sdale Cc: EIIie Ray; Trevo enry; Dennis Hahn; 'Donald Booth' Subject: Seminole Trail . - Station - Major Amendment Good Afternoon Rebecca, Thanks very much for your response regarding the bu g height. In regard to your questions pertaining to parking that were forwarded by EIIie (below and highlighted in yelio • , I subm he following information: • Training / Meeting Room = 986 s... re feet — 66 people maxi um occupancy (plan attached) • Maximum employees on site . any given time = 20 (this accoun or hold over employees (2 shift) during busy times associated with storms, e -. • They do not plan to h.: bingo, wedding receptions or any other functions' he meeting room or any other spaces. The Assistant Fire Chie 15 ennis Hahn, is preparing a letter stating that and it will be s : ed by the chairman of the fire company's Bo d of Directors. • Training is one at the facility and they typically will try to limit the number of trainees t 25 at a time. • Comp meetings are typically attended by a maximum of 50 people. 1 Ellie Ray From: Darren Curtis [dcurtis @djginc.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2013 10:45 AM To: Ellie Ray Cc: 'Donald Booth'; Herb Braun Subject: RE: SDP201300009 Seminole Trail Fire Station Attachments: Marked Up C -103 Grading Plan.pdf Ellie, I forgot to mention —for the previous submittal, there was a drop inlet located at the end of the swale along Berkmar. Per the review, we relocated this inlet along the driveway on the property, adding a gutter and changing it to a curb drop inlet. Recently, Blake forwarded me a sketch that showed this curb drop inlet being relocated back to the corner along Berkmar. In order to get slope on the pipe that outfalls this structure, we need to make this a catch basin (as it was initially). (There is 12" less separation required between the rim and the pipe on a catch basin than a drop inlet) Do you have any issue with this? I attached your sketch for reference. Thanks for your input. Darren R. Curtis, PLA, LEED AP Landscape Architect ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS • PLANNERS s : : 449 McLaws :rc1 * : a imamsburq. VA 23185 ir .� - Phone 757 253 0673 * Fax 757 253 2319 .i s� k ° :pa: Lii w. �` s /rf re, t,t ` 4 ) '' rr r tv L r 7# X s r/fi' r » r From: Ellie Ray [mailto:eray@ albemarle.orq] - t: Monday, April 08, 2013 3:26 PM To: urtis • dr•inc.com Cc: Mic' : le Roberge Subject: 510 . 201300009 Seminole Trail Fire Station The tree protection shoul.. a shown on both the E &S eet and whatever sheet shows the landscaping, which I think is the grading sheet. For this pro : ct, the existing tr- -s are satisfying some of the landscape plan requirements, so I think it's important that it be shown the : as well. The cistern comment that you mention-. .s actually made by the reviewing Engineer for the WPO application (WPO201300010), Michelle Roberge have c. . ied her on this email. Please contact her for further information regarding that comment. Please let me know if you n: -d anything additional. Thank you, Ellie Carter Ra , PLA Senior Plann� Albemarl C,w�inty Community Development 1 Ellie Ray From: Darren Curtis [dcurtis @djginc.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2013 10:30 AM To: Ellie Ray Subject: RE: SDP201300009 Seminole Trail Fire Station Ellie, Thank you for the clarification. The site plan currently shows the landscaping. I will add the tree protection to the site plan, keep it on the E &S plans, and remove it from the grading plan. Thanks, Darren R. Curtis, PLA, LEED AP Landscape Architect _ ENGINEERS* ARCHITECTS *PLANNERS A : Mat u : 449 Mc Laws Carte * Wa ornsbburg. VA 23185 € .� Phone 757 2,53E 0673 • Fax 757 253.2319 4r ty - S"eWatfi.digIn .corn t•fi t .11 / t rill r+ 17),.....1 j It `,t iF/ // ii From: Ellie Ray [mailto:eray@ albemarle.orq] Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 3:26 PM To: dcurtis©diginc.com Cc: Michelle Roberge Subject: SDP201300009 Seminole Trail Fire Station 'CA - Etrrtis, The tree protection should be shown on both the E &S sheet and whatever sheet shows the landscaping, which I think is the grading sheet. For this project, the existing trees are satisfying some of the landscape plan requirements, so I think it's important that it be shown there as well. The cistern comment that you mentioned was actually made by the reviewing Engineer for the WPO application (WP0201300010), Michelle Roberge. I have copied her on this email. Please contact her for further information regarding that comment. Please let me know if you need anything additional. Thank you, Elsie Carter Ray, PLA Senior Planner Albemarle County Community Development Planning Division 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 ph: 434.296.5832 x. 3432 fax: 434.972.4126 1 w .ter Ellie Ray From: Ellie Ray Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 1:30 PM To: Blake Abplanalp Subject: RE: STVD - 20' buffer This looks good, but the tree protection line should extend along the back of the portion of parking lot that is remaining as well...that area is still considered buffer even the parking lot encroaches into the 20'. So just show the remaining buffer as being protected. In addition, the area of trees between the parking lot and berkmar should be labeled with tree protection as well since it appears that you're using those existing trees for parking lot screening instead of adding shrubs. Hope this makes sense. Ellie Carter Ray, PLA Senior Planner Albemarle County Community Development ph: 434.296.5832 x. 3432 From: Blake Abplanalp Sent: Friday, April 05, 2013 4:33 PM To: EIIie Ray Cc: Trevor Henry; 'Donald Booth'; Darren Curtis Subject: FW: STVD - 20' buffer Ellie, please see info below and attached. Please contact me with any comments / questions. Thanks, Blake From: Darren Curtis [mailto:dcurtis@ diginc.com] Sent: Friday, April 05, 2013 4:26 PM To: Blake Abplanalp Cc: 'Donald Booth'; Trevor Henry Subject: STVD - 20' buffer Blake, Please find attached the grading plan showing tree protection at the 20' buffer as you requested. Also, I have attached a scanned drawing which highlights (in blue) the existing pavement that is located within the 20' buffer and scheduled for demolition. Hopefully this sketch will help to clarify why we are grading within the 20' buffer. It is our intent to perform grading in the blue shaded area for the purpose of filling the depression created by the removal of the pavement and sub base. The orange line highlights the limit of the new work in that area. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to call or email. Have a great weekend, Darren R. Curtis, PLA, LEED AP Landscape Architect 1 Ellie Ray From: Blake Abplanalp Sent: Friday, April 05, 2013 2:31 PM To: Rebecca Ragsdale Cc: Ellie Ray; Trevor Henry; Dennis Hahn; 'Donald Booth' Subject: Seminole Trail Fire Station - Major Amendment Attachments: 1118- a102- 032013.PDF Good Afternoon Rebecca, Thanks very much for your response regarding the building height. In regard to your questions pertaining to parking that were forwarded by Ellie (below and highlighted in yellow), I submit the following information: • Training / Meeting Room = 986 square feet — 66 people maximum occupancy (plan attached) • Maximum employees on site at any given time = 20 (this accounts for hold over employees (2 shift) during busy times associated with storms, etc.) • They do not plan to host bingo, wedding receptions or any other functions in the meeting room or any other spaces. The Assistant Fire Chief Dennis Hahn, is preparing a letter stating that and it will be signed by the chairman of the fire company's Board of Directors. • Training is done at the facility and they typically will try to limit the number of trainees to 25 at a time. • Company meetings are typically attended by a maximum of 50 people. Please let me know if there is additional information that I can provide. Thank you, Blake A. "Zoning has requested additional information for their review of the parking requirement and the building height. To make their parking determination they have requested that you provide the maximum number of employees, the square footage of any assembly or meeting space, and information regarding any sort of trainings or events that you anticipate holding on -site. For the building height, they have determined that 530 is the reference elevation in front of the building and would like to see an elevation of the building front in order to determine the actual building height." Thanks, Ellie Carter Ray, PLA Senior Planner Albemarle County Community Development ph: 434.296.5832 x. 3432 1 EIIie Ray From: Blake Abplanalp Sent: Friday, April 05, 2013 11:26 AM To: EIIie Ray Subject: RE: Thank You Yes, I'm here. C'mon over. Thanks, Blake From: EIIie Ray Sent: Friday, April 05, 2013 11:04 AM To: Blake Abplanalp; Michelle Roberge Subject: RE: Thank You Blake, Michelle and I looked into the remaining issues from yesterday's meeting, and it looks like two waivers will be required. The entrance issues that would have required waivers, that Michelle requested with her initial set of comments, appeared to have been addressed with the revisions you showed us in the meeting. As discussed yesterday, the critical slope waiver is required. The second waiver is for disturbance of the required 20' undisturbed buffer...the removal of the portion of parking that currently violates the buffer is exempt, but it appears that a small section of sidewalk is now proposed to be constructed in the buffer. Are you around? I'll swing by and show you what I'm talking about on the plan. Thanks - ellie Ellie Carter Ray, PLA Senior Planner Albemarle County Community Development ph: 434.296.5832 x. 3432 From: Blake Abplanalp Sent: Friday, April 05, 2013 8:48 AM To: Ellie Ray; Michelle Roberge Subject: Thank You Ellie & Michelle, Thanks very much for your time in our meeting yester..yfternoon. I appreciate you both making time to fit me in on short notice. Michelle, when I went back to my offic- I found out you had been up there so I apologize for the confusion. I look forward to receiving additional i ormation on`the items that required further clarification. appreciate your input on our site issues. I hope you both have a great weekend !! BI. e O Blake Abplanalp Senior Project Manager County of Albemarle Office of Fac' sties Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 228 Charlottesville, VA 22902 -459. 1 EIIie Ray From: Ellie Ray Sent: Friday, April 05, 2013 11:00 AM To: Blake Abplanalp Subject: FW: SDP201300009 Seminole Trail Fire Station - Major Amendment See below for Zoning info regarding the building height. It looks like the height is fine, just change the note on the plan to either whatever the actual height is based on the definition below or say "maximum 35' ". For parking, refer to the information requested in my March 22 email....number of employees, area of meeting space, etc. Ellie Carter Ray, PLA Senior Planner Albemarle County Community Development ph: 434.296.5832 x. 3432 From: Rebecca • . • sdale Sent: Friday, April 1 2013 10:54 AM To: Ellie Ray Subject: RE: SDP20130b '09 Seminole Trail Fire Station - Major Amendmen Ellie- Mark Kestner came by the office y- terday and provided me an elevation of the fire station and proposed addition. Based on the zoning ordinance metho• below) for measuring buildi _ height, the building will not exceed 35'. The note on the site plan should be revised and I w bring you the elevation or the site plan file. Building, Height of: The vertical distance • easured from the level of the curb or the established curb grade opposite the middle of the front of the structure to the h•n hest point of the oof if a flat roof; to the deck line of a mansard roof; or the mean height level between the eaves and ridg- of a gable, hi. or gambrel roof. For buildings set back from the street line, the height shall be measured from the average e ation of he ground surface along the front of the building I haven't received any additional information yet on par "ng. Thanks, Rebecca Rebecca Ragsdale, Senior Planner County of Albemarle Department of Community Development- Zoning Service 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 -4596 (434) 296-5832 Ext. 3226 Fax (434) 972 -4012 E -mail: rragsdale@albemarle.org From: Ellie Ray Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 4:50 PM To: Blake Abplanalp; 'dbooth @djginc.co '; 'jconnolly @djginc.com' Cc: Rebecca Ragsdale Subject: RE: SDP201300009 Seminol: Trail Fire Station - Major Amendment Happy Friday All, Zoning has requested additional ; nformation for their review of the parking requirement and the building height. To make their parking determination they have requested that you provide the maximum number of employees, the 1 Rebecca Ragsdale From: Rebecca Ragsdale Sent: Friday, April 05, 2013 10:54 AM To: Ellie Ray Subject: RE: SDP201300009 Seminole Trail Fire Station - Major Amendment Ellie - 4 Mark Kestner came by the office yesterday and provided me an elevation of the fire station and proposed addition. Based on the zoning ordinance method (below) for measuring building height, the building will not exceed 35'. The note on the site plan should be revised and I will bring you the elevation for the site plan file. ¢ e) _ K Building, Height of: The vertical distance measured from the level of the curb or the established curb grade opposite the middle of the front of the structure to the highest point of the roof if a flat roof; to the deck line of a mansard roof; or the mean height level between the eaves and ridge of a gable, hip or gambrel roof. For buildings set back from the street line, the height shall be measured from the average elevation of the ground surface along the front of the building I haven't received any additional information yet on parking. Thanks, Rebecca Rebecca Ragsdale, Senior Planner County of Albemarle Department of Community Development- Zoning Services 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 -4596 (434) 296-5832 Ext. 3226 Fax (434) 972 -4012 Email: rragsdale@albemarle.org From: Ellie Ray Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 4:50 PM To: Blake Abplanalp; 'dbooth @djginc.com'; 'jconnolly @djginc.com' Cc: Rebecca Ragsdale Subject: RE: SDP201300009 Seminole Trail Fire Station - Major Amendment Happy Friday All, Zoning has requested additional information for their review of the parking requirement and the building height. To make their parking determination they have requested that you provide the maximum number of employees, the square footage of any assembly or meeting space, and information regarding any sort of trainings or events that you anticipate holding on -site. For the building height, they have determined that 530 is the reference elevation in front of the building and would like to see an elevation of the building front in order to determine the actual building height. Let me know if you need more information from me. Thanks, Ellie Carter Ray, PLA Senior Planner Albemarle County Community Development ph: 434.296.5832 x. 3432 From: Blake Abplanalp Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 6:06 PM To: Ellie Ray 1 EIIie Ray From: Michelle Roberge Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 10:29 AM To: Blake Abplanalp; Ellie Ray Subject: RE: SDP201300009 Seminole Trail Fire Station - Major Amendment Attachments: Seminole Trail Fire Station.pdf Hello Blake, I have attached a detail of CG -11 that VDOT mentioned at our meeting. I also drew some sketches of what 1 was looking for, that may have been unclear in the letter. Please note that DI -2 is recommended if the runoff from the parking entrance cannot easily be routed to DI -1. For waivers, please submit a letter which includes the following: 1) State what the waiver is for and refer to the ordinance. Your waivers will fall under 4.12.17, sections a) and b) . 2) Explain what you are proposing and justify the reason for this alternative. You can attach drawings if you like. We would like to see the justification and that your solution is the best available option. We have meetings every Thursday if you would like to come in or have a conference call. 3:30 -4 pm is still available. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Michelle Roberge From: Blake AlVanalp Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 6:06 PM To: EIIie Ray Cc: Michelle Roberge Subject: RE: SDP2013000 Seminole Trail Fire Station - Major A - ndment Thanks very much. As always I app ciate your help I! Blake From: Ellie Ray Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 4:43 PM To: Blake Abplanalp Cc: Michelle Roberge Subject: RE: SDP201300009 Seminole Trail Fire Stati. Major Amendment Answers below in red. Ellie Carter Ray, PLA Senior Planner Albemarle County Community Development ph: 434.296.5832 x. 3432 From: Blake Abplanalp Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 3:46 P To: Ellie Ray Subject: RE: SDP201300009 Seminb e Trail Fire Station - Major Amendment Ellie, 1 'a.. EIIie Ray From: EIIie Ray Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 4:50 PM To: Blake Abplanalp; 'dbooth @djginc.com'; 'jconnolly @djginc.com' Cc: Rebecca Ragsdale Subject: RE: SDP201300009 Seminole Trail Fire Station - Major Amendment Happy Friday All, Zoning has requested additional information for their review of the parking requirement and the building height. To make their parking determination they have requested that you provide the maximum number of employees, the square footage of any assembly or meeting space, and information regarding any sort of trainings or events that you anticipate holding on -site. For the building height, they have determined that 530 is the reference elevation in front of the building and would like to see an elevation of the building front in order to determine the actual building height. Let me know if you need more information from me. Thanks, Ellie Carter Ray, PLA Senior Planner Albemarle County Community Development ph: 434.296.5832 x. 3432 From: Blake Abplanalp Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 6:06 PM To: Ellie Ray Cc: Michelle Roberge Subject: RE: SDP201300009 Seminole Trail Fire Station - Major Amendment Thanks very much. As always I appreciate your help !! Blake From: Ellie Ray Sent: Thursday, "rch 21, 2013 4:43 PM To: Blake Abplanalp Cc: Michelle Roberge Subject: RE: SDP201300009 Seminole Trail Fire Station - ajor Amendment Answers below in red. Ellie Carter Ray, PLA Senior Planner Albemarle County Community Development ph: 434.296.5832 x. 3432 From: Blake Abplanalp Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 3:46 PM To: Ellie Ray Subject: RE: SDP201300009 Seminole Tr. I Fire Station - Major Ame • ment Ellie, I've been reading the new procedure. and I have a couple of questions: 1 i, n i \N ) ,,., , I ,0 - ' 0 ,-A.,..,t, N 0 li 60 AP V . irt Q OY Q1D)\1 l..N k A IRGi,w- 0r COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE 0 Department of Community Development , ��� 401 McIntire Road, North Wing � Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 ( 3,� Phone (434) 296 -5832 F x (434) 9 2 -4126 March 18, 2013 k + ' V = a Donald Booth -' S v TI tS Aso -1 2th-i a DJG Inc. 449 McLaws Circle Williamsburg, VA 23185 RE: SDP2013 -00009 Seminole Trail Fire Station - Major Amendment V1— Dear Sir: Your Major Amendment application has been reviewed. In order for the amended site plan to be approved the following revisions are required: 1. [32.5.2(a)] The boundary information provided does not include a boundary dimension along Berkmar Drive; please provide all boundary line information. 2. [32.5.2(a)] Add AIA (Airport Impact Area) to the Zoning note. Please also document any necessary waiver requests. 3. [32.5.2(a)] Provide the County and State; change the 'Charlottesville' references to `Albemarle County'. 4. [32.5.2(a)] Provide one datum reference for elevation. 5. [32.5.2(a)] Show departing lot lines. 6. [32.5.2(a)] Show all parking setback, building setback, and buffer lines on all sheets. 7. [32.5.2(a) & 21.7(c)] 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. Screening shall be provided as required in section 32.7.9. It appears that some grading is proposed in this 20' buffer; please verify and either remove the proposed grading or apply for a waiver of this requirement. 8. [32.5.2(a)] Provide the source of the boundary line survey. 9. [32.5.2(b)] Provide the maximum total square footage of the building with proposed additions. 10. [32.5.2(b)] While the maximum building height on C1 zoned land is 65', any building height in excess 0 of 35' requires an additional 2' of setback for each 1' in height above 35'. The cover sheets states the y,V,: H maximum height is 41.5'. The County's building height definition reads as follows, The vertical distance measured from the level of the curb or the established curb grade opposite the middle of the Li)/ 2010 front of the structure to the highest point of the roof if a flat roof; to the deck line of a mansard roof; or the mean height level between the eaves and ridge of a gable, hip or gambrel roof.'For buildings set ILA9ceeot back from the street line, the height shall be measured from the average elevation of the ground surface along the front of the building . Please verify the maximum building height to determine if additional setback is required. I 11. 32.5.2(b) & 4.12.4(a)] v ng will determine the number of required purr ing spaces for this use. - ,', ' The original site plan was approved with 71 required parking spaces. This number was largely due to the hosting of bingo games and dances for fundraising. Do these types of events still take place on e °111 this parcel? How many staff are generally on -site at the same time? Zoning may need additional ( information to make their determination. 12. [32.5.2(b)] Provide the Maximum amount of impervious cover on the Cover Sheet. 13. [32.5.2(b)] Provide the maximum amount of paved parking and vehicular circulation area on the Cover Sheet. 14. [32.5.2(d)] A critical slope waiver is required to disturb any slope in excess of 25 %. Engineering and Planning have reviewed the proposed disturbance and will recommend approval of this waiver. This waiver must be approved by the Board of Supervisors (on Consent Agenda) prior to site plan approval. 15. [32.5.2(1)] Please provide the right -of -way width for Berkmar Drive. 16. [32.5.2(n)] Clarify where the fence ends; does it extend along all adjacent residential parcels? 17. [32.5.2(n)] The retaining wall note refers to a sheet not included in this plat set; please dimension the walls, provide maximum height(s), and provide a railing detail. 18. [32.5.2(n)] Dimension the travelway closest to the building. 19. [32.6.2(g)] Indicate all utility and drainage easements outside the right -of -way of public streets. Any new easements may be generally shown and dedicated by separate plat. All water and sewer facilities to be dedicated to public use and the easements for those facilities and shall be identified by a statement that the facilities are to be dedicated to the Albemarle County Service Authority. 20. [32.6.2(j) & 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 or to meet conditions of approval, subject to the agent's approval. It appears that several of the Landscape Plan requirements are proposed to be met with existing vegetation. The landscape plan should 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. In addition, the applicant shall sign a conservation checklist approved by the agent to insure that the specified trees will be protected during construction. Except as otherwise expressly approved by the agent in a particular case, such checklist shall conform to specifications contained i th Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook, pp III -284 through III -297, and as hereafter amended. This checklist must be signed, dated, and added to the landscape plan sheet. 21. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.5] Street trees are required along all existing public street frontage; these trees must be within the parking setback. It appears that two additional street trees are required in the area east of the proposed secondary entrance. 22. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.5(e)] When a parking area is located so that the parked cars will be visible from an off-site street, the agent may require additional planting of low street shrubs between the street and the parking area. It appears that this requirement is proposed to be met with existing vegetation; please provide the information requested above regarding preserving existing trees in lieu of planting new plant material. 23. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.6(a)] 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) nor shrubs planted between a parking area and the building shall be counted toward the minimum landscaped area for a parking lot. As noted above, the square footage of `paved parking and vehicular circulation area' has not been provided. 24. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.6(b)] The 5% 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. Four (4) trees are required for 37 parking spaces. Additionally, Corpus florida is not on the current list of recommended large or medium shade trees approved by the agent. 1...ase select trees from the approved list or specific existing trees that meet this requirement. 25. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.7] As mentioned above, please clarify if the existing fence extends along all residential parcels or if additional screening is necessary. Please also demonstrate how the dumpster will be screened from Berkmar Drive. 26. [32.6.2(1) & 32.7.9.8] It appears that the tree canopy requirement is proposed to be met with existing trees; please provide the information requested above regarding preserving existing trees in lieu of planting new plant material. 27. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] Please show the proposed light fixtures on the site plan to verify that no site conflicts exist. 28. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] Provide cut sheets for each proposed fixture (that reference the catalog numbers provided) that demonstrate that the fixture is full cutoff. 29. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] The photometric plan must 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. 30. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] The lighting plan indicates that a LLF of 0.65 was used to create the photometric plan. Albemarle County requires that the LLF be 1.0; revise the photometric plan using the proper LLF. 31. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] Provide the following standard lighting note on the lighting 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 -half footcandle. 32. [Comment] Provide the deed book and page references for all existing utility easements located on the property. 33. [Comment] This amendment cannot be approved until ACSA and VDOT completed their reviews and grant their approval; comments will be forwarded upon receipt. Engineering, Fire /Rescue, inspections, and E911 comments have been provided. 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 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. If you have any questions about the comments please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Ellie Carter Ray, CLA Senior Planner Planning Division Ellie Ray From: Ellie Ray Sent: Thursday, March 21.2O134:43PM To: Blake Abplanalp Cc: W1icheUeRoberge Subject: RE: SDP201300009 Seminole TraiI Fire Station - Major Amendment Answers below in red. Ellie Carter Ray, PLA Senior Planner Albemarle County Community Development ph: 434.296.5832 x. 3432 From: Blake Abplanalp Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 3:46 PM To: Elile Ray Subject: RE: SDP201300009 Seminole Trail Fire Station - Major Amendment Ellie, t've been reading the new procedures and 1 have a couple of questions: + Are we to expect a letter of approval or disapproval subsequent to today's meeting? 48ecause this a major amendment it doesn't get a letter or approval or disapproval after the initial review. The plan is reviewed for both initial plan and final plan requirements at the same time and approval is given in the form of a signed site plan when all comments have been addressed. 1 had this question too, because our site plan amendment policy is a little ambiguous about major amendments...but basically a major amendment is a Final Site Plan, instead of an Initial Site Plan, that has to go through the SRC process....so no interim approvals are given. 1 hope this makes sense. �� • Dovve have a specified period oftinoeto respond ifitisdisapproved? }s that 1U ten days�~vxo worries about this. + Are we good on the grandfathered parking lot situation or do we need to submit a waiver request furthatilt sounds to me like some portions will be grandfathered and some won't. The Iocation and grade of the parking lot area where you're just removing the top coat and replacing it is exempt, but it sounds like the entrances aren't because one is totally new and one is significantly reconstructed. If the grading in the undisturbed buffers remains, that will also require a waiver. Engineering is working on figuring out what type of waiver is required for the entrances; it will either be a County Engineer decision or a waiver processed similar to the critical slope waiver, which could be included on the same report that goes to the Board. Once they give me the word, 1 let you know. In the meantime, it might be good idea for the DJG folks to figure out how much they can reduce the grades on those entrances. Engineering has Thursday afternoon meetings every week if that's necessary, or we can always do a conference calI to work all ofthese issues out. Thanks very much. Blake From: Ellie Ray Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 3:21 PM To: 'dbooth©diginc.com'; Blake Abplanalp; 1cnnnoUy©diginc.com' Subject: SDP201300009 Seminole Trail Fire Station - Major Amendment T r COMMONWEALTH o VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1601 Orange Road Culpeper, Virginia 22701 -3819 Gregory A. Whirley Commissioner of Highways March 20, 2013 Mr. Glenn Brooks Department of Engineering and Development 401 McIntire Rd. Charlottesville, VA 22902 Subject: Site Review Meeting Comments March 21s site review meeting Dear Mr. Brooks: Below are VDOT' s comments on the Site Plans for the March 21 2013 Site Review Committee Meeting: SDP - 2013 -00008 New Hope Community Church (Phase I)- Initial Site Plan (Megan Yaniglos) 1. The posted speed for Route 606 in this section is 35 mph. The necessary sight distance for 35 mph is 390 feet in accordance with the VDOT Road Design Manual Appendix F -35. Please include a vertical profile of the sight line and existing ground. 2. Final site plan will need to include the entrance profile in accordance with the CG -11 standard. 3. A Land Use Permit will be required for construction within the Route 606 right of way. SDP - 2013 -00009 Seminole Trail Fire Station —Major Amendment (Ellie Ray) 1. Show sight distances for proposed entrances in accordance with the VDOT Road Design Manual Appendix F. 2. Entrance profiles in accordance with the VDOT Standard CG -11 need to be shown for both entrances. SDP - 2013 -00011 Old Trail Village Block 2B — Major Site Plan Amendment (Johnathan Newberry) 1. The minimum effective entrance radii are 25 feet. This plan shows a radius of 15 feet at the entrance and does not appear to properly tie into the drainage structure. The drainage structure needs to be relocated and the radius increased. 2. Show the entrance profile in accordance with the VDOT CG -11 Standard. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, Joel DeNunzio, P.E. Area Land Use Engineer VDOT Culpeper Ellie Ray From: Ellie Ray Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 9:29 AM To: 'dbooth @djginc.com' Cc: Blake Abplanalp; 'jconnolly @djginc.com' Subject: RE: SDP201300009 - Seminole Trail Fire Station - Major Amendment I meant to add in my email yesterday that some of the Engineering comments may not be applicable because the parking lot is currently non - conforming and can remain as such as long as it isn't being reconstructed. Blake, we spoke about this a little during the pre- application phase of this project. We can discuss in more detail at the SRC meeting on Thursday. Thanks, Ellie Carter Ray, PLA Senior Planner Albemarle County Community Development ph: 434.296.5832 x. 3432 From: El ay Sent: Monday, rch 18, 2013 5:27 PM To: 'dbooth @djg m' Cc: Blake Abplanalp; 'jc o lly @djginc.com' Subject: SDP201300009 - inole Trail Fire Station - Major Amendment Mr. Booth,, Please find attached the SRC comments received to date for the above referenced application. The Site Review meeting will be held at 10 a.m. this Thursday, March 21 Thank you, Ellie Carter Ray, PLA Senior Planner Albemarle County Community Development Planning Division 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 ph: 434.296.5832 x. 3432 fax: 434.972.4126 1 NNW' `Mir Ellie Ray From: Ellie Ray Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 5:27 PM To: 'dbooth @djginc.com' Cc: Blake Abplanalp; 'jconnolly @djginc.com' Subject: SDP201300009 - Seminole Trail Fire Station - Major Amendment Attachments: CDP1_sdp_ECR_Seminole Trail Fire Station.pdf; SDP201300009 - SRC Comments.pdf Mr. Booth, Please find attached the SRC comments received to date for the above referenced application. The Site Review meeting will be held at 10 a.m. this Thursday, March 21 Thank you, Ellie Carter Ray, PLA Senior Planner Albemarle County Community Development Planning Division 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 ph: 434.296.5832 x. 3432 fax: 434.972.4126 1 \IRGINZ COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 March 18, 2013 Donald Booth DJG Inc. 449 McLaws Circle Williamsburg, VA 23185 RE: SDP2013 -00009 Seminole Trail Fire Station — Major Amendment Dear Sir: Your Major Amendment application has been reviewed. In order for the amended site plan to be approved the following revisions are required: 1. [32.5.2(a)] The boundary information provided does not include a boundary dimension along Berkmar Drive; please provide all boundary line information. 2. [32.5.2(a)] Add AIA (Airport Impact Area) to the Zoning note. Please also document any necessary waiver requests. 3. [32.5.2(a)] Provide the County and State; change the 'Charlottesville' references to 'Albemarle County'. 4. [32.5.2(a)] Provide one datum reference for elevation. 5. [32.5.2(a)] Show departing lot lines. 6. [32.5.2(a)] Show all parking setback, building setback, and buffer lines on all sheets. 7. [32.5.2(a) & 21.7(c)] 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. Screening shall be provided as required in section 32.7.9. It appears that some grading is proposed in this 20' buffer; please verify and either remove the proposed grading or apply for a waiver of this requirement. 8. [32.5.2(a)] Provide the source of the boundary line survey. 9. [32.5.2(b)] Provide the maximum total square footage of the building with proposed additions. 10. [32.5.2(b)] While the maximum building height on C1 zoned land is 65', any building height in excess of 35' requires an additional 2' of setback for each 1' in height above 35'. The cover sheets states the maximum height is 41.5'. The County's building height definition reads as follows, The vertical distance measured from the level of the curb or the established curb grade opposite the middle of the front of the structure to the highest point of the roof if a flat roof; to the deck line of a mansard roof, or the mean height level between the eaves and ridge of a gable, hip or gambrel roof. For buildings set back from the street line, the height shall be measured from the average elevation of the ground surface along the front of the building'. Please verify the maximum building height to determine if additional setback is required. 11. (32.5.2(b) & 4.12.4(a)] Lywnng will determine the number of required prrrCi spaces for this use. The original site plan was approved with 71 required parking spaces. This number was largely due to the hosting of bingo games and dances for fundraising. Do these types of events still take place on this parcel? How many staff are generally on -site at the same time? Zoning may need additional information to make their determination. 12. [32.5.2(b)] Provide the maximum amount of impervious cover on the Cover Sheet. 13. [32.5.2(b)] Provide the maximum amount of paved parking and vehicular circulation area on the Cover Sheet. 14. [32.5.2(d)] A critical slope waiver is required to disturb any slope in excess of 25 %. Engineering and Planning have reviewed the proposed disturbance and will recommend approval of this waiver. This waiver must be approved by the Board of Supervisors (on Consent Agenda) prior to site plan approval. 15. [32.5.2(1)] Please provide the right -of -way width for Berkmar Drive. 16. [32.5.2(n)] Clarify where the fence ends; does it extend along all adjacent residential parcels? 17. [32.5.2(n)] The retaining wall note refers to a sheet not included in this plat set; please dimension the walls, provide maximum height(s), and provide a railing detail. 18. [32.5.2(n)] Dimension the travelway closest to the building. 19. [32.6.2(g)] Indicate all utility and drainage easements outside the right -of -way of public streets. Any new easements may be generally shown and dedicated by separate plat. All water and sewer facilities to be dedicated to public use and the easements for those facilities and shall be identified by a statement that the facilities are to be dedicated to the Albemarle County Service Authority. 20. [32.6.2(j) & 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 or to meet conditions of approval, subject to the agent's approval. It appears that several of the Landscape Plan requirements are proposed to be met with existing vegetation. The landscape plan should 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. In addition, the applicant shall sign a conservation checklist approved by the agent to insure that the specified trees will be protected during construction. Except as otherwise expressly approved by the agent in a particular case, such checklist shall conform to specifications contained in the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook, pp III -284 through III -297, and as hereafter amended. This checklist must be signed, dated, and added to the landscape plan sheet. 21. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.5] Street trees are required along all existing public street frontage; these trees must be within the parking setback. It appears that two additional street trees are required in the area east of the proposed secondary entrance. 22. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.5(e)] When a parking area is located so that the parked cars will be visible from an off -site street, the agent may require additional planting of low street shrubs between the street and the parking area. It appears that this requirement is proposed to be met with existing vegetation; please provide the information requested above regarding preserving existing trees in lieu of planting new plant material. 23. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.6(a)] 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) nor shrubs planted between a parking area and the building shall be counted toward the minimum landscaped area for a parking lot. As noted above, the square footage of 'paved parking and vehicular circulation area' has not been provided. 24. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.6(b)] The 5% 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. Four (4) trees are required for 37 parking spaces. Additionally, Corpus florida is not on the current list of recommended large or medium shade trees approved by the agent. rase select trees from the approved list or i,..wee specific existing trees that meet this requirement. 25. [32.6.20) & 32.7.9.7] As mentioned above, please clarify if the existing fence extends along all residential parcels or if additional screening is necessary. Please also demonstrate how the dumpster will be screened from Berkmar Drive. 26. [32.6.20) & 32.7.9.8] It appears that the tree canopy requirement is proposed to be met with existing trees; please provide the information requested above regarding preserving existing trees in lieu of planting new plant material. 27. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] Please show the proposed light fixtures on the site plan to verify that no site conflicts exist. 28. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] Provide cut sheets for each proposed fixture (that reference the catalog numbers provided) that demonstrate that the fixture is full cutoff. 29. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] The photometric plan must 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. 30. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] The lighting plan indicates that a LLF of 0.65 was used to create the photometric plan. Albemarle County requires that the LLF be 1.0; revise the photometric plan using the proper LLF. 31. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] Provide the following standard lighting note on the lighting plan: Each outdoor luminaire equipped with a Tamp 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. 32. [Comment] Provide the deed book and page references for all existing utility easements located on the property. 33. [Comment] This amendment cannot be approved until ACSA and VDOT completed their reviews and grant their approval; comments will be forwarded upon receipt. Engineering, Fire /Rescue, inspections, and E911 comments have been provided. 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 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. If you have any questions about the comments please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Ellie Carter Ray, CLA Senior Planner Planning Division � 1,`S% -4/ war. ii to 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: Seminole Trail Fire Station Plan preparer: DJG Inc [fax 757- 253 -2319] Owner or rep.: County of Albemarle [434-872-4501] Plan received date: 4 Feb 2013 Date of comments: 15 Mar 2013 Reviewer: Michelle Roberge A. Site Development Plan (SDP201300009) 1. The access road to the parking lot is too steep. Per 18- 4.12.17 the entrances cannot exceed 4 %, but this will be difficult. I recommend reducing the slope where it is 20% to about 12 %. 2. The vehicle access aisles to the parking lot cannot exceed a 10% grade per section 4.12.17. This will also be difficult, but a 12% is a reasonable alternative. Please request a waiver in writing and provide all the necessary informatation to justify that no reasonable design alternative exists. 3. The parking area cannot exceed 5% grade anywhere, in any direction per section 4.12.15. 4. The SW corner of the emergency access where it meets Berkmar Drive appears to show a 10' shoulder that just ends. I recommend the 50' radius, with curb and gutter to adjoin Berkmar Drive. 5. Please provide a bumper block for the handicap parking adjacent to sidewalk. Sincerely, .0r t Michelle Roberge Review Comments Project Name: SEMINOLE TRAIL FIRE STATION - MAJOR Major Amendment Date Completed: Thursday, February 14, 2013 Reviewer: Jay Schlothauer Department/Division /Agency: Inspections Reviews Comments: Based on plans dated February 1, 2013. Rearrange the handicapped accessible parking spaces so that at least one of them is van - accessible (8' wide striped access aisle). Review Status: Requested Changes Review Comments Project Name: SEMINOLE TRAIL FIRE STATION - MAJOR Major Amendment Date Completed: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 Reviewer: Andrew Slack Department/Division /Agency: E911 Reviews Comments: No Objection. Review Status: No Objection Review Comments Project Name: SEMINOLE TRAIL FIRE STATION - MAJOR Major Amendment Date Completed: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 Reviewer: Robbie Gilmer Department/Division /Agency: Fire Rescue Reviews Comments: Based on SDP dated 2/01/13 1. FDC shall be located on the south side of the building facing Berkmar Drive. 2. Fire Hydrants Spacing shall be 400 ft per prepared travelway around the building. Review Status: Requested Changes June 12, 2013 m NNW � II MN OM J— V MI Ms. Ellie Carter Ray, CLA _� Planning Division, Sr. Planner INC Department of Community Development www.djginc.com 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, VA 22902 -4596 RE: Seminole Trail Fire Station Site Plan Major Amendment DJG No. 2130150 Dear Ms. Ray, The following is our response to the 100% plan review comments for the subject project: A. Erosion Control Plan (WP0201300010) 1. Please show the proposed water and sewer easements as a heavy dashed lined on sheet C-104 & C -105. The proposed easements have been darkened on sheet C -104 (now sheet C.1.04) and C -105 (now sheet C.1.05) 2. Please show the proposed gas line as a heavy linetype on sheet C -104 & C -105. The proposed gas line line style has been darkened on sheet C.1.04 and C.1.05. 3. Change note 4.1 to "Install new storm piping and structures shown in phase III plan as necessary for phase II construction..." Note 4.1 has been changed on sheet C.1.01. 4. On sheet C -103, please show outlet protection symbol for all outfalls. Outfall protection symbols have been added to the outfalls on sheet C -103 (now sheet C.1.03). 5. On sheet C -103, please show the inlet protection label for DI -2. Also, please fix the leaders labeling DI -5 & 6. Inlets labels have been added and modified on Sheet C.1.03. ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS • PLANNERS VOICE: (757) 253 -0673 • FAX: (757) 253 -2319 • FROM NORFOLK / VIRGINIA BEACH: (757) 874 -5015 449 McLAWS CIRCLE • WILLIAMSBURG, VA • 23185 Ms. Ellie Carter Ray, PLA June 12, 2013 Page 2of7 6. On sheet C -103, please label the drainage easements, "Proposed permanent drainage easement.'' Drainage easements have been labeled on sheet C.1.03. 7. It appears the grading for the concrete pad (north of bldg) will not allow far east door to open. Please revise. The door in question is located in a portion of the building that is higher than the finished floor shown on the plans. A note referencing this has been added to sheet C.1.05. 8. Please show, at a minimum, a 0.1 ' positive flow drop between the the invert in and invert out on each stormdrain structure. A 0.10 drop between inverts has been added to the storm structure chart on Sheet C.1.05 and in the profiles on sheet C.2.01. Pipe slopes have also been modified to account for this change. 9. On sheet C -502, please change the stone size to 6". Stone size has been changed to 6" on the outlet protection detail on sheet C.5.02. B. Stormwater Management Plan (WP0201300010) 1. Please clearly show a sump area for the 35 ' -4 " pvc pipe, by showing 3 spot elevations around it and adding a note that explains this sump area. Spot elevations and a note have been added to sheet C.1.05. Also the 545 contour was added to the plans. C. Site Development Plan (SDP201300009) 1. [Conunent]The access road to the parking lot is too steep. Per 18- 4.12.17the entrances cannot exceed 4 %, but this will be difficult. I recommend reducing the slope where it is 20% to aboutl2 %. [Revision 1JThe profile does not show the sag curve with the low point at the intended flow line. Please revise design to show the low point at flow line. Please see attached profile for the current flow line location. A sag curve has been added to the profile on sheet C.2.01 and is reflected in the grading on sheet C.1.05. • Ms. Ellie Carter Ray, PLA June 12, 2013 Page 3 of 7 2. [Comment]The vehicle access aisles to the parking lot cannot exceed a 10% grade per section 4.12.17. This will also be difficult, but a12% is a reasonable alternative. Please request a waiver in writing and provide all the necessary information to juste that no reasonable design alternative exists. [Revisor 1JThe profile does not show the sag curve with the low point at the intended flow line. Please revise design to show the low point at flow line. Please see attached profile for the current flow line location. A sag curve has been added to the profile on sheet C.2.01 and is reflected in the grading on sheet C.1.05. D. Planning Division 1. (Comment 6) [32.5.2(a)] Show all parking setback, building setback, and buffer lines on all sheets. Revl: Comment not fully addressed. Please revise the setback notes 011 the Cover Sheet to say 'residential districts' instead of 'R-1',. the adjacent properties are Zoned R -2 and the same standard applies to all residentially zoned districts. Additionally, it appears that there is a deck proposed on the back of the building that violates the building setback. Decks are allowed to extend a maximum of 4' into the required setback, but it seems the proposed deck extends approximately 10'; please revise. The reference to R -1 has been changed to "residential district" on sheet G.1.02. The deck has been modified on sheet C.104 to protrude less than 4' into the setback. 2. [32.6.20) & 32.7.9.4(b)J 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 or to meet conditions of approval, subject to the agent's approval. It appears that several of the Landscape Plan requirements are proposed to be met with existing vegetation. The landscape plan should 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. In addition, the applicant shall sign a conservation checklist approved by the agent to insure that the specified trees will be protected during construction. Except as otherwise expressly approved by the agent in a particular case, such checklist shall conform to specifications contained in the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook, pp 111-284 through 111-297, and as hereafter amended. This checklist trust be signed, dated, and added to the landscape plan sheet. Revl: Continent not fully addressed. It appears that both water lines and storm drain extend into areas labeled for tree protection. The limits of disturbance are slightly different on the various sheets, but the overall disturbance should be reflected on the site plan. Please modfy the tree protection lines to be outside of any areas of disturbance, and revise the "existing tree canopy to remain" calculation accordingly. Ms. Ellie Carter Ray, PLA June 12, 2013 Page 4of7 Tree protection and silt fence lines have been modified on sheets C.1.01, C.1.02, C.1.03, and C.1.04. Tree demolition has been modified as well, and is reflected in the "existing tree canopy to remain" calculation on sheet G.1.02. 3. [32.6.2(1) & 32.7.9.5] Street trees are required along all existing public street frontage; these trees must be within the parking setback. It appears that two additional street trees are required in the area east of the proposed secondary entrance. Revl: Comment addressed. However, the tree that is located in the area between the two entrances appears to be in a storm drain easement. All landscaping should be located outside of utility easenients. The tree has been moved out of the storm drain easement on sheet C.1.04. The tree was moved back away from the street because in order to move the tree completely out of the easement and closer to the street, it would have been located too close to the proposed curb. (Line of sight would have been affected as well as future conflict with pavement and tree roots.) 4. [32.6.20) & 32.7.9.7J As mentioned above, please clarify if the existing fence extends along all residential parcels or if additional screening is necessary. Please also demonstrate how the dumpster will be screened from Berkmar Drive. Revl: Comment not fully addressed. Thank you for clarifying the fence location. However, the dumpster must be screened from Berkmar Drive. Please indicate how the dumpster will be screened; if using a fence, label the height and provide a detail. A dumpster enclosure has been added to sheet C.1.04, and a detail of the enclosure has been included on sheet C.5.03. 5. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.8] It appears that the tree canopy requirement is proposed to be met with existing trees; please provide the information requested above regarding preserving existing trees in lieu of planting new plant niaterial. Rev1: Comment addressed. However, as indicated above, the tree canopy calculation may need to be revised to reflect the loss of existing trees for water and storm drain installation. Tree canopy calculation has been modified on sheet G.1.02. 6. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] Please show the proposed light fixtures on the site plan to verify that no site conflicts exist. Revl: Continent not fully addressed. It is unclear if the proposed light pole on the Berkmar Drive side of the parking lot is located on top of an existing gas line; it appears a section of the gas line is being removed, but it's difficult to tell exactly which section and that change isn't reflected on the site plan. Please clarify what section of gas line will remain and relocate the light pole if there is a conflict. Ms. Ellie Carter Ray, PLA June 12,2013 Page 5 of 7 Gas line to be removed and to remain has been labeled on sheet C.1.04. A note has been added to sheet C.1.04 that explains the approximate location of utilities shown and to avoid conflict with existing gas line. 7. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] Provide cut sheets for each proposed fixture (that reference the catalog numbers provided) that demonstrate that the fixture is full cutoff. Rev 1: Continent not filly addressed. Cut sheets should be provided as part of the site plan set, not a separate document. Additionally, the cut sheets for fixtures A, B, C and E don 't specifically reference a flat lens; please verify that no portion of the bulb or lens will extend below the housing of the fixture. Fixture D is below 3000 lumen and therefore not subject to the full cutoff standard. Cut sheets have been provided on sheet FC.1.02. All fixtures are full cutoff with flat lenses. No portion of the bulb or lens will extend below the housing. 8. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] The photometric plan must 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. Revl: Comment not fully addressed. Footcandle information is still not provided along the entire Berkmar Drive right -of -way frontage or all of the adjoining residential parcels. Please provide 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. Electrical footcandle site plan has been revised to show footcandle information to the extents of the property lines on all sides. 9. [Comment] This amendment cannot be approved until ACSA and VDOT completed their reviews and grant their approval; comments will be forwarded upon receipt. Engineering, Fire /Rescue, inspections, and E911 comments have been provided. Rev 1: Comment not fully addressed. This amendment cannot be approved until VDOT completes' their review and grants their approval; comments will be forwarded upon receipt. Engineering comments have been provided. ACSA, Fire /Rescue, inspections, and E911 all have no objection. VDOT has completed their review and their comments have been addressed on the revised plans and in this letter. 10. [Continent] Sheet C -201 should be labeled Sheet 7 of 11 (or the total number of sheets in the plan set), not 53. The total sheet count on Sheet C.2.01 has been modified. Ms. Ellie Carter Ray, PLA June 12, 2013 Page 6 of 7 E. VDOT 1. VDOT Standard WP -2, Pavement Widening should be used for the New & Existing Pavement Transition. The pavement transition detail has been replaced with the VDOT standard WP -2 detail on sheet C.5.02. 2. The pavement design does not specify the aggregate base material or the surface material. These items need to be specified The asphalt pavement detail located on sheet C.5.02 specifies these materials. 3. The 3.5" of surface asphalt exceeds the maxiinuni thickness of all surfaces sections per the Pavement Design Guide for Subdivision and Secondary Roads. Detail showing 3.5" of surface material has been removed. The asphalt pavement detail located on sheet C.5.02 depicts 1.5" of surface material. 4. I questions that the proposed pavement section will be adequate for heavy fire equipment traffic. This needs to be looked at by the designer. Pavement section shown has been selected based on information provided in the geotechnical report. According to a letter provided by Troy Austin, dated 6/10/13, VDOT approves the proposed pavement section. 5. The entrance profiles show straight grade changes. These entrances should be designed with vertical curves especially the parking lot entrance where the grade is changing from a -1.50% grade to a 10.52V grade. Vertical curves have been added to the entrances and are depicted in the profiles on sheet C.2.01 and in the grading on sheet C.1.05. 6. An AM -2 exception request has been submitted for the 50' spacing separation between the two entrances, but no justification has been provided. It appears to me that the entrance to the parking lot could be moved north at least 40' to satisfy the spacing requirenient. The AM -2 exception request has been resubmitted to VDOT with an accompanying letter explaining the justification for the request. According to a letter provided by Troy Austin, dated 6/10/13, VDOT will approve the AM -2 exception. Formal approval is required from the District Administrator. Ms. Ellie Carter Ray, PLA June 12, 2013 Page 7 of 7 7. Is the drop inlet and the entrance adequate to handle the runofffronz the site? Hydrology calculations should be provided and reviewed to verb. Stormwater calculations have been provided to VDOT for review. According to a letter provided by Troy Austin, dated 6/10/13, VDOT considers the proposed storm structures adequate. We hope you find these responses acceptable. If you have any questions or comments regarding this response or the revised plans, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Darren R. Curtis, PLA, LEED AP Landscape Architect Cc: Michelle Roberge Michelle Roberge From: Darren Curtis [dcurtis @djginc.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 8:11 AM To: Michelle Roberge Subject: RE: fire station vertical curves Thanks Michelle! Darren R. Curtis, PLA, LEED AP Landscape Architect ENGINEERS* ARCHITECTS • PLANNERS 47. .: a w s 449 McLaws Cade • II;latris u;g VA 23185 101 Phone 757.253 ,1 73 • Fax 757 2 a3.231 SiNN/NN/r 111111111111111, 'P 8s'ii: =AN. ;gSncc corn A, /' ,&rr'l ie f > i f r i /Year . f ,-r;t tr + ell.- r e'. From: Michelle Roberge [ mailto :mrobergecaalbemarle.orq] Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 6:04 PM To: Darren Curtis Subject: RE: fire station vertical curves Hi Darren, This looks good to me. I tried calling you this evening, but 1 figured you had already left. Call me if you need anything else. - Michelle From: Darren Curtis [mailto:dcurtis@adiginc.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 1:43 PM To: Michelle Roberge Subject: RE: fire station vertical curves Michelle, Please find attached the revised driveway profiles for the Seminole Fire station. If you would, please call me so we can discuss these. I would prefer not to let my misunderstanding of what is required to hold up this project. I am trying to get the submittal packaged up and sent out by tomorrow morning. I am currently revising the grading to coordinate with what is shown. Thank you so much for your help. Darren R. Curtis, PLA, LEED AP Landscape Architect 1 0 "."... 111111 . 1 " 11 ff 111 Phone 757.263 0673 • Fax 757 253 2319 AMP" VA`AV djgiric corn From: Michelle Roberge [maikn:mmoberge(aa|bemade.ond Sent: Tuesday June 11, 2013 10:08 AM To: Darren Curtis Subject: fire station vertical curves Hi Darren, Please revise your profile and grading. Thanks. -Michelle uxichcueovb,,ce Department o/Com.""oit!,Development County "/ Albemarle, Virginia 401 McIntire Road Charlotwsville, VA 22902 434.296.5832^".. 3458 2 Michelle Roberge From: Ellie Ray Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 9:11 AM To: Michelle Roberge Subject: FW: VDOT Follow up from Blake after he discussed with Troy Ellie Carter Ray, PLA Senior Planner Albemarle County Community Development ph: 434.296.5832 x. 3432 From: Blake Abplanalp Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 3:54 PM To: Donald Booth; Darren Curtis; 'jconnolly @djginc.com' Cc: Trevor Henry; Ellie Ray; Jack Kelsey Subject: RE: VDOT Gents, I just got off of the phone with Troy from VDOT and the following is what we discussed: ❖ Item # 6 — AM -2 Exception request. He spoke to Joel about this earlier and despite the fact that Joel doesn't have a problem with the spacing he still wants written justification of why we can't move the new entrance. We need to demonstrate to him why it would be a major problem to not adhere to the spacing recommendations. He said he wants to be covered when and if people above their office review their comments. ❖ Item # 2 — What he is asking for here is what type of material is specified. He says nothing is in the specs or plans calling out what these two items are. • Item # 3 — He says that the maximum surface asphalt allowed is 2 ". We can have 3.5" of asphalt but it can't be 3.5" of surface asphalt. ❖ Item # 4— He can't tell if the paving is adequate until he has the answers to item # 2. ❖ Item # 7 — He hasn't received copies of the hydro calcs that were submitted to Community Development. Can you e -mail him a copy? Blake Abplanalp Senior Project Manager County of Albemarle Office of Facilities Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 228 Charlottesville, VA 22902 -4596 PH - 434 -872 -4501, Ext. 3244 Fax - 434 - 972 -4091 Cell - 434 - 825 -1663 babplanalp @albemarle.org Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. 1 Michelle Roberge From: Ellie Ray Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 9:11 AM To: Michelle Roberge Subject: FW: SDP - 2013 -00009 Seminole Trail Fire Station Attachments: SDP 2013 00009 Seminole Trail Fire Comments 5 16 13.pdf New VDOT comments Ellie Carter Ray, PLA Senior Planner Albemarle County Community Development ph: 434.296.5832 x. 3432 From: Austin, Nathran. (VDOT) [mailto:Nathran .Austin @vdot.virginia.gov] Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 1:14 PM To: Ellie Ray Cc: Blake Abplanalp Subject: SDP - 2013 -00009 Seminole Trail Fire Station Troy Austin, P.E. Area Land Use Engineer Virginia Department of Transportation Land Development — South Culpeper District P.O. Box 1017 11430 James Madison Highway Troy, VA 22974 Phone: (434) 589 -5871 Fax: (434) 589 -3967 1 x z A It r7 4 • COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1601 Orange Road Culpeper, Virginia 22701 -3819 Gregory A. Whirley Commissioner of Highways May 16, 2013 Ms. Ellie Carter Ray, PLA Senior Planning County of Albemarle Community Development Department 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA Re: SDP - 2013 -00009 Seminole Trail Fire Station Dear Ms. Ray, I reviewed the subject site plan and offer the following comments: 1. VDOT Standard WP -2, Pavement Widening should be used for the New & Existing Pavement Transition. 2. The pavement design does not specify the aggregate base material or the surface material. These items need to be specified. 3. The 3.5" of surface asphalt exceeds the maximum thickness of all surfaces sections per the Pavement Design Guide for Subdivision and Secondary Roads. 4. I questions that the proposed pavement section will be adequate for heavy fire equipment traffic. This needs to be looked at by the designer. 5. The entrance profiles show straight grade changes. These entrances should be designed with vertical curves espe :: iiy the parking lot entrance where the grade is changing from a - 1.50° 0 grade to a 10.52° o grade. 6. An AM -2 exception request has been submitted for the 50' spacing separation between the two entrances, but no justification has been provided. It appears to me that the entrance to the parking lot could be moved north at least 40' to satisfy the spacing requirement. 7. Is the drop inlet and the entrance adequate to handle the runoff from the site? Hydrology calculations should be provided and reviewed to verify. 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 Y oe AL i�m RGIN 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: Seminole Trail Fire Station Plan preparer: DJG Inc [fax 757- 253 -2319] Owner or rep.: County of Albemarle [434-872-4501] Plan received date: 19 Apr 2013 Date of comments: 8 May 2013 Reviewer: Michelle Roberge A. Site Development Plan (SDP201300009) 1. [Comment] The access road to the parking lot is too steep. Per 18- 4.12.17 the entrances cannot exceed 4 %, but this will be difficult. I recommend reducing the slope where it is 20% to about 12 %. [Revison 1] The profile does not show the sag curve with the low point at the intended flow line. Please revise profile to show the low point at flow line. Please see attached profile. 2. [Comment] The vehicle access aisles to the parking lot cannot exceed a 10% grade per section 4.12.17. This will also be difficult, but a 12% is a reasonable alternative. Please request a waiver in writing and provide all the necessary informatation to justify that no reasonable design alternative exists. [Revison 1] The profile does not show the sag curve with the low point at the intended flow line. Please revise profile to show the low point at flow line. Please see attached profile. 3. [Comment] The parking area cannot exceed 5% grade anywhere, in any direction per section 4.12.15. [Revison 1] Comment addressed with planning. 4. [Comment] The SW corner of the emergency access where it meets Berkmar Drive appears to show a 10' shoulder that just ends. I recommend the 50' radius, with curb and gutter to adjoin Berkmar Drive. [Revison 1] Comment addressed. This area is intended for firetrucks to easily maneuver trucks into fire station. 5. [Comment] Please provide a bumper block for the handicap parking adjacent to sidewalk. [Revison 1] Comment addressed. Sincerely, / // o J /. III Michelle Roberge Michelle Roberge From: Ellie Ray Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2013 3:53 PM To: 'dbooth @djginc.com'; Blake Abplanalp; Darren Curtis Cc: Michelle Roberge Subject: RE: SDP201300009 - Seminole Trail Fire Station - Major Amendment Just to make sure there is no confusion, I wanted to make sure everyone knows that WPO comments are still forthcoming. SDPs and WPOs are reviewed separately by engineering, and only the SDP review has been completed at this point. Michelle will forward the WPO comments once that review is complete. Thanks! Ellie Carter Ray, PLA Senior Planner Albemarle County Community Development ph: 434.296.5832 x. 3432 From: Ellie Ray Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2013 3:40 PM To: 'dbooth @djginc.com'; Blake Abplanalp; Darren Curtis' Subject: SDP201300009 - Seminole Trail Fire Station - Major Amendment All, Please find attached my comments for the above reference application. I have included a PDF with Engineering comments and a separate PDF with the other comments received to date. We are awaiting VDOT comments. A copy of the waiver approval letter is also included. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions, concerns, or need further clarification. Thank you, Ellie Carter Ray, PLA Senior Planner Albemarle County Community Development Planning Division 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 ph: 434.296.5832 x. 3432 fax: 434.972.4126 1 Michelle Roberge From: Glenn Brooks Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 10:25 AM To: Michelle Roberge Subject: Fire Station entrance 1 So, a curve at K=4.5 gets to the 10% grade sooner, but the entrance grade will be lower. This is the essential difference. The higher the K value, the lower the overall entrance is. From a common-sense standpoint, they need to lower the entrance ramp, which makes the crest curve into the parking area deeper, but the drainage situation at the state road better. i —EXIS:Thr; GRA:. , A A k , i , , • / ..— --- -- ,' -- -- .... . -- \ . .... - - , ..---- ; 1 .4 ..7.r `'n —PRuPOS-D GRAE t :ZEL ' i ..„. - .,,, • k is _ ) ; „.„. . _.--. -- , 3 2 - - ,. ... _ . ..., . .._„ i --.— ---' ' I , ;.,.., . L..--,•.. > ,---, 1 —'r."101,'' L'I\l--: .`..7, ,—; •D a.- " n‘,..' . —,- .• 1 ,--- _ -zz 1.... f-. 7` ...... - 0+00 1+01 . .._, .._,,.. 1.... 4.0 PARKING LOT F CLN 1 Vertical Curve Computations; Beginning of Vertical Curve BVCx = 0 ft BVCy = 532 ft g1 = -1.5 g2 =10.6 K =4.5 Length, L, Grade difference, r, and Tangent Vertix, V L = - (g1 -g2) *K L = 54.45 ft length r = (g2 -g1) /L r = 0.2222 rate grade change per foot L = L /100 r = r *100 dVx = L-[-r *L *L /(g2 *2)]/(g1/g2 -1) Vx = BVCx +dVx *100 Vx = 27.2250 Vy = BVCy+dVx*gl Vy = _531.5916 turning point at x = -g1 /r BVCx +x *100 = 6.7500 Flow Line (this will not be right if there is no turning point) y = 0.5 *r *x *x +g1 *x +BVCy y = _531.9494 ft y *12 = _6383.3925 End of Vertical Curve EVCx = (BVCx +L *100) EVCx = 54.4500 EVCy = BVCy +0.5 *r *L *L +L *g1 EVCy = 534.4775 s = 10 step for points Looking at a points on curve 1 xp staP= BVCx +xp xs =xp /100 y= 0.5 *r *xs *xs +g1 *xs +BVCy m= r *xs +g1 0 0.000 0.000 532.000 _ -1.500 xp +s 10.000 0.100 531.961 0.722 xp +s 20.000 0.200 532.144 2.944 xp +s 30.000 0.300 532.550 5.167 xp +s 40.000 0.400 533.178 7.389 xp +s 50.000 0.500 :34.028 9.611 xp +5 55.000 0.550 534.536 _10.722 1 - Glenn Brooks. P.E. County Engineer Albemarle County 2 Michelle Roberge From: Glenn Brooks Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 10:25 AM To: Michelle Roberge Subject: Fire Station entrance 1 So, a curve at K =4.5 gets to the 10% grade sooner, but the entrance grade will be lower. This is the essential difference. The higher the K value, the lower the overall entrance is. From a common -sense standpoint, they need to lower the entrance ramp, which makes the crest curve into the parking area deeper, but the drainage situation at the state road better. .v EX:STU ._ -,, -0 4 t . C" 1 s • , 1: .,.,' L 't .....,,, -..,,-,::.,, -I ' ''''' - ' ' r a �. ' < .` 1 —FLOW ! NE ,, I ;.rs 1 —3 0 0 1+ 01 • 1 ELEV • 532 PROPOSED GRADE — EXISTING Gf RIGHT TURN LANE 1 44 ZS FLOW LINE — — — -- -L 528 _ -- ,u -- r e 524 • N In N O y cli > 11 SSCr "' ce L.1.1 e' `� m N 11I m c N o o Z t _ • . W t !) � cco t•-, tn W = X K O N II II w o N N + z + )- i In i O U O� N t n W 4< ~v /-a `n -' `I' ad-1 1-a 0 +00 1 1+ 00 HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1" =20' VERTICAL SCALE: 1 " =4' BAY ENTRANCE CENTERLINE PROFILE ELEV 540 — EXISTING GRADE 536 .. off -------- FL OY. Li,E / I RIGHT TV; ' I y` el — PROPOSED GRADE • 532 528 Fe In pl < Ct. ° E - c (lr u! V) m c� O 1}. •I• E •r. m . s J W � I a w .m >_ o w < O �j +- v < j - II Lj 1 N w H o_ t 4-1 n.. —1 ! v i.c v 1 0 +00 1+00 f HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1 " =20' PARKING LOT ENTRANCE CE'\!TEi LU E PROFILE VERTICAL SCALE: 1 " =4' 0 Al.l3f. I Or 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: Seminole Trail Fire Station Plan preparer: DJG Inc [fax 757- 253 -2319] Owner or rep.: County of Albemarle [434- 872 -4501] Plan received date: 4 Feb 2013 Date of comments: 15 Mar 2013 Reviewer: Michelle Roberge A. Site Development Plan (SDP201300009) 1. The access road to the parking lot is too steep. Per 18- 4.12.17 the entrances cannot exceed 4 %, but this will be difficult. I recommend reducing the slope where it is 20% to about 12 %. 2. The vehicle access aisles to the parking lot cannot exceed a 10% grade per section 4.12.17. This will also be difficult, but a 12% is a reasonable alternative. Please request a waiver in writing and provide all the necessary informatation to justify that no reasonable design alternative exists. 3. The parking area cannot exceed 5% grade anywhere, in any direction per section 4.12.15. 4. The SW comer of the emergency access where it meets Berkmar Drive appears to show a 10' shoulder that just ends. I recommend the 50' radius, with curb and gutter to adjoin Berkmar Drive. 5. Please provide a bumper block for the handicap parking adjacent to sidewalk. Sincerely, �/ Michelle Roberge Michelle Roberge From: Ellie Ray Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 3:07 PM To: Michelle Roberge Subject: FW: Seminole Trail fire station (Albemarle County) - Removal Rate spreadsheet and county Design Standards Manual Ellie Carter Ray, PLA Senior Planner Albemarle County Community Development ph: 434.296.5832 x. 3432 From: Ellie Ray Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 12:26 PM To: Blake Abplanalp; 'jconnolly @djginc.com'; 'dbooth @djginc.com' Cc: Michael Koslow; Trevor Henry Subject: RE: Seminole Trail fire station (Albemarle County) - Removal Rate spreadsheet and county Design Standards Manual Blake, Milling the top coat is fine...we would consider that to be maintenance, not removal and replacement. Thanks, Ellie Carter Ray, PLA Senior Planner Albemarle County Community Development ph: 434.296.5832 x. 3432 From: Blake Abplanalp Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 10:03 AM To: Ellie Ray; 'jconnolly @djginc.com'; 'dbooth @djginc.com' Cc: Michael Koslow; Trevor Henry Subject: RE: Seminole Trail fire station (Albemarle County) - Removal Rate spreadsheet and county Design Standards Manual Thanks very much Ellie. I appreciate your help with these items. I have one question, if we were to remove / mill the top coat of asphalt on the existing parking lot and apply just a new top coat would that be considered a change that would need to comply with the setback and buffer requirements? I ask this because we anticipate that there will be moderate damage to the top coat from construction traffic. Thanks again, Blake From: Ellie Ray Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 9:50 AM To: 'jconnolly @djginc.com'; Blake Abplanalp; dbooth(a>diiginc.com Cc: Michael Koslow Subject: RE: Seminole Trail fire station (Albemarle County) - Removal Rate spreadsheet and county Design Standards Manual 1 All, As a follow -up to yesterday's pre -app meeting, here are the answers to some of the outstanding items of discussion: 1. I think this plan will need to be submitted as a Major Amendment. It looks like it falls into the `major' category for the size of the addition (anything over 3,000 sf), the new or modified entrance, and the possibility of waiver requests (as discussed yesterday, but perhaps won't happen). Here is the link to our Site Plan Amendment Policy, let me know if I've misunderstood something: http: / /www.albemarle.org /upload /images /forms center /departments /Community Development /forms /applic ations /SITE PLAN AMENDMENT POLICY.pdf 2. One thing to note is that starting January 1 (assuming the Zoning Text Amendment is approved by the Board tomorrow), by -right site plans can no longer be called up for public hearing by adjoining property owners. So, if you submitted after 1/1/13, the public cannot call the plan up to the Planning Commission. See this link for the SDP submittal schedule: http: / /www.albemarle.org /upload /images /forms center /departments /Community Development /forms /sched ules /Site Plan & Subdivision Schedule.pdf 3. The adjoining site we discussed is zoned PD -MC (Planned Development — Mixed Commercial), so the concerns about setback /buffer to residential on that boundary are no problem. The setback /buffer between commercial and residential does apply in the other areas where residentially zoned property abuts the subject parcel. However, if the site is currently non - conforming in regards to be setbacks /buffers they won't be enforced on this site plan as long as the current condition is maintained as is. In other words, I think the parking lot probably violates the setback and buffer requirement along the back property line, but as long as the parking lot isn't being changed it is fine. If you have to remove the parking lot and then replace it in the exact same place, then the standards do apply. Basically if it's non - conforming now it can remain as such, but if your construction plan includes removing the non - conformity and then reconstructing it, it must conform. I hope this makes sense, this is one of the more confusing interpretations of our code. Feel free to give me a call if you have any questions. 4. I was incorrect about the light pole height. We do have a height restriction in the Entrance Corridor, but otherwise light poles are governed by the height restriction within the zoning district. 1 think that was all of the unresolved questions, if I've neglected something or you have additional questions please let me know. Thank you, Ellie Carter Ray, PLA, ASLA Senior Planner Albemarle County Community Development ph: 434.296.5832 x. 3432 From: Michael Koslow Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 4:56 PM To: iconnolly(adiginc.com Cc: Ellie Ray Subject: Seminole Trail fire station (Albemarle County) - Removal Rate spreadsheet and county Design Standards Manual Jerry, Per our meeting today, please find attached the BMP removal rate spreadsheet Albemarle County uses for stormwater management (until 7/1/2014, then DCR is changing the process to runoff reduction method), which is on our website here: 2 < http : / /www.albemarle.org /deptforms .asp ?department= cdengwpo> Also, the Design Standards Manual here: < http : / /albemarle.org/upload /images /forms center /departments /community development /forms /design standards manual /Albemarle County Design Standards Manual 02- 12- 2010.pdf> has the details for Paved Construction Entrance, sidewalk strength, and dumpster pad strength and layout, which we would be looking for on WPO plans and site plan amendment submittals respectively. Note the WPO (erosion & sediment control and stormwater management for this project) plan submittal is a separate process from the site plan minor or major amendment submittal process (although both would be needed for this project). Cordially, 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 3 OF AL� i al(III'..t "VA, 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: Seminole Trail Fire Station Plan preparer: DJG Inc [fax 757- 253 -2319] Owner or rep.: County of Albemarle [434-872-4501] Plan received date: 4 Feb 2013 Date of comments: 14 Mar 2013 • Reviewer: Michelle Roberge A. Site Development Plan (SDP201300009) r,.^.-.11 � Please provide a VDOT permit to work on Berkmar Drive. '� d tole' i 2. The access road to the parking lot is too steep. Per 18- 4.12.17 the entrances cannot exceed 4 %, but this will be difficult. I recommend reducing the slope where it is 20% to about 12 %. 3. The vehicle access aisles to the parking lot cannot exceed a 10% grade per section 4.12.17. This will also be difficult, but a 12% is a reasonable alternative. Please request a waiver in writing and provide all the necessary informatation to justify that no reasonable design alternative exists. 4. The parking area cannot exceed 5% grade anywhere, in any direction per section 4.12.15.-Please 5. The SW corner of the emergency access where it meets Berkmar Drive appears to show a 10' shoulder that just ends. I recommend the 50' radius, with curb and gutter to adjoin Berkmar Drive. 6. Please provide a bumper block for the handicap parking adjacent to sidewalk. A building permit is required for retaining walls. Please also provide : 1) the retaini wall detail; 2) specific details where pipes from the cistern penetrate the retaini g wall; and certified design. rs it ‘44 ��Qrv�c 2G` I have submitted my recommendation for the disturbance the critical slopes, but this still needs to e approved by the Board of Supervisors. . It appears a deck is being proposed. A building permit is required for a deck. Sincerely, e " i 1 Michelle Roberge