HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP200900051 Review Comments Preliminary Site Plan 2009-08-14*-&A
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Elizabeth Marotta, Current Development Project Planner
From: Phil Custer, Current Development engineering review
Date: 14 June 2009
(Rev. 1) 14 August 2009
Subject: South Plains Presbyterian Church Preliminary Site Plan (SDP- 2009 - 00051)
The second submittal of the preliminary site plan for the South Plains Presbyterian Church has been
reviewed.
The stormwater quality computations should be revised. On the plan, please show the drainage
area from the point of analysis used in the Simple Method Spreadsheet. The point of analysis
should be positioned at a reasonable location that would capture as much of the developed site
runoff as possible, but not the entire property. In addition, using sheet flow as a stormwater
quality measure is not appropriate for this site because water concentrates in the VDOT roadside
ditch or the 12" culvert before reaching a vegetated buffer.
A notable portion of the site drains to the roadside ditch on Route 22 and this should be shown
graphically. Also, the three areas specified in the spreadsheet (4.66 acres in project area, 5.15
acres totaled in the pre - development column, and 4.80 acres totaled in the post - development
column) should all be equal, but are not.
(Rev. 1) The conceptual stormwater management plan is adequate for preliminary approval,
except for the note on the cover sheet stating that the water quality treatment is provided
through the use of a vegetated buffer. When the WPO plan is submitted for ESC and SWM
quality review
, please make sure to provide the following:
-a modified simple spreadsheet for each SWM facility
for infiltration facilities, soil permeability tests (at least two per facility)
-an evaluation of the downstream channel confirming compliance with VESCH Minimum
Standard 19
facilities meeting all standards specified in the latest edition of the design manual
2. Engineering review will not require detention with Phase I due to the small area of site
disturbance. However, when Phase II is constructed detention will need to be provided and the
pre - development rates will need to be computed by using the condition of the site as it exists now,
before the construction of the Fellowship Hall.
(Rev. 1) Comment has been noted by the applicant.
The existing entrance to the parking lot should be improved at this time so that one safe
connection to a public street is provided. The entrance should be located where shown on the
approved SP.
(Rev. 1) Engineering review notes that VDOT has consented to the phasing of the entrance
upgrade. However, it is still the position of county engineering that the existing condition of
uncontrolled access onto the public road should be corrected with this plan. The current
arrangement of the parking lot meets no existing county or VDOT standard. If the plan were
Current Development
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 2
approved as currently proposed, it would not meet section 18- 32.7.2 which directs the agent or
Planning Commission to "reduce or prevent congestion in the public streets" and "minimize
conflict and friction with vehicular traffic on the public street" in the opinion of county
engineering.
Engineering review also acknowledges the applicants' contention that two notes on sheet 4 of
the approved application plan indicate that the parking lot upgrades will occur in phase II of
the development. Engineering review believes there is a legitimate distinction between the
reconfiguration of the parking lot to meet increased parking demand (not warranted in phase I)
and the upgrade of the entrance for the purposes of meeting safe and convenient access
requirements.