HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201400046 Review Comments Major Amendment, Final Site Plan 2014-07-24COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
718 14
Revised comments after SRC meeting 7-24-14
Justin Shimp
201 E. Main Street, Suite M
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: SDP -201400046 Christian Aid Mission — Major Site Plan Amendment
Mr. Shimp:
Your Major Amendment application has been reviewed. In front of each comment 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 order for the amended site plan to be approved the following revisions are required:
1. [Comment] Staff suggests the applicant request to defer the site plan till after the Special
Use Permit is acted on at the August 13'' BOS meeting to determine if the applicant
would like to move forward.
2. [32.5.2(a)] General Information. On sheet 1, under Existing Use, Church and School are
listed; however, this is misleading as the Church is permitted by right and the School of
Special Instruction is only permitted by Special Use Permit. On the plan please provide
the applicable SP number for the school, SP2013-10, and provide a note that conditions
of approval apply.
3. [32.5.2(a)] General Information. On the plan provide the zoning districts and the uses of
abutting properties.
4. [32.5.2(a)] On the plan provide the parcel size (acreage).
5. [32.5.2(d)] Topography and proposed grading. The plan does not accurately depict all
areas of the site which contain critical slopes, revise to show all critical slopes on the
property. This should not affect the critical slope waiver as the area proposed to be
disturbed by the new entrance appears to be accurate. Revised to show all critical slopes
onsite prior to the site plan approval.
6. [32.5.2(d)] Topography and proposed grading. As noted above, a critical slope waiver
(Special Exception) is requested for the site, the Special Exception shall be approved by
the Board of Supervisors prior to approval of the site plan.
1
7. [32.5.2e, 32.5.2p, 32.6.20)], 32.7.9.4] Landscape plan. A landscape plan that complies
with section 32.7.9 is required prior to the Major Site Plan Amendment approval. The
landscape plan shall verify that the site satisfies the minimum landscaping and screening
requirements of Section 32. See comments below.
8. 132.6.20) & 32.7.9.5] Provide a note indicating the number of street trees required and
the number provided.
Upon the applicant's request staff discussed the landscaping requirements for the
site with Zoning. Per discussions with Zoning, the pork chop modification to the
existing Rte 250 entrace is not a significant modification to the property to cause the
sites' street tree landscaping along Rte 250 to be upgraded to meet todays
ordinance. The original comment no longer applies to the frontage of Rte 250;
however, still applies to modifications along Broomley Road.
9. [32.6.20) & 32.7.9.6] Provide a note to demonstrate that an area a minimum of 5% of the
paved parking and vehicular circular area is landscaped in shrubs and trees. The note
should list the number of parking lot trees required and the number provided. See section
32.7.9.6(b) for additional information.
Upon the applicant's request staff discussed the landscaping requirements for the
site with Zoning. Per discussions with Zoning, because no new parking spaces are
being proposed the sites' parking lot landscaping is not required to be upgraded to
meet todays ordinance. The original comment no longer applies. If new parking is
proposed the area of that parking shall meet the parking lot landscaping requirements.
10. [32.5.2(e), 32.7.9.4(c)] Existing Landscape Features. On the plan identify whether the
existing wooded areas are composed of evergreen, deciduous, or a mix of type. They
appear to be a mix of both types.
11. [32.5.2(e), 32.7.9.4(c)] Existing Landscape Features. On the plan in the area adjacent to
the new entrance, the existing tree line is depicted past the existing brick walk towards
the new entrance; however, actual site conditions do not have the tree line going past the
brick walk, rather only low ground cover extends to the area of disturbance. Revise
appropriately. Also, on the opposite side of the proposed entrance closest to Rte 250 there
is a clump of three (3) trees which has grown together, these are not depicted on the site
plan? Revise to include these trees. If they are to be removed for sight distance, make
note of this on the plan.
12. [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 some 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 Virgainia
Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook, pp III -284 through III -297, and as hereafter
2.
amended. This checklist must be signed, dated, and added to the landscape plan sheet.
13. [32.5.2(1)] Provide the right-of-way and pavement width for Broomley Road and Rte 250.
14. [32.5.2(1)] Provide the pavement width for both entrances and their associated
accessways.
15. [32.6.2(i)] Dimension all travelways and provide directional arrows to signify traffic flow
throughout the site.
16. [32.5.2(n)] Label and dimension any existing walkways.
17. [32.6.2(i)] Show the location of loading space(s) and provide dimensions.
18. [4.12.6] Parking requirements. On sheet l under Parking Schedule, the Guest House
utilized parking calculations of Single Family Detatched; however, this type of unit is
truly Multi Family and shall be calculated using those requirements. Please note that
SDP92-52 utilized the correct calculation figures. On the plan provide the number of
bedrooms per unit in the Guest House and recalculate the required parking.
19. [4.12.6] Parking requirements. On sheet 1 under Parking Schedule, the private school
parking calculations have a mathmatical typographical error. The number of spaces
required is listed as 30 spaces; however, it should be 31 required as proposed. Revise
appropriately.
20. [4.12.6] Parking requirements. On the plan depict and deminsion all parking spaces.
21. [4.12.6] Parking requirements. On the plan distinguish between previously approved
parking spaces from SDP92-52 and existing non approved parking which has not been
approved on a site plan. Notably there appears to be discrepancies in parking spaces
throughout the plan from what was approved and what is currently depicted. Revise and
clarify.
22. [32.5.2(n), 32.6.2(k) & 4.17] Lighting. On the plan depict all lighting onsite.
If site lighting is being proposed to be modified to include any additional lighting being
added, or existing lighting being relocated to new locations on the site, or modifications
to existing lighting (other than removal of lights), then alighting plan shall be required.
Is there any existing non approved site lighting which has not been approved on a site
plan? If so, all lighting (including building mounted fixtures) must be shown on a
lighting plan that includes a photometric plan, luminaire schedule and cut sheets for each
proposed fixture.
23. [32.5.2(n), 32.6.2(k) & 4.17] Lighting. On the plan (Sheet C2 and C4) lighting is
depicted at the existing entrance near the sign for the site; however, no such light exists.
Remove this from the plan.. Also, on the plan (Sheet C2 and C3) verify that a light is
located in front of the church near the 10,000 gal underground cistern. Notably the
approved site plan does not provide a light there. Revise appropriately.
24. [32.5.2(q)] Traffic generation figures. On the plan provide traffic generation figures for
the site based on current VDOT rates. Indicate the estimated number of vehicles per day
and the direction of travel for all connections from the site to a public street.
25. [32.6.2(f)] Street sections. On the plan provide the symmetrical transition of pavement at
intersection with existing street.
26. [32.5.2(1)] Existing Utilities. The proposed entrance crosses a VEPCO easement. Is this
permitted in the easement? Please confirm that this easement is for an overhead
powerline.
27. [32.5.2(n)] Existing improvements. The school installed a wooden fence as part of the
Special Use Permit at the rear of the property to prohibit kick ball and soccer balls from
rolling down the hill. On the plan depict this fence and it's height.
28. [32.6.2(h)] Signature panel. Update the required signature panel to include the Health
Department.
29. [Comment] On sheet 1 provide the site plan number: "SDP2014-46 Major Amendment
to SDP92-52".
30. [32.5.2(r), 32.6.2(e)5] Provide a legend showing all symbols and abbreviations used on
the plan.
31. 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. Below I have
provided comments from the various Site Plan Committee (SRC) reviewers. Prior to final site
plan approval their comments shall have been adequately addressed.
Engineering — Glenn Brooks
1) Approved - This is what was recommended with the special use permit, in order to obtain
access to .the signal, and a safer left turn movement onto Rt. 250.
VDOT — Troy Austin
See attached comment letter.
Building Inspections — Jay Schlothauer
1) No comments or conditions.
Fire and Rescue — Robbie Gilmer
1) No comments or conditions.
E911—Andrew Slack
1) Approved
4
ACSA —Alex Morrison
1) Approved
Health Department — Joshua Kirtley
See attached comment letter.
ARB — Margaret Maliszewski
See attached comment letter.
Sincerely,
Christopher P. Perez
Senior Planner
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper, M41nla 22701
Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E.
Commissioner
July 14, 2014
Mr. Christopher Perez
Senior Planner
County of Albemarl' '
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: SDP -2014-00046 Christian Aid Mission,—Major Site Plan Amendment
Dear Mr. Perez:
We have reviewed the major site plan amendment for Christian Aid Mission dated 6 914 and the AM -E spacing
exception dated 6#20`14 as submitted by Shimp Engineering, P.C. and offer the following comments:
1. At least a 2' shoulder should be provided along Broomley Road in the vicinity of the proposed riprap,,
2. Turn lane warrants need to be provided for the proposed entrance onto Broomley Road.
3. While it is not anticipated that turn lanes will be warranted for the proposed entrance, an entrance radius
larger than 25' should be provided for the radius on the south side of the proposed entrance onto Broomley
Road to aid vehicles in turning out of the travel lane of Broomley into the new entrance.
4. Sight lines need to.be provided on the proposed plan. Sight distance should be provided such that a driver
in the entrance can see vehicles in the right turn lane along Route 250 at the intersection with Broomley
Road. Vegetation removal and grading may be necessary to achieve this sight distance.
5. The existing entrance onto Route 250 needs to be modified such that left turns cannot be made out of the
entrance onto Route 250. It is likely that a raised concrete island and appropriate signage will be necessary
for this entrance.
AM -E Comments
1. Broomley Road has a functional classification as a Rural Minor Collector rather than as a Local Road. The
collector spacing from a signalized intersection to a full access entrance is required instead of the corner
clearance requirement. The required spacing is 440 feet rather than 225 feet.
2. A traffic engineering study documenting that Ieft tum movements will not have a negative impact on
Highway operation or safety was not included with the AM -E.
If you need additional information concerning this project, please do not hesitate to contact me at (434) 589-5871.
Sincerely,
Troy Austin, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Culpeper District
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
Christopher Perez
From: Kirtley, Joshua (VDH) [Joshua. Kirtley@vdh.virginia.gov]
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 9:33 AM
To: Christopher Perez
Subject: RE: SRC item, SDP2014-46 Christian Aid Mission.
Chris:
I would request that the applicant "demonstrate" that the proposed entrance will not impact the existing
septic system or reserve area on the site plan. I recall speaking to a gentleman who was conducting research
here in the office regarding this project, so they should have a heads up on this.
Given that I cannot comment as to whether or not the anything will be "impacted", and the fact that I haven't
heard back from the engineering firm, this is the biggest issue that I have with this proposal. I feel that if the
applicant successfully proves that there will be no impact to the existing septic system or reserve area, then I
will have no issue with their proposal.
Let me know if you need anything further.
Josh
From: Christopher Perez [mailto:cperezCabalbemarle.org]
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 6:20 AM
To: Kirtley, Joshua (VDH)
Subject: RE: SRC item, SDP2014-46 Christian Aid Mission.
Josh,
Alright, please keep me informed. That information is certainly interesting news ... I have not received any comments
from you, whenever you finalize that finding or comment, please provide that information to me asap. Thank you.
Christopher P. Perez I Senior Planner
Department of Community Development lCounty of Albemarle, Virginia
401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville, VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext. 3443
From: Kirtley, Joshua (VDH) [mailto:Joshua.KirtleyCabvdh.virainia.gov]
Sent: Saturday, July 19, 201410:18 AM
To: Christopher Perez
Subject: RE: SRC item, SDP2014-46 Christian Aid Mission.
Chris:
My recollection is that the proposed entrance may impact one of the septic reserve areas, and thus will need to be
addressed by the applicant. I believe the same engineering firm has been contacted and may have some additional
information. I will contact them and follow up with you once I know more.
From: Christopher Perez [cperez@albemarle.org]
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 5:57 PM
To: Kirtley, Joshua (VDH)
Subject: SRC item, SDP2014-46 Christian Aid Mission.
1
Josh,
Have you had a chance to review the SRC item, SDP2014-46 Christian Aid Mission.
Comments are due to the applicant on Monday, and I wonder if you have looked at it yet. SRC meeting is on the 241h, so
if you cannot get them to me b4 then, that's fine too.
Please note, you all already approved this site and the use back in April 2, 2014 with SP20140005... see attached email.
The site plan under review right now (SDP2014-46) is a new entrance on Broomley Road. You are part of the SRC
committee so I need your approval. That's all. And you'll need to sign the site plan once we are ready to approve it.
Let me know Josh.
Christopher 1'. Perez I Senior Planner
Department of Community Development ICounty of Albemarle, Virginia.
401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville, VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext. 3443
2
Project Name:
Date Completed:
Reviewer:
Department/Division/Agency:
Reviews
Review Comments
Christian Aid Mission - Major Major Amendment
Monday, July 21, 2014
Margaret Maliszewski
ARB
1. Show on the plan the easements associated with the overhead utilities located along Broomley Road.
2. Provide 2%" caliper trees of a species common to the area, outside of easements, in an informal arrangement
near the entrance drive, to help integrate the drive into the surroundings. Trees shall be equivalent in quantity to
40' on center, along both sides of the entrance drive.
3. Add the plant health note to the plan: "All site plantings of trees and shrubs shall be allowed to reach, and be
maintained at, mature height; the topping of trees is prohibited. Shrubs and trees shall be pruned minimally and
only to support the overall health of the plant."
4. Revise the plan to show all the existing trees at the southwest corner of the site.
5. Clarify the tree line north of the proposed drive to more accurately distinguish between tree line and scrub.
6. Show tree protection fencing on the plan.
Review Status: Requested Changes