HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201500003 Review Comments Initial Site Plan 2015-03-04• 1-. 0* .
• W-1 1 - .fir s
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 4, 2015
Marcia Joseph
481 Clarks Tract
Keswick, VA 22947
RE: SDP - 2015 -00003 All Saints Chapel _ Site Plan- Initial
Ms. Joseph:
The Site Review Committee has reviewed the development proposal referenced above. Initial
comments for the following divisions of the Department of Community Development and other
agencies, as applicable, are attached:
Albemarle County Planning Services
Albemarle County Architectural Review Board (ARB)
Albemarle County Inspections Division
Albemarle County Department of Fire Rescue
Rivanna Water Sewer Authority
Albemarle County Information Services (E911)
Virginia Department of Health
Albemarle County Zoning Division
Albemarle County Engineering Services
Virginia Department of Transportation
Comments reflect information available at the time the development proposal was reviewed, and
should not be considered final. However, the Site Review Committee has attempted to identify
all issues that will be required to be resolved prior to Final Site Plan approval.
Please contact me at your earliest convenience if you have questions or require additional
information.
Sincerely,
hristopher P. Perez
Senior Planner
�oF A�
9 _1 �17T
��RGINIP
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
March 4, 2015
Marcia Joseph
481 Clarks Tract
Keswick, VA 22947
RE: SDP - 2015 -00003 All Saints Chapel _ Site Plan- Initial
Dear Ms. Joseph:
Department of Community Development has reviewed the above referenced site plan (dated 1- 21 -15) against
applicable codes and ordinances. Comments are provided below:
Site Plan Exception (Waiver) Requests
• Scale of the Project— a scale of 1" = 30' is adequate for site review purposes. The request does
not require an exception.
• Requested Gravel Parking Surface — County Engineering and Planning staff have approved the
request for gravel parking and access aisle because the surface has been deemed equivalent in regard
to strength, durability, sustainability and long term maintenance for the intensity of the use. This
approval does not necessarily apply to the entrance to the site as VDOT requirements for the entrance
to the site dictate the entrance design. Please work with VDOT to ensure the entrance is adequately
designed to include adequate surface material.
• Onsite Layout of Parking — The Agent does not approve this request as the location of the
parking area and drive aisles is a crucial element of the proposal for various review agencies including
ARB, Planning, and Engineering. Requiring the parking layout information on the plan would not
result in substantial injustice or hardship. To allow the parking layout to be adjusted to field conditions
through an exception may also give way to the entrance shifts from it's approved location to
accommodate the adjustments. It is recommended that with the initial site plan the applicant provide a
landscaping plan that shows trees to be preserved and trees to be cleared, this will allow for proper
planning of parking area location. Notably any minor shifts in approved parking area may be handled
through a letter of revision or minor amendment to the site plan.
• Utilities -the site is under 10,000 SF of disturbance, as such there are no stormwater management
facility requirements for the site. Thus "utilities" related to stormwater management are not required,
this does not require an exception. Please note that existing and proposed utilities (telephone, cable,
electric, water, and gas easements) shall be provided on the plans. County staff does not approve an
exception request to not provide this information. Requiring the utility information on the plan would
not result in substantial injustice or hardship. County staff requires this information to assure that the
proposed improvements do not interfere with existing/proposed utilities. Please verify that all existing
and proposed utilities are provided on the plan.
• Datum Reference — On sheet 1, the source of the site topography is listed as Albemarle County.
County staff assumes this reference means the topographic information was taken from Albemarle
County GIS. If this is the case the datum reference used by the County is "Horizontal NAD83 and
Vertical NAVD88 ". Please provide this information on the site plan. Thus a site plan exception for this
requirement is not needed.
• Streets, Easements and Travelways - The Agent does not approve this request as the location of
the entrance is a crucial element of the proposal for various review agencies including VDOT, ARB,
Planning, and Engineering. The centerline information is utilized for entrance spacing requirements
and for sight distance measurements. Requiring the centerline information on the plan would not result
in substantial injustice or hardship. Please provide the centerline information on the plan.
• Locating Walkways and Sign — The Agent does not approve this request as the location of the
walkways/ pedestrian access ways relates to the parking and safe and convenient accessibility to the
building. Requiring the walkways and handicapped signs would not result in substantial injustice or
hardship. Revise the plan to depict the location of pedestrian pathway from the parking area to the
building. Also, assure that the handicapped parking area is provided with a handicapped sign.
• Also, it appears the applicant may have attempted to request an exception of the
landscaping requirements. While this request is not clearly provided for in the "Site Plan Waiver
Request ", staff is responding to the potential request based on a single sentence provided on page 2 of
the request: "Because the parking area is minimal this request is to receive relieffrom the landscape
requirements. " and hand written notes provided on the application. The Agent does not approve an
exception to the landscaping requirements for the site as this site is in the Entrance Corridor and ARB
does not support such a request, and the Agent finds requiring the landscape plan would not result in
substantial injustice or hardship. Assure a complete landscape plan is provided with the final site plan.
Notably it is acknowledged the applicant intents to meet the landscape requirements through existing
trees onsite. This may be possible provided the applicant go through the correct steps provided in the
ordinance (Section 32.7.9.4(b)) to quantify /qualify the existing trees.
[32.5.2(p) & 32.7.9.4(b)] Existing trees may be preserved in lieu of planting new plant materials in
order to satisfy the landscaping and screening requirements of section 32.7.9, subject to the agent's
approval. If you intend to use existing trees to satisfy any of the landscape plan requirements, please
include the following:
1. Areas and other features shown on landscape plan. The landscape plan shall 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.
2. Conservation checklist. The applicant shall sign a conservation checklist approved by the agent
to ensure that the specified trees will be protected during construction. Except as otherwise
expressly approved by the agent in a particular case, the checklist shall conform to the
specifications in the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook, pages III -393 through III -
413, and as hereafter amended.
2. [32.5.2(a)] Zoning. On sheet 1 of the site plan list all site plan exceptions (waivers) which were
approved for the site. Please provide the following note which summarized the exceptions approved
for the site:
"1. Gravel parking and access aisles have been permitted for the site pursuant to section 32.3.5
Variations and exceptions, which allow modification of 32.7.3 Onsite parking, which is designed and
constructed as provided in section 4.12. "
3. [17 -1003] Groundwater Tier III Assessment. This is a non - residential site plan not serviced by public
water; as such it requires a Groundwater Assessment. Based on water usage information provided in
the soil work for the proposed septic system, I presume the use will utilize less than 2,000 gallons /day
on average. If this is the case, a Tier III review will need to be conducted and submitted to the County
and the applicant shall pay a $510 fee for review. If the water usage is above 2, 000 gallons /day a Tier
IV review is required. A Tier III Groundwater Assessment is required prior to approval of final site
plan.
4. [32.5.2(n),17 -403] The site plan depicts the septic site location as not to cause trees to be taken down.
Is this an accurate representation? If trees are to come down to install septic onsite please depict this on
the plan. Also, was the drainfield area included in the total disturbed area for the site? If not, this may
cause your site to be over 10,000 SF land disturbance. Please coordinate with the Engineering
Department (see comment #6 of Engineering's March 2, 2015 comment letter). Revise appropriately.
5. [32.5.2(n)] Clearly depict and label limits of disturbance and show areas where existing vegetation will
be removed.
6. [Comment] Virginia Department of Health approval of septic permit is required prior to final site plan
approval.
[32.5.2(a)] Setbacks. This is a Non - Residential /Commercial Use in the Residential (VR) zoning
district; however, the setbacks which should be applied to the site should be of commercial standards
to the following extent: Side and rear setbacks shall be commercial setback standards, as set forth in
Section 21.7(b) of the Albemarle Zoning Ordinance, and shall be maintained adjacent to residential
uses or residentially zoned properties. Front yard setbacks associated with parking shall be commercial
setback standards, as set forth in Section 21.7(a) of the Albemarle Zoning Ordinance. Revise plan to
depict and label these setbacks. ,
8. [4.12.16(e)] The site plan does not label whether the proposal utilizes Curb-and Gutter. Being the
applicant has requested and been granted a surface material exception to allow the parking area and
access aisle to be gravel, staff assumes the applicant does not intend to provide curb and gutter.
Notably the amount of parking provided does not meet the minimum threshold for curb and gutter to
be required. As such the applicant shall provide bumper blocks for each parking space. Assure the
required bumper blocks meet the requirements of 4.12.16(e). Revise appropriately.
9. [32.5.2(a)] General information. The plan lists the ownership of the properly as Grace Episcopal
Church; however, County Real Estate Records list the owner as Trustees of St. Johns Mission Church.
Revise appropriately.
10. [32.5.2 (m) & (n), 4.12.17(b)] Entrances. "Entrances to parking areas from public streets or private
roads shall be designed and constructed in accordance with Virginia Department of Transportation
standards... " VDOT's approval of the entrance design shall be required.
11. [32.5.2(a)] Zoning. On the plan assure the Special Use Permit number associated with the church is
listed: "SP201500007 —All Saints Chapel - Special Use Permit ". Prior to final site plan approval
assure the approval date of the SP is also provided as well as any conditions of approval. Please be
aware that the final site plan cannot be approved until the Special Use Permit has been approved.
12. [32.5.2(a)] Zoning. Add Entrance Corridor (EC) to the Zoning note on sheet 1.
13. [32.5.2(a)] Being this site is located in the Entrance Corridor (EC), approval from the Architectural
Review Board (ARB) is required prior to final site plan approval. See -4RB comments from Margaret
below.
14. [32.5.2(n), 4.12.8] Walkways. On the plan provide pedestrian walkway leading from the parking lot to
the building entrance. Assure the dimensions are provided on the plan along with proposed
construction material. Revise appropriately.
15. [32.5.2(n)] It is recommended that the handicapped parking space turn around be redesigned, as
currently if a car or van pulled into the space it would not be able to back out without going into the
grass. Over time this movement could damaging the root system of an existing tree. Staff suggests a
larger turnaround design to accommodate this space to safely back out within the gravel drive aisle
area. Please work with Engineering staff to design an appropriate turn around.
16. [Comment] On sheet 1, under the title of the plan provide the SDP# for the project:
"SDP201500003 -All Saints Chapel - Initial Site Plan ".
17. [32.5.2(a)] General Information. The source of the topography is listed as Albemarle County;
however, this is misleading. If the source was the Albemarle County Geographic Information System
(GIS), please label it as such. Revise appropriately. Also, per county GIS it appears there are critical
slopes at the far southeastern corner of the property, please depict and label these. Also address
Engineering's concerns related to the topographic information. See Engineering's comments, attached.
18. [32.5.2(b)] On the plan list the maximum amount of impervious cover on the site. This shall also
include the gravel parking/drive aisle areas.
19. [32.5.2(e)] Landscape features. Currently the plan does not clearly depict existing conditions,
including existing trees; rather, the plan solely depicts the proposal. On the plan provide an existing
conditions sheet which accurately depicts existing landscape features as described in Section
32.7.9.4(c).
20. [32.5.2(f)] On the plan provide a note indicating that "The site is not located within a watershed of a
public water supply reservoir. "
21. [32.5.2(i)] Label the width of the existing rfghts -of -way for Route 20.
22. [32.5.2(r)] Symbols and abbreviations. On the plan provide a legend showing all symbols and
abbreviations used on the plan.
23. [32.5.2(0)] Clearly show any areas intended to be dedicated or reserved for dedication to public use
(such as street right -of -way), and provide a note stating that the land is to be dedicated or reserved, for
public use. Notably, a plat submittal will be required for any proposed right -of -way dedication.
24. [32.5.2(n)] On the plan it is unclear as to what is happening with the existing entrance/ existing gravel
pull off area. Revise to clearly depict what is proposed. See VDOT's comments, attached.
25. [32.5.2(n) & (p)] The following will also be required for final site plan approval:
- If any outdoor lighting is proposed - Outdoor lighting information including a photometric plan
and location, description, and photograph or diagram of each type of outdoor luminaire [Sec.
32.7.8 & Sec. 4.17]
- A landscape plan in accordance with [Sec. 32.7.9].
ARB — Margaret Maliszewski
The ARB meeting for the project took place on March 2, 2015. A formal action memo or letter has yet to
be prepared but is forthcoming. Below I offer the following regarding the initial site plan design:
Motion: Mr. Lebo moved that the ARB forward the recommendations outlined in the staff report to the
agent for the Site Review Committee, as follows:
Regarding requirements to satisfy the design guidelines as per § 18- 30.6.4(2), (3) and (5):
1. Show on the plan existing trees to be retained or new trees to be planted to meet frontage
requirements west of the western fence /fence post.
2. Revise the plan to show 3 additional trees (existing to be retained or new to be planted) along the
south and east sides of the parking lot to meet the perimeter parking lot requirement.
3. Revise the plan to show the existing fence posts. Include a note on the plan indicating except for
repair and maintenance of the fence where there is no substantial change in design, and except for
renovation of the fence to accommodate a gate to provide access from the parking area to the
existing front entrance of the chapel where the gate design is compatible with the fence design, the
fence and its end posts shall be retained without change.
Regarding recommendations on the plan as it relates to the guidelines:
1. Reconfigure the entrance drive and parking to reduce clearing and paving in close proximity to the
EC.
Regarding recommended conditions of initial plan approval:
1. A Certificate of Appropriateness is required prior to final site plan approval.
2. Indicate existing and proposed materials and colors on the elevation drawing. New materials and
colors shall be compatible with those of the historic chapel.
3. Provide window glass specs on the elevation drawing: Include a note stating that Visible Light
Transmittance (VLT) shall not drop below 40% and Visible Light Reflectance (VLR) shall not
exceed 30 %.
4. Add the standard equipment note to both the site plan and the architectural plan: "Visibility of all
mechanical equipment from the Entrance Corridor shall be eliminated."
5. If lighting is proposed, show it on the plan and ensure that all related ordinance and site plan
requirements are met.
6. Show on the plan existing trees to be retained or new trees to be planted to meet frontage
requirements west of the western fence /fence post.
7. Revise the plan to show 3 additional trees (existing to be retained or new to be planted) along the
south and east sides of the parking lot to meet the perimeter parking lot requirement.
8. Revise the plan to show the existing fence posts. Include a note on the plan indicating except for
repair and maintenance of the fence where there is no substantial change in design, and except for
renovation of the fence to accommodate a gate to provide access from the parking area to the
existing front entrance of the chapel where the gate design is compatible in form and materials
with the fence design, the fence and its end posts shall be retained without change.
9. Show on the plan the sidewalk proposed from the parking area to the church. Coordinate its
location with the existing fences, without altering the fences.
10. Outside the "tree line to remain" show all individual trees to remain on the plan, with size and
species identified.
Regarding conditions to be satisfied prior to issuance of a grading permit:
1. Show tree protection fencing on the plan. Provide a Conservation Checklist.
Mr. Missel seconded the motion.
The motion carried by a vote of 4:0.
Building Inspections — Jay Schlothauer
1) Rearrange the barrier -free parking space so that it is van- accessible (8' wide striped access aisle).
Fire and Rescue — Robbie Gilmer
1. No objections
RWSA — Victoria Fort
1. No objections
E911— Andrew Slack
Approved
Health Department - Josh Kirtley
1. I've reviewed the above mentioned application and things look pretty good. The applicant included
soils work in their submittal showing the proposed sewage disposal system and well. I have no major
issues with the work as submitted. Please note that it doesn't appear that we've received the plans nor that
we've issued the permit to install either the septic system or well. Just wanted to throw that. out there
because I don't want the applicant to think that the SP approval is the same as the VDH approval. Please
inform the applicant of this observation.
Zoning — Francis MacCall
1. The analysis of the parking spaces provided by the applicant is sufficient for use that currently exists and
for the expansion of the social hall. If additional parking is needed they should be able to work out a
parking agreement with the school and any pedestrian access to the church from the school parking lots
should be made part of the concept plan.
Engineering — Michelle Roberge
See attached comments dated March 2, 2015
VDOT— Shelly Plaster
See attached comments dated March 2, 2015
Please contact Christopher P. Perez in the Planning Division by using pperez@albemarle.org or 434 -296-
5832 ext. 3443 for further information or if you have questions.
� pF AIL
u ��e F•.
�'rRCN1r
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, VA, 22902
Phone 434 - 296 -5832 Fax 434 - 972 -4126
Memorandum
To: Chris Perez
From: Michelle Roberge, Engineering Department
Division: Engineering
Date: March 2, 2015
Subject: All Saints Chapel SDP201500003, SP201500007, and Waivers
I have reviewed the plan for the applications noted above and offer the following recommendations for the
applicant. The comments are those that have been identified at this time. Additional comments may be added
or eliminated based on further review.
SDP201600003 Initial Site Plan
1) Date and source the topographic information [18- 32.6.2]. All topography should be at least visually
field verified by the designer within the last year. State on the plan when the topo was field verified.
2) The submitted topo appears to be flat where parking, new bldg, and travelway are shown. After
conducting a site visit, the areas are not flat. Please provide more accurate topo. This will impact
the site due to the following:
a) Parking max grade is 5% in all direction [4.12.16(c)]. Fill appears to be needed and should be
shown on the proposed grading plan.
b) Section 4.12.17(a) Grade for vehicle access aisles not adjacent to parking spaces.
Vehicle access aisles that are not adjacent to parking spaces, shall not exceed a grade of ten
(10) percent. The county engineer may increase the maximum grade, upon a finding that no
reasonable design alternative would reduce or alleviate the need and that the increase in grade
would be in the best interest of public health, safety and welfare. The developer must request
the waiver in writing and provide all information necessary to justify that no reasonable design
alternative exists. In no case shall the grade exceed private road standards set forth in section
14 -514 of the Code.
It appears the applicant will not meet the 10% max grade. I recommend the applicant revising
the grading plan to reflect the possible max grade. There is an option to submit a waiver to the
County Engineer.
3) Sidewalk abutting parking is 5' wide with bumper blocks. Per 4.12.6(e), bumper blocks shall be
constructed of a durable material such as concrete or treated timbers. Each bumper block shall be a
minimum length of six (6) feet, a maximum height of five (5) inches, and shall be securely anchored
into the pavement in at least two (2) places.
4) 1 recommend the applicant provide more detail on pedestrian path, or the area between the parking
and bldg.
5) 1 recommend providing a posted sign for the handicap parking space.
6) It appears the drainfield area was not included in the limit of disturbance. This will increase limits of
disturbance to greater than 10,000 sf. A VSMP plan is required.
SP201500007 Special Use Permit
1) 1 have no objection.
Waivers
• Applicant is requesting a waiver for the paved surface requirement.
I recommend approval of gravel surface for parking and parking aisle. I also recommend bumper blocks
for the four spaces facing the building since the area between the parking and the building appears to
be an unpaved sidewalk.
• Applicant is requesting an approved parking layout on a site plan to be adjusted as a response to field
conditions.
It appears there is no waiver for this process. My recommendation is for the applicant to include a
landscaping plan that shows trees to be preserved and trees to be cleared. Also, any revision to an
approved site plan requires another review through letter of revision or amendment.
• Applicant is requesting a waiver for showing existing utilities.
It appears the agent will need a special exceptions request. See code below. I don't recommend
approval. I recommend applicant to verify that no other utilities, such as gas or electric, are in the
location of the drainfield or proposed bldg.
See 32.3.5.
a. Exception from requirement to provide certain details in site plan. The agent may except certain
details ofa site plan and any amendment to a site plan otherwise required by sections 32.5 and 32.6 as
provided herein:
1. Request for exception. A developer requesting an exception shall submit to the agent a written
request stating the reasons for the request and addressing the applicable finding in subsection
(a)(2).
2. Finding. An exception may be approved if the agent finds that unusual situations exist or that strict
adherence to requiring the details in sections 32.5 or 32.6 would result in substantial injustice or
hardship. This finding shall be supported by information from the site review committee that all of
the details required by sections 32.5 and 32.6 are not necessary for its review of the proposed
development, and from the zoning administrator, in consultation with the county engineer, that the
details waived are not necessary to determine that the site is developed in compliance with this
chapter and all other applicable laws.
• Applicant is requesting a waiver for a datum reference.
The applicant is using topography from Albermarle County GIS. Our data is provided by Virginia
Geographic Information Network (VGIN). Datum is NAD 83 and NAVD 88. It appears the waiver is not
necessary with the topo shown. However, per comment 1 under "Initial Site Plan," applicant should
provide more accurate topo.
• 1 recommend street, easement, travelways and walkways to be shown and dimensioned on a final site
plan. Zoning will verify items are built in accordance with an approved plan. Also, the site plan will be
documented and filed.
Please contact Michelle Roberge in the Engineering Department at mroberae@albemarle.org or 434 - 296 -5832
ext. 3458 for further information.
(3( )MMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper, Virginia 22701
Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E.
Commissioner
March 2, 2015
Mr. Christopher Perez
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: SDP - 2015 -00003 All Saints Chapel
Dear Mr. Perez,
We have reviewed the All Saints Chapel Initial Site Plan, prepared by Marcia Joseph, with a plan
date of January 21, 2015. The following items will need to be addressed in the final site plan.
1. The proposed entrance will need to meet the minimum design requirements for a
Moderate Volume Commercial Entrance. See appendix F of the VDOT Road Design
Manual. I.e.: minimum entrance /exit radius is 25' rather than 15' as shown, etc.
2. Adequate intersection sight distance will need to be verified.
3. Drainage shall be considered in the design of the entrance grades and along the right of
way at the entrance.
4. VDOT would like the owner to contribute 25'of road frontage to be dedicated as right of
way.
5. A maintenance of traffic plan will be required.
6. The gravel in the existing pull off /parking area should be removed and reseeded. Positive
drainage should be also established in thin area.
If you need further information concerning this project, please do not hesitate to contact me
at (434) 422 -9894.
Sincerely,
/41
Shelly A. Plaster
Land Development Engineer
Culpeper District
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING