Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201500001 Review Comments Minor Amendment 2015-06-30Project: Plan preparer: Owner or rep.: Plan received date: (Rev. 1) (Rev. 2) (Rev. 3) Date of comments: (Rev. 1) (Rev. 2) (Rev. 3) Planning Coordinator Reviewer: YlAGIl`11A County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Charlottesville Catholic School, Minor Adam Long; Collins Engineering [200 Garrett St., Suite K, Charlottesville, VA 22902, adam(&collins -en ing eering corn scott@collins -en ing eering com] Catholic Diocese of Richmond, Walter F. Sullivan, Bishop, etal [7800 Carousel Lane, Richmond, VA 23294-42011 20 Jan 2015 9 Mar 2015 14 May 2015 24 Jun 2015 (.PDFs) 13 Feb 2015 23 Mar 2015 8 Jun 2015 30 Jun 2015 (e- review) l No objection Christopher Perez John Anderson Engineering has completed review —prior comments addressed. No objection to Minor SDP Amendment. Note: Applicant must ensure that signature submittal include rev. sheets 1, 2, 4, 6 sent as e- attachment, 6/24/2015 12:42 PM.) Minor Site Plan Amendment (SDP201500001) 1. VDOT advises against CE on Rio Rd East. Relocated CE should avoid routing construction traffic through the existing parking lot. Maximize separation of school and construction traffic. (Rev. 1) Not addressed. Proposed CE utilizes existing parking lot, with construction traffic required to pass through it. Examine and use area N of existing parking lot for temporary construction entrance, or provide alternate point of access (other than Rio Rd E, or existing lot). Do not route construction traffic through existing school parking lot. (Rev. 2) Addressed. 2. Furnish typical detail for transition from roll -top to CG -6. (Rev. 1) Addressed. As follow -up, revise Access Road Sections, sheet 6, to show CG -7 rather than ROLL -FACE CURB & GUTTER. (Rev. 2) Addressed. 3. Furnish VDOT inlet shaping detail. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 4. Plans include detail for 5' wide pedestrian trail (Multi- purpose trail detail; sheet 6). SDP 199900130, sheet C3.20, shows a path adjacent to Rio Rd East, with this note: "(Alignment and surface shall be coordinated with future County path extensions.)" Future county path extension on TMP 61A -15 immediately adjacent (to the south) is for 5' wide, 4" thick concrete walk over 4" compacted stone base. Proposed pedestrian asphalt trailway, sheet 2, should be revised to concrete sidewalk built to VDOT standard. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 5. Road profile, sheet 5: Show beginning and end points for three lower- station VCs, as was done for three higher- station VCs. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 6. Storm drain inlet /pipe hydraulic capacity computations and calculations are not included with sheet 6 (Drainage profiles, notes & details). Computations and calculations are required. (Rev. 1) Addressed. As follow -up, revise inlet #4 throat length (10') or design so that T, spread at curb (right), is < 7.0' ['/2 travelway + gutter pan]. (Rev. 2) Addressed. Follow -M to Applicant response furnished with Letter, 14- May 2015: "A paved basketball court and grassy pavers have been added to provide Fire & Rescue with the required emergency turnaround area." As follow -up: Emergency turnaround area (to my knowledge) is not Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 4 defined or referenced in ordinance or ACDSM: turnaround is. Engineering does not object to innovative design, but it must work. With revised site plan design, for innovative basketball court/grassy pavers, please accept /furnish: a. Grassy pavers must be designed with sub- base/base features equivalent to Access road section. The objective is to support a 67,000 -1b vehicle and avoid collapsed paver sections of turnaround. Mfr. data, sheet 6, provides laboratory compression data. Mfr. schematic installed detail accompanies this data. For site plan engineering approval, correlate Mfr. laboratory and schematic to proposed design for this portion of the 50'R turnaround; include: - Edge treatment: provide CG -7 where grassy pavers transition to turf, edge susceptible to collapse. - Provide (Collins Engr.) typical section for grassy pavers. Mfr. schematic is insufficient. Show sub -base, porous road base, sand bedding, HDPE grassy paver (cell). Specify cell fill material. Provide specifications for sub -base compaction, porous road base, sand bedding, consistent with Mfr. recommendations. Contractor is not expected to interpret/choose among Mfr. options. - Provide data that shows life expectancy of grassy pavers is equivalent to/better than paved surface. b. Although proposed emergency turnaround may serve as daily recreational surface (basketball court), it is, for review purposes, a turnaround. Provide section captioned BASKETBALL COURT that is identical with Access road section. That is, proposed emergency turnaround is a paved turnaround. It may be painted to serve as a basketball court. C. Stripe and label 11' wide section between court and concrete ribbon: `Fire Lane, NO PARKING.' d. A BASKETBALL COURT section not identical with Access road section will be disapproved. e. Ensure that every portion of 50'R circular area (except grassy pavers) proposed to serve as fire /rescue turnaround is clearly labeled in plan view to be built to Access road design: this includes not all the basketball court, but it is impractical to build circular portion of court to one standard, slight remnants at NE/NW corners to another (depth/specification/materials). Design must be practical. Entire basketball court should be designed and built equivalent to Access road section. Area south of basketball court, between court and concrete ribbon (Fire Lane, No Parking), should be built to Access road section. f. Review comment request for Access road section depth - specifications is supported by ordinance— a recreational court serving as turnaround for 35 -ton fire /rescue vehicles is not. g. Provide typical for concrete ribbon equivalent in strength to Access road section. (Also, comment # 20Nerify Access road section adequate.) (Rev. 3) Addressed. (Rev. 1) Comments 7 -13 no longer relevant to this site plan, but please note follow -up, comment # 10. 7. Minor Site Plan Amendment approval is contingent upon VSMP plan approval. (Rev. 1) Acknowledged. 8. Sheets 7, 8, and 8 (there are two sheet 8s) should be removed and submitted separately, with title sheet: Charlottesville Catholic School VSMP Application, WPO 201500004. VSMP Application (SWPPP, ESCP, SWMP) will not be reviewed as part of Minor Site Plan Amendment. 9. Sheets 7, 8, and 8 (please re- number) do not include VaRRM spreadsheet. Provide VaRRM .xIs. It is unclear if design reflects Part IIB or IIC design criteria. Clarify. 10. Note: VA DEQ Stormwater Design Specification No. 13 applies to constructed wetlands. Sec. 8 of specification contains explicit information that will affect VSMP application review. (Rev. 1) As follow - up, Sec. 5, Contributing Drainage Area, Design Specification No. 13, indicates 1.55 Ac. DA is insufficient to sustain a permanent water level. Discussed with G. Murray on 23- Mar -15 –Also, VSMP comments. Reviewer regrets not commenting on design element earlier. (Rev. 2) Addressed; biofilter proposed. 11. Proposed constructed wetlands detail, sheet 7, should be revised to include aquatic bench in profile view. 12. Ref. Design Specification No. 13, 6.9, Wetland Landscaping Plan: provide landscaping plan. 13. Additional VSMP Application comments contingent upon review. –Also, #8, above. Engineering Review Comments Page 3 of 4 New 14. Eliminate Phase III perpendicular parking along travelway. Design should reflect Min. parking standards at 18- 4.12.16. Mixed travelway - perpendicular parking concept does not meet Min site plan parking standards. Parallel parking is an option, or conventional parking with adequate aisle at this location, with travelway continuing through to final, 13 -space parking area. (Rev. 2) Addressed /Applicant response, 14 -May 2015 noted: "Per a phone call between Adam Long and John Anderson on 4/10/15, it is acceptable to provide the perpendicular parking with the Phase III design. These overflow spaces will be used in the future for senior parking, to be designed and constructed at the time of the high school addition. The traffic flow on the proposed travelway will be minimal, but an extra 2' of stall depth has been shown, graphically, for the Phase III spaces to illustrate the flexibility in the future for over - design." [Emphasis added.] As follow up, provide Phase III lines for perpendicular spaces south of Access road, as with perpendicular spaces to the north. Also, the extra 2' stall depth is required by 18- 4.12.16.c.1; therefore, it is not extra. Plan notes, sheet 2, explain that this "Additional parking shall be part of Phase III, to be designed and constructed at the time of the high school addition." Access road section is 20' EP /EP, equivalent to a 20' Aisle Width. 18- 4.12.16.c.1 requires 18' L /10' W parking spaces. Phase III Access road parking spaces should be 10'W. (Rev. 3) Addressed. 15. Sheet 2, turf parking: Although this may occur in practice, this design does not meet parking or travelway standards. Options: Although off - street sports parking on grass may occur in practice, do not label this area parking on Site Plan. Use roll -top curb type if anticipate vehicles will exit travelway to park at margins of sports complex fields. Or, provide parallel parking to meet on- street parking standards. [18- 4.12.15.a.] (Rev. 2) Addressed. 16. Increase FC radius at entrance to 13 -space parking area, SE corner of site, from 20' to 28' (CL, R =40'). [18- 4.12.15.d./20 mph design speed, private street horizontal std: ACDSM,7.F.Table— Nonresidential] (Rev. 2) Addressed. 17. Consider speed bump at entrance to 13 -space parking area. (Rev. 2) Addressed. 18. Sheet 4 — Provide drainage for (SE corner) branch turnaround in the NE corner of the 13 -space parking lot. (Rev. 2) Addressed. 19. Sheet 4 —Match lines should read `see sheet 3.' (Rev. 2) Addressed. 20. Sheet 6 — Provide pavement design [ref. Note v., upper -left]. Revise pavement layer labels, Asphalt Paving —Roads detail to clearly identify pavement material. For example: VDOT 21 -A, BM -25.0, SM -9.5. (Rev. 2) Partially Addressed. Provide pavement design that supports Access road section —put simply, demonstrate design is adequate. Estimate ADT (school: K -8). Provide Design using VDOT Pavement Design Guide for Subdivisions and Secondary Roads in Virginia (revised 2014), Appendix III formula: DR = 3.48Ln (AADT) — 1.48Ln (SSV) - 7.23 (Rev. 3) Addressed. 21. Sheet 6, Access Road Sections — Specify 4" gravel sub -base type, 4" gravel base type, 2" asphalt type. (Rev. 2) Partially Addressed. Revise Access road section labels: eliminate reference to BM -25.0; BM- 25.0 Asphalt is not proposed. Rather, it appears that the stone component of Asphalt Mix BM -25.0 is proposed, not asphalt. Specify VDOT Aggregate grade being proposed (as pavement structure) beneath 2" SM -9.5 Asphalt. Use of BM -25.0 label is confusing. In addition, revise sheet 1, Road/Pavement Note #1. `Developer' is a parochial school relying on Collins Engineering. It is inappropriate for plans to require that "if the SSV Values are less than 10, the developer will be required to submit for Engineers approval the proposed method of correction." Revise text so design responsibility lies with Collins, not CCS. Further, any test results that may cause /require revision of pavement design should be coordinated by Collins Engineering, not Developer (CCS). Points to consider: - With respect to sheet 6, Mandatory Inspection Note v. — Confirm that an Engineer will examine and confirm depth of existing 4" base course (VDOT 21 -A) prior to placement of the paving course or courses. - Note iv. leaves question how subgrade soil characteristics will be evaluated to determine whether Access road section (pavement design) is adequate, since it lies beneath existing 4" compacted aggregate base course. Explain how subgrade soil characteristics will be evaluated. (Rev. 3) Addressed. 22. Sheet 7 — Provide Design 10 -yr storm table column headings. (Rev. 2) Addressed. 23. Title sheet — Revise SWM Facility Note to reflect facility other than wetland (23- Mar -15 discussion/ Anderson/Murray). (Rev. 1) Addressed. Engineering Review Comments Page 4 of 4 Please contact John Anderson at ianderson2@albemarle.org, or 434 - 296 -5832 - 0069, if any questions. File: SDP201500001 Charlottesville Catholic School MIA 063015rev3 �• �I''lll��• COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 June 8, 2015 Scott Collins, PE Collins Engineering 200 Garrett Street, Suite K Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: SDP201500001 Charlottesville Catholic School — Minor Amendment Dear Sir: Your Minor Amendment application has been reviewed. In order for the amended site plan to be approved the following revisions are required: [SP8 -67 Condition of Approval] As proposed the minor amendment totally eliminates the required 2nd entrance to the site on Rio Road, and the required full frontage improvements on Rio Road. The Special Use Permit has not been amended to omit these aspects of the plan. Revise the site plan to provide both of these items as originally depicted in SDP 1999-130 and required by SP1998- 67/SP98-12. It may be appropriate to show these improvements as part of Phase III as this is when the additional 200 students are to come on board, pending VDOT's approval. The timing of the phases must be noted on the plan. Rev 1. Comment Addressed. 2. [32.5.2(b)] Parking. Verify that the total number of parking spaces provided on sheet 1, under General Notes, is accurate. Currently the plan lists 77 spaces w/ 5 handicapped spaces provided onsite; however, staff counts 94 spaces being provided (82 existing and 12 proposed). Revise appropriately. (Also, see Zoning's comments below). Rev 1. The parking calculations have been revised. Currently the site is providing 153 spaces; however, the site is only approved to have 141 spaces provided per SDP1999 -130 (106 standard, 5 HC, 30 overflow). While the 141 spaces are well over the 20% of the required 102 spaces for the site, they shall be permitted per previous approvals (pending approval by Zoning). Revise the calculations on sheet 1 and the spaces depicted on the plans to only provide 141 spaces total. It is suggested that the 12 spaces to omit come from the overflow portion. If the applicant would like a new parking determination please provide a revised parking analysis for Zoning to consider. Rev 2. Comment Addressed. 2a) [4.12.15(a)] Minimum Design requirements. Sheet 2 depicts 30 overflow spaces, and provides the following note: "Additional turf parking shall be a part of phase III, constructed at the time of the high school addition. " These spaces are not approved to be turf, nor have they been fully designed. To avoid confusion please revise the note on the plan to state: "Additional overflow parking shall be apart of phase III, to be designed and constructed at the time of the high school addition. " Rev 2. Comment Addressed. Also, assure that the other note on sheet 2, which reads: "Additional parking shall be apart of phase III, constructed at the time of the high school addition" is revised to state: "Additional parking shall be apart of phase III, designed and constructed at the time of the high school addition" Rev 2. Comment Addressed. [32.5.2(b)] Parking. On the plan depict the required parking spaces for Phase III (high school building and basketball court) to assure all the required 102 parking spaces are sited appropriately. Revise. Rev 1. Comment Addressed. 4. [32.7.9] Landscaping. Provide a landscape plan for Phase II and Phase III. Assure that the landscaping depicted on SDP1999 -130 for phase II (which is now phase 11 and Phase III) is shown on this site plan. Where these plantings are no longer feasible due to site modifications, relocate them. Rev 1. The landscape plan has been provided; however, it is unclear as to what plantings are taking place with Phase 11 and what are taking place with Phase 111. Specifically along the newly paved portion of the access drive. On the landscape plan clearly label each clouded landscape section along the road as either Phase II or Phase III. At a minimum the first six (London Plane Trees) trees after the curve shall be planted in phase 11 as well as the last 2 London Plane Trees near the new building shall be planted in phase II. The other 5 London Plane Tree plantings along that road can be labeled as Phase III as this is when the parking will be finalized. Also, there appears to be a typographical error for the trees along Rio Rd, currently listed as 13 CR; however, the pant list does not provide such trees, but the previously approved tree type was 13 QR. Revise appropriately. Rev 2. Comment Addressed. 5. 132.6.20) & 32.7.9.4(b), SP8 -67 Condition of Approval #5] Landscaping. 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 the screening requirements of the special use permit condition #5: "screening of driveways and parking areas from residences ", 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 completed, signed, and dated. Rev 1. Comment Addressed. 6. 132.6.2(k) & 4.171 Lighting. Is any outdoor lighting proposed with the site plan amendment? If so, lighting (including building mounted fixtures) must be shown on a lighting plan for Phase 11 that includes a photometric plan, luminaire schedule and cut sheets for each proposed fixture. Rev 1. Comment Addressed. 7. [Comment] On sheet 1 provide the site plan number: "SDP2015 -00001 Minor Site Plan Amendment #2 ". Rev 1. Comment Addressed. New Comment 8. [4.12.15(a)] Minimum Design requirements. Sheet 2 depicts 30 overflow spaces, and provides the following note: "Additional turf parking shall be apart of phase III, constructed at the time of the high school addition. " These spaces are not approved to be turf, nor have they been fully designed. To avoid confusion please revise the note on the plan to state: `Additional overflow parking shall be a part of phase III, to be designed and constructed at the time of the high school addition. " Rev 2. Comment Addressed. 9. [Comment] On the plan clearly label the surface material utilized for the access road and 12 new parking spaces. Rev 2. Comment Addressed. 10. [Comment] Based on VDOT's comment #2 dated 3 -25 -15 it appears they do not want to allow the connection to Rio Rd based on current VDOT regulations. Regardless, at this time the connection shall continue to be depicted as Phase III on the plans. When (or prior to) Phase III comes in for review the issue shall be dealt with. Please be aware that without a Special Use Permit amendment the connection shall be required, unless the Zoning Administrator is able to make a finding that the second entrance is not required based on previous Special Use Permit approvals for this site. Rev 2. Nothing to address with this submittal rather it's for informational purposes. Building Inspections — Jay Schlothauer No objections Zoning — Ron Higgins Previously had no objection VDOT — Shelly Plaster Comments attached dated 5 -26 -15 Engineering — John Anderson See attached comments dated 6 -8 -15 Fire and Rescue — Robbie Gilmer Comments pending ACSA —Alex Morrison Comments pending 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, Christopher P. Perez Senior Planner Planning Division Project: Plan preparer: Owner or rep.: Plan received date: (Rev. 1) (Rev. 2) Date of comments: (Rev. 1) (Rev. 2) Planning Coordinator Reviewer: YlAGIl`11A County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Charlottesville Catholic School, Minor Scott Collins; Collins Engineering [200 Garrett St., Suite K, Charlottesville, VA 22902, scott(gacollins -en ing eering com] Catholic Diocese of Richmond, Walter F. Sullivan, Bishop, etal [7800 Carousel Lane, Richmond, VA 23294-42011 20 Jan 2015 9 Mar 2015 14 May 2015 13 Feb 2015 23 Mar 2015 8 Jun 2015 Christopher Perez John Anderson Engineering has completed review of proposed plans. Minor Site Plan Amendment (SDP201500001) 1. VDOT advises against CE on Rio Rd East. Relocated CE should avoid routing construction traffic through the existing parking lot. Maximize separation of school and construction traffic. (Rev. 1) Not addressed. Proposed CE utilizes existing parking lot, with construction traffic required to pass through it. Examine and use area N of existing parking lot for temporary construction entrance, or provide alternate point of access (other than Rio Rd E, or existing lot). Do not route construction traffic through existing school parking lot. (Rev. 2) Addressed. 2. Furnish typical detail for transition from roll -top to CG -6. (Rev. 1) Addressed. As follow -up, revise Access Road Sections, sheet 6, to show CG -7 rather than ROLL -FACE CURB & GUTTER. (Rev. 2) Addressed. 3. Furnish VDOT inlet shaping detail. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 4. Plans include detail for 5' wide pedestrian trail (Multi- purpose trail detail; sheet 6). SDP 199900130, sheet C3.20, shows a path adjacent to Rio Rd East, with this note: "(Alignment and surface shall be coordinated with future County path extensions.)" Future county path extension on TMP 61A -15 immediately adjacent (to the south) is for 5' wide, 4" thick concrete walk over 4" compacted stone base. Proposed pedestrian asphalt trailway, sheet 2, should be revised to concrete sidewalk built to VDOT standard. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 5. Road profile, sheet 5: Show beginning and end points for three lower- station VCs, as was done for three higher- station VCs. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 6. Storm drain inlet /pipe hydraulic capacity computations and calculations are not included with sheet 6 (Drainage profiles, notes & details). Computations and calculations are required. (Rev. 1) Addressed. As follow -up, revise inlet #4 throat length (10') or design so that T, spread at curb (right), is < 7.0' ['/2 travelway + gutter pan]. (Rev. 2) Addressed. Follow -U to Applicant response furnished with Letter, 14- May 2015: "A paved basketball court and grassy pavers have been added to provide Fire & Rescue with the required emergency turnaround area." As follow -up: Emergency turnaround area (to my knowledge) is not defined or referenced in ordinance or ACDSM: turnaround is. Engineering does not object to innovative Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 3 design, but it must work. With revised site plan design, for innovative basketball court/grassy pavers, please accept/furnish: a. Grassy pavers must be designed with sub - base/base features equivalent to Access road section. The objective is to support a 67,000 -1b vehicle and avoid collapsed paver sections of turnaround. Mfr. data, sheet 6, provides laboratory compression data. Mfr. schematic installed detail accompanies this data. For site plan engineering approval, correlate Mfr. laboratory and schematic to proposed design for this portion of the 50'R turnaround; include: - Edge treatment: provide CG -7 where grassy pavers transition to turf; edge susceptible to collapse. - Provide (Collins Engr.) typical section for grassy pavers. Mfr. schematic is insufficient. Show sub -base, porous road base, sand bedding, HDPE grassy paver (cell). Specify cell fill material. Provide specifications for sub -base compaction, porous road base, sand bedding, consistent with Mfr. recommendations. Contractor is not expected to interpret/choose among Mfr. options. - Provide data that shows life expectancy of grassy pavers is equivalent to/better than paved surface. b. Although proposed emergency turnaround may serve as daily recreational surface (basketball court), it is, for review purposes, a turnaround. Provide section captioned BASKETBALL COURT that is identical with Access road section. That is, proposed emergency turnaround is a paved turnaround. It may be painted to serve as a basketball court. C. Stripe and label 11' wide section between court and concrete ribbon: `Fire Lane, NO PARKING.' d. A BASKETBALL COURT section not identical with Access road section will be disapproved. e. Ensure that every portion of 50'R circular area (except grassy pavers) proposed to serve as fire /rescue turnaround is clearly labeled in plan view to be built to Access road design: this includes not all the basketball court, but it is impractical to build circular portion of court to one standard, slight remnants at NE/NW corners to another (depth/specification/materials). Design must be practical. Entire basketball court should be designed and built equivalent to Access road section. Area south of basketball court, between court and concrete ribbon (Fire Lane, No Parking), should be built to Access road section. f. Review comment request for Access road section depth - specifications is supported by ordinance — a recreational court serving as turnaround for 35 -ton fire /rescue vehicles is not. g. Provide typical for concrete ribbon equivalent in strength to Access road section. (Also, comment # 20Nerify Access road section adequate.) (Rev. 1) Comments 7 -13 no longer relevant to this site plan, but please note follow -up, comment # 10. 7. Minor Site Plan Amendment approval is contingent upon VSMP plan approval. (Rev. 1) Acknowledged. 8. Sheets 7, 8, and 8 (there are two sheet 8s) should be removed and submitted separately, with title sheet: Charlottesville Catholic School VSMP Application, WPO 201500004. VSMP Application (SWPPP, ESOP, SWMP) will not be reviewed as part of Minor Site Plan Amendment. 9. Sheets 7, 8, and 8 (please re- number) do not include VaRRM spreadsheet. Provide VaRRM .xls. It is unclear if design reflects Part IIB or IIC design criteria. Clarify. 10. Note: VA DEQ Stormwater Design Specification No. 13 applies to constructed wetlands. Sec. 8 of specification contains explicit information that will affect VSMP application review. (Rev. 1) As follow - up, Sec. 5, Contributing Drainage Area, Design Specification No. 13, indicates 1.55 Ac. DA is insufficient to sustain a permanent water level. Discussed with G. Murray on 23- Mar -15 –Also, VSMP comments. Reviewer regrets not commenting on design element earlier. (Rev. 2) Addressed; biofilter proposed. 11. Proposed constructed wetlands detail, sheet 7, should be revised to include aquatic bench in profile view. 12. Ref. Design Specification No. 13, 6.9, Wetland Landscaping Plan: provide landscaping plan. 13. Additional VSMP Application comments contingent upon review. –Also, #8, above. New Engineering Review Comments Page 3 of 3 14. Eliminate Phase III perpendicular parking along travelway. Design should reflect Min. parking standards at 18- 4.12.16. Mixed travelway - perpendicular parking concept does not meet Min site plan parking standards. Parallel parking is an option, or conventional parking with adequate aisle at this location, with travelway continuing through to final, 13 -space parking area. (Rev. 2) Addressed/Applicant response, 14 -May 2015 noted: "Per a phone call between Adam Long and John Anderson on 4/10/15, it is acceptable to provide the perpendicular parking with the Phase III design. These overflow spaces will be used in the future for senior parking, to be designed and constructed at the time of the high school addition. The traffic flow on the proposed travelway will be minimal, but an extra 2' of stall depth has been shown, graphically, for the Phase III spaces to illustrate the flexibility in the future for over - design." [Emphasis added.] As follow up, provide Phase III lines for perpendicular spaces south of Access road, as with perpendicular spaces to the north. Also, the extra 2' stall depth is required by 18- 4.12.16.c.1; therefore, it is not extra. Plan notes, sheet 2, explain that this "Additional parking shall be part of Phase III, to be designed and constructed at the time of the high school addition." Access road section is 20' EP/EP, equivalent to a 20' Aisle Width. 18- 4.12.16.c.1 requires 18'L/10'W parking spaces. Phase III Access road parking spaces should be 10'W. 15. Sheet 2, turLparking: Although this may occur in practice, this design does not meet parking or travelway standards. Options: Although off - street sports parking on grass may occur in practice, do not label this area parking on Site Plan. Use roll -top curb type if anticipate vehicles will exit travelway to park at margins of sports complex fields. Or, provide parallel parking to meet on- street parking standards. [18- 4.12.15.a.] (Rev. 2) Addressed. 16. Increase FC radius at entrance to 13 -space parking area, SE corner of site, from 20' to 28' (CL, R =40'). [18- 4.12.15.d./20 mph design speed, private street horizontal std: ACDSM,7.F.Table— Nonresidential] (Rev. 2) Addressed. 17. Consider speed bump at entrance to 13 -space parking area. (Rev. 2) Addressed. 18. Sheet 4 — Provide drainage for (SE corner) branch turnaround in the NE corner of the 13 -space parking lot. (Rev. 2) Addressed. 19. Sheet 4 —Match lines should read `see sheet 3.' (Rev. 2) Addressed. 20. Sheet 6 — Provide pavement design [ref. Note v., upper -left]. Revise pavement layer labels, Asphalt Paving —Roads detail to clearly identify pavement material. For example: VDOT 21 -A, BM -25.0, SM -9.5. (Rev. 2) Partially Addressed. Provide pavement design that supports Access road section —put simply, demonstrate design is adequate. Estimate ADT (school: K -8). Provide Design using VDOT Pavement Design Guide for Subdivisions and Secondary Roads in Virginia (revised 2014), Appendix III formula: Ds - 1481-n (AADT) — 1.48L.n (SSV) - 713 21. Sheet 6, Access Road Sections — Specify 4" gravel sub -base type, 4" gravel base type, 2" asphalt type. (Rev. 2) Partially Addressed. Revise Access road section labels: eliminate reference to BM -25.0; BM- 25.0 Asphalt is not proposed. Rather, it appears that the stone component of Asphalt Mix BM -25.0 is proposed, not asphalt. Specify VDOT Aggregate grade being proposed (as pavement structure) beneath 2" SM -9.5 Asphalt. Use of BM -25.0 label is confusing. In addition, revise sheet 1, Road/Pavement Note 41. `Developer' is a parochial school relying on Collins Engineering. It is inappropriate for plans to require that "if the SSV Values are less than 10, the developer will be required to submit for Engineers approval the proposed method of correction." Revise text so design responsibility lies with Collins, not CCS. Further, any test results that may cause /require revision of pavement design should be coordinated by Collins Engineering, not Developer (CCS). Points to consider: - With respect to sheet 6, Mandatory Inspection Note v. — Confirm that an Engineer will examine and confirm depth of existing 4" base course (VDOT 21 -A) prior to placement of the paving course or courses. - Note iv. leaves question how subgrade soil characteristics will be evaluated to determine whether Access road section (pavement design) is adequate, since it lies beneath existing 4" compacted aggregate base course. Explain how subgrade soil characteristics will be evaluated. 22. Sheet 7 — Provide Design 10 -yr storm table column headings. (Rev. 2) Addressed. 23. Title sheet Revise SWM Facility Note to reflect facility other than wetland (23- Mar -15 discussion/ Anderson/Murray). (Rev. 1) Addressed. Please contact John Anderson at janderson2(a)albemarle.org, or 434 - 296 -5832 - 0069, if any questions. File: SDP201500001 Charlottesville Catholic School MIA 060815rev2 Christopher Perez From: . John Anderson Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 4:23 PM To: Scott Collins Cc: Christopher Perez; Plaster, Shelly(VDOT); Troy Austin; Glenn Brooks; Max Greene; Michelle Roberge; Justin Deel Subject: RE: SDP2015-1 Charlottesville Catholic School - minor amendment Scott, As follow-up to VDOT comment, please do not revise Site Plan/Minor Amendment to include ESC plan sheets. Rather, send VDOT a VSMP plan set. We have corresponded and discussed this comment with VDOT, and understand their needs. We are glad to share details of ESC measures or BMPs within VDOT RW, but a VSMP may not be approved with a Site Plan. Zoning (site plans) and Water Protection enabling legislation differ(state/county). Document retention and (internal/external) review requirements differ. Inspection requirements may not exist for site plans, but affect VSMP permits. VDOT does not need to receive copy of the SWPPP unless ESC or BMP measures shown on SWPPP Exhibits lie within VDOT RW. I meant to write sooner, and apologize for any inconvenience. VDOT will need to receive copy of VSMP plan sets in the future. Could you send a VSMP plan set to VDOT next week? Thank you, Scott Thank you, Shelly Thank you, Christopher From: Christopher Perez Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 4:05 PM To: John Anderson Subject: FW: SDP2015-1 Charlottesville Catholic School - minor amendment John, Attached is the email which I sent to Scott on 3-25-15 forwarding him the attached comments. Cii,isto tCer P. Perez I Senior Planner Department of Community Development!County of Albemarle.Virginia 401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext.3443 From: Christopher Perez Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 3:37 PM To: Scott Collins Cc: Graham Murray; 'Adam Long' Subject: SDP2015-1 Charlottesville Catholic School - minor amendment Scott, SDP2015-1 Charlottesville Catholic School - minor amendment 1 1 SC 1 F• a COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1601 Orange Road Culpeper Virginia 22701 Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E. Commissioner May 26, 2015 Mr. Christopher Perez County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: SDP - 2015 -00001 Charlottesville Catholic School Dear Mr. Perez, We have reviewed the Charlottesville Catholic School — Minor Site Plan Amendment #2, as submitted by Collins Engineering, with a revision date of May 14, 2015 and we have the following comments. 1. Sheet 2: The Rio Road connection should be noted as a future Phase III improvement, to be re- evaluated at the time of the high school addition. If you need further information concerning this project, please do not hesitate to contact me at (434) 422 -9894. Sincerely, Shelly A. Plaster Land Development Engineer Culpeper District WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING • . v 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 25, 2015 Scott Collins, PE Collins Engineering 200 Garrett Street, Suite K Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: SDP201500001 Charlottesville Catholic School — Minor Amendment Dear Sir: Your Minor Amendment application has been reviewed. In order for the amended site plan to be approved the following revisions are required: 1. ISPS -67 Condition. of Approval] A..s proposed the minor aMendnnent totally eliminates the required. /_ entrance to the site on Rio Road, and the required hall f outage in�provennent:s on Riolkoad. The `special Use .Permit has riot been amended to ornit these aspects of the plan. Revise tfhe s;ite phui to provide both of these .items G :s originally depicted in 4.D.P:1.999 -1.30 and t•egijire €l by SP.199& (s;`;'SI'£)8 -l?. It may be appropriate c�pt izate tc? hc3ti�''i:11� 5e tzr�l. rc, .€ rxen(s as p{ztt. ot'1'hr.�s� t11 as t.lds is when the additional 2('0 :.students are to come on board. pending VD()T's approval. TI)e tinning of the phase; rrzust be noted on the plan. Rev :L Comment Addressed. 2. [32.5.2(b)] Parking. Verify that the total number of parking spaces provided on sheet 1, under General Notes, is accurate. Currently the plan lists 77 spaces w/ 5 handicapped spaces provided onsite; however, staff counts 94 spaces being provided (82 existing and 12 proposed). Revise appropriately. (Also, see Zoning's comments below). Rev 1. The parking calculations have been revised. Currently the site is providing 153 spaces; however, the site is only approved to have 141 spaces provided per SDP1999 -130 (106 standard, 5 HC, 30 overflow). While the 141 spaces are well over the 20% of the required 102 spaces for the site, they shall be permitted per previous approvals (pending approval by Zoning). Revise the calculations on sheet 1 and the spaces depicted on the plans to only provide 141 spaces total. It is suggested that the 12 spaces to omit come from the overflow portion. If the applicant would like a new parking determination please provide a revised parking analysis for Zoning to consider. Additional Related Comments: 2a) [4.12.15(a)] Minimum Design requirements. Sheet 2 depicts 30 overflow spaces, and provides the following note: "Additional turf parking shall be apart of phase III, constructed at the time of the high school addition. " These spaces are not approved to be turf, nor have they been fully designed. To avoid confusion please revise the note on the plan to state: "Additional overflow parking shall be apart ofphase III, to be designed and constructed at the time'of the high.school addition." Also, assure that the other note on sheet 2, which reads: "Additional parking shall be apart of phase III, constructed at the time of the high school addition" is revised to state: "Additional parking shall be apart ofphase III, designed and constructed at the time of the high school addition" 3. [3/1.5 %2('01 Parking On thy: 1 sin depit i the re:€ uire.d. p a:rking spaces for .l'has€' 111 thigh school. building sand basketball € ourt) tea <assatre: all the required 1022 parking spaces are sited appropriately. Revise. rev- 1. 'ono. ent: Addressed. 4. [32.7.9] Landscaping. Provide a landscape plan for Phase II and Phase III. Assure that the landscaping depicted on SDP1999 -130 for phase II (which is now phase II and Phase III) is shown on this site plan. Where these plantings are no longer feasible due to site modifications, relocate them. Rev 1. The landscape plan has been provided; however, it is unclear,as to what plantings are taking place with Phase II and what are taking place with Phase III. Specifically along the newly paved portion of the access drive. On the landscape plan clearly label each clouded landscape section along the road as either Phase II or Phase III. At a minimum the first six (London Plane Trees) trees after the curve shall be planted in phase II as well as the last 2 London Plane Trees near the new building shall be planted in phase H. The other 5 London Plane Tree plantings along that road can be labeled as Phase III as this is when the parking will be finalized. Also, there appears to be a typographical error for the trees along Rio Rd, currently listed as 13 CR; however, the pant list does not provide such trees, but the previously approved tree type was 13 QR. Revise appropriately. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.%4(b)< SPS -67 Condition of.Appraval #51 Lemdscaphig Existing trees rxaay be preserved in lieu € f Oah)g aaew pinit n.ateials in €rder tatislthe landscaping and screening requirements of secti€ n 32.7.9 or to .aneet co.nditi€ ns ofapproval, subject to the agen.t's approval— It Mears that the sor€ c a:ai.ng rec uirernents of th s . e;cial use perrnit condition # -5: "soreenica,Wf of d.riveways and �aarkinp a maas from .residences". aiv �sr€ posed to be met with existing vegetati6n. '1'1ae ..................................................................... 1..............._.......... a......................................_...__.................................................................................................. 1 .................... ............... ......... . ......................... ............................ .............. . . .... . �...._......... W,._.. ............................... landscape plan should show the trees to be preserved, t1a.e l..i.r .l..its of clearing, tile location an(] type of pTotectivo fencing, grade: changes roqu.irin <g tree wells or walls, and MeraChia7g €:a.r taanrae:liag proposed beyond the liaaa.its ofcleari.ng. 1n aadd:itian. the applicant shall sign a conservation checklist approved by the agent to insure that tile; specified trees will be protected during: construction. Except as otherwisc expressly approved by tlae. a'ageTat in a particu.lay case:, such check st shall conform to - spec.i cations contained in the .�`.itg n.i4�....I; Erosion ,..and Sediment :..0 ont.rol....Ha nd:b� ok. pp .1.11 -284 through ]ll -297, a:aad as hereafterarraenl.ed. this checklist rn List be completed, signed, and dated. Rev 1. Comment.Addressed. 6. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17 1;ighiira� . is atny outdoor lighthla proposed. -with the site plaaai. amendnient? If sot lighting (.i.n.cluding building mounted fixtures) nacast be sh.omi on a lighting; plan. ti�.r .Phase Il. tb.at includes a. photometric plan, lurninaire schedule and cut sheets for each proposed fixture. Rev L Comment Addressed. 7. [ :'oMMelrt] On sheet l provide the site plaan. a ua.iber: `°SD.P2():l 5 -00001 Ndinor Site flan .A.rnendawnt 42 ". Rev 1. Q,a:arnmeat Ad €tressed. New Comment 8. [4.12.15(a)] Minimum Design requirements. Sheet 2 depicts 30 overflow spaces, and provides the following note: "Additional turf parking shall be apart of phase III, constructed at the time of the high school addition. " These spaces are not approved to be turf, nor have they been fully designed. To avoid confusion please revise the note on the plan to state: "Additional overflow parking shall be apart of phase III, to be designed and constructed at the time of the high school addition. " 9. [Comment] On the plan clearly label the surface material utilized for the access road and 12 new parking spaces. 10. [Comment] Based on VDOT's comment #2 dated 3 -25 -15 it appears they do not want to allow the connection to Rio Rd based on current VDOT regulations. Regardless, at this time the connection shall continue to be depicted as Phase III on the plans. When (or prior to) Phase III comes in for review the issue shall be dealt with. Please be aware that without a Special Use Permit amendment the connection shall be required, unless the Zoning Administrator is able to make a finding that the second entrance is not required based on previous Special Use Permit approvals for this site. VDOT — Shelly Plaster Comments attached dated 3 -25 -15 Building Inspections — Jay Schlothauer Previously had no objections Engineering — John Anderson n See attached comments dated 3 -23-15 CC' e ' � � ".'ter ro,r ��it�1liXr� Fire and Rescue —Robbie Gilmer Based on plans dated 12/18/14 1. An approved emergency vehicle turnaround is required for any road longer than 150 ft. 2. Fire Flow test is required before final approval. 3. An approved fire access road is required to within 150 ft of all the first floor unless an approved sprinkler system is installed the distance can increase up to 200 ft. 4. If a sprinkler system is required show the FDC location. The FDC location shall be within 100, ft of a fire hydrant per a prepared travel way. ACSA —Alex Morrison 1) The existing meter will support the addition. 2) Sheet 5: Show the sanitary sewer and waterline crossing on the road profile. Call out the proposed cover for each utility. 3) Sheet 5: The junction of proposed storm pipe 7 and the existing sanitary sewer is located within the ACSA's sanitary sewer easement. Relocate the junction to the NNE so it is outside of the existing ACSA easement. 4) Advise what grading will occur around the existing fire hydrant assembly. 5) Sheet 8: Relocate the proposed "PA" trees located near the existing fire hydrant assembly. Both trees are within 10 feet of the existing ACSA waterline. Zoning — Ron Higgins Comments pending 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,' Christopher P. Perez Senior Planner Planning Division ;Z COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1601 Orange Road Culpeper Virginia 22701 Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E. Commissioner March 25, 2015 Mr. Christopher Perez County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: SDP - 2015 -00001 Dear Mr. Perez, We have reviewed the Charlottesville Catholic School — Minor Site Plan Amendment #2, as submitted by Collins Engineering, with a revision date of March 4, 2015 and we have the following comments. 1. The previous submission included the E &S control measures. This should be incorporated back into the site plan. 2. It is understood that the proposed connection to Rio Road East will be a part of phase III, however, we do not recommend the connection. The SUP was approved prior to the Access Management Regulations and the entrance will be reevaluated during phase III. If you need further information concerning this project, please do not hesitate to contact me at (434) 422 -9894. Sincerely, Shelly A. Plaster Land Development Engineer Culpeper District ►+ irl� . {��1�I1:Ze�I�[►<<�IeP1I�[e� Attached are the comments for the above mentioned project. (: ristop:er P. Pere;.j Senior Planner Department of Community Development(County of Albemarle,Virginia 401 McIntire Road i Charlottesville,VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext.3443 From: John Anderson Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 1:21 PM To: Scott Collins Cc: Christopher Perez; Troy Austin; Graham Murray; Glenn Brooks Subject: SDP201500001 (Site, MIA); WP0201500004 -VSMP_CCS Scott, Troy visited Charlottesville Catholic School (CCS), and called today to report that the area N of the existing parking lot appears unsuitable as a temporary construction entrance (CE). CE options/Non-options: 1. Pen Park Lane. A CE in this location would extend 700'± across TMP 61A-25, to parcel 61A-29. It would be expensive to construct, difficult to prevent unauthorized use. This location is likely infeasible. 2. Entrance as shown with limits on hours of construction traffic. Light-duty traffic only during pick- up/drop-off hours. This is feasible, under Applicant's control. Troy makes the point that most construction traffic is light duty. Deliveries can be scheduled LOAM—2PM, for example. Dump trucks, once on-site, may stay on-site, or not be required at all. This option appears manageable. 3. Rio Road East is not an option. There are safety concerns (overlapping work zones, TMP 61A-15, The Lofts at Meadowcreek-Also, subdivision traffic along Rio Rd E). 4. Area N of existing parking lot on N side of CCS -infeasible (light poles, other improvements/constraints). Option 1: If disturbance <10,000 SF then a CE on Pen Park Lane may work as a separate project in direct response to ACCD site plan/VSMP comment to separate school and construction traffic. Elevation data shows this location is unfavorable,that grading/construction of an entrance across TMP 61A-25 would likely exceed 10,000 SF. A recent article (Washington Post) outlined the tragic and fatal story of a child accompanied by an adult, struck by a work truck—the driver never saw her. ACCD/Engineering would review 700' CE across 61A-25 against resource and off-site impacts regardless of area of land disturbance,but may consider exemption from SWM regulations if disturbance associated with entrance on TMP61A-25 were projected to be <10,000 SF. Again, this location may be infeasible. Please accept this email update to engineering comments sent earlier this week on Site Plan Amendment and VSMP plans. As a disclaimer, I know and work with individuals whose children attend CCS. Please call if you have any questions. Thank you. County GIS: 2 ...._..__-__�_-. ,e_._. ,ennnnnnnnnnnnnn nnnnn Help a 12 C u �u �uu�uUuuuuuu�unfI Ifl p Nob'' _.- -- sr;1 t' % /F ', 7 7th© € % r», # i,-'r: [1€15,1 l&5 1 I ; , ' t; _t r ._ ,'�" .y i:.17 15 €s ``' ` 61A ' f 1'155. fi ,1„€ j 9 I11811183, .119 . -; •f : r rzs', �`"ti. x / ".-/ Y i .P 11 ,,. I co i A 2 I <;a - Ji'c=s€t. f ,,_?b ,.,4 �P ,r( ! ..-6 ,71 '�'�`.'/'r, :E .,' r, � F / , r b ''', t �yb j`y J 1:179 '({ 1 f f f,C -„'., 4«•,,..... tt �, �� -t' r F 1 - `%':',`t .,Y x`'""�'el-1'676' + , / t•` ,A��,,it- " f r at S� 76A-Cr3 24 s ,;zf', ' ://,-`1,.'' ' '.'d67,i•' /fi 4//,',27/—18i'Its=_ : '',;� k'.43?°_4t 61A� ° '611 t #"`- �'� fs,° ' • r , ', 1 F ". , F °a !F jam`-., t r� .1488 E792'' J ////1://./ 1{:,%70,,/1 r' tt l tr t;_'�"°"r { t j '`„ ,/- ; ' r I V ; € 61r4 �3=:23 ', t ,i '' fix:t,-.of f t (..", , c /,t ft � .�..�I ,! r"` `;`,,,,0' !i I,1 4 6 r to , , �-,° 1 f:""-;tka x r"`' ' "�' ,.j � I €t+t , , f,' v� / f: fpt. 1487 , ! z i / �},; '+� k\ "r 9 �~, 1 a } 1491 tr t t.,...`y.? :61 ;r kiss'.'/,.:... r ,-�,,_t"^,t., i!Spy `^E ; ':. +zr',/+ fir•'.``;fir-,,. ' i R^...� h €i ��j,,151A-�3;, �' t'' Tr irt' �`ff,�:"� -. ___�14957' i JJ t '° "`. . - a{i 438e_ 61Af0 _ " , ,P - t dt e LS�t^-�61.€ 29 tI# it!"1. tt it1{99�J ! .-'tai, .'`�"} ::: .^::^..:. ,x"° t �` 'r r 3,1,1 E ` f =61 A b3 21141 ? j r r"erg%t� ?�' `.�.- ': ,,., p r�f. E,',E 151©` r` r' t —```#�t41_61A€{9t �� �s rtirlal; �?f ! ! '---. ,: 145 f t ;' t'` `+f ' J ,Jr 1";=.- ....si /' - f t`,,....- F ;1., t`°'^,.,, '•i �r � �`�4vt't{1 7 t r +At-,,,,/ f si 1 r {� ,- G+}�,' $1:7'120'71` t` t t ,,�is i1 t n F 6 j, P `; --"",-r-f '°-' }l, ',70115F,,,,.,,,�A_" t p" a t p�p d,. . 7' J'"1 ft r 4s" 1,/ l�•''/' - /s.,.,>'' ,E,.„- '°:%° :^ `, Pte' r --;',.4;.;;;.,w,4( } 6€ l r{ /`r ' „„co f 1414 P 1, f r}{{ .4�”` >.,...».::::::".'w r -.`� 'tir._.. J t=rbull:3 t1°t' ` ildx'° f ° f r ,°� r 1"`t L.,' !€ `t.r” �,,.,.. ""`° s, °w;id-°.. ,y'�' p ''i ,`'i�r 4 `J,s { A !-P-.7--..Z.:."T •+:°�"._._.-" P'...--•d #y }t ',' i 1 iii t r r,,.•/a '' ""' r•`F , _'„y -.„;:,----:-4-1 g; ;' P `'1' �' ly".'.°/"'. F Yf. P /� '4 E �J}BP �,Y y •°-•••/ ,».,fr .'w.T 7 i °'7� t y t tr j tE Ef•'`-i ,r61-9,V? J /°• ° • I if:, j I ! 111, }ia > tdl t. ,'tal°i 1 r!' s s„'*c.':' .+'•r ri. € ,t' I ! €EE m ..--_"' 1'".. t a r?j°J?., ! i'Z`°'f -�'"° 1 W, 1[ �'.' t} � a`w^s :f fi s°, t J'f 1 ' e/ b .,`E,, �a� /6,4 1 ii i } :•... r� :`S ,,,..1,,,..\,, °'4 P ` � v,-,;;f i i,f,x,t;' ,:r I I , M1 ."'" C°,- - <F,,,,,,P•. ` 1 , ! ' ',,€E• '3�,,, i,,,€ "^`i f `,'',�ti..: ,� -�..�t �f , ' r} '1 3I t I .1724 r E ` s' `"r I islA'-15 }rt :tE t fJ' ' a ;r+y y/ I f,s- .'. ,^ ,5r F 171' �. f �s 1 3°P t} 'I:t' k''' �` • ,: 1 f ,, !,,,,, !, � ,a'rt;°) f f,f' s !6D• tE Y i i. ✓ 7s ; is 61Pi2.�1a° �"` r1 4% 'j', \'''4C4.',;1!,,!1 ' t" ,,_ ti,•'''k>. -,;•'"':'' `:'--'7' `/• „"r+`'Jr,jx ;' } <• ;,,�-`; 44 •.� , I.- �q,_'_.�.�ry *. t�,k., ,,�° '_. ry�--;- a �''��;� ���t��''�<t�zit�,' .{ ' .�, SS ,F : , f ._ y y:Ey± r ,-ti..°, �` 11r E}!€3 ° P. 3, � + � jj3 + f � 645 �., . - ,...._�'r,^�:.5 _S i9 1\ '^.._.. V -s ter'✓ f}F i ww r �'1 :, � ,e61A2't 1-0A4, 5 r ss `E 3 , '€ I t',t� :"-. :.`*.,,�i +gti,,.3'4 a°i t' t'° �`;:r _ _ -'-` r� °°s r Fes` �a€.' 3,.'a1[. l \ ••'S�M1'• a -_�-°+...-\ �.!_, 2 ` 'PRE QyR•.'�''`�. ,t y ,� � .'- ,::::;S:',,,,!-,,\.,:‘,,,',,,'. .;< �a1 r4-2 .:��' ,, ---:'-•: :::::::. .- __ ----°' 76 r t,E } °:°.;`��," s, e �a ,` , ;� .,�'1T qw .,,. - r.,l,, { 3,,,�,',`, ,t,10,:;, .,t' `,,"---.q_., -'" r•,' ,'Fs, °,i! ':',%,` E, �,531Y1L �1-$�7,Ar-�7'�yl 'Y � �„ �1ro °ti"'��.a ,tc ,,F.g�'II��1€4f tE £ iS1i1'A fj� p.,�a'.°,`ys,�•-,`�'���.'�"Y;... "`.,,. � '"--`,w ^--7';',/'-` ',,�t�S-kE} �'f '1t13''',,',y *./.64 A2-01'40A:407.— — I d�a ,`1:: .6•f'' \' ,,1i } ! 1'!`1 . ! 11'1'∎Vi , y,p+.y.\ ',,''', ' .- " °!.`^..`,'..:„. l ," P,'r€p°,J -.J•,t,5 �,, 9 3 G�'p;- p a,4.^?,., :ai S .5; F E , 1 j s It�€i}€tE °">'t" :{k, 'S `t"''"" 'j` '2- p-/ It E t,(r'"},'/,,'r gry'},',•" �,r, '4' "�+�' � P`.114� *''� t , '"� l 7 �, 7 i i•p#t eFE;��� ''',°;.%%.`;:r;-:(''N;(,\'�, ^, `°r5`}�� f�f ,A`'•-. `�s-M_°'� ,' :j'?I} ,i`� t^,`'.`' a1A2 001-rCw34 eft :ga W". E s, F3! i€ } r I�,iF . a . £ (4=';.. - ° t' `•Sf 3,€t, € +. ,'f ' �6't A�1�'`' � '[ tall',' } '+!} i' � `,t :, '1,_� }?�� P,`°,°'. to ,, �'.ji. �a.. � �• f F k _( _"'.. ,d€^,, ' e r lff: .?Ii ■ '+, a`t , t[�T• ,` 4k .- .��.�. �. ( f e'er ' {�'r !i ,..)//,,,„:):,,:°,),`,/,/,'.:jf1 7,/,9--,'?! f i M. ^'r, r t}^it•- __ ` „ a d r :r r ' ti• � . A;) ' a .tc , �js t a.,� •--_,_.S ',; 61A,."2-041-0B-43 j ` �� � �� � t, ir� � tr` rAJ �/, �a�.� ,fj , pf a - ., t�._,, -. -.,. " '�; ' e� Jt,q A0�4`i°ttf A"d"^., , .,._° 111 3 .:!ill I i d ati./' rn r,�*r: (' r /ry, per+ .-";}: r.�-,f r P` l"rte,%±`/'``` _ ,b +. `- fl�r� }t @+7 f1124 ttf /i ,,, '61.,x-21 ., .. ., '. ` = �_ F�° 21iQ ft -"-'' ,'4' , f!})�i iii,/ y! ".r./, -:---,41.15"6,‘„, ,.;r Y ` =r_ !U iny,--' cle ,l virx c P— ,-,"'4,0,-`,„-„, '' ?' 1h v -,":-'!"-'4', j,-.. ”',• -7 t GiA -'2' ` C1iC=f"1f7,:1 ,d)B. FT}/i�1��liJf1P - > Goc€ale htapi * Go %<al ra t.. .-�s€€I rStar;^ 1'd' Civil Engineer �.., ., ,w.. .. "� ,.. ....,,.....,... I)epartment of Community Development 1 County of Albemarle,Virginia 401 McIntire Road 1 Charlottesville,VA 22902 434 296.5832 ext.3069 3 Christopher Perez From: Alex Morrison [ amorrison @serviceauthority.org] Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2015 2:19 PM To: Christopher Perez Subject: SDP201500001: Charlottesville Catholic School - Minor Amendment Chris, I have reviewed the plan and have the following comments: • The existing meter will support the addition. • Sheet 5: Show the sanitary sewer and waterline crossing on the road profile. Call out the proposed cover for each utility. • Sheet 5: The junction of proposed storm pipe 7 and the existing sanitary sewer is located within the ACSA's sanitary sewer easement. Relocate the junction to the NNE so it is outside of the existing ACSA easement. • Advise what grading will occur around the existing fire hydrant assembly. • Sheet 8: Relocate the proposed "PA" trees located near the existing fire hydrant assembly. Both trees are within 10 feet of the existing ACSA waterline. Let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Alexander J. Morrison, EIT Civil Engineer Albemarle County Service Authority 168 Spotnap Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22911 (0) 434 - 977 -4511 Ext. 116 (F) 434 - 979 -0698 Like the ACSA on Facebook at www.facebook.com /acsaconnect 0 County of Albemarle nt of Community De` co-45- Project: Charlottesville Catholic School, Minor Plan preparer: Scott Collins; Collins Engineering [200 Garrett St., Suite K, Charlottesville, VA 22902, scottp_collins- engineering coml Owner or rep.: Catholic Diocese of Richmond, Walter F. Sullivan, Bishop, etal [7800 Carousel Lane, Richmond, VA 23294 -4201] Plan received date: 20 Jan 2015 (Rev. 1) 9 Mar 2015 Date of comments: 13 Feb 2015 (Rev. 1) 23 Mar 2015 Planning Coordinator: Christopher Perez Reviewer: John Anderson Engineering has completed review of proposed plans. Minor Site Plan Amendment (SDP201500001) 1. VDOT advises against CE on Rio Rd East. Relocated CE should avoid routing construction traffic through the existing parking lot. Maximize separation of school and construction traffic. (Rev. 1) Not addressed. Proposed CE utilizes existing parking lot, with construction traffic required to pass through it. Examine and use area N of existing parking lot for temporary construction entrance, or provide alternate point of access (other than Rio Rd E, or existing lot). Do not route construction traffic through existing school parking lot. 2. Furnish typical detail for transition from roll -top to CG -6. (Rev. 1) Addressed. As follow -up, revise Access Road Sections, sheet 6, to show CG -7 rather than ROLL -FACE CURB & GUTTER. 3. burnish VDO'i inlet shaping detail. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 4. Plans include detail for 5" wide pedestrian trail (Multi - purpose trail detail; sheet 6). S.DP199900130, sheet C3.20, shows a path adjacent to :Rio Rd East, with this note: "(Alignment and surface shall be coordinated with fiiture County path extensions.)" future county path extension on TM.P 6 IA- 15 immediately adjacent (to the south.) is for 5' wide, 4" thick concrete walk over 4" compacted stone base. Proposed pedestrian asphalt trailway, sheet 2, should be revised to concrete sidewalk built to VDO'1' standard. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Road profile, sheet 5. Show beginning and end points for three lower- station VCs. as was done for three higher- station VCs. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Storm drain inlet/pipe hydraulic capacity computations and calculations are not included. with sheet 6 (D:ramage profiles; notes & details), Computations and calculations are required. (Rev. 1) Addressed. As follow -up, revise inlet #4 throat length (10') or design so that T, spread at curb (right), is <_ 7.0' ['V2 travelway + gutter pan]. (Rev. 1) Comments 7 -13 no longer relevant to this site plan, but please note follow -up, comment # 10. 7. Minor Site Plan Amendment approval is contingent upon VSMP plan approval. (Rev. 1) Acknowledged. S. Sheets 7; 8, and 8 (there are two sheet 8s) should be removed and submitted separately, with title sheet: Charlottesville Catholic School VSMP Application, WPO 201500004. VSMP Application (SWPPP, ESOP, St *X413) will not be reviewed as part of Minor Site Plan Amendment. Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 2 9. Sheets 7. S. and 8 (please re- number) do not include ValZRM spreadsheet. Provide VaRRM .xis. It is unclear if design reflects .fart IIB or IIC design criteria. Clarify. 10. Neste: VA DFQ Stormwater Design. Specification No. 13 applies to constructed wetlands. See. 8 of specification contains explicit information that will affect VSM.P application review. (Rev. 1) As follow - up, Sec. 5, Contributing Drainage Area, Design Specification No. 13, indicates 1.55 Ac. DA is insufficient to sustain a permanent water level. Discussed with G. Murray on 23- Mar -15 —Also, VSMP comments. Reviewer regrets not commenting on design element earlier. 11. Proposed constructed wetlands detail. sheet 7. should be revised to include aquatic bench in profile view. 1.2. Ref. Design Specification No. .13, 6.9, Wet land.l..an.dscaping Plan: provide landscaping plan. 13. Additional VS1vIP Application comments contingent upon review. —Also. #8, above. New 14. Eliminate Phase III perpendicular parking along travelway. Design should reflect Min. parking standards at 18- 4.12.16. Mixed travelway - perpendicular parking concept does not meet Min site plan parking standards. Parallel parking is an option, or conventional parking with adequate aisle at this location, with travelway continuing through to final, 13 -space parking area. 15. Sheet 2, tur arkin : Although this may occur in practice, this design does not meet parking or travelway standards. Options: Although off - street sports parking on grass may occur in practice, do not label this area parking on Site Plan. Use roll -top curb type if anticipate vehicles will exit travelway to park at margins of sports complex fields. Or, provide parallel parking to meet on- street parking standards. [18- 4.12.15.a.] 16. Increase FC radius at entrance to 13 -space parking area, SE corner of site, from 20' to 28' (CL, R =40'). [18- 4.12.15.d./20 mph design speed, private street horizontal std: ACDSM,7.F.Table— Nonresidential] 17. Consider speed bump at entrance to 13 -space parking area. 18. Sheet 4 Provide drainage for (SE corner) branch turnaround in the NE corner of the 13 -space parking lot. 19. Sheet 4 Match lines should read `see sheet 3.' 20. Sheet 6 Provide pavement design [ref. Note v., upper -left]. Revise pavement layer labels, Asphalt Paving Roads detail to clearly identify pavement material. For example: VDOT 21 -A, BM -25.0, SM -9.5. 21. Sheet 6, Access Road Sections — Specify 4" gravel sub -base type, 4" gravel base type, 2" asphalt type. 22. Sheet 7 Provide Design 10 -yr storm table column headings. 23. Title sheet Revise SWM Facility Note to reflect facility other than wetland (23- Mar -15 discussion/ Anderson/Murray). Please contact John Anderson at janderson2_albemarle.org, or 434 - 296 -5832 - 0069, if any questions. t:i1 :S:1i1' 01i00001 Cl<et lC<.iiic4cl t oi IA 032315revl M YlAGIl`11A County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Project: Charlottesville Catholic School, Minor Plan preparer: Scott Collins; Collins Engineering [200 Garrett St., Suite K, Charlottesville, VA 22902, scott(gacollins -en ing eering com] Owner or rep.: Catholic Diocese of Richmond, Walter F. Sullivan, Bishop, etal [7800 Carousel Lane, Richmond, VA 23294-42011 Plan received date: 20 Jan 2015 (Rev. 1) 9 Mar 2015 Date of comments: 13 Feb 2015 (Rev. 1) 23 Mar 2015 Planning Coordinator: Christopher Perez Reviewer: John Anderson Engineering has completed review of proposed plans. Minor Site Plan Amendment (SDP201500001) 1. VDOT advises against CE on Rio Rd East. Relocated CE should avoid routing construction traffic through the existing parking lot. Maximize separation of school and construction traffic. (Rev. 1) Not addressed. Proposed CE utilizes existing parking lot, with construction traffic required to pass through it. Examine and use area N of existing parking lot for temporary construction entrance, or provide alternate point of access (other than Rio Rd E, or existing lot). Do not route construction traffic through existing school parking lot. 2. Furnish typical detail for transition from roll -top to CG -6. (Rev. 1) Addressed. As follow -up, revise Access Road Sections, sheet 6, to show CG -7 rather than ROLL -FACE CURB & GUTTER. 3. Furnish VDOT inlet shaping detail. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 4. Plans include detail for 5' wide pedestrian trail (Multi- purpose trail detail; sheet 6). SDP199900130, sheet C3.20, shows a path adjacent to Rio Rd East, with this note: "(Alignment and surface shall be coordinated with future County path extensions.)" Future county path extension on TMP 61A -15 immediately adjacent (to the south) is for 5' wide, 4" thick concrete walk over 4" compacted stone base. Proposed pedestrian asphalt trailway, sheet 2, should be revised to concrete sidewalk built to VDOT standard. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 5. Road profile, sheet 5: Show beginning and end points for three lower- station VCs, as was done for three higher- station VCs. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 6. Storm drain inlet /pipe hydraulic capacity computations and calculations are not included with sheet 6 (Drainage profiles, notes & details). Computations and calculations are required. (Rev. 1) Addressed. As follow -up, revise inlet #4 throat length (10') or design so that T, spread at curb (right), is :S 7.0' ['h travelway + gutter pan]. (Rev. 1) Comments 7 -13 no longer relevant to this site plan, but please note follow -up, comment # 10. 7. Minor Site Plan Amendment approval is contingent upon VSMP plan approval. (Rev. 1) Acknowledged. 8. Sheets 7, 8, and 8 (there are two sheet 8s) should be removed and submitted separately, with title sheet: Charlottesville Catholic School VSMP Application, WPO 201500004. VSMP Application (SWPPP, ESCP, SWMP) will not be reviewed as part of Minor Site Plan Amendment. Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 2 9. Sheets 7, 8, and 8 (please re- number) do not include VaRRM spreadsheet. Provide VaRRM .xls. It is unclear if design reflects Part IIB or IIC design criteria. Clarify. 10. Note: VA DEQ Stormwater Design Specification No. 13 applies to constructed wetlands. Sec. 8 of specification contains explicit information that will affect VSMP application review. (Rev. 1) As follow - up, Sec. 5, Contributing Drainage Area, Design Specification No. 13, indicates 1.55 Ac. DA is insufficient to sustain a permanent water level. Discussed with G. Murray on 23- Mar -15 —Also, VSMP comments. Reviewer regrets not commenting on design element earlier. 11. Proposed constructed wetlands detail, sheet 7, should be revised to include aquatic bench in profile view. 12. Ref. Design Specification No. 13, 6.9, Wetland Landscaping Plan: provide landscaping plan. 13. Additional VSMP Application comments contingent upon review. —Also, #8, above. New 14. Eliminate Phase III perpendicular parking along travelway. Design should reflect Min. parking standards at 18- 4.12.16. Mixed travelway - perpendicular parking concept does not meet Min site plan parking standards. Parallel parking is an option, or conventional parking with adequate aisle at this location, with travelway continuing through to final, 13 -space parking area. 15. Sheet 2, turLparking: Although this may occur in practice, this design does not meet parking or travelway standards. Options: Although off - street sports parking on grass may occur in practice, do not label this area parking on Site Plan. Use roll -top curb type if anticipate vehicles will exit travelway to park at margins of sports complex fields. Or, provide parallel parking to meet on- street parking standards. [18- 4.12.15.a.] 16. Increase FC radius at entrance to 13 -space parking area, SE corner of site, from 20' to 28' (CL, R =40'). [18- 4.12.15.d./20 mph design speed, private street horizontal std: ACDSM,7.F.Table— Nonresidential] 17. Consider speed bump at entrance to 13 -space parking area. 18. Sheet 4 — Provide drainage for (SE corner) branch turnaround in the NE corner of the 13 -space parking lot. 19. Sheet 4 —Match lines should read `see sheet 3.' 20. Sheet 6 — Provide pavement design [ref. Note v., upper -left]. Revise pavement layer labels, Asphalt Paving —Roads detail to clearly identify pavement material. For example: VDOT 21 -A, BM -25.0, SM -9.5. 21. Sheet 6, Access Road Sections — Specify 4" gravel sub -base type, 4" gravel base type, 2" asphalt type. 22. Sheet 7 — Provide Design 10 -yr storm table column headings. 23. Title sheet — Revise SWM Facility Note to reflect facility other than wetland (23- Mar -15 discussion/ Anderson/Murray). Please contact John Anderson at janderson2(iDalbemarle.org, or 434 - 296 -5832 - 0069, if any questions. File: SDP201500001 Charlottesville Catholic School MIA 032315revl Christopher Perez From: Christopher Perez Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 2:08 PM To: 'Adam Long'; 'Scott Collins' Cc: 'graham @collins-engineering.com'; John Anderson Subject: RE: Charlottesville Catholic School VSMP/WPO Application Scott, SDP2015-1 Charlottesville Catholic School—minor amendment. Fire and Rescue offers the following comments, which are also available in Countyview. With this email you now have all comments on this project. Based on plans dated 12/18/14 1. An approved emergency vehicle turnaround is required for any road longer then 150 ft. 2. Fire Flow test is required before final approval. 3.An approved fire access road is required to within 150 ft of all the first floor unless an approved sprinkler system is installed the distance can increase up to 200 ft. 4.If a sprinkler system is required show the FDC location. The FDC location shall be within 100 ft of a fire hydrant per a prepaired travelway. Christopher P. Perez)Senior Planner Department of Community Development 1County of Albemarle,Virginia 401 McIntire Road;Charlottesville,VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext.3443 From: Christopher Perez Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 6:23 PM To: Adam Long; Scott Collins Cc: graham @collins-engineering.com; Todd Shifflett; Glenn Brooks; John Anderson Subject: RE: Charlottesville Catholic School VSMP/WPO Application Scott, Attached are the comments for SDP2015-1 Charlottesville Catholic School—minor amendment. Pending comments from Fire and Rescue, once provided to staff they will be forwarded to the applicant C'hrit.0 Sher P. Perez Senior Planner Department of Community Development 1Count3 of Albemarle.Virginia 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville.VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext.3443 From: John Anderson Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 5:09 PM To: Adam Long; Scott Collins Cc: graham(acollins-engineering.com; Christopher Perez; Todd Shifflett; Glenn Brooks Subject: RE: Charlottesville Catholic School VSMP/WPO Application Adam, Scott, YlAGIl`11A County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Project: Charlottesville Catholic School, Minor Plan preparer: Scott Collins; Collins Engineering [200 Garrett St., Suite K, Charlottesville, VA 22902, scott(gacollins -en ing eering com] Owner or rep.: Catholic Diocese of Richmond, Walter F. Sullivan, Bishop, etal [7800 Carousel Lane, Richmond, VA 23294-42011 Plan received date: 20 January 2015 Date of comments: 13 February 2015 Planning Coordinator: Christopher Perez Reviewer: John Anderson Engineering has completed review of proposed plans. Minor Site Plan Amendment (SDP201500001) 1. VDOT advises against CE on Rio Rd East. Relocated CE should avoid routing construction traffic through the existing parking lot. Maximize separation of school and construction traffic. 2. Furnish typical detail for transition from roll -top to CG -6. 3. Furnish VDOT inlet shaping detail. 4. Plans include detail for 5' wide pedestrian trail (Multi- purpose trail detail; sheet 6). SDP199900130, sheet C3.20, shows a path adjacent to Rio Rd East, with this note: "(Alignment and surface shall be coordinated with future County path extensions.)" Future county path extension on TMP 61A -15 immediately adjacent (to the south) is for 5' wide, 4" thick concrete walk over 4" compacted stone base. Proposed pedestrian asphalt trailway, sheet 2, should be revised to concrete sidewalk built to VDOT standard. 5. Road profile, sheet 5: Show beginning and end points for three lower- station VCs, as was done for three higher- station VCs. 6. Storm drain inlet /pipe hydraulic capacity computations and calculations are not included with sheet 6 (Drainage profiles, notes & details). Computations and calculations are required. 7. Minor Site Plan Amendment approval is contingent upon VSMP plan approval. 8. Sheets 7, 8, and 8 (there are two sheet 8s) should be removed and submitted separately, with title sheet: Charlottesville Catholic School VSMP Application, WPO 201500004. VSMP Application (SWPPP, ESCP, SWMP) will not be reviewed as part of Minor Site Plan Amendment. 9. Sheets 7, 8, and 8 (please re- number) do not include VaRRM spreadsheet. Provide VaRRM .xls. It is unclear if design reflects Part IIB or IIC design criteria. Clarify. 10. Note: VA DEQ Stormwater Design Specification No. 13 applies to constructed wetlands. Sec. 8 of specification contains explicit information that will affect VSMP application review. 11. Proposed constructed wetlands detail, sheet 7, should be revised to include aquatic bench in profile view. 12. Ref. Design Specification No. 13, 6.9, Wetland Landscaping Plan: provide landscaping plan. 13. Additional VSMP Application comments contingent upon review. —Also, #8, above. Please contact John Anderson at janderson2(&a1bemarle.org, or 434 - 296 -5832 - 0069, if any questions. File: SDP201500001 Charlottesville Catholic School—MIA-021315 ^71' COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 February 13, 2015 Scott Collins, PE Collins Engineering 200 Garrett Street, Suite K Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: SDP201500001 Charlottesville Catholic School — Minor Amendment Dear Sir: Your Minor Amendment application has been reviewed. In order for the amended site plan to be approved the following revisions are required: [SP8 -67 Condition of Approval] As proposed the minor amendment totally eliminates the required 2nd entrance to the site on Rio Road, and the required full frontage improvements on Rio Road. The Special Use Permit has not been amended to omit these aspects of the plan. Revise the site plan to provide both of these items as originally depicted in SDP1999 -130 and required by SP1998- 67/SP98 -12. It may be appropriate to show these improvements as part of Phase III as this is when the additional 200 students are to come on board, pending VDOT's approval. The timing of the phases must be noted on the plan. 2. [32.5.2(b)] Parking. Verify that the total number of parking spaces provided on sheet 1, under General Notes, is accurate. Currently the plan lists 77 spaces w/ 5 handicapped spaces provided onsite; however, staff counts 94 spaces being provided (82 existing and 12 proposed). Revise appropriately. (Also, see Zoning's comments below). 3. [32.5.2(b)] Parking. On the plan depict the required parking spaces for Phase III (high school building and basketball court) to assure all the required 102 parking spaces are sited appropriately. Revise. 4. [32.7.9] Landscaping. Provide a landscape plan for Phase H and Phase III. Assure that the landscaping depicted on SDP 1999 -130 for phase H (which is now phase II and Phase RD is shown on this site plan. Where these plantings are no longer feasible due to site modifications, relocate them. 5. [32.6.20) & 32.7.9.4(b), SP8 -67 Condition of Approval #51 Landscaping. 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 the screening requirements of the special use permit condition #5: "screening of driveways and parking areas from residences" 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 completed, signed, and dated. 6. [32.6.2(k) & 4.171 Lighting. Is any outdoor lighting proposed with the site plan amendment? If so, lighting (including building mounted fixtures) must be shown on a lighting plan for Phase II that includes a photometric plan, luminaire schedule and cut sheets for each proposed fixture. 7. [Comment] On sheet 1 provide the site plan number: "SDP2015 -00001 Minor Site Plan Amendment #2 ". VDOT — Shelly Plaster See attached comments dated 2 -4 -15 Building Inspections — Jay Schlothauer No objections Engineering — John Anderson See attached comments dated 2 -13 -15 Fire and Rescue —Robbie Gilmer Comments pending ACSA —Alex Morrison 1) Supply the existing fixture counts in the building as well as the proposed fixture counts for the addition. This information will be required to verify the meter size. If a meter upgrade is required then we will need to address it on the plans. Zoning — Ron Higgins 1) Parking calculations need to be corrected to show actual on -site now (82) and proposed (94). and the source of the calculations must be referenced (e.g. parking analysis to determine numbers). This comment was made previously and has not been addressed. 2) Please cite the source of the parking requirement calculations (e.g. the parking analysis to determine the reuired numbers). 3) Previous comment regarding the required pathway along Rio Road frontage has been addressed. 4) If 2nd entrance is still shown on the SP application plan then it must be shown on site plan. 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 fiee to contact me. Sincerely, Clu•istopher P. Perez Senior Planner Planning Division 1 'C7 COMMONWEALTH of VIRCiINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1601 Orange Road Culpeper. Virginia 22701 Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E. Commissioner February 4, 2015 Mr. Christopher Perez County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401` McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: SDP - 2015 -00001 Dear Mr. Perez, We have reviewed the Charlottesville Catholic School. < Minor Site Plan Amendment #2, as submitted by Collins Engineering, with a revision date of December 18, 2014 and we have the following comments. 1. Will there be an increase in enrollment and/or an increase in trips generated by the revision? 2.. Construction traffic may not enter or leave the site via Rio Road East. If you need further information concerning this project, please do not hesitate to contact me at (434) 422 -9894. Sincerely, Shelly A. Plaster Land Development Engineer Culpeper District WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING