HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201500019 Review Comments 2015-05-08Short Review Comments Report for:
SDP201500019
SubApplication Type:
Faith Christian Center International - Final
Final Site Development Plan
Date Completed:05/08/2015
Reviewer:Rachel Falkenstein Planning
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:04/24/2015
Reviewer:John Anderson Engineering
Review Status:See Recommendations
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:05/03/2015
Reviewer:Robbie Gilmer Fire Rescue
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:Based on plans dated 1/14/15
No comments or objections
Division:
Date Completed:05/06/2015
Reviewer:Margaret Maliszewski ARB
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:A separate submittal addressing all ARB comments from the 8/18/2014 ARB meeting is required.
See ARB-2014-95.
The Board, by a vote of 4:0 approved the request, pending staff administrative approval of the
following conditions:
1. Continue the corner bay detailing around the southwest corner of the building.
2. Consider using synthetic stucco instead of EIFS.
3. Add a material/color schedule to the elevation sheets and key the materials to the drawing.
4. Revise the site plan to include the building phase line. If it is anticipated that the phase 2 building
will be visible from the EC, additional ARB review will be required.
5. Show on the landscape plan the plants intended to hide the pipes near the site entrance.
6. Make the light fixture cut sheets legible.
7. Indicate on the plan that the color of the light poles and fixtures will be bronze. Note that the 20’
light height maximum includes poles and bases
8. Remove the note on sheet L5 that references a 500’ ARB limit and correct the corresponding plant
sizes.
9. Provide the landscape plan at a more legible scale. Make the key numbers easily legible.
10. Delete the text after the first sentence in note #4 on the landscape plan.
11. Clarify the intent of the Stream Buffer Mitigation notes on the landscape plan. If a replanting
method other than that required as a condition of the Special Use Permit is proposed, submit an
application to amend the Special Use Permit. Otherwise, provide details to clarify how the buffer
replanting will be accomplished, consistent with the conditions of the Special Use Permit.
12. Coordinate the plans regarding the low wall located south of the building.
Please provide:
1. Two full sets of revised drawings addressing each of these conditions. Include updated ARB
revision dates on each drawing.
2. A memo including detailed responses indicating how each condition has been satisfied. If changes
other than those requested have been made, identify those changes in the memo also. Highlighting
Division:
Page:1of4 County of AlbemarlePrinted On:January 08, 2016
the changes in the drawing with “clouding” or by other means will facilitate review and approval.
3. The attached “Revised Application Submittal” form. This form must be returned with your revisions
to ensure proper tracking and distribution.
When staff's review of this information indicates that all conditions of approval have been met, a
Certificate of Appropriateness may be issued.
Date Completed:05/05/2015
Reviewer:Troy Austin VDOT
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:07/29/2015
Reviewer:John Anderson Engineering
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:1.Tier 3 Groundwater Assessment titled Faith Christian Center International, Inc., TMP 78-47,
47A dated 23-Jun 2015 prepared for Faith Christian Center International, Inc. (FCCI), Pastor Dr.
Wayne Frye requires slight revision:
a.Revise Groundwater Management Plan section, p. 18. Site design, if runoff-neutral, does not
appear to reduce, but to increase stormwater runoff. On-site SWM detains (but does not reduce)
runoff via two underground storage systems. FCCI development converts pervious areas to
impervious cover (building, access, and parking). Revise this section. Mention beneficial effect of
stream buffer mitigation plantings on groundwater recharge, if any.
b.Water budget for the site: Provide calculation of Daily Groundwater Recharge from
Precipitation (1,226 GPD). Use post-developed impervious ground cover, not pre-developed (largely
pervious) groundcover. Ref. WPO201400070/WPO201500009.
c.Furnish copy of 48-hr well yield test (1985) or other available documentation Applicant
intends to use to renew permit with VA Office of Drinking Water (ODW) that supports existing well
yield, reported to be 16 GPM (p. 13).
d.Include 1:220 scale graphic image (either County GIS Attachment to email transmittal of
review comments, or similar scale graphic image of site topography) with report.
2.Report is required to be certified by a Licensed Geologist. Report, co-authored by Michael
Craun, PE, and Steve Gooch, CPG, should be sealed and signed by both licensed professionals.
3.Reviewer welcomes .PDF preview prior to hard-copy re-submission, and assures Applicant
that review will take days, not weeks, if given chance to preview revisions. Thank you.
Division:
Date Completed:07/30/2015
Reviewer:John Anderson Engineering
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:.PDF approved -print copy will be submitted on or about August 10 -CV RMS Laserfiche document
-janderson2 7/30/2015 4:53 PM
Division:
Date Completed:09/01/2015
Reviewer:Rachel Falkenstein Planning
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:08/30/2015
Reviewer:John Anderson Engineering
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:08/20/2015
Reviewer:Margaret Maliszewski ARB
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:The applicant's August 11, 2015 comment response letter stated that all ARB comments had been
Division:
Page:2of4 County of AlbemarlePrinted On:January 08, 2016
addressed. Issues were discussed with the ARB, but a separate submittal addressing all ARB
comments from the 8/18/2014 ARB meeting is required, as outlined in the ARB action letter
(ARB-2014-95) dated August 26, 2014. The relevant portion of the letter is copied below.
The Albemarle County Architectural Review Board reviewed the above noted item at its meeting on
Monday, Augsut 18, 2014. The Board, by a vote of 4:0 approved the request, pending staff
administrative approval of the following conditions:
1. Continue the corner bay detailing around the southwest corner of the building.
2. Consider using synthetic stucco instead of EIFS.
3. Add a material/color schedule to the elevation sheets and key the materials to the drawing.
4. Revise the site plan to include the building phase line. If it is anticipated that the phase 2 building
will be visible from the EC, additional ARB review will be required.
5. Show on the landscape plan the plants intended to hide the pipes near the site entrance.
6. Make the light fixture cut sheets legible.
7. Indicate on the plan that the color of the light poles and fixtures will be bronze. Note that the 20’
light height maximum includes poles and bases
8. Remove the note on sheet L5 that references a 500’ ARB limit and correct the corresponding plant
sizes.
9. Provide the landscape plan at a more legible scale. Make the key numbers easily legible.
10. Delete the text after the first sentence in note #4 on the landscape plan.
11. Clarify the intent of the Stream Buffer Mitigation notes on the landscape plan. If a replanting
method other than that required as a condition of the Special Use Permit is proposed, submit an
application to amend the Special Use Permit. Otherwise, provide details to clarify how the buffer
replanting will be accomplished, consistent with the conditions of the Special Use Permit.
12. Coordinate the plans regarding the low wall located south of the building.
Please provide:
1. Two full sets of revised drawings addressing each of these conditions. Include updated ARB
revision dates on each drawing.
2. A memo including detailed responses indicating how each condition has been satisfied. If changes
other than those requested have been made, identify those changes in the memo also. Highlighting
the changes in the drawing with “clouding” or by other means will facilitate review and approval.
3. The attached “Revised Application Submittal” form. This form must be returned with your revisions
to ensure proper tracking and distribution.
When staff's review of this information indicates that all conditions of approval have been met, a
Certificate of Appropriateness may be issued. A Certificate of Appropriateness is required prior to
Final Site Plan approval.
Date Completed:09/03/2015
Reviewer:Troy Austin VDOT
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:09/16/2015
Reviewer:Margaret Maliszewski ARB
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:I have reviewed the site plan with revision date of August 31, 2015 and the architectural drawings
dated 8/31/2015 and 9/1/2015 to determine if the conditions of ARB approval outlined in the ARB
meeting held on August 18, 2014 and in the action letter dated August 26, 2014 have been satisfied.
I have the following comments:
1. Condition #8 stated, “Remove the note on sheet L5 that references a 500’ ARB limit and correct
the corresponding plant sizes.” The applicant’s response letter stated that the note was removed and
references notes 1 and 2 under the plant list. The note was not removed and is, in fact, note #2 under
the plant list. To meet the condition of ARB approval, remove note #2 and references to it in the plant
list.
2. Condition #5 stated, “Show on the landscape plan the plants intended to hide the pipes near the
site entrance.” The applicant’s response letter indicates that the plants have been increased in size
Division:
Page:3of4 County of AlbemarlePrinted On:January 08, 2016
on the plan for better visibility and references General Landscape Note #1, which states that only low
evergreen groundcover at culvert ends are to be installed within the VDOT right-of-way. It does not
look like the proposed plants will screen the pipes as viewed from the Entrance Corridor. However, it
appears that positioning additional juniper (the low evergreen groundcover previously mentioned) on
the EC side of the pipes and culverts could accomplish the screening.
Please revise the landscape plan to address these issues and forward me one copy of the revised
plan with the attached Revised Application Submittal form. When staff’s review of this information
indicates that all conditions of approval have been met, a Certificate of Appropriateness may be
issued. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Date Completed:09/11/2015
Reviewer:Rachel Falkenstein Planning
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:09/14/2015
Reviewer:John Anderson Engineering
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:Several comments remain from 30-Aug review; both relate to the retaining wall. Comments 9.e., 9.f.
are restated:
(please see 30-Aug comments)
"e.Add NOTE explaining sleeve-it fence post detail without concrete flume applies to last 14-15’
retaining wall only. Add stationing information to this retaining wall detail. (Rev. 1) Not Addressed.
Add note explaining sleeve-it fence post detail without concrete flume applies sta. 265 to 277 only.
f.Examine and revise PVC Coated Cantilever Base design which appears unworkable with
fence post sleeve-it cylinder form. (Rev. 1) Not Addressed. Please call to discuss.
"
janderson2 9/14/2015 8:58 AM
Division:
Date Completed:09/17/2015
Reviewer:Margaret Maliszewski ARB
Review Status:Approved
Reviews Comments:See ARB-2014-95
Division:
Date Completed:09/22/2015
Reviewer:John Anderson Engineering
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:30-Aug review comments relating to retaining wall (9.e., 9.f.) addressed, via sheet 4 of 6, 22-Sep
2015, Note/Detail.
(please see 30-Aug comments)
Revised plan sheet will be incorporated into the final set that is submitted for signatures
Division:
Page:4of4 County of AlbemarlePrinted On:January 08, 2016
BRIAN P. SMITH, PE "41° `""'#
CIVIL ENGINEERING, INC
4835 THREE CHOPT ROAD
TROY,VA 22974
434.296.3644 (C)
EMAIL bpspe @embargmail.com
April 7, 2015
Rachel Falkenstein
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re:Faith Christian Center International - Final Site Plan Submittal
Dear Rachel,
Please find attached the final site plan package for Faith Christian Center International. It includes
seven (7) full sets, one (1)reduced set, the final application form and an application fee of$1,500.
Also, under separate cover will be the easement plat to be submitted by Roger Ray's group.
Below are responses from both myself and Mark Keller(the landscape items)that address your email
of July 18, 2014 and the attachment SDP201400038 - Initial_Site_Plan_Action -
_Approval_Letter.pdf.
July 18, 2014 email
I. The critical slope plan is part of the package showing a disturbance of 1.4784 acres. I have an
email to Wayne Frye dated December 5, 2014 (during the period when we were talking about a
bump out turning area for the Fire/Rescue) states "Wayne, Good morning! I'm happy to report the
amount of disturbed critical slopes(those greater than 25%), with the alternate 2B plan, has been
reduced by 0.01 acres.
Original disturbed critical slopes (years ago) =1.47 acres
Revised rear parking layout(without the addition of the fire marshal's bump-out) =1.49 acres (a
number that was acceptable to the planning department)". This was probably a follow up email to
Wayne after a telephone conversation with you.
The Fire/Rescue concerned was resolved with the revised alternate 2B rear parking configuration.
This is the layout shown on the attached plans.
July 18, 2014 initial site plan approval letter
Planning Division Approval of: (3 copies)
1 . A site plan meetin2 all the requirement.., ol section 32,u of Chapter 1 S a'3[ the vd
This section has been reviewed and I believe all items have been addressed properly.
A larkkuipe plan meetinu the requirement.,or tit'eiIon 7 c; l i t hhaIpt,ii. 1,s ?i the t a:d
Plan meeting these requirements is being submitted.
GOLF COURSE DESIGN • ENGINEERING • SITE DESIGN • LAND PLANNING
• Rachel Falkenstein
April 7, 2015 %✓ `r•�
Page 2
3. 32.5.2(a)] Add [iitranee Corridor (11 1 to the Toning note_
This has been done.
4. 1.32.5..2(a)1 State on the ;-Mans \\al\ers and \\aivcr conditions appro\ed! \\ith the sl'
applieatiou.
This has been done.
5. [-'.5.2(ad Mc: front setback hit- this propert\ shall comply \\ith 1::\ h•init yard requirement
01' 75 feet. emend the scthaeh note to relied this.
This has been done.
6. 132.5.2(a ii Sho\\ setback lines on plans.
This has been done.
7. 132.5?(a)I On demolition sheets make sure all portions of property are shim n. Portions of
the southern propert\ line (along Rt. 25(1) are eurrentl\ cut oiL. Include hou nda.lr\
dimensions lot. southern propert\ line.
This has been done.
`. 1315.2(d )& section 4.2 \cdj,,, r Poivide e\ deuce that Section 77,2 Critical Sh+pes
requirements are llli:t. Shim areas t,i the site \\here existing hopes are critical slopes ,aid
sho\\ \\hiell slopes \\-ill be disturbed on plans. Pro\idc calculations or total acr •age ni critical
slopes disturbed. I t slopes are disturbed he\nnd those that were approved in the \\ni\ er. :in
additional critical slopes \\ai\er \\ill he required.
A critical slopes sheet with calculation is included. Disturbed critical areas are depicted
on selected sheets.
(a,
1315-.2( 1d d Pro\ lilt;' the location of an\ other existing or proposed utilities and wiiit\
casements.
I double checked with the surveyor on this item and he assures me all recorded easements are
shown.
1(1. 1 32.5?(n fl Sho\\ existing house on demolition plans_
This has been done.
l 1 . 132.5.2(11)1 Shu\\ limits or disturbance t,n denl0htion plan sheets and sho\\ ,areas \\here
existing ■egetation \\ill he removed.
This has been done.
I2.1_ 2.5.2(e 32.7.9.4(e)I In landscape plan identit'v \\ett(her existing \\oOded areas are
composed oii e\er`._'reeii. deeidtlorus., or aInix of lVpe.
Composition of existing wooded areas specified.
1 3. 32.5,2(p) & 32.7.0.4(hiI kxistin; trees nla\ he preserved in lieu of planting new ;,loll!
materials in order to satisf■ the landscaping and screening requirements or section 32.7.0,
subject to the agent's appro\a. It \ou intend to use existing trees to satist\ an\ oldie
landscape plan requirements, please include the lon );\ inn:
.-1/'ci/.\' um/ other lc'ultire,\ shown Inc ltr;nl.\d'U/(L' ,ni(n1. Flue landscape plan shall sho\■ the
trees to he preserved, the limits of Clearing. the location and l\pe Ot protective Iencing_
grade changes requiring tree \\ells or wlik. and trellchi n`' i !' tl- nnelin _ pii)Ilo 4'dl bL'\imdl
the limits or clearing.
Existing trees/woods to be preserved are no longer being used to satisfy landscape, screening or
canopy requirements.
BRIAN P. SMITH , PE
GOLF COURSE DESIGN • ENGINEERING • SITE DESIGN • LAND PLANNING
- Rachel Falkenstein
April 7, 2015 '%we
Page 3
1-I. 132,5.2(p) & 32.7.0.81 It appears the majority 01 the tree canop\ requirement wilt he me
with existing trees: see =12 aho\ ti)r direction on ho\\ to verify and document
preser\ation of existing trees. 1 he III inIn ur I'etilli ed tree canop■ liar the site is ten percent:
Pro\ ide calculations to sho\\ this requirement has been mei.
See #13 above.
15. 132.5.2(p) & 32.7.1.61 An area of at least like percent of the pa\ed parking and \ehiciitiar
circulation urea shall be landscaped \\ith trees or shrubs \kith at least one large or medium
shade tree per ten parking spaces or portion thereof. Pro\ ide calculations n) show this
requirement has been met.
New table added to Sheet L5.0 that shows how parking lot landscape requirement is being met.
16. [32.5.2(p) K SI' Condition t6) Show houndar■ ot replant ine areas on landscape plan (as
shown on Concept Plan) and show all proposed plantings in these areas. Condition 6 requires
replanting areas.
The mitigation limits and replanting areas are shown on Sheet L5.0. Note #3 under General
Landscape Notes has been changed to address groundcover planting of graded slopes exceeding
3:1. E&S Handbook specifications now apply.
17. 'Section 21.7 Waiver Condition] Show setback lines and all proposed plantings in required 'arils
on landscape plan. 1 he waiver condition requires these areas to he replanted k\ith species listed
in " Nati\e Plants for (.'onser\ation. Restoration. and I.andscaping: Piedmont Plateau" hrochure.
Most of the property is heavily-wooded. A 20' buffer applies around the entire perimeter of the
property where it does not front a road R/W. The notes identifying these areas provide for
additional plantings to reinforce existing wooded areas if additional screening is necessary. None
of this is to be disturbed except for small strips for channel armoring at new culvert outfalls. The
Mitigation Plan shows massive quantities of tree and shrub plantings on the eastern edge of the
property.
I S. [32.5.2(n)] Show proposed lighting locations on final site plan
This has been done.
I'1. 1.4.1 7 & SP condition ';41 Include cut sheets for proposed lights and pro\ ide Ie;'ihle photometric
plan oil final site plan.
This has been done.
21). 51> condition 51 Health Department \ppro\al oI` \\ell and/or septic :;\amts \\ill he
required prior t„ appro\al ol final site plan.
Understood.
1. 1 1 7-4O3) A her III (.>ronnd\\ater Assessment is required prior to approval of haul site plan.
Understood.
Engineering Division Approval of: (1 copy)
1. Please explore whether proximity to Albemarle Count\ Service Authority requires l ('Cl to
connect to ACSA system. Some PSAs ha\e proximity connection requirements. II'not. please
make pros ision 1'\r Tier Ali (- 2.1)00 gpkt a\erage) or IV ( 2.-UOO gpd) gruundwatcr assessment.
(AC Code I5-4.1.a.;h.: 17-1003. -1004). 1 hank You for correspondence on topic of use rates.
Please calculate fire suppression s\stem demand to he certain existing well meets lire
suppression s'stem demand. Rel. also \( [)5M. 2.1).
BRIAN P. SMITH , PE
GOLF COURSE DESIGN • ENGINEERING • SITE DESIGN • LAND PLANNING
- Rachel Falkenstein
April 7, 2015 % r •.�
Page 4
Understood. This information will be provided by the Architect's team.
�. Ref. Code Sec. 1 K-4.1 .h.1. 2: (l;r-site .\cira e ci slcrrrs. Construction of on-site septic l ields. force
plain. distrihution header and hoses. and use of on-site well require cooi°dirlati,)n \\ith \`?\
Department of Health. Please contact VD! I and furnish agency information required 10r their
re\ie\\ needs. Furnish or attach septic hcld design h\ Old I)ominion Logineering_ on re\ ised
C41). furnish number/length of drain lick] lines and I. x \\' of each of eight proposed fields.
Note- portions of4 fields lie on slopes of twenty (20) percent or greater. 15-4.2.4 slates that "the
Virginia Department of Health should he mindful of the intent of section 4.2. and particularik
mindful of the intent to discourage onsite Se\\age s\stems on slopes of l\\ells\ (_II) percent or
greater. Ails- onsite sewage s\stem shall he located within a building site" -defer to Planning
Dix isioil 00 proposed location of septic s\stem.
Understood.
?. A mitigation plan will he required with final \APO plans. There should he a concept for
mitigation oil the initial site plan. Proposed development lies on steep wooded terrain \kith areas.
of disturbance within stream buffer. Impacts to stream honer granted h\ \yal\et° must
nevertheless offset impacts. Please find mitigation requirements and option; at 17-(nf) 01 0)00
17-(,P4.
Mitigation Plan has been updated.
4. Please show critical slopes ( >25",,i) on sheets C2.0. 2.1. 2.2. C.--; .O, C4.0. 4.1. and 4.2. furnish
t\pica( detail for the grassed channel show n at the top of the 400.5-I1 wall. Pro\ ide details h
routing from this point to point of treatment. or release.
This has been done.
5. i1\tend existing contours (( 3.0. 3.1. 3.2) at least 50-11 he\oud each -f. hotindar\. and at least to
the west hank ofShad\\ell Creek near and along PL with C. R. Moore Well I)rilfing (tip to Ititl.-
ft 1.
This was waived by John.
(). Length of was ei\vav ( ,100-ft \\ithoul parking l.AC1)SNl. 7.( means tra\efw as at all poirri'-
h •t\\■ en Rte. 251) and parkin_ areas must meet pri\ate sit-eel standards listed at 14-41(1. 14-411'
(R\\". sight distance [comment -4-7j. max grade, min K-crest/K-sag). Ref Albemarle Comm
Design Standards Manual. 7.F. (p. 12) and table. Pri1•oie a(rt et Slorrclunl\ to,' : heffi u-/c ( r,rrtrtt.
1 able is last p. of Manual. j link to .pdf
w'w\\.alhemarle.orglupload inlagesifornis center/departments/community
aleselonlllent'forms%design standards manual!Albemarle County Design Standards Manual
:9:\rr2014 draft.pdfj
This has been done and an entrance profile provided.
7. In order to evaluate vertical!horitontal sight distance for travel\\ay between Center and Rte. 250.
please furnish profile with stations. Show vertical sight distance is at least 100-t1. Show
horiiontal sight distance is at least 225-0 . [ 1?;-4.12. 1 3.d.
See above #6.
S, Consider harriers in addition to curb for steep portions of'fill slope L. oftravel\\as. and vehicle
and pedestrian protection at steep constructed till slopes halo\\ N1: parking area' !link:
http://www.virginiadot.org/husiness/resourcesil.oeDes/2010 GRIT 1Manual.pol I.
Thank you. A five foot shelf was added and the slope is further away from the stream.
BRIAN P . SMITH , PE
GOLF COURSE DESIGN • ENGINEERING • SITE DESIGN • LAND PLANNING
- Rachel Falkenstein
April 7, 2015
Page 5
c). Parking sight distance: ensure 100-lit sight distance in curved section of NI: corner of site parking
(A('DSl\1. 7.('.I.: Code I8-4.12.17.d]. Increase all curb radii to ;-ft, min. Furnish island at the N
end of west parking hays in the S parking lot (sheet ('4.1 ). Ref. design/islands in North parking
lot. 118-4.12 .1S.11
With the alternate 2B parking layout the sight distance and islands should now be fine and I
changed the curb radii too.
ill. Sheet C4.0 provides 311 flare h r southernmost parking hays: recommend widening the 2 parking
spaces nearest the ('enter in N parking lot by at bast ;-11 to f:.tcilitate reverse-c imnetl■cr.
Understood.
11. \\ PO application and approval are required prior to final site plan approval, Link to /:fit inrering
can/ f1TO forms ( '&',flee- httr://www.albemarle.orit/deptIOrms.as_p_?department-cdengwpo. \With
\\'PO application. we will need storm drain pipe dimensions (I L. DI:\) l'or all structures and
outralls. Please dimension outlall riprap protection. Please contact rer ie\\er to discuss S\\-";\-1
application requirements. which 110\\ include \-S 11'' permit requirements. With next revision.
show VDLQ VI'DI.S permit number idr this project on cover sheet. if permit issued.
This has been done.
12. Sheet C4. 1-Access labeled Neu' Il c'//.lc'c'c'i,c, -1"-2 1.1 Mane. I 0-fec'1 u'icle is at 25°„ grade over
disturbed slopes. This is untenable: please furnish paved design for well access. Include
structural harrier to prevent vehicles leaving the access. [here is nothing to stop LI vehicle that
leaves this surface from traveling orer a high retaining \Nall. Furnish timber guardrail. c,r
alternate. [ACDS\1
This has been done.
13. Furnish dates fur topograph\/survey (co\er page. t,apo'surye\ h■ Roger W. K_\ �� :\s•soet.
This has been done.
14. Sheet C2 .0. ('2.1-Confirmwhether existing telephone lines \\ill be removed (all poles slated for
remo\al): label existing culvert pipe at Rte. 250 entrance (label TIM): confirm that existing pole
to be adjusted (C2.0) is shown in final location on sheet C4.0.
This has been done.
15. Confirm that match lines. sheets ('4.0 and C3.0. in tact align. On sheet C-3.0. near entrance to
Center. extend existing contours north. I here appears to he missing detail. Also. please label
match line on sheet C3.0,
This has been done.
For final plans:
16. Sheet ('7.0- Show typical site pavement section in its cutiret■; dimension proposed width. Shore
V DOT i 2 I A base stone extending at least 1-11 beyond 1041 \\ide pa\ed surface in iyp/cul She
Parcemern Seci/w/ detail (as detail applies to well and septic field access. not parking), or else
increase paved width to at least 12-11. liar each access. jACDSM. 7.1).2.]
This has been done.
i 7. Label retaining wall material. liar the wall shown at septic fields (C4.0). Isabel cm/ureic and
reference concrete wall details, S3. if these details arc for this \gall.
The access to the septic fields has been eliminated thus we don't have any walls near the septic
fields.
BRIAN P. SMITH , PE
GOLF COURSE DESIGN • ENGINEERING • SITE DESIGN • LAND PLANNING
- Rachel Falkenstein
April 7, 2015 `✓
Page 6
18. For proposed 499.E-11 retaining Wall west of harLini2 area. transfer .wall stations shown on S3 to
plan view of\\all shown on C4.1. ('-12.
This has been done.
19. Consider and furnish bedding details for foree main het\\een ("enter and septic cIJ. Consider
effect of placing force main line in 12'-14' constructed fill slopes on the I. side of the ('enter.
Recommend rui/ilt-plan sheet.
This portion of the project will be designed by Old Dominion Engineering and review by the
Health Department.
U. ( o\er sheet states site is not Within a dcvelopluent area. and references critical slopes \\di\Cr,
('lease publish conditions or exemptions granted b■ critical slopes waiver on plans. \Ii bough
waiver to disturb critical slopes is cited. there are pending requirements for aeti\ it\ on critical
slopes !see ACD \1.
Understood. This has been done.
21. Pro\ide and specil■ ground co\cr hardier than grass for slopes steeper than 3:1-defer to Planning,
on question of whether Phrirrs Laicgru.\s qualities. IACDS:11.
Note#3 under General Landscape Notes has been changed to address groundcover planting of
graded slopes exceeding 3:1. E&S Handbook specifications now apply.
�2. Iteins to consider. or that we need. with VSMP application:
I1 eontirili that 1'ilterra units in tandem \\ith underground storage s\-stems meet \\xerqualik
and uuantit\ requirements found at sec. I7-5(JI :
This was squared away with the initial VSMP application and approval.
II) storm inlets must flank each I'iherra (a simile inlet ma\ serve more than one Filterm, II
located between them):
Same response.
1'rllloff from paved sections (main travelwa\. septic 5\stem access road (C.4)) should he
included in overall site S\\'1'1 design 1 provide control):
Same response and the access road to the septic field was eliminated.
i\ i schematics of drainage areas for each f ilterra unit \\itil ( \1fr) siting, design fable:
Done
\ ) dimensions and typical section for each Filterra unit:
Done
ilterra general maintenance notes:
Done
vii)2 IO-\r storm routing cales for inlets (4 spread. (1.5" capacity). pipes. and detention
systems:
Done
viii) all inlets labeled using std. (VI)01) nomenclature.
Done
23. Furnish:
) labels that describe l (i ti\cM detention system pipes (material. number. length, depth.
DI A):
Done
ii)
show cross sections for convc\ante channels beside septic field access road and above
499.5-t1 retaining \\all (include side slope grades, \\". D. material):
BRIAN P. SMITH , PE
GOLF COURSE DESIGN • ENGINEERING • SITE DESIGN • LAND PLANNING
Rachel Falkenstein
April 7, 2015 `we "+4
Page 7
Done, except for the access road to the septic fields as this was eliminated.
iii) culvert outfall protection, with dimensions: show sheet C5.0 riprap on ('4.(1_ as well
Done
24. Retaining wall-rel. ACDSM 8.B. guid;utce. Revise to show: it where 4" drain tiles day light at
end of walls (at Center: at septic fields): ii) provide landscape planting clusters in addition to
plantings shown on C5.0 to discourage children climbing. above the 499.5-It retaining wall which
measures 13-ft high in places: lilt show and label rail (h\ others) on sheet ( L). 1 : ) design should
avoid right band bends (9P-deg) if possible: V 1 provide flat grade beneath rail (sheet 53) and 2- "
min. separation between runoff conveyance (swale. shown in detail) and hack of vi} sp ecil�.
rail design: vii 1 furnish note speci ■ing allowable penetration ofgeoarid by posts. plantings, etc:
note should specify allowable. or prohibit, penetration of retaining wall geogrid.
I think these were all addressed on the retaining wall plans by Mike Circeo.
25. Show proposed new entrance culvert (pipe t■pe. I.. 1)1.1). sheet C3.1: furnish ditch detail and
provide riprap inlet/outlet protection.
Done
Albemarle County Architectural Review Board Approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness.
(1 copy)
A Certificate of Appropriateness is required prior to final site plan approx al. The follow in items
addition to all other relevant checklist items) will need to he addressed with the nest AR h submittal:
1, Eliminate the service dri\e to the septic fields. I f the dri\e can't he eliminated. relocate and:or
reorient the drive to sienilicantl\ reduce visihilit■ from the EC and pro\ landscaping to better
integrate the drive into the surrounding natural landscape.
Service drive eliminated.
2. Add trees on the re-graded slopes at the south end of the building and parking areas to help
integrate the regular grading of the slopes into the surrounding natural landscape.
Trees added to graded slopes around south parking lot.
3. Revise the landscape plan to include details regarding the replanting of disturbed areas w ithin the
stream buffer and the 20' huller on the west side of the site.
Details for planting on slopes are found on Sheet L5.1. The Mitigation Plan, Sheet L5.2 shows
what is scheduled to be planted within disturbed areas of the stream buffer.
1. C'larit\ the appearance of the pipes and ditches at the lower end of the entrance drive. Show how
these elements will ha\e an appropriate appearance from the LC.
The culvert ends are below the Rte 250 road elevation and we have specified 4 evergreen
groundcover shrubs to be planted at each end of the culvert to help with the aesthetics.
5. Add the standard mechanical equipment note to the site and architectural drawings: "Visibility of
all mechanical equipment from the Entrance Corridor shall he eliminated."
This has been done.
O. Provide a legible lighting plan. Include cut sheets f o r the proposed Ii\tures in the site plan.
Ensure that spillover does not exceed lc at all propert\ lines and coordinate this requirement
with the notes on the plan.
Done
7. Remove the '' Ibis plan received preliminar■ AR 13 appro\;tk ... " note from the landscape plan.
BRIAN P. SMITH , PE
GOLF COURSE DESIGN • ENGINEERING • SITE DESIGN • LAND PLANNING
• Rachel Falkenstein
April 7, 2015 `or,
. Page 8
Done
8. Shoe the existing tree line along the Rt. 25(1 iirontaIge and the tree line to remain consistently oil
all sheets. ( 1 he tree line is not shown on the Rt. 251 Improvements plans or the existing
conditions plans.)
Done
9. Revise the plans to include all easements associated with all utilities.
The surveyor has assured me all easements that have been recorded are on the plans.
10. Prig ide documentation from VI)01 stating that the proposed grading and planting in the right
of-way is acceptable.
See attached email.
I I. Provide large shade trees at 3"caliper. 35' on c enter, and interspersed ornamental trees. along the
Rt. 250 frontage of the property in areas where grading is proposed and in areas \\here on-site
wooded area to remain is thin.
Road frontage planting have been revised as requested.
12. Increase landscaping to better integrate the entrance drive into the surroundings. Provide 2
caliper trees. spaced 40' on center. along the lull length of the entrance drive.
Entrance drive plantings have been revised as requested.
I3. Provide perimeter trees for the southern parking lot. 0' on center. 2 '',•' caliper at planting.
Pro\ ide a staggered row of evergreen shrubs along the eastern and southern perimeters of the
southern parking lot. 24" minimum at planting.
Perimeter parking lot trees and evergreen screening trees have been specified around the southern
parking lot as requested.
14. Add the standard planting note to the plan: "_ill site plantings of trees and shrubs shall be
allowed to reach, and be maintained at. mature height: the topping of trees is prohibited. Shrubs
and trees shall he pruned minimally and onl\ to support the overall health of the plant."
See note#5 under General Landscape Notes.
15. Coordinate the landscape plan and the Rt. 250 Improvements plan regarding off-site grading.
The plans are coordinated and required landscaping resides immediately behind the Rte 250 R/W
and immediately in front of the OHE easement.
Virginia Department of Transportation Approval. (1 copy)
I . he solid line along the southern edge of Route 250 should he white rather than the \ellow called I�►r
on the site plan.
This has been corrected.
2. t
he new dashed line for the extended turn and should he w bite rather than the `ell ow called for on
the site plan.
This has been corrected.
3. The taper for the proposed entrance improvements shown on sheet C'3 .1 should extend to Route
25(1'.
This has been corrected.
4. .All guard rails, existing or proposed. should be clean\ identified on the site plan.
I believe they are now.
BRIAN P. SMITH , PE
GOLF COURSE DESIGN • ENGINEERING • SITE DESIGN • LAND PLANNING
• Rachel Falkenstein
April 7, 2015 r..r
Page 9
5. There appears to he a need for a culvert under the proposed entrance improvements shown on shec!
C 3.1. Said culvert appears on sheet 5.0. the landscape plan. Details for the culvert need to be
included, such as invert elevations, pipe diameter/material. pipe length. etc.
Done
6. The throat width of the proposed entrance should he added to the site plan.
Done
7. The anticipated vehicle trips per day for the entrance should he added to the site plan. It is likely that
a Moderate Volume Commercial Entrance as defined in Appendix F of the Road Design Manual will
he adequate. but this will need to he verified based on the trip generation for the site.
Done, I want to point out the entrance is designed per VDOT review and recommendations years
ago.
8. An AM-E spacing exception will need to he obtained for this entrance. An application was submitted
in March 2010: however. it does not appear that the exception has formally been approved. As the
well drilling business has since closed. one final attempt to combine access to both parcels into a
single entrance should be made prior to action on the spacing exception.
I believe this exception was found and approved.
Fire Rescue Approval. (1 copy)
1 . Roads greater than 15011 in length may require an approved turn around.
This has been resolved with the revised alternate 2B layout of the rear parking lot.
Thank you very much. As always, if you have any questions please don't hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Brian P. Smith, PE
President
Enclosures
Cc: Pastor Wayne Frye
Account ID:06-012-07/Rachel Falkenstein 1
BRIAN P. SMITH , PE
GOLF COURSE DESIGN • ENGINEERING • SITE DESIGN • LAND PLANNING
Nire 'Noe
Century Link Webmail bpspe@embarqmail.com
Re: Faith Christian Center International: proposed entrance
From :Dennis L. Seale(VDOT) <Dennis.Seale @VDOT.Virginia.gov> Thu, Jul 24, 2014 09:14 AM
Subject :Re: Faith Christian Center International: proposed entrance
To :Brian P. Smith <bpspe @embargmail.com>
Good Afternoon Brian,
The planting of these 4 low growing junipers will be acceptable to VDOT and may be planted as
shown on the plans.These plantings will need to be maintained by Faith Christian Center
International and will be mentioned on the permit for road improvements and should be noted on
the landscape plan. The junipers will be maintained as to not interfere with the inlet and outlet of
pipe as to hinder water flow. If you should have any questions or concerns please let me know.
Thanks,
Dennis Seale
Engineering Specialist
VDOT
434-531-2877
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jul 23, 2014, at 11:05 AM, "Brian P. Smith" <bpspe @embargmail.com> wrote:
> Dennis,
> Good to talk with you today. Here's the proposed entrance showing the grading and 4 low-
growing junipers at each end section.
> Is this acceptable to VDOT?
> Thanks!
> Brian P. Smith, PE
> Civil Engineering, Inc.
> 4835 Three Chopt Road
> Troy, VA 22974
> (434)296-3644(c)
> bpspe @embarqmail.com
> <entrance grading and landscaping for VDOT.pdf>