Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP200400023 Review Comments 2003-03-07March 7, 2003 MI Below is staff s response to your query. Responses are below your questions in italics. I've taken your original questions and separated them by topic and by who answered them. I think, though, that I kept them in the original order. Let me know if you need anything else — Yadira. Engineering — Mark Graham 1. What portion of the proposed project fall within the "water supply protection area" and shouldn't this be noted on the Site Plan? All of the project is ivithin the water supply protection area. Identifying this on the preliminary site plan is not an ordinance requireinent, but I believe either the agent or the Planning Coununission can require it z(sing 18 32.5.6.s. 2. I need further clarification of the determination of the "Intermittent stream" shown on the plat, and why the 100' buffer as required by the ordinance does not apply. The ordinance clearly applies to both "perennial" and "intermittent" streams (those that flow seasonally), and realistically the only evidence in a prolonged drought would probably be a dry eroded gully similar to what the engineering department identified on the site. David Hirschman walked all of the stremns on this site and determined, consistent with the definition of an "intermittent stream" in the Water Protection Ordinance, that this (lid not meet the definition of an "intermittent stream ". 3. The proposed grading on the southern portion of the site directs all runoff eventually into Ivy Creek. What will protect this critical resource from contamination from engine oil, hydraulic oil, drive train oil, transmission oil, waste oil, and diesel fuel from the activities and equipment proposed for this area? It should be noted that all of this site drains into Iijv Creek, not just the southern portion. That said, the first line of defense against such spills is always proper nuaraagerruent of activities. That management is regulated by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and permitted by DEQ under the Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination Svstenn (VPDES) ro rain. That f o u am specifies measures or spill control and containment as well as "goodPgP" g" f p g hozzsekeeping" to be used to minimize the risk of such spills. The second line of defense is on -site contaimmnent of spills. Engineering determined that all of the equipment yard would have runoff directed to a stornnwater management facility and that provides the second line of defense against such spills. If a major spill were to occur, these facilities serve as a catchment for the materials so that they could be safely removed. As required by their VPDESpermit, this would be immediately reported to DEQ. DEQ would then coordinate with local public safety officials to assure the clean -up was properly completed. The third line of defense is managing the impact of such a spill. With regard to protecting by Creek and the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir, that protection is containment and removal of the contaminants using the State's hazardous material response team. While the likelihood that the state would need to step in is very small, they do provide the third line of defense in controlling such a spill. Zoning — Amelia McCulley 1. Does the southern half of the property where the pole barns, maintenance facility and storage yards are located, together with two septic drainfields, parking, loading, etc. fit within "a rectangle inscribed within the building site" as required by the ordinance? The building site ordinance definition, including the language "a rectangle inscribed within the building site" is a MINIMUM area and dimension requirement for a building site (Sect. 4.2.2). This building site requirement is imposed particz.darly with subdivision ofproperty and the creation of new lots. "No lot or parcel shall have less than one (1) building site" (Section 4.2.1). Property may have a building site which is larger than the minimum requirements, as is the case here. When the building site exceeds the minimum area requirements (30, 000 square feet), the entire larger building site does not need to meet the dimension requirement. In this case, the mininnnn building site of 30, 000 square feet can meet the dimension requirements, including the rectangle inscribed within. " County Attorney's Office — Greg Kamptner 1. What is staffs opinion of the allegation made in Mr. Buck's letter that the proposal utilizing multiple yards is only acceptable in HI zoned (not LI zoned) areas? The use of the singular "yard" in the LI district regulations and the plural "yards " in the HI district regulations is a non- substantive distinction. The district regidations throughout the Zoning Ordinance refer to some uses in the singular, others in the plural. Even if a icse is stated in the singular, the regulations do not prohibit more than one of the same zrse on a parcel provided that all other requirements of the Zoning Ordinance can be satisfied. 2. What is staffs opinion of Mr. Buck's allegation that based on the square footages of the facilities that the maintenance and repair facility is not "subordinate" to the equipment storage" as required by the ordinance? The area occupied by a particular activity does not, in and of itself, determine whether a use is primary or accessory. For example, on a one -acre lot in a residential zoning district, the primary "single family residential " use (a house and driveway) may occupy only 3, 000 square feet; an accessory use szrch as landscaping and gardening nucy consume the other 40,560 square feet. The primary use is nonetheless "single-family residential, " not "horticultural, " agricultural " or some other classification, even though the accessory uses consume more that 13 times the area of the primary use. 2 In this case, "contractor's office and equipment storage yard " constitutes a single primary use or two separate but related primary uses). Activities such as equipment maintenance and gravel storage are accessory uses that make up the primary "equipment storage yard " component of the use. All of the accessory uses together make up the "contractor's office and equipment storage yard" use. 3. What is staffs opinion of Mr. Buck's allegation that the maintenance building is actually a "Public Garage" rather than a "Private Garage" allowed in a LI zone? Maintaining contractor's equipment within a contractor's office and equipment storage yard is not a separate primary use such as a "public garage " or a "body shop. " The maintenance activity is part of the equipment storage yard use. ("'Designation of the lot or parcel as a contractor's storage yard would allow this area to be used to store and maintain construction equipment and other materials customarily used in the trade carried on by the construction contractor" —from A Glossary of Zoning, Development, and Planning Terms.) 4. Does the County need to grant a Special Use Permit as alleged by Mr. Buck to allow Faulconer Construction to store "gasoline, kerosene, or other volatile materials; dynamite blasting caps and other explosives; pesticides and poison; and other such materials which could be hazardous to life in the event of an accident' as suggested by Mr. Bucks letter? As with maintaining equipment, storing equipment (in particular, e_plosives and the other materials) tinder roof within a contractor's office and equipment storage yard is not a separate primary use such as "warehouse facilities. " This issue was considered at length in the hearing before the Board of Zoning Appeals, which determined that blasting was one aspect of Faulconer's construction activities, that blasting materials were customarily used in its trade, and that the storage of blasting materials in a storage yard by contractors such as Faulconer was an accessory use. 5. If the previous 200' buffer was required by the County for the original development of the site in a less intensive way, why is it now judged by staff to no longer be needed (by the subsequent rezoning)? This question will be answered in a separate memorandum to the Planning Commission Faulconer Construction Company; why the bz ffers established as conditions of CUP -140 are no longer in effect, " dated March 7, 2003). 6. Does the substitution of the plan submitted for last week's hearing (or another revision that may subsequently be developed) for the one previously submitted, in any way compromise the determination by the BZA that the proposed use of the property is permitted "by right ". The BZA's determination was limited to whether Faulconer Construction Company's activities constituted a contractor's office and equipment storage yard. Amendments to the site plan that reflect changes to the proposed improvements to the property, but do not inaterially change the proposed use, do not affect the determination by the BZA. 7. Should the legal challenge to the BZA determination that is scheduled to be heard by the Circuit Court on August 18, 2003 be allowed to run its' course before the Commission makes a decision of this proposal? Obviously, if we allow this project to proceed before this decision, and the decision goes against the previous BZA determination, irreversible damage will have already occurred. The Commission is required to act oil the site plats within the time period required by statute and ordinance (60 days, extended to tip to 90 days where state agency review is required), and as ittccy be further extended by consettsual deferral. Virginia Code § 15.2 -2314 provides that the proceedings (in this case, the County's review of the site plan and Fatdconer's development of the property) are not stayed while the action is pending in Circuit Court unless the court grants a restraining order out an application by the petitioners demonstrating "due cause. " The petitioners have not requested that the proceedings be stayed. 8. If the Commission determines that the proposed project represents a "danger to the public health, safety or general welfare" due to off -site concerns (i.e. traffic safety issues), is the Commission bound to approve said project, because of its' determination as a "by- right" use of the property. The quoted language is from Zoning Ordinance § 32. 1, which articulates the intent of the County's site plan regulations. Section 32.1 is not an independent source of regulatory authority giving the Planning Commission authority to deny a permitted use for reasons which might be considered in a rezoning application. Concerns of danger to the public health, safety or general welfare must be addressed in specific site plan and other related regulations. A site plan ordinance is required by law to be a ministerial ordinance. If the applicant has complied with all existing regulations, the approval of a site plan is a ministerial function. See, Board of Supervisors of Prince William County v. Hylton Enterprises, Inc., 216 Va. 582 (1976) pertaining to subdivision plat). 9. Why is staff comfortable recommending approval of a project that they acknowledge is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan? The comprehensive plan provides guidance for discretionary legislative decisions such as zoning text amendments, zoning Wrap amendments and special use permits; it does not apply to ministerial decisions related to site plans and subdivision plats. At the site plan stage, the proposed development need only comply with applicable zoning and other related regulations. See, Rackhain v. Vanguard Limited Partnership, 34 Va. Cir. 478 (1994) (the comprehensive plan may not be a basis for denying a subdivision which is othei-ivise in conformity with duly adopted standards, ordinances and statutes). A site plan review that considers matters ofpolicy, whether reflected in the coittprehensive plan or in the site plan regulations themselves, is impermissible. See, Board of Supervisors of Augusta County v. Countnside Investment Company, 258 Va. 497 1999) (subdivision ordinance regulation allowing board to deity subdivision plat if the subdivision would not preserve a rural environment was invalid; under guise of subdivision ordinance, county could not enact standards that would effectively permit it to rezone property in a manner inconsistent with the uses permitted by the property's zoning classification). Planning — Yadira Amarante 1. Is there a graveyard on the site, and if so where is it? Staff has received no evidence that there is a graveyard on this property. Recently a picture was sent to me by Frank Buck showing what he and the Ivv residents believe to be a burial site. I will be investigating the claims further. Z. What information has been provided by the applicant to determine the availability of required septic fields (both primary and reserve)? Have any soil studies been provided as evidence that the proposed locations are viable? No soil studies have been provided nor are they required at this time. The Health Department will be required to determine soil suitability after preliniinary site plan approval but prior to final site plan approval. 3. If the site is not large enough to meet the safety regulations for distance from a neighboring structures (by Mr. Sanford's statement) why is staff proposing the allowance of storage of any explosives on the site for any period of time? The Zoning Administrator has already determined that Faidconer's storage of explosives related to their contracting business is allowed as an accessory use. Responding to the concerns expressed by the Ivv Community Association and the School Board the applicant stated that they would not store explosives on site and graciously agreed to the condition as written in the staff report. In writing the condition it was determined that the occasional transfer of explosive materials may occur on site (delivery of materials to the company and transfer of material onto a truck and then to the job site) and that they should be allowed a certain time period in which to effect such transfer. I don't recall Mr. Sanford 's statement, but in speaking with him today he stated that Faulconer was permitted, by the State's Board of Housing and Community Development, through the Statewide Fire Prevention Code, to store, handle and use explosives and that he is certified as a blaster by the State. He did not recall saying that the site is not large enough to meet the safety regidations for distance from a neighboring structure. 4. Was there a denial for a previous submission (eighteen years ago) by the Board of Supervisors because of safety concerns related to traffic issues on Morgantown Road as reported by Tim McLaughlin (sp ?) and if so why was this not included in the staff report? I believe you're asking about application #SP 87 -57 Otic Realty Services Corporation on Tax Map 58, Parcel 37C (a different parcel than Faulconer's). The applicant at the time was requesting legislative action in the form of a Special Use Permit to allow a pharmaceutical laboratory and production facility. I did not include it in the staff report because it was an application for another parcel. MEMORANDUM TO: Yadira Amarnte, Planner FROM: Keith Lancaster, Zoning Plans Reviewer DATE: March 26, 2003 RE: SDP 04 -23, Faulconer Contractor Storage /Office Final Site Plan Final tentative approval from the Department of Building Code and Zoning Services will be subject to the following conditions: (The following conditions are those that have been identified at this time. Additional conditions may be added or eliminated based on further review.) 1. [32.5.6(n)] Show the location of all outdoor lighting on the plan. 2. [32.6.60)] Provide a description and photograph or diagram and show the location of each type of outdoor luminaire that emits 3,000 or more initial lumens. Please be aware that installation of such luminaires in the future that are not shown on this plan shall require an amendment to this plan. 3. [32.6.60)] [4.17.4(b)] Include a photometric plan on the site plan demonstrating that parking area luminaires are in compliance with 4.17.4 b. 4. [32.5.6(b)] The parking schedule states "54 parking spaces provided" for the office use. The site plan only delineates 53 parking spaces for the office use. Revise the parking schedule to state "53 parking spaces provided." 5. [32.5.6(c)][4.12.2(c)] The phasing plan only references the building construction for this site. If all the parking is constructed during phase 1, a modification request to the Zoning Administrator is required to exceed the 20% rule. Either provide phasing information for the parking schedule or request a parking modification. 6. [4.12.4(a)] The parking regulations were amended on February 5, 2003. The ordinance now requires that the number of parking spaces may not exceed the number of spaces required by this section by more than twenty (20) percent. Please contact me if you have questions or require additional information. c` a• tt_ r RcC,vtP COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development MEMORANDUM TO: Brent Nelson FROM: Yadira Amarante, Planner DATE: March 26, 2004 RE: SDP 04 -023 - Faulconer Construction Office and Shop Final Site Plan The Albemarle County Department of Planning and Community Development will grant tentative approval of the final site plan referenced above when the following items have been satisfactorily addressed: (Each connnEnt is preceded by the applicable reference.] 1. [I 8-32.6.6(i)] Submittal and approval of a Landscape Plan in conformance with Section 32.7.9 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Landscape Plan shall include a tree conservation plan. 2. [ 18- 32.7.5.3] Health Department approval of all well and drainfield locations. 3. [ 18- 32.7.3.3] Submittal and approval of a plat dedicating r -o -w of Morgantown Road. 4. [ 18- 32.5.6(1)] The proposed road servicing the development must have an approved road name labeled on the final site plan. 5. The final site plan to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted comments, please do not hesitate to contact me (434) 296 -5823 ext. 3297. C OF . COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development MEMORANDUM TO: Brent Nelson FROM: Yadira Amarante, Planner DATE: March 26, 2004 RE: SDP 04 -023 - Faulconer Construction Office and Shop Final Site Plan The Albemarle County Department of Planning and Community Development will grant tentative approval of the final site plan referenced above when the following items have been satisfactorily addressed: [Each connnew is preceded h_l the applicable refE'rence.J I. [18- 32.6.6(i)] Submittal and approval of a Landscape Plan in conformance with Section 32.7.9 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Landscape Plan shall include a tree conservation plan. 18- 32.7.5.3] Health Department approval of all well and drainfield locations. 18- 32.7.3.3] Submittal and approval of a plat dedicating r -o -w of Morgantown Road. 4. [ 18- 32.5.6(1)] The proposed road servicing the development must have an approved road name labeled on the final site plan. 5. The final site plan to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted comments, please do not hesitate to contact me (434) 296 -5823 ext. 3297. COMMONWEALTHH o f VIRGINIA In Cooperation with the Thomas Jefferson Health District State Department of Health 1138 Rose Hill Drive Office of Environmental Health P. O. Box 7546Phone (804) 972 -6259 FAX (804) 972 -4310 Charlottesville, Virginia 22906 April 6, 2004 Yadira Q. Amarante, Planner County of Albemarle Department of Planning and Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Va. 22902 Dear Ms. Amarante, ALBEMARLE - CHARLOTTESVILLE FLUVANNA COUNTY (PALMYRA) GREENE COUNTY (STANARDSVILLE) LOUISA COUNTY ( LOUISA) NELSON COUNTY (LOVINGSTON) I have reviewed the soil work for the Faulconer Construction Site in Ivy. I find it to be adequate to serve the septic system as they propose in their plan. I shall be happy to discuss this or related matter as required. Sincerely,,,. William A. Craun Field Advisor Office of Environmental Health APR - 8 2004 lY .nom 'tl J7 v' COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE.: Department of Community Devclopment Current Development Group a Project: Faulconer Construction Office and Shop Plan preparer: Roudabush, Gale & Assoc., Inc. (fax 296 -5220) Owner or rep.: Faulconer Construction (fax 295 -0508) Plan received date: 5 Mar 2004 (final site plan) Date of comments: 16 Apr 2004 Review Engineer: Glenn Brooks A. Road and drainage plan: 1. Please provide a signed and dated professional seal on the plans. Engineering Plan Review Comments 2. Please provide drainage easements over stormwater management facilities and access. [18- 32.6.6d, 32.7.5.2] 3. Please clarify the dimensions on the irregularly shaped parking spaces. The 9' dimension should be the smallest width at the aisle. [18- 32.6.68, 18- 4.12.16] 4. Please provide a stop sign coming out of the one -way travel aisle at building A. [ 18- 32.7.2] 5. The required parking spaces must be surfaced with a minimum prime and double seal coat, or asphalt. Some of the proposed gravel spaces in the storage yard are required parking. [ 18- 4.12.15a] 6. It does not appear that asphalt curb will work in the gravel construction yard. Not only is asphalt curb notoriously prone to breaking up, it will have no base in a gravel lot. Please provide a detail for the proposed asphalt curb to address this issue, or replace it with standard curbing. [18- 4.12.15g] 7. Please revise the contours 642 and 643 in the storage yard at the curb next to proposed parking to achieve required grades. [18- 4.12.15c, 18- 32.6.6d.6] 8. Please provide guardrail over all of the 2:1 slopes on the entrance road and travelways. [DM605A, 18- 32.7.2] 9. One of the Planning Commission's conditions of approval for this site was, "The grading for the roadway to access the site shall be minimized as much as feasible with guidance from Engineering staff." Also, section 17 -322 indicates that evaluation of a mitigation plan consider whether the stream buffer disturbance is the minimum necessary. To these ends, please revise the two culvert crossings to minimize buffer disturbance by minimizing the amount of fill. Provide profiles of the travelways over these areas and provide sag curves to reduce fill. The curves need only maintain 100' sight distance and provide a 4% landing at Detter Road. In addition, headwalls should be used to redpce stream buffer disturbances further. Please provide curb and inlet computations for all inlets on the site; omputations for only two inlets were received. Please correct the computations to use a 4in/hr intensity for spread, and ensure spreads are less than half the travelway. The use of the free FHWA Visual Urban program is recommended, as the computations do not appear correct. [DM909. I A(7), 505G] 10. Please revise the curbed travelways to the minimum 20' width required by 18- 4.12.17c. For the rural road sections over the stream buffers, the Planning Commission's approval with conditions will be construed as a waiver. r 11. Please provide MS -19 data and corputations for the release channel from the basin. Include a channel detail on the plan, and as well as a description of the existing channel. 12. Please complete the pipe computations and provide capacity and velocity checks according to Design Manul 909.1A(4) and 505E. All pipe diameters should match those used on the plans. 13. Please ensure all pipe deflection angles are 90 degrees or less. [DM505D12] 14. Please correct the culvert diameter labels on the plans to match the computations. 15. Please provide a drainage summary table and legend according to 18- 32.6.6d4,5 and DM909.1 C. 16. Please provide end sections and scour protection on all culverts and pipe outlets. [DM909.IB, 505C, 505D] Engineering Plan Review Comments Page 2 of 2 b 17. Please provide details for the retaining walls. [32.6.6d] 18. A note on adjacent property indicates "Prop Stormwater Detention Facility ". Please include the grading in the site plan with easements, remove the note, or clarify. B. Stormwater management plan: 1. A stormwater management application and plan have not been received. 2. From the grading included on the site plan it does not appear that the required vehicle access is provided to the basin. Vehicle access must be provided according to DM909 2A(3), and 503.1D. C. Mitigation plan: 1. A mitigation plan has not been received. D. Erosion and sediment control plan: 1. An erosion control application and plan have not been received. Attachment: (none) Copy: file SDP - 2004 - 00023 File: E1_fsp,swm,mp,ecp_GEB_Faulconer Constr.doc 4/29/04 Keith Lancaster Division of Zoning and Current Development: Zoning Review SDP 04 -023 Faulconer Construction Office and Shop Final Site Plan Administrative Approval. JHGI^+v COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Building Code and Zoning Services 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 FAX (434) 972 -4126 TELEPHONE (434) 296 -5832 TTD (434) 972 -4012 April 30, 2004 Brent W. Nelson Roudabush, Gale & Assoc. Inc. 914 Monticello Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: Faulconer Construction Office & Yard Parking Modification Request SDP - 2004 -23, Faulconer Construction Office & Yard Final Site Plan Dear Mr. Nelson: You have requested a modification of section 4.12.4 (a) which states "the number of parking spaces in a parking area may not exceed the number of spaces required by this section by more than twenty (20) percent." A copy of this request is enclosed with exhibit A. The Faulconer Construction Office & Yard final site plan, dated April 20, 2004 shows both Phase I and Phase II. Phase I is the construction of the Faulconer Construction Office and yard. The total required parking for the construction office building is 18 spaces. The request is to exceed the 20% rule by constructing 8 additional spaces within Phase I. Taken together, Phase I and Phase II require 46 parking spaces with a total of 53 provided. Section 4.12.4 (a) limits the maximum number of spaces to 55. The modification of this section is approved for the additional 8 spaces to be built in Phase 1. We have consulted with the engineering department and we agree that it is reasonable to build the 8 spaces in this phase as part of the construction of the storm water management system and road. This approval is also based on the understanding that the number of parking spaces that are provided at the completion of this project will not exceed the number of required spaces by more than twenty percent. Please contact me if you have questions or require further information. Sincerely, Keith Lancaster Zoning Plans Reviewer Copy: Yadira Amarante, Principal Planner Enclosure With this request, we are proposing that site & building construction within the office portion of this development would be divided into two phases. The attached exhibit shows that Phase Two would involve the construction of Office Building "A" and the 23 parking spaces (& travel -way) that surround it. Faulconer Construction would like to be able to rough grade this area as part of Phase One. Once graded this area would be seeded and stabilized. The eight parking spaces that this parking modification request provides for are located along the edge of the travel -way leading up to Faulconer's office building — as shown in the attached exhibit. Phase One needs the site improvements (asphalt, curbing, storm inlet) provided with these nine spaces, because they are an integral part of the storm drainage system being built at that time. I believe it is more than fair to say that this modification would not be contrary to the purpose and intent of section 4.12.4 (a), and would in fact better serve the public's health and safety by allowing all storm runoff to be captured and treated. Please contact me should you have any questions or concerns as they relate to this request. Sincerely, niwi \) Brent W. Nelson Attachment cc: Yadira Amarante (by e -mail) File 2 WS' lW'US t } ld / /.u8uu s NE 4 MOE O TLI VE 4 F 2 PARKING SPACES ALLOWED BY- RIGHT. INIVDFNOTES OUT INE\ OF 8 PARKING SPACES REQUESTED IN PARKING MODIFICATION 1 1 1 JE: N? TES WHITS OF PHASE 2' ON7RUCTION PP ROPosw Wldl , t HAX W& ff 4 i pWpf105E4 TREE UWE Tr AtDlr o i W 14' R PROPo5W RETAINN6 WALL MAX IB6NT, 6' MX W RETAINING WALL I'" HB6Ni' 7 50' BUILDI G SETBACK & NON - DISTU 0 1% Aaai d 1 . r. ue.- 9' ' Fed + ..,d p WAY 12 VIR • 43 639.7 HaLONER OFFICE , f fah 4• D Lava 9. j' d` bO LOY6t V PJ B, 640" 0 I 1 Dl / + 1 444 X 67.79 _rc y ` I i EUlDlls 166HT, T' Y% F ' P22- ; (— LOCATION OF DRAINAGE I b45 6 § TRUCTURE NEEDED IN 26z To IM PHASE ONE MlAMT aamc I I L OF oaARH6n 638 / 636 634 632 $ ooA, t N i 628 63D $ a ' N 91. a a PARKING MODIFICATION REQUEST 63 EXHIBIT ,.A., a x PROP. ROAD ' SCALE: 1" = 50' DATE: APRIL 16, 2004 NC. VOLL m w . P y 29 ' 10 ' 09" E 1877 . SOb --— DISTURB t_ OWED BY- RIGHT. P KI ' G SP CES R LMO 50' BUILD, SETBACKG & RoN = E Q 2 S EQLIESTED IN PARKING ND J E O T _I F P K I G SPA E _ - 1 Fb N T u- N P A 2 O TRUC 10N - - - - L E N T S I Tw L1TE P some r tea 1 d• `./ 652 {.tf5 " ..ry OWh . el MAY 4" f t R&. t STORY Air row i b D 625 W OAOW 166' 1Cr S lR _ 645 i r a re r =' F RAINAGE a p b^°` .. r ! " LOCATION E NEEDED 1N a 8 ys jbpsSTRUCTUR a PHASE ONE 2bT 621 °G MT5 of 1 r 682 690 , pTIONa PARKING MODIF C i _ _ REQUEST fi 1 1 B, 2004 50 DATE: iQRll SCALE: 1° = of ALtt COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development Planning 401 McIntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 434) 296 - 5823 Fax (434) 972 - 4012 June 17, 2004 Mr. Jim Bryan, Resident Engineer Charlottesville Residency 701 VDOT Way Charlottesville, VA 22911 Dear Jim: The Board of Supervisors approved to designate Morgantown Road for enhanced speeding violation fines and to install signage alerting motorists there will be a fine of up to $200 for exceeding the established speed limit at their June 2, 2004 meeting. The Board adopted the attached resolution pursuit to Section 46.2 -878.2 of the Code of Virginia. Staff has also provided the following support data: 1. Identification of the neighborhood and specific highway(s) where the signs are requested to be installed. Signs will be installed along the entire length of Morgantown Road. 2. Confirmation that the highway(s) meet the definitions of local residential, collector, or minor arterial streets as described above. Morgantown Road is considered a local residential street according to VDOT's definition provided in the Policy and Procedures. 3. Notification that a speeding problem exists and that the increased penalty has community support. The Albemarle County Police Department has conducted a speed/traffic survey on Morgantown Road in the recent past and determined that there is a speeding problem along that road. In March 2004, the County Police posted a smart sign, which posts the speed a vehicle is traveling as it approaches the unit. The smart sign also calculates the volume of traffic, the average speed and the high and low speeds. The recent smart sign survey indicated that 54% of all vehicles are exceeding the speed limit by 10 or more miles per hour. VDOT recently conducted a speed study as well that indicated a speeding is a problem on Morgantown Road. VDOT Culpeper District Office has these results. Enhanced Speeding Fines on Morgantown Road June 2, 2004 Page 2 Ivy Community Association supports the effort to install signage alerting motorists there will be a fine of up to $200 for exceeding the established speed limit. The Ivy Community Association conducted an email poll on the proposed fine, which consisted of 479 email addresses. Of those residents that responded (approximately 7 %), the community supported the change by a nearly 4 -1 margin. Additionally, the Ivy Community Association Board formally reached a consensus to support this request at their March 26, 2004 meeting. Staff has determined that Morgantown Road meets the criteria for signage alerting motorists there will be a fine of up to $200 for exceeding the established speed. limit. Please contact me if VDOT requires additional information. Thank you and your staff very much for your support on this project. Sincerely, L)— Juandiego R. Wade Transportation Planner Cc: Ella Carey, Clerk Board of Supervisors SJ ' ter COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Engineering Plan Review Comments Department of Community Development a;,r Current Development Group tai' Project: Plan preparer: Owner or rep.: Plan received date: Date of comments: Review Engineer: Faulconer Construction Office and Shop Roudabush, Gale & Assoc., Inc. (fax 296 -5220) Faulconer Construction (fax 295 -0508) 5 Mar 2004 (fsp), 15 Jun 2004 (fsp,swm,ecp,cer) 16 Apr 2004, 25 Jun 2004 Glenn Brooks A. Final site plan and drainage plan: 1. Please provide a signed and dated professional seal on the plans. 2. Please provide drainage easements over stormwater management facilities and access. [ 8 32.7.5.2] 3. Pipe diameters must be 15" minimum where pipe runs exceed 50', according to 505E5 &6. Velocity reduction at E1 -EO appears necessary. [909.1A(4) and 505E] 4. The inlet at E -213(1) appears to be only 15% effective, and the inlet at E -IA(1) only 57% effective. Please revise inlet E -IA(1) to provide total capture. A flanking inlet may be necessary. 5. Please provide end sections and scour protection on all culverts and pipe outlets. [DM909.113, 505C, 505D] 6. Please revise plans so that the site grading matches on the site plans and Water Protection Plans. B. Stormwater management plan: 1. Copies of state and federal permits are required for the stream crossings. [17 -312A] 2. Please show all required easements for the stormwater facilities and access. [DM909.2A] 3. Standard County stormwater management facility maintenance agreements must be complete, approved and recorded prior to plan approval. [DM909.2A] t 4. Please provide details for the trash racks placed over orifices. 5. The DI -1 tops must have trash racks which are not horizontal grates, which are very prone to clogging. Please provide a detail. 6. Please show cleanouts and justify or remove the column of pea gravel next to the risers, which would appear to short- circuit the filtering action. 7. Please specify a native grass species in the planting plan according to DM503.1F8, bullet 2. S. Please provide the note on the plan from Design Manual section 503.1F11. 9. Permanent structures, with the exception of the underdrains, must be concrete. 10. The sides of the stilling basins must be 2:1 or flatter, although this design may change with the forebays. 11. Please explain the 4" PVC with endcap in the biofilters. 12. The Tag Alder shrub in the planting plan was not found on the list plantings in VSMH 3.11. All plantings should be from Table 3.11. 13. Both biofilters appear to be short of the requisite number of plantings per VSMH 3.11 (p.3.11 -20), which should be close to 10 trees and shrubs per 1000sf of biofilter area. 14. Regarding the detention computations: a. The data used to model the outlet structures was not found in the voluminous "pond pack" computer program output. b. A 100yr storm needs to be run to ensure the dams are not overtopped. c. It should be demonstrated that the emergency spillways are not active during the 10yr storm. The South BMP should be provided with an emergency spillway. The upstream emergency spillway in the detention basin relies heavily on adequate attenuation of flows out of the facilities and no clogging. 15. Regarding the North BMP: LER Erigmeering Plan Review Comments Page 2 of 3 d. Please provide vehicle access over the dam to the riser structure according to DM909.2A(3), and 503.1 D. e. Please include the existing grades and the dimensions of the dam on the detail. It is understood that the basin is in cut, and a core and key may not be required. [VSMH3.01, DM909.2A] f. Please provide an adequate sediment forebay, sized per VSMH3.04. 16. Regarding the South BMP and detention basin: g. Please provide vehicle access over the dam to the riser structure of the BMP. Please specify gravel for the vehicle access road where it is over 10% grade. [DM909.2A(3), 503.1D] h. Please include existing grades on the detail. i. The detention basin outlet should be modified such that the basin acts as a sediment forebay to the biofilter [VSMH3.04]. If a low -level pipe is maintained, a minimum 15" diameter is required, and a detail for anti - clogging provisions. [DM503.1 E] C. Mitigation plan: This is an excellent stream assessment and mitigation plan, and there are only a couple of comments. 1. Mtigation must be updated for additional disturbance which may be required by the erosion control plan. 2. The 0.38 acres proposed to be reforested outside of the buffer is difficult to justify as a mitigation measure. The County would have no protection on this area, as it does within the buffer. It is suggested that stream bank stabilization be substituted for this proposal in the area of reach # 13. D. Erosion and sediment control plan: Regarding the narrative 1. Please provide minimum standards 1, 4, 5, 17 and 18 verbatum on the plan. 2. Regarding the notes; Please provide a copy of the "Albemarle County General Construction Notes for Erosion Control Plans" [Design Manual CD -17] on the plan. Please remove note 8. Please remove references to stockpiles "as approved by the engineer" in note 11. Note 3 is not a County requirement. The time of the preconstruction conference will be scheduled by the County, and it will likely be at the office. Regarding the plan 3. Please provide detailed computations for all traps and basins. Please provide plans and details for the temporary sediment basins, or clarify that the contours will be the same as the permanent facilities. i. 5. Please install the permanent facility structures initially. Temporary dewatering orifices can be removed and the basins cleaned out before conversion to permanent facilities. 6. The level spreaders and stockpile area are within the non - disturbed buffer on the site plan. They must be relocated. 7. Provide the County paved wash rack detail [Design Manual WR -4] on the plan and specify this at construction entrances. Include the following note: "A minimum water tap of 1 inch must be installed with a minimum 1 inch ballcock shutoff valve supplying a wash hose with a diameter of 1.5 inches for adequate constant pressure. Wash water must be carried away from the entrance to an approved settling area to remove sediment. All sediment shall be prevented from entering storm drains, ditches or water courses." 8. Replace the silt fence with diversion dykes where it diverts water on either side of the site toward the stream crossings. Silt traps are required on either side of the stream crossings. Check dams cannot be used for in the locations shown. 9. The diversion dykes shown over the roadways into the site cannot be maintained, and must be replaced by diversions and silt traps that do not interfere with site construction traffic and work. 10. Show outlet protection with specifications on the plan and provide computations. Scour protection at pipe outlets are required to have a level rip -rap apron at the lip of the pipe. [ESCH3.18] 11. Please remove standard details copied directly out of the green book. The green book references are sufficient, and do not require review comparison with the plan. Engineering Plan Review Comments Page 3 of 3 E. Certified Engineer's Report: 1. Regarding air pollution, and noise levels, the report indicates the owner will limit vehicle idling. This is not a measure which can be assured or enforced by County zoning inspectors. Might other means of addressing these concerns be found? The loudest noises will likely be backup warning beepers, which have not been mentioned. Measures which could be enforced might be physical barriers. 2. Regarding water pollution, the tanks and concrete pad with canopy do not seem like measures beyond what might be provided anyway. For storage in buildings and on concrete pads, a spill containment drain or surrounding berm in the foundation or concrete pad is suggested. It is also suggested that the drain not discharge to the stream. A similar paved washing station, such as seen on other sites like car washes and bus maintenance facilities, with the same measures, should be provided. These usually drain into the sanitary sewer after the oil -water separator. 3. The remaining peformance standards of section 18 -26.7 and 18 -4.14 must be addressed: vibration, glare, radioactivity, electrical interference. Copy: file SDP - 2004 - 00023, WPO- 2004 - 00064,65,66 File: E2_fsp,swm,mp,ecp_GEB_Faulconer Constr.doc 08/26/2004 THU 14:37 FAX 7572294507 WMSBG ENVIRONMENTAL GRP 4 COMMONWEALTH o f VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVLRONMFN"L"AL QUALITY Valley Regional Office W. Tgloe Mt,r .kcs zsr add er 4411 Earl Road, HarrisonbSectGtACyaFNetlJralResvuro® sr Y a8, Virginia 2780I JNal4ngadd t+: P.O. Sots 300% Harrisonburg. Virginia =801 - 9519 Telephone [540)574 -7600 Faa (540)574..7979 www_degstarava.us June 29, 2004 Vincent H. Derr Faulconer Construction Company Inc 2496 Old Ivy Road Charlottesville, VA 22903 2002/003 Robcrt G. Burnky Director R- Bradley Chcwning. PX. Valley Regional Director RE: Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( VPDES) Permit No. VAR051507, VPDES General Permit Coverage for Faulconer Const Co Office/Maintenance Facility Enclosed, please find the referenced VPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated With Industrial Activity. The permit's effective date is July 1, 2004, and its expiration date is June 30, 2009. 'Please read the pamdt carefully, because you are responsible for meeting all permit conditions. Please review Part LA_1 and Part N of the permit to determine which storm water numeric effluent limitations and storm water monitoring requirements apply to this facility. If your p ermit includes numeric ]imitations and/or requires monitoring, the necessary Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) form(s) and an instruction sheet are inserted into the permit immediately following the permit cover page. If you did not adequately identify your storm water discharge points outf0s) on the maps that accompanied your registration statement, you should provide a more accurate site plan with your first DNR submittal- Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Brandon Kiracofe of this office at (540) 574.7892 or via e-mail at bdkiraco#e ®deq.virginia.gov. Sincerely, BKei Fowler Water Permits Manager Enclosure: Permit No_ VAP-051507 cc; STW File Zoo 'd Lo6LtL9063 030 Ll : bl (nH1) b0 ,9Z- '9nV 08/26/2004 THU 14;37 FAX 7572294507 wMSBG ENVIRONMENTAL GRP COMMONWEALTH of VIRCIINIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY General Permit No. VAR051507 Effective Date. July 1, 2004 Expiration Date: June 30, 2009 Z003/003 GENERAL PERMIT FOR STORM WATER DISCfIARGES ASSOCIATED WITH INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY 4.UT130RIZATION TO DISCHARGE UNDER THE VIRGINIA POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIlVIiATION SYSTEM AND THE VIRGINIA STATE WATER CONTROL LAW In compliance with the provisions of the Clean Water Act, as amended, and pursuant to the State Water Control Law and regulations adopted pursuant thereto, owners of facilities with storm water discharges associated with industrial activity are authorized to discharge to sur 4ca waters within the boundaries of the Commonwealth of Virginia, except those waters specifically named in board regulation or policies which prohibit such discharges. The authorized discharge shall be in accordance with this cover page, Part I- Effluent Limitations, Monitoring Requirements and Special Conditions, Part 11-Conditions Applicable to All VPDES Permits, Part III -Storm Water Pollution Prevention, Plan, and Part IV- Sector - Specific Permit Requirements, as set forth herein. 200 'd 06LVL30 3: 191 b90 8111 MI) 60 N- My 111 Af,Ij,1 t7 County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Brent Nelson From: Yadira Amarante, Senior Planner Division: Division of Zoning and Current Development Date: 7/26/04 Subject: SDP 04 -023 - Faulconer Construction Office and Shop Final Site Plan (Revised 6/9/04) The Albemarle County Division of Zoning and Current Development: Zoning and Planning Review will grant tentative approval of the final site plan referenced above when the following items have been satisfactorily addressed: [Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference.] 1. [ 18.32.7.9.4.c. I ] Generally indicate the type of existing wooded areas on the site — evergreen or deciduous. 2. [ 18.32.7.9.7.b] For Office Area, Phase 1, 1 only calculate 300 sq. ft. of landscaping provided (6 trees X 50 s.f.); For Office Area, Phase 2, I only calculate 350 sq. ft. of landscaping provided (7 trees X 50 s.f.); For Shop Area, Phase 1, I only calculate 200 sq. ft. of landscaping provided (4 trees /shrubs X 50 s.f ). As you know, you are required to provide 1,154 -s.f. of landscaping in the Office Area and 1,012 -s.f. in the Shop Area. 3. [ 18.32.7.9.9.a] Since you are using all existing trees to meet your canopy requirements, you must show all those trees on the Landscape Plan so that they will become part of the Conservation Plan. 4. [Recommendation] The Total Site Area on the Landscape Details sheet, Sheet 14, differs from the Total Site Area under Land Use Schedule on Sheet 1. 5. [Recommendation] Remove the "ground cover" from the Landscape Plan, it's impossible to regulate. 6. [Recommendation] Since you need additional parking lot landscaping, try putting them adjacent to parking spaces lacking such cover. Especially in the Shop Area, which I imagine will just be a sea of gravel; additional trees will provide shade and prevent over - heated cars. 7. [ 18- 32.5.6(1)] The proposed road servicing the development must have an approved road name labeled on the final site plan. I don't yet have tentative approval from Andrew Slack — E91 1, has he seen the latest plan? 8. The final site plan to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted comments, please do not hesitate to contact me (434) 296 -5832 ext. 3297. Page 1 of 1 pF :1I.Fj, County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Brent Nelson From: Yadira Amarante, Senior Planner Division: Division of Zoning and Current Development Date: 7/26/04 Subject: SDP 04 -023 - Faulconer Construction Office and Shop Final Site Plan (Revised 6/9/04) The Albemarle County Division of Zoning and Current Development: Zoning and Planning Review will grant tentative approval of the final site plan referenced above when the following items have been satisfactorily addressed: [Each connnent is preceded by the applicable reference.] 1. [I8.32.7.9.4.c.1] Generally indicate the type of existing wooded areas on the site — evergreen or deciduous. 2. [18.32.7.9.7.b] For Office Area, Phase 1, I only calculate 300 sq. ft. of landscaping provided (6 trees X 50 s.£); For Office Area, Phase 2, I only calculate 350 sq. ft. of landscaping provided (7 trees X 50 s.£); For Shop Area, Phase 1, I only calculate 200 sq. ft. of landscaping provided (4 trees /shrubs X 50 s.£). As you know, you are required to provide 1,154 -s.f. of landscaping in the Office Area and 1,012 -s.f. in the Shop Area. 3. [18.32.7.9.9.a] Since you are using all existing trees to meet your canopy requirements, you must show all those trees on the Landscape Plan so that they will become part of the Conservation Plan. 4. [Recommendation] The Total Site Area on the Landscape Details sheet, Sheet 14, differs from the Total Site Area under Land Use Schedule on Sheet 1. 5. [Recommendation] Remove the "ground cover" from the Landscape Plan, it's impossible to regulate. 6. [Recommendation] Since you need additional parking lot landscaping, try putting them adjacent to parking spaces lacking such cover. Especially in the Shop Area, which I imagine will just be a sea of gravel; additional trees will provide shade and prevent over - heated cars. 7. [18- 32.5.6(1)] The proposed road servicing the development must have an approved road name labeled on the final site plan. I don't yet have tentative approval from Andrew Slack — E911, has he seen the latest plan? 8. The final site plan to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted comments, please do not hesitate to contact me (434) 296 -5832 ext. 3297. Page 1 of 1 6/28/04 Jay Schlothauer Division of Building Permits SDP 04 -023 Faulconer Construction Office and Shop Final Site Plan Administrative Approval Based on plans revised June 9, 2004. 6/28/04 Jay Schlothauer Division of Fire Safety SDP 04 -023 Faulconer Construction Office and Shop Final Site Plan Administrative Approval Based on plans revised June 9, 2004. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development Current Development Group Engineering Plan Review Comments Project: Faulconer Construction Office and Shop Plan preparer: Roudabush, Gale & Assoc., Inc. (fax 296 -5220) Williamsburg Environmental Group, Inc. (fax 757 -229 -4507) Owner or rep.: Faulconer Construction (fax 295 -0508) Plan received date: 5 Mar 2004 (fsp), 15 Jun 2004 (fsp,swm,ecp,cer), 5 Aug 2004 (fsp, swm, ecp, cer, ept) Date of comments: 16 Apr 2004, 25 Jun 2004, 12 Aug 2004 Review Engineer: Glenn Brooks A. Final site plan and drainage plan: 1. All comments have been addressed. B. Stormwater management plan: 1. All comments have been addressed. The easement plat for the stormwater facilities and access is also satisfactory. C. Mitigation plan: 1. All comments have been addressed. D. Erosion and sediment control plan: 1. All comments have been addressed. Please provide two additional copies of the plan, which will be forwarded to the erosion control inspector for the preconstruction conference. E. Certified Engineer's Report: 1. All comments have been addressed. The construction plans are approved, subject to the Planning Commission's approval of the site plan. The water protection bond amount is $247,000. ($59,000 for erosion control, and $188,000 for stormwater and mitigation). OF Afl Copy: file SDP - 2004 - 00023, WPO- 2004 - 00064,65,66 File: E3_fsp,swm,mp,ecp_GEB_Faulconer Constr.doc th .tri County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Brent Nelson From: Yadira Amarante, Senior Planner Division: Division of Zoning and Current Development Date: 8/13/04 Subject: SDP 04 -023 - Faulconer Construction Office and Shop Final Site Plan (Revised 7/30/04) The Albemarle County Division of Zoning and Current Development: Zoning and Planning Review hereby grants tentative approval of the final site plan referenced above with the following conditions: 1. The final site plan to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted comments, please do not hesitate to contact me (434) 296 -5832 ext. 3297. Page 1 of 1 lC F AI.y, County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Brent Nelson From: Yadira Amarante, Senior Planner Division: Division of Zoning and Current Development Date: 8/13/04; Subject: SDP 04 -023 - Faulconer Construction Office and Shop Final Site Plan The Albemarle County Division of Zoning and Current Development: Zoning and Planning Review hereby grants tentative approval of the final site plan referenced above with the following conditions: 1. The final site plan to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted comments, please do not hesitate to contact me (434) 296 -5832 ext. 3297. Page 1 of 1 0 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development, Current Development Division Engineering Plan Review To: Roudabush, Gale & Assoc., Inc. (fax 296 -5220) Williamsburg Environmental Group, Inc. (fax 757 -229 -4507) Faulconer Construction (fax 295 -0508) From: Glenn Brooks Subject: Faulconer site plan, certified engineer's report Date: 3 Sep 2004 (Friday) The County had a meeting yesterday with Ivy residents regarding the Faulconer site plan. I want to bring to your attention a concern which was raised at that meeting. You will likely be asked to answer this concern at the Planning Commission meeting scheduled for next Tuesday. The residents are concerned that noise levels will exceed those required by the Zoning Ordinance, section 4.18. The most often cited item was the anticipated sound of large machinery and truck engines. The certified engineer's report simply states, "Normal operations at the project site are not anticipated to violate Albemarle County's noise ordinances" (p.17). It goes on to say that vehicle idling will be limited, and vegetation and distance should dissipate sound (p.21). While these types of statements, accompanied by the engineer's certification, are generally acceptable, the fact that residents are raising questions may call for an explanation of the technical reasoning or data behind them. I have looked into the residents' concerns, and they seem to have some validity. My brief research indicates the average truck engine is approximately 90dBA. The required decibel level at the property line during the day is 60dbA (Zoning Ordinance 18- 4.18.04). From the layout on the site plan, it appears possible that engine noise could take place as close as 80 feet from a property line, which could bring the sound level down to between 60 and 70 dBA. However, there are so many variables (topography, vegetation, the condition of the motor or muffler, whether multiple machines are operated at once) as well as the addition of repair machinery, hydraulics, etc., that heavy reliance is placed upon operations and zoning enforcement. Regarding the certified engineer's report in general, I discussed previously with Toni Small the reliance upon "good housekeeping ", "training ", and "operations" as less reliable, and less desirable than permanent physical measures. It is worth noting that the County has not closely examined vehicle noises with zoning clearances and certified engineer's reports in the past. The Zoning Ordinance contains exemptions for construction activities, transient sounds from transportation, and warning devices (18- 4.18.05). The sound of motors on -site, and under repair, would not seem to be exempted. Thank you in advance for looking into this before our meeting on Tuesday. Copy: file File: Faulconer noise levels.doc X Page I of 3 Yadira Amarante From: Keith Lancaster Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 3:24 PM To: 'bnelson @roudabush.com' Cc: Bill Fritz; Yadira Amarante Subject: RE: FAULCONER CONSTRUCTION, P.C. ACTION LETTER, PHOTOMETRIC PLAN Brent, I just received your e -mail and you can remove the interior lights within the pole barn from the plan. I understand that the lights are not full cut -off and the reason I was ok with them left on the plan is that they are interior Anyways, I hope this will help and if Marsha has any questions about the lighting please have her give me call Thanks, Keith From: bnelson @roudabush.com [mailto:bnelson @ roudabush.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 2:18 PM To: klancaster @albemarle.org Cc: yamarant @albemarle.org; bfritz @albemarle.org; bill @roudabush.com Subject: FW: FAULCONER CONSTRUCTION, P.C. ACTION LETTER, PHOTOMETRIC PLAN Importance: High Keith — I am resending this e -mail since I have not heard back from you. The County e -mail system was acting up on Monday when I originally sent this so I thought I had better try again. Brent Hi Keith - As you may be aware by now, Planning Commission member Marsha Joseph had a concern about the photometric plan for the Faulconer Site Plan. It pertains to the light fixtures inside the pole barns. The pole barns are enclosed on three sides — the back and both sides. These fixtures are not full cut -off. As you will see, the Planning Commission Action Letter is below and this issue is Comment #5 (see Yadira's comment below). My question to you is whether or not we really are required to removed the pole barn lights from the plan. You may want to confir with Bill Fritz about this since he played a role in the creation of the Action Letter. Thanks for your help with this. Brent Nelson From: Yadira Amarante [mailto:YAMARANT@ albemarle.org] Sent: Monday, September 20, 2004 11:32 AM To: Brent Nelson Subject: RE: FAULCONER CONSTRUCTION, FINAL SITE PLAN, ACTION LETTER Hi Brent, As to the lighting - I believe she finally did say, after Bill asked, that the lights should not be shown if they are interior lights. I think this issue is debatable (which is probably why you showed them in the first place). Please run this by Keith Lancaster as he did the lighting review. i don't know either. The only thing I can think is that she misread the cover sheet specs as 4' 9/22/2004 Page 2 of 3 instead of 4" (depth each of stone and concrete). I would just leave this alone. vrC'i: " <', f.) f't ,c'.iitt! 1' ?3rlf'r A Vigil i5 f ` 3' -1 lf , .; •`,fY7 .y',. tt .t 75a 1596 4 ,11107) 12 6, 1a From: bnelson @roudabush.com [mailto:bnelson @roudabush.com] Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 4:13 PM To: yamarant @albemarle.org Cc: bill @roudabush.com Subject: FAULCONER CONSTRUCTION, FINAL SITE PLAN, ACTION LETTER Hi Yadira - I have a couple of questions as they pertain to the Action Letter of September 13, 2004. Comment #5 The lighting plan shall be revised to comply with Section 4.17.4. Are you only asking that we remove the interior pole barn lighting from the photometric plan and details - as per Marsha Joseph? This comment is really ill- defined. Comment #6 6. Sidewalk notes and dimensions must be corrected. Is there some kind of discrepancy on the site plan? I remember Marsha Joseph speaking to this; however, I never knew exactly what she was referring to. Thanks for your help. Brent Brent W. Nelson Roudabush, Gale and Associates, Inc. 914 Monticello Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 434 - 977 -0205 (o) 434 - 296 -5220 (f) brent @roudabush.com A.+ b COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 9/22/2004 Page 3 of 3 Phone (434) 296 -_5832 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 September 13, 2004 Faulconer Construction Company Inc. 2496 Old Ivy Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 RE: SDP -04 -023 Faulconer Construction Final Site Plan; Tax Map 58, Parcel 37 To Whom It May Concern: Fax (434) 972 -4126 The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on September 7, 2004, denied approval of the above - noted petition for the following reasons, which must be addressed before approval: 1. Submission of a revised Certified Engineers Report as required by Section 32.7.4.2, to address each provision of Section 4.14, explaining methodology and including measurements of actual equipment where appropriate. 2. Submission of as -built plans and structural analysis to verify adequacy of pavement width and strength of Dettor Road from Morgantown Road to the Faulconer entrance as provided by Section 26.12.1. 3. Provision of street trees across Morgantown Road frontage as required by Section 32.7.9.6. 4. Provision of a double staggered row of shade tolerant evergreen screening trees such as holly or bayberry, planted 15 feet on center adjacent to Rural Area property to provide screening as required by Section 32.7.9.8.c.2 5. The lighting plan shall be revised to comply with Section 4.17.4. 6. Sidewalk notes and dimensions must be corrected. 7. Revise all buffer notes to indicate a 50 foot buffer. 8. Vehicles coming to the site shall be verified to be of a scale that may be safely accommodated by Morgantown Road as provided by Section 26.12.1. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me (434) 296 -5823. Sincerely, Yadira Amarante Senior Planner Cc: Ella Carey Atjo' o a R Amelia McCulley Jack Kelsey Steve Allshouse 9/22/2004 ALg, vIRGINtP COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 December 3, 2004 Brent Sprinkle Department of Transportation 701 VDOT Way Charlottesville, VA 22911 RE: Faulconer Construction Office and Shop Final Site Plan (Tax Map 58, Parcel 37) Dear Mr. Sprinkle, As you are aware the Board of Supervisors denied the site plan for the above referenced project at its meeting on October 27, 2004. In its denial of the site plan the Board had to identify those issues which needed to be addressed for the project to be approved. One item is "Pavement widths and strengths of both internal and external roads shall be adequate to accommodate projected traffic generated from the site as provided by section 26.12.1 of the Albemarle County Code." It has come to the attention of the County that this language has caused some concern and confusion. The purpose of this letter is to clarify the intent of the Board's action as it relates to VDOT. The County is relying on VDOT to make a determination based on VDOT standards whether Morgantown Road is adequate to accommodate the projected traffic generated by the proposed use. Although the County is not requesting that VDOT initiate any study or analysis of the road to make this determination, it would be helpful if VDOT would identify what standards would be used to make such a determination. If the applicant chooses to move forward with the project it will be their responsibility to work with your office and provide VDOT with whatever information you may need to make the determination of adequacy. County staff remains available to work with VDOT on this project. Please feel free to contact me if you have any additional questions. Sincerely, William D. ri z, AICP Chief of Current Development. Cc: Rick Carter u0.GLy ,\ I COMMONWEALTH ®f VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 701 VDOT WAY PHILIP A. SHUCET CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22911 JAMES L. BRYAN COMMISSIONER RESIDENT ENGINEER January 7, 2005 William Fritz, AICP County ol'Albemarle 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Cha:l ttes.i.le, .: 11001 RE: Faulconer Construction Office and Shop Site Plan Dear Mr. Fritz: Thank you for your letter of December 3, 2004 requesting information relative to the standards the Virginia Department of Transportation would use to evaluate the adequacy of Morgantown Road to accommodate the anticipated traffic from the proposed Faulconer Construction Office and Shop. The standard practice of VDOT is to construct new roads or programmed road improvement projects to geometric standards based on the roadway functional classification. Pavement widths and structural requirements for such projects would be based on the traffic generated by all existing and proposed land uses along the corridor. The Department does not have specific standards for evaluating the incremental impact of a single use, such as the Faulconer site, on a roadway with existing traffic. Typically the adequacy of the existing roadway would have been considered when the zoning of the Faulconer site and other properties in the vicinity was originally established. Should the County want to evaluate the functional adequacy of Morgantown Road, the Minimum Standards of Entrances to State Highways and the Geometric Desitm Standards for Rural Local Road Systems (GS -4) could be used as basis for an evaluation. The concerns expressed by the citizens regarding the proposed Faulconer site plan appear to be reiated to the land use compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood and it is the County's authority to take those concerns into consideration. The Department is not in a position to approve or disapprove the proposed Faulconer site plan. Please contact me if you have additional questions in this matter. Sincerely, r q r 1 Brent Sprinkel, PE Acting Resident Engineer TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY U ® -1-7 Lz7 t 'JRGINZP COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 January 25, 2005 James Utterback Department of Transportation 701 VDOT Way Charlottesville, VA 22911 RE: Faulconer Construction Office and Shop Final Site Plan (Tax Map 58, Parcel 37) Dear Mr. Utterback: On December 3, 2004 I sent a letter to Brent Sprinkle regarding the above referenced plan. He responded on January 7, 2005 but his response did not completely address the question asked in December. (For your information, copies of both letters are attached.) The County's letter requested that VDOT identify what standards would be used by VDOT to determine the adequacy of Morgantown Road for the projected traffic from the Faulconer site. The County's request may have been misinterpreted because it did not clearly state what was meant by "projected traffic ". The January response stated that "The Department does not have specific standards for evaluating the incremental impact of a single use, such as the Faulconer site, on a roadway with existing traffic. Typically the adequacy of the existing roadway would have been considered when the zoning of the Faulconer site and other properties in the vicinity was originally established." The initial zoning of this property for industrial use dates back to the 1970s. The current zoning was established on December 10, 1980. While the road may have been adequate for the industrial zoning established more than 24 years ago, the County Zoning Ordinance requires that the road be adequate today to accommodate the particular vehicles that would be used by Faulconer at the proposed site. A condition that must be satisfied for the site plan to be approved is that "Pavement widths and strengths of both internal and external roads shall be adequate to accommodate projected traffic generated by the proposed use." Specifically the County is relying on VDOT to determine whether Morgantown Road has adequate pavement width and strength to accommodate vehicles 70 feet long and 8 %2 feet in width and of more than 10,000 lbs gross vehicle weight. This is the length, width, and weight of some vehicle types projected from the Faulconer site as stated in a letter from the applicant dated June 7, 2001. The County is not requesting that VDOT initiate any study or analysis of the road to make this determination, however, it is necessary for VDOT to identify what standards would be used to make such a determination. If the applicant chooses to move forward with the project it will be its responsibility to work with your office and provide VDOT with whatever information you may need to make the determination of adequacy. County staff remains available to work with VDOT on this request. Please feel free to contact me if you have any additional questions. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, William D. Fritz, AICP Chief of Current Development. Cc: Richard E. Carter, Esquire gage 1 of t Glenn Brooks From: Glenn Brooks Sent: Friday, July 07, 2006 2:31 PM To: David E. Pennock Cc: Bill Fritz Subject: Faulconer Construction, revised final site plan, SDP200400023 The revised final site plan has been reviewed. I have comments for two of the conditions of the Board approval as they pertain to engineering. Regarding condition 1: The certified engineers report has not been revised, and needs to be revised. The exact wording of the condition is "Submission of a revised Certified Engineers Report as required by Section 32.7.4.2, to address each provision of Section 4.14, explaining methodology and including measurements of actual equipment where appropriate." Regarding condition 2, which stated; "Submission of as -built plans and structural analysis to verify adequacy of pavement width and strength of Dettor Road from Morgantown Road to the Faulconer entrance as provided by Section 26.12.1. The as -built plans have been received and reviewed, and the following items have been identified, a. The horizontal alignments, pavement widths, shoulders, ditches, easements, right -of -way. etc. have not been adequately represented. The plan preparer should refer to Design Standards Manual section 609. As an example, for widths the plan shows only a typical measurement, where actual measurements at the appropriate intervals are needed. b. The existing pavement section appears to be inadequate. 'The worksheets provided with the plans were not completed, but by supplying the HCV values given in the response letter, the ADT should be at least 800, generating a Dr value of 13.5. A 3' asphalt overlay, over the minimum existing section of 2" asphalt and 6" stone, appears to be needed. Glenn Brooks, P.E. Senior Engineer Albemarle County Internal Virus Database is out -of -date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.8.0/352 - Release Date: 5/30/2006 7/7/2006 County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Bill Ledbetter — Roudabush, Gale, and Associates, Inc. From: David Pennock, Principal Planner Division: Zoning and Current Development Date: July 13, 2006 Subject: SDP 04 -023 - Faulconer Construction Final Site Plan The Albemarle County Division of Zoning and Community Development: Zoning and Planning Review will approve the final site plan referenced above when the following items have been satisfactorily addressed: [Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference.] Site Plan Comments 1. [General] Comment #4 — When undisturbed buffers are required, no construction activity, including grading and clearing, shall take place within such buffers. It appears that many of the screening trees are proposed to be planted within the 50 -foot undisturbed buffer. Please amend the plan to bring the trees out of this buffer. The following comments were provided by Glenn Brooks: 2. Regarding condition 1: The certified engineers report has not been revised, and needs to be revised. The exact wording of the condition is "Submission of a revised Certified Engineers Report as required by Section 32.7.4.2, to address each provision of Section 4.14, explaining methodology and including measurements of actual equipment where appropriate." 3. Regarding condition 2, which stated; "Submission of as -built plans and structural analysis to verify adequacy of pavement width and strength of Dettor Road from Morgantown Road to the Faulconer entrance as provided by Section 26.12.1." The as -built plans have been received and reviewed, and the following items have been identified; a. The horizontal alignments, pavement widths, shoulders, ditches, easements, right -of -way, etc. have not been adequately represented. The plan preparer should refer to Design Standards Manual section 609. As an example, for widths the plan shows only a typical measurement, where actual measurements at the appropriate intervals are needed. b. The existing pavement section appears to be inadequate. The worksheets provided with the plans were not completed, but by supplying the HCV values given in the response letter, the ADT should be at least 800, generating a Dr value of 13.5. A 3" asphalt overlay, over the minimum existing section of 2" asphalt and 6" stone, appears to be needed. Please contact David Pennock at 296 -5832 ext. 3432 if you have any questions. WILLI NT ISBURG ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP, INC. March 7, 2007 Mr. Bill Ledbetter Roudabush, Gale & Associates, Inc. 914 Monticello Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Re: Faulconer Office and Yard WEG Project #1975B Dear Mr. Ledbetter: This letter is being provided to state that Williamsburg Environmental Group, Inc. rearms the conclusions contained in our previously approved Certified Engineer's Report, dated July 2004, for the above - referenced project. Sincerely, J ,_ 655151 Toni E. B. Small, P.E. Senior Engineer ALT H 0 r TON1 1;. B. SMALL No. 031763 31 o w IONAl_, 5209 Center Street s W zlliainsburg, VA 23188 0 Tel 757 -220 -6869 • Fax 757- 229 -4507 OV ALEj O r IRGI,k County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Glenn Brooks, County Engineer From: Mark Graham, Director of Community Development Date: 13 March 2007 Subject: Faulconer Site Plan, Certified Engineer's Report Glenn, Attached you will find an updated certification from Williamsburg Environmental Group reaffirming their opinion that Faulconer's operations at this site will conform with County ordinance requirements. Subsequent to receipt of this certification, I have talked to Toni Small, the certifying engineer, and verified she had reviewed the noise and vibration studies. I am confirming that she indicates she had reviewed those studies and stands by her certification in light of those studies. Based on this new certification, combined with the noise and vibration studies, I am approving the Certified Engineer's Report.