Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP200700075 Review Comments 2006-04-03COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development MEMORANDUM TO: Amy Arnold FROM: Jack M. Kelsey, PE — County Engineer DATE: 03 April 2006 SUBJECT: SP2006 -006 Mount Calvary Baptist Church The information submitted for the referenced special permit application has been reviewed and my comments are summarized below. higress /egress from Route 738 (Morgantown Road) will need to be consolidated into a single entrance that complies with VDOT standards. It appears a 12 "wide by 48' long right -turn taper will be necessary. Route 738 lies within a 30' prescriptive easement centered on the roadway. The dedication to public use of a 25' right -of -way along the front of the property is recommended. Remove the reference to "gravel parking area ". The Code requires parking lots be surfaced (18- 4.12.15.a.). The type of surface will be determined at the site plan review stage, when more detailed plan information is provided, and will be based upon the intensity of the usage. Alternative surfaces may be approved by the County Engineer at that time. Curbs along edges of parking areas and travelways are required by Code, but this requirement may be waived by the County Engineer for existing uses ii the Rural Areas. Our policy has been to allow this waiver for churches in our rural areas. The Code requires the two -way travelway serving the rear parking area to be 20' wide. There appears to be inadequate area between the cemetery and the adjacent property line to provide this travelway. A request for Zoning Administrator modification of this requirement (per Code 18- 4.12.2.c.2.) will be necessary. Conceptual provisions for stonnwater management, to address both runoff quantity and quality, need to be shown on the application plan. The critical slopes at the rear of the property (associated with the railroad tracks) need to be identified. No grading or improvements are shown within this critical slope area. Please contact me if you have any questions. JK\ Filc: E!_sp _jmk_nuuint calvary.doc UIRGII3IP COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 229024596 Phone (434) 296 -5823 Fax (434) 972 -4012 MEMORANDUM TO: Jack Kelsey, County Engineer FROM: Amy Arnold, Rural Areas Planner DATE: May 17, 2006 RE: SP2006 -06 Mount Calvary Baptist Church Jack, I have attached information provided by the applicant in response to the first round of comments. Please provide comments in City View on the revised application by Wednesday, May 24, 2006. Thanks for your help! Amy Arnold Planner e'le' - ;, pY .al, County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To:Any Arnold, Senior Planner From:Jan Sprinkle, Chief of Zoning Division:Zoning and Current Development Date:May 23, 2006 Subject:SP2006 -006, Mt. Calvary Church These comments are in response to the revised plan and "waiver request & parking study" submitted for the referenced special permit application. Engineering will address the waivers requested regarding specifications for construction of parking and travelways. Zoning has already noted the one area where we believe there should be a setback for parking established east side, adjacent to the existing house. (Since there are no parking setbacks in any residential district, they must be made a condition of the SP if conditions warrant.) The standard VR setbacks cannot be waived or modified by the PC or BOS. The only way to change the 15' side setbacks is a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals. However, Section 4.1 1.1 will allow the stairway to project 4' into the setback since it will still be 1 1' from the property line. The parking has changed significantly on this revision. In considering the parking study, there are different notes on the # of seats in the sanctuary: 200 which includes the congregation and choir; 176 congregation pew seating "by code" (what code ?); 168 practical pew seating capacity L22" per person. Zoning can agree that the 168 at a reduced pew - length per person is acceptable. Therefore, we will calculate the parking based on the 168 seats. There are various ways to then calculate the requirement. At one space per 3 seats, 56 spaces will be required. (This is the generator for churches that have more than 100 fixed seats in the development areas.) If we look at the study and average your persons per vehicle for the 3 weeks studied, your parking generator would be 1.92 persons per space or 87.5 spaces. Even taking the 80% of your maximum 168 seats, or 134 at 1.92 persons per space would generate 70.5 spaces. Another approach would be using your maximum of 2.4 persons per vehicle (seen on 5/7/06), 168 seats generates 70 spaces while the reduced 134 seats generates 56 spaces. We can discuss this further, but the required parking is obviously going to be somewhere between 56 and 88 spaces, There are other issues that need to be addressed. All of the parking shown on the plan will have to meet the standard determined for required parking. It is doubtful if the spaces shown on the cemetery would be acceptable. What is the existing situation with that cemetery'? Are those spaces currently not being used'? Have they been sold'? Are they committed in any way to remain available for burial'? If the area can be converted to parking, then it should not be labeled as cemetery. If not, it should not be designated for parking. You may consider placing parking on top of a drainfield, but the health department has more stringent requirements for the construction of such a combination. You could not construct parking and consider it for a reserve drainfield. You will have to put your primary drainfield under the parking and reserve an undisturbed area for a replacement drainfield area. You may want to discuss that option with Health. One other idea that you may find helpful will be to reduce your parking space length from 18 feet to 16 feet in any area where it will be overhanging grass —such as adjacent to the cemetery. This does not work if the area contains required landscaping, but near the cemetery it would work fine. The front setback is shown incorrectly on the plan. The setback should be measured from the edge of the prescriptive easement, not the centerline of the road. OF ,1 f.li,t 1a ttctN COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development MEMORANDUM TO: Amy Arnold — Rural Areas Planner FROM: Jack M. Kelsey, PE — County Engineer DATE: 24 May 2006 SUBJECT: SP2006 -006 Mount Calvary Baptist Church The revised plan and "waiver request & parking study" submitted for the referenced special permit application have been reviewed. My comments are summarized below. Application Plan The two -way travelway leading back to the rear ( "overflow ") parking area is narrowed to approximately 12 feet to fit between the existing gravesites. The minimum width allowed by Code is 20 feet, unless a waiver is granted by the zoning administrator per Code 18- 4.12.2.c. (see waiver request comments below). An underground stormwater management facility has been identified as the conceptual runoff control measure. Include a note stating that "The final design of this stormwater facility will comply with Code Chapter 17 (Water Protection Ordinance) ". Parking Study Based on the parking study the number of parking spaces needed ranges from 48 to 71 spaces. A final determination of the required spaces will be made by the zoning administrator. The study also states that for special events parking will be provided along the street. Please delete this statement. Morgantown Road has a rural street section (shoulders & ditches — no curbs) and according the VDOT standards parking along streets of this type is prohibited. Waiver Requests Gravel Surface: A waiver request, for use of a gravel surface, at this time is premature. The primary parameters for the VDOT computation method (specified in the Code) for designing the parking lot surface are the traffic volume (average daily trips) and the soil support value. Due to the lower average traffi volumes in rural area churches, the use of compacted gravel is generally an option. The specific design (type & depth of material) will be determined during final development plan review. Curbs: The omission of curbs from the parking lots for small rural area churches is generally deemed to be "in keeping with the rural character ". Therefore, approval of this waiver is recommended, except where curb is deemed necessary to capture runoff for stormwater management. This will be determined during final development plan review. Travelway Width: The Code does not recognize nor does it provide separate standards for "overflow" parking. Since only 34 spaces are provide in the parking area adjacent to the church, it appears (based on the parking study) that the "overflow" parking area will be needed to meet the number of required parking spaces. A final determination of the required spaces will be made by the zoning administrator. The reduction of the two -way travelway to 12 feet is too narrow to serve the parking spaces for 14 to 37 additional vehicles. Therefore, approval of this waiver is not recommended. However, a reduction to 18 feet would be supported. Please contact me if you have any questions. JK\ File: E2_sp_ nik_ mount calvary.doc pF :1l.ItF. 16fi ip 1 u County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Megan Yaniglos, Current Development Project Planner From: Phil Custer, Current Development engineering review Date: 4 September 2007 Subject: Mount Calvary Baptist Church (SDP- 2007 - 00075) The preliminary site plan for the Mount Calvary Baptist Church has been reviewed. The engineering review for current development requests changes to this preliminary site plan. Some of the following review comments are final site plan comments but need to be addressed with the preliminary site plan because the changes could affect the layout of the site: 1. The proximity of construction to property lines will necessitate that temporary construction easements be acquired from the neighboring property owners. The applicant should provide letters of intent from these property owners before preliminary approval. The applicant should take into consideration the erosion and sediment control measures needed to protect the site throughout construction when determining the needed boundaries of the easements. 2. Please show all existing and proposed storm drainage features. [18- 32.5.6j] Runoff from the eastbound lane of Morgantown Rd. appears to be routed through the site to an adjacent property via a 15" CMP culvert and a series of 4" VCP pipes that were not shown on the site plan. With the Final Site Plan, the applicant will be required to upgrade this system and provide computations for the water being conveyed through the property. A permanent drainage easement will need to be shown over the conveyance system carrying this water and should be considered in the site layout. The minimum width of this easement is 20tt and may be larger if a pipe of a depth greater than 8111 is used. 4. The site plan submittal appears to be lacking preliminary stormwater quality and quantity computations. Engineering cannot recommend approval without being provided these analyses. [18- 32.5.6k] The applicant needs to provide more details for the conceptual Stonnwater Management Plan. Engineering staff is concerned about the condition, location, and capacity of the existing offsite swale. The applicant should either obtain permission to upgrade the existing channel on the adjacent property or submit a detailed analysis of the channel showing adequacy. The southern SWM facility appears to be too far from the parking lot to accept the majority of the parking lot runoff through sheet flow. [18- 32.5.6k] 6. Engineering staff is concerned with the proposed asphalt curb which is intended to direct stornwater to a catch basin. The applicant should provide more detail regarding their intention. [18- 32.5.6k] 8. As shown, the proposed retaining wall blocks access to the Stormwater Management Facility. A driveable access easement must be provided for maintenance purposes. [18- 32.5.6k] 9. The applicant needs to show sight distance triangles on the site plan. if a sight distance easement will s Current Development Engineering Review Continents Page 2 of 2 be required, the applicant must furnish proof than an easement can be obtained from adjacent property owners. [VDOT, DM] 10. County records indicate that the TMP for this site is 58A1 -19 and not 58A1 -20 as indicated on the plan. [18- 32.5.6a] 11. Please provide a pedestrian travelway from the southern parking lot to the church. [18- 32.7.2.8] 12. A guardrail will be required in the parking area to prevent cars from falling off the wall. It appears that there may not be enough room from the edge of the pavement to the back of the retaining wall to install this guardrail. 13. Please state how the proposed one -way circulation is to work with no proposed signage or pavement markings. [ 18- 32.7.2] pti County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Richard Claridge (rclaridge(k2sanders- pe.com) From: Megan Yaniglos- Planner Division: Zoning & Current Development Date: September 4, 2007 Subject: SDP - 2007 -075- Mt. Calvary Baptist Churc Preliminary Site Plan The Planner for the Zoning & Current Development Division of the Albemarle County Department Community Development will recommend approve the plan referred to above when the following items have been satisfactorily addressed. (The following comments are those that have been identified at this time. Additional comments or conditions may be added or eliminated based on further review.) [Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference to the Albemarle County Code.] 1. [32.5.6 (a)] The tax map parcel number is incorrect. The correct TMP is 58A1 -19, revise to reflect correct parcel. 2. [32.5.6 (b)] During the SP process 56 to 88 parking spaces were approved. Only 50 spaces are being shown on the current plan. Please revise the plan to conform to the requirement approved during the SP. 3. [32.5.6 (i)] The existing conditions on the site plan are unclear. Please create an existing conditions plan separate from the proposed site plan. 4. [32.5.6 (e)] Some existing landscaping is not visible on the plan, however there are labels indicating that there is landscaping. Show all existing landscaping on the plan. 5. [32.5.6 (n)] Provide the proposed paving material types for all walks, parking lots, and driveways. 6. [32.5.6 (m)] Show the distance to the centerline of the nearest existing street intersection from the proposed ingress and egress. Please contact Megan Yaniglos at the Department of Connmunity Development 296 -5832 ext. 3004 for further information. M v4kRM `aPt 5 G , DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1601 Orange Road Culpeper, Virginia 22701 David S. Ekern, P.E. VirginiaDOT.org COMMISSIONER September 5, 2007 Mr. Glenn Brooks Department of Engineering and Development 401 McIntire Rd. Charlottesville, VA 22902 Subject: Site Review Meeting Comments September 6` 2007 site review meeting Dear Mr. Brooks: Below are VDOT's continents on the Site Plans for the September 6` 2007 Site Review Committee Meeting: SDP - 2007 -00075 Mount Calvary Baptist Church (Megan Yani2los The speed on route 738 is 25 mph. 280 feet of sight distance needs to be shown on the plan for the entrance. The proposed entrance needs to be designed in accordance with the Minimum Standards of Entrances to State Highways and VDOT's Road Design Manual. SDP- 2007 -00078 NGIC Expansion (David Pennock) Road and drainage plans need to be provided for the extension of Boulders Road. The plan needs to address the need for a right turn lane into the site. The plan needs to show the protTered improvements to route 29. The entrance to the site at Boulders Road needs to be designed in accordance with the Minimum Standards of Entrances to State Highways and VDOT's Road Design Manual. SDP - 2007 -00079 Verizon Tier II (Gerald Gotabu) Sight distance needs to be shown on route 53 at the intersection of Gobblers Ridge Road. SUB - 2007 -00282 Mechums Bluff (Megan Yanip-los) The sight distance easement will need to be cleared and graded if necessary. The posted speed on route 637 is 35 inph and the corresponding sight distance is 390 feet. Road and drainage plans will be needed. V --'YERR3 OF iRANSPURTATIfli! €XC£LL6tit&F t fl 6 e sl ) o The intersection features and treatment types need to be evaluated. SUB - 2007 -00286 Gillespie Development (Patrick Lawrence) Sight distances need to be shown. Road and drainage plans will be needed. Please request the applicants provide a written description of revisions with re- submissions. If you have any questions or comments, please contact me prior to sharing these comments with the applicants. Sincerely, Joel DeNunzio, P.E. Residency Program Manager VDOT Charlottesville Residency 434 - 293 -0011 cc Allan Schuck, Bill Fritz, David Benish, Juan Wade, Elaine Echols, Joan McDowell, Judith Wiegand, Margaret Maliszewski, David Pennock, Francis McCall, Jon Sharp, Summer Frederick, Patrick Lawrence, and John Giometti Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District September 6, 2007 2134 Berkmar Dr Charlottesville, VA 22901 975 -0224 TO: Megan Yaniglos Planning Department RE: Soils Report and Comments for: Mt. Calvary Baptist Church U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE USDA United States Natural F Department of Resources Agriculture Conservation Service Prepared by: Thomas Jefferson Soil & Water Conservation District 434 - 975 -0224 Soils Report SOILS REPORT FOR: Mt. Calvary Church Soil Survey Area: Albemarle County, Virginia Survey Status: Published Correlation Date: 12/01/1981 Distribution Date: 10/21/2002 Map Unit. 4D Ashe loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Ashe is a moderately steep to steep, moderately deep, somewhat excessively drained soil. Typically the surface layer is loam about 10 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderate content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is moderately rapid. It has a low available water capacity and a low shrink swell potential. This soil is not flooded and is not ponded. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of more than 6 feet. The land capability classification is 6e. The Virginia soil management group is JJ. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 19B Cullen loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Cullen is a gently sloping to moderately sloping, very deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is loam about 8 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderately low content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is moderate. It has a moderate available water capacity and a moderate shrink swell potential. This soil is not flooded and is not ponded. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of more than 6 feet. The land capability classification is 2e. The Virginia soil management group is N. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 36B Hayesville loan, 2 to 7 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Hayesville is a gently sloping to moderately sloping, very deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is loam about 7 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderate content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is moderate. It has a high available water capacity and a low shrink swell potential. This soil is not flooded and is not ponded. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of more than 6 feet. The land capability classification is 2e. The Virginia soil management group is X. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 36C Hayesville loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Hayesville is a strongly sloping to moderately steep, very deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is loam about 7 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderate content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is moderate. It has a high available water capacity and a low shrink swell potential. This soil is not flooded and is not ponded. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of more than 6 feet. The land capability classification is 4e. The Virginia soil management group is X. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 37C3 Hayesville clay loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes, severely eroded Description Category: Virginia FOTG Hayesville is a strongly sloping to moderately steep, very deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is clay loam about 7 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderate content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is moderate. It has a high available water capacity and a low shrink swell potential. This soil is not Thomas Jefferson SWCD 1 9/7/07 flooded and is not ponded. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of more than 6 feet. The land capability classification is 4e. The Virginia soil management group is X. This soil is not hydric. Small Commercial Buildings - Dominant Condition Map Symbol Soil Name Rating 4D Ashe loam, 15 to 25 Very limited percent slopes 19B Cullen loam, 2 to 7 percent Somewhat limited slopes 36B Hayesville loam, 2 to 7 Somewhat limited percent slopes 36C Hayesville loam, 7 to 15 Very limited percent slopes 37C3 Hayesville clay loam, 7 to Very limited 15 percent slopes, severely eroded Septic Tank Absorption Fields - Dominant Condition Map Symbol Soil Name Rating 4D Ashe loam, 15 to 25 Very limited percent slopes 19B Cullen loam, 2 to 7 percent Somewhat limited slopes 36B Hayesville loam, 2 to 7 Somewhat limited percent slopes 36C Hayesville loam, 7 to 15 Somewhat limited percent slopes 370 Hayesville clay loam, 7 to Somewhat limited 15 percent slopes, severely eroded Mapunit Hydric Rating Map Symbol Soil Name Rating 4D Ashe loam, 15 to 25 Not hydric percent slopes 19B Cullen loam, 2 to 7 percent Not hydric slopes 36B Hayesville loam, 2 to 7 Not hydric percent slopes 36C Hayesville loam, 7 to 15 Not hydric percent slopes 37C3 Hayesville clay loam, 7 to Not hydric 15 percent slopes, severely eroded Fhomas Jetterson SWCD 2 9/7/07 Soil Shrink - Swell - Dominant Soil Top Depth: 0 Bottom Depth : 0 Map Symbol Soil Name Rating 4D Ashe loam, 15 to 25 1.5 percent slopes 19B Cullen loam, 2 to 7 percent 1.5 slopes 36B Hayesville loam, 2 to 7 1.5 percent slopes 36C Hayesville loam, 7 to 15 1.5 percent slopes 37C3 Hayesville clay loam, 7 to 1.5 15 percent slopes, severely eroded Corrosion Concrete - Dominant Condition Map Symbol Soil Name Rating 4D Ashe loam, 15 to 25 High percent slopes 19B Cullen loam, 2 to 7 percent Moderate slopes 36B Hayesville loam, 2 to 7 Moderate percent slopes 36C Hayesville loam, 7 to 15 Moderate percent slopes 3703 Hayesville clay loam, 7 to Moderate 15 percent slopes, severely eroded Corrosion Steel - Dominant Condition Map Symbol Soil Name Rating 4D Ashe loam, 15 to 25 Low percent slopes 19B Cullen loam, 2 to 7 percent High slopes 36B Hayesville loam, 2 to 7 Moderate percent slopes 36C Hayesville loam, 7 to 15 Moderate percent slopes 3703 Hayesville clay loam, 7 to Moderate 15 percent slopes, severely eroded Thomas Jetterson SWCD 3 9/7/07 Page 1 of 1 Megan Yaniglos From: Bill Fritz Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 2:40 PM To: David Burnett; Megan Yaniglos Cc: 'Dex Sanders' Subject: RE: Mt. Calvary Site plan SDP2007 -075 I have reviewed the Special Use Permit file for this project. During the review of the special use permit Jan Sprinkle made the following statements regarding the parking requirements: The parking has changed significantly on this revision. In considering the parking study, there are different notes on the # of seats in the sanctuary: 200 which includes the congregation and choir; 176 congregation pew seating "by code" (what code ?); 168 practical pew seating capacity Ca22" per person. Zoning can agree that the 168 at a reduced pew - length per person is acceptable. Therefore, we will calculate the parking based on the 168 seats. There are various ways to then calculate the requirement. At one space per 3 seats, 56 spaces will be required. (This is the generator for churches that have more than 100 fixed seats in the development areas.) If we look at the study and average your persons per vehicle for the 3 weeks studied, your parking generator would be 1.92 persons per space or 87.5 spaces. Even taking the 80% of your maximum 168 seats, or 134 at 1.92 persons per space would generate 70.5 spaces. Another approach would be using your maximum of 2.4 persons per vehicle (seen on 5/7/06), 168 seats generates 70 spaces while the reduced 134 seats generates 56 spaces. The staff report presented to the PC and BOS stated the required parking would be between 56 and 88. 1 can support the 56 number but can not reduce it below that amount with the church at its current sized. I looked at your site plan and unless I have counted wrong I carne up with 54 spaces on your site plan. If you reduce the pew seating area by 6 seats the parking would then be Olt. If my count is wrong and you really do have only 51 spaces you need to reduce the pew seating capacity by 18 scats. (All of these reductions are based on the parking requirement of one parking space per 3 suits.) Hope this helps. William D. Fritz, AICP Chief of Zoning Albemarle County 434 - 296 -5832 ext 3225 From: David Burnett Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 12:48 PM To: Bill Fritz Cc: Dex Sanders Subject: Mt. Calvary Site plan SDP2007 -075 Bill, Have you had a chance to determine if there is flexibility in number of parking spaces required for the church. You had mentioned that Jan Sprinkle's parking study determined a need of 56 -88 spaces. The church is currently showing 51 spaces on its site plan. Will 51 be acceptable for this rural church parcel? Please advise. Thanks, David 9/24/2007 OF ALg IRGiN COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone(434)296 -5832 Fax(434)972 -4126 September 25, 2007 Teresa Batten Virginia Department of Health 1138 Rose Hill Drive Charlottesville, VA 22906 RE: SDP - 2007 -075 Dear Ms. Batten: The County of Albemarle has received application to develop /subdivide [Tax Map 58A1, Parcel 19]. This project requires Health Department approval before receiving final County approval. Please review the proposal for suitable subsurface drainfields which comply with the provisions of Chapter 18, Sections 4.2.2, 4.2.3, 4.2.4, and Chapter 14, Sections 14 -309 and 14 -310 of the Albemarle County Code. Should you have any comments please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Megan Yaniglos Planner Department of Community Development Voice: (434) 296 -5832 ext.3004 Fax: (434) 972 -4035 V A LI? 11 J a Y lkr County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Richard Claridge (rlaridge @.sanders- pc.com) From: Megan Yaniglos- Planner Division: Zoning & Current Development Date: September 27, 2007 Subject: SDP -2007 -075- Mt. Calvary Baptist Church- Preliminary Site Plan The Planner for the Zoning & Current Development Division of the Albemarle County Department Community Development will recommend approve the plan referred to above when the following items have been satisfactorily addressed. (The following comments are those that have been identified at this time. Additional comments or conditions may be added or eliminated based on further review.) [Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference to the Albemarle County Code.] Rev. 1: Comment adequately addressed. Rev. 1: Show on cover sheet the reduction in seats to accommodate for the reduction in the parking. Rev. 1: Continent adequately addressed. Rev. 1: Comment adequately addressed. Rev. 1: Continent adequately addressed. Rev. 1: Comment adequately addressed. Please contact Megan Yaniglos at the Department of Community Development 296 -5832 ext. 3004 for further information. Application #: SDP20 - Short Review Com— eats Project Name: Mt Ca Baptist Church- Prelimina [fi - Non - residential - Date Completed:08/28/2007 Reviewer:Andrew Slack E911 Review Status:No Objection Reviews Comments:NO OBJECTION. Date Completed:08/31/2007 Reviewer:James Barber Fire Rescue Review Status:No Objection Reviews Comments:Verify adequate fire flow is available. Date Completed:08/23/2007 Reviewer:Joan McDowell Planning Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments:Rural Areas Planning Comments - Condition 6: No indication of the fence on the site plan; please have the applicant submit a photograph or drawing of the proposed fence and the proposed height Thank you, Joan McDowell Principal Planner, Rural Areas Date Completed:09/04/2007 Reviewer:Jay Schlothauer Inspections Review Status:No Objection Reviews Comments:Based on plans dated August 1, 1007. No comments or conditio Date Completed: 08/30/2007 Reviewer: Tamara Ambler Planning Review Status: No Objection Reviews Comments: No streams or other water resources noted on the parcel - no objection. Page: 1.00 County of Albemarle Printed On: Monday, September 24, 2007 O 9 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 Project: SDP- 2007 - 00075, Mount Calvary Baptist Church, Preliminary Site Plan Plan preparer: Mr. Dex Sanders, Dex Sanders Architect (fax 540.829.2591) Owner or rep.: Mount Calvary Baptist Church (fax unknown) Date received: Rev. 1 : 17 September 2007 (plans dated 17 September 2007) 02 August 2007 (plans dated 8 August 2007) Date of Comment: Rev. 1: 1 October 2007 4 September 2007 Lead Engineer: Phil Custer, Engineer The preliminary site plan for the Mount Calvary Baptist Church, received on 17 September 2007, has been reviewed. The engineering review for current development does not recommend approval to this preliminary site plan until the following items are adequately addressed. Please show all existing and proposed storm drainage features. [18- 32.5.6j] Rev. I- Comment not addressed. Proposed outlet pipes from BMP /detention structures and existing swales are not shown. The site plan submittal appears to be lacking preliminary stormwater quality and quantity computations. Engineering cannot recommend approval without being provided these analyses. [ 18- 32.5.6k] Rev. I- The BMP structure the applicant wishes to use water quality is unknown so it cannot be determined whether the system meets the required removal rates. Typically, underground water quality structures will not meet the required removal rates calculated in the applicant's submittal packet. We request that the applicant provide more specifics in the t} pe of water quality structures that are to be used. The applicant needs to provide more details for the conceptual Stormwater Management Plan. Engineering staff is concerned about the condition, location, and capacity of the existing offsite Swale. The applicant should either obtain permission to upgrade the existing channel on the adjacent property or submit a detailed analysis of the channel showing adequacy. The southern SWM facility appears to be too far from the parking lot to accept the majority of the parking lot runoff through sheet flow. [18- Rev. I - Both BMPs are said to outfall into an existing Swale. It does not appear that a defined swale is adjacent to either structure. Please provide more information regarding the location and capacity of these swales. The remaining items listed below are those regarding comments that were not addressed between revisions but can be addressed in the final stages of the plan. 1. The proximity of construction to property lines will necessitate that temporary construction easements be acquired from the neighboring property owners. The applicant should provide letters of intent from these property owners before preliminary approval. The applicant should take into consideration the erosion and sediment cornrol measures needed to protect the site througnout construction when determining the needed boundaries of the easements. Rev. 1- No documentation of construction agreements have been presented to engineering staff at this time. Although agreements with neighborhood property owners is not a requirement for approval, engineering staff recommends these are obtained before site layout is finalized to prevent a fixture legal or development issue. Runoff from the eastbound lane of Morgantown Rd. appears to be routed through the site to an adjacent property via a 15" CMP culvert and a series of 4" VCP pipes that were not shown on the site plan. With the Final Site Plan, the applicant will be required to upgrade this system and provide computations for the water being conveyed through the property. A permanent drainage easement will need to be shown over the conveyance system carrying this water and should be considered in the site layout. The minimum width of this easement is 20ft and may be larger if a pipe of a depth greater than 811 is used. Rev. I- The alternative proposed by the applicant in the site review committee meeting on September 6 "' is conceptually approvable. However, considerable analysis will be required in the final stage. Minimally, engineering staff must see hydrologic and hydraulic analyses of the impacted area and topographical information of the roadside ditch across the road. Given the necessary depth of the invert of the culvert to meet cover requirements, engineering is concerned that the outlet of the culvert will be in a sump condition in the other ditch. The applicant must prove that this will not be the case. 6. Engineering staff is concerned with the proposed asphalt curb which is intended to direct stormwater to a catch basin. The applicant should provide more detail regarding their intention. [18- 32.5.6k] Rev. 1- Comment has been addressed. Although, any reference to an asphalt curb on the plan should be eliminated. 8. As shown, the proposed retaining wall blocks access to the Stormwater Management Facility. A driveable access easement must be provided for maintenance purposes. [18- 32.5.6k] Rev. 1- Comment has been addressed. However, if the SWMfacility is not located at the rear of the site, a driveable accessway is no longer needed. 9. The applicant needs to show sight distance triangles on the site plan. If a sight distance easement will be required, the applicant must furnish proof than an easement can be obtained from adjacent property owners. [VDOT, DM] Rev. 1- Comment not addressed. The sight distance analysis conducted by the applicant shows that an easement will need to be obtain on TMP 58A1 -22. 11. Please provide a pedestrian travelway from the southern parking lot to the church. [18- 32.7.2.8] Rev. 1- Comment not addressed. It does not appear a pedestrian travelway has been provided. 12. A guardrail will be required in the parking area to prevent cars from falling off the wall. It appears that there may not be enough room from the edge of the pavement to the back of the retaining wall to install this guardrail. Rev. 1- The reduction in minimum parking space length from 18ft to 16ft is only allowed when a 2ft overhang is available. Along the eastern boundary of the southern parking lot, it appears that there is not enough available room for a 2ft overhang, the guardrail, and the thickness of the wall. Engineering stafffeels that this issue can be worked out in the final plan by adding an additional aft in height to the retaining wall so that it acts as a guardrail. 13. Please state how the propt sed one -way circulation is to work with no imposed signage or pavement markings. [18- 32.7.2] Rev. 1- Applicant has stated that markings and signage will be provided. This can be shown in the final site plan. This plan was reviewed under application SDP - 2007 - 00075. Comments were sent 1 October 2007. File: E2_ psp_ PBC_sdp200700075MounWal vary. doc Page 1 of 1 Philip Custer From: Megan Yaniglos Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 10:25 AM To: 'dsanders @sanders- pc.com'; 'rclaridge @sanders- pc.com'; David Burnett Cc: Allan Schuck; Philip Custer Subject: SDP2007 -075 Mt Calvary Baptist Church Attachments: Admin. Denial 10-1 -07.pdf; E2_ psp_ PBC_ sdp200700075MountCalvary_2_.pdf Mr. Sanders, Unfortunately, engineering can not recommend approval of the preliminary site plan and per section 32.4.2.4 of Chapter 18 we have to deny the plan. You can reinstate your application within 15 days with a fee of $65. Attached is the official letter of denial as well as engineerings comments, including comments that can be resolved during the final site plan process. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Megan Vaniglos Planner Albemarle County Community Development Department Division of Zomng and Current Development 401 McIntire Road, :worth Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 ph: 434.296.5832 x. 3004 fm 434.972.4035 10/1/2007 pg AL 9 r. ` COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 Project: SDP -2007- 00075, Mount Calvary Baptist Church, Preliminary Site Plan Plan preparer: Mr. Dex Sanders, Dex Sanders Architect (fax 540.829.2591) Owner or rep.: Mount Calvary Baptist Church (fax unknown) Date received: Rev. 1 : 17 September 2007 (plans dated 17 September 2007) 02 August 2007 (plans dated 8 August 2007) Date of Comment: Rev. 1: 1 October 2007 4 September 2007 Lead Engineer: Phil Custer, Engineer The preliminary site plan for the Mount Calvary Baptist Church, received on 17 September 2007, has been reviewed. The engineering review for current development does not recommend approval to this preliminary site plan until the following items are adequately addressed. 2. Please show all existing and proposed storm drainage features. [18- 32.5.6j] Rev. I- Comment not addressed. Proposed outlet pipes from BMP /detention structures and existing swales are not shown. 4. The site plan submittal appears to be lacking preliminary stormwater quality and quantity computations. Engineering cannot recommend approval without being provided these analyses. [18- 32.5.6k] Rev. 1- The BHP structure the applicant wishes to use for water quality is unknown so it cannot be determined whether the system meets the required removal rates. Typically, underground water quality structures will not meet the required removal rates calculated in the applicant's submittal packet. We request that the applicant provide more specifics in the type of water quality structures that are to be used. The applicant needs to provide more details for the conceptual Stormwater Management Plan. Engineering staff is concerned about the condition, location, and capacity of the existing offsite Swale. The applicant should either obtain permission to upgrade the existing channel on the adjacent property or submit a detailed analysis of the channel showing adequacy. The southern SWM facility appears to be too far from the parking lot to accept the majority of the parking lot runoff through sheet flow. [ 18- Rev. I- Both BMPs are said to outfall into an existing swale. It does not appear that a defined swale is adjacent to either structure. Please provide more information regarding the location and capacity of these swales. The remaining items listed below are those regarding comments that were not addressed between revisions but can be addressed in the final stages of the plan. 1. The proximity of construction to property lines will necessitate that temporary construction easements be acquired from the neighboring property owners. The applicant should provide letters of intent from these property owners before preliminary approval. The applicant should take into consideration the erosion and sediment cc, —ol measures needed to protect the site thro >ut construction when determining the needed boundaries of the easements. "£ Rev. 1- No documentation of construction agreements have been presented to engineering staff at this time. Although agreements with neighborhood property owners is not a requirement for approval, engineering staff recommends these are obtained before site layout is finalized to prevent a future legal or development issue. Runoff from the eastbound lane of Morgantown Rd. appears to be routed through the site to an adjacent property via a 15" CMP culvert and a series of 4" VCP pipes that were not shown on the site plan. With the Final Site Plan, the applicant will be required to upgrade this system and provide computations for the water being conveyed through the property. A permanent drainage easement will need to be shown over the conveyance system carrying this water and should be considered in the site layout. The minimum width of this easement is 20ft and may be larger if a pipe of a depth greater than8ftisused. Rev. I- The alternative proposed by the applicant in the site review committee meeting on September 6` is conceptually approvable. However, considerable analysis will be required in the final stage. Minimally, engineering staff must see hydrologic and hydraulic analyses of the impacted area and topographical information of the roadside ditch across the road. Given the necessary depth of the invert of the culvert to meet cover requirements, engineering is concerned that the outlet of the culvert will be in a sump condition in the other ditch. The applicant must prove that this will not be the case. 6. Engineering staff is concerned with the proposed asphalt curb which is intended to direct stormwater to a catch basin. The applicant should provide more detail regarding their intention. [18- 32.5.6k] Rev. I- Comment has been addressed. Although, any reference to an asphalt curb on the plala should be eliminated. 8. As shown, the proposed retaining wall blocks access to the Stormwater Management Facility. A driveable access easement must be provided for maintenance purposes. [I 8-32.5.6k] Rev. 1- Comment has been addressed. However, if the SWM facility is not located at the rear of the site, a driveable accessway is no longer needed. 9. The applicant needs to show sight distance triangles on the site plan. If a sight distance easement will be required, the applicant must furnish proof than an easement can be obtained from adjacent property owners. [VDOT, DM] Rev. 1- Comment not addressed. The sight distance analysis conducted by the applicant shows that an easement will need to be obtain on TMP 58A1 -22. 11. Please provide a pedestrian travelway from the southern parking lot to the church. [18- 32.7.2.8] Rev. 1- Comment not addressed. It does not appear a pedestrian travelway has been provided. 12. A guardrail will be required in the parking area to prevent cars from falling off the wall. It appears that there may not be enough room from the edge of the pavement to the back of the retaining wall to install this guardrail. Rev. I- The reduction in minimum parking space length from 18ft to 16ft is only allowed when a 2ft overhang is available. Along the eastern boundary of the southern parking lot, it appears that there is not enough available room for a 2ft overhang, the guardrail, and the thickness of the wall. Engineering stafffeels that this issue can be worked out in the final plan by adding an additional aft in height to the retaining wall so that it acts as a guardrail. 13. Please state how the pr(.,,- red one -way circulation is to work with ne posed signage or pavement markings. [18- 32.7.2] Rev. 1- Applicant has stated that markings and signage will be provided. This can be shown in the final site plan. This plan was reviewed under application SDP - 2007 - 00075. Comments were sent 1 October 2007. File: E2_ psp_ PBC _sdp200700075MountCalvary.doc O y r jR(ItNt COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 October 2, 2007 Dex Sanders Sanders Architecture 16125 Raccoon Ford Rd Culpeper, Virginia 22701 RE: SDP - 2007 -075 Mr Sanders: Pursuant to Section 32.4.2.4 of Chapter 18 of the Albemarle County Code, the above referenced site plan has been denied. This action has been taken because the site plan has not been revised to include required revisions of the Site Review Committee. Those items that have not been addressed are: 18- 32.5.6j] Please show all existing and proposed storm drainage features. Rev. I- Continent not addressed. Proposed outlet pipes from BMP /detention structures and existing swales are not shown. 18- 32.5.6k] The site plan submittal appears to be lacking preliminary stormwater quality and quantity computations. Engineering cannot recommend approval without being provided these analyses. Rev. 1- The BMP structure the applicant wishes to use water quality is unknown so it cannot be determined whether the system meets the required removal rates. Typically, underground water quality structures will not meet the required removal rates calculated in the applicant's submittal packet. We request that the applicant provide more specifics in the type of water quality structures that are to be used. 18- 32.5.6k] The applicant needs to provide more details for the conceptual Stormwater Management Plan. Engineering staff is concerned about the condition, location, and capacity of the existing offsite swale. The applicant should either obtain permission to upgrade the existing channel on the adjacent property or submit a detailed analysis of the channel showing adequacy. The southern SWM facility appears to be too far from the parking lot to accept the majority of the parking lot runoff through sheet flow. Rev. I- Both BMPs are said to outfall into an existing swale. It does not appear that a defined swale is adjacent to either structure. Please provide more information regarding the location and capacity of these swales. You may obtain reinstatement of review as provided by Section 32.4.2.4 of Chapter 18 of the Albemarle County Code. A reinstatement fee of $65 must be included with the resubmittal of the plan. If a revised plan and fee are not received within fifteen (15) calendar days the plat shall be deemed to be denied and a new application and fee shall be required for submittal of the plan. In accord with Section 32.4.2.7 of Chapter 18 of the Albemarle County Code, this decision may be appealed. Please contact me at your earliest convenience if you have any questions or require additional information. Sincerely, Megan Yaniglos Planner Zoning & Current Development File: SDP -2007 -075 Cc: Mt. Calvary Baptist Church David Burnett t >R(111 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 Project: SDP - 2007 - 00075, Mount Calvary Baptist Church, Preliminary Site Plan Plan preparer: Mr. Dex Sanders, Dex Sanders Architect (fax 540.829.2591) Owner or rep.: Mount Calvary Baptist Church (fax unknown) Date received: Rev. 2 : 16 October 2007 (plans dated 15 October 2007) 17 September 2007 (plans dated 17 September 2007) 02 August 2007 (plans dated 8 August 2007) Date of Comment: Rev. 2: 30 October 2007 1 October 2007 4 September 2007 Lead Engineer: Phil Custer, Engineer The preliminary site plan for the Mount Calvary Baptist Church, received on 13 October 2007, has been reviewed. The engineering review for current development recommends approval to this preliminary site plan with the following comments to be adequately addressed with the final site plan. 1. Permanent easements will be needed on adjacent properties for sight distance and anywhere concentrated runoff leaves the church property until an existing adequate channel is reached. 2. Temporary construction easements will also be required on those properties where construction is more than likely to encroach upon the boundary. 3. Plat approval will not be given until all permanent easements are recorded and temporary construction permission granted. 4. A pedestrian travelway from the southern parking lot to the church be provided. [18- 32.7.2.8] 5. Vehicles will be prevented from traveling off any wall adjacent to a parking lot or driveway. This plan was reviewed under application SDP - 2007 - 00075. Comments were sent 30 October 2007. File: E3_psp_ PBC _sdp2oo7o0o75MountCalvary.doc J 9 g. Icy /5c 07 1 L IRGLNP 1 L/ . 36 r AI COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 Project: SDP - 2007 - 00075, Mount Calvary Baptist Church, Preliminary Site Plan Plan preparer: Mr. Dex Sanders, Dex Sanders Architect (fax 540.829.2591) Owner or rep.: Mount Calvary Baptist Church (fax unknown) Date received: Rev. 2 : 16 October 2007 (plans dated 15 October 2007) 17 September 2007 (plans dated 17 September 2007) 02 August 2007 (plans dated 8 August 2007) Date of Comment: Rev. 2: 30 October 2007 1 October 2007 4 September 2007 Lead Engineer: Phil Custer, Engineer The preliminary site plan for the Mount Calvary Baptist Church, received on 13 October 2007, has been reviewed. The engineering review for current development recommends approval to this preliminary site plan with the following comments to be adequately addressed with the final site plan. 1. Permanent easements will be needed on adjacent properties for sight distance and anywhere concentrated runoff leaves the church property until an existing adequate channel is reached. 2. Temporary construction easements will also be required on those properties where construction is more than likely to encroach upon the boundary. 3. Plat approval will not be given until all permanent easements are recorded and temporary construction permission granted. 4. A pedestrian travelway from the southern parking lot to the church be provided. [18- 32.7.2.8] 5. Vehicles will be prevented from traveling off any wall adjacent to a parking lot or driveway. This plan was reviewed under application SDP - 2007 - 00075. Comments were sent 30 October 2007. File: E3_psp PBC_sdp200700075MouiitCalvary.doc Application #: SDP200700075 _ (Short Review Comr,,,,nt$ Project Name:IU Calvar Baptist Church - Preliminary Final — Non - residential —Commission Date Completed: 08/23/2007 Reviewer: Joan McDowell Planning Review Status: Requested Changes Reviews Comments: Rural Areas Planning Comments Condition 6: No indication of the fence on the site plan; please have the applicant submit a photograph or drawing of the proposed fence and the proposed height Thank you, Joan McDowell Principal Planner, Rural Areas Date Completed: 09/26/2007 Reviewer: Joan McDowell Planning Review Status: No Objection Reviews Comments: We will review the fence detail when the landscape plan is submitted with the final plan. Date Completed: 05/15/2008 Reviewer: Joan McDowell Planning Review Status: Pending Reviews Comments: Compliance with Condition of Approval number 6 is required. (See comment dated 8/23/07 and 9/26/07) Please call me at 434/296 -5823 X 3249, if you have any questions. Joan McDowell Page: 1.00 County of Albemarle Printed On: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 1F Al, County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Richard Claridge (rclaridgeCa sanders- pc.com) From: Megan Yaniglos- Senior Planner Division: Zoning & Current Development Date: June 10, 2008 Subject: SDP -2007 -075- Mt. Calvary Baptist Church- Tentative Final Site Plan The Planner for the Zoning & Current Development Division of the Albemarle County Department Community Development will recommend approve the plan referred to above when the following items have been satisfactorily addressed. (The following comments are those that have been identified at this time. Additional comments or conditions may be added or eliminated based on further review.) [Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference to the Albemarle County Code.] 4.17] Indicate on the lighting plan that the light fixture is full cut -off. Also, show the photometrics along all property lines to insure that the spill over is .5 footcandles or less. 32.7.9.7] Interior landscaping area equal to five (5) percent of the paved parking and vehicular circulation area shall be landscaped with trees or shrubs. This landscaping shall be located in reasonably dispersed planting islands or perimeter areas. The interior landscaping provided is located in one area, revise landscape plan so that proposed trees and shrubs are dispersed along the parking areas. 32.7.9.9] Provide the canopy calculations for each type of tree or shrub in the landscaping schedule (le Cercis canadensis area of canopy is 124 square feet x the number proposed (3) = 372 square feet) Please contact Megan Yaniglos at the Department of Community Development 296 -5832 ext. 3004 for further information. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone(434)296 -5832 Fax(434)972 -4126 Project: SDP -2008- 00102 & WPO -2008- 00051, Mt. Calvary Baptist Church Plan preparer: Tom Muncaster, DDR [fax: 434-979-1681] Owner or rep.: Mt. Calvary Baptist Church Plan received date: May 13, 2008 Date of comments: June 27, 2008 Reviewer: Andrew Lowe The final site plan for Mount Calvary Baptist Church, submitted on 5/13/08, has been reviewed. The plans cannot be approved as submitted and will require the following changes /corrections prior to final approval. Engineering is available from 2 -4 PM on Thursdays to discuss these review comments. Please call Andy Lowe at 434 -296 -5832 ext. 3860 or email alowe(&albemarle.ort; to schedule an appointment. Please note that Albemarle County has updated the Design Manual [DM]. The DM and Engineering Review Final Plan Checklist can be downloaded from the County's web site under the subtitle '`Design Standards". A. Final Site Plan (SDP- 2008 - 00102) 1. VDOT final approval is needed before engineering can recommend final approval. 2. Please provide an entrance profile. 3. Provide sight distance triangle. 4. Provide specific detail and dimensions (outside footer to inside guardrail) for the retaining wall and guardrail at the parking spaces. It may not meet minimum requirements for parking overhang of 2 feet. [18- 4.12.6.C.6] Show guardrail at the upper parking lot near the building. Clarify the location where the wall begins and ends. It does not appear to end at the location shown. 7. Provide temporary grading easements on parcels 58A1 -17, 58A1 -23 & 58A1 -24. 8. Show curb throughout the parking and travelways. 9. Provide stormwater pipes details and profiles. 10. All parking rows must be protected by minimum 3' curbed island. [ 18 -4.12] 11. There appears to be slopes steeper than 2:1 at the culvert crossing Morgantown Road. Please show a blow -up detail with additional topography in this area including the grading for the new ditch. 12. Additional comments may be forthcoming during next review due to revisions. B. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan: WPO- 2008 -00051 1. Please provide a diversion dike from the sediment trap along the east boundary line to direct flow the rest of the site. 2. Provide details for all ESC practices per Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook. 3. Additional comments may be forthcoming during next review due to revisions. F'figineering Review Comments Page 2 of 2 C. Stormwater Management Plan: WPO- 2008 -00051 4. Please provide manufacturer's approval letter for the Filterra units. 5. Please provide manufacturer's approval letter for the Raintanks. 6. Provide Minimum Standard 19 Adequate Channel information for the concentration of stonnwater from structure #1. 7. For drainage area #2 show the grading work necessary for the level spreader installation and provide detail with comps. The slope from the level spreader must be 10% and adequately stabilized with grass to prevent erosion. 8. Additional comments may be forthcoming during next review due to revisions. 01F AI ,yF , t, r YHCt~` COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone(434)296 -5832 Fax(434)972 -4126 Project: SDP - 2008 -00102 & WPO -2008- 00051, Mt. Calvary Baptist Church Plan preparer: Dex Sanders [dsandersLsanders- pc.com] Owner or rep.: Mt. Calvary Baptist Church Plan received date: Rev.2): Sept. 25, 2008 Date of comments: Rev.2): Oct.. 10, 2008 Reviewer: Andrew Lowe Rev.2): John Diez A. Final Site Plan (SDP- 2008 - 00102) ngineering Review Comments Page 2 of 3 B. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan: WPO- 2008 -00051 C. Stormwater Management Plan: WPO- 2008 -00051 Maineering Review Comments Page 3 of 3 The Final Site Plan submitted 25 September 2008 has received Engineering Review and meets Albemarle County minimum checklist items for approval of Erosion & Sediment Control and Stormwater Management. Please submit 5 paper copies of the Plan to Current Development Engineering. The E &SC bond amount is $9,400. The SWM bond amount is $55,500. Please contact Pam Shifflett (Albemarle County Department of Community Development) at ext. 3246 for bonding procedures. A completed copy of the Standard Stormwater Maintenance Agreement and fee for recordation for the stormwater facilities is required prior to final approval.[ 1 7-304E] The forms and instructions can be found on the County Web site. Once the E &SC bond and the SWM bond have been posted, you may contact the Department of Community Development to arrange a pre - construction meeting. In addition, should the County Inspector find the limits of disturbance increased or the need for additional control measures required to protect the site, additional fees will be required. Please contact Megan Yaniglos of Current Development Planning at ext. 3004 regarding approval of the Final Site Plan.