Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP200900051 Review Comments 2009-06-04evy\Lx),,,LL-44,;(4414. Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District June 4, 2009 4 c706ForestSt, Ste G Charlottesville, VA 22903 975 -0224 TO:Elizabeth Marotta Planning Department RE:Soils Report and Comments for: South Plains Church 78 203 AP" `1B 62C v. t ' 586 aItCe.' 11140 e„07....„ x , 326 e„ ' 1 o ' y r 8C t S 238 j ill 1 " fi ,. C 77 25 h S1 11,..‘ A6 51B C S 58C 4,. 10 CVj1N „51 C 4 ti0 a , 62B 51 B _.,,.. 14 79B ` `v 4ui.58Cv l 79 58B S C vdf# 51B 1I s , j1 ?lb a SIB A 2 y " ./a - i 4a4 ,.., . i1 rfT j=80C iw....,, w.1 d s w A ® s 4i:'.,s `Saar : ,1 -51C 3 51C r *X518 n -626 e I 51 B " 28 1 51C®st .tki 46R5 x oils 51C V D ' n °B l1y 51B 1,',.. l 6 _ i SOB B SIC 1 x 51 51C 7 5„,,\.,e Y f , /45B 26d4wEd 111 A 10 '4 ' k - ' y n,14.., al. 4 A , o,E0,., y 626s51B y — ice968 51C 1G 5 468 1:46B s b 518 51B f r 6.1r- 1 Ai ; 626 C rt 51D Joins sheet 17) 16 628 60ti- , -Ib This soil survey map was compiled by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, and cooperating agencies. Base maps are orthophotographs prepared by USDA United States Natural Prepared by: Thomas Jefferson Soil & Water Department of Resources Conservation District Agriculture Conservation 434 - 975 -0224 Service Soils Report SOILS REPORT FOR: South Plains Church Soil Survey Area: Albemarle County, Virginia Survey Status: Published Correlation Date: 12/01/1981 Distribution Date: 10/21/2002 Map Unit: 51B Manteo channery silt loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Manteo is a gently sloping to moderately sloping, shallow, somewhat excessively drained soil. Typically the surface layer is channery silt loam about 6 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderately low content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is moderately rapid. It has a very 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 4e. The Virginia soil management group is JJ. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 62B Nason silt loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Nason is a gently sloping to moderately sloping, deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is silt loam about 8 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderate 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 V. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 62C Nason silt loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Nason is a strongly sloping to moderately steep, deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is silt loam about 8 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderate 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 3e. The Virginia soil management group is V. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 80B Tatum silt loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Tatum is a gently sloping to moderately sloping, deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is silt loam about 6 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 X. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 96B Worsham loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Worsham is a gently sloping to moderately sloping, very deep, poorly drained soil. Typically the surface layer is loam about 9 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderate content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is very slow. It has a moderate available water capacity and a moderate shrink swell potential. This soil is not Thomas Jefferson SWCD 1 8/5/09 flooded and is not ponded. The top of the seasonal high water table is at 6 inches. The land capability classification is 4w. The Virginia soil management group is HH. This soil is hydric. Small Commercial Buildings - Dominant Condition Soil Survey: Albemarle County, Virginia Survey Status: Published Correlation Date: 12/01/1981 Distribution Date: 10/21/2002 Map Symbol Soil Name Rating 51B Manteo channery silt Very limited loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes 62B Nason silt loam, 2 to 7 Somewhat limited percent slopes 62C Nason silt loam, 7 to 15 Very limited percent slopes 80B Tatum silt loam, 2 to 7 Somewhat limited percent slopes 96B Worsham loam, 2 to 7 Very limited percent slopes Septic Tank Absorption Fields - Dominant Condition Soil Survey: Albemarle County, Virginia Survey Status: Published Correlation Date: 12/01/1981 Distribution Date: 10/21/2002 Map Symbol Soil Name Rating 51B Manteo channery silt Very limited loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes 62B Nason silt loam, 2 to 7 Somewhat limited percent slopes 62C Nason silt loam, 7 to 15 Somewhat limited percent slopes 80B Tatum silt loam, 2 to 7 Somewhat limited percent slopes 96B Worsham loam, 2 to 7 Very limited percent slopes Mapunit Hydric Rating Soil Survey: Albemarle County, Virginia Survey Status: Published Correlation Date: 12/01/1981 Distribution Date: 10/21/2002 Map Symbol Soil Name Rating 51B Manteo channery silt Not hydric loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes Thomas Jefferson SWCD 2 8/5/09 62B Nason silt loam, 2 to 7 Not hydric percent slopes 62C Nason silt loam, 7 to 15 Not hydric percent slopes 80B Tatum silt loam, 2 to 7 Not hydric percent slopes 96B Worsham loam, 2 to 7 All hydric percent slopes Soil Shrink - Swell - Dominant Soil Top Depth : 0 Bottom Depth : 0 Soil Survey: Albemarle County, Virginia Survey Status: Published Correlation Date: 12/01/1981 Distribution Date: 10/21/2002 Map Symbol Soil Name Rating 51B Manteo channery silt 1.5 loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes 62B Nason silt loam, 2 to 7 1.5 percent slopes 62C Nason silt loam, 7 to 15 1.5 percent slopes 80B Tatum silt loam, 2 to 7 1.5 percent slopes 96B Worsham loam, 2 to 7 1.5 percent slopes Corrosion Concrete - Dominant Condition Soil Survey: Albemarle County, Virginia Survey Status: Published Correlation Date: 12/01/1981 Distribution Date: 10/21/2002 Map Symbol Soil Name Rating 51B Manteo channery silt High loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes 62B Nason silt loam, 2 to 7 High percent slopes 62C Nason silt loam, 7 to 15 High percent slopes 80B Tatum silt loam, 2 to 7 High percent slopes 96B Worsham loam, 2 to 7 Moderate percent slopes Thomas Jefferson SWCD 3 8/5/09 0'11 -i I L l IRGII COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 July 14, 2009 Ashley Cooper Atwood Architects, Inc. 250 W. Main Street, Suite 100 Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: SDP - 2009 -51 South Plains Presbyterian Church- Phase I Preliminary Dear Madam: The Site Review Committee has reviewed the development proposal referenced above. Preliminary comments for the following divisions of the Department of Community Development and other agencies, as applicable, are attached: Albemarle County Division of Zoning & Current Development (Engineer) Albemarle County Division of Zoning & Current Development (Planner) Albemarle County Division of Planning (Architectural Review Board) fe' `{ w _', I'' 21 f c ` 1 Virginia Department of Health- previously forwarded and addressed Albemarle County Division of Planning (E911)- no objection Albemarle County Department of Fire Rescue- no objection Albemarle County Inspections Division- no objection Albemarle County Service Authority- no objection Virginia Department of Transportation- pending: under separate cover Comments reflect information available at the time the development proposal was reviewed, and should not be considered final. However, the Site Review Committee has attempted to identify all issues that could affect approval of the proposed project. Please make the revisions that have been identified as necessary for preliminary approval by the Site Review Committee. If you choose not to make the requested revisions, please submit in writing justification for not incorporating such revisions. Submit eight (8) full size copies and one (1) 11" x 17" copy to the Department of Community Development including responses to each of the attached comments of the Site Review Committee by July 27, 2009. Failure to submit this information by this date will result in suspension of the review schedule. Review will resume when revisions are submitted along with a reinstatement fee of $65. Please contact me at 296 -5832 x3432 at your earliest convenience if you have questions or require additional information. Sincerely, Elizabeth M. Marotta, Senior Planner Zoning & Current Development AL1:( o KM* clr Vgav VIRGIN \ County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To:Ashley Cooper, Atwood Architects, Inc. David Garth, South Plains Presbyterian Church of Keswick Virginia, Inc. From:Elizabeth M. Marotta, Senior Planner Division: Zoning & Current Development Date:July 13, 2009 Subject: SDP 2009 -51 South Plains Presbyterian Church - Prelim. The Planner /Engineer for the Zoning & Current Development Division of the Albemarle County Department Community Development will recommend approve the preliminary 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.c] Please clearly label the limits of all Phase I work and be sure that these limits coordinate with those shown on ARB plans. 2. 32.5.6.d] Is grading limited to the 105 and 109 spot elevations and 106, 107, and 108 contour lines in the "Garden "? 3. 32.5.6.11 As required, please note on the plan that this site is not located within a reservoir watershed. 4. 32.5.6.i] Provide pavement widths for Louisa Road and Black Cat Road. 5. 32.5.6.1] Please provide instrument infoi,nation for Sprint easement, if available. (Project Note 9). 6. 32.5.6.n] Please clearly provide existing building square footage, as well as proposed building square footage (specifically indicate maximum building footprint.) 7. 32.5.6.n] Please identify proposed walkways on the plan and clearly identify the extent of all proposed improvements. There are three sets of lines to the north of the building that are not identified and generally appear similar to what looks like sidewalk encircling the garden. Also, it appears that the existing sidewalk leading from the chapel to the manse will be altered to accommodate entrance into the fellowship hall. Please clearly identify the limits of proposed sidewalk improvements (vs. existing to remain.) 8. 32.5.6.p/ SP08 -28 #10] SP condition #10 requires a landscape plan to be approved prior to final site plan approval; it is not specific that it shall be required only with Phase I or with Phase II. Therefore, a landscape plan is required with each site plan. For phase I, please comply with ARB recommendations (forthcoming under separate cover.) Staffs recommendation is to "submit a landscape plan showing ornamental trees interspersed among the existing large shade trees along the Entrance Corridor and dispersed in a random fashion, in groups of three or five, around the north end of the existing parking area and in the northeast corner of the site. Distribute the trees in a pattern that promotes and protects the rural character of the site. Provide large shade trees, as necessary, to further integrate the site. Provide a complete landscape plan including plant species, size, quantity, etc... Provide all trees at 3 ' /z" caliper minimum, at planting. Identify on the plan those trees that may be removed when Phase II is constructed." 1 9. 32.5.6.p/ SP08 -28 #10] The County Attorney has determined that you may show screening trees pursuant to the intent of condition #10.iii.) on this site plan. Please clearly identify those trees with a call -out or note on the plan. 10. [32.5.6.p] Because trees are to remain on the site, a Conservation Checklist is required to be completed and signed and provided on the landscape plan. The checklist is available online at: http: / /www. albemarle. org /upload/images /forms_center/ departments /community_ development /for ms /applications / Checklist_Conservation_Plan.pdf 11. [17- 400,403] A Tier III Groundwater Assessment is required for this project and must be submitted prior to preliminary site plan approval. Please be sure all items of 17 -403 are addressed. Please contact Elizabeth M. Marotta at the Department of Community Development 296 -5832 ext. 3432 for further information. c . ALg. r9 kGI S1P County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To:Elizabeth Marotta, Current Development Project Planner From:Phil Custer, Current Development engineering review Date:14 June 2009 Subject: South Plains Presbyterian Church Preliminary Site Plan (SDP- 2009 - 00051) The preliminary site plan for the South Plains Presbyterian Church has been reviewed. Engineering review for current development can recommend approval after the following comments have been addressed: 1. The stormwater quality computations should be revised. On the plan, please show the drainage area from the point of analysis used in the Simple Method Spreadsheet. The point of analysis should be positioned at a reasonable location that would capture as much of the developed site runoff as possible, but not the entire property. In addition, using sheet flow as a stormwater quality measure is not appropriate for this site because water concentrates in the VDOT roadside ditch or the 12 culvert before reaching a vegetated buffer. A notable portion of the site drains to the roadside ditch on Route 22 and this should be shown graphically. Also, the three areas specified in the spreadsheet (4.66 acres in project area, 5.15 acres totaled in the pre - development column, and 4.80 acres totaled in the post - development column) should all be equal, but are not. 2. Engineering review will not require detention with Phase I due to the small area of site disturbance. However, when Phase lI is constructed detention will need to be provided and the pre- development rates will need to be computed by using the condition of the site as it exists now, before the construction of the Fellowship Hall. 3. The existing entrance to the parking lot should be improved at this time so that one safe connection to a public street is provided. The entrance should be located where shown on the approved SP. Current Development Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 2 approved as currently proposed, it would not meet section 18- 32.7.2 which directs the agent or Planning Commission to "reduce or prevent congestion in the public streets" and "minimize conflict and friction with vehicular traffic on the public street" in the opinion of county engineering. Engineering review also acknowledges the applicants' contention that two notes on sheet 4 of the approved application plan indicate that the parking lot upgrades will occur in phase II of the development. Engineering review believes there is a legitimate distinction between the reconfiguration of the parking lot to meet increased parking demand (not warranted in phase I) and the upgrade of the entrance for the purposes of meeting safe and convenient access requirements. AMICK Claitt 4 Author R,1 vans rviru; TO: Scott Clark FROM: Gary Whelan, Civil Engineer DATE: July 2, 2008 RE: Site Plan Technical Review for: South Plains Presbyterian Church SP200800029 TM 80 -116 The below checked items apply to this site. X 1. This site plan is not within the Authority's jurisdictional area for: X A. Water and sewer B. Water only C. Water only to existing structure D. Limited service 2. An inch water line is located approximately distant. 3. Fire flow from, nearest public hydrant, located distant from this site plan, is Gpm + at 20 psi residual. 4. A inch sewer line is located approximately distant. 5. An Industrial Waste Ordinance survey form must be completed. 6. No improvements or obstructions shall be placed within existing or future easements. 7.and plans are currently under review. 8.and plans have been received and approved. 9. No plans are required. 10. Final and plans are required for our review and approval prior to granting tentative approval. 11. Final site plan may /may not be signed. 12. RWSA approval for water and /or sewer connections. 13. City of Charlottesville approval for sewer. Comments: No comment. The site plan does not show or incorrectly shows: meter locations water line size waterline locations sewer line size sewer line locations expected wastewater flows easements expected water demands 168 Spotnap Road • Charlottesville • VA 22911 • Tel (434) 977 -4511 • Fax (434) 979 -0698 www.serviceauthoriy.org SDP200900051 Page 1 of 1 Elizabeth Marotta From: Craun, William (VDH) [ William.Craun @vdh.virginia.gov] Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:31 AM To:Elizabeth Marotta Subject: SDP200900051 In regards to the South Plains Presbyterian Church, the health department will need to know about the number of individuals attending the church on Sunday as well as any other planned activities during the week. Please let me know if you need additional assistance. William Craun Environmental Health Onsite Supervisor Thomas Jefferson Health Dept. 1138 Rose Hill Drive Charlottesville, VA. 22906 7/14/2009 Application #:SDP200900051 Short Review Comments Project Name:,South Plains Presbyterian Church - Prelim.1Preliminary - Non - residential Date Completed:07/10/2009 Reviewer:Andrew Slack E911 Review Status:No Objection Reviews Comments: NO OBJECTION. Date Completed:07/01/2009 Reviewer:Eryn Brennan ARB Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments: This application will be reviewed by the ARB on July 20, after which ARB comments will be available. Date Completed:07/01/2009 Reviewer:Elizabeth Marotta CommDev- Current Development Review Status:No Objection Reviews Comments: Date Completed:07/07/2009 Reviewer:James Barber Fire Rescue Review Status:No Objection Reviews Comments: Must comply with the Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code. Approval is subject to field inspection and verification. For final: Identify an approved water supply capable of supplying required fire flow for fire protection. Page: 1.00 County of Albemarle Printed On: Thursday, July 16, 2009 ALA 5' Itrik c"1 N1P COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 July 14, 2009: ,4.4AshleyCooper Atwood Architects, Inc. 250 W. Main Street, Suite 100 S t" Charlottesville, VA 22902 rf-Y , { , -i RE: SDP - 2009 -51 South Plains Presbyterian Church- Phase I Preliminary Dear Madam: The Site Review Committee has reviewed the development proposal referenced above. Preliminary comments for the following divisions of the Department of Community Development and other agencies, as applicable, are attached: Albemarle County Division of Zoning & Current Development (Engineer) Albemarle County Division of Zoning & Current Development (Planner) Albemarle County Division of Planning (Architectural Review Board) pei i(,r'Y J`1 i t t ' Virginia Department of Health- previously forwarded and addressed fe t,J' 1121 A F-t1 t,,.A bemarle County Division of Planning (E911)- no objection fbemarle County Department of Fire Rescue- no objection 1&marle County Inspections Division- no objection j,, lbemarle County Service Authority- no objection Xirginia Department of Transportation- pending: under separate cover t °v' } falee. -ICYt( Comments reflect information available at the time the development proposal was reviewed, and should not be considered final. However, the Site Review Committee has attempted to identify all issues that could affect approval of the proposed project. Please make the revisions that have been identified as necessary for preliminary approval by the Site Review Committee. If you choose not to make the requested revisions, please submit in writing justification for not incorporating such revisions. Submit eight (8) full size copies and one (1) 11" x 17" copy to the Department of Community Development including responses to each of the attached comments of the Site Review Committee by July 27, 2009. Failure to submit this information by this date will result in suspension of the review schedule. Review will resume when revisions are submitted along with a reinstatement fee of $65. Please contact me at 296 -5832 x3432 at your earliest convenience if you have questions or require additional information. Sincerely, Elizabeth M. Marotta, Senior Planner Zoning & Current Development AL42?6, 8 Mara i„a County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To:Ashley Cooper, Atwood Architects, Inc. David Garth, South Plains Presbyterian Church of Keswick Virginia, Inc. From: Elizabeth M. Marotta, Senior Planner Division: Zoning & Current Development Date:July 13, 2009 Subject: SDP 2009 -51 South Plains Presbyterian Church - Prelim. The Planner /Engineer for the Zoning & Current Development Division of the Albemarle County Department Community Development will recommend approve the preliminary 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.], a ri,.et rc (rl L 1y -et' l• r,zikjtheo It 1 32.5.6.c] Please clearly label the limits of all Phase I work and be sure that these limits coordinate with those shown on ARB plans. 32.5.6.d] Is grading united to the 1 and 109 spot elevations and 106, 107, and 108 contour lines in the "Garden ". C e pUtri 32.5.6.f] As require , lease note on the plan that this site is not located within a reservoir watershed. Cam' [32.5.6.i] Provide pavement widths for Louisa Road and Black Cat Road. 32.5.6.1] Please provide instrument information for Sprint easement, if available. (Project Note 9). v ,.6: [32.5.6.n] Please clearly provide existing building square footage, as well as proposed building square footage (specifically indicate maximum building footprint.) 32.5.6.n] Please identify proposed walkways on the plan and clearly identify the extent of all proposed improvements. There are three sets of lines to the north of the building that are not identified and generally appear similar to what looks like sidewalk encircling the garden. Also, it appears that the existing sidewalk leading from the chapel to the manse will be altered to accommodate entrance into the fellowship hall. Please clearly identify the limits of proposed sidewalk improvements (vs. existing to remain.) 32.5.6.p/ SP08 -28 #10] SP condition #10 requires a landscape plan to be approved prior to final ec act-14.9 site plan approval; it is not specific that it shall be required only with Phase I or with Phase II. Therefore, a landscape plan is required with each site plan. For phase I, please comply with ARBL°'recommendations (forthcoming under separate cover.) Staff's recommendation is to "submit a Mt( i landscape plan showing ornamental trees interspersed among the existing large shade trees along the Entrance Corridor and dispersed in a random fashion, in groups of three or five, around the north end of the existing parking area and in the northeast corner of the site. Distribute the trees in a pattern that promotes and protects the rural character of the site. Provide large shade trees, as necessary, to further integrate the site. Provide a complete landscape plan including plant species, size, quantity, etc... Provide all trees at 3 '/" caliper minimum, at planting. Identify on the plan those trees that may be removed when Phase I1 is constructed." 1 32.5.6.p/ SP08 -28 #10] The County Attorney has determined that you may show screening trees9.s pursuant to the intent of condition #10.iii.) on this site plan. Please clearly identify those trees with a call -out or note on the plan. 10.1 [32.5.6.p] Because trees are to remain on the site, a Conservation Checklist is required to beccompletedandsignedandprovidedonthelandscapeplan. The checklist is available online at: http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/forms center/ departments /community_development /for ms /applications/ Checklist_Conservation_P1an.pdf 11'' [17- 400,403] A Tier III Groundwater Assessment is required for this project and must be submitted prior to preliminary site plan approval. Please be sure all items of 17 -403 are addressed. tk; : -W M , e i , i ,vrt ce > t7 r rt 6t 1 C (.. 0 '' CY ° \ • Please contact Elizabeth M. Marotta at t Depar en o Community level ment 296 -5832 ext. 34 for further information.l 1 4 4 Lkk ,c,} N -Altre6) ti1 Cita eb.J1.41, ?,14 off' AL,3,,17 i II,yyr i /kGINI County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To:Elizabeth Marotta, Current Development Project Planner From:Phil Custer, Current Development engineering review Date:14 June 2009 Subject: South Plains Presbyterian Church Preliminary Site Plan (SDP -2009 -00051) The preliminary site plan for the South Plains Presbyterian Church has been reviewed. Engineering review for current development can recommend approval after the following comments have been addressed: 1. The stormwater quality computations should be revised. On the plan, please show the drainage area from the point of analysis used in the Simple Method Spreadsheet. The point of analysis should be positioned at a reasonable location that would capture as much of the developed site runoff as possible, but not the entire property. In addition, using sheet flow as a stoliniwater quality measure is not appropriate for this site because water concentrates in the VDOT roadside ditch or the 12" culvert before reaching a vegetated buffer. A notable portion of the site drains to the roadside ditch on Route 22 and this should be shown graphically. Also, the three areas specified in the spreadsheet (4.66 acres in project area, 5.15 acres totaled in the pre- development column, and 4.80 acres totaled in the post - development column) should all be equal, but are not. 2. Engineering review will not require detention with Phase I due to the small area of site disturbance. However, when Phase H is constructed detention will need to be provided and the pre- development rates will need to be computed by using the condition of the site as it exists now, before the construction of the Fellowship Hall. k 3. The existing parking should be imd s tha safe connection to entrance a public street to the is provided. lot The entrance prove should at b locate d so where t shown one on the approved SP. dernaTit 4iervice Auth‘ 1ty x ry n t Conservinri TO: Scott Clark FROM: Gary Whelan, Civil Engineer DATE: July 2, 2008 RE: Site Plan Technical Review for: South Plains Presbyterian Church SP200800029 TM 80 -116 The below checked items ply to this site. X 1. This site p n is not within the Authority jurisdictional area for: X A. Water arid sewer B. Water C. Water only to existing structure D. Limited service 2. An inch water line is located approximately distant. 3. Fire flow from, nearest public hydrant, located distant from this site plan, is Gpm + at.20 psi residual. 4. A inch sewer line is located approximately distant. 5. An Industrial Waste Ordinance survey form must be completed. 6. No improvements or obstructions shall be placed within existing or future easements. 7.and plans are currently under review. 8.and plans have been received and approved. 9. No plans are required. 10. Final and plans are required for our review and approval prior to granting tentative approval. 11. Final site plan may /may not be signed. 12. RWSA approval for water and /or sewer connections. 13. City of Charlottesville approval for sewer. Comments: No comment. The site plan does not show or incorrectly shows: meter locations water line size waterline locations sewer line size sewer line locations expected wastewater flows easements expected water demands 168 Spotnap Road • Charlottesville • VA 22911 • Tel (434) 977 -4511 • Fax (434) 979 -0698 www.serviceauthoriy.org SllP2UU900031 rage 1 or 1 Elizabeth Marotta From: Craun, William (VDH) [ William.Craun @vdh.virginia.gov] Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:31 AM To:Elizabeth Marotta Subject: SDP200900051 In regards to the South Plains Presbyterian Church, the health department will need to know about the number of individuals attending the church on Sunday as well as any other planned activities during the week. Please let me know if you need additional assistance. William Craun Environmental Health Onsite Supervisor Thomas Jefferson Health Dept. 1138 Rose Hill Drive Charlottesville, VA. 22906 7/14/2009 Application #: j SDP200900051 jShort Review Coin ants Project Name: South Plains Presbyterian Church - Prelim.Preliminary — Non - residential Date Completed:07/10/2009 Reviewer:Andrew Slack E911 Review Status:No Objection Reviews Comments: NO OBJECTION. Date Completed:07/01/2009 Reviewer:Eryn Brennan ARB Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments: This application will be reviewed by the ARB on July 20, after which ARB comments will be available. Date Completed:07/01/2009 Reviewer:Elizabeth Marotta CommDev- Current Development Review Status:No Objection Reviews Comments: Date Completed:07/07/2009 Reviewer:James Barber Fire Rescue Review Status:No Objection Reviews Comments: Must comply with the Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code. Approval is subject to field inspection and verification. For final: Identify an approved water supply capable of supplying required fire flow for fire protection. Page: 1.00 County of Albemarle Printed On: Thursday, July 16, 2009 Application #: I SDP200900051-Short Review Comm-ients Project Name: South Plains Presbyter'an Church - Prelim.Preliminary - Non - residential Date Completed:07/10/2 9 Reviewer:Andrew Slack E911 Review Status:No Objection Reviews Comments: NO OBJE ION. Date Completed:i 07/01/20 Reviewer:Eryn Brennan ARB Review Status:Requested C nges Reviews Comments: This applic ion will be reviewed by the ARB on July 20, after which ARB comments will be available. Date Completed:08/05/2009 Reviewer:Eryn Brennan ARB Review Status:Requested Changes 6 f Reviews Comments: 'This application will be reviewed by the ARB on September 21, 2009, after which comments will be available. Date Completed:07/01/20 Reviewer:Elizabeth Maro CommDev- Current Development Review Status:No Objecti Reviews Comments: Date Completed:07/07/200 Reviewer:James Barber Fire Rescue Review Status:No Objection Reviews Comments: Must com with the Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code. Approval is subject to field inspection I and veri ation. For final: Identify an approved water supply capable of supplying required fire flow for fire pr ection. Date Completed:08/03/2009 Reviewer:James Barber Fire Rescue Review Status:No Objection Reviews Comments: Must comply with the Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code. Final approval is subject to field 1 inspection and verification. Date Completed:08/07/2009 Reviewer:Joel DeNunzio VDOT Review Status:No Objection Reviews Comments: No objection to Phase I, however requests opportunity to review Phase II. i fl(( 1/1.- 1 (J ot Page: 1.00 County of Albemarle Printed On: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 Serv Author TO: Scott Clark FROM: Gary Whelan, Civil Engineer DATE: July 2, 2008 RE: Site Plan Technical Review for: South Plains Presbyterian Church SP200800029 TM 80 -116 The below checked items apply to this site. X 1. This site plan is not within the Authority's jurisdictional area for: X A. Water and sewer B. Water only C. Water only to existing structure D. Limited service 2. An inch water line is located approximately distant. 3. Fire flow from, nearest public hydrant, located distant from this site plan, is Gpm + at 20 psi residual. 4. A inch sewer line is located approximately distant. 5. An Industrial Waste Ordinance survey form must be completed. 6. No improvements or obstructions shall be placed within existing or future easements. 7.and plans are currently under review. 8.and plans have been received and approved. 9. No plans are required. 10. Final and plans are required for our review and approval prior to granting tentative approval. 11. Final site plan may /may not be signed. 12. RWSA approval for water and /or sewer connections. 13. City of Charlottesville approval for sewer. Comments: No comment. The site plan does not show or incorrectly shows: meter locations water line size waterline locations sewer line size sewer line locations expected wastewater flows easements expected water demands 168 Spotnap Road • Charlottesville • VA 22911 • Tel (434) 977 -4511 • Fax (434) 979 -0698 www.serviceauthoriy.org pF AL County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To:Elizabeth Marotta, Current Development Project Planner From:Phil Custer, Current Development engineering review Date:14 June 2009 Rev. I) 14 August 2009 Subject: South Plains Presbyterian Church Preliminary Site Plan (SDP- 2009 - 00051) The second submittal of the preliminary site plan for the South Plains Presbyterian Church has been reviewed. 1. The stormwater quality computations should be revised. On the plan, please show the drainage area from the point of analysis used in the Simple Method Spreadsheet. The point of analysis should be positioned at a reasonable location that would capture as much of the developed site runoff as possible, but not the entire property. In addition, using sheet flow as a stormwater quality measure is not appropriate for this site because water concentrates in the VDOT roadside ditch or the 12" culvert before reaching a vegetated buffer. A notable portion of the site drains to the roadside ditch on Route 22 and this should be shown graphically. Also, the three areas specified in the spreadsheet (4.66 acres in project area, 5.15 acres totaled in the pre- development column, and 4.80 acres totaled in the post- development column) should all be equal, but are not. Rev. 1) The conceptual stormwater management plan is adequate for preliminary approval, except for the note on the cover sheet stating that the water quality treatment is provided through the use of a vegetated buffer. When the WPO plan is submitted for ESC and SWM quality review please make sure to provide the following: a modified simple spreadsheet for each SWM facility for infiltration facilities, soil permeability tests (at least two per facility) an evaluation of the downstream channel confirming compliance with VESCH Minimum Standard 19 facilities meeting all standards specified in the latest edition of the design manual 3. The existing entrance to the parking lot should be improved at this time so that one safe connection to a public street is provided. The entrance should be located where shown on the approved SP. Rev. I) Engineering review notes that VDOT has consented to the phasing of the entrance upgrade. However, it is still the position of county engineering that the existing condition of uncontrolled access onto the public road should be corrected with this plan. The current arrangement of the parking lot meets no existing count)' or VDOT standard. If the plan were Current Development Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 2 approved as currently proposed, it would not meet section 18- 32.7.2 which directs the agent or Planning Commission to "reduce or prevent congestion in the public streets" and "minimize conflict and friction with vehicular traffic on the public street" in the opinion of county engineering. Engineering review also acknowledges the applicants' contention that two notes on sheet 4 of the approved application plan indicate that the parking lot upgrades will occur in phase II of the development Engineering review believes there is a legitimate distinction between the reconfiguration of the parking lot to meet increased parking demand (not warranted in phase I) and the upgrade of the entrance for the purposes of meeting safe and convenient access requirements. SP -2008 -00029 South Plains Presbyterian Church Page 1 of 1 Philip Custer From: Denunzio, Joel D., P.E. [ Joel .DeNunzio ©VDOT.virginia.gov] Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 9:38 AM To:Scott Clark Subject: SP- 2008 -00029 South Plains Presbyterian Church SP- 2008 -00029 South Plains Presbyterian Church Scott, I have reviewed the above SP and have the following comments: Show the prescriptive easement for the road at 15 feet from the centerline of the road. The parking setback should be a minimum 10 feet from the prescriptive easement line. Show sight lines at all proposed entrances in accordance with the requirements in The Minimum Standards of Entrances to State Highways. Any sight line that falls outside of the prescriptive easement on route 616 must be placed within a sight easement. Parking and any other proposed construction must be placed outside of the sight easements unless they are not a sight obstruction. The two proposed entrances should either be spaced farther apart or consolidated into one entrance. It is preferred that they are combined into one entrance. The current configuration may cause conflicts and safety issues on Route 616. The width of the northern most entrance will need to be 30 to 40 feet because it enters directly into a parking lot that requires a turning movement. The southern most entrance needs to be 24 feet wide in accordance with the private street standard in The Minimum Standards of Entrances to State Highways. The pavement material needs to be the same structure as Route 616 to the Prescriptive Easement line. If you have any questions, please contact me. Thanks, Joel Joel DeNunzio, P.E. Staff Engineer 434 - 293 -0011 Ext. 120 joel.denunzio @vdot.virginia.gov 7/28/2009 k }, COM ON EA I TH of VIRQINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CHARLOTTESVILLE RESIDENCY OFFICE 701 VDOT WAY CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22911 DAVID S. EKERN, P.E. COMMISSIONER July 23. 2008 Mr. Bill Fritz Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville. VA 22902 RE: Special Use Permits and Rezoning Submittals Dear Mr. Fritz: Below are VDOT's comments for the July 2008 Rezoning and Special Use Permit applications: SP - 2008 - 025 Upgrading Earlysville Service Center (Joan McDowell) The proposed entrance must be designed in accordance with The Minimum Standards of Entrances to State Highways and include the proposed profile in accordance with the CG- 11 Standard. The plan needs to show the amount of traffic that will enter and exit the site on a daily basis and address any need for auxiliary lanes based on the traffic. SP - 2008 - 027 Field School Amendment (Rebecca Ragsdale) The continuation of the existing use does not appear to generate any additional traffic or cause safety concerns. SP - BB &T Crozet (Branch Bank w/ Drive Thru)(Megan Yaniglos) Application deferred SP 2008 - 029 South Plains Presbyterian Church (Scott Clark) The existing ADT from the church is expected to be 25 VPD and the Sunday traffic is expected to be 100 VPD. The new buildings will generate 93 VPD on a weekday and 374 VPD on a Sunday. The ADT on Route 616 is 880 VPD. The plan should include traffic data and warrant analysis for auxiliary lanes. WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING 1 COM ONWEALTH o VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CHARLOTTESVILLE RESIDENCY OFFICE 701 VDOT WAY CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22911 DAVID S. EKERN, P.E. COMMISSIONER The existing gravel area needs to be designed to have a well defined commercial entrance that meets the current standards. Sight distances also need to be shown at the entrance location. The setback for parking needs to be outside of the clear zone area for route 616 and it should also be outside of any sight lines needed for the entrance. SP- 2008 -030 Hall's Auto Body Tier III PWSF Amendment (Gerald Gatobu) No Comments. Old Dominion Equine Barn and Riding Ring Amendment (Scott Clark) The final site plan needs to show adequate sight lines and details for the proposed entrance. SP- 2008 -032 Central Virginia Recycling Center (Joan McDowell) The applicant has previously contacted VDOT with estimated traffic numbers and it was determined that a right turn lane off Route 250 is necessary but there is not a need for a left turn lane. The proposed entrance to the facility is too close to the existing intersection at Route 749. There was a proposal from the applicant to VDOT to relocate Route 749 to reduce the amount of skew at the intersection of Route 749 and Route 250, connect the recycling entrance to Route 749 and add a right turn lane on Route 250. This proposal is the design that should be pursued to reduce conflict points on Route 250. ZMA- 2008 -003 Albemarle Place (Judith Wiegand) The change in the phasing of the internal roads does not appear to have any impact on the surrounding roads. If you have any questions, please let me know Sincerely"' f , J6e1 DeNunzio, P.E. Staff Engineer VDOT Charlottesville Residency WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To:Elizabeth Marotta, Current Development Project Planner From:Phil Custer, Current Development engineering review Date:14 June 2009 Subject: South Plains Presbyterian Church Preliminary Site Plan (SDP- 2009 - 00051) The preliminary site plan for the South Plains Presbyterian Church has been reviewed. Engineering review for current development can recommend approval after the following comments have been addressed: 1. The stormwater quality computations should be revised. On the plan, please show the drainage area from the point of analysis used in the Simple Method Spreadsheet. The point of analysis should be positioned at a reasonable location that would capture as much of the developed site runoff as possible, but not the entire property. In addition, using sheet flow as a stormwater quality measure is not appropriate for this site because water concentrates in the VDOT roadside ditch or the 12" culvert before reaching a vegetated buffer. A notable portion of the site drains to the roadside ditch on Route 22 and this should be shown graphically. Also, the three areas specified in the spreadsheet (4.66 acres in project area, 5.15 acres totaled in the pre - development column, and 4.80 acres totaled in the post- development column) should all be equal, but are not. 2. Engineering review will not require detention with Phase I due to the small area of site disturbance. However, when Phase II is constructed detention will need to be provided and the pre- development rates will need to be computed by using the condition of the site as it exists now, before the construction of the Fellowship Hall. 3. The existing entrance to the parking lot should be improved at this time so that one safe connection to a public street is provided. The entrance should be located where shown on the approved SP. Page 1 of 1 F) Lt.: L F Elizabeth Marotta of eei ed -ft) From:Elizabeth Marotta c 7J 1 7 Sent:Friday, August 07, 2009 10:58 AM To:Ashley Cooper' Cc:Bill Atwood' Subject:RE: South Plains VDOT Attachments: Indefinite Deferral letter to the applicant.pdf Ashley, Attached you will find a copy of a letter I sent to Bill Atwood today aknowledging his request to defer. Regarding your email below: The latest set of plans (dated 7/24/09) have been distributed and comments are coming in. I will pass comments along to you as I receive them. As of now, I do not see anything I need from you all in order to complete this round of reviews.Currently, I am waiting on response/ comments/ approvals from: 1. Engineering 2. Planning (Me)- As you know, Mr. Rintels' deadline is close of business today to let the County know what he is doing: either a private agreement with the Church or issuing a license /easement per Condition #10. Once I get his response I will complete the review of plans submitted 7/24/09. I expect to pass along my comments to you on Thursday of next week. 3. Health Department - I asked them to clarify their latest email to me and am waiting to hear back. Once I have passed along comments from the 3 departments /agencies listed above, you can revise and resubmit with the Tier III). Please let me know if you need anything, Elizabeth From: Ashley Cooper [ mailto :ashley ©atwoodarchitects.com] Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 9:58 AM To: Elizabeth Marotta Cc: 'Bill Atwood' Subject: South Plains VDOT Hi Elizabeth, 1 just met with Joel regarding the VDOT comments. He is fine with holding off on the parking lot improvements until Phase 2. He will be sending you an email to that effect. We will also begin work on the Tier 3 study immediately. Is there anything else we need to do at this time? Will we be hearing back from you all regarding the other comments? It would be nice to know if everything is on track for the resubmittal. Thanks, Ashley Cooper Atwood Architects 250 West Main Street, Suite 100 Charlottesville, VA 22902 p. 434.971.7202 f. 434.295 2413 ashl ey(watwoodarchitects. corn 8/7/2009 f uFF O . ^' •' 8119 ' v- ® [rrJ mxty. -el C -'( i! c v-iRGINIP COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 August 7, 2009 William H. Atwood Atwood Architects 250 W Main Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: SDP- 2009 -51 South Plains Presbyterian Church- Preliminary Dear Sir: Your request for indefinite deferral dated August 6, 2009 has been received and the project has been deferred. Please note for your records that pursuant to Section 32.4.2.8 of Chapter 18 of the Albemarle County Code if the agent, commission, or board of supervisors does not take action on the application within six (6) months of the date of your request for deferral, the application shall be deemed withdrawn. You may request one extension of the deferral. In order to insure adequate time for review, staff requests that you make any extension request 30 days prior to the plan being deemed withdrawn. Sincerely, Elizabeth M. Marotta, Senior Planner Zoning & Current Development File: SDP - 2009 -51 Page 1 of 2 Elizabeth Marotta Op C 106 From: Bill Atwood [atwood @atwoodarchitects.com] l Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2009 5:38 PM To:Elizabeth Marotta Subject: Fw: Tier 3 Groundwater Waiver Original Message From: Bill Atwood To: Ashley Cooper Cc: Elizabeth Marotta Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2009 3:49 PM Subject: Re: Tier 3 Groundwater Waiver Ashley, Please advise Nick Evans, Virginia Groundwater LLC, to proceed with the Tier 3 Groundwater work immediately at South Plains Church. By copy of this e-mail we are notifying Elizabeth Marotta we are taking Option #1, that is listed in her note below. Thanks, Bill From: Elizabeth Marotta [mailto:emarotta ©albemarle.org] Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 4:52 PM To: Ashley Cooper Cc: Bill Fritz Subject: Tier 3 Groundwater Waiver Ashley, We have received your request to waive the requirements of Sec. 32.5.7. As outlined below, you have four options. Before we proceed with a staff review of the waiver request, I want to be sure you understand all four of your options: 1. You may request a deferral of your application, which will give you time to complete and submit a Tier 3 study in accordance with 32.5.7. If you wanted to, you could submit a study that covers both phase I and phase II of the project, as long as it was broken down into two parts, each addressing the specific phase conditions. Please note that you will also be required to provide a Tier 3 with phase II anyway.) 2. You do not submit a Tier 3 study or a deferral request by the time we have to act on the application, and we deny the preliminary site plan. 3. You request the agent reviews the waiver request: Section 32.2(c) gives the agent authorization to review waivers of the site plan, however it must first get the recommendation of the SRC, Zoning Administrator, and County Engineer. Therefore, this item would have to be re- advertised and taken to SRC. Keep in mind that like any SRC item, it could be called up for Planning Commission review. (And, so you are aware, the agent has never approved a waiver of 32.5.7.) 4. You may request the Planning Commission review your site plan waiver request in accordance with Sec. 32.2 (b). If you chose this option we will let you know the next date on which we can get it on the agenda. 8/7/2009 Page 2 of 2 Please let me know which option you and your client decide is best. As always, let me know if you have any questions. Elizabeth M. Marotta Senior Planner County of Albemarle Community Development Department 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 434) 296 -5832 Ext. 3432 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.32/2266 - Release Date: 07/29/09 06:12:00 8/7/2009 South Plains Church Page 1 of 1 Elizabeth Marotta From: Craun, William (VDH) [ William.Craun @vdh.virginia.gov] Sent: Monday, August 03, 2009 2:36 PM To:Elizabeth Marotta Subject: South Plains Church Elizabeth It's a large fellowship hall but, as long as the church is not going to use for more people than the existing congregation or contract it out for any events such as weddings ,it should be ok. Additionally, The health department will want them to uncover the distribution box and allow us to view it before any building permit is granted. Please let me know if you need additional information. William Craun Onsite Supervisor Thomas Jefferson Health Department 1138 Rose Hill Drive Charlottesville, VA. 22906 8/5/2009 SDP - 2009 -00051 South Plan. -' - esbyterian Church Page 1 of 1 Elizabeth Marotta From: DeNunzio, Joel D., P.E. [ Joel .DeNunzio @VDOT.virginia.gov] Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 10:19 AM To:Elizabeth Marotta Cc:Ashley Cooper Subject: SDP - 2009 -00051 South Plains Presbyterian Church SDP - 2009 -00051 South Plains Presbyterian Church Elizabeth, 1 met with Ashley Cooper this morning on the subject project to discuss the VDOT entrance requirements. It is my understanding that phase I of the project will build a new fellowship hall and not increase the projected traffic and phase II will rebuild the entrance as I have commented previously on. It will be acceptable to phase this project and have the entrance upgraded when the parking lot is rebuilt. I had a chance to quickly look at the parking and entrance plan and I did have some concerns with the layout. I ask that you be sure to include me in the review of the entrance at the time the phase 11 plan is submitted. Thanks Joel Joel DeNunzio, P.E. Staff Engineer 434 - 293 -0011 Ext. 120 joel.denunzio @vdot.virginia.gov 8/7/2009