Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP200900080 Review Comments 2009-10-01 (2)2r : I Le Application #:ARB20090006 jShort Review Con rrients Project Name:ISouth Plains Presbyterian Church - Final Final Site Development Plan Date Completed:10/01/2009 Reviewer:Eryn Brennan ARB Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments: The ARB made the following comments at the meeting: (/)q f ° rv Revise the location of the 1/1 windows within the arched recessed areas along the elevation so that they are centered, and therefore, more coordinated with the architectural elements in which they are placed. Revise the 2/1 windows on the north elevation to 1/1. Revise the elevations to show the proportion of the Gothic window in the north elevation that matches the rendering dated 9/8/09. Brick veneer should occur on the side of that gable as shown in the drawing Al submitted on the same date. Revise the landscape plan as follows: Add 2 -3 additional crape myrtles along the northwestern edge of the parking area Change the proposed Foster's holly to American holly Add 2 -3 more small clusters of ornamental deciduous trees along the EC Change the five dogwoods to little gem magnolias at 2" caliper. Page: 1.00 County of Albemarle Printed On: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 Page 1 of 1 Elizabeth Marotta From: Jonathan Rintels (jrintels @gmail.com] Sent: Friday, October 09, 2009 11:18 AM To:Bill Atwood Cc:Elizabeth Marotta Subject: From Jon Rintels re South Plains Church Hi Bill, I met with Elizabeth Marotta and reviewed the Sept 16 site plan for the church. I noticed that the arborvitae specified is not the Green Giant variety that we agreed to with the church and presented as the agreed upon planting at the Board of Supervisors meeting. The Green Giant variety is Thuja standishii x plicata. Instead, the site plan specifies Thuja occidentalis 'Techny' (also known as 'Mission'). This is described on the Internet as "the long - standing traditional cultivar that has dark green foliage year- round, to 12' tall by 4' wide, broadly pyramidal or upright oval in shape." http:// hcs. osu. edu/ hcs /TMI/Plantlist /th talis.html http _ / /www.westonnurseries.com/ index. efm? fuseactiol= plants.plantDetail &plant_id =986 The Green Giant arborvitae is fast growing and reaches 50 feet tall and eight feet wide. The Techny that is specified reaches only 12 -20 feet, is slow growing, and only 4 -6 feet wide. Thus, because of the lower elevation where these trees are to be planted, the arborvitae specified on the site plan doesn't help us at all. If the site plan were changed to specify the Green Giant arborvitae, as we agreed with the Church, then we would be willing to sign off on the staggered planting of the trees on the Church side of the property line as shown on the Sept. 16 site plan. I look forward to hearing from you on this. Best, Jon Jonathan Rintels 434.971.8894 v 949.209.4081 f jrintels@gmail.com 10/14/2009 ov ALZ Jam'xGIN COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 Project:South Plains Presbyterian Church; WPO- 2009 - 00050; SDP -2009 -00080 Plan preparer:Mr. Bill Atwood; Atwood Architects Mrs. Ashley Cooper; Cooper Planning Mr. Clark Gathwright; Daggett and Griggs Architects Owner or rep.:South Plains Presbyterian Church Date received:23 September 2009 Date of Comment: 13 October 2009 Engineer:Phil Custer The final site, ESC, and SWM plan for South Plains Presbyterian Church has been reviewed. The following comments are provided. A. SDP - 2009 -00080 Final Site Plan Comments 1. Engineering review recommends that the parking lot along Black Cat Road be modified to provide for one VDOT standard entrance. This is not a requirement due to a determination from the Chief of Current Development. 2. Please modify the grading in the western portion of the courtyard /garden so that the topography works with the raingarden/biofilter. 3. Please provide a detail for the sidewalk that meets or exceeds the county "s requirement of 4" of 3000psi concrete @ 28days and 4" of stone base beneath. [DM] B. WPO- 2009 -00050 Stormwater Management Plan Comments 1. A SWM facility maintenance agreement will need to be recorded before the site plan can be approved. Please submit this document with $17 fee directly to Ana Kilmer after consulting the guidelines available on the county website. 2. Please provide a modified simple removal rate spreadsheet for each drainage area /facility, not the whole site, which corresponds to drainage area lines drawn on the plan. This is necessary to confirm that each facility is sized appropriately for the watershed draining to it. 3. Please provide two permeability tests for the infiltration trench. The VMSH specifies that the in- situ permeability tests must yield infiltration rates greater that 0.52" per hour in order to consider infiltration facilities practical. The VSMH also states that the infiltration facility must drain in 48hours and the soil test must clearly show this. [VSMH 3.10] 4. On the infiltration trench detail, please specify that the depth is 3ft minimunz, the bottom of the trench is flat, and the #57 gravel is clean- washed. 5. Engineering review recommends removing the filter fabric from the infiltration trench and biofilter. Depending on the type used, the fabric could wind up being the limiting factor in both facilities. If the filter fabric is removed from the biofilter, it should be replaced with a 4" layer of pea gravel. If the filter fabric is to remain in the plan, I recommend specifying the product number. This is not a requirement. 6. The following modifications are required to the biofilter /rain garden detail: a. The depth of the biofilter mix must be 2.5ft. b. The thickness of the gravel layer must be between 12" and 18 ". c. The soil media must be called out as state approved mix. 7. Please provide a plan nag plan for the biofilter. There must be at lei( three species of shrub proposed. 8. Please provide the following note on sheets C1.1 and C3.1: When the stormwater management plan for Phase II is submitted, detention and stormwater quality computations will need to consider the pre - development condition as the property before the construction of the fellowship hall. 9. A SWM bond will be computed once the WPO plan is ready for approval. C. WPO- 2009 -00050 Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Comments 1. Please add to the set the County's standard ESC notes. These notes can be found in the design manual, available online. 2. The limits of construction areas should be connected. 3. Please add Dust Control (DC) to the plan. 4. Please provide silt fence on the north side from the treeline of the 9" spruce to the midpoint between the 9'" Holly and the 9" Dogwood. 5. Tree protection is being shown throughout the site but the tree layer has been turned off. Please show the dripline of all trees on the ESC plan. Construction cannot be shown within the dripline of trees required to be protected. This rule appears to have been violated in the garden /courtyard and adjacent to the fill area. To rectify this, the grading of the courtyard can be modified to keep fill out of the dripline of the cherry and dogwood trees or tree wells can be provided. Regarding the fill area, I recommend moving it to the northern border because fill will likely be necessary to construct the parking lot in Phase H at the minimum parking lot grade of 5 %. (The area of fill was also shown outside the limits of work on the approved SP plan and may require a determination from the Zoning Administrator if the applicant wishes to continue to propose fill in this location.) Please remove grading from within the dripline of 12'" Holly. Also, please move the infiltration trench to the south as much as possible out of the roots of the 27'" Gum. For all other areas showing the limits of construction within the dripline of tree, please provide a letter from a certified arborist attesting that the latest revision of the site/ESC plan would not compromise the health of any tree shown with construction within its dripline. 6. Please demonstrate that this development meets VESCH Minimum Standard 19 regarding adequate channels. 7. An ESC bond will be computed once the WPO plan is ready for approval. C r A r'WillAPP COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 - 4126 Project:South Plains Presbyterian Church; WPO- 2009 - 00050; SDP -2009 -00080 Plan preparer:Mr. Bill Atwood; Atwood Architects Mrs. Ashley Cooper; Cooper Planning Mr. Clark Gathwright; Daggett and Griggs Architects Owner or rep.:South Plains Presbyterian Church Date received:23 September 2009 Date of Comment: 13 October 2009 Engineer:Phil Custer The final site, ESC, and SWM plan for South Plains Presbyterian Church has been reviewed. The following comments are provided. A. SDP - 2009 -00080 Final Site Plan Comments 1. Engineering review recommends that the parking lot along Black Cat Road be modified to provide for one VDOT standard entrance. This is not a requirement due to a determination from the Chief of Current Development. 2. Please modify the grading in the western portion of the courtyard /garden so that the topography works with the raingarden/biofilter. 3. Please provide a detail for the sidewalk that meets or exceeds the county's requirement of 4" of 3000psi concrete a, 28days and 4" of stone base beneath. [DM] B. WPO- 2009 -00050 Stormwater Management Plan Comments 1. A SWM facility maintenance agreement will need to be recorded before the site plan can be approved. Please submit this document with $17 fee directly to Ana Kilmer after consulting the guidelines available on the county website. 2. Please provide a modified simple removal rate spreadsheet for each drainage area /facility, not the whole site, which corresponds to drainage area lines drawn on the plan. This is necessary to confirm that each facility is sized appropriately for the watershed draining to it. 3. Please provide two permeability tests for the infiltration trench. The VMSH specifies that the in- situ permeability tests must yield infiltration rates greater that 0.52" per hour in order to consider infiltration facilities practical. The VSMH also states that the infiltration facility must drain in 48hours and the soil test must clearly show this. [VSMH 3.10] 4. On the infiltration trench detail, please specify that the depth is 3ft minimum, the bottom of the trench is flat, and the #57 gravel is clean- washed. 5. Engineering review recommends removing the filter fabric from the infiltration trench and biofilter. Depending on the type used, the fabric could wind up being the limiting factor in both facilities. If the filter fabric is removed from the biofilter, it should be replaced with a 4" layer of pea gravel. If the filter fabric is to remain in the plan, I recommend specifying the product number. This is not a requirement. 6. The following modifications are required to the biofilter /rain garden detail: a. The depth of the biofilter mix must be 2.5ft. b. The thickness of the gravel layer must be between 12" and 18 ". c. The soil media must be called out as state approved mix. 7. Please provide a planting plan for the biofilter. There must be at least three species of shrub proposed. 8. Please provide the following note on sheets C1.1 and C3.1: When the stormwater management plan, for Phase II is submitted, detention and .stormwater quality computations will need to consider the pre- development condition as the property before the construction of the fellowship hall. 9. A SWM bond will be computed once the WPO plan is ready for approval. C. WPO- 2009 -00050 Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Comments 1. Please add to the set the County's standard ESC notes. These notes can be found in the design manual, available online. 2. The limits of construction areas should be connected. 3. Please add Dust Control (DC) to the plan. 4. Please provide silt fence on the north side from the treeline of the 9" spruce to the midpoint G5. between the 9" Holly and the 9" Dogwood. Tree protection is being shown throughout the site but the tree layer has been turned off. Please show the dripline of all trees on the ESC plan. Construction cannot be shown within the dripline of trees required to be protected. This rule appears to have been violated in the garden /courtyard i and adjacent to the fill area. To rectify this, the grading of the courtyard can be modified to keep fill out of the dripline of the cherry and dogwood trees or tree wells can be provided. Regarding the fill area, I recommend moving it to the northern border because fill will likely be necessary to vconstructtheparkinglotinPhaseIIattheminimumparkinglotgradeof5 %. (The area of fill was also shown outside the limits of work on the approved SP plan and may require a determination from the Zoning Administrator if the applicant wishes to continue to propose fill in this location.) Please remove grading from within the dripline of 12" Holly. Also, please move the infiltration trench to the south as much as possible out of the roots of the 27" Gum. For all other areas showing the limits of construction within the dripline of tree, please provide a letter from a certified arborist attesting that the latest revision of the site /ESC plan would not compromise the health of any tree shown with construction within its dripline. 6. Please demonstrate that this development meets VESCH Minimum Standard 19 regarding adequate channels. 7. An ESC bond will be computed once the WPO plan is ready for approval. 4/k4-c R0/1 € L6F9 EA Yl 4 21 Z0 County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To:Bill Atwood, Atwood Architects, Inc. David Garth, South Plains Presbyterian Church of Keswick Virginia, Inc. om: Elizabeth M. Marotta, Senior Planner Division: Zoning & Current Development Date:October 14, 2009 Subject: SDP 2009 -80 South Plains Presbyterian Church -Final The Planner/Engineer for the Zoning & Current Development Division of the Albemarle County Department Community Development will recommend approve the Final 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. 32.5.6.b] Denote tree buffer along shared property line with Mr. Rintels as part of Phase I work. lam• 32.5.6.p/ SP08 - 28 #10] Change Arborvitae to "Green Giant" per Mr. Rintels email to Bill Atwood dated 10/9/09 (attached) and pursuant to establishing a private agreement. 32:5.6.nj New concrete walkway is not drawn connecting to proposed building. Please revise drawing to show connection. 4 " [32.6.6.j] Standard lighting note must be provided. This may be provided on the cover sheet under Project Notes. Note is: Each outdoor luminaire equipped with a lamp that emits 3,000 or more initial lumens shall be a full cutoff luminaire. The spillover of lighting from luminaires onto public roads and property in residential or rural areas zoning districts shall not exceed one -half footcandle. COMI\IENTj Please clarify on the plans the intent of hatching the "wooded area ". Generally, treelines are depicted with a simple treeline linetype, therefore the hatching seems to indicate special conditions. Per the conditions of the SP, this tree buffer may not be removed, so a note indicating tree ' the wood d area is hatched in order to indicate they must remain may be appropriate...AWI NO 3-p\d6. COMM N Engineerin Fire escue, pections, d ARB ap royal is required. 7 /ICIO to /off 911 Please contact Elizabeth M. Marotta at the Department of Community Development 296 -5832 ext. 3432 for further information. yeti 1 Z) J 1 / V'1 ty. v 6 aPpwv r M k. 1 `.2 Ltro L-1 t? t j 1 r " \L- or'j goy Alm,/CI ct kcc:1 CV Illl y r L L ( Li/ 1t4) rlItGIN P County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To:Bill Atwood, Atwood Architects, Inc. David Garth, South Plains Presbyterian Church of Keswick Virginia, Inc. om:Elizabeth M. Marotta, Senior Planner Division: Zoning & Current Development Date:October 14, 2009 Subject: SDP 2009 -80 South Plains Presbyterian Church -Final The Planner /Engineer for the Zoning & Current Development Division of the Albemarle County Department Community Development will recommend approve the Final 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.b] Denote tree buffer along shared property line with Mr. Rintels as part of Phase I work. 2. 132.5.6.p/ SP08 -28 #10] Change Arborvitae to "Green Giant' per Mr. Rintels email to Bill Atwood dated 10/9/09 (attached) and pursuant to establishing a private agreement. 3. 132.5.6.n] New concrete walkway is not drawn connecting to proposed building. Please revise drawing to show connection. 4. 32.6.6.j] Standard lighting note must be provided. This may be provided on the cover sheetw.4 4-N i." under Project Notes. Note is: Each outdoor luminaire equipped with a lamp that emits 3,000 or more initial lumens shall be a full cutoff luminaire. The spillover of lighting from luminaires onto public roads and property in residential or rural areas zoning districts shall not exceed one -half V i footcandle. I 5. COMENT] Please clarify on the plans the intent of hatching the "wooded area ". Generally, VTa+ i4.? 4i Mtreelines are depicted with a simple treeline linetype, therefore the hatching seems to indicate ccrik e.t special conditions. Per the conditions of the SP, this tree buffer may not be removed, so a note indicating trees in the wooded area is hatched in order to indicate they must remain may be appropriate...I; I ck n +rei 6. COMMENT] Engineering, Fire Rescue, Inspections, and ARB approval is required. c/Ip Please contact Elizabeth M. Marotta at the Department of Community Development 296 -5832 ext. 3432 for further information. 1 I 1 lvl % — iLcc nwi c4 vote pi e16 e (6` 119 Avert p1 1t 101 vt04 AA/tiouvrei 1 FW: SDP - 2009 -00051 South plains Presbyterian Church Page 1 of 2 41-)VElizabethMarotta1 Fv From: DeNunzio, Joel D., P.E. [ Joel .DeNunzio @VDOT.virginia.gov] Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 2:24 PM To:Elizabeth Marotta t43,1 Cc:Amy Pflaum 1 0 f 2-ilCA Subject: FW: SDP - 2009 -00051 South Plains Presbyterian Church Elizabeth, I have reviewed the above site plan and have no additional comments. Entrance upgrades are still expected to be part of phase 2 of this project when the parking lot is rebuilt. Thanks Joel Joel DeNunzio, P.E. Staff Engineer 434 - 293 -0011 Ext. 120 ioel.denunzio(vdot.virainia.aov From: DeNunzio, Joel D., P.E. 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, I met with Ashley Cooper this morning on the subject project to discuss the VDOT entrance requirements. It is my understanding that phase 1 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 10/26/2009 7 * 5 A:IAM'-7,0.4 4VINki , r 7RGINl?' COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 October 28, 2009 Ashley Cooper c/o Atwood Architects Inc 250 W. Main St., Suite 100 Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: ARB200900052 South Plains Presbyterian Church Dear Ms. Cooper; The Albemarle County Architectural Review Board reviewed the above noted item at its meeting on Monday, October 19, 2009. The Board voted to grant approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness, subject to the following conditions: 1. Revise the location of the 1/1 windows within the arched recessed areas along the elevation so that they are centered, and therefore, more coordinated with the architectural elements in which they are placed. 2. Revise the 2/1 windows on the north elevation to 1/1. 3. Revise the elevations to show the proportion of the Gothic window in the north elevation that matches the rendering dated 9/8/09. Brick veneer should occur on the side of that gable as shown in the drawing Al submitted on the same date. 4. Revise the landscape plan as follows: Add 2 -3 additional crape myrtles along the northwestern edge of the parking area Change the proposed Foster's holly to American holly Add 2 -3 more small clusters of ornamental deciduous trees along the EC Change the five dogwoods to little gem magnolias at 2" caliper. You may consider this letter your Certificate of Appropriateness. This approval is predicated on the fact that the design and materials, as proposed and exhibited for review, will be used. The acceptance of approval implies that the applicant has agreed to execute the design as indicated on the site plan, attachments, materials, samples, and other submittal items presented. Any change in the approved design or materials will require an amendment to the plan and must be reviewed and approved by the Architectural Review Board. Please note that this application is approved with the condition that mechanical equipment shall not be visible from the Entrance Corridor. Please note the following: 1. This application is approved with the condition that mechanical equipment shall not be visible from the Entrance Corridor. 2. Changes made to the site or architectural plans after issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness can delay the signing of mylars and the approval of building permits. It is in the applicant's best interest to notify ARB staff of such changes and to initiate the review of amendments to ARB- approved plans to avoid future delays. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Eryn Brennan Senior Planner cc: David K Garth, Pastor c/o South Plains Church P 0 Box 277 Keswick, VA 22947 Elizabeth Marrotta, Current Development Elizabeth Marotta t From:James Barber CI 0-01 1 Sent:Tuesday, November 10, 2009 8:35 AM To:Elizabeth Marotta 7 ct (' (4 ±C) CV Subject:RE: south plains Elizabeth,fl APF did not receive these plans under SDP 2009- 00080, but under SDP 2009 - 00051. My comments listed there are," no objection —must comply with the Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code —final approval is subject to field inspection and verification." Please let me know if you need anything further. Thanks, James From: Elizabeth Marotta Sent: Friday, November 06, 2009 1:34 PM To: James Barber Subject: FW: south plains James, I did not hear back from you on the email below. Hopefully, everything is ok. Please just confirm for me that you received this plan and it is on your to -do list. Your comments are the only ones outstanding, and I would like to give the applicant some feedback as to when they might be able to wrap this up. Thank you, Elizabeth From: Elizabeth Marotta Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 4:43 PM To: James Barber Subject: south plains Hi James, I am just checking up on South Plains, SDP09 -80. According to my notes I sent you a copy to review on 10/2/09, but I haven't heard back from you so before it gets too late I wanted to make sure you actually received it. Please let me know if you need anything from me, Elizabeth M. Marotta Senior Planner County of Albemarle Community Development Department 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 434) 296 -5832 Ext. 3432 1 Elizabeth Marotta From:Philip Custer Sent:Friday, December 11, 2009 4:48 PM To:Ashley Cooper; atwood @atwoodarchitects.com; cgathright @dgarchs.com; acooper @cooper - planning.com Cc:Elizabeth Marotta Subject:Engineering review of South Plains Presbyterian Church (SDP- 2009 -00080 and WPO- 2009 - 00050) Attachments:E2_fsp swm esc_PBC_wpo0900050- sdp0900080 South Plains Presbyterian.doc; Infiltration Trench RR.xls; Biofilter RR.xls Good evening, Attached is the engineering review comment letter for the second submittal of the South Plains Church final site, esc, and swm plans (SDP- 2009 -00080 and WPO- 2009 - 00050), submitted 25 November 2009. All engineering related site plan comments have been addressed but there are a few issues to be worked out with the WPO plans. Because the required ESC changes are graphical, another $150 review fee for ESC will not be required. However, another $300 SWM plan review fee will be required at the time of submittal. Please contact me you have any questions. Thanks, Phil 1 AL. 1WI1 11 . COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 Project:South Plains Presbyterian Church; WPO- 2009 - 0000; SDP -2009 -00080 Plan preparer:Mr. Bill Atwood; Atwood Architects Ms. Ashley Cooper; Cooper Planning Mr. Clark Gathwright; Daggett and Griggs Architects Owner or rep.:South Plains Presbyterian Church Date received:23 September 2009 Rev. 1) 25 November 2009 Date of Comment: 13 October 2009 Rev. 1) 11 December 2009 Engineer:Phil Custer The second submittal of the final site, ESC, and SWM plan for South Plains Presbyterian Church has been reviewed. The following comments are provided. A. SDP - 2009 -00080 Final Site Plan Comments B. WPO -2009 -00050 Stormwater Management Plan Comments 1. A SWM facility maintenance agreement will need to be recorded before the site plan can be approved. Please submit this document with $17 fee directly to Ana Kilmer after consulting the guidelines available on the county website. Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. 2. Please provide a modified simple removal rate spreadsheet for each drainage area/facility, not the whole site, which corresponds to drainage area lines drawn on the plan. This is necessary to confirm that each facility is sized appropriately for the watershed draining to it. Rev. 1) Using the information given in the existing plans, I have generated a modified simple spreadsheet for each BMP (please see the documents accompanying this comment letter). Both facilities require n 65% removal rate. To achieve a 65% removal rate, the infiltration trench must store 512cf (1" over specified impervious area). The biofilter bed is sized appropriately to achieve a 65% removal rate using the state's 5% of the impervious area guidelines. However, this method assumes that the depth of the biofilter ponding is 1 ft. Please provide 1 ft ofponding or double the size of the facility. 3. Please provide two permeability tests for the infiltration trench. The VMSH specifies that the in- situ permeability tests must yield infiltration rates greater that 0.52'" per hour in order to consider infiltration facilities practical. The VSMH also states that the infiltration facility must drain in 48hours and the soil test must clearly show this. [VSMH 3.10] Rev. I) Comment has not been addressed. The infiltration tests must be provided before plan approval because the results will dictate the geometry of the futility. The maximum depth equation that should be used for the infiltration facility should be 3.10 -5 from the VSMH, where f, is half the measured infiltration rate (which must be greater than 0.52 in /hr). For example, assuming an infiltration rate of 0.52 in /hr is found on site, the maximum depth of the facility will be 31.2 inches which would require the footprint to be noticeably larger. If soil tests are not performed at this tinge, please design this fricility as a biofilter now. Then, if during construction tests find the soil to be within the adequate range for infiltration practices, you may submit a SWM amendment for the installation of an infiltration trench. 6. The following modifications are required to the biofilter /rain garden detail: c. The soil media must be called out as state approved mix. Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed Remove the specification ofLuckstone Mix. 9. A SWM bond will be computed once the WPO plan is ready for approval. Rev. 1) Comment remains' unchanged C. WPO- 2009 -00050 Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Comments 5. Tree protection is being shown throughout the site but the tree layer has been turned off. Please show the dripline of all trees on the ESC plan. Construction cannot be shown within the dripline of trees required to be protected. This rule appears to have been violated in the garden /courtyard and adjacent to the fill area. To rectify this, the grading of the courtyard can be modified to keep fill out of the dripline of the cherry and dogwood trees or tree wells can be provided. Regarding the fill area, I recommend moving it to the northern border because fill will likely be necessary to construct the parking lot in Phase I1 at the minimum parking lot grade of 5 %. (The area of fill was also shown outside the limits of work on the approved SP plan and array require a determination from the Zoning Administrator if the applicant wishes to continue to propose fill in this location.) Please remove grading from within the dripline of 12"' Holly. Also, please move the infiltration trench to the south as much as possible out of the roots of the 27" Gum. For all other areas showing the limits of construction within the dripline of tree, please provide a letter from a certified arborist attesting that the latest revision of the site /ESC plan would not compromise the health of any tree shown with construction within its dripline. Rev. 1) Please show all driplines on the Erosion and Sediment control plan. The letter, from the certified arborist is acceptable. If damage to any tree shown as being protected in the approved SP plan is suffered, a zoning violation will be pursued. 6. Please demonstrate that this development meets VESCH Minimum Standard 19 regarding adequate channels. Rev. 1) MS -19 requirements apply to the outfall from the culvert to the stream. MS -19 regulates downstream channels, which doesn't necessarily mean offsite drainways. However, after the drainage area to this culvert has been graphically demonstrated by the applicant, the county with withdraw this comment because of the low peak discharges if outlet protection is specified on the plan. The length, width, and stone size tithe outlet protection should he called out on the plan. MS -19 will be a larger concern in Phase II of this project. 7. An ESC bond will be computed once the WPO plan is ready for approval. Rev. 1) Comment remains unchanged. 8. Rev. 1)The construction sequence on the cover sheet refers to an area on the plan where waste from the foundation excavation will be placed. However, I could not find its location in either the site plan or ESC sets. It appears that this notation should be removed because it conflicts with the direction given to the contractor in the narrative. ILL / o ~$fflr„ il(111•.,, eft COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 Project:South Plains Presbyterian Church: WPO- 2009 - 0000; SDP -2009 -00080 Plan preparer:Mr. Bill Atwood; Atwood Architects Ms. Ashley Cooper; Cooper Planning Mr. Clark Gathwright; Daggett and Griggs Architects Owner or rep.:South Plains Presbyterian Church Date received:23 September 2009 Rev. 1) 25 November 2009 Date of Comment: 13 October 2009 ReY: I) —1 December 2009 Engineer:7; Phil Custer The second submittal of the final site, ESC, and SWM plan for South Plains Presbyterian Church has been reviewed. The following comments are provided. A. SDP - 2009 -00080 Final Site Plan Comments B. RO- 2009 -00050 Stormwater Management Plan Comments Pe V a ( 1. A SWM facility maintenance agreement will need to be recorded before the site plan can be Z /I approved. Please submit this document with $1 7 fee directly to Ana Kilmer after consulting the nt.(,t -I riry guidelines available on the county website. 1 Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. et-- 2. Please provide a modified simple removal rate spreadsheet for each drainage area/facility, not the f (1 Ott whole site, which corresponds to drainage area lines drawn on the plan. This is necessary to confirm that each facility is sized appropriately for the watershed draining to it. Rev. 1) Using the information given in the existing plans, I have generated a modified simple spreadsheet for each BMP (please see the documents accompanying this comment letter). Both facilities require a 65% removal rate. To achieve a 65% removal rate, the infiltration trench must store 512cf (1" over specified impervious area). The biofilter bed is sized appropriately to achieve a 65% removal rate using the state's 5% of the impervious area guidelines. However, this method assumes that the depth of the biofilter ponding is lft. Please provide l ft ofponding or double the size of the facility. 3. Please provide two permeability tests for the infiltration trench. The VMSH specifies that the in- situ permeability tests must yield infiltration rates greater that 0.52" per hour in order to consider infiltration facilities practical. The VSMH also states that the infiltration facility must drain in 48hours and the soil test must clearly show this. [VSMH 3.10] Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. The infiltration tests must be provided before plan approval because the results will dictate the geometry of the facility. The maximum depth equation that should be used for the infiltration facility should be 3.10 -5 from the VSMH, where f is half the measured infiltration rate (which must be greater than 0.52 in /hr). For example, assuming an infiltration rate of 0.52 in/hr is found on site, the maximum depth (tithe facility will be 31.2 inches which would require the footprint to be noticeably larger. If soil tests are not performed at this tine, please design this facility as a biofilter now. Then, if during construction tests find the soil to be within the adequate range for infiltration practices, you may submit a SWM amendment for the installation of an infiltration trench. 6. The following modifications are required to the biofilter /rain garden detail: c. The soil media must be called out as state approved mix. Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. Remove the specification of Luckstone Mix. 9. A SWM bond will be computed once the WPO plan is ready for approval. Rev. 1) Comment remains unchanged C. WPO- 2009 -00050 Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Comments 5. Tree protection is being shown throughout the site but the tree layer has been turned off. Please show the dripline of all trees on the ESC plan. Construction cannot be shown within the dripline of trees required to he protected. This rule appears to have been violated in the garden /courtyard and adjacent to the fill area. To rectify this, the grading of the courtyard can be modified to keep fill out of the dripline of the cherry and dogwood trees or tree wells can be provided. Regarding the fill area, I recommend moving it to the northern border because fill will likely be necessary to construct the parking lot in Phase II at the minimum parking lot grade of 5 %. (The area of fill was also shown outside the limits of work on the approved SP plan and may require a determination from the Zoning Administrator if the applicant wishes to continue to propose fill in this location.) Please remove grading from within the dripline of 12" Holly. Also, please move the infiltration trench to the south as much as possible out of the roots of the 27 Gum. For all other areas showing the limits of construction within the dripline of tree, please provide a letter from a certified arborist attesting that the latest revision of the site /ESC plan would not compromise the health of any tree shown with construction within its dripline. Rev. 1) Please slow all driplines on the Erosion and Sediment control plan. The letter from the certified arborist is acceptable. If damage to any tree shown as being protected in the approved SP plan is suffered, a zoning violation will be pursued. 6. Please demonstrate that this development meets VESCH Minimum Standard 19 regarding adequate channels. Rev. 1) MS -19 requirements apply to the outfall from the culvert to the stream. MS -19 regulates downstream channels, which doesn't necessarily mean offsite drainways. However, after the drainage area to this culvert has been graphically demonstrated by the applicant, the county with withdraw this comment because of the low peak discharges if outlet protection is specified on the plan. The length, width, and stone size of the outlet protection should be called out on the plan. MS -19 will be a larger concern in Phase II of this project. 7. An ESC bond will be computed once the WPO plan is ready for approval. Rev. I) Comment remains unchanged. 8. Rev. 1)The construction sequence on the cover sheet refers to an area on the plan where waste from the foundation excavation will be placed. However, I could not fund its location in either the site plan or ESC sets. It appears that this notation should be removed because it conflicts with the direction given to the contractor in the narrative. Elizabeth Marotta From:Elizabeth Marotta Sent:Tuesday, March 02, 2010 10:19 AM To:Ashley Cooper' Cc:Bill Atwood Subject:south plains- site plan approval Ashley, With Phil's approval of the WPO, you now have all approvals and may submit plans for signature. Please submit $410.00 [sec. 3511] for administrative approval of a final site plan, along with 5 sets of signed plans for County signature. If you have any questions, please let me know. Thank you, Elizabeth From: Philip Custer Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 9:55 AM To: Elizabeth Marotta Subject: RE: Engineering review of South Plains Presbyterian Church (WPO- 2009 - 00050) I think the fee situation for WPO is okay From: Elizabeth Marotta Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 9:52 AM To: Philip Custer Subject: RE: Engineering review of South Plains Presbyterian Church (WPO- 2009 - 00050) Did they pay all the fees they needed to for WPO review? I don't think they have paid any final site plan fees yet, so I am going to ask for them before we sign the plans... just wanted to make sure there weren't any other fees we needed to ask for... From: Philip Custer Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 9:45 AM To: Gregory Solis; Gathright, Clark Cc: Elizabeth Marotta Subject: RE: Engineering review of South Plains Presbyterian Church (WPO-2009- 00050) Good morning, Engineering has received the last submittal of the SWM plans for South Plains Presbyterian Church (WPO- 2009 - 00050). All comments regarding the SWM plan have been addressed and the SWM plan is hereby approved pending site plan approval. (The ESC plan had previously been approved —see below.) Now that the WPO plan has been approved, Engineering review has no objection to the approval of the site plan. The WPO bond amounts remain the same. The ESC bond has been computed to be $8,800. The SWM bond has been computed to be $3,600. The forms and instructions to post the Water Protection Ordinance Bond can be found on the Community Development Department Web site on www.albemarle.orq. You may contact Ana Kilmer (Albemarle County Department of Community Development) at ext. 3246 for further information on bonding procedures. Once the site plan is approved by the planner and the WPO bonds posted, the applicant may schedule a pre- construction meeting with the Erosion and Sediment Control Inspector. 1 Please contact me if you have any questions. Thanks, Phil 296 -5832 x3072 From: Philip Custer Sent: Monday, February 22, 2010 9:55 AM To: Gregory Solis; 'Gathright, Clark' Cc: Elizabeth Marotta Subject: Engineering review of South Plains Presbyterian Church (WPO -2009- 00050) Good morning, Engineering has received the last submittal of the ESC and SWM plans for South Plains Presbyterian Church (WPO -2009- 00050). All comments regarding the ESC plan have been addressed and the ESC plan is hereby approved pending site plan approval. The SWM plan can be approved after the following minor changes are made: Increase the footprint of the infiltration trench by 18% and update the infiltration calculations with the data from the soil tests (the impervious area draining to this facility is 7247sf, not 6140sf). Also, the callout on sheet C3.1 specifies a footprint of 160sf and should be corrected. Label the set on the Cover Sheet as Erosion and Sediment Control and Stormwater Management Plans The professional seal must be signed and dated. Remove the soil test note on the infiltration trench detail on sheet 3.2 (this is only a recommendation because another soil test is not required) Once these changes have been made, please submit 5 copies of the plans for approval. Another $300 review fee is not warranted. The ESC bond has been computed to be $8,800. The SWM bond has been computed to be $3,600. The forms and instructions to post the Water Protection Ordinance Bond can be found on the Community Development Department Web site on www.albemarle.orq. You may contact Ana Kilmer (Albemarle County Department of Community Development) at ext. 3246 for further information on bonding procedures. Once the SWM plans have been officially approved, the site plan signed by the planner, and the WPO bonds posted, the applicant may schedule a pre- construction meeting with the Erosion and Sediment Control Inspector. Please contact me if you have any questions. Thanks, Phil 296 -5832 x3072 2 Philip Custer From:Philip Custer Sent:Monday, March 01, 2010 9:45 AM To:Gregory Solis'; 'Gathright, Clark' Cc:Elizabeth Marotta Subject:RE: Engineering review of South Plains Presbyterian Church (WPO- 2009 - 00050) Good morning, Engineering has received the last submittal of the SWM plans for South Plains Presbyterian Church (WPO- 2009 - 00050). All comments regarding the SWM plan have been addressed and the SWM plan is hereby approved pending site plan approval. (The ESC plan had previously been approved —see below.) Now that the WPO plan has been approved, Engineering review has no objection to the approval of the site plan. The WPO bond amounts remain the same. The ESC bond has been computed to be $8,800. The SWM bond has been computed to be $3,600. The forms and instructions to post the Water Protection Ordinance Bond can be found on the Community Development Department Web site on www.albemarle.orq. You may contact Ana Kilmer (Albemarle County Department of Community Development) at ext. 3246 for further information on bonding procedures. Once the site plan is approved by the planner and the WPO bonds posted, the applicant may schedule a pre- construction meeting with the Erosion and Sediment Control Inspector. Please contact me if you have any questions. Thanks, Phil 296 -5832 x3072 From: Philip Custer Sent: Monday, February 22, 2010 9:55 AM To: Gregory Solis; 'Gathright, Clark' Cc: Elizabeth Marotta Subject: Engineering review of South Plains Presbyterian Church (WPO- 2009 - 00050) Good morning, Engineering has received the last submittal of the ESC and SWM plans for South Plains Presbyterian Church (WPO -2009- 00050). All comments regarding the ESC plan have been addressed and the ESC plan is hereby approved pending site plan approval. The SWM plan can be approved after the following minor changes are made: Increase the footprint of the infiltration trench by 18% and update the infiltration calculations with the data from the soil tests (the impervious area draining to this facility is 7247sf, not 6140sf). Also, the callout on sheet C3.1 specifies a footprint of 160sf and should be corrected. Label the set on the Cover Sheet as Erosion and Sediment Control and Stormwater Management Plans The professional seal must be signed and dated. Remove the soil test note on the infiltration trench detail on sheet 3.2 (this is only a recommendation because another soil test is not required) Once these changes have been made, please submit 5 copies of the plans for approval. Another $300 review fee is not warranted. The ESC bond has been computed to be $8,800. The SWM bond has been computed to be $3,600. The forms and instructions to post the Water Protection Ordinance Bond can be found on the Community Development Department Web site on www.albemarle.orq. You may contact Ana Kilmer (Albemarle County Department of Community Development) at ext. 3246 for further information on bonding procedures. Once the SWM plans have been officially approved, the site plan signed by the planner, and the WPO bonds posted, the applicant may schedule a pre- construction meeting with the Erosion and Sediment Control Inspector. Please contact me if you have any questions. Thanks, Phil 296 -5832 x3072 2