Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201300056 Review Comments Major Amendment, Final Site Plan 2016-09-14COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 September 14, 2016 Ed Blackwell 566 East Market Street Harrisonburg VA 22801 Fax (434) 972-4126 RE: SDP -201300056 Rivanna Community Church — Major Site Plan Amendment Mr. Blackwell: Your Major Amendment application has been reviewed. In front of each comment staff has provided references to provisions of Chapter 18 of the Code of the County of Albemarle. The Code is kept up to date by the County Attorney's office. The Code may found on the County Attorney's website which may be found under "Departments and Services" at Albemarle.org. In order for the amended site plan to be approved the following revisions are required: 1. [32.5.2n] Existing and proposed improvements. Provide an additional sheet in the site plan that depicts the final layout of the site. Please assure this sheet is void of existing conditions which are to be removed, as the multiple layers and various hatching styles make it extremely difficult to tell what the final product is to be. On this sheet clearly label and dimension all existing and proposed improvements. 2. [32.5.2(a), 21.7, 4.201 Setbacks. Previously it was clear that both of the proposed buildings physically connected to the existing buildings onsite, which allowed the proposal to be counted as an addition to the existing buildings, thus causing the new 30' front maximum setback not to apply. However, as revised it is unclear that the proposed structures actually connect to the existing structures. Clearly label all building walls and roof overhangs. If the existing and proposed buildings physically connect (even by a shared roof), then the 30' front maximum setback would not apply. If they are not physically connected, then a portion of the proposed sanctuary would need to meet the 30' maximum setback. 3. [Comment] On sheet 2, under the vicinity map, revise the square footages provided for proposed building 1 & 2 to match the revised square footages listed on the structures. 4. [Comment] The Virginia Department of Health (VDH) PE Construction Permit dated Aug 20, 2015 references "this permit expires on February 18, 2017". Based on the duration of the site plan review it is advisable that the applicant contact VDH and have this permit extended. If you have any questions about the above comments please feel free to contact me. Below I have provided comments from the various Site Plan Committee (SRC) reviewers. Prior to final site plan approval their comments shall have been adequately addressed. Building Inspections — Jay Schlothauer 1. Provide two barrier -free parking spaces, with associated striped access aisle and curb cut, in the parking lot on the east side of the proposed sanctuary. One of these spaces must be van - accessible. Fire and Rescue — Robbie Gilmer 1. Please add a note "Knox Box required, please contact the Albemarle County Fire Marshal Office for location." Engineering — Max Greene See attached comments dated 7-11-16 VDOT — Justin Deel -No objection (see attached) Health Department — Joshua Kirtley -Previously received approval on Aug 20, 2015 (see attached) In accord with the provisions of Section 32.4.3.5 of Chapter 18 of the Code if the developer fails to submit a revised site plan to address all of the requirements within six (6) months after the date of this letter the application shall be deemed to have been voluntarily withdrawn by the developer. If you have any questions about the comments please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Christopher P. Perez Senior Planner 434.296.5832 ext. 3443 2 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 229024596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 9724126 Project: Rivanna Community Church - Major SDP201300056 Plan preparer: Blackwell Engineering, PLC [fax 540-434-7604] Owner or rep.: Steve & Kathy Hood et als Rivanna Community Church Plan received date: 5 December 2014 Rev. 27 July 2015 (Rev. 20 June 2016) Date of comments: 27 January 2015 7 August 2105 11 July 2016 Reviewer: Max Greene The Major Site Plan (SDP201300056) submitted 20 June 2016 has received Engineering Review and does not appear to meet Albemarle County minimum checklist items for approval. Please adequately address the following comments for final approval: A. Road and drainage plans 1. VDOT has no objection to. the change in site usage and entrance design geometry. B. VSMP plans: 1. VSMP Plans will need to be submitted for review. [17-302] The link to the application Porins: Irtt 7'xNi ww, albemarlc.or ,/upload/images/forms center/departments/Community Development/forms/Engineering a nrti--WPO-F nns/Albemarle County VSMP Letter_07-08-2014.pdf }rtM,'wNvw,. rlbitnarle.crr /u loadlimaaes/forms center/departments/Community Devclopment/formsiEn iineerin , a Vireinia Stormwater Manaeement Program Aonlication.ndf VSMP plans have been submitted,for review and are County Number WP0201500051. Please see WP0201500051 for comments and approval. VSMP plans has been deemed voluntarily withdrawn by the owner per County Code 17- 411.13 for failure to resubmit plans addressing previous comments within the 6 month timeline. A new plan and fee will be required for review. The site plan cannot be approved until the VSMP plan has received approval. The VSMP plan will require a plat and deed recorded for the shared SWM facility prior to final VSMP plan approval. C. Previous uncompleted comments by Michael Koslow: 1. Please show the location, elevation and datum for topography. l xisting site topography will be at least field verified and certified on the plan as to accuracy. Comment appears adequately addressed at this time. 2. SWM easement is required around the basin. Comment does not appear adequately addressed at this time. Plan cannot be approved without adequate easements in place to protect the existence of the SWMfacility. A recorded plat and deed are require for the shared SWM facility prior to final VSMP Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 2 approval. 3. Water line crossing is not shown on SWM pipe profile. Comment has been partially addressed. The depth of pipes are not indicated on the profile sheet. Clearance ofpipes could not be verified for design approval. Contractor will be responsible for actual location and recordation D. Site plan: 4. Parking islands are required to separate the parking from travel ways. (County Code 18- 4.12.15.f) Moderate volume commercial entrance off Earlysville Forest Drive needs islands along parking spaces. Once these comments have been addressed, please submit 2 copies of the revised plans, calculations, and narratives to Current Development Engineering. Current Development Engineering is available from 2:30-4 PM on Thursdays to discuss these review comments. Please contact Max Greene at 434-296-5832 ext. 3283 or email mgre, eneAalbemarle.org to schedule an appointment. COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION t601 Orange Road Culpeper. Virginia 22701 Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E. Commissioner July 6, 2016 County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Attn: Christopher Perez Re: Rivanna Community Church — Major Site Plan Amendment SDP -2013-00056 Review #4 Dear Mr. Perez: The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use Section, has reviewed the above referenced plan as submitted by Blackwell Engineering, PLC, most recently revised 28 August 2015, and Finds it to be generally acceptable. Upon submission of the appropriate signed and sealed approval copies this office will perform a Final review and, if acceptable, sign the plans. Please allow for this office to obtain two signature copies. A VDOT Land Use Permit will be required prior to any work within the right-of-way. The owner/developer must contact the Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use Section at (434) 422-9399 for information pertaining to this process. If further information is desired please contact Justin Deel at (434) 422-9894. Sincerely, Adam J. Moore, P.E. Area Land Use Engineer Charlottesville Residency VirginiaDOT.org WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 Project: Rivanna Community Church - Major SDP201300056 Plan preparer: Blackwell Engineering, PLC [fax 540-434-76041 Owner or rep.: Steve & Kathy Hood et als Rivanna Community Church Plan received date: 5 December 2014 Rev. 27 July 2015 (Rev. 20 June 2016) Date of comments: 27 January 2015 7 August 2105 11 July 2016 Reviewer: Max Greene The Major Site Plan (SDP201300056) submitted 20 June 2016 has received Engineering Review and does not appear to meet Albemarle County minimum checklist items for approval. Please adequately address the following comments for final approval: A. Road and drainage plans 1. VDOT has no objection to the change in site usage and entrance design geometry. B. VSMP plans: 1. VSMP Plans will need to be submitted for review. [17-302] The link to the application forms: httD://www.albemarle.ore/ui)load/imaiies/forms center/departments/Community DeveloDment/forms/Eneineerina a nd_WPO _Forms/Albemarle _ County VSMP _Letter _07-08-2014.pdf http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/forms_center/departments/Communiiy Development/forms/Engineering a nd WPO Forms/WPO VSMP Virginia Stormwater Manaeement Proeram ADDlication.Ddf VSMP plans have been submitted for review and are County Number WPO201500051. Please see WPO201500051 for comments and approval. VSMP plans has been deemed voluntarily withdrawn by the owner per County Code 17- 411.B for failure to resubmit plans addressing previous comments within the 6 month timeline. A new plan and fee will be required for review. The site plan cannot be approved until the VSMP plan has received approval. The VSMP plan will require a plat and deed recorded for the shared SWM facility prior to final VSMP plan approval. C. Previous uncompleted comments by Michael Koslow: 1. Please show the location, elevation and datum for topography. Existing site topography will be at least field verified and certified on the plan as to accuracy. Comment appears adequately addressed at this time. 2. SWM easement is required around the basin. Comment does not appear adequately addressed at this time. Plan cannot be approved without adequate easements in place to protect the existence of the SWMfacility. A recorded plat and deed are require for the shared SWM facility prior to final VSMP Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 2 approval. 3. Water line crossing is not shown on SWM pipe profile. Comment has been partially addressed. The depth ofpipes are not indicated on the profile sheet. Clearance of pipes could not be verified for design approval. Contractor will be responsible for actual location and recordation D. Site plan: 4. Parking islands are required to separate the parking from travel ways. (County Code 18- 4.12.15.f) Moderate volume commercial entrance off Earlysville Forest Drive needs islands along parking spaces. Once these comments have been addressed, please submit 2 copies of the revised plans, calculations, and narratives to Current Development Engineering. Current Development Engineering is available from 2:30-4 PM on Thursdays to discuss these review comments. Please contact Max Greene at 434-296-5832 ext. 3283 or email mlzreene&albemarle.org to schedule an appointment. File: CDDE4_MRG_SDP— Review Rivanna Community Church.doc 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 28, 2015 Ed Blackwell 566 East Market Street Harrisonburg VA 22801 RE: SDP - 201300056 Rivanna Community Church — Major Site Plan Amendment Mr. Blackwell: Your Major Amendment application has been reviewed. In front of each comment staff has provided references to provisions of Chapter 18 of the Code of the County of Albemarle. The Code is kept up to date by the County Attorney's office. The Code may found on the County Attorney's website which may be found under "Departments and Services" at Albemarle.org. In order for the amended site plan to be approved the following revisions are required: 1. 2. 3. 9 Rev 3. All portions of the above comment have been adequately addressed, except that the cutsheet for the light needs to be included in the site plan. Assure the cut sheet is provided on the signature copies of the site plan. 5. [32.6.2(k) & 4.171 If a photometric plan is required it shall show footcandle information to the property line of all adjacent residential parcels and the public right -of -way tc demonstrate that the spillover will not exceed 0.5 footcandle Rev 1. Comments not addressed. Fourteen new wall light fixtures are ueiug auueu L. the addition, as such a lighting plan is required. Provide a photometric plan to the adjacent residential property lines and the public right of ways. Revise. Rev 3. Comments addressed. 6. [32.6.2(k) & 4.171 Provide the following standard lighting note on the plan: "Each outdoor luminaire equipped with a lamp that emits 3, 000 or more initial lumens shall be a full cutoff luminaire and shall be arranged or shielded to reflect light away from adjoining residential districts and away from adjacent roads. The spillover of lighting from luminaires onto public roads and property in residential or rural areas zoning districts shall not exceed one -half footcandle. " Rev 1. Comment Addressed. 7. [32.5.2e, 32.5.2p, 32.6.26)], 32.7.9.4] Landscape plan. A landscape plan that complic with section 32.7.9 is required prior to Major Site Plan Arpontlmrnt nnnnival P ovi-,c, Rev 1. Comment Addressed. 8. 132.5.2e, 32.6.20)] Existing Landscape features. On the landscape plat: existing landscape features for the entire site as described in section 32. "/.9.4, include all existing landscaping at the rear of the property abutting the residentia< <otL landscaping around the basin at the rear of the property, all landscaping along Earlysvilll Forest Drive, and any landscaping throughout the site. Also, if any of these lane' features are being removed depict this on the plan. Rev 1. Comment Addres---' 9. [21.7(c), 32.5.2(a), 32.6.2(j), 32.7.9.4(b), 32.7.9.7] Buffer zone adjacent to residenti, and rural areas districts. No construction activity including grading or clearing vegetation shall occur closer than twenty (20) feet to any residential or rural areas district 2 On the site plan depict and label the required 20' buffer to residentially zoned property. Rev 1. Comment Addressed. If the applicant believes that existing trees on the rear of this property meet the screening requirements provided for in section 32.7.9.7, on the site plan provide a tree conservation plan which meets the requirements of 32.7.9.4(b) to preserve these trees in place of planting new trees. If new plantings shall be provided to screen the use from the residential lots, depict these plantings on the landscape plan. Rev 1. Comment Addressed. 10. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.51 Landscaping Along Streets. Street trees are required along all existing public street frontage; these trees must be within the parking setback. On the landscape plan provide the required street trees along Rte 743 pursuant to section 32.7.9.5. Rev 1. The required steet trees have been depicted on the plan appropriately; however, the plant list on sheet 7 should be revised to address the following: • For the sized `Betula Nigra' proposed, the canopy cals are truly 397 SF per tree. • For the `Carpinus Betulus...' the canopy area for a tree of 6' - 8' tree size is truly 69 SF per tree. Thus you may reduce the size of that tree to 6' - 8' and bump up the canopy calcs to 69 SF per tree. * For the sized `Lagerstroemia Indica' proposed, the canopy cals are truly 77 SF per tree. * For the sized `Zelkova Serrata...' proposed, the canopy cals are truly 452 SF per tree. Also, in the area of the entrance closing on Rte 743 there are 11 additional parking spaces being added/modified, as such these new spaces face Rte 743 and parked cars will be visible from the right of way. In this area provide additional plantings of shrubs between the street and the parking area pursuant to 32.7.9.5(e). This requirement is in addition to the street tree requirements mentioned above. Also, there are 3 parking spaces fronting Earlysville Forest Drive which do not have any landscaping between them and the right - of -way. In this area provide additional plantings of shrubs between the street and the parking area pursuant to 32.7.9.5(e). Rev 1. The required shrubs fronting the parking spaces have been depicted on the plan appropriately; however, if possible it may be appropriate to move them a foot or two closer to the street to allow for them to grow without having parked cars hit /rub them, strunting their growth. Also, the plant list on sheet 7 should be revised to address the following: * For the `Ilex Cornuta' assure the plant list provides the minimum size at planting, which is required to be a min of 12 inches in height when planted. Rev 3. Comments addressed. 11. [32.5.2b, 32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.6(a)] Parking Lot landscaping. Parking lot landscaping is required for the site. On the plan provide the amount of paved parking area and other vehicular circulation areas onsite. An area of at least five (5) percent of the paved parking and vehicular circulation area shall be landscaped with trees or shrubs. Neither the areas of street trees and shrubs required by sections 32.7.9.5(d) and (e) planted between a parking area and the building shall be counted toward the minimum landscaped area for a 3 parking lot. Revise. Rev 1. Comment addressed. 12. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.6(b)] Parking Lot landscaping. The five (5) percent landscaped area required shall be planted with a mixture of shade trees and shrubs and shall include one (1) large or medium shade tree per ten (10) parking spaces or portion thereof, if five (5) spaces or more. Nine (9) trees are required for 90 parking spaces. Please select trees from the approved list or note specific existing trees that meet this requirement. Rev 1. Comment addressed. 13. [32.7.9.8] Tree Canopy. The use is being developed as a Commercial use, as such the minimum tree canopy is ten (10) percent. Provide tree calculations for the site pursuant to 32.7.9.8(b). Rev 1. As proposed the site meets it's tree canopy calc requirement of 18,081 SF, which is 10% of the gross acreage of the site; however, the calculations on sheet 7 appear to utilize incorrect canopy calculations as discussed in comment #10 above. These shall be revised to clearly show the site's true canopy calcs. Also, the calculations on sheet 6 for the `CK' and the `PS' appear incorrect as the calculations do not take into acounty 20 years of growth, nor do they utilize the correct canopy calculations for the tree types. Anna, please make the corrections we discussed over the phone. If you have questions give me a call. Based on the information provided staff suggests the tree canopy calcs on sheet 7 be revised as follows: "Gross Acreage of the Site: 180,816 SF Required Tree Canopy for the site (10% gross agreage): 18,081 SF Canopy of Proposed Plantings at 10 years: 5,276 SF Existing Woodland Area Preserved at the rear of the property: 18,478 SF Canopy Bonus of Existing Preserved Trees 10,450 SF Total Tree Canopy Provided Onsite: 34,204 SF " Rev 3. Comments addressed. 13a. [New Comment] The applicant intends to utilize 18,478 SF of existing woodland noted on sheet 7 towards the required landscape canopy calcs, they also are seeking Canop bonus of 10,450 SF. Pursuant to Section 32.7.9.4 (b) this is permitted; however, the following 1 required to be provided on the site plan to qualify the existing landscaping: 1. Areas and other. features shown on landscape plan. The landscape plan shall show the trees to be preserved, the limits of clearing, the location and type of protective fencing, grade changes requiring tree wells or walls, and trenching or tunneling proposed beyond the limits of clearing. Rev 3. Comment addressed. 2. Conservation checklist. The applicant shall sign a conservation checklist approved by the agent to ensure that the specified trees will be protected during construction. Except as otherwise expressly approved by the agent in a particular case, the checklist shall conform to the specifications in the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook, pages III -393 through 111 -413, and as hereafter amended. (Anna, for your convenience staff has attached the checklist to this letter, please assure it's provided on the site plan and signed by the owner). Rev 3. While the checklist has been provided it is not signed. Assure it is signed by the owner on the 4 signature copies of the site plan. 14. 15. 16. 17. IM 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. ?4. 25. ?6. ?7. ?8. ?9. 30. 31. 3?. 33. Engineering — Max Greene See attached comments dated August 7, 2015 In accord with the provisions of Section 32.4.3.5 of Chapter 18 of the Code if the developer fails to submit a revised site plan to address all of the requirements within six (6) months after the date of this letter the application shall be deemed to have been voluntarily withdrawn by the developer. If you have any questions about the comments please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Christopher P. Perez Senior Planner 434.296.5832 ext. 3443 Y/ �OF Aign. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 Project: Rivanna Community Church - Major SDP201300056 Plan preparer: Blackwell Engineering, PLC [fax 540- 434 -7604] Owner or rep.: Steve & Kathy Hood et als Rivanna Community Church Plan received date: 5 December 2014 Rev. 27 July 2015 Date of comments: 27 January 2015 7 August 2105 Reviewer: Max Greene The Major Site Plan (SDP201300056) submitted 27 July 2015 has received Engineering Review and does not appear to meet Albemarle County minimum checklist items for approval. Please adequately address the following comments for final approval: A. Road and drainage plans 1. VDOT has no objection to the change in site usage and entrance design geometry. B. VSMP plans: 1. VSMP Plans will need to be submitted for review. [17 -302] The link to the application forms: httD:// www.albemarle.oriz/ui)load/imaiies /forms center /departments /Community DevelODment/forms/ Engineering a nd_WPO_ Forms/Albemarle _ County_ VSMP Letter 07-08-2014.pd http:// www.albemarle.org /upload/images /forms_ center / departments /Community Development /forms /Engineering_a nd WPO Forms /WPO VSMP Virginia Stormwater Management Program ADDlicatlon.Ddf VSMP plans have been submitted for review and are County Number WP0201500051. Please see WPO201500051 for comments and approval. C. Previous uncompleted comments by Michael Koslow: 1. Please show the location, elevation and datum for topography. Existing site topography will be at least field verified and certified on the plan as to accuracy. Comment appears adequately addressed at this time. 2. SWM easement is required around the basin. Comment does not appear adequately addressed at this time. Plan cannot be approved without adequate easements in place to protect the existence of the SWMfacility. 3. Water line crossing is not shown on SWM pipe profile. Comment has been partially addressed. The depth ofpipes are not indicated on the profile sheet. Clearance of pipes could not be verified for design approval. Once these comments have been addressed, please submit 2 copies of the revised plans, calculations, and narratives to Current Development Engineering. Current Development Engineering is available from 2:30 -4 PM on Thursdays to discuss these review comments. Please contact Max Greene at 434 - 296 -5832 ext. 3283 or email mgreene(kalbemarle.org to schedule an appointment. File: CDDE2_MRG SDP—Rivanna Community Church.doc VIDHOFIHEALTH NT Protecting You and Your Environment PE Construction Permit August 20, 2075 Rivanna Community Church 601 Earlysville Green Earlysville, VA 22936 Page I of 3 Albemarle County Health Department PO BOX 7546 Charlottesville, VA 22906 (434)972.6219 Voice 9724310 Fax RE: Site Address: 601 Earlysville Green, Earlysville, VA 22936 Tax Map: 31 -32 HDID: 101 -15 -0347 Reserve: reserveareaprovided System Capacity: Non - Residential, 1250 gallons per day (Flow Equalized to 650 gpd) Dear Riverton Community Church: This letter and the attached drawings, specifications, and calculations (35 pages) dated July 28, 2015, constitute your permit to install a sewage disposal system on the property referenced above. Your application for a permit was submitted pursuant to §32.1 -163.5 of the Code of Virginia, which requires the Health Department to accept private soil evaluations and designs from an Onsite Soil Evaluator (OSE) or a Professional Engineer working in consultation with an OSE for residential development. VDH is not required to perform a field check to verify the private evaluations of OSEs or PEs and such a field check may not have been conducted for the issuance of this permit. The soil absorption area ( "site "), sewage system design, has been certified by Richard L. Blackwell, HI PE as substantially complying with the Board of Health's regulations (and local ordinances if the locality has authorized the local health department to accept private evaluations for compliance with local ordinances). This permit is issued in reliance upon Otat certification. VDH hereby recognizes that the soil and site conditions acknowledged by this permit are suitable for the installation of an onsite sewage system. The attached plat shows the approved area for the sewage disposal system; there are additional records on file with the Albemarle County Health Department pertaining to this permit, including the Site and Soil Evaluation Report. This construction permit is null and void if any substantial physical change in the soil or site conditions occurs where a sewage disposal system is to be located. If modifications or revisions are necessary between now and when you construct your dwelling, please contact the OSE /PE who performed the evaluation and design on which this permit is based. Should revisions be necessary during construction, your contractor should consult with the OSE /PE that submitted the site evaluation or site evaluation and design. The OSE/PE is authorized to make minor adjustments in the location or design of the system at the time of construction provided adequate documentation is provided to the Albemarle County Health Department. The OSE /PE that submitted the certified design for this permit is required to conduct a final inspection of this sewage system when it is installed and to submit an inspection report and completion statement. As the owner, you are responsible for giving reasonable notice to the OSE/PE of the need for a final inspection. If the designer is unable to perform the required inspection, you may provide an inspection report and Tax Map /GPIN: 31 -32 Page 2 of 3 HDID: 101 -15 -0347 completion statement executed by another OSE /PE. The Albemarle County Health Department is not required to inspect the installation but may perform an inspection at its sole discretion . No part of this installation shall be covered until it has been inspected by the OSE /PE as noted herein. The sewage system may not be placed into operation until you have obtained an Operation Permit from the Albemarle County Health Department. This Construction Permit is null and void if conditions are changed from those shown on your application or if conditions are changed from those shown on the Site and Soil Evaluation Report and the attached construction drawings, specifications, and calculations. VDH may revoke or modify any permit if, at a later date, it finds that the site and soil conditions and /or design do not substantially comply with the Sewage Handling and Disposal Regulations, 12 VAC 5- 610 -20 et seq., or if the system would threaten public health or the environment. This permit approval has been issued in accordance with applicable regulations based on the information and materials provided at the time of application. There may be other local, state, or federal laws or regulations that apply to die proposed construction of this onsite sewage system. The owner is responsible at all times for complying with all applicable local, state, and federal laws and regulations. If you have any questions, please contact me. This permit expires on February 18, 2017. This permit is not transferable to another owner or location Sincerely, Josh Kirtley Environmental Health Technical Specialist Albemarle County Health Department Cc: Blackwell, Richard L., III PE Tax Map /GPIN #: 31 -32 HDID #: 101 -15 -0347 WHAT YOU WILL NEED TO GET YOUR SEPTIC SYSTEM OPERATION PERMIT Page 3 of 3 • Your system must have a satisfactory inspection at the time of installation. This will be done by either a representative of the local Health Department, a private OSE, or a PE, depending on the designer of your permitted system. If your system is designed/inspected by an OSE or PE, they must submit a copy of the inspection results, complete with an as -built diagram, to the Health Department. • Please ensure that your contractor turns in a Completion Statement to the local Health Department after installation. • If your permit is for an alternative system, you must sign, have notarized, and record the attached Notice of Recordation in your locality's land records. Please bring proof of this recordation to the local Health Department Allow 5 business days after the last piece of documentation is received for the Operation Permit to be issued. To avoid delays, clearly label each piece of documentation with the property Tax Map /GPIN number and HDID number shown above and on your construction permit. Please note that due to the individual circumstances ojyour permit there may be additional required items not covered by this checklist. If you have any questions about any of the items on this list, please do not hesitate to contact the Albemarle County Health Department at (434) 972 -6219. Page I of 3 V'DHOF VIRGINIA Albemarle County Ilealth DepartmentDEPARTMENT PO BOX 7546 HEALTH Charlottesville, VA 22906 (434) 972-6210 Voice Protecting You and Your Environment 972-4310 Fax PE Construction Permit Arrgirst 20, 2015 Rivanna Community Church 601 Earlysville Green Earlysvillc, VA 22936 RE: Site Address: 601 Earlysvillc Green, Earlysvillc. VA 22936 Tax Map: 31-32 HDID: 101-15-0347 Reserve: reserve area provided System Capacity: Non -Residential, 1250 gallons per day (Flow Equalized to 650 gpd) Dear Rivanna Community Church: This letter and the attached drawings, specifications, and calculations (35 pages) dated July 28, 2015, constitute your permit to install a sewage disposal system on the property referenced above. Your application fora permit %vas submitted pursuant to §32.1-163.5 of the Code of Virginia, which requires the Health Department to accept private soil evaluations and designs from an Onsite Soil Evaluator (OSE) or a Professional Engineer working in consultation with an OSE for residential development. VDI I is not required to perforin a field check to verily, the private evaluations of OSI -.s or PEs and such a Field check may not have been conducted for the issuance ofthis permit. The soil absorption area ("site"). sewage system design, has been certified by Richard I.. Blackwell, III PE as substantially complying with the Board of I Iealth's regulations (and local ordinances if the locality has authorized the local health department to accept private evaluations for compliance with local ordinances). This permit is issued in reliance upon that certification. VDI i hereby recognizes that the soil and site conditions acknowledged by this permit are suitable for the installation of an onsite sewage system. The attached plat shows the approved area for the sewage disposal system: there arc additional records on file with the Albemarle County Ilealth Department pertaining to this permit, including the Site and Soil Evaluation Report. ]'his construction perinit is null and void Wally substantial physical change in the soil or site conditions occurs where a sewage disposal system is to be located. if modifications or revisions are necessary between now and when you construct your dwelling„ please contact the OSE/PE" who performed the evaluation and design on which this permit is based. Should revisions be necessary during construction, your contractor should consult with the OSE-A'E that submitted the site evaluation or site evaluation and design. The OSE/PE is authorized to make minor adjustments in the location or design of the system at the time of construction provided adequate documentation is provided to the Albemarle County i Icalth Department. The. OSE IE that submitted the certified design for this permit is required to conduct a final inspection of this sewage system when it is installed and to submit an inspection report and completion statement. As the owner, you are responsible for giving reasonable notice to the OSI;/['E of the need for a final inspection. If the designer is unable to perform the required inspection, you may provide an inspection report and Tax Map/GPIN: 31-32 Page 2 of'3 HDID: 101-15-0347 completion statement executed by another OSEA11:. The Albemarle County i lealth Department is not required to inspect the installation but may perform an inspection at its sole discretion . No part of this installation shall be covered until it has been inspected by the OSE IPE as noted herein. The sewage system may not be placed into operation until you have obtained an Operation Permit from the Albemarle County Health Department. This Construction Permit is null and void if conditions are changed from those shown on your application or if conditions are changed from those shown on the Site and Soil Evaluation Report and the attached construction drawings, specifications, and calculations. VDH may revoke or modify any permit if, at it later date, it finds that the site and soil conditions and for design do not substantially comply with the Sewage Handling and Disposal Regulations, 12 VAC 5-610-20 et seq., or if the system would threaten public health or the environment. "['his pennit approval has been issued in accordance with applicable regulations based on the information and materials provided at the time ol'application. There may be other local, state. or federal laws or regulations that apply to the proposed construction of this onsite sewage system. The owner is responsible at all tinges for complying with all applicable local, state, and federal laws and regulations. 11' you have any questions. please contact me. This permit expires on February 18, 2017. This permit is not transferable to another owner or location. Sincerely, Josh Kirtley E=nvironmental Health Technical Specialist Albemarle County Health Department Cc: Blackwell. Itichard L., III E'1 Tax MaptGPIN #: 31-32 1-IDID#; 101-15-0347 WHAT YOU WILL NEED TO GET YOUR SEPTIC SYSTEM OPERATION PERMIT Page 3 of 3 r Your system must have a satisfiactory inspection at the time of installation. This will be done by either a representative of the local Health Department, a private OSE, or a PE, depending; on the designer of your permitted system. If your system is designed/inspected by an OSI; or PE, they must submit a copy of the inspection results. complete with an as -built diagram, to the I lealth Department. • Please ensure that your contractor turns in a Completion Statement to the local Health Department alter installation. r If your pennit is loran alternative system, you must sign, have notarized, and record the attached Notice of Recordation in your locality's land records. Please bring; proof of this recordation to the local I lealth Department Allow 5 business days after the last piece of documentation is received for the Operation Permit to be issued. 'I'o avoid delays, clearly label each piece of documentation with the property Tax Map/GPIN number and HDID number shown above and on your construction permit. Please note that duce to the Trrdia'ldtllll CIrCICIirSlarrL'es of your permit there nal, be adClitional required items not covered lit, this checklist. If you have any questions about any of the items on this list, please do not hesitate to contact the Albemarle County Health Department at (434) 972-6219. OF ALg O vIRGNl� COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 Project: Rivanna Community Church - Major SDP201300056 Plan preparer: Blackwell Engineering, PLC [fax 540- 434 -7604] Owner or rep.: Steve & Kathy Hood et als Rivanna Community Church Plan received date: 5 December 2014 Date of comments: 27 January 2015 Reviewer: Max Greene The Major Site Plan (SDP201300056) submitted 5 December 2014 has received Engineering Review and does not appear to meet Albemarle County minimum checklist items for approval. Please adequately address the following comments for final approval: A. Road and drainage plans 1. VDOT has no objection to the change in site usage and entrance design geometry. B. VSMP plans: 1. VSMP Plans will need to be submitted for review. [17 -302] The link to the application forms: httD:// www.albemarle.ora /uDload / images /forms center / departments /Community Develobment/forms/Enei neering and WPO Forms /Albemarle County VSMP Letter 07- 08- 2014.pdf http: / /www. albemarle. org/upload /images /forms_ center / departments /Community_ Development /forms /Engi neering and WPO Forms/WPO VSMP Virginia Stormwater Management Program am_Application.pdf C. Previous uncompleted comments by Michael Koslow: 1. Please show the location, elevation and datum for topography. Existing site topography will be at least field verified and certified on the plan as to accuracy. 2. SWM easement is required around the basin. 3. Water line crossing is not shown on SWM pipe profile. Once these comments have been addressed, please submit 2 copies of the revised plans, calculations, and narratives to Current Development Engineering. Current Development Engineering is available from 2:30 -4 PM on Thursdays to discuss these review comments. Please contact Max Greene at 434 - 296 -5832 ext. 3283 or email mueene @albemarle.orc to schedule an appointment. File: CDDE2 MRG SDP Rivanna Community Church.doc ®G13 t=! �'IRGtNIP COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 January 8, 2015 Ed Blackwell 566 East Market Street Harrisonburg VA 22801 RE: SDP - 201300056 Rivanna Community Church — Major Site Plan Amendment Mr. Blackwell: Your Major Amendment application has been reviewed. In front of each comment staff has provided references to provisions of Chapter 18 of the Code of the County of Albemarle. The Code is kept up to date by the County Attorney's office. The Code may found on the County Attorney's website which may be found under "Departments and Services" at Albemarle.org. In order for the amended site plan to be approved the following revisions are required: l:t appears that the appl.icaii:C :i egd.ected. t o p a� the SR"(." a of iciation fee prior 10 the S14'.. i-nee i.:iag. Please pay tl•).c: recliji -red SR(". i. o i a.o tii n. fiee of " 00, of dle 111"111 �Vfli. fill thy; fie is paid. Rev 1, Comments is addresse(L 2. 32.5,1.(a)> 32.5a2(a)] he site plan needs to be printed �,%th black or blue ii-z . not c olo:i% l his i "(:Clu3i "en1ent is noted. in the ordinance an' assur s i. -e uctioiis ,find copies can I) easily- made. Revise the plaTI to be pi- int€:d in blue or black ink., no! in color. Rev addressed. 3. [315.2 (a); 32.562 (e)l cener al igfi)r•maf olir Witlain the site lean provide an e isf:in c;dndif:i €.arcs sheet t:l�at depicts the c:i.atire p as eet and all C.)dstlna 1"ro.i.n. the sheet—Re-vise. l ei- .1. (Jimments addressecL 4. [32.6.2(k)] The approved final site plan for this site, SDP84 -029 Earlysville Green Dentist Office Site Plan, depicts the existing lighting onsite. Thus no lighting plan shall be required for the existing site lighting as all lighting shown on the current site plan under review had previously been depicted and approved on a previously approved final site plan. The existing lighting shall remain on the site plan as depicted. If site lighting is s being_proposed to be modified to include any.additional lighting g eing added or existing lighting being relocated to new locations on the site, or modifications to existing lighting fighting (other than removal of lights), then a lighting _plan shall be required. During our recent discussions the applicant asked about wall lighting for the new buildings (pack lighting) ... etc. Currently the site plan does not depict any proposed wall lighting. If wall lighting is proposed, please depict it on the plan. Also on the plan provide the cut sheets from the manufacturer's catalog for these fixtures. The cut sheet should clearly show the lumen levels of the fixture. If a light fixture is 3000 lumens or above the fixture is required to be full- cutoff. Regardless of the ling type, the cut - sheet should provide a diagram of the light type, fixture type /style, wattage, tilt, color /finish lumen levels and a diagram of how far and what direction the light is visible. If the light fixtures being used have a visibility distance that can reach the road then a photometric plan shall be provided for these new lights to measure spill over. If the manufacturers details do not provide visibility distances then these new lights shall be provided on a photometric plan to measure light trespass on the street and adjacent residential lots. Rev 1. Comments not addressed. Fourteen new wall light fixtures are being added to the addition, as such a lighting plan is required. Revise to provide all information discussed above including a photometric plan. 5. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] If a photometric plan is required it shall show footcandle information to the property line of all adjacent residential parcels and the public right -of -way to demonstrate that the spillover will not exceed 0.5 footcandle. Rev 1. Comments not addressed. Fourteen new wall light fixtures are being added to the addition, as such a lighting plan is required. Provide a photometric plan to the adjacent residential property lines and the public right of ways. Revise. 6. [32. 6.2(k) & 4.:1.71 1`11•ovide the f ollowin g. riote on Uric plan: ".E."ach outdoor luminair e equapjmd ivith a lamb rhea erni %s 3, 000 or more inir."ial luaiens shall he a jirll cart €f lrlrrtirarlir� and shall l cJ earl crn ed or� ,shielded try r'cJ�1 €pct l � hi aia -c�} �i €artl (4j €rinin€,> r�esidenthd districts and rata al-,fi°om c;atljtAll ant r°tra£ls. I"he sj)illoi er. of ightingy coin lur'nlnair es onto public r o adr and pn`€per tv in r "esidentl£d or r urgal £tr eas zoning' dis'rr^ic °ts shall nol (,.retiedc >nc>. -llulj jr €�t €: arlrllcj. " 1'lev 1. ('ourrnent Addressed. r°essed. 7. 132..2e, 32..2p, 32.6.2(j)]. 32.7.. [ .1 ;£ray €ls € °£a "rc' 1£rrr..< lands;€ 4pe phui that €; o:� p. lie : with. section 32.7.9 is required prior to .1: or Site lan. A.r end,merzt 4�pla� ° €�i-a1. Devise. Rey- :1.. (:; €araament Addressed. 8. [32..2e, 32..2(j)] .Exislhzg- L andsc €pe ,j�£rirrrc�.s. ().D. the landseaqpe plan provide the existing handscape features .fbr the entire site as described. in scotion 32.7.9.4(.C). "I'o include all existing landscaping at the rear € f the property abuttilla the residential lots, landscaping around the basin. at the rear of the property, all landscaping along I"arlysville; l orest Drive. and any landscaping throughout ut the site. Also, if any of these landscape l:eatMes a re beinty :aemo -ved depict this on the phina ev :1.. Comment Addressed. 9. [2:1.7(c), 32.5.2(a), 32,6:2([), 32.7.0.4(1)), 32.7.9.71 &!l r zone adjacent r €r r esidenticrl and rur"£d €di'e a.s distrkt.s. No construction activity in.cluding #:.'':i"eding, or clearing of vegetation shall occur closer t:li an (20) feet to any, reside:nliatl or l -oral. areas district. On the site plan depict and label. the required 20.7 bufl-er to residentially zoned property.. l ei- :1.. ;orrrment Addressed.. .If the applicant believes that existing trees on the rear of this propertv meet the screening requirements provided for in section'32.7.9,7, on the site plan provide ai tree conservatioa plan which meets the requirernents of 32.7.9.4(b) to preserve these trees in (place. of I.Azating ne�,k-: tree's. If nei,% - plantings shall 'be provided to screen t:lae use 13roin the residential lets, depict tli se plantings on the landscape .pl are. Rev `i. C'omment Addressed. 10. [32.6.20) & 32.7.9.51 Landscaping Along Streets. Street trees are required along all existing public street frontage; these trees must be within the parking setback. On the landscape plan provide the required street trees along Rte 743 pursuant to section 32.7.9.5. Rev 1. The required steet trees have been depicted on the plan appropriately; however, the plant list on sheet 7 should be revised to address the following: • For the sized `Betula Nigra' proposed, the canopy Gals are truly 397 SF per tree. • For the `Carpinus Betulus...' the canopy area for a tree of 6' - 8' tree size is truly 69 SF per tree. Thus you may reduce the size of that tree to 6' - 8' and bump up the canopy calcs to 69 SF per tree. * For the sized `Lagerstroemia Indica' proposed, the canopy cals are truly 77 SF per tree. * For the sized `Zelkova Serrata...' proposed, the canopy cals are truly 452 SF per tree. Also, in the area of the entrance closing on Rte 743 there are 11 additional parking spaces being added/modified, as such these new spaces face Rte 743 and parked cars will be visible from the right of way. In this area provide additional plantings of shrubs between the street and the parking area pursuant to 32.7.9.5(e). This requirement is in addition to the street tree requirements mentioned above. Also, there are 3 parking spaces fronting Earlysville Forest Drive which do not have any landscaping between them and the right - of -way. In this area provide additional plantings of shrubs between the street and the parking area pursuant to 32.7.9.5(e). Rev 1. The required shrubs fronting the parking spaces have been depicted on the plan appropriately; however, if possible it may be appropriate to move them a foot or two closer to the street to allow for them to grow without having parked cars hit /rub them, strunting their growth. Also, the plant list on sheet 7 should be revised to address the following: * For the `Ilex Cornuta' assure the plant list provides the minimum size at planting, which is required to be a min of 12 inches in height when planted. 11. 32<5.21b, 32. 62(;) & 32.7 ®9.6(a)] /'crrl,in 'm landsc°apin,(g, Parking lot landscaping is ille sate. C)n. the plan Provide the `< knot.in.t €. f waved v arkin.- area wand otlier ve:llicular ea:rc a.lation. areas onsiie< An area of at le st .1.1 -ve; ( ) percent ,.3fthe paved parking anal. vehicular circulation area. sh<a:ll be landsc aped ",ith tree: or shrubs. l "e:ither tlrt areas o -f street trees .ancl slaraabs required by section 32.7,9.5(d) and (e) planted et".- en a . r�p rk i „ area and the b ildirig sb all b cot anted toward t.ie nriaai�nirn lands area l:car ,a par. ld.rag, lot. :l�ev:ise.:Elev :1.n :'onument addtressed 12. [32.6.2(j) ; 32.7.9. (b) "arl;. ng Lot `l`lie .iv (5) percent landscaped area z (1.) large; car incdiul- shade tree pe:r en (10) parking spaces or portion. tlr.ce:���. °t�L i:': l.ve ( 5 ) spaces or more. Nine (9) trees are required for 90 part inR spaces..:'.lease se;lca trees, -from the 'approved list € r note; specific exis ing trees tli at rneet this a qit irennent. 13. [32.7.9.8] Tree Canopy. The use is being developed as a Commercial use, as such the minimum tree canopy is ten (10) percent. Provide tree calculations for the site pursuant to 32.7.9.8(b). Rev 1. As proposed the site meets it's tree canopy calc requirement of 18,081 SF, which is 10% of the gross acreage of the site; however, the calculations on sheet 7 appear to utilize incorrect canopy calculations as discussed in comment #10 above. These shall be revised to clearly show the site's true canopy talcs. Also, the calculations on sheet 6 for the `CK' and the `PS' appear incorrect as the calculations do not take into acounty 20 years of growth, nor do they utilize the correct canopy calculations for the tree types. Anna, please make the corrections we discussed over the phone. If you have questions give me a call. Based on the information provided staff suggests the tree canopy talcs on sheet 7 be revised as follows: "Gross Acreage of the Site: 180,816 SF Required Tree Canopy for the site (10% gross agreage): 18,081 SF Canopy of Proposed Plantings at 10 years: 5,276 SF Existing Woodland Area Preserved at the rear of the property: 18,478 SF Canopy Bonus of Existing Preserved Trees 10,450 SF Total Tree Canopy Provided Onsite: 34,204 SF " 13a. [New Comment] The applicant intends to utilize 18,478 SF of existing woodland as noted on sheet 7 towards the required landscape canopy calcs, they also are seeking Canopy bonus of 10,450 SF. Pursuant to Section 32.7.9.4 (b).this is permitted; however, the following is required to be provided on the site plan to qualify the existing landscaping: 1. Areas and other features shown on landscape plan. The landscape plan shall show the trees to be preserved, the limits of clearing, the location and type of protective fencing, grade changes requiring tree wells or walls, and trenching or tunneling proposed beyond the limits of clearing. 2. Conservation checklist. The applicant shall sign a conservation checklist approved by the agent to ensure that the specified trees will be protected during construction. Except as otherwise expressly approved by the agent in a particular case, the checklist shall conform to the specifications in the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook, pages 111 -393 through III -413, and as hereafter amended. (Anna, for your convenience staff has attached the checklist to this letter, please assure it's provided on the site plan and signed by the owner). 14. 32,6.2(j) & (.'onnneart. Ori the landscape slwcl provide a legend got` all s riibols � .id d.)bre iat:ions used on. Lb.e l andscape plan. 111tw I, ( "'omnaeut Addressed. 15. [32.5.2(a) ] .Seth ac:ks. On. the site plan provide a.nate which relererrces the setback for the -l. zoning, Also include the 20" urtdisturbe;d buffer t. (.)r :resideriti.a1.1y zoned p: -operty - =it4in tllis-se 1 ev le (.nn me t- Ykddregsed 16. [32.5.2a, 21.77] ("Teneral iqfbrinafion. On the ptan prmidc and label. the mininiurn setback lines and vards on the plan, Also dcpiclec, andlabeled the require d /20' bulTer to residewliallv zorled property. Rev 11. Coninneent AdMireqsed.. I'lease, show atilifi-,Os oil the .l��rtcl.seal ?e platy to that: no con-flicus-exist wiIh planting locations.Rev L (.7owmerft Addressed. 18. [(','oinmenfl Sleet I depicts a"Wall. N'tourited.11C sigif' on. the front of the existing, bailding� Is this an existing sign or a . proposed sign. Sign locations are not reviewed, or approved Or). Site plan. 8pplications. ' R ev L Comment, Addressed. amount of impervious cover on the site. Rev, 1. Comment Addresse(L 20. [.12.511a], (.;eneral infi)rmafion. While the site plan provides topogl-aphy. staff was unable to locate the source of the topogr131.)h:y on. Lhe. plan,I)rovide the source of the topography. I Ifthe source is provided please specifiy where on the site plan. Rev 1. Comment Addressed. 21. [32.5.2(a)] (;eneral iqfi)rmation. On the plaii provide the present uses of abUttilIg Parcels. to include: the AU.t0 shop located oil TMP 31A-A. and the residential lots located on 1"NIP 31.x,. -h -5, througgli 31_A-b -? . Rev 1. Comm. ent Addressed. 22. [32.5.2ifl Existing, cindprqpo.sed iin ovemenls. On the plan label and show the location rind diminsions the trail"; coniainers"'d-unips. ter pad (trasli disposal niethods), and on. the plan. there is a red dotted areaUOLM.d itie twc) CXISIUIT, at 1_ S U.CtUeS. SUd'T'iS LUMb e to decif.er is going= ori with this area as the legend does not define this type of sy.rnOol. Also, on the plan please specific what is depicted as red hatching witfiinthe 'parking lot: on the corner ofEarlysville Forest Drive and Slale.Route 74113lease label this feature. Revise..Rev L Commeni.Addressed. 23. [32..2A] Proposed innpgroi,,ements. On. the site plan please clai!..fy wliat is inewit by -Proposed Future Sanctuary-" vs "Proposed Fello'"..-shil.) 1-all ". Is the pr€rposod. fullil•e s,anctuary to be iiicluded in the site plan review ?Tfiiotl rerri.ove it J.• oin Ille plarlAt'so, "future" throughout th.c plan and. lable it ``proposed. sanCtUary". .1'evise to c.)IT.1it Also. the P;' lul iffi l CalOU I l, , -k .601113, on sheet I refer to "pro] ' )osed bi'lildings I". Assure this is .revised to be accurate., as curreiii1v there are 2 proposed buildings and 22 existiiig on. the site plari. Rey :1. Comment Addressed. 24. [4.1.2.61 Parking requiremeWS. IT). the rural areas identified in. the cor.npreheTlSiVe plarl., the number of proposed spaces shall be sho�vn in a parking study, sub.n.i.itted by the chw•ch; the number of'requiredspaces shall be determin.ed by -the zoiiing administrator, -",,ho sli all consider the recornineadal ions in the parking study, traffic (Yeneration figures either knmv-n. to the industrY or estirnated by the Institute of 1'ratisportaii.o.n. Engineers, peak. an s __Lirl 0 cr-Te evailt- intor.m -n-g--de-me d--.-- d- -th.-__ N- s, tl paY.ki - .4 herein require, he ltai °krrrg study to be prepared by a tnuisportation engineer. ('1urrently the site plan. Area calculations of 1 space per 3 llrx.cd seats as provided lbr in the ordinance.- bowever, this site is i.i) the lZural Areas of the comprehensive plan and the ordinance requires a parIchig study fbr -flie Zoning Adrainistrator to rnake a deterr.rdnatior.i about parking for flie. site. Provide 1he required parking, study. :Rev L ( ."ommentAddressed. 25. 132.5.2 (a), 315.2 (e), 315.2 (i)j Three access casements aTe shov,,n on sheet 1: " Aron- exc1vshv easementjbrjoint use by, T.111) 31-32 and 31A,4 easementjbr fi)r use bY, 7*!.,,.,-W.P 314,117, and easewera access and:parkingfior c,.vvhtxh;e use bV .31,1- .11''. Please clarify if these are existing or proposed access easements. it' they are exisfing easements, indicate the deed book and. page au-Mber for there. Rev L Comment Addressed, they are exisfing. 26.. P2,5.2(n), 32.6.2(i)] On the plan dimension the lightly paved. drive%vay, connecting two parkbig lot areas, the Iravelwaysand parking spaces throughout the site. 1 e 1. Comment Addressed. 27. [3 .5.6(1) On. the plan. dimension the N%.-,-i.dth of the existing, entrance :into the site. Rev L (..'.onunent Addressed. 28. P2.5.2a.] General infi)rmafion, Cotint,7 in(] icate the owner na ine, for parcels 3.1A. -1. is Roger W. Perkins and for parcel 31-32 is Steve & Katby Ehio(l et ak Trustees.Rivanna i Coninimi ity Chn•ch respectively, Ilowever the site plan i sidicates the owner nanies are Whyte's Stiperniarket and Ea•ivsville Green. Revise.Rev L Colument Addressed. 29. [32.6,2(h)] S'ignaivre,ponel. 111rovide the required signature panel. for (.burity approval by each. member of the Site Review Committee, Revl.. Comment Addressed. 30. [Comment] On sheet I provide the site plan. nurnber: "t l)132f }1 3 -Sig Rivaara.r�aa. COMMIL11ity Cl.iurc.hN,1qjor Aine.n.dnient to SI)P84-0129"Rev L 31. [32.5.2(a)] On sheet I the magisterial district is labeled as Riviuma Magisterial District. however., it is truly, Whiteliall Magisterial District. Revise. Rev.1. Comment Addressed. 32. [32.6.2e(01 'I'lie plan. attempts to close an. existing entrance on Rte 743 and install a ditch. to match existing dmNnstream ditch. On the site plan provide the pro-files of alt ditches arid channels wl,)eth,er proposed or exisfirq,, SbMillg CXiSting and proposed gradeS, and invea of ditches, cross pipes or utilities., typical. channel. cross sccdons for new COIISMI.Ction. and actual cross sections fbr existino: channels intended. to remain. :Rev 1. (,'Iomment Addressed. i 31.111. accord wilb the provisions of Section 32.4.3.5 of ('..hapter 1.8 of the Code if the devcloper.ibik to submit a.revised final site plan to address all of the reqUire.111C.11US Wit hill tio sh , I be deemed to have been six (6) mondis after The date of this setter the aj.)plica D s al Voluntarily withdramn. by the developer. i Rev 1. Applicant received an extension mid sub-.,uM:ted within alk fi ywable meframe. If you have any questions about the comments please feel free to contact me. Below I have provided comments from the various Site Plan Committee (SRC) reviewers. Prior to fmal, site plan approval their comments shall have been adequately addressed. VDOT — Troy Austin See attached comment letter dated 12- 23 -14. Building Inspections — Jay Schlothauer - Assuming that the church will be of wood -framed construction, no portion of it may exceed 6,000 sq. ft. Indicate the locations of firewalls so that no portion exceeds 6,000 sq. ft. Fire and Rescue — Robbie Gilmer No objection Engineering —Max Greene Comments pending, will be forwarded once received. Health Department — Joshua Kirtley Comments pending, will be forwarded once received. Please contact Mr. Kirtley for fiirther details at (434) 972 -6288 as it appears they do not have the necessary application and plans for the proposed drainfields. In accord with the provisions of Section 32.4.3.5 of Chapter 18 of the Code if the developer fails to submit a revised site plan to address all of the requirements within six (6) months after the date of this letter the application shall be deemed to have been voluntarily withdrawn by the developer. If you have any questions about the comments please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Christopher P. Perez Senior Planner 434.296.5832 ext. 3443 7 f ^.fit „n y DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION . 1601 Ownge Road culpoper, Virginia 22701 Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E. Commissioner December 23, 2014 Mr. Christopher Perez Senior Planner County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: SDP- 2013 -00056 Rivanna Community Church. — Major Amendment Dear Mr. Perez: We have reviewed the site plan for the Rivanna Community Church signed by the design engineer, Blackwell Engineering, PLC on 11;x`28114 and offer the following comments: 1. It is our understanding that the Church will not provide weekday day care services. 2. VDOT has no objection to the site plan as submitted. Should the Church decide to provide weekday day care services, the turn lane warrants for the entrance will need to be reevaluated based on the increase in trip generation for the site. If you need additional information concerning this project, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, -;�i �" Troy Austin, P.E. Area Land Use Engineer Culpeper District WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING County of Albemarle Conservation Plan Checklist — To be placed on Landscape Plans (Handbook, pp III- 284 - 111 -297 for complete specifications) 1. The following items shall be shown on the plan: ❑ Trees to be saved; ❑ Limits of clearing (outside dripline of trees to be saved); ❑ Location and type of protective fencing; ❑ Grade changes requiring tree wells or walls; ❑ Proposed trenching or tunneling beyond the limits of clearing. 2. Markings: ❑ All trees to be saved shall be marked with print or ribbon at a height clearly visible to equipment operators. ❑ No grading shall begin until the tree marking has been inspected and approved by a County Inspector. 3. Pre - Construction Conference: ❑ Tree preservation and protection measures shall be reviewed with the contractor on site. 4. Equipment Operation and Storage: ❑ Heavy equipment, vehicular traffic and storage of construction materials including soil shall not be permitted within the driplines of trees to be saved. 5. Soil Erosion and Stormwater Detention Devices: ❑ Such devices shall not adversely affect trees to be saved. 6. Fires: ❑ Fires are not permitted within 100 feet of the dripline of trees to be saved. 7. Toxic Materials: ❑ Toxic materials shall not be stored within 100 feet of the dripline of trees to be saved. 8. Protective Fencing: ❑ Trees to be retained within 40 feet of a proposed building or grading activity shall be protected by fencing. ❑ Fencing shall be in place and shall be inspected and approved by a County Inspector prior to grading or construction. 9. Tree Wells: ❑ When the ground level must be raised within the dripline of a tree to be saved, a tree well shall be provided and a construction detail submitted for approval. 10. Tree Walls: ❑ When the ground level must be lowered within the dripline a tree to. be saved, a tree wall shall be provided; and a construction detail submitted for approval. 11. Trenching and Tunneling: ❑ When trenching is required within the limits of clearing, it shall be done as far away from the trunks of trees as possible. Tunneling under a large tree shall be considered as an alternative when it is anticipated that necessary trenching will destroy feeder roots. 12. Cleanup: ❑ Protective fencing shall be the last items removed during the final cleanup. 13. Damaged Trees: ❑ Damaged trees shall be treated immediately by pruning, fertilization or other methods recommended by a tree specialist. NOTE: IT IS THE DEVELOPER'S RESPONSIBILITY TO CONFER WITH THE CONTRACTOR ON TREE CONSERVATION REQUIREMENTS. OWNER SIGNATURE (DATE) CONTRACT PURCHASER SIGNATURE (DATE) yI } COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1601 Orange Road Culpeper Vrginia 22701 Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E. Commissioner December 23, 2014 Mr. Christopher Perez Senior Planner County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: SDP -2013 -00056 Rivanna Community Church — Major Amendment Dear Mr. Perez: We have reviewed the site plan for the Rivanna Community Church signed by the design engineer, Blackwell Engineering, PLC on 11128114 and offer the following comments: 1. It is our understanding that the Church will not provide weekday day care services. 2. VDOT has no objection to the site plan as submitted. Should the Church decide to provide weekday day care services, the turn lane warrants for the entrance will need to be reevaluated based on the increase in trip generation for the site. If you need additional information concerning this project, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, -;S�" Troy Austin, P.E. Area Land Use Engineer Culpeper District WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING Christopher Perez From: Kirtley, Joshua (VDH) [ Joshua .Kirtley @vdh.virginia.gov] Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2013 3:18 PM To: Christopher Perez Subject: Rivanna Community Church Comments (SDP201300056) Good afternoon, Chris. Hope that you're doing well. I wanted to let you know that there may be some concerns with the proposed project described above in regards to the septic capacity for the proposed use. I recall speaking to someone with the Church a while back and I indicated to them that they should have a PE perform a capacity assessment and forward that to me. To date, our office has not received documentation from a PE stating that the existing system can accommodate the use. Also, the Church is to be served by a newer septic system that VDH has not issued an Operations Permit on. believe the problem is paperwork related and something that the new owners should get addressed before moving forward with this project. I also question whether or not the Church is served by public water or if they are served by a private well. I will keep you in the loop as to any developments but please note my comments above. Have a good afternoon, Josh Josh Kirtley Environmental Health Technical Consultant Onsite Sewage and Water Programs Thomas Jefferson Health District 1138 Rose Hill Drive Charlottesville, Virginia 22903 Office (434) 972 -6288 `IRGiN1P COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 12 -03 -13 Ed Blackwell 566 East Market Street Harrisonburg VA 22801 RE: SDP - 201300056 Rivanna Community Church — Major Site Plan Amendment Mr. Blackwell: Your Major Amendment application has been reviewed. In front of each comment staff has provided references to provisions of Chapter 18 of the Code of the County of Albemarle. The Code is kept up to date by the County Attorney's office. The Code may found on the County Attorney's website which may be found under "Departments and Services" at Albemarle.org. In order for the amended site plan to be approved the following revisions are required: [Comment] SRC notification fees. It appears that the applicant neglected to pay the SRC notficiation fee prior to the SRC meeting. Please pay the required SRC notification fee of $200. No further review of the plan will comense till the fee is paid. 2. [32.5.1(a), 32.5.2(a)] The site plan needs to be printed with black or blue ink, not color. This requirement is noted in the ordinance and assures reductions and copies can be easily made. Revise the plan to be printed in blue or black ink, not in color. 3. [32.5.2 (a);.32.5.2 (e)] General information. Within the site plan provide an existing conditions sheet that depicts the entire parcel and all existing conditions separate from the proposed modifications sheet. Revise. 4. [32.6.2(k)] The approved final site plan for this site, SDP84 -029 Earlysville Green Dentist Office Site Plan, depicts the existing lighting onsite. Thus no lighting plan shall be required for the existing site lighting as all lighting shown on the current site plan under review had previously been depicted and approved on a previously approved final site plan. The existing lighting shall remain on the site plan as depicted. If site lighting is being proposed to be modified to include any additional lighting being added, or existing lighting being relocated to new locations on the site, or modifications to existing lighting (other than removal of lights), then a lighting plan shall be required. During our recent discussions the applicant asked about wall lighting for the new . buildings (pack lighting) ... etc. Currently the site plan does not depict any proposed wall lighting. If wall lighting is proposed, .please depict it on the plan. Also on the plan provide the cut sheets from the manufacturer's catalog for these fixtures. The cut sheet should clearly show the lumen levels of the fixture. If a lioght fixture is 3000 lumens or above the fixture is required to be full- cutoff. Regardless of the lighting type, the cut - sheet should provide a diagram of the light type, fixture type /style, wattage, tilt, color /finish, lumen levels and a diagram of how far and what direction the light is visible. If the light fixtures being used have a visibility distance that can reach the road then a photometric plan shall be provided for these new lights to measure spill over. If the manufacturers details do not provide visibility distances then these new lights shall be provided on a photometric plan to measure light trespass on the street and adjacent residential lots. 5. [32.6.2(k) & 4.171 If a photometric plan is required it shall show footcandle information to the property line of all adjacent residential parcels and the public right -of -way to demonstrate that the spillover will not exceed 0.5 footcandle. 6. [32.6.2(k) & 4.171 Provide the following standard lighting note on the plan: "Each outdoor luminaire equipped with a lamp that emits 3, 000 or more initial lumens shall be a full cutoff luminaire and shall be arranged or shielded to reflect light away from adjoining residential districts and away from adjacent roads. The spillover of lighting from luminaires onto public roads and property in residential or rural areas zoning districts shall not exceed one- halffootcandle. " 7. [32.5.2e, 32.5.2p, 32.6.2(j)], 32.7.9.41 Landscape plan. A landscape plan that complies with section 32.7.9 is required prior to Major Site Plan Amendment approval. Revise. 8. [32.5.2e, 32.6.20)] Existing Landscape features. On the landscape plan provide the existing landscape features for the entire site as described in section 32.7.9.4(c). To include all existing landscaping at the rear of the property abutting the residential lots, landscaping around the basin at the rear of the property, all landscaping along Earlysville Forest Drive, and any landscaping throughout the site. Also, if any of these landscape features are being removed depict this on the plan. 9. [21.7(c), 32.5.2(a), 32.6.20), 32.7.9.4(b), 32.7.9.71 Buffer zone adjacent to residential and rural areas districts. No construction activity including grading or clearing of vegetation shall occur closer than twenty (20) feet to any residential or rural areas district. On the site plan depict and label the required 20' buffer to residentially zoned property. If the applicant believes that existing trees on the rear of this property meet the screening requirements provided for in section 32.7.9.7, on the site plan provide a tree conservation plan which meets the requirements of 32.7.9.4(b) to preserve these trees in place of planting new trees. If new plantings shall be provided to screen the use from the residential lots, depict these plantings on the landscape plan. 10. [32.6.20) & 32.7.9.5] Landscaping Along Streets. Street trees are required along all existing public street frontage; these trees must be within the parking setback. On the landscape plan provide the required street trees along Rte 743 pursuant to section 32.7.9.5. Also, in the area of the entrance closing on Rte 743 there are 11 additional parking spaces being added /modified, as such these new spaces face Rte 743 and parked cars will be visible from the right of way. In this area provide additional plantings of shrubs between 2 the street and the parking area pursuant to 32.7.9.5(e). This requirement is in addition to the street tree requirements mentioned above. Also, there are 3 parking spaces fronting Earlysville Forest Drive which do not have any landscaping between them and the right -of -way. In this area provide additional plantings of shrubs between the street and the parking area pursuant to 32.7.9.5(e). 11. [32.5.2b, 32.6.20) & 32.7.9.6(a)] Parking Lot landscaping. Parking lot landscaping is required for the site. On the plan provide the amount of paved parking area and other vehicular circulation areas onsite. An area of at least five (5) percent of the paved parking and vehicular circulation area shall be landscaped with trees or shrubs. Neither the areas of street trees and shrubs required by sections 32.7.9.5(d) and (e) planted between a parking area and the building shall be counted toward the minimum landscaped area for a parking lot. Revise. 12. [32.6.20) & 32.7.9.6(b)] Parking Lot landscaping. The five (5) percent landscaped area required shall be planted with a mixture of shade trees and shrubs and shall include one (1) large or medium shade tree per ten (10) parking spaces or portion thereof, if five (5) spaces or more. Nine (9) trees are required for 90 parking spaces. Please select trees from the approved list or note specific existing trees that meet this requirement. 13. [32.7.9.8] Tree Canopy. The use is being developed as a Commercial use, as such the minimum tree canopy is ten (10) percent. Provide tree calculations for the site pursuant to 32.7.9.8(b). 14. [32.6.20) & Comment] On the landscape sheet provide a legend of all symbols and abbreviations used on the landscape plan. 15. [32.5.2(a)] Setbacks. On the site plan provide a note which references the setback for the C -1 zoning. Also include the 20' undisturbed buffer for residentially zoned property within this setback note. 16. [32.5.2a, 21.7c] General information. On the plan provide and label the minimum setback lines and yards on the plan. Also depicted and labeled the required 20' buffer to residentially zoned property. 17. [32.6.20) & Comment] Please show utilities and associated easements on the landscape plan to verify that no conflicts exist with planting locations. 18. [Comment] Sheet 1 depicts a "Wall Mounted HC sign" on the front of the existing building. Is this an existing sign or a proposed sign. Sign locations are not reviewed or approved on site plan applications. 19. [32.5.2b] Information regarding the proposed use. On the plan provide the maximum amount of impervious cover on the site. 20. [32.5.2a] General information. While the site plan provides topography, staff was unable to locate the source of the topography on the plan. Provide the source of the topography. If the source is provided please specifiy where on the site plan. 21. [32.5.2(a)] General information. On the plan provide the present uses of abutting parcels, to include: the Auto shop located on TMP 31A-A, and the residential lots located on TMP 31A -b -5 through 31A -b -7 . 22. [32.5.2n] Existing and proposed improvements. On the plan label and show the location and diminsions the trash containers /dumpster pad (trash disposal methods), and landscaped areas. Also, on the plan there is a red dotted area around the two existing structures. Staff is unable to decifer what is going on with this area as the legend does not define this type of symbol. Also, on the plan please specific what is depicted as red hatching within the parking lot on the corner of Earlysville Forest Drive and State Route 743. Please label this feature. Revise. 23. [[32.5.2n] Proposed improvements. On the site plan please clarify what is meant by "Proposed Future Sanctuary" vs "Proposed Fellowship Hall ". Is the proposed future sanctuary to be included in the site plan review? If not, remove it from the plan. If so, revise to omit "future" throughout the plan and lable it "proposed sanctuary ". Also, the parking calculations on sheet 1 refer to "proposed buildings 1 ". Assure this is revised to be accurate, as currently there are 2 proposed buildings and 2 existing buildings shown on the site plan. 24. [4.12.6] Parking requirements. In the rural areas identified in the comprehensive plan, the number of proposed spaces shall be shown in a parking study submitted by the church; the number of required spaces shall be determined by the zoning administrator, who shall consider the recommendations in the parking study, traffic generation figures either known to the industry or estimated by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, peak parking demands, and other relevant information. Nothing herein requires the parking study to be prepared by a transportation engineer. Currently the site plan utilizes Development Area calculations of 1 space per 3 fixed seats as provided for in the ordinance; however, this site is in the Rural Areas of the comprehensive plan and the ordinance requires a parking study for the Zoning Administrator to make a determination about parking for the site. The parking study should provide calculations to support the proposed and required parking onsite. In the study, provide data which can be reviewed to aid the Zoning Administrator in making a determination about the proposed parking for the site. The parking study should also provide a narrative as to why the applicant believed the parking calculations provided will work. For example possible narratives for the study may include something to the following: Our church currently has an estimated participants, mostly made up of families. The church is currently contained in 1 building of _ SF, with _ fixed seats and on a typical Sunday for this church we average visitors per service at _ vehicles. We have counted the number of cars on various occations (small church gatherings and larger church gatherings such as Christmas) at max capacity during the larger events we averaged vehicles; however, on the typical Sunday we only averaged _ vehicles. With this expansion we plan to expand the church to _ SF and increase our seating capacity to a total of seats. The proposed fellowship hall will be used by existing parishioners who attend the church for We hope to increase our parishioner base to be particpants over the next _ years. We believe that the 4 additional space will generate the need for required parking spaces based on our calculations provided above, thus we have provided _ parking spaces based on these calculations... etc Provide the required parking study. 25. [32.5.2 (a), 32.5.2 (e), 32.5.2 (i)] Three access easements are shown on sheet 1: "Non- exclusive easement for joint use by TMP 31 -32 and 31,4--4 ", "Non- exclusive easement for access for use by TMP 31,4--4 ", and "Exclusive easement for access and parking for exclusive use by TMP 31A -A ". Please clarify if these are existing or proposed access easements. If they are existing easements, indicate the deed book and page number for them. If they are proposed easements, please indicate as much on the plans. If these easements are proposed, Easement Plats will need to be submitted to this office for review and approval of which both property owners will need to sign the plats. If they are proposed the plat and parking agreement will be required to be reviewed and approved by Planning /Zoning /the County Attorney's Office prior to site plan approval. 26. [32.5.2(n), 32.6.2(i)] On the plan dimension the lightly paved driveway connecting the two parking lot areas, the travelways and parking spaces throughout the site. 27. [32.5.6(i)] On the plan dimension the width of the existing entrance into the site. 28. [32.5.2a] General information. County records indicate the owner name for parcels 31A -1 is Roger W. Perkins and for parcel 31 -32 is Steve & Kathy Hood et als Trustees Rivanna Community Church respectively. However the site plan indicates the owner names are Whyte's Supermarket and Earlysville Green. Revise. 29. [32.6.2(h)] Signature panel. Provide the required signature panel for County approval by each member of the Site Review Committee. 30. [Comment] On sheet 1 provide the site plan number: "SDP2013 -56 Rivanna Community Church Major Amendment to SDP84 -029" 31. [32.5.2(a)] On sheet 1 the magisterial district is labeled as Rivanna Magisterial District; however, it is truly Whitehall Magisterial District. Revise. 32. [32.6.2e(1)] The plan attempts to close an existing entrance on Rte 743 and install a ditch to match existing downstream ditch. On the site plan provide the profiles of all ditches and channels whether proposed or existing, showing existing and proposed grades, and invert of ditches, cross pipes or utilities; typical channel cross sections for new construction; and actual cross sections for existing channels intended to remain. 33. In accord with the provisions of Section 32.4.3.5 of Chapter 18 of the Code if the developer fails to submit a revised final site plan to address all of the requirements within six (6) months after the date of this letter the application shall be deemed to have been voluntarily withdrawn by the developer. 5 If you have any questions about the comments please feel free to contact me. Below I have provided comments from the various Site Plan Committee (SRC) reviewers. Prior to final site plan approval their comments shall have been adequately addressed. Engineering — Mike Koslow See attached comment letter. VDOT — Troy Austin See attached comment letter. Building Inspections — Jay Schlothauer - Submittal appears to be for proposed Fellowship Hall only. No comments or conditions. Fire and Rescue — Robbie Gilmer 1. In reference to the back parking lot. VSFPC 503.2.5 Dead ends. Dead -end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet (45 720 mm) in length shall be provided with an approved area for turning around fire apparatus. 2. In reference to the front parking lot access. VSFPC 503.2.4 Turning radius. The required turning radius of a fire apparatus access road shall be determined by the fire code official. Albemarle County requires a minimum of a 25 ft radii for access travel ways. 3. VSFPC 506.1 Where required. Where access to or within a structure or an area is restricted because of secured openings or where immediate access is necessary for life- saving or fire- fighting purposes, the fire code official is authorized to require a key box to be installed in an approved location. The key box shall be of an approved type listed in accordance with UL 1037 and shall contain keys to gain necessary access as required by the fire code official. Please Contact the Albemarle County Fire Prevention Office during construction to get an approved location. E911— Andrew Slack 1. Approved ACSA —Alex Morrison - Project is not in the ACSA's Jurisdictional Area. Health Department — Joshua Kirtley - The Health department has concerns with the proposed project described above in regards to the septic capacity for the proposed use. I recall speaking to someone with the Church a while back and I indicated to them that they should have a PE perform a capacity assessment and forward that to me. To date, our office has not received documentation from a PE stating that the existing system can accommodate the use. - Also, the Church is to be served by a newer septic system that VDH has not issued an Operations Permit on. I believe the problem is paperwork related and something that the new owners should get addressed before moving forward with this project. I also question whether or not the Church is served by public water or if they are served by a private well. Sincerely, Christopher P. Perez Senior Planner COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 Project: Plan preparer: Owner or rep.: Plan received date: Date of comments: Reviewer: Review coordinator: Rivanna Community Church — Major Blackwell Engineering, PLC Rivanna Community Church 22 October 2013 2 December 2013 Michael Koslow Chris Perez SDP201300056 [fax 540 - 434 -76041 The first major amendment to the final site plan and comps submittal (SDP201300056) submitted 17 October 2013 has received Engineering Review and does not appear to meet Albemarle County minimum checklist items for approval. This review does not include a review of Erosion & Sediment Control, Mitigation, or Stormwater Management. Please adequately address the following comments for final site plan approval: A. Existing Conditions Information 1) Please include a benchmark location, elevation, and datum for topography. An existing utility or other known position such as DI near existing entrance shown at elevation 630.0 will suffice if noted with elevation to nearest hundredth of a foot. 2) Three access easements are shown on sheet 1. Please clarify if these are existing or proposed access easements. If they are existing easements, please indicate the deed book and page number for them. If they are proposed easements, please indicate as much on the plans. 3) Please clarify owner names for parcels 31A -1 and 31 -32. Plans indicate the owner names are Whyte's Supermarket and Earlsville Green respectively. However, County GISWeb indicates the owner names are Roger W. Perkins and Steve & Kathy Hood et als Trustees Rivanna Community Church respectively. 4) Existing topography appears out of date and does not include existing utility lines. Per site visit on 11/11/2013, updated topography was given to the church from adjacent property owner. Recommend including this topography with future submittals. Missing topo items include riprap for 18" outlet pipe to existing dry detention pond, screening trees on the east side of the property, and fence adjacent to existing auto repair shop adjacent to church's parking lot. Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 3 B. Proposed Plan View Information 1) A minimum of 10 ac of contributing drainage area is needed for a permanent pool facility. Recommend changing facility type to dry detention pond (this would be a requirement for stormwater management plan review) or a modification of the existing dry pond with a shared maintenance agreement among contributing property owners. 2) Please propose a stormwater management easement for proposed stormwater management facility and access roads to it (see also comment B 1). 3) Please propose a temporary grading easement or written VDOT permission for proposed entrance closure. 4) Existing parking area appears to include spaces on a slope greater than 5 %. Please provide a re- graded parking lot or an exception request to review coordinator. 5) Please indicate all existing and proposed storm sewers. 6) Please label all existing drainage structures with a unique number for calculations and reference. 7) Please provide a manufacturers detail for all non -VDOT standard inlets (appears to apply to structure #s 4 and 5) on plans. For maintenance purposes, the county prefers domed grates. C. Drainage Profiles 1) Please provide drainage profiles for all proposed drainage structures and pipes. Please indicate all existing and proposed utility crossings under or over proposed pipes on drainage profiles. 2) Please indicate proposed end sections and outlet protection for all proposed pipe outlets on drainage profiles and in plan view. D. Drainage Computations 1) Please include drainage maps and computations for existing structures proposed to accept drainage from shared parking areas proposed. 2) Please include hydrologic coefficients and times of concentration for all existing and proposed site drainage areas on drainage area map. Engineering Review Comments Page 3 of 3 E. Tier III Groundwater Assessment 1) Per p.3 from the County's Design Standards Manual, please supplement the provided Envrionmental Site Assessment to include item #s: 1d) A graphics section containing surrounding property 1000 ft beyond property lines with wells and septic system locations lf) A graphic depiction of groundwater recharge areas and flow. 2g) A narrative containing groundwater management plan addressing practices during and after construction, in addition to a contingency plan if wells dry up or become contaminated. Current Development Engineering is available from 2:30 -4 PM on Thursdays to discuss these review comments. Please contact Michael Koslow at 434 - 296 -5832 ext. 3297 or email mkoslow @albemarle.oriz to schedule an appointment. nt DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1601 Orange Road Culpeper, Virginia 22701 -3819 Gregory A. Whirley Commissioner of Highways December 2, 2013 Mr. Christopher Perez Senior Planner County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: SDP - 2013 -00056 Rivanna Community Church ­Major Amendment Dear Mr. Perez: We have reviewed the site plan for the Rivanna Community Church dated June 2013 and sealed on October 15, 2013 as submitted by Blackwell Engineering, PLC and offer the following comments: 1. It is our understanding that the Church will not provide weekday day care services. 2. VDOT has no objection to the site plan as submitted. Should the Church decide to provide weekday day care services, the turn lane warrants for the entrance will need to be reevaluated based on the increase in trip generation for the site. If you need additional information concerning this project, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, <1 hwt- Troy Austin, P.E. Area Land Use Engineer Culpeper District VirginiaDOT.org WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING Christopher Perez From: Alex Morrison [ amorrison @serviceauthority.org] Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 11:54 AM To: Christopher Perez Subject: RE: SDP201300056 Rivanna Community Church - Major Amendment Chris, I will send out an official comment sheet on Monday but wanted to let you know it is not in the ACSA's Jurisdictional Area and I will have no comments on the sheet. Alexander J. Morrison, EIT Civil Engineer Aik-vlc (Pm Service Auth-6rity 168 Spotnap Road Charlottesville, VA 22911 Office: (434)977-4511 EXT: 116 This email may contain confidential information that should not be shared with anyone other than its intended recipient(s). From: Christopher Perez [mailto:cperez(abalbemarle.org] Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2013 1:20 PM To: Alex Morrison Subject: SDP201300056 Rivanna Community Church - Major Amendment Alex, Just checking in on the status of your review of the SRC item, SDP201300056 Rivanna Community Church - Major Amendment, which will be heading to next week's SRC meeting on Thursday the December 5, 2013. I plan to send my comments out on Tuesday the 3rd, so if you provide them to me by then I'll include them in my letter. Thanks. Christopher P. Perez I Senior Planner Department of Community Development ICounty of Albemarle, Virginia 401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville, VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext. 3443 COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1601 Orange Road Culpeper, Virginia 22701 -3819 Gregory A. Whirley Commissioner of Highways December 2, 2013 Mr. Christopher Perez Senior Planner County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: SDP - 2013 -00056 Rivanna Community Church — Major Amendment Dear Mr. Perez: We have reviewed the site plan for the Rivanna Community Church dated June 2013 and sealed on October 15, 2013 as submitted by Blackwell Engineering, PLC and offer the following comments: 1. It is our understanding that the Church will not provide weekday day care services. 2. VDOT has no objection to the site plan as submitted. Should the Church decide to provide weekday day care services, the turn lane warrants for the entrance will need to be reevaluated based on the increase in trip generation for the site. If you need additional information concerning this project, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Troy Austin, P.E. Area Land Use Engineer Culpeper District VirginiaDOT.org WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING i" ,. `IRGINZP COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 Project: Rivanna Community Church — Major SDP201300056 Plan preparer: Blackwell Engineering, PLC [fax 540- 434 -76041 Owner or rep.: Rivanna Community Church Plan received date: 22 October 2013 Date of comments: 2 December 2013 Reviewer: Michael Koslow Review coordinator: Chris Perez The first major amendment to the final site plan and comps submittal (SDP201300056) submitted 17 October 2013 has received Engineering Review and does not appear to meet Albemarle County minimum checklist items for approval. This review does not include a review of Erosion & Sediment Control, Mitigation, or Stormwater Management. Please adequately address the following comments for final site plan approval: A. Existing Conditions Information 1) Please include a benchmark location, elevation, and datum for topography. An existing utility or other known position such as DI near existing entrance shown at elevation 630.0 will suffice if noted with elevation to nearest hundredth of a foot. 2) Three access easements are shown on sheet 1. Please clarify if these are existing or proposed access easements. If they are existing easements, please indicate the deed book and page number for them. If they are proposed easements, please indicate as much on the plans. 3) Please clarify owner names for parcels 31A -1 and 31 -32. Plans indicate the owner names are Whyte's Supermarket and Earlsville Green respectively. However, County GISWeb indicates the owner names are Roger W. Perkins and Steve & Kathy Hood et als Trustees Rivanna Community Church respectively. 4) Existing topography appears out of date and does not include existing utility lines. Per site visit on 11/11/2013, updated topography was given to the church from adjacent property owner. Recommend including this topography with future submittals. Missing topo items include riprap for 18" outlet pipe to existing dry detention pond, screening trees on the east side of the property, and fence adjacent to existing auto repair shop adjacent to church's parking lot. Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 3 B. Proposed Plan View Information 1) A minimum of 10 ac of contributing drainage area is needed for a permanent pool facility. Recommend changing facility type to dry detention pond (this would be a requirement for stormwater management plan review) or a modification of the existing dry pond with a shared maintenance agreement among contributing property owners. 2) Please propose a stormwater management easement for proposed stormwater management facility and access roads to it (see also comment B1). 3) Please propose a temporary grading easement or written VDOT permission for proposed entrance closure. 4) Existing parking area appears to include spaces on a slope greater than 5 %. Please provide a re- graded parking lot or an exception request to review coordinator. 5) Please indicate all existing and proposed storm sewers. 6) Please label all existing drainage structures with a unique number for calculations and reference. 7) Please provide a manufacturers detail for all non -VDOT standard inlets (appears to apply to structure #s 4 and 5) on plans. For maintenance purposes, the county prefers domed grates. C. Drainage Profiles 1) Please provide drainage profiles for all proposed drainage structures and pipes. Please indicate all existing and proposed utility crossings under or over proposed pipes on drainage profiles. 2) Please indicate proposed end sections and outlet protection for all proposed pipe outlets on drainage profiles and in plan view. D. Drainage Computations 1) Please include drainage maps and computations for existing structures proposed to accept drainage from shared parking areas proposed. 2) Please include hydrologic coefficients and times of concentration for all existing and proposed site drainage areas on drainage area map. Engineering Review Comments Page 3 of 3 E. Tier III Groundwater Assessment 1) Per p.3 from the County's Design Standards Manual, please supplement the provided Envrionmental Site Assessment to include item #s: ld) A graphics section containing surrounding property 1000 ft beyond property lines with wells and septic system locations lf) A graphic depiction of groundwater recharge areas and flow. 2g) A narrative containing groundwater management plan addressing practices during and after construction, in addition to a contingency plan if wells dry up or become contaminated. Current Development Engineering is available from 2:30 -4 PM on Thursdays to discuss these review comments. Please contact Michael Koslow at 434 - 296 -5832 ext. 3297 or email mkoslow @albemarle.org to schedule an appointment. I Christopher Perez From: Christopher Perez Sent: Friday, June 08, 2018 8:06 AM To: Frank Pohl; 'Deel,Justin'; 'Mazurowski, Alan'; Michael Dellinger; Shawn Maddox Cc: Moore, Adam;Josh Kirtley(Joshua.Kirtley@vdh.virginia.gov); Keith Huckstep; 'Robbie Gilmer; 'Maynard Sipe' Subject: SDP201300056 Rivanna Community Church— Major Amendment SRC reviews, SDP201300056 Rivanna Community Church— Major Amendment I have received everyone's tentative approvals on the above referenced plan. The above ref final site plan is ready for approval. I have placed the plans in the usual signature cubbyhole in front of Conference Room B. Please swing by and sign them no later than Tuesday, the 12th. If you would rather I sign on your behalf of your dept/organization, please send me an email letting me know. Thanks Christopher P.Perez I Senior Planner Department of Community Development'County of Albemarle,Virginia 401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext.3443 C !nA119-1 ?'I 1 k�MtJA fy „),, COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA In Cooperation with the ALBELIARLE•CHARLOTTESVILLE State Department of Health Thomas Jefferson Health District FIIJVANNA COUNTY tPALNYRA) 1138 Rose Hill Drive GREENE COUNTY(STANARDSVILLE) LOUISA COUNTY(LOUISA) Phone(434)972-6219 P.O.Box 7546 NELSON COUNTY ILOVINOSTON) Fax (434)972-4310 Charlottesville,Virginia 22906 January 17, 2018 Christopher Perez, Senior Planner Albemarle County Community Development 401 McIntire Road • Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: Rivanna Community Church SDP2013-56 601 Earlysville Green Mr. Perez: As requested, I've reviewed the Major Site Plan Amendment (11/29/17) for the subject parcel, referenced above. I do not see any issues with this amendment that would affect the currently permitted septic system modifications (HDID#: 101-15-0347). Design of the new system was based on a 250-seat sanctuary, which remains consistent with this site plan. If there are any questions or concerns,please give me a call, 434-972-4306. • Sincerely, ,^ Alan Mazurowski Environmental Health Supervisor Thomas Jefferson Health District alan.mazurowski a(�,vdh.virginia.gov �vt '1( d.: .. A Ai t CO. MMONWEALTH'of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1601 Orange Road Cu:pepor.Virginia 22701 Charles A. Kilpatrick,P.E. Commissioner January 11, 2018 County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Attn: Christopher Perez Re: Rivanna Community Church—.Major Site Plan Amendment SDP-2013-00056 Review#5 Dear Mr. Perez: The Department of Transportation,Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use Section,has reviewed the above referenced plan as submitted by Blackwell Engineering, PLC, most recently revised 21 November 2017, and finds it to be generally acceptable. If further information is desired please contact Justin Deel at (434)422-9894. A VDOT Land Use Permit will be required prior to any work within the right-of-way. The owner/developer must contact the Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use Section at(434)422-9399 for information pertaining to this process. Sincerely, • Adam J. M ore, P.E. Area Land Use Engineer Charlottesville Residency VirginiaDOT.org WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING �4 sMIL COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1601 Orange Road Culpeper.Virginia 22701 Charles A. Kilpatrick,P.E. Commissioner January 11, 2018 County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road r� Charlottesville, VA 22902 Attn: Christopher Perez Re: Rivanna Community Church—Major Site Plan Amendment SDP-2013-00056 Review#5 Dear Mr. Perez: The Department of Transportation,Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use Section, has reviewed the above referenced plan as submitted by Blackwell Engineering, PLC, most recently revised 21 November 2017, and finds it to be generally acceptable. If further information is desired please contact Justin Deel at (434)422-9894. A VDOT Land Use Permit will be required prior to any work within the right-of-way. The owner/developer must contact the Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use Section at (434)422-9399 for information pertaining to this process. Sincerely, (goy_ l duly Adam J. M re, P.E. Area Land Use Engineer Charlottesville Residency VirginiaDOT.org WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING Review Commenl for SDP201300056 Major Amendment Project Name: Rivanna Community Church - Major Date Completed: Saturday, March 25, 2017 DepartmentDivision?Agency: Review Status: Reviewer: Robbie Gilmer Fire Rescue No Objection Based on plans dated 3/6/17. No comments or objections t1F nLBf.r� 11 ', COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road,North Wing Charlottesville,Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434)296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 April 11, 2017 Q C- 11 ? Ed Blackwell ) 566 East Market Street Harrisonburg VA 22801 RE: SDP-201300056 Rivanna Community Church — Major Site Plan Amendment Mr. Blackwell: Your Major Amendment application has been reviewed. In front of each comment staff has provided references to provisions of Chapter 18 of the Code of the County of Albemarle. The Code is kept up to date by the County Attorney's office. The Code may found on the County Attorney's website which may be found under"Departments and Services"at Albemarle.org. In order for the amended site plan to be approved the following revisions are required: 1. [32.5.2n] Existing and proposed improvements. Provide an additional sheet in the site plan that depicts the final layout of the site. Please assure this sheet is void of existing conditions which are to be removed, as the multiple layers and various hatching styles make it extremely difficult to tell what the final product is to be. On this sheet clearly label and dimension all existing and proposed improvements. Rev 5. Comment Addressed. 2. 132.5.2(a), 21.7, 4.20] Setbacks. Previously it was clear that both of the proposed buildings physically connected to the existing buildings onsite, which allowed the proposal to be counted as an addition to the existing buildings, thus causing the new 30' front maximum setback not to apply. However, as revised it is unclear that the proposed structures actually connect to the existing structures. Clearly label all building walls and roof overhangs. Rev 5. Comment Addressed. If the existing and proposed buildings physically connect (even by a shared roof), then the 30' front maximum setback would not apply. Rev 5. Comment Addressed. Obey are not physically connected, then a portion of the proposed sanctuary would need to meet the 30' maximum setback. 3. [Comment] On sheet 2, under the vicinity map, revise the square footages provided for proposed building 1 & 2 to match the revised square footages listed on the structures. Rev 5. Comment Addressed. 4. [Comment] The Virginia Department of Health (VDH)PE Construction Permit dated Aug 20, 2015 references "this permit expires on February 18, 2017". Based on the duration of the site plan review it is advisable that the applicant contact VDH and have 1 this permit extended. Rev 5. Pending VDH review/approval, comments pending. 5. [Comments Prior to final site plan approval the required easement over the stormwater management facility shall be platted, recorded, and the site plan provided with recordation information for the easement. If you have any questions about the above comments please feel free to contact me. Below I have provided comments from the various Site Plan Committee (SRC)reviewers. Prior to final site plan approval their comments shall have been adequately addressed. Building Inspections—KeithHuckstep . • . `• I. No objections . . Fire and Rescue—Robbie Gilmer I. No objections Engineering—Bobby Jocz Comments on plans dated 3/6/17 1)Site Topography should be field verified by designer within the last year. Please provide date of field verification {18-32.6.2}. 2)Site distance profiles should be provided in addition to site distances provided on plan views. In addition,provide a site distance assessment for the entrance on Earlysville Forest Drive. 3)Provide topography and critical slopes overlay on existing conditions sheet {18-32.5.2}. 4)Drainage calculations should be provided for proposed stormsewer as part of a drainage plan. Drainage plans can be provided as part of the site plan and should include: a.Drainage area maps b.Existing and proposed stormsewer(labeled, matching profiles) c.Inlet flow calculations d.Hydraulic Grade Line [HGL] analysis e.Pipe capacity analysis for 2 & 10 year storms f.Stormwater system Profiles g.Calculations for any stormwater drainage channels/ditches 5)Grading plan does not show proposed contours. Please correct 6)Site plan should not include Erosion and Sediment control plan,please separate this from the grading plan. E&S plan should be submitted as part of the WPO plan (see following comment). 7) A VSMP permit will be required for approval. WPO (Stormwater Management)plan must be approved before providing VSMP permit and final site plan approval. See Albemarle County Code CH 17 sec 401-405, 500-501 for more details on WPO plan requirements. 8) Stop signs should be provided at site entrances. 9) VDOT approval will be needed for proposed site entrances. VDOT—Justin Deel -Previously no objection • Health Department—Joshua Kirtley Pending review comments, once recieved they shall be provided to the applicant. In accord with the provisions of Section 32.4.3.5 of Chapter 18 of the Code if the developer fails to submit a revised site plan to address all of the requirements within six (6)months after the date of this letter the application shall be deemed to have been voluntarily withdrawn by the developer. 2 If you have any questions about the comments please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Christopher P. Perez Senior Planner 434.296.5832 ext. 3443 3 t' sties COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road,North Wing • Charlottesville,Virginia 22902-4596 Phone(434) 296-5832 Fax(434)972-4126 September 14, 2016 Ed Blackwell 566 East Market Street • Harrisonburg VA 22801 RE: SDP-201300056 Rivanna Community Church—Major Site Plan Amendment Mr. Blackwell: Your Major Amendment application has been reviewed. In front of each comment staff has provided references to provisions of Chapter 18 of the Code of the County of Albemarle. The Code is kept up to date by the County Attorney's office. The Code may found on the County Attorney's website which may be found under"Departments and Services" at Albemarle.org. In order for the amended site plan to be approved the following revisions are required: 1. [32.5.2n] Existing and proposed improvements. Provide an additional sheet in the site plan that depicts the final layout of the site. Please assure this sheet is void of existing conditions which are to be removed, as the multiple layers and various hatching styles make it extremely difficult to tell what the final product is to be. On this sheet clearly label and dimension all existing and proposed improvements. 2. [32.5.2(a), 21.7,4.20] Setbacks. Previously it was clear that both of the proposed buildings physically connected to the existing buildings onsite, which allowed the proposal to be counted as an addition to the existing buildings, thus causing the new 30' front maximum setback not to apply. However, as revised it is unclear that the proposed structures actually connect to the existing structures. Clearly label all building walls and roof overhangs. If the existing and proposed buildings physically connect (even by a shared roof), then the 30' front maximum setback would not apply.Ifthey are not physically connected, then a portion of the proposed sanctuary would need to meet the 30' maximum setback. 3. [Comment] On sheet 2,under the vicinity map, revise the square footages provided for proposed building 1 &2 to match the revised square footages listed on the structures. 4. [Comment] The Virginia Department of Health (VDH) PE Construction Permit dated Aug 20, 2015 references "this permit expires on February 18, 2017". Based on the duration of the site plan review it is advisable that the applicant contact VDH and have this permit extended. If you have any questions about the above comments please feel free to contact me. Below I have provided comments from the various Site Plan Committee(SRC) reviewers. Prior to final site plan approval their comments shall have been adequately addressed. Building Inspections—Jay Schlothauer 1. Provide two barrier-free parking spaces,with associated striped access aisle and curb cut, in the parking lot on the east side of the proposed sanctuary. One of these spaces must be van- accessible. Fire and Rescue—Robbie Gilmer - 1. Please add a note "Knox Box required, please contact the Albemarle County Fire Marshal Office for location." Engineering—Max Greene See attached comments dated 7-11-16 • VDOT—Justin Deel -No objection(see attached) Health Department—Joshua Ridley -Previously received approval on Aug 20, 2015 (see attached) In accord with the provisions of Section 32.4.3.5 of Chapter 18 of the Code if the developer fails to submit a revised site plan to address all of the requirements within six (6) months after the date of this letter the application shall be deemed to have been voluntarily withdrawn by the developer. If you have any questions about the comments please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Christopher P. Perez Senior Planner 434.296.5832 ext. 3443 2 • • ef.4. ; u7ntt� COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road,Room 227 Charlottesville,Virginia 22902-4596 Phone(434)296-5832 Fax(434)972-4126 Project: Rivanna Community Church-Major SDP201300056 Plan preparer: Blackwell Engineering,PLC [fax 540-434-7604] Owner or rep.: Steve&Kathy Hood et als Rivanna Community Church Plan received date: 5 December 2014 Rev. 27 July 2015 (Rev.20 June 2016) Date of comments: 27 January 2015 7 August 2105 11 July 2016 Reviewer: Max Greene The Major Site Plan (SDP201300056)submitted 20 June 2016 has received Engineering Review and does not appear to meet Albemarle County minimum checklist items for approval. Please adequately address the following comments for fmal approval: A.Road and drainage plans 1. VDOT has no objection to.the change in site usage and entrance design geometry. B.VSMP plans: I. VSMP Plans will need to be submitted for review. [17-302] The link to the application forms: Intrthwww:afbcmarle.org/upload/images/fonns center/departments/Community Development/forms/Engineering a nd-WPO-Fonnsh4Tlbemarle County VSMP Letter 07-08-2014.pdf http://www:albemarlemerg/upload/images/forms center/departments/Community Development/forms/Engineering a nd-WP&-Forms/WPO&VSMP Virginia Stonnwater Management Program Application.pdf VSMP plans have been submitted for review and are County Number WPO201500051. Please see WP0201500051 for comments and approval. VSMP plans has been deemed voluntarily withdrawn by the owner per County Code 17- 411.B for failure to resubmit plans addressing previous comments within the 6 month timeline. A new plan and fee will be required for review. The site plan cannot be approved until the VSMP plan has received approval. The VSMP plan will require a plat and deed recorded for the shared SWM facility prior to final VSMP plan approval. C.Previous uncompleted comments by Michael Koslow: 1. Please show the location, elevation and datum for topography. Existing site topography will be at least field verified and certified on the plan as to accuracy. Comment appears adequately addressed at this time. 2. SWM easement is required around the basin. Comment does not appear adequately addressed at this time. Plan cannot be approved without adequate easements in place to protect the existence of the SWM facility. A recorded plat and deed are require for the shared SWM facility prior to final VSMP Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 2 approval. 3. Water line crossing is not shown on SWM pipe profile. Comment has been partially addressed. The depth of pipes are not indicated on the profile sheet, Clearance of pipes could not be verified for design approval. Contractor will be responsible for actual location and recordation D.Site plan: 4. Parking islands are required to separate the parking from travel ways. (County Code 18- 4.12.15.f)Moderate volume commercial entrance off Earlysville Forest Drive needs islands along parking spaces. Once these comments have been addressed,please submit 2 copies of the revised plans, calculations, and narratives to Current Development Engineering. Current Development Engineering is available from 2:30-4 PM on Thursdays to discuss these review comments. Please contact Max Greene at 434-296-5832 ext. 3283 or email mgreenena,albemarle.org to schedule an appointment. File:CDDE4_MRG_SDP_Review_Rivanna Community Church.doc 4 J, COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION t601 Oranga Road Culpeper,Virginia 2270t Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E. Commissioner July 6, 2016 County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Attn: Christopher Perez Re: Rivanna Community Church —Major Site Plan Amendment SDP-2013-00056 �f Review#4 �� �; �J 1'u```� Dear Mr. Perez: The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use Section, has reviewed the above referenced plan as submitted by Blackwell Engineering, PLC, most recently revised 28 August 2015, and finds it to be generally acceptable. Upon submission of the appropriate signed and sealed approval copies this office will perform a final review and, if acceptable, sign the plans. Please allow for this office to obtain two signature copies. A VDOT Land Use Permit will be required prior to any work within the right-of-way. The owner/developer must contact the Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use Section at (434)422-9399 for information pertaining to this process. If further information is desired please contact Justin Deel at (434) 422-9894. Sincerely, Po, Q., 1 Adam J. Moore, P.E. Area Land Use Engineer Charlottesville Residency VirginiaDOT.org WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING Page I of 3 VIRGINIA Albemarle County Health Department • I � I DEPARTMENT PO BOX 7546 VA 22906 OF HEALTH Charlottesville,4)97619 Voice (434)9.724219 Voice Protecting You and Your Environment 972.4310 Fax PE Construction Permit August 20,2015 Rivanna Community Church 601 Earlysvillc Green Earlysville,VA 22936 RE: Site Address: 601 Earlysvillc Green;Earlysvillc,VA 22936 • Tax Map: 31-32 1DID: 101-15-0347 Reserve: reserve area provided System Capacity: Non-Residential, 1250 gallons per day(Flow Equalized to 650 gpd) Dear Rivanna`Community Church : This letter and the attached drawings,specifications,and calculations (35 pages)dated July'28, 20.15,constitute your permit to install asewage disposal•Syslern on the property referenced'above.Your application fora permit was submitted pursuant to.§32.1-163.5 of the Code of Virginia,Which requires the Health Department to accept private soil evaluations and.designs from an Onsite Soil Evaluator (OSE)or a Professional Engineer working in,consultation with an OSE for residential development. VDU is not required to perform a field check to verify•the private evaluations of OSEs or PEs and such a field check may not have been-conducted for the issuance of this permit. The soil absorption area("site"),sewage system design,has been certified by Richard L. Blackwell,III PE-as substantially complying with the Board of Health's_regulations (and local ordinances if the locality has authorized the,local health,department to accept private evaluations for, compliancenith locafordinances). This permit is'issued in reliance upon that certification. VDI-I hereby. recognizes that the soil and site conditions acknowledged by this permit.are suitable for the installation of, an',onsite sewage system. The attached pint shows the,approved area forthe sewage disposal system; there are additional records on file with the Albemarle County Health Department pertaining to this permit, including the Site and Soil Evaluation Report.This construction permit is null and void if any substantial physical change in the soil or site conditions occurs where a sewage disposal system is to be located. If modifications or revisions are necessary between now and when you construct your dwelling, please contact the OSE/PE who performed the evaluation and design on which this,permit is based. Should revisions be necessary during,construction,your contractor should consult with the OSE/PE that submitted the sitecvaluatioh or site evaluation and design.The OSE/PE is authorized to make minor' adjustments in the location or design of the system at the time of construction provided adequate documentation is provided to the Albemarle County Health Department. The OSE/PE that submitted the certified design for this permit is required to conduct a final inspection of this sewage system when it is installed and to submit an inspection report and completion statement.As the owner,you are responsible for giving reasonable notice to the OSE/PE of the need for a final inspection. if the designer is unable to perform the required inspection,you may provide an inspection report and Tax Map/GPIN: 31-32• Page'2 of 3 HDID: 101-15-0347 completion statement executed by another OSE/PE.The Albemarle County Health Department is not required to inspect the installation but may perform an inspection at its sole discretion .No part of this installation shall be covered until it has been inspected by the OSE/PE as noted herein.The sewage system may not be placed into operation until you have obtained an'Operation Permit from the Albemarle County Health Department. This Construction Permit is null and void if conditions arc changed from those shown on your application or if conditions are changed front those shown on the Site aiid Soil Evaluation Report and the attached construction drawings, specifications,and calculations. VDH may revoke or m odifyany permit if,at a later date;it finds that the site and soil conditions and/or design do not substantially damply With the:Sewage Handling and Disposal Regulations,.12 VAC-5'-610-20 et seq.,or if the system.would threaten public health or the environment. This permit approval has been issued in accordance with applicable regulations'based,on the information and materials provided atthe.'time of application. There maybe other local, state,or federal laws or regulations,that-apply to the proposed construction of this onsite sewage system..'The owner is responsible at all times for complying with all applicable local,state, and federal laws and_regulations.If you have any questions, please contact mc. This permit expires on February. 18,2017.This perinit istiot transferable to-another owner Or locatioh. Sincerely, ,, Josh Kirtley E_nvifontnental Health Technical Specialist Albemarle County Health Department Cc: Blackwell, Richard L.,Ill PE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 April 11, 2017 Ed Blackwell 566 East Market Street Harrisonburg VA 22801 RE: SDP -201300056 Rivanna Community Church — Major Site Plan Amendment Mr. Blackwell: Your Major Amendment application has been reviewed. In front of each comment staff has provided references to provisions of Chapter 18 of the Code of the County of Albemarle. The Code is kept up to date by the County Attorney's office. The Code may found on the County Attorney's website which may be found under "Departments and Services" at Albemarle.org. In order for the amended site plan to be approved the following revisions are required: 1. [32.5.2n] Existing and proposed improvements. Provide an additional sheet in the site plan that depicts the final layout of the site. Please assure this sheet is void of existing conditions which are to be removed, as the multiple layers and various hatching styles make it extremely difficult to tell what the final product is to be. On this sheet clearly label and dimension all existing and proposed improvements. Rev 5. Comment Addressed. 2. [32.5.2(a), 21.7, 4.201 Setbacks. Previously it was clear that both of the proposed buildings physically connected to the existing buildings onsite, which allowed the proposal to be counted as an addition to the existing buildings, thus causing the new 30' front maximum setback not to apply. However, as revised it is unclear that the proposed structures actually connect to the existing structures. Clearly label all building walls and roof overhangs. Rev 5. Comment Addressed. If the existing and proposed buildings physically connect (even by a shared roof), then the 30' front maximum setback would not apply. Rev 5. Comment Addressed. If they are not physically connected, then a portion of the proposed sanctuary would need to meet the 30' maximum setback. 3. [Comment] On sheet 2, under the vicinity map, revise the square footages provided for proposed building 1 & 2 to match the revised square footages listed on the structures. Rev 5. Comment Addressed. 4. [Comment] The Virginia Department of Health (VDH) PE Construction Permit dated Aug 20, 2015 references "this permit expires on February 18, 2017 ". Based on the duration of the site plan review it is advisable that the applicant contact VDH and have this permit extended. Rev 5. Pending VDH review/approval, comments pending. 5. [Comment] Prior to final site plan approval the required easement over the stormwater management facility shall be platted, recorded, and the site plan provided with recordation information for the easement. If you have any questions about the above comments please feel free to contact me. Below I have provided comments from the various Site Plan Committee (SRC) reviewers. Prior to final site plan approval their comments shall have been adequately addressed. Engineering — Bobby Jocz Comments on plans dated 3/6/17 I)Site Topography should be field verified by designer within the last year. Please provide date of field verification 118-32.6.21. 2)Site distance profiles should be provided in addition to site distances provided on plan views. In addition, provide a site distance assessment for the entrance on Earlysville Forest Drive. 3)Provide topography and critical slopes overlay on existing conditions sheet {18-32.5.2}. 4)Drainage calculations should be provided for proposed stormsewer as part of a drainage plan. Drainage plans can be provided as part of the site plan and should include: a.Drainage area maps b.Existing and proposed stormsewer (labeled, matching profiles) c.Inlet flow calculations d.Hydraulic Grade Line [HGL] analysis e.Pipe capacity analysis for 2 & 10 year storms f.Stormwater system Profiles g.Calculations for any stormwater drainage channels/ditches 5)Grading plan does not show proposed contours. Please correct 6)Site plan should not include Erosion and Sediment control plan, please separate this from the grading plan. E&S plan should be submitted as part of the WPO plan (see following comment). 7) A VSMP permit will be required for approval. WPO (Stormwater Management) plan must be approved before providing VSMP permit and final site plan approval. See Albemarle County Code CH 17 sec 401-405, 500-501 for more details on WPO plan requirements. 8) Stop signs should be provided at site entrances. 9) VDOT approval will be needed for proposed site entrances. Health Department — Joshua Kirtley Pending review comments, once recieved they shall be provided to the applicant. In accord with the provisions of Section 32.4.3.5 of Chapter 18 of the Code if the developer fails to submit a revised site plan to address all of the requirements within six (6) months after the date of this letter the application shall be deemed to have been voluntarily withdrawn by the developer. If you have any questions about the comments please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Christopher P. Perez Senior Planner 434.296.5832 ext. 3443 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 March 1, 2018 Ed Blackwell 566 East Market Street Harrisonburg VA 22801 RE: SDP -201300056 Rivanna Community Church — Major Site Plan Amendment Mr. Blackwell: Your Major Amendment application has been reviewed. In front of each comment staff has provided references to provisions of Chapter 18 of the Code of the County of Albemarle. The Code is kept up to date by the County Attorney's office. The Code may found on the County Attorney's website which may be found under "Departments and Services" at Albemarle.org. In order for the amended site plan to be approved the following revisions are required: [32.5.2n] Existing and proposed improvements. Provide an additional sheet in the site plan that depicts the final layout of the site. Please assure this sheet is void of existing conditions which are to be removed, as the multiple layers and various hatching styles make it extremely difficult to tell what the final product is to be. On this sheet clearly label and dimension all existing and proposed improvements. Rev 5. Comment Addressed. 2. 132.5.2(a), 21.7, 4.201 Setbacks. Previously it was clear that both of the proposed buildings physically connected to the existing buildings onsite, which allowed the proposal to be counted as an addition to the existing buildings, thus causing the new 30' front maximum setback not to apply. However, as revised it is unclear that the proposed structures actually connect to the existing structures. Clearly label all building walls and roof overhangs. Rev 5. Comment Addressed. If the existing and proposed buildings physically connect (even by a shared roof), then the 30' front maximum setback would not apply. Rev 5. Comment Addressed. If they are not physically connected, then a portion of the proposed sanctuary would need to meet the 30' maximum setback. 3. [Comment] On sheet 2, under the vicinity map, revise the square footages provided for proposed building 1 & 2 to match the revised square footages listed on the structures. Rev 5. Comment Addressed. 4. [Comment] The Virginia Department of Health (VDH) PE Construction Permit dated Aug 20, 2015 references "this permit expires on February 18, 2017 ". Based on the duration of the site plan review it is advisable that the applicant contact VDH and have this permit extended. Rev 5. Approved. 5. [Comment] Prior to final site plan approval the required easement over the stormwater management facility shall be platted, recorded, and the site plan provided with recordation information for the easement. Rev 5. Comment still relavent. 6. [Comment] Speaking to Engineering comment #4 — during my review, I actually thought that bumper blocks were provided; however, this appears to truly be a dashed line across the face of the curb. Thus Engineering's comment about the bumper blocks is legit and shall be adequately addressed to adhere to the ordinance. If you have any questions about the above comments please feel free to contact me. Below I have provided comments from the various Site Plan Committee (SRC) reviewers. Prior to final site plan approval their comments shall have been adequately addressed. Engineering — Bobby Jocz Comments on plans dated 11/21/3017 1. VSMP approval must occur prior to Final Site Plan Approval. 2. Topography should be field verified by designer within the past year. Please provide date of field verification within the previous 12 months. 3. Ensure legend includes all symbols/abbreviations. 4. Sidewalks abutting parking must be 6' wide, or bumper blocks must be provided. 5. Remove elements from grading plan (Sheet 4) which are to be demolished prior to site improvements. 6. Flairs at proposed entrance must have a minimum 25' radius. 7. Pond outlet/dam/spillway modification details (sheet 6) should be included in the VSMP plan and not the site plan. 8. Easement surrounding stormwater facility should be labeled as "SWM facility easement" In accord with the provisions of Section 32.4.3.5 of Chapter 18 of the Code if the developer fails to submit a revised site plan to address all of the requirements within six (6) months after the date of this letter the application shall be deemed to have been voluntarily withdrawn by the developer. If you have any questions about the comments please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Christopher P. Perez Senior Planner 434.296.5832 ext. 3443 Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E. Commissioner COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1601 Orange Road Culpeper Virginia 22701 January 11, 2018 County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Attn: Christopher Perez Re: Rivanna Community Church — Major Site Plan Amendment SDP -2013-00055 Review #5 Dear Mr. Perez: The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use Section, has reviewed the above referenced plan as submitted by Blackwell Engineering, PLC, most recently revised 21 November 2017, and finds it to be generally acceptable. If further information is desired please contact Justin Dee] at (434) 422-9894. A VDOT Land Use Permit will be required prior to any work within the right-of-way. The owner/developer must contact the Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use Section at (434) 422-9399 for information pertaining to this process. Sincerely, C; lup— Adam J. M ore, P.E. Area Land Use Engineer Charlottesville Residency VirginiaDOT.org WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING