The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSDP201600017 Correspondence Initial Site Plan 2016-08-01 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE O AL.% Department Community Development ,r!s1 Planning Services Division v,�� 401 McIntire Road North Wing•Charlottesville,Virginia 22902-4596 Phone: (434)296-5823 • Fax: (434)972-4035 Transmittal From: JT Newberry Date: 08/24/16 Asti. Gr 0 —6111,1111111111111!in. 0 •b�tc4io.. 0 0 0 0 0 0 JOB#/FILE NAME:SP-2016-0007 Chapman Grove Baptist Church andariallialii 11111111111111.11111110 We are sending you the following items: ® Attached or [' Under separate cover ❑ Copy of Letter ❑ Prints ® Plans ❑ Plats Specifications ❑ Other # of Date Description Copies 1 6/20/16 Sheets SP1 (Site Plan), A-1 (Phasing Plan) 1 8/1/16 Tier 3 Groundwater Assessment These are transmitted as checked below: ® For review and comments ® For approval ❑ Other Remarks: Please see the enclosed correspondence from the applicant.John Anderson required the Tier 3 report as part of his review of the Major Amendment for this site (SDP201600021). Please let me know if Engineering requests any changes to the concept plan/amendment plan as a result of the information shown in the Tier 3 report. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the special use permit to the Board of Supervisors with Condition #4 being that "No building permit shall be approved without approval from the Virginia Department of Health." Comments are due in City View or email by: 9/16/16 Signature: JT Newberry Johnathan Newberry From: Stephen von Storch <svonstorch@s-vs.com> Sent: Tuesday,August 23, 2016 10:45 AM To: Johnathan Newberry Cc: Gale Brown Subject: FW:tier 3 chapman groves Attachments: Chapman Groves Baptist Church Tier 3 assessment v 8 1 16.pdf JT It has been hectic here and I want to be sure I had forwarded this to you. As Gooch predicted we are OK for Phase One with work needed for Phase Two. Steve From: olddomeng@ntelos.net [mailto:olddomeng@ntelos.net] Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 8:42 AM To: Stephen von Storch Subject: RE: tier 3 chapman groves Stephen, Attached is Tier 3 Report. Just a couple notes for you: Unless they want to do a daycare or school they should not be classified as a "public water system". With that being said the well is in a horrible place (without a lot of good options for a new well). We are recommending some testing be done on the well to make sure the water quality is good and that the water quantity is verified before phase 2. Doesn't look like septic needs to be changed till phase 2. It will be an engineered system with time dosing for sure for phase 2. I tried to write the tier 3 so it would be applicable for both phase 1 and phase 2. We might have to write an update memo. Best, Mike On Fri, 29 Jul 2016 20:13:22 +0000, Stephen von Storch<svonstorch@s-vs.com>wrote: 1 411101 [01111) Sounds good. Have a good weekend. Original Message From: olddomeng@ntelos.net [mailto:olddomeng@ntelos.net] Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 4:04 PM To: Stephen von Storch Subject: tier 3 chapman groves Stephen, We are in the process of proofreading the tier 3 for Chapman groves. It will go out to you on Monday. Typically we send pdfs to the agent who then submits it to the engineering department. After engineering review and revision we print out hard copies for all parties. Is this OK? Best, Mike Craun Old Dominion Engineering 2 Johnathan Newberry From: Amelia McCulley Sent: Friday, May 13, 2016 12:40 PM To: Johnathan Newberry; David Benish; Elaine Echols Cc: Ron Higgins; Francis MacCall; Rebecca Ragsdale Subject: RE: HTC area C Bojangles/Code of Development Just to provide some quick info. The path system seems to be an essential element. If we feel some type of deck or overlook is important—we can ask them to do it in a more public access area between the path and the pond. The pond is an amenity. While decks overlooking the pond (pong) are mentioned, a deck attached to a restaurant will be limited to the restaurant customers. That doesn't seem to serve the general public. From:Johnathan Newberry Sent:Thursday, May 12, 2016 6:24 PM To: David Benish<DBENISH@albemarle.org>; Elaine Echols<EECHOLS@albemarle.org> Cc:Amelia McCulley<AMCCULLE@albemarle.org>; Ron Higgins<rhiggins@albemarle.org>; Francis MacCall <FMACCALL@albemarle.org>; Rebecca Ragsdale<rragsdale@albemarle.org> Subject: RE: HTC area C Bojangles/Code of Development David and Elaine, Amelia, Ron, Francis and I reviewed the relevant information this afternoon and did not find the deck to be an essential element. We can document the Zoning Division's full rationale for the file (if necessary), but I do agree with their assessment that it is not an essential element. Unless we need to discuss it further, I'll get back to Justin by providing the initial site plan approval letter.The deadline to take an action is tomorrow. J.T. Newberry Planner County of Albemarle, Planning Division 434-296-5832, ext. 3270 From:Amelia McCulley Sent:Thursday, May 12,2016 2:48 PM To:Johnathan Newberry<inewberry@albemarle.org> Subject: RE: HTC area C Bojangles/Code of Development Come on down before 5. From:Johnathan Newberry Sent:Thursday, May 12, 2016 1:44 PM To:Amelia McCulley<AMCCULLE@albemarle.org> Cc: Ron Higgins<rhiggins@albemarle.org>; Francis MacCall<FMACCALL@albemarle.org>; David Benish <DBENISH@albemarle.org>; Elaine Echols<EECHOLS@albemarle.org> Subject: RE: HTC area C Bojangles/Code of Development Amelia, 1 (WO 101111111) I just met with David and Elaine. Earlier, I met with Elaine and Ron.The current consensus is that the deck is an essential element of the plan. I'd like to meet with you to share the discussion up to this point and complete the "as determined by the Zoning Administrator and Director of Planning" loop for these types of questions. Are you available this afternoon? J.T. From:Amelia McCulley Sent:Thursday, May 12, 2016 1:37 PM To: Francis MacCall<FMACCALL@albemarle.org> Cc: Ron Higgins<rhiggins@albemarle.org>;Johnathan Newberry<inewberrv@albemarle.org> Subject: Re: HTC area C Bojangles/Code of Development Can someone get back to Justin,once the decision is made? Let me know if you need anything from me-otherwise, I will assume you all have this. Sent from my iPad On May 12,2016,at 1:12 PM, Francis MacCall<FMACCALL@albemarle.org>wrote: Ron and JT, I believe I said something different the other day (agreeing that a deck was needed) but after seeing this email from Justin and remembering the evaluation of this when they proposed the Bojangles I believe that they do not need to do the deck per the narrative in the COD. I apologize for any confusion. Here is my take on this. The conflict lies in the uses permitted per the table in the COD and what the narrative states. For this block there are uses permitted other than a restaurant. This was a discussion that Sarah and I did have about permitting Bojangles to even consider going there with the SP (at that time)for the drive though. This was confusing at that time and still is. We determined that the narrative was not intended to limit uses of the block especially when the table listed multiple uses other than a casual dining restaurant(which the table does not even list that way). So, we decided that even though the narrative says"will accommodate a casual dining restaurant" a fast food restaurant would be permitted there and that the plans that were reviewed at the time of the SP review I do not believe include the"deck" area and we were fine with that. If a casual dining restaurant were proposed like the Bob Evans then we would look for what the narrative describes but a fast food restaurant is different, then how to you require that? We can discuss further as needed. Francis From: Ron Higgins Sent:Thursday, May 12, 2016 11:16 AM To:Amelia McCulley<AMCCULLE@albemarle.org>; Francis MacCall<FMACCALL@albemarle.org> Cc:Johnathan Newberry<jnewberry@albemarle.org> Subject: RE: HTC area C Bojangles/Code of Development 2 Yes. J.T. has been processing this plan and we talked about the "deck aacrommodation". At my suggestion, he checked the Bob Evans site plan and it showed such a deck. We concluded that this has to be addressed somehow, but I am not sure if there is room for interpretation in the word "accommodated". From:Amelia McCulley Sent:Thursday, May 12, 2016 11:09 AM To: Francis MacCall<FMACCALL@albemarle.org>; Ron Higgins<rhiggins@albemarle.org> Subject: FW: HTC area C Bojangles/Code of Development Know anything about this? From:Justin Shimp [mailto:iustin@shimp-engineering.com] Sent:Thursday, May 12, 2016 9:17 AM To:Amelia McCulley<AMCCULLE@albemarle.org> Subject: HTC area C Bojangles/Code of Development Hi Amelia, I understand you are meeting with JT a little later today about some issues with compliance with the Code of Development. I've read through that code in detail and it seems to me that it is one of those codes that was written in a time that we had a bit too much narrative for our own good. I think JT's concern is that the code and the plan references a deck which is supposed to be "accommodated" on block 1, lot 1. While I can't deny that is in the text, I'm not sure that accommodate is the same as require? If it was, would we also be required to provide a casual dining restaurant? Likewise the rest of block one is"mid- size retail" are those enforceable?Was the hotel required to obtain a variation to be a hotel not a mid size retailer?A car wash is permitted in block 1,would that be required to have a deck?You see where I'm going with this? Basically it seems to me that the code of development contains some idea's but they are not necessarily compatible with the table of permitted uses and might not be sufficiently clear to be enforceable. As a side note, we got all the way through the PC and within a week of the BOS public hearing with the same layout and never heard a peep about a required deck/etc. If that was to be required it would have been good to know then as we could have run the variation (assuming one were required)with the SP. Is it possible that the reviewer of that plan (Sarah Baldwin) reviewed this issue and determined that the deck was not required? Let me know your thoughts, I know you've got to enforce that crazy code of development but I guess I don't read the deck as a requirement but rather encouragement/leaving the opportunity to accommodate. Thanks! Justin M. Shimp, P.E. President Shimp Engineering, P.C. 201 E. Main Street,Suite M 3 (iNid '11111111) Charlottesville VA 22902 E:Justin@shimp-engineering.com P: 434-953-6116(Direct) P:434-207-8086(Office) F:804-302-7997 4