Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201800003 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2018-07-02Phone 434-296-5832 ALg��9� k.r r �'IRGSNlP` County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, VA, 22902 Memorandum To: Justin Shimp (Justin(a-)shimp-engineering.com) From: Paty Saternye, Senior Planner Division: Planning Date: March 12, 2018 Rev. 1: July 2, 2018 Subiect: SDP 201800003 Hansen Road Church — Final Site Plan Fax 434-972-4126 The County of Albemarle Planning Division will recommend approval of the plan referenced above once the following comments have been satisfactorily addressed (The following comments are those that have been identified at this time. Additional comments or conditions may be added or eliminated based on further review.): [Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference, which is to the Subdivision/Zoning Ordinances unless otherwise specified.] Initial Site Plan Comments (from conditional approval letter dated 6/1/17): 1. A site plan meeting all the requirements of section 32.6 of Chapter 18 of the Code. FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. See comments below. Rev. 1: Comment not vet fully addressed. 2. A site plan meeting all the requirements of ZMA1998-20 & ZMA2002-8. FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. See comments below. Rev. 1: Comment not vet fully addressed. 3. [ZMA 2002-8 Modification B] Reduce the square footage of office space to below that specified in ZMA2002-8. The portion of the Application Plan for ZMA1998-20 located generally east of Hansen Road, and comprised of the area designated at "Office Space #5 — 45,0000 SQ FT", was amended with ZMA2002- 8 to reduce the permitted square footage of office space to 20,000 square feet. This plan shows the square footage of office uses at either of 34,000 or 35,840 square feet, both of which do not meet the ZMA proffer limitation. UPDATED: ZMA2002-8 showed on the revised application plan "Office Space #5 — 20,0000 SQ FT". 20,000 SQ FT is the maximum total square footage allowed on the site of any use based on that rezoning, including unfinished basements. Reduce the proposed total square footage of uses to 20,000 or less. Any square footage above 20,000 will require an amendment to the rezoning and a new initial site plan. The amendment to the rezoning would have to be approved prior to the new initial site plan being approved. FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. Although the "Proposed Use" on the coversheet, and the building labels on the other sheets, specify a GFA of 19,180 square feet there are dashed lines both within the building and on the exterior of the north corner of the building that are not labeled as to what they represent. It appears that a future expansion of the building that is not specified in the provided notes and labels is shown and would increase the square footage of the building beyond the allowed 20,000 square feet of use. Either remove these dashed lines or specify what they represent and ensure that they do not represent any additional building area that would bring the total area within the building to over the allowed 20,000 square feet. Rev. 1: Comment not vet fully addressed. The response to the comment only addressed the terrace and not the dashed line on the inside of the building, which may represent a mezzanine. Ensure that all square footage of the building is include in the proposed use information on the coversheet and that the total is not above 20,000 square feet, which is the limit set by the ZMA. With two or more stories at 11,402 square feet the building would be above 20,000 square feet. Page 1 of 14 4. UPDATE: [NEW COMMENT] An early grading plan cannot be approved until the requirements of proffer #1 of ZMA-98-20 Pantops PD-MC have been met. FINAL: Comment not addressed. See comments below in reference to the proffers. Rev. 1: Comment not yet fully addressed. No response included in the comment response letter. An early grading plan cannot be approved until the requirements of proffer #1 of ZMA-98-20 Pantops PD-MC have been met. 5. [ZMA 1998-20 Requirement 1] A landscape plan providing full screening of all buildings and parking areas visible from Monticello shall be provided as a condition of site plan approval for all development. The landscaping plan may preserve existing trees or provide plantings which shall provide the necessary screening within 15 years. Note that this applies to the currently submitted site plan and any impact this site plan would have on the existing screening of the previously developed portions of the PD-MC development. The removal of the existing trees on this site will have a major impact on the visibility of the Shopping Center portion of the PD-MC from Monticello. Also note that there is a clarification and guideline for this ZMA proffer dated 1/19/2001 (Landscape Plans for the entire Pantops PD-MC zoned by ZMA 98-20). FINAL: Comment not addressed. A landscape plan providing full screening of all buildings AND parking areas visible from Monticello shall be provided as a condition of site plan approval for all development. Note that this applies to the currently submitted site plan and any impact this site plan would have on the existing screening of the previously developed portions of the PD-MC development. The landscaping plan may preserve existing trees or provide plantings which shall provide the necessary screening within 15 years. The removal of the existing trees on this site may have an impact on the visibility of the Rivanna Ridge Shopping Center portion of the PD-MC from Monticello. Also note the following things: a) Because of the topography of the site the proposed street trees are unlikely to mitigate the view of the proposed within 15 years of planting. b) The County must approve this landscaping, with input from the Thomas Jefferson Foundation (TJFoundation). c) The1/19/2001 guidelines for this proffer specify the following: i. The goal of "full screening" is not only to fully obscure but to provide the maximum screening through integration within the existing character of the forested slopes within the viewshed of Monticello. ii. The sites should appear as natural as possible after development. This may involve randomly placing trees on a slope rather than having a large mowed area or a staggered row of evergreens. iii. It may also provide for screening evergreen trees to be mixed with deciduous trees so as not to create a "block of green" every winter when the deciduous trees in the naturalized areas surrounding the development drop their leaves. iv. The screening needs to be substantial, but a softer silhouette than the standard, using indigenous trees wherever possible, and scattered in clumps, not in rows. V. Consideration should be given to species that will grow to a substantial size and are disease resistant so that they will survive and integrate into the native habitat. vi. There will be different considerations on each site depending on the acreage of the site, the topography or terrain, the visibility from Monticello, and the surrounding natural microcosm. vii. The height, size, layout and colors used on the buildings to be constructed will also effect the required landscaping. viii. Since cars and other vehicles reflect light and draw attention to one spot in a field of vision, thorough landscaping of parking lots and accessways is also a major consideration. d) Vary the species of internal trees, even more than shown, in order to have a more naturalistic appearance. This is especially needed within the parking areas. e) In order to evaluate compliance with the above guidelines for this proffer provide with the next submission of the site plan architectural plans, architectural renderings, building materials and building color information so that they can be evaluated in reference to the need for landscape screening of the building. These items are already required for the ARB submission, and should be part of what the applicant provides directly to the TJFoundation, but four copies of these materials should also be submitted with the site plan submission as well. f) Submit the items specified in the bullet above, in addition to the site plan, directly to the Thomas Jefferson Foundation (Liz Russell, Irussell@monticello.org) and discuss design strategies with them in reference to meeting this ZMA proffer requirement. Rev. 1: Comment not vet fully addressed. Comment response was only "acknowledged". No architectural plans. architectural renderinas. buildina materials and buildina colors have been Page 2 of 14 submitted to the County for Site Plan review to meet this proffer. Also, separate from the submission of this information for the proffer review, to this date no ARB submission has been made to the County on this final site plan. Please note that a delay in submission to the ARB can delay approval of the project. Address the following: a) TJF review is ongoing. Continue to work with the TJF to resolve their comments. b) Make a submission of the architectural plans, architectural renderings, building materials and building colors with the next submission of the site plan for proffer review. c) Make a full final site plan submittal to ARB including all of the required plans, archtecturals, material, colors, etc. d) Additional trees have been added to the site plan, however it does not appear that building or parking lots are being fully screened from Monticello. The building is approximately 12' higher than the road and almost no plantings have been provided on the slope. See the 1/19/2001 guidelines for this proffer in the "Final:" comment above. 6. [ZMA 1998-20 Requirement 3] All buildings shall be designed to provide rooftop style, treatment and color schemes which assure minimal visual impact on the Monticello viewshed. Assurance of such style, treatment and color scheme shall be a condition of final site plan approval. Such approval may be given by the Director of Planning and Community Development after providing notice to the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation and an opportunity for Foundation comments to be considered. FINAL: Comment not addressed. Address the following: a) Submit plans and graphics directly to the Thomas Jefferson Foundation (Liz Russell, Irussell@monticello.org) and discuss design strategies with them in reference to meeting this ZMA proffer requirement. Rev. 1: Comment not yet fully addressed. TJF review is ongoing. b) The submission packet as submitted to the County does not contain all of the information they will need for review. Any architectural plan, graphics, materials and colors submitted to the Thomas Jefferson Foundation (TJF) should also be submitted to the County for review. Rev. 1: Comment not addressed. No architectural plan, graphics, materials and colors have been submitted to the County for review. c) The approval is from the Directory of Planning and Community Development after comments from the TJF are received. Rev. 1: Comment not yet fully addressed. Once the County has an official approval from the TJF, and the required materials are submitted to the County (see above), the proposed project will be evaluated to see if it meets this proffer. 7. [ZMA 1998-20 Requirement 2] Include in the site plan street trees for the full length of the parcel boundaries on both streets and both sides of the street where road improvements are proposed. A street tree plan providing a visual buffer for Hansen Road and Rolkin Road shall be provided as a condition of site plan approval. Large street trees shall be planted on both sides of such roads in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance and shall be staggered on opposite sides of the road. FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following: a) Provide street trees on the far side of Rolkin Road for the portion of street where improvements are proposed. Seven trees currently exist. Supplement these to meet the 40' on center requirement. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. b) On Rolkin Road the trees on one side of the street should be staggered from those on the other side of the road. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. c) Ensure that all proposed street trees meet the minimum spacing requirements of 40' on center. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. d) Because they are being utilized to meet requirements provide landscape easements for all street trees not on the subject parcel. This would include street trees and any screening trees that will be placed on the Rivanna Ridge property. Rev. 1: Comment not yet fully addressed. Address the following: i. The easement plat submitted for review for this project (SUB2018-85) does not appear to include the proposed landscaping easement shown on Rolkin Road. A plat, deed, and document that creates the perpetual maintenance agreement must be submitted, reviewed, approved, signed & notarized, and recorded prior to the final site plan approval. Page 3 of 14 ii. Until the screening of Rivanna Ridge has been finalized this comment will remain. Any proposed landscaping that is not on the subject parcel must be in a landscape easement and maintained in perpetuity. e) Clarify why there are islands between the parallel parking spaces if they are not to be utilized to meet the street tree requirements. Also, if they are to remain, provide existing documentation that shows the right of the applicant to add the islands to the streets or provide new documentation that will provide that right. This documentation will be reviewed by planning and the County Attorney's office. The site plan will not be approved until all necessary rights and agreements are approved by the County Attorney's office, signed, notarized and recorded. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. 8. [ZMA 1998-20 Requirement 4] Provide a highlighted copy of the Four Party Road Improvement Agreement dated 10/20/1998. Ensure that the highlights point out any reference to the subject parcel and the responsibilities of its owners for private road improvements. Include the deed book and page number for this agreement in a note on the site plan. FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. The Four Party Road Improvement Agreement was submitted and evaluated. This agreement does not appear to cover maintenance of the roads and does not cover adding landscaping, islands for landscaping, or parking to the roads. Therefore it appears that this agreement does not provide sufficient rights for all improvements to the roads currently being shown in the site plan. Address the following: a) Submit any existing or proposed maintenance agreement that provides maintenance for ALL of the existing and proposed improvements to the private streets. Rev. 1: Comment not yet fully addressed. Proposed landscape islands are no longer shown in the roads but road improvements and landscaping are still proposed within the road easements for both Rolkin Road and Hansen Road. An existing declaration was submitted that is dated April 1, 2004 that includes road maintenance for a portion of Rolkin Road. However, based on the plat the declaration refers to (Deed Book 2731 PG 1) it does not include Hansen Road and only includes the portion or Rolkin Road from Route 250 to lust past Abbey Road. Submit either existing or proposed declarations, supplemental declarations and plats that cover the portions of the roads that are adjacent to this property and in which these improvements are proposed for review. Before submission highlight the portions of the documents that specify the maintenance requirements specified in the County's "Review of Private Improvement Maintenance Instrument" checklist. b) Submit any existing or proposed documents and easements that will provide sufficient rights for all of the proposed improvements to be made to the private streets. Rev. 1: Comment not yet fully addressed. See Rev. 1 comment a) above. Before submission of documents showing the rights for the proposed improvements highlight the portions of the documents that specify those rights. c) Submit easements, and deeds of easement, for any changes to the adjoining properties even if the modifications are within the private street access easement. Rev. 1: Comment not yet fully addressed. A landscape easement on the far side of Rolkin Road is now shown in the site plan. Submit an easement plat, and deed of easement, for that landscape easement. With a landscape easement it is also required to have perpetual maintenance agreement for the proposed landscaping. Submit an existing or proposed legal document that meets the required minimums for maintenance of the landscaping as specified in the County's "Review of Private Improvement Maintenance Instrument" checklist. d) Note that any new easement will need to be reviewed as a separate submission and that all deeds associated with those easement should be submitted with them for review. Rev. 1: Comment not yet fully addressed. An easement plat has been submitted and is under review. However, it does not show the proposed landscaping easements and it also does not show easements for all of the utility improvements shown on this site plan. Ensure that on the next submission the site plan and the easement plat both show all required easements. 10. [32.5.2(a)] Include all parcels impacted by this site plan in the Zoning portion of the site data on the cover sheet. Since improvements are shown on both sides of the road on both roads, and the property lines appear to be at the center of the road, then the parcels that include the other side of the road must be included. Page 4 of 14 FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. If trees are to be planted on the Rivanna Ridge Shopping Center property, in order to replace the screening trees being removed with this project, then the Rivanna Ridge parcel information should also be included on the coversheet with the other impacted adjoining parcels. Rev. 1: Comment not vet fully addressed. The screening of Rivanna Ridge, in order to meet the proffers, has not vet been addressed. Therefore, this comment will remain until it is addressed. Address this comment. 11. [32.5.2(a)] Include all owners of parcels impacted by this site plan in the Zoning portion of the site data on the cover sheet. Since improvements are shown on both sides of the road on both roads, and the property lines appear to be at the center of the road, then the owners for the parcels on the other side of the road must be included. FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. If trees are to be planted on the Rivanna Ridge Shopping Center property, in order to replace the screening trees being removed with this project, then the Rivanna Ridge owner information should also be included on the coversheet with the other impacted adjoining parcel owners. Rev. 1: Comment not vet fully addressed. Tax Map Parcel number and owners have been added for the properties across the road from the subject parcel. However, the Rivanna Ridge parcel information and owner have not yet been included. The screening of Rivanna Ridge, in order to meet the proffers, has not vet been addressed. Therefore, this comment will remain until it is addressed. Address this comment. 12. [32.5.2(a)] Include all parcel boundary information. The small straight property line in the northeast corner of the triangular portion of the property does not appear to have any bearing or distance provided. FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. When the boundary information is a distance from the boundary line provide a leader to specify what portion of the boundary line it pertains to. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. 17. [32.5.2(a)] Provide the setback lines, including minimum and maximum, on the site plan sheet. Also, expand the setback information on the coversheet to include the full descriptions of the setbacks. The side and rear setbacks are to more districts than the RA. FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following: a) Ensure that the label for the deed book and page number of "existing access easement" can be read. There are other labels and symbols obscuring the text. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. b) See a comment below that outlines modifications needed to the private street access easement labeling on the site plan. Rev. 1: Comment not addressed. Address the comment specified in comment #51 a). c) Adjust the location of the front setbacks to be measured from the private street easement lines on Hansen Road. It appears it is being measured from the back of the sidewalk, but the sidewalk is within the private street access easement. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. d) fRev. 1: NEW COMMENTI Revise the setback information to clearly specify that the setbacks are measured from the private street easement or the exterior edge of the sidewalk if the sidewalk is outside of the easement. 18. [32.5.2(a)] Revise the building locations so that they meet the setback requirement. At least one building does not appear to be meeting the maximum setback requirements. FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. Revise the building location so that it meets the setback requirement for both road frontages. It appears the setback requirement is not being met on Rolkin Road. Rev. 1: Comment no lonaer specified. Because of the steep slopes alona Rolkin Road. the buildina not meeting the maximum front setback on that street will be allowed (18.4.20(a)(1). 21. [32.5.2(b), 32.5.2(n) & 32.5.2(q)] Revise the Proposed Use, the ITE Trip Count and Parking Schedule information on the coversheet so that they match. The square feet of office building does not appear to be correct in at least one of these three places since they do not match. If the square feet of the buildings in the parking schedule are corrected then update the parking calculations based on the revised building area. FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. If there will be any other use on this site include it in the ITE count and specify it on this site plan. This site plan only shown a church use and is being reviewed only for a church use. Page 5 of 14 Rev. 1: Comment addressed. No other use is specified in this site plan. 22. [32.5.2(b)] Revise the parking schedule to include the percentage of provided parking. Also, include a note that specifies that the proposed parking includes street parking and shared parking alternatives. FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following: a) Include a note in the Parking Schedule area that specifies that the proposed parking includes street parking. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. b) Revise the parking schedule so that is uses the parking requirements for "Religious Assembly Use". The "Religious Assembly Use" calculation replaced the "Church" use calculation. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. c) Provide in the parking calculation the "area of assembly" if it is not the full square footage of the church building and the number of fixed seats in the assembly area. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. d) Include in the parking schedule the number of provided parking spaces and clearly delineate which are on -site parking space and which are on -street parking spaces. Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following: L There are 10 parking spaces along Rolkin Road that are within the required line of sight for the entrance along Rolkin Road. Revised the parking to remove the spaces. ii. The number of spaces specified for the parking on the near side of Rolkin Road is not the number of spaces shown on the plan. Ensure that the number of spaces specified matches those shown on the site plan. e) Update the parking shown and parking specified as provided in the parking calculation to address all comments including those from Kevin McDermott on conflicts with proposed on street parking. Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Update the parking calculation after addressing the other parking space commentsw above. 23. [32.5.2(b) & 32.5.2(n)] Provide information on how the church will be used during the hours of office building use (typically Monday through Friday from 8AM to 5PM). Depending on the usage of the church during the same hours as the office buildings a parking study may be required to be submitted and approved prior to approval of the final site plan. FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. Confirm that no other use other than religious assembly proposed for the site. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. No other uses have been specified or reviewed with this plan. 27. [32.5.2(d)] Include the existing managed steep slopes hatching in at least one plan sheet that shows all proposed improvements to the site. Ensure that the steep slopes design standards are met for all improvements in the area of impacted steep slopes. FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following: a) Provide top of wall and bottom of wall elevations on all retaining walls. Rev. 1: Comment not yet fully addressed. One of the walls along Rolkin Road has no Bottom of Wall and Top of Wall elevations. The other has elevations, but they cannot be read because of conflicts with a storm drain pipe. Ensure all retaining walls within the steep slopes areas are no more than 6' high, have the top of wall and bottom of wall elevations provided, have a maximum height specified, and that the elevations provided are clearly legible. b) Ensure that for any wall within the steep slope overlay area that at the tallest point within the overlay area a top of wall and bottom of wall label is show that clearly delineates what the wall height will be at that point. Rev. 1: Comment not yet fully addressed. See comment above and address it. The tallest point of each wall must have the top of wall and bottom of wall elevation labeled. c) Provide a minimum of 3' between stepped retaining walls within the managed slopes areas. This should be dimensioned in the plan view and in the detail for the retaining walls. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. d) Provide a detail for the retaining walls. Rev. 1: Comment not yet addressed. 30. [32.5.2(e)] Provide the location of all existing individual trees along the existing road frontage and that are not within the wooded areas. If any of these trees are to remain show them as such. Page 6 of 14 FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. Tree species for existing trees have not been provided on all trees. Even some of the trees that are to remain and utilized to meet requirements do not have their species specified. Provide the tree species in the tree label. Rev. 1: Comment not yet fully addressed. Address the following: a) There is an existing tree on the subject parcel side of Rolkin Road, in the area of the proposed parking spaces, which is not marked "TBR" on the existing conditions sheet but does not appear to have tree protection fencing. It is also not obvious if it is remaining in the proposed landscaping sheet. Ensure that it is labeled correctly and protected if it is to remain. b) The existing trees and propose trees cannot be differentiated from each other in the landscaping sheet. They have the same symbols and the same weights as the proposed White Oaks. Utilize a different symbol for the proposed trees then is being used for the existing trees and ensure that what is existing and what is proposed is obvious on the proposed landscaping plan. 31. [32.5.2(e)] Ensure that any trees that are to remain, and are to be used to meet requirements, are preserved. There appear to be existing trees shown on the landscape sheet. Label these trees as existing trees to remain. Provide all require tree protections items in the site plan including tree protection fencing on all required sheets, the tree preservation checklist and a tree protection detail. FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following: a) Complete fill out the Conservation Plan Checklist and have it signed by the owner. Rev. 1: Comment not yet fully addressed. Items have been left unchecked. If no tree wells or tunneling are proposed numbers 2, 4 & 5 still must be fully selected and agreed to by the owner_ b) JI IUVV LI UU PI ULUULIUII ICI I U I I I U I LI I UA IJLII I LICCJ U I I LI IC Idl JIUU UI RUI MIII fCUdU. Rev. 1: Comment no longer required. Since all existing trees in the area of the road improvements on the far side of Rolkin Road are no longer shown as remaining they do not need protection. c) It appears that the improvements to Rolkin Road may impact the trees on the far side of the road. Ensure that the true edge of canopy/dripline is shown on the site plan and that if improvements are shown within their dripline appropriate tree preservation methods are provided and shown on the site plan. Rev. 1: Comment no longer required. Since all existing trees in the area of the road improvements on the far side of Rolkin Road are no longer shown as remaining they do not need protection. d) Add a note to the landscape plan that specifies that all existing trees that are shown to remain, including those on the other side of Rolkin Road outside of the access easement, that are negatively impacted by the development of the site and road will be replaced in kind. Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Revise the note that was added to no longer specify "on site". If trees are impacted on the adjoining parcels they also must be replaced. e) I ICC JpCL.ICJ I U I t-, A IJL I 1 19 LICCJ LIIQL QIC LU ICIIIQIII IIQVC IIUL UCCII PI UVIUCU U I I QII LICCJ. rlUVlde the tree species in the tree label. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. 32. [32.5.2(i)] Provide the width of all proposed parking travel and access ways. FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following: a) The width of the travel ways at the two drop off areas do not appear to meet minimum requirements. Revise these accessways to meet minimum requirements. Rev. 1: Comment not yet addressed. The drive aisle at the front of the building, where there are perpendicular parking spaces, is only 20' wide and appears to have two way traffic. However, the parking spaces in that area are not wide enough to allow the 20' drive aisle. Either widen the parking spaces or widen the drive aisle in order to meet the minimum requirement. b) Add directional arrows for all access ways, including the drop off areas and clearly delineate which accessways are one way. Rev. 1: Comment not yet fully addressed. Add directional arrows for all drive aisles in the parking area and entrances. c) Add appropriate signage to the site plan for one way traffic Rev. 1: Comment addressed. d) Add the width of all travel areas including every portion of the access ways. There are no widths provided at the two entrances, connecting portions between multiple parking areas, or within two of Page 7 of 14 the parking areas. Also, it appears that the width of the travel area, where there are 33 parking spaces, may be below required standards. Rev. 1: Comment not vet fully addressed. Add the width of all travel areas including every portion of the access ways. 33. [32.5.2(i)] Provide both pavement widths and travel lane widths for all existing and proposed streets. Provide dimensions for the typical on -street parking space. FINAL: [4.12.16(c)(2)] Comment not fully addressed. The dimensions for the parking spaces along the road no longer meet the minimum size requirements. Parallel parking spaces must be 9' x 20'. 8' x 20' are currently shown on the site plan. Revise the site plan to provide the minimum parking spaces and ensure that the minimum width is also provided for the lanes or submit a request for a waiver, with justifications, for the requirements to 4.12.16(c)(2) based upon 4.12.2(c), 4.12.2(c)(2) & 4.12.2(c)(3). Such a request would be reviewed by the County Engineer and the Zoning Administrator. Rev. 1: Comment not yet fully addressed. Address the following: a) Ensure that the minimum width of drive aisle needed for roads and parallel parking are provided in the portion of Rolkin Road that is being improved is provided. b) Provide a road section that specifies these widths for the improved section of Rolkin Road. c) There is a dimension of "22'-0"" but a label of "20' Minimum Road Width" on Rolkin Road on Sheet C5. Ensure all dimensions and labels match. d) Although no parking is being shown on Hansen Road there are still dimensions for parking and lane widths as if there is parking on Sheet C5. Remove the residual dimensions unles parking is proposed on that road. 34. [32.5.20)] Provide the deed book and page references for any and all existing water, wastewater or storm drainage systems easements that are located on the property. Also, provide all of the required information on what appears to be an existing drainage easement that goes through the property. FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. Add another label in the existing conditions sheet and the second landscaping sheet (C9 or 14) for the existing drainage easement that specifies that the dashed lines on the far east of the property, between Rolkin Road and the Rivanna Ridge Shopping Center are part of the existing drainage easement. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. 35. [32.5.20)] There are existing utilities that appear to not be located within their easements. Either correct the site plan to show the correct locations of these utilities and their easement or show proposed realignments for the easements. A plat for any proposed easement must be approved and recorded prior to final site plan approval. FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following: a) It appears from notes on the existing conditions sheet and the utility sheet that both the water and sewer lines are to be relocated. However, it is not clear how or where the sewer line will be relocated and if the relocation is only a vertical realignment. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. b) There is a very light line shown in the utility sheet that may be the relocated water line easement, but it should be darkened/thickened so that it is obvious it is a new and proposed water line easement location. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. c) The waterline shown on the existing conditions sheet does not appear to be within the water easement also shown on that sheet. Confirm that this is the existing conditions of the waterline location. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. d) See comment on gas line easement below. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. 37. [32.5.2(k)] There is a proposed storm pipe that carries off site stormwater but easement is shown for the proposed pipe. Show the proposed easement. A plat for the proposed drainage easement, and the vacation of what appears to be the existing easement, must be approved and recorded prior to final site plan approval. FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. A plat for the proposed drainage easement, and the vacation of the existing easement, must be approved by the County, signed, notarized and recorded prior to final site plan approval. Page 8 of 14 Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. A plat for the proposed drainage easement, and the vacation of the existing easement, has been submitted for review. This easement plat must be approved by the County, signed, notarized and recorded prior to final site plan approval. 38. [32.5.2(k)] Revise the site plan to include the location of the proposed water lines. FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. See the comment above about the waterline easement. Rev. 1: Comment not yet fully addressed. There are proposed sections of waterline that are not shown within proposed waterline easements. Either provide easements for all sections of the proposed waterlines or provide information on why that portion of the proposed water lines do not require easements. 39. [32.5.2(1)] Provide the location and width of any existing or proposed utilities and utility easements including telephone, cable, electric and gas. Indicate the deed book and page reference for all exiting utility easements located on the property. FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following: a) There appears to be an existing gas line that does not show any easement. There is also no gas easement proposed for the line. Provide the appropriate location and width of the existing and proposed gas easement. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. b) Show in existing conditions sheet the deed book and page number for the existing gas easement. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. c) Show the existing and proposed easements for the telephone, cable, and electric lines. Or specify in the comment response letter that none exist and none are proposed. Rev. 1: Comment not yet fully addressed. A proposed electric line is shown, and a proposed conduit for cable and phone is shown, but no easements are proposed for those utilities. Shown all of the proposed easements on the site plan. d) Provide on the site plan existing conditions sheet the deed book and page number for any existing telephone, cable, electric and gas easements. If none exist specify that in the comment response letter. Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. No existing electric or cable lines or easements are shown. No existing electric line is shown to hook to the proposed transformer. Provide on the site plan existing conditions sheet the deed book and page number for any existing telephone, cable, and electric easements. e) There is a line in the existing conditions sheet that appears to run across the Rivanna Ridge shopping center's parking lot, on the north side of the site plan, and into the site but dead ends about 15' into the site. No labels exist for the line and the Iinetype does not clearly identify it as something specific. Provide information on what this line represents, if it has an easement, if it has a deed book and page number, if it will be utilized and/or modified in the proposed development. Rev. 1: Comment not addressed. Address the comment. 40. [32.5.2(1)] Provide the location, width and deed book and page number for the existing gas easements. FINAL: Comment not addressed. Provide the location, width and deed book and page number for the existing gas easements. If a gas easement is proposed it must be approved by the County, signed, notarized and recorded prior to final site plan approval. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. 41. [32.5.2(n)] Provide: a) Outdoor lighting information including a photometric plan and location, description, and photograph or diagram of each type of outdoor luminaire [Sec. 32.7.8 & Sec. 4.17]. If there will be any external lighting fixtures a photometric plan will be required for Final Site Plan approval. In addition to meeting all lighting requirements a standard lighting note will be required. FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following: i. The light specification sheet does not appear to be the one for the model number shown in the light schedule. Ensure light specification sheet provided is for a full cut off light. Rev. 1: Comment not yet fully addressed. It is uncertain if the light specification sheet provided has information on the "A" lights since no information is provided in the light schedule for the lights labeled as "A". ii. If there will be lights on the building they must be shown on the site plan and meet all lighting requirements. Show any building mounted light fixtures. Page 9 of 14 Rev. 1: Comment addressed. Comment response letter states no light fixtures will be building mounted. iii. Ensure that the number of lamps in the light fixture matches those shown in the specifications sheet. Rev. 1: Comment not yet fully addressed. No information is provided on lamp type "A". There are no type "C" lamp types shown on the site plan even though six are specified in the lighting schedule. Ensure that the labeled lamps, the lighting schedule, and the specifications all match and are complete. iv. Show in the lighting schedule the "Light Loss Factor" (LLF) or "Maintenance Factor" and ensure that it is a value of 1. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. b) If there is to be a sign for the proposed use, on the final site plan depict and label the sign location. (Depicting the sign on the final site plan is not approval of the sign location or type). FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following: i. The sign location appears to conflict with the sight distance easement. Revise location to not conflict with any easements. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. ii. Note that depicting the sign on the final site plan is not approval of the sign location or type. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. c) Information on the proposed paving material types for all walkways, access ways and parking lots. FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. Include a pavement section for the streets that are to be changed/expanded. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. e) The location of trash containers. FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following: i. Show the dumpster on the site plan. Rev. 1: Comment not addressed. No dumpster appears to have been shown on the site plan even though a dumpster screening detail has been provided. Show the dumpster location. II. rIUVIUU d UUIIIPJLCI ZAAUUIIIIRJ. UULdII Rev. 1: Comment addressed. iii. Ensure that the dumpster pad meet the minimum size beyond the front of the dumpster. Rev. 1: Comment not yet fully addressed. No dumpster pad appears to have been shown on the site plan even though a dumpster screening detail has been provided. Show the dumpster pad, dimension the dumpster pad and ensure it meets the minimum requirements. f) A location for a pedestrian connection to all parking areas. i. There appears to be no pedestrian connections from the parking area and building directly to Hansen Road. Since there are 50 proposed parking spaces along Hansen Road, that are being specified as meeting the required parking requirements, a direct pedestrian connection should be provided. FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following: ■ Show the location of all crosswalk signage. Rev. 1: Comment not yet fully addressed. Ensure that the crosswalk signage is located on the side prior to the crosswalk based on the drive lane direction. Proviae a aeiaii Tor ine crosswalK signage. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. iii. [New Commentl Provide safe pedestrian connections for the parking spaces on the far side of Rolkin Road. Address the following: ■ Provide a crosswalk from the stairs to the far side of Rolkin Road. Rev. 1: Comment not yet fully addressed. Ensure that both crosswalks have a handicapped accessible connection to the existing asphalt path and sidewalk within the subject parcel. ■ Show the iocaiion oT aii crosswalk signage. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. ■ Provide the location of and a detail for the crosswalk signage. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. Page 10 of 14 iv. [New Commentl It is recommended that a staircase for safe pedestrian connection be provided from the parking lot to the Rivanna Ridge shopping center's parking lot. Rev. 1: Comment no longer requested. Applicant has chosen not to include the stairs. 42. [32.5.2(p)] Provide a complete landscape plan that meets all requirements of section 32.7.9 with the Final Site Plan. FINAL: Comment not addressed. Address the following: a) Provided screening of site (buildings, parking spaces, and drive aisles) to Monticello as specified in proffers. See the comments on the proffers above. Rev. 1: Comment not yet fully addressed. See the comments on the proffers above. b) Ensure that the existing screening of adjacent site to Monticello, as specified in the proffers, either remains or additional screening is provided with this proposed site plan. See comments on the proffers above. Rev. 1: Comment not yet fully addressed. Ensure that the existing screeninq of adjacent site to Monticello, as specified in the proffers, either remains or additional screening is provided with this proposed site plan. See comments on the proffers above. c) Provide the required screening shrubs between the steeped retaining was that are within the managed steeps slopes overlay area. Rev. 1: Comment not yet fully addressed. Provide screening shrubs between the tiered retaining walls within the steep slopes area. Deciduous shrubs will not screen during the winter. d) [32.7.9.5(d)] Revise the Street Tree calculation area so that it shows 40' on center as the distance between the street trees in the heading. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. e) [32.7.9.5(d)] The three American Beech trees along Rolkin Road, that are set back from the road, are not considered street trees. Street trees must be along the edge of the street and also should not be behind other street trees. Revise the Rolkin Road street trees so that the required number of trees can be planted adjacent to the street. Also revise the calculations for the change in the street tree counts. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. f) [32.7.9.5(d)] Provide the required street trees at 40' on center on the far side or Rolkin Road where improvements are proposed. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. g) [32.7.9.5(d)] Landscape easements will be required for the trees on the far side of Rolkin Road since they will be on a different parcel. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. However, not that an easement plat putting this easement in place must be recorded prior to the approval of this final site plan. h) Provide tree protection for the existing trees on the far side of Rolkin Road. Ensure the existing trees are not damaged. Rev. 1: Comment no longer needed. Existing trees are no longer being utilized to meet this requirement. i) Add a note specifying that existing trees that are shown to remain will be replaced in kind if damaged during construction. Rev. 1: Comment not yet fully addressed. Revise the note to not include the wording "on site". Any trees damaged during construction must be replaced in kind even if they are not within the subject parcel. j) [32.7.9.6] Proviae parking ioi Trees Tor ine sb space ioi near Rolkin Koaa. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. Required trees have been placed in other locations. k) [32.7.986] Revise the Canopy calculation once the other landscaping comments are addressed. Rev. 1: Comment not yet fully addressed. Revise the canopy calculation to match the Proposed canopy shown in the Landscape Schedule. 1) Adjust the locations of the proposed trees so that they are not on top of storm drains or within utility easements. Rev. 1: Comment sufficiently addressed. m) Show the tree protection fencing on the demolition plan and grading plan sheets. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. 43. [32.5.2(o)] Ensure that all symbols and abbreviations in the legend match those shown in the site plan. The sewer lines do not appear to be represented correctly. Page 11 of 14 FINAL: Comment not addressed. Ensure that all symbols and abbreviations in the legend match those shown in the site plan. Address the following: a) The sewer lines do are not shown with the correct linetype. Rev. 1: Comment sufficiently addressed. b) Ensure that existing and proposed sewer line portions are represented correctly. The sewer line is specified as being relocated. Rev. 1: Comment sufficiently addressed. c) Ensure all symbols and linetypes on the plan match those specified in the legend on the cover sheet. Rev. 1: Comment sufficiently addressed. 44. [Comment] Label the maximum height of all retaining walls. Ensure that all walls impacting the managed steep slopes meet the design requirements for the steep slopes overlay district. FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. Label the maximum heights of the retaining walls adjacent to the building which wrap around the playground area. Rev. 1: Comment not vet fully addressed. There is no maximum heiaht specified on the retainina walls attached to the Droaosed buildina. Also. see comment above on reauirements for retainina walls in the steep slopes areas. 45. [Comment] Provide copies of off -site easements, or letters of intent to grant them from off -site owners. These must be received prior to final site plan approval. FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following: a) Provide copies of off -site easements, or letters of intent to grant them from off -site owners. These must be received prior to final site plan approval. Rev. 1: Comment not yet addressed. Address comment. b) Even if the land on the adjacent property is owned by the same entity provide off -site easements and letters of intent for improvements and maintenance that impact the adjacent site. Rev. 1: Comment not yet addressed. Address comment. 46. [Comment] See the attached comments from the other SRC reviewers. FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. See the attached comments from the other SRC reviewers. Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. See the attached comments from the other SRC reviewers. Additional comments for Final Site Plan: 47. New Comment] Revise the cover sheet to include the project number SDP201800003. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. 48. [New Comment] There are conflicts with sight distance easements along the roads. Address the following: a) Show sight distance easements for the intersection of Hansen Road and the entrance to TMP 78- 3A6. Rev. 1: Comment no longer required because of the removal of the proposed parking along Hansen Road. b) Show the entrance to TMP 78-73A4 and show the sight distance easement for that entrance on Hansen Road. Rev. 1: Comment no longer required because of the removal of the proposed parking along Hansen Road. c) Remove all parking along both Hansen Road and Rolkin Road that is within any of the four sight distance easements. Rev. 1: Comment not yet fully addressed. After consultation with the County Engineer, it has been determined that there are still 10 parking spaces along Rolkin Road that are within the Sight Distance lines. Remove all parking along Rolkin Road that is within the sight distance easement. d) Within the portion of the private street that is within the subject property provide curb and gutter along both Rolkin Road and Hansen Road that restrict parking from being within the sight distance easements. Rev. 1: Comment not yet fully addressed. Although curb and putter has been shown alonq Rolkin Road it has not been shown to connect with the curb and putter at the intersection. Ensure that the Droaosed curb and autter is connected to the existina curb and autter. Page 12 of 14 e) On the far side of the private street from the subject parcel provide stripping and signage specifying no parking within the sight distance easement areas. Rev. 1: Comment no longer required. Proposed parking is no longer shown on Hansen Road. f) Ensure that the curb radii coming out of the proposed entrance on Hansen Road extends to the proposed edge of the travel lane and not to the existing curb. Rev. 1: Comment no longer required since improvements are no longer proposed in Hansen Road. 49. [New Comment] Provide an access easements along the trail, which parallels Rolkin Road, since that trail is outside of the private street access easement. Rev. 1: Comment not yet addressed. It is noted that the applicant has questioned the requirement of an access easement along the existing asphalt path. Staff is researching this and will respond once the research is complete. 50. [New Comment] Provide construction easements for all improvements on adjoining properties, even if those easement are within the private street easement. Rev. 1: Comment not vet addressed. Address the comment. 51. [New Comment] Address the following in reference to the private street access easements: a) Labeled the access easements as private street easement and have leaders to both sides of the easement so that it is obvious what linework is for the easement. Rev. 1: Comment not addressed. Address the comment. b) Show the dashed line and a label for the Private Street access easement on sheet C9 of 14. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. c) The label for the easement for Rolkin Road does not appear to have the correct deed book and page number listed. The document in DB 2106 PG 192 is a "Modification of Credit Line and Deed of Trust' and not a deed of easement. Although there is an exhibit that shows a plat no deed of easement is included and that plat was not signed by the County. Provide the correct deed book and page number for the private street access easement for Rolkin Road. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. 52. [32.6.2(f): New Comment] Label all curb returns and curved edges of pavement within the parking lot and access ways. There are many missing dimensions throughout the parking lot area. The drop off area by the playground area also is missing the majority of these dimensions. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. 53. [New Comment] Show the following on Sheet 1 or 14: a) The private street easement and labels. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. b) The edge of pavement for the private street. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. 54. [32.6.2(e): New Comment] Ensure there is proper drainage under the entrance to Hansen Road. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. 55. [New Comment] Submit all easement plat(s) required for this site plan as a separate submission. Submit for those easements all required deeds and legal documents. This site plan will not be approved until those easements and deeds have been approved by the County, the easement plat has been signed, notarized, recorded, and a copy of the recorded easement plats and deeds are provided to the reviewer of this site plan. Rev. 1: Comment not yet fully addressed. An easement plat has been submitted and is under review. However, it does not contain all of the proposed easements shown on this site plan, there are utility lines on this site plan that do not have corresponding easements on the submitted plat, and the proposed legal documents associated with the easement plat have not yet been submitted. This site plan will not be approved until all required easement plats and deeds have been approved by the County, the easement plat has been signed, notarized, recorded, and a copy of the recorded easement plats and deeds are provided to the reviewer of this site plan. Page 13 of 14 56. [Rev. 1: NEW COMMENTI All crosswalks. and the pedestrian connection leadina to the crosswalk should be handicapped accessible. Address the following: a) Provide handicapped accessible ramps where the proposed crosswalks meet the sidewalks on both sides of the streets. b) Where the crosswalk crosses Rolkin Road ensure that the existing asphalt trail has a pedestrian connection to the crosswalk. Ensure that its handicapped accessible. c) Provide handicapped accessible ramps at the end of the proposed sidewalk at the corner of Rolkin Road and Hansen Road. d) Provide crosswalks that cross the two proposed entrances. 57. [Rev. 1: NEW COMMENTI Provide a road section, showing all widths of the protions of the road such as drive aisles, parking spaces, curb and gutter for the portion of Rolkin Road that is being improved. Ensure that all minimum requirements for the road section are met. 58. [Rev. 1: NEW COMMENTI Remove the dashed line on the site plan that bisects the parcel and does not seem to have any purpose. 59. [Rev. 1: NEW COMMENTI Revise the landscape plan to included screening of the parking lots from the roads_ 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" at Albemarle.org. 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. Please contact Paty Saternye in the Planning Division by using psaternye(o)albemarle.org or 434-296-5832 ext. 3250 for further information. Page 14 of 14 Review Comments for SDP201800003 Final Site Development Plan Project Name: HANEN ROAD CHURCH - FINAL Date Completed: Friday, June 01, 2018 Department1DivisionfAgency: Review Sys: Reviewer: Margaret Maliszewski LJ CDDARB 1, Requested Changes An ARB Final Site Plan submittal addressing all comments from the ARB's initial review and all final ARB site plan checklist requirements is required_ ARB approval is required prior to final site plan approval_ Page: County of Albemarle Printed On: 10612912018 Review Comments for SDP201800003 Final Site Development Plan Project Name: HANEN ROAD CHURCH - FINAL Date Completed: Thursday, June 28, 2018 Department1DivisionfAgency: Review sus: Reviewer: Francis MacCall CDD Zoning I Requested Changes Revise the note under "PROPOSED USE" as follows Revise the note under "PROPOSED USE" as follows; 19,180 SF Church /Associated Parking Per ZMA2002-00008, the structure is limited to a maximum of 20,000 SF of gross floor area_ The gross floor area includes basements; elevator shafts and stairwells at each story; floor space used for mechanical equipment with structural headroom of six (6) feet, six (6) inches or more; penthouses_ attic space, whether or not a floor has actually been laid, providing strrctural headroom of six (6) feet, six (6) inches or more; interior balconies; and mezzanines_ As noted on Sheet C-6, the basement inclydes 3,624 SF of area that will be no greater than six (6) feet, four (4) inches_ Zoning has determined that this may be excluded from the gross floor area calculation Please note that all building permit plans submitted must show no more than 20.000 SF gross floor area_ Page: County of Albemarle Printed On: 10612912018 Review Comments for SDP201800003 Final Site Development Plan Project Name: HANEN ROAD CHURCH - FINAL Date Completed: Monday, June 04, 2018 Department1DivisionfAgency: Review sus: Reviewer: Richard Nelson -3 ACSA Requested Changes 018-06-04: SDP- 018-3 Hansen Road Church — Final is currently under waterlsewe r review_ Page: County of Albemarle Printed On: 10612912018 June 5, 2018 Shimp Engineering Attn: Mr. Justin Shimp, P.E. 201 East Main Street, Suite M Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Re: Final Site Development Plan for Hansen Road Church Dear Justin: We have reviewed the plans entitled "Final Site Development Plan for Hansen Road Church," dated May 21, 2018. The following comments need to be addressed. General 1. If the ZMA is not approved for this parcel, ACSA will require the services to the future building be removed from the construction plans. This can be addressed at a later date. 2. Is there any proposed food prep? (If yes, a grease interceptor will be required.) 3. Remove pages (C) 2, 4, 7, 9, 10, 11, and 14 from ACSA submissions. Sheet C6 1. Correct sewer main on Hansen Road, as shown on plans. 2. Relocate water meter for future building, as shown on plans. 3. Relocate fire -line valve and add a blow -off assembly, as shown on plans. 4. Confirm why a 4-inch stub -out is necessary. 5. Isolator valve will need to be relocated, so that the water meter next to Giant is not affected. As-builts of the adjacent parcel will be sent to show water locations. .qhaat ('R 1. Remove trees from ACSA easements. If you have any questions concerning this review feel free to call at (434) 977-4511 Ext. 113. Sincerely, Richard Nelson Civil Engineer County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Patricia Saternye From: Emily Cox Date: 07 Feb 2018 Rev 1: 04 June 2018 Subject: Hansen Road Church — Final Site Development Plan (SDP201800003) The final site development plan for Hansen Road Church has been reviewed by Engineering. The following comments will need to be addressed before approval: 1. WPO Plan must be submitted and approved before final site plan can be approved. Rev. 1: Comment still valid. 2. Please ensure the professional seal is signed and dated. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. 3. Provide details for the proposed retaining walls. Rev. 1: Comment still valid. 4. Provide drainage easements for all pipes carrying water offsite. Easements will need to be recorded before plan can be approved. Rev. 1: Comment still valid — Plat is under review/ 5. Parallel parking spaces should be 9'x20', not 8'x20'. (County Code Chapter 18- 4.12.16) Rev. 1: Comment addressed. 6. Show pavement markings required throughout the site (stop bars, one-way at the drop-off area, etc.) Rev. 1: Comment addressed. 7. Provide a road section detail. Pavement sections were provided, but not road sections. Rev. 1: Road cross section not provided. Pavement section detail was provided. 8. Ensure proposed tree protection locations are shown on the demolition sheet. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. 9. 2:1 Slopes should be avoided wherever possible. The landscape plan does properly specify the required ground cover, but please ensure the WPO Plan also specifies this. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. 10. Please show the acreage and c-factors for each drainage area on sheet C-11. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. 11. Where is Ex. DI-7? The note on Sheet C-I I says concrete flume to Ex. DI-7, but it is not labeled. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. 12. Velocity in storm drains should be kept below 10 ft/s if possible.( Per the VDOT drainage manual, section 9.4.8.7, velocities in excess of 10ft/s should be avoided) Rev. 1: Provide specification or recommendation showing that pipes/system can handle such excess velocity. Review Comments for SDP201800003 Final Site Development Plan Project Name: HANEN ROAD CHURCH - FINAL Date Completed: Friday, June 29, 2018 Department1DivisionfAgency: Review Sys: Reviewer: Kevin McDermott CDD Planning No Obje-Ction Page: County of Albemarle Printed On: 10612912018