PENN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Packet NOVEMBER 21, 2024 7:30 PM Prepared for the Penn Hills Planning Commission by Meg Balsamico, Principal Planner Penn Hills Department of Planning & Economic Development PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA NOVEMBER 21, 2024 7:30 PM CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 26, 2024 SITE PLAN# #550 1. Joe and Patrice Vigliotti of JPV Holdings, also known as Vigliotti Landscaping of 10250 Buchanon Road, are requesting site plan approval for the expansion of their landscaping firm and contractor's storage yard which will include followingi improvements: 1). The expansion oft thet truck parking area. 2). The construction of a 72.25 X 40' truck garage. 3). The construction of an access drive from 10250 Buchanon Road to their business JOMAR Supply at 10133 Frankstown Road. The subject properties are: situated in the following Zoning Districts: B-2 Community Business, R-2, Single Family Residential and C, Conservation. The lot & block numbers are 295--151,295.-152, 295-M-265, 295-M-245, 295-M-244, 368-E-334, 368-J-362, 368-J-215, 368-J-256, 368-J-268, 295-S-177,295-S- 207, 368-J-171, 295-S-150, 295-S-79, 368-N-60, 295-S-141, 295-S-141-1, 295-S-94, 295-S-94-1. Penn Hills Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance 2136, Penn Hills Zoning Ordinance 2420, andF Penn Hills Stormwater Management Ordinance 2642. CONDITIONAL USE 1. Gail Holzer, Principal of Redeemer Lutheran School, lessee of the owner, English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Our Redeemer, is requesting an expansion of the Conditional Use for the existing church campus located at 121 Dawn Drive for the construction ofap proposed gymnasium building. The applicant is also requesting a waiver of Section 11.5. A. (4)do of Penn Hills Zoning Ordinance 24201 to allow ar modification for the proposed structure to be setback 521 feet from any property line where a setback of 100 feeti is required from any property line abutting a residential use or zoning district. The Zoning Classification for this propertyi is R-1, Single Family Residential and thel lot and block number is 446-M-223. The above Conditional Use has been tentatively scheduled for consideration and approval at the December 16, 2024, Meeting of Mayor and Council scheduled for 7:00 PMI in the Penn Hills Municipal Building, Council Chambers, 102 Duff Road. AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICNOTICE (POSTINGS) On November 8.2024 Iposted the property/properties located at: Boyd Blud Idaho (Bole) BydEGlhe CPale) Across From 549 Iclaha CRole) CPale) AcsFn 51536Hamile Across From TIOL-IRAZAAI as required by Ordinance 2420, Section 15. Johw D. Lydic M-8-2024 (Name(s) ofCode Enforcement Officer(s)) (Date) Dda ofCode Enforcement Officer(s)) Legal Advertisement tol be published int the Local Xtra, (Penn Hills) Edition of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, on November7,2024, and onl November 14, 2024 LEGAL AD MUNICIPALITY OF PENN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING On Thursday, November 21, 2024, the Planning Commission of the Municipality of Penn Hills will meet at 7:30PM, int the Penn! Hills Government Center, Council Chambers, 102DuffF Road, to consider thef following: SITE PLAN! #550- The applicant requested thats site plan application #550 scheduled for the October 24, 2024 Planning Commission meeting be postponed and rescheduled for the November 21,2024 1. Joe and Patrice Vigliotti of JPV Holdings, also known as Vigliotti Landscaping of 10250 Buchanon Road are requesting site plan approval for the expansion of their landscaping firm and contractor's storage yard which willi include followingi improvements: 1). The expansion of thet truck parking area. 2). The construction ofa72.25'x4 40't truck garage. 3). The construction of an access drive from 10250 Buchanon Road to their business JOMAR Supply at 10133 Frankstown Road. The subject properties are situated in the following Zoning Districts: B-2 Community Business, R-2, Single Family Residential and C, Conservation. The lot & block numbers are 295-M-151, 295-M-152, 295-M-265, 295-M-245, 295-M-244, 368-E-334, 368-J- 362, 368-J-215, 368-J-256, 368-J-268, 295-S-177, 295-S-207, 368-J-171, 295-S-150, 295-S- 79, 368-N-60, 255.41,28514M,859. 295-S-94-1.Penn! Hills Subdivision and! Land Development Ordinance 2136, Penn Hills Zoning Ordinance 2420, andl Penn Hills Stormwater meeting. Management Ordinance: 2642. CONDITIONAL USE 1. Gail Holzer, Principal of Redeemer Lutheran School, lessee of the owner, English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Our Redeemer, is requesting an expansion oft the Conditional Use for the existing church campus located at 121 Dawn Drive for the construction of a proposed gymnasium building. The applicant is also requesting a waiver of Section 11.5.A. (4)do of Penn Hills Zoning Ordinance 2420 to allow ar modification for the proposed structure tol be setback 521 feet from any property line where as setback of 1001 feeti is required from any property line abutting a residential use or zoning district. The Zoning Classification for this property is R-1, Single Family Residential and the lota and block number is 446-M-223. The above Conditional Usel has beent tentatively scheduled for consideration and approval at the December 16, 2024, Mayor and Council meeting at 7:00 PMi int the Penn! Hills Government Center, Council Chambers, Alli interested residents are invited to attend. Further information may! be obtained by contacting 412-342- Persons with disabilities, requiring accommodations to participate in the proceedings, are requested to call 412-342-1174, 48 hours priort to the meeting to discuss how we may meet your needs. Hearing impaired may contact the Municipality through the State Relay Office at 1-800-654-5984 or711. 102 Duff Road, Pittsburgh, PA 15235. 1174. 09/26/2024 PENN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 7:37 P.M. Present: Ms.K King Mr. Chiappinelli Mr. Brodnicki Dr. Kincaid Call to Order Pledge Roll Call Amotion was madel byl Ms. King to approve theminutes from the August 22, 2024, meeting. The motionwas seconded byl Dr. Kincaid. The minutes were approved by a 4- Ovote. An executive session was held with thes solicitor Craig Alexander and the Planning Commission boardmembers. ORDINANCES 1. An Ordinance of the Municipality of Penn Hills Zoning Ordinance 2420, Section 9 amending the regulations for Billboards on interstate highways which will permit billboards in the 1-1, Light Industrial Zoning District and in the 1-2, General Industrial Zoning District with a minimum separation of 1,000 feet as measured from another billboard on the same side of the roadway, a maximum of 672 square feet in size, a maximum height of40feet as measuredi fromi thes surface ofi interstate highway tot thetop of the billboard and the utilization of LED sign faces for billboards whichs shallconform to PmoTadieene Residential Comments Greg Swatchick Glenn Yocca- Owner of Sparrow Applied Designs. Brodnicki. All were in favor with a vote of 4-0 Amotiontoapprove the billboard ordinance was made by! Ms Kngand seconded by Mr. 2. An Ordinance of the Municipality of Penn Hills amending the Municipality of Penn Hills Zoning Ordinance 2420 as previously amended and supplemented, to create the definition of "Hookah Bar/Lounge" to provide for definitions, and to set forth Conditional Use réquirements in the 1-3, Heavy Industrial Zoning District for such use. Residential Comments Greg Swatchick Amotion toa approve the Hooka Bar/ Lounge ordinance was made by! Ms. King and seconded by Mr. Brodnicki. All were in favor with a vote of 4-0. The Ordinance(s) are tentatively scheduled for final approval at the October 21, 2024, Mayor Amotion was made by Dr. Kincaid to adjourn the meeting. Themotionwas seconded byl Mr. and Council meeting. Brodnicki. The meeting was adjourned at 7:52 P.I M. H) MUNICIPALITY OF PENN HILLS PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: The Planning Commission Meg Balsamico, November 14, 2024 Site Plan #550, REVISION 4 Planner erB Principal Joe and Patrice Vigliotti, JPV Holdings aka Vigliotti Landscaping Joe and Patrice Vigliotti, JPV Holdings aka Vigliotti Landscaping 10250 Buchanon Road B-2 Community Business, R-2, Single Family Residential and C, Conservation with a Use Variance to allow an I-1 Light Industrial Use on the property. LOT AND BLOCK: 295-M-265, 295-M-245, 295-M-244, 368-E-334, 368-J-362, 368-J-215, 368-J-256, 368-J-268, 295-S-177, 295-S-207, 368-J-171, 295-S-150, 295-S-79, 368-N-60, 295.5-141,2955-141-, ,295-S-94, 294-S-94-1 The consideration and approval of the site plan application for JPV Holdings was scheduled for the October 25, 2024 meeting. The applicant requested that his case be tabled until the November 21, 2024 PC meeting. Ihave enclosed the following letters for your review: 1. Review letter #3 11/6/24 from Jared Neill, P.E., Gateway Engineers, PH Municipal 2. The draft letter to Anne Fox of the ACCD from Ed Antonacci of Antonacci Design Associates, the applicant's engineer, addressing her Incompleteness Review Letter for JPV's NPDES Permit Application. The final letter from JPVis due on November 16, 2024. Ispoke with PH Municipal Engineer, and because there are sO many outstanding items that need addressed and corrected on JPV's drawings, he recommends that the Planning Commission not 1. The letter from ACCD/DEP tot the applicant stating that JPV's NPDES permit submission 2. The applicant's engineer shall address all items from Gateway Engineer's most recent letter dated November 6, 2024. The engineer also recommends that the applicant submit a phased plan to address the following: 1). Some of the fill on the site was found to be Engineer). approve the site plan until the applicant has submits the following information: is complete and that the application is under review by ACCD/DEP. poor in quality, it must be removed and replaced with acceptable clean fill. The plan must state exactly what specific steps will be taken to correct the problem. 2). The site is in a landslide prone area and the stability oft the slopes must be addressed. 3). The most recent drawings are not accurate and must be corrected so that they match the actual conditions 3. Gateway is also recommending that the applicant submit his consolidation plan with the site plan because the site work is dependent on them obtaining the properties and JPV has purchased additional properties and the listed deed book volumes and pages are still incorrect on the revised plans. The parcels that are to be consolidated must be clarified and the property lines that are to be extinguished must be shown. Gateway also asked for a correction on the drawings for the Living Word Baptist Church easement. The DeVito Parcels and the Gus Hoting property must be recorded and deeded over to JPV before the property can be consolidated. JPV also must obtain an easement agreement from Natasha Green, the owner of 10101 Frankstown Road, parcel # 295-S-211, which will legally permit JPVto install the drainage In regard to obtaining the easement for the installation of the drainage channels from Natasha Greene of 10101 Frankstown Road and the purchase of Devito's at 102 McCutcheon Lane and vacant parcel # 295-M-151, Mr. Vigliotti has met with both property owners. He spoke with Mrs. DeVito and has obtained a sales agreement to purchase the property, and a copy is in the file and the closing will be held at the end oft the month. Mr. Vigliotti also met with Ms. Greene 10101 Frankstown Road, and they discussed the easement agreement. He will provide this information as soon asi it has been finalized. The applicant also purchased the Gus Hoting property by Sherrif Sale. The property has not been recorded and. JPVI has not received the deed tot the property. He is ini the process of following up with the Sheriff's office to find out when the deed transfer will take As Istated in my previous memo dated October 12, 2024, Anne Fox of the ACCD advised the Planning Department that she does not want JPV moving any additional soil until the NPDES permit is approved. As a result, Penn Hills cannot issue a building permit or a grading permit until the permits from DEPIACCD have been approved. Therefore, the applicant's project cannot For the reasons stated above, the Planning Department recommends that the approval of Site Plan #550 be continued until the applicant submits the following information and offers the "Trecommend that Site Plan #550 for the expansion of. JPVH Holdings' landscaping firm and contractor's storage yard be continued until the applicant submits the following of the development. consolidating the parcels into one lot. channels. place and when it will be recorded. move forward until the permit has been issued by DEP. following motion: information: 1. The applicant shall submit a copy of the letter from the ACCD stating that JPV's NPDES Permit application is complete and is under review to the Planning Department 2. The applicant shall address the comments provided to the Municipality by Gateway Engineers, (Penn Hills Municipal Engineer), as stated in their letter to the Municipality dated November 6, 2024. A copy of this letter was provided to JPV: and his engineer as soon as it has been received by JPV. on November 6, 2014. 3. The applicant shall add a note to the drawings stating that a sealant shall be applied to all gravel driveways /parking areas to provide a dust free surface in accordance with the requirements stated in section 10.1A. (4) of Penn Hills Zoning Ordinance 2420. The applicant shall also add a note tot the drawings that' The access/service road shall be constructed in accordance with section 10.7E of Penn Hills Zoning Ordinance Section 10.7E of Penn Hills Zoning Ordinance 2420 states the following: 10.7 Drives and Roads - Commercial, Industrial and Multi-Family Residential 2420". 10.7.A. Location and design ofe entrance, service and delivery roads shall be in accordance with the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation guidelines for design of local roads and streets, the Penn Hills Standards for Construction and 10.7.B. Concrete curbs shall be installed on sides of roads as required to contain vehicular traffic, protect pedestrians and reduce maintenance of adjacent seeded or planted areas. Curbing may be eliminated or interrupted in approved areas to 10.7.C. Center line markings on roads and drives shall be installed to guide and 10.7.D. Line markings shall be installed or defined and control parallel 10.7.E. All surfaces shall be paved with concrete or bituminous material. NOTE: JPV Holdings was granted a Use Variance by PH ZHB to allow him to use the property as a Landscaping Firm/Contractor's Storage Yard as permitted in the I-1, Light Industrial Zoning District Section. Section 10.1.A of Ordinance 2420 allows other applicable standards contained in this ordinance. facilitate storm water management design. control traffic flows. parking on roads and drives. the use ofa a dust free alternative. 4. Lighting shall be required at the site and the applicant shall submit a photometric plan for the proposed lighting and shall be installed in accordance with the requirements stated in section 10.1A. (5) of Penn Hills Zoning Ordinance 2420. The application is incomplete and the approval oft the site plan and the approval of the consolidation plan will not be rescheduled for a PC Meeting until the Planning Department receives all of the above information from the applicant's engineer and surveyor and that it has determined by the Municipal Engineer, the Planning Department and Allegheny County Economic Development, that the application is complete. The above was discussed with the applicant, the applicant's engineer, Ed Antonacci and Richard Territ Sr., the applicant's surveyor who is preparing the consolidation plan. Planning is waiting for an email from Joe Vigliotti stating that he agrees with the recommendation for his case to be continued. MLB/mb Cc: Joseph and Patrice Vigliotti, JPVI Holdings/Vigliotti Landscaping Edward Antonacci, P.E., Antonacci Design Associates Richard" Territ, Territ Surveying and Design Chris Blackwell, Planning! Director Damian Buccilli, Planner Chuck! Miller, Penn! Hills Fire! Marshala and Codel Enforcement Director Jason Grifiths, CodeE Enforcement Jared M. Neill. P.E., Gateway Engineers File Antonacci Design Associates, Inc. Edward. L. Antonacci, PE. 220 South. Fifh Street Jeannette, PA 15644 Phone 724-527-7771 Cell724-244-5104 edward.antonacclQVerizon.net November 7,2024 Ms. Anne Fox Senior Resource Conservationist Allegheny County Conservation District 317: East Carson Street, Suite 119 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Incompleteness: Review Letter General NPDES Project: JPV: Holdings LLC (Jomar Supply) ACCDI File Number: ESP-03922 Permit Number: PAC021150 Municipality: Penn Hills Dear Mr. Fox: Inr regards to your letter dated September 16, 2024, please find listed below my comments to thei items 1. $102.6(a)(1) Provide a fully completed Notice ofIntent, completed in accordance with thel NOI a. Page 1-1 Provide a more detailed project description, identifying the main purpose of the project, i.e. construction ofa road, small building, stormwater facilities, etc. listed in your letter for. JPVHoldings LLCI located in Penn Hills. Instructions. Please address the following: Applicants Response: Revised as requested. Refer to Project Narrative which is attached. b. Page 3 -Under project site information, choose "yes" for hydric soils and check thel box "yes" for wetland determination has been performed. Applicants Response: Revised as requested. (woods, open space, meadow, pavement, etc.). Applicants Response: Revised as requested. C. Page 3 - Under earth disturbance information, #5 - provide slightly more specific descriptions d. Page 3 - Under earth disturbance information #7, provide coordinates with at] least5 spaces after the decimal point. Applicants Response: Revised as requested. 1 e. Page 3-Under earth disturbance information, #8, choose thel horizontal reference datum used for obtaining the site conditions. Applicants Response: Revised as requested. 2. $102.6(a)(1) As directed onj page 8 of thel NOI, provide a copy of the Certificate ofLimited Liability Company Authority or operating agreement fort the LLC. Applicants Response: A copy oft the Owner's Operating Agreement has been attached to this 3. $102.6(a)(1) New NOI forms/modules are available on DEP's website. Please download and fill out the new NOI for the project and confirm eligibility with the changed criteria. (Note: the same items above would need to be addressed in the new NOI - most of the information is the same, and Applicants Response: Revised as requested. This application was submitted prior to the new 4. $102.6(a)(2) The avoidance measures on the PNDI were signed offi in agreement; however there is grading shown with 50: ftofa watercourse. This needs tol be coordinated with PAI Fish & Boat Commission to confirm no impacts to thes sensitive species are anticipated for completed or proposed activities. Provide documentation that further information has been provided to them and is under review; review can continue but permits may not be issued until the PNDI items are: resolved. Applicants Response: The nearest designated water course is the UNT to Sandy Creek which is located along Old Coall Hollow Road. There isa wet weather channel located within the property which is directed to the UNT to Sandy Creek. The distance from our grading letter. there are ai few additional fields.) forms being available. Attached is the updated NOI. activities to the UNTi is as follows: DP ID#1 DP) ID#2 -424'+/- -238' +/- 5. $102.4(b)(5)(v) The wetland delineation provided does not encompass the entire area tol be disturbed, and does not include the watercourses located on the site. Provide an updated wetland delineation encompassing the entire site performed in accordance with guidelines by US Army Corps and PA Applicants Response: An updated Wetland Delineation Report has been performed by Ephemeral LLC that encompasses the remaining areas not covered by the Morris Knowles 6. $102.4(b)(5)(v) An additional stream flows along Old Coal Hollow Road; show the extent of the stream channel and its regulation floodway on the drawings; show thel FEMA floodplain if applicable. Applicants Response: The project is in the Lower Allegheny watershed (USGS 8-Difit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) #05010009), Hydrology with the project area drains to' Tributary 63750 of Sandy Creek. A review of Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Ratel Map Panel 380 of 558 reveals that the project study areai is not located within a DEP. report. 2 Special Flood Hazard Zone (FEMA, 2011). Thej project is not located within al FEMA 100-year 7. $102.4(b)5(v) As discussed during the pre-application meeting, ai macroinvertebrate study was requested to ensure the stream potentially impacted by thej project was truly ephemeral. Providea a macroinvertebrate study conducted: in accordance with current guidelines by US Army Corp and PAI DEP. The watercourses on site cannot be considered ephemeral without sufficient documentation, and thus Chapter 105j permitting may be needed. Label all watercourses as well as their 100 year floodways on or adjacent to the site on thej plans. Provide prooft that the stream does not have connection with a groundwater source. Contact PA DEP SWRO: for additional guidance. a. Be advised that the outfall from Basin #1 would need a GP-4 in this situation, as there are multiple sections of storm pipe between the outfall and the outlet structure ini the basin, which: makes this a non-appurtenant structure ofnon-jurisdictional dam. Ifthis can be waived, only Army Corps b. The proposed riprap apron froml Basin #2 also has a manhole and would have the same Fill for the embankment of Basin #2 would also require 105 permitting or documentation would need to be provided tos show the floodway is less than 50 ft and that grading is outside ofit. Applicants Response: Applicants Response: Icontacted the Fish and Boat Commission to discuss the avoidance measure. Ispoke to Clayton Good on two separate occasions. Iexplained tol him that we were: more than 50 feet away from the tributary to Sandy Creek. Accordingly, he agreed that therei is no issue as long as we are at least 50 feet away from the stream. I explained to him that we were approximately 201 feet away from a wet weather channel that exhibits perennial stream quantities. Ifurnished him a General Management Plan and Project Description. He will notify me within 30 days if the wet weather channel is considered a 8. $102.6(a)(1) Provide: fully completed E&S Module 1, completed in accordance with thel NOI Instructions.. Responses provided ins several locations of the module are: not sufficient or specific; Applicants Response: Module 1 now has two (2) attachments. The first attachment is the Soils Table, and Limitations and Resolutions. The second attachment is regarding Item 4 describing 9. $102.4(b)(5)() The soil limitations/resolations in the narrative aren't sufficient; soil limitations should bej provided based on the geotechnical report as well thel known limitations in the appendices oft the E&S manual (for example, corrosivity to concrete or steel, piping, erodibility, etc.) Please revise toj provide accurate limitations and sufficient resolutions in the modules and on the plans. Applicants Response: Revised as requested. Please refer to al letter from ACA Engineering 10. $102.4(b)(5)(ix). and 102.8(f)(3) Provide separate drawing sets for E&S and PCSM. floodplain. authorization would be needed. requirement as part a oft this comment. perennial stream. please revise. volume and rate runoff. dated September 26,2024 which is attached. Applicants Response: Three (3) separate Erosion and Sediment Control drawings are included with the submission for thel NPDES Permit. The drawing sets were previously separated. 3 11. $102.4(b)(5)(m) and 102.8(f)(3) The northern side oft the sitei is cut off ont the drawings provided; ensure the entire site is] provided in the &s and PCSM drawing sets that shows the entire LOD: and Applicants Response: Thej previously submitted plans showed the entire LOD - Plan Sheet SWM-1 is an overall plan that shows the entire LOD, Plan Sheet SWM-2 shows is a larger scale drawing that shows the southern portion of the site SWM-3is a larger scale drawing that shows the northern portion of the site. Plan Sheets SWM-2 and SWM-3 overlap in coverage, so the 12. $102.4(b)(5)@m) and 102.8()(3) Phased construction drawings are: recommended for thel E. & set. Applicants Response: This sitel has been a fill site for a while and this permit application is to remedy thei issue that a previous permit was never applied for. Controls need to bej placed over entire site to control runoff; therefore this project cannot be aj phased project. 13. $102.40b)(5)(vi) Due to stream impairment requiring ABACT controls, reductions cannot be taken for 4-7 day dewatering in the sediment basins to make them ABACT. Please revise. (No reductions Applicants Response: There are no stream impacts. The nearest designated water course is the UNT to Sandy Creek whichi isl located along Old Coal Hollow Road. There is a wet weather channel located within the property which is directed to the UNT to Sandy Creek. The distance entire permit boundary. entire LOD is shown. may be taken for ABACT.) from our grading activities to the UNTi is as follows: DP ID#1 DP ID#2 -424'+- -238' +/- 14. $102.4(b)(5)(x) Provide the following construction details and applicable notes in the E&S detail set, specific to each BMP where appropriate. a. Trash Rack and Anti-vortex device (#7-5) b. Sediment basin temporary riser/permanent detention pond riser structure (#7-9) Temporary riser extension and trash rack for permanent structure (#7-10) Manufacturer's specifications for the geotextile liner in the rip rap: aprons d. Filter diaphragm Concrete cradle for outlet barrel g. Mamihcturefspedifatoans for thel NAGC125BN and NAGC350 (include stapling patterns if applicable) Applicants Response: Revised as requested. 15. $102.4(b)(5)(ix) Metal anti-seep collars may only be used for temporary basins; revise to use concrete anti-seep collars andj provide detail #7-16 equivalent. Applicants Response: Revised as requested. Applicants Response: Revised as requested. 16. $102.4(b)(5)(vi) Provide the routing diagram used for basins in thel E&S phase. 4 17. $102.4()(6)(vii) In the sediment calculations, identify both the (1) top oft thes sediment storage zone elevation and (2) elevation at the top of the dewatering zone (somehow highlight or point them out). Address this in both the stage storage table and on thel hydrographs provided. Applicants Response: Basin 1 Top of sediment storage zone elevation Top of dewatering zone elevation Top of sediment storage zone elevation Top of dewatering zone elevation 1115.00' 1116.00' 1015.00' 1018.00' Basin 2 These items cannot be added to the hydrographs, these values do not get routed through the Hydrocad. The values do appear in the Stage-Storage Section of the Hydrocad report and have 18. $102.4(6)(5)(vin) In thej pond report add the top oft the sediment storage zone elevation to the Applicants Response: Refer to revised information listed in applicants response for comment 19. $102.40)()(vii) In sediment basin #2 calculations, thel hydrograph provided appears to be for the final PCSM converted state oft thel basin; revise to provide the calculations for the temporary E&S stage. Note, infiltration should not be considered during thel E&S stage oft thel basin. been highlighted for clarity. incremental and cumulative storage calculation. #17. These values are listed. Applicants Response: Revised as requested. 20. $102.4(b)5)(vi) Provide peak rate calculations for pipe flow and worksheet #20: for the proposed riprap aprons. Applicants Response: Revised as requested. perforated risers (worksheet #15 or equivalent). Applicants Response: Revised as requested. Applicants Response: Revised as requested. Applicants Response: Revised as requested. 21. $102.406)(5)(vii) Provide supporting calculations justifying the sizing and quantity ofholes in the 22. $102.4(b)(5)(vi), Provide worksheet #17 for sediment basin discharge capacity. 23. $102.4(b)5)(vin) Provide worksheet #18 for anti-seep collar design. 24. 102.5.40)5)vi) Provide worksheet #1 for proposed compost filter sock calculations. Applicants Response: The proposed worksheet for the compost filter sock is included with the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. 5 25. $102.4(b)(5)() and 102.4(b)(5)(xi) The geotechnical report discusses active landslides on thes site. Provide guidance andi information on this int the geologic conditions that may cause pollution sections oft the application (Modules 1&2). This should also be adequately addressed in the soil limitations Applicants Response: Refer to the letter from ACAI Engineering Response Letter #2 dated 26. $102.40b)(5)(xi) The geotechnical: report shows that potentially contaminated or unclean fill materials have been dumped on the site (slag, organics, glass, carpet, possibly asphalt). Provide sampling results that show soils on sitei including these materials do not have contaminants above the criteria in PA Code Chapter 250. Contact PAI DEP Department of Waste Management and the PA DEP Environmental Cleanup programs for additional guidance. Copy ACCD on any correspondence Applicants Response: Refer to the letter from ACA Engineering Response Letter #2 dated 27. $102.40b)(5)(xii) Please clarifyifall previously placed filli is being removed from the site and either screened or disposal of at a regulated facility. How will earthmoving operations occur in terms of staging? Again, aj phased plan would bel helpful to show which portions oft the site willl be active at Applicants Response: Refer to thel letter from ACA Engineering Response Letter #2 dated 28. $102.4(b)(5)(xi) Mine grouting is recommended in the geotechnical: report; please address the a. Provide a concrete washout location and adequate E&S surrounding the locations where this will C. Note that additional PAI DEP or Allegheny County Health Department permits may be needed. Contact those entities for coordination. Provide copies of all correspondence in the resubmission. Applicants Response: Refer to thel letter from ACA Engineering Response Letter #2 dated 29. $102.8(f)(3) Describe the measures that willl be taken when excavating the basins; thel boring logs show that the basin bottom is anticipated to be in fill rather than on native soils. Will this be over- excavated to native ground and replaced with sand or another suitable material? How will this be addressed during E&S Phase? Address this in the response letter, any changed should be reflected in and resolutions on the plan drawings. October 30, 2024 which has been attached. tot these programs. October: 30, 2024 which has been attached. certain points in the construction sequence. October 30, 2024 which has been attached. following: be performed. b. Provide an additional phased drawing. October 30, 2024 which has been attached. the drawings and sequence. Applicants Response: The basins will not be on fill. Basin 1 bottom elevation is 1114.00'. Ground elevation is 1114.00'. Basin 2 bottom elevation is 1014.00'. Ground elevation is 1014.00'. 6 30. $102.4(b)(5)0) Show all proposed grading on the E&S drawings; channel grading has not been Applicants Response: Erosion and Sediment Control drawings have been submitted and all of 31. $102.4(b)(5)(vi) Show complete drainage areas fort the channels and basins during the E&S phase. Applicants Response: The drainage areas are thes same during E. & S Phase and Post 32. $102.4(b)(5)(ii) Show all existing andj proposed utilities on the E&S drawings. Will there be any catch basins, storm pipes, electric lines, etc.? Ensure all existing andj proposed utilities are shown and labeled appropriately. Additionally, ensure that protection ofutilities is provided where appropriate. Applicants Response: All existing and proposed utilities have been shown on the drawings. The utilities have been labeled to match the Stormwater Management Plans and the proposed 33. $102.4(b)(5)dix): and 102.8(f)(3) Allegheny County. Act 167 requires protection or implementation of ar riparian buffer areai if earth disturbance is being performed within 35 ft ofa watercourse with al DA of1 10 acres or more. Be advised that this requirement is separate from the traditional state buffer requirements. Trees are being proposed as aj part oft this project; explain how the current design and plan is meeting the Act 167 requirement. (Thel DA tot the UNTi is approximately 26 acres; thel DA to Applicants Response: The nearest designated water course is the UNT to Sandy Creek which isl located along Old Coal Hollow Road. There is a wet weather channel located within the property which is directed to the UNT to Sandy Creek. The distance from our grading shown. thej proposed grading and channel grading has been shown. Maximum areas should be shown. Construction. lighting plans. the stream along Old Coal Hollow Road is approximately 108 acres.) activities to thel UNT is as follows: DP ID#1 DPI ID#2 -424'+1- -238' +/- 34. $102.6(a)(2): Incorporate the Fish & Boat avoidance measures into the drawings. Applicants Response: A notel has been placed on all of the drawings directing the contractor to 35. $102.4(b)(vii) Insufficient information is provided in the construction sequence fori implementation, protection from compaction, andj proper conversion oft the sediment basins to their final PCSM state. a. Please clarify- - step 2 of the sequence regarding basins discusses compaction standards for fill- - please specify that while the embankments must be compacted, the basin bottom should not be follow the Fish and Boat Ordinance measures. Revise the sequence to be specific for each SCM. compacted. Applicants Response: Revised as requested. 7 36. $102.4()(5)xil): and $102.8(g)(1) Identify the locations where unclean fill were encountered, Applicants Response: Unclean fill was identified in Boring #18. No other unclean fill was 37. 102.4b)(5)xi), and $102.8(g)(1) Identify locations ofinfiltration test pits on the drawings. Applicants Response: Refer to thel letter from ACA Engineering Response Letter #2 dated 38. $102.6(a)(1) Provide ai fully completed PCSMI Module 2, completed as instructed int thel NOI as well as all: sampling locations on thel E&S and PCSM drawings. identified. October 30, 2024 which has been attached. instructions. This includes, buti is no limited to, the following: a. Page 1-) Provide sufficient coordinates for SCMI locations. b. Page 1 -] Identify in the SCM name which basin is thel MRC design. C. Page 2 - Revise #6 based on other comments above. d. One set of the volume and rate pages should be completed per discharge point; please revise. e. Explain why the engineer signing PCSM module 2i is not the same engineer thati is sealing the Applicants Response: Items a. through e. has been revised as requested. Item f.-There were two different engineers working on the project. Item f.i is now revised to have the same 39. $102.8()(9) The drainage area maps on sheet SWM-2 are cut off on the westem/northwestem side of the side (DA for DC-2and DC-4, portion ofDC-lportion: along Buchanon Rd. near the proposed truck parking area). Provide aj plan showing the entirety oft the drainage areas to the channels and basins. Due to the size oft the site, separate DA mapsi in the narratives are: recommended VS. putting Applicants Response: A plan that shows the entirety of the drainage areas was previously 40. $102.8(g)(1). As discussed in meetings on site and during thej pre-application meeting, borehole percolation tests can'tbe used to justify the lack ofinfiltration on sites where MRC will be utilized. Refer to thel MRC guidance; a minimum ofl test pit per 40,000 square feet oft the site must be Locations oft tests need to make sense forj potential stormwater controls (i.e., not at thet top oft the hill a. Itis recommended to map out the locations/depths of bedrock, fill, and other potential limitations Applicants Response: Refer to the letter from ACA Engineering Response Letter #2 dated MRC design. engineer signing the documents. them on thej plans that willl be used for construction. submitted with this application, iti is referenced as Appendix-2. performed, and tests must follow the double-ring infiltrometer method. or close to a watercourse or wetland. ino order to choose appropriate locations and test depths. October 30, 2024 which has been attached. 8 41. $102.8(f)(8), $102.8(g)(1), $102.8(g)(2), $102.8(g)(3) The disturbed acreage for the sitei is nearly 22 acres, but the PCSM design for the sitei is onlyi incorporating al little under 11 acres, with not undetained areasi identified int the PCSM calculations. Explain the following: a. The discrepancy between the disturbed acreage and managed acreage. b. Explain how the stormwater could possibly be managed fort thes site without consideration oft the entire disturbed area and/or any undetained areas being considered. The disturbed acreage provided in the PCSM spreadsheet is not consistent with the rest oft the application. Explain why 390,360 square feet of disturbed and improved area does not have any proposed PCSM controls. (Proposed ruck parking area, proposed masonry building, area with retaining wall/associated grading.) Applicants Response: The site is divided into three (3) drainage areas. Drainage. Area 1- Storm Water Management Basin No. 1 364,164 sq. ft. or 8.36: acres Drainage Area 2- Storm Water Management Basin No. 2 143,252 sq. ft. or 3.28: acres Drainage. Area 3- Storm Water Management Basin No.3 445,012 sq. ft. or 10.21 acres Total Drainage. Area 952,428 sq. ft. or 21.86 acres Thej project site is located within Sub-Basin W1550 Water Shed; therefore, the post development peak discharge rate shall not exceed 100% of the pre development peak discharge rate for the 1-year, 2-year, 5-year, 10 -year, 25-year, 50-year, and 100-year 24-hour storm Drainage area 1 post development runoffi is controlled by Storm Water Management Basin No. events pursuant to thej pre development cover assumption. 1.1 Thej post development runoff is shown in' Table 21 below. Table 2: Flow Summary Infiltration Basin No. 1 Rainfall Post Dvipmnt Q( (Peak Discharge)- cfs 0.10 0.35 2.12 6.23 15.96 40.19 42.34 Post Dvipmnt Total Permitted Pre Dvipmnt Inflow P.O.I. (Inflow Area) #1 Q(Peak Discharge- cfs) 0.06 0.54 2.52 4.89 8.87 12.60 16.88 Routed Outflow (P.O.I.#1) Q(Peak Discharge- cfs) 0.00 0.06 0.34 1.04 3.20 5.68 7.17 Post Dvipmnt BMP Routed (100% of Predev) P.O.I.#1) Q(Peak Discharge - cfs) 0.06 0.54 2.52 4.89 8.87 12.60 16.88 1Year 2Year 5) Year 10 Year 25 Year 50 Year 100 Year 9 Drainage area 2 post development runoffi is controlled by Storm Water Management Basin No. 2. Thej post development runoffiss shown in' Table 31 below. Table 3: Flow Summary Infiltration Basin No. 2 Rainfall Post Dvipmnt Q( (Peak cfs Post Dvipmnt Outflow Q(Peak cfs) 0.00 0.01 0.08 0.25 0.92 1.88 2.61 Total Permitted Post Dvipmnt BMP Routed (100% of Predev) Q(Peak Pre Dvlpmnt #2 Discharge - cfs) 0.15 0.61 1.61 2.66 4.33 5.85 7.56 InflowP.O.I. (Inflow Area) Routed Q(Peak Discharge)- (P.O.I.#2) Discharge- Discharge - cfs) 1Year 2Year 5Year 10 Year 25 Year 50 Year 100 Year 0.03 0.45 1.52 2.68 4.56 6.28 8.23 0.15 0.61 1.61 2.66 4.33 5.85 7.56 The overall site runoff rate is described in' Table 41 below. Post Dvipmnt Routed P.O.I. Routed #1 Q(Peak Discharge - Discharge - cfs) 0.00 0.06 0.34 1.04 3.20 5.68 7.17 Post Dvipmnt P.O.I.#2 Q( (Peak cfs) 0.00 0.01 0.08 0.25 0.92 1.88 2.61 Uncntrld Outflow Discharge- cfs) 0.44 1.82 4.84 8.01 13.06 17.64 22.85 Total Predev through site Q(Peak Discharge-cfs) 3.01 4.75 8.86 13.22 20.18 26.50 33.62 Total Overall flow Post Dvipmnt Discharge- = cfs) 0.44 1.89 5.26 9.30 17.18 25.20 32.63 Rainfall 1Year 2Year 5Year 10 Year 25 Year 50 Year 100 Year Q( (Peak Routed Q (Peak 10 The totall Post development runoffi is less than thel Predevelopment runoff, therefore complying 42. $102.8(f)(8), $102.8(8)(1), $102.8(g)(2), $102.8(g)(3) Provide a fully completed PCSM Spreadsheet, completed as identified in thel DEP PCSM Spreadsheet Instructions. Address the following items: withl Municipality of Penn Hills Storm Water Management Ordinance. a. Area in watershed VS. site acreage, undetained acreage. Applicants Response: Revised as requested. Total area in watershed = 952,428 sq.ft. or 21.87 acres. Basin 11 Drainage. Area = 364,164 sq.ft. or 836 acres Basin 21 Drainage. Area = 143,252 sq.ft. or 3.29 acres Uncontrolled Drainage. Area = 445,012 sq.ft. or 10.22 acres Total Area = 952,428 sq.ft. or 21.87 acres These numbers now match with the PCSM Worksheets and thel Impervious and Pervious b. Receiving waters should not bei identified as "groundwater"; this should be the same as the name Applicants Response: This field within the worksheet is not a custom field that can be altered there are options to choose from. WhatIhave chosen is the best choice for the Worksheets. ofthe receiving stream identified in thel NOI. conditions. The other options are as follows: Discharge to MS 4-1 Not applicable Discharge to storm sewers notl MS4-1 Not applicable Discharge to combined sewer system - Not applicable Groundwater- which is what] I have chosen Discharge to non-surface waters - Not applicable Asboth basins discharge to thes same receiving stream at relatively close locations, one. DEP PCSM Spreadsheet may be used to show compliance with PCSM: requirements. This is recommended, but not required. Regardless, drainage areas and undetained areas should match the watershed area for the watershed for the drainage area to the receiving point. Applicants Response: The basins were: separated to establish that both basins comply with d. Provide spreadsheet for the proposed storm sewer discharge point neat thej proposed masonry Applicants Response: The uncontrolled PCSM Worksheets account for the storm sewer the Rate and Water Quality requirements. building. discharge near the masonry building. 11 43. $102.4(c) Provide an erodibility analysis for the storm S sewer discharge near thej proposed masonry Applicants Response: The discharge is a 6" dia. roof leader pipe from the proposed building. The effluent pipe is at 12.06% slope with a discharge capacity of1.96 cfs. The velocity is 9.92 FPS. Thej proposed energy dissipator is designed based on thisi information andi is an R-4 rip rap at 12" thick by 6' long. Initial width is 3' wide and the terminal width is 8' wide. 44. $102.8(f)(8), $102.8(g)(1), $102.8(g)(2), $102.8(g)(3) The: stormwater calculations use al hydrologic soil group rating of" "B" int thel PCSM calculations, but not all soil types actually in thel B group. Some are Cand the urban soil types that are not: rated likely would not have ai rating of B either. Furthermore, disturbance and compaction ofs soils would degrade the HSG during construction, resulting in a C/D rating post-construction, rather than remaining al B. Revise this int the calculations building, as it does not discharge directly to a surface water. to be more reflective of the soil types and post-construction conditions. Applicants Response: Revised as requested. the locations that receive fill material. a. Provide discussion on howi imported soill has been taken into account in these calculations, as the existing soil types based on NRCS: mapping would not really be applicable post-construction for Applicants Response: There is no) procedure to accurately determine soil types of the 45. $102.8(f)(8), $102.8(g)(1), $102.8(g)(2), $102.8(g)(3) Forj justification oft the use ofMRC, other options of stormwater control measures should be exhausted; explain why no non-structural stormwater measures are proposed for thej project. There arej plenty of areas where landscape Applicants Response: Two (2) Landscaping Plans were prepared for this site. Trees will be 46. $102.8(f)(9) Vegetation is accounted fori in the calculations (PCSM Spreadshet/Module 2) for the basins. Provide aj planting plan with thel PCSM set that identifies all proposed plantings, quantities, sizes, etc. with sufficient planting instructions and maintenance requirements for the species of plants selected. Note that both woody and herbaceous species arei required for the vegetation credits. Applicants Response: Both Ponds #1 and #2 will have aj planting schedule shown on the 47. $102.8(f)(8), $10288X0.9102882. $102.8(g)(3) ) Applya factor ofs safety on thei infiltration imported fill. restoration, meadow or tree plantings, etc. could be utilized. planted. Refer to Sheets 20 and 21. Landscape Plan. Refer to Sheets 20 and 21. values obtained for utilization in the PCSM calculations for both basins. Applicants Response: Will revise as requested. MRC Comments: 48. $102.8()(9) and $102.11(a) Regarding design requirements and standards for thel MRC Basin: 12 a. Thel PCSM details provided fort the basins arei not consistent with thel MRC design standards. For the basin intended tol bel MRC, revise the soil media, underdrain, etc. to be consistent with the design standards for MRC. Applicants Response: Revised as requested. b. Any design deviations are not permitted under PAGO2. The design proposed for the MRC contains many deviations from the design criteria; ift the design cannot: achieve requirements without deviations. check the yes box on the worksheet andi identify the deviations in the space Applicants Response: Revised as requested. 20% organic (compost), 30% sand, pea gravel provided. and 50% clean top soil. 49. $102.11(b) Thel MRC worksheet does noti identify the proposed vegetation for the MRC basin. Applicants Response: JPV Holdings LLC willl be planting trees and ground cover. Attached 50. $102.11(b) Thei receiving surface water is impaired; this is not correctly filled out on the MRC are the twol landscaping plans - Sheets 20 and 21. worksheet. Applicants Response: Revised as requested. vegetation section on the worksheet. Applicants Response: Revised as requested. please revise. This should bei rounded up to 0.07. Applicants Response: Revised as requested. 51. $102.11(b) The components of the engineered soil media should be provided in the BMP media description; thisj just néeds to be moved from where it was incorrectly typed in thej proposed 52. $102.11(b) The allowable MRC BMP release rate provided has not been appropriately rounded; 53. $102.11(b) The drainage area provided on the MRC worksheet does not: match the drainage area provided on thel DEP PCSM Spreadsheet. Revise to be accurate, update other values to meet design criteria based on this change. Applicants Response: Revised as requested. int this cell appears tol be a typo. Applicants Response: Revised as requested. 54. $102.11(b) The maximum storm event routed to the MRCI BMP is not provided; the value provided 55. $102.11(b) The under overflow rate during the 1.2"/2hr storm provided does not meet design criteria #2. Applicants Response: Revised as requested. 13 56. $102.8(f)(8), $102.8(g)(3), $102.8(g)(4) Routing calculations, stage storage information, and hydrographs have not been provided for the 1.2"/2hr storm. Note that CN values may not be Applicants Response: SWM Report has the 2-year storm event routing calculations, stage storage information and hydrographs were previously provided. The CN values are 57. $102.11(b) The BMP footprint area provided on thel MRC worksheet does not match the basin bottom area in square feet provided on thel PCSM spreadsheet for the basin. Revise for accuracy and Applicants Response: Revised as requested. The BMP footprint area (sq. ft.) did not specify the bottom of the basin area. lassumed it was referencing total surface area of the basin. 58. $102.11(b) Provide calculations showing how the equivalent impervious area shown onj page 1 ofthe Applicants Response: Refer to Sub Catchment Impervious Summarization Basin which is 59. $102.11(b) MR guidance recommends bypassing storm events larger than the 2yr/24hr storm toa rate control SCM. Discuss why this cannot be reasonably achieved for this project. Ifthis cannot be achieved, increased inspection and maintenance should be provided in the long-term 0&M for this Applicants Response: Due to topographical conditions, a separate rate control SCM for storms larger than 2-year 24 hour cannot be achieved. Thel long-term 0 & Mi is providing increased averaged for this storm event. incorporated into the calculations. consistency. MRC worksheet was derived. attached to the NPDES Permit. basin. inspection and maintenance as follows: Item Unit square yard per visit per visit per year square yard per visit Per visit Previous Qty. 530 4 8 1 530 4 8 Revised Qty. 530 8 8 3 160 8 12 Replace planting media Debris removal Mow embankments Sediment removal Erosion repair Catch Basin Cleaning Inspection 60. $102.8()(9) Show the soil media elevations and mixture specifications with the PCSM detail. Applicants Response: Revised as requested. 61. $102.8()(9) Provide the underdrain elevations in the PCSM basin detail. 14 Applicants Response: Refer to Basin #1 information above the Basin #1 Section View on Plan Sheet SWM-4. The underdrain flow line elevation was previously listed as 1212.50 at the 62. $102.8(f)(9) Forl MRC designs, either an upturned elbow or a cap with a drilled orifice should be provided at the end oft the underdrain. This is not: shown in any oft the details for the basin. Revise to Applicants Response: Revised as requested. Refer enlarged view on Detail Sheet. 63. $102.11(b) and $102.8(f)(9) Provide appropriately spaced cleanouts for the underdrain in thel MRC Applicants Response: Cleanouts were previously shown on Section View of the ponds. 64. $102.11(b) Explain ifthel IWS used for routing provided in the design is from the engineered soil Applicants Response: The IWS used for routing provided in the design is from engineered soil 65. $102.11(b) Provide discussion from the design engineer on their opinion of safety of this basin in relation to the historic landslide on the property, as well as depth to the mines on site. Applicants Response: Refer to thel letter from ACA Engineering Response Letter #2 dated 66. $102.11(b) Provide justiftcation/supporting calculations for the void space used for the IWS calculation. The value shown (40%) seems like a very generous assumption. Applicants Response: Revised as requested. The value now utilized is 25%. beginning and 1212.00 at the valves located adjacent to the O.C.S. meet MRC design criteria. basin. mixture or the R-3 "infiltration" bedi in thel basin. mixture. October 30, 2024 which has been attached. 67. $102.8(f)(9) Provide geotextile and stone: for prevention of clogging of the underdrain in the basin. 68. $102.8(f)(3) Due to the steep angle of thei inflow pipe, consider the use ofa drop structure where the Applicants Response: There is no influent pipe to either basins. Interceptor channels are proposed to convey flow in both basins (IC-1 & UC-2 to basin 1), (IC-3 to basin 2). 69. $102.8(f)(9) Provide details for thej proposed permanent concrete outlet structures for both basins. Applicants Response: Revised as requested. Basins 1 and 2 typical sections havel been revised 70. $102.8(f)(9) For basin #2, DEPI has been requesting that underdrains be removed. Ifthe basin needs tol be dewatered for maintenance purposes, a pumped water filter bag should be used. Applicants Response: Revised as requested. The underdrain has been removed. Applicants Response: Revised as requested. pipe discharges into the basin. to detail the structure. 15 71. $102.8(f)(5) Show all wetlands, watercourses, and their floodways on thel PCSM drawings. Applicants Response: There are no wetlands nor flood ways located on the. JPV Holdings LLC 72. $102.8(f)(9) Identifyllabel all proposed PCSM discharge points on thel PCSM drawings; these should Applicants Response: Revised as requested. Refer to SWM-3, discharge points are now 73. $102.8()(15) and $102.6(a)(2) Provide the avoidance measures from the PNDI on thel E&S and PCSM drawings; provide documentation of coordination with PAI Fish & Boat Commission for the Applicants Response: Icontacted thel Fish and Boat Commission to discuss the avoidance measure. Ispoke to Clayton Good on two separate occasions. Iexplained to him that we were more than 50 feet away from the tributary to Sandy Creek. Accordingly, he agreed that there isn no issue as long as we are atl least 501 feet away from the stream. lexplained tol him that we were approximately 20 feet away from a wet weather channel that exhibits perennial stream quantities. Ifurnished him a General Management Plan and Project Description. Hewill notify me within 30 days ift the wet weather channel is considered aj perennial stream. 74. $102.8(f)(7) and $102.6(f)(10) Provide the construction sequence and designate critical stages of PCSM control implementation in the PCSM drawing set. Provide a more: rigorous PCSM site. cross reference thei identifiers on Module 2 andi int thel PCSM Spreadsheet. labelled. PNDI hit and proposed grading within 501 ft. oft the stream. maintenance plan due to thel MRC design. Applicants Response: Wev will revise as requested. discuss any changes to the plans or design. October 30,2024 which has been attached. 75. Be advise, due to the now known geotechnical issues, PNDI hit, and MRC design deviations, the project may no longer be eligible for PAG-02. Contact ACCD prior toi resubmission to discuss to Applicants Response: Refer to the letter from ACA Engineering Response Letter #2 dated 16 ACA ENGINEERING Engineering I Testing I Inspection September 26, 2024 Mr. Joseph Vigliotti Vigliotti Landscape & Construction, Inc. 10250 Buchannon Road Pittsburgh, PA 15235 RE: Response Letter Vigliotti Property Municipality of Penn Hills, PA ACA Project No. E24063x10 Dear Mr. Vigliotti: ACA Engineering, Inc. (ACA) has reviewed the Allegheny County Conservation District incompleteness review letter, dated September 16, 2024. Our responses are as follows: 9. The soil shall be free of organic matter, peat, rock or gravel or concrete fragments larger than 6ir inches in any dimension, and other deleterious materials such as carpet and glass. Potentially expansive, highly plastic materials, red clay, and carbonaceous shale are not suitable for use as fill material. Highly plastic clays should be mixed with suitable materials on-site. 25. Section 6.6.3 states that any colluvial soils encountered should be completely removed. This also includes existing fill material that has shown signs of instability. The existing fill slopes on site will be re-built and stabilized following ACA guidance and recommendations regarding general fill and slope construction. The stabilization of the existing slopes on site will: significantly reduce the risk of landslides and their potential to cause pollution in thet form of sediment run-off. 26. The existing fill material encountered during geotechnical drilling operations consisted of primarily common construction debris such as concrete, brick, and asphalt fragments. Test boring B-18 encountered "unclean" fill materials such as carpet and glass fragments. No potentially contaminated fill material was identified in any of the nineteen (19) test borings previously 27. The majority of the existing fill materials will remain on-site. The existing fill slopes are to be stabilized and partially rebuilt. All unsuitable existing fill materials encountered on site during earthmoving operations will be separated and disposed of at a regulated facility. 28. Mine grouting was provided as an option in the geotechnical report. No new structures were proposed above the undermined area and ACA does not anticipate grouting options to be performed.. ACA provided the option as a preventative measure for existing structures on-site and performed at the project site. the new proposed private drive area. 410NB Balph Avenue I Pittsburgh, PA 15202-1708 I PHONE: 412.761.1990 I FAX:412.761.1998 I acaenginering.com PITTSBURGH, PA I MECHANICSBURG, PA I YOUNGSTOWN,OH ACA ENGINEERING Engineering I Testing I Inspection Ifyou should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Sincerely yours, ACA ENGINEERING, INC. PROFESSIONAL MICHAELGEORGES SUCHAR ENGINEER E061326 Amuche Michael G. Suchar, P.E. President 410NBalph Avenue I Pittsburgh, PA 15202-1708 I PHONE:412.761.1990 I FAX:412.761.1998 I acaengineering.com PITTSBURGH, PA I MECHANICSBURG, PA I YOUNGSTOWN, OH ACA ENGINEERING Engineering I Testing I Inspection October 30, 2024 Mr. Joseph Vigliotti Vigliotti Landscape & Construction, Inc. 10250 Buchannon Road Pittsburgh, PA 15235 RE: Response Letter #2 Vigliotti Property Municipality of Penn Hills, PA ACA Project No. E24063x10 Dear Mr. Vigliotti: ACA Engineering, Inc. (ACA) has reviewed the Allegheny County Conservation District 37. Infiltration locations were identified on the Test Location Plan submitted in ACA's Infiltration Testing Letter dated April 30, 2024. A copy of the Test Location Plan has also been attached to 40. Infiltration tests were performed in accordance with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Pennsylvania Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual, Appendix C - Site Evaluation and Soil Testing Procedures. A correction factor was determined and applied to each final reading. Percolation tests meet regulatory requirements for soil analysis inr many jurisdictions, ensuring that the data gathered is compliant with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. This allows us to gather accurate data without incurring additional costs associated with more intensive testing methods. The locations of the tests performed were in the footprint and at the elevation of the proposed stormwater structures. A test boring was performed in the area first, tol log the materials present and identify any limiting layers within two (2) feet of the proposed elevation. Then, one (1) separate bore hole was offset to the 65. Slope stability was performed through each proposed basin and recommendations for slope construction were provided in our geotechnical report dated May 14, 2024. All proposed stormwater structures are below the base of the Pittsburgh coal seam elevation of approximately 75. Our geotechnical report dated May 14, 2024, discusses the geotechnical concerns likely to be encountered during earthwork, and recommendations to address and remediate these incompleteness Review Letter. Our responses are as follows: this letter. proposed test depth to perform the test. 1150'. concerns. 410NB Balph Avenue I Pittsburgh, PA 15202-1708 I PHONE: 412.761.1990 I FAX:412.761.1998 I acaengineering.com PITTSBURGH, PA I MECHANICSBURG, PA I YOUNGSTOWN, OH ACA ENGINEERING Engineering I Testing I Inspection If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Sincerely yours, ACA ENGINEERING, INC. PROFESSIONAL MICHAELGEORGES SUCHAR ENGINEER EW Anuchg Michael G. Suchar, P.E. President Attachments: Infiltration Test Location Plan 410NBalph Avenue I Pittsburgh, PA 15202-1708 I PHONE: 412.761.1990 I FAX: 412.761.1998 I acaengineering.com PITTSBURGH,PA I MECHANICSBURG, PA I YOUNGSTOWN,0H EPHEMERAL Ephemeral LLC 10S6"Street Youngwood, PA15697 phemeraiconsutants@gmai.com Antonacci Design Associates, Inc. 220 South Fifth Street Jeannette, PA 15644 clo EdwardL./ Antonacci, P.E. 10/24/2024 Re: Incompleteness Review Letter comments Ed, Please below for general feedback to review letter comments provided by ACCD. Comment #5: The delineation report prepared by Ephemeral LLC, see provided PDFI report, encompasses the remainder of the entire LOD as currently presented int the design plans. The delineation report mapping shows the prior Morris Knowles delineation boundary, and the remaining portion that was covered by the delineation by Ephemeral LLC. Comment #7: ACCD is requesting a macroinvertebrate. study to ensure' "the stream potentially impacted byt the project was truly ephemeral". Based on the comment, ACCD: suggests that the stream is not ephemeral int the proposed impacted area. Our delineation report notes that the stream ini this area does exhibit perennial qualities, with groundwater sourced flow and defined bed/bank; geometry. As thes stream exhibits perennial qualities, regardless oft the presence of macroinvertebrates, any proposed outflow tot that portion of stream may require Chapter 105 permitting. Ify yous should have anyf further questions, please contact us by email at your convenience. Thanks, RCPs Ryan CD Deglau, PLS Ephemeral LLC 10S6th Street, Youngwood, PA 15697 ephemeralconsutants@gmal.com 1of1 GATEWAY ENGINEERS 100 McMorris Road Pittsburgh, PA 15205 412-921-4030 Gatewayengineerscom A FULL-SERVICE CIVIL ENGINEERING COMPANY 11/6/2024 Municipality of Penn Hills 102 Duff Road Penn Hills, PA 15235 ATTN: Chris Blackwell, Director of Planning Megan Balsamico, Principal Planner CC: Richard D. Minsterman, P.E., Municipal Engineer RE: JPV Holdings LLC Plan Review Letter 3 Wel have reviewed the plans fort the. JPVI Holdings LLC fill site improvements that proposes construction of a permanent gravel access road, truck parking area, masonry building, and two infiltration basins. The proposed gravel access roady will The following are comments associated with thep plans as prepared by Antonacci Design & Associates, Inc. dated July 23, 2024 andi revised on September 18, 2024, for compliance with Penn Hills Stormwater Management Ordinance and general engineering design practices. Items that have been addressed: are noted as such and will be removed from These comments are not considered exhaustive. Additional comments shall be provided on the subsequent information as connect JOMAR Landscape/Lawn and Garden Center with Vigliotti Landscaping. subsequent review letters. submitted. Site Plan/Land Development Comments: 1. Per Section 1246.11.b.1 Site plans shall contain all the required details described in section 1246,11b.1.Athrough 1246.11.b.L. D. Latest Applicant Response: There are two proposed easements identified on the Consolidation Plans. Mr. Vigliotti has an agreement with the Living Word Baptist Church to use their property. The extent of the easement acquired from the Living Work Baptist Church has been added to the Site Plans. The easement Gateway Comment: Item partially addressed. Please ensure easement hatching for the Living L Latest Applicant Response: The limits of the wetland delineation report prepared by Morris Knowles & Associates, Inc. has been shown on the Proposed Grading and General Arrangement Overall Plan. Gateway Comment: A new wetland delineation report was provided on November 1. The report was prepared by Ephemeral LLC and is dated October 2024. Project plans should be updated with has been shaded for clarity. Reference Sheets 3 and 4. Baptist Church property is shown on Sheet 4 of the plan set. Reference Sheet 15 for the exact locations. the stream information included in this report. ULL-SERVICE CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSETMANAGEMENT-ENVIRONMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL LANDDEVELOPMENT-MUNICIPAL . STRUCTURAL - SURVEYING-TRANSPORTATION GATEWAYENGINEERS AFULL-SERVICE CIVIL ENGINEERING FIRM K. The size, shape, and location of existing and proposed construction. b. Provide now or formerly labels on the site plan/plans for adjoining properties. Applicant Latest Response: The deed book volumes and page numbers for the. Allegheny County GIS, Parcel IDs 368-J-268 and: 368-N-60 that are now owned by JPV Holdings LLC have been added to the Proposed Grading and General Arrangement Plan Sheet 4. It was also added to Sheet 2 Existing Conditions Plan and Sheet 10 Landscaping Plan. Gateway Comment: The listed deed book volumes and pages are still incorrect on the plans. Please also clarify which parcels are to be consolidated and show which property lines will be extinguished fort the proposed consolidation plan. 2. Per Section 1246.11.b.2 Provide landscape plans that contain all the required details described in section 1246.11.b.2.A through 1246.11.b.2.F. A. Latest Applicant Response: A Landscaping Plan has been developed: for this site. Since a new masonry building willl be constructed, additional trees will bei installed per the requirements listed in section 1250.13. The requirements are that fore every 300 square feet of floorplan, a deciduous tree must be planted. The tree will be at least 2i inches in diameter. Since approximately 2,890 square feet of newi floor Meg Balsamico from the Planning Department requested that Mr. Vigliotta prepare a second Landscaping space will be added, an additional 101 trees will need to be planted. Plan. The Landscaping Plans now have two drawings. Reference Sheets 20 and 21. Gateway Comment: Item is addressed. B. Latest Applicant Response: AI note has been added to the Landscaping Plans Sheets 20 and 21 identifying that all trees are to have 2" diameter caliper. Also per Meg Balsamico a second Landscaping Plans has been added to the project. Reference Sheets 20 and: 21 for details. Gateway Comment: Item is addressed. F. Latest Applicant Response: Landscaping Plans Sheets 20 and 21 have been stamped with a landscape architects seal. Gateway Comment: Item is addressed. shall include all details described in section 1250.15. 4. Per Section 1246.11.b.4 Provide Environmental Report for the proposed expansion. The environmental Report (2) Latest Applicant Response: The tributary to Sandy Creek has been added to the plans. Reference Sheet 2, Sheet 4, Sheet 20, Sheet 14, Sheet 15 and Sheet 161 for the locations. The pond access road form Coal Holow Road to the pond #2 has been eliminated to avoid any conflicts with the tributary. According to the FEMA maps, there are no 100-year floodway limits shown on the tributary. Reference Flood Gateway Comment: Refer to the definition below of at floodway, as defined by Title 25 - Environmental Protection, Chapter 106 Floodplain Management of the PA Code: Insurance Rate Map Panel 380 of 558 Map #42003C03804. Floodway-The channel of the watercourse and those portions of the adjoining floodplains which are reasonably required to carry and discharge the 100-year flood. The boundary of the 100-year floodway is as indicated on the maps andi flood insurance studies provided by FEMA. In an area where no FEMA maps nor studies have defined the boundary of the floodway, it is assumed, 100 MCMORRIS ROAD, PITTSBURGH, PA 15205 I 412-921-4030 IC CATEVAYENGNEERSCOW GATEWAYENGINEERS A FULL-SERVICE CIVIL ENGINEERING FIRM absent evidence to the contrary, that the floodway extends from the stream to 50 feet landward Depict assumed 100-year floodway for the tributary to Sandy Creek per the definition above. If work is proposed within the floodway, the appropriate permits from Allegheny County Conservation District or Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection will need to be B. Latest Applicant Response: A separate Environmental Report has been prepared. The Environmental Gateway Comment: Please provide the reportstatement under separate cover. from the top of the bank of the stream. obtained. Impact Statement has been included in this report. 5. Proposed access road and fillgrading is proposed on' 'Living Word Baptist Church' property. It is understood that an access and fill easement willl be acquired. Proof that this easement has been obtained willl be required prior to Latest Applicant Response: The agreement to fill and use the Living Word Baptist Church for access has been Gateway Comment: Please provide the deed book volume and page for the recorded document and construction. recorded at the Allegheny County Courthouse. reference on the plans when depicting the easement. Site Plan/Land Development. Additional Comments: 1. Per Section 1246.11.b.1.K. The project limits/limits of disturbance areas are not consistent throughout the plan Latest Applicant Response: The project limits and limits of disturbance have been made consistent on all of the site drawings. The limits also match all oft the limits identified on the Storm Water Management Plans. set. Please revise so that project limits are consistent through entire plan set. Gateway Comment: Item has been addressed. 2. Per the revised plans Diversion channels 1 and 2 are proposed on Natasha Green (295-S-211) and Vittotrio & Mary Devito (295-M-151). Easements will need to be obtained for the installation of these channels on adjoining Latest Applicant Response: JPVI Holdings LLC is in the process of purchasing the areas required and this will Gateway Comment: Please depict the final proposed consolidated property boundary, show which existing property lines are to be extinguished as part of the consolidation plan. The consolidation plan should be included as part of the project plans if site development is dependent on a consolidation plan properties. appear on the subdivision plat submitted under a separate cover. being reviewed and approved by the municipality. 100 MCMORRIS ROAD, PITTSBURGH.PA 15205 I4 412-921-4030 I CATEVAYENONEERSCOW GATEWAYENGINEERS AF FULL-SERVICE CIVIL ENGINEERING FIRM Grading Permit Comments: 1. Per Section 1424.03Agradingi permit will ber required for the amount of earthwork that willl be taking place on site. Please formally submit for a grading permit following the standards in Chapter 1424. a. Ensure all grading is shown, on preliminary plans there is no grading for the proposed channels on site. Latest Applicant Response: All grading necessary to create channels have been added to the Site Plan. Gateway Comment: Item not addressed. Proposed channels still do not show grading. Additionally on Sheet 4, ICP-1 goes straight through the fill slope. Please refer to the attached markups for channel grading areas that seem to still bei incorrect. 2. Provide a geotechnical report prepared and signed by a professional engineer with respect to the proposed Latest Applicant Response: A Geotechnical Report was prepared by ACA Engineering, Inc. A detail about the objective of the project which is the construction of an access road, truck parking area, proposed building addition and retaining wall with associated site grading between Flamingo Avenue and Frankstown Road in the The proposed grading consists of two primary fill slopes greater than one hundred (100) feet in height, and two stormwater, ponds. The stormwater, ponds are located downslope from the proposed fill slopes on the east end of the, project area. The majority of the proposed fill material exists on site as previously placed fill and the remainder Gateway Comment: The project shall follow all the recommendations outlined in the provided Geotechnical Report prepared by ACA Engineering, Inc. Ai final letter of certification from the geotechnical engineer of record stating that earthwork operations were performed in accordance with their recommendations and shall be signed and sealed. The final signed and sealed letter shall be provided to construction. Municipality of Penn Hills. will bei imported from off-site locations. the Municipality upon completion of earthwork. Grading Permit Additional Comments: 1. Per Section 1250.09.1.(1) Grading shall be at least three (3) feet from the property line or right-of-way lines. Grading appears tol be within three feet of the property ofl Lisa Omek (368-J-160). Please revise to ensure grading Latest Applicant Response: Proposed contour lines are more than three (3) feet away from the property line since the pond access road has been eliminated from Old Coal Hollow Road, therefore this is a non-issue. is on JPVI Holdings LLC property and at least three feet from the property line. Gateway Comment: Item has been addressed. drainage facilities during and after construction. Gateway Comment: Item has been addressed. 2. Per Section 1250.09.n.(4) The drainage ditch shall be constructed prior to fill slopes to divert surface water to Latest Applicant Response: The following note was added to Sheets 4 and 15 "The drainage ditch. shall be constructed, prior to fill slopes to divert surface water to drainage facilities during and after construction. 100 MCMORRIS ROAD, PITTSBURGH, PA 15205 I 412-921-4030 I CATEWAVENGNEERSCOW GATEWAYENGINEERS A FULL-SERVICE CIVIL ENGINEERING FIRM 3. Per Section 1250.09.n.(7) Please identify the slopes oft the proposed channels and ensure that drainage ditches with grade of 7% or greater shall be paved with concrete, bituminous mixture, brick, half pipe, rubble, or other Latest Applicant Response: Revised as requested. Refer to the revised Plan Sheet MD-1. There are no channels hard surface material, such as rip rap. beyond 7.00% slope. IC-1458LF@ 1.00% IC-2 156LF@ 1.00% IC-3178LF@ 1.00% DC1276LFQ3628 DC-241LFQ4.549 DC-3233LFQ: 2.18% DC-475LFQ2.639 is added to plans. Gateway Comment: Item is partially addressed. Channel slopes shall be confirmed when channel grading 4. Per Section 1424.04.b. Per the updated plans, the proposed contours dor not tie off to the existing contours. Additionally, ensure minor contours are shown on the grading plan and are drawn correctly to a 2:1 slope. Latest Applicant Response: The proposed contour lines were placed on the plan to connect to the existing contour Gateway Comment: Please refer to attached markups for grading areas that still appear to be incorrect. 5. Per Section 1424.04.b. Provide cross sections of the proposed site at 100-foot intervals that clearly shows the Latest Applicant Response: Cross-sections were prepared for every 100-foot. interval per your request. Gateway Comment: Cross Section at Station 2+00 does not match the proposed contours on the plan 6. Section 4.5'Landslide Conditions" oft the geotechnical report states that "an active or recently active landslide was observed ini the vicinity of test borings B-19 and B-20. ACAI believes that the existing filli in the vicinity of this location is actively moving." Please state what measures willl be taken to address this concern expressed by the Gateway Comment: The ACAI letter states that "the existing fill slopes on site will be re-built and stabilized". Please clarify to what extent and what measures will be required as part of the slope Given the presence of historic landslides and presence of weathered claystone noted in the boring logs, please advise what precautions are being taken regarding the potential presence of redbeds. lines. method of benching both cut and/or fill. sheet. Additionally, it appears that the slope is steeper than 2:1. geotechnical engineer. Latest Applicant Response: Please refer to the letter below from ACA. reconstruction. 7. Grading Plans shall be updated following the completion of other revisions. Latest Applicant Response: Grading plans were updated per your request. Gateway Comment: Grading shall continue to be updated per comments in this and other review letters. 100MCMORRIS ROAD, PITTSBURGH, PA 15205 I 412-921-4030 IC CATEVAYENCNEERSCOM GATEWAYENGINEERS A FULL-SERVICE CIVIL ENGINEERING FIRM Stormwater Management Comments: 2. Per Section 301.H Provide infiltration test results at the location oft the proposed infiltration beds. Latest Applicant Response: Infiltration test conducted in the SWMF areas produced very low infiltration (0.08 in/hr in Basin 1 and Basin 2). In order to obtain satisfactory results in the PCSMI Worksheets during NPDES Planning MRC (Managed Release Concept) is required in Basin 1. Basin 2 does not require this Basin 2 capacity and the Gateway Comment: Understood, the proposed MRC SWMF shall be reviewed by ACCD or PADEP since All comments provided by Allegheny County Conservation District and/or Pennsylvania Department of 4. Per Section 401 Provide a Stormwater Management Site Plani that includes all the required information in section Latest Applicant Response: Predevelopment and Post Development Drainage area. maps have been revised to Gateway Comment: Item not addressed. The pre and post drainage area maps are cut off on the SWM plan set. Please ensure the entirety of the drainage area is shown. The selected points of interest still seem to bei incorrect.. A selection of a point of interest shall encompass the entirety of the drainage area. Al large portion of the project is not proposed to have stormwater controls, please clarify if this is Additionally, Differentiate between edowwoosmperious on drainage area maps for both pre and post. Differentiate between B and C soils based on soil hydrologic map. It is unclear what ground cover is 5. Per Section 401.C.3 Provide the necessary calculations and documentation that shows the proposed SWM facilities meet all the volume and rate requirements set forth in Sections 303 and 304, respectively. Latest Applicant Response: Per Ordinance, the following item is to be met. (1) Do not increase the post- development total runoff volume for all storms equal to or less than the two-year twenty-four hour duration Per SWMI Hydrocad Analysis, (copies below) the following is the calculated predevelopment and post minimal infiltration, produced is satisfactory. for NPDES design. the proposed MRC is to handle more than 3 acres of impervious area. Environmental Protection regarding the MRC shall be addressed. 401.C.1. clarify alla areas. Reference Drawings MD-5 and MD-6 intentional. considered existing impervious. precipitation. development volumes: Basin 1 Pre-Development Volume 1y Year 2) Year Basin 2 Pre-Development Volume 1y Year 2 Year met. Basin 1 Post-Development Volume Basin 2/ Post-Development Volume 1,839 cu. Ft. 4,310 cu. Ft. 1,406 cu. Ft. 2,7330 cu. Ft. 0.00 cu. Ft. 1,310 cu. Ft. 0.00 cu. Ft. 306 cu. Ft. Gateway Comment: Provide PA DEP PCSM spreadsheets to demonstrate that volume requirements are 1001 MCMORRIS ROAD, PITTSBURGH, PA 15205 I 412-921-4030 ICATEVAVENCNERSCOM GATEWAYENGINEERS A FULL-SERVICE CIVIL ENGINEERING FIRM Stormwater Management. Additional Comments: than 24 and not more than 72 hours. Basin 1 dewatering time is 28.50 hours Basin 2 dewatering time is 26.50 hours 1. Per Section 301.1 Provide calculations that the proposed infiltration basins dewater within a period of time not less Latest Applicant Response: Per Hydrocad. Analysis (copy attached below) is the following: Gateway Comment: Please clarify how and why the dewatering times of 28.50 hours and 26.50 hours respectively were selected. Iti is unclear how these dewatering times were calculated based on the 2. Per Section 304 The time of concentration for the existing conditions shall be calculated using the pre-conditions prior to any fill operations occurring. Additionally, ift the time of concentration for proposed conditions is less than five minutes, the time of concentration of five minutes shall be used in the analysis. Latest Applicant Response: Existing contours are based on Lidar Developed Mapping from 2006. Predevelopment Time of concentration for Basin 1 and Basin 2 were obtained from these contours. Basin 1 Sub-Catchment Time of concentration has been revised to reflect minimum of 5 minutes. Basin 2 Sub- Catchment Time of concentration has been revised to reflect minimum of 5 minutes. Gateway Comment: Understood, provide updated Stormwater Management Report and Analysis that shows the time of concentration has been revised to a minimum of 5 minutes. 3. Per Section 401.C.7. Provide details for the permanent outlet control structures. Latest Applicant Response: SWM-4. Plan Sheet Basin 1 Section View and Basin 2 Section View shows the Permanent Outlet Control Structure and orifice sizes ande elevations. Gateway Comment: Please provide separate details for the outlet structures. information provided. 4. Per Section 401.C.9 Provide an Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Plan which includes personnel and equipment requirements, estimated annual maintenance costs, and the method of financing for continuing O&M. Latest. Applicant Response: As requested, an estimated maintenance costs for both basins is attached below. Gateway Comment: Item partially addressed, add the estimated cost fori inspection to the SWM plans. . Stormwater analysis for predevelopment conditions shall be analyzed prior to any fill operations occurring. Latest Applicant Response: Predevelopment Stormwater Management was based upon existing contours from Gateway Comment: Item not addressed. Sheets SWM-1 and APPEN-1 do nots show existing contours correctly and existing drainage areas are not drawn correctly. Refer to Sheet 1 and 2 of the plan set that shows the correct contours fort the site prior to any earthwork that was started. The existing drainage Lidar Development Mapping Year 2006. areas should be analyzed based on these contours. Erosion and Sedimentation Control Comments: 1. Applicant shall address all comments received from Allegheny County Conservation District and Department of Environmental Protection regarding NPDES Permit submission. 100 MCMORRIS ROAD, PITTSBURGH, PA 15205 I 412-921-4030 I CATEWAYENGNEERSCOW GATEWAYENGINEERS A FULL-SERVICE CIVIL ENGINEERING FIRM The plans have been reviewed for conformance to the Municipality of Penn Hills Ordinances only. The review has been based on surveys and drawings prepared by others and assumes this information is correct and valid as submitted. The Municipality may have additional comments. Please feel free to contact me directly ify you have any questions. Sincerely, THE GATEWAY ENGINEERS, INC. Jared M. Neill, P.E. BLPl Project Manager el@gateugenaneencon GAProjectsi68000 Penn Hillsl680061 Plan Reviewsl-0085. JOMAR-Vigliotti ExpansionReview Letters12024-11-06. JPVH Holdings LLCE Expansion Review- 3rd Submission. docx 100MCMORRIS ROAD, PITTSBURGH, PA 15205 I 412-921-4030 I CAIEWAVENGREERSCOW ALVI SIREET Gvos MOTT0H TvoJ ROBYND DRIVE NOSA3 vus NVld on SONIG10H Adr (ZLIZO 18M OVoB MOTH TV00 Ae2 FLAMINGO MOSA3H T SONIG10H Adr ou T0HINOD NOISO83 Cvo8 MOTTOH I TVOO - H MUNICIPALITY OF PENN HILLS PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM The Planning Commission TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: LOT AND BLOCK: Meg Balsamico, Principal Planner dB November 14, 2024 Lutheran Church Expansion of the Conditional Use for the Redeemer Gail Holzer, Principal, Redeemer Lutheran School English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Our Redeemer 121 Dawn Drive R-1, Single Family Residential 446-M-223 Gail Holzer, Principal of Redeemer Lutheran School, lessee of the owner, English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Our Redeemer is requesting an expansion of the Conditional Use for the existing church campus located at 121 Dawn Drive for the construction of a proposed gymnasium building. The applicant is also requesting av waiver of Section 11.5.A A. (4)d do of Penn Hills Zoning Ordinance 2420 to allow a modification for the proposed structure tol be setback 521 feet from any property line where a setback of 100 feet is required from any property line abutting a residential use or zoning district. The Zoning Classification for this property is R-1, Single Family Residential and the lot and block number is 446-M-223. The church campus is being used for church services for all Redeemer students in grades K- 12 to utilize and it is also being used for the school for the students in grades 9 - Please see the enclosed application, the modification request form and the packet that was submitted by the applicant's engineer for the Conditional Use request. The proposed gymnasium building will be 10,250 square feet in size and will be a separate building from the existing church building and is being constructed 12. because there is no gymnasium for the high school students. As stated above they are requesting a modification request to allow the proposed structure to be setback 52 feet from any property line where a setback of 100 feet isre required from any property line abutting a residential use or zoning district. The school had an alternatives study completed, and it was determined that this is the most feasible location on the property for the gymnasium building. According to the study, the proposed location will create the least amount of hardship for the The Planning Department recommends approval of the Conditional Use "Imake a motion to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Resolution 1. The applicant shall meet all conditions stated in Section 11.1 through 11.5Ao of Ordinance 2420 as amended. The modification(s) shall be granted as requested from the requirements of Section 11.5A (4)d of Ordinance 2420 as stated on the project narrative submitted by the applicant regarding the setback for the gymnasium building on all sides of the property to allow a setback of 2. Asite plan application shall be submitted for consideration and approval by the Penn Hills Planning Commission and the property shall be developed in accordance with Penn Hills Zoning Ordinance 2420, Penn Hills Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance 2136 and Penn Hills Storm Water Ordinance 3. The applicant shall obtain a Highway Occupancy Permit from Penn DOT if required and other required local, county, state and federal permits shall also 4. The applicant shall obtain an NPDES permit from the Allegheny County Conservation District, (ACCD) prior to the start of construction. 5. AS Sewage planning module shall be completed by the applicantsengineer. and shall be submitted to the Municipality for review by Penn Hills Municipal neighborhood and for the homes bordering the church campus. Resolution and offers the following motion: to Mayor and Council with the following conditions: fifty-two (52) feet where one hundred (100) feet is required. 2642. be obtained. Engineer and submitted to PA DEP for approval. MLB/mb Cc: Gail Holzer, Principal, Redeemer Lutheran School Ms. Martha Frech, P.E. Streamline Engineering, Inc. File MUNICIPALITY OF PENN HILLS Resolution No. 2024- A RESOLUTION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF PENN HILLS, COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL TO THE REDEEMER LUTHERAN SCHOOL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A GYMNASIUM BUILDING ON THE CHURCH CAMPUS, TO BE LOCATED AT, 121 WHEREAS, churches are conditional uses in residential districts, and WHEREAS, the construction ofa gymnasium building is an expansion of WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, has conducted a public meeting to WHEREAS, the Penn Hills Department of Planning and Economic WHEREAS, Section 11 ofPenn Hills Zoning Ordinance #2420, sets forth WHEREAS, the proposed development meets these standards with the DAWN DRIVE, (LOT BLOCK # 446-M-223) the conditional use, and consider the application and recommends approval ofthis application, and Development has also reviewed the application and. has recommended approval, and standards for a church, and exception of the setback requirement of one hundred (100) feet for all portions of the property bordering the residential zoning district for which the applicant is granted a modification to permit a setback of fifty-two (52) feet for the construction of the gymnasium and WHEREAS, the Mayor and Council grant approval ofthis application with The applicant shall meet all conditions stated in Section 11.1 through 11.5 the following conditions: 1. A of Ordinance 2420 as amended. The modification(s) shall be granted as requested fromi the requirements of Section 11.5A (4)dofOrdinance: 2420 as stated on the project narrative submitted by the applicant regarding the setback for the gymnasium building on all sides oft the property to allow a setback offifty-two (52) feet where one hundred (100): feet is required. 2. A: site plan application shall be submitted for consideration and approval by the Penn] Hills Planning Commission: and the property shall be developed in accordance with Penn Hills Zoning Ordinance 2420, Penn Hills Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance 2136 and Penn Hills Storm Water Ordinance 2642. 3. The applicant shall obtain a Highway Occupancy Permit from Penn DOTif required and other required local, county, state and federal permits shall also be obtained. 4. 5. The applicant shall obtain an NPDES permit from the Allegheny County A Sewage planning module shall be completed by the applicant's engineer Conservation District, (ACCD) prior to the start of construction. and shall bes submitted to the Municipality for reviewby Penn Hills Municipal Engineer and submitted tol PA DEP for approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED at a public meeting duly convened by the Mayor and Council that the Municipality of Penn Hills approves this Conditional Use application. THIS RESOLUTION APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF PENN HILLS ONTHIS DAY OF 2024. PAULINE CALABRESE, MAYOR DATE SCOTT ANDREJCHAK, MANAGER DATE Municipality of Penn Hills 102 Duff Road, Penn Hills, PA 15235 Phone: 412-342-1172 Penn Hills Department of Planning UNIVERSAL APPLICATION FORM ROPERIY/LAND USE Note: Please Print or Type This Application Name: Redeemer Lutheran School APPLICANT: Telephone Number: 412-793-5884 Address & Zip Code: 700 Idaho Avenue, Verona PA 15147 Relationship to Owner of Record: Gwner Lessee Email: malrpedemersmorton (Principal of Redeemer OWNER OF RECORD OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: School) fens NameEnglish Evangelical Lutheran Church of Our Redeemerfelephone Number: 412-793-5884 Address & Zip Code: 700 Idaho Avenue, Verona PA 15147 Relationship to Owner of Record: Owner Email: ghozer@redeemer.akmontong/Pincpal of Redeemer Lutheran School) PROPERTY INFORMATION: Present Zoning:. R-1 Location: 121 Dawn Drive (Shared building) Lot Area (Sq. Ft.). 245,824 Present Use:. Church and High School Lot & Block #: 446-M-223 Nature of Structures on Property: Redeemer Lutheran Church/Redeemer Lutheràn High School Width: 440ft Depth: 559ft. Proposed Use: Church andl HIgh School (no change in use) APPLICANT'S AREAIVE/EAPAMAION OF REQUEST: Proposed gymnasium building tol be constructed on parcel tot the east of the existing churchischolbuilding. The existing building does not! have a gymnasium. Updated 07/30/2020 Page 2 Approval of Site Plan Subdivision Application Home Occupdtion-Submit Home Occupation Addendum w/Universal Application Home Occupation/No Impact Submit Home Occupation Addendum w/Universal. Application CondlionalUie/Ponned Unit Residential Development X CondiionalUse/Olner Zoning Amendment Curative Amendment / Council Curative Amendment /Zoning Hearing Board Non-Conforming Use Registration Special Exception Variance Temporary Use Appeal other CERTIFICATION OF AUTHORIZATION BY OWNER: Icertify that lame either the owner or have! been authorized by the owner to submit this application. lalso certifyt that lam aware of applicable Penn Hills Ordinance and that they are available forr review ini the office of the Penn! Hills Department of Planning and Economic Development. 11524 Date of Application Signatrec of (PHOTO IDF REQUIRED) Updated 07/30/2020 MODIFICATION REQUEST: FORM SUBDIVISION AND LAND DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCES2136. AND 2420 All Subdivision and Land Development must conform with Ordinances 2136 and 2420. Any requests for modifications must be fully described below and submitted with your application. The Planning Commission makes decisions on modification requests. They make their decision in accordance with Section 3.8 of Ordinance 2136. 1. 2. Section of Ordinance 2136 or 2420 from which you are requesting a Describe the request and minimum modification of the Ordinance that is Ordinance 2420 11.5A(4)d states Whenever thel lot line abuts a residential use or district, the setback shall be a minimum of one hundred feet (100) from the property line.' " The request is to reduce the required setback to 521 feet to any property line. modification?. Ordinance 2420 11.5.A(4)d necessary to achieve your objective? 3. Reason (s) that you believe this modification is necessary: The existing school does not have a gymnasium. The proposed building will provide a gymnasium that meets the intended use and the competition requirements for al high school. An alternatives study was performed thate evaluated five different options at two sites (the church/high school site and the elementary school site). The proposed site and building configuration offers the least construction and school traffic disruption to the residential neighborhood, andt thel least adverse visual aesthetics to the residences bordering the church/high school site. Applicant's Signature f Date/0-15-d REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE MODIFICATION STREAMLINE ENGINEERING INC. 110 ALLAN STREET LOWER BURRELL PENNSYLVANIA 15068 TELE: 724-594-0326 FAX: 724-594-0328 WWW.STREAMLINEENGINEERING.NET For PROPOSED GYMNASIUM REDEEMER LUTHERAN MUNICIPALITY OF PENN HILLS ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA SCHOOL Prepared for: REDEEMER LUTHERAN SCHOOL 700 IDAHO AVENUE VERONA, PENNSYLVANIA 15147 Prepared By: STREAMLINE ENGINEERING, INC. 110ALLAN STREET LOWER BURRELL, PA 15068 724-594-0326 PROJECT NO. 21-104 OCTOBER 15, 2024 Redeemer Lutheran School Gymnasium Conditional Use Modification Project Overview Project 24-104 October 15, 2024 General Description. The Redeemer Lutheran Church (RLC) proposes to construct a 10,250 square foot gymnasium on its existing church campus at 121 Dawn Drive in the Municipality of Penn Hills, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. RLC is the lessee of the property, which is owned by the English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Our Redeemer. The gymnasium will be a separate building from the existing church/high school building. New parking areas and modifications to the existing parking areas at the The project is situated on three parcels: Parcel 0446-M-00223 (5.16 acres) on Dawn Drive; and Parcels 0446-M-0000259 (0.24 acre) and 0446-M-00261 (0.24 acre) on Hamil Road. The total area of the three The existing church/high school is located on Dawn Drive, a private road off Hamil Road. The proposed gymnasium site will be located at the rear of the existing church/high school building, and will occupy a portion of an existing parking area. The existing parking area will be modified to accommodate the gymnasium, and additional parking to compensate for the loss of parking will be developed at the front of The site is within al R-1 residential district bounded by Hamil Road to the north and west, Dawn Drive and Boyd Avenue to the east, and residences to the south. The site has two separate accesses to Hamil Road via Dawn Drive. The site location is shown on the Site Location Map (Figure 1) and on the Site Plan The Church is a Conditional Use within the R-1 residential district. The high school is considered an accessory use to the church per the Penn Hills Department of Planning and Economic Development. The existing site contains the church/high school building and one residence. The remainder of the site is mostly lawn, with a wooded buffer separating the rear parking area from the residences along Idaho The proposed development will result in approximately 15,600 square feet (0.36 acre) of new impervious area. The proposed gymnasium will be situated on an existing paved area. The proposed parking areas make up most of the new impervious area. The area of earth disturbance is approximately 148,100: square No wetlands or other water resources are located in the project area. The parcel is located in the watershed of Plum Creek, at tributary of the Allegheny River. Neither Plum Creek nor the Allegheny River has an Act 167 Stormwater Management Plan prepared through Allegheny County. Plum Creeki is listed as The proposed area of earth disturbance is greater than 1 acre; therefore, a General NPDES Permit Application for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activities (NPDES) will be required for church will be associated with the gymnasium project. parcels is 5.64 acres. the church/high school building. (Figure 2). Avenue tot the south. feet (3.40 acres) ofe earth disturbance. WWF Warm' Water Fishery in PA Code Title 25, Chapter 93, List U. this project. Streamline Engineering, Inc. Page 1of4 Redeemer Lutheran School Gymnasium Conditional Use Modification Purpose Project 24-104 October 15, 2024 RLC is using part oft the church structure for a school for high school students. The church building is not large enough to contain a gymnasium. To adhere to a set curriculum and sports venue, RLC needs a full- size gymnasium easily accessible for the high school students. The gymnasium at the elementary school at7 700 Idaho Avenue is small and does not meet the criteria for high school level competitive sports. The proposed gymnasium is shown ont the Architectural Plan and Elevation Drawings. The floor area oft the gymnasium will be 10,250 square feet, and the maximum building height will be 30f feet. Site Development Plan Components Proper Setbacks. The Church is a Conditional Use in an R-1 district. RLC is requesting a modification to the Conditional Use from the requirement for a 100-foot building setback from property lines per Ordinance 2420 of 2004 Section 11.5.A(4)d to accommodate the proposed gymnasium. Several options for locating the gymnasium on the property were explored. Due tot the layout and size oft the property, all options would The option deemed to have the least impacts to the adjacent residential properties was determined to be the site behind the existing church/school building, as shown on Figure 2 with the 100-foot setback from the gymnasium building. The proposed building would be located within the 100-foot setback at several locations, with 51 feet being the minimum setback, as shown on Drawing B100. The areas where the setbacks do not meet the requirement are currently screened by woods, and the woods will be protected. Floor Area Ratio. The total site area including all three parcels is 5.64 acres. Existing development on the site is 2.18 acres of impervious surface (buildings and parking areas). The proposed gymnasium is situated on existing pavement, which reduces the net total impervious surface area. The proposed development will increase the impervious surface area to 2.54 acres, to 45% of the total site area and 49.2% of the main (5.16 acre) parcel area, meeting the maximum allowable percentage of 50% impervious Curb Cuts. Curbs will be used in the parking areas except where runoff needs to flow overland to a Highway Occupancy Permit. The site has two existing accesses to Hamil Road vial Dawn Drive fori ingress Dumpster and Screening. The church has an existing dumpster. No additional dumpster capacity is Proper Amount of Landscaping. The existing wooded area bordering the residences along Idaho Avenue behind the church will be protected. Additional screening will be provided along Boyd Boulevard. A minimum of 15-foot of open grass area is provided at the proposed parking areas per Ordinance 2420 of have resulted in building setbacks less than 1001 feet. The proposed building does meet thet front yard and side yard setback requirements. area per Ordinance 2420 of2 2004, Section 11.5.A(2). stormwater management best management practice (BMP). and egress. The accesses will not changei in use or traffic volume. required. Screening can be provided if needed. 2004, Section 1.5.A(6). Streamline Engineering, Inc. Page 2of4 Redeemer Lutheran School Gymnasium Conditional Use Modification Project 24-104 October 15, 2024 Paved Parking Area. All proposed parking areas will be paved. Minimum Number of Parking Stalls. The number of parking stalls provided (81) meets the required minimum per Ordinance 2420 of 2004, Section 10.1.D(5), based on pew seating. Standard Stalls=77 Handicap Stalls = 4 (includes 1 van accessible stall) Proper Gradient. The maximum gradient for standard parking stalls is 5% cross slope and' 7% longitudinal Handicap Stalls. Four handicap stalls are provided per ADA requirements for 75-100 total parking stalls. Stormwater Management Plan. The Post-Construction Stormwater Management Plani is being prepared. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan is being prepared. The limit of disturbance is 3.4 acres; therefore, the project will require a General NPDES authorization for Proper Minimum Slope. The steepest cut and fill slope proposed is 2.5 horizontal: 1 vertical. Sidewalks. Sidewalks are provided from the primary parking areai to the gymnasium. Potential Sidewalk Obstructions. No potential sidewalk obstructions are anticipated. slope. The maximum gradient for handicap stalls is 2% cross and longitudinal slopes. One handicap stall is van accessible. stormwater discharges for construction activities. Sewage Modules. The PADEP Mailer has been submitted to Penn Hills for review and completion prior to Lighting. Lighting in accordance with Ordinance 2420 of 2004, Section 10.12, will be provided for the Setback of Signs. No new signs along public roads are proposed. Traffic control signs will be installed Location of Development with Respect to Fire Hydrant. Two fire hydrants are located within 6001 feet oft the proposed gymnasium. A hydrant is located north of the site along Hamil Road, and a hydrant is located at Proper Parking Stall Widths and Access Aisles. Sixty degree parking stalls are proposed with a minimum 581 feet curb-to-curb width, in accordance with Ordinance 2420 of2004, Section 11.1.E(4)b. Underground Wiring. Proposed electric service to the gymnasium will be underground. Handicapped Sidewalk Ramps. Handicap sidewalk ramps willl be provided. preparation of the sewage modules. stairs, sidewalks, and parking areas. along Dawn Drive to direct traffic patterns int the parking areas within the property. the intersection of Boyd Boulevard and Idaho Avenue to the south of the site. Location of Curb Cuts or Access Drives in Respect of Existing Curb Cuts. No new curb cuts are proposed. Streamline Engineering, Inc. Page 3of4 Redeemer Lutheran School Gymnasium Conditional Use Modification Project 24-104 October 15, 2024 Topography at Two-Foot Intervals. Site design is based on LIDAR topography with two-foot contour interval. Project Schedule Ifthe proposed modification to the Conditional Use is approved and the sewage modules are completed, the Site Development Plan will be submitted in December 2024 fort the January 2025 Planning Commission meeting. RLC hopes to begin construction int the spring of2025. Streamline Engineering, Inc. Page 4 of4 RIVERVIEW Unity Jun MERRY DR R JLTON North ELFORY Bessemer Richey. Family Cem SHANNON-RD Shannon- Heights Lutheran Çem SHEMLOÇATION, POKETA MEERIONDE DR e Rosedale LAVE ALCOMA SALTSBURG RD IN Mount 80 Hope Cem D GLENFIELDD DR. SPRINGG GROVE RD Crescent Hills Suburban Academy. of Enforcemept Rodi Universal, EHOLOW HENANDOAH) DR EVERGIADEL DR ORCHARD DR) Eastvue Penn Ridge UNIVERSAL- RD: REKRD HAZELA RD Churchill Valley Map Reference: BRADDOCK, PA 7.5 MINUTE QUAD, U.S.G.S. DATE: 2023 SITE LOCATION MAP REDEEMER LUTHERAN SCHOOL MUNICIPALITY OF PENN HILLS, ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA FIGURE 1 STREAMLINE ENGINEERING, INC 110 ALLAN STREET LOWER BURRELL, PA, 15068 TELEPHONE 724-594-0326 PROJECT NO. 24-104 Scole: 1"=2000' Date: 10/15/2024 93) ATy Koenio 3039 3s Ae 53 (53) (53) ROAD (53) SrCN I us KOSnNo *ug 53 (3) (53) ROAD NOISN3WIQ- NVId80014 LPISIVAV VNOW3AI3 BAHONMVOIZL WNISVNWA9 MEN 100HOS NV43H10783M3303N einjoe1yoy SOIODISONBB3NOSA IBi SNOLVA3TBON3DS wvisivay VNOWBAI3 BAHONMVOIZE WNISVNWA9 MEN 100HOS NV83HINT #3W33038 engoesyoy SOIGNS ONI833NOISIA wr iit ::: D @ 0) D E D O a G) E S 9 a CORDNR 2 a I 3 8 S - Allegheny County 446-H-126 621 446-M-110 617 446-M-114 613 446-M-119 609 446-M-123 794 446-Me147 446-Me155 618 716 446-M-278 446,M-267 446-M-392 535-J290 615 446-M379) 446.M-S6 446-M-165 446-M169 446-N 46-M 446-MP265 18 446-M-282 446-M-263 446-M-261 446-M - 535J-281 610 446-M-257 604 446-M-198 548 446-M-203 546 446-M-207 STGERARD. MAJELLA 121RCH 446-M-223 565 535-4-110) 446-Me366y 446-M-362 446-M-35 446-M-3 446-M-342 46S 446-S-160 505 55% 547 446-M-27 446-M-23 560 556 446-M355 446-M335 535 446-S-196 524 446-S-189 518 446,55183 446-S-201 524 446-S-205 52 446-S-209 446-S:213 E 40 446-S143 446-$.1394 526 446-S172' 6/3/2024, 3:07:19 PM 1:2,257 0 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.04 0.05mi 0.09km Allegheny County Addressing Street Centerlines Parcel Address Points Allegheny County 2012; 2010 Imagery, Esri Community Maps Contributors, County of Allegheny, data. pa.gov, West Virginia GIS, o OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS, Allegheny County Allegheny County GIS Allegheny Countyl Esri Community Maps Contributors, Countyo ofA Allegheny, data.p pa.g gov, West Virginia GIS, 0OpenStreelMap, Microsoft, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, o 8 / Hamill 0 5