HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201900001 Review Comments Initial Site Plan 2019-05-07
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
Site Plan Review
Project title: Berkmar Drive Apartments – Initial Site Plan
Project file number: SDP201900001
Plan preparer: Mitch Bowser, P.E., Timmons Group [mitchell.bowser@timmons.com]
1001 Boulders Pkwy, Suite 300, Richmond, VA 223225
Owner or rep.: Uptown Village LLC / P.O. Box 5548, Charlottesville, VA 22905
Plan received date: 14 Jan 2019
(Rev. 1) 1 Apr 2019
Date of comments: 14 Feb 2019
(Rev. 1) 7 May 2019
Plan Coordinator: Cameron Langille
Reviewer: John Anderson
SDP201900001 – For ISP approval (Engineering defers to Planning):
1. Boundaries of TMP #32-53 do not match current real estate records. Sheet C2.0 indicates parcel boundary
to be abandoned by separate instrument, but this poses several issues: (Rev. 1) Not addressed. Applicant
response: ‘A proposed boundary line adjustment remedying this issue will be submitted and recorded prior
to final site plan approval.’
a. If ISP were approved and boundary is not abandoned with new boundaries created to match ISP,
there are design implications, beginning with site plan approval for an unrecorded parcel .
b. Similar to a., Sheet 0.0 bonus density relies on boundary adjustment that creates a parcel of 17.40
Ac., which does not exist at present. Engineering recommends against bonus density that reflects
17.40 Ac. unless recorded boundaries match overall acreage shown on C0.0 and C2.0.
2. Recommend include reference to SDP201900001 in plan title, if ISP resubmittal is required. (Rev. 1)
Addressed. Applicant response: ‘The ref. SDP# has been added to the top right corner of each plan sheet.’
3. Provide inlet /storm pipes to capture and convey right turn lane storm runoff from Berkmar Drive. Ref.
Inset I-2, sheet C6.2. Show with ISP for recommendation of ISP approval. Note: detention may be
required. (Rev. 1) Addressed. As follow-up: See item 24, below.
4. Engineering cannot check stormwater quality and quantity values intended to show on-site SWM facilities
and offsite nutrient credit purchase ensure compliance with VSMP requirements, since calculations are not
provided. Energy balance equation is required at each discharge point, since release is to multiple natural
undefined channels. Provide preliminary design data to support quality /quantity values shown on C6.0
(including VaRRM .xls), or disclaimer Note that reads: “SWM values presented with initial site plan are
estimates. Albemarle County has not reviewed or approved estimates.” (Rev. 1) Comment persists.
Applicant response: ‘Final SWM management design, calculations, details, and supporting information will
be provided prior to final site plan approval.’
5. C6.0: DEQ-approved hydrodynamic separators: StormTrap® and SciClone® systems require frequent first-
year inspection, with periodic inspection, thereafter, but inspection requires safe access. Berkmar HOA
must contract for vendor maintenance and inspection services, which will be impeded if traffic is a threat,
or if parked cars prevent access. Any access to hydrodynamic separators must be located outside internal
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 6
travelways and parking drive aisles. If located in a parking space, that space is forfeit and must be striped
and signed ‘No parking’ to ensure access is possible. Alternatively, locate hydrodynamic separator
manways outside paved surfaces, ≥ 4-ft. beyond nearest curbing. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Reference docs:
https://www.swbmp.vwrrc.vt.edu/wp-content/uploads/HD_Application_SiteSaver_Item-9.pdf (StormTrap), and
https://www.swbmp.vwrrc.vt.edu/wp-content/uploads/HD_Application_SciClone_Item-8.pdf (SciClone).
For Final Site Plan (FSP) approval:
Nearly all comments, below (6.-49.) persist. Comment response /typical response: ‘[ITEM] will be submitted for
approval prior to final site plan approval.’ For this reason, unless specifically addressed with no follow-up
required, items below need to be addressed for final site plan (FSP) approval.
Note: Certain items partially addressed require follow-up.
C2.0
6. Investigate Ex. SWM basin shown near north boundary o f Parcel C. SWM facilities are rarely eliminated
without design of a replacement system. Provide VSMP/WPO plan that considers impact to any existing
SWM facilities. Address loss of stormwater quantity or quality control due to final site plan design, if any.
(Rev. 1) ‘Will be provided prior to…’
7. Investigate suspected cemetery at southwest corner of Parcel C. Take necessary precautions and measures
required by law to not disturb and to preserve human remains, or burial caskets. Avoid impacts via design.
Properly identify, address, and mitigate any permissible encroachment upon suspected burial grounds.
(Rev. 1) ‘Will be provided …prior to…’
8. Obtain all necessary VDOT permits to work within public right-of-way, Berkmar Drive, SR 1403. (Rev. 1)
‘Will be applied for…’
9. Obtain and furnish copy of wetland delineation coordination with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Provide copy or evidence of permit coordination with the USACE for impact s to waters of the U.S., or
wetlands, consistent with federal and state law. (Rev. 1) ‘Will be obtained prior to…’
10. Proposed boundaries should be labeled as such, distinct from existing property boundaries. Boundaries
shown as existing must match recorded land records /plats. Ref. County GIS. (Rev. 1) ‘Proposed and
existing boundaries will be further delineated as the future boundary line adjustment plat is recorded.’
11. Clarify and include with FSP text of Note #8 and Exception #10 shown with cemetery label. (Rev. 1) ‘Will
be provided…’
12. Design may not rely on County GIS, or LiDAR data. Design must be based on field survey data points
obtained within the past 12-months, or visually field-verified by the designer within the last year. Ref.
existing conditions plan view information, item #2, Final Site Plan checklist (attached). (Rev. 1)
Addressed.
13. C4.0: 3.5 Ac. tree save area is unrealistic. At no point does ‘tree save area’ lie > 10’ from retaining walls.
At certain points, nearest approach is 3’ or 4’. Engineering advises Planning against accepting 3.50 Ac.
‘tree save area’ as realistic estimate of area of trees that will survive construction of high retaining walls.
Also ‘tree save area’ must exclude ACSA water/sanitary sewer corridor near NE edge of development.
Trees will be cleared from this utility easement. Engineering recommends a 20’ minimum offset for any
‘tree save area’ adjacent to any retaining wall. (Rev. 1) NA -Applicant response: ‘The proposed “Tree
Save Area” is no longer proposed as the project no longer proposes a unit density bonus.’
C4.0:
14. Ensure parking /sidewalk design conforms to a permissible zoning ordinance option (Ref. pg. 17, ACDSM ;
image below). Bumper blocks are required for all parking spaces 18’ in length adjacent to 5’ w sidewalks.
(Rev. 1) Partially addressed. As follow-up: Provide additional width labels wherever width ambiguous.
15. Provide retaining wall design for all retaining walls. Ref. Final site plan checklist. (Rev. 1) ‘Will be
provided…’
16. Provide handrail for all retaining walls > 4-ft. high. Provide detail (VDOT HR-1). (Rev. 1) ‘Handrails will
be provided where necessary for retaining walls prior to…’
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 6
C4.1
17. Engineering recommends walk and stairs from 4 parking spaces between buildings 8 and 9 to provide
access (down) to apparent front entrance of these buildings. Similarly, recommend walk and stairs from 4
parking spaces between buildings 4 and 5 to provide access (up) to the recreational area in front of these
buildings. (Rev. 1) ‘Staircases will be added and detailed where necessary prior to…’
18. Engineering recommends sidewalk adjacent to 4-space parking areas between buildings 8 and 9, and
between building 8 and the travelway that connects outer and inner loop parking aisles. (Rev. 1) Partially
addressed. As follow-up: Engineering recommends 6’ sidewalk adjacent to 55 parking spaces north of
buildings 3 and 4. Proposed landscape bench may be used for 6’ sidewalk at this location; or, given 26’
drive aisle width at this location, Engineering requests 30” (2.5’ w) pavement pedestrian aisle (solid borders
w/ diagonal pattern) to run the full length of these 55 spaces, located at drive aisle edge of 18’ deep parking
spaces. This pavement-based pedestrian aisle (seen at shopping centers) signals typical pedestrian use of
portions of parking lot where design cannot provide safe convenience of a dedicated walkway. Likewise,
identical recommendation /request for pavement markings for 48 parking spaces west of buildings 9, 10.
19. Stop signs must be shown located prior to CG-12 ramps and pedestrian crosswalks. (Rev. 1) Partially
addressed. As follow-up: Provide stop sign at ‘Y’ intersection (Maintenance right, residence bldgs. ahead).
20. Revise CG-12 in plan view to match Detectable Warning Surface detail, VDOT sheet 3, plan sheet C4.3,
for ramps aligned perpendicular with, not diagonally to, two receiving ramps. Please call if any questions.
(Rev. 1) Partially addressed. As follow-up: With FSP, provide CG-12 ramps at every crosswalk accessed
via sidewalk. Ensure graphic images of CG-12 detectable surface matches VDOT CG-12 detail, rev. 07/15.
21. Ensure internal travelways, parking areas, islands, loading spaces, grades, etc. meet site plan requirements
listed at Ch. 18-4. (Rev. 1) Partially addressed. As follow-up: With FSP, label all curb /travelway radii.
22. Provide VDOT GR-2 guardrail between 61 parking spaces and proposed retaining wall along north edge of
development, beginning northwest of building 3, ending just west of building 6, at bend in retaining wall.
(Rev. 1) NA. Applicant response: ‘Retaining wall in this area has been removed.’
C4.2
23. Inset I-2, right turn lane section: Label surface asphalt, base asphalt, and base stone thickness. Provide
pavement Design (Dr, Dp). (Rev. 1) ‘Final pavement design will be provided prior to…’
24. Design and show storm drain inlet for right turn lane off Berkmar Drive. Show storm pipe. (Rev. 1)
Partially addressed. As follow-up: Existing topography slopes eastward across Berkmar Drive Ext.
Include plan detail that traces runoff from proposed pipe outfall at development ent rance to Berkmar Drive
crossing (existing storm system). Evaluate existing storm system constructed with Berkmar Drive project,
for proposed additional development flow: Q10, capacity; Q2, velocity /erosion.
25. Provide stop or yield traffic sign at internal travelway intersection near north end, bldg. 12. (Rev. 1)
Partially addressed. As follow-up: Ref. item 19, above.
26. Provide VDOT GR-2 guardrail between 43 parking spaces and proposed retaining wall. (Rev. 1)
Withdrawn, review error. Proposed grade slopes up at this location.
27. Provide complete retaining wall design for Engineering review. Reference retaining wall plan checklist
(attached). (Rev. 1) ‘Final design and details for proposed retaining walls will be provided prior to…’
28. C4.3: Provide pavement design for heavy duty pavement section (travelways /parking area aisles). Provide
ADT at full build-out. (ADT may vary for different loop sections of internal travelways.) (Rev. 1) Not
addressed. Applicant response: ‘Pavement designs have been provided based on site geotechnical analysis
and report.’ Engineering requests Dp, Dr, based on ADT, site specific geotechnical data. Use Eq. found at
2018 VDOT Pavement Design Guide for Subdivisions and Secondary Roads in Virginia .
29. C5.0: Engineering recommends against water main /sanitary sewer pipes passing beneath retaining wall;
recommends, instead, skirting the wall entirely by routing distribution and collection around the east end of
the wall. Engineering recommends steel carrier pipes and concrete lintels for water and sewer distribution
or collection mains that may pass beneath (or through) any retaining wall. (Rev. 1) Partially addressed.
Comment persists. Applicant response: ‘Any utility crossings under proposed retaining wall will include
protective casing for the proposed pipes. Final design and details will be provided prior to FSP approval.’
Engineering Review Comments
Page 4 of 6
C6.0:
30. Q10 values may be relevant, but Q1-year peak flow is most relevant. Design must meet state stormwater
quantity requirements via energy balance equation based on Q1-year. (Rev. 1) ‘Full SWM analysis for Q10
and Q1 flows will be provided prior to…’
31. Offsite grading easements are required. Submit easement plat application. Provide copy of recorded
offsite easement deed/s. (Rev. 1) ‘All required easements will be proposed and recorded prior to…’
32. Provide complete drainage design. Ref. Albemarle County Drainage Plan checklist (attached). Provide
VDOT LD-204, LD-229, LD-268, LD-269 design tables. All appear relevant. Use VDOT table format.
(Rev. 1) ‘Complete drainage design will be provided prior to…’
33. Provide contour labels for existing contours, especially south, west, and north of proposed development.
(Rev. 1) Partially addressed. As follow-up: Provide additional ex. terrain contour labels for areas west.
34. Ensure FSP reflects subgrade dimensions of hydrodynamic separators. StormTrap systems are far larger
than a std. VDOT MH. Plan view final site plan sheets should reflect true, not approximate or schematic
dimensions. (Rev. 1) ‘Full details/profiles/dimensions of proposed hydrodynamic separators will be
provided prior to…’
35. ISP proposes large volume subgrade SWM facility detention chambers with isolation chambers. Should
any of the three proposed large volume systems fail, there is no ba ckup, or bypass. Engineering requests
Applicant submit long-term performance reliability data for proposed 30,000cf and 33,000cf systems. The
largest integrated underground detention systems approved in Albemarle County are for non-residential
sites better-positioned to deal with system replacement expense (Fifth Street Station; Stonefield). (Rev. 1)
Addressed. Applicant response: ‘The proposed SWM strategy for the site has been revised to replace all
underground detention facility with one pond to serve the entire site. Full design of the pond will be
provided prior to final site plan approval.’
36. Engineering encourages Applicant to split 30,000 and 33,000cf systems, to design, instead, independent
underground detention chambers that provide equivalent combined storm runoff control. (Rev. 1)
Addressed. Also, see item 35, above.
37. Revise 33,000cf detention system discharge pipe location. Proposed location through retaining wall is
disallowed, per Engineering Division policy. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Also, see item 35, above.
38. All detention system discharge outfalls must be to a defined channel. Propose grading to define a channel,
if none exists. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Also, see item 35, above. As follow-up: Provide storm conveyance
design to collect and convey storm runoff from travelway surface at inter-parcel connection to a defined
stream channel. Design must be appropriate to proposed slopes, consistent with VDOT Drainage Manual
design requirements.
39. Evaluate new drainage channels for capacity, and erosion. Provide soil stabilization blanket, where needed.
(Rev. 1) ‘Analysis of all drainage channels will be provided prior to final site plan approval.’
40. Provide high-flow bypass for all hydrodynamic separators and high-flow bypass for all detention systems
for events less frequent that the 10-yr, for rainfall intensity > 5.7” in a 24-hr period. Ensure bypass
discharge does not cause flooding of travelways. (Rev. 1) ‘Full details/profiles/dimensions of proposed
hydrodynamic separators will be provided prior to…’
41. C6.1: Revise matchline sheet 6.1 label to read 6.2. (Rev. 1) Not addressed.
C6.2:
42. For proposed HDPE pipe, ensure pipe is rated adequate for depth of installation. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
‘Proposed HDPE pipe has been replaced with RCP.’
43. Prepare plat showing SWM facility maintenance and access easements. Show easements. (Rev. 1) ‘A plat
for all SWM easements will be submitted and recorded prior to…’
44. Prepare plat showing private drainage easements for SWM facility discharge pipes. Show easements.
(Rev. 1) ‘A plat for all SWM easements will be submitted and recorded prior to…’
45. Prepare plat showing public drainage easement for site access storm conveyance system elements along
Berkmar Drive, or within VDOT right-of-way. Show public drainage easements. (Rev. 1) ‘A plat for all
proposed drainage easements will be shown on the FSP, will be submitted and recorded prior to…’
Engineering Review Comments
Page 5 of 6
46. Ref. ACDSM image, pg. 15, when designing easement width:
(Rev. 1) ‘Easements will be drafted to conform with ACDSM image, pg. 15.’
47. Sheet scale may be inaccurate; please confirm accurate. (Rev. 1) ‘Scales to be verified and corrected if
necessary.’
48. L1.0: Use hatching or other symbol to indicate areas of proposed grade steeper than 3:1 and provide note
with reference to permanent landscape vegetation hardier than grass. Ref. ACDSM, pg. 22, Sec. 8.A.2.
(Rev. 1) Not addressed. Applicant response: ‘Noted. There are no areas of proposed grade steeper than
3:1.’ While generally accurate, check proposed grades at: (west of) building 6; inter-parcel travelway
connection; north of 55 parking spaces, N of buildings 3 and 4.
49. Notes: (Rev. 1) ‘A WPO Plan and VSMP Plan Amendment will be submitted for approval prior to FSP
approval’
a. An approved VSMP Plan Amendment is required prior to Final Site Plan approval; please submit
WPO Plan at earliest convenience. Coordinate proposed nutrient credit purchase with Ana
Kilmer, Albemarle County, once VSMP/WPO Plan is approved.
b. Please consider attached Final Site Plan, Drainage, and Retaining Wall plan checklists as aids to
design. Checklists guide review.
New – for FSP Approval
50. C4.2, Inset I-1: Provide barricade, notes /details for VDOT-approved barricade at inter-parcel connection,
once travelway constructed.
51. C5.0: Ref. VA DEQ Stormwater Design Specification No. 14, Wet Pond, for any sanitary facility setback
requirements. Adjust proposed sanitary line alignment or wet pond design /location, as needed.
52. C6.0: Revise sidewalk grade leading from parking lot to building 1 east entrance. Max. grade = 5%.
Ref. Albemarle County Code, 18-32.7.2.3.b. ref. to VDOT Std. Ref. Road Design Manual, Appx. B(1)-4-I.
ref. to IIM-LD-55.16, sheet 3, 2nd bullet (images, follow)
Road Design Manual, B(1)-4-I
IIM-LD-55.16 (Eff. 6/19/18)
Engineering Review Comments
Page 6 of 6
C6.1:
53. Review proposed drainage design. Provide inlets, spot elevations or realistic revised grading at low points
near parking lot islands. Multiple points in proposed parking areas will trap runoff with no outlet under
proposed design. Revised grading alone cannot address. Additional inlets /pipes are required to connect
with proposed storm conveyance system. Avoid ponding.
54. Provide fixed impassable barrier to trespass at proposed wet pond. Eventual review of design under WPO
Plan application will restate request for signs warning of drowning hazard, and barrier to prevent trespass.
55. Recommend preliminary volume design evaluation of wet pond to ensure available space is adequate.
56. Recommend consider wa tershed size /land cover type proposed to drain to wet pond (% impervious,
acreage), and whether design criteria works. From VA DEQ Stormwater Design Specification No. 14, p. 5:
57. C6.2, Inset I-1: Label structure headwalls.
58. Note: Additional comments likely with FSP.
Please feel free to call if any questions. Thank you
J. Anderson 434.296-5832 -x3069
SDP201900001 Berkmar Drive Apartments ISP 050719rev1