HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201900075 Review Comments Initial Site Plan 2020-01-24Phone (434) 296-5832
Project:
Project file number:
Plan preparer:
Owner or rep.
Applicant
Plan received date:
Date of comments:
Reviewer:
Project Coordinator:
SDP2019-00075
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Fax (434) 972-4126
Site Plan review
Martha Jefferson Hospital Presidio Apartments - ISP
SDP2019-00075
Scott Collins; Collins Engineering [200 Garrett St., Suite K, Charlottesville, VA
22902, scott(&collins-en ing eerine com]
Presidio Pantops LLC / 455 Second St. SE 5' Floor
Charlottesville, VA 22902 [ alan(&riverbenddev.com ]
Castle Development Partners LLC / 230 Court Square, Suite 202
Charlottesville, VA 22902
18 Dec 2019
23 Jan 2020; rev 24 Jan 2020 (edits to 1/23/20 comments)
John Anderson
Tim Padalino / C. Langille (cc: F. Pohl / R. Emerick)
PJP = Peter Jefferson Parkway (Ex.) ACDSM =Albemarle County Design Standards Manual
Note: Engineering is grateful for Applicant's immediate written response (1/23/2020 10:42 PM), which reflects sincere interest in
limiting comments effect on ISP approval. That Collins Engineering (CE) affords chance to revise comments prior to expanding
audience is considerate. Comments relating to guardrail along PJP, review errors, are withdrawn. CE coordinated with VDOT
on this (and other projects), and reports slopes graded 3:1 or flatter do not require guardrail (grayscale stfi .e . oug .) Discussion
with CE may help resolve line work comments. CG-6 (with gutter) for concentrated runoff in parking areas and travelways is the
expectation. CG-2 is fine for high side of parking areas. Appleton Way must meet VDOT Road Design Manual and county code
requirements (CG-6 on both sides of the travelway). Parking areas must meet county code requirements. Since this is a site plan,
requirements listed at 18-4, 18-32, and Ch. 14 apply to various degree. ACDSM applies. Review errs in stating storm pipe grade
of 0.50, 0.52, and 0.53%, may not be approved. They can be. Albemarle, having revised review to recommend increase in slope
(0.60%) may take skeptical stance concerning any pipe at any depth installed at less than county storm pipe min. slope. Initial
comment should have recommended conservative design. As -built drawings routinely reveal pipes (designed at 0.50%) installed
at <0.50%, which may lead to failure and expense to remedy. 25 comments identified objectionable are highlighted red. A
portion are withdrawn (grayscale/stiileugh), a portion may be revised after discussion. Comment 4 is withdrawn provided
the ISP plan explicitly, s� topographic survey performed in support of design meets state code requirements for surveys;
otherwise, Albemarle has insufficient information at this point, and cannot assume an aerial survey meets state code. Given this,
no comment imperils initial site plan approval from Engineering perspective. Comment #4 has been discussed internally, and
Engineering anticipates written response from a licensed surveyor. Engineering is appreciative of thoughtful Applicant response.
Misplaced review comments place a burden on Applicants that we hope to avoid. Review errors relate to: guardrail along PJP,
inadequate research of suitability of HDPE pipe (permissible to use), and to possible misunderstandings. We regret mistakes.
In one day, CE revised ISP in response to comments. Albemarle commends remarkable response. Engineering has not reviewed
revisions, but revisions address many comments, now shown in light . (These will be checked with plan re -submittal.)
* Comments relating to guardrail (PJP), prompted by safety concerns, are withdrawn. Request for guardrail along the entire west
side of Appleton Street (design relies on retaining walls and slopes steeper than 3:1 above unrecoverable slopes), addressed.
Sheet 1-A
1. Recommend revise site plan title to include SDP201900075, Initial Site Plan
Revise SWM Note to include ref. to WP0201800027. Note I: SWM Facility casement plat is under review.
Easement plat recordation required for WPO Plan approval. Note2: SWM Facility Easement widths
should be checked against ACDSM, Easement width diagram, ACDSM, p. 15. (Link:
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 8
https://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/forn-i...._....., .....
manual/Albemarle County Design Standards Manual 2015-04-25 draft.pdf 1
3. Revise Additional Notes:
a. (Rev) Reconeile Notes 2 and 7, whieh indieate public streets (streets in the development are
pFivate t -a-vel ays). Withdrawn (Clarification to be added to plans.)
b. (Rev)
pFivate di-7 i _ its, not publie. SWN4 f4eility and drainage easements downstFeam of a
SWN4 facility ar„ lic easements, dedicated t public use. Withdrawn (Clarification to be added
to plans.)
c. (Rev) Provide elevation note f 164 Cr (Eris and WB ) o Note o may be evaluated against
design. County GIS , source f r 64 elevation ; acceptable. Withdrawn (ARB purview.)
d. Note: Note 2 stating that site travelways will not meet the standards for acceptance into the
secondary system of state highways may appear to suggest a standard less than VDOT design for
this development. VDOT standards apply to drainage, and to site Travelway A /Appleton Street
pavement (depth) sections, entrance geometry, and FC-FC width, as well as on -street parking
(Appleton Street). Ref. ACDSM and Code 18-32.7.2.2.a., 14-410.(B.,F.,G.,H.,I.). Also, Final Site
Plan checklist for plan reviewers, p. 2, Entrances. Also, 14-412.B. (Rev) Note serves as reminder
VDOT standards apply to travelway /drainage design (note does not request plan revision).
4. Topo and survey: Aerial survey performed by Virginia Resource Mapping dated January 2006 (with field
verification by Collins Engineering, August 2019) is insufficient basis of design. Engineering recommends
Applicant contact GIS /Ruth Emerick to discuss this review comment. Note: Ms. Emerick anticipates
extended leave in the near future. Until an acceptable source of topography is basis of design, Engineering
recommends disapproval of ISP, and resubmittal of ISP with acceptable basis of topographic design. (Rev)
Comment revised. Ref. JA email to Applicant January 24, 2020 10:50 AM); also, please see above.
Comment 4 is withdrawn once ISP plan explicitly states topographic survey performed in support of design
meets state code requirements for surveys; otherwise, Albemarle has insufficient information (at this point)
and does not assume that aerial survey meets state code. Given this, no comment imperils initial site plan
approval from Engineering perspective. Comment #4 was reviewed, internally. Please provide a written
certification from licensed surveyor that 2006 aerial survey basis of design meets state survey requirements.
,ill design, or any other
6. Sheet 2: Existing site elements will be demolished (Ex. guardrail /asphalt walk /PJP curb, for example).
Provide separate demolition sheet with details of items to be removed (TBR). Please note that Ex. gu .drail
eondition compliant with VDOT guardrail standaFds and speeifications, including end tfeatment (impaa
attenuation). WheFever guardrail is terminated to pwvide site entranee /access, eonsult NIDOT may en4, be removed to pr-ovide site aecess. Ex. guar-drail not mqttiFed to be removed should remain i
Nease F-eview guar-dr-ail design with eare. Provide GR 2 detail, impaet attefmatien (stFoetuFal guafdr-ail)
detail, ete(sheet 10). (Rev) Portion of comment relating to guardrail is withdrawn; rest, persists.
Sheet 3
ails.
g chew dompster ifa„mpstv.s e pr-avided .,t eaeh buildin (Rev) Withdrawn; dumpsters are not
provided at each building.
10. Evaluate all parking spaces in parking areas for adequate corner clearance with Appleton Street. Ref. Final
Site Plan checklist for plan reviewers, p. 3, second item. (Rev) Ref. 18-32.7.2.2: `... Each private street
and travelway within a development shall be designed and constructed to the standards for private streets in
chapter 14.' 14-412.B. (Private streets serving non-residential, non-agricultural, attached residential, multi-
unit residential and combined residential and non-residential uses): `Each private street... shall satisfy
Virginia Department of Transportation standards or an alternative standard deemed adequate by the agent,
upon the recommendation of the county engineer, to be equivalent to or greater than the applicable standard
in the design standards manual, so as to adequately protect the public health, safety or welfare.' ACDSM:
page 19 /image below — standards for private streets in Albemarle County:
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 8
Albemarle County Design Standards Manual — Engineering 0
sign requirements are specified in the Road Naming and Property Numbering Ordinance and
Manual. For specific review items please refer to the review checklist. For purposes of this
design manual, the review checklist sets review policy, and is an integral part of the manual.
The following table summarizes private street standards;
Private Street Standards for Albemarle County *
Street
Desig
Min.
Max.
Min
Min
Min.
Min.
Min.
Min.
Source
n
CL
Grad
. K-
. K-
Stoppin
travelwa
ROW or
shoulde
s
Speed
radio
a
cres
sag
g Sight
y width
easemen
r width
mph
s A.
t
Dist. Ft.
ft.
t width
rural 2-lot
(no standard)
30
n/a
14-
412A1
rural 3-5lots
15
40
20%
5
15
100
14
30
3
14-
412A2,
410,
415
6 lots or
same as VDOT standards, see Detail 5
14-
more
412A3,
415
multifamily,
n/a
40
10%
5
15
100
20 (curb
30
n/a
14-
nonresidentia
to curb)
B
1
**
;1444
Alleys
n/a
n/a
20%
n/a
n/a
100
12***
20
n/a
10
where standards are not specified (for guardrail or drainage for example) standards are to be as required by VDOT
or 24' next to perpendicular parking spaces ( Zoning Ordinance parking lot requirements, 18-4.12.15)
*** with 14' wide stone base
1. Angle of intersection shall be 80 degrees minimum
2. Temporary turnaround shall be provided on phased streets more than 300ft in length. Cul-de-sacs must be provided for
permanent street ends. See the graphic below,
3. Reserved or spite strips are prohibite
4. In the development areas, Curb and gutter, sidewalks (5' min. ), and planting strips (b' min) are required
12. Align detectable surface in direction of pedestrian travel. Revise to reflect proper alignment of detectable
surface. Show radial detectable surface in radius curves. Revise to remove CG-2 curbing at CG-12 ramps.
All line work and site features should accurately reflect design intent. Design should minimize ambiguity.
This comment applies to all plan sheets. (Ref. /include CG-12 detail, sheet 10) (Rev) A possible
misunderstanding; not a request to remove tie-in (CG-2 or CG-6 to CG-12; transition understood). Just do
not want CG-2 /-6 to be shown continuing unbroken across base of CG-12 ramp —regret misunderstanding.
Sheets 4, 5
14. Provide CG-12 wherever asphalt travelway or parking surface runoff is concentrated /conveyed to a storm
inlet. Design must provide curb and gutter (18-4.12.15.g). Note recent review comment for 2415 Ivy Road
Redevelopment. Waiver, if requested, will likely be disapproved. Ref. 2415 Ivy Road Redevelopment
waiver request. Storm conveyance is a priority. Gutter is required by county code, and runoff in parking
areas with grade z5% is concentrated. (Note: It appears all inlet capacity and spread calculations include
gutter cross -slope, so gutter is assumed in design calculations.) (Rev). Applicant response (1/23/20): `We
will provide CG-6 on the curbs that channel water to a drainage structure, but the remaining curb will all be
CG-2. This is consistent with the design manual.' Engineering accepts this response.
15. Eliminate CG-2 at CG-12 ramps. (Rev) Please see item 12, above.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 4 of 8
20. Show easement aeeess width over all tra-velways. inelude 4 label on sheet 10 tra-velwa
details. Ensure sheets 4 and 5, and sheet 10 pFivate tFavelway details (width, notes, seetion [asphalt, base*
are eonsistent with one another-, and with applieable VDOT- design, including VDOT road design an
drainage manuals, a VD04: 2018 pavement desig., guide. (Rev.) Withdrawn. Applicant response:
`Easement width has been provided over Appleton. Easements are not required on the other travelways in
an apartment complex.' Engineering accepts this response.
21. Eliminate CG-2, which does not provide gutter. (Rev) Please see item 14, above.
26. Provide Autotum figure (typical passenger vehicle). Eliminate any travel width issues with revised design:
a. 12' R entrance, travelway B onto Moraga Street (N intersection),
b. Rt. Turn in at 6' R entrance, Appleton into parking areas S of building 1, and 5,
c. Rt. Turn in at 12' R entrance, Appleton onto Fisher Street,
d. Ensure entrance radii are 12.5', minimum,
e. Revise any entrance into any parking area or internal travelway that does not meet 14-410.13.
Angle of intersection design requirement, which stipulates angle of intersection be not less than
eighty (80) degrees. See entrance from Appleton into parking area S of building 1, which is —45
degrees. This entrance does not meet min. entrance radii. Autotum may reveal other issues.
(Rev.) Applicant response: `We need to discuss this comment [26.a.-e.] as it seems excessive for a
parking lot design in an apartment complex.' Turning movements are less problematic with right
angle design, but acute turning movements are required with this design, Engineering must ensure
vehicles may pass without collision. Request for Autotum for turning movements off Appleton
are not within a parking lot, but primary site access and are evaluated against VDOT standards.
Also, item 10, above.
27. .
See a;"etissi ,n r-elating to elsewhere. (Rev) Withdrawn.
28. Do not show portions of Ex. trail along PJP that will be demolished. (Rev). Once Ex. trail across front of
development is demolished, it does not need to appear on site plan sheets showing improvements. (May be
easier to discuss.)
35. In same general location, extend and label GR-2 to protect 6 additional parking spaces which face south (4)
or east (2) located upslope of retaining walls (and not currently afforded guardrail barrier protection).
(Rev.) 3:1 slopes above a retaining wall require guardrail. Albemarle required guardrail for a separate site
plan with flat slope with curb facing a retaining wall in 2019 (Oak Hill Convenience Store).
36. Provide drainage (ditch, etc., with adequate velocity dissipation at end of ditch line) for Driveway Access.
Note: Driveway access appears to be Ex. gravel road to be removed (TBR) on sheet 2. Please clarify.
(Rev) It may be easier to discuss; please schedule a meeting.
Sheets 6, 7
Engineering Review Comments
Page 5 of 8
37. Label all proposed private yard drain inlets. All inlets that appear in calc. tables (sheets 15, 24) must be
labeled in plan view. Also, provide storm profiles for all drainage, including roof leader and yard grate
systems. Display graphically with INV information, each point where Nyloplast roof /yard pipes enter
structures. Show in drainage profiles. Label these storm conveyance elements (sheets 16, 17). Note:
Please see review recommendation or request for design revision relating to allowable storm pipe material
type, or system type, specifically relating to depth of fill (-30' in certain locations), listed elsewhere. (Rev)
Applicant response: `We have never been required to provide profiles for yard drains and roof leaders.
This comment is excessive and needs to be removed. We will provide a drainage schedule for these inlets
and roof leaders, but will not provide profiles.' Please ref Drainage Plan Checklist (p. 1-2)
Drainage profiles: (applicable to site plans, road and drainage plans) [14-311, 18-32]
drainage profiles for each pipe, structure or channel must contain:
existing ground
proposed ground
any channel linings
all utility crossings
a VDOT designation (MH-1, DI-3B, etc.) for each structure
throat length for each drop inlet
grate type for each grate inlet
a label on each structure to correspond with the computations
material and strength class or gage of each pipe
manhole access every 300' for 15"-42" or 800' for 48" or greater
pipe slopes at 0.5% min. to 16% max. (per VDOT stnds for anchors over 16%)
concrete inlet shaping (IS-1) specified on any structure with a 4' or greater drop
safety slabs (SL-1) in any structure taller than 12'.
top or rim elevation for each structure
all invert elevations for each structure (with positive flow drop between inverts).
end sections (ES-1) or endwalls (EW-1) on all pipe outlets. Endwalls for culverts 48" or taller
scour outlet protection at all outlets, corresponding to computations (Green Brook, OP)
Roof leader lines and yard drains are not incidental items with this design; at times they are, but nearly all
(save 2) roof /yard grates lead to parking /road DI -pipe system. Roof -yard systems pass beneath retaining
walls, and there may be conflicts. Engineering has requested Nyloplast profiles on other projects
(Keswick); review proved helpful to design and Applicant.
Sheets 8, 9
49. Provide sealed engineering certification from Mfr. that NyloplastO system elements meet VDOT drainage
design specifications (equivalent load, deflection, strength rating, etc.). Settling is a major concern with
design that proposes fill approaching 30' with entire pipe runs well above undisturbed ground, placed
Engineering Review Comments
Page 6 of 8
completely in fill. (Rev) Comment requests professional engineer's certification that a proposed material
substitute for a VDOT standard be submitted. If there is settling in significant fill sections and pipe
systems deflect or fail, review may be faulted for not requesting material certification of equivalent
strength, resilience, etc. of proposed substitute to a VDOT reference standard.
additional cxistu1g contour labcls N of P.11'.
52. Revise pFoposed gFading, as
VDOT std.lbws 2:1 gr-a e to extend to the edge vnm (Rev) Withdrawn. Guardrail removed along Peter
Jefferson Parkway need not be removed.
53. Opposite Travelway A, north of PIP, eliminate asphalt walk line -work at entrance to MJH, since path does
not exist beyond curbed limits of entrance to hospital. (Rev) It may be easier to discuss (during meeting).
58. Reverse direction of 3:1 slope arrow, S of building 6. (Rev) Minor, slight revision.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 7 of 8
Sheets 16, 17
71. Recommend Avoid proposed pipe grade < 0.6%. Pipe cannot be removed /replaced with this design
without prohibitive expense. Design of 0.50, 0.52, 0.53% canre4-be approved, but invites risk. This design
imperils CO unless any deficiency of pipe installation (slope, elevation, deformation, deflection) can be and
is addressed. (Rev) Revised to a recommendation. See pg. 1., above.
72. FeF this reason, RCP pipe is r-eqiiir-ed in all signifieant fill locations. HDPE is not an aeceptable alter -Hat
for- pipeswith more than minimal coven Fill seetions exeeed 30' in eeftain leeations. Please feel free to
request meeting with Engineering to dice ,s (Rev) Withdrawn. Up to 16' cover permissible with PE, 24"
DIA pipe. Design at UG SWM — Outfall, pipe 77, Sta. 1+00 approaches max. depth, but is acceptable.
PC -I
POLYETHYLENE CORRUGATED PIPE (PE)
DIAMETER
INCHES
AREA
Sq. FI_
MAXIMUM
HEIGHT OF COVER
FEET
TYPE C
TYPE S
12
a
23
20
15
1.2
23
19
1B
1.a
19
19
24
3-I
16
15
3D
36
7
—
12
A 2
9.6
—
10
ALB
12.5
—
10
54
15.9
—
10
60
19.6
—
10
POLY VINYLCHLORIDE PROFILE WALL PIPE (PVC)
DIAMETER
INCHES
AREA
sO, FT,
MAXIMUM
HEIGHT OF COVER
FEET
1a
1,7
41
21
2,3
40
24
3.0
37
30
4.7
34
36
6,9
3{
POLYPROPYLENE PIPE (PP)
DIAMETER
INCHES
AREA
sQ. FT_
MAXIMUM
HEIGHT OF COVER
FEET
TYPE S
TYPE ❑
12
0.9
25
—
15
1.2
24
—
Ia
1.8
24
—
24
3-1
20
—
30
4.9
16
—
36
7_I
14
16
d2
96
14
16
46
112 6
13
16
60
119.6
12
15
NOTES:
I. COVER HEIGHTS INDICATED IN TABLES ARE FOR FINISHED CONSTRUCTION. USING AASHTO LRFD
BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
-
2. TO PROTECT PIPE DURING CONSTRUCTION, MINIMUM HEIGHT OF COVER TO BE IN ACCORDANCE
WITH TABLE A PRIOR TO ALLOWING CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC TO CROSS INSTALLATION.
THE COVER SHALL EXTEND THE FULL LENGTH OF THE PIPE. THE APPROACH FILL IS TO
ExTENO A MINIMUM OF 10101AMETER .% DIAMETER) ON EACH SIDE OF THE PIPE OR
TO THE INTERSECTION WITH A CDT_
3. STANDARD MINIMUM FINISHED HEIGHT OF COVER FOR ALL PIPES,EXCEPT THOSE UNDER
ENTRANCES. SHALL BE 2.0OR % DIAMETER WHICHEVER IS GREATER. FOR 12" THROUGH
49" DIAMETER PIPE INSTALLATIONS WHERE THE COVER HEIGHTS CANNOT BE ACHIEVED, AN
ABSOLUTE MINIMUM FINISHED COVER HEIGHT OF I.C' WILL BE ALLOWED ONLY IF ALL POSSIBLE
MEANS TO OBTAN THE STANDARD VALUE HAVE BEEN EXHAUSTER_ THE MINIMUM FINISHED
HEIGHT OF COVER FOR PIPES UNDER ENTRANCES IS 9" FOR PPE DIAMETERS LESS THAN OR
EQUAL TO 24". AND 12" FOR PIPE DIAMETERS GREATER THAN 24", WHERE THE SURFACE OVER
THE TOP OF THE PPE WILL BE ASPHALT, A MINIMUM OF 15- OF CLASS IBACKFILL MATERIAL
IS TO BE PLACED BETWEEN THE TOP OF THE PIPE AND THE BOTTOM OF THE ASPHALT,
4. SEE STANDARD PB-I FOR PIPE BEDDING AND SACHFILL REQUIREMENTS.
5. LARGE CVLVERT5 SHALL BE DESIGNED BY AN ENGINEER.REGISTERED IN THE
COMMONWEAITH OF VIRGINIA,ANO SHALL BE DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE REQUIRE -ENTS OF VOLUME V. PART 2 OF THE MANUAL OF THE
STRUCTURE AND BRIDGE DIVISION, A LARGE CULVERT IS PINY CULVERT
THAT WILL BECOME PART OF THE STRUCTURE AND BRIDGE INVENTORY. THE
GEOIME TRIO DEFINITION OF THESE STRUCTURES IS PROVIDED IN THE
CURRENT VERSION OF VCCT'5 IIMI
PIPE TYPE DEFINITIONS;
TYPE C SINGLE WALL PIPE (CORRUGATED WALL ONLY)
TYPE S - DOUBLE WALL PIPE ;CORRUGATED WALL WITH SMOOTH NNER WALLI
TYPE 0 - TRIPLE WALL PIPE (CORRUGATED WALL BETWEEN SMOOTH INNER AND OUTER WALL)
TABLE 4
PIPE DIAMETER
MINIMUM COVER HEIGHT
DURING CONSTRUCTION
,SEE NOTE 21
12" TO 30"
ta"
36' AND ABOVE
1/t DIAMETER
`VDQT A COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SEALED AND SIGNED STANDARD DRAWING 15 ON FILE IN THE CENTRAL OFFICE SPECIFICATION
ROAD AND BRIDGE STANDARDS PLASTIC PIPE REFERENCE
SHEET 15 OF la REYIsION DATE HEIGHT OF COVER TABLES FOR HL-93 LIVE LOAD 3 2
IO719 04/19 VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Engineering Review Comments
Page 8 of 8
73. After meeting, revise Note, sheet 17. 14DPE is Dp:La peFmissible substitute for all RGP dr-ai
Limits will apply. 14DPE imper-ils design since it may deform, eollapse, ete., while RGP will n (Rev)
Applicant response: `This comment needs to be removed. This is not accurate and the system is a private
drainage system.' Withdrawn /review error. See item 72.
76. Revise profiles per comments, elsewhere (yard/roof system IW, provide roof /yard system profiles, etc.)
(Rev) Please see item 37, above.
Sheets 23, 24
85 n o w o t Nyloplast 0 stow, f 0.37 n, D n ivn 1C (Rev) A recommendation.
Please feel free to call if any questions: 434.296-5832 -0069
Thank you
SDP201900075 Martha Jefferson Hospital Presidio Apts-ISP 012420rev