Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201900075 Approval - County 2020-02-07COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 February 7, 2020 Mr. Scott Collins, PE — Collins Engineering 200 Garrett Street, Suite K, Charlottesville, VA 22902 (434)-293-3719 / scott@collins-en ing eerin com Mr. Alan Taylor — Riverbend Development 435 2' Street SE, Suite 400, Charlottesville, VA 22902 (434)-245-4970 / alan@_riverbenddev.com RE: Conditional Approval of SDP-2019-00075 (Presidio Apartments — Initial Site Plan—11/25/2019) Mr. Collins and Mr. Taylor: The Agent for the Board of Supervisors hereby administratively grants conditional approval to the above referenced Initial Site Plan (dated 11/25/2019). The Final Site Plan will not be approved until all review comments identified in the attached SRC review comment letter (updated 2/6/2020) have been addressed and resolved to the satisfaction of each applicable SRC member, and until each applicable SRC member has indicated in writing their (tentative) approval. This conditional approval shall be valid for a period of five (5) years from the date of this letter, provided that the developer submits a Final Site Plan for all or a portion of the site within one (1) year after the date of this letter as provided in sections 32.4.2.7 and 32.4.3.1 of Chapter 18 of the Code of the County of Albemarle, and thereafter diligently pursues approval of the Final Site Plan. In accordance with Chapter 18 of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Section 32.4.2.8, Early or Mass Grading may be permitted after the following approvals are received: 1. Engineering approval of a VSMP plan meeting the requirements of Chapter 17 of the Code of the County of Albemarle. 2. Approval of all easements for facilities for stormwater management and drainage control. 3. Submittal of a tree conservation checklist with areas for tree preservation identified. Please be advised that the Final Site Plan will not be considered to have been officially submitted until the following items are received: 1. A Final Site Plan that satisfies all of the requirements of Section 32.6 of Chapter 18 of the Code. 2. A fee of $1,613.00 per Section 35. l .c.(3) of Chapter 18 of the Code. Within one year of the date of this letter, please submit a minimum of ten (10) copies of the Final Site Plan to the Community Development Department (CDD) or make Final Site Plan application using the online Digital Submission process. Page 1 of 2 After the assigned Lead Reviewer distribute the plans to all applicable SRC members for review and comment, CDD staff will then provide the first review comment letter containing each applicable SRC member's review comments for the Final Site Plan (unless the plan is determined to be approvable without any revision). After receiving that letter, please resubmit revised Final Site Plan materials to CDD and thereafter work directly with each plan reviewer to address and resolve their respective agency's requirements. All additional revisions should also be resubmitted through CDD. The Community Development Department shall not accept submittal of the Final Site Plan for final approval signatures until each of the following applicable SRC members indicate in writing that the Final Site Plans satisfy the attached conditions* and all other applicable requirements, and give their (tentative) approval: SRC Members: ■ Albemarle County Planning Services (Planner) — 2 copies ■ Albemarle County Engineering Services (Engineer) — 1 copy ■ Albemarle County Information Services (E911) — 1 copy ■ Albemarle County Inspections Services (Inspections) — 1 copy ■ Albemarle County Department of Fire Rescue — 1 copy ■ Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) — 1 copy (minimum); please coordinate directly with ACSA to determine minimum number of required copies ■ Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) — 1 copy (minimum); please coordinate directly with VDOT to determine minimum number of required copies If you have any questions about this conditional approval, or the Final Site Plan submittal requirements, or any other aspect of your application(s), please feel free to contact me using the information provided below. Community Development staff remain available to assist. Thank you; sincerely, Cameron Langille Senior Planner / blan ig lle(&albemarle.org / (434)-296-5832 x 3432 *Attached conditions: • SRC comment letter (dated 1/21/2020; updated 2/7/2020) Page 2 of 2 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 ;.,ruar-y 2 UPDATE: February 7, 2020 Mr. Scott Collins, PE — Collins Engineering 200 Garrett Street, Suite K, Charlottesville, VA 22902 (434)-293-3719 / scott(ibcollins-en ing eering com Mr. Alan Taylor — Riverbend Development 435 21 Street SE, Suite 400, Charlottesville, VA 22902 (434)-245-4970 / alan@_riverbenddev.com RE: Site Review Committee (SRC) Comment Letter UPDATE for SDP-2019-00075 (Martha Jefferson Hospital Presidio Apartments — Initial Site Plan dated 11/25/2019) Dear Mr. Collins and Mr. Taylor: The Planner for the Planning Division of the Albemarle County Community Development Department (CDD) has reviewed the development proposal referenced above, as have the following members of the Site Review Committee (SRC): Albemarle County Community Development Department — Architectural Review Board staff (ARB) Albemarle County Community Development Department — Engineering Services (Engineer) Albemarle County Community Development Department — Information Services (E911) Albemarle County Community Development Department — Inspections Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) Albemarle County Department of Fire Rescue — PENDING (as of 2/7/2020) Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Each review comment contained in this letter is preceded by the applicable reference to Chapter 18 of the Albemarle County Code (Zoning Ordinance / Z.O.), unless otherwise specified. (The following comments are those that have been identified at this time; additional comments may be added or eliminated based on further review.) Please review the attached SRC Letter of Conditional Approval (dated 2/6/2020) for Initial Site Plan SDP201900075. And please contact me at your convenience if you have questions or require additional information or assistance. Sincerely, Cameron Langille Senior Planner / blan ille e,albemarle.org / (434)-296-5832 x 3242 Page 1 of 5 Albemarle County Planning Services (Planner) Contact: Tim Padalino, ttpadalino&albemarle.org (Lead Reviewer until 1/31/2020) Review Status: Requested Changes 1. [ZMA200100015]: The development appears to be in general accord with the approved ZMA-2001-00015 (including Exhibit B — Application Plan, sheets AP1-AP6): the residential use and number of dwelling units are in general accord with what is shown as Parcel I containing 250 residential units on AP-4; and the open space, trails, and pedestrian connectivity are in general accord with what is shown as Parcel J on AP-4 and AP-5, and as Anticipated Pedestrian Route — Connection to Gateway on AP-6. 2. [Z.O. Section 32.5.2(a)]: The title on the Cover Sheet (Sheet IA) incorrectly states that this application is a "Final Site Plan." This application has been submitted, processed, and reviewed as an "Initial Site Plan." 3. [Z.O. Section 32.5.2(a)] : If the Open Space contained in the recently -created Special Lot (approximately 4.5 acres, identified as Tax Map/Parcel #78-20M5) is included in the calculations for this site plan, then please add this Tax Map/Parcel number and acreage to the "Tax Map No." and "Total Project Area" information in the General Notes on the Cover Sheet (Sheet IA). Please also correct any density calculations that may change based on revisions to the project area acreage. 4. [Z.O. Section 32.5.2(a)]: Please identify Tax Map/Parcel #78-20M5 on the Overall Layout Sheet (Sheet 3) and include a note identifying it as Open Space reserved for future dedication to the County for public use. 5. [Z.O. Section 32.5.2(i), 0), (k), (1)1: Please ensure all existing and all proposed public and private easements are shown and labeled. 6. [Z.O. Section 32.5.2(i), 0), (k), (1)1: Please ensure Deed Book/Page references are included for existing easements. 7. [Z.O. Sections 32.5.2(a), (b), (n), and (s)]: Please ensure that all portions of the subject property are included on each applicable Sheet. Staff acknowledges the Matchlines on Sheets 2 and 3 (shown at a scale of 1' = 50'). However, other sheets (shown at a scale of V = 30') do not include all portions of the subject property; for example, the Layout Plan (Sheets 4 and 5), the Utility Plan (Sheets 6 and 7), and the Grading & Drainage Plan (Sheets 8 and 9) exclude the northwestern and southwestern portions of the property. 8. [Z.O. Sections 32.7.2.3 and 4.12.61: (Advisory Review Comment) — Based on the proposed number and types of units, a minimum of 425 parking spaces are required. Staff acknowledges that the "Parking Required" and "Parking Provided" sections of the "General Notes" on the Cover Sheet (Sheet 1A) indicate that 426 spaces are provided, including 406 surface parking spaces and 20 garage spaces. Staff further acknowledges that 14 parking spaces appear to provide universal access towards meeting ADA requirements. [Z.O. Section 32.7.2.3]: (Advisory Review Comment) — Staff acknowledges that a 5' wide concrete sidewalk is proposed in multiple locations throughout the development, including along Peter Jefferson Parkway between the (proposed) eastern entrance and the northwestern property boundary, in order to establish a safe and convenient pedestrian connection to adjoining properties and adjacent employment centers. Please note that this connection must be designed and constructed to the standards established in the Albemarle County Design Standards Manual, provided that all ramps for persons with mobility impairments shall be designed and constructed to the standards of VDOT. 10. [Z.O. Section 32.7.2.3]: (Advisory Review Comment) — Staff acknowledges that a direct "pedestrian walkway" or pedestrian connection is proposed across Peter Jefferson Parkway, in order to enable safe, convenient pedestrian access between the subject property and the Martha Jefferson Hospital property. Please note that this connection must be designed and constructed to the standards established in the Albemarle County Design Standards Manual, provided that all ramps for persons with mobility impairments shall be designed and constructed to the standards of VDOT. Page 2 of 5 Please also note that this proposed "pedestrian walkway" or pedestrian connection is subject to VDOT acceptance of a "justification report" as outlined in previous review comments provided by Mr. Adam Moore, PE (dated 5/16/2018). Community Development staff remain available to assist with the coordination of this "pedestrian walkway" at an unsignalized location. And CDD staff strongly support this proposed pedestrian crossing at an unsignalized location in order to: a.) proactively address the likelihood of frequent pedestrian crossings of Peter Jefferson Parkway at a location that would otherwise be unprotected and unsafe, and b.) to facilitate safe, convenient pedestrian mobility between places of residence and a major place of employment. More specifically, it can be reasonably anticipated that a relatively large number of pedestrian trips will occur on a daily basis between the two hundred fifty (250) dwelling units and Martha Jefferson Hospital. Even factoring in the provision of a new sidewalk along Peter Jefferson Parkway (as required pursuant to Zoning Ordinance §32.7.2.3, and as acknowledged above in Planner review comment #9), if no such pedestrian walkway is provided across Peter Jefferson Parkway then residents of the proposed apartment complex who want to walk from the apartments to the hospital would have to choose to walk approximately 3,000 linear feet on sidewalks, crosswalks, and walking paths in order to safely access the hospital — and would have to choose not to exit the development, cross Peter Jefferson Parkway (without any safe pedestrian infrastructure), and access the hospital via a much more direct route that is approximately 550 linear feet in length. A diagrammatic exhibit illustrating this issue is provided with this SRC review comment letter packet for reference. 11. [Z.O. Sections 32.7.2.3 and 25A.51: Staff acknowledges the provision of safe, convenient on -site pedestrian connections in many locations throughout this proposed development. However, staff have identified strategically important locations where additional safe and convenient on -site pedestrian connections are necessary. These connections must be designed and constructed to the standards established in the Albemarle County Design Standards Manual, provided that all ramps for persons with mobility impairments shall be designed and constructed to the standards of VDOT. Specifically, such safe, convenient pedestrian connections are required in the following e� locations, as described below (listed a-d) and as conceptuallX shown below (in pink): �PL & MG NP) (NP} \ j / c LBR aS `\ SAP CAR T CLUBHOUSE- �- ,V .; / (NP) -GB i � h� au (T �0 oe i� BUILDING #4 i #f \ f llss JV (TYP) (TYP) i ` + u ` �� �r�� 3/4 STORY BLDG 42 UNITS BUILDING#3 j i ���� /� �� (co s, 4 STORY BLDG <. a) Between the Clubhouse and Building #1 b) Between the Clubhouse and Building #2 c) Between Building #3 and Building #2 d) Between Building #3 and Building #4 Page 3 of 5 12. [Z.O. Section 32.5.2(b)]: Please revise the sub -heading for the "Critical Slopes" section within the General Notes on the Cover Sheet (Sheet 1A) to "Steep Slopes Overlay District." Technically, there are no "Critical Slopes" within the Development Area; and Steep Slopes are technically an overlay zoning district. 13. [Z.O. Section 32.5.2(n)]: Show the proposed location(s) of outdoor trash containers. Staff acknowledges that the "Trash Receptacles" section within the General Notes on the Cover Sheet (Sheet IA) references the proposed provision of a dumpster and trash compacter. Please also provide additional waste and recycling containers in the developed recreation areas and within other areas of the proposed development, and show these on the final site plan. 14. [Z.O. Section 32.5.2(n)]: Show the proposed location(s) of outdoor lighting. Staff acknowledge that the "Lighting" section within the General Notes on the Cover Sheet (Sheet IA) indicates that "Parking lot and building lighting is included with this final site plan." However, no such lighting information appears to be provided. Please note that a Lighting Plan that demonstrates compliance with Z.O. Sections 32.6.21 and 4.17 is required with the Final Site Plan application. Additionally, because the subject property is within the Entrance Corridor Overlay District, this proposed project (including the Lighting Plan) is subject to review by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and ARB staff, and approval/issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness by the ARB is required. Staff acknowledges that application ARB-2019-00145 was submitted for review on 11/25/2019, and was then deferred indefinitely by the applicant(s) on 12/30/2019. 15. [Z.O. Section 32.5.2(p)]: Staff acknowledges the Landscape Plan sheets (Sheets 12, 13, and 14). Because the subject property is within the Entrance Corridor Overlay District, this proposed project (including the Landscape Plan) is subject to review by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and ARB staff, and approval/issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness by the ARB is required. Staff acknowledges that application ARB-2019-00145 was submitted for review on 11/25/2019, and was then deferred indefinitely by the applicant(s) on 12/30/2019. 16. [Z.O. Sections 32.5.2(n) and 4.161: The proposed development does not contain all of the required developed recreation areas and minimum facilities. Specifically, Z.O. 4.16.2 ("Minimum Facilities") requires the following: • Z.O.4.16.2.1: One (1) tot lot (2,000 SF minimum) shall be provided for the first thirty (30) units and for each additional fifty (50) units • As applied to SDP201900075: (250 units = Five (5) tot lots / minimum 10,000 SF total; see 4.16.2.1 for full details of this requirement) • Z.O.4.16.2.2: One-half (1/2) court for basketball shall be provided for each one hundred (100) units • As applied to SDP201800018: (250 units = Two (2) half -courts or one (1) full -court; see 4.16.2.2 for full details of this requirement) However, pursuant to Z.O.4.16, the planning director has some discretionary authority to consider proposed substitutions for the facilities that are required by this section of the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed provision of "trails/walking paths" which "shall be available for public use to access the Rivanna River trails" in lieu of some of the minimum required facilities would likely be partially acceptable and partially unacceptable. Please revise as follows: A. Provide the correct calculations (SF) of the required recreation facilities (info summarized above) by revising the "Recreation" section within the "General Notes" on the Cover Sheet (Sheet 1A). B. Clarify the proposed recreation facilities; the General Notes on the Cover Sheet (Sheet IA) indicate that the proposed total area for recreation would be 51,200 SF (in the "Recreation" section), but the General Notes also indicate that the recreational areas equal 0.83 acres (in the "Land Area" section). C. Provide a recreation facilities proposal for review by the Planning Director and Chief of Planning that includes the calculations requested in comments #14-A, and which describes any and all requested substitutions from the required minimum facilities (such as trails/walking paths, clubhouse and pool, dog park, etc.) with supporting explanations/rationale. D. Please review the proposed locations, alignments, material specifications, and "Classification" of the Page 4 of 5 "proposed primitive trailway," and any other proposed or potential trail or park infrastructure, in collaboration with Mr. Dan Mahon in the Albemarle County Parks & Recreation Department (ACPR). 17. [Z.O. Sections 32.5.2(b) and 32.5.2(i)]: In consideration of this subject property's strategic location relative to the Rivanna River, the Old Mills Trail, and the County's Rivanna Greenway and Blueway System, and following the extensive coordination between the applicant team and County staff in 2019, CDD-Planning staff believe additional coordination with Mr. Dan Mahon in ACPR is necessary. The purpose of this additional coordination would be to revisit the previous collaborative efforts related to park planning and trail planning efforts, and to review and (potentially) refine the proposed public access and publicly -accessible amenities that are shown and annotated on this site plan. Please note that ACPR staff have provided written review comments (dated 1/17/2020), which are attached to this comment letter. Please also note that Mr. Mahon intends to attend the 1/23 SRC meeting to represent ACPR and discuss these issues with the applicant team in person. 18. [Advisory / For Future Reference]: Please note that the following approvals will be required prior to County approval (as may be applicable) of a final site plan for this proposed project: A. [Z.O. Sections 32.4.2.2 and 32.4.3.31: Architectural Review Board Certificate of Appropriateness / ARB-2019-00145 B. [Z.O. Section 32.7.4.1(a)]: Water Protection Ordinance Plan (and corresponding legal documents) / WPO-2018-00027 C. [Z.O. Sections 32.7.4.2 and 32.7.5.31: Easement Plat(s) (and corresponding legal documents) / SUB-2019-00084 and SUB-2019-00118 D. [Z.O. Section 32.7.1.1]: Special Lot Plat / Note: Staff acknowledges approval and recordation of Special Lot Plat SUB-2019-00034 E. [Z.O. Section 32.4.3.6(a) and 32.4.3.6(c)]: Tentative approvals (review status of "No Objection") from all applicable SRC members for final site plan. Albemarle County Engineering Services (Engineer) Contact: John Anderson, janderson2galbemarle.org Review Status: Requested Changes (1/24/2020); see attached comments Albemarle County Information Services (E911) Contact: Brian Becker, bbeckergalbemarle.org Review Status: Requested Changes (12/17/19); see attached comments Albemarle County Building Inspections Contact: Michael Dellinger, mdellingergalbemarle.org Review Status: No Objection (1/3/2020); see attached comments Albemarle County Department of Fire -Rescue Contact: Shawn Maddox, smaddox(c�r�,albemarle.org Review Status: PENDING (as of 2/7/2020); Fire -Rescue comments to be forwarded upon receipt Albemarle County Service Authority Contact: Richard Nelson, melsongserviceauthority.org Review Status: See Recommendations (1/20/2020); see attached comments Virginia Department of Transportation Contact: Adam Moore, Adam.MooreAvdot.vir ig nia.gov Review Status: Requested Changes (1/14/2020); see attached comments Page 5 of 5 Phone (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 Review Comments for SDP201900075 11nitial Site Plan Project Name: MARTHA JEFFERON HOSPITAL PREIDIO APARTMENTS - INITIAL Date Completed: Tuesday, December 17, 2019 DepartmentlaivisionlAgency: Review sus: Reviewer: Brian Becker CDD E911 I Requested Changes The proposed street name 'Appleton Street" is not acceptable, per Part I, Section 4-i of the County's Road Naming and Property Numbering Manual (page 6 of the PDF): 'No proposed road name shall be approved which begins with a word that appears as the first word in five or more official road names_" The word'Apple' is currently used by at least free other official County road names_ The Albemarle County Master Road Names Directory can be accessed at the link below_ Please provide this office at least three alternative road names for review, in case your first choices are also not acceptable_ http:llwww-aIbemarle_orglalbemarle/upload/images/ ebapps/roads.+ Page: County of Albemarle Printed On: 01121 20020 Review Comments for SDP201900075 11nitial Site Plan Project Name: MARTHA JEFFERON HOSPITAL PREIDIO APARTMENTS - INITIAL Date Completed: Fnday, January 03, 2020 DepartmentlaivisionlAgency: Review Status: Reviewer: Michael Dellinger CDD Inspections No Objection Page: County of Albemarle Printed On: 01121 20020 Review Comments for SDP201900075 11nitial Site Plan Project Name: MARTHA JEFFERSON HOSPITAL PREIDIO APARTMENTS - INITIAL Date Completed: Monday, January 20, 2020 DepartmentlaivisionlAgency: Review Status: Reviewer: Richard Nelson ACSA I See Recommendations 1 I recommend SDP 01900075 Martha Jefferson Hospital Presidio Apartments — Initial for approval with the following conditions: Submit 3 copies to ACAfor review_ RW A sewer capacity certification will be required prior to final approval. Confirm with DEQ what class pumps are needed for structures near the river Page: County of Albemarle Printed On: 01121 20020 Stephen C. Brich, P.E. Commissioner COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1601 Orange Road Culpeper. Virginia 22701 January 14, 2020 County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Attn: Tim Padalino Re: Martha Jefferson Hospital Presidio Apartments- Final site plan SDP-2019-00075 Review #1 Dear Mr. Padalino: The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use Section, has reviewed the above referenced plan as submitted by Collins Engineering, dated November 25, 2019, offers the following comments: Land Use 1. Please show on plans, design posted speed, and label right of way width for Route 1140 Peter Jefferson Parkway. 2. Please insert WP-2 standard detail on plans. 3. The mill and overlay will require work on Peter Jefferson Parkway. Please provide an MOT plan in accordance with the revised 2019 Virginia work area protection manual. 4. CG-12 ramps must be aligned so as to direct pedestrian traffic directly to the corresponding ramp. Also please label CG-12 ramps, at proposed entrances on plans. 5. Please provide figure 3-26, warrants for right and left turn treatment. Please see VDOT's Road Design Manual, appendix F-pg., F-96., for details. 6. Please show existing drainage structures in the vicinity of both proposed entrances. 7. The proposed sidewalk is outside of the right of way and will not be maintained by VDOT. Please provide two copies of the revised plan along with a comment response letter. If further information is desired, please contact Willis C. Bedsaul at 434-422-9866. A VDOT Land Use Permit will be required prior to any work within the right-of-way. The owner/developer must contact the VDOT Charlottesville Residency Land Use Section at (434) 422-9399 for information pertaining to this process. Sincerely, �am AJ. Moo , P... Area Land Use Engineer Charlottesville Residency VirginiaDOT.org WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Parks and Recreation 401 McIntire Road, Room 118 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296 - 5844 Fax (434) 293-0299 TO: Tim Padilino FROM: Dan Mahon, Greenways Supervisor Department of Parks and Recreation SUBJECT: Martha Jefferson Hospital Presidio Apartments DATE: 1 /17/2020 The County of Albemarle along with the City of Charlottesville are making progress with its efforts to define and establish a river corridor plan for the Rivanna From 164 upstream to Pen Park to include and enhance the current existing Rivanna Greenway corridor passing below the site of this project. In addition this, and worth noting here are plans under study for a future pedestrian bridge to link Woolen Mills to Pantops. The future Presidio Apartments may benefit from where this final bridge alignment is located and will overlook an area of great natural/cultural and recreational value. The Department of Parks and Recreation, has reviewed this plan and offer the following comments, concerns and suggestions: 1. Include Parks and Recreation in discussions and decisions made with The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation regarding access to landlocked properties and greenway easement areas directly downstream of the site. 2. Reconsider a shared road access down to the existing greenway property where a reservation might be granted until needed funding can be applied. 3. Work with County Park staff to locate other possible suitable trailhead locations. 4. Work with County Park staff to discuss the primitive path shown in the current plan.