HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201900028 Review Comments Major Amendment, Final Site Plan 2020-02-16Phone (434) 296-5832
Project:
Plan preparer:
Owner or rep.:
Plan received date:
(Rev. 1)
(Rev. 2)
Date of comments:
(Rev. 1, 1 a)
(Rev. 2)
Reviewer:
Project Coordinator:
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Fax (434) 972-4126
Site Plan review
University of Virginia Research Park — Town Center 4, Major Amendment
Eric Woolley, P.E., Woolley Engineering, 200 E. High St.
Charlottesville, VA 22902 [ ewoolley(abwoolley-eng com ]
University of Virginia Foundation / P.O. Box 400218
Charlottesville, VA 22904 [tmarshall(&uvafoundation.coml
21 May 2019
12 Sep 2019
22 Jan 2020
15 Jul 2019
10 Oct 2019; rev. 11 Oct 2019 (1 a)
16 Feb 2020, No objection
John Anderson
Cameron Langille
SDP2019-00028 -Many comments are addressed with Rev. 1. (Addressed if grayscale.) Rev. la considers comment response.
1. Cl.l — Please provide Note with date of Maj. Amendment approval corresponding with Major Amendment
Exhibit, since C1.1 shows site development design some years ago, while C2.1 shows existing conditions
exhibit, which is transitional since grading based on C4.0 (current proposed) layout plan is underway.
Without background understanding of approvals or grading /demolition of existing features, easy
connection with or conceptual grasp of design shown on sheets C1.1, C2.0, C4.0 is difficult.
2. Related to item 1., please provide demolition details for portions of C1.1 approved design that either will be
or have been demolished as site transitions toward C4.0 layout design. (discussed 7/10 during telecon with
Woolley Engineering, 11:32 AM)
C2.0
3. Note 6: Ref. Final Site Plan Review checklist Existing Conditions plan view information item 2: All
topography should be visually field verified by the designer within the last year. Please verify topography.
(Rev. 1) Comment persists. If plans include Note that topography was field verified within the last year,
please notify reviewer. Note: Comment response letters are helpful and welcome for this /any Application.
(Rev. la) Addressed —Ref. Note #4 on C1.0
4. Kirk Hughes seal appears on plan. With final print submittal for county signature approval, ensure LS seal
is signed /dated by LS. (Rev. 1) Comment persists. (Rev. 2) Addressed.
C2.1
5. Recommend Note make ref. to survey information on C2.0.
Recommend label buildings 1, 2, 3.
C2.2 — Point elevation labels are unreadable and will not scan. This comment applies to fine bold print
across the plan set. Information is so small it is indistinguishable. Please ensure all text is of size and
clarity to be readable and scannable.
C3.0
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 4
8. Provide ref. to legislative zoning action that supports by -right use or impact to preserved steep slopes (18-
30.4.4.b.l.g). Provide reference to ZMA, SP, or SDP on C3.0 and C1.0. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant
provided copy of email, Bill Fritz to Frederick Allen Missel (Matt Wentland /Engineering cc:), that states:
`The site plan may be reviewed under the last zoning approval for the property. That means that the
previous approval to disturb slopes remains valid. The disturbance of slopes over 25% that were created as
a result of grading activity may occur with no additional discretionary review. The long and short of this is
— The grading you have proposed may be approved once all the WPO and site plan issues are resolved.
There is no critical slope or steep slope issue.' Images included with initial comments removed with Rev. ]
comments. Also, ref. critical slope Exhibits, SDP200600113 and SDP201600051 /Attached.
9. Label preserved steep slopes; label managed steep slopes. Discriminate via shading or line -type. (Rev. 1)
Partially addressed, and no further revision required. Steep slopes identified via shading /legend without
segregating preserved from managed. See also item 8, above.
10. Although legislative zoning action may allow by -right impact to preserved or managed steep slopes, for
any steep slopes, constructions standards listed at 30.7.5 apply, including Vie. reverse slope benches
text image removed with Rev. 1 comments.
11. Provide reverse slope benches, per 18-30.7.5.c. If managed or preserved slopes are /have been graded
inconsistent with 30.7.5, ensure final contours meet 30.7.5 requirements, including revised grading of
affected sections of site. Surface water diversions are an option (1 4z o-vv�dr) text image removed with
Rev. 1 comments.
12. Increase size of small print for clarity, so readable and scannable (Also, item 7., above).
C4.0
13. Provide pavement design for site access from Lewis and Clark Drive. Ref. 2018 VDOT Pavement Design
Guide for Subdivision and Secondary Roads in Virginia; base pavement section on full build -out. Provide
ADT and Dr, Dp for heavy drive aisle section, C7.0. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Pavement design in CV. Also,
C7.0.
14. C4.0 should identify areas where each C7.0 pavement section applies.
15. Copy sidewalk, concrete, patio /plaza, and crosswalk details from architectural drawings to site plan. These
civil features require review. Each feature material type should be easily distinguished, via label or legend.
16. Provide note (or confirm) that plaza traffic is two-way.
17. Label sidewalk widths. (Rev. 1) Addressed. C7.0, Detail 11; Min. sidewalk width =6.0'.
18. Provide crosswalk pavement markings (two 6" parallel white lines) at intersections of 8' asphalt trail and
vehicular travel ways.
19. Relocate `2 spaces' (orphan) label to two parallel parking spaces west of building 4.
20. Label travel way width between town center buildings 3 and 4. [18-4.12.17.c.]
21. Similar to 15., provide labels /legend for travel way surfaces, unless all site travel ways are asphalt surface.
22. Label patio /plaza. Label solid dark circles (bollards). If solid circles are stone block bollards, ref. detail,
C7.0.
23. Label 3 unshaded rectangular forms at end of hardscape plaza, at south green park area. What is this
feature?
24. Label feature at end of 8' asphalt trail at Lewis and Clark Drive, which may be a detectable surface ramp.
25. C4.1: please revise small unreadable type.
26. C4.3: 415' and 480' sight lines confuse. For any speed limit, sight lines are an equal length in either
direction. Please clarify. (Rev. 1) Comment persists. Please confirm design speed limit and min.
required sight distance. Feel free to contact reviewer if apparent misunderstanding. (Rev. la.) Withdrawn.
Applicant response: `The sight distance profile sheet illustrates the actual sight distance at the intersection.
The minimum sight distances required by the AASHTO Green Book are SDL =335', SDR =455'. The
thresholds in both directions are met with the current layout.'
C5.0
27. Please enlarge unreadable print.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 4
28. Please revise proposed grade per 18-30.7.5.c., or provide surface water diversions per 18-30.7.5.d. Also,
item 11. (Rev. 1) Withdrawn. Also, item 8, above. (Attached critical slopes Exhibits — SDP200600113,
SDP201600051)
C5.1
29. Please enlarge unreadable print.
30. Provide additional spot elevations to ensure patio /plaza drains to inlets, and so that drainage may be
evaluated.
31. Several spot shot elevations near lower edge of plan sheet appear errant; for example: 545.5, 545.4.
32. Label bollards, inlets, all symbol features, or provide legend that defines symbols.
C6.0
33. Provide profiles for yard drains and trench drains, especially any drainage structure serving the patio /plaza.
34. C6.0 tables list inlet type `DI' while C6.3 lists the same structures as MHs. Compare and revise C6.0 table
descriptors or C6.3 storm drain profile labels, as needed.
35. Storm lines are obscured; in places, nearly entirely hidden. Storms lines must be visible on this sheet,
point-to-point, structure -to -structure. Examples: 106-105, 101-102, 92-94-96A, 88-87.
36. Plaza drainage is unclear. Once spot elevations provided and structures visible, a more thorough review
should be possible. (Rev. 1) Partially addressed. As follow-up: Please remove extraneous diamond
symbols, or revise legend to identify (+). Recommend shift YD. labels closer to structures; for example:
YD37, YD9, YD10, YD11, YD24. (Rev. 2) Addressed.
37. If email with drainage computations sent, cannot locate; please re -send. Need LD-204, LD-229 for
drainage design (inlet /storm drain computations). (Rev. l/ la.) Comment persists. (Rev. la.) Applicant
response: `Please see the stormwater drainage computations which will be hand -delivered to your
attention.' Hand -delivered computations may have been misdirected or misplaced in routing. Please send
as .PDF (Rev. 2) Addressed. Inlet /storm pipe design included with comment response letter d. 10 Jan
2020.
C6.3
38. Revise pipe DIA label for pipe between MH 88 and MH 92 to 18".
39. Ref. item 34., above, re. consistency with C6.0 table descriptors. Revise C6.0 or C6.3, as needed.
40. Recommend revise proposed 6" and 4-28" PVC to 12" DIA, Min. Were these pipes in easement, Drainage
Plan review checklist would require 15" DIA, Min. (Rev. 1) Comment persists. Engineering restates
recommendation, unless calculations show 6" DIA is a maximum diameter required to maintain self -
scouring velocity. Also, item 37, above: provide computations for all storm conveyance elements,
including 6" DIA lines. (Rev. la) If design not revised, comment will be withdrawn. (Rev. 2) Applicant
response: `Woolley Engineering acknowledges this comment.'
41. For structures or pipes in fill (as deep as 20'), provide Note with text similar to text image, below; i.e.,
ensure proper compaction to avoid settling and possible failure. (Rev. 1) Not addressed, unless Note
overlooked. If Note included with plans, please guide to location. Also, please ensure Note appears on
profile sheet where structure/s proposed in fill; for example: D183, D184, DI102. (Rev. la) Applicant
response: `A note about pipes in fill has been added to C6.3.' Reviewer cannot locate note. Please advise.'
(Rev. 2) Addressed.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 4 of 4
NOTE:
1. FOR MANHOLES TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN FILL,
CONTRACTOR SHALL PLACE FILL UNDER SAN. MH AT
95% COMPACTION & EMBANKMENT MATERIAL SHALL
CONSIST PREDOMINANTLY OF SOIL AND BE PLACED IN
SUCCESSIVE UNIFORM LAYERS NOT MORE THAN 8" IN
THICKNESS BEFORE COMPACTION IN ACCORDANCE
WITH VDOT 2007 ROAD AND BRIDGE SPECIFICATION
303.04. AFTER 3' VERTICAL PLACEMENT OF FILL,
CONTRACTOR SHALL EXCAVATE RECENTLY LAID FILL
AND INSTALL COMPACTED VDOT STD. 21A STONE IN AN
8'x8' O.C. COMPACTED 21A AREA CENTERED ON THE
MH(S). CONTRACTOR SHALL REPEAT THIS OPERATION
UNTIL AN 8'x8' O.C. 21A STONE BASE IN INSTALLED
BETWEEN THE EXISTING GROUND AND THE PROPOSED
SAN. MH BASE IN EFFORTS TO REDUCE THE RISK OF
SETTLING. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE ACSA WITH
COMPACTION RESULTS PRIOR TO SEWER ACCEPTANCE
42. L1.0: Cannot evaluate proposed landscaping relative to underground storm drain lines since drain lines
often obscure /invisible. Please ensure no canopy landscaping is within 5' horizontal of proposed storm
lines. (Rev. 1) Partially addressed. As follow-up: Revise landscape plan to avoid conflicts: for example: if
Ex. 79B remains, there is a conflict. Twelve or more landscape conflicts exist between proposed 6" DIA
lines and proposed plants in area between Town Center 1 and 4. Please revise plan or provide notes that
guide plant installation to avoid utility /landscaping conflicts. (Rev. 2) Addressed.
43. New: C6.5: Provide clean -outs throughout 6" DIA line storm conveyance system wherever there is a bend.
(Rev. 2) Addressed. Applicant response: `Based on our previous telephone conversation, it is Woolley
Engineering's opinion that these are not necessary because the segments are short enough to allow snaking
in the event of a clog.' Engineering accepts this response.
44. New: C7.1, Detail 19, indicates 17" depth to 6" line INV. Engineering discourages yard drain systems in
any but residential settings. While yard drains are reasonable in certain locations, extent of impervious
areas, institutional setting, and difficulty of maintaining 6" lines 4'-5' below grade more easily obstructed
by debris do not favor this design. Drainage Plan checklist for plan reviewers requires for systems within
drainage easements, all proposed pipes are a minimum 15" in diameter. Although proposed 6" DIA lines
are not in drainage easements, were they, design would be impermissible. (Rev. 2) Applicant response:
`Woolley Engineering acknowledges this comment. We have discussed this matter with the owners, and
they are comfortable with utilizing the proposed pipe sizes in this situation.'
Removed with Rev. 1:
Please feel free to call if any questions: 434.296-5832 -x3069
Thank you
SDP2019-00028 UVA Research Park Town Center 4 021620rev2