HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP202000023 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2020-05-02�pF A
Vt7{GlN1A
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: Martha Jefferson Hospital Presidio Apartments - ISP
Project file number: SDP2020-00023
Plan preparer: Scott Collins; Collins Engineering [200 Garrett St., Suite K, Charlottesville, VA
22902, scott e,collins-en ing eering com]
Owner or rep.: Presidio Pantops LLC / 455 Second St. SE 5' Floor
Charlottesville, VA 22902 [ alan _ riverbenddev.com ]
Applicant: Castle Development Partners LLC / 230 Court Square, Suite 202
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Plan received date: 19 Mar 2020
Date of comments: 2 May 2020
Reviewer: John Anderson
Project Coordinator: Cameron Langille
Note: Given review constraints, Engineering welcomes .PDF preview of revised final site plan and related
WP0201800027. Preview does not imply accelerated review or priority review ahead of competing items
in review queue/s.
SDP202000023 (Also, SDP2019-00075 comments, which are basis of Engineering Final Site Plan review comments.)
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 Comments relating to guardrail along PJP, review errors, are withdrawn.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 (grayscalc strike4ffeugl}.) 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 (gray /strileegk), 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 PIP,
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 (PIP), 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.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 9
Sheet 1-A
I. Recommend revise site plan title to include SDP201900075, Initial Site Plan (FSP) Asfollow-up:
Recommend include SDP202000023 in final site plan, plan title.
Revise Additional Notes:
a. (Rev)
private t-ave'...ays) Withdrawn (Clarification to be added to plans.)
b. (Rev) Revise Note 6: Drainage easements upstream of SNVA4 detention oF treatment fiWilities
SM4N4 f cili .. public easements, ents dedioatea t public use. Withdrawn (Clarification to be added
to plans.)
c. (Rev) Pr-ovide elevation note for 1 64 CL (EBL and �"L), so Note 9 may be evaluated agains
design. County rare . source of 1 64 elevation ; aeceptable. 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, 14-412.13. (Rev) Note serves as reminder
VDOT standar'< If, travelway /drainage design (note does not request plan revision).
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 tates 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.
(FSP) Partially addressed. Applicant response: `As discussed in the meeting on March 51, Roudabush
and Gale have performed additional onsite survey and topography on the site, and have confirmed that the
topography is accurate. This additional topo information has been added to the plan sheet and the note
on the cover sheet has been updated to reflect this additional information.' As follow-up: Revise (IA)
Topo and Survey Note as requested in lead paragraph, p. 1. Please state that `topographic survey
performed in support of design meets state code requirements for surveys.' This was discussed
internally, would seem non -objectionable. The site plan is not a plat, does not carry a LS seal, so we
restate request for this specific language on the final site plan. Also, please provide date/s of recent survey
plats. Recent is non-specific.
Sheet 2: Existing site elements will be demolished (Ex. guardrail /asphalt walls /PJP curb, for example).
Provide separate demolition sheet with details of items to be removed (TBR). nio^so re-teP that Ex. ,.,,....grail
eendition eempliant with NLDOT guardrail standards and specifications, ineluding end treatment (impact
attenuation). Wherever guardrail is termina4ed to provide site entrance/aeoess, eonsult NLDOT may en4, be removed to provide site access. Ex. guardrail not required to be removed should remain in
Please review guardrail design with eare. Provide GR 2 detail, inipact attenuation (structufal guardrail)
detail, etc. (sheet' 0). (Rev) Portion of comment relating to guardrail is withdrawn; rest. persists. (FSP)
Addressed. Applicant:'...this portion of the guardrail is being removed per VDOT requirements.'
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 9
Sheet 3
.abel trails.
S. Chow dumpsters, if dumpster-s are provided at each buildin (Rev) Withdrawn; dumpsters are not
provided at each building.
lines internal travelwa. Intersections this sheet; tL, . must be shin
on sheets 415. Ref. Code 13-4.12.15.d. For example: Appleton St. and Moaaga St; Appleton and narking
urea west of buildings 5 and 1: Travelwav A and Fisher Street, Appleton and Fisher Street.
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:
paac iag — standards for private streets in Albemarle County: [ removed w/ FSP comments. ]
(FSP) Addressed. Applicant: `As discussed at the March 5' meeting, the parking lot entrances from the
main travelways have been updated and reflect the requested turning radii. The location of the parking
spaces in conjunction with the intersections have been updated to ensure adequate clearances. The auto turn
has also been shown on the plans. In addition, only the requirements of [Ch.] 18 apply to the development
and not the requirements from Section 14, which is the subdivision of land. Because no land is being
subdivided, there are no private streets, only private travelways.'
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.
(FSP) Partially addressed. As follow-up: Please see sheet 10, VDOT CG-12 detail, lower -left corner of
detail, which depicts plan view alignment of detectable surface in a radial curb. Revise layout plan CG-12
wherever inconsistent with VDOT detail (ramps in radial curbs; multiple locations), else contractor may
install improperly. Goal is to avoid later tear -out /replacement to meet VDOT CG-12 standard.
t3. Show,label internal stop ivieki signs at intcrual intersections (trave➢�,
thru movement has precedence fright -of -way. Applies to plan sheets -i u,Li �), 'i.
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. (FSP) Addressed,
15. Eliminate CG-2 at CG-12 ramps. (Rev) Please see item 12, above. (FSP) Withdrawn.
1 o. Provide and label stop and yield signs.
Show bumper blocks for parking spaces in front of 5' sidewalks. (FSP) Partially addressed. Asfollow-up:
Several 6' walks appear to need labels; ensure all 6' walks adjacent to 18' L parking spaces are labeled.
19. Revise labels for any proposed wall with wall ht. >30" to proposed wall with handrail. (FSP) Partially
addressed. Asfollow-up: Revise sheet 5 (elsewhere, if needed) Note specifying handrail for wall ht. > 6'.
Handrail is required for retaining wall height >30".
20. Show easement access width over all tFavelways. include access easement label on sheet 10 tt!avelway
Engineering Review Comments
Page 4 of 9
are eonsistent with one another-, and with applieable NLDOT design, ineluding VDOT road design an
drainage manuals, and VDOT 2019 pavement design 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. (FSP) Addressed.
Align detectable surface with direction of pedestrian travel. Provide radial detectable surface detail on this
plan view sheet, and provide detail on sheet 10, as requested elsewhere. (FSP) Partially addressed. As
follow-up: See item 12, 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), (FSP) Not addressed. Provide
auto turn at this location (sheet 4).
b. Rt. Turn in at 6' R entrance, Appleton into parking areas S of building 1, and 5, (FSP) Addressed.
c. Rt. Turn in at 12' R entrance, Appleton onto Fisher Street, (FSP) Addressed.
d. Ensure entrance radii are 12.5', minimum, (FSP) Addressed. Minimum design radius =12'.
e. Revise any entrance into any parking area or internal travelway that does not meet 14-410.B.
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 Autoturn 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. (FSP) Partially addressed. Applicant response: `As discussed at the
meeting on March 51h, the auto turns have been added to the plan sheet and graphically shown on
sheets 4 and 5. Even though the travelways are not required to be designed to street standards, the
radii have been updated based on the auto turns, to ensure safe and adequate travelways through
the site.' Asfollow-up: see item 26.a., above.
27. Show GR 2 (gtiar-dfail) to remain along VAPI . I . . iten Street and T-r-avelway A. (Rev.) Withdrawn.
See discussion relating 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 der shed, it does not need to appear on site plan sheets showing improvements. (May be
easier to discus (FSP) Addressed.
IQ
31. Provide detailed PE -sealed geotechnical retaining wall design (not generic design) for any walls supporting
infrastructure; for example: walls west of Appleton Street and tiered retaining walls upslope of wet pond.
Ref. Retaining Wall checklist for reviewers. Revise plan set index to accommodate additional plan sheets.
(FSP) Not addressed. Applicant response: `As discussed at the meeting on March 51, the retaining wall
designs will be submitted for a building permit during the building construction aspect of the development.
The site plan will be approved, and the approved site plan will be submitted with the building permit
application and wall designs.' As follow-up: There is an issue with Applicant response: Unless Applicant
can provide contemporaneous meeting notes, Engineering recollection differs. Standard review practice is
outlined in published documents that guide review of virtually all projects. Engineering restates request for
detailed wall designs. Please ref. Final Site Plan checklist for plan reviewers, last item, p. 1 /attached.
Also, Retaining Wall Plan checklist for plan reviewers, attached. Information listed in checklist documents
is required prior to Final Site Plan approval.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 5 of 9
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). (FSP)
Partially addressed. As follow-up: Please provide VDOT GR-2 (guardrail) for 11 radial parking spaces
shown on sheet 8 (northernmost section of Travelway B parking lot).
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. (FSP) Withdrawn. Applicant rest: `As
discussed in the meeting on March 51h, the driveway will have a cross slope and will not collect or create [a]
ditch to channel the runoff. The runoff will pass over the roadway, therefore, no ditch or outfall design is
necessary.'
Sheets 6, 7
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, 18-321
drainage prgfrles_1br 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. (FSP) Addressed, in this instance. Also,
Applicant response: Item 48, below. See Item 48 for important clarification.
wall, show wall in profile
iew. Provide detail for lintel above these system pipes ifdepth of cover beneath retaining vNall is minimal.
��. Show and label ACSA utility casements consistent with easement plat under review.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 6 of 9
41. Label all easement widths. Ref. ACDSM, p. 15, easement width diagram. (FSP) Asfollow-up: Please
confirm all drainage easement widths have been evaluated against ACDSM, p. 15, easement diagram.
(FSP) Addressed. Applicant response: `All the roof
drain and storm pipe conflicts with the retaining walls have been removed. None of the pipes cross under
the walls.'
Sheets 8, 9
48. Label all roof /yard system inlets. Propose grading to ensure surface runoff reaches yard system inlets by
proposing grade or providing spot elevations (grate INV) lower than adjacent grade. (FSP) Applicant
response: `All the roof drains have been labeled on the plans, as requested. The elevation of the tie-in
connections to the storm sewer manhole have been shown on the profiles. Inverts have been added to the
yard drain system. Per the recent engineering's determination of roof drains, profile designs are not
required for roof drains 8" in size or smaller.' As follow-up: Provide recent engineering determination, else
do not rely on this response to request for design information for roof drains or yard inlet /pipe systems.
Reviewer is unaware of this determination. If discussed March 5th, please share recollection. Engineering
encountered yard /pipe installation issues on a recent project that may require developer to replace sections
of pipe (prior to bond release). Reviewer is unaware of recent determination that would exempt a portion
(in this case, critical portion) of drainage system from drainage review, or drainage design requirements.
Notwithstanding recollections which may differ, Engineering does not request additional information
/design revision in context of this review comment, for this project.
49. Provide sealed engineering certification from Mfr. that Nyloplast® 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
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. (FSP) Withdrawn.
Applicant response: `As discussed in the March 5' meeting, the storm pipe and plastic Nyloplast design is
in accordance with the specifications and requirements.'
(FSP) Withdrawn.
(FSP) Addressed.
52 Revise proposed grading, as needed, to meet VDG , ..4't c. ,, :Ica ,;e 11 -r section for- guardrail. it is doubtful
VD0T- std. allows 3: t grade to extend to the 4ge f nrn (Rev) Withdrawn. Guardrail removed along Peter
Jefferson Parkway need not be removed.
53. Opposite Travelway A, north of PJP, eliminate asphalt walk line -work at entrance to MJH, since path does
on, si t heyond curbed limits of entrance to hospital. (Rev) It may be easier to discuss (during meeting).
(FSP) Withdrawn. Review error.
(FSP) Addressed. Applicant response:
Engineering Review Comments
Page 7 of 9
`The arrows north of Building #1 are correct, there is positive drainage away from the building and
positive drainage down the slope of the hill. These intersect to drain into the yard inlets, as shown.'
58. Reverse direction of 3:1 slope arrow, S of building 6. (Rev) Minor, slight revision. (FSP) Withdrawn.
Review error.
(FSP) Addressed. `Seeded meadow' mix to be used. See landscape plan.
Confirm Easement width is sufficient for proposed UG detention system depth, per ACDSM Easement
diagram (Also, see item 2). Revise SWM facility easement plat (under review), if necessary. (FSP)
Applicant response; `The underground detention pipes have been deleted from the plan design and are no
longer needed.' Asfollow-up: please see email to Collins Engineering, 5/2/2020 9:16 AM.
Relocate proposed UG detention system access out of parking space. Revise WPO via letter to file, and w/
.PDF of plan sheet showing change to the WPO Plan. WPO Plan Amendment is not required for this
change, alone. (FSP) Applicant response; `The underground detention pipes have been deleted from the
plan design and are no longer needed.' As follow-up: please see email to Collins Engineering, 5/2/2020
9:16 AM.
62. Label structure #53 (pipe), and 954 (inlet). (FSP) Not addressed. Comment persists.
66. If geogrid is needed for retaining walls, ensure tiered walls work with geogrid design. Avoid conflicts
(landscaping /storm conveyance). (FSP) Persists to a degree. Also, item 31, above. Detailed retaining
wall plan designs required. Applicant response: `The geogrid will not be in conflict with the landscaping
and storm sewer. The geogrid will only extend 6' from the walls and will be outside of the pipes and
structures. The geo-grid can be cut and molded around any of the storm sewer structures, as necessary.'
Sheet 10
f. Nyloplast details, (FSP) Comment persists. Please provide Nyloplast ® details.
Drive Access section, (FSP) Comment persists. See Driveway Access, lower edge sheet 5.
(FSP) Withdrawn. Design revised; pipes no longer pass beneath
retaining walls.
* Also: CG-12 detectable surface with radial curb. (FSP) Persists at Item 12. As follow-up:
Revise CG-12 in layout views to reflect VDOT Std. for detectable surface in radial curb section.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 8 of 9
Sheets 12, 13:
69. Show /label intersection sight lines on these plan sheets, all travelway intersections (18-4.12.15.d). Avoid
landscape/sight line conflicts. (FSP) Partially addressed. Applicant response: `The intersection sight
distances have been shown on the layout sheet and landscaping sheet, as requested. The note about the
pruning of the landscaping has been added to the sheet.' As follow-up: Please show sight distance lines on
Landscaping Plan, sheet 12.
a. Str. #64, 24, 6013, 89; (FSP) Partially addressed. Conflict persists at Str. 64, 6013; resolved at 24.
No structure 88.
b. relocate /remove 3 canopy trees directly opposite Moraga St. entrance; (FSP) Partially
addressed. Partial conflict persists.
c. roof /yard system E of building 3 label and W of building 4 label (canopy trees coincident with
Nyloplast proposed pipe location): and N of N corner of clubhouse; (FSP) Partially addressed.
Conflict persists W of building 4 label.
d. root /yard systenT E 01' building 3. —1/ 3 building length N of SE corner of building:
remove trees froin SWM facility easement:
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. (FSP) Applicant response: `Comment
removed, pipes may be installed per the engineering minimum which is 0.5%' Design does not reflect
Engineering recommendation to increase slope slightly to provide tolerance for error of construction.
72. .
feF pipes with more than minimal eeven Fill seetions emeeed 30' in eertain loeations. Please feel free to
r-equest meetingwith Engineering to aisetiss (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-T
POLYETHYLENE CORRUGATED PIPE (PE)
OIAEETER
INCHES
AREA
SO -FT.
HEIGN4FU COVER
FEET
TYPE C TYPE S
12
D.B
23
2D
15
1.2
23
I9
18
8
9
13
24
3-)
16
IS
30
4.9
—
13
42
9.5
—
ID
IB
l.6
—
16
54
15.9
—
w
60
19.6
—
ID
POLYVINYLCHLORIDE PROFILE WALL PIPE (PVC)
DIAMETER
INCHES
MEA
SOFT.
M"IW. HEIGHTOF COVER
FEET
18
I.]
41
21
2.3
40
24
3.D
3]
30
4.7
34
36
6.9
34
POLYPROPYLENE
0�me
®®moo
NOTES:
1. COVER HEIGHT5 INDICATED N TABLES ME FOR FINISHED CONSTRUCTION. USWG AASHTO LRFD
BRIDGE OESGN SPECFICATIONS.
2, TO PROTECT PIPE "ING CON5TRUCTION,MIN4UM HEIGHT OF COVER TO BE N ACCORDANCE
WITH TABLE A PRIOR TO ALLOWING CONSTRICTION TRAFFIC TO CROSS INSIALLATION.
THE CEXTEND VCR SH A MNIMUM OFTEND THE O(DIAMETERU. % LENGTH DIA TEROTHE PIPE. THE ON EACH SIDE Of THE HE PIPE OR ACH FILL IS TO
TO THE INTERSECT IOW WITH A CUT.
3 ENT'RA ESARD MSHALL BEN2A ON AS DONET OF CER *KCEVEOVER FOR RL IS GE EATER PFORTHOSE
2" THROUGHUNDER
48" DIAMETER PIPE IN I ALLATeONS WHERE THE COVER HEIGHTS CANNOT BE ACHIEVEC.M
ABSOLUTE MIMMUM FIRM ED COVER HEIGHT OF I.O' WILL BE ALLOWED ONLY IF ALL POSSIBLE
DEARS TO OBTAIN THE STANDARD VALUE HAVE BEEN EYHAUSTED. THE MINIDUM FINISHED
HEIGHT OF COVER FOR PIPES TINDER ENTRANCES IS 9" FOR PPE DIAMETERS LESS THAN OR
E DUAL TO 24". AND 12" FOR PIPE DIAMETERS GREATER THAN 24'. WHERE THE SURFACE OVER
THE TOP OF THE PIPE WILL BE ASPHALT, A MIRMUII OF E' OF CLASS IBACNFILL MATERIAL
6 TO BE PLACED BETWEEN THE TOP OF THE PIPE AND THE BDTTOM OF THE ASPHALT.
4, SEE STANDARD P8-IFOR PIPE BEDDING MD BACNFILL REOUREMENIS.
5. LARGE CULVERTS SHALL BE DESIGNED BY AN ENGNEEN.RE05TERED N THE
COMMNWE ALTH OF VWGIMA, AND SHALL BE DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE REOUI"NENTS OF VOLUME V,PART 2 OF THE RANDAL 07 THE
STRUCTURE AND FRIDGE DIVISION. A LMGE CULVERT IS ANY CULVERT
THAT WILL BECOME PART OF THE STRUCTURE AND BRIDGE INVENTORY. THE
GEDMETRIC DEFINITION OF THESE STRUCTURES IS PROv(DEO N THE
CURRENT VER51QN OF VOOT'S WA-5613-21,
PIPE TYPE DEFINITIONS'
TYPE C - SRAGtE WALL PIPE (CORRUGATED WALL ONLY)
TYPE 5 - DOUBLE WALL PIPE (CORRUGATED WALL WITH 5DOOTH INNER WALL)
TYPE D - TRIPLE WALL PIPE (CORRUGATED WALL BETWEEN SMCOTH INNER AND OUTER WALL)
TABLE A
PIPE NMETER
LBIIMUM COVER HEIGHT
9LR1NG CONSTRUCTION
16OfE NOTE 2O
12" TO 30-
IB•
36" AND ABDVE
'/ DIAAEIER
\VDOT A COPY OF THE OR CNOL SEALED ARE SIGNED STANOMD DRAWING R ON FILE IN THE CENTRAL OFFICE SPECIFFERENCE
IGT1pN
ROAD AND BRIDGE srAHDMPLASTIC PIPE REDs A�YC COVER
p C/�p�
SEET 15 OF 1B REVII DATE HEIGHT Of Lam.OVER TABLES FOR HL-93 LIVE LOAD �2
10719 0.119 VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Engineering Review Comments
Page 9 of 9
73. After meeting, revise Note, sheet 17. 14DPE is flpt:a permissible substitute for all RCP drai
Limits will apply. 14DPE imperils design since it may deform, eollapse, ete., while RCP 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 -- item
74. HDPE Note references detail, sheet 17. No HDPE pipe bedding detail is provided on sheet 17. (FSP)
Comment persists.
75. Provide HDPE pipe bedding detail. (FSP) Comment persists. Please provide ref. to sheet with this detail.
76. Revise profiles per comments, elsewhere (yard/roof system 1NV, provide roof /yard stem r 2.)
(Rev) Please see item 37, above. (FSP) Withdrawn. Note (future reference): Important clarification at
Item 48, above.
77. Provide and label'/z" steel plate for stepped vertical drops within MI -Is. Ref. VDOT Drainage Manual,
9.4.8.7 (p. 9-37). Label each MH str. that require a'/z" steel plate floor. (FSP) Comment persists. For
example: see sheet 17, Str. 62 and 46.
78. gel retaining walls in storm profiles. (FSP) Applicant response: `All wall crossings with the storm sewer
have been removed.'
79. Ensure retaining wall design works with proximate storm elements (MH, for example). (FSP) Comment
persists. Also, Item 31, above. Applicant response: `The comment is acknowledged. The wall design will
take into account all existing and proposed infrastructure.'
80. Specify geotechnical reports of daily inspection of pipe /DI installation operations in fill sections with more
than minimal fill beneath storm elements; i.e., for pipe runs installed over significant fill (Str-24 — Str-6,
for example). Propose daily inspection with qualified geotechnical reports to be submitted to Albemarle
County for verification of backfill (% moisture, content /contamination, compaction, dry density, etc.)
(FSP): Comment persists. Please indicate where highlight items (geotechnical specifications /inspection
/reporting Notes) occur on plans. Applicant response: `This comment is acknowledged.' As follow-up:
Engineering requests Notes on sheets 16, 17 (similar to ACSA General Water and Sewer Conditions, sheet
21) that reflect request for highlight information (to appear on plans).
81. Sheet 19: Ensure Fisher Street profile is smooth, VC at each grade transition. (FSP) Comment appears to
ep rsist; see Sta. 11+70 (±), Fisher Street.
82. Sheet 22: Provide sight distance (right) at Int. Appleton Street and PJP. (FSP) Not addressed. Provide
sight distance (right) at Int. Arguello Street and PJP.
Sheets 23, 24
84. Provide design calculations for Nyloplast roof /yard systems. (FSP) Partially addressed. Asefollow-up:
Table 9, sheet 24, does not appear to provide pipe capacity. Revise table to provide pipe capacity for all
listed drainage pipes.
85 Recommend against Tsr.,loplast n system for n 37 A ,. D A (YD , G) (Rev) A recommendation. (FSP) As
follow-up: See request for capacities of pipes in Table 9 (Item 84). Applicant response: `The nyloplast is
adequate to handle this area.' Additional comments possible, once table revised.
86. New: Review and respond to FSP- /WPO-related email sent to Collins Engineering, 5/2/2020 9:16 AM.
Also, see CE response, email received 5/2/2020 10:56 AM.
Please feel free to call if any questions: 434.296-5832 -x3069
Thank you
SDP2020-00023 Martha Jefferson Hospital Presidio Apts-FSP 050220
Albemarle County Engineering
Final Site Plan checklist for plan reviewers
17 Feb 2014 (Use the latest checklist from the Team Services engineering forms site)
A site plan is a zoning document, required according to the Zoning Ordinance, Code Chapter 18 section 32 that
delineates the overall scheme of development of one or more lots.
Reference key;
[Square Brackets] are County Code references, }Curved Brackets} are policy references, and (regular
parenthesis) are explanatory. Links to reference documents are provided where possible.
Title information and overall content:
Project title. Titles should be appropriate. It should be a final site plan, not a stormwater
plan, or erosion control plan, a road plan, etc.
Professional seal, with original signature and date. [18-32.6.1]
Content: The site plan must not contain the erosion control plan, stormwater management
plan, road/street plans, or mitigation plan. These must be separate documents, to be
reviewed and bonded separately, and not part of zoning documents or zoning
enforcement, or zoning letters of revision, or permanent land records, etc. If these are
included, they must be removed.
Existing conditions plan view information: (applicable to any type of plan)
accurate current existing topography at the time of submittal, including all existing site
features, and any recent disturbances, all at a legible scale [18-32.6.2]
date and source of the topographic information: [ 18-32.6.2] All topography should be at
least visually field verified by the designer within the last year {see road plan note}
WPO buffer limits; 100' from stream or wetland bank, 200' from reservoirs, or
floodplain limit if greater [17-317]
floodplain limits, including 100yr flood limits for any channel with a drainage area of
50+ acres [18-32.6.2d, 18-30.3]
all existing easements (access, drainage, sight, sanitary easements, etc.) with deed book
references, locations and dimensions [ 18-32.6.2]
all critical slopes (typically shaded) [18-32.5.2]
Proposed plan view information: (applicable to final site plans, road and drainage plans)
Grading: [18-32.6.2, 14-303]
proposed topography at minimum 2' contour intervals — tied into existing contours, as
well as all proposed site features. (Sites with less than 6' of grade change should consider
using smaller contour intervals.)
proposed slopes are all 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) or flatter }Design Manual, section 81
proposed slopes steeper than 3:1 have low maintenance (not grass) ground cover
specified on the plan {Design Manual, Section 81
existing critical slopes are not disturbed, unless a waiver or exemption has been granted
for the disturbance. [18-4.2, 14-304]
Retaining walls should be accurately shown on plans, reflecting material thickness and
batter where such measurements may affect layout.
Retaining Wall Plans checklist. Any walls supporting roads or necessary infrastructure
require engineered plans (not generic manufacturer's details) and computations. {Design
Albemarle County
Engineering Final Site Plan Checklist
Page 2 of 3
Manual, section 81 This will also be required where walls are close to property lines and
there is the danger of affecting neighboring property, either during construction, with
later failures, or with pedestrian or vehicle safety. These concerns can be alleviate with
layout spacing also. In any case, retaining walls will require building permits at
construction.
Easements: [Zoning Ordinance 18-32.7.4, Subdivision Ordinance, Article IV, Division 4]
all proposed permanent easements, dimensioned and labeled
Examples of easements are:
sidewalk easements for sidewalks to be maintained with streets outside right-
ofway. It is preferable that sidewalk be inside street right-of-way.
drainage easements for any drainage passing through the site from off -site, or for
drainage crossing proposed property lines.
stormwater management easements over all facilities and associated structures
and access
interparcel access easements
intersection or entrance sight easements
all drainage easements are a minimum 20' wide. Required width: 10'+(pipe dia. or
channel width) + 2'+ 2(depth-5'). The pipe, channel or structure must be within the
center third of the easement. {Design Manual, section 61
no structures or trees within drainage easements {Design Manual, section 61
Entrances and right-of-way improvements: [per VDOT Secondary Street Acceptance
Requirements (SSAR), and VDOT Road and Bridge Standards]
all entrances with a VDOT designation [PE-1, CG-9a, etc)
entrances do not exceed 4% grade for a distance of 40' from the intersected street,
measured anywhere in the entrance [ 18-4.12.17]
unobstructed sight distance lines at entrances, less than 10' x Speed Limit of intersected
streets, measured from a point 10' off the edge of pavement of the intersected street
12.5' minimum radii on entrances (or per VDOT requirements, typically 25'-35') [per
VDOT Access Management Regulations and Standards]
VDOT approval is obtained for any plan affecting public right-of-way
turn and taper lanes with lengths and widths labeled (taper at 12:1 with 12' lane widths)
Parking and circulation: [ 18-4.12]
100' on -site sight distance is maintained by use of curbed islands a minimum 6' off
building corners or other site obstructions.
curbing on all parking areas and travelways with VDOT designations (CG-2, CG-6)
loading and dumpster areas should be accessible at all times (not behind parking)
parking or loading spaces cannot double as travelways
all parking rows should be protected by curbed islands {Policy}
minimum 3' width of curbed islands {Policy}
all edges of pavement labeled (where there is no curbing)
parking areas do not exceed 5% grade anywhere, in any direction
parking width x depth x aisle width is 9xl8x24' or 10xl8x20' (where a 2' grass
overhang is possible parking spaces can be 16') [18-4.12.16]
parallel parking spaces are 9'x20' (with a minimum aisle/street width of 20')
loading spaces are 12'x25' (with a minimum aisle width of 24')
Albemarle County
Engineering Final Site Plan Checklist
Page 3 of 3
travelways without parking are 20' wide measured from curb faces
parking places are separated from entrances and streets (to prevent queuing onto streets) a
minimum 18' from back of the entrance radius [see VDOT Road Design Manual, app. F,
throat length and corner clearance]
sidewalk abutting parking is 6' wide (exclusive of curb), or bumper blocks are provided
(see reference details in the Design Manual)
sidewalks are a minimum 5' wide, exclusive of curb.
planting strips are a minimum of 6' wide on any street. [ 14-422]
one-way aisles have a 12' minimum width. (One-way circulation is only permitted when
approved with a preliminary site plan)
dumpster pads are 10'x10' with 8' in front for wheel bearing (total 18' depth)
dumpster pad detail or specification to be a minimum 4" stone base and 6" concrete of
3000psi at 28 days, or stronger, reinforced with a minimum grid of wire reinforcing or #4
bars at 12" on center. {Policy}
Drainage: [18-32.6.2d, 14-305, 311 ]
Drainage Plans approved. Drainage and stormsewer design can be reviewed with the
site plan, or with the stormwater management plan. Where roads or streets are included,
drainage from the road can be included with those plans.
Roads, Streets, Alleys: [18-32, 14 Art. IV Div.2]
Road Plans approved. Road plans must be a separate stand-alone document, to be
bonded and inspected and as-builts prepared. They should not be part of a site plan set.
Water Protection Ordinance (WPO) Plans: [18-32.7]
WPO plans approved. The Water Protection Ordinance (Code Chapter 17) requires A
Virginia Stormwatere Management Program (VSMP) permit, Stormwater Management
Plans, Erosion Control Plans, Pollution Prevention Plans, Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plans, and for stream buffer disturbances a Mitigation Plan. These must be
approved prior to final site plan approval. They have separate procedures and
requirements and should not be part of the site plan set.
Albemarle County Engineering
Retaining Wall Plan checklist for plan reviewers
18 Feb 2014 (Use the latest checklist from the Team Services engineering forms site)
Any walls supporting roads or necessary infrastructure require engineered plans (not generic
manufacturer's details) and computations. {Design Manual, section 81 This will also be required
where walls are close to propert lines and there is the danger of affecting neighboring property,
either during construction, with later failures, or with pedestrian or vehicle safety.
Reference key;
[Square Brackets] are County Code references, {Curved Brackets) are policy references, and (regular
parenthesis) are explanatory. Links to reference documents are provided where possible.
Title information: (applicable to any type of plan)
Project title.
Professional seal, with original signature and date. [ 18-32.6.1 ]
Plans :
safety railing shown for retaining walls over 4' high
guardrail with VDOT designations or equivalent shown for retaining walls next to
parking or travelways
VDOT approval for any walls in right-of-way
Accurate depiction of horizontal depth (batter) on site plans.
All structural reinforcement, steal, or geogrids specified.
All dimensions specified
Constructability; there should be no vertical cuts on property lines during construction,
such that abutting property does not become unstable. Adequate room for consruction
needs to be available.
Details and sections :
typical sections with dimensions shown for all configurations
reinforcement layout shown and dimensioned (steel, geogrids, etc.)
details for any pipes through, or bridged utilities, or manholes through geogrid
Computations
Structural computations with original seal and signature for walls over 5' high
Accurate surcharges and loadings assumed
Materials and dimensions match plans
appropriate safety factores used