HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP202000024 Correspondence Final Site Plan and Comps. 2020-05-21ENGINEERS
SURVEYORS
PLANNERS
ASSOCIATES
May 21, 2020
Ms. Tori Kanellopoulos
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
Re: Stonefield Block D 1 FSP
WWA Project No. 219040.04
Dear Ms. Kanellopoulos:
We have received the County comments dated May 11, 2020 for the Stonefield Block D 1 Final
Site plan. Our response is as follows:
Planninp,
1. Comment: Recommendprovide comment response letter with resubmittal.
Response: Comment response letter is provided.
2. Comment: ZM42001-7 and ZM42013-9 Code of Development Uses. Provide the specific
use proposed per the COD, and ensure it is a permitted commercial use.
Response: Per Appendix A of the COD multi -family residential is a permitted use
within Block D of Stonefield. A specific use has not been designated for the commercial
area at this time. Parking and traffic calculations are based on a retail use.
3. Comment: 18-4.11.4 Easement conflicts. It appears there may be easement conflicts with the
existing gas easement and existing power easement. Contact Charlottesville Gas and
Dominion Power directly to ensure building is not conflicting with easements. Attached is
additional guidance for Dominion Power easements.
Response: The proposed building improvements are not in conflict with the Dominion
Power easement as shown on the survey base. The gas line along on Bond Street will be
relocated under separate easement plat.
4. Comment: 18-4.7/18-4.16/Stonefield Code of Development Green/civic%pen space:
a. The green/civic spaces should be labeled on one of the plan sheets, such as the layout
plan.
Response: A table has been added to the layout plan showing the tabulations for the
civic/green space.
968 Olympia Drive, Suite 1 • Charlottesville, VA 22911
Telephone (434) 984-2700 ■ Fax (434) 978-1444
Charlottesville ■ Lynchburg
5. Comment: 18-4.12.6 Minimum parking spaces: See letter from Zoning attached, dated April
21, 2020.
Response: Noted. A revised parking reduction request will be provided under separate
cover.
6. Comment: 18-4.12.9 Street parking: It appears there may be street parking included with
this development, along Inglewood adjacent to the proposed building. If spaces are being
removed, indicate that on the demolition sheet.
Response: The demolition sheet has been revised accordingly. The removal of the
parking spaces in this area is accounted for in the parking calculations.
7. Comment: 18-4.12.13 Loading spaces. Indicate how the following requirement is being met. -
Loading spaces shall be provided in addition to and exclusive of any parking requirement on
the basis of (1) one space for the first 8, 000 square feet of retail gross leasable area.
Response: A loading space is provided in front of the building for the area designated
for commercial use.
8. Comment: 18-4.17 Lighting: Submit a lighting plan with the final site plan that meets the
requirements of 18-4.17 and ARB requirements. Indicate if there are any new lights added.
Cutsheets for new lights are required. The lighting plan must also be included with the final
site plan submittal, not just the ARB submittal, as it is a Zoning Ordinance requirement.
Response: The lighting plan is included with this submittal.
9. 18-32.5.2 Contents of an initial site plan and 18-32.6.2 Contents of a final site plan:
a. Comment: Full curb on entrance to parking garage on Inglewood does not appear to
be shown.
Response: Full curb is provided at the entrance to the parking garage on
Inglewood. Additional details for the interior parking garage are provided on
the architectural plans.
b. Comment: Note that the ownership information, boundary lines, DB/PG, and Tax
Map Parcel may need to be updated, based on the status of SUB201900150 and if this
parcel is subdivided. This plat has not yet been submitted to the County for signature.
Response: Noted. The ownership information will be updated accordingly once
the plat is submitted and recorded.
c. Comment: Include a note with the approximate number of each type of unit (e.g. X 1-
bedrooms, Y 2-bedrooms, and Z 3-bedrooms).
Response: The information has been added to the plans as requested. Please
refer to the site plan notes on the cover sheet.
d. Comment: Include the site plan number SDP202000024 on Sheet 1.
Response: The information has been added to the plans as requested.
e. Comment: Include the signed/approved resolution for the Special Exception
approved by the Board of Supervisors on February 5, 2020. Ensure the conditions
are being met. The resolution is attached for reference.
Response: The information has been added to the plans as requested. Please
refer to Dwg. C4.
968 Olympia Drive, Suite 1 ■ Charlottesville, VA 22911
Telephone (434) 984-2700 ■ Fax (434) 978-1444
Charlottesville ■ Lynchburg
Page 2 of 14
f. Comment: Advisory: Note that retaining walls require building permits. Coordinate
with Building Inspections.
Response: Noted.
10. 18-32.6.2118-32.7.4.2118-32.7.5.3 Easements:
a. Comment: All new and revised easements must be shown on an easementplat, which
must be approved prior to final site plan approval. Updated covenants/maintenance
documentation must also be provided.
Response: A revised plat will be submitted under separate cover.
b. Comment: Include reference to DB 4467 PG 302 for the Hydraulic ROW, as this
appears to be the most recent VDOTROWdedication.
Response: The plans have revised to show the current information.
c. Comment: An easement for the Stonefteld marquis sign should be provided, if the
parcel per SUB2019-150 for Block D-1 is ultimately subdivided, as the sign would
then be off -site.
Response: An easement has been added at the entrance sign as requested.
11. 18-32.5.5118-32.6.3118-32. 7.3 Parking structures:
a. Comment: Include the following required information: The application for an initial
site plan shall include architectural elevations, drawings, photographs or other visual
materials showing any parking structure proposed on the site and surrounding
structures and land uses.
Response: Drawings are provided showing the individual floors of the proposed
parking garage. The parking garage is internal to the proposed apartment
building and is not visible from the exterior.
b. Comment: Include a note that the 18-32.7.3 requirements are met: mechanical
equipment is screened/not visible; air handler emissions are away from adjacent
residential uses; and the structured parking is designed so that light is not shining
outside the structure.
Response: The notes are provided on the cover sheet.
c. Comment: Refer to Engineering comments as well.
Response: Noted.
12. Comment: 18-32.7.2.3 Sidewalks and other pedestrian ways: Include safe pedestrian access
across the structured parking entrance. Refer to Engineering for more detailed comments.
Response: A concrete crosswalk is provided at the entrance to the parking garage for
safe pedestrian access. The entrance width is designed to allow for the full required site
distance internal to the structure.
13. Comment: 18-32.7.9.4(b) Landscape plan/preservation of existing trees: Include the
Conservation Checklist.
Response: The conservation checklist is provided with the landscape plans provided
with this submittal.
968 Olympia Drive, Suite 1 ■ Charlottesville, VA 22911
Telephone (434) 984-2700 ■ Fax (434) 978-1444
Charlottesville ■ Lynchburg
Page 3 of 14
14. 18-32.7.9.5 Street trees:
a. Comment: Show how the street tree requirement is being met. The frontage
calculation and how the requirement is being met for each street should be included
with the landscape plan. The requirement is:
One large street tree shall be required for every 50 feet of street frontage, or
portion thereof, if 25 feet or more. Where permitted, one medium shade tree shall
be required for every 40 feet of road frontage, or portion thereof, if 20 feet or
more.
Response: The information is provided on the landscape plans provided with
this submittal.
b. Comment: The landscaping plan must also be included with the final site plan
submittal, not just the ARB submittal, as it is a Zoning Ordinance requirement.
Response: The landscape plans are provided with this submittal.
15. ZM420010007 and ZM420130009 Proffers:
c. Comment: Please note that the following proffers are directly applicable to this
project:
i. Proffer 6: $3, 000 cash contribution per unit for each unit above 500 total
units in Stonefield. Please coordinate with Rebecca Ragsdale
(rragsdale@albemarle.org) in Zoning.
Response: Noted.
16. Additional applications: The following applications and approvals are required prior to final
site plan approval:
d. Comment: SUB201900150 is under review, pending a resubmittal to address
remaining review comments. Subdividing this parcel is not required for site plan
approval. However, if the parcel is subdivided and ownership changes, this must be
reflected on the site plan. This plat has not been submitted to the County for
signature.
Response: Noted.
e. Comment: 18-32.7.4.2 and 18-32.7.5.3: Easement Plats: All new and adjusted
easements must be shown on an easement plat, which must be approved prior to final
site plan approval, and must match the final site plan. See Engineering comments on
required SWM easements. One easement plat may be submitted for all non ACSA
easements, however Engineering has separate deed requirements for SUM
easements.
Response: Noted.
f. Comment: Architectural Review Board: A Certificate of Appropriateness from the
ARB is required prior to final site plan approval. Coordinate directly with Margaret
Maliszewski (mmaliszewski(a,albemarle.org).
Response: Noted.
g. Comment: 18-32.7.4.1: Approval of a VSMP Plan is required prior to final site plan
approval. See Engineering comments. Coordinate directly with John Anderson
(janderson2A'albem axle. orgy.
Response: Noted.
968 Olympia Drive, Suite 1 ■ Charlottesville, VA 22911
Telephone (434) 984-2700 ■ Fax (434) 978-1444
Charlottesville ■ Lynchburg
Page 4 of 14
Engineering
1. Comment: Include reference to SDP2011-00047, Stonefield Building CI -IV Final Site Plan
(WP02011-00055), dated June 20, 2011, approved 10124111, on sheet C-1. (FSP) Comment
persists. Please revise C-1 Notes 4 and 5 (text image below) for accuracy.
'. REFER TO `STONMELD TOWN UrrTER FWL SH PLAN A1EI DFAENr (5[F 2011-0 5; WP3
2014- 5!)) AND '57eFELD BUILINK V -IW Flht SITE Pk M AMEHDWENr (we 11 —D
WFD 3a14— 3M71 F13R d4UDMONAL INFORMAMON ML [;M BLrr NIT UWrrE:D TO CIENERkL NOTES ANU
uLATIC#13.
3. VM,TFA EW&T €014 NE AAEA D*C0MPAS= 114`N Tmr& PLAN ARE Pftw= AiTFI lh o
201 D-OW23, WO M 13-89, WM 20 11 -47- WPO 2011 --00055, AND WPO 201 1—OMM. T1119
PLAN IS 04 CMFORWANCC WTTH NO% PEGUIKW04M FOR QLWr" *D OUWTw CDKMOLS AS WLL
AS MS-19.
Please edit or delete these plan references:
SDP2011-00065 (Keswick)
SDP2011-00065 (F&R Outbuilding Addition) RT0201400059 (Briarwood)
WP0201400047 (Old Trail)
WP0201100047 (Timberwood Commons)
Accurate references:
WP0201000023 (Albemarle Place) WP0201300069 (Stonefield blocks F& G, Final)
WP0201100055 (Stonefield)
WP0201100036 (Stonefield Blvd Road Plan)
Response: The notes have been revised to remove the references.
2. Comment: Include reference to WP02011-00055, Stonefield Building C1-IV (SDP2011-
00047), d. June 20, 2011, approved 4112112, on sheet C-1. (FSP) Comment persists. Please
revise Stormwater Narrative, C-3, to ref. WP02011-00055.
Response: WP02011-00055 is referenced in the stormwater narrative on Dwg. C-3.
3. Comment: Revise C-1 Site Plan Note 2. Approved WPOs do not convey coverage to this
proposed development. WP02011-00055 Plan Amendment Application is required. Please
see FSP item 6., below. (FSP) Comment persists. Also: item 2, above; item 6, below.
WP0202000016 is under review.
Response: Noted. The stormwater narrative has been revised accordingly.
4. Comment: Revise C-3 Stormwater Narrative, consistent with comments elsewhere. (FSP)
Commentpersists. WP0202000016 is under review.
Response: Noted. The stormwater narrative has been revised accordingly.
5. Comment: Notes:
a. WP02011-00055 Amendment approval is required prior to FSP Approval. (FSP)
Commentpersists. (WP02011-00055 Amendment is assigned WP0202000016).
Response: Noted.
6. Comment: Submit VSMP Amendment Plan to WP02011-00055. Although WP02011-00055
is approved, site layout has changed. WW Associates prepared WP02011-00055 ISDP2011-
968 Olympia Drive, Suite 1 ■ Charlottesville, VA 22911
Telephone (434) 984-2700 ■ Fax (434) 978-1444
Charlottesville ■ Lynchburg
Page 5 of 14
00047, so plan sheets and design data are likely readily available. At a minimum, please
include the following with WPO Plan Amendment:
a. (LOD) Limits of Disturbance. Ref. SDP C-15, DA Parking Area: Project Area
=3.01 Ac. (FSP) Comment persists. As follow-up, revise WPO C-3 to include
label /leader line indicating 2.66 Ac. disturbance.
Response: The area of disturbance has been labeled as requested.
b. Since claiming this is a grandfathered project, ref. /address conditions required
for Grandfathering to guide review and approval, including 9VAC25-870-
48.A. L (iv): `...has not been subsequently modified or amended in a manner
resulting in an increase in the amount of phosphorus leaving each point of
discharge, and such that there is no increase in the volume or rate of runoff.'
This means if apartment development runoff exceeds parking lot runoff, then on -
site preliminary and modest detention may be required prior to discharge to
overall Albemarle Place detention system installed beneath Costco parking lot.
Design should provide and review will consider: points of discharge, amount
/rates of storm release from D1, especially whether apartment development
increases overall site imperviousness even slightly, which it appears may be the
case. Please ref. 9VAC25-870-48, as well as SDP2011-00047, sheets C-15, -16
(Storm Sewer Design comps), etc. (FSP) Comment revised to request that
WP0202000016 confirm any increase in rate of runoff or amount of phosphorus
leaving SWM detention facility beneath Costco parking lot (easement shown on
bk.-pg. 4135-223).
Response: The North UGD detention system was designed utilizing a 90%
impervious cover for Block D1 based on the ultimate buildout condition. The
impervious cover for the proposed development is 83.4%. Therefore, the
rate of discharge from the North UGD system is decreased with this
development.
The North UGD Stormfilter and Vortechs units provide a higher
phosphorous removal rate than required. Please note the calculations
indicate that the amount of phosphorous leaving the site has increased
slightly from the approved analysis provided with WP02011-00055. This is
due to the use of the higher re -development removal rate being utilized on
the Simple Method Worksheet versus the new development removal rate that
was used for the construction of the existing parking lot.
c. Revised storm sewer design computations. Also, see item 7., below. (FSP)
Partially addressed. As follow-up: see item 24, below.
Response: Noted.
h. Approved Easement Plat for SWM Facilities (for final Amendment approval),
including relocated Filterra unit/s and any additional on -site SWM.- detention, for
example, if required to qualify for Grandfathering. A separate Easement Plat
Application with fee, as well as separate independent review of plat, is required.
Please ref county website, Planning documents. Tori Kanellopoulos may be a
helpful resource guide. (FSP) Comment persists. Compare plat at bk. pg. 4135-
221 with SDP202000024 C-8 relocated filterra (Bond St.). A SWM facility
968 Olympia Drive, Suite 1 ■ Charlottesville, VA 22911
Telephone (434) 984-2700 ■ Fax (434) 978-1444
Charlottesville ■ Lynchburg
Page 6 of 14
1.
easement is required for this relocated filterra. Also: WP0202000016 review
comments /comments pending. 1 5
EEMFJfCE .w.C"
NAFlI:•:I I R2i1a±i1K
a + - eB.57 t AC
[53WE
29.571 Ar
J110 r
a
FM 9rK-A7WW I
� fllriRF�f}:�GRE�S "� a _ s
ftRi2F _ L
Elf RESEW=
rM UMMATM IFU
Response: The Filterra units Located within Stonefield are not provided
with individual maintenance easements. Maintenance for the facilities is
addressed within sections 7.2.3 and 9.2.2 of the master declaration for
Stonefield. A copy of the master declaration is provided with this submittal
as requested by Planning.
Additional information from WP02011-00055, including tables, civil details, ESC
legend, SWM Plan data (Filterra unit/s [relocation /size]; VA SWMH, 1999, Vol.
II, Appendix 5D Worksheets [revise, as needed; ref. SDP2011-00047, C-23]),
including ref to approved WPOs, to prepare a comprehensive standalone
Amendment to WP02011-00055. (FSP) Comment persists. For example:
WP0202000016, C-7, Stormwater Narrative relies on biofilter `installed as part
of the Stonefield Blvd Road Plan (WP0201100036).' WP02011-00036 (C-22)
shows a biofilter at present-day Int. of District and Houston. Please provide an
As -built drawing comparing as -built condition of this biofilter against design
(WP0201100036, C-22). Note: WP0201100036, C-22, calculations provide that
load removed by biofilter (C-22) = 5.26 X 0.65=3.42lbs. If later WPO or WPO
Amendment revised biofilter design to provide WP0202000016 C-7 pollutant
removal of 9.69 lb, reference WPO# on SDP202000024 and WP0202000016.
Also, please revise WP0202000016 C-7 text /calculations (Narrative), consistent
with as -built condition of Houston -District biofilter, and approved SDP /WPOs,
including biofilter landscaping (as -built v. design).
Response: An analysis of the District Ave. biofilter confirms that it was
constructed in accordance with the Amendment to the Stonefield Blvd Road
Plans WP02011-00036 dated 3/12/12. The surface area of the constructed
biofilter is approximately 4,493 sq.ft. and 4,437 sq.ft. is required. The as-
968 Olympia Drive, Suite 1 ■ Charlottesville, VA 22911
Telephone (434) 984-2700 ■ Fax (434) 978-1444
Charlottesville ■ Lynchburg
Page 7 of 14
built survey for District Ave. indicates that the biofilter plantings were
installed in accordance with the approved plans.
The 3.421b removal rate shown on the Stonefield Blvd Road Plans WP02011-
00036 was only for the drainage areas directly associated with the road plans
and did not include D1. The BMP calculations for D1 are provided
separately on the C1-1V Final Site Plans WP02011-00055. The pollutant
removal rate used for the biofilter is 65%.
7. Comment: Addressed.
8. Comment: Addressed.
9. Comment: C-7: It is unclear how removing Ex. retaining wall and railing works with final
grade or may compromise pedestrian safety. With Site Plan and WP02011-00055
Amendment, provide pedestrian safety relative to proposed grade, once retaining wall and
railing are demolished along Inglewood Drive (C-7, C-8). (FSP) Comment persists. Copy
text note from WP0202000016, C-3, to SDP202000024, C-7, Demolition Plan: `Contractor
shall provide shoring to protect embankment as retaining wall is removed. Contractor shall
provide shoring plans to [design] Engineer for approval., [WWAssociates, EOR]
Response: The note has been added to the site plans as requested.
10. Comment: Withdrawn. Engineering assumes adequate lighting at apartment main entrance
on Bond Street.
11. Comment: Addressed. C-10 pavement demolition and parking areas pavement section
details appear adequate.
12. Comment: Addressed.
13. Comment: Addressed. Request for revised inlet table (LD-204) withdrawn since roof leader
line direct connection with storm sewer accounts for most post -developed site runoff
reaching the storm system.
14. Comment: Addressed.
15. Comment: Addressed.
16. Parking structure (internal to building):
(Note: As follow-up to 1216119 Engineering Applicant meeting (Engineering absent from
1215119 SRC), Engineering defers to building inspections on virtually all parking garage
interior configuration concerns, and related ISP parking garage -related comments.)
a. Comment: Addressed (sheet AP-1).
b. Comment: Addressed. 18-4.12.15 does not apply to parking garages.
c. Comment: Withdrawn.
968 Olympia Drive, Suite 1 ■ Charlottesville, VA 22911
Telephone (434) 984-2700 ■ Fax (434) 978-1444
Charlottesville ■ Lynchburg
Page 8 of 14
d. Comment: Withdrawn.
e. Comment: Withdrawn.
f. Comment: Withdrawn /review error. Max. grade for parking garage ramps
= 6.67%.
g. Comment: Items discussed with Applicant at 1216119 meeting. Items i.-iii. below
are recommendations (FSP not required to reflect i.-iii. recommendations). Item
iv. is revised to request specific and non-specific design response, including
revision. Please call if any questions.
vii. Comment: Withdrawn (infeasible)
viii. Comment: Addressed.
ix. Comment: Withdrawn (infeasible).
x. Comment: Revise pedestrian crossing by whatever means necessary to ensure
pedestrian right-of-way at entrance /exit points (calming, raised sidewalk, exit
lane separation, mirrors, sidewalk -building offset, etc.). (FSP) As follow-up:
Provide a detail to clearly indicate crosswalk v. garage exit profile: raised v.
level grade. Also: indicate pedestrian crosswalk pavement markings at garage
entry /exit, if any.
Response: The concrete crosswalk will be provided with a 2% cross slope
away from the building. Crosswalk markings have been added to the
plans at this location as requested. Please refer to the architectural plans
for additional details on the interior of the parking garage.
a. Comment: Note sight distance lines place vehicle (operator) `eye' on
sidewalk, meaning vehicle is assumed to stop on sidewalk prior to exiting.
This design cannot be approved. If vehicles must stop at this point, then
pedestrians are routinely prevented from safely crossing entrance /exit
point. One car after another will proceed to this point, and block the
sidewalk. Potential pedestrian -vehicle conflicts are unacceptably high,
not intentionally yet unavoidably, by design. (FSP) Persists. Ref. item 26,
below, which requests revision.
Response: The sidewalk has been revised to provide separation
between the sidewalk and the vehicles exiting from the parking
garage.
b. Comment: Consider alternative sidewalk /garage entrance -exit design/s.
Offer improved pedestrian right-of-way and safety at garage entrance.
(FSP) Comment persists without request for specific revision.
Response: Noted. The sidewalk has been revised to provide
separation between the sidewalk and the vehicles exiting from the
parking garage.
c. Comment: City of Charlottesville developments along Main Street (The
Standard) and Roosevelt Brown Blvd (The Uncommon) and pending new
towns and apartments near the downtown mall on Main Street offer little
by way of design to alleviate pedestrian -vehicle conflicts as vehicles exit
these developments, virtually blind. (FSP) As follow-up: An incorrect
statement: The Standard offers mirrors and columns at entry /exit which
allow drivers to see pedestrians, and to see farther more easily.
968 Olympia Drive, Suite 1 ■ Charlottesville, VA 22911
Telephone (434) 984-2700 ■ Fax (434) 978-1444
Charlottesville ■ Lynchburg
Page 9 of 14
Engineering requests mirrors for this apartment development project.
Also, 16.g. iv. i., below.
Response: As discussed at our 12/6/19 meeting the architect intends
to add mirrors internal to the parking garage.
d. Comment: Albemarle intends to minimize risk to pedestrians first,
vehicles second.
Response: Noted. Pedestrian safety within Stonefield is a primary
concern for all parties involved with the development of this project.
e. Comment: Pedestrian safety is paramount. Vehicle operator
inconvenience /exit wait times are a secondary concern.
Response: Noted. Pedestrian safety within Stonefield is a primary
concern for all parties involved with the development of this project.
f. Comment: Proposed design provides vehicle operators negligible to no
sight of pedestrians approaching garage entry /exit, which is at edge of
the building. Sidewalk also touches building exterior.
Response: As discussed at our 12/6/19 meeting the entrance to the
parking garage is open for the full 42.37' dimension shown on the
plans. This will allow vehicles to see pedestrians approaching the
garage entry/exit. Please note as previously stated mirrors will be
provided within the garage to enhance visibility.
g. Comment: Design assumes vehicles will proceed to walk, stop on walk,
then exit onto Inglewood.
Response: The sidewalk has been revised to provide separation
between the sidewalk and the vehicles exiting from the parking
garage.
h. Comment: Withdrawn. 1216119 meeting provided informed understanding
of limits of review, relative to garage interior. During meeting, Applicant
explained adequate posted guide indicators will be placed inside the
parking garage.
i. Comment: Provide wall mount mirrors to provide view of sidewalk in
both directions. Mount so useful at vehicle operator eye level. (FSP)
Comm entpersists.
Response: Mirrors will be provided within the garage to enhance
visibility
j. Comment: Withdrawn.
k. Comment: Safety is the paramount design consideration. A visit to the
The Standard (Main Street /C'ville) may be instructive, or helpful, since
designs are so similar.
(FSP) Also, item 16,g.iv.c., above.
Response: Noted. Pedestrian safety within Stonefield is a primary
concern for all parties involved with the development of this project.
1. Comment: Architectural design may provide enhanced pedestrian safety
via an `open' wall /column design. Recommend an open ground -level
North building face with an unrestricted view between columns, with
968 Olympia Drive, Suite 1 ■ Charlottesville, VA 22911
Telephone (434) 984-2700 ■ Fax (434) 978-1444
Charlottesville ■ Lynchburg
Page 10 of 14
minimal parapet wall ht. (2.5 -3.W ht., max., ifpossible). (FSP) Comment
persists. Also, item 16,g. iv. c., above.
Response: The entrance to the parking garage is open for the full
42.37' dimension shown on the plans. This will allow vehicles to see
pedestrians approaching the garage entry/exit. Please note as
previously stated mirrors will be provided within the garage to
enhance visibility.
17. Comment: CG-12 ramps at parking garage entrance /exit.• Provide landing prior to point
sidewalk and entrance /exit intersect. That is: do not have sloped CG-12 ramp ending at
point entrance /exit intersect ramp, to help prevent rollaway incident at what is a blind
intersection. It may be better to ensure at -grade walk, with ramps for vehicles. Pedestrians
take priority over vehicle operator convenience. Please ref. VDOT Road Design Manual,
Appendix B(1), pg. B(1)-52, Fig. 12 (Traffic calming details /Raised Crosswalk. (FSP)
Commentpersists. Also: Item 26, below.
Response: As discussed at our 12/6/19 meeting the entrance to the parking garage is
open for the full 42.37' dimension shown on the plans. This will allow vehicles to see
pedestrians approaching the garage entry/exit. Please note as previously stated mirrors
will be provided within the garage to enhance visibility. The crosswalk at the entrance
to the garage will be marked as shown on the plans and provided with an alternate
surface/pattern than the surrounding travel lanes.
18. Comment: Addressed. C-8 lists ref. to D.B. 4135-249 23' ingress /egress easement.
19. Comment: Partially addressed. As follow-up: Provide pavement markings to delineate
parallel spaces that remain. No request to remove remaining parallel parking spaces SW of
parking garage entrance, C-8. Also, please revise sight distance left (left out) which appears
to pass through the bldg. (blue circle, below).
Response: The parallel parking stripes are shown as requested. The entrance to the
parking garage is open for the full 42.37' dimension shown on the plans. The site
distance is shown correctly and does not conflict with the building at this location.
20. Comment: Addressed.
21. Comment: Show /label all roof leader lines. Show all roof storm collection points of
connection with existing or proposed storm sewer. (FSP) May persist. Please confirm only
one roof drain leader (at E corner of bldg).
Response: Only one roof drain leader is provided.
22. Comment: Withdrawn.
23. Comment: AP-1 Parking Garage Layout provides no dimensions. Recommend provide
parking space and drive aisle widths. Recommend, for example, labels to indicate ramp
slope < 6.67% max. grade allowed for parking garage ramps. J. Gorman email to
968 Olympia Drive, Suite 1 ■ Charlottesville, VA 22911
Telephone (434) 984-2700 ■ Fax (434) 978-1444
Charlottesville ■ Lynchburg
Page 11 of 14
Engineering, December 6, 2019 10:03 AM, is helpful, and includes this text: ` Section
406.4.4 Ramps
Vehicle ramps shall not be considered as required exits unless pedestrian facilities are
provided. Vehicle ramps that are utilized for vertical circulation as well as for parking shall
not exceed a slope of 1:15 (6.67 percent).'
Response: The dimensions and notes have been added as requested.
24. Comment: C-12: Storm profile 46 thru 46.8 shows 18 " HDPE downstream of 24 " DIA pipe.
Increase receiving pipe diameter.
Response: The 18" HDPE pipe in question discharges to the biofilter on District Ave.
Storm manhole 46.1 upstream of the pipe is a flow control structure and is designed to
allow low flows to the biofilter and pass larger storm events to the North UGD system.
25. Comment: C-10: Two civil details are oblique /images distorted (CG-6, MH frame and
cover). Please revise.
Response: The details have been revised.
26. Comment: C-8: Provide inset detail showing sight distance line (eye /object) if typ.
passenger sedan stops without breaking plane of the sidewalk. Provide detail showing how
far a driver exiting the parking garage can see before vehicle begins to break plane of edge
of sidewalk. At garage exit, pedestrians, not vehicles, have right-of-way. Also, item
16.g. iv. a., above.
Response: A detail is provided as a separate exhibit. Please note that this is a
subjective exercise as the distance from the front overhang to the driver's eye varies
significantly for different drivers and vehicles.
FirP/R PcrnP
1. Comment: The FDC must be shown on the plan and located within 100' of a hydrant. Based
on the height of this building the hose required to connect the FDC to the hydrant shall not
impact travel lanes.
Response: An FDC is provided on the building along Inglewood Drive. The location
has been labeled with this revision.
2. Comment: A knox box is required. Please add a note indicating this requirement and that
the location can be coordinated with the fire marshal's office.
Response: The note is provided on the plans. Please refer to the coordination notes on
Dwg. C-3.
3. Comment: The travel way along one contiguous side of the structure must be 26' of
unobstructed travel way. There can be no utility lines, trees or other obstructions along that
side of the structure that would impede aerial fire apparatus access. This travel way must be
no closer than I5 , and no further than 30' from the structure.
Response: Unobstructed access to the proposed building is provided at the entrance on
Bond St. and on Inglewood Drive at the mechanical room.
968 Olympia Drive, Suite 1 ■ Charlottesville, VA 22911
Telephone (434) 984-2700 ■ Fax (434) 978-1444
Charlottesville ■ Lynchburg
Page 12 of 14
4. Comment: Any overhang or covered entrance must have a clearance of 13'6".
Response: The minimum clearance is provided on the proposed front canopy.
5. Comment: Please provide the ISO needed fire flow AND a current fire flow test to show
what is available on site.
Response: The building will be outfitted with sprinklers. The calculated sprinkler fire
flow rate is 570gpm. A current fire flow test is provided with this submittal.
Inspections
1. Comment: Total parking for accessibility must be in compliance with ICC ANSI All 7.1-09.
Verb conditions at https:Ilcodes. iccsafe. orglcontentlVCC2015P2/chapter-1l -
accessibility#VCC2015P2_Chll_Sec1106 and provide documentation of entire site due to
numerous changes.
Response: Parking calculations are provided on the cover sheet of the plans showing
the number of handicapped parking provided.
2. Comment: Provide accessible parking detail along with accessible signage.
Response: The details have been added to the plans as requested.
ACSA
1. Comment: 3" meter vault will need to be located in this area (shown on markup) to provide
required separation with structures. This location would also allow the ACSA to work on the
vault in the future. Removal would require a crane. We will need enough easement and open
area to facilitate a second vault in the future in the event that the vault needs to be replaced
(we would install the second vault, switch the service over and remove the existing vault).
Response: The meter vault has been relocated as requested. Additional easement has
been provided for a future meter vault if required.
2. Comment: Relocate FHA to 2' behind curb
Response: The existing fire hydrant has been relocated as requested.
3. Comment: Propose a tap off the main for the fire line.
Response: The fire line connection has bee revised to tap directly off the main line in
Inglewood Drive.
4. Comment: Show the FDC location.
Response: The FDC location has been labeled on the plans.
5. Comment: Show proposed ACSA water easements.
Response: The proposed ACSA water easements have been shown and labeled on the
plans.
6. Comment: Add notes for backflow prevention devices.
Response: Notes have been added to Dwg. C-3 of the plans stating the requirement for
a backflow prevention device.
968 Olympia Drive, Suite 1 ■ Charlottesville, VA 22911
Telephone (434) 984-2700 ■ Fax (434) 978-1444
Charlottesville ■ Lynchburg
Page 13 of 14
7. Comment: Core and boot connection.
Response: Notes have been added to the site plan stating that the sanitary lateral
connection shall be cored and booted.
8. Comment: Add notes to adjust height to final grade.
Response: Notes have been added to the site plan stating that the fire hydrant shall be
adjusted to final grade.
9. Comment: Remove (Dwg. C-10).
Response: The detail has been removed as requested.
10. Comment: Add 3" meter vault detail (Dwg. C-11).
Response: The detail has been added as requested.
We trust that these revisions adequately address your concerns. Please do no hesitate to contact
us if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
WW Associates, Inc.
John D. Beirne, Jr., P.E.
Senior Project Engineer
968 Olympia Drive, Suite 1 ■ Charlottesville, VA 22911
Telephone (434) 984-2700 ■ Fax (434) 978-1444
Charlottesville ■ Lynchburg
Page 14 of 14