HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP202000023 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2020-06-06Phone (434) 296-5832
Project:
Project file number:
Plan preparer:
Owner or rep.
Applicant
Plan received date:
(Rev. 1)
Date of comments:
(Rev. 1)
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
Martha Jefferson Hospital Presidio Apartments - ISP
SDP2020-00023
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
19 Mar 2020
26 May 2020
2 May 2020
6 Jun 2020
John Anderson
Cameron Langille
Note: Given review constraints, Engineering welcomes .PDF preview of revised final site plan and related
3AT0 01 Qn Preview at this point implies accelerated review ahead
of competing items in review queue/s, if possible.
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 Comments relating to guardrail along PJP, review errors, are withdrawn.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 (grayscale 'FiL�=.) 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/stfik� ), a portion may be revised after discussion. Comment 4 is withdrawn provided
the ISP plan exnlicitly states 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 grayscale. (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.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 14
Sheet 1-A
1. Recommend revise site plan title to include SDP201900075, Initial Site Plan (FSP) As follow-up:
Recommend include SDP202000023 in final site plan, plan title. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
2. Revise SWM Note to include ref. to WPO201800027. Note SWM Facility ease,....,.., 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:
https://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/forms center/departments/community development/forms/design standards
_manual/Albemarle County Design Standards _Manual _2015-04-25_draft.pdf )
3. Revise Additional Notes:
a. (Rev)
pFivate travel ays). Withdrawn (Clarification to be added to plans.)
b. (Rev) Revise Note 6: DFainage easements upst-reafn of SWN4 detention or- tfeatment �ieilities are
SWN4 f cilib, are public easements, dedio ted to public use. Withdrawn (Clarification to be added
to plans.)
c. (Rev) n -o vide elevation note for- 164 rr (Eris .,d WBI ) so Note o may be evaluated against
design. County GIS as source of 164 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, 14-412.13. (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.
(FSP) Partially addressed. Applicant response: `As discussed in the meeting on March 5tt', 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-specil" (Rev. 1) Addressed.
5. Revise sheet index to list , etaining wall design, or any other change to plan index.
6. Sheet 2: Existing site elements will be demolished (Ex. guai-*-ail /asphalt walk /PJP curb, for example).
Provide separate demolition sheet with details of items to be removed (TBR). Please note that F. giia-d -^a
eondition eompliant with VDOT guardrail standards and speeifications, including end treatment (impact
attenuation). A4ieFever guardrail is terminated to provide site entranee/aceess, eonstilt VDOT may en4, be removed to provide site aceess. Ex. guardrail not Fequired to be removed should remain in
Please Feview tiardrail design with eare. Provide QR 2 detail, impact attenuation (struetural guardrail)
detail,etc. (sleet 10). (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 14
Sheet 3
7. Label trails.
8 Show Atmpsters ifdur psto.s are " aoa at eaeh boil in (Rev) Withdrawn; dumpsters are not
provided at each building.
9. Recommend show sight distance lines at internal travelway intersections on this sheet; they must be shown
on sheets 4/5. Ref. Code 18-4.12.15.d. For example: Appleton St. and Moraga St.; Appleton and parking
area west of buildings 5 and 1; Travelway 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.' 14-412.13. (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 /ice — standards for private streets in Albemarle County: [ removed w/ FSP comments. ]
(FSP) Addressed. Applicant: `As discussed at the March 5th 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.'
11. Do not show existing features TBR; existing trail /walk along PJP, for example. This comment applies to
all plan sheets.
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. (Rev. 1)
Addressed.
s. �)iiow /taucl internal stop /yield signs at internal intersections (travelways /parking areas) to establish which
thru movement has precedence /right-of-way. Applies to plan sheets 4 and 5, as well.
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 =5% 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.
16. Provide and label stop and 'i __ .,..�.
17. Label site street name/s and stop signs at PJP entrances.
18. 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.
(Rev. 1) Addressed.
19. Revise labels for any proposed wall with wall ht. >30" to proposed wall with handrail. (FSP) Partially
addressed. Asefollow-up: Revise sheet 5 (elsewhere, if needed) Note specifying handrail for wall ht. > 6'.
Handrail is required for retaining wall height >30" (Rev. 1) Addressed.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 4 of 14
20. Show easement aeeess width over all tra-velways. inelude 4 label on sheet 10 tra-velw
details. Ensure sheets 4 and 5, and sheet 10 pFivate tr-avelway details (width, notes, seetion [asphalt, baseD
are eonsistent with one another-, and with applicable VDOT- design, inoluding VDOT road design an
drainage manuals, and VDOT 2019 pavement design ,. tide-, (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.
22. Provide, show and label CG-6, as requested elsewhere.
23. 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. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
24. Include ref. to sheet 10 detail for proposed 5' trailway. Sheet 10 includes 5' asphalt pedestrian trail detail,
and Class A — Type 1 low maintenance pedestrian pathway detail (both w/ asphalt surfaces), but does not
include detail that corresponds with proposed 5' primitive trailway. Note: sheet 4 identifies the same
pedestrian facility as both a 5' trailway and a primitive trailway, which differ. Please revise for clarity.
25. Revise 16' L parking spaces fronting 6' walkway width; design is impermissible. Ref. ACDSM, Sec. 7.c.6.
(18' L fronting 6' sidewalk is acceptable).
26. Provide Autoturn 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). (Rev. 1) Addressed.
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 14-410.13.
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. Autoturn 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 5', 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.' As follow-up: see item 26.a., above. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
27. Show GR 2 (guardrail) to remain along PiP between Appleton Street and Travelway A. (Rev.) Withdr-awn
See discussion relating t 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.) (FSP) Addressed.
29. Label entrances with a VDOT designation (CG-9a, etc.), especially Appleton Street onto internal
travelways, or areas mentioned elsewhere.
30. Provide travelway stationing corresponding with sheet 18 and 19 travelway profiles. Additional comments
possible once stationing shown.
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 5', 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.' Asfollow-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.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 5 of 14
Also, Retaining Wall Plan checklist for plan reviewers, attached. Information listed in checklist documents
is required prior to Final Site Plan approval. (Rev. 1) Partially addressed. As follow-up: A comprehensive
retaining wall design by Hillis -Carnes (HC) Engineering (cover undated /without professional seal) was
submitted. Retaining wall (RW) sheets 2-18 are d. Feb. 7, 2020. Plans include overall (plan view) index,
profile for ea. wall, with stationing, and typical details. Profiles for forty (40) proposed site retaining walls:
a. Walls:
i. lA — 1H (8 walls), near building 1 /or along Appleton St.
ii. 2A — 2E (5 walls), near building 2
iii. 3A — 3H (8 walls), near building 3
iv. 4A-4D (4 walls), near building 4
v. 5A-5F (6 walls), near building 5
vi. 4A-4D (4 walls), near building 6
vii. Wall Pond A, B, C, D, E (5 walls), near pond;
Note: Wall 4B is continuous from well N of building 4 to W end of wet pond, L=827.5'.
b. As follow-up:
i. Revise site plan grading or RW design for consistency. Apparent inconsistencies
(examples):
1. Wall 4B
HC-8
0+40
0+50
0+60
0+70
HC-9
CN ELOLILS 11GT
AIOlSN fOII CtANRY
7+90 8+00
III II�II
8+27.25
8+10 8+20
—425
—424
—423
—422
—421
—420
—419
—418
—417
—416
Engineering Review Comments
Page 6 of 14
Final Site Plan, sheet 9 (FSP-9):
(MAX. HEIGHT = 6')
=3 WITH HANDRAIL r
2. Note: all five TWBW labels in image above indicate 7' ht. Compare with Max.
height =6' label. Revise for consistency /per ACDSM, 18-30.7.5, as applicable.
3. Note: HC-8/-9 and SP-9 elev. differ by —2.5'. Revise for consistency /accuracy.
4. HC-1 is inconsistent with later HC RW design sheets. Compare, for example,
images of HC-8/-9 (above) with HC-cover (below), Wall 4B, image below
(Note: HC plans appear internally inconsistent and inconsistent with FSP).
HC-cover:
4°.S0TP� WALL POND Eiz:-43 50
14
PROPOSED RETAINING WALLS
(MAX. HEIGHT = 6')
5. FSP-9 Wall 4B TW-BW labels inconsistent with HC-cover. Revise for
accuracy.
6. Transfer HC wall labels to FSP sheets 8, 9.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 7 of 14
7. Pond Wall E
a. HC-14 /FSP-9 TW labels are consistent (432').
b. HC-cover /FSP-9 TW labels are inconsistent: 434' v. 432' respectively.
c. HC-cover /HC-14 TW labels are inconsistent: 434' v.432' respectively.
d. HC-1 /FSP-9 BW labels are inconsistent: 429' v. 428', respectively.
e. HC-1 /HC-14 BW labels are inconsistent: 429' v. 425', respectively.
8. Wall 4D
a. HC-cover /FSP-8 TW-BW labels are consistent (408' - 402').
b. HC-10 /FSP-8 TW labels are inconsistent: 406'- 408'.
c. HC-cover /HC-10 TW labels are inconsistent: 408' - 406'.
d. HC-10 /FSP-8 BW labels are inconsistent: 399' - 402'.
e. RW design proposes 7.66' wall on Managed Steep Slopes. Max. ht.
=6'. Revise.
HC-14 (TW=432.33; BW = 425.33') — Wall Pond E
I I
I �PoR� I
cave 9eNINo wnu
El 53Y 37
I I I I
I I �
— —
— — — — — — — — — _. I ` —. _ _ _
�EL
LL. 426,00�
GE E IN FRONT OF W��}
7 a253!
)+0
0+10 0+20 0+30 0+40 0+50
. POND
E PROFILE
HC-10 (TW=406.33; BW = 398.67') — Wall 4D; Note: Wall height =7.66'
0
407— 6-47
408—
405 —71
404 —
403— —I— — —
402—
401— I I
400— I I
399—
398--I----T
I I
�IIII�
XAIAI i An c)prwil P
HC-cover, Wall 41)
FSP-8
EXISTING MAN:GE
STEEP SLOPES.)
PROPOSED RETAINING WALLS
(MAX. HEIGHT = 6')
WITH HANDRAIL
Engineering Review Comments
Page 8 of 14
ii. Provide site plan wall stations to guide inspection and review; at a minimum, label site
plan with Hillis -Carnes retaining wall begin (0+00) /end stations. Provide 100' station
ticks /labels, or closer spacing.
iii. Ensure HC Engineering plans are sealed (P.E. /geotechnical), with seal signed and dated.
iv. Additional comments possible.
c. Note:
i. Elevation departure between retaining wall design and plans should be negligible for FSP
approval.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 9 of 14
ii. Retaining wall plans must be internally consistent and accurate.
iii. Retaining wall plans must be consistent with FSP TWBW design elevation labels, tie-in
grades, etc.
iv. Design includes forty (40) retaining walls, all relevant to site layout, many critical to
parking, buildings, etc.
v. All initial (3) comparison checks for consistency revealed issues.
vi. Given multiple review issues with each of first 3 of 40 retaining wall comparisons,
review is suspended pending Applicant revision of grading, FSP, HC RW designs, across
all sheets (with care /adequate QC) to resolve Max. height, labeling, grading, cross -plan,
and internal design inconsistencies and inaccuracies.
vii. Given scope of change, follow-up Engineering FSP review may not be immediate.
32. Provide off -site CG-12 receiving ramp on the N side of PJP, for raml
33. Show site entrance lane striping for turn lanes located on PJP.
34. At S end of Travelway B, revise CG-2 at small island at extreme S end of parking E of building 3 to roll-
top curb; otherwise, CG-2 may not endure.
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). (Rev. 1) Addressed.
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 response: `As
discussed in the meeting on March 5', 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, 18-32]
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)
Engineering Review Comments
Page 10 of 14
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.
38. Wherever roof /yard drain storm conveyance systems pass beneath a retaining wall, show wall in profile
view. Provide detail for lintel above these system pipes if depth of cover beneath retaining wall is minimal.
39. Show and label ACSA utility easements consistent with easement plat under review.
40. Show /label or revise as necessary all private and public drainage easements, consistent with easement plat
under review, consistent with Albemarle County Design Standards Manual easement diagram. Also, see
item 2., above.
41. Label all easement widths. Ref. ACDSM, p. 15, easement width diagram. (FSP) As follow-up: Please
confirm all drainage easement widths have been evaluated against ACDSM, p. 15, easement diagram.
(Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant: `Easement width chart has been included on Sheet 8 — Grading & Drainage
Plan.'
42. especially public drainage easement width at north corner of building 6, since depth to pipe trench
floor of this 24" DIA pipe is — 18-11. No portion of any building may occupy any portion of a drainage
easement.
43. Pipe 77 is in public easement and may "eneath a retaining wall. Relocate pipe 77.
44. Avoid roof /yard drain system pipe location beneath SWM retaining wall at the E end of the wet pond;
conflict may be avoided by shifting pipe location —5'. (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
45. Label building 3.
46. Note: Roof /yard storm pipes enter structure numbers 24, 30, 64, 68, 2, 8, and 72. Show graphically, in
profile view (sheets 16, 17). Include INV elevations requested elsewhere.
47. In parking west of building 4, provide grade (%) for surface runoff to Str. 20 to ensure positive drainage.
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.' Asfollow-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.'
50. Show GR-2 along PJP (comment applies to other sheets, as well). Ensure GR-2 end treatments are shown,
and labeled. Provide all relevant VDOT guardrail std. details (sheet 10).(FSP) Withdrawn.
51. Add additional existing contour labels N of PJP. (FSP) Addressed.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 11 of 14
52. Revise proposed grading, as
3.1DOT std.lbws 2:1 rtr de to extend to the edge of PiP(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).
(FSP) Withdrawn. Review error.
54. Guardrail is required along the entire west side of Appleton Street, from PIP to entrance to SWM facility
access, given unrecoverable slope beyond curb. Provide /label guardrail.
55. N of building 1, arrows indicate surface runoff, but proposed grading does not match direction of runoff.
Provide grading that ensures runoff from slope between PIP and building 1 does not reach building 1, but is
conveyed via swale to yard grate inlet/s on the N side of building 1. (FSP) Addressed. Applicant response:
`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.'
56. At wet pond, revise design to ensure pipe is aligned with riprap; otherwise, wet pond slope will erode. That
is, direction of flow cannot change once it exits pipe. Ensure riprap and last pipe section align. Additional
MH /pipe section may be required. Revise WPO201800027 to reflect change to site plan. Revise easement
plat to reflect change to private drainage easement.
57. At both surface SWM facilities, provide L X W dimensions for riprap at pipe discharge to SWM facilities.
58. Reverse direction of 3:1 slope arrow, S of building 6. (Rev) Minor, slight revision. (FSP) Withdrawn.
Review error.
59. Label 2:1 slopes W of Appleton Street near entrance to parking S of building 5. Provide note that these
slopes will be planted with ground cover that does not require mowing (species hardier than grass. Note
may ref. WPO201800027). (FSP) Addressed. `Seeded meadow' mix to be used. See landscape plan.
60. 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.' As follow-up: please see email to Collins Engineering, 5/2/2020 9:16 AM. (Rev. 1)
Comment NA. VSMP /WPO201800027 Amendment 1 is approved (6/5/20).
61. 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. (Rev. 1) Comment NA. UG detention removed from design.
62. Label structure #53 (pipe), and #54 (inlet). (FSP) Not addressed. Comment persists. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
63. Revise proposed retaining wallIs labels to include reference to handrail (`with handrail'). Virtually every
retaining wall requires handrail (highest wall).
64. Label preserved steep slopes.
65. Continue drivewav access line -work. Indicate limits of project relative to driveway access constructior
(i.e., tie to exist ' /drive. Avoid
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.'
(Rev. 1) Additional retaining wall comments possible. Please see item 31, above.
Sheet 10
f. Nyloplast details, (FSP) Comment persists. Please provide Nyloplast ® details. (Rev. 1)
Persists. Also, see item 74, below.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 12 of 14
Drive Access section, (FSP) Comment persists. See Driveway Access, lower edge sheet 5. (Rev.
1) Partially addressed. Asfollow-up: Confirm driveway access to receive: 2" SM-9.5 surface
course, 3" BM-25 intermediate course, 5" 21-A base course (stone). This maybe unintentional.
h. Pipe lintel detail (at walls), (FSP) Withdrawn. Design revised; pipes no longer pass beneath
retaining walls.
i. Pavement section based on ADT,
j. Reconcile typical travelway sections with plan view. Note, for example 7' on -street parking width
is < 9' min. required. Ref. 18-4.12.16.c.2.
k. Ensure typical travelway sections are accurate, and match sheets 4, 5. Revise typical travelway
sections to show CG-6 rather than CG-2 (18-4.12.15.g.).
1. Please ref. VDOT Road Design Manual B(1)-7 Table 1, Min. travel width, parking 1-side.
* 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.
(Rev. 1) Addressed.
68. Sheet 11: Provide VDOT pipe bedding std. details.
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. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
'rnopy species (extensive root systems) - storm " " -)n), at:
a. Str. #64, 24, 6013, 89; (FSP) Partially addressed. Conflict persists at Str. 64, 60B; resolved at 24.
No structure 88. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
b. relocate /remove 3 canopy trees directly opposite Moraga St. entrance; (FSP) Partially
addressed. Partial conflict persists. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
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. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
d. roof /yard system E of building 3, —1/3 building length N of SE corner of building;
,move trees from 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% canp,4-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. For this reason, RGP pipe is required in all significant fill locations. HDPE i table alternative
foF pipes with more than minimal cover. Fill sections exceed 3 0' in certain I A- e'ati A- " s. A �__, se, Ifeed free, to
Feqiiest meeting • 41 9figi f ee g to dice iss (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.
rM
POLYETHYLENE
��IIIIIIIIII�IIIIIIIIII�
POLYVINYLCHLORIDE PROFILE WALL PIPE (PM
DIAMETER
INCHES
AREA
SO. FT.
MAIIMUM
HEIGHT OF COVER
FEET
IB
I.]
11
21
2.3
4C
2e
B.D
37
30
N.]
3N
35
E.9
34
POLYPROPYLENE
®®moo
o®m®
0�®0
Engineering Review Comments
Page 13 of 14
NOTES
1. COVER HEIGHTS INDICATED IN TABLES ARE FOR FINISHED CONSTRUCIION, USING AASHTO LRFD
BRIDGE DESIGN SKCFICAT104S.
2. TO PRDTE CT PIPE DURING CONSTRUCTION,MINIMUM HEIGHT OF COVER TO BE IN ACCORDANCE
WITTEEN COVER $HALpEx TFND THE ING FULLO`E CIH OF THE PIFP�E 10ECROSS
APPROACH bFILLTISNTo
E%TEND A MNNUM OF IDIpIANETER «%= DIAMETERf ON EACH SIDE OF E PFE OR
TO THE INTERSECTION WITH A CUT.
3. STANDARD MINIMUM FINISHED'11IGHT OF COVER FOR ALL PIPES. EXCEPT THOSE UNDER
ENTRMICES,SNALL RI 2A'OR / DIAMETER WHK)EVER IS GREATER FOR 12" THROUGH
4B" DIAMETER PIPE INSTALLATIONS WHERE THE COVER HEIGHTS CANNOT BE AC EVEO,AN
ABSOLUTE MINIMUM FINISHED [OVER HEIGHT OF IO' WILL BE ALLOWED ONLY IF ALL POSSIBLE
MEANS TO OBTAIN THE STANDARD VALUE HAVE BEEN E%HAUSlEO. THE MINIMUM FINISHED
HEIGHT OF COVER FOR PFFS TINDER ENTRANCES IS 9" FOR PIPE DIAMETERS LESS THAN OR
EOUAL TO 24'. AND 12" FOR PIPE DIAMETERS GREATER THAN 24"_WHERE THE SURFACE OVER
THE OP OF THE FIRE RILL BE ASPHALT, A MINIMUM OF E" OF CLASS BACHFILL NA ERIAL
IS TO BE PLACED BETWEEN THE TOP OF THE PIPE AND THE BOTTOM OF THE ASPHALT.
4. SEE STANDARD PB-(FOR PIPE BEDDING AND BACI(FILL REGUIREMENTS.
5. LARGE CULVERTS SHALL BE M5IGNED BY AN ENGINEEG,REGISTERED IN THE
COMMONWE ATM OF NRIVIVI AND SHALL BE CESIGINEO IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF VOLUME v PART 2 OF THE MFNUAL OF THE
5 BLICTLRE AND ERDGE DIVISION, A LARGE CULVERT 15 MY CULVERT
THAT WILL BECOME PART OF THE STRUCTURE AND BRIDGE INVENTORY. THE
GEOMETRIC DEFINITION OF THESE STRUCTURES IS PROVIDED IN THE
CURRENT VERSION OF VDOT'S EM-5MB-2],
FIRE TYPE DEFINITIONS;
TYPE C - SINGLE WAIL PIPE (CORRUGATED WALL ONLY)
TYPE S - DOUBLE WALL PPE (CORRUGATED WALL WITH SMOOTH INNER WALLI
TYPE D - TRIPLE WALL PIPE (CORRUGATED WALL BETWEEN SMOOTH INNER AND OUTER WALL(
TABLE A
RPE DIAMETER
LRNILNM COVER HEIGHT
DLNNG CONSTRUCTION
(SEE NOTE 21
12" TO I-
16"
36" AND ABOVE
'/J pIAAEIER
`V00T A COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SEALED AND SIGNED STANDARD ORAWING 6 ON FILE IN THE CENTRAL OFFICE SPECIFICATgN
ROAD AND BRDGE STANDARDS PLASTIC PIPE RErrRENCr
SHEET IS Or .7 REVISION DATE HEIGHT OF COVER TABLES FOR HL-93 LIVE LOAD 232
10219 04/19 VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 3Q2
73. '
Limits will apply. HDPE imperils design sinee it may defefm, eallapse, ete., while RCIP will . (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.
74. HDPE Note references detail, sheet 17. No HDPE pipe bedding detail is provided on sheet 17. (FSP)
Comment persists. (Rev. 1) Not addressed. Applicant: `Sheet reference updated to Sheet 11, where
bedding detail is located.' Nyloplast ® Inserta-Tee ® detail does not indicate stone bedding depth,
compaction, minimum cover requirements, etc. in any detail.
75. Provide HDPE pipe bedding detail. (FSP) Comment persists. Please provide ref. to sheet with this detail.
(Rev. 1) Not addressed. Also, item 74.
76. Revise profiles per comments, elsewhere (yard/roof system INV, provide roof /yard system profiles, etc.)
(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 MHs. Ref. VDOT Drainage Manual,
9.4.8.7 (p. 9-37). Label each MH str. that require a'/2" steel plate floor. (FSP) Comment persists. For
example: see sheet 17, Sir. 62 and 46. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
78. Label 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.' (Rev. 1) Persists. Applicant: `Acknowledged.'
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 Review Comments
Page 14 of 14
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). (Rev. 1) Addressed.
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. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
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. (Rev. 1) Withdrawn. Review error. Applicant: `The
median along Peter Jefferson Parkway blocks traffic leaving via Arguello Street from taking a left turn.
This is a right-in/right-out entrance, therefore, sight distances aren't needed for a left turn out of the
entrance.'
Sheets 23, 24
—abet all d, -1 tables (LD-204, L ). Use VDOT designations /ref. drainage manual.
84. Provide design calculations for Nyloplast roof /yard systems. (FSP) Partially addressed. As follow-up:
Table 9, sheet 24, does not appear to provide pipe capacity. Revise table to provide pipe capacity for all
listed drainage pipes. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Ref. sheet 24.
85 Recommend against rTyloplast n system f r n 37 n, D (YD i C) (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. (Rev. 1) As follow-up:
Please revise structure type, YD-1C, so that all 4 descriptions reference 24".
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. (Rev. 1) Withdrawn. WP0201800027
Amendment 1 was approved 5 Jun 2020.
87. New: Orient sheets to landscape (rotate counterclockwise, as needed), to aid review (sheets 5B, 12A, 15,
22, etc.).
Please feel free to call if any questions: 434.296-5832 -0069.
Thank you
SDP2020-00023 Martha Jefferson Hospital Presidio Apts-FSP 060620revl