HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP202000044 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2020-06-10COUNTY 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 title:
E 2415 Ivy Road Commercial Redevelopment
Project file number:
SDP2020-00044
Plan preparer:
Scott Collins; Collins Engineering [200 Garrett St., Suite K, Charlottesville, VA
22902, scott(&collins-en ing eeriee com]
Owner or rep.:
Currell Corporation 35 Old Farm Road, Charlottesville, VA 22903
Plan received date:
15 May 2020
Date of comments:
10 Jun 2020
Plan Coordinator:
Christopher Perez
Reviewer:
John Anderson
SDP2020-00044 (Also, Initial Site Plan, SDP2019-00058 — Comments 1 - 16 were initial site plan review
comments for final site plan approval.)
For Initial Site Plan Approval
1. Repoi4 Limits of DisWi-7banee, - aer-eage. Note, sheet 1 (200,16 r-eduetion), appears to indicate LOD may
. (Rev. 1) Withdrawn. Not germane.
2. Provide Site Summary Site tab information, VaRRM re -development .xls, that shows pre- and post -
redevelopment land cover (best estimate) and TP load reduction required for redevelopment. Engineering
understands values may change with VSMP /WPO Plan submittal, but at conceptual level, given age and
uncertainty of storm network to which this development will discharge, this information is needed for
initial site plan approval. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
3. Sheet 2: Provide existing contour labels. Very few, perhaps just one, label makes it difficult to review this
site plan. If vertical variation is flat, please use 1-ft. interval for existing and proposed contours.
Additional contour detail required. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
Sheet 4:
4. Show conceptual UG detention using dark line type (if overlooked, please notify reviewer). (Rev. 1)
Persists. Address with FSP /WPO Plan. [ Note: WP02020-00030 received 6/2/20. ]
5. Show proposed grading and storm utilities using dark line -type. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
6. Tie proposed grading to existing terrain contours. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
7. Outline proposed r OD using readily «0.,.7able a, aline type (Rev. 1) Withdrawn. LOD is a VSMP
/WPO plan consideration. Not strictly relevant to ISP. Also, item 1, above.
8. Provide proposed grade for 22-space parking (recommend flow lines); may change with FSP, yet relevant
to ISP approval. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
9. Engineering recommends Notes clarify limits of disturbance, new impervious area, net new impervious,
existing /proposed storm conveyance, existing /proposed new building (building space appears unchanged).
(Rev. 1) Addressed. As follow-up: Recommend sheet 1 Stormwater Mangement Note ref. pervious pavers,
rather than impervious. (FSP) Addresssed.
For Final Site Plan Approval
1. Ensure commercial entrance on Ivy Road/US Rt. 250 meets VDOT commercial entrance standard. (FSP)
Comment persists. Also, item 11. Applicant (5/11/20 letter): `The Applicant will obtain VDOT approval.'
2. As ISP sheet 1 Note states, VSMP /WPO plan approval is required prior to final site plan approval. (FSP)
Persists. WP0202000030, received 6/2/20. WPO Plan review is pending.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 5
3. SWM Facility /Facility Access Easement plat with deed must be recorded prior to VSMP /WPO Plan
approval; this may occur with boundary line adjustment plat, or independent of BLA plat. (FSP) Persists.
Applicant: `The Applicant notes this requirement.'
4. Sheet 4: It is uncertain whether DI -pipe shown traversing proposed 22-space parking lot in front of the site
may discharge directly to Ex. storm system. With FSP, submit thorough analysis of Ex. storm system
along Ivy Road for each discharge point, to limits of analysis. (FSP) Applicant: `The storm sewer at the
front of the site is rerouted and no longer discharges directly to the Ivy Road storm sewer.' Asfollow-up:
Please see comments below for additional or follow-up storm system design revision requests.
5. Label parking space typ. length. Ref. ACDSM p. 17 for graphic guidance on design options. (FSP)
Addressed.
6. Label east and west -most parking space length, N side of parking lot. (FSP) Withdrawn.
7. Avoid placing detention access (MH lid) in any parking space/s. (FSP) Addressed.
8. Provide public drainage easement downstream of any proposed SWM facility, to the property line. (FSP)
Partially addressed. Asfollow-up: Provide alternative design /new storm inlet structures, MHs, pipes etc.
to eliminate existing building -existing storm line conflict. Albemarle cannot accept pipes in public
drainage easement that cross beneath a structure, as is the case between Ex2 and proposed tie-in into
existing DI in front of existing medical office space /ballet school. Storm pipe beneath pavement, but not
buildings, is one possible alternative. Please also see below for additional storm system -related comments.
9. Provide proposed water quality swale easement. (FSP) Comment persists. Provide and record easements.
10. Provide SWM Facility access, between Ivy Road RW and SWM facility easements. (FSP) Comment may
persist. Please show dry retention basin (SWM Facility) easements on 4, similar to public drainage
easements.
11. Ensure radii at commercial entrance meet VDOT CG-I I Min. R. (Also, FSP, item 1., above) (FSP)
Comment persists. Applicant (5/11/20 letter): `The radii at the entrance meet VDOT standards.' As ollow-
yp: Label existing curb radii, east/west side of entrance. Also, please ref. VDOT Road Design Manual,
Appendix G, pg. G-74 — Radii* [ http://virginiadot.org/projects/resources/AppendixG.pdf ]
12. Relocate /evaluate Ex. DI, W side of commercial entrance. (FSP) Comment may persist if entrance design
revised. Engineering defers to VDOT on site entrance Min. curb radii.
13. Provide drainage plan, including LD-204, LD-229. (FSP) Requires follow-up: Comments listed elsewhere.
14. (Rev. 12/12): Engineering supports any Planning Div. request for sidewalk leading west then north from
entrances facing Ivy Road (facing south) to parking west and north of existing structure; it is a basic
required design feature, from Engineering perspective (blue arrow, below, probable location -Note: image
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 5
removed with Rev-1 comments). (Rev. 1) Addressed. Revised design provides sidewalk.
15. Albemarle strongly encourages Applicant and Contractor to coordinate with City of Charlottesville Gas
Utility Department prior to constructing improvements above existing gas service line to existing structure.
(FSP) Persists. Applicant: `The Applicant acknowledges this comment.'
16. (Rev 12/12) Engineering response to 10/21/19, Collins Engineering Waiver request: Request for waiver of
parking lot curb and gutter, and parking lot surface requirements for 2415 Ivy Road Commercial
Redevelopment by letter dated October 21, 2019, is denied. Request does not provide one (or more)
compelling reason for Albemarle to waive requirements listed at 18-4.12.15(a),(g). Whether patrons are
customers or employees has no effect on decision concerning whether a surface is paved, or not. Ordinance
sets a paved surface threshold of 4 or more parking spaces since stone is problematic. Gravel is a loose
uneven medium that poses risk to pedestrians. Design should provide a smooth walking and riding surface,
with sidewalks (see item 14., above). A paved surface with positive drainage provides a reliable surface for
pedestrians, whereas stone poses challenge (if not risk) to the elderly or very young who may have balance
issues, and to strollers, the disabled, and deliveries. Gravel is not equivalent to a paved surface for this
commercial re -development with regard to strength, durability, sustainability and long-term maintenance.
Design must meet requirements listed at 18-4.12.15(a). Similarly, this redeveloped commercial site requires
design that directs storm runoff to detention or treatment facilities prior to release to existing conveyance,
which may be inadequate (analysis to determine). A water quality swale may be designed using a curb cut,
without abandoning curb/gutter, which serves a purpose. Rather than waiving curb /gutter requirements, it
is essential to control and direct runoff from paved surfaces to existing /proposed stormwater management
facilities. Please design to standards listed at 18-4.12.15(g). To approve a waiver request providing relief
from requirements that prevent erosion, excessive or uncontrolled runoff, and may minimize risk to patrons
using parking areas, contradicts the purpose and intent of ordinance. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Majority of rev.
ISP proposed parking is paved. Note: FSP will be checked as paved parking remains a design expectation.
(FSP) Addressed. As fo ow -up: see item 35 below.
FSP review comments
17. Sheet 1: Please add cover sheet reference to WPO2020-00030.
Sheet 2:
18. With proposed BLA, a retaining wall (RW) maintenance agreement is required since a portion of RW is
located on TMP 60-25B, and a portion is located on TMP 60-25A.
19. This site plan includes a boundary line adjustment. FSP approval may require approved and recorded
boundary line adjustment: separate application, review fee, review process, etc. Engineering defers to
Planning.
20. Engineering questions whether PL may be established so close to an existing 1-story brick, block & frame
building (that results from proposed boundary line adjustment). A new property line so close to the Bellair
Market may render future maintenance or repair a matter requiring adjacent property owner consent, or
easement. Allowing a modest offset between building and PL may also leave the existing retaining wall
entirely on TMP 60-25B, and eliminate need for a Maintenace Agreement for a retaining wall crossing a
property line.
21. Label Ivy Road right-of-way.
Sheet 3
22. Site entrance: West side of entrance does not appear to meet VDOT commercial entrance Min. radius.
Albemarle defers to VDOT on site entrance design requirements, and whether proposed design meets
VDOT minimum standards.
23. Show existing DI, west side of entrance on Ivy Road.
24. Provide CG-12 receiving ramp on east side of site commercial entrance.
25. Label site entrance using VDOT nomenclature (CG-9a /-11, for example).
26. For existing curb cuts to be replaced with a continuous curb, label replacement curb type.
27. Provide public drainage easement applications /plats for storm pipe conveyance downstream of any SWM
facility. Easement plat must be recorded prior to WPO plan approval. WPO plan approval is prerequisite
to FSP approval.
28. HC-parkin sg paces:Asphalt for easier traverse by device -assisted patrons is highly recommended. Pervious
pavers introduce surface irregularities, and possibly worsen risk of fall in winter. Handicap space detail,
sheet 7, should indicate an asphalt surface in handicap space parking areas (a recommendation).
Engineering Review Comments
Page 4 of 5
29. Revise 1.5R CG-2 curb to 3' Min. R, or revise nose of curb to a wipedown section that extends 3'-5' from
nose back along CG-2. 1.5R is prone to damage.
30. Show full extents of Site Entrance /Ivy Road sight distance lines.
31. If Ex. asphalt path is to be relocated, indicate it will be demolished. It cannot be relocated, only rebuilt.
32. Label new walk or path south of decorative wall. Label walk /path width and material type. If asphalt
path, provide a typ. asphalt section on sheet 6 or 7. Provide reference to this detail on sheet 3.
33. Label existing wall at edge of Ex. loading dock.
34. Label slope (%) of Ex. ramp to be retained.
35. Provide CG-6 wherever paved parking proposes concentrated runoff against a curb. Each circled curb
should be revised to curb pe CG-6.
- - - PROPOSED LANDSCAPED
GRASS DRY RETENTION BASIN
WIDE CURB CUT
_ WITH RIPRAP
CURBC T
TH RIPRA
y�
\ TIE PROPOSED DRAINAGE
INTD E%. a5 � CMP STORM
AT E%. DROP INLET
WIDE CURB CUT �s6e rocr
ITH RIPRAP
sesr
GRASS okv RETENTION BASIN
\ \\\ TIE PROPOSEDINLIE1 NAGI
INTOEX.Y'CMPSTORM
Al. DROPINLET
Sheet 4
36. Relocate or replace existing DI, west side of entrance, to meet Min. commercial entrance requirements.
37. Label existing storm DI (tie-in point) located in parking space south of existing medical office space
/existing ballet school.
38. Indicate flow direction between Ex4 and Ex2 structures at N edge of 1-story brick structure.
39. Indicate flow direction between Str 16B and Ex2 structures at N edge of 1-story brick structure.
40. Storm pipe between 16B and Ex2: provide additional MH between 16B and Ex2 so runoff enters Ex2 at
angle >90-deg to direction of flow leaving Ex2. Avoid an acute angle.
41. For existing storm line N of 16B that appears to cross beneath CSX transportation rail line, indicate
direction of flow.
42. Label proposed TW /BW elevations of wall N of Ex. loading dock.
43. At proposed 2' curb cuts along low side of brick pervious pavers, label wall cuts for runff to cross walls.
Provide detail for flume (or similar) through 2' wall cuts to limit erosion /minimize risk of runoff damage
to walls during 10-year and less frequent events. Wall cuts may not be earth until runoff reaches outside
face of 3' high decorative wall.
44. Revise grading south of decorative wall to include lower elevation linear feature presented with ISP. Less -
frequent events may cross decorative wall and possibly impact U.S. Rt. 250.
45. Sheet 4 and 9: Sheet 7 permeable paver pavement design detail shows 4" perforated rigid PVC underdrain
system located 18-22" below paver surface. Show underdrain:
a. Sheet 4: plan view to daylight
b. Sheet 9: profile view to daylight, or connection with existing system
46. Sheet 7: concrete sidewalk detail: specify 28-d strength >3,000 PSI.
Sheet 9:
Engineering Review Comments
Page 5 of 5
47. Column headings are illegible. Revise.
48. Confirm structural condition and integrity of existing inlet structures and existing storm pipes proposed to
be integrated with or relied upon by this final site plan. At a minimum, provide date of visual inspection,
and written report of findings. Propose remedy for (any) existing inlet /pipe deficiencies.
49. Storm pipe from 6 to 4 full flow capacity=2.72cfs. Qt=2.69cfs. Recommend more conservative design.
50. Similarly, recommend more conservative design for pipe run Str 16-Ex2. Comments elsewhere may relate
to this pipe run.
51. Continue storm pipe design downstream of Ex2, since two design streams arrive at Ex2 (from Ex4 and
16B). These combined flows may exceed full flow capacity of the storm pipe downstdream of Ex2.
52. Continue storm pipe analysis downstream of Ex2 through susbsequent lines, MHs, to /through Ex. tie-in
point south of existing medical office space /existing ballet school, to property line storm conveyance
system. This development must consider stormwater quantity requirements listed at 9VAC25-870-66, and
for the moment examines partial elements of proposed and existing storm pipe network required to be
evaluated.
53. Name /label storm pipes /MHs between Ex2 and unlabeled tie-in south of existing medical /ballet school.
54. Revise drainage map and design tables /calculations to include runoff reaching Str. 16B via pipe beneath
CSX Transportation railway tracks. (Pipe Design Table 16B to Ex2 lists 0.00 Ac. drainage area. This
appears inaccurate.)
55. Note: Storm runoff occurs with new development, but also, development design relies on a number of
existing storm system elements, while proposing no upgrade or replacement. Design must account for off -
site runoff that joins impervious area development runoff that is collected and conveyed via piped systems.
Design must further consider condition of on -site and capacity of off -site existing receiving storm
conveyance system, since development may increase Qto-yr runoff to existing downstream storm
conveyance system, or through existing on -site storm system pipes.
56. Final site plan Engineering review comments do not consider design of proposed on -site stormwater quality
or quantity facilities. VSMP /WPO202000030 was received 6/2/20. An approved WPO plan is required
prior to FSP approval, as sheet 1 SWM Note states.
57. If permeable paver underdrain or surface runoff reaches existing storm conveyance, which appears likely,
revise design tables to include line entry for permeable paver underdrain.
58. Revise tables to include all existing storm pipes utilized by proposed storm system, or that are downstream
receiving storm system elements (Ref. 9VAC25-870-66).
59. Additional comments possible once final site plan is revised.
Note: Engineering contends CG-6 is required for concentrated flow along curb lines. No requirement of
drainage, or VSMP /WPO plans is waived. Design proposes limited inlets, opting instead for curb cuts
leading to dry retention basins. Engineering has considered design against VDOT drainage manual,
Drainage Plan checklist for plan reviewers, and ACDSM.
CG-6 (curb /gutter) appears more nearly a necessity for new parking in front of the grocery /restaurant,
though here, as well, curb cut leading to a SWM treatment or detention is an option.
Please feel free to call if any questions. Thank you
J. Anderson 434.296-5832 -0069
SDP202000044 2415 Ivy Road Commercial Redev FSP 061020