HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP202000023 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2020-06-29�/Rcir�1Q
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Scott Collins, P.E. (Scott(&collins-en ing eering com)
From: Cameron Langille — Senior Planner
Division: Planning Services
Date: April 23, 2020
First Revision: June 29, 2020
Subject: SDP202000023 — Martha Jefferson Hospital Presidio Apartments — Final Site Plan
The Planner for the Planning Services Division of the Albemarle County Department Community Development will
recommend approval of the plan referred to above when the following items have been satisfactorily addressed. (The
following comments are those that have been identified at this time. Additional comments or conditions may be added or
eliminated based on further review.) [Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference to the Albemarle County
Code.]
Applicable Comments from Initial Site Plan Action Letter (February 7, 2020):
[ZMA200100015]: The development appears to be in general accord with the approved ZMA-2001-00015
(including Exhibit B — Application Plan, sheets API-AP6): the residential use and number of dwelling units are in
general accord with what is shown as Parcel I containing 250 residential units on AP-4; and the open space, trails,
and pedestrian connectivity are in general accord with what is shown as Parcel J on AP-4 and AP-5, and as
Anticipated Pedestrian Route — Connection to Gateway on AP-6. First submittal: Per proffer #4 of ZMA2001-15,
reasonable pedestrian access needs to be provided through the site down to the Countv owned greenway. A 10'
Class A asphalt path has been provided at the southern end of the development down to the reg enway. It appears
that the path goes onto TMP 07800-00-00-020MI which is owned by Worrell Land & Development Company LC.
Please address the following: an easement over the 10' wide pedestrian path should be provided, owners of TMP
07800-00-00-020M1 will need to sign the easement plat (see comment #3 under "New Comments Final Site Plan"
section below). 2nd submittal: Per discussions between Planning staff, Parks & Recreation staff, and the
applicant, the applicant is working with the owner of TMP 78-20M1 to prepare a boundary line adjustment,
land reservation plat to obtain acreage from TMP 78-20M1 to incorporate into TMP 78-20M5. This will
create a connected area of land from Peter Jefferson Pkwv to the existing County greenway system adjacent
to the river. This plat will be submitted to the Countv for review, approval, and recordation prior to final
site plan approval.
Additionallv. staff acknowledges that the applicant has provided a 5' sidewalk through the site to access the 10'
path. Staff with CDD and the Parks & Rec Department have evaluated the proposed pedestrian route through the
site. See comment #3 from Parks & Recreation staff below. Several options are available that can be done on
revised plans to accomplish the proffer's intent for providing reasonable access to the rely. This could include
one or more of the following options (or a combination thereof
a. Providing a publicly -accessible trail connection (Class A shared use path: 10' wide / asphalt surface)
through the property on the west side of the proposed private travel way, connecting to sidewalk along Peter
Jefferson Parkway; and/or
b. Revising the proposed private on -street pedestrian facilities (5' sidewalk) along the proposed private
travel way to instead be a Class A shared use path (10' wide / asphalt surface)and providing a public use
access easement; and/or
c. Adjusting the —4.5-acre "special lot" to increase in size, so as to contain additional acreage to the west
of the proposed private street, in order to create more opportunity/flexibility to install a public bike/ped
connection through this physically constrained area that contains substantial steep slopes.
A public access easement will need to be provided through the site over the pathway. Please see comment #3 under
"New Comments Final Site Plan" section below for more information regarding the easement. 2"d submittal: Please
provide a variable width public access and use easement (explicitly for public bike/ped use) over one of the
proposed travelways and over a portion of the proposed sidewalks on the Presidio property (TMP #78-
20M6). Such an easement will ensure that members of the public will have reasonable access between the
Peter Jefferson Parkway public right of way and the Rivanna Greenwav property owned by the County,
prior to County construction of a shared use path (or other type of recreational connection) within the
Presidio Special Lot (TMP #78-20M5). Specifically, in order to ensure that the proposed development "will
provide reasonable provisions for access to the Greenwav Svstem" concurrent with the commencement of
the proposed use(s). See Parks & Rec. comment for description of requested easement locations inside of the
Presidio site.
2. [Section 32.5.2(a)]: The title on the Cover Sheet (Sheet 1A) incorrectly states that this application is a "Final Site
Plan." This application has been submitted, processed, and reviewed as an "Initial Site Plan." First submittal:
Comment no longer applicable.
3. [Section 32.5.2(a)]: If the Open Space contained in the recently -created Special Lot (approximately 4.5 acres,
identified as Tax Map/Parcel #78-20M5) is included in the calculations for this site plan, then please add this Tax
Map/Parcel number and acreage to the "Tax Map No." and "Total Project Area" information in the General Notes
on the Cover Sheet (Sheet IA). Please also correct any density calculations that may change based on revisions to
the project area acreage. First submittal: Comment addressed. Only TMP 07800-00-00-020M6 is included in
the acreage.
4. [Z.O. Section 32.5.2(a)]: Please identify Tax Map/Parcel #78-20M5 on the Overall Layout Sheet (Sheet 3) and include
a note identifying it as Open Space reserved for future dedication to the County for public use. First submittal:
Comment addressed.
[Z.O. Section 32.5.2(i), 0), (k), (1)]: Please ensure all existing and all proposed public and private easements are
shown and labeled. First submittal: Comment not fully addressed. There is a conservation easement recorded in DB
2544, pages 243-251 that appears to now be located within both TMP 78-20M5 and 78-20M6. Please show this
easement on the plans. Per the restrictions in the recorded instrument, limited activities may occur within that
easement. Please provide a written response verifying that the applicant and owner have researched this and that the
proposed site development complies with the restrictive covenants. Refer to DB 2607 PG 572-575 for other easements
to which the nronertv may be subiect and show those easements that are located within TMP 78-20M6. 2"d submittal:
Comment addressed.
6. [Z.O. Section 32.5.2(i), 0), (k), (1)1: Please ensure Deed Book/Page references are included for existing easements.
First submittal: See comment #5, add DB/page references for existing easements. 2"d submittal: Two easement
plats, SUB202000089 and SUB202000115, are currently under review and will create new easements associated
with the project. These must be approved and recorded prior to final site plan approval. Once these easements
are recorded, update all applicable drawings as necessary so easement labels state "existing" and state the
recorded instrument number.
7. [Z.O. Sections 32.5.2(a), (b), (n), and (s)]: Please ensure that all portions of the subject property are included on each
applicable Sheet. Staff acknowledges the Match lines on Sheets 2 and 3 (shown at a scale of 1' = 50'). However, other
sheets (shown at a scale of 1" = 30') do not include all portions of the subject property; for example, the Layout Plan
(Sheets 4 and 5), the Utility Plan (Sheets 6 and 7), and the Grading & Drainage Plan (Sheets 8 and 9) exclude the
northwestern and southwestern portions of the property. First submittal: Comment addressed.
8. [Z.O. Sections 32.7.2.3 and 4.12.61: (Advisory Review Comment) — Based on the proposed number and types of
units, a minimum of 425 parking spaces are required. Staff acknowledges that the "Parking Required" and "Parking
Provided" sections of the "General Notes" on the Cover Sheet (Sheet IA) indicate that 426 spaces are provided,
including 406 surface parking spaces and 20 garage spaces. Staff further acknowledges that 14 parking spaces appear
to provide universal access towards meeting ADA requirements. First submittal: See comment #1 under the "New
Comments Final Site Plan" section below.
9. [Z.O. Section 32.7.2.31: (Advisory Review Comment) — Staff acknowledges that a 5' wide concrete sidewalk is
proposed in multiple locations throughout the development, including along Peter Jefferson Parkway between the
(proposed) eastern entrance and the northwestern property boundary, in order to establish a safe and convenient
pedestrian connection to adjoining properties and adjacent employment centers. Please note that this connection must
be designed and constructed to the standards established in the Albemarle County Design Standards Manual, provided
that all ramps for persons with mobility impairments shall be designed and constructed to the standards of VDOT. First
submittal: Comment addressed pending confirmation from Engineering Division staff. 2nd submittal: Comment
addressed.
10. [Z.O. Section 32.7.2.31: (Advisory Review Comment) — Staff acknowledges that a direct "pedestrian walkway" or
pedestrian connection is proposed across Peter Jefferson Parkway, in order to enable safe, convenient pedestrian access
between the subject property and the Martha Jefferson Hospital property. Please note that this connection must be
designed and constructed to the standards established in the Albemarle County Design Standards Manual, provided
that all ramps for persons with mobility impairments shall be designed and constructed to the standards of VDOT.
Please also note that this proposed "pedestrian walkway" or pedestrian connection is subject to VDOT acceptance of a
"justification report" as outlined in previous review comments provided by Mr. Adam Moore, PE (dated 5/16/2018).
Community Development staff remain available to assist with the coordination of this "pedestrian walkway" at an
unsignalized location. And CDD staff strongly support this proposed pedestrian crossing at an unsignalized location in
order to: a.) proactively address the likelihood of frequent pedestrian crossings of Peter Jefferson Parkway at a location
that would otherwise be unprotected and unsafe, and b.) to facilitate safe, convenient pedestrian mobility between
places of residence and a major place of employment.
More specifically, it can be reasonably anticipated that a relatively large number of pedestrian trips will occur on a
daily basis between the two hundred fifty (250) dwelling units and Martha Jefferson Hospital. Even factoring in the
provision of a new sidewalk along Peter Jefferson Parkway (as required pursuant to Zoning Ordinance §32.7.2.3, and
as acknowledged above in Planner review comment #9), if no such pedestrian walkway is provided across Peter
Jefferson Parkway then residents of the proposed apartment complex who want to walk from the apartments to the
hospital would have to choose to walk approximately 3,000 linear feet on sidewalks, crosswalks, and walking paths in
order to safely access the hospital — and would have to choose not to exit the development, cross Peter Jefferson
Parkway (without any safe pedestrian infrastructure), and access the hospital via a much more direct route that is
approximately 550 linear feet in length. A diagrammatic exhibit illustrating this issue is provided with this SRC review
comment letter packet for reference. First submittal: Comment addressed, see VDOT comment letter.
11. [Z.O. Sections 32.7.2.3 and 25A.5] : Staff acknowledges the provision of safe, convenient on -site pedestrian
connections in many locations throughout this proposed development. However, staff have identified strategically
important locations where additional safe and convenient on -site pedestrian connections are necessary. These
connections must be designed and constructed to the standards established in the Albemarle County Design
Standards Manual, provided that all ramps for persons with mobility impairments shall be designed and constructed
to the standards of VDOT. Specifically, such safe, convenient pedestrian connections are required in the following
general locations, as described below (listed a-d) and as conceptually shown below (in pink):
E:
X
AR I IA41TC
!Y
a) Between the Clubhouse and Building #1; First submittal: Comment addressed.
b) Between the Clubhouse and Building #2; First submittal: Comment addressed.
c) Between Building #3 and Building #2; First submittal: Comment addressed.
d) Between Building #3 and Building #4. First submittal: Comment addressed.
12. [Z.O. Section 32.5.2(b)]: Please revise the sub -heading for the "Critical Slopes" section within the General Notes on
the Cover Sheet (Sheet IA) to "Steep Slopes Overlay District." Technically, there are no "Critical Slopes" within the
Development Area; and Steep Slopes are technically an overlay zoning district. First submittal: Comment
addressed_
13. [Z.O. Section 32.5.2(n)]: Show the proposed location(s) of outdoor trash containers. Staff acknowledges that the
"Trash Receptacles" section within the General Notes on the Cover Sheet (Sheet IA) references the proposed provision
of a dumpster and trash compacter. Please also provide additional waste and recycling containers in the developed
recreation areas and within other areas of the proposed development and show these on the final site plan. First
submittal: Comment not fully addressed. As shown on the plans, the concrete pad at the trash receptacle area does not
extend at least 8' beyond the front of the dumpster, as required under Section 4.12.19 (b). Please draw a concrete pad
extending at least 8' beyond the front of the dumpster on all applicable sheets. Additionally, no screening details have
been provided, as required by Section 32.7.9.7 (a)(3). Please either provide landscaping or a constructed screen around
the trash receptacle area. If a wall or fence will be provided, please provide a cut sheet detail of the fence/wall in
compliance with all requirements of 32.7.9.7 (e). 2nd submittal: Comment partially addressed. If a cut -sheet will
not be provided per applicant's comment response letter due to HUD submittal requirements, update the
callouts for the dumpster pad and enclosure on Sheets 3 and 5 so that it states "brick enclosure shall be at least
6' in height."
14. [Z.O. Section 32.5.2(n)]: Show the proposed location(s) of outdoor lighting. Staff acknowledge that the "Lighting"
section within the General Notes on the Cover Sheet (Sheet IA) indicates that "Parking lot and building lighting is
included with this final site plan." However, no such lighting information appears to be provided. Please note that a
Lighting Plan that demonstrates compliance with Z.O. Sections 32.6.21 and 4.17 is required with the Final Site Plan
application. First submittal: See comment #2 under the "New Comments Final Site Plan" section below.
Additionally, because the subject property is within the Entrance Corridor Overlay District, this proposed project
(including the Lighting Plan) is subject to review by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and ARB staff, and
approval/issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness by the ARB is required. Staff acknowledges that application
ARB-2019-00145 was submitted for review on 11/25/2019, and was then deferred indefinitely by the applicant(s) on
12/30/2019. First submittal: See comment #2 under the "New Comments Final Site Plan" section below.
4
15. [Z.O. Section 32.5.2(p)]: Staff acknowledges the Landscape Plan sheets (Sheets 12, 13, and 14).Because the subject
property is within the Entrance Corridor Overlay District, this proposed project (including the Landscape Plan) is
subject to review by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and ARB staff, and approval/issuance of a Certificate of
Appropriateness by the ARB is required. Staff acknowledges that application ARB-2019-00145 was submitted for
review on 11/25/2019, and was then deferred indefinitely by the applicant(s) on 12/30/2019. First submittal: See ARB
comments below. Once the ARB has issued a COA, this comment will be addressed. The plan is tentatively scheduled
to go to the ARB in May. 2"d submittal: Comment addressed. ARB has approved the site plan, see ARB
comments below.
16. [Z.O. Sections 32.5.2(n) and 4.161: The proposed development does not contain all of the required developed
recreation areas and minimum facilities. Specifically, Z.O. 4.16.2 ("Minimum Facilities") requires the following:
a. Z.O. 4.16.2.1: One (1) tot lot (2,000 SF minimum) shall be provided for the first thirty (30) units and for each
additional fifty (50) units. First submittal: Comment was informational.
b. As applied to SDP201900075: (250 units = Five (5) tot lots / minimum 10,000 SF total; see 4.16.2.1 for full
details of this requirement). First submittal: Comment was informational.
c. Z.O. 4.16.2.2: One-half (1/2) court for basketball shall be provided for each one hundred (100) units. First
submittal: Comment was informational.
d. As applied to SDP201800018: (250 units = Two (2) half -courts or one (1) full -court; see 4.16.2.2 for full
details of this requirement). First submittal: Comment was informational.
However, pursuant to Z.O.4.16, the planning director has some discretionary authority to consider proposed
substitutions for the facilities that are required by this section of the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed provision of
"trails/walking paths" which "shall be available for public use to access the Rivanna River trails" in lieu of some of the
minimum required facilities would likely be partially acceptable and partially unacceptable. Please revise as follows:
A. Provide the correct calculations (SF) of the required recreation facilities (info summarized above) by revising
the "Recreation" section within the "General Notes" on the Cover Sheet (Sheet IA). First submittal:
Comment addressed.
B. Clarify the proposed recreation facilities; the General Notes on the Cover Sheet (Sheet IA) indicate that the
proposed total area for recreation would be 51,200 SF (in the "Recreation" section), but the General Notes also
indicate that the recreational areas equal 0.83 acres (in the "Land Area" section). First submittal: Comment
addressed.
C. Provide a recreation facilities proposal for review by the Planning Director and Chief of Planning that includes
the calculations requested in comments #14-A, and which describes any and all requested substitutions from
the required minimum facilities (such as trails/walking paths, clubhouse and pool, dog park, etc.) with
supporting explanations/rationale. First submittal: The plan has been updated to show the proposed
recreational substitutions. However, a formal written request letter must be submitted so that it can be
forwarded to the Planning Director for review. Include the require recreation calculations, and provide the
proposed recreation area calculations and a description of the facilities themselves (for example, indicate what,
if any, improvements will be provided within the beer garden and courtyards. Explain whether any fitness
equipment or exercise areas are included in the 14,000 sq. ft. clubhouse). Also, is the 9,600 sq. ft. area figure
of the walking trail the area within the dashed lines, as shown on Sheets 3 & 5? Is the dashed line supposed to
represent an access easement? 2nd submittal: Formal substitution request has been received. The proposed
substitutions meet the minimum area requirements of Section 18-4.16.1. However, additional details are
needed regarding how the proposed substitutions are equivalent to the minimum facilities specified by
Section 18-4.16.2. Please provide additional clarification about the types of facilities/equipment that are
proposed in the 12,650 sg.ft. active recreation courtyard. Is this area lust going to be grassed?
Per Section 18-4.16.2.1, substitution requests can be approved provided that proposed equipment and
facilities "are appropriate to the needs of the occupants." Based on the description of the recreational
areas in the substitution request, it appears that no tot lot equipment is provided at all, as required by
Section 4.16.2.1. Since multifamily dwelling residents typically include younger children, staff can
support the substitution request if the minimum facilities required for one (1) tot lot are provided on the
site plan. Please provide a response and update the substitution request/site plan as necessary. Staff
suggests converting the proposed beer garden into a tot lot that contains the facilities as described in
Section 18-4.16.2.1. Cut -sheets of playground equipment will need to be provided on the construction
detail sheets.
D. Please review the proposed locations, alignments, material specifications, and "Classification" of the "proposed
primitive trail way," and any other proposed or potential trail or park infrastructure, in collaboration with Mr.
Dan Mahon in the Albemarle County Parks & Recreation Department (ACPR). First submittal: A callout on
Sheet 5 states that there is a gate on the path and to refer to the detail on Sheet 10. No gate detail is provided on
Sheet 10. Please verify whether a gate is proposed, and the purpose for the gate. 2"d submittal: Gate has been
removed from Sheet 5, comment addressed.
As stated in comment # 1 above, staff is requesting revisions to the proposed public access. If the 5' sidewalk on
the east side of the western travel way will be converted to a 10' wide Class A asphalt path throughout the site up
to Peter Jefferson Parkway, this comment will be addressed. If the applicant chooses one of the other options
mentioned in comment #1, staff will review this on a future submittal to verify whether it provides reasonable
access. 2"d submittal: Public access proposal has been revised since first submittal after conversations
between the applicant and Parks & Recreation staff. Applicant proposes to reserve land on TMPs 78-
20M1 and 78-20M5 for future dedication to public use so that a trail system can be built by the County in
the future to enable access to the existing greenway, per ZMA2001-15.
Please provide a variable width public access and use easement (explicitly for public bike/ped use) over an
internal travelwav and sidewalk on the Presidio property (TMP #78-20M6). Such an easement will ensure
that members of the public will have reasonable access between the Peter Jefferson Parkway public right
of way and the Rivanna Greenway property owned by the County, prior to County construction of a
shared use path (or other type of recreational connection) within the Presidio Special Lot (TMP #78-
20M5). Specifically, in order to ensure that the proposed development "will provide reasonable provisions
for access to the Greenway System" concurrent with the commencement of the proposed use(s). See Parks
& Rec. comment for description of requested easement locations inside of the Presidio site.
Furthermore, please revise the callout on Sheet 13 for the trail. It states that it will be gravel. 2"d submittal:
Comment addressed, labels have been updated to state that the trail will be a 10' Class -A Type 1 low
maintenance asphalt trail.
17. [Z.O. Sections 32.5.2(b) and 32.5.2(i)]: In consideration of this subject property's strategic location relative to the
Rivanna River, the Old Mills Trail, and the County's Rivanna Greenway and Blueway System, and following the
extensive coordination between the applicant team and County staff in 2019, CDD-Planning staff believe additional
coordination with Mr. Dan Mahon in ACPR is necessary. The purpose of this additional coordination would be to
revisit the previous collaborative efforts related to park planning and trail planning efforts, and to review and
(potentially) refine the proposed public access and publicly -accessible amenities that are shown and annotated on this
site plan.
a. Please note that ACPR staff have provided written review comments (dated 1/17/2020), which are attached to
this comment letter. Please also note that Mr. Mahon intends to attend the 1/23 SRC meeting to represent
ACPR and discuss these issues with the applicant team in person. First submittal: If the 10' wide Class A
asphalt path is provided through the site and a new public access easement is provided over the path on both
TMPs 07800-00-00-020M1 and 07800-00-00-020M6 as mentioned in comment #1, comment #16, this
comment will be addressed. Otherwise, staff from CDD and Parks & Recreation will need to revisit this with
the applicant to ensure that reasonable access is provided, per proffer #4 of ZMA2001-15.2nd submittal:
Public access proposal has been revised since first submittal after conversations between the applicant
and Parks & Recreation staff. Applicant proposes to reserve land on TMPs 78-20M1 and 78-20M5 for
future dedication to public use so that a trail system can be built by the County in the future to enable
access to the existing greenway, per ZMA2001-15.
Please provide a variable width public access and use easement (explicitly for public bike/ped use) over
the travelwav and sidewalk on the Presidio property (TMP #78-20M6). Such an easement will ensure
that members of the public will have reasonable access between the Peter Jefferson Parkway public
right of way and the Rivanna Greenway property owned by the County, prior to County construction of
a shared use path (or other type of recreational connection) within the Presidio Special Lot (TMP #78-
20M5). Specifically, in order to ensure that the proposed development "will provide reasonable
provisions for access to the Greenway System" concurrent with the commencement of the proposed
6
use(s). See Parks & Rec. comment for description of requested easement locations inside of the Presidio
site.
18. [Advisory / For Future Reference] : Please note that the following approvals will be required prior to County
approval (as may be applicable) of a final site plan for this proposed project:
a. [Z.O. Sections 32.4.2.2 and 32.4.3.31: Architectural Review Board Certificate of Appropriateness / ARB-
2019-00145. First submittal: See ARB comments below. Once the ARB has issued a COA, this comment will
be addressed. The plan is tentatively scheduled to go to the ARB in May. 2nd submittal: Comment
addrecced_
b. [Z.O. Section 32.7.4.1(a)]: Water Protection Ordinance Plan (and corresponding legal documents) / WPO-
2018-00027. First Submittal: WP0201800027 is still under review. 2nd submittal: Comment addressed,
WP0201800027 has been approved.
c. [Z.O. Sections 32.7.4.2 and 32.7.5.31: Easement Plat(s) (and corresponding legal documents) / SUB-2019-
00084 and SUB-2019-00118. First Submittal: See comment #3 under the "New Comments Final Site Plan"
section below. 2nd submittal: Per previous comments, once the easement plats, SUB202000089 and
SUB202000115 are approved and recorded, update all blank labels so they state recorded instrument
number.
Furthermore, once the BLA/Mecial lot plat. SUB202000016, for TMP 07800-00-00-020M5 is approved
and recorded, update the parcel label so it states the correct acreage and recorded instrument for that
Property on all applicable sheets.
d. [Z.O. Section 32.7.1.1]: Special Lot Plat / Note: Staff acknowledges approval and recordation of Special Lot
Plat SUB-2019-00034. First Submittal: Comment addressed.
e. [Z.O. Section 32.4.3.6(a) and 32.4.3.6(c)]: Tentative approvals (review status of "No Objection") from all
applicable SRC members for final site plan. First submittal: See comments from other reviewers below. This
comment will be addressed once all SRC members confirm that outstanding comments have been addressed.
2nd submittal: Comment stands
New Comments Final Site Plan
[32.7.2.3 and 4.12.6] Please make the following revisions related to parking:
a. On Sheets 3 & 5, please draw the missing 13t' parking space in the row of parking in front of Building #5.
2nd submittal: Comment addressed.
b. On Sheet 5, there is a row of parking that totals 14 spaces in front of Building #5, but the callout states 15.
Please revise the callout. 2nd submittal: Comment addressed.
c. On Sheets 4 & 5, there is a row of parking in front of Building #4 that totals 16 parking spaces, but the
callout states 18. Please revise the callout. Be aware that the northernmost space in this row does not meet
the minimum 9' x 18' requirement and cannot be counted toward meeting required parking unless its
dimensions are revised. This does not appear to be an issue, because it appears that space was not counted
based on staff accounting of all parking proposed. 2n1 submittal: Comment addressed.
d. Revise the amount of handicap parking spaces provided in the note on Sheet 1. The plan shows 14
handicap spaces provided, not 12 as currently stated. 2nd submittal: Comment addressed.
2. [32.7.8 and 4.17] The Lighting Plan on Sheet 26 must be revised to comply with all application regulations
contained in Section 4.17. Please address the following:
a. 14.17.4 (b)(1)] Provide a photometric plan that identifies footcandle measurements across the property
and along all property boundaries. Footcandle measurement spillover cannot exceed 0.5 footcandles onto
public roads or adjacent properties zoned RA. Show all proposed light locations and identify different
lamp types with unique symbology. 2nd Submittal: Comment addressed.
b. [4.17] Provide a luminaire schedule identifying outdoor lighting type, manufacture/model number,
quantity proposed, pole height, lumens, wattage, and light loss factor (LLF) used to calculate the
footcandles for each luminaire type. Albemarle County requires lighting plans to use a LLF of 1.0.
Include a legend that identifies the symbology used for each luminaire type on the plan. 2nd submittal:
Comment not fully addressed.
The Luminaire Schedule states that a LLF factor Of 0.950 was used to calculate footcandle
measurements. Albemarle County requires a LLF factor of 1.0 to be used. Revise the schedule so
that it states that the LLF used is 1.0, and revise footcandle measurements as necessary.
The Lumens column in the Luminaire Schedule states "N.A" for each lamp type. Provide the
lumens for each lamp type.
The quantity of luminaire types provided is different in the Site Lighting Fixture Schedule and the
Luminaire Schedule. Pleas revise so that the accurate quantity of each luminaire type is stated in
both tables.
c. [4.17.4 (a)] Highlight sections from the manufacturer cut sheets that identify the lumens/wattage emitted,
and confirm that each outdoor luminaire will be equipped with a full -cutoff fixture. 2"d submittal:
Comment addressed.
d. Revise the lighting plan as necessary to comply with any ARB requirements. 2"d submittal: Comment
addressed.
3. [32.6.2 (g), 32.7.4.2, and 32.7.5.31 An Application For Easement Plat will need to be submitted, reviewed, approved,
and recorded prior to final site plan approval. The following must be addressed:
a. Once the easement plat is approved, all easement labels on the final site plan will need to be revised so they
state "existing" and state the deed book/page number for the easement plat and any associated deeds of
easement. 2"d submittal: Per applicant comment response letter, all blank easement labels will be revised
to state the recorded instrument number once SUB202000089 and SUB202000115 are approved and
recorded.
Revise the label for TMP 07800-00-00-020M5 so it states the correct acreaLie and instrument number for
TMP 78-20M5 once the BLA/easement plat. SUB202000016. is approved and recorded.
b. As mentioned in comment #1 above, anew public access easement will need to be provided on TMPs 07800-
00-00-020M1 and 07800-00-00-020M6 for the entire length of the 10' Class A asphalt path. The owners both
properties will need to sign the plat prior to County approval. 2"d submittal: Comment addressed.
4. [32.7.9] Please remove the callout for the primitive trail from Sheet 12. It is the County's understanding that this
primitive trail is no longer proposed. 2"d submittal: Comment addressed.
5. [32.7.9] On Sheet 14, please add a column to the Plant Schedule so that is includes the symbology used for each plant
type. 2"d submittal: Comment addressed.
6. [32.7.9.4 (b)] The County of Albemarle Conservation Checklist is provided on Sheet 14. However, the landscaping
plans do not identify the locations, species, and sizes of existing vegetation that will be retained. Please add this
information to the landscaping plans, and provide a table on Sheet 14 identifying the species, sizes, and quantity of each
landscaping material that will be retained. Provided a canopy coverage calculation so that staff can verify the overall
15% tree canopy requirement is being met. See comment #8 below for information on how to obtain canopy coverage
information, or explain the source used to identify the canopy coverage for existing plants if they are larger than the
calipers listed in the Albemarle County Plant Canopy Calculations. 2"d submittal: Comment addressed.
7. 132.7.91 On Sheet 14, please add a column to the Plant Schedule that states the type of landscaping material that each
proposed species is categorized as by the Albemarle County Recommended Plants List (i.e. Large Deciduous Tree,
Ornamental tree, etc.) 2"1 submittal: Comment addressed.
8. [32.7.9] On Sheet 14, please add a column to the Plant Schedule that states the canopy coverage of each landscaping
material proposed per plant, and the overall canopy coverage based on the overall quantities of each species provided.
Individual plant canopy coverage can be found in the Albemarle County Plant Canopy Calculations. 2"d Submittal:
Comment not fullv addressed. The individual canopv figures given for numerous landscanintF species do not
match the Albemarle County Plant Canopy Calculations list. This appears to be because the caliper/sizes of
materials are larger than required. Staff cannot independently verify that the individual canopy (and therefore,
total) canopy figures for those species are correct. Per comment #10 below, please revise the caliper/size at time
of installation to match Ordinance requirements. Please revise the Plant List on Sheet 14 so that the individual
and total canopy coverage for the following species match the list. Species with incorrect canopy figures are
identified below by the acronym stated in the "Symbol" column on the Plant List:
a. Shade trees: AR, BN, GB, LSR, LT, QB, OP, and OS.
b. Understory trees: CD.
c. Screening: IJK, ISH, and PT.
d. Shrubs: IG, IV, IVL, PL, LS.
9. [32.7.9] The landscaping plans on Sheets 12-13 do not show the same quantities of certain plants as specified by the
Plant Schedule on Sheet 14. Staff has identified the following inconsistencies that need to be addressed: 2"d submittal:
Comment addressed.
a. No ISH Satyr Hill Holly plants are shown on Sheets 12-13, but the Plant Schedule says 51 are provided. 2nd
submittal: Comment addressed.
b. No LS Creeping Liriope plants are shown on Sheets 12-13, but the Plant Schedule says 6,532 are provided. 2"d
submittal: Comment addressed.
c. 33 AR October Glory Red Maples are shown on Sheets 12-13, but the Plant Schedule says 37 are provided. 2"d
submittal: Comment addressed.
d. 16 IJK Jersey Knight Holly plants are shown on Sheets 12-13, but the Plant Schedule says 17 are provided. 2"d
submittal: Comment addressed.
e. 32 LSR Rotunidiloba Sweetgums are shown on Sheets 12-13, but the Plant Schedule says 29 are provided. 2nd
submittal: Comment addressed.
f. 34 LT Tulip Poplars are shown on Sheets 12-13, but the Plant Schedule says 43 are provided. 2"d submittal:
Comment addressed.
g. 12 PT Loblolly Pines are shown on Sheets 12-13, but the Plant Schedule says 17 are provided. 2"d submittal:
Comment addressed.
h. 5 NT Nuttall Oaks are shown on Sheets 12-13, but the Plant Schedule says 6 are provided. 2"d submittal:
Comment addressed.
i. 33 QS Shumard Oaks are shown on Sheets 12-13, but the Plant Schedule says 34 are provided. 2"d submittal:
Comment addressed.
10. 132.7.9.51 Large shade trees need to be provided along the entire length of the property frontage along Peter Jefferson
Parkway.
a. [32.7.9.5 (c)] Each tree must be a minimum of 1 1/2 caliper at time of installation. 2"d submittal: The QP trees
being provided along the frontage are proposed to be installed at 2 1/2" caliper. Please revise so that these
trees are installed at a size between 1 1/2 -11/4" per Ordinance requirements. Revise the Plant List on Sheet
14 as necessary.
b. 132.7.9.5 (d)] Trees shall be spaced evenly at 1 tree per 50' of frontage. 2"d submittal: Comment addressed.
c. [32.7.9.5 (e)] Pending ARB review, additional shrubs may need to be located along the property frontage to
screen off-street parking. 2"d submittal: Comment addressed.
11. [32.7.9.81 The overall canopy calculation on Sheet 14 is incorrect. According to the Land Area notes on Sheet 1, there is
8.1 acres of area that the 15% calculation should be based from. This means a canopy coverage of 1.26 acres is required.
Please revise. 2"d submittal: Please note that the canopy figures for certain landscaping species do not match the
Albemarle County Plant Canopy Calculations, as previously mentioned in comment #8 above. Please revise the
Plant List on Sheet 14 so that individual and total canopy coverage for each species is correct. and revise the total
canopy provided figure as necessary.
12. [32.5.2 (b), 25A.6, 21.7, and 4.201 Please revise the setback note on Sheet 1 so that it states all minimum and maximum
setback requirements. No setbacks were established with the proffers/Application Plan of ZMA2001-15. Therefore, the
setbacks for conventional commercial districts apply to this property. See Section 4.20 (a) of the Zoning Ordinance. 2"d
submittal: Comment not fullv addressed. The note does not state all applicable setbacks. Thev are as follows:
a. Front minimum: 10 feet from the right-of-way or the exterior edge of the sidewalk if the sidewalk is outside
of the right-of-way; for off-street parking or loading spaces, 10 feet from any public street right-of-way.
b. Side and rear minimum: Primary structures shall be constructed and separated in accordance with the
current edition of the Building Code.
13. [32.5.2 (b), 25A.6, 21.7, and 4.201 Please revise the stepback note on Sheet 1 so that it states: "Front stepback
(minimum): For each story that begins above 40 feet in height or for each story above the third story, whichever is less,
the minimum stepback shall be 15 feet." 2nd submittal: Special Exception for a stepback waiver for building #3 is
going to the Board on July 15, 2020 for approval. Once approved, please update the note so that it states: front
stepback requirement for northeast facade of building #3 approved by Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
July 15, 2020."
14. [General Comment] It appears that some sheets do not show the full extent of improvements proposed. For example,
proposed landscaping is not visible at the southern portion of the property on Sheet 13. Please amend the drawings so
that all proposed improvements are visible across applicable sheets. 2nd submittal: Comment addressed.
a. The full extent of the proposed 10' Class A path on TMP 07800-00-00-020M1 should be visible on the layout
and grading drawings. 2nd submittal: Comment addressed.
15. [4.7] Per note 1 on Sheet 1, all open space areas inside of the Presidio development are to be privately owned and
maintained. On sheets 15-17, please revise the open space labels so they do not say "to be dedicated." This implies they
will be dedicated to Albemarle County for public use.
a. On applicable drawings, revise the label for TMP 78-20M5 so that it states it is open space reserved for dedication
to Albemarle County. Once SUB202000016 and the other BLA plat mentioned in comment #1 above are
recorded, update the property label so that it states the recorded instrument.
Please contact Cameron Langille at the Department of Community Development at blan ig lle(&albemarle.org or 296-5832
ext. 3432 for further information.
Albemarle County Building Inspections — Michael Dellinger, mdellinger(a)albemarle.org — No objection, see attached.
Albemarle County Engineering Services — John Anderson, ianderson2 a,albemarle.org — Requested changes, see
attached.
Albemarle County Architectural Review Board (ARB) — Margaret Maliszewski, mmaliszewskigalbemarle.org —
Approved, see attached.
Albemarle County E911 Services — Brian Becker, bbecker@albemarle.org — No objection, see attached.
Albemarle County Fire Rescue — Shawn Maddox — smaddoxgalbemarle.org — Review not yet complete, comments or
applicants will be sent to the applicant upon receipt.
Albemarle County Department of Parks & Recreation — Tim Padalino, tpadalinogalbemarle.org — Requested changes,
see attached.
Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) — Richard Nelson, melsonnserviceauthori , .org — ACSA review not yet
complete. Comments or approvals will be forwarded to the applicant upon receipt.
10
Review Comments for SDP202000023 Final Site Development Plan
Project Name: MJH PRESID10 APARTMENTS
Date Completed: Friday, June 05, 2020 DepartmentQvisiorMgency: Review Status:
Reviewer: Michael Dellinger v CDD Inspections .. No Objection Li
Page: 1 County of Albemarle Printed ❑n: 1 a6l25l2020
Phone (434) 296-5832
Project:
Project file number:
Plan preparer:
Owner or rep.
Applicant
Plan received date:
(Rev. 1)
(Rev. 2)
Date of comments:
(Rev. 1)
(Rev. 2)
Reviewer:
Project Coordinator:
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Fax (434) 972-4126
Site Plan review
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
19 Jun 2020 — digital /dropbox
2 May 2020
6 Jun 2020
25 Jun 2020
John Anderson
Cameron Langille
Note: Given review constraints, Engineering welcomes .PDF preview of revised final site plan and related
WP02Q, Qn Preview does not imp!) at this point implies accelerated review ahead
of competing items in review queue/s, if possible. (Rev. 2) Engineering welcomes .PDF preview of Hillis -
Carnes' (HQ revised design of the retaining walls.
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 *riL�h.) 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 explicitly 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 PIP,
inadequate research of suitability of HDPE pipe (permissible to use), and to possible misunderstandings. We regret mistakes.
In one day, CE revised ISP in response to comments. Albemarle commends remarkable response. Engineering has not reviewed
revisions, but revisions address many comments, now shown in light grayscale. (These will be checked with plan re -submittal.)
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 12
* 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.
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 I: SWM Facility easement 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.ore/upload/ima)4es/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) Reeoncile Notes 2 and 7, whioh indicate publio streets (stFeets in the development are
pr-ivate travel,, ays). Withdrawn (Clarification to be added to plans.)
b. (Rev) Revise Note 6: Drainage easements upstfeam of S3A7N4 detention or- Ifeatment facilities
pr-ivate & i - nts, not public. SWN4 facilib, and drainage easements downstream of -a
SAgV f edit o public easements, dedieated t , ublie use. Withdrawn (Clarification to be added
to plans.)
c. (Rev) Provide elevation note for- 164 CL (EBL and WBL), se Note 9 may be evaluated against
design. noon,. GIS , sour-ce of 164 elevation : aeceptable. Withdrawn (ARB purview.)
d. Note: Note 2 stating that site travelways will not meet the standards for acceptance into the
secondary system of state highways may appear to suggest a standard less than VDOT design for
this development. VDOT standards apply to drainage, and to site Travelway A /Appleton Street
pavement (depth) sections, entrance geometry, and FC-FC width, as well as on -street parking
(Appleton Street). Ref. ACDSM and Code 18-32.7.2.2.a., 14-410.(B.,F.,G.,H.,L). 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 5', 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 (1A)
Topo and Survey Note as requested in lead paragraph, p. 1. Please state that `topographic survey
performed in support of design meets state code requirements for surveys.' This was discussed
internally, would seem non -objectionable. The site plan is not a plat, does not carry a LS seal, so we
restate request for this specific language on the final site plan. Also, please provide date/s of recent survey
plats. Recent is non-specific. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
5. Revise sheet index to list demolition plan (sheet), retaining wall design, or any other change to plan index.
6. Sheet 2: Existing site elements will be demolished (Ex. guardrail /asphalt walk /PJP curb, for example).
Provide separate demolition sheet with details of items to be removed (TBR). Please note that Ex. guardrail
•
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 12
deem', ete (sheet 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.'
Sheet 3
7. Label trails.
8 Show dumpsters ifdu pste s are idea a4 eaeh buildin (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.B. (Private streets serving non-residential, non-agricultural, attached residential, multi-
unit residential and combined residential and non-residential uses): `Each private street... shall satisfy
Virginia Department of Transportation standards or an alternative standard deemed adequate by the agent,
upon the recommendation of the county engineer, to be equivalent to or greater than the applicable standard
in the design standards manual, so as to adequately protect the public health, safety or welfare.' ACDSM:
page 19 /mow — standards for private streets in Albemarle County: [ removed w/ FSP comments. ]
(FSP) Addressed. Applicant: `As discussed at the March 51h 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.
13. Show /label internal stop /yield signs at internal intersections (travelways /parking areas) to establish which
thm 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 yield signs.
17. Label site street name/s and stop signs at PIP entrances.
18. Show bumper blocks for parking spaces in front of 5' sidewalks. (FSP) Partially addressed. Asefollow-up:
Several 6' walks appear to need labels; ensure all 6' walks adjacent to 18' L parking spaces are labeled.
(Rev. 1) Addressed.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 4 of 12
19. Revise labels for any proposed wall with wall ht. >30" to proposed wall with handrail. (FSP) Partially
addressed. As follow-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.
20. Show easement access width ever- all tr-avelways. include �t label on sheet 10 tra-velway
details. Enstge sheets 4 and 5, and sheet 10 private tr-avelway details (width, notes, section [asphalt, b as*
are consistent with one another-, and with applicable VD0T- design, including VD0T- road design an
drainage manuals, and VD04: 2019 pavement design guide. (Rev.) Withdrawn. Applicant response:
`Easement width has been provided over Appleton. Easements are not required on the other travelways in
an apartment complex.' Engineering accepts this response.
21. Eliminate CG-2, which does not provide gutter. (Rev) Please see item 14, above. (FSP) Addressed.
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
ollow-u : See item 12, above. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
24. Include re£ 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 Autotum figure (typical passenger vehicle). Eliminate any travel width issues with revised design:
a. 12' R entrance, travelway B onto Moraga Street (N intersection), (FSP) Not addressed. Provide
auto turn at this location (sheet 4). (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. A. (Rev.) Withd
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.' Asefollow-up: There is an issue with Applicant response: Unless Applicant
Engineering Review Comments
Page 5 of 12
can provide contemporaneous meeting notes, Engineering recollection differs. Standard review practice is
outlined in published documents that guide review of virtually all projects. Engineering restates request for
detailed wall designs. Please ref. Final Site Plan checklist for plan reviewers, last item, p. 1 /attached.
Also, Retaining Wall Plan checklist for plan reviewers, attached. Information listed in checklist documents
is required prior to Final Site Plan approval. (Rev. 1, D Partially addressed. As follow-up: A
comprehensive retaining wall design by Hillis -Carnes (HQ 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: (Rev. 2) Comment persists. Applicant response: `Hillis -Carnes' (HQ design of the
retaining walls is being updated to match Collins Engineering's (CE) current plans.' Engineering
appreciates this response.
i. I — I (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 (Rev. 2) Addressed. Applicant: `On sheet 9, immediately below
Moraga Street's station 16+00, retaining wall 4B previously showed an incorrect
TW elevation of 427'. Sheet 9 now correctly lists the top of wall elevation as
426'. Also, the HC design incorrectly listed this wall height's maximum height
as 8' and it will be corrected.'
HC-8 [ Rev. 1 image removed with Rev. 2 comments. ]
HC-9 [ Rev. 1 image removed with Rev. 2 comments. ]
Final Site Plan, sheet 9 (FSP-9): [ Rev. 1 image removed with Rev. 2 comments. ]
2. Note: all five TW/BW labels in image above indicate 7' ht. Compare with Max.
height =6' label. Revise for consistency /per ACDSM, 18-30.7.5, as applicable.
(Rev. 2) Addressed. Applicant: `On sheet 9, the previous CE plans incorrectly
listed a maximum wall height of 6' for Wall Pond A, B, C, D and Wall 4B.
Sheet 9 has been revised, in the middle -right portion of the page, to list a
maximum wall height of 7' in the vicinity of the wet pond for Wall Pond A, B,
C and D. Also, Wall Ponds B, C and D transition to a maximum height of 6'
further to the east. Sheet 9 was updated to label this, as well as to provide
additional transitional spot shots. Additionally, there is a small 5' horizontal
section at the end of Wall Pond A that encroaches into the end of a County
defined steep slopes area. The wall in this 5' horizontal section has a maximum
wall height (2') that is less than the 6' threshold. Sheet 9 has been updated
accordingly. Lastly, in a June 181 phone conversation between Mr. Murray of
CE and Mr. Anderson of County Engineering it was confirmed maximum wall
heights may exceed 6' outside of steep slopes, but walls within steep slopes
must not be greater than 6'. The plans reflect this.'
3. Note: HC-8/-9 and SP-9 elev. differ by —2.5'. Revise for consistency /accuracy.
(Rev. 2) Addressed. Applicant: `Sheet 9, in the middle -right portion of the page
immediately adjacent to the border, previously listed (incorrectly) the maximum
wall height as 7' in this area. The plans have been revised to now read a
Engineering Review Comments
Page 6 of 12
maximum wall height of 6' in this vicinity. Please also see response above to
comment 3 La.'
4.
HC-1 is inconsistent with later HC RW design sheets. Compare for- example,
fur 81 o (above) with ur cover (below), Wall 4B, image
(Note: HC plans appear internally inconsistent and inconsistent with FSP).
HC-cover: [ Rev. 1 image removed with Rev. 2 comments. ] (Rev. 2)
Addressed. Applicant: `Please see response above to comment 3 La.'
5.
FSP-9 Wall 4B TW-BW labels inconsistent with HC-cover. Revise for
accuracy. (Rev. 2) Addressed. Applicant: `Please see response above to
comment 3 La. and 31.b.1. The bottom of Wall 4B remains at elevation 420'
and the wall has a maximum wall height of 6'.'
6.
Transfer HC wall labels to FSP sheets 8, 9. (Rev. 2) Addressed. Applicant:
`Sheets 8 & 9 were updated to label the retaining walls.'
7.
Pond Wall E (Rev. 2) Addressed. Applicant: `Wall Pond E correctly lists the
maximum top of wall elevation as 432' and the bottom of wall elevation as 428'.
Please also see response above to comment 3 La.'
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 (Rev. 2) Addressed. Applicant: `Sheet 8 correctly lists the top of wall
elevation as 408' and the bottom of wall elevation as 402' for the majority of its
run. Sheet 8 was updated and now shows additional spot shots at the beginning
and ending transitional lengths for clarity. The maximum retaining wall height
when in steep slopes is 6', as shown, in accordance with County requirements.
Please also see response above to comment 3 La.'
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 [ Rev. 1 image removed with Rev. 2 comments. ]
HC-10 (TW—406.33; BW— 398.67') — Wall 4D; Note: Wall height —7.66' [ Rev. 1 image removed with
Rev. 2 comments. ]
HC-cover, Wall 4D [ Rev. 1 image removed with Rev. 2 comments. ]
FSP-8 [ Rev. 1 image removed with Rev. 2 comments. ] (Rev. 2) Addressed. Applicant: `In the
aforementioned June 18t' phone conversation, it was determined labeling the beginning wall stations
(0+00) and the end of the walls on Collins Engineering's plans was sufficient to address comment 8.ii since
the timing and completion of CE's plans likely will precede the timing and completion of HC's plans. As
such, sheets 8 and 9 have been revised to add the following labels to each retaining wall: Sta 0+00 and
End. Also, please see response above to comment 3 La.'
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. (Rev. 2) Addressed. Applicant: `Additional spot shots were added to CE's
Engineering Review Comments
Page 7 of 12
plans to provide further clarity. Special attention was also given to the perimeter walls,
where elevations along the walls transition more.'
ii. Retaining wall plans must be internally consistent and accurate. (Rev. 2) Addressed.
Applicant: `(ii and iii) Please see the response above to comment 3 La.'
iii. Retaining wall plans must be consistent with FSP TW/BW 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. (Rev. 2) Addressed. Applicant: `(iv-vii) These comments are
acknowledged. CE has provided additional retaining wall spot shots to provide further
clarity. Please also see the response above to comment 3 La.'
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 ramp on south side of PJP.
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 -wise, CG-2 may
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-313, 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
Engineering Review Comments
Page 8 of 12
safety slabs (SL-1) in any structure taller than 12'.
top or rim elevation for each structure
all invert elevations for each structure (with positive flow drop between inverts).
end sections (ES-1) or endwalls (EW-1) on all pipe outlets. Endwalls for culverts 48" or taller
scour outlet protection at all outlets, corresponding to computations (Green Brook, OP)
Roof leader lines and yard drains are not incidental items with this design; at times they are, but nearly all
(save 2) roof /yard grates lead to parking /road DI -pipe system. Roof -yard systems pass beneath retaining
walls, and there may be conflicts. Engineering has requested Nyloplast profiles on other projects
(Keswick); review proved helpful to design and Applicant. (FSP) Addressed, in this instance. Also,
Applicant response: Item 48, below. See Item 48 for important clarification.
38. Wherever roof /yard drain storm convt _ 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. Revise especially public drainage easement width at north corner of building 6, since depth to pipe trench
floor of this 24" DIA pipe is — 18-ft. No portion of any building may occupy any portion of a drainage
easement.
43. Pipe 77 is in public easement and may not pass beneath 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 IN V elevations requested elsewhere.
47. In parking west of building 4, provide grade `0" " - surface runoff to Str. 20 to ensure p `inage.
48. Label all roof /yard system inlets. Propose grading to ensure surface runoff reaches yard system inlets by
proposing grade or providing spot elevations (grate INV) lower than adjacent grade. (FSP) Applicant
response: `All the roof drains have been labeled on the plans, as requested. The elevation of the tie-in
connections to the storm sewer manhole have been shown on the profiles. Inverts have been added to the
yard drain system. Per the recent engineering's determination of roof drains, profile designs are not
required for roof drains 8" in size or smaller.' As follow-up: Provide recent engineering determination, else
do not rely on this response to request for design information for roof drains or yard inlet /pipe systems.
Reviewer is unaware of this determination. If discussed March 5", 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.'
Engineering Review Comments
Page 9 of 12
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.
52. Revise proposed grading, as needed, to meet VD0T- guardrail shoulder seotion for guardrail. it is dott
VD0T- std. allows 3:1 gr-a e t extend to the edge of PiU (Rev) Withdrawn. Guardrail removed along Peter
Jefferson Parkway need not be removed.
53. Opposite Travelway A, north of PJP, eliminate asphalt walk line -work at entrance to MJH, since path does
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 PJP 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 PJP 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.' Asfollow-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 wall/s labels to include reference to handrail (`with handrail'). Virtually every
retaining wall requires handrail (highest wall).
64. Label preserved steep slopes.
65. Continue driveway access line -work. Indicate limits of project relative to driveway access construction
(i.e., tie to existing gravel road /drive. Avoid downslope conflicts).
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. (Rev. 2) Persists.
Addressed pending review of pending revised HC Engineering revised retaining wall design plans.
Applicant: `Please see the response above to comment 3 La.'
Sheet 10
67. Provide the following, and additional relevant details:
a. GR-2,
b. CG-12,*
c. Roll face curb,
Engineering Review Comments
Page 10 of 12
d. Dumpster pad,
e. Primitive trail,
f. Nyloplast details, (FSP) Comment persists. Please provide Nyloplast ® details. (Rev. 1)
Persists. Also, see item 74, below. (Rev. 2) Addressed. Applicant response: `Sheet 11, in the
middle left portion of the page, shows a standard detail for Nyloplast Drain Basins (yard inlets).
Per note # 1 in the lower left portion of this detail, this design applies to grate inlets ranging from
12"-30" and is applicable to this project. Additionally, sheet 17 was updated to include
`installation requirements for ADS Yard/Roof drain system'. In the June 18" phone conversation,
it was determined adding these notes to sheet 17 for the private/smaller roof and yard drains
exceed the requirements to address this comment.
g. Drive Access section, (FSP) Comment persists. See Driveway Access, lower edge sheet 5. (Rev.
1) Partially addressed. As follow-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.
(Rev. 2) Addressed. Applicant response: `The two asphalt paving details in question, located on
sheet 10 in the center portion of the page, were combined and are no longer redundant. The
consolidated detail now reads `main travelways' and `drive aisles'. The 2"/3"/5" layers are
correctly shown.'
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(l)-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.' Asefollow-up: Please show sight distance lines on
Landscaping Plan, sheet 12. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
70. Avoid landscape canopy species (extensive root systems) - storm system conflicts (Str.# /location), at:
a. Str. #64, 24, 60B, 99; (FSP) Partially addressed. Conflict persists at Str. 64, 6013; 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;
e. remove 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% cannot -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, RC=P pipe is r-equired in all signifieant fill leeations. 14PPE table altefflative
Engineering Review Comments
Page 11 of 12
request meeting wit Engineering to diseuss (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.
[ Rev. 1 image removed with Rev. 2 comments. ]
73. After meeting, revise Note, sheet 17. 14DPE is flpt:a pefmissible substitute for- all RGP dFai
Limitswill apply. 14DPE imperils design sinoe it may defofm, collapse, ., (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 V detail does not indicate stone bedding depth,
compaction, minimum cover requirements, etc. in any detail. (Rev. 2) Withdrawn /review error. Detail
provided but overlooked.
75. Provide HDPE pipe bedding detail. (FSP) Comment persists. Please provide ref. to sheet with this detail.
(Rev. 1) Not addressed. Also, item 74. (Rev. 2) Withdrawn /error. Detail provided but overlooked.
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 '/2" 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'h" steel plate floor. (FSP) Comment persists. For
example: see sheet 17, Str. 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.'
(Rev. 2) Persists. Applicant: `The wall design will take into account all existing and proposed
infrastructure. Please see the response above to comment 31.a.'
80. Specify geotechnical reports of daily inspection of pipe /DI installation operations in fill sections with more
than minimal fill beneath storm elements; i.e., for pipe runs installed over significant fill (Str-24 Str-6,
for example). Propose daily inspection with qualified geotechnical reports to be submitted to Albemarle
County for verification of backfill (% moisture, content /contamination, compaction, dry density, etc.)
(FSP): Comment persists. Please indicate where highlight items (geotechnical specifications /inspection
/reporting Notes) occur on plans. Applicant response: `This comment is acknowledged.' As follow-up:
Engineering requests Notes on sheets 16, 17 (similar to ACSA General Water and Sewer Conditions, sheet
21) that reflect request for highlight information (to appear on plans). (Rev. 1) Addressed.
81. Sheet 19: Ensure Fisher Street profile is smooth, VC at each grade transition. (FSP) Comment appears to
persist; see Sta. 11+70 (f), 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
83. Label all design tables (LD-204, LD-229, etc.). Use VDOT designations /ref. drainage manual.
84. Provide design calculations for Nyloplast roof /yard systems. (FSP) Partially addressed. Asfollow-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 Reeomme a against Nyloplast & system f 0.37 n, D (YD , G) (Rev) A recommendation. (FSP) As
follow-up: See request for capacities of pipes in Table 9 (Item 84). Applicant response: `The nyloplast is
adequate to handle this area.' Additional comments possible, once table revised. (Rev. 1) Asfollow-up:
Please revise structure type, YD-1C, so that all 4 descriptions reference 24". (Rev. 2) Addressed.
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. WPO201800027
Amendment 1 was approved 5 Jun 2020.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 12 of 12
87. New: Orient sheets to landscape (rotate counterclockwise, as needed), to aid review (sheets 5B, 12A, 15,
22, etc.). (Rev. 2) Withdrawn per discussion 18-Jun (telecon).
Please feel free to call if any questions: 434.296-5832 -0069.
Thank you
SDP2020-00023 Martha Jefferson Hospital Presidio Apts-FSP 062520rev2
Review Comments for SDP202000023 Final Site Development Plan
Project Name: MJH PRESIDICAPARTMENTS
Date Completed: Tuesday, June DO, 2020 DepartmentQvisiorMgency: Review Status:
Reviewer: Margaret Maliszewskl v FCDD ARB v Approved Li
Page: 1 County of Albemarle Printed ❑n: 1 a6l25l2020
Review Comments for SDP202000023 Final Site Development Plan
Project Name: MJH PRESIDIO APARTMENTS
Date Completed: Friday, May 29, 2020 DepartmentQvisiorVAgency: Review Status:
Reviewer: Brian Becker v FEDD E911 .. No Objection Li
Page: 1 County of Albemarle Printed ❑n: 1 a6l25l2020
Review Comments for SDP202000023 Final Site Development Plan
Project Name: MJH PRESIDIO APARTMENTS
Date Completed: Friday, June 26, 2020 DepartmentUivisiordAgency: Review Status:
Reviewer:
Tim Padal'ino Parks .. Requested Changes
1. ZMA-2001-00015, Proffer 94: In order to ensure that the proposed Presidio development 'will provide reasonable provisions
for access to the Greenway System,' all the way (complete/continuous connection) between the Peter Jefferson Parkway
public right of way and the Rivanna Greenway property owned by the County, please ensure the following:
A. (Future greenway connection/access): Please complete the dedication of a public access and use easement (or fee simple
dedication or reservation of land for future fee simple dedication upon County demand) involving the Presidia Special Lot (TMP
#78-20M5) plus a portion of the Worrell Land & Development Company property (TMP #78-20M1) in the vicinity of the
County -owned greenway parcel. Such a dedication will enable the County to construct a shared use path (or other type of
recreational connection) within the Presidia Special Lot (TMP #78-20M5) in the future. Based on a virtual meeting with
Community Development staff and applicants on 6f2412020, Parks & Roc staff understands that a forthcoming plat application
and corresponding deed will address and resolve this proffer requirement prior to fulUfinal entitlement of the Presidia
development.
B. (On -street and sidewalk connections/access): Please provide a variable width public access and use easement (explicitly
for public bike/pod use) over one of the proposed travelways and over a portion of the proposed sidewalks on the Presidio
property (TMP 47&-20M6). Such an easement will ensure that members of the public will have reasonable access between the
Peter Jefferson Parkway public right of way and the Rivanna Greenway property owned by the County, prior to County
construction of a shared use path (or other type of recreational connection) within the Presidio Special Lot (TMP 47&-20M5).
Specifically, in order to ensure that the proposed development 'will provide reasonable provisions for access to the Greenway
System' concurrent with the commencement of the proposed use(s), Parks & Rec staff (in coordination with Community
Development staff) have identified the fallowing locations for such an easement:
(i) From the southwestern corner of the property, over the proposed shared use path ("on -site walking trail") near the proposed
stormwater management facility, and continuing up "Arguello Street Private Travelway" and it's corresponding sidewalk to the
Peter Jefferson Parkway public right of way. and
(ii) Over the proposed sidewalk that will be located next to (but outside of) the Peter Jefferson Parkway public right of way;
frarn the northwestern corner of the Presidio property (closest to the State Farm Boulevard intersection) to the proposed
crosswalk across Peter Jefferson Parkway (that will provide access to Martha Jefferson Hospital).
Page: 1 County of Albemarle Printed On: 06129/2020