HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP202000023 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2020-07-23� AI
?"h
�IRGINrP
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 229024596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
Project:
Project file number:
Plan preparer:
Owner or rep.:
Applicant:
Plan received date:
(Rev. 1)
(Rev. 2)
(Rev. 3)
Date of comments:
(Rev. 1)
(Rev. 2)
(Rev. 3)
Reviewer:
Project Coordinator:
Site Plan review
Martha Jefferson Hospital Presidio Apartments - FSP
SDP2020-00023
Scott Collins; Collins Engineering [200 Garrett St., Suite K, Charlottesville, VA
22902, scott(a)collins-engineering.coml
Presidio Pantops LLC / 455 Second St. SE 5t' Floor
Charlottesville, VA 22902 [ alanAriverbenddev.com ]
Castle Development Partners LLC / 230 Court Square, Suite 202
Charlottesville, VA 22902
19 Mar 2020
26 May 2020
19 Jun 2020 — digital /dropbox
17 Jul 2020 (retaining wall design); Rev. FSP
2 May 2020
6 Jun 2020
25 Jun 2020
23 Jul 2020 —Note: Need complete FSP to complete review
John Anderson
Cameron Langille
Note: Given review constraints, Engineering welcomes .PDF preview of revised final site plan and
AP9201800027. Previewimply at this point implies accelerated review erpfieFity Feview ahead
of competing items in review queue/s, if possible. (Rev. 2) Engineering welcomes .PDF preview of Hillis -
Carnes' (HC) revised design of the retaining walls. (Rev. 3) Engineering requests link to complete 7/23/20
FSP, and requests that the current FSP display actual revision date, which may be later than 30-Jun 2020.
SDP202000023 (Also, SDP2019-00075 comments, which are basis of Engineering Final Site Plan review comments.)
PIP — 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 Comments relating to guardrail along PIP, review errors, are withdrawn.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 StFiketliFeag :.) 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/ ."�..,keth.o.'��^ug4), 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.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 12
In one day, CE revised ISP in response to comments. Albemarle commends remarkable response. Engineering has not reviewed
revisions, but revisions address many comments, now shown in light grayscale. (These will be checked with plan re -submittal.)
* Comments relating to guardrail (PJP), prompted by safety concerns, are withdrawn. Request for guardrail along the entire west
side of Appleton Street (design relies on retaining walls and slopes steeper than 3:1 above unrecoverable slopes), addressed.
Sheet 1-A
1. Recommend revise site plan title to include SDP201900075, Initial Site Plan (FSP) As ollow-up:
Recommend include SDP202000023 in final site plan, plan title. (Rev. 1) Addressed,
2. Revise SWM Note to include ref. to WPO201800027. Note 1: 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.orgJupload/images/forms center/departments/commmity development/fomrs/design standards
_manual/Albemarle County Desum Standards Manual 2015-04-25 draft.pddf)
3. Revise Additional Notes:
a. (Rev) R.eeenp. le, Notes � alnd 7, which indivate public stFeets (streets in the ievelopment aw
rywat ys). Withdrawn (Clarification to be added to plans.)
b. (Rev) Revise Note 6i Drainage easements upstwafn of SIVA14 delention OF tFealment facil t eq Are
S PA ` e:".. l--__ubli. easemeRts, ded, acedfe _ublie use Withdrawn (Clarification to be added
to plans.)
c. (Rev) n_....:de el..Vafi.-....efe f _ , 64 C (EBL and \SIB, ) se A ete 9 may 1.. eyaltiat.d ....,.inst
design Geta4 . Gig ..s set._,.e a f1 64 elevation is ,.,.,.,.. table. 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., 14-4I0.(B.,F.,G.,H.,L). Also, Final Site
Plan checklist for plan reviewers, p. 2, Entrances. Also, 14-412.B. (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.' Asfollow-uj2: 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 .li.,. c. .....,_d_.,a
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 12
Please Feview geafelfail design with eafe. Pfavide GR 2 detail, ifilpaef aReflHatiOR (Stftiettffal gUafElfail)
detail, 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_ Lahel trails
8. Show dthmpste_. ifa.....pste_s aFe .._..yided at each building. (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 18412.15.d. For example Appleton St_ and Moraga St.; Appleton and parking
ar ind I; Travelway A an(' ppleton and Fisher Street.
10. Evaluate all parking spaces in parking areas for adequate corner clearance with Appleton Street, Ref. Final
Site Plan checklist for plan reviewers, p. 3, second item. (Rev) Ref. 18-32.7.2.2: `... Each private street
and travelway within a development shall be designed and constructed to the standards for private streets in
chapter 14.' 14-412.13. (Private streets serving non-residential, non-agricultural, attached residential, multi-
unit residential and combined residential and non-residential uses): `Each private street... shall satisfy
Virginia Department of Transportation standards or an alternative standard deemed adequate by the agent,
upon the recommendation of the county engineer, to be equivalent to or greater than the applicable standard
in the design standards manual, so as to adequately protect the public health, safety or welfare.' ACDSM:
page 19 / — standards for private streets in Albemarle County: [ removed w/ FSP comments. ]
(FSP) Addressed. Applicant: `As discussed at the March 5" meeting, the parking lot entrances from the
main travelways have been updated and reflect the requested turning radii. The location of the parking
spaces in conjunction with the intersections have been updated to ensure adequate clearances. The auto turn
has also been shown on the plans. In addition, only the requirements of [Ch.] 18 apply to the development
and not the requirements from Section 14, which is the subdivision of land. Because no land is being
subdivided, there are no private streets, only private travelways.'
I I _ Do not show existing Ceatures TBR, existing trail /walk along PJP, 6or example_ This comment applies to
a// 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
thru movement has precedence /right-of-way. Applies to plan sheets 4 and 5, as well.
Sheets 4, 5
14. Provide CG-12 wherever asphalt travelway or parking surface runoff is concentrated /conveyed to a storm
inlet. Design must provide curb and gutter (18-4.12.15.g). Note recent review comment for 2415 Ivy Road
Redevelopment. Waiver, if requested, will likely be disapproved. Ref. 2415 Ivy Road Redevelopment
waiver request. Storm conveyance is a priority. Gutter is required by county code, and runoff in parking
areas with grade z5% is concentrated. (Note: It appears all inlet capacity and spread calculations include
gutter cross -slope, so gutter is assumed in design calculations.) (Rev). Applicant response (1/23/20): `We
will provide CG-6 on the curbs that channel water to a drainage structure, but the remaining curb will all be
CG-2. This is consistent with the design manual.' Engineering accepts this response. (FSP) Addressed.
15. Eliminate CG-2 at CG-12 ramps. (Rev) Please see item 12, above. (FSP) Withdrawn,
16. Provide and label stop and yield signs.
17. Label site street name/s and stop signs at PJP entrances.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 4 of 12
18. Show bumper blocks for parking spaces in front of 5' sidewalks. (FSP) Partially addressed. As ollow-up:
Several 6' walks appear to need labels, ensure all 6' walks adjacent to 18' L parking spaces are labeled.
(Rev. 1) Addressed.
19. Revise labels for any proposed wall with wall ht. >30" to proposed wall with handrail. (FSP) Partially
addressed. As follow-uo: 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.
delai1q. Pnqiffe sheets 4 and 5, and sheet 10 pi:waw 4avelway jetails (width, notes, seetion [asphalt, basel)
are Pens slent v., th one anotheF, andwith applivable V140T design, including V140T read design and
dFai age ...,.nual. and V140T 2018 pavemen4 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 rc�,.
23. Align detectable surface with direction of pedestrian travel. Provide radial detectable surface detail on this
plan view sheet, and provide detail on sheet 10, as requested elsewhere. (FSP) Partially addressed. As
follow—up: See item 12, above. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
24. Include ref. to sheet 10 detail for proposed 5' trailway. Sheet 10 includes 5' asphalt pedestrian trail detail,
and Class A — Type 1 low maintenance pedestrian pathway detail (both w/ asphalt surfaces), but does not
include detail that corresponds with proposed 5' primitive trailway. Note: sheet 4 identifies the same
pedestrian facility as both a 5' trailway and a primitive trailway, which differ. Please revise for clarity.
25. Revise 16' L parking spaces fronting 6' walkway width, design is impermissible. Ref. ACDSM, Sec. 7.c.6.
(18' L fronting 6' sidewalk is acceptable).
26. Provide 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. Tom in at 6' R entrance, Appleton into parking areas S of building 1, and 5, (FSP) Addressed.
c. Rt. Tom in at 12' R entrance, Appleton onto Fisher Street, (FSP) Addressed.
d. Ensure entrance radii are 12.5', minimum, (FSP) Addressed. Minimum design radius =12'.
e. Revise any entrance into any parking area or internal travelway that does not meet 14-410.B.
Angle of intersection design requirement, which stipulates angle of intersection be not less than
eighty (80) degrees. See entrance from Appleton into parking area S of building 1, which is —45
degrees. This entrance does not meet min, entrance radii. Autotum may reveal other issues.
(Rev.) Applicant response: `We need to discuss this comment [26.a.-e.] as it seems excessive for a
parking lot design in an apartment complex.' Turning movements are less problematic with right
angle design, but acute turning movements are required with this design, Engineering must ensure
vehicles may pass without collision. Request for Autoturn for turning movements off Appleton
are not within a parking lot, but primary site access and are evaluated against VDOT standards.
Also, item 10, above. (FSP) Partially addressed. Applicant response: `As discussed at the
meeting on March 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-uo: see item 26.a., above. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
27. .
See dise......ion relating to else . heFe. (Rev) Withdrawn.
28. Do not show portions of Ex. trail along PIP 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
Engineering Review Comments
Page 5 of 12
designs will be submitted for a building permit during the building construction aspect of the development.
The site plan will be approved, and the approved site plan will be submitted with the building permit
application and wall designs.' As follow-up: There is an issue with Applicant response: Unless Applicant
can provide contemporaneous meeting notes, Engineering recollection differs. Standard review practice is
outlined in published documents that guide review of virtually all projects. Engineering restates request for
detailed wall designs. Please ref. Final Site Plan checklist for plan reviewers, last item, p. 1 /attached.
Also, Retaining Wall Plan checklist for plan reviewers, attached. Information listed in checklist documents
is required prior to Final Site Plan approval. (Rev. 1,, Partially addressed. As follow-up: A
comprehensive retaining wall design by Hillis -Carnes (HC) Engineering (cover undated /without
professional seal) was submitted. Retaining wall (RW) sheets 2-18 are d. Feb. 7, 2020. Plans include
overall (plan view) index, profile for ea. wall, with stationing, and typical details. Profiles for forty (40)
proposed site retaining walls:
a. Walls: (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. 1A— 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
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-ft [ Rev. 1 image removed with Rev. 2 comments. ]
2. Note: all five TWBW labels in image above indicate 7' ht. Compare with Max.
height =6' label. Revise for consistency /per ACDSM, 18-30.7.5, as applicable.
(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 18' 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
Engineering Review Comments
Page 6 of 12
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
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. C,....paw, r _ o. . ple
s of 14C ei o (above) with 14C ,.oyeF (below) Wall 4B, image belo
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 3 Lb.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 ESP 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 MC-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 31.a.'
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. In.
=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 18"' 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:
Engineering Review Comments
Page 7 of 12
i. Elevation departure between retaining wall design and plans should be negligible for ESP
approval. (Rev. 2) Addressed. Applicant: `Additional spot shots were added to CE's
plans to provide farther 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 in) Please see the response above to comment 3 La.,
iii. Retaining wall plans must be consistent with ESP TWBW design elevation labels, tie-in
grades, etc.
iv. Design includes forty (40) retaining walls, all relevant to site layout, many critical to
parking, buildings, etc. (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, ESP, 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 ESP review may not be immediate.
32. Provide oil -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 curb; otherwise, CG-2 may not endure_
35. In same general location, extend and label GR-2 to protect 6 additional parking spaces which face south (4)
or east (2) located upslope of retaining walls (and not currently afforded guardrail barrier protection).
(Rev.) 3:1 slopes above a retaining wall require guardrail. Albemarle required guardrail for a separate site
plan with flat slope with curb facing a retaining wall in 2019 (Oak Hill Convenience Store). (FSP)
Partially addressed. As follow-up: Please provide VDOT GR-2 (guardrail) for 11 radial parking spaces
shown on sheet 8 (northernmost section of Travelway B parking lot). (Rev. 1) Addressed.
36. Provide drainage (ditch, etc., with adequate velocity dissipation at end of ditch line) for Driveway Access,
Note: Driveway access appears to be Ex. gravel road to be removed (TBR) on sheet 2. Please clarify.
(Rev) It may be easier to discuss, please schedule a meeting. (FSP) Withdrawn. Applicant response: `As
discussed in the meeting on March 5'", the driveway will have a cross slope and will not collect or create [a]
ditch to channel the runoff. The runoff will pass over the roadway, therefore, no ditch or outfall design is
necessary.'
Sheets 6, 7
37. Label all proposed private yard drain inlets. All inlets that appear in calc. tables (sheets 15, 24) must be
labeled in plan view. Also, provide storm profiles for all drainage, including roof leader and yard grate
systems. Display graphically with INV information, each point where Nyloplast roof /yard pipes enter
structures. Show in drainage profiles. Label these storm conveyance elements (sheets 16, 17). Note:
Please see review recommendation or request for design revision relating to allowable storm pipe material
type, or system type, specifically relating to depth of fill (-30' in certain locations), listed elsewhere. (Rev)
Applicant response: `We have never been required to provide profiles for yard drains and roof leaders.
This comment is excessive and needs to be removed. We will provide a drainage schedule for these inlets
and roof leaders, but will not provide profiles.' Please ref Drainage Plan Checklist (p. 1-2)
Drainage profiles: (applicable to site plans, road and drainage plans) [14-311, 18-32]
drainage profiles for each pipe, structure or channel must contain:
existing ground
proposed ground
any channel linings
all utility crossings
a VDOT designation (MH-1, DI-3B, etc.) for each structure
throat length for each drop inlet
grate type for each grate inlet
a label on each structure to correspond with the computations
material and strength class or gage of each pipe
manhole access every 300' for 15"-42" or 800' for 48" or greater
Engineering Review Comments
Page 8 of 12
pipe slopes at 0.5% min. to 16% max. (per VDOT stnds for anchors over 16%)
concrete inlet shaping (IS-1) specified on any structure with a 4' or greater drop
safety slabs (SL-1) in any structure taller than 12'.
top or rim elevation for each structure
all invert elevations for each structure (with positive flow drop between inverts).
end sections (ES-1) or endwalls (EW-1) on all pipe outlets. Endwalls for culverts 48" or taller
scour outlet protection at all outlets, corresponding to computations (Green Brook, OP)
Roof leader lines and yard drains are not incidental items with this design, at times they are, but nearly all
(save 2) roof /yard grates lead to parking /road DI -pipe system. Roof -yard systems pass beneath retaining
walls, and there may be conflicts. Engineering has requested Nyloplast profiles on other projects
(Keswick); review proved helpful to design and Applicant. (FSP) Addressed, in this instance. Also,
Applicant response: Item 48, below. See Item 48 for important clarification.
ial
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 Countv 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 — 18-11. 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 INV elevations requested elsewhere.
47_ In parking west of building 4, provide grade (%) for surface runoff to Str_ 20 to ensure positive drainage_
48. Label all roof /yard system inlets. Propose grading to ensure surface runoff reaches yard system inlets by
proposing grade or providing spot elevations (grate INV) lower than adjacent grade. (FSP) Applicant
response: `All the roof drains have been labeled on the plans, as requested. The elevation of the tie-in
connections to the storm sewer manhole have been shown on the profiles. Inverts have been added to the
yard drain system. Per the recent engineering's determination of roof drains, profile designs are not
required for roof drains 8" in size or smaller.' 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 NyloplastO 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.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 9 of 12
Applicant response: `As discussed in the March 5' meeting, the storm pipe and plastic Nyloplast design is
in accordance with the specifications and requirements.'
50. Show GR-2 along PJP (comment applies to other sheets, as well). Ensure GR-2 end treatments are shown,
and labeled. Provide all relevant VDOT guardrail std. details (sheet 10).(FSP) Withdrawn.
51. Add additional existing contour labels N of PJP. (FSP) Addressed.
52. Revise proposed
vnnT std .,n,... s 3, 1 gFade to extend to the edge of Pill(Rev) Withdrawn. Guardrail removed along Peter
Jefferson Parkway need not be removed.
53. Opposite Travelway A, north of PIP, eliminate asphalt walk line -work at entrance to MJH, since path does
not exist beyond curbed limits of entrance to hospital. (Rev) It may be easier to discuss (during meeting).
(FSP) Withdrawn. Review error.
54. Guardrail is required along the entire west side of Appleton Street, from PIP to entrance to SWM facility
access, given unrecoverable slope beyond curb. Provide /label guardrail.
55. N of building 1, arrows indicate surface runoff, but proposed grading does not match direction of runoff.
Provide grading that ensures runoff from slope between 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 WP0201800027). (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-uj2: please see email to Collins Engineering, 5/2/2020 9:16 AM. (Rev. 1)
Comment NA. VSMP /WPO201800027 Amendment 1 is approved (6/5/20).
61. Relocate proposed UG detention system access out of parking space. Revise WPO via letter to file, and w/
.PDF of plan sheet showing change to the WPO Plan. WPO Plan Amendment is not required for this
change, alone. (FSP) Applicant response, `The underground detention pipes have been deleted from the
plan design and are no longer needed.' As follow- please see email to Collins Engineering, 5/2/2020
9:16 AM. (Rev. 1) Comment NA. UG detention removed from design.
62. Label structure 453 (pipe), and #54 (inlet). (FSP) Not addressed. Comment persists. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
63. Reviseproposed retainingwall/s labels to include reference to handrail (`with handrail ) Virtually every
retaining wall requires handrail (highest wall)_
64. Label preserved steep slopes.
65. Continue driveiray access line -work. Indicate limits olproject 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
walI 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 31.a.'
Sheet 10
67_ Provide the lollowine, and additional rele� ant details
a GR-2_
Engineering Review Comments
Page 10 of 12
b. CG-12,`
c. Roll tare curb,
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 41 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 ollow-up: Confirm driveway access to receive: 2" SM-9.5 surface
course, 3" BM-25 intermediate course, 5" 21-A base course (stone). This may be 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, lot 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, S. Revise typical travelway
sections to show CG-6 rather than CG-2 (18-4.12_ I S.g_).
I. Please ref. VDOT Road Design Manual B(1)-7 Table 1, Min. travel width, parking 1-side.
* Also: CG-12 detectable surface with radial curb. (FSP) Persists at Item 12. As follow-up:
Revise CG-12 in layout views to reflect VDOT Std. for detectable surface in radial curb section.
(Rev. 1) Addressed.
68. Sheet 11: Provide VDOT pipe bedding std. details.
Sheets 12, 13:
69. Show /label intersection sight lines on these plan sheets, all travelway, intersections (18-4.12.15.d). Avoid
landscape/sight line conflicts. (FSP) Partially addressed. Applicant response: `The intersection sight
distances have been shown on the layout sheet and landscaping sheet, as requested. The note about the
pruning of the landscaping has been added to the sheet.' As ollow-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, 60B, resolved at 24.
No structure 88. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
b. relocate /remove 3 canopy trees directly opposite Moraga St. entrance, (FSP) Partially
addressed. Partial conflict persists. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
c. roof /yard system E of building 3 label and W of building 4 label (canopy trees coincident with
Nyloplast proposed pipe location), and N of N comer 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 comer of building,
e. remove trees Isom SWM t'acility 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. L, 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.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 11 of 12
72.
feF Pipes With fliefe than nainiffial eevef. Fill seetiens exeeed 30' in eeF4ain leeatiens. Please feel ffee te
Fequest .need.. with Engi eei:i g to disc , rRev) 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. _RoL-a.
Limits will apply. 14PPE impeFils design since it may defwm, collapse, etc., While RCP will . Rev)
Applicant response: `This comment needs to be removed. This is not accurate and the system is a private
drainage system.' Withdrawn /review error. See item 72.
74. HDPE Note references detail, sheet 17. No HDPE pipe bedding detail is provided on sheet 17, (FSP)
Comment persists. (Rev. 1) Not addressed. Applicant: `Sheet reference updated to Sheet 11, where
bedding detail is located.' Nyloplast ® Inserta-Tee ® detail does not indicate stone bedding depth,
compaction, minimum cover requirements, etc, in any detail. (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 Y:" 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 Y:" 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 (NM, 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 3 La.'
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
ep rsist, 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 PIP. (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. As follow-up:
Table 9, sheet 24, does not appear to provide pipe capacity. Revise table to provide pipe capacity for all
listed drainage pipes. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Ref. sheet 24.
85. Recommendagainst �s s�-oo..oF�m�T). (Rev) A recommendation, (FSP) As
follow-up: See request for capacities of pipes in Table 9 (Item 84). Applicant response: `The nyloplast is
adequate to handle this area.' Additional comments possible, once table revised. (Rev. 1) As follow-up:
Please revise structure type, YD-IC, so that all 4 descriptions reference 24". (Rev. 2) Addressed.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 12 of 12
86. New: Review and respond to ESP- /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.
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-x3069.
Thank you
SDP2020-00023 Martha Jefferson Hospital Presidio Apts-FSP 072320rev3