The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSDP202000004 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2020-09-02� AI ?"h �IRGRTF COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 229024596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 Site Plan review Project: Hampton Inn — Final Site Plan Plan preparer: John Wright, PE, Bolder Engineering / 28 Blackwell Park Lane, Suite 201 Warrenton, VA 20186 [ Iwri�htAbohlerengxom ] Owner or rep.: Michael Sweeney, PT Hotel, LLC, 2000 Ware Bottom Spring Road Chester, VA 23836 [ michael(cshaminhotels.com ] Plan received date: 8 Jan 2020 (Rev. 1) 26 Aug 2020 Date of comments: 14 Feb 2020 (Rev. 1) 2 Sep 2020 Reviewer: John Anderson Project Coordinator: Kevin McCollum / Zoning SDP2020-00004 C-105 1. LS-seal obscures date; please ensure text is easily readable (April 19, 2018). (Rev. 1) Addressed. 2. Ex. 21" RCP to be removed appears in conflict with floor of sediment trap. —Elev. 501' is top of new 24" RCP permanent (and bypass?) storm pipe =floor of ST. Revise sequence or sediment trap design on VSMP /WP0201900047 to provide sufficient cover between floor of ST and crown of 24" RCP, and to preserve integrity of pipe bedding for 24" RCP. Locating RCP directly beneath active sediment trap may compromise pipe bedding unless ST is equipped with impermeable liner. If proposed 24" RCP is not a bypass and will not be installed until the sediment trap is removed, please clarify via plan notes and sequence /narrative. For the moment, proposed 24" RCP permanent storm line appears to be a `bypass' as well that permits the 21" Ex. RCP to be removed. If review error /misunderstanding, please notify. (Engineering intends to issue WP020100047 comments not later than Wed, 19-Feb.) (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant response (8/20/20 letter): `The proposed sediment trap has been revised to remove the conflict with the proposed 24" RCP bypass pipe.' 3. C-201: Note 11 requires slight text edit (references two bypass pipes, a possible error). (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant response: `Note 8 describes that the proposed, re-routed 24" RCP bypass pipe must be installed prior to removal of the existing 21" storm bypass pipe.' C-301 4. Label curb types. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 5. Review STM A-30 label /leader line. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 6. Provide /label handrail at top of uppermost retaining wall. (Rev. 1) Partially addressed. Applicant response: `A note referencing the handrail has been added to Sheet C-301 and handrail details are provided in the wall plan.' Asfollow-ug: Detail is not provided in 8/11/20 Hillis Carnes 10-sheet retaining wall plan (walls 1,2,3,4). Rather, fence detail schematic Anchor T Diamond Pro ®, (detail 134) includes a label stating `Contractor to coordinate with fence contractor to ensure proper diameter depth, spacing, etc. (fence design by others).' All retaining wall safety handrail details are requested as condition of building permit application review for Walls 1, 2, 3, 4, and as condition of site plan approval. This is a design task (Bohler, or Hillis -Carnes). It is not a field -coordinated or incidental construction task. 7. Label CG-12 pedestrian ramp at SW site entrance. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 3 8. C-303: Albemarle defers to VDOT review /approval of Maintenance of Traffic plan. (Rev. 1) Applicant response: 'Acknowledged.' 9. C-304: Note 3. Recommend Bottler Engineering rely on Kimley-Horn Associates design plan elevations (for State Farm Boulevard /South Pantops Drive Sidewalk project, 2016), which are likely more refined and accurate than County GIS. County GIS data layer may not be used as a basis of site plan design. GIS data layers are available to the public for informational purposes on/r (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant response: `Acknowledged. Field surveyed elevations have been used for the design of the entrances along State Farm Blvd.' 10. C-401: Proposed grading north of curb and gutter on the north side of site creates a channel, and concentrates runoff. Provide ditch label, and design ditch at this location. (Rev. 1) Not addressed. Applicant response: `Due to the small drainage area at the reference location, the flow is anticipated to sheet flow without channelizing. The formation of a channel cannot be confirmed at this time due to lack of field surveyed elevations in this location and a note has been added to Sheet C-401 for the contractor to field verify grades.' This is nonresponsive. Engineering reviews proposed grade. Proposed grade forms a channel, once tied to existing contours. A wait -and -see approach neither addresses comment, nor meets design expectations. Verify grades, consider image below (channel created by proposed and existing contours), provide ditch label, and design a ditch at this location. 11 iw t ParJr �.B 6el JJO twos N/r :mu Hrca sc� (UGLY, lNC P 9J6 PG IS] VSr OIrKC .'GWl' PO -.VC "9LG-Gtl-LO-06. —95,6 0, �Il Engineering recommends revise design to divert dumpster enclosure runoff through a curb -cut to exit without detention /treatment to newly graded slopes south of development. Recommend discharging minor runoff (-19' x I I' dumpster enclosure) to ground surface to bypass and protect the SWM system from solids, refuse, debris, trash, grease, etc. that may, with current design, be conveyed into subgrade systems and degrade or impede performance of the detention system. Any obstruction or short-circuiting may be recurrent, persistent, and difficult to address later, yet avoidable at the design stage. (Rev. 1) Withdrawn, recommendation not accepted. Applicant: `Grate Inlet A-60 is anticipated to prevent any debris large enough to generate an obstruction in the SWM system from entering the storm pipes.' C-502 12. Note: Storm lines proposed to convey State Farm Blvd. runoff (source: public RW) across the hotel site require public deed of dedication of easement, and platted public drainage easement. Complete easement Engineering Review Comments Page 3 of 3 plat application at earliest convenience. (Rev. 1) Comment persists. Applicant: `Easement plat shall be submitted under separate cover.' 13. Recommend relocate STM A-20 and STM A-30 labels to more clearly identify structure location. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 14. C503 /Re. 10-yr HGL computations: a. At STM A-59, compare outlet WSE 510.28 with 508.50' crown of pipe b. At STM A-60, compare outlet WSE 510.45 with 509,50' crown of pipe c. At STM A-79, compare outlet WSE 510.28 with 509,25' crown of pipe d. At STM A-80, compare outlet WSE 510.46 with 509,55' crown of pipe Design must ensure flow is open channel regime, not pressurized, unless design provides notes, specifications, labels etc. to ensure watertight fit (fittings_ _askets_ seals_ etc) from pipe subgrade to rim elevations. 10-yr HGL computations table appears 9 flow. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant response: `While the HGLs rise within the structures due to pipe angles generating losses, the pipes are oversized to provide sufficient capacity and it is not anticipated that the pipes would experience pressurized flow.' 15. Show STM A-59 and STM A-79 labels in plan view. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 16. C-902: Provide VDOT IS-1, ST-1, PB-1 details on plan. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 17. New (Rev. 1): Provide runoff capture to ensure HC parking spaces/CG-12 ramps in front of the hotel are clear of ponding, icing, debris accumulation. See blue -circle possible locations for grates /conveyance that would, without additional revision, enhance surface conditions during 10-year or less frequent events. Pipes could connect with STM A-50, A-40. Image below is not a design directive, rather, this comment serves notice that a grading /utility plan that provides inadequate storm conveyance or that presents risk of localized ponding, icing, etc. will not be approved, especially in vicinity of HC-parking spaces /ramps /or guest drop-off areas that are by design high -use entries for elderly, children, HC-challenged guests, etc. Note especially design of guest drop-off loop proposes to concentrate runoff (CG-6) then spill concentrated flow across the loop. This design, which presents persistent risk of icing, debris accumulation, etc. will not be approved. Reliance on side and rear storm inlets or grates appears to overlook relative locations, practical concerns, and pedestrian use typical of hotel lobbies. [ Proposed DI located along southwest edge of site (also circled) may be sized for upgradient runoff, but additional catchment is required. Revise C-401, C-502.1 Please feel free to call if any questions: 434.296-5832 -x3069 Thank you SDP2020-00004 Hampton Hotel ESP 090220_revI