HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP202000055 Correspondence 2020-10-05ALAN FRANKLIN PE, LLC
427 Cranberry Lane
Crozet, Virginia 22932
(434) 531-5544
alan@alanfranklini)e.com
October 2, 2020
Mr. Andy Reitelbach
Senior Planner
County of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
RE: SDP2020-00055 Old Trail Block 2B Rutherford Hotel -Minor Amendment- 1stSubmittal Rev.
Dear Andy,
Please accept for review and approval the attached revised site plan amendment plans which
address the County's review comments. This letter is intended to accompany the revised plans and
serve as written response to the comment letter dated September 15, 2020.
Planning (Andy Reitelbach)
1. [32.5.2(a)] Provide the application number of this project (SDP2020-00055) in the title on the
cover sheet of the site plan.
Response: Application number added to the cover sheet.
2. [32.5.2(a)] Include all applicable zoning overlay districts to the zoning note on the cover sheet.
The zoning overlay districts for this property include the Entrance Corridor and Steep Slopes -
Managed.
Response: Overlay districts referenced added to the cover sheet.
3. [32.5.2(a)] On sheet 3, under the survey notes, identify the correct zoning district and overlay
districts for this property. The note indicates the master plan land use designation instead of the
zoning district.
Response: Note corrected.
4. [32.5.2(a)] Depict and identify the location(s) of the Managed Steep Slopes on all sheets of the
plan that include graphic representations of the site.
Response: The steep slopes in question are no longer present on site. They were removed as part of
the original Lodge at Old Trail Site Plan SDP2009-00045. Their former location has been identified
on the existing conditions sheet.
5. [32.5.2(a)] Identify the zoning district and the present use of the property in the labels for all the
abutting parcels.
Response: Requested information added for the abutting parcels.
6. [32.5.2(i)] Is there a plan for what will be done with the unused entrance on the northeast side
of the property, beside the entrance to the Lodge at Old Trail?
Response: Since it is does not affect development of this site/plan, there is no plan remove it.
7. [4.12.13(a)] The loading space needs to be adjacent to the structure. Revise its location. Or
submit a request pursuant to 4.12.13(f) for a modification of the location of the loading space,
with justification for why it has been placed where it is depicted.
Response: Please find the attached loading space location modification request letter
8. [4.12.19(b)] Identify the length of the concrete pad that will extend in front of the dumpster
enclosure. It must be at least eight feet beyond the front of the dumpster.
Response: Dimension added to show that the concrete pad in front of the dumpster is at least 8 feet.
9. [4.12.19(c)] Identify what is being used to screen the dumpster, including both landscaping and
fencing/walls. Provide a section of the proposed enclosure wall or fence.
Response: Dumpster enclosure detail added to the plans.
10. [4.12.16] Parking spaces must be at least 18 feet in length. Parking spaces can be 16 feet in
length only if there is a 2-ft. overhang devoid of landscaping (other than grass) or other potential
obstructions, such as light poles. For all spaces that are proposed to be 16 feet in length, depict
this 2-ft. overhang adjacent to the spaces and remove all landscaping and other obstructions,
including light poles. It appears that all spaces along the perimeter of the site are affected by
this issue.
Response: The parking spaces in question are intended to be 16 feet in length with 2-ft overhang so
the 2-ft overhang has been labeled and dimensioned, and cleared of obstructions (shrubs and light
poles).
11. [4.12.16] Identify the width of the parking spaces along the western side of the property.
Response: The parking space width dimension has been added at location requested.
12. [4.17] On the photometric plan, sheet 8, the light loss factor (LLF) must be 1.0. Revise the
luminaire schedule and all applicable calculations, such as footcandles, to reflect an LLF of 1.0.
Response: Photometric plan revised to address comment.
13. [4.17] Clarify the symbolism of the proposed lights on the photometric plan and in the luminaire
schedule. There are two symbols that appear to be exactly the same that identify two different
lights - A3-1 and A5-1. It is unclear where all those lights are located. Only eight new lights are
depicted on the plan; however, the luminaire schedule identifies there as being ten new lights
overall.
Response: Photometric plan revised.
14. [4.17] There are several areas where the footcandles are greater than the maximum allowed of
0.5fc at property lines and spilling onto adjacent parcels and public streets. Revise the locations
of the lights or the lumens (or revise some other way) so that the amount of footcandles does
not rise above 0.5 at the property lines.
Response: Photometric plan revised to address comment.
15. (32.5.2U), 32.5.2(k)] Depict and label all existing and proposed water, sewer, and drainage
easements.
Response: All known easements are shown on the existing conditions plan and then identified on
subsequent sheets. There must not be an easement recorded on the ACSA sewer line adjacent to
Claremont Lane. We have assumed that there is an implied 20' easement there and have not
planted trees in that zone.
16.[32.5.2(1)] Depict and label all other existing and proposed utility easements.
Response: All known easements are shown on the existing conditions plan and then identified on
subsequent sheets.
17. [32.5.2(m)] Show the distance to the centerline of the nearest existing street intersection from
the proposed ingress and egress.
Response: Requested information added to plan sheet.
18. [32.7.9.4(a)] Provide the plant list on the landscaping plan. The trees and shrubs on the plan are
identified with abbreviations. However, there is no table providing their information, including
name, height, canopy, caliper, etc. Staff is not able to review the landscaping plan without a
plant list.
Response: There was a plotting error on the previous plan and the plant list did not print. The
information is no showing on the plan.
19. [32.7.9.7] Provide landscaping along the Claremont Lane side of the property to screen the
parking lot and the dumpster pad.
Response: Landscaping has been added to help screen the parking lot and dumpster as requested.
20. [32.7.9.6] Identify where the 5% required parking lot landscaping is located on the landscape
plan. Demonstrate that this requirement can be met. In addition, the calculated 792 sq.ft. is
shown as being divided by 50 sq.ft. Where is this 50 sq.ft. coming from?
Response: The calculation in question has been corrected and the 5% landscaping area described in
the calculation and identified on the plan.
21. [32.7.9.8] Provide the required tree canopy, including calculations. As a commercial site, the
tree canopy must be at least 10%.
Response: The canopy calculation is part of the table that was missing previously. The problem has
been corrected.
Albemarle County Engineering Services (Emily Cox)
1. WPO plan must be submitted and approved before this plan can be approved.
Response: WPO has been submitted and we are awaiting plan review.
2. Please ensure all trees are at least 5ft from storm pipes.
Response: Storm pipe layout/profile/calculations revised slightly to address this comment.
Albemarle County Building Inspections (Michael Dellinger)
1. Add the following note to the general notes page:
Retaining walls greater than 3 feet in height require a separate building permit. Walls exceeding
4 feet in height require a stamped engineered design also. Walls require inspections as outlined
in the USBC.
Response: Note added to cover sheet.
2. Add the following note to the general notes page:
Accessible parking spaces, access isles, and accessible route shall be installed in accordance
with ICC ANSI A117.1-09 and the 2015 Virginia Construction Code.
Response: Note added to cover sheet.
3. Fire rated construction for the structure may be needed due to property line and construction
type.
Response: Noted. Please see the attached calculation from the architect in regards to construction
type and fire rating.
4. Add the following note to the general notes page:
ALL water lines, sewer lines, and fire lines from the main to the structure MUST have a visual
inspection performed by the building department.
Response: Note added to cover sheet.
5. Add the following note to the general notes page:
Where the flood level rims of plumbing fixtures are below the elevation of the manhole cover of
the next upstream manhole in the public sewer, the fixtures shall be protected by a backwater
valve installed in the building drain, branch of the building drain or horizontal branch serving
such fixtures. Plumbing fixtures having flood level rims above the elevation of the manhole cover
of the next upstream manhole in the public sewer shall not discharge through a backwater
valve.
Response: Note added to cover sheet.
6. Add the following to the general notes page:
All roof drains shall discharge in a manner not to cause a public nuisance and not over
sidewalks.
Response: Note added to cover sheet. Also, please see grading plan that shows proposed roof drain
collection system.
Albemarle County Architectural Review Board (ARB) (Margaret Maliszewski)
No objections at this time; please see the comment below:
This one-story building is not expected to be visible from the Entrance Corridor.
Response: No response required.
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) (Adam Moore)
No objections at this time; please see the attached memo.
Response: No response required.
Albemarle County Fire -Rescue (ACFR) - Shawn Maddox
1. Provide the ISO needed fire flow for the new occupancy type.
Response: Please see the attached calculation from the architect in regards to construction type and
fire rating.
2. A knox box will be required. A note on the plan indicating the requirement and that the location
can be coordinated with the fire marshal's office will suffice.
Response: Note added to the plan sheets as such.
3. Provide a recent ACSA fire flow test showing the available fire flow.
Response: Please see the attached ACSA fire flow test and calculation for estimated fire flow
available at the existing fire hydrant on Golf Drive.
Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) - Richard Nelson
1. Proposed water service and fire line are called out, but not shown.
Response: Printing error corrected so that these utilities show on the plan in addition to the labels.
The fire line has been eliminated and the water service location has been moved.
2. Provide fixture counts to confirm meter size.
Response: Please see the attached fixture count calculation from the architect for water meter
sizing.
Additionally, we have been working directly with ACSA on plan review and approval. These plans
reflect changes made as a result of their input.
Please do not hesitate to call me at (434) 531-5544 or email at alan@alanfranklinoe.com with any
questions or request for additional information that will aid in review of the final site plans.
Sincerely,
Alan Franklin, PE
cc:
John Thier
Attachments:
Loading Space Location Modification Request
ISO fire rating calculations
ACSA Hydrant Test
Available fire flow calculation
Plumbing fixture count
ALAN FRANKLIN PE, LLC
427 Cranberry Lane
Crozet, Virginia 22932
(434) 531-5544
alan@alanfranklini)e.com
September 24, 2020
Mr. Andy Reitelbach
Senior Planner
County of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
RE: SDP2020-00055 Old Trail Block 2B Rutherford Hotel - Minor Amendment Loading Space
Location Modification
Dear Andy,
Pursuant to Section 4.12.13(f), on behalf of the applicant (Turner Enterprises), we would like to
request modification of the requirement that the loading space shown on the site plan amendment
be located adjacent to the structure that it serves.
The proposed site plan amendment for this parcel is for the construction of a one-story office
building that will be divided into three suites to be leased. The building architecture and interior
layouts are designed specifically with primary health care providers in mind, and Turner Enterprises
has already targeted and secured leases with three primary health care tenants for all of the suites.
None of these tenants require long-term loading/unloading of products or equipment as part of
their day to day operations and the proposed building does not include a loading dock. Despite not
anticipating a need for a loading space at all, one has been provided as required by Code. It has
been placed in a location that allows maximization of the building footprint and does not impede
any required parking spaces, pedestrian circulation, or vehicular circulation. Locating the loading
space adjacent to building would have taken space better utilized for patient parking along the front
of the building and pedestrian access/flow would be disrupted across the front of the building due
to the extra depth of the loading space and the desire to keep the site entrances aligned on
Claremont Lane.
It is our opinion that the loading space location as shown on the above referenced site plan
amendment specifically satisfies the requirements of Section 4.12.13(b) of Section 4.12.13-
Loading Areas.
Thank you in advance for your consideration of this request.
Sincerely,
l,- 7A-11L
Alan Franklin, PE
Cc:
John Thier; Turner Enterprises
Kurt Keesecker; BRW Architects
r� R C H I T E C T 5
To
Date
Project
Subject
transmittal
Alan Franklin, PE
Alan Franklin Engineering
September 15t", 2020
Two pages
19038 Old Trail office building
Fire flows, per NFPA
Hi Alan
We're excited to be fully underway on the old trail project again.
Per your email request from yesterday, please find below a summary of my research into the
question of required fire flow.
Regarding fire flow calculations:
Per section 507.3, the Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code requires fire flow to be
calculated by an approved method. "Approved method' is defined as one acceptable to the
fire code official.
Based on your email, the County fire official is asking for fire flow calculations based on the
ISO methods. I used the 2014 edition of Insurance Service Office'Guide to Determining
Needed Fire Flow" booklet for our building as follows:
per ISO
"Guide for Determination of Needed Fire Flow" 2014
NTF; = (Q(0011.0 + (1+ P)J
NTF; = the needed fire flow in gallows per atim (gpm)
C. = a factm related to the type of construction and effective area
O; = a factor related to the type of occupancy
Y = a factor related to the a powre bazard of adjacent buildings
P = a factor related to the couwut¢ication hazard With adjacent buildings
NFF 2550 gpm
C r 3000 (manually rounded to nearest 500 gpm per C below)
C 2767 (formula C =18F' square root of (A) area)
O 0.95 ("Limited Combustibility")
x 0 (no buildings within 40'of our exterior walls)
P 0 (no communication between party wall openings)
F 1.5 (Construcion Class 1(frame))
A 10,500 (assuming we take no reductions for suite divisions/demising)
square root of A 102.46951
As a result of these ISO calculations, the Needed Fire Flow for our building is 2,550 gpm
This figure assumes the entire building area is considered one 'effective area'. If this value
exceeds the available fire flow, when this value is compared to the available hydrant
pressure, etc in the area, we have some options for reducing the effective area by the
detailing of the demising walls between suites. For now, I have assumed the'worst case'
scenario which allows us the most flexibility on the interior details. Please let me know if we
need to consider reducing the effective area after the figure above is presented to the
County's fire official.
Please note, NFPA calculates the require fire flow slightly differently, and relies on more easily
referenced tables. As a "check" I also looked at required fire flow as determined by NFPA 1
table 18.4.5.2.1 and found a comparable figure of 2,750 gpm for 2 hours based on our total
building size. (Since the two figures are relatively close, I believe we're in the right range for
required fire flow per ISO. In fact, if we didn't have to 'round' the gpm per ISA methods, we'd
be very close to the same figure by both methods.)
I hope this resolves your question regarding required fire flow.
If not, please reach out.
(I will be working on fixture counts and send them to you under separate cover later today.)
(Also ... I would like to exchange CAD files again to better coordinate building footprint and site
boundary/ sidewalks / parking/ planting areas as there have been some adjustments to the
footprint of the building since last time I received a copy of your Site Plan submittal to the
County. Please call me today to set up a time to coordinate the file / footprint coordination.)
Thanks!
From kurt keesecker, aia
principal
kkeeseeker@brw-architects.com
CC John Their, Turner Enterprises
Albe'"°`el(011n' � Hydrant Flow
Service Auth�ri
"96F`a c:��� Test Report
16S Spolnap Road Chadenesyllie. VA 22911 (431)9"A511
Location
Date and Time of Test
Minutes of Flow
Pipe Size (Inches)
Pressure Hydrant
Static Pressure (psi)
Residual Pressure (psi)
HEATHERCROFT CIR
12/26/2019 12:20:00 PM
2
8
12735
85
78
Date of Report
12/26/2019
❑ Q2O Looped
Q2O Multiple Inline Hydrants
Q2O Single Flow
Sprinkler Test Single Flow
Flow Hydrant #1
12736 Pitot Pressure #1 (psi)
68 Yellow 1
Test Flow 1 1367
Flow Hydrant #2
Pitot Pressure #2 (psi)
Yellow 2
Test Flow 2 0
Flow Hydrant #3
Total Estimated Flow (gpm)
Pitot Pressure #3 (psi)
1367
AW WA Q2O Calculation (gpm)
(No value in Q20 indicates insufficient pressure drop for Q20 OR a sole sprinkler test.)
Comments
Hydrants opened all the way
Yellow 3 0 Test Flow 3
For method of calculating pitot flow, with a red Pollard diffuser: see eq. 13, Walski and Lutes article 1990 Journal Management and
Operations AW WA. For yellow Pollard diffusers, a best fit third order polynomial equation of the Pollard flow vs. pilot pressure gauge is
used.
Estimated Consumption (gal) 2734
For use for water audit
Signature of Tester: i
-
/0
\ S
� )� k / \
+
o
°
-
§
E
&
_
�
-
Is
*
»
%
d
\
§
E
A
R.>
§\�(/\\\\)§CL
.
\
\
]�
,
0
\ m
\
►
«
(
0 7
FIRE FLOW CALCULATION WORK SHEET
Project: Old Trail Medical Offices
Location: Corner of Golf Drive & Claremont Lane
Date: 9/16/2020
Engineer: Alan Franklin, PE
TEST HYDRANT INFORMATION (From ACSA)
(test date 1212612019)
Location. FHA #12735 (Northwest corner of Heathercroft Circle)
Test Hydrant Elevation:
695 ft.
Residual Pressure:
78 psi
Static Pressure:
85 psi
Flow:
1367 gpm
Test QZo_ 4554 gpm
HAZEN-WILLIAMS FRICTION LOSSES FROM TEST HYDRANT TO PROPOSED HYDRANT:
Waterline
Ex 12"
Ex 8"
Ex 6"
Pipe Diameter (in)
12
8
6
Pipe "C" Value
120
120
120
Pipe Flow
1367
1367
1367
Pipe Loss/100 FT
0.5221
3.7612
15.2679
Pipe Length (ft)
500
400
25
Total Pipe Loss
2.61
1
1 15.04
1
1 3.82
PROPOSED HYDRANT INFORMATION
Location: EX . FHA at entrance to Lodge at Old Trail off of Golf Drive
Elevation:
691.00 ft.
Residual Losses (ft):
21.47 ft
Residual Losses (psi):
9.30 psi
Total Residual Pressure:
70 psi
Total Static Pressure:
87 psi
Proposed Q20_ 2927 gpm
R C H I T E C T$
To
Date
Project
Subject
From
transmittal
Alan Franklin, PE
Alan Franklin Engineering
September 160, 2020
Two pages (cover transmittal + PDF of preliminary counts)
19038 Old Trail office building
Fixture counts, per latest interior plans as noted - DRAFT v1
Hi Alan
Per request, here are the counts for suites A, B and C dated 9.16.20 (see PDF attached)....
I have noted all variety of kinds of water fixtures.... the dental suite typically has a ton of water
connections (at exam chairs, for instance) so I am not sure how the ASCA will deal with that.
One could argue they use very little water at the chairs...
Let me know if the preliminary figure for meters, etc comes back to you unexpectedly high
and we can dig into more detailed info with Suite A tenant to get a better feel for water usage.
Otherwise, I hope this chart gives you the info you need.
Of course .... all this is "in progress" as none of the tenant plans are technically finished at this
point.
Talk to you again soon
Thanks!
kurt keesecker, aia
principal
kkeeseeker@brw-architects.com
CC: John Their, Turner Enterprises
per variety of tenan?ty of tenamty of tenamty of tenant plans *
toilets sink types all other items
summary
a
ae
\�a`o
etad`
sec
oKQ1
c°
moo°
.tee
Sc�C3aNe�
°`ys\
Ay,�e�
y
`e;
5
ova
5c
ec\ 5`c�
`°o
es e
��o
oe
era ono
�a
5
��Qoy
ty
rec
tia�
Space
w°
,aw
\a
a�
e+
�r °Q
Suite A:
3
3
8
3 1
10
1 1
1
1
1 0
0
33
3
15
15
33
Suite B:
2
2
6
2 1
0
0 0
1
1
1 0
0
16
2
11
3
16
Suite C:
2
2
2
1 1
0
0 0
1
1
1 0
0
11
2
6
3
11
Building Shell
0
0
0
0 0
0
0 0
0
0
0 6
0
6
0
0
6
6
Subtotal
7
7
16
6 3
10
1 1
3
3
3 6
0
7
32
27
-
* calculations based on tenant plans with dates noted below
Suite A 7.27.20 by Integrated Design Studio / Henry Shein - counts interpreted by KK 9.16.20
Suite a 7.16.20
Suite C 7.10.20 (1 have assumed the Medical 1 and Medical 2 exam rooms will require sinks. If not, the total will be slightly lower...)
Exterior Shell 1.16.20