HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP202100022 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2021-06-22 (2)t� OF ALB
County of Albemarle
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Site Plan review
Project title: Albemarle Business Campus: Block 5: Final Site Plan
Project file number: SDP2021-00022
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4579
Telephone:434-296-5832
WWW.ALBEMARLE.ORG
Plan prepares Shimp Engineering, 912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902
Kelsey Schlein, PE [ kelsey& chimp -en ing eering com ]
[ lustin(d�shimp-engineering.com ]
Owner or rep.: 5t' Street Forest LLC / 250 W. Main St., Ste. 201
Charlottesville, VA 22902 [ kyle.redinger(i�gmail.com ]
Plan received date: 31 Mar 2021
(Rev. 1) 21May 2021
Date of comments: 28 April 2021
(Rev. 1) 22 Jun 2021 [No objection; Note: SUB202100100 easement plat, review pending]
Plan Coordinator: Andy Reitelbach
Reviewer: John Anderson
Comments below from Initial Site Plan. SDP2020-00066: with Applicant response for FSP
Note: Engineering does not object to SDP2021-00022 approval, but notes that easement plat,
SUB202 100 100, which shows multiple easements, may need to be recorded prior to ESP approval.
Engineering accepts that public drainage easement may be recorded prior to departmental issuance of
Certificate of Occupancy for the first structure in Block 5, which departs from typical approval sequencing.
Engineering used this approach during WPO plan review /approval (public drainage easement recordation
prior to issuance of first CO). Engineering defers to Planning whether option exists to allow ESP approval
prior to easement plat recordation.
L Cl1 Stormwater Management Notes: Please ref WPO201800084, Royal Fern Phase 2 rather than a regional
stormwater facility (in addition to referencing more recent ZMA201900003). Engineering will evaluate
WPO plan for Albemarle Business Campus WPO plan against information and stormwater data approved
with WPO201800084. WPO plan approval for ABC is not automatic with ZMA201900003 approval or
satisfied by reference to regional stormwater facilities for blocks 2-5. WPO plan approval is required for
ABC FSP approval. This development is subject to same or similar SWM program review requirements
and criteria as applied to WPO201800084, Also, see Engineering email to Shimp Engineering, 11/12/2020
2:56 PM, and November 12, 2020 12:04 PM. Please submit WPO plan for ABC at earliest convenience.
(FSP) NA / WPO202000058 is approved (3/17/21) for ABC blocks 2-5, including off -site export /import
from ABC (future development) block 1.
2. It appears that design relies on fewer parking spaces than required by ordinance. There is potential for ISP
disapproval with significant revision required prior even to approval of ISP (with conditions). (FSP) May
persist. Engineering defers to Planning/Zoning. Applicant response (3/22/21 letter): `We are working
through a parking reduction request with Zoning.'
With final site plan:
3. C5: Revise existing improvements shown on TMP 76-46C 1. See image below (C5 v. satellite imagoFy)
[satellite imagery removed with FSP comments ] (FSP) Addressed.
4. CS C6
a. Label managed steep slopes. (FSP) Addressed.
5. C6
6. C7
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 7
a. Existing grade appears to indicate a SWM facility in vicinity of feature labeled rip -rap. With
WPO, address any SWM quality -quantity implications of removing any existing SWM facility
with proposed development. (FSP) Addressed. Applicant: `Noted, this was addressed in approved
WPO plan [WP0202000058], notes copied to SDP.'
a. Recommend provide sidewalk access to westernmost 24-apt 3-story building via internal sidewalk
rather than walk within public RW along Country Green Road since this is facility to be used by
residents for every trip between vehicle and apartment. This route so near a public road provides
inherent risk, risk analogous to requiring owners of single-family dwellings to transit walk within
public RW to travel between parked car in driveway and dwelling entrance. (FSP) May persist
(future). Applicant: `Noted, if necessary in the future, we will address this comment with the
potential multifamily final site plan.' (Rev. 1) NA, block 5 Applicant response (5/18/21 letter):
`Not Applicable for Block 5 FSP.'
b. If apartment building access is via sidewalk along Country Green Road and ordinance requires
illumination from parking to dwelling entrance, provide adequate lighting. Engineering defers to
Planning, while reiterating safety concerns for residents if forced to rely on a walk within public
RW of Country Green Road. (FSP) May persist (future). Applicant: `Noted, if necessary in the
future, Pedestrian access will be provided with an internal sidewalk, to be addressed with the
multifamily final site plan.' (Rev. 1) NA, Applicant response: `Not Applicable for Block 5 FSP.'
c. Label site entrance radii and relevant entrance geometry. (FSP) Partially addressed. Applicant:
`Site entrance radii and relevant entrance geometry are now labeled on the site plan sheet.' As
follow-up: Proffered roundabout at intersection of Old Lynchburg Road and Fifth Street cannot be
built with current ABC block 5 design. Revise block 5 entrance on Old Lynchburg (OL) Road to
accommodate ZMA201900003 proffered future roundabout geometry. Images may be helpful.
Sheet 2, SDP202100022 (per ZMA201900003) potential 150' inscribed diameter single -lane
roundabout: Please compare —130' distance needed to construct slip lane to point of transition
with OL Road RW, with sheet 6 —100' distance, Fifth St. to OL Road entrance. In other words,
constructing the roundabout requires OL Road block 5 site entrance to be positioned farther north
than shown.
ZONING MAP AMENDMENT
ZMA301900003
LBEMARLE BUSINESS
CAMPUS
SINGLE -LANE
ROUNDABOUT EXHIBIT
Sheet 1 of 1
Thi+e.hfih n.hown hoo,nmd.tmin
fees,tobty proposes. This est ibis shows a
oundaboot with it l5Y mooned diameter,
slip lane. end peclestrim Improvement,
Appmximaidy 605 AC (33%SP) ROW
des! ication from the intern portion of
the project Dmperty Tory be required
no a stnglebne mundalwel with a 150-
moniseddiamutor.
Key
Am on prnmer Property
tha Tory be ox ird fin
Tow lsbom impmrtmeme
parrel bnwdvy
Sheet 6:block 5 Old Lynchburg Road entrance_
\��TOP
,"
SIGN
f DIP FDA-L"�
WATER
INE,
4
_TEJ 4
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 7
REAAIL I RETAIL
TENANT TENANT
2398 SE 2,039 4
FEE 456A0 E 056.00
S. DII
-W -W,
F DIP
WATER
LINE
(Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant: `You make a fair observation about the dimensions as compared
to the roundabout exhibit, so we looked into this further and now have a few things to note: first,
after further analysis of the roundabout exhibit, we realized that the exhibit roundabout location is
not optimized and is not centered in the exisitng 5" St ROW. Second, we discussed this with
Adam Moore of VDOT, who agreed that the design roundabout location will likely be further
south (page down) than the exhibit shown. Finally, Adam agreed that the roundabout slip lane
construction will need to have final design coordination with the new ABC entrance location, but
has agreed to the entrance location as we have currently drawn. The idea is that the roundabout
slip lane design will lead into a right -turn lane into ABC (where we currently have the right turn
taper), ensuring a smooth transition into the site. On that note, we have revised the entrance layout
per requests by VDOT to ensure this future transition. We realize thru this analysis that there will
likely be more ROW dedication in block 2 than was estimated. We also realized that there is now
no ROW dedication required for Block 5. Thank you for bringing this to our attention, for now
we have completed entrance revisions to confirm that the location can work, so in the future we
will simply need to coordinate final designs to ensure everything meets VDOT standards.'
7. C7 C8C8
Engineering Review Comments
Page 4 of 7
a. Label (typ.) parking space length. (FSP) Partially addressed. Applicant `Parking space length
(18') is now included.' As follow up: Angled and parallel parking space length are included, but
unless overlooked, perpendicular parking space length (18') is not included, please provide
perpendicular parking space labels (L x W). (Rev. 1) Addressed.
b. Label parking lot island radii. (FSP) Addressed.
c. Provide, label and revise or reconfigure parking to provide adequate HC parking, with ramps.
(FSP) Addressed.
d. Label CG-12. (FSP) Partially addressed. Applicant: `CG-12's are shown and labeled on the site
plan sheet.' Asfollow-up: Please label CG-12s at dynamic transport plaza. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
e. Label CG-6. (FSP) Addressed.
f Provide /show /label dumpster pads for each use. No use appears likely able to function without
permanent outdoor solid waste disposal, with possible exception of self -storage, yet self -storage
patrons may wish to avail themselves of trash facility, which may or may not be required. Hotel,
office, and retail space typically (likely) require dumpster pads. Engineering defers to Planning.
(FSP) Addressed.
g. Please ensure that all parking spaces immediately adjacent to sidewalks are either:
i. 18' L fronting 6' sidewalks, or (FSP) Partially addressed. As ollow-uP: Please see item
7_a., above. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
ii. 18' L with bumper blocks fronting 5' sidewalks (ref. ACDSM, pg. 17).
8. C8
a. Label block 2-5 development entrance radii /relevant entrance geometry at Old Lynchburg Road.
(FSP) Partially addressed. As follow-up: Please see item 6.c. above. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
b. Label angle for angled parking (FSP) Addressed.
c. Provide angled parking dimensions for comparison with ordinance requirements /ACDSM (FSP)
Addressed.
d. Label site features (walks, crosswalks, traffic control signs). (FSP) Addressed.
e. Provide internal and external stop /yield signs to define stop /thru traffic patterns. (FSP)
Addressed. Applicant: `Appropriate traffic control signs have been provided with this submission.
As the other blocks are subsequently developed, additional traffic control signs will be proposed.'
f. Since site access from 5' Street spans property line with parcel to east, provide legal instrument
that allows site access. Existing legal instrument (201800013730) presents obsolete image.
Provide instrument specific to current geometric design of Wahoo Way. (FSP) Persists.
Applicant: `A new access easement will be recorded prior to final site plan approval.' (Rev. 1)
Addressed. Ref. to Legal Instrument 201800013730 is included on FSP, sheet C4. [Image
removed with Rev. 1 comment]
g. Provide /show /label hotel loading space. (FSP) Persists. Applicant: `This comment will be
addressed with the hotel's final site plan.' (Rev. 1) NA, Applicant: `Not Applicable for Block 5
SDP.'
h. Clarify via label /dimension the short arc -pedestrian facility at intersection Wahoo Way and 5"' St.
to clearly define how 10' multi -use path along 5' St. connects with 5' walk along Wahoo Way.
(FSP) Persists. Applicant: `Clarification will be provided via labels/dimensions with Block 3
(office)'s final site plan. This path will be provided with Block 3 final SDP.' (Rev. 1) NA,
Applicant: `Not Applicable for Block 5 SDP.'
9. C9: Label island dimensions and curb radii at right -in /right -out entrance on Old Lynchburg Road. (FSP)
Addressed. Note: please also see item 6.c., above.
10. C10
a. Provide spot grading near islands to ensure runoff reaches inlets without nuisance ponding. (FSP)
Addressed.
b. Clarify how proposed UG detention and inlet conveyance system discharge to existing SWM
infrastructure. If discharge is via storm pipe between the two 28-apt buildings to property to the
immediate west, with WPO show compliance with channel and flood protection at this discharge
point. (FSP) NA. Applicant: `This is no longer applicable, however this would be provided with
Engineering Review Comments
Page 5 of 7
the potential future Block 1 apartments development.' Also, please see WPO201800044
Amendment #1, approved 3/18/21. (Rev. 1) NA, Applicant: `Not Applicable for Block 5 SDP.'
c. Provide flowlines that clarify direction of flow in stone pipes. (FSP) Addressed.
d. Label underground detention system. (FSP) NA. Applicant: `This is no longer applicable,
however this would be provided with the potential future Block 1 apartments development.' (Rev.
1) NA, Applicant: `Not Applicable for Block 5 SDP.'
11. C10.C11
a. Show Aabel proposed utility easements.
i. Recommend label private drainage easements. (FSP) Addressed. Applicant: `Private
drainage easements are not proposed at this time. Public drainage easements shown.'
ii. Label public drainage easement downstream of proposed SWM facility. (FSP)
Addressed. As follow-ua: Please ensure (future) blocks do not propose improvements
other than pedestrian walks or parking /access aisles within public drainage easement.
Improvements within public drainage easement are impermissible. Please submit
easement plat for new public drainage easement at earliest convenience. (Rev. 1)
Persists. Applicant: `Noted about the public drainage easements. Easement plat is
currently being prepared by Roger Ray & Associates.' Also, item 1 La.iii., below.
iii. Public SWM facility and public drainage easements require plat with deed, and
recordation prior to ESP approval. (FSP) Persists. Applicant: `Comment received.' (Rev.
1) Persists. SUB202100100 (Easement Plat) received 6/7/21, is under review.
iv. Acquire and reference recorded public drainage easement across TMP 76-46C1
(Mountainwood Properties) that receives ABC development runoff. (FSP) NA.
Applicant: `This is no longer applicable, however this would be provided with the
potential future Block 1 apartments development.' (Rev. 1) NA, Applicant: `Not
Applicable for Block 5 SDP.'
12. Cll
v. Ensure post -developed storm runoff across TMP 76-46C 1 is non -erosive. (FSP) NA.
Applicant: `This is no longer applicable, however this would be provided with the
potential future Block 1 apartments development. (Rev. 1) NA, Applicant: `Not
Applicable for Block 5 SDP.'
b. Ensure easement widths are consistent with easement width diagram, p. 15, ACDSM. (FSP)
Addressed.
c. Indicate any existing trees to be preserved. (FSP) Addressed. Applicant: `No trees are proposed to
be preserved.'
a. Apparent ponding at N comer of block 2 hotel parking lot: Revise to eliminate nuisance ponding.
(FSP) Addressed with WPO202000058,
b. Apparent ponding at N comer of block 3 office parking lot. Revise to eliminate nuisance ponding.
(FSP) Addressed with WPO202000058,
c. Apparent ponding at N comer of 6,000 SF retail parking lot. Revise to eliminate nuisance
ponding. (FSP) Addressed with WPO202000058.
d. Provide spot grading throughout to ensure runoff reaches inlets, without nuisance ponding. (FSP)
Addressed, also addressed with WPO202000058.
e. Wherever grades concentrate runoff against curbing, revise proposed CG-2 to CG-6 [ref. 18-
4.12.15.g ]. (FSP) Addressed, also addressed with WPO202000058.
f Provide additional proposed grade labels, for example:
i. Graded slope area N of hotel parking lot, (FSP) May persist (future). Applicant: `This
will be addressed with Hotel Block 2's final site plan.' (Rev. 1) NA, Applicant: `Not
Applicable for Block 5 SDP.'
ii. Hotel parking lot, and, (FSP) May persist (future). Applicant: `This will be addressed
with Hotel Block 2's final site plan.' (Rev. 1) NA, Applicant: `Not Applicable for Block
5 SDP.'
iii. Impervious paved areas N of self -storage. (FSP) Addressed.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 6 of 7
g. Retaining walls >3' ht. require a building permit. Retaining walls >4' ht. require sealed design
(PE) plans. Retaining wall design review by Engineering is required prior to ESP approval. (FSP)
Persists. Applicant: `Noted, we have hired Circeo Geotechnical Engineering to complete this, it
will be uploaded when received.' (Rev. 1) Addressed. Note: Compare close-up inset from ESP
sheet C7 with Circeo Geotech Retaining Wall design, 4/9/21, sheet 4. Although maximum wall
ht., Wall A appears > 6-11., the max. wall ht. of Wall A across managed steep slopes is <6-11.
(Wall sta. 40f, TOW 454, BOW, 449) consistent with 18-30.7.5 (stepped wall not required).
1 /
J i
RETAII
0 TENANI
00 4 > 2,298-
- — FFE 454
)CK REV. \ 5340 LP Ss
(ANDRAIL00 s�
(EIGHT 7} as EG NTAd� BLOCK
iT=6' A 55 RETAI NG WAIL
SLOP S _ W. 42" ANDRA1L,
MAX HEI T 2.0'
E
ACCE u_1� 5e0 _
F 3
_ EASEMENTS 5553 55
,5 6 0 5 so 543 542
5 <
to �G—$
WALLA oe Surcharge=—M_P1142•Tull Pedocrrlaa6uord
N2 TOC=454.33 TOC=455.00 _ __ TM- 455.67(High Point)
TOL=453.67 T� ` TOW=455.33
Abut WWI A to Building No TOW=454.00 OW= TOW=454.67 t
TOW - 453.33 ;
o
Y t N2 .nnA
ITt
-- — I OW=453.3.
Mt4_. IT BOW=452.110
nn
mrt
BOW=450.00
3 4N
N I a=err BOW=HB.00 I
u.mrr a•mrr •Thick5lare Oyy, 446.0I Nd Grade at Bottom of Wall
N
4N BOW = 444.6] Leveling Pad I
AdditionWeephole Ne BOW=M4.W Lon Point
@ Low Point ( ) Dmin Pipe to Daylight - 40 FT O.C. (Typical)
e6 m N N N N❑ A
1 I SM(tll(tho I 1 I
I ¢.rOfl -I I I
r ¢-4F] �F 0..6FT v1f 0..4 FT y
h. Provide wall elevation details for retaining wall at W end of self -storage. (FSP) Addressed.
13. C12: Provide horizontal sight distance that avoids landscape /sight line conflicts. (FSP) Addressed.
Applicant: `Sight distance has been provided at the new entrance on Old Lynchburg Road. Please note that
required sight distance for a 35-mph road is 390', while the required entrance spacing is 250'. Full 260'
sight distance from entrance to intersections is achieved. Vehicles leaving from the proposed entrance will
have adequate visibility of the Old Lynchburg intersection, allowing for safe movement out of the site.'
Additional ESP review comments:
14. Note: Permeable concrete pavers at dynamic transport plaza do not constitute a required WPO plan design
feature, and Engineering does not object to removal of permeable concrete pavers at this location. Please
15
Engineering Review Comments
Page 7 of 7
ref WPO202000058 for approved SWM-related design (Note: WPO202000058 relies on an off -site pond,
located at Fifth Street Place residential development, for SWM). (Rev. 1) Applicant: `Noted, these pavers
are effectively a site aesthetic feature for which no WPO/VRRM treatment will be pursued. These will be
installed per manufacturer specs, but do not count as a BMP and are not designed for runoff reduction.
These pavers were promised on the rezoning application, and do need to be provided, so we will keep
them.'
C7: Provide storm runoff capture /conveyance for block 1 design at point runoff leaves 5.0% paved drive
aisle; blue arrow, image, below: (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant: `to address potential erosion, and to
achieve conveyance, we have shown a swale which will direct this runoff into Inlet A5. A5 will be a DI-3B
inlet in the future, with the Block 4 expansion, but for now, we have this with a temporary grate top which
will allow runoff into the structure. Inlet A5 has been always designed to receive this runoff. We have
specified EC-3 matting within this swale as an additional precaution from erosion, and will work with the
contractor to ensure proper stabilization occurs.'
Please feel free to call if any questions. Thank you
J. Anderson 434.296-5832 -x3069
SDP2021-00022 Albemarle Business Campus FSP 062221 rev 1. doc