The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSDP202200019 Review Comments Initial Site Plan 2022-04-15qoH nt 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, VA 22902-4579 County of Albemarle o � � Telephone:434-296-5832 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT WWW.ALBEMARLE.ORG Site Plan review Project title: Tjach Premier Circle Initial Site Plan Project file number: SDP202200019 Plan preparer: Jonathan Showalter, PE [ ionathan.showalter(c dmmons.com j 608 Preston Ave., Suite 200 / Charlottesville, VA 22903 Owner or rep.: Pha Premier Circle LLC / 682 Berkmar Cir., Charlottesville, VA 22901 smathon(a7pledmonthousing. org Plan received date: 29 Mar 2022 Date of comments: 15 April 2022 Plan Coordinator: Andy Reitelbach Reviewer: John Anderson Engineering has reviewed the initial site plan and offers these review comments for Final Site Plan approval. 1. General a. WPO202200013 approval is required prior to ESP approval. b. An easement plat must be recorded prior to WPO plan approval: SWM facility /public drainage. c. A SWM facility maintenance agreement must be recorded prior to easement plat recordation. 2. C2.2 a. Overall Demolition and C4.0 Overall Site Plan appear inconsistent in that nearly all existing hardscape requires partial /complete demolition to construct proposed improvements. Please revise demolition plan for consistency. b. Ensure that pre -developed site condition reflects discharge at parcel boundary that includes effect of existing SWM facility labeled to be abandoned. That is: pre -developed condition includes controlled storm runoff condition. c. Identify existing SWM easement, if any. If easement exists, provide easement vacation plat. Ensure post -developed SWM provides requisite SWM control compared with a pre -developed condition that includes attenuating effect or treatment of storm runoff by existing SWM facility 3. C5.0: Provide, show, label SWM facility easement for proposed 125 LF detention system. See ACDSM Easement diagram- p. 15, for Min. width, which increases with detention system diameter and depth. 4. C4.0 a. If development is phased, an approved WPO plan must correspond with all phases shown on the final site plan. A final site plan may not be approved that does not provide SWM control for any phase depicted. That is, a comprehensive SWM plan (WPO plan) is required prior to ESP approval. C4.0 indicates Phase 2 and Phase 3 potential locations of future building by others, but unless VSMP /WPO for Tjach Premier Circle accounts for approximate impervious area/s of future development, the ESP does nothing more than indicate potential locations, while deferring to a future date a WPO plan amendment or separate WPO required to construct potential buildings or establish impervious areas not previously accounted for. i. C4.1 (Phase 1 site layout) shows no underground detention. ii. C5.0 shows 125 LF of underground detention, an intentional level of SWM design detail, yet WPO202200013 design intent is unclear: 1. If UG detention is required for Phase 1, please revise ESP to clarify when UG detention is to be installed, and which phase or phases it is to treat. Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 3 2. Engineering recommends Tjach Premier Circle WPO provide comprehensive SWM quality /quantity control for all phases: Quality requirements may be met with letter of nutrient credit availability without purchasing credits until a Grading Permit is requested for a particular phase. Expense of credit purchase may be timed to development. A drawback of a less comprehensive WPO plan is that physical space may not be assigned to on -site detention or on -site water quantity control may prove problematic if not integrated into initial WPO plan design to account for reasonably anticipated final build -out imperviousness (i.e., walks, parking, patios, buildings, etc.). b. Engineering recommends early coordination with APCO/VEPCO re. potential location of phase 3 future building which may encroach within existing OUP easement. Recommend show existing APCO/VEPCO utility easement on Existing Conditions plan sheet. c. Engineering cautions it is unclear this development may construct improvements within recorded access easement (Premier Circle). Instrument at deed bk.-pg. 797-242 was recorded May 2, 1984. Provide evidence of coordination, as needed, with access easement holder at bk.-pg. 797-242, or if this 1984 instrument benefits TMP 061M0-00-00-00600. Engineering recommends ESP title sheet clarify access easement benefits development parcel. d. Location of existing sanitary manhole in proposed sidewalk is questionable since sanitary MHs may be noxious or repellant, and separation from pedestrian facilities is typically recommended. Storm MHs /utility vaults do not pose equivalent concern, but sanitary sewer is a separate class. e. ISP proposes to replace existing 2 1 " RCP in certain locations with 18" DIA pipe. Provide calculations to support diminished pipe capacity (18" DIA has 73.5% capacity of 21" pipe). 18" DIA is more susceptible to obstruction than ex. 21" RCP. Engineering is unlikely to approve design that reduces existing storm conveyance given potential downstream effects, and comparable existing site to proposed full build -out impervious area, should all phases develop. f. Label Premier Circle lane width at its narrowest at centerline stripe near U.S. 29 SBL. Ensure not less than 12' lane width in both directions along Premier Circle length wherever this site plan proposes improvements immediately adjacent to Premier Circle. 12' lane width does not appear to exist at all locations where project proposes improvements. g. Revise Premier Circle curbing to CG-6, as exists on opposite side of Premier Circle. CG-2 is not approved for Premier Circle. 5. C4.1 a. No portion of parking lots may be without curbing, 4 spaces along west edge of Phase 1, for example. b. Provide /label safety railing at retaining wall. c. Provide TWBW elevations for all retaining walls. d. Note: Retaining wall ht. >3' requires a building permit, retaining wall lit. >4' requires sealed retaining wall design (not generic typ. sections, Diamond Pro Tm, for example). Submit sealed retaining wall plans for Engineering review prior to /as condition of ESP approval. e. While possible to construct proposed retaining wall south of Phase 1 Virginia Supportive Housing during site work phase, prior to building erection, once phase 1 building is constructed, any future maintenance /replacement of this wall necessitates off -site easement/s. Obtain temporary off -site construction easements to operate intermittently in the future during any period of routine or emergency retaining wall maintenance or replacement. f. Recommend stop sign or stop bar at site exit/s. 6. C5.0 a. Provide CG-6 wherever proposed grade concentrates runoff against curb, rather than CG-2. b. Provide VDOT LD-204 (stormwater inlet computations), LD-229 design tables (storm drain design computations). c. Provide pipe profiles. d. Provide spot elevations to ensure no nuisance ponding on parking surfaces. e. Avoid SAN — Storm conflict near contour label 475 NE of phase 1 building, near Premier Circle. Relocate one or the other to ensure adequate SAN-Storm separation. Engineering Review Comments Page 3 of 3 7. C5.1 a. Shows no storm detention: WPO202200013 for Tjach Premier Circle (under review) must provide SWM to meet SWM requirements for each phase. Only phases meeting SWM requirements may be approved with the FSP. WPO202200013 appears to provide comprehensive SWM control via 125 LF underground detention which appears required with Phase 1 development /Phase 1 building -parking, etc., but WPO is ambiguous. Concept of a Master Plan does not exist in state regulations per se (9VAC25-870-). Rather, proposed elements of development /site improvements are evaluated against requirements and SWM control provided to meet requirements for proposed improvements. WPO /FSP should clarify that SWM is provided for design elements shown on either plan. ESP title sheet should include reference to WPO202200013 (review pending). 8. L1.0, L3.0 a. Labels do not discriminate between phase 1, 2, 3, buildings, all are labeled proposed buildings, whereas other plan sheets indicate phase 2, 3, potential future building locations. Also related comments elsewhere. Revise `proposed building' labels for consistency across plan sheets. Please feel free to call if any questions: 434.296-5832 -x3069 Thank you I Anderson SDP202200019 Tjach Premier Circle ISP 041522.docx