HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP202000004 Correspondence 2020-08-20 28 Blackwell Park Lane, Suite 201
BoHLER /
Warrenton, VA 20186
'0t-540.349.4500
August 20, 2020
Via Hand Delivery
Albemarle County
Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Attn: Kevin McCollum
Re: SDP2020000004
Final Site Plan 1st Review Response
Hampton Inn
1628 State Farm Blvd
Rivanna Magisterial District
Albemarle County, Virginia
BE #V172065
Dear Mr. McCollum:
Bohler is pleased to submit on behalf of Shamin Hotels, the 2nd Submission Final Site Plan for
the Hampton Inn project in Albemarle, Virginia. The following is our comment response letter
addressing comments received various departments. Each comment is addressed and
responded to as follows:
Planning — Kevin McCollum
Comment 1: [ZMA201800005 Application Plan and Proffer Statement, and Z.O. 32.5.2. (o)]:
The proposed development shown on the initial site plan appears to be in
general accord with the Application Plan for ZMA201800005, the following
comments must be addressed on the final site plan.:
a. Sheet c-301 contains information about the approximately 2.0-acre area in
the rear portions of the subject property, which is labeled as "Proposed
easement to County..." Please revise and supplement the information as
follows:
i. This approximately 2.0-acre area in the rear portions of the subject
property must be designed as a "Special Lot" that is "reserved for
future dedication to the County for public use upon demand."
(Definition in Z.O Section 3.0: Special Lot. "Special lot" means a lot
created to be used exclusively for public or private street, railroads
rights-of-way and railroad lines, public utilities, public owned or
operated public facilities, publicly owned or operated parks, publicly or
privately owned sited for personal wireless service facilities, central
water supplies and central sewage systems as those terms are
defined in Chapter 16, stormwater management facilities, cemeteries
existing on June 8, 2011, conservation areas, preservation area, open
space, and greenways.)
This comment has not been addressed. There needs to be a special
lot subdivision plat submitted, approved, and recorded prior to final
www.BohlerEngineering.com
Kevin McCollum
BOHLER // Hampton Inn
Final Site Plan 1st Review Response
August 20, 2020
Page 2 of 6
site plan approval. Once the special lot plat is recorded, please
update the plan where applicable so that all noes and labels state the
correct deed book and page number of the recorded plat.
ii. The location, configuration, size, and boundary locations and
dimensions of the approximately 2.0acre area om the rear potions of
the subject property must be accurately defined by a licensed
surveyor using standard surveying method, and must be depicted and
described on the final site plan.
This comment has not been addressed.
b. Sheets C-301 and C-701 include information about the "proposed landscape
wall" along (near) the subject property's frontage on State Farm Boulevard.
Please provide the following information:
i. Include a landscape wall detail on Sheet C-901 or C-902 (or other
detail sheet, as may be applicable.)
This comment has not been addressed. The applicant has indicated
that the detail will be provided prior to final site plan approval.
Response 1:
a.
i. Special Lot Subdivision Plat shall be submitted under separate
cover.
ii. Survey Description shall be provided with the Subdivision Plat,
submitted under separate cover, and included with the Final Site
Plan prior to signature submission.
b.
I. A landscape wall detail has been provided on Sheet C-902.
Comment 2: [Z.O.32.7.2.1.b.]: The "Minimum Standards" for"Vehicular Access to Site" require
VDOT approval of all proposed entrances onto State Farm Boulevard. Staff
acknowledges that VDOT's review comments (dated 10/18/19, received after the
SRC meeting on 10/10/19) identify deficiencies with the proposed southern
entrance. This issue (identified in VDOT review comment #6) will need to be
resolved VDOT's and the County's Agent's satisfaction prior to final site plan
approval.
VDOT's review is still pending, comments or approval will be forwarded to the
applicant upon receipt.
Response 2: VDOT Comments have been addressed with this submission.
New Comments Final Site Plan
Comment 3: [ZMA201800005 Application Plan and Proffer Statement, and Z.O. 32.3.2]: Staff
recommend (but does not require) that sheets 4 and 5 from the application plan
be pasted onto Sheet C104. The inclusion of these Building Elevations along with
Exhibit 1, which has already been included on Sheet C104, will help to clarify,
confirm, and otherwise ensure that the proposed development will be in general
accord with the Application Plan for ZMA201800005.
Response 3: Acknowledged.
www.BohlerEngineering.com
• BOHLER / Kevin McCollum
Hampton Inn
Final Site Plan 1st Review Response
August 20, 2020
Page 3 of 6
Comment 4: [Z.O.32.6.2(j) and 32.7.9] The following issues were identified during review of
the Landscape Plan and must be addressed and resolved prior to final site plan
approval.
a. Landscape Note 3 and the Landscape Plan on Sheet C701 indicated that
there are seven (7) trees in the VDOT right of way. Z.O. 32.7.9.9 states
that If street trees are planted within the public street right-of-way, the
trees shall be maintained in accordance with the requirements of the
Virginia Department of Transportation. Pending VDOT comments, a
maintenance agreement might be needed for trees proposed in the right
of way.
b. Please include the following note on Sheet C701: All landscaping and
screening shall be maintained in a healthy condition by the current owner
or a property owners' association and replaced when necessary.
Replacement material shall comply with the approved landscape plan
(Z.O.32.7.9.9.(c)).
c. Please include a detail of the proposed 3' landscape wall shown on Sheet
C301.
Response 4:
a. Acknowledged.
b. The note has been added to Sheet C-701.
c. The detail has been provided on Sheet C-902.
Comment 5: [Z.O.32.6.2.(k) and 1.17] Please include the following standard lighting note on
Sheet C801: Each outdoor luminaire equipped with a lamp that emits 3,000 or
more initial lumens shall be a full cutoff luminaire and shall be arranged or
shielded to reflect light away from adjoining residential districts and away from
adjacent roads. The spillover of lighting from luminaires onto public roads and
property in residential or rural areas zoning districts shall not exceed one-half
footcandle.
Response 5: The note has been added to Sheet C-801.
Comment 6: [Z.O.32.7.9.7(b/e) and 4.12.19] Please provide a detailed profile view of the trash
enclosure. Please indicate the materials used, height, color, etc. Each fence or
wall provided as screening shall be a minimum of six feet in height
(Z.O.32.7.9.7e)).
Response 6: A fence detail for the trash enclosure has been provided on Sheet C-901.
Comment 7: [Cover Sheet C101] Please clarify the dates under the Zoning Map Amendment
on the Contact Information/ References box on Sheet C101. There are currently
two dates listed there, A "Dated" and "Revised" date. I would recommend
deleting these and simply putting the date of approval: June 19, 2019.
Response 7: The dates have been clarified on Sheet C-101.
www.BohlerEngineering.com
Kevin McCollum
BOHLER / Hampton Inn
Final Site Plan 1st Review Response
August 20, 2020
Page 4 of 6
Engineering Comments-John Anderson
Sheet C-105
Comment 1: LS-seal obscures dates; please ensure text is easily readable (April 19, 2018).
Response 1: The date has been clarified on Sheet C-107.
Comment 2: Ex. 21" RCP to be removed appears in conflict with floor of sediment trap. -Elev.
201" is top of new 24" RCP permanent (and Bypass?) storm pipe = floor of ST.
Revise sequence of sediment trap design on VSMP /WPO201900047 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" 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 toissue WPO20100047
comments not later than Wed, 19-Feb)
Response 2: The proposed sediment trap has been revised to remove the conflict with
the proposed 24" RCP bypass pipe.
Comment 3: C-201: Note 11 requires slight text edit (references two bypass, a possible error)
Response 3: 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
Comment 4: Label curb types.
Response 4: Curb has been clarified beneath the legend on Sheet C-301.
Comment 5: Review STM A-30 label/leader line.
Response 5: STM A-30 is the downstream manhole from STM A-31 and is located
between STM A-40 and A-20. See storm profiles for additional clarification.
Comment 6: Provide/label handrail at top of uppermost retaining wall.
Response 6: A note referencing the handrail has been added to Sheet C-301 and
handrail details are provided in the wall plan.
Comment 7: Label CG-12 pedestrian ramp at SW site entrance.
Response 7: The CG-12 is labeled on Sheet C-301.
Comment 8: C-303: Albemarle defers to VDOT review/approval of Maintenance of Traffic
Plan.
Response 8: Acknowledged.
www.BohlerEngineering.com
•
Kevin McCollum
BOHLER / Hampton Inn
Final Site Plan 1st Review Response
August 20, 2020
Page 5 of 6
Comment 9: C-304: Note 3. Recommend Bohler Engineering rely on Kimly-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 only.
Response 9: Acknowledged. Field Surveyed elevations have been used for the design of
the entrances along State Farm Blvd.
Comment 10: C-401: Proposed grading north of curb band gutter on the north side of site
creates a channel, and concentrated runoff. Provide ditch label, and design ditch
at this location.
Response 10:Due to the small drainage area at the referenced 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.
Comment 11: Engineering recommends revise design to divert dumpster enclosure runoff
through a curb-curb to exit without detention / treatment to newly treatment to
newly graded slopes south of development. Recommend discharging minor
runoff (- 19' x 11' 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 impeded
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.
Response 11: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
Comment 12: Note: Storm lines proposed to convey State Farm Blvd. runoff (source: public
RW) across the hotel site required public deed of dedication of easement.
Complete easement plat application at earliest convenience
Response 12:Easement plat shall be submitted under separate cover.
Comment 13: Recommend relocate STM A-20 and STM A-30 Labels to more clearly identify
structure location.
Response 13:STM A-20 and A-30 labels have been adjusted. See storm profiles for
additional clarification.
www.BohlerEngineering.com
Kevin McCollum
BOHLER // Hampton Inn
Final Site Plan 1st Review Response
August 20, 2020
Page 6 of 6
Comment 14: C503/ Re. 10-yr HGL computations:
d. At STM A-59, compare outlet WSE 510.28 with 205.50; crown of pipe
e. At STM A-60, compare outlet WSE 510.45 with 209.50; crown of pipe
f. At STM A-79, compare outlet WSE 510.28 with 509.25' crown of pipe
g. At STM A-80, compare outlet WSE 510.46 with 509.55' crown of pipe
Design must ensure flow is open channel regime, not pressured, unless
design provides notes, specifications, labels etc. to ensure watertight fit
(fitting, gaskets, seals etc. from pipe subgrade to rim elevations. 10-yr HGL
computations table appeared to indicate pressurized flow.
Response 14: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.
Comment 15: Show STM A-59 and STM A-79 labels in plan view
Response 15:STM A-59 and A-79 labels have been added to plan view on Sheet C-502.
Comment 16: 902: provide VDOT IS-1, ST-1, PB-1 detail on plans
Response 16:The requested details have been added to Sheet C-902.
VDOT -Adam J. Moore, P.E.
Land use
Comment 1: Please provide auto turn analysis for the 25ft., radius.
Response 1: An SU-30 truck turn analysis has been added to Sheets C-302 and C-303.
Albemarle County Service Authority - Richard Nelson
Comment 1: It looks like the proposed water meter is in conflict with power utilities. The
proposed water meter should be 1.5" based on proposed fixture counts.
Response 1: Test pits are called out at the proposed water meter location to ensure any
potential conflicts are identified. The meter is proposed at 2" based on the
sizing form provided on Sheet C-502.
Should you have any questions regarding this project or require additional information, please
do not hesitate to contact me at (540) 349-4500.
Sincerely,
Bohler Engineering VA, LLC
JoC. Wright, P_ .E. 1
JCW/ck .
H:\17\V172065'Administrative\Letters\200820 Final Site Plan 1st Review CRL.doc '
www.BohlerEngineering.com