HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP202200032 Review Comments Initial Site Plan 2022-06-23�q off nig 401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4579
County of Albemarle Telephone: 434-296-5832
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT WWW.ALBEMARLE.ORG
�tBGIN�P'
Site Plan Review
Project title: Forest Lakes Self -Storage — ISP
Project file number: SDP2022-00032
Plan prepares
Shimp Engineering, 912 E. High St., Charlottesville, VA 22902
Justin Shimp, PE,Iustin(a),,shimp-engineering.com
Applicant:
JA-ZAN Limited Partnership [ aenglish(i�woodsrogersxom ]
P.O. Box 9035, Charlottesville, VA 22911
Owner or rep.:
Glenn C. Brody, Manager, Cap Storage Pool 1, LLC
935 S. Main St., Suite 201, Greenville, SC 29601 [jasontacaollc.com ]
Plan received date:
20 May 2022
Date of comments:
23 Jun 2022
Reviewer:
John Anderson
Review Coordinator: Mariah Gleason
Engineering has reviewed the initial site plan and offers the following review comments:
1. Engineering defers to Planning, but recommends against ISP approval, unless:
a. A (separate) recorded easement vacation plat resolves conflict between proposed grading and
utility plan (04) and existing 20', 30' (on -site), and 40' access easements (40', adjacent parcel).
Existing 20', 30' access easements cross development parcel to provide access U.S. Rte. 29 and
TMP 03200-00-00-037C 1 immediately north of development parcel. Sheet C4 proposed grade
includes retaining wall which prevents access via 30' easement to parcel to the north. Since
design renders access easement inoperable (retaining wall renders non -traversable by any means),
easement vacation appears pre -requisite to ISP approval. Note: 30' access easement transitions to
40' access easement on TMP 03200-00-00-037C 1, where it turns SE to provide access to TMP
046134-00-00-00400. Proposed grade /retaining wall blocks access via existing easement to both
these parcels, whose owners would appear to need to be signatory to easement vacation plat.
b. ISP clarifies location of on -site storm culvert at south comer of development parcel, relative to
existing grade. ISP should confirm via visual site visit or survey that location is accurate, and that
existing contours (Q2) are accurate, relative to storm pipe. Contours and pipe image indicate an
illogical location for storm inlet. Grading does not suggest a storm pipe would be found in this
location relative to existing grade. Recommend design confirm both existing contours and pipe
location (relative to contours) are accurate.
c. C4 depicts a shallow (< 2-ft.) basin, presumably a SWM facility. C4 does not present conceptual
SWM design, but an ambiguous site feature. Recommend revised Initial Site Plan:
i. Identify whether 1-2 ft. deep depression is a SWM facility, and if so:
ii. Identify type SWM facility (ref. BMP Clearinghouse),
iii. Show SWM facility ouffall. No outlet is shown, and
iv. Include brief conceptual stormwater quantity and quality narrative (CI).
2. Cl: With FSP, provide cover sheet stormwater management narrative. Reference WPO # assigned to
project, once WPO application is submitted, and file # is assigned.
3. C2
a. Depict asphalt travelways that exist along NW boundary of parcel, accurately. See 2/6/22 satellite
image: blue -circled area shows a travelway with curb extends from site to U.S. Rte. 29, and also
shows a bypass (note three 1-way direction arrows) exists on development parcel (within 30'
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 3
access easement), yet serves TMP 03200-00-00-036FO and is eradicated by the current ISP design
(proposed grade /retaining wall). Recommend ISP approval be contingent upon vacating (by
b. Show /depict /label blue -circled area below, accurately, including:
i. Existing curb
ii. Inlets
iii. Pavement
iv.
4. C3
a. With FSP, provide drainage design, including:
i. VDOT LD-204, stormwater inlet computations, and VDOT LD-229, storm drain design
computations.
ii. Plan /profile of existing storm drain network.
iii. Plan /profile of proposed storm drain network.
iv. Evaluation of downstream storm system capacity, if on -site SWM discharges to a
manmade system, as it appears to do.
b. With FSP, provide intersection site lines (left /right) at entrance to Worth Crossing.
c. With FSP, provide bollard or fixed barrier protection at south comer of 4,000 SF outdoor sitting
area at entrance to Worth Crossing. An area designed as outdoor sitting must provide patrons
protection, as distance between entrance curb and sitting area is minimal.
5. C4
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 3
d. VDOT no longer allows VDOT standard details to appear on plans (copyright issue), provide ref.
to VDOT standards for items required to develop the site (DIs, MHs, pipes, pipe bedding, CG-2,
CG-6, CG-12, etc.).
e. 1,729 SF of RW dedication may pose issue for VDOT since coincident with existing storm pipe.
With FSP, show demolition /relocation of existing storm pipe, unless it meets VDOT standards for
class pipe and appropriate burial depth within public RW. Engineering defers to VDOT.
a. Provide CG-6 wherever proposed grade concentrates runoff against curb (provide /label CG-6).
b. Show existing curb on TNT 046134-00-00-00200. No sheet of ISP depicts any improvements on
adjacent parcel. Design should tie proposed asphalt /curb to existing asphalt /curb. ISP provides
insufficient design relative to existing paved surface, curb, and no provision for storm capture
/conveyance that appears to reach this parcel, given proposed grade. Forest Lakes Self -Storage
may not increase runoff to adjacent parcels. Also, satellite image at item 3.b., above.
c. Provide CG-12 (or equivalent design to ensure ADA access) where 10' multiuse path crosses site
entrance.
6. General:
a. WPO plan approval is required prior to FSP approval.
b. SWM facility easement and public drainage easement (deed /plat) must be approved, via separate
application review /approval process, and recorded prior to WPO plan approval.
Thank you.
Please call if any questions — tel. 434.296-5832-x3069, or email 4anderson2(a albemarle.org.
SDP202200032_Forest Lakes Self -Storage_ ISP_062322