HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP202200046 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2022-08-31qoH 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 — Final
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:
1 Aug 2022
Date of comments:
31 Aug 2022
Plan Coordinator:
Andy Reitelbach
Reviewer:
John Anderson, PE
Engineering has reviewed the final site plan and offers these review comments, which are ISP carryover comments.
1. General
a. WPO202200013 approval is required prior to ESP approval. (FSP) Persists. Applicant response
(letter, d. 7/21/22): `Acknowledged.'
b. An easement plat must be recorded prior to WPO plan approval: SWM facility /public drainage.
(FSP) Persists. Applicant: `Acknowledged.'
c. A SWM facility maintenance agreement must be recorded prior to easement plat recordation.
(FSP) Persists. Applicant: `Acknowledged.'
d. New
Remove C3.0. C3.I- C3.2- C3.3- C6.0 from plans; include with WPO202200013.
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. (FSP) Addressed. Applicant: `Phase 1 demo plan has now
replaced the overall demolition plan as the plans will be re -submitted as a final site plan
submission.'
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. (FSP) Withdrawn as ESP review comment, applicable to
WPO. Applicant: `Labels for Phase 1 demo plan have been updated. SWM facility will remain
unchanged through phase 1 and impervious area to SWM facility and on entire site will be reduced
meeting stormwater requirements at discharge at the parcel boundary.'
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.
(FSP) Withdrawn as ESP review comment; applicable to WPO plan review. Applicant: `After
researching, no existing storm easement could be found for the existing stormwater management
facility on site. Pre and Post conditions have been evaluated to ensure that the existing facflity is
still functioning as intended.'
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. (FSP)
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 5
NA. Applicant: `The detention system is not required until Phase 2 of the site. An easement will be added
for the future Phase 2 final site plan submission.'
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 requi- instruct potential buildings
or establish impervious areas not previously accounted for. (FSP) NA, requirement stated at item
1.a. above. Applicant: `Comment Acknowledged. Per comments with County, Phase 1
precondition will be used for all future phase WPO preconditions. Each phase's post condition
will have adequate SWM measures to meet regulations.'
i. C4.1 (Phase I site layout) shows no underground detention. (FSP) Ref. item La. above.
Applicant: `Underground detention for the site is not required until phase 2 of the project
begins. Phase 1 removes a large portion of the site's existing impervious area and
converts that area to grass reducing flow and meeting energy balance without detention
for phase 1. Underground detention will be added in future phases when needed.'
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. (FSP) NA.
Item La. above. (VIM plan approval required.) Applicant: `Underground
detention is not required for phase 1 and will no longer be shown for phase 1
final site plan.'
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.). (FSP) Item La., above. Applicant: `An
overall stonnwater management plan will be submitted along with a stormwater
management plan for phase 1. An updated narrative shall be provided in the calc
book to help clarify quality and quantity for the site.'
b. Engineering recommends early coordination with APCONEPCO re. potential location of phase 3
future building which may encroach within existing OHP easement. Recommend show existing
APCONEPCO utility easement on Existing Conditions plan sheet. (FSP) Applicant: `Comment
Acknowledged. The easement can be found on the existing condition sheet and will be further
coordinated during the phase 3 final site plan.'
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. (FSP) Addressed. Applicant: `Letters
have been sent to all property owners on the road and owners have no objection to the installation
of sidewalk along Premier Circle.'
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.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 5
Storm MHs /utility vaults do not pose equivalent concern, but sanitary sewer is a separate class.
(FSP) Applicant: `Comment Acknowledged.'
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.
(FSP) Addressed. Applicant: `Acknowledged. Pipe calcs shall be provided to ensure that smaller
pipe is adequate for the site and can handle any future development on the site.'
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. (FSP) Addressed. Applicant:
`Premier Circle Road widths have been added to the site plan. It has been ensured that all lane
widths are 12' minimum or greater.' Also, please see item 4.k. below.
g. Revise Premier Circle curbing to CG-6, as exists on opposite side of Premier Circle. CG-2 is not
approved for Premier Circle. (FSP) Addressed. Applicant. `CG-6 has now been provided as
required on premier circle.'
New (FSP)
h. Entrance radii to parking at 1-Level Motel must meet VDOT Access Management Standards
(Appendix F) low -volume commercial entrance Min. radii =25-11. Please revise 10' R.
i. Dimension 1-Level Motel entrance width (Min. =18' Appendix F, Access Mgmt. Std).
j. Inset detail label `portion of sidewalk and curb to be asphalt' is unclear. Clarify design intent with
curb type label, and sidewalk /Premier Circle EP spot elevations (C5.0).
k. Revise pavement striping to delineate 2-12' travel lane widths at NW end of striping. Lane width
may exceed 12' at Int. Rt. 29, but CL striping should allocate lane space such that >_12' w exists to
either side of CL striping for its entire length. Avoid driver confusion that may occur if striped
lane width <12' on Premier Circle, outbound /eastbound.
5. C4.1
a. No portion of parking lots may be without curbing, 4 spaces along west edge of Phase 1, for
example. (FSP) Persists. Engineering defers to Planning. Applicant: `The 4 parking spaces along
the western edge of phase 1 is a temporary condition. F gravel shoulder has been added to allow
water to sheet flow off the asphalt to a proposed ditch. This will help save cost to the owners and
developers and prevent them from having to remove new curb for future phases of development.
Curb is proposed in the overall final buddout of the site and will be called out as necessary in
future site plan phase 2 submissions.'
b. Provide /label safety railing at retaining wall. (FSP) Addressed.
c. Provide TWBW elevations for all retaining walls. (FSP) May persist. Please advise which sheet
includes TW/BW elevations.
d. Note: Retaining wall ht. >3' requires a building permit, retaining wall ht. >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. (FSP)
Applicant: `Comment acknowledged. The appropriate permits and wall plans shall be submitted
for review once completed or ready to be obtained.'
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. (FSP) Applicant: `Comment
acknowledged. A temporary off -site construction easement will be considered for construction and
wall maintenance.'
Engineering Review Comments
Page 4 of 5
f Recommend stop sign or stop bar at site exit/s. (FSP) Applicant: `Comment acknowledged.'
6. C5.0
a. Provide CG-6 wherever proposed grade concentrates runoff against curb, rather than CG-2. (FSP)
Addressed.
b. Provide VDOT LD-204 (stormwater inlet computations), LD-229 design tables (storm drain
design computations). (FSP) Reviewed with WPO plan. Applicant: `The above calculations shall
be provided in the calc book.'
c. Provide pipe profiles. (FSP) Addressed.
d. Provide spot elevations to ensure no nuisance ponding on parking surfaces. (FSP) Addressed.
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. (FSP) Addressed.
New (FSP)
f. Indicate direction of flow in proposed and existing storm pipes. Flow in existing pipes is shown
on C2.1, but should be included with Grading and Drainage Plan, as well.
g. Label structure 142.
h. (On WPO plan) provide IP at Str. 142.
i. Revise swale perpendicular to swale. Swale-swale connection (90-deg) is unstable at point of
intersection. 90-deg. intersecting runoff may only occur at /in a structure (i.e., NM). Intersecting
ditch flow requires 2-45' bends (or similar) to protect ditch walls. Label and provide ditch
calculations for each ditch. Specify ditch lining.
j. Include highlight CO.1 storm pipe /inlet elements with Phase 1 for integrity of pavement, curb,
walks, etc. since these elements are required with Phase 1 and would require demo to install pipe
/inlets, later. Utility marking, grading, etc. required with Phase 1 favors installation of DIs shown
on CO.1 simultaneous with Phase 1 curb /entrance installation.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 5 of 5
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 ESP. 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 /ESP should clarify that SWM is provided for design elements shown on
either plan. ESP title sheet should include reference to WPO202200013 (review pending). (FSP)
Ret item La. above. Applicant: `Underground detention for the site is not required until phase 2
of the project begins. Phase 1 removes a large portion of the site's existing impervious area and
converts that area to grass reducing flow and meeting energy balance without detention for phase
1. Underground detention will be added in future phases when needed.'
8. L1.O,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. (FSP)
Addressed. Applicant: `Labels have been updated on sheet L L I to differentiate between phases.'
9. New: CTO
a. Pipe 121
i. Recommend increase pipe diameter to 8".
ii. VDOT Subdivision Street Design Guide, Appx B(1) Sec. 4.L.3.g. /Access Points:
`Generally, distance between points of access in storm sewer trunk lines shall be limited
based on pipe diameter, ...' for 12" pipes, 50'. 8" pipe DIA would reasonably require a
limit less than 50'. Provide at least one point of access to (revised) 8" DIA storm pipe
#121, 195.71' L.
b. Recommend revise all 6" PVC pipe to 8" DIA for ease of maintenance, reliable performance,
additional capacity during less frequent events (becoming more frequent), and leeway during
construction (installation errors may have less impact).
c. Revise storm profile caption, Ditch Strm, consistent with structures /pipe depicted.
Please feel free to call if any questions: 434.296-5832 -x3069
Thank you
I Anderson
SDP202200046_Tjach premier circle_FSP_083122.doc