HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP200800070 Review Comments Preliminary Site Plan 2008-06-09*-&A
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
The latest revision to the preliminary site plan for the Vintage Virginia Apples Cidery property has been
reviewed. Engineering review has no objection to the approval of this preliminary site plan.
A WPO plan will not be required if the total disturbance for construction of the tasting room and
adjustment to the visitor parking lot is kept under 10,000sf. If disturbances pass this mark, an ESC
plan will be required.
(Rev. 1) This comment has been noted by the applicant. Disturbances will likely be well under
10, 000sf.
2. In conversations with Lisa Glass, the applicants have stated their desire to keep the space between the
farm buildings a private agricultural /production area and provide public parking north of tasting room
and market. Please clearly show this on the drawing by providing signage restricting access to the
cidery operations area between the buildings.
(Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed.
3. Please accurately show all existing gravel areas and other important site features.
(Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed.
4. Please provide more spot elevations around each of the buildings and parking areas. The spot
elevations should clearly show that adequate drainage is achieved on the site.
(Rev. 1) Additional spot elevations were not provided with this submittal. However, engineering
review feels that adequate drainage can be achieved on site after speaking with the applicant.
5. The plan has been designed to parameters less stringent than the standards listed in the County
ordinance. A waiver of the following standards will need to be granted by the Zoning Administrator:
a. [18- 4.12.15.a] Surface materials.
b. [18- 4.12.15.c] Maximum grade in parking areas.
c. [18- 4.12.15.g] Curb and gutter.
d. [18- 4.12.17.a] Maximum grade for access aisles.
e. [18- 4.12.17.c.1] Minimum width on two -way access aisles.
f. [18- 4.12.16.] Design requirements for parking spaces
An engineering analysis of the pending waivers is as follows:
a. [18- 4.12.15.a] The applicant does not wish to pave the entrance drive, parking lot, and
internal operation area. In place of pavement, gravel surfacing will be used throughout the
site. The applicant cites that the rural character of the site and the low trip generation do
not justify surface paving. (It should be noted that engineering review does not consider
the rural character of the site in making its recommendation.) I estimate that between 50
Memorandum
To:
Lisa Glass, Current Development Project Planner
From:
Phil Custer, Current Development engineering review
Date:
9 June 2008
Subject:
Vintage Virginia Apples Cidery (SDP- 2008 - 00070)
The latest revision to the preliminary site plan for the Vintage Virginia Apples Cidery property has been
reviewed. Engineering review has no objection to the approval of this preliminary site plan.
A WPO plan will not be required if the total disturbance for construction of the tasting room and
adjustment to the visitor parking lot is kept under 10,000sf. If disturbances pass this mark, an ESC
plan will be required.
(Rev. 1) This comment has been noted by the applicant. Disturbances will likely be well under
10, 000sf.
2. In conversations with Lisa Glass, the applicants have stated their desire to keep the space between the
farm buildings a private agricultural /production area and provide public parking north of tasting room
and market. Please clearly show this on the drawing by providing signage restricting access to the
cidery operations area between the buildings.
(Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed.
3. Please accurately show all existing gravel areas and other important site features.
(Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed.
4. Please provide more spot elevations around each of the buildings and parking areas. The spot
elevations should clearly show that adequate drainage is achieved on the site.
(Rev. 1) Additional spot elevations were not provided with this submittal. However, engineering
review feels that adequate drainage can be achieved on site after speaking with the applicant.
5. The plan has been designed to parameters less stringent than the standards listed in the County
ordinance. A waiver of the following standards will need to be granted by the Zoning Administrator:
a. [18- 4.12.15.a] Surface materials.
b. [18- 4.12.15.c] Maximum grade in parking areas.
c. [18- 4.12.15.g] Curb and gutter.
d. [18- 4.12.17.a] Maximum grade for access aisles.
e. [18- 4.12.17.c.1] Minimum width on two -way access aisles.
f. [18- 4.12.16.] Design requirements for parking spaces
An engineering analysis of the pending waivers is as follows:
a. [18- 4.12.15.a] The applicant does not wish to pave the entrance drive, parking lot, and
internal operation area. In place of pavement, gravel surfacing will be used throughout the
site. The applicant cites that the rural character of the site and the low trip generation do
not justify surface paving. (It should be noted that engineering review does not consider
the rural character of the site in making its recommendation.) I estimate that between 50
Current Development
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 2
and 75 cars a day will be frequenting the cidery and farmers market during the peak
season. I used this estimate of daily traffic to calculate the required thickness index
through VDOT's Pavement Design Guide for Subdivisions and Secondary Roads. The
result of this calculation is a thickness index between 5 and 6 inches which is comparable
to 5 or 6 inches of gravel. The existing gravel drive is currently in stable condition but
increased traffic loads could be a concern to future stability.
(Rev. 1) Waiver has been granted.
b. [18- 4.12.15.c] The existing slopes of the area to be used for parking are anywhere
between 3% and 7 %. A strict enforcement of the maximum parking grade requirement
would necessitate considerable excess grading. Engineering recommends approval of the
waiver of maximum grades in parking areas.
(Rev. 1) Waiver has been granted.
c. [18- 4.12.15.c] Stormwater runoff is always more efficiently transferred with curbing.
However, if the parking lot is not surfaced, the benefit of curb and gutter is greatly
reduced. Engineering review recommends approval of the waiver of curb and gutter for
the parking area if the surface requirement is also waived.
(Rev. 1) Waiver has been granted.
d. [18- 4.12.17.a] The existing drive to reach the parking lot adjacent to the cidery tasting
room has a small section of the roadway that appears to be steeper than 10 %. The
roadway is not shown on the current site plan so a field visit was the basis of my
assessment. Engineering review recommends the waiver of the maximum grade of a
travelway be granted because the portion of the steep roadway section is short and does
not present a safety or emergency access problem.
(Rev. 1) Waiver has been granted.
e. [18- 4.12.17.c] From State Route 29 to the tasting room, the width of the travelway
ranges from 12ft to 16ft. Due to the trip generation of the site, instances where vehicles
have to pass one another head -on will be infrequent. When vehicles do have to pass one
another there is room on the shoulder for most of the travelway for one vehicle to pull
over. The most restrictive location along the travelway is the dam crossing where the
actual travelway is 14ft and the distance between both guardrails is 16.5ft. Engineering
review recommends approval of this waiver.
(Rev. 1) Waiver has been granted.
f. [18- 4.12.16] The applicant has not shown any information regarding the parking
configuration on the first plan. Engineering review recommends that the parking area be
configured in accordance with all design standards listed section 18- 4.12.16 and a waiver
of this section not be granted. If surface requirements are waived for the parking area,
delineation of parking spaces should be designated by bumper blocks. The use of wooden
railroad ties as bumper blocks is acceptable if the applicant wishes to avoid the use of
concrete blocks. All parking spaces should be protected from vehicles traveling through
the lot [4.12.151].
(Rev. 1) The applicant has designed the layout of the parking spaces to most of the
standards of 18- 4.12.16 except for I8- 4.12.16.e (Bumper blocks). The applicant has
indicated that bumper blocks would inhibit some of the agricultural operations that
take place on site and should not be required. Engineering review has no objection to
the waiving the bumper block requirement based on this reasoning.
File: El_psp_PBC_sdp200800070