Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP200800053 Review Comments Preliminary Site Plan 2008-06-10*-&A County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Gerald Gatobu, Current Development Project Planner From: Phil Custer, Current Development engineering review Date: 10 June 2008 Subject: UVA Long Term Acute Care Hospital Preliminary Site plan (SDP -2008- 00053) The preliminary site plan for the UVA Long Term Acute Care Hospital property has been reviewed. The engineering review for current development cannot recommend approval with this latest submittal. The following comments are provided. Please provide an amendment to the traffic impact and parking study to include the additional parking being proposed for the Sieg Maintenance site. (Rev. 1) The existing conditions and parking upgrades on the Sieg Maintenance site were considered in the latest study but the increase in traffic to the existing entrance onto Route 250 was not considered. The study should again be revised to consider the impacts of the Sieg parking lot expansion to the LOS of the Sieg Entrance. The LOS of the existing condition should be compared to LOS for the proposed condition both with and without an interconnection between the Northridge and Sieg sites. Regarding the latest amendment to the parking and traffic study, the following comments are provided by engineering review. a. Engineering review recommends the applicant take more data on the existing parking demand for the Northridge and Sieg Maintenance sites. During the past two weeks county staff has visited the sites and has taken parking inventory. Our findings conflict with the results from Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc's single day of parking counts. The differences are enough to justify a more detailed study of several random days. This recommendation is based on the basic data in the table below and from the initial visits to the site where a count was not taken but more problematic parking issues was noted. Date Time Empty standard Empty Handicap Cars not parked Total Cars parked spaces spaces in spaces Empty in Sieg lot Thursday May 29th 10:05 AM 45 4 4 45 30 Monday June 2nd 2:25 PM 58 9 4 63 23 Tuesday June 3rd 9:20 AM 26 2 4 24 24 Wednesday June 4th 1 11:30 AM 41 1 4 1 37 1 25 b. The Northridge parking lot is not shown accurately in the site plan. There are stripped handicap aisles to the west of the Northridge building that are not shown on the plan. c. The building located on the Sieg lot does not appear to be a warehouse use. It appears that it is a "maintenance" or mechanical building used to repair fleet vehicles. d. There are no calculations showing that a signal is warranted for the Northridge Current Development Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 5 site. Please provide that data and calculation. e. The LTACH site plan mentions parking spaces available at the Kirtley Office building and warehouse but the parking study does not mention these towards the parking demand. This should be clarified. 2. Please provide interconnection between the three parcels involved in this plan so that Route 250 will not be used as the interconnecting travelway. [32.7.2.5] (Rev. 1) Comment not addressed. Engineering review recommends an interparcel connection between TMP's 59 -23B and 59 -23D. 3. Please provide a Modified simple spreadsheet for each SWM drainage area on site. Please note that as policy, engineering review does not allow the water quality treatment of one drainage area to "overtreat" for other areas of the site. The runoff from each watershed leaving the site must be treated to the required removal rate. For instance, the biofilter will have a separate removal rate computation and it is likely that the resulting removal rate would be closer to 65% than 50% as shown on the plan. (Rev. 1) Please note that this development is considered "redevelopment in a water supply protection area." The resulting removal rates for water quality watersheds 1, 2, and 3 that I found were 46 %, 95 %, and 38 %, respectively, using the impervious areas provided in the table on C4. The use of Stormfilters in watershed 1 and 3 are acceptable, but please note that Stormfilters are given a 50% removal rate from the state, not 65 %. The biofilter must be sized to treat 65 %. 4. The use of the parking spaces of the Kirtley Warehouse as mentioned in the parking study will require waivers of County Code 4.12.15.c and 4.12.17.a from the Zoning Administrator. The access drive to the warehouse is approximately a 15% grade. This is steeper than the ordinance requirement of a maximum 10% grade for travelways and maximum 5% grade for parking areas. Engineering review will not support either of these waivers. (Rev. 1) The applicant is no longer improving or using the existing spaces to the Kirtley warehouse. 5. Please move the entrance from the rear of the hospital farther north. Engineering believes the entrance is too close to the intersection of the access easement and Route 250. (Rev. 1) Comment addressed. 6. Please show all of the grading necessary for the creation of the biofilter facility. This will be helpful in writing the critical slope wavier report. (Rev. 1) Engineering review feels that the grading of the biofilter can be worked out in the final stages of the plan. Additional disturbances to critical slopes for the biofilter construction will be considered exempt, through 18- 4.2.6.c, if a waiver is granted now. It should be noted that the biofilter does not appear to be sized to achieve a 65% removal rate, and the embankment slopes are twice as steep as the allowable grade (3:1). 7. A critical slope waiver report will be written separate from this comment letter. The following comments are not required for preliminary site plan approval but will need to be addressed during the final site plan process. 1. The width of the curb cannot be included in the width of the sidewalk. Sidewalks adjacent to parking spaces must be 6ft in width or bumper blocks must be provided. (Rev. 1) Comment appears to be addressed. 2. It appears from the grading of the accessway on the southwest side of the building that the filterra boxes will need to be relocated so they are designed to capture as much water as Current Development Engineering Review Comments Page 3 of 5 possible while still having a bypass inlet available. (Rev. 1) Comment appears to be addressed. 3. It appears an inlet is needed in the ambulance drop -off area. (Rev. 1) Comment appears to be addressed. 4. (Rev. 1) A permanent canopy cannot be placed over the SWM facility. 5. (Rev. 1) An adequate channel analysis of the downstream drainage system will be required with the WPO plan. File: El_psp_PBC_sdp200800053 Current Development Engineering Review Comments Page 4 of 5 vrRC1N1� County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Gerald Gatobu, Current Development Project Planner From: Phil Custer, Current Development engineering review Date: 10 June 2008 Subject: Sieg Maintenance Preliminary Site Plan (SDP- 2008 - 00052) The preliminary site plan for the Sieg Maintenance property has been reviewed. The engineering review for current development cannot recommend approval to the plan with this latest submittal. The following comments are provided. 1. Please show curb and gutter on the plan where it has not been waived. A waiver of the curb and gutter standard will not be given for this project except at those locations to the east end of the site where curb cuts allow water to pass into the biofilter and swale. Engineering review feels that allowing water to travel through landscaped parking islands would create stabilization issues and long term erosion problems. From each of these curb cuts where the waiver has been granted, there should be a grassed channel that is kept free of landscaping or other groundcover. (Rev. 1) The pavement and curbing in the latest plan are acceptable. 2. It appears there are several issues with the number of lot lines and parcels for this single building. Each separate TMP parcel needs the appropriate amount of spaces based on the building square footage within it. Boundary line adjustments for these properties seem unavoidable. It appears combining TMP's 59 -23D, 59 -23F, 59 -23C1, and the Folly Drive easement into one parcel would simplify this application. (Rev. 1) This comment appears to have been addressed. 3. Please update the parking and traffic study for the LTACH development to include the amendment to the Sieg Maintenance parking lot and vehicle demand loads. (Rev. 1) Please refer to Comment 1) of the LTACH preliminary site plan above. 4. Please provide vehicular interparcel connection to TMP 59 -23B. [32.7.2.5] (Rev. 1) Comment not addressed. Engineering review recommends an interparcel connection between TMP's 59 -23B and 59 -23D. 5. Please show all critical slopes on the plan even though they may not exist on the parcel. (Rev. 1) Comment not addressed. 6. Please show adequate sight distance onto Route 250 on the plan. (Rev. 1) Comment not addressed. 7. Please provide pedestrian access to LTACH through the Northridge site. A minor amendment for the Northridge site should be processed at this time for the improvements shown to TMP 59 -23B in the LTACH and Sieg Maintenance preliminary site plan applications. [32.7.2.8] (Rev. 1) This comment has been addressed with the LTACH site plan. 8. The area allotted for SWM appears to be large enough for water quality treatment and detention. The final review of the SWM computations will be performed during the WPO Current Development Engineering Review Comments Page 5 of 5 submittal. (Rev. 1) Again, the area allotted for SWM treatment appears to be large enough to treat just the additional impervious area added with this development. However, the biofilter with its current drainage area is undersized. The details of the SWM plan will be worked out during the review of the WPO plan. Engineering review suggests bypassing with majority of post - construction runoff (equivalent to the pre- development condition) around the biofilter so that it is not undersized and becomes a maintenance issue. The following comments are not required for preliminary site plan approval but will need to be addressed during the final site plan process. 1. The width of the curb cannot be included in the width of the sidewalk. The sidewalk on the southern edge of the building measures to be 4.5'. 2. Sidewalks adjacent to parking spaces must either be 6ft in width or 5ft in width with bumper blocks in the parking spaces. Sidewalk widths are measured exclusive of curb. 3. Parking spaces may have a depth of 16ft, if a 2ft overhang is available, but the 16ft distance must be measured from the end of the space (the travelway) to the face of the curb (or as shown in this instance, a bumper block). (Rev. 1) Comment appears to have been addressed. 4. There is not an available 2ft overhang for the parking spaces at the western end of the lot due to the row of bushes. (Rev. 1) Comment appears to have been addressed. 5. The addition of the northeastern parking lot displaces many utility items that appear to be necessary for the building. Where are these items to be relocated? If some of the items are to remain, the sidewalk must be widened to accommodate. 6. The maximum grade in the parking lot is 5 %. This includes areas where there is parallel parking. 7. It appears that a dumpster pad may be needed by the building occupants. 8. (Rev. 1) An adequate channel analysis of the downstream drainage system will be required with the WPO plan. File: El_psp_PBC_sdp200800052