Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP200800078 Review Comments Preliminary Site Plan 2008-07-25*-&A County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Summer Frederick, Current Development Project Planner From: Phil Custer, Current Development engineering review Date: 25 July 2008 Subject: Montalto Restoration (SDP- 2008 - 00078) The revision to the preliminary site plan for the Montalto restoration project has been reviewed. Engineering review has no major issues with the plan as submitted and has no objection if approved. The following comments are provided for the applicant as the project continues to the next phase: 1. The applicant will need to submit an application for a WPO plan when the final site plan is submitted. A preliminary assessment of the SWM concept plan has been performed with the preliminary site plan review. (Rev. 1) A complete WPO plan review will be performed when the WPO application is submitted with the required fee. A quick preliminary review of the ESC plan yields a few comments which should be adjusted before the application is submitted. -Silt fence must be installed parallel to contour lines. As currently designed, the silt fence will be acting as a diversion in many places when installed. Please either adjust placement of the silt fence or replace with diversion dikes and sediment traps. A sediment trap at the base of the fill adjacent to the southern parking lot will likely be required. -The construction entrance should be placed at the edge of where work is taking place. (Why are the limits of construction so wide ?) - Please show tree protection fencing to the standard in VESCH. Currently, site improvements are shown within the fencing. Are there any trees required to be protected through the rezoning process? -The three parking spaces to the east appear to need protection measures during their construction. 2. Engineering review realizes that the impervious area around the existing house and barn structures in the post - development condition is nearly equal to the pre - development condition and will not require SWM quality treatment in this area. SWM treatment and detention will be required for the parking lots to the south of the site where new impervious area is added over grass. Please provide treatment measures in this area that meet or exceed the required removal rate computed using the county's modified simple spreadsheet. Please contact me if you need a copy of this spreadsheet. (Rev. 1) The conceptual BMP adjacent to the southern parking lot is acceptable to engineering review as shown in this plan. At this time, we are not convinced that it is not required. When the WPO plan is submitted, please provide a diagram showing the impervious areas of the pre and post development conditions if the applicant still wishes to contend that total impervious area is reduced. Please note that there is a discrepancy between sheets C1.4 and C2.1 regarding the cisterns in the basement of the main house. This does not affect engineering review. 3. Please note on the plan the date of the topographic and utility survey. The survey does not Current Development Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 3 appear to accurately show the existing entrance onto Route 53. A blowup of this entrance should be provided in the plan showing adequate sight distance. (Rev. 1) The date of the topographic and utility survey has not been added to the plan. This must be shown on the final site plan. 4. The plan has been designed to parameters less stringent than the standards listed in the County ordinance. It is unclear what design standards were waived during the rezoning process and what were left to be waived administratively. The waivers needed are: a. [18- 4.12.15.a] Surface materials. b. [18- 4.12.15.c] Maximum grade in parking lot. c. [18- 4.12.15.g] Curb and gutter. d. [18- 4.12.16.c.1] Minimum parking space size and aisle widths. e. [18- 4.12.16.e] Bumper blocks. f. [18- 4.12.17.a] Maximum grade for a travelway. g. [18- 4.12.17.c.I] Travelway width. An engineering analysis of the pending waivers is as follows: a. [18- 4.12.15.a] Details for each modification from standard asphalt paving should be included before a waiver is granted. Details were not included in this set. b. [18- 4.12.15.c] It appears that the 5% maximum grade can easily be achieved in most locations. c. [18- 4.12.15.g] Stormwater runoff is always more efficiently transferred with curbing. d. [18- 4.12.16.c.1] Room is available for the expansion of the travelway in the southwest parking lot to the standard in the County Code. e. [18- 4.12.16.e] Bumper blocks should be provided in parking spaces adjacent to sidewalk that is narrower than 6ft. f. [18- 4.12.17.a] All travelways that exceed the maximum grade requirement are existing travelways on the "farm road ". All existing travelways appear to have grades shallower than the maximum allowable slope that can be traversed by emergency access vehicles. Though, this cannot be confirmed until a survey of the entry road is provided in this set. Engineering review recommends approval of this waiver if some additional safety barricades are proposed and topographical information on the entry road is given in the set. g. [18- 4.12.17.c.1] Travelway widths are difficult to confirm for the farm road from Route 53 because it is not shown in this plan. All two -way traffic is recommended by engineering review to be at least 20ft in width. (Rev. 1) The results of the waiver requests are as follows: a. The use of alternative pavement in parking and travelways is allowed. Please include these section details on the final site plan. b. All parking areas are under the 5% maximum. A waiver is not needed. Though, the complete grading for the parking lot areas should be shown for the eastern three space area and the southern 9 space lot on final site plan. c. The curb and gutter waiver has been granted by the Zoning Department. d. A waiver has been granted by the Zoning Department for the minimum parking space size and aisle widths on the condition that the parking adjacent to the bus parking area is realigned so that it is at a 60 degrees to the travelway. Please refer to section 18- 4.12.16.c and the design manual for the required dimensions. e. The county engineer has granted the waiver for bumper blocks. I recommend Current Development Engineering Review Comments Page 3 of 3 placing a bumper block in the spaces in the courtyard of the main house to prevent drivers from dropping the nose of the car over the wall. f. The county engineer has granted a waiver for the maximum grade of the travelway. The county should be provided with a letter from Fire and Rescue stating that the entrance drive meets their minimum requirements before final approval is granted. g. A travelway width waiver has been given by the Zoning Department. File: E2_psp_PBC_sdp200800078