HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP200900060 Review Comments Major Amendment, Final Site Plan 2009-08-13*-&A
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Summer Frederick, Current Development Project Planner
From: Phil Custer, Current Development engineering review
Date: 13 August 2009
Subject: Martha Jefferson Hospital Major Amendment, Building Addition (SDP- 2009 - 00060)
The major site plan amendment, received on 27 July 2009, has been reviewed. The engineering review for
current development can recommend approval to this application after the following changes:
1. This plan requires a determination by the agent and possibly the Zoning Department
regarding its consistency with the approved application plan, specifically in respect to the
amount of land disturbance along State Farm Blvd. The application plan showed
approximately 260ft of disturbance from Willis Road along State Farm while this latest
amendment shows 380ft of disturbance.
2. To reduce traffic on state roads when no spaces are available in lot J, the two lots should
be connected with a travelway.
3. Please provide rip -rap outlet protection and specify the dimensions and size of stone.
4. This plan will require an amendment to the ESC plan to be processed. Please provide a
WPO application with a $180 fee for an amendment to the ESC plan. In addition to all
other standard requirements, the ESC plan should show the limits of disturbance being
increased and a note saying that construction access will be from existing construction
entrances on site unless a new entrance is proposed.
5. Please provide calculations confirming that the SWM pond can handle the additional
impervious area and still meet the 65% removal rate. The volume provided in the pond
should be equal to or greater than 4 times the water quality volume (WQV= 0.5" over all
impervious areas draining to the facility).
6. The sidewalk from this new parking lot should be extended along the southern edge of lot
J to the meet the already proposed sidewalk.
7. Please bubble and note all other changes to the site that will be occurring with this plan
amendment.
8. At the request of the planner, engineering has reviewed the parking study and will offer
the following questions and comments for the planner to consider in her review:
a. The hospital is moving to an area that is less convenient with regard to public
transportation and pedestrian commuting than its current location within the city
limits. Since the parking ratios seem to be based on the existing parking demand of
the current hospital, it is relevant to include in the discussion estimations for the
percentage of staff, physicians, and visitors who are currently using public
transportation or walking and would be more likely to drive to the hospital at its new
location.
b. Engineering review is unsure what day of the week or time of year represents a typical
day concerning parking. A higher degree of confidence in the existing parking
numbers could be achieved if more than one day of data had been collected during
different days of the week and year.
c. It is unclear how the 50 vehicles with staff stickers were incorporated into the existing
parking table.
Current Development
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 2
d. Some of the required parking includes spaces on the Martha Jefferson OCC parcel.
This site should be included in the parking study to confirm that a 58 space surplus
exists. Also, will this area be visitor or staff parking?
e. Twenty -five spaces for education and conferences seems to be a low estimate. What
is the square footage of the space for conference /education assembly?
f. Now may be the ideal time to determine some of the practices specified in proffer 5
regarding the traffic demand study which must be approved by Director of Planning
before a certificate of occupancy is issued.
g. The study states that fleet vehicles were not included in the parking study, but it
appears that all spaces on site plan are counted towards the parking requirement for
visitors, physicians, staff, etc. Where will the fleet vehicles be parking on site?
h. The reason for this amendment as described in the application is for the addition of a
fourth floor to the hospital and the increased traffic associated with it, but the total
square footage and trip generation tables on sheet C200 have not increased from the
original site plan. Why have these values not increased with this amendment?
File: El_fmj_PBC_sdp200900060.doc