Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP200900060 Review Comments Major Amendment, Preliminary Plan 2009-09-11*-&A County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Summer Frederick, Current Development Project Planner From: Phil Custer, Current Development engineering review Date: 11 September 2009 Subject: Martha Jefferson Hospital Major Amendment, Building Addition (SDP- 2009 - 00060) The second submittal of the major site plan amendment, received on 31 August 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. (Rev. 1) The planner has determined that this site plan is in compliance with the application plan. 2. To reduce traffic on state roads when no spaces are available in lot J, the two lots should be connected with a travelway. (Rev. 1) The Chief of Current Development has determined that this is not a requirement for site plan approval. Engineering review still recommends this connection to reduce travel times and fuel consumption in the transportation network around the hospital. A travelway of only 160ft from the 1575 lot would be needed to reach lot M and eliminate a 2400ft trip onto Willis Dr. and State Farm Blvd. Again, this is not a requirement. 3. Please provide rip -rap outlet protection and specify the dimensions and size of stone. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. Engineering recommends using a minimum d50 of 6 "as specified by the state. This is not a requirement. 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. (Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. This ESC plan must be submitted and approved prior to the approval of the site plan amendment. 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). (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 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. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 7. Please bubble and note all other changes to the site that will be occurring with this plan amendment. Current Development Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 2 (Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. For example, I noticed that 7 fleet parking spaces were removed in the loading dock adjacent to the emergency generators. This change was not documented in any of the other 3 amendments submitted for this site. If other modifications to the site plan are discovered, these must also be noted. 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. 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? (Rev. 1) The parking study has been approved by the planner. File: E2_fmj_PBC_sdp200900060.doc