The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSDP201000087 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2010-11-17� OF AL ,. vIRGI1`IZP COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 Project: Great Escapes Movie Theater at HTC Final Before Preliminary Site Plan SDP - 2010 -00087 Plan preparer: Mr. Scott Collins, PE; Collins Engineering Owner or rep.: Route 29, LLC Plan received date: 25 October 2010 Date of comments: 17 November 2010 Reviewer: Phil Custer The final- before - preliminary site plan, submitted 25 October 2010, has been received and reviewed by Engineering. A review of the WPO plan will be transmitted in a separate document. Engineering review provides the following comments on the final site plan: 1. I have identified a few aspects of the rezoning plan that will require further analysis when the SWM plan is reviewed: a. Page 19 of the Code of Development states "additional stormwater facilities will be implemented as each site is developed and shall be subject to the approval of Albemarle County Engineering Department. Page 37 also states the "design shall work to provide smaller dispersed biofilters and rain gardens in order to increase the functionality of the larger detention ponds." b. The original approved application plan states that the onsite stormwater facility must be sized to provide offsite detention for Block B -3. 2. Proffer 3 requires two public transit stops to be designed and constructed. The locations of these two stops must be approved by the Director of the Planning Department prior to site plan approval. The design of the transit stops will be subject to the review of the county and VDOT when the adjacent area is constructed. 3. Proffer 5 requires that the greenway be dedicated in fee simple to the county. This must be dedicated (and bonded if construction is not completed) prior to the approval of this site plan. An easement for the trail appears to be needed from the owners of TMP 32 -50A and TMP 32 -56. The greenway cannot be dedicated until the construction plans for it are approved by the county. 4. The site plan cannot be approved until the WPO plan is approved. The review of the WPO plan will be provided in a separate comment letter. 5. If a plat is ever submitted to make Lockwood Dr. South a street (private or public), sidewalks and plantings strips will be required. It does not appear that this will ever be necessary unless the property is subdivided in such a manner that one lot does not front on Meeting Street or Towncenter Drive. Please label this road as a travelway throughout the plan rather than a road or street. Though, reversing the planting strips and sidewalk along the main travelway may be more desirable anyway to keep pedestrians away from the highest volume and adjacent to parking spots. This comment is just advisory. 6. Please update the General County Notes for Street Construction and move the notes away from the binding. 7. The construction plans for Meeting Street must be included in this site plan. Site plan approval is contingent on the Meeting Street providing a second access point to the development. At this time, I do not believe this section of Meeting Street has been approved, though the plan was Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 3 recently submitted. Please also note that there is a proffer related to Meeting Street's construction to the southern property line. 8. Please provide a full buildout ADT projection for the main travelway connecting Meeting Street and Towncenter Drive. Please also project the ADTs of the principal parking lot travelways. A graphic similar to the map in the lower right corner of sheet 11 would be helpful with this analysis. These numbers can be a weighted average of the ADTs of weekdays and weekends. [18- 4.12.15.a] 9. The paving calculations need to be updated. The paving calculations and details should be updated based on the full buildout ADTs required above. The current values used appear to be underestimating the traffic within the site, especially considering the amount of turnover that is to be expected with the shortage of spaces. [19- 4.12.15.a] 10. Please provide turn lane warrants for the exits from the site onto Meeting Street and Towncenter Drive using the peak hour numbers from the ITE manual. Without turn lanes at the exits, it looks as though considerable delays can be expected leaving the site during peak hours. [18- 32.7.2. 18- 32.5.6.s] 11. On the original rezoning plan, the greenway trail seemed to be intended to be a Class A Type 2 trail (loft wide, 2" asphalt over 6" gravel base, and shared use). The detail must be revised to show 6" of gravel beneath the 2" of asphalt. The grading of the path must also be revised to meet ADA standards per the county's design manual. It is currently shown at a 20% slope adjacent to the stormwater facility. 12. Please show all grading required for the remainder of the greenway trail from the stormwater management facility to Towncenter Drive. The maximum cross slope on the trail is 2 %. The county's design manual requires that the trail be designed as a public road. For instance, in areas of the trail with a considerable amount of sheet flow uphill, a channel on the uphill side of the trail is needed. Culverts will be needed at regular intervals. 13. There is a lack of information regarding the greenway trail bridge. Please provide details and a profile of the span with abutments. Please also show the elevations of the 10, 25, and 100 year design storms across this profile /stream section. 14. Please provide approval from the service authority to permit the bridge over the sanitary sewer line. 15. The greenway trail bridge is located at an area where the stream makes a 90 degree turn and looks to be subject to a significant amount of erosion. Please move the bridge to an area of the stream where eventual washout of the trail is unlikely or provide significant streambank stabilization in this area. 16. The travelway width is mislabeled in a lot southeast of the pocket park. 17. There appear to be several conflicts between the guardrail and filterra units. Please clarify on the plan with a typical detail how construction is to take place. 18. The two parking spaces above the detention facility should be eliminated to prevent an unsafe condition at that entrance onto the private travelway. [18- 32.7.2] 19. The 550 contour disappears at the southwest corner of the Office/Retail building. 20. Please show all areas of low- maintenance, non - grassed groundcover on the Landscape Plan. Please also specify the type(s) of low- maintenance groundcover 21. Please account for the layback angle of the wall when showing its width in plan view. Use the worst of the two types of wall regarding the layback angle. [18- 32.5.6.s] 22. I recommend lowering the depth of storm pipe 3 to keep the base of the wall farther from the crown of the pipe. Currently, the top of the pipe is close to an elevation of 505 and the base of the wall will be buried an unknown depth below the base of wall elevation of 506. 23. The pipe capacity calculations appear to be incorrect. It looks as though CA Cumulative has not been updated as the pipe system progresses downstream. The manning coefficients for a few pipes Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review Comments Page 3 of 3 have been mistyped. Future comments may be necessary after these corrections are made. 24. The Rational Coefficient for Structure 12 appears to be 0.9 not 0.65. Please update calculations accordingly. 25. Please modify the drainage area limits for structures affected by entrances that cannot provide a gutter to keep runoff along the curb line. For instance, 60ft of runoff from Towncenter Drive will enter the site and be captured by inlet 20 or 26, not 46. 26. Because of the large uninterrupted areas of parking and the proposed grading, the drainage calculations rely heavily on sheet flow. I recommend increasing the specifications for certain drop inlets in the event that the constructed contours do not maintain the drainage areas shown on the plan. This is not a requirement. 27. Please provide a riprap channel from the outlet of the biofilter to the stream. The channel must be sized to carry the 10 -year storm. 28. Please show sight distance triangles at each of the three entrances onto a state road. Please provide a profile of the sight distance line looking south onto Meeting Street. [18- 32.7.2, 18- 32.5.6.s]