The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSDP201300022 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2013-08-19�pF A vt�r�1Q COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 Project: Town & Country Shopping Center — Final Plan preparer: Balzer & Associates [540- 248 -3220] Owner or rep.: Tap Investments, LLC Plan received date: July 16, 2013 Date of comments: August 16,2013 Reviewer: Michelle Roberge I have completed the engineering review for SDP2013 -22. Please see below for the following comments. A. Site Development Plan (SDP201300022) 1) [ Comment, It appears there are conrete barriers blocking the 30' access road, west of site. Please show on existing conditions plan and state when it will be removed. [Revision 11 Comment addressed. 2) [Comment] The entrance shall have a radius of 45 for a commercial /retail without separate truck access per Appendix F of Virginia Department of Transportation Road Design Manual. Also, it appears from geneneral notes on sheet 1 that bldg is not sprinkled. Fire Rescue's shall verify turning radius for fire trucks to safely maneuver site. I recommend showing a circulation path for largest truck on site to verify adequate turning radius. [Revision 11 Comment addressed. 3) [Comment] Please provide the labels CG -2 and CG -6 on sheet C5. [Revision 11 Comment addressed. 4) [Comment] The entrance shall not exceed 4% grade, per 18- 4.12.17. Please revise the access road west of site. [Revision 11 Applicant has improved grade to 5.8% at bottom of entrance to Guadalahara site. 5) [Comment] The following shall be provided for retaining walls: a. Please provide bldg permits according to the Building Official policy. Also, safety railing shall be shown for retaining walls over 4' high. Please refer to Albemarle County Design Standards Manual. http: / /www.albemarle.org/upload /images/ forms _center /departments /community develo pment/forms /design standards _manual/Albemarle _ County Design Standards_ Manual _220ct2012.pdf [Revision 11 Please show locations of proposed railing. Also, please extend the guardrail as shown on page 3. b. Retaining walls need ARB approval since site is on entrance corridor. [Revision 11 Comment addressed. The wall location has not changed since the ARB approval. c. Please provide retaining wall details. [Revision 11 Comment addressed. Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 2 6) [Comment] Please provide ADT. [Revision 11 Comment addressed. 7) [Comment] Provide sidewalk detail to be a minimum of 4' stone base and 4" concrete of 3000 psi at 28 days, or stronger, reinforced with a minimum grid of wire reinforcing or #4 bars at 12" on center. [Revision 11 Comment addressed. 8) [Comment] The concrete v -ditch is not ideal for the site for the following reasons: a. Ponding near the entrance of v -ditch will occur and further analysis is necessary to determine depth and area of ponding. Please provide analysis. b. Analysis shall show the v -ditch can convey the 10 year storm without overtopping the banks. This can be done by taking multiple cross sections and showing the depths at each cross section. Also, include sections before and after the bend. c. Concrete lined channels shall be in accordance with VDOT. Please provide details. d. It appears that no info is provided for the connection of the pipe at the end of the the paved flume. Please provide a detail. e. Also, it appears the concrete v -ditch is right above a waterline. Utilities underneath a SWM facility shall be avoided. f. All parking rows shall be protected by a curbed island. This design does not allow for a curbed island in the middle section of parking lot. Another alternative solution is to revise plan to show a 2'curbed island with adequate inlets and a stormsewer system. [Revision 1] Applicant has addressed concrete v -ditch concerns and has shown adequate capacity. 9) [Comment] Also, The curb medians at certain areas are too short and cars may be sideswiped. Please extend curb medians to the travelway. [Revision 11 Comment addressed. 10) [Comment] The sidewalk adjacent to parking, along front of bldg, is only 4'. We require, at a minimum, 5' with concrete blocks or 6' without concrete blocks, per section 18- 4.12.15. Please revise. [Revision 1] Comment addressed. 11) [Comment] The dumpster area in the NW corner obstructs a parking space. Please rotate -45 degrees. [Revision 11 Comment addressed. Dumpster pad no longer obstructs adjacent parking. NEW COMMENT 12) [Comment] It appears the concrete slope is proposed as an alternative to retaining wall to meet existing grade. The proposed concrete slope is another obstruction over the waterline easement. I recommend removing wall up to limit shown on page 3 and removing 2 parking spaces for room to meet existing grade. If you fall below parking space requirement, please contact zoning for waivers on modification of parking spaces and alternate solutions to parking. Another solution is to obtain an easement to build wall on TMP 78 -90. Sincerely, r"de- Michelle Roberge igaurd.rail I Umits 0-p walk. 5' MAX. RL7A[MING WALL (HT_ RFyoNr) 4' REQUIRES A SAFETY PALING) IT-HM fa IM sAMIT ,�IPY L L EA5LYEW, ,3,g INAOIS TL Y DRA IT TH/S T arl. Y DRA mo LA TF- 7e4 L :r: .S Lei' 4 SAF INC WITH REFLECTIVE TAP ERE ADJACENT TO PARKING Sp ms -Vr WlMri, t7M.) W1. VE STOP $10N �y DFR o L/A'5 61SEf""rr '1'339'. CONNECT To 4 Al, EX[ST. CURB MEAT SAWCUT-.&- MATCH EX. PVMT. 20? /Vt 41. MPST ... . ..... • .. ............. .......... ..