Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA201400008 Review Comments Zoning Map Amendment 2015-02-13Phone 434 - 296 -5832 r �IRGIS County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, VA, 22902 Memorandum To: Rachel Falkenstein From: Michelle Roberge, Engineering Department Division: Engineering Date: February 10, 2014 Subject: ZMA201400008 CMA Properties, Inc Fax 434 - 972 -4126 I have reviewed the concept plan for the application noted above and offer the following comments for the applicant. The comments are those that have been identified at this time. Additional comments may be added or eliminated based on further review. Please address for the concept layout. The proposal shows additional parking spaces. It is not clear if the site will be paved. Please provide pavement with curb and gutter for this proposed site. Per 4.12.15[a], "all parking areas consisting of four (4) or more spaces shall be surfaced." Per 4.12.15[g], "[c]urbs shall be established at the edges of parking areas or access aisles in the following circumstances: (1) in all commercial or institutional developments requiring eight (8) or more parking spaces[.]" [Revision 1] Comment addressed. Applicant clarified porous pavement areas and paved areas within the parking lot. 2. The proposed parking layout is configured to maximize the amount of parking spaces. There are curvilinear and skewed parking bays; however, this causes some parking aisles to intersect in a confusing manner. I have highlighted the areas below. I recommend revising the parking bays to improve flow throughout the site. Also, please clearly differentiate the inventory display parking from the public parking. I�! Ali' IJ [Revision 1] Comment addressed. Applicant revised the parking lot configuration by removing misaligned intersections. The revised layout improves circulation throughout the site. 1 3. There are plans for interconnectivity on the comp plan. I recommend showing interconnectivity within the proposed site. I also recommend providing a travelway along the northern portion of the site since it may resolve the misaligned parking aisle layout stated in comment 2. [Revision 1] Comment partially addressed. If it is determined at a later time that an interconnection is necessary, the current layout does not give a complete description of where it will be located. It appears a possible location is through a parking aisle, but here are some layout concerns with the parking aisle to interconnection conversion. 1) The perpendicular parking along the aisle /future road will not meet the minimum road standards. Parking will need to be revised / removed and revisions may impact the minimum parking requirements. 2) The parking on the northern area will be disconnected from the rest of the parking lot. 3) The intersection to Myers Drive will need to be improved or realigned. Design coordination may be necessary from the owners of Myers Drive. 4) A TIA will be necessary to determine adequate pavement section for road design. All these concerns should be addressed if it is determined an interconnection is needed as a result of the Small Area Plan study. Approving this plan may result in a redesign to accommodate the interconnection in the future. 4. It appears that a wall may be necessary on the NW portion of the site. Please show on this conceptual plan. [Revision 1] Comment addressed. The conceptual grading shows no walls are necessary with this plan. 5. The proposed grading on the SW portion is considered to be on managed slopes. The grading does not appear to work with the existing contours. I recommend showing a conceptual grading that works to clarify if grading easements on TMP145 -49 and TMP45 -101B will be necessary. [Revision 1] Comment addressed. The conceptual grading shows no disturbance to adjacent owners. 6. Traffic impacts on Berkmar Drive need to be addressed. At a minimum, a left and right turn lane analysis should be provided. [Revision 1] 1 recommend providing the analysis now instead of site plan stage. 7. The NW portion of the site should be catergorized as open space in the Virginia Runoff Reduction Method spreadsheet (on pre - developed portion of spreadsheet). This can be revised with the final VSMP calculations. [Revision 1] Please note that revised calcs were not submitted. I agree that the site was disturbed prior to this proposed development and managed turf should be used. Please note that there appears to be a wooded area north of site and should be considered open space in predeveloped conditions. This can be revised with the final VSMP application. 8. More space for the biofilter should be provided. The biofilter surface area appears to be smaller than the required surface area for the following reasons: 1) The forebay should not be included as part of the biofilter surface area. 2) The seven (7) feet wide portion of the biofilter at the tail end do not work well. 3) A 4' maximum depth of biofilter mix is allowed per VA Stormwater Design Specification No 9. Bioretention. The proposed is 6'. This affects the area of the bioifilter. 4) "The bioretention surface area will be approximately 3% to 6% of the contributing drainage area," per VA Stormwater Design Specification No 9. Bioretention. The proposed does not meet the minimum 3 %. [Revision 1] It appears that there is a draft for a newer version of BMP specifications. My comments were based on the draft specifications. Please note the current design may be affected if version 2.0 is approved prior to the submittal of a site plan and VSMP plan. a) The forebay is addressed. b) The taper has been removed. c) The discrepancy with the filter media depth is due to a newer version of bmp specs. I recommended using the 4' media from the newer version. Applicant addressed. d) Applicant is correct in stating that the 3 % -6% is used as an approximation of surface area of the biofilter. Surface area will be dictated by the treatment volume associated with the contributing drainage area. Please note that revised calculations were not submitted with this revision. It can be submitted with the final VSMP. The applicant proposed porous pavers to allow for runoff reduction, which then reduces the biofilter size. Please note at final VSMP, a pretreatment will need to be shown for upgradient slope prior to entering porous paver shown on northern area. See design Spec V. My recommendation is to proffer the use of porous pavement as it is a method to reduce the biofilter size. The possible location for a biofilter is already too small and all SWM should be addressed onsite. 9. The tightly packed pea gravel will have a much lower porosity than the 12" stone. This can be revised with the VSMP application. [Revision 1] Comment acknowledged by applicant. 10. Please note that channel protection analysis shall be provided with the VSMP application. [Revision 1] Comment acknowledged by applicant. New Comment 11. Please remove the note about the extended detention basin as it has been removed from the plan. Please contact Michelle Roberge in the Engineering Dept at mroberge(@albemarle.org or 434 - 296 -5832 ext. 3458 for further information.