Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201500047 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2015-09-23pF ALgE �1 �jRGiT�1A COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 Proj ect: Plan preparer: Owner or rep.: Plan received date: (SDP201500047) Date of comments: (SDP201500047) Reviewer: (SDP201500047) Town & Country Shopping Center -Final Balzer & Associates [540- 248 -3220] Tap Investments, LLC July 16, 2013 1 Sep 2015 August 16, 2013 23 Sep 2015 Michelle Roberge John Anderson Engineering review complete for SDP201500047 (see SDP201300022). SDP201300022 comments, L -12., below, Michelle Roberge /16 -Aug 2013. * Comment 5.a. requires follow -up. A. Site Development Plan (SDP201300022) 1) [Comment] It appears there are concrete barriers blocking the 30' access road, west of site. Please show on existing conditions plan and state when it will be removed. [Revision 1] 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 general 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 1] Comment addressed. 3) [Comment] Please provide the labels CG -2 and CG -6 on sheet C5. [Revision 1] 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 1] 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. Engineering Review comments Page 2 of 4 http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/forms center /departments /community develo pment/forms /design standards manual/Albemarle County Design Standards Manual 220ct2012.pdf [Revision 1] Please show locations of proposed railing. Also, please extend the guardrail as shown on page 3. (SDP201500047) Partially addressed. As follow -up, see p. Plan revision extends retaining wall safety railing. 16 -Aug 2013, Michelle Roberge identifies a second item: GUARDRAIL —see image, pg. 4. Extend guardrail as shown in image. b. Retaining walls need ARB approval since site is on entrance corridor. [Revision I] Comment addressed. The wall location has not changed since the ARB approval. c. Please provide retaining wall details. [Revision 1 ] Comment addressed. 6) [Comment] Please provide ADT. [Revision 1] 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 1] 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 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 storm sewer 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. Engineering Review comments Page 3 of 4 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. (SDP201500047) Addressed. See Applicant response dated 31 -Aug 2015: "Coordination has occurred with ACSA and waterline is being relocated so that retaining wall can be installed as initially planned. Concrete slope has been removed." New: SDP201500047, 23 -Sep 2015 13. Final Site Plan approval requires Approved WPONSMP. WPO is under review (WP0201500060). 14. C1 — General Notes: Revise Note 5: Delete reference to WP0200400011. Ref. WP0201500060. 15. Remove sheets C4, C6, and C7 16. C 1 — Revise sheet index consistent with comment # 15. Thank you. 434.296 -5832 -x3069 Note: Text corruption visible in image, next pg. (due to .PDF to Word conversion), does not obscure request for guardrail, or guardrail location. See 16 -Aug 2013 M. Roberge plan review comments for unaltered/clear image. File: SDP201500047_wasSDP201300022 FSP_Town- Country_081613 MRoberge_092315jea.docx Engineering Review comments Page 4 of 4 5' MAX. KETAINING WALL guard rail IKT RE�QNQ 4- REQUIRES A SAFETY RAILING) +�y� _ "•LV1' THERE' + ADDITIONAL SAN/TARYL " 7I L EASE ?ENT limits of wall f0/ RINAL -ZE L� TO P ATELr GSA • R�'T THIS' . .. _ LATERAL "V771 SEE S "�I% '''' •4 �.� ,a ...... 4—. 14 SAF ING WITHIriPSF.? REFLECTIVE TAP ERE ADJACENT TO PARKING SP nr urcf►, yr - :r..; ..'•� Y ... - _ • .. . 1m7Fit STOP SIGN Mr), VALVE C �•...... ." - LINE 6 21 Selif,SW 11 4 _ ''3.539 PG 701 I =• '. =' -- CONNECT TO `.. L EXIST. CURB < �'� - - __ NEAT SAW CUTAc. r MATCH EX. PVMT. ....