HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP200600020 Review Comments 2006-03-13Review Comments
Proiect Name: Woodbrook Station Final — Residential — Commission
Date Completed: Monday, March 13, 2006
Reviewer: James Barber
Department/Division /Agency: Fire Rescue
Reviews Comments
Approval is subject to field inspection and verification.
Review Status: No Objection
Page: 1.00 County of Albemarle Printed 0 Tuesday, March 21, 2006
OF ALB
l v1
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To:Sri Ravali Komaragiri
From:Francis H. MacCall, Senior Planner
Division:Zoning & Current Development
Date:3/20/06
Subject:SDP -2006 -0020 Woodbrook Sta Final Site Plan
The Planner for the Zoning & Current Development Division of the Albemarle County Department
Community Development will approve the final site plan when the following items have been
satisfactorily addressed. (The following comments are those that have been identified at this time.
Additional comments or conditions may be added or eliminated based on further review.) [Each
comment is preceded by the applicable reference to the Code of Albemarle.]
1. [32.5.6a] The Tax Map and Parcel is now 45 -94A1. Please change.
2. [32.5.6a] Provide one datum reference for elevation.
3. [32.5.6a] The source of survey appears to be Thomas B Lincoln Land Surveyor Inc. Please
correct. Are they the source of the topography as well or is there a different source? Please
note.
4. [32.5.6a] The vicinity sketch is misleading in that it shows all of Rio Hill Shopping Center as
the site when in fact this is only a portion of that area that should be blacked out.
5. [32.5.6b] Correct the building square footages on the cover sheet. The Code of Development
allows 9,600 sqft for the office building and 12,000 sqft for the residential building.
6. [32.5.6b] Next to the number of dwelling units note the density being 6.6 du /ac.
7. [32.5.6b] The numbers provided for the impervious area and the open space do not add up to
the 1.21 acres total of the site. There appears to be 10% of the site not accounted for. Please
correct.
8. [32.5.6n] Provide a detail of the privacy fence along the eastern & southern property lines.
9. [4.12] & [4.12.12] Provide the following parking calculations.
Parking required = 54 spaces
Parking required for Office Use - 1 space per 200 sqft net floor area
9600 X .8 = 7680
7680/200 = 38 spaces
Parking required for residential = 16 spaces
2 spaces per dwelling unit
8 dwelling units
2X816
Total 38 + 16 = 54 spaces
Parking provided = 48 spaces with 7 spaces being designated as shared spaces between the
residential and commercial uses. The need for a loading space will reduce this number by at
least 1.
10. [4.12.13c] Provide a loading space.
11. [4.12.13e] Provide a dumpster with a pad designed according to 4.12.19
12. [32.7.2.8] Provide CG -12 curb cuts in the sidewalks where handicapped stripped areas are
shown.
13. [32.7.9] The numbers of plantings in the landscape schedule and what is shown on the plan
do not match. Please verify and correct as needed.
14. [32.6.6 c] Note whether the all easements proposed will be public or private. If public the all
trees must be removed from the easements.
15. Per the Code of Development provide the easement for the grading and landscaping on
Parcel 94A.
16. [32.7.9] Provide a breakdown of the plantings on Parcel 94A and the ones required on Parcel
94A1. This should be done in 2 different schedules.
The canopy calculation should be referenced as follows (fill in the blanks):
TOTAL SITE ACREAGE: 1.21 AC
TOTAL CANOPY REQUIRED: 5,270 SQFT
TOTAL CANOPY PROVIDED ON PARCEL 94A1: SQFT
TOTAL CANOPY PROVIDED ON PARCEL 94A: SQFT
TOTAL CANOPY PROVIDED: 12,720 SQFT
TOTAL PERCENT CANOPY PROVIDED: 24%
17. [4.17] The spillover for the site lighting appears to exceed the .5 foot - candles at the property
line. Correct this. Will there be lighting on the buildings? Especially to light up the
gathering area at night. If so provide a description of those lights and update the photometric
plan.
Please contact me at your earliest convenience if you have questions or require additional
information.
Copy: SDP -2006 -0020
jRGIN
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
March 21, 2006
Sri Ravali Komaragiri
McKee Carson
301 East High Street
Charlottesville VA 22902
RE: SDP- 2006 -0020 Woodbrook Station Final Site Plan
Dear Madam:
The Site Review Committee has reviewed the development proposal referenced above. Preliminary
comments for the following divisions of the Department of Community Development and other agencies,
as applicable, are attached:
Albemarle County Division of Zoning & Current Development (Planner)
Albemarle County Division of Zoning & Current Development (Engineer)
Albemarle County Department of Fire Rescue
Albemarle County Service Authority
Virginia Department of Transportation
Comments reflect information available at the time the development proposal was reviewed, and should
not be considered final. However, the Site Review Committee has attempted to identify all issues that
could affect approval of the proposed project.
Please make the revisions that have been identified as necessary for final approval by the Site Review
Committee. If you choose not to make the requested revisions, please submit in writing justification for
not incorporating such revisions. Submit eight (8) full size copies and one (1) 11" x 17" copy to the
Department of Community Development including responses to each of the attached comments of the
Site Review Committee by April 3, 2006. Failure to submit this information by this date will result in
suspension of the review schedule. Review will resume when revisions are submitted along with a
reinstatement fee of $65.
Please contact me at your earliest convenience if you have questions or require additional information.
Sincerely -
Francis H MacCall
Senior Planner
Zoning & Current Development
J
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832
V D
Fax (434) 972 -4126
Project: Woodbrook Station (SDP200600020, WP0200600015)
Plan preparer: McKee Carson (fax 977 -1194)
Owner or rep,: Parkside I, LLC (fax 978 -0118)
Plan received date: 01 March 2006
Date of comments: 30 March 2006
Reviewers: Ray Lilly, Mark Chambers
A. Final site plan and drainage comments: (Mark Chambers)
We apologize for the confusion over the preliminary site plan being submitted as a final.
Following are the original 4 "preliminary site plan comments" in italics and additional final site
plan comments.
1. The applicant needs to provide a temporary construction easement or letter of intent fi the
owner(s) of'TMP 45 -94A for the proposed grading on that parcel (DSM 1102);
1 The side walk along the east boundary must be a minimum 5' wide (ZMA20030008);
3. The positioning of the Filterra units and the curb inlets need to be changed. Thep should be online
with the curbing to ensure thev intercept all the intended runoff;
4. Detention, adequate channel, and other SWM computations will be reviewed with the final site
plan.
5. A signed and dated professional seal is required for approval (18- 32.6.1).
6. Please provide spot elevations for Berkmar Drive and the proposed entrance. The entrance landing
must have a maximum 4% slope for the first 40' (18- 4.12.17.b)
7. VDOT approval of the entrance is required for final approval.
8. The maximum allowed gradient in parking areas is 5% in any direction (18- 4.12.15.c ). Please
bring the plan into compliance with this requirement (see area at north west corner of parking lot
and area adjacent to the island near south west corner of parking lot).
9. Please provide profiles for all proposed storm sewer structures (excluding bio -filter under - drains)
DSM 909.1.B.(1) & D).
10. Please show all proposed utility crossings in the storm sewer profiles [DSM 909.1.D.(3)],
11. Please increase the all storm sewer pipes (excluding bio- filter under - drains) to a minimum 15"
diameter (DSM505.C.5 and 505.D.5).
12. The maximum allowed slope for storm pipes is 16% (DSM505.D.8).
13. Please provide drainage area maps for the inlet and pipe computations.
14. Please provide inlet computation (inlets in sump condition) using I value of 6.5 in per hour to
ensure runoff doesn't over top the curb (see DSM 505.G.1, 2, & 3). In addition, if the inlets are
going to be down stream of curb cuts as shown on the plan the curb cut must be modeled for
spread using I value of 4" per hour (2' curb cuts without gutter pan). If inlets are online with curb
not down stream of curb cut) model inlets for spread using I value of 4" per hour. Note: We
recommend using the standard VDOT Stomwater Inlet Computation form LD -204 or equivalent.
Spread cannot exceed half the width of the adjacent travel way or the width of the adjacent parking
isle (DSM 505.G.3).
15. Please provide pipe computations that include proposed flow rates, the pipes capacity (in open
channel flow) and velocities for the 10 -year event. The maximum allowed velocity is 10 fps and
the pipes must remain in open channel flow for the 10 -year event (see DSM 505.E.1 & 7). Note:
We recommend using the standard VDOT Storm Drain Design Computations Form LD -229 or
equivalent.
B. Stormwater management comments: (Mark Chambers)
1. Please provide drainage area maps for all calculations i.e. BMP computations, post development
hydrology, Filterra units.
2. Please provide more information on how the roof runoff will drain to the bio- filters i.e. drainage
divide on roof and piping system to bio - filter with outlet protection.
3. Please provide and inspection/ maintenance access to the bio - filters in accordance with DSM
909.2.a and DSM 503.1.D.
4. Please provide outlet protection where concentrated flows enter the bio - filters (DSM503.1.F.2).
5. The bio - filters must have overflow provision for large storm events or in the case of the bio - titter
1 if the 3" outlet becomes clogged (which is likely with the mulch and plant debris). The norm is
a class -1 rip rap lined weir. The bio - filter must pass the 10 -year event without overtopping the
embankment (DSM503.1.F.4).
6. The embankment of bio - filter /detention basin #1 does not meet the minimum top width
requirement (see DSM 503. LEA).
7. The maximum steepness for interior slopes of a bio - filter is 3:1 (DSM Chapter 5 WR -11).
8. Please specify Schedule 40 PVC for the bio - filter under -drain pipes (DSM Chapter 5 VbRA 1)
9. Bio- filters must have a minimum of 3 plant species for disease tolerance [DSM 503.1.F.8(1)].
10. Bio- filter #2 doesn't meet the minimum specs for a bio - filter. Its design characteristics (narrow
width and slope of soil mix) are that of a water quality swale which has a maximum %RR of 40 %.
Please redesign bio - filter #2 with a minimum soil mix width of 6' and without slope over the soil
mix (DSM Chapter 5 Table 5 -1, WR -10 and WR -11).
11. The positioning of the Filterra units need to be changed. They should be online with the curbing to
ensure they intercept all the intended runoff.
12. The following comments are for the Raintank detention system and comps:
a. Please provide a pre - treatment filter before the rain tank facility to prevent clogging at the
inlet point [DM 503.1 E];
b. Please provide observation wells at both ends and a cleanout point at the downstream end
of the storage area (see Atlantis Matrix D- Raintank Typical Design with Clean out Point),
c. We're concerned about the Raintank cells abutting the modified manhole outlet stricture
detail B /10). It would likely cause seepage around the structure and result in a sink hole.
If this is not a manufacturer recommended practice please use one of their recommended
outlet structures;
d. There are inconsistencies in proposed elevations between details A, /10, B /10 and the
routing inputs.
13. Please provide a Stormwater Management Facility Maintenance Agreement signed and typed in
black ink along with the $17.00 recordation fee.
C. Erosion Control Plan: (Ray Lilly)
The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan review was not able to be completed due to insufficient
information being submitted. The following comments are based on the submitted information,
additional comments will follow once the information is complete. A copy of the plan review
checklist can be found in the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook, Third Edition
1992.
1. Stormwater pipe from MH -2 connecting to existing DI is outside limits of constriction.
2. Provide flow arrows and acreage for drainage areas.
3. Provide paved wash rack at construction entrance.
4. Provide drainage easement for proposed drainage easement.
5. Show property lines on E &S plan.
6. Provide FFE for residential building.
7. Tie Silt Fence into cut slope and extend beyond retaining wall.
8. Provide Soil stabilization blankets and matting for slope per 3.36 VESCH 3 ` Edition 1992.
Ol' ,1 LIjF,0 7Z2, !D
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: Woodbrook Station (SDP200600020, VvP0200600015)
Plan preparer: McKee Carson (fax 977 -1194)
Owner or rep.: Parkside I, LLC (fax 978 -0118)
Plan received date: 01 March 2006
Revl. 21 July 2006
Date of comments: 30 March 2006
Rev]: 21 July 2006
Reviewers: Ray Lilly, Mark Chambers, Jonathan Sharp (Revision 1)
The initial comments have been reviewed and the following comments in bold still need to be
addressed. There are several new comments for Stormwater Management.
A. Final site plan and drainage comments: (Mark Chambers)
We apologize for the confusion over the preliminary site plan being submitted as a final.
Following are the original 4 "preliminary site plan comments" in italics and additional final site
plan comments.
1. The applicant needs to provide a temporary construction easement or letter ol'intent from the
owner(s) cif TMP 45 -94A, fur the proposed grading on that parcel (DSM 1102);
Rev]: easement not yet approved; in the process of getting paper work to do so.
2. The side walk along the cast boundary must be a i'nininn n 5 ' widc (ZMA20030008);
Rev]: comment not addressed. The side walk along the east boundary includes the curb when
accounting for a width of'S'. The curb cannot be considered apart of the sidewalk.
3. The positioning gt'the Filterra units and the curb inlets need to be changed. They should be online
with the curbing to ensure they intercept all the intended ninolf,
Revl: Slope changes from going toward curb to going away from curb within a very short
length. Design must be approved by Filterra.
4. Detention, adequate channel, and other SIVM computations will be rcvietii•cd with the final site
plan.
5. A signed and dated professional seal is required for approval (18- 32.6.1).
Rev]: comment not yet addressed. Signed professional seal needs to be dated.
7. VDOT approval of the entrance is required for final approval.
Rev]: comment not yet addressed. Entrance not yet approved by VDOT.
i la 9f .. < t ..
t ,':' .,.. • .`%i.. >i +' 3 e, fir, .. s
4 E 3 ...t ,• ti fx .'t' c . .0..1 \'. ...'lt _ lfi }.. } }. _ ... .f. }i .
fl iii" . <, =II {t£I', ,.. .!. .. . '{fill•: .. .'L J `t FJ.
13. Please provide drainage area maps for the inlet and pipe computations.
Rev]: post development drainage area maps must be given for inlet and pipe computations.
14. Please provide inlet computation (inlets in sump condition) using I value of 6.5 in per hour to
ensure runoff doesn't overtop the curb (see DSM 505.G.1, 2, & 3). In addition, if the inlets are
going to be down stream of curb cuts as shown on the plan the curb cut must be modeled for
spread using I value of 4" per hour (2' curb cuts without gutter pan). If inlets are online with curb
not down stream of curb cut) model inlets for spread using I value of 4" per hour. Note: We
recommend using the standard VDOT Stomwater Inlet Computation form LD -204 or equivalent.
Spread cannot exceed half the width of the adjacent travel way or the width of the adjacent parking
isle (DSM 505.G.3).
Revl: Spread calculations appear to be incorrect. Spread appears to exceed half the width of
adjacent travelway. The curb cuts must be able to accommodate for the ten year storm flow
since all of the flow is going through them before it is reaching the stormwater management
facility. When calculating the depth of water from the spread, the depth exceeds the curb height
and water will spill over into the sidewalk for the curb cut of 2' length.
F 'i: { ,,.i(li 6Y ?} ii €i, i 4j' i x ! 2'. f .}?1 ,1i c'•1': ,s'(a •. ' p
i ij;t} .EE'.' ... ..i a ,.3'tt, .f? i.:it ....e • .i . i. 'fir..?'..
r
B. Stormwater management comments: (Mark Chambers)
1. Please provide drainage area maps for all calculations i.e. BMP computations, post development
hydrology, Filterra units.
Revl: post development drainage area maps must be given for all calculations.
2. Please provide more information on how the roof runoff will drain to the bio- filters i.e. drainage
divide on roof and piping system to bio- filter with outlet protection.
Revl: drainage divides on roof are still needed to provide information on how roof runoff will
drain to the rain gardens. The divide can be shown on the post development drainage area map.
4.
9E:. [aj f..fES• i . { 'a i. °• €Ps. I.E " ix < . <., ta •, tt{ :j: ...., u r i'
2 ... 0 . a '.t ail s'€Ei' it•. ,<'£!° 'i t ftt' ;.
x .= i. € 6P¢` . ., "i .., s .. 1 !t }.`f 5 'i x . x }EEx x.: 9e i x, ea.
1f , " 1 }
t. fll,, "d .: .,, ,. .' #i.i "r >. ,. •t ", ":' < ' .illl. ° =, •E f .9
F< 1X1 , .'1 a'•:i; : , _.c, :.s a: `a t, nii.;i €<. l.t, ° '>:'.,<a. , ^3 ti , ,.< ,
d ,
l} A
ii t,3 >1 ۥ " ", .' ( "s ,? Ifl i,
e
11. The positioning of the Filterra units need to be changed. They should be online with the curbing to
ensure they intercept all the intended runoff.
Revl: See comment 3 on the final site plan and drainage comments.
1, 01'•t +. '. ., i " e;!" < .' ' €t .. <t E', w(16 %ti r},• } ',itF ,!' t a "t'i E:p
i ! ,. .. (l1"" gg .1 i'It''i €t'„ "., e it:'Ii *ie 1.?• ,.:(. x.<?t °. "tei1" ` #t'L.'. .4a ",` 1i,<
8'
d' S .. ,. , > .t ,. {< £ .(( .v . #I iit. {lii::. . > i ^if i4 a iIE. •'E .it?
i F'. ,fa .. !' : ,. ' .(1 e< .:g 11` aEa . {" i :f. ., i. .. IE.
J i
13. Please provide a Stormwater Management Facility Maintenance Agreement signed and typed in
black ink along with the $17.00 recordation fee.
Rev]: comment not yet addressed. Storm Water Management Facility Maintenance Agreement
in the process of being signed.
New comments:
1. Rain gardens covering the back half of Commercial Building must account for a capture
and treatment volume equal to 1.0 inches of runoff from the impervious area if an removal
efficiency of 65% is going to be used. The rain gardens do not have a large enough capacity
to capture the runoff volume going into the area. Please make the rain gardens bigger.
2. Please provide details for the curb inlet baskets on the plans.
3. Raintank Detention Facility is located very deep in the ground (8 feet of soil between top of
raintank and parking lot) Is there a reason raintank is so deep in the ground? Raintank may
need to be raised up.
C. Erosion Control Plan: (Ray Lilly)
The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan review was not able to be completed due to insufficient
information being submitted. The following comments are based on the submitted information,
additional comments will follow once the information is complete. A copy of the plan review
checklist can be found in the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook, Third Edition
1992.
i:. . :ea ,i B'_3 } I°w , •4 ,.' 4,f'; iE;z ...
z ' #3t; ,E:jt =„ '. ,' is =,i €It;E,s" i:;€. -tti.
rj'r ...
t
7. Tie Silt Fence into cut slope and extend beyond retaining wall.
Rev]: Silt Fence extends beyond limits of work.
c,c'I • !it '1 .. .`1` _ `" i ;f pit ,
If you have any questions or comments you can reach me, Jonathan Sharp, at (434) 296 -5832 ext.
3860.
Service Auth4rit
ruing 6 Conserving April 2, 2008
McKee Carson
Attn: Mr. Brajesh Tiwari
301 East High St.
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
Re: Woodbrook Station
Dear Mr. Tiwari:
The plan, entitled Woodbrook Station dated February 27, 2006, last revised April
1, 2008, is hereby approved for construction. One set of the approved plan is enclosed
for your records. Any previously approved plans are voided with this approval. This
approval is for basic compliance with the General Water & Sewer Construction
Specifications of the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) and does not relieve the
contractor from responsibility for his work as it relates to the plan and specifications.
The ACSA requires that a copy of the approved construction plan be on the job
site. The contractor is responsible for marking up a copy of the approved construction
plan showing as -built information and provide this data to your client at the completion of
utility installation. The final as -built plan shall be submitted in a format of one paper copy
and one mylar copy.
A preconstruction conference shall be scheduled with the project manager to
ensure coordination and answer any questions. This will be a short meeting to review the
project, materials, test methods and schedule, in order to expedite construction. Please
have the proper party call me at 977 -4511 to schedule the meeting.
This approval is valid for a period of 18 months from this date. If construction is
not in progress at the end of this time period, the approval shall be void.
If you have any questions or if we can be of assistance, please give us a call at
434) 977 -4511.
J M L /anw
cc: George Ray
State Health Department
Planning Department
Bldg Codes & Zoning Services
Soil Erosion Inspector
050601 Wood brookStationEngLtr04O2O8
Sincerely,
Jeremy M. Lynn, PE
Senior Civil Engineer
168 Spotnap Road • Charlottesville, VA 22911 • Tel (434) 977-4511 9 Fax (434) 979 -0698
www.serviceauthority.org