HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP200700048 Review Comments 2007-06-07COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone(434)296 -5832 Fax(434)972 -4126
To: David Pennock, Principal Planner
From: Allan Schack, Engineer
Subject: SDP - 2007 - 00018, Crozet Gateway Center, Critical Slope Waiver Request
Date received: 15 May 2007 (plan date 08 May 2007)
Date of Comment: 07 June 2007
The request for a waiver to develop on areas of critical slope for grading incorporated with the new
construction proposed on TMP 56 -32 and 56 -32A was received on 15 May 2007. They are shown on the
final site plan, date 08 May 2007.
The engineering analysis of the request follows:
Description of critical slope area and proposed disturbance:
The critical slope area, within TMP 56 -32 and 56 -32A and VDOT right of way, appears to be both natural
slopes and man -made slopes. The critical slope disturbances are in the form of site plan construction;
travelways, parking spaces, and stormwater management facilities.
Areas Acres
Total acreage of site plan 1.99 acres on -site:0.10 acres in R/W
Critical slopes 0.03 Acres on -site
0.10 Acres in R/W
1.51 % of total site area
Critical slopes disturbed 0.03 Acres on -site
0.07 Acres in R/W
100% of on -site critical slopes
70% of R/W critical slopes
Below, each of the concerns of Zoning Ordinance section 18 -4.2 is addressed:
1.movement of soil and rock ": Proper slope construction, control of drainage, and vegetative
stabilization with approved erosion control measures constructed within the standards of
Virginia Erosion and Sedimentation Control Regulations will prevent any movement of soil.
2. "excessive stor•nrtircrter run -o/ % ": Stormwater runoff will be controlled by the drainage/
stormwater management plan required for this site.
3. "siltation of natur °al and nrcrr7 -made holies of tircrtcr ": Engineering recognizes the proposed
design as being imperative to providing access to the site with minimal disturbance to the
critical slope areas. Inspection and bonding by the County will ensure siltation control during
construction. Proper stabilization and maintenance will ensure long term stability.
4. "loss ofaesthetic resource ": This site is visible from the neighboring properties. The site is
visible from State Route 250. It appears that the loss of aesthetic resources will be necessary
with the proposed plan.
Albemarle County minmunity Development
Engineering Review comments
Page 2 of 2
septic cIfluent ": Septic systems or drainfields are not proposed in this project. This site is
accessible to the public sanitary sewer system.
This site does not drain into a waterway that is a public drinking water supply for Albemarle County. No
portion of this site plan is located inside the 100 -year flood plain area according to FEMA Maps, dated 04
February 2005.
Based on the above review, there are no engineering concerns which prohibit the disturbance of the critical
slopes as shown on the plans.
Copy: SDP -2007- 00048, Crozet Gateway Center
File: E 1 csw ADS 07 -048 Crozet Gateway Center
OF Alh.
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: SDP -2007- 00048, Crozet Gateway Center, final site plan, ESC & SWM
Plan preparer: Ms. Ammy George, PE, Timmons Group (fat 434295.8317)
Owner or rep.: Mr. Danny Yousef, Yousef, LLC (fax unknown)
Date received: 15 May 2007 (plan date 08 May 2007)
Date of Comment: 12 June 2007
Engineer: Allan Schuck writing for engineering expedited review
The final site plan, ESC and SWM plans for Crozet Gateway Center received on 15 May 2007, have been
reviewed. The following items need to be adequately addressed:
A. Expedited engineering final site plan review comments:
Reviewed under SDP - 2007 - 00048:
1. VDOT approval is required before engineering can grant final approval.
2. Please move drainage pipes away from pump station.
3. Easements need to be a minimum of 20' in width. [DM]
4. Please show easements for the offsite drainage going through the site. [DM]
5. Please provide drainage computations and a ditch section for the existing 15" pipe at SR 751.[DM]
6. All radius needs to VDOT minimum standards at the commercial entrances. [VDOT]
7. Please label the end sections of the guardrail on the plan sheets. [DM]
8. Please clarify the spot elevations as ground or top of curbing. It appears that the spot elevations
and proposed final grade lines do not correlate to each other. [DM]
9. The pavement tables do not match the proposed typical section. The table for the pavement design
section shows that the proposed pavement section is inadequate for the proposed street.
10. Please provide EC matting for the entire lengths of each ditch on the plans. [DM]
It. Please revise elevations to show the drainage going away from the dumpster. [DM]
12. All sidewalks need to have 5' wide areas for passage this includes areas with plantings. [DM]
13. No trees are to be planted within the proposed drainage easements that are unrelated to the SWM
plan. [DM]
14. Please provide a pavement section of the turn and taper section for State Route 250 and the
improvements to State Route 751. [VDOT]
15. The applicant needs to show 1S -1, inlet shaping, for drainage structures where the flow drop
exceeds four feet. [DM]
16. Please provide a safety slab for all manholes that exceed a depth of 12 [DM]
17. Please show and label end section for the pipe STR 302. [DM]
18. The applicant has submitted a critical slope waiver request to the County. This review performed
under a separate cover. [DM]
B. Expedited engineering SWM plan review comments:
Reviewed under WPO- 2007 -00033
Albemarle County minunity Development
Engineering Review Comments
Sheet 2 of."
19. Please revise the detail on Sheet 15 to remove the 8" outlet flow pipe. The minimum size of the
pipe shall be 15 [DM]
20. Please provide the required routing model and graphs for the 2, 10 and 100 -year storm for the
proposed underground SWM facility. [DM]
21. Please provide the contour areas and elevations used for the storage computations. [DM]
22. The water quality is provided by the Filterras not the Raintank as noted on SWM plans.
23. Applicant needs to submit SWM maintenance agreement and $17 fee to the County.
24. Applicant needs to submit approval letter from Filterra.
25. The SWM portion of the Water Protection Ordinance bond amount has not been computed.
B. Expedited engineering ESC plan review comments:
Reviewed under WPO- 2007 -00033
26. Engineering recommends the usage of a CIP sediment trap instead of a separate CIP and ST at
drainage area # 2.
27. Engineering recommends using a block and gravel (IP) at the temporary cap inlet instead of the
proposed silt fence inlet protection. Please revise the detail for this feature on the plans. By doing
this, the ST # I call be removed for the plans.
28. The SF cannot go through the CE. Please revise on the ESC plans.
29. Please show and provide a detail for a paved CE on the plans.
30. The CE needs to be shown as 70" long on the plan sheets.
31. Please state on the ESC plans where the excess cut material will be placed. It appears that an
offsite area will be required. This area needs to have an approved ESC plan.
32. Please show a soil stockpile on the ESC plans.
33. Please revise the construction sequence to show the IP and CIP as the first steps of ESC
installation.
34. For Phase II, please show all the required from Phase 1 on the ESC plans.
35. Please use the correct symbol for labeling the clean water diversions.
36. Please show DC and TS and IP on the ESC plans.
37. The ESC portion of the Water Protection Ordinance bond amount has not been computed.
File: El_Isp &esc &smn ADS 07 -049 Crozet Gatcww,' C'cnter
OF Af,R
J tr
F ;c;
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: SDP -2007- 00048, Crozet Gateway Center, final site plan, ESC & SWM
Plan preparer: Ms. Ammy George, PE, Timmons Group (fax 434295.8317)
Owner or rep.: Mr. Danny Yousef, Yousef, LLC (fax unknown)
Date received: Rev. 1: 06 July 2007 (plan rev. date 06 July 2007)
15 May 2007 (plan date 08 May 2007)
Date of Comment: Rev. 1: 18 July 2007
12 .Tune 2007
Engineer: Allan Schack writing for engineering expedited review
The final site plan, ESC and SWM plans for Crozet Gateway Center received on 06 July 2007, have been
reviewed. The following items need to be adequately addressed:
A. Expedited engineering final site plan review comments:
Reviewed under SDP - 2007 - 00048:
1. VDOT approval is required before engineering can grant final approval.
Rev. 1: VDOT review has not been received by this review.
2. The applicant has submitted a critical slope waiver request to the County. This review performed
under a separate cover. [DM]
Rev. 1: The Planning Commission approved the critical slope waiver.
3. Rev. 1: Please clarify the intent of the final grades at the rear entrance and the rear parking lot
grading. The drainage does not appear to match the drainage areas shown on the drainage map.
An adequate landing needs to be shown on the final site plan for the rear entrance.
4. All other previous review comments were adequately addressed with this plan submittal.
B. Expedited engineering SWM plan review comments:
Reviewed under WPO- 2007 -00033
5. Applicant needs to submit SWM maintenance agreement and $17 fee to the County.
Rev. 1: This comment has NOT been addressed by the applicant.
6. Applicant needs to submit approval letter from Filterra.
Rev. 1: This comment has NOT been addressed by the applicant.
7. The SWM portion of the Water Protection Ordinance bond amount has not been computed.
8. Rev. 1: The weir plate needs to be in the outlet structure manhole not where the Raintank is
located. This will make the cleaning and maintenance of the facility difficult as shown.
9. All other previous review comments were adequately addressed with this plan submittal. There
are no further engineering review items.
Albemarle County c.- ,mmunity Development
Engineering Review Comments
Sheet 2 of 2
C. Expedited engineering ESC plan review comments:
Reviewed under WPO- 2007 -00033
10. Rev. 1: The design of sediment trap # I appears to have changed from the first plan submittal.
This plan submittal no longer has the design table that was shown on the first plan. Please revise.
11. All other previous review comments were adequately addressed with this plan submittal. There
are no further engineering review items.
12. The ESC portion of the Water Protection Ordinance bond amount has not been computed.
Nile: E2_Isp&esc &s%tim_ ADS Crozet GateNNay Center
A
RGIN
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: SDP -2007- 00048, Crozet Gateway Center, final site plan, ESC & SWM
Plan preparer: Ms. Ammy George, PE, Timmons Group (fax 434.295.8317)
Owner or rep.: Mr. Danny Yousef, Yousef, LLC (fax unknown)
Date received: Rev. 2: 30 July 2007 (plan rev. date 23 July 2007)
Rev. 1: 06 July 2007 (plan rev. date 06 July 2007)
15 May 2007 (plan date 08 May 2007)
Date of Comment: Rev. 2: 15 August 2007
Rev. 1: 18 July 2007
12 June 2007
Engineer: Allan Schuck writing for engineering expedited review
The final site plan, ESC and SWM plans for Crozet Gateway Center received on 30 July 2007, have been
reviewed. The following items need to be adequately addressed:
A. Expedited engineering final site plan review comments:
Reviewed under SDP- 2007 - 00048:
VDOT approval is required before engineering can grant final approval.
Rev. 1: VDOT review has not been received by this review.
The applicant has submitted a critical slope waiver request to the County. This review performed
under a separate cover. [DM]
Rev. 1: The Planning Commission approved the critical slope waiver.
Rev. 1: Please clarify the intent of the final grades at the rear entrance and the rear parking lot
grading. The drainage does not appear to match the drainage areas shown on the drainage map.
An adequate landing needs to be shown on the final site plan for the rear entrance.
Rev. 2: This comment has been adequately addressed with this plan submittal.
All other previous review comments were adequately addressed with this plan submittal.
B. Expedited engineering SWM plan review comments:
Reviewed under WPO- 2007 -00033
Applicant needs to submit SWM maintenance agreement and $17 fee to the County.
Rev. 1: This comment has NOT been addressed by the applicant.
Rev. 2: This comment has been adequately addressed with this plan submittal.
Applicant needs to submit approval letter from Filterra.
Rev. 1: This comment has NOT been addressed by the applicant.
Rev. 2: This comment has been adequately addressed with this plan submittal.
The SWM portion of the Water Protection Ordinance bond amount has not been computed.
Rev. 2: The SWM portion of the WPO bond amount is $248,000.00. Please contact
Ms. Pam Shifflett at 434.296.5832 Ext. 3246 for more information.
Albemarle County nununity Development
Engineering Review Comments
Sheet 2 of 2
8. Rev. 1: The weir plate needs to be in the outlet structure manhole not where the Raintank is
located. This will make the cleaning and maintenance of the facility difficult as shown.
Rev. 2: This comment has been adequately addressed with this plan submittal.
9. All other previous review comments were adequately addressed with this plan submittal. There
are no further engineering review items.
C. Expedited engineering ESC plan review comments:
Reviewed under WPO- 2007 -00033
10. Rev. I: The design of sediment trap #I appears to have changed from the first plan submittal.
This plan submittal no longer has the design table that was shown on the first plan. Please revise.
Rev. 2: This comment has been adequately addressed with this plan submittal.
11. All other previous review comments were adequately addressed with this plan submittal. There
are no further engineering review items.
12. The ESC portion of the Water Protection Ordinance bond amount has not been computed.
Rev. 2: The SWM portion of the WPO bond amount is $29,000.00. Please contact Ms.
Pam Shifflett at 434.296.5832 Ext. 3246 for more information.
File: E3_fsp &csc &skvm_ ADS Crozet Gateway Center
Page 1 of 1
From: Bill Fritz
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 10:37 AM
To: ammy.george@timmons.com
Cc: David E. Pennock
Subject: SDP 07 -048 Crozet Gateway Center Final Site Plan
I have reviewed the parking reduction request you submitted. I have also discussed this request with Amelia
McCulley (Zoning Administrator) and Ron Higgins (Manager of Zoning). The parking reduction request cannot be
supported. We are unable to identify any unusual characteristics associated with this development that would
tend to indicate that the parking requirements contained in the ordinance are incorrect. Further, no area is
available onsite to provide additional parking. Area for additional parking should be available in the event that the
reduced parking requirement provides inadequate area for the actual use of the site. The information you
submitted is very detailed and may be useful in the review of a Zoning Text Amendment. If you have any
questions please feel free to contact me.
William D. Fritz, AICP
Chief of Zoning
Albemarle County
434 - 296 -5832 ext 3225
tile: / /C: \DPennockDocs \Reviews \Site Plans \2006 \Crozet Gateway \Parking Determination... 11/29/2007
Page 1 of 2
Ammy George
From: Allan Schuck [as arle.org)
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 2:04 PM
To: Ammy George; Denny Yousef
Cc: Sam Saunders; David E. Pennock; John Shepherd
Subject: RE: Crozet Gateway Center
Attachments: E3 fspbesc&swm ADS 07-048 Crozet Gateway Center.doc; 6 -1 -07 escp bond estimete.xls;
Crozet Gateway SWM S&W.xk
Good Afternoon:
Attached are the latest review comments for Crozet Gateway Center. The final site plan was reviewed under
SDP - 2007 -00048. The ESC and SWM plans were reviewed under WPO- 2007 -00033. Engineering has no further
engineering review comments. All other review agencies need to be able to recommend approval to the final site
plan before a preconstruction meeting can occur.
Please submit four (4) additional copies of the plans to the County so the plans can be distributed to the ESC
inspectors. The WPO bonds need to be posted before the preconstruction meeting can occur.
Also attached to this e-mail are the ESC and SWM bond amounts that need to be posted to the County. Please
contact Ms. Pam Shifflett with any questions concerning the posting of the required bonds.
Thanks,
Allan Schuck
From: Ammy George [m&ft:Ammy.Geor9eOtirr nons.com]
So* Wednesday, August 15, 200712:16 PM
To: Alan Schuck
Subject: FW: Crozet Ga v ay Canter
Allan, here is the approval letter from Fllterra. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to call
me.
Ammy
From: Duane Vincent [maUbo:dvkwm*Of*enra.com]
Sam: Monday, 3uriy 30, 2007 1:23 PM
To: Ammy George
subject: Crozet Gateway Center
Ammy, here is the letter for Albemarle County you tequested. Please lot me know If you need anything further.
Thank you,
Duane Vincent
Filterra(R Stormwater Bioretention Filtration System
Manufactured by Americast
11352 Virginia Precast Road
8/15/2007
Albemarle County
Service Authority
xrvinq 6 ( .on>ei vnnq —October 17, 2007
Timmons Group
Attn: Ms. Ammy George, CLA
919 2 Street, SW
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
Re: Crozet Gateway Center
Dear Ms. George:
The plan, entitled "Crozet Gateway Center' dated May 8, 2007, last revised
October 8, 2007, is hereby approved for construction. One set of the approved plan is
enclosed for your records. 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.
TAG:dmg
cc: Danny Yousef
State Health Department
Planning Department
Bldg Codes & Zoning Services
Soil Erosion Inspector
050601 GaWmw0wYWCA0W 901707
Sincerely,
Thomas A. Garrison
Senior Civil Engineer
168 Spotnap Road - Charlottesville, VA 22911 - Tel (434) 977-4511 - Fax (434) 979 -0698
www.serviceauthority.org
OF AL
IRGIL
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone(434)296 -5832 Fax(434)972 -4126
October 26, 2007
Ammy George
C/o Timmons Group
9192 nd Street S.E.
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: SDP 2007 — 048 Crozet Gateway Final Site Plan
Dear Ms. George,
I have reviewed your October 3, 2007 letter requesting a modification of the parking standard. In your
calculations you arrived at 86 required spaces for Retail and 32 required spaces for Office. I agree with
this calculation. You added these together and arrived at 117 spaces. I believe this is a typographical
error, 118 spaces are required for these two uses.
You propose storage as a use for 7,561 square feet of the building. This represents nearly a quarter of the
entire building space. Storage is a permitted use in the HC, Highway Commercial zoning district. It is
proposed that no parking be attributed to this storage. If this storage were a stand alone use it would
require a minimum of 2 parking spaces. This would raise the required parking to 120 spaces for the site.
You have proposed to serve this project with 99 parking spaces. This is a reduction of 17.5 %.
I can grant a shared parking for the storage and other uses on site. This results in 1 l 8 spaces being
required. This modification is based on the statement that the storage will be used to support the other
users of the site.
I cannot approve a reduction in the parking under the shared parking concept for the office and retail. I
have no evidence that the two uses; office and retail, will operate at dissimilar times. I am unable to
identify any unusual characteristics associated with this development that would tend to indicate that the
parking requirements contained in the ordinance are incorrect. Further, no area is available onsite to
provide additional parking. Area for additional parking should be available in the event that the reduced
parking requirement provides inadequate area for the actual use of the site.
You may appeal this decision as provided for by Chapter 18, Section 4.12.2(d) of the Albemarle County
Code.
Sincerely,
William D. Fritz, AICP
Chief of Zoning
fmmgium
OCT 2007
11 -09 -07 SDP - 2007 -00048 Crozet Gateway Center
We received a resubmission for the above site plan directly from the designer, Timmons Group,
on 9/14/07 which has not yet been reviewed by the County. We have reviewed it and have the
following comments:
The entrance from Route 751 has a width of 25ft which is less than the 30ft required by
Minimum Standards of Entrances to State Highways. Widening this entrance should also help to
facilitate vehicles, especially trucks, turning right to exit the site which appears to be a difficult
maneuver in the current design.
The proposed design of GR -8C guard rail with GR -6 end treatments is not acceptable.
A GR -2 guard rail is required along with an appropriate end treatment.
Some of the VDOT standards shown on sheet 8 are out -of -date (e.g. GR -6 was revised
2/06). The most recent revision of any proposed VDOT standard must be shown.
There appears to be a discrepancy between the proposed drainage areas shown on
sheet 11 and the post development drain divides shown on sheet 16. On sheet 16, the POST
DA -2 indicates that the runoff for the paved area at the Route 250 entrance south of the curb
inlets (STR 109 and STR 107) will drain into the drop inlet (STR 403). However, sheet 11 does
not show the runoff for the entrance flowing into any drainage structure.
I • Judging from the grading & drainage plan on sheet 5, a berm is proposed between
tch 2 and the proposed edge of pavement of Route 250. This design would cause runoff to flow
along the edge of pavement and cause erosion problems. One solution would be to revise the
grading plan eliminating the berm so that the runoff from the entrance could flow into the nearby
drop inlet (STR -113). Another solution would be to extend the curb and gutter from the western
side of the Route 250 entrance so that it conveys the runoff into the existing grate inlet which is
connected to the existing 18" RCP. In the second case, calculations for spread and depth will be
needed for the existing grate.
Complete computations are needed for the above mentioned existing grate which
receives all the flow of ditch 3. The computations currently show that it only receives 1.10 cfs
from STR 115 which it passes on to the outfall. These computations therefore ignore the 2.31 cfs
of runoff from ditch 3 that will be flowing into the existing grate.
If you have any questions, please contact me or Joel DeNunzio.
Thank you,
AJ Hamidi
Charlottesville Residency
Ajmal.Hamidi @VDOT.virginia.gov
SDP - 2007 -00048 Crozet Gateway Center
Allan,
I have reviewed the above plan and have the following comments:
Sheet 2, note number 23 should be in accordance with the Virginia Work Area
Protection Manual and the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
The demolition plan should show saw cutting the existing edges of pavement at the
entrances and removing the pavement and all curbing.
The proposed right turn lane is adjacent to the turn lane for rte. 751 and the site should
not propose an additional turn lane. The plan should just extend the turn lane and provide 48 foot
tapers on either side of the radial returns. Or, they could end the curb and gutter at the tangent
sections and provide 35 foot radii.
The plan should include entrance profiles for both proposed entrances.
I met with Ammy George last week to discuss the turn lane issue and I think we resolved the
layout. If there are any questions, please contact me.
Thanks,
Joel
Joel DeNunzio, P.E.
Staff Engineer
434 - 293 -0011 Ext. 120
joel.denunzio @VirginiaDVT.org
10 I.13,t
T
Rc'11
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832
March 7, 2008
Timmons Group (Amory George)
919 2nd Street South East
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: SDP2007 -00048 Crozet Gateway Center — Final
Tax Map 56, Parcel 32 & 32A
Dear Ms. George:
Fax(434)972 - 4126
On February 6, 2008 the Board of Supervisors approved SDP2007 -00048 Crozet Gateway Centel -
by a vote of 6:0 with the following conditions:
a. Current Development Planner approval to include:
i. A conservation checklist (available on Community Development
website) shall be added to the plan and signed by owner; and
ii. Parking counts, areas for each use, and impervious area calculations must
be updated to reflect any modifications to parking or layout.
b. Current Development Engineer approval to include:
i. The plan is acceptable as shown. Bond amounts for Erosion and
Sediment Control and Stormwater Management are available and must
be posted.
C. Please provide evidence of Albemarle County Service Authority approval.
d. Virginia Department of Transportation approval to include:
i. The applicant must address the comments issued by AJ Hamidi on
November 9, 2007.
Please contact me if you have questions regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
William D. Fritz
Chief of Current Development
CC: Yousef LC
5717 Brownsville Road
Charlottesville Va 22903
11 -09 -07 SDP - 2007 -00048 Crozet Gateway Center
We received a resubmission for the above site plan directly from the designer, Timmons Group,
on 9/14/07 which has not yet been reviewed by the County. We have reviewed it and have the
following comments:
The entrance from Route 751 has a width of 25ft which is less than the 30ft required by
Minimum Standards of Entrances to State Highways. Widening this entrance should also help to
facilitate vehicles, especially trucks, turning right to exit the site which appears to be a difficult
maneuver in the current design.
The proposed design of GR -8C guard rail with GR -6 end treatments is not acceptable.
A GR -2 guard rail is required along with an appropriate end treatment.
Some of the VDOT standards shown on sheet 8 are out -of -date (e.g. GR -6 was revised
2/06). The most recent revision of any proposed VDOT standard must be shown.
There appears to be a discrepancy between the proposed drainage areas shown on
sheet 11 and the post development drain divides shown on sheet 16. On sheet 16, the POST
DA -2 indicates that the runoff for the paved area at the Route 250 entrance south of the curb
inlets (STR 109 and STR 107) will drain into the drop inlet (STR 403). However, sheet 11 does
not show the runoff for the entrance flowing into any drainage structure.
Judging from the grading & drainage plan on sheet 5, a berm is proposed between
ditch 2 and the proposed edge of pavement of Route 250. This design would cause runoff to flow
along the edge of pavement and cause erosion problems. One solution would be to revise the
grading plan eliminating the berm so that the runoff from the entrance could flow into the nearby
drop inlet (STR -113). Another solution would be to extend the curb and gutter from the western
side of the Route 250 entrance so that it conveys the runoff into the existing grate inlet which is
connected to the existing 18" RCP. In the second case, calculations for spread and depth will be
needed for the existing grate.
Complete computations are needed for the above mentioned existing grate which
receives all the flow of ditch 3. The computations currently show that it only receives 1.10 cfs
from STR 115 which it passes on to the outfall. These computations therefore ignore the 2.31 cfs
of runoff from ditch 3 that will be flowing into the existing grate.
If you have any questions, please contact me or Joel DeNunzio.
Thank you,
AJ Hamidi
Charlottesville Residency
Aimal.Hamidi@VDOT.virginia.gov
v
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: SDP - 2007 - 00018, Crozet Gateway Center, final site plan, ESC & SW11
Plan preparer: 'v1s. Anuny George, PE, Timmons Group (fax 434.295.83 17)
Owner or rep.: Mr. Danny YOUSef, Yousef, LLC (fat unknown)
Date received: Rev. 3: 3 March 2008 (plan rev. date 13 February 2008)
Rev. 2: 30 July 2007 (plan rev. date 23 July 2007)
R 1: 06 July 2007 (plan rev. date 06 July 2007)
13 May 2007 (plan date 08 May 2007)
Date of Comment: Rev. 3: 20 March 2008
Rev. 2: 15 August 2007
Rev. 1: 18 Julv 2007
12 June 2007
Engineer: Amy Pflaum writing for engineering expedited review
The final site plan for Crozet Gateway Center received on 3 March 2008, has been reviewed. The
following items need to be adequately addressed:
A. Expedited engineering final site plan review comments:
Reviewed under SDP- 2007 - 00048:
1. Sheets 5 & 11 have been revised per VDOT November 9, 2007 comments to remove "ditch
2" and direct flow to inlet STR -113. However, Sheet 18 continues to show the ditch.
2. The drainage computations on Sheet 14 have not been updated to include STR -113 per
VDOT request.
3. VDOT approval is required before engineering can grant final approval.
Rev. I: VDOT review has not been received by this review.
4. The applicant has submitted a critical slope waiver request to the County. This review performed
under a separate cover. [DM]
Rcv. 1: The Planning Commission approved the critical dope waiver.
5. Rev. 1: Please clarify the intent of the final grades at the rear entrance and the rear parking lot
grading. The drainage does not appear to match the drainage areas shown on the drainage map.
Ali adequate landing needs to be shown on the final site plan for the rear entrance.
Rev. 2: This comment has been adequately addressed with this plan submittal.
6. All other previous review comments were adequately addressed with this plan submittal.
B. Expedited engineering SWM plan review comments:
Reviewed under WPO- 2007 -00033
7. Applicant needs to submit SWM maintenance agreement and $17 tee to the County.
Rev. 1: This comment has NOT been addressed by the applicant.
Rev. 2: This comment has been adequately addressed with this plan submittal.
Albemarle County C— tununity Development
Engineering Review Comments
Sheet 2 of-"
8. Applicant needs to submit approval letter from Filterra.
Rev. 1: This comment has NOT been addressed by the applicant.
Rev. 2: This comment has been adequately addressed with this plan submittal.
9. The Sw'M portion of the Water Protection Ordinance bond amount has not been computed.
Rev. 2: The SWM portion of the WPO bond amount is $218,000.00. Please contact
Ms. Pam Shifflett at 434.296.5832 Ext. 3246 for more information.
10. Rev. 1: The weir plate needs to be in the outlet structure manhole not where the Raintank is
located. This will make the cleaning and maintenance of the facility difficult as shown.
Rev. 2: This comment has been adequately addressed with this plan submittal.
11. All other previous review comments were adequately addressed with this plan submittal. There
are no further engineering review items.
C. Expedited engineering ESC plan review comments:
Reviewed under WPO- 2007 -00033
12. Rev. 1: The design of sediment trap # I appears to have changed from the first plan submittal.
This plan submittal no longer has the design table that was shown on the first plan. Please revise.
Rev. 2: This comment has been adequately addressed with this plan submittal.
13. All other previous review comments were adequately addressed with this plan submittal. There
are no further engineering review items.
14. The ESC portion of the Water Protection Ordinance bond amount has not been computed.
Rev. 2: The SW'M portion of the WPO bond amount is $29,000.00. Please contact Ms.
Pam Shifflett at 434.296.5832 Est. 3216 for more information.
15. All other previous review comments were adequately addressed with this plan submittal. There
are no further engineering review items.
File: 1:3 __I';p&esc& ADS_07 -0.48 C'roiet Gatc\Na} Center
Page 1 of 1
Amy Pflaum
From: Amy Pflaum
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 7:44 PM
To: 'Craig Kotarski'
Subject: RE: Crozet Gateway Center
Craig,
I have reviewed the PDF's and I see that you have updated the sheets based on Joel's comments. You need to change
the revised profile to update that the invert in is coining from pipe 112, net 114, You did not update the total amount of
flow from Ex STR to Out on the Computations sheet, does re- routing this flow affect your detention compliance? Also, a
revised set of plans will need to be submitted so that we can recalculate the bond amounts based on the changes.
Thank you,
Amy D. Pflaum
Senior Civil Engineer
Albemarle County Department of Community Development
434) 296 -5832 x3069
pf/rturn :alberntrirle nr9
From: Craig Kotarski [ mailto : Craig. Kota rski @timmons.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 3:00 PM
To: Amy Pflaum
Cc: Ammy George; Joel Denunzio
Subject: FW: Crozet Gateway Center
Amy,
We have been in contact with Joel Denunzio and have made some slight changes to the site plan. Structure 113 which
was removed upon the previous submittal has been reinserted per Joel's request. I have included pdfs of the updated
drawings for you to reviewand approve. We will submit these changes on the rnylar copies for signature.
In regards to your comments, dated March 20, 2008, they have all been addressed as follows.
1. The ditch has been removed from Sheet 19, Erosion and Sediment Control Phase II (see attached pdf of this
sheet). The inlets now match those shown on the layout plans.
2. Drainage computations on Sheet 14 have been updated to reflect the addition of Structure 113. 1 have also
included the grading plan and proposed drainage area sheets for you to see the addition of Structure 113. The profile has
also been updated to reflect this. In our discussions with Joel he approved that we use a Class V material pipe where
connecting into the ex. 18" outfall pipe from Structure 113 to satisfy any concerns over shallow cover.
If there are any other questions in regards to this site, please let me know, as we are looking to finish this project as soon
as possible.
Craig Kotarski, EIT
919 2nd St., S.E.
Charlottes%ille, VA 22902
43.1.327.1688 (Direct)
434.295.8317 (Far)
crai— it timmons.com
3 %31 /2008
lJII' I 7
J
1
fit.
COUNTY OF ALBENIARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
Project:SDP -2007- 00048, Crozet Gatewa} Center, final site plan, FSC & SWM
Plan preparer:vts. Annny George, PF., Timmons Group (lax -434.295.831 7)
Owner or rep.:Mr. Danny YOUSetf, YOLISef, LLC (tax unknown)
Date received:Rev. 4 : 4 April 2008 (plan rev. date 3 April 2008)
Rev. 3: 3 March 2008 (plan rev. date 13 February 2008)
Rev. 2: 30 July 2007 (plan rev. date 23 Jul 2007)
Rev. l: 06.luly 2007 (plan rev. date 06.1uly 2007)
15 May 2007 (plan date 08 May 2007)
Date of Comment:Rev. 4 : 21 April 2008
Rev. 3 : 20 ~larch 2008
Rev. 2: 15 ;august 2007
Rev. 1: 18 July 2007
12 June 2007
Engineer:Amy Pflaum
The final site plan for Crozet Gateway Center received on 4 April 2008, has been reviewed. The following
items have been adequately addressed:
A. Expedited engineering final site plan review comments:
Reviewed under SDP- 2007 - 00048:
1. Sheets 5 & 1 I have been rev iced per VDOT November 9, 2007 comments to remove "ditch 2 " and
direct flow to inlet STR -1 13. However, Sheet 18 continues to show the ditch.
Rev. 3: Comment has been addressed.
2. The drainage computations on Sheet 14 have not been updated to include STR - I 13 per VD0T
request.
Rev. 3: Comment has been addressed.
3. VDO f• approval is required belore engineering can grant final approval.
Rev. l: VDOI' rev iew has not been received by this review.
4. The applicant has submitted a critical slope waiver request to the County. I'his rev ievv performed
under a separate cover. IDMI
Rev. 1: The Planning Commission approved the critical slope waiver.
5. Rev. 1: Please clarify the intent of the final grades at the rear entrance and the rear parking lot
grading. The drainage does not appear to match the drainage areas shown on the drainage map.
An adequate landing needs to be shown on the final site plan for the rear entrance.
Rev. 2: This comment has been adequate(~ addressed with this plan submittal.
6. All review comments have been adequately addressed with this plan submittal. There are
no further engineering review items.
B. Expedited engineering SW M plan review comments:
Albemarle County Community Development
Engineering Review Comments
Sheet 2 of 2
Reviewed under WPO- 2007 -00033
7. Applicant needs to submit SW'M maintenance agreement and $17 tee to the COMM.
Rev. 1: This comment has NOT been addressed by the applicant.
Rev. 2: This comment has been adequately addressed with this plan submittal.
8. Applicant needs to subnlit approval letter from Filterra.
Rev. 1 : This comment has NOT been addressed by the applicant.
Rev. 2: 'This comment has been adequately addressed w ith this plan submittal.
9. The SWM portion of the Water Protection Ordinance bond amount has not been computed.
Rev. 2: The SWM portion of the WPO bond amount is $248,000.00. Please contact
NIs. Pam Shifflett at 43.1.296.5832 Est. 3246 for more information.
10. Rev. 1: 'File weir plate needs to be in the outlet structure manhole not w here the Raintank is
located. This will make the cleaning and maintenance ofthe facility difficult as shown.
Rev. 2: " ['his comment has been adequately addressed with this plan submittal.
1 1. All other prey ions review connnents were adequately addressed with this plan submittal. There
are no further engineering rev iew items.
C. Expedited engineering ESC plan review comments:
Reviewed under WPO- 2007 -00033
12. Rev. 1: The design of sediment trap #1 appears to have changed from the first plan submittal.
This plan submittal no longer has the design table that vas shown on the First plan. Please revise.
Rev. 2: This conllnent has been adequately addressed with this plan sublltlttal.
13. All other previous review comments were adequately addressed w ith this plan submittal. ']'here
are no further engineering review items.
14. The ESC portion of the Water Protection Ordinance bond anl0unt has not been computed.
Rev. 2: The SNVM portion of the WPO bond amount is $29,000.00. Please contact Nis.
Pam Shifflett at 431.296.5832 Est. 3246 for more information.
15. All other previous revicvv comments were adequately addressed with this plan submittal. There
are no further engineering review items.
File: F5 AIT U7 -tl.t8 Cro/et Gateway Center