Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP200700138 Review Comments 2007-11-07of I III gatitk Ver. County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To:David Pennock, Principal Planner 11 From:Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator Division:Zoning and Current Development Date:November 7, 2007 Subject:NGIC Preliminary Site Plan (SDP 2007 -078) — Determination of Compliance with Proffers (ZMA 2007 -003) I have reviewed the revised site plan (most recent revision dated 10/10/07) to determine if it is in general accord with the Application Plan referred to by the proffers. It is my opinion that this site plan is in general accord with the applicable rezoning plan. This determination was made in consultation with the Director of Community Development, the Director of Planning and the Principal Planner for the Development Areas. This determination is made subject to several understandings and conditions which will be explained more fully in the proceeding. For the purposes of this further discussion, the rezoning plan shall be the same as the Application Plan referred to by the proffers. The rezoning plan shows the provision of stormwater management with an offsite facility. This site plan shows a stormwater management facility located in the area of the rezoning plan shown for an apartment building. The applicant's submittal refers to this being a temporary location for a stormwater facility. The site plan shows this area as "Phase III Future Location of 120 Apartment Units." The current proposal is in general accord with the rezoning plan based on the following: 1. An offsite stormwater facility is not explicitly proffered; 2. It is staff's opinion that the offsite facility was not a major element of the plan nor did it serve a general public purpose; 3. The opportunity for an offsite facility is not foreclosed by this site plan and 4. The other features and major elements of the proposed plan are consistent with the rezoning plan. Please be advised that the 20 foot vegetative buffer shown on the rezoning plan shall be maintained as shown on the site plan. The buffer may not be encroached into for grading for the installation of the stormwater facility. The landscape plan and erosion and sediment control plan must be coordinated so that significant trees at the edge of the buffer will not be damaged. Application #:SDP2007001,,..Short Review Comments Project Name:' NGIC Expansion - Final Final — Non - residential — Commission Date Completed:12/12/2007 Reviewer:Andrew Slack E911 Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments: THE APPLICANT SHOULD CONTACT THIS OFFICE WITH A LIST OF THREE (3) POTENTIAL ROAD NAMES FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT. Date Completed:01/02/2008 Reviewer:David Pennock Planner Z &CD Review Status: Reviews Comments: Plans to be replaced with amended set on 1 - 3 - 07 Date Completed:11/27/2007 Reviewer:James Barber Fire Rescue Review Status:No Objection Reviews Comments: ''Indicate the location of fire hydrants. Hydrants must be located within 400 feet of the building by way of a prepared travel way. Approval is subject to field inspection and verification. Date Completed:11/28/2007 Reviewer:Jay Schlothauer Inspections Review Status:No Objection Reviews Comments: !Based on plans dated October 31, 2007. Date Completed:12/11/2007 Reviewer:Margaret Maliszewski ARB Review Status:No Objection Reviews Comments: During the rezoning review it was determined that this development would not be visible from the Route 29 Entrance Corridor. Consequently, ARB review is not required. Date Completed: Reviewer:Summer Frederick Planner Z &CD Review Status:No Objection Reviews Comments: mistake entry I Date Completed:06/18/2008 Reviewer:unassigned engineer Engineer Z &CD Review Status:No Objection Reviews Comments: Road bond amount is $999,720 Date Completed:01/07/2008 Reviewer:unassigned engineer Engineer Z &CD Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments: .This submittal of the plans has been withdrawn by the applicant. Page: 1.00 County of Albemarle Printed On: Monday, August 11, 2008 YU \f,Ij,, d fr 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:NGIC Expansion Final [SDP200700138] Plan preparer:Scott Collins [scott a?collins- engineering.com] Owner or rep.:United Land Corporation [PO Box 5548 Charlottesville, VA 22905] Plan received date: 07 January 2008 Date of comments: 16 January 2008 Reviewer:Engineering Expedited Review The plans have been reviewed by Engineering Staff. The plans are approved on the condition that the following comments are addressed: A. Final Site Plan (SDP200700138) 1. The sidewalk adjacent to stormwater structures 50, 48, and 46 must be 6ft wide or bumper blocks should be provided. 2. What is the purpose of the travelway to the back of the building? If access will be used for anything other than emergency access, all parking area requirements apply. Please clarify. Engineering recommends providing a turn - around at the end of the proposed access. 3. The plans show all roof runoff draining to a drop inlet (62). How will this work? Typically, the roof drains tie directly into the storm sewers. 4. Drainage should not run across or through dumpster pads. 5. Stormwater flow cannot change directions at an angle sharper than 90° in the storm sewer network shown at junction 72- 64 -10). 6. Please provide VDOT standard inlet shaping (IS -1) on all inlets where there is a drop of 4ft or greater. This design standard includes drops from surface runoff into the bottom of the structure. 7. There appear to be major errors and missing information for Tables 6, 7, 8. Please provide correct pipe calculations and inlet on grade and sump calculations (for 4 in/hr and 6.5 in /hr intensity storm) for all proposed inlets and pipes. See the County Engineering Design Manual and Checklist for requirements. 8. The outlet velocity of a storm sewer system must be below 15ft /s (shown at 36 -OUT). 9. The diameters of the pipes between structures 64 -10 and 16 -12 do not match between the profiles and the calculations. 10. Deeded drainage easements are required prior to final site plan approval for all drainage pipes carrying drainage from public ROW. 11. All drainage easements must be sized adequately according to the County Engineering Design Manual: required width = 10' + (pipe dia.) + 2' + 2 'x(depth - 5'). 12. No structures or trees are allowed within drainage easements. B. Road Plans (SDP200700138) 13. VDOT approval is required. 14. Please show the proposed ROW on the plans. 15. Please show all signs for traffic control and street name signs on the plans. Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 2 16. On sheet R -1 at the bottom left, the labels for existing and proposed grade for each 50ft station are omitted. 17. Vertical curve information (vertices, end points, K- values) are not shown on the plans. 18. How is drainage provided from 15 + 75 to 18 + 00? C. Stormwater Management Plans (WP0200700099) 19. Please provide a plan view detail of the SWM facility on the SWM plans at a scale of 1:20 or 1:30. 20. Please provide the Albemarle County general stormwater notes. 21. Please provide adequate 4x water quality volume. Only the first 6 feet depth of the pond and forebay can count towards water quality volume requirements. 22. Please provide adequate pond depth vs. surface area per VSMH 3.06 Table 3.06 — 2. 23. Please provide adequate SWM for proposed roadway section 15 + 75 to 18 + 00. 24. Please provide a 10' x 10' section planting plan for the aquatic bench specifying 3 species of aquatic plants. 25. Please show the safety /aquatic bench with appropriate grading on the plans per VSMH 3.06. 26. Please provide adequate stormwater management access and easement to the forebay and dam /riser structure of the facility. 27. The SWM bond is set at $43,000. D. Erosion and Sediment Control Plans (WP0200700099) 28. A portion of the area within the limits of disturbance is not shown during phase I. 29. It appears that part of the road improvements for Boulders Parkway during phase II are outside the limits of disturbance. 30. Please show the Rte 29 improvements on the E &S plans and provide any necessary E &S measures. 31. Sediment basin 1 has inadequate wet storage. 32. Please provide an adequate dam for sediment basin 2. 33. Please provide a signs for the basins /traps stating "danger, quick sand, do not enter." 34. The E &S bond is set at $117,000. 01: ‘ Jill tilk 14-Oft i 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:NGIC Expansion Final [SDP200700138] Plan preparer:Scott Collins [ scottgcollins- engineering.com] Owner or rep.:United Land Corporation [PO Box 5548 Charlottesville, VA 22905] Plan received date: Rev. 1) 24 January 2008 07 January 2008 Date of comments: Rev. 1) 30 January 2008 16 January 2008 Reviewer:Engineering Expedited Review The plans have been reviewed by Engineering Staff. The plans are approved on the condition that the following comments are addressed: A. Final Site Plan (SDP200700138) 7. There appear to be major errors and missing information for Tables 6, 7, 8. Please provide correct pipe calculations and inlet on grade and sump calculations (for 4 in/hr and 6.5 in/hr intensity storm) for all proposed inlets and pipes. See the County Engineering Design Manual and Checklist for requirements. Rev. 1) Some inlets have spreads larger than 10ft for storm of 4in/hr intensities. The applicant may need to provide flanking inlets in some cases or adjust calculations so "lane cross-slope" is more representative of each inlet's adjacent site grading. It also appears that inlet 72 is acting as an inlet on grade rather than inlet in sump. Calculations should be provided for all curb island cut sections where an inlet is not provided and water H travel through the 2ft wide, curbed flume. [DMJ Albemarle nty Community Development engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 3 10. Deeded drainage easements are required prior to final site plan approval for all drainage pipes carrying drainage from public ROW. Rev. 1) This comment has been acknowledged by the applicant. Final site plan approval will be withheld until deeds of the easement are recorded for the site. 11. All drainage easements must be sized adequately according to the County Engineering Design Manual: required width = 10' + (pipe dia.) + 2' + 2'x(depth — 5'). Rev. 1) Easements appear to be sized correctly. However, some drainage easements appear to be combined with ACSA easements. Please correct. B. Road Plans (SDP200700138) 13. VDOT approval is required. Rev. 1) VDOT comments have yet to be given. Comments will be forwarded to the applicant at the time of their arrival. 14. Please show the proposed ROW on the plans. Rev. 1) The proposed ROW seems to terminate before connecting to the existing ROW. Please show this connection on both sides of the road. 16. On sheet R -1 at the bottom left, the labels for existing and proposed grade for each 50ft station are omitted. Rev. 1) Elevation data for the entire road appears to be incorrect. Please amend. 18. How is drainage provided from 15 + 75 to 18 + 00? Rev. 1) Please extend the new storm system along Boulder's Road to collect runoff between stations 15 +75 and 18 +00 so that it can be treated and detained. C. Stormwater Management Plans (WP0200700099) 23. Please provide adequate SWM for proposed roadway section 15 + 75 to 18 + 00. Rev. 1) Please extend new storm system along Boulder's Road to collect runoff between stations 15 +75 and 18 +00 so that it can be treated and detained. The ordinance specifies that storm water management facilities "capture, to the maximum extent practical, the runofffrom the entire land development project area'; the 90% capture ratio is merely a target. Albemarle nty Community Development Engineering Review Comments Page 3 of 3 27. The SWM bond is set at $43,000. D. Erosion and Sediment Control Plans (WPO200700099) 29. It appears that part of the road improvements for Boulders Parkway during phase II are outside the limits of disturbance. Rev. I) There still appears to be work outside the limits of disturbance. Please verify that all proposed work is within the limits of disturbance for both phases. 34. The E &S bond is set at $117,000. P r 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:NGIC Expansion Final [SDP200700138] Plan preparer:Scott Collins [scottgcollins- engineering.com] Owner or rep.:United Land Corporation [PO Box 5548 Charlottesville, VA 22905] Plan received date: 01 Feb 2008 (Rev2) Rev. 1) 24 January 2008 07 January 2008 Date of comments: 08 Feb 2008 (Rev2) Rev. 1) 30 January 2008 16 January 2008 Reviewer:Engineering Expedited Review The plans have been reviewed by Engineering Staff: A. Final Site Plan (SDP200700138) Final Site Plan approval is pending deed of easement and drainage easements for all drainage easements to be dedicated to public use. B. Road Plans (SDP200700138) VDOT approval is required. A copy of the plans has been forwarded to VDOT for review. Once approved by VDOT, please submit 3 additional copies of the plans for our files. C. Stormwater Management Plans (WP0200700099) The SWM bond is set at $43,000. D. Erosion and Sediment Control Plans (WP0200700099) The E &S bond is set at $117,000. E. Final Plat (SUB200800029) (reviewed by Max Greene) Roads must be built of bonded prior to approval of the final plat. Please provide a schedule of completion and bond estimate request. F. NGIC Expansion Easement Plat (SUB200800037) (reviewed by Max Greene) Deeds of easements must be approved by the County Attorney prior to approval of the final plat. FW: SDP - 2007 -00138 NGIC Expansion Phase 1 and II Page 1 of 2 Summer Frederick From: Denunzio, Joel D., P.E. [ Joel .Denunzio ©VDOT.virginia.gov] Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 12:00 PM To:Jonathan Sharp; Summer Frederick Subject: FW: SDP - 2007 -00138 NGIC Expansion Phase I and II Jon, Summer, Scott has sent a pdf file that addresses all my comments. I am fine with not seeing the plan again as long as the below revisions are on the mylars and you are OK with that. Thanks, Joel Joel DeNunzio, P.E. Staff Engineer 434 -293 -0011 Ext. 120 joel.denunzio ©vdot.virginia.gov From: Denunzio, Joel D., P.E. Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 9:35 AM To: 'Scott Collins' Subject: SDP - 2007 -00138 NGIC Expansion Phase I and II Scott, One item- for the guardrail on Boulders Road, either line up the face of curb with the guardrail or put the guardrail behind the sidewalk. I expect you need to put it on the face of curb. In general, when putting guardrail on curb, it either needs to line up with the face of curb or be located a minimum of 6 feet behind the face of curb. You can just send a revised sheet R -1. I don't think you have re- submitted to the county yet. How do you want to proceed? Thanks, Joel Joel DeNunzio, P.E. Staff Engineer 434 - 293 -0011 Ext. 120 joel.denunzio @vdot.virginia.gov 2/11/2008 FW: SDP - 2007 -00138 NGIC Expansion Phase I and II Page 2 of 2 SDP - 2007 -00138 NGIC Expansion Phase I and II Jon, I have reviewed the above plan and have the following comments: The raised median section needs to have a 1 foot offset from the edge of pavement of the inside lane. The pavement transition left of station 14 +70 +/- to station 15 +80 +/- needs to be in accordance with transition= S / 60. For 40 mph the transition needs to be at least 160 feet for a 6 foot transition. It is recommended that the transition be replaced with a smooth curve that meets the design criteria. The clear zone needs to be shown on the typical section and the fill slope right of station 17 +75 to station 22 +00 needs to be analyzed for the need for guardrail. The entrance into the site needs to be a minimum of 30 feet wide and be designed in accordance with the CG- 11 standard. UD -4 should be under the curbing. Curb inlets in the median cannot exceed a spread of half the driving lane plus 1 foot if the median is offset from the driving lane by a foot. When the median is in the proper place the total spread in the median cannot exceed 7 feet. Inlets 26, 32, 34, 54, 68, and 70 need to be adjusted. The intersection on route 29 needs to be dimensions in accordance with Figure C -1 -2 in VDOT's Road Design Manual. The Briarwood left turn lane and connection should be shown to ensure the intersection geometry is correct. Items that need to be addressed are dual receiving lanes with adequate taper, adequate room for opposing left turns, and a 400 foot taper for the dual left turn lane. The guardrail should wrap around the median and tie in on the northbound lane. Use GR -2A in front of the existing signal pole to lessen the deflection. This treatment will eliminate the need for an appropriate end section on the northbound side by continuing the guardrail and should cost less to install and maintain. Paving under the guardrail should be in accordance with VDOT standard MC -4. The shoulder slope on the left turn lane is proposed to be 1 "/12'. It should be 5 %. If you have any questions, please contact me. Thanks, Joel Joel DeNunzio, P.E. Staff Engineer 434 - 293 -0011 Ext. 120 joel.denunzio©vdot.virginia.gov 2/11/2008