HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP200800016 Review Comments 2008-08-29Al,
7RGINlP
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
Project:SDP -2008- 00016, Martha Jefferson Final Site Plan
WPO -2008- 00004, Martha Jefferson SWM and Site ESC Plans
Plan preparer:Dan Knapp, PE, MBA; Graef Anhalt, Scholemer & Assoc.
Owner or rep.:Mr. Ron Cottrell; Martha Jefferson Hospital
Date received:29 January 2008 (plan signed date 23 January 2008)
Rev. 1) 28 Mav 2008 (plan dated 23 May 2008)
Rev. 2) 12 August 2008 (plan dated 8 August 2008)
Rev. 3) 28 August 2008 (plan dated 26 August 2008)
Date of Comment:14 March 2008
Rev. 1) 23 July 2008
Rev. 2) 22 .4 ugust 2008
Rev. 3) 29 August 2008
Engineer:Phil Custer
The Final Site, SWM, and Site ESC plans for the Martha Jefferson Hospital project, received on 28
August 2008, have been reviewed. Engineering review has no objection to the approval of the site plan
once all other associated approvals from necessary agencies are received.
A. General review comments:
1.
2.
3.
W.
B. Site Plan review comments:
5.
M
7.
a
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
C. SWM review comments:
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
D. Site ESC review comments:
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
Please contact me at (434)296 -5832 ext. 3072 should you have any questions.
File: E4_fsp, csc, swm _PBC_Martha Jefferson
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
Project:SDP -2008- 00016, Martha Jefferson Final Site Plan
WPO -2008- 00004, Martha Jefferson SWM and Site ESC Plans
Plan preparer:Mike Matthews, Matthews Dev. Company LLC fax 434.972.7769
Plan preparer:Dan Knapp, Graef Anhalt, Scholemer & Assoc. fax 414259.0037
Owner or rep.:MJH Foundation [459 Locust Ave Charlottesville, VA 22902]
Date received:29 January 2008 (plan signed date 23 January 2008)
Rev. 1) 28 May 2008 (plan dated 23 May 2008)
Rev. 2) 12 August 2008 (plan dated 8 August 2008)
Date of Comment:14 March 2008
Rev. 1) 23 Jzdv 2008
Rev. 2) 22 August 2008
Engineer:Phil Custer
The Final Site, SWM, and Site ESC plans for the Martha Jefferson Hospital project, received on 12
August 2008, have been reviewed. Engineering review can recommend approval to the site plan after the
following comments have been addressed.
A. General review comments:
1.
2.
a
E
B. Site Plan review comments:
5.
0
7.
a
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14. The minimum width for all sidewalks is 5ft (exclusive of curb). All sidewalks adjacent to
parking spaces must be at least 6ft in width (exclusive of curb) or bumper blocks must be
provided. (See the diagram in the design manual for clarification.) [DM]
Rcv. 1) Please t7pdatc detail to sav 51i sidewalk. Eight parking spaces on Sheet 0331 trill
need bumper blocks. Bumper blocks will be needed,for the handicap parking areas where
there is no curb. Tlvelve spaces on sheet C332 will need bumper blocks because they are
adjacent to a sidewalk. On sheet 0332, a curb will be required on the downhill side of the
handicap parking area. ht other words, in this lot, the only area where the sidewalk can be
flush with the pavement is along the curvilinear spaces.
Rev. 2) All areas curb changes required above has been provided on the latest plan.
However, because it appears no ADA access has been provided for the 16 handicap spaces
where a curb was placed, the building gfficial cannot approve the current plan. The
applicant needs to provide handicap ramps at each hatched area (detail 10/C800) or adjust
grading so no water drains to any sidewalk and allow the sidewalk to be flush with the
pavement as originally designed. Please contact me to discuss this comment.
15.
16.
17.
a
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28. Please show the linear storm sewer pipes of the proposed VDOT roadways and their respective
easements on the hospital property. The pipes are shown as being curved in the site plan set.
Easements must be sized according to the equation in the Design Manual.
Rev. 1) Radial pipes are allowed per V DOT standard. The drainage easements should be
designated separate from the IltilltV easements and Inar];ed " dedicated to public Ilse It
appears sollle of pipes lire not (ht the correct widths as Specified In the design manual (Width
10' + pipe diameter + 2' + 2 ' - 5'), Inlnllnum 20 ' easement). For instance, the pipe
from the riser should be much larger than the 2(1ft mlllanum. The casement Should also he
extended to cover the outlet protection Stolle. 4tiothei pipe icgltu'itig (1 l(ii-gei- c(lsctlleilt
would he 6 -35 to 6 -30. 111 addition, the pipe 1575 State Farrah Blvd. should have its
easement centered and extended to the nclt system through the hospital parcel.
Rev. 1) The easement on the outlet system from the riser does not have the correct
easement width. All other easements appear to be correct.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
m
42. Please provide spread calculations for all curb inlets and where curbing is used to convey flow
to an inlet. All spreads must be below l Ott for the 4in /hr storm. We recommend using Tables
6 and 7 of the Design Manual.
Rev. 1) Comment not addressed. The curb inlet calculations do not seem to be accurate. For
717sta17CC, the cross and longitudinal slopes,for Inlets 3A and 3B are switched. .41so, if f'DOT
standard CG -6 is used, the gutter slope (Sw) is ahva} f 's 0.0833 ft. Engineering review
rccommendc using VDOT LD -204 (.4ppcndix 9B -1 ofthe ['DOT drailnige manual).
Rev. 2) Please note in the calculations and the plan and prgfile sheets that IN -3A and IN-
3B are DI -2B, not 2A. Please double check other inlets to assure this small oversight was
not repeated.
43.
44. Many of the pipe systems and segments are not shown in profile.
Rev. 1) Please rtt°ttkc sure the storm sewer system that is .shoiM in profile in both the road
plans and site plans match. With this review, a fetiv discrepancies here fntaul.
Rev. 2) Comment not addressed. Please recheck the storm drain system from MH -18 to
the outlet.
45. Additional comments may be forthcoming on the next submittal due to required changes.
a. (Rev. 1) Please provide a sidewalk on the south side of parking lot J and on the
east side of parking lot B. [18-32. 7.2.8]
Rev. 2) The minor amendment to TMP 78 -71 mentions that some spaces for
that lot are accounted for in this hospital lot. Please connect the spaces in the
lot to the building entrance.
Rev. 1) Loin maintenance gronndcover is required on all slopes steeper than 3:1.
Please show this on the landscape plan.
Rev. 2) Please remove "or grass seed m1C " the gronndcover note on all
landscape sheets. If a specific planting is not specified on die plan, please
provide a note stating that the low maintenance gronndcover needs to be
approved by Albemarle County Engineering review before installation.
C. SWM review comments:
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
Also, please note that if a CO is applied for without the entire building and site
completed, an amendment to the site plan will be necessary showing adequate
parking with an amendment to the construction and staging area. Also, if the
Peter Jefferson Parkway is accepted by VDOT, the construction yard will need
to be pulled back 50ft from the ROW. 118-5.1.19.21
Please contact me at (434)296 -5832 ext. 3072 should you have any questions.
File: E3_tsp, esc, swm_PBC Martha .lefferson
54.
D. Site ESC review comments:
55
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61. Additional comments may be forthcoming on the next submittal due to required changes.
a. (Rev. 1) Please provide ESC measures for the work oil TAIP's 78 -71 and 78 -311
shoivrt in the mime tnt7etttlmettt packages. The limits ol'distttrhtrnce litaes should
also he adjusted.
Rev. 2) Comment not addressed.
b. (Rev. 1) Please provide a detailed staging and construction area oil the plan.
Rev. 2) The trailer schematic plaits shown on ESC-270 and 0805 should
match the trailer plan on ESC -300.
pH
RGI^j
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone(434)296 -5832 Fax(434)972 -4126
Project: SDP -2008- 00016, Martha Jefferson Final Site Plan
WPO -2008- 00004, Martha Jefferson SWM and Site ESC Plans
Plan preparer: Mike Matthews, Matthews Dev. Company LLC fax 434.972.7769
Plan preparer: Dan Knapp, Graef Anhalt, Scholemer & Assoc. fax 414.259.0037
Owner or rep.: MJH Foundation [459 Locust Ave Charlottesville, VA 22902]
Date received: 29 January 2008 (plan signed date 23 January 2008)
Rev. 1) 28 Ma} 2008 (plan dated 23 May 2008)
Date of Comment: 14 March 2008
Rev. 1) 23 July 2008
Engineer: Phil Custer
The Final Site, SWM, and Site ESC plans for the Martha Jefferson Hospital project, received on 28 May
2008, have been reviewed. The plans cannot be approved as submitted and will require the following
changes /corrections prior to final approval.
A. General review comments:
1. The Willis Road connection from State Farm Boulevard to Peter Jefferson Parkway should be
made with this phase. The site plan should account for this work being done and include all of
the necessary amendments to the Outpatient Care Center parking lot.
Rev. 1) Show proposed site work on OCC and MJHF office properties to match RKK's
plan on all sheets or provide a note referring to the RKK sheet sets where necessary.
Comments for the minor amendments will be given under separate letters.
2.
B. Site Plan review comments:
5.
6. Please overlay all sight distance triangles on the site plan grading sheets. Due to the grading
of the proposed roadways and adjacent slopes, some entrances may not have adequate sight
distance. For all entrances where sight distance may be questionable because of grading,
please provide a vertical sight distance analysis. For instance, from point G looking south, the
till appears to block sight distance.
Rev. 1) M}' analysis shows that even without considering and landscaping, adequate sight
distance is not met in the following locations: from the main hospital entrance looking
north and from the entrance at Sta. 16 on PJP looking south. The sight distance from the
entrance at Sta. 24 on PJP looking north is also close to being inadequate. Please provide
vertical profiles of the sight lines mentioned above to prove that sight distance is available.
7. Please show sight distance easements on the layout and landscape sheets.
Rev. 1) Several of the sight lines from entrances will be obstructed by some of the on -site
landscaping (not street trees). Engineering review recommends amending the landscape
plan to provide a line of sight that is clearer.
8. Please provide a standard VDOT designation for all entrances onto a state route.
Rev. 1) Entrance designations are illegible.
9. Please provide a 40' landing of no greater than 4% at all entrances to a state route.
Rev. 1) The contour lines along Willis Road between the main entrance to the hospital and
the employee parking lot do not maintain their cross -slope to the curb. Please correct these
contour lines and pal particular attention to how it affects the entrances mentioned above.
Acceptable landings have been provided at all other entrances.
10.
11. Please note that the CG -6 curbing on the higher side of the curbed parking islands is not a
county requirement.
Rev. 1) This comment has been noted by the applicant.
12. Please show all necessary traffic control signs (stop, one -way, "do not enter ", etc.). It appears
that the logical place for these callouts should be on the layout sheets.
Rev. 1) Please show stop signs at all site exits onto a public road. These are needed on the
site plan set in addition to the road plan set.
13.
14. The minimum width for all sidewalks is 5ft (exclusive of curb). All sidewalks adjacent to
parking spaces must be at least 6ft in width (exclusive of curb) or bumper blocks must be
provided. (See the diagram in the design manual for clarification.) [DM]
Rev. 1) Please update detail to say Sft sidewalk. Eight parking spaces on Sheet 0331 will
need bumper blocks. Bumper blocks will be needed for the handicap parking areas where
there is no curb. Twelve spaces on sheet 0332 will need bumper blocks because the} are
adjacent to a sidewalk. On sheet C332, a curb will be required on the downhill side of the
handicap parking area. In other words, in this lot, the only area where the sidewalk can be
flush with the pavement is along the curvilinear spaces.
15.
16. Please dimenn angled parking spaces so that they can bu,,ecked for compliance with
section 4.12.16c.3. The figure this section references can be found in the design manual.
Rev. 1) Comment not addressed. The stall depth does not appear to be deep enough. With
one way travel and parking spaces at a 30 degree angle, the stall depth (from travelway to
curb) must be 20. ]ft. This area will be in compliance with the code if the travelway is
reduced to no less than 16ft to increase the stall depth as needed. Please see the diagram in
the design manual and the table in section 18- 4.12.16.c.3.
17. It appears that the wall on the southern tip of the building needs to be extended at least one
hundred feet to the parking lot corner.
Rev. 1) Comment not addressed The wall that needs to be extended is southeast of the
loading dock area. It appears the top would be 479 and it would travel southwest until it
met the grade in the corner of the loading dock area.
18. Please provide typical details for all proposed walls for this project.
Rev. 1) Comment not addressed Information regarding the attachment of handrail or
guardrail to each of the walls must be provided. Will guardrails be attached to the top
segment of the wall or a distance away from the back of wall? Engineering review is not
requiring each wall be fully designed. We are asking for these details on the site plan to
sitnplify the building permit review and zoning inspection processes.
19. All walls over Oft in height will require a handrail. This should be included in the detail and
called out on the plans.
Ren 1) Please make it clearer on the plan which walls will require handrails and which
walls will require guardrails. See comment below.
20. Any wall adjacent to a travelway or parking area must include a guardrail on top of it. An
alternative solution would be to design and construct the wall to act as the guardrail.
Rev. 1) It appears that all walls specify a guardrail when it is not required. The following
walls will require a guardrail: above the generator (tile 42 "extension is acceptable) and
21.
close to the emergency drop gff circle. .-Ill other locations appear to require handrails.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28. Please show the linear storm sewer pipes of the proposed VDOT roadways and their respective
easements on the hospital property. The pipes are shown as being curved in the site plan set.
Easements must be sized according to the equation in the Design Manual.
Rev. 1) Radial pipes are allowed per VDOTstandard. The drainage easements should be
designated separate from the utility easements and marked "dedicated to public use': It
appears some ofpipes are not at the correct widths as specified in the design manual
Width = 10' -pipe diameter + 2'+ 2'(depth - 5'), minih„..'dn 20' easement). For instance,
the pipe from the riser should be much larger than the 20ft minimum. The easement
should also be extended to cover the outlet protection stone. Another pipe requiring a
larger easement would be from 6 -35 to 6 -30. In addition, the pipe from 1575 State Farm
Blvd. should have its easement centered and extended to the new system through the
hospital parcel.
29. Site runoff cannot drain into public streets. This appears to occur at the entrance from the
loading dock area onto P.1P and from the hospital's main entrance on Willis Drive. Inlets must
provide 100% site runoff capture at entrances.
Rev. 1) Comment not addressed. Inlets 3.9 and 3B are undersized to capture 100% of the
flow draining to them. Input values longitudinal slope, road cross slope, and glitter slope
appear to be incorrect. Please see comment 42. No inlets have been placed to prevent
waterfront entering Willis Drive_/rom the hospital's main entrance.
30.
31.
32. Please show all drainage easements on the landscape plans. Easements should be sized per the
design manual and are only needed on pipes carrying water from VDOT ROW or water from
offsite adjacent parcels. No trees will be allowed in these drainage easements.
Rev. 1) Please reprove trees from drainage easement along the northeast edge of the pond.
33. Please provide an inlet drainage area map so that the inlet and pipe calculations can be
confirmed. The drainage map should include the following:
a. limits of all areas draining to proposed structures, existing structures, or channels
Rev. 1) Drainage area lines are not accurate and may result in undersized inlets.
Drainage area lines are notpehpendicular to contours. As an example, the contour lines in
the drainage area to inlet 10 rhnh perpendicular to the travelway. If the parking lot was
graded as shown, the majoritt of this runoff would pass through the entrance and into inlet
51). Similarly, most of tine runoff in inlet 8B's watershed will enter 8A with the current site
grading.
34.
35.
36.
37. Safety slabs (VDOT SL -1) are required on all structures greater than 12tt in depth.
Rev. 1) Safety slabs do not appear to be called out on the plan. A note similar to note 5
regarding IS -1 would suffice.
38.
39.
40. Please callout an end section for the outfall of the 36" pipe into the eastern sediment forebay.
Rev. 1) End section callout has been included in the road plan set. Though, the pipe is
labeled as 36 "but the end section is listed as 30':
41.
42. Please provide spread calculations for all curb inlets and where curbing is used to convey flow
to an inlet. All spreads must be below l Oft for the 41n /hr storm. We recommend using Tables
6 and 7 of the Design Manual.
Rev. 1) Comment not addressed. The curb inlet calculations do not seem to be accurate.
For instance, the cross and longitudinal slopes for inlets 3A and 3B are switched. Also, if
VDOT standard CG -6 is used, the gutter slope (Sw) is always 0.0833 ft/ft. Engineering
review recommends using VDOT LD -204 (Appendix 9B -1 of the VDOT drainage manual).
43. Due to site grading, channels are created in the pavement in some parking lots. Please provide
spread calculations for each of those channels using a storm intensity of 41n /hr. No spread can
be larger than I Ott. Please also note that no concentrated flow greater than 1 cfs can exist in
the travelway.
Rev. 1) Channels e.Yist in the pavement and spread calculations should be provided.
Please provide channel calculations for the channels draining to inlets 6,7,8,14B, and 21A.
Parking islands should not disrupt flow to the inlets. This layout with be difficult to work
out correctly in the field. The islands should be eliminated or an inlet should be placed on
the uphill side.
44. Many of the pipe systems and segments are not shown in profile.
Rev. 1) Please make sure the storm sewer system that is shown in profile in both the road
plans and site plans match. With this review, a few discrepancies were foutnd.
45. Additional comments may be forthcoming on the next submittal due to required changes.
a. (Rev. 1) Please provide a sidewalk on the south side ofparking lot J and on the
east side of'parking lot B. f18- 32.7.2.81
b. (Rev. 1) Low maintenance groundcover is required oft all slopes steeper than
3:1. Please show this oft the landscape plait.
e. (Rev. 1) The ininitnutn slope oft a storm drain is 0.5 %. ID/MI
d. (Ren 1) Pipes A and D need to connect to the storm drain at an accessible
structure.
C. SWM review comments;
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51
52. Please include the entire updated outlet system on sheet C511.
Rev. 1) The pipe from the riser is labeled as a 0. 005 ftlft slope.
53. In the Water Compliance Table in the SWM calculations package, one of the cell states that
7560cy of Water Quality Volume is provided. This is not correct. 7560cy is the volume of
the pond. The WQv of a Type III Retention Basin is the pond volume divided by four. In this
case, the provided WQv is 1890cy. This does not leave much treatment volume available for
future development. In other words, as currently designed, the pond can only treat 28.1 acres
of impervious surfaces; after this land development project, 27.3 acres or impervious surface
will be draining to the basin.
If the treatment volume of this pond is to be designed for future development projects, it
would be best to provide in these calculations a conservative estimate of future development
and show those areas on a new SWM facility drainage map. Future land development projects
will be required to provide as -built information on the pond if it is to be used for SWM after
its construction.
Rev. 1) Stormwater quality calculations are adequate for this site. Any development in the
future of this approved plan must meet the SWM requirements at the time of the submittal.
If the existing pond is to be used, as -built information will be required.
54.
D. Site ESC review comments:
55. Please include all necessary sheets that were approved on Phase I and Phase II of the mass
grading plan in this set. The intention of this ESC amendment should be to replace the
existing approved plan (Phase 11). The stream restoration sheets do not have to be included in
this set, but the stream channel work should be referred to in all ESC sheets.
Rev. 1) The Phase II ESCplan sheets need to be updated to match the approved Phase II
ESCplan including the construction trailer area. Ail adjustment to the construction
trailer area from the approved plan should meet all requirements listed by the Zoning
Administrator, Amelia McCulley, in her July 14 email to Mike Matthews.
56. Please include on all erosion and sediment control sheets, all previous measures needed to
protect the disturbed areas. For instance, it is conceivable that all basins and sediment traps
and their associated diversions) from earlier phases will be needed throughout the latest
phases of the plan. Phase II -A should show all required measures from Phase I. Phase 1I -B
should show all required measures from both Phase I and Phase II -A, and so on.
Rev. 1) The Phase II ESCplan sheets need to be updated to match the approved Phase II
ESCplan including the construction trailer area. Any adjustment to the construction
trailer area from the approved plan should meet all requirements listed by the Zoning
Administrator, Amelia McCulley, in her Juh 14` email to Mike Matthews.
57.
58.
59.
1
61. Additional comments may be forthcoming on the next submittal due to required changes.
a. (Rev. 1) Please provide ESC measures for the work on TMP's 78 -71 and 78 -311
shown in the minor amendment packages. The linits of disturbance lines
should also be adjusted.
b. (Rev. 1) Please provide a detailed staging and construction area on the plan.
Please contact me at (434)296 -5832 ext. 3072 should you have any questions.
File: E2_fsp, esc, swm_PBC_Martha Jefferson
a IHCIN
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
Project:SDP- 2008 - 00016, Martha Jefferson Final Site Plan
WPO -2008- 00004, Martha Jefferson SWM and Site ESC Plans
Plan preparer:Mike Matthews, Matthews Dev. Company LLC fax 434.972.7769
Plan preparer:Dan Knapp, Graef Anhalt, Scholemer & Assoc. fax 414.259.0037
Owner or rep.:MJH Foundation [459 Locust Ave Charlottesville, VA 22902]
Date received:29 January 2008 (plan signed date 23 January 2008)
Date of Comment:14 March 2008
Engineer:Phil Custer
The Final Site, SWM, and Site ESC plans for the Martha Jefferson Hospital project, received on 29
January 2008, have been reviewed. The plans cannot be approved as submitted and will require the
following changes /corrections prior to final approval.
A. General review comments:
1. The Willis Road connection from State Farm Boulevard to Peter Jefferson Parkway should be
made with this phase. The site plan should account for this work being done and include all of
the necessary amendments to the Outpatient Care Center parking lot.
2. Please submit a new ESC amendment fee of $150 for the review of the site ESC work. We
will consider the ESC measures needed during the site plan construction an amendment to
Phase II of the Mass Grading Plan.
3. Please provide on the plan Albemarle County's General notes for construction.
4. Engineering review understands that a revision to the amendment of the basin outlet structure
will be submitted at some point next week. On the amendment submitted on March 3rd, the
outlet pipe from the basin was reduced from a 48" pipe to a 42" pipe. Due to this change, the
open channel flow capacity of this outlet system reduces from —I 02cfs to --71 cfs (slope of
0.5 %). The peak release rate of the ten year storm of the previous riser structure was 80cfs.
This would have caused the pipes downstream not to operate under open channel flow for the
ten year storm which is a county requirement the applicant should be aware of during the
redesign of this system.
B. Site Plan review comments:
5. Please show sight distance triangles from the existing Peter Jefferson Outpatient Center and
the entrance to the parking lot across the Peter Jefferson Parkway from it. It appears a
dangerous entry condition could be created.
6. Please overlay all sight distance triangles on the site plan grading sheets. Due to the grading
of the proposed roadways and adjacent slopes, some entrances may not have adequate sight
distance. For all entrances where sight distance may be questionable because of grading,
please provide a vertical sight distance analysis. For instance, from point G looking south, the
fill appears to block sight distance.
7. Please show sight distance easements on the layout and landscape sheets.
8. Please provide a standard VDOT designation for all entrances onto a state route.
9. Please provide ' landing of no greater than 4% at all entr es to a state route.
10. The curb callouts and details appear to be incorrect. The legend on all 0200 sheets should be
modified as well.
a. CG -2 is standard curbing without a concrete gutter and it appears to be represented on
the C200 sheets as a solid line.
b. CG -7 is 4" tall mountable curbing and should not be used where it is shown. It appears
the applicant intended to use a CG -6 which is a 6" curb with a 2ft concrete gutter. This
curb appears to be represented by two lines of different thicknesses.
11. Please note that the CG -6 curbing on the higher side of the curbed parking islands is not a
county requirement.
12. Please show all necessary traffic control signs (stop, one -way, "do not enter ", etc.). It appears
that the logical place for these callouts should be on the layout sheets.
13. Sidewalks must be constructed with at least 4" of stone base and at least 4" of concrete of
3000psi at 28 day strength, or stronger. Please update the detail.
14. The minimum width for all sidewalks is 5ft (exclusive of curb). All sidewalks adjacent to
parking spaces must be at least 6ft in width (exclusive of curb) or bumper blocks must be
provided. (See the diagram in the design manual for clarification.) [DM]
15. All parking spaces must be protected by a curbed island of at least 3ft width. [DM]
16. Please dimension angled parking spaces so that they can be checked for compliance with
section 4.12.16c.3. The figure this section references can be found in the design manual.
17. It appears that the wall on the southern tip of the building needs to be extended at least one
hundred feet to the parking lot corner.
18. Please provide typical details for all proposed walls for this project.
19. All walls over 4ft in height will require a handrail. This should be included in the detail and
called out on the plans.
20. Any wall adjacent to a travelway or parking area must include a guardrail on top of it. An
alternative solution would be to design and construct the wall to act as the guardrail.
21. No travelway can be steeper than 10 %. It appears that the travelway to the loading dock area
exceeds this between the 479 and 480 contours. [4.12.17a]
22. Parking areas and travelways adjacent to parking areas cannot exceed a 5% slope. This has
occurred throughout the plan (measured between contour lines as well as between contour
lines and spot elevations). [4.12.15c]
23. The direction of flow change in a drainage structure cannot be less than 90 degrees.
24. Drainage cannot run across or back up on the compactor pad.
25. Please design and show adequate channels from the curb cuts in the northern parking lot down
to the sediment forebay. Engineering review recommends a grouted riprap channel along the
3:1 slopes.
26. A 3:1 slope is mislabeled as a 4:1 slope on sheet 0235.
27. The radius from Willis Dr. into the northern parking lot appears to be mislabeled.
28. Please show the linear storm sewer pipes of the proposed VDOT roadways and their respective
casements on the hospital property. The pipes are shown as being curved in the site plan set.
Easements must be sized according to the equation in the Design Manual.
29. Site runoff cannot drain into public streets. This appears to occur at the entrance from the
loading dock area onto PJP and from the hospital's main entrance on Willis Drive. Inlets must
provide 100% site runoff capture at entrances.
30. Please provide inlet shaping (VDOT IS -1) on all inlets or structures where flow drops 411 or
greater. This includes the drop from the surface to the base of the structure in addition to from
an incoming pipe.
31. Engineering review maintains a policy that in case of inlet failure, site grading should allow
for overland flow relief. Please modify grading so the building will not flood with inlet
failure.
32. Please show all drainage easements on the landscape plans. Easements should be sized per the
design manual and are only needed on pipes carrying water from VDOT ROW or water from
offsite adjacent .eels. No trees will be allowed in these dra.ge easements.
33. Please provide an inlet drainage area map so that the inlet and pipe calculations can be
confirmed. The drainage map should include the following:
a. limits of all areas draining to proposed structures, existing structures, or channels
b. acreage of each drainage area as used in computations
c. hydrologic coefficient for each drainage area as used in computations
d. time of concentration for each drainage area as used in computations
e. destination structure labeled in each drainage area
34. The minimum allowable time of concentration for an inlet is five, not ten, minutes. Please
update drainage system design.
35. In the pipe information table, please provide the hydrologic data (CA, time of concentration,
intensity, and peak flow) for the watershed to the pipe as well as the pipe's calculated capacity.
We recommend using the format of Table 8 of the Design Manual.
36. Please specify the length of all DI -2AA inlets.
37. Safety slabs (VDOT SL -1) are required on all structures greater than 12ft in depth.
38. Engineering review does not reconunend providing riprapped sumps in the base of manholes.
We recommend either grouting the riprap sump or providing inlet shaping.
39. The type of inlet for structures 3C, 3D, and 4C are not called out on sheet C530.
40. Please callout an end section for the outfall of the 36" pipe into the eastern sediment forebay.
41. Please provide scour protection at all outlets. Calculations for the dimensions of the scour
protection should be included in the plan set.
42. Please provide spread calculations for all curb inlets and where curbing is used to convey flow
to an inlet. All spreads must be below l Oft for the 41n/hr storm. We recommend using Tables
6 and 7 of the Design Manual.
43. Due to site grading, channels are created in the pavement in some parking lots. Please provide
spread calculations for each of those channels using a storm intensity of 4in/hr. No spread can
be larger than l Oft. Please also note that no concentrated flow greater than 1 cfs can exist in
the travelway.
44. Many of the pipe systems and segments are not shown in profile.
45. Additional comments may be forthcoming on the next submittal due to required changes.
C. SWM review comments:
46. Detention compliance could not be reviewed at this time because of the changes to the riser
structure discussed on the meeting held on Thursday, March 13 "'. Detention continents will be
given after the amended riser structure inforn is submitted as a revision to phase I of the
mass grading plan.
47. Please provide access to both forebays.
48. Please provide the Albemarle County Stormwater Management notes.
49. Please provide baffles to create a longer flow path from the southern sediment forebay.
50. Please provide sediment forebay sizing calculations. Forebays must be sized for a 0.25 inch of
rain over all impervious areas of each forebay watersheds.
51. Please provide a typical 1 O'x10' planting detail for the aquatic bench for bonding purposes.
The aquatic bench should have at least 3 species of plant. Please provide this planting plan in
the SWM section of the plan set.
52. Please include the entire updated outlet system on sheet C511.
53. In the Water Compliance Table in the SWM calculations package, one of the cell states that
7560cy of Water Quality Volume is provided. This is not correct. 7560cy is the volume of
the pond. The WQv of a Type III Retention Basin is the pond volume divided by four. In this
case, the provided WQv is 1890cy. This does not leave much treatment volume available for
future development. In other words, as currently designed, the pond can only treat 28.1 acres
of impervious surfaces: after this land development project, 27.3 acres or impervious surface
will be draining to the basin.
If the treatment ume of this pond is to be designed for futu .revelopment projects, it
would be best to provide in these calculations a conservative estimate of future development
and show those areas on a new SWM facility drainage map. Future land development projects
will be required to provide as -built information on the pond if it is to be used for SWM after
it's construction.
54. Additional comments may be forthcoming on the next submittal due to required changes.
D. Site ESC review comments:
55. Please include all necessary sheets that were approved on Phase I and Phase II of the mass
grading plan in this set. The intention of this ESC amendment should be to replace the
existing approved plan (Phase I1). The stream restoration sheets do not have to be included in
this set, but the stream channel work should be referred to in all ESC sheets.
56. Please include on all erosion and sediment control sheets, all previous measures needed to
protect the disturbed areas. For instance, it is conceivable that all basins and sediment traps
and their associated diversions) from earlier phases will be needed throughout the latest
phases of the plan. Phase II -A should show all required measures from Phase I. Phase II -B
should show all required measures from both Phase I and Phase II -A, and so on.
57. Please provide MS -19 analysis of the downstream stormsewer network for subarea 30.
58. Silt fence is not an adequate protection measure for the excavated spoil area. It appears that
the silt fence will receive direct channel flow from the access path's roadside ditches. It
appears that either constructing a new sediment trap in the roadside ditch or extending a
diversion from the sediment basin being constructed in phase II would be an appropriate
measure.
59. Please provide temporary and permanent seeding callouts in the appropriate places.
60. Please expand limits of disturbance lines to include the slopes, sediment trapping measures,
and stream restoration of the previous phases. It is likely that routine maintenance and
additional slope stabilization will be required of these areas through this phase of the project.
61. Additional comments may be forthcoming on the next submittal due to required changes.
Please contact me at (434)296 -5832 ext. 3072 should you have any questions.
File: E I _tsp, ese, swm PBC Martha Jetterson.doc
ALg 2
U "
1`
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
July 29, 2008
Matthews Development Company
c/o Mike Matthews
One Boar's Head Pointe, Suite 131
Charlottesville, VA 22903
RE: ARB2008 -00046 Martha Jefferson Hospital
Tax Map 78, Parcel 20M
Dear Mike:
I have reviewed the recent submittals for the above - referenced proposal, including:
Exhibit C revised June 5, 2008
EL100 Site Plan — Lighting revised 5/15/08
Landscape plan sheets LS1 -LS5 revised June 10, 2008 (received July 28, 2008)
Glass specifications
Lighting cut sheets
Mechanical equipment screening information
The revisions included in this information resolve the outstanding conditions of ARB approval. However,
please note that the lighting cut sheets must appear on a sheet in the site plan set.
You may consider this letter your Certificate of Appropriateness. This application is approved with the condition
that mechanical equipment shall not be visible from the Entrance Corridor. Also, this approval is predicated on
the fact that the design and materials, as proposed and exhibited for review, will be used. The acceptance of
approval implies that the applicant has agreed to execute the design as indicated on the site plan, attachments,
materials, samples, and other submittal items presented. Any change in the approved design or materials will
require an amendment to the plan and must be reviewed and approved by the Architectural Review Board.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Margaret Maliszewski
Principal Planner
cc: Martha Jefferson Hospital, c/o Barbara Elias, 459 Locust Ave., Charlottesville, VA 22902
Kahler Slater, Inc., c/o Allan Krueger, 111 West Wisconsin Ave., Milwaukee WI 53203
Summer Frederick, Current Development
ARB File
7
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax ( 434) 972 -4126
Project:SDP- 2008 - 00016, Martha Jefferson Final Site Plan
WPO- 2008 - 00004, Martha Jefferson SWM and Site ESC Plans
Plan preparer:Mike Matthews, Matthews Dev. Company LLC fax 434.972.7769
Plan preparer:Dan Knapp, Graef Anhalt, Scholemer & Assoc. fax 414.259.0037
Owner or rep.:MJH Foundation [459 Locust Ave Charlottesville, VA 22902]
Date received:29 January 2008 (plan signed date 23 January 2008)
Rev. 1) 28 May 2008 (plan dated 23 May 2008)
Date of Comment:14 March 2008
Rev. 1) 23 July 2008
Engineer:Phil Custer
The Final Site, SWM, and Site ESC plans for the Martha Jefferson Hospital project, received on 28 May
2008, have been reviewed. The plans cannot be approved as submitted and will require the following
changes /corrections prior to final approval.
A. General review comments:
1. The Willis Road connection from State Farm Boulevard to Peter Jefferson Parkway should be
made with this phase. The site plan should account for this work being done and include all of
the necessary amendments to the Outpatient Care Center parking lot.
Rev. 1) Show proposed site work on OCC and MJHF office properties to match RKK's
plan on all sheets or provide a note referring to the RKK sheet sets where necessary.
Comments for the minor amendments will be given under separate letters.
2.
4.
B. Site Plan review comments:
40
the entrance to the parking lot acro the .Peter leffer «rt P<trklr'bty fs €ttn it, it lsp€ at,
dangerous entry condition c<stt d be CIVUecl.
Rev. 1 ) Comment has been addr•e sled:
6. Please overlay all sight distance triangles on the site plan grading sheets. Due to the grading
of the proposed roadways and adjacent slopes, some entrances may not have adequate sight
distance. For all entrances where sight distance may be questionable because of grading,
please provide a vertical sight distance analysis. For instance, from point G looking south, the
fill appears to block sight distance.
Rev. 1) My analysis shows that even without considering any landscaping, adequate sight
distance is not met in the following locations: from the main hospital entrance looking
north and from the entrance at Sta. 16 on PJP looking south. The sight distance from the
entrance at Sta. 24 on PJP looking north is also close to being inadequate. Please provide
vertical profiles of the sight lines mentioned above to prove that sight distance is available.
7. Please show sight distance easements on the layout and landscape sheets.
t (Rev. 1) Several of the sight lines from entrances will be obstructed by some of the on -site
landscaping (not street trees). Engineering review recommends amending the landscape
plan to provide a line of sight that is clearer.
8. Please provide a standard VDOT designation for all entrances onto a state route.
Rev. 1) Entrance designations are illegible.
9. Please provide a 40' landing of no greater than 4% at all entrances to a state route.
Rev. 1) The contour lines along Willis Road between the main entrance to the hospital and
the employee parking lot do not maintain their cross -slope to the curb. Please correct these
contour lines and pay particular attention to how it affects the entrances mentioned above.
Acceptable landings have been provided at all other entrances.
10. ° l'itc' c;ttrb k; sll€i t; and details. appear (o be lncon. ,. Me, leectid on all 0200 shcC: Ahiould tv
modified as well,
a. CC3-2 is standard curbing wilhout at concrete g.ctuer and it appears to be- represente oil
the C'200 sheets a. a solid line.
l). CG-7 is 4" tall mounubla curbin and should not be used where it is ,J n, It ,lppk,Ir:s
the applicant intended to use 'a C:'C..s -6 °lti h is st 6" cus't3 witlt <t '?1 "t concrete w otter. '1'hi5
curb appears to be represented by two line=s €3f different tlic l ne 4sL .
tai-, 1) €;oni xew ha bet'n od re° red
11. Please note that the CG -6 curbing on the higher side of the curbed parking islands is not a
county requirement.
Rev. 1) This comment has been noted by the applicant.
12. Please show all necessary traffic control signs (stop, one -way, "do not enter ", etc.). It appears
that the logical place for these callouts should be on the layout sheets.
Rev. 1) Please show stop signs at all site exits onto a public road. These are needed on the
site plan set in addition to the road plan set.
13. Stcle.walk; inust be C011ARICLed Vi'ith at least 4., of °,ti ntr base and at least4 "" of Concrete € l
3000psi_ Ott 28 day strength, or stronger. Plcsase update the detail.
Tell, I) C'bmnievt hen bvvn
14. The minimum width for all sidewalks is 5ft (exclusive of curb). All sidewalks adjacent to
parking spaces must be at least 6ft in width (exclusive of curb) or bumper blocks must be
provided. (See the diagram in the design manual for clarification.) [DM]
Rev. 1) Please update detail to say 5ft sidewalk. Eight parking spaces on Sheet C331 will
need bumper blocks. Bumper blocks will be needed for the handicap parking areas where
there is no curb. Twelve spaces on sheet C332 will need bumper blocks because they are
adjacent to a sidewalk. On sheet C332, a curb will be required on the downhill side of the
handicap parking area. In other words, in this lot, the only area where the sidewalk can be
flush with the pavement is along the curvilinear spaces.
15. i d of as least aft width. [
Rev. 1) t'frrram prat daredbeen addresse
16. Please dimension angled parking spaces so that they can be checked for compliance with
section 4.12.16c.3. The figure this section references can be found in the design manual.
Rev. 1) Comment not addressed. The stall depth does not appear to be deep enough. With
one way travel and parking spaces at a 30 degree angle, the stall depth (from travelway to
curb) must be 20.1ft. This area will be in compliance with the code if the travelway is
reduced to no less than 16ft to increase the stall depth as needed. Please see the diagram in
the design manual and the table in section 18- 4.12.16.c.3.
17. It appears that the wall on the southern tip of the building needs to be extended at least one
hundred feet to the parking lot comer.
Rev. 1) Comment not addressed. The wall that needs to be extended is southeast of the
loading dock area. It appears the top would be 479 and it would travel southwest until it
met the grade in the corner of the loading dock area.
18. Please provide typical details for all proposed walls for this project.
Rev. 1) Comment not addressed. Information regarding the attachment of handrail or
guardrail to each of the walls must be provided. Will guardrails be attached to the top
segment of the wall or a distance away from the back of wall? Engineering review is not
requiring each wall be fully designed. We are asking for these details on the site plan to
simplify the building permit review and zoning inspection processes.
19. All walls over 4ft in height will require a handrail. This should be included in the detail and
called out on the plans.
Rev. 1) Please make it clearer on the plan which walls will require handrails and which
walls will require guardrails. See comment below.
20. Any wall adjacent to a travelway or parking area must include a guardrail on top of it. An
alternative solution would be to design and construct the wall to act as the guardrail.
Rev. 1) It appears that all walls specify a guardrail when it is not required. The following
walls will require a guardrail: above the generator (the 42" extension is acceptable) and
21.
close to the emergency drop off circle. All other locations appear to require handrails.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28. Please show the linear storm sewer pipes of the proposed VDOT roadways and their respective
easements on the hospital property. The pipes are shown as being curved in the site plan set.
Easements must be sized according to the equation in the Design Manual.
Rev.]) Radial pipes are allowed per VDOT standard. The drainage easements should be
designated separate from the utility easements and marked "dedicated to public use ". It
appears some ofpipes are not at the correct widths as specified in the design manual
Width =10' + pipe diameter + 2'+ 2' *(depth - 5'), minimum 20' easement). For instance,
the pipe from the riser should be much larger than the 20ft minimum. The easement
should also be extended to cover the outlet protection stone. Another pipe requiring a
larger easement would be from 6 -35 to 6 -30. In addition, the pipe from 1575 State Farm
Blvd. should have its easement centered and extended to the new system through the
hospital parcel.
29. Site runoff cannot drain into public streets. This appears to occur at the entrance from the
loading dock area onto PJP and from the hospital's main entrance on Willis Drive. Inlets must
provide 100% site runoff capture at entrances.
Rev. 1) Comment not addressed. Inlets 3A and 3B are undersized to capture 100% of the
flow draining to them. Input values longitudinal slope, road cross slope, and gutter slope
appear to be incorrect. Please see comment 42. No inlets have been placed to prevent
water from entering Willis Drive from the hospital's main entrance.
30.
31.
32. Please show all drainage easements on the landscape plans. Easements should be sized per the
design manual and are only needed on pipes carrying water from VDOT ROW or water from
offsite adjacent parcels. No trees will be allowed in these drainage easements.
Rev. 1) Please remove trees from drainage easement along the northeast edge of the pond.
33. Please provide an inlet drainage area map so that the inlet and pipe calculations can be
confirmed. The drainage map should include the following:
a. limits of all areas draining to proposed structures, existing structures, or channels
Rev. 1) Drainage area lines are not accurate and may result in undersized inlets.
Drainage area lines are not perpendicular to contours. As an example, the contour lines in
the drainage area to inlet 10 run perpendicular to the travelway. If the parking lot was
graded as shown, the majority of this runoff would pass through the entrance and into inlet
5D. Similarly, most of the runoff in inlet 8B's watershed will enter 8A with the current site
grading.
34.
35.
36.
37. Safety slabs (VDOT SL -1) are required on all structures greater than 12ft in depth.
Rev. 1) Safety slabs do not appear to be called out on the plan. A note similar to note 5
regarding IS -1 would suffice.
38.
39.
40. Please callout an end section for the outfall of the 36" pipe into the eastern sediment forebay.
Rev. 1) End section callout has been included in the road plan set. Though, the pipe is
labeled as 36" but the end section is listed as 30 ".
41.
42. Please provide spread calculations for all curb inlets and where curbing is used to convey flow
to an inlet. All spreads must be below 1 Oft for the 4in/hr storm. We recommend using Tables
6 and 7 of the Design Manual.
Rev. 1) Comment not addressed. The curb inlet calculations do not seem to be accurate.
For instance, the cross and longitudinal slopes for inlets 3A and 3B are switched. Also, if
VDOT standard CG -6 is used, the gutter slope (Sw) is always 0.0833 ft /ft. Engineering
review recommends using VDOT LD -204 (Appendix 911-1 of the VDOT drainage manual).
43. Due to site grading, channels are created in the pavement in some parking lots. Please provide
spread calculations for each of those channels using a storm intensity of 4in /hr. No spread can
be larger than loft. Please also note that no concentrated flow greater than lefs can exist in
the travelway.
Rev. 1) Channels exist in the pavement and spread calculations should be provided.
Please provide channel calculations for the channels draining to inlets 6,7,8,14B, and 21A.
Parking islands should not disrupt flow to the inlets. This layout with be difficult to work
out correctly in the field. The islands should be eliminated or an inlet should be placed on
the uphill side.
44. Many of the pipe systems and segments are not shown in profile.
Rev. 1) Please make sure the storm sewer system that is shown in profile in both the road
plans and site plans match. With this review, a few discrepancies were found.
45. Additional comments may be forthcoming on the next submittal due to required changes.
a. (Rev. 1) Please provide a sidewalk on the south side of parking lot J and on the
east side of parking lot B. [18- 32.7.2.8]
b. (Rev. 1) Low maintenance groundcover is required on all slopes steeper than
3:1. Please show this on the landscape plan.
c. (Rev. 1) The minimum slope on a storm drain is 0.5 %. [DM]
d. (Rev. 1) Pipes A and D need to connect to the storm drain at an accessible
structure.
C. SWM review comments:
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52. Please include the entire updated outlet system on sheet C511.
Rev. 1) The pipe from the riser is labeled as a 0.005 ft /ft slope.
53. In the Water Compliance Table in the SWM calculations package, one of the cell states that
7560cy of Water Quality Volume is provided. This is not correct. 7560cy is the volume of
the pond. The WQv of a Type III Retention Basin is the pond volume divided by four. In this
case, the provided WQv is 1890cy. This does not leave much treatment volume available for
future development. In other words, as currently designed, the pond can only treat 28.1 acres
of impervious surfaces; after this land development project, 27.3 acres or impervious surface
will be draining to the basin.
If the treatment volume of this pond is to be designed for future development projects, it
would be best to provide in these calculations a conservative estimate of future development
and show those areas on a new SWM facility drainage map. Future land development projects
will be required to provide as -built information on the pond if it is to be used for SWM after
its construction.
Rev. 1) Storm water quality calculations are adequate for this site. Any development in the
future of this approved plan must meet the SWM requirements at the time of the submittal.
If the existing pond is to be used, as -built information will be required.
54.
D. Site ESC review comments:
55. Please include all necessary sheets that were approved on Phase I and Phase II of the mass
grading plan in this set. The intention of this ESC amendment should be to replace the
existing approved plan (Phase 11). The stream restoration sheets do not have to be included in
this set, but the stream channel work should be referred to in all ESC sheets.
Rev. 1) The Phase 11 ESC plan sheets need to be updated to match the approved Phase 11
ESC plan including the construction trailer area. Any adjustment to the construction
trailer area from the approved plan should meet all requirements listed by the Zoning
Administrator, Amelia McCulley, in her July 14' email to Mike Matthews.
56. Please include on all erosion and sediment control sheets, all previous measures needed to
protect the disturbed areas. For instance, it is conceivable that all basins and sediment traps
and their associated diversions) from earlier phases will be needed throughout the latest
phases of the plan. Phase II -A should show all required measures from Phase 1. Phase II -B
should show all required measures from both Phase I and Phase II -A, and so on.
Rev. 1) The Phase 11 ESC plan sheets need to be updated to match the approved Phase 11
ESC plan including the construction trailer area. Any adjustment to the construction
trailer area from the approved plan should meet all requirements listed by the Zoning
Administrator, Amelia McCulley, in her July le email to Mike Matthews.
57.
59.
60.
61. Additional comments may be forthcoming on the next submittal due to required changes.
a. (Rev. 1) Please provide ESC measures for the work on TMP's 78 -71 and 78 -311
shown in the minor amendment packages. The limits of disturbance lines
should also be adjusted.
b. (Rev.]) Please provide a detailed staging and constriction area on the plan.
Please contact me at (434)296 -5832 ext. 3072 should you have any questions.
File: E2_fsp, esc, swm_PBC_Martha Jefferson
AL8
IRGINF
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
May 30, 2008
Matthews Development Company
c/o Mike Matthews
One Boar's Head Pointe, Suite 131 22903
Charlottesville, VA 22903
RE: ARB2008 -00046 Martha Jefferson Hospital
Tax Map 78, Parcel 20M
Dear Mr. Mathews:
The Albemarle County Architectural Review Board reviewed the above noted item at its meeting on Monday,
May 19, 2008. The Board approved the request, by a vote of 5:0, pending staff administrative approval of the
following conditions and a work session with the ARB as indicated in #9:
1. Provide specifications on the proposed window glass confirming a reflectance value below 7% and
identify examples of buildings showing the green glass as proposed for ARB review.
2. Revise Sheet EL 100 to display photometric information using a calculation grid instead of light
contour lines. Ensure that overall illumination levels are not excessive. Reduce light levels wherever
possible.
3. Revise the lighting details Sheet EL 101 to make the text in the fixture cut sheets legible.
4. Revise the site plan to resolve all utility- easement conflicts with proposed landscaping without
reducing the quantity of landscaping proposed between the hospital and the EC.
5. Revise the spacing of trees on Peter Jefferson Parkway to 40' on center.
6. Revise the landscape plan to clarify that perimeter parking lot trees, interior road trees, and trees on
the southern slope are required.
7. Provide sections showing that the mechanical equipment will be screened from view.
8. Provide the mortar color name and number.
9. A work session is required to view and discuss the cancer care center elevations and the glass.
Please provide:
1. Two full sets of revised drawings addressing each of these conditions. Include updated ARB revision
dates on each drawing and an ARB approval signature panel.
2. A memo including detailed responses indicating how each condition has been satisfied. If changes
other than those requested have been made, identify those changes in the memo also. Highlighting
the changes in the drawing with "clouding" or by other means will facilitate review and approval.
3. The attached "Revised Application Submittal" form. This form must be returned with your revisions to
ensure proper tracking and distribution.
When staffs review of this information indicates that all conditions of approval have been met, a Certificate of
Appropriateness may be issued.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Margaret Maliszewski
Principal Planner
Cc: Martha Jefferson Hospital
c/o Barbara Elias
459 Locust Ave
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Kahler Slater, Inc
c/o Allan Krueger
111 West Wisconsin Ave
Milwaukee WI 53203
Summer Frederick, Current Development
ARB File
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
S9`t
Memorandum
To: Dan Knapp; Graef, Anhalt, Schloemer & Associates via fax: 414.259.0037
From: Summer Frederick, Senior Planner
Division: Zoning & Current Development
Date: February 22, 2008
Subject: SDP2008 -16 Martha Jefferson Hospital - Final
The Planner /Engineer for the Zoning & Current Development Division of the Albemarle
County Department Community Development will recommend approve the plan referred
to above 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 Albemarle County Code.]
1. [ZMA01 -015, Proffer 1] The proposed parking located northeast of the main
entrance to the hospital, as shown on the final site plan, is proposed in an area
approved only for open space on the application plan and cannot be approved as
part of a variation to the plan.
2. [ZMA01 -015, Proffer 9] Confirmation site plan is in compliance with Memo of
Understanding with Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation, Inc. is required prior
to final site plan approval. This will be requested by the Department of
Community Development at such time as final site plan revisions are complete.
3. [Sec. 18- 32.6.6(j)] Please include cut sheets for all lighting fixtures as required in
relevant section.
4. [32.7.9.4(b)] A conservation plan checklist must be completed and incorporated
into the site plan with notes to show how any individual trees and groups of trees
designated to remain will be protected during the construction of this project.
The locations of any tree protection fencing that coincides with the limits of
clearing and other methods of protection from the checklist must be shown on
the plan for clear identification during field inspections (Conservation Plan format
also available from Planning Staff).
5. Certificate of Approval from the Architectural Review Board is required prior to
final site plan approval.
6. VDOT approval of all roads is required prior to final site plan approval.
7. ACSA approval of water and sewer utility plans required prior to final site plan
approval.
8. Approval by Fire and Rescue Department is subject to field inspection and
verification, and must be obtained prior to final site plan approval.
Please contact Summer Frederick at the Department of Community Development 296-
5832 ext. 3565 for further information.
Application #:SDP200 ! short Review Comrgents
Project Name: Martha Jeffers Hospital - Final Fin - Non - residential - Administrat
Date Completed:02/06/2008
Reviewer:Jay Schlothauer Inspections
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:Based on plans dated January 28, 2008.
No comment or conditions.
Date Completed:02/01/2008
Reviewer:Margaret Maliszewski ARB
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:An ARB submittal is required for this project. ARB comments from the last review are attached.
Date Completed:02/21/2008
Reviewer:Rebecca Ragsdale Planning
Review Status:Pending
Reviews Comments:Information should be provided on the phasing /replacement of proposed surface parking with parking
garages.
The proposed parking located northeast of the main entrance to the hospital, as shown on the final
site plan, is proposed in an area approved only for open space on the application plan and cannot be
app as part of a v to th plan.
Page: 1.00 County of Albemarle Printed On: Friday, July 25, 2008