Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP200800052 Review Comments 2008-04-15Current Development Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 3 County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Gerald Gatobu, Current Development Project Planner From: Phil Custer, Current Development engineering review Date: 15 April 2008 Subject: Sieg Maintenance Preliminary Site Plan (SDP- 2008 - 00052) The preliminary site plan for the Sieg Maintenance property has been reviewed. The engineering review for current development can recommend approval to the plan after the following changes have been made. 1. Please show curb and gutter on the plan where it has not been waived. A waiver of the curb and gutter standard will not be given for this project except at those locations to the east end of the site where curb cuts allow water to pass into the biofilter and Swale. Engineering review feels that allowing water to travel through landscaped parking islands would create stabilization issues and long term erosion problems. From each of these curb cuts where the waiver has been granted, there should be a grassed channel that is kept free of landscaping or other groundcover. 2. It appears there are several issues with the number of lot lines and parcels for this single building. Each separate TMP parcel needs the appropriate amount of spaces based on the building square footage within it. Boundary line adjustments for these properties seem unavoidable. It appears combining TMP's 59 -23D, 59 -23F, 59 -2301, and the Folly Drive easement into one parcel would simplify this application. 3. Please update the parking and traffic study for the LTACH development to include the amendment to the Sieg Maintenance parking lot and vehicle demand loads. 4. Please provide vehicular interparcel connection to TMP 59 -23B. [32.7.2.5] 5. Please show all critical slopes on the plan even though they may not exist on the parcel. 6. Please show adequate sight distance onto Route 250 on the plan. 7. Please provide pedestrian access to LTACH through the Northridge site. A minor amendment for the Northridge site should be processed at this time for the improvements shown to TMP 59 -23B in the LTACH and Sieg Maintenance preliminary site plan applications. [32.7.2.8] 8. The area allotted for SWM appears to be large enough for water quality treatment and detention. The final review of the SWM computations will be performed during the WPO submittal. The following comments are not required for preliminary site plan approval but will need to be addressed during the final site plan process. 1. The width of the curb cannot be included in the width of the sidewalk. The sidewalk on the southern edge of the building measures to be 4.5'. 2. Sidewalks adjacent to parking spaces must either be 6ft in width or 5ft in width with bumper blocks in the parking spaces. Sidewalk widths are measured exclusive of curb. Current Development Engineering Review Comments Page 3 of 3 3. Parking spaces may have a depth of 16ft, if a 2ft overhang is available, but the 16ft distance must be measured from the end of the space (the travelway) to the face of the curb (or as shown in this instance, a bumper block). 4. There is not an available 211 overhang for the parking spaces at the western end of the lot due to the row of bushes. 5. The addition of the northeastern parking lot displaces many utility items that appear to be necessary for the building. Where are these items to be relocated? If some of the items are to remain, the sidewalk must be widened to accommodate. 6. The maximum grade in the parking lot is 5 %. This includes areas where there is parallel parking. 7. It appears that a dumpster pad may be needed by the building occupants. 1 County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Gerald Gatobu, Current Development Project Planner From: Phil Custer, Current Development engineering review Date: 15 April 2008 Subject: UVA Long Term Acute Care Hospital Preliminary Site plan (SDP -2008- 00053) The preliminary site plan for the UVA Long Term Acute Care Hospital property has been reviewed. The engineering review for current development can recommend approval to the plan after the following changes have been made. 1. Please provide an amendment to the traffic impact and parking study to include the additional parking being proposed for the Sieg Maintenance site. 2. Please provide interconnection between the three parcels involved in this plan so that Route 250 will not be used as the interconnecting travelway. [32.7.2.5] 3. Please provide a Modified simple spreadsheet for each SWM drainage area on site. Please note that as policy, engineering review does not allow the water quality treatment of one drainage area to "overtreat" for other areas of the site. The runoff from each watershed leaving the site must be treated to the required removal rate. For instance, the biofilter will have a separate removal rate computation and it is likely that the resulting removal rate would be closer to 65% than 50% as shown on the plan. 4. The use of the parking spaces of the Kirtley Warehouse as mentioned in the parking study will require waivers of County Code 4.12.15.c and 4.12.17.a from the 'Zoning Administrator. The access drive to the warehouse is approximately a 15% grade. This is steeper than the ordinance requirement of a maximum 10% grade for travelways and maximum 5% grade for parking areas. Engineering review will not support either of these waivers. 5. Please move the entrance from the rear of the hospital farther north. Engineering believes the entrance is too close to the intersection of the access easement and Route 250. 6. Please show all of the grading necessary for the creation of the biofilter facility. This will be helpful in writing the critical slope wavier report. 7. A critical slope waiver report will be written separate from this comment letter. The following comments are not required for preliminary site plan approval but will need to be addressed during the final site plan process. 1. The width of the curb cannot be included in the width of the sidewalk. Sidewalks adjacent to parking spaces must be 6tt in width or bumper blocks must be provided. 2. It appears from the grading of the accessway on the southwest side of the building that the filterra boxes will need to be relocated so they are designed to capture as much water as possible while still having a bypass inlet available. 3. It appears an inlet is needed in the ambulance drop -off area. Sti OF AI.R RGtN COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 DATE: April 17th, 2008 Amtny George 919 2nd Street S.E. Charlottesville, VA, 22902. Keith Whipple 301 East High Street Charlottesville, VA 22903 RE: SDP - 2008 - 00052 &SDP 2008 -00053 LTACH Preliminary Site Plan/Seig Maintenance. Dear Sir /Madam, The Site Review Committee has reviewed the development proposal referenced above. Preliminary comments for the following divisions of the Department of Community Development and other agencies, as applicable, are attached: Albemarle County Division of Zoning & Current Development (Planner) Albemarle County Division of Zoning & Current Development (Engineer) Albemarle County Division of Planning (Principle Planner ARB) Albemarle County Division of Inspections (Building Official) Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA). Albemarle County Fire and Rescue. Albemarle County Geographic and Data Services (GDS) Comments reflect information available at the time the development proposal was reviewed, and should not be considered final. However, the Site Review Committee has attempted to identify all issues that could affect approval of the proposed project. Please make the revisions that have been identified as necessary for preliminary approval by the Site Review Committee. If you choose not to make the requested revisions, please submit in writing justification for not incorporating such revisions. Submit eight (8) full size copies and one (1) 11" x 17" copy to the Department of Community Development including responses to each of the attached continents of the Site Review Committee by Monday April 28th 2008. Failure to submit this information by this date will result in suspension of the review schedule. Review will resume when revisions are submitted along with a reinstatement fee of $65. Please contact me at your earliest convenience if you have questions or require additional information. Sincerely, Gerald Gatobu, Senior Planner County of Albemarle Department of Community DevelopmentCurrentDevelopment 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 -4596 Phone: ( -5832 Ext 3385 Fax: (434)972-4126 Application #: SDP200800052 Shoft Revi Comments Project Name: S Maintenance - Prel Prelimina — No - residential Date Completed: 04/07/2008 Reviewer: Andrew Slack E911 Review Status: No Objection Reviews Comments: NO OBJECTION. Date Completed: 04/11/2008 Reviewer: Jay Schlothauer Inspections Review Status: No Objection Reviews Comments: 'State -owned property (Rector & Visitors of U. Va.), local building official has no jurisdiction. I Date Completed: 04/02/2008 Reviewer: Margaret Maliszewski ARB Review Status: Requested Changes Reviews Comments: This proposal is scheduled for ARB review on May 19, 2008. Comments will be provided after that 1 meeting.I Date Completed: Reviewer: Philip Custer Review Status: Pending Reviews Comments: f SRC 4/17/08 Page: 1.00 Engineer Z &CD County of Albemarle Printed On: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 Application #: sCIP200800053 —, Short Review Comments Project Name:[UVA Long Term Acute Care Hospital Prel Preliminary — Non - residential Date Completed: 04/07/2008 Reviewer: Andrew Slack E911 Review Status: No Objection Reviews Comments: NO OBJECTION. Date Completed: 04/11/2008 Reviewer: Jay Schlothauer Inspections Review Status: Requested Changes Reviews Comments: used on plans revised March 24, 2008. Relocate the barrier -free parking space to the group of 4 parking spaces that are closer to the building entrance. Provide a curb cut in the sidewalk immediately across the driveway from this relocated parking space. Page: 1.00 County of Albemarle Printed On: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 Delete the property line that bisects the east wing of the building. Date Completed:04/02/2008 Reviewer:Margaret Maliszewski ARB Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments:This proposal is scheduled for review by the ARB on May 19, 2008. Comments will be provided after 1 that meeti Date Completed:04/15/2008 Reviewer:Philip Custer Engineer Z &CD Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments:SRC 4/17/08 Page: 1.00 County of Albemarle Printed On: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 pp : County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Ammy George /Keith Whipple From: Gerald Gatobu, Senior Planner Division: Zoning and Current Development Date: April 15` 2008 Subject: SDP2008- 00052 &53 LTACH /SEIG Preliminary The County of Albemarle Division of Zoning and Current Development will grant or recommend approval of the preliminary site plan referred to above once the following comments have been addressed: [Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference, which is to the Subdivision /Zoning Ordinances unless otherwise specified.] Comments for SDP200800052: 1. An instrument assuring continuation of offsite parking will have to be provided per section 4.12.8 ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE TO PROVIDE MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES: Please provide an instrument assuring continuation of offsite parking 2. A shared parking agreement will have to be provided per zoning ordinance section 14.12.10 SHARED PARKING1 Shared parking will have to be approved by the Zoning administrator. Please refer to section 4.12.10.a, b, and c for further information. Stand alone parking is allowed in the (LI) light Industry District by special use permit as per section 14.12.11 STAND ALONE PARKING1 Stand alone parking is allowed in the (LI) Light Industry District by special use permit. Tax Map and Parcel 59 -23C 1 has no primary use. Parking on this parcel will be stand alone parking which will require a special use permit. 4. 32.5.6. (b) Please provide the maximum square footage for both industrial uses on TMP59- 23 D and 59-23F 5. 32.5.6. (b) Yard and building separation requirements: Please note on the site plan that the front setback is 50' from any public street right -of -way. A note on the plan indicates that a building exists. Please revise. 6. 32.5.6. (b) Please provide the maximum number of employees for each of the warehouses 7. 32.5.6. (b) Please include on the site plan the floor area ratio and the lot coverage for the two warehouses. 8. 32.5.6. (b) Please include the height of the structures on the site plan. 9. 32.5.6. (b) Please provide a schedule of parking including the maximum amount required and the amount provided. Please refer to section 14.12.6 MINIMUM NUMBER OF REQUIRED PARKING SPACES FOR SCHEDULED USES] of the zoning ordinanceWholesalingorviusenototherwiseidcntificd: One (1) space per employee plus one 1) space pet- each,five hundred (500) square feet offloor area open to the publie customer parking, but in all cases a minimum of'tw (2) customer parking spaces. As stated above please provide the required amount of parking for each warehouse. I. Additionally, the maximum number of parking spaces for each warehouse cannot be exceed per section [4.12.4.a] Maxinninz number of spaces. The number of'parking spaces in a parking area may not exceed the number of spaces required by this section by more than tvrenty (20) percent. Please provide the required amount of parking spaces for each of the warehouses on Tax Map Parcels 59 -23D and 59 -23F. The parking spaces on each parcel cannot be exceeded by more than (20) percent. Please provide the square footage for a) The 1 story brick and metal warehouse on tax Map and Parcel 59 -23D b) The 1 story brick and metal warehouse on tax Map and Parcel 59 -23F This will help in calculating the required amount of parking for both warehouses. Based onthesecalculations, the maximum number of spaces required for each parcel will be evident therefore the 20 percent will not be exceeded]. 10. 32.5.6(b) Please provide the amount of paved parking and vehicular circulation area for all the sites. This figure will be used to calculate the interior landscaping requirements in the landscape plan. 11. 32.7.2.8 Provision shall be made for sidewalks and pedestrian walkways which will enable pedestrians to walk safely and conveniently between buildings on the site and from the site to adjacent property. 12. Some of the above parking requirements may be waived per section 14.12.2 APPLICABILITY] of the zoning ordinance. 4.12.2. c. Modification or waiver. The limitation on the maximum number of parking spaces required by subsection 4.12.4(a) and the design requirements in sections 4.12.15, 4.12.16, 4.12.17, 4.12. 18 and 4.12.19 may be modifiedorwaived, and in any commercial or industrial zoning district the minimum number of parking spaces required by section 4.12.6 may be modified, in an individual case if the zoningadministratorfindsthatthepublichealth, safety or welfare would be equally or better served by the modification or waiver and that the modification or waiver would not otherwise be contrary to the purpose and intent of this chapter. 13. Landscape Plan: Provide calculations for I. Street trees required [per linear square footage of public right -of -way] I1. Interior parking lot trees [5% of parking and vehicular circulation area] III. Canopy requirements 14. If outdoor lighting is proposed please provide a lighting plan (at final site plan). 15. The survey by Thomas Lincoln does not match what is shown on our GIS web (is this is the current (latest) and most accurate survey? please let me know). Property lines for Tax Map and Parcel 59 -23D and 59 -23F are shown as extending all the way to the railway line on Albemarle County GIS web. Comments for SDP200800052 LTACH 1. The sanitary sewer is shown as being connected along route US Route 250 on the LTACH site plan. The sanitary sewer connection should snatch the sanitary sewer connection shown in the sanitary sewer extension plans. 2. Indicate on the site plan the maximum number of employees. 3. Street trees, Interior parking lot trees, and canopy calculations are site specific. Plantings on one parcel cannot account for calculations on another parcel. Street trees along state route 250 for TMP 59 -23B1 must be calculated separate from those for North Ridge, and the same goes for interior parking lot landscaping, and canopy calculations. A clear definition of boundaries i.e. boundary line adjustment would remedy this concern. Please contact Gerald Gatobu at the Division of Zoning and Current Development at 296 -5832 ext. 3385 for further information. 4 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1601 Orange Road Culpeper, Virginia 22701 David S. Ekern, P.E. VirginiaDOT org COMMISSIONER April 14` -008 Mr. Glenn Brooks Department of Engineering and Development 401 McIntire Rd. Charlottesville, VA 22902 Subject: Site Review Meeting Continents April 14` 2008 site review meeting Dear Mr. Brooks: Below are VDOT's comments on the Site Plans for the April 14` 2007 Site Review Com nittee Meeting: SDP - 2008 -00052 Sieg Maintenance — Preliminary (Gerald Gatobu) The additional parking at this site to support the LTACH building will increase the use of the existing entrance. Previous comments form the traffic study for the LTACH site were provided by VDOT and include comments referring to inter - parcel connections to allow traffic to access the main entrance where there may be a traffic signal. The site plan should not be approved until comments by the county and VDOT pertaining to the traffic study have been addressed. SDP - 2008 -00053 UVA Long Term Acute Care Hospital — Preliminary (Gerald Gatobu) Previous comments by the county and VDOT about the TIA need to be addressed prior to site plan approval. These comments discuss inter- parcel connections with the adjacent Northridge Hospital and adequate access for a proposed Fire Station and Church on the two back parcels which appear to share an entrance with this site. SDP- 2008 -00054 Timberwood Grill — Ma_ior (Summer Frederick) There are plantings along route 1722 in front of the parking area that are proposed on this plan that lie within the sight distance easement for the intersection of route 1722 and 1754. These plantings appear to restrict the sight distance at the intersection and need to be relocated to allow safe ingress and egress at the intersection. foYEANS OF TRANSPORTAPON EXEELLEHEE e 9 1) ra 0 0 6 SUB - 2008 -00093 Glenmore(Phase 2- Section S -5) Preliminary (Megan Yaniglos) All proposed roads are internal to a private subdivision. Please request the applicants provide a written description of revisions with re- submissions. If you have any questions or comments, please contact me prior to sharing these comments with the applicants. Sincerely, Joel DeNunzio, P.E. Residency Program Manager VDOT Charlottesville Residency 434 -293 -0011 cc Bill Fritz, David Benish, Juan Wade, Elaine Echols, Joan McDowell, Judith Wiegand, Margaret Maliszewski, David Pennock, Francis McCall, Jon Sharp, Summer Frederick, Patrick Lawrence, and John Giometti Joel, Below are my comments on the Traffic Study for the North Ridge Development: The growth rate used for the background development is very excessive. Based on a review of the historical trends the rate should be between 0.5% and 1.0% not 5.5 %; The study did not include a recently proposal for Church and Fire Station uses on the two rear parcels. These changes need to be included; The existing entrances are approximately 1990 ft for the main entrance and 1560 ft for the service entrance from the existing signalized intersection to the west Route 677 and Route 250). Based on these distance the main entrance appears to be the best location for a possible signal (The minimum spacing for signals on Arterial Roadway with 45 MPH is 1760 ft). Based on the proposed uses inter - parcel connections within the properties are needed to allows full use of a proposed signalized intersection. Recommend all the parcels be interconnected. Page 1 of 1 Philip Custer From: Philip Custer Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 5:16 PM To: 'Brajesh Tiwari' Cc: 'Keith'; Amy Pflaum Subject: RE: SIEG Curb and Gutter Waiver Hello Brajesh, I took the sketch you sent me earlier today to our group's engineering meeting. it was determined that the parking lot drainage design that was shown in the plan is acceptable. In the final plan, a spread calculation for each curb opening and a calculation confirming that the concentrated water flowing through travelways is kept below 1 cfs will both be necessary. It would also be a good idea to adjust the landscape plan to remove any plantings in the area of the curb cut to allow an open channel to the biofilter. These channels should also be sized for the 2 and 10 year storms in the final plan. I just noticed today that there appears to be some significant cut (4' to 5') at the outlet of the biofilter facility overtop of the water and sewer lines. The service authority usually doesn't perform a detailed review in the preliminary stages so this may not be allowed in the final plan. It might be a good idea to investigate alternatives now while still in the conceptual stage. Thanks, Phil From: Brajesh Tiwari [ mailto:btiwari @mckeecarson.com] Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 10:51 AM To: Philip Custer Cc: 'Keith' Subject: SIEG Curb and Gutter Waiver Hi Phil, Please find the attachment of Landscape Plan for the SIEG Maintenance project. We have changed the configuration of landscape islands in the parking lot. A curb is proposed around the trees in order to avoid any long term erosion problem. At the same time we maintained the sheet flow through out the parking lot. Please let me if this is the acceptable design to the county in order to get curb and gutter waiver. Thanks. 1 man McKee Carson and Reid Sport Concepts, Ltd, f; i rwrs t i is jn Str—,+ ryVA 431 0,"t .75)12 1(:1 t:A 477, i 194 fax rhww.m1 : ° n7ee( ;.lr =.'n <,on1 4/24/2008 LANDSCAPE -PLAN NOTES __- 1. ALL PLANTS HAVING A QUANTITY GREATER THAN ONE -(1) SHALL BE MATCHED AND SUPPLIED FROM THE SAME SOURCE (PER SPECIES) CONTACT OWNER AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AT THE TIME OF PUNT MATERIAL DELIVERY, BEFORE ANY SUBSTITUTIONS OR CHANGES, IF SCHEDULED TYPES ARE UNAVAILABLE, AND FOLLOWING INSTALLATION. 2. ALL PLANT SUBSTITUTIONS SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OFORDERS. CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT THESE SUBSTITUTIONS IN WRITING. 3. OWNER AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SHALL INSPECT AND APPROVE ALL PUNT MATERIAL AT TIME OF DELI VERY AS WELL AS AFTER INITIAL PLACEMENT PRIOR TO PLANTING CONTRACTOR TO NOTIFY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 48-HOURS PRIOR TO DELIVERY. 4. MULCH TO BE DOUBLE SHREDDED HARDWOOD, CLEAN AND FREE FROM PEST AND DISEASES. MULCH SHALL BE APPLIED TO A2 -INCH DEPTH. MULCH RINGS 24- INCHES MIN. IN DIAMETER ARE TO BE PLACED AROUND ALL TREES NOT LOCATED IN PLANTING BEDS. 5. STABILIZATION MAT MAY BE APPLIED TO ALL SLOPES EXCEEDING 3:1 ( 70 BE DETERMINED BY LAAND ENGINEER). TREE PLANTING AND MEADOW MIX SPREADING SHALL BE PERFORMED INA MANNER THAT DOES NOT COMPROMISE THE INTEGRITY OF THE SLOPE OR MAT (IF USED) SLOPE PROTECTION MATTING SHALL BE AN APPROPRIATE NORTH AMERICAN GREEN PRODUCT CONSULT LA AND ENGINEER PRIOR TO ORDERING FOR TYPE AND QUANTITY. e. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY QUANTITIES AND REPORT ANY DISCREPANCIES TO THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. ALL PLANT SUBSTITUTIONS SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE OWNER AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. 7. PLANTING IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AS PER CLIENT REQUEST. B. PLANTING WILL MEET MINIMUM COUNTY REQUIREMENTS. L EGEND r T S DECIDUOUS CANOPY TREES(TYP.) h DECIDUOUS UNDERSTORY TREES (TYP.) N ( t EVERGREEN TREES( TYP) SHRUBS (TYR) BIO- RETENTION GROUNDCOVER rrT ., GROUNDCOVER(GRASS) Metasequoia glyptosimboides NO 1 - t 2 2 5".L OP M ASTER PLANT LIST 2 2.5' cal. PA Platanus aceritolle' Bloodgood'London Planehee 2.5' cal. PO I fit' 2.5' cal DEL Ouarcua bicolor Swamp White Oak 2 2.5' ul. QC zXl, 7 R4CK COMMON NAME QUANTITY CALIPER/ SIZE CLEAR SPACE•. LIMIT gyp) 2 2.5' cal OR f^ "l - -fir` Y -` ` 4- TREES Deciduous Canopy (B&B) 2 2.5' cal. TO J` r lam`' 'J j y /, T b AR A., rubrum 'October Glary BN Salute Tigre Marriage' 4` 3 2.5' cal. 2 25' cal Decduoua M n i Y 4 g5° CC Carpinus nraliniana FA Fred— amerlrana'Autumn Purple' Amedwn Hornbeam Amedcan Ash 75 2. 5' wl. 3 2.5'cal CF Comus ftorida'Cherokes Pdncess'Flowering Dogwood 6 j LOADING SPACES EX/S7WGDOGISMIDS- APPROX LOr4n0W o _ White Fringe Tree 2 B' -10' NY DECIDUOUS CANOPY TREE (TYPO Whchhazel l 8' -10' Evergreen SIDEWALK TYP) LOADING SPACES JV Jumpems virgimana Easier Red Ceder EVERGREEN TREE ITO) B' -0' PS Pinus strobus While Pine 5 8' - 8' SHRUBS (3 Gallon, 3' O. C) DECIDUOUS UNDERSTORY TREE(Typ) AA2 SHRUB ° Red Chokeberry 33 1121: n . Typ) Clethre aingolla'Sixtew candle.'Sweet Pepperbush 53 LANDSCAPE -PLAN NOTES __- 1. ALL PLANTS HAVING A QUANTITY GREATER THAN ONE -(1) SHALL BE MATCHED AND SUPPLIED FROM THE SAME SOURCE (PER SPECIES) CONTACT OWNER AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AT THE TIME OF PUNT MATERIAL DELIVERY, BEFORE ANY SUBSTITUTIONS OR CHANGES, IF SCHEDULED TYPES ARE UNAVAILABLE, AND FOLLOWING INSTALLATION. 2. ALL PLANT SUBSTITUTIONS SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OFORDERS. CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT THESE SUBSTITUTIONS IN WRITING. 3. OWNER AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SHALL INSPECT AND APPROVE ALL PUNT MATERIAL AT TIME OF DELI VERY AS WELL AS AFTER INITIAL PLACEMENT PRIOR TO PLANTING CONTRACTOR TO NOTIFY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 48-HOURS PRIOR TO DELIVERY. 4. MULCH TO BE DOUBLE SHREDDED HARDWOOD, CLEAN AND FREE FROM PEST AND DISEASES. MULCH SHALL BE APPLIED TO A2 -INCH DEPTH. MULCH RINGS 24- INCHES MIN. IN DIAMETER ARE TO BE PLACED AROUND ALL TREES NOT LOCATED IN PLANTING BEDS. 5. STABILIZATION MAT MAY BE APPLIED TO ALL SLOPES EXCEEDING 3:1 (70 BE DETERMINED BY LAAND ENGINEER). TREE PLANTING AND MEADOW MIX SPREADING SHALL BE PERFORMED INA MANNER THAT DOES NOT COMPROMISE THE INTEGRITY OF THE SLOPE OR MAT (IF USED) SLOPE PROTECTION MATTING SHALL BE AN APPROPRIATE NORTH AMERICAN GREEN PRODUCT CONSULT LA AND ENGINEER PRIOR TO ORDERING FOR TYPE AND QUANTITY. e. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY QUANTITIES AND REPORT ANY DISCREPANCIES TO THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. ALL PLANT SUBSTITUTIONS SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE OWNER AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. 7. PLANTING IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AS PER CLIENT REQUEST. B. PLANTING WILL MEET MINIMUM COUNTY REQUIREMENTS. L EGEND r T S DECIDUOUS CANOPY TREES(TYP.) h DECIDUOUS UNDERSTORY TREES (TYP.) N ( t EVERGREEN TREES( TYP) SHRUBS (TYR) BIO- RETENTION GROUNDCOVER rrT ., GROUNDCOVER(GRASS) Q L I J NT 4 G x EASEMENT s 4 U. S. ROUTE 250 S C, ct y J MG Metasequoia glyptosimboides NO 1 - t 2 2 5".L OP M ASTER PLANT LIST 2 2.5' cal. PA Platanus aceritolle' Bloodgood'London Planehee 6 2.5' cal. PO I Howard Sycamore 2 2.5' cal DEL Ouarcua bicolor Swamp White Oak 2 2.5' ul. QC zXl, CODE SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME QUANTITY CALIPER/ SIZE CLEAR SPACE•. LIMIT gyp) 2 2.5' cal OR f^ "l - -fir` Y -` `4- TREES Deciduous Canopy (B&B) 2 2.5' cal. TO J` r lam`' ' J j y /, T b AR A., rubrum 'October Glary BN Salute Tigre Marriage' October Glary Red Mepla Heritage River Bich 3 2.5' cal. 2 25' cal Decduoua u M n i Y 4 AA g 5°CC Carpinus nraliniana FA Fred— amerlrana'Autumn Purple' Amedwn Hornbeam Amedcan Ash 75 2. 5' wl. 3 2.5'cal Q L I J NT 4 G x EASEMENT s 4 U. S. ROUTE 250 S C, ct y J MG Metasequoia glyptosimboides Dawn Redwood 2 2 5".L OP Darya virginian American Hophombeam 2 2.5' cal. PA Platanus aceritolle' Bloodgood'London Planehee 6 2.5' cal. PO Platanus occidentelis'Howard'Howard Sycamore 2 2.5' cal DEL Ouarcua bicolor Swamp White Oak 2 2.5' ul. QC Quartos cocclnea Scarlet Oak 2 2.5'.1. OP Quartos pelustris Pin Oak 2 2.5' cal OR Due— rubs Northern Red Oak 2 2.5' cal. TO Taxodium dlstichum Said Cypress 2 2.5' cal UP Ulmua pa- WR.Lacebark Elm 4 2. 5' cal Decduoua Understory (B &B) AA Amelam pier arbom.'Autumn Brilliance'Downy Servmeberry 2 8' -10' CF Comus ftorida'Cherokes Pdncess'Flowering Dogwood 6 CV Chlonanmus vlrginlws White Fringe Tree 2 B' -10' NY Hamamelis virginiana Whchhazel 2 8' -10' Evergreen B &B) JV Jumpems virgimana Easier Red Ceder 10 B' -0' PS Pinus strobus While Pine 5 8' - 8' SHRUBS (3 Gallon, 3' O. C) AA2 Amnia arbubfolia Red Chokeberry 33 1121: n . CA Clethre aingolla'Sixtew candle.'Sweet Pepperbush 53 18 -24n. CDC Cephalanthus occidentalis BuBOnbush 33 18- 24 in. CS Comue ee'Mea Redtwlg Dogwood 71 18-24 in. CS2 Comus serMsa'Flevlrames'Yellowtwig Dogwood 71 18 -241n. FG Fothergilla gardemi Dwarf Fotheigilla 20 18 -24 in. IG Has glebrs' Nigre'Ink Barry 24 18_241n. ITV tea vlrg: nim'Henrys Garnet'Vlrglnia Sweebphe 72 18 -241n IV Ilex verllcillate'Red Sprite'Winteiberry 31 18 -241n IV2 Ilex verliclllaIs Jim Dandy'Jim Dandy (Pollinator)2 18_ 241n VA Mbumum acertfolium Maplelea/ Viburnum 12 18 -241n VC2 Viburnum cariea: i Koreanspice Viburnum 12 18- 24 in VC3 Viburnum oorymbosum H: ghbush Blueberry 12 18 -26In VD Vlbumum dentatum Arrowwood Vlbumum 12 18 -241n. Y, eawma „,, e--- --'°^`^"'” °" VJ Viburnum xjuddii Judd Viburnum 12 18 -24 in GROUNDCOVERS (18' O.0 ) IV3 Iris versicolor Blue Rag 105 5' JE Juncos aftuses'Gold Stake'Soft Rush Sedge 105 5' PERENNIAL SEED MIXES MIX 1 Upland Site Mix 2484 al j scale 1' =20' L contour interval 2' 0 20 40 80 MCKEECARSON 1. b. . zz9oz p o szs ww1. . . keno n TH OF 4! PO c4 FROBERTB. MC RnR 11,CAIE ao uT w d ' AmS C la", Nom` REFERENCES: NORTH RIDGE SHE PLAN: TIMMONS GROUP CONSOLIDATED PLAT: THOMAS UNCOLN SURVEYORS 0 z Q LL Q W N V — a Z U c . Q Q 21 H c Z a N O O U a = C w 6 o Q U W r 1] 7 N U Q U, z O z a JLUEL Q U N z Q J REVISIONS -- -- -- — - - I. 04/ 28/ 2T08: SITE REVIEW COMMENTS DESIGNED CHECKED MT, NB, E2 RBM SCALE 1'20' DATE 03 /24108 PROJECT O810 SHEET NUMBER 05 OF 05 llF . o' rllll' r, c , 4 fRCIN COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fa (4 972 -4126 May 30, 2008 BRW Architects c/o Bruce Wardell 112 Fourth St NE Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: ARB2008 -00048 UVA Long Term Acute Care Hospital Tax Map 59, Parcels 23B, 23B1, 23C1, 23D and 23F Dear Mr. Wardell: 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 3:0, pending staff administrative approval of the following conditions and a work session with the ARB to include the review of conditions 1, 7, 13 and 22: 1. Revise the design of the LTACH building to eliminate the non - traditional, disjointed appearance of the EC elevation. This design will be reviewed in a work session. The elevation may be revised at the discretion of the architect, as follows: Consider extending the cornice of the entry part of the building to return and tie in with the stair tower; likewise, on the western tower to return its cornice to tie in with the stair tower. The truncated roof over the two side towers would benefit by returning in a hip. The slot of brick on the two side towers might benefit from having cast stone heads, possibly a medium brick color rather than the dark color, and the continuation of the foundation brick across the recesses to tie the elevation together. 2. Add the following note to the site and architectural drawings: "Mechanical equipment shall not be visible from the EC." 3. Provide complete proposed grading. Show tree lines to remain. Show tree protection fencing. Ensure that existing trees to remain are drawn at actual size. Revise proposed grading to avoid the drip line of trees to remain. 4. Provide on the plan the number of required parking spaces and the number of proposed parking spaces for each parcel. Parking proposed in excess of the number required will likely result in a recommendation for reduced parking area. Provide on the plan the number of required parking spaces and the number of proposed parking for each parcel. Replace the parking spaces proposed in excess of the number required with interior parking lot trees along the western side of the Sieg parking lot and between the new parking lot and the eastern elevation of the Sieg building. 5. Provide an existing conditions plan drawn at the same scale as the layout and landscape plans. 6. Provide a landscape plan that identifies the species of each proposed tree. 7. Provide an elevation of the stone site walls at the LTACH and Northridge sites. The overall stone site walls should have reduced heights in the steps of the walls and more gradual steps. 8. Provide a landscape plan that identifies specific species for proposed plants. 9. Provide EC trees at 3 caliper. Ensure that trees are planted at least 35' on center along the EC. 10. Provide an existing conditions sheet that identifies all existing trees for each site. 11. Provide all shrubs at 24" height minimum at planting. 12. Revise the proposal to provide trees along the east side of the LTACH building outside of utilities and easements. 13. Provide additional details clarifying how the appearance of the rip rap area between the biofilter wall and the EC will be made appropriate for the EC. Revise the rip rap and other site elements, as necessary, to establish an appropriate appearance. 14. Provide manufacturer's cut sheets for each proposed lighting fixture. Include the cut sheets on a sheet of the site plan set. 15. Provide for review a sample of the Sherwin Williams "Rockwood Shutter Green" color that is proposed for all the light fixtures. 16. Revise the photometric plan to provide footcandle values out to zero or the property line. Clearly indicate the property lines on the photometric plans. 17. Provide a break line /match line on the photometric plans. 18. Provide footcandle levels for the OA and OB fixtures at the biofilter proposed at the southeast corner of the Sieg site. 19. Reduce the overall height of OB and OD fixtures in the Sieg parking lot to be less than the height of the Sieg building. 20. Include the following note on the site plan: Each outdoor luminaire equipped with a lamp that emits 3,000 or more initial lumens shall be a full cutoff luminaire. The spillover of lighting from luminaires onto public roads and property in residential or rural areas zoning districts shall not exceed one -half footcandle. 21. Consider providing an off -white color for the storefront and the metal cornice work instead of the bright white currently specified. 22. Provide additional samples for alternate spandrel glazing. 23. Continue the row of shrubs around the southern end of the grass planting area in the water easement. 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 staff's 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: UVA Facilities Planning & Capital Development PO BOX 800799 Charlottesville, VA 22908 University Of Virginia Health Services Foundation 500 Ray C Hunt Dr Charlottesville, Va 22903 Gerald Gatobu, Current Development ARB File OF k County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Gerald Gatobu, Current Development planning and zoning review From: Phil Custer, Current Development engineering review Date: 10 .Tune 2008 Subject: UVA Longterm Acute Care Hospital critical slope waiver request (SDP-2007-00157) The critical slope waiver request has been reviewed. The engineering analysis of the request follows: Description of critical slope area and proposed disturbance: The critical slope disturbance on parcels 59 -23B and 59 -23B 1 will be needed for the placement of the building, surrounding travelways, and a loading dock. It should be noted at this time that there are outstanding issues concerning interconnection and parking that may affect the site layout and ultimate disturbance of critical slopes. The analysis provided in this report is based on the current drawing dated 04- 28 -08. There are two distinct areas of critical slopes affected by this development plan. The first being a 380ft long, narrow strip on the west side of the Northridge property (TMP 59 -23B). This section appears to have been construction when the Northridge parking lot was developed. This slope is adequately established and appears to be well - maintained. The second section of critical slopes exists above (south and east ot) the warehouse parking lot on the Kirtley property (TMP 29- 23B1). After a brief site investigation, the critical slopes in this area seem to be natural. The trees on the slope appear to be mature and no scrub vegetation is present. Though, due to its location between two level building sites, it is possible the slope was created by the development of the property decades ago. TMP 59 -23B (The Northridge Propertt) Areas Acres Total site 5.03 acres approximately Critical slopes 0.80 16 ° of site Critical slopes disturbed 0.32 1 41°'o of critical slopes TRIP 59 -23B1 (The Kird , Pro errs) Areas Acres Total site 3.50 acres approximately Critical slopes 0.63 18% of site Critical slopes disturbed 0.30 48% of critical slopes Exemptions to critical slopes waivers for driveways, roads and utilities without reasonable alternative locations: A portion of this disturbance, the area needed to construct the biofilter, is exempt. Although, it appears an alternative site layout or a smaller footprint would eliminate the need for a SWM facility on the critical slope. [4.2.6c] 'The combined area of the exempted critical slope disturbance (which has been included in Albemarle anty Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 2 of 2 the above calculations) is 0.08 acres. This area is approximately 13% of the critical slope disturbance. Compliance with Zoning Ordinance 18 -4.2: movement of soil and rock" Construction of the building and other site features will most likely require a temporary increased flow down the critical slopes during a rain event. Movement of soil can be caught with an appropriatesedimenttrappingmeasurebeforesiterunoffenterstheexistingstormwatersystem. excessive stormwater runoff' Stormwater runoff will be controlled on site by an underground detention facility and a biotilter. No site runoff will run across critical slopes in the post development condition. siltation" Inspection and bonding by the County will ensure siltation control during construction. Properstabilizationandmaintenancewillensurelongtermstability. loss of aesthetic resource" The critical slope on the Northridge property (TMP 59 -23B) is visible from 250 and the Northridgebuilding. The critical slope on the Kirtley property is only visible from the on -site warehouse. On both parcels, the critical slopes are covered by mature evergreen trees. septic effluent" This site is serviced by public sewer. Based on the review above, there are no engineering concerns with the proposed disturbance to critical slopes that cannot be alleviated with standard engineering and erosion control practices. Therefore, engineering review recommends the approval of the critical slope waiver. uW af-ftp •. f1'lllf i County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Gerald Gatobu, Current Development Project Planner From: Phil Custer, Current Development engineering review Date: 10 June 2008 Subject: UVA Long Term Acute Care hospital Preliminary Site plan (SDP -2008- 00053) The preliminary site plan for the UVA Long Term Acute Care Hospital property has been reviewed. The engineering review for current development cannot recommend approval with this latest submittal. The following continents are provided. Please provide an amendment to the traffic impact and parking study to include the additional parking being proposed for the Sieg Maintenance site. Rev. 1) The existing conditions and parking upgrades on the Sieg Maintenance site were considered in the latest study but the increase in traffic to the existing entrance onto Route 250 was not considered. The study should again be revised to consider the impacts of'the Sieg parking lot expansion to the LOS of the Sieg Entrance. The LOS of the existing condition should be compared to LOS the proposed condition both with and without all Interconnection between the Northridge and Sieg sites. Regarding the latest amendment to the parking and traffic study, the follonirrg comments are provided by engineering review. a. Engineering review recommends the applicant take more data on the existing parking demand for the Northridge and Sieg Maintenance sites. During the past two weeks countJ staff has visited the sites and has taken parking inventory. Our findings con flict with the results from Kirnley -Horn and Associates, Inc'.s single dal of parking counts. The differences are enough to justify a more detailed study of several random day's. This recommendation is based on the basic data in the table below and from the initial visits to the site where a count was not taken but more problematic parking issues was noted. Date Time Empty standard Empty Handicap Cars not parked Total Cars parked spaces in spaces Empty in Sieg lot spaces Thursday May 29th 10:05 AM 45 4 4 45 30 Monday June 2nd 2:25 PM 58 9 4 63 23 Tuesday June 3rd 9:20 AM 26 2 4 24 24 Wednesday June 4th 11:30 AM 41 4 37 1 25 b. The Northridge parking lot is not shown accurately in the site plan. There are stripped handicap aisles to the west of the Northridge building that are not shown on the plan. c. The building located on the Sieg lot does not appear to be a warehouse use. It appears that it is a "maintenance" or mechanical building used to repair fleet vehicles. d. There are no calculations showing that a signal is warranted for the Northridge Current Development Engineering Review Continents Page 2 of 5 site. Please provide that data and calculation. e. The LT.4 CH site plan mentions parking spaces available at the Kirde} Office building and rvareliouse but the parking stud,, does not mention these towards the parking demand This should be clarified. 2. Please provide interconnection between the three parcels involved in this plan so that Route 250 will not be used as the interconnecting travelway. [32.7.2.5] Rev. 1) Comment not addressed. Engineering review recommends an interparcel connection between TMP',s 59 -23B and 59 -23D. 3. Please provide a Modified simple spreadsheet for each SWM drainage area on site. Please note that as policy, engineering review does not allow the water quality treatment of one drainage area to "overtreat" for other areas of the site. The runoff from each watershed leaving the site must be treated to the required removal rate. For instance, the biofilter will have a separate removal rate computation and it is likely that the resulting removal rate would be closer to 65% than 50 ° 10 as shown on the plan. Rev. 1) Please note that this development is considered "redevelopment in a water suppl3l protection area. " The resulting removal rates for water quality watersheds 1, 2, and 3 that I found were 46%, 95 %, and 38 %, respectively, using the impervious areas provided in the table on C4. The use ofStormfilters in watershed 1 and 3 are acceptable, but please note that Stormfrlters are given a 50% removal rate fi•oin the state, not 65%. The biofilter must be sized to treat 65 %. 6. Please show all of the grading necessary for the creation of the biofilter facility. This will be helpful in writing the critical slope wavier report. Rev. 1) Engineering review feels that the grading of the biofilter can be worked out in the final stages of the plan. Additional disturbances to critical slopes the biofilter construction will be considered exempt, through 18- 4.2.6.c, if a waiver is granted now. It should be noted that the biofilter does not appear to be sized to achieve a 65"„ removal rate, and the embankment slopes are twice as steep as the alloirable grade 3:1). 7. A critical slope waiver report will be written separate from this comment letter. The following comments are not required for preliminary site plan approval but will need to be addressed during the final site plan process. Current Development Engineering Review Comments Page 3 of 5 4. (Rev. 1) A permanent canopy cannot be placed over the SIVM facility. 5. (Rev. 1) An adequate channel analysis of the downstream drainage system will be required with the UTO plan. Current Development Engineering Review Comments Page 4 of 5 e %I'p T County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Gerald Gatobu, Current Development Project Planner From: Phil Custer, Current Development engineering review Date: 10 June 2008 Subject: Sieg Maintenance Preliminary Site Plan (SDP -2008- 00052) The preliminary site plan for the Sieg Maintenance property has been reviewed. The engineering review for current development cannot recommend approval to the plan with this latest submittal. The following comments are provided. 3. Please update the parking and traffic study for the LTACH development to include the amendment to the Sieg Maintenance parking lot and vehicle demand loads. Rev. 1) Please refer to Comment 1) n f the LTACH preliminary site plan above. 4. Please provide vehicular interparcel connection to TMP 59 -23B. [32.7.2.5] Rev. 1) Comment not addresser. Engineering review recommends an interparcel connection between TMP's 59 -23B and 59 -23D. 5. Please show all critical slopes on the plan even though they may not exist on the parcel. Rev. 1) Comment not addressed. 6. Please show adequate sight distance onto Route 250 on the plan. Rev. 1) Comment not addressed. 7. Please provide pedestrian access to LTACH through the Northridge site. A minor amendment for the Northridge site should be processed at this time for the improvements shown to TMP 59 -23B in the LTACH and Sieg Maintenance preliminary site plan applications. [32.7.2.8] Rev. 1) This comment has been addressed with the LTACH site plan. 8. The area allotted for SWM appears to be large enough for water quality treatment and detention. The final review of the SWM computations will be performed during the WPO Current Development Engineering Review Continents Page 5 of 5 submittal. Rev. 1) Again, the area allotted for SWM treatment appears to be large enough to treat just the additional impervious area added with this development. However, the biofilter with its current drainage area is undersized. The details of the SUM plan will be worked out during the review of the WPO plan. Engineering review suggests bypassing with majority ofpost- construction runoff (equivalent to the pre - development condition) around the biofilter so that it is not undersized and becomes a maintenance issue. The following comments are not required for preliminary site plan approval but will need to be addressed during the final site plan process. 1. The width of the curb cannot be included in the width of the sidewalk. The sidewalk on the southern edge of the building measures to be 4.5'. 2. Sidewalks adjacent to parking spaces must either be 611 in width or 5ft in width with bumper blocks in the parking spaces. Sidewalk widths are measured exclusive of curb. 5. The addition of the northeastern parking lot displaces many utility items that appear to be necessary for the building. Where are these items to be relocated? If some of the items are to remain, the sidewalk must be widened to accommodate. 6. The maximum grade in the parking lot is 5 %. This includes areas where there is parallel parking. 7. It appears that a dumpster pad may be needed by the building occupants. 8. (Rev. 1) An adequate channel analysis of the downstream drainage sy :stem will be required with the WPO plan.