Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP200900060 Review Comments 2009-08-19F ALB v>RGINwP COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 August 19, 2009 To: Dan Knapp; Graef via email: dan.knapp@graef usa.com RE: SDP2009 -60 Martha Jefferson Hospital - Major Dear Sirs: 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 (Engineer) Albemarle County Division of Zoning & Current Development (Planner) Albemarle County Division of Planning (E911) Albemarle County Division of Planning (Architectural Review Board) Albemarle County Division of Planning (Historic Preservation) Albemarle County Division of Planning (Water Protection) Albemarle County Department of Fire Rescue Albemarle County Service Authority Virginia Department of Health Virginia Department of Transportation Comments reflect information available at the time the development proposal was reviewed, and should not be considered final. However, the Site Review Committee has attempted to identify all issues that could affect approval of the proposed project. Please make the revisions that have been identified as necessary for 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 comments of the Site Review Committee by August 30, 2009. 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, Summer Frederick Senior Planner Zoning & Current Development i F'IIII , kGIIvP County of Albemarle Department of Community Development To:Dan Knapp; GRAEF via email: dan.knapp@agraef- usa.com From: Summer Frederick, Senior Planner Division: Current Development Date:August 17, 2009 Subject: SDP2009 -60 Martha Jefferson Hospital - Major The Planner for the 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. Sec. 18- 32.5.6(b)] Please correct parking space numbers so all totals correspond. 2. [Sec. 18- 32.5.6(b)] Please provide maximum square footage of building. 3. [Sec. 18- 32.5.6(b)] Please provide maximum height of structures. 4. Sec. 18- 32.5.6(b)] Please provide maximum amount of paved parking and vehicular circulation areas. Please contact Summer Frederick at the Department of Community Development 296- 5832 ext. 3565 for further information. 1 S Oh AL, 1 J County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To:Summer Frederick, Current Development Project Planner From: Phil Custer, Current Development engineering review Date:13 August 2009 Subject: Martha Jefferson Hospital Major Amendment, Building Addition (SDP -2009- 00060) The major site plan amendment, received on 27 July 2009, has been reviewed. The engineering review for current development can recommend approval to this application after the following changes: 1. This plan requires a determination by the agent and possibly the Zoning Department regarding its consistency with the approved application plan, specifically in respect to the amount of land disturbance along State Farm Blvd. The application plan showed approximately 260ft of disturbance from Willis Road along State Farm while this latest amendment shows 380ft of disturbance. 2. To reduce traffic on state roads when no spaces are available in lot J, the two lots should be connected with a travelway. 3. Please provide rip -rap outlet protection and specify the dimensions and size of stone. 4. This plan will require an amendment to the ESC plan to be processed. Please provide a WPO application with a $180 fee for an amendment to the ESC plan. In addition to all other standard requirements, the ESC plan should show the limits of disturbance being increased and a note saying that construction access will be from existing construction entrances on site unless a new entrance is proposed. 5. Please provide calculations confirming that the SWM pond can handle the additional impervious area and still meet the 65% removal rate. The volume provided in the pond should be equal to or greater than 4 times the water quality volume (WQV= 0.5" over all impervious areas draining to the facility). 6. The sidewalk from this new parking lot should be extended along the southern edge of lot J to the meet the already proposed sidewalk. 7. Please bubble and note all other changes to the site that will be occurring with this plan amendment. 8. At the request of the planner, engineering has reviewed the parking study and will offer the following questions and comments for the planner to consider in her review: a. The hospital is moving to an area that is less convenient with regard to public transportation and pedestrian commuting than its current location within the city limits. Since the parking ratios seem to be based on the existing parking demand of the current hospital, it is relevant to include in the discussion estimations for the percentage of staff, physicians, and visitors who are currently using public transportation or walking and would be more likely to drive to the hospital at its new location. b. Engineering review is unsure what day of the week or time of year represents a typical day concerning parking. A higher degree of confidence in the existing parking numbers could be achieved if more than one day of data had been collected during different days of the week and year. c. It is unclear how the 50 vehicles with staff stickers were incorporated into the existing parking table. Current Development Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 2 d. Some of the required parking includes spaces on the Martha Jefferson OCC parcel. This site should be included in the parking study to confirm that a 58 space surplus exists. Also, will this area be visitor or staff parking? e. Twenty -five spaces for education and conferences seems to be a low estimate. What is the square footage of the space for conference /education assembly? f. Now may be the ideal time to determine some of the practices specified in proffer 5 regarding the traffic demand study which must be approved by Director of Planning before a certificate of occupancy is issued. g. The study states that fleet vehicles were not included in the parking study, but it appears that all spaces on site plan are counted towards the parking requirement for visitors, physicians, staff, etc. Where will the fleet vehicles be parking on site? h. The reason for this amendment as described in the application is for the addition of a fourth floor to the hospital and the increased traffic associated with it, but the total square footage and trip generation tables on sheet C200 have not increased from the original site plan. Why have these values not increased with this amendment? Service Authtri ty TO: Summer Frederick FROM: Gary Whelan, Civil Engineer DATE: August 19, 2009 RE: Site Plan Technical Review for: SDP200900060 Martha Jefferson Hospital -Major TM 78 -20M The below checked items apply to this site. X 1. This site plan is within the Authority's jurisdictional area for: X A. Water and sewer B. Water only C. Water only to existing structure D. Limited service X 2. An 8 inch water line is located on site. 3. Fire flow from, nearest public hydrant, located distant from this site plan, is Gpm + at 20 psi residual. X 4. A 15 inch sewer line is located on site. 5. An Industrial Waste Ordinance survey form must be completed. 6. No improvements or obstructions shall be placed within existing or future easements. 7.and plans are currently under review. X 8. Water and sewer plans have been received and approved. X 9. No plans are required. 10. Final and plans are required for our review and approval prior to granting tentative approval. 11. Final site plan may /may not be signed. 12. RWSA approval for water and /or sewer connections. 13. City of Charlottesville approval for sewer. Comments: Forth floor addition will require total plumbing fixture count to size the meters. Provide bed count. The site plan does not show or incorrectly shows: meter locations water line size waterline locations sewer line size sewer line locations expected wastewater flows easements expected water demands 168 Spotnap Road • Charlottesville • VA 22911 • Tel (434) 977 -4511 • Fax (434) 979 -0698 www.serviceauthoriy.org t ' COMMONWEALTH of VIRQINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CHARLOTTESVILLE RESIDENCY OFFICE 701 VDOT WAY CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22911 DAVID S. EKERN, P.E. COMMISSIONER August 18, 2009 Mr. Glenn Brooks Department of Engineering and Development 401 McIntire Rd. Charlottesville, VA 22902 Subject: Site Review Meeting Comments August 20 2009 site review meeting Dear Mr. Brooks: Below are VDOT' s comments on the Site Plans for the August 20 2009 Site Review Committee Meeting: SDP - 2009 -00057 Harris Garage- Waiver (Gerald Gatobu) No comments SDP - 2009 -00058 Luck Stone Corp. Proposed Entrance and Office Building- prelim Megan Yaniglos) VDOT is currently reviewing options for replacement of the Route 250 bridge to the east of the proposed entrance. The entrance plan and the bridge plan will need to be coordinated to ensure no conflicts will occur between the two plans. VDOT is ready to install the signal when the entrance is constructed and will need a 3 month advance notice of the opening of the entrance to ensure the signal construction is complete. Please indicate the purpose of the gate. Will it be open and free flowing during business hours or will all traffic have to stop at the gate to enter the site at all times? SDP - 2009 -00060 Martha Jefferson Hospital —Major (Summer Frederick) There is not currently a ditch along State Farm Blvd in this section and all drainage from the road and shoulder will flow over the proposed parking lot. This may cause problems and should be addressed with the plan. WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING The new parking lot may affect the TIA for the project. In accordance with the Chapter 527 regulations, a letter of validity for the traffic study needs to be submitted for this change. SUB- 2009 -00101 Arthur M. & Marie Pealer Feiner —Final (Elizabeth Marotta) No comments 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. Staff Engineer VDOT Charlottesville Residency 434 - 293 -0011 WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING OF AL& o ti 7jI_'I111 , ; 7 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4176 MEMORANDUM TO:Summer Frederick FROM:Margaret Maliszewski DATE:August 17 2009 RE:SDP: 2009 - 60: Martha Jefferson Hospital — Major (4 floor and parking) 1. The number given for "total parking stalls" in the "zoning requirements" chart on LS -1 doesn't match the number given on C200. Consequently, the number of interior parking lot trees listed is also incorrect. 2. Two light fixtures located in the southeast part of the parking lot are labeled T3PTD on EL100, but no fixture with that label appears in the luminaire schedule on EL101. 3. The HH3 fixtures exceed 3000 lumens and the cut sheet does not make it clear that they are full cutoff fixtures. Additional information is required to confirm that they are full cutoff, or an alternate fixture is required. 4. Previous conversations with the applicant have resulted in a determination that, given the distance from the Entrance Corridor, the 4th floor addition would be nearly undetectable from the I -64 EC, so no additional ARB review would be required for the addition. However, if the design of the addition changes from what was reviewed in April 2009, the applicant should resubmit architectural drawings to ARB staff to confirm that visibility has not changed. A set of updated architectural elevations for our files would be useful. Also, note that ARB staff will review the architectural drawings submitted with the building permit application to re- confirm the lack of visibility from the EC.