HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201700070 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2018-08-03Phone 434-296-5832
ALg��9�
k.r r
�'IRGSNlP`
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, VA, 22902
Memorandum
To: Justin Shimp (Justin(a-)shimp-engineering.com)
From: Paty Saternye, Senior Planner
Division: Planning
Date: January 19, 2018
Rev. 1: June 1, 2018
Rev. 2: August 3, 2018
Subiect: SDP 201700070 HTC Hotel — Comfort Inn — Final Site Plan
Fax 434-972-4126
The County of Albemarle Planning Division will recommend approval of the plan referenced above once the
following comments 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, which is to the Subdivision/Zoning Ordinances unless
otherwise specified.]
Initial Site Plan Comments (from conditional approval letter dated 10/6/17):
2. A site plan meeting all the requirements of section 32.6 of Chapter 18 of the Code.
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. See comments below.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. See comments below.
Rev. 2: Comment not fully addressed. See comments below.
3. A site plan meeting all the requirements of ZMA 2001-20, its Application Plan, its Code of Development
(C.O.D), and SP2003-30.
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. See comments below.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. See comments below.
Rev. 2: Comment not fully addressed. See comments below.
7. [32.5.2(b)] Address the following:
a) Insufficient parking spaces have been provided for the use, and some of the parking spaces shown on
the site plan are beyond the boundaries of the subject parcel. Although Article II of the Declaration
recorded in Deed Book 3085 Page 361-406 specified easements "for the purpose of passage and
parking of vehicles over and across the parking and driveway areas of each Parcel' it also states in
Article VI Construction, Section 6.06 that "The Parking Area on each separate Parcel and/or legally
subdivided parcel of land (regardless of ownership) comprising the Property shall contain sufficient
parking spaces on said Parcel, which may not rely on parking spaces that may be available on another
portion of the Development, in order to comply with the greater of (i) Governmental Requirements or (ii)
the following minimum requirements..." Therefore, it appears that the parking for this use must be met
within the subject parcel unless the existing agreements are amended. Update the site plan to show
how all parking requirements are being met and do one of the following:
• Revise the agreement and submit all documents and plats required for shared parking for
review. Shared parking must be approved by the Zoning Administrator.
• Revise the agreement and provide all documents and plats required for off -site parking and
update the site plan to show required signage.
• Ensure all "provided" parking on the site plan is within the bounds of the subject parcel.
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. See Zoning comment #1.
I. Standalone parking, as currently shown in the adjoining parcel, requires an SP. Either remove
all parking in the adjoining parcel or submit an application for an SP to have stand along
parking.
Page 1 of 5
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Portions of two parking spaces still reside on the
adjoining parcel. Fully address the comment stated above.
Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
II. If the required amount of parking is not to be provided submit the appropriate request and
justification for the parking reduction.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. A request for reduced parking was submitted and was
reviewed by zoning. Insufficient information was provided. See the attached zoning comments.
Rev. 2: Comment not fully addressed. See zoning comments and address this comment.
III. If parking is to remain on adjoining parcel address issue specified above about the wording of
Article VI of the declaration previously recorded.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Portions of two parking spaces still reside on the
adjoining parcel. Fully address the comment stated above. Also, address Article VI of the
declaration previously recorded if a shared parking agreement is requested rather than reduced
parking.
Rev. 2: Comment not fully addressed. Article VI Construction, Section 6.06 states all
parking (as specified in that article) must be met within the parcel. Address this
comment.
IV. If a Boundary Line Adjustment (BLA) will be done in order to address this offsite parking and
declaration issues show this in the site plan. If this is to be done a BLA Plat will be required
under a separate submission and with appropriate fees.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Since portions of two parking spaces still reside on the
adjoining parcel this comment remains until the issue is resolved. Fully address the comment
stated above.
Rev. 2: Comment addressed. Address this comment.
8. [32.5.2(b), 32.5.2(e), 32.5.2(p), 32.6.20) & 32.7.9] Provide a full landscape plan that provides all required
landscaping, calculations and meets the buffer & landscaping requirements for 32.7.9 and the ZMA Code of
Development. Also, address the following:
a) Provide all items required on the conservation check list including the limits of clearing and grading and
any grade changes requiring tree wells or walls, trenching or tunneling proposed beyond the limits of
clearing and grading.
FINAL: Comment not addressed. Provide all items required on the conservation check list including the
limits of clearing and grading and any grade changes requiring tree wells or walls, trenching or tunneling
proposed beyond the limits of clearing and grading. Ensure that the limits of clearing and grading is
provided in all required sheets including the Landscape Plan sheet.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. The tree protection fencing line in the landscape plan appears to
be directly on top of the property line and therefore cannot be differentiated from the property line. Also,
the tree protection fencing does not appear to have been provided on any other sheets. Provide tree
protection fencing on the grading, landscaping and E&SC plan sheets and ensure that both the line
work and the labels are visible.
Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
b) See ARB comments on landscaping to meet Entrance Corridor requirements.
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. ARB comments will be provided after the 2/12/18 ARB meeting
where it will be reviewed.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. ARB comments were provided on 5/30/18 and have been
attached to these comments.
Rev. 2: Comment not fully addressed. See attached ARB comments from 8/3/18.
c) Provide landscape screening for all features with negative impacts including dumpster, loading areas,
and storage areas.
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. Provide screening shrubs for the islands on the north side of the
parking areas to ensure the parking will not be visible from Timberwood Blvd (32.7.9.5(e)).
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Add shrubs to the two islands at the northeast end of the two
lines of 13 parking spaces in the west parking lot to screen the cars from Timberwood Blvd.
Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
d) [Rev. 1: NEW COMMENTI Revise the location of the large shade tree (Elm) at the southwest corner of
the building so that it is no longer located within the sidewalk.
Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
Page 2 of 5
e) [Rev. 1: NEW COMMENTI Revise the Proposed Landscape Schedule to not include the canopy of the
Taxus baccata Repandens shrub. It appears that that version of the English yew does not reach 5',
which is the minimum height for plants included in the canopy calculation. Also, ensure that once the
canopy total is revised in the chart that it is also revised in the calculations.
Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
10. [32.5.2(i), (n), 32.6.2(f), & (k)] Address the following:
a) Show the location of any outdoor lighting on all plan sheets and provide information on lighting under
the entrance canopy.
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following:
I. Show the outdoor lighting fixtures on the Utility Plan sheet. Ensure that the location of lighting
fixtures within existing and proposed easements will be allowed.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Easements will be required for the light, and the electrical
line going to the light, since it is on an adjoining property. Provide an easement plat and deeds of
easement and maintenance agreements that will be required for the light fixture to be on the
adjoining lot. The plat, deed and any legal agreements must be reviewed, approved, signed and
recorded prior to the final site plan approval.
Rev. 2: Comment not vet addressed. Address the comment. Although an easement plat
was submitted it was only for the ACSA utilities and not for any of the easements that will
be required on the adloininq lot.
b) Show the existing access easements, found in DB 26 78 PG 425 and DB2916 PG 22, on the site plan.
There is a "30' Access Easement" and variable width "Cross -Access Easement" shown on the plats.
FINAL: Comment not addressed. Show the existing access easements, found in DB 2678 PG 425 and
DB2916 PG 22, on the site plan or provide documentation specifying that they have been removed.
There is a "30' Access Easement" and variable width "Cross -Access Easement" shown on the plats.
Also, the 70' Cross -Access Easement could conflict with the building location and must be addressed.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. DB 2678 PG 425-436 has been submitted to the County
Attorney's office for their review. The language at the bottom of page 1 states "... a perpetual, non-
exclusive easement and right-of-way for vehicular ingress and egress..." for the "Access Easement"
which appears to include the "Drive Lane Construction and Cross -Access Easement" area shown on the
plat. This existing easement may conflict with the building location. If it does the easement or the
building location may need to be revised. It is acknowledged that the "Building Restriction Area" is not
the full width of the "Cross -Access Easement". Therefore, legal interpretation is required.
Rev. 2: Comment not addressed. Address this comment. IMPORTANT: The County Attorney's
office has stated that the language at the bottom of page 1 states "... a perpetual, non-exclusive
easement and right-of-way for vehicular ingress and egress..." for the "Access Easement"
appears to include the "Drive Lane Construction and Cross -Access Easement" area shown on
the plat. Therefore, this existing easement conflicts with the building location. Either revise the
easement or revise the building location.
11. [32.5.2(k)] Provide the direction of flow on all pipes with arrows.
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. The stormwater pipe on the west side of the building appears to be
draining away, instead of towards, the stormwater pond.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed. Although the comment response states that "Storm water pipes on western
side of site has been removed." it does not appear that there has been a change. The storm pipe
mentioned in the comment still exists and the flow arrow shows the water flowing towards, instead of away
from, the building. The arrow in question is right by the label that states "New 15" HDPE". Revise the plan
to show the correct direction of flow for the storm pipes.
Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
15. [Comment] Provide a copy of all off -site easements, or letters of intent to grant them from off -site property
owners. It appears that there are improvements proposed in the southwest corner of the site plan on an
adjoining parcel.
FINAL: Comment not addressed. Address the following:
a) Provide a copy of all off -site easements, deeds of easement, or letters of intent to grant them from off -
site property owners. It appears that there are improvements proposed in the southwest corner of the
site plan on an adjoining parcel. Utilities, utility easements, parking, the dumpster and landscaping for
this project is currently shown on the adjoining site.
Page 3 of 5
Rev. 1: Comment not addressed. Address comment. Please note that although the comment response
letter states "All easements provided." it does not appear that any easements have been added to the
site plan for any of the offsite improvements, other than utilities that were shown on the previous
submission. No linework, labels or notes appear to address this issue. Address the comment as
previously specified.
Rev. 2: Comment not addressed. Address the comment.
b) If a Boundary Line Adjustment to incorporate that area of the project into the parcel is planned show it
on the site plan.
Rev. 1: Comment not addressed. Address the comment. Since off -site improvements have not yet been
addressed on the site plan this comment remains.
Rev. 2: Comment not addressed. Address the comment.
c) If there continues to be improvements, and not just easements, shown on the adjoining parcel include
the adjoining property owner in the owner/developer area of the cover sheet.
Rev. 1: Comment not addressed. Address the comment or provide the necessary legal documents for
the off -site improvements (and their perpetual maintenance), access across the adjoining parcel, and
construction in the adjoining parcel.
Rev. 2: Comment not addressed. Address the comment.
d) See Zoning's comment in reference to the need for an SP if parking is built on the adjoining parcel prior
to a building/use being built on the site.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Two parking spaces still appear to be partially on the adjoining
property. Adjust the layout so that no portion of the parking spaces are on the adjoining site or request
an SP for stand-alone parking as specified by zoning.
Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
16. [Comment] See the attached comments from the majority of the other SRC reviewers. VDOT comments
will be forwarded to you once they have been received.
UPDATE: See the attached comments from all of the other SRC reviewers. VDOT comments have been
attached.
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. See the attached comments from most of the other reviewers. ARB
comments will be provided after the February 12, 2018 ARB meeting in which it will be reviewed. Approval
of the other reviewers, as well as planning, is required prior to site plan approval.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. See attached comments. Approval from all SRC reviewers is
required prior to site plan approval.
Rev. 2: Comment not fully addressed. See attached comments from most of the reviewers. RWSA
comments have not been received and will forwarded to you when they are available.
Additional comments for Final Site Plan:
22. [Comment] If the improvements, for parking, drive aisle, landscaping, dumpster, and utility improvements
continue to be split across two parcels ensure that Tax Map Parcel number and Owners name of the 2nd
parcel is appropriately included in the site plan.
Rev. 1: Comment not addressed. Address the comment or provide appropriate deeds, easements and
agreements for off -site improvements, access and construction.
Rev. 2: Comment not fully addressed. Only the parking has been removed from the adjoining lot.
Address the comment for all other items listed.
23. [Comment] If the improvements, for parking, drive aisle, and landscaping continue to be split across two
parcels ensure that all area calculations and lists clearly specify whether value(s) shown are within the
subject parcel or across the two parcels.
Rev. 1: Comment not addressed. Address comment.
Rev. 2: Comment sufficiently addressed.
28. [Comment] Revise site plan to contain bumper blocks where parking is adjacent to sidewalks of less than
6' in width.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. All sidewalks adjacent to parking spaces appear to only be 5' wide.
All parking spaces adjacent to sidewalks that are less than 6' must have bumper blocks. There are 17
spaces in this circumstance in the east parking lot. There are also 15 parking spaces in the west parking lot
that may also be in that circumstance, but there appears to be errors in linework and hatching that make the
width of the sidewalk uncertain. Revise the site plan as specified.
Page 4 of 5
Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
29. [Rev. 1: NEW COMMENT] Revise the sidewalk on the west side of the building to clearly show the dividing
line between the planting beds and the sidewalk. There appears to be mulch hatching over part of the
sidewalk near the crosswalk. Revise the linework and hatching to clearly define these areas.
Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
30. [Rev. 2: NEW COMMENT] The dumpster, as an accessory use to the hotel, being on the adjoining lot
and on a lot that has no primary use may be of an issue. Zoning is researching the issue and the
outcome will be forwarded to you once it is available
31. [Rev. 2: NEW COMMENT] The existing conditions sheet and site plan sheets (all) are missing items.
Address the following:
a) The access easement from Timberwood Blvd. is no longer shown and must be.
b) The Drive Lane and Construction Easement is no long shown and must be.
32. [Rev. 2: NEW COMMENT] According to the plat that was submitted for utilities, it appears that the
existing waterline in different sections was created by two different plats. Ensure all water line
easements deed book and page numbers are correctly labeled.
33. [Rev. 2: NEW COMMENT] The proposed sewer line easement is not in the same location as that
shown in the submitted utilities easement. Ensure that the two agree and are correct.
34. [Rev. 2: NEW COMMENT] Ensure the proposed waterline and water line easement on this site plan
matches the easement shown in the submitted utilities easement plat.
Staff has provided references to provisions of Chapter 18 of the Code of the County of Albemarle. The Code is
kept up to date by the County Attorney's office. The Code may found on the County Attorney's website which
may be found under "Departments" at Albemarle.org.
In accord with the provisions of Section 32.4.3.5 of Chapter 18 of the Code if the developer fails to submit a
revised final site plan to address all of the requirements within six (6) months after the date of this letter the
application shall be deemed to have been voluntarily withdrawn by the developer.
Please contact Paty Saternye in the Planning Division by using psaternye6c�albemarle.org or 434-296-5832 ext.
3250 for further information.
Page 5 of 5
Review Comments for SDP201700070 Final Plat 1-1
Project Name: HOLLYMEAD TOWN CENTER HOTEL
Date Completed: Wednesday, August 01, 2018 DepartmenVDivisionlAgency: Review Status:
Reviewer: Rebecca Ragsdale - CDD Zonina - Requested Changes
Previous comments not addressed-
1)Based on the site plan provided, it does not look like the appilcant is relying on shared parking but is asking for a parking
reduction for the hotel. No request or justification that satisfies Section 4.12 was provided. If shared parking is being relied
upon with Bojangles, a parking study is stil required and instrument must he recorded according to Section 4.12.8(e).
3) Please note that sidewalks and landscaping for the stormwater pondlamenity feature in Block 1 have not been completed
according to the application/plan code of development far Area C. (ZMA 01-20) Show these features on the next site plan
submittal and Proffer 1 or advise if these will be submitted seperately?
Page: 1 County of Albemarle Printed On: I 08l0312018
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
May 30, 2018
Rev. 2: August 3, 2018
Justin Shimp
Shimp Engineering
201 E. Main Street, Suite M
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: ARB-2017-129: HTC Hotel
Dear Justin,
We have received revised site plans and architectural plans for the above -noted application that address the conditions of
approval the Architectural Review Board requested at its February 12, 2018 meeting. The following revisions are
requested to make the proposal consistent with those conditions as well as the Entrance Corridor design criteria.
1. Revise the window glass note. Ensure that the note is" Visible light transmittance (VLT) shall not drop below 40%.
Visible light reflectance (VLR) shall not exceed 30%. "
Rev. 1: Comment not yet addressed. Revise the note on the architectural plans to state exactly the standard note
specified above. The "(VLT)" and "(VLR)" have not been included in the statement.
Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
2. Specify the height above the parapet for any rooftop equipment and show the elevator tower on the elevations. Show
rooftop screening for the mechanical equipment and elevator tower in the building elevations. If a fence is proposed
as the means of screening, include a detail in the drawings.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
3. Ensure that the proposed landscaping does not conflict with the mechanical equipment's location at the southwest
confer of the building.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. The shrubs still appear to be too close to the condenser units. In discussion with Building
Inspections it appears that the units need a 36" clearance. Revise the location of the shrubs, or remove them from the site plan, so
that there is no conflict with the mechanical equipment.
Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
4. Locate loading, service and storage areas on the plans. Show how visibility of these features will be eliminated.
Alternatively, indicate that no such areas are proposed.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
5. Add the standard mechanical equipment note to the architectural plans.
Rev. 1: Comment not yet addressed. The standard mechanical equipment note does not yet appear to have been
added to the architectural plans. Add the note "Visibility of all mechanical equipment from the Entrance Corridor
shall be eliminated." to the architectural plans.
Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
6. Provide an offsite planting easement to meet the EC landscape requirements. If an easement cannot be obtained,
locate the off -site trees to on -site locations.
Rev. 1: Comment not yet addressed. Address the following:
a) The exhibit mentioned in the comment response letter does not appear to have been submitted with this
submission. Submit the exhibit for review with the next official submittal.
Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
b) Submit the agreements with the adjoining parcel owners with an official submittal once they become available.
Rev. 2: Comment not vet addressed. Address the comment.
7. Add a tree on the north side of the building. Because of the proximity to the building, a smaller tree type may be
accepted.
Rev. 1: Comment sufficiently addressed. However, please note that the tree placed on the north side of the building is not
a "redbud" as specified in the comment response letter. It appears to be a serviceberry.
8. Provide a signed conservation checklist, and provide tree protection fencing on the grading, landscaping and E&SC
plan sheets at the south edge of the property to protect the trees on the Target lot.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. A conservation checklist was added to sheet C11, and a note was added to the landscape
plan. However, the line in the landscape plan appears to be directly on top of the property line and therefore cannot be
differentiated from the property line. Also, the tree protection fencing does not appear to have been provided on any other sheets.
Provide tree protection fencing on the grading, landscaping and E&SC plan sheets and ensure that both the line work and the
labels are visible.
Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
9. Adjust the labels and symbols for the landscaping in the Target parcel so that the leaders for the labels point to the
symbol they are meant to identify.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
10. Remove both of the notes that specify that landscape requirements will not be met. They are note #5 and the note on
the interior road and parking area tree counts.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed
11. Add trees in the two parking islands adjacent to the main entrance and in the middle parking lot island on the far side
of the west parking lot behind the light pole to meet the interior tree requirement.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Although a tree was added in the middle parking lot island on the far side of the west
parking lot, behind the light pole, it does not appear that either of the two trees specified at the front main entrance have been
added. Add trees in the two parking islands adjacent to the main entrance.
Rev. 2: Comment not fully addressed. Two of the three trees have been added. Provide one more tree in the
parking islands. Although the location originally discussed in the ARB meeting is no longer available because
of the relocation of the proposed sewer easement the relocation has opened up another location in that same
island. There is not a location, near the end of the island and closest to the access way behind Target, that no
longer has easements under it and has an open area where the tree may be placed.
12. Limit the number of proposed plants for any one species to 25% of the total proposed for that plant type (tree, shrub).
Reduce the percentage of sycamores.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed
13. Revise the proposed landscape schedule so that all trees, including sassafras, have a minimum caliper of 2 ''/2".
Rev. 1: Comment addressed
14. Ensure that any loading, service or storage area are screened and integrated into the site with appropriate landscaping.
Alternatively, specify if none are proposed.
Rev. 1: Comment sufficiently addressed. Applicant has specified that there are no loading, service or storage areas.
15. Adjust the labels and symbols for the landscaping in the Target lot so that the leaders for the labels point to the
symbol they are meant to identify.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed
16. Note that a separate sign application will be required.
Rev. 1: Comment sufficiently addressed. Applicant has specified that a separate sign_ application will be submitted.
17. [Rev. 1: NEW COMMENT] Submit the full set of architectural exhibits and ensure that color elevations are
provided. With the most recent submission of the architectural packet two sheets, the floor plans, were not provided.
Also, the elevations were provided in black and white and not color.
Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
18. [Rev. 2: NEW COMMENT] The landscaping quantities do not appear to be correct. Ensure that all quantities
are shown correctly. The yews, viburnum and sweetspire appear to be incorrect.
19. [Rev. 2: NEW COMMENT] Ensure all revised sheet have an updated revision date before resubmission. The
architectural plans did not have a revision date for this last submission despite some of the sheets having been
revised.
Within 15 days of the date of this letter, please send me a letter (by email is acceptable) indicating whether you will or
will not proceed with these revisions. If you choose not to proceed with these revisions, staff will be unable to approve
your application. If you choose to proceed with the revisions, please forward me one set of revised drawings together with
a memo summarizing the revisions you've made. Your decision to make the revisions will suspend the 60-day review
period associated with your original submittal. However, I expect to complete the review of your revised proposal within
2 weeks of your re -submittal.
If you have any questions about this action, please contact me as soon as possible. I look forward to receiving your
revisions and completing this review with an approval letter.
Since
Piy
Senic
cc:
ARB File
HTC Hotel LLC
8901 Brook Road
Glen Allen, VA 23060
A
VIRGlN1P
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
Project: HTC Hotel — Comfort Inn — Final Site Plan
Plan preparer: Peter Russell/Justin Shimp, Shimp Engineering, 201 E. Main St.
Suite M, Charlottesville, VA 22902 [iustin(a)shimp-en ing eerieg com]
Plan received date: 29 Nov 2017
(Rev. 1) 23 Apr 2018
(Re. 2) 26 Jun 2018
Date of comments: 19 Dec 2017
(Rev. 1) 16 May 2018
(Rev. 2) 23 Jul 2018
Reviewer: Bobby Jocz (Rev. 1, 2 /John Anderson)
Project Coordinator: Paty Satemye
SDP2017-00070
1. VSMP plan approval required prior to Final Site Plan Approval. (Rev. 1) Applicant acknowledges;
requirement for VSMP approval prior to FSP approval persists.
2. Drainage plan including stormwater calculations should be included in FSP. (Rev. 1) Not addressed.
Provide drainage plan, flow patterns, and storm sewer calculations; utilize VDOT table format. (Rev. 2)
Addressed. As follow-up, for proposed 8" HDPE roof drains (unless UBC or Albemarle County building
permit plan review dictate otherwise):
a. Recommend show 8" roof drains in profile to evaluate potential conflicts with walks or pavement.
b. Assign alphanumeric labels to roof drain pipes.
c. Provide cleanouts at roof drain line bends >45-deg.
d. Provide two (2) 45-deg bends instead of a 90-deg bend at south corner of hotel.
e. Show 8" roof line at Str. C 1, Inv. In Elev.
f. Show 8" roof line tie-in at Ex. Str. 4 (Elev.).
3. Bumper blocks should be provided for parking abutting 5' sidewalks. Bumper blocks are required for any
parking abutting sidewalks <6' in width. (Rev. 1) Not Addressed. Bumper blocks required for 30 typ. + 3
HC parking spaces fronting hotel and proposed 5' sidewalks; see ACDSM, p. 17 (link:
http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/forms center/departments/community development/forms/design standards
manual/Albemarle County Design Standards Manual 2015-04-25 draft.pdf ). (Rev. 2) Addressed.
4. In the northwestern parking lot, the CG-12 and detectable warning strip should be centered on handicap
access isle. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
5. Stop sign should be provided at intersection of two private travelways. Stop sign should stop cars traveling
northeast to southwest. (Rev. 1) Partially addressed. Asfollow-up: Provide stop signs or stop bars at SW
ends of parking aisles, at intersection with private travelway. Allow thru motion on private travelway with
stop required just beyond hotel entrance canopy, and at same location in 47 space parking lot to the NW.
(Rev. 2) Addressed.
6. [Sheet C5] Ensure all new and existing easements are labeled. Some easement labels are misaligned or
conflict with other labels making them illegible. Please correct. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
7. Identify/label gutter type to be used along new travelways. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
8. Curb with gutter should be utilized wherever stormwater is to be conveyed. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 2
9. Engineering details for curbing (CG-6, CT-3, etc.) should be provided. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
10. Agreement must be made/provided related to access and construction of private travelways located outside
limits of parcel. (Rev. 1) Not Addressed. (Rev. 2) Comment pending. Applicant response: Approval on
improvmeents will be forwarded when available.
Comments on Exhibit Dated 12/18/17
1. Scaling is incorrect making it difficult to verify contours/slopes. (Rev. 1) Uncertain if addressed; please
provide copy of revised exhibit. (Rev. 2) Addressed.
2. Entrances must be a max of 4% grade for the first 40 feet from the intersection. (Rev. 1) Uncertain; please
provide exhibit (Rev. 2) Comment withdrawn.
New 5/16/18:
1. Title Sheet: Recommend revise signature block to read Albemarle County Engineer. (Rev. 2) Addressed.
Sheet C4
2. Provide VDOT detail for CG-12, 2-ramp configuration (ramps at termini, ped xing pavement markings).
(Rev. 2) Addressed.
3. Provide VDOT re£ to pedestrian crossing pavement marking specifications. Provide detail showing bar
width; paint type, etc. (Note: experience with accelerated wear of pavement markings on Meeting Street
lends justification to need for specification /detail.) (Rev. 2) Addressed.
4. Provide Auto -turn for dumpster. Use typ. local vendor truck wheelbase. Design cannot be approved unless
trucks can access and service dumpster without 3-point turn. Access must be direct, and cause no damage
to curb when truck is reversing. Current dumpster orientation appears problematic. (Rev. 2) Addressed.
As follow-up: Label open gate width dimension, dumpster enclosure detail (C10).
5. Identify New GV feature, northernmost parking space. Locate any gas appliance outside parking spaces,
for safety and ease of servicing. New GV is inaccessible if a vehicle occupies this parking space. (Rev. 2)
Addressed.
C5:
6. Reverse direction of flow arrow between storm sewer structures B 1 and ST7. (Rev. 2) Addressed.
7. New 10' x 6' water vault will not fit in 5' sidewalk; revise to show proper scale. (Rev. 2) Withdrawn;
review error.
8. Provide bedding detail for HDPE in trafficked condition; structural backfill should extend (at a minimum)
from the top of the pipe to 6-inches above the pipe (ref: https://www.prinsco.con-/n-
content/uploads/2014/06/Minimum-and-Maximum-Burial-Depth-per-AASHTO-Tech-Note3.pdf ). (Rev. 2)
Addressed.
9. C7: Provide Detail 3 on C7 (dumpster pad concrete slab detail). Detail 3 is re£ on sheet 10. (Rev. 2)
Addressed.
10. C10: Revise Parking Area Pavement detail. Provide pavement design based on VDOT Pavement Design
Guide, rev. Feb 2014. Provide Dr, DP, using ADT =200. Note: 3" of SM-9.5A and 8" VDOT 21A base
stone would satisfy design criteria and meet VDOT design guidelines. Other options are also available.
(Rev. 2) Addressed.
Please call if any questions: 434.296-5832 —x3069
Thank you
SDP201700070-HTC Hotel FSP rev072318 rev2.doe
Review Comments for SDP201700070 Final Plat 1-1
Project Name: HOLLYMEAD TOWN CENTER HOTEL
Date Completed: Friday, August D3, 2018 DepartmenVDivisiordAgency: Review Status:
Reviewer:
Richard Nelsen ACSA _ - Requested Changes
ack to Shimp on
ed 3 updated
Page: 1 County of Albemarle Printed On: I 08l0312018