| Case Number: | POD2006-00060 |
|---|---|
| Case Name: | West Broad Village |
| Review Type: | Original Plan |
| Case Description: | West Broad Village |
| Parcel ID: | 744-759-1143 11201 W BROAD ST |
| Legal Description: | WEST BROAD VILLAGE SC 12 COMMON AREA & PT LT 12 |
| Engineer/Applicant: | HIGGINS AND GERSTENMAIER |
| Project Case Number: | POD2006-00060 (There are 105 related cases) |
| Project Name: | WEST BROAD VILLAGE |
Note: The County of Henrico is not responsible for any information placed in the "Comments" field by the public.
POD2006-00060 - West Broad Village - Original Plan
FCP - Original Sub
| Description | Submission Date | Due Date | Completed Date | Status | Reviewer |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (D010) FCP Received from Developer | DONE | Ellis, Harold L. | |||
| Comments: three chopt road buffer plan, one plan received, developer says told to do one plan first and then submit the rest. | |||||
POD2006-00060 - West Broad Village - Original Plan
FCP - Second Submission
| Description | Submission Date | Due Date | Completed Date | Status | Reviewer |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (E010) FCP - 2 Rec from Developer | Ellis, Harold L. | ||||
| Comments: -- | |||||
POD2006-00060 - West Broad Village - Original Plan
FCP - Additional Submission
| Description | Submission Date | Due Date | Completed Date | Status | Reviewer |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (F007) Add Submission-FCP-Initiated | Welton, Pamela T. | ||||
| Comments: -- | |||||
| (F115) Traffic Engineer Review-FCP-A | CMTS | Jennings, Mike | |||
| Comments: PUBLIC WORKS - ENVIRONMENTAL - JENNINGS, MIKE see comments from DPW Review Engineer | |||||
| (F120) DPW Review Engineer-FCP-A | CMTS | Smidler, Sharon S. | |||
| Comments: PUBLIC WORKS - REVIEW ENGINEER - SMIDLER, SHARON _________ Please see the attached file(s) for more comments: ENG_West_Broad_Village_Phase_I_05feb07.DOC(DPW Engineering) ENV_-_West_Broad_Village_-_Phase_I_-_5feb07.DOC(DPW Environmental) TRA_West_Broad_Village_-_Phase_I_-_5FEB07.DOC(DPW Traffic) [Please Note: To view the file(s) you must have the correct software installed. Contact the Planning office for more information.] | |||||
| (F125) Environ Control Eng Rev-FCP-A | CMTS | Jackson, Scott | |||
| Comments: PUBLIC WORKS - ENVIRONMENTAL - JACKSON, SCOTT See DPW Review Engineer section for Environmental Division comment attachment. | |||||
| (F130) Public Utilities Review-FCP-A | TECH | Garofalo, Kristie Haddon | |||
| Comments: INT2, tech memo issued 2/22/2007, INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO:Leslie News/Planning FROM: Design Division Director/Public Utilities SUBJECT:West Broad Village, Phase I, P.O.D. No. 42-06 DATE: February 22, 2007 We have reviewed the construction plans submitted to the Planning Department on February 15, 2007. Subject to comments below, technical requirements of DPU have been satisfied. After the following conditions have been met, we recommend that Final Construction Plans be submitted to the Planning Department for signature. The conditions for submission of the twenty-one (21) sets for approval are as follows: 1. Provide DPU with a copy of the DEQ Permit to Construct. 2. Comments provided by DPU in the letter dated February 21, 2007 must be addressed. After the Planning office signs the twenty-one (21) sets of plans, please deliver the twenty-one (21) sets of plans to Public Utilities for signature. Water and Sewer Agreements that must be executed by the Owner and the County prior to authorization to proceed with construction of County water and sewer improvements have not been executed. The required Utility Pre-Construction Meeting will not be scheduled, nor will the Authorization to Proceed with utility construction be granted, until the Final Construction Plans are signed and the Water and Sewer Agreements have been executed. The required Utility Pre-construction Meeting may NOT be scheduled jointly with the Public Works Pre-construction Meeting unless agreements are executed prior to such meeting. Ralph E. Claytor, P.E. | |||||
| (F130) Public Utilities Review-FCP-A | RVRS | Garofalo, Kristie Haddon | |||
| Comments: INT1 per Kristie Garofalo DPU - GAROFALO, KRISTIE February 21, 2007 Mr. Joseph Vilseck, III, P.E. Timmons Group 1001 Boulders Parkway Suite 300 Richmond, Virginia 23225 RE: West Broad Village, Phase 1 W. Broad Street File No. 4815; P.O.D. No. 42-06 Dear Mr. Vilseck: We have reviewed the construction plans submitted to the Planning Department on February 15, 2007. Please address the following comments and resubmit revised construction plans for review. Water and Sewer Agreements that must be executed by the Owner and the County prior to Public Utilities approval of the Construction plans for water and sewer improvements have not been executed. Profiles: 1. Review slope and inverts between MH 54 & MH 80. There is a math error on the profile. 2. A 0.1? drop is required across manholes. Provide this drop across MH-14. On Site Analysis: 3. Include flow from Bank B7 between MH-61 and 60 on the analysis. 4. The Design Average Flow for Building A6 in not correct. The value should be 10,899 instead of 9341 for the 17631 sq. ft. retail space and the 37094 sq. ft. office space. Forms: 5. Update all forms based on the analysis provided. 6. Change 130 Room Hotel to a 300 Room Hotel under Units on Sanitary Sewer Design. 7. Fill out Design Average Flow, Peak Hour Domestic Flow, and Total Design Peak Flow on Local Review Form. Plans: 8. On Sheet 5.9, the domestic backflow preventer reference is incorrect. Use F-13 instead of A-13. A-13 is a fire system backflow preventer. This change needs to take place for the domestic backflow preventer for the Whole Foods building as well as Building A6. Agreements: 9. Revise and resubmit an Information Sheet based on comments forwarded to by Amy Seal. If you have any questions concerning the above noted comments or the plans, please contact me at 501-5483 or Tanneh Togba-Lee at 501-4512. Sincerely, Kristie H. Garofalo, P.E. Utilities Engineer | |||||
| (F130) Public Utilities Review-FCP-A | RVRS | Garofalo, Kristie Haddon | |||
| Comments: DPU - GAROFALO, KRISTIE 1. February 7, 2007 Mr. Joe Vilseck, PE Timmons Group 1001 Boulders Parkway, Suite 300 Richmond, VA 23225 West Broad Village, Phase I West Broad Street File No.: 4815 POD No.: 42-06 Dear Mr. Vilseck: We have reviewed the construction plans submitted to the Planning Department on February 2, 2007. Please address the following comments and resubmit revised construction plans for review. Water and Sewer Agreements have not been executed. The on-site sanitary sewer analysis: - The flow factor gpd for the Retail Buildings B8, B9 and B10 have been changed to 175 gpd/1000 sf, which is the design basis used for bank and office buildings. If these will be office buildings, leave the values how they currently are; however, if the buildings will be commercial/retail buildings (as it appears that B9 and B10 will be) then the design basis should be 250 gpd/1000 sf or if they will possibly be a restaurant then a basis of 1.33 should be used. - The profile indicates an invert in between MH 76 - MH 310. If there is flow coming from this main that is not accounted for in the analysis (the analysis only goes to MH 76), then it needs to be included. - The Daily Flow for Building A6 accounts for retail and restaurant space. As we discussed yesterday, Blue Tulip is retail and not restaurant and that the entire Building A6 is Retail. Also, it does not appear that the office space above the retail shops has been accounted for in the analysis. It needs to be. Will Building A8 or any other buildings included in this analysis have any upper levels? If so, the appropriate flow for those will need to be included as well. - Where will the flow from the 2 Office Buildings (future) flow into? Will it flow to the existing sanitary sewer directly or will it come through the proposed sewer on site? If it comes through the proposed sewer on-site, then it needs to be included in the analysis. - Several lengths and slopes have been changed on the profiles but have not been updated on the analysis. Review Manholes 33-30, 7-8, 100-7, 3-4, 70-56, 62-63, 61-60, 60-59, 59-58, 115-58, 83-82, 82-81, 84-81, 80-54, 47-46, 90-46, 42-43, 43-44, 44-45, 45-46, 3-40, E2-1. Manholes runs that have been eliminated from the plan need to be removed from the analysis as well. - A 10" pipe is used for the sewer between MH 54- MH 55 and between MH 50- MH 54; however, from the current analysis, it appears that an 8" would have adequate capacity. Review. Based on changes made to the sanitary sewer profile, the following need to be addressed on the profile sheets: - The invert in at MH 3 coming from MH 4 should be 246.15 instead of 245.05. It should match crowns with the 10" pipe coming into MH 3 instead of matching the invert out. - Review the slope and inverts for the run of sanitary sewer between MH 44 and MH 45 and between MH 53 and MH 56. There appears to be a math error. - The Top and Inverts for MH 54 on the MH 54 to MH 83 profile and the Top for MH 58 do not match the Top and Inverts for these manholes on the MH 3 - MH 63 profile. - Why has the proposed grade line between the rlun of sanitary sewer between MH 57 and MH 120 changed? The sewer is located in the roadway and should have a minimum of 5.5' of cover; however, as it has been revised, there is only 4.5' of cover. Can adequate cover be achieved? Will the current invert allow the sanitary sewer to be adequately extended into the brownstone units in the future? A review of the Review Checklist, Engineering Report and Local Review Form has generated the following comments: - The Average Design Flow for the | |||||
| (F150) Planning Review-FCP-A | CMTS | Kennedy, Mike | |||
| Comments: PLANNING - KENNEDY, MIKE Additional Comments: COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF HENRICO Randall R. Silber Director of Planning (804) 501-4602 February 14, 2007 Joseph R. Vilseck, 111, P.E. Timmons Group 1001 Boulders Parkway, Suite 300 Richmond, VA 23225 Re: POD 42-06 West Broad Village 12/20/06 Phase 1 Resubmission POD Review Comments Dear Mr. Vilseck: Please be advised that the planning review of the above-referenced construction plan submitted for review on February 2, 2007, has been completed. As we discussed last week, the Planning Department has the identified the following concerns which prevent approval of your plans: 1) Confirm the floor area data for Whole Foods and revise the both the building data and the parking calculations. As we discussed, the grocery store is limited to 60,000 square feet of retail space, therefore the mezzanine should be shown as office space reflecting its use instead of retail space 2) Revise the phase lines to exclude Road J and Buildings B8- 10, as we discussed and revise site data accordingly. 3) Provide a temporary asphalt curb where curbs are not provided along the phase lines. 4) Confirm dimensions of the Whole Foods building. The dimensions shown on the Phase 1 plan do not agree with the dimensions shown on the architectural plans approved by the Planning Commission. While staff can approve minor changes, we have not received a revised plan to review and approve. I have contacted the Whole Foods architect. but have note received a revised plan for review as requested. 5) Tree wells along the Whole Foods site do not agree with previous plan approved by the Planning Commission 6) The Declaration of Covenants must be submitted for review and approval and must be recorded prior to final plan approval. Please note this would not prohibit subsequent amendment, however it would bind the property to the maintenance responsibility for streets and provide for maintenance and control of common areas. . 7) Final Landscape plans including lighting and irrigation plans for the West Broad Street buffer within the phase must be submitted for review and approval. 8) As discussed a complete lighting plan for Phase 1 should be submitted to accommodate review and installation of conduit within paved areas. 9) As discussed the speed bump should be eliminated. Due to the reconfiguration of parking behind Building A6, speed control is no longer necessary. In the future, speed platforms rather than bumps should be provided. 10) We have not received architectural plans for the community center for review and approval 11) The following utility conflicts need to be addressed: Sheet 5.3: Reduce the easement around the Fire Hydrant opposite the loading area for Whole Foods , Sheet 5.10: reduce easement around fire hydrant adjacent to Sanitary MH 14, Sheet 5.10: reduce easement around fire hydrant located on the north side of Powhatan?s Trail between Road K and Road A. 12) A construction staging plan must be submitted. 13) Please note a CPTED (Crime prevention thru Environmental Design) plan must be submitted for each building prior to approval of building permits. If you have any questions, or if we can be of further assistance, please call me at 501-5920.. Sincerely, Michael F. Kennedy County Planner | |||||
| (F30) Building Insp Review-FCP-A | DONE | Gordon, Richard T | |||
| Comments: -- | |||||
| (F40) Fire Review-FCP-A | APPR | Rastegar, Abdol Russell | |||
| Comments: FIRE - RASTEGAR, RUSSELL 1. Additional Comments ok for signature Russell | |||||
POD2006-00060 - West Broad Village - Original Plan
FCP - Final Submission (21)
| Description | Submission Date | Due Date | Completed Date | Status | Reviewer |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (G008) Fin Submission-FCP-F-Initiated | Welton, Pamela T. | ||||
| Comments: -- | |||||
| (G010) Rec from Developer FCP-F (21) | DONE | Teator, Kate Blakeney | |||
| Comments: Phase I 4/11/07 plans not ready for signature. The applicant need to insert two sheets into each set before the plans can be signed per Mike Kennedy. | |||||
| (G120) Public Works -sign-FCP-F | DONE | Priestas, Lee | |||
| Comments: PreCon may be scheuled. | |||||
| (G130) Public Utilities -sign-FCP-F | APPR | Garofalo, Kristie Haddon | |||
| Comments: Plan Approved 4/16/07, DPU Drawing File No. 07-056 | |||||
| (G150) Planning -sign-FCP-F | APPR | Kennedy, Mike | |||
| Comments: Signed by Jim Strauss and delivered to DPU | |||||
POD2006-00060 - West Broad Village - Original Plan
Landscape, Lighting & Fence
| Description | Submission Date | Due Date | Completed Date | Status | Reviewer |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (H003) L, L & Fence Plan-Initiated | Teator, Kate Blakeney | ||||
| Comments: -- | |||||
| (H122) Public Works Review-LLF | DONE | Smidler, Sharon S. | |||
| Comments: PUBLIC WORKS - REVIEW ENGINEER - SMIDLER, SHARON _________ Please see the attached file(s) for more comments: ENV_West_Broad_Village_LS_15feb07.DOC(DPW Environmental) ENG_West_Broad_Village_LS_15feb07.DOC(DPW Engineering) [Please Note: To view the file(s) you must have the correct software installed. Contact the Planning office for more information.] | |||||
| (H125) Environmental Engineer Rev-LLF | DONE | Newton, John | |||
| Comments: PUBLIC WORKS - ENVIRONMENTAL - NEWTON, JOHN Comments will be posted with Review Engineer's comments. | |||||
| (H130) Public Utilities Review-LLF | RVRS | Garofalo, Kristie Haddon | |||
| Comments: INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Department of Planning & Zoning ATTN: Jim Strauss and Mike Kennedy FROM: Department of Public Utilities SUBJECT: Landscape & Lighting Plan Review PROJECT NAME: West Broad Village, POD 42-06 DATE: March 1, 2007 The following comments are made in reference to your memorandum of February 13, 2007. Be advised that POD plans have not yet been approved by DPU. 1. Show all water and sewer main and utility easements on the landscaping plans. Currently, conflicts between proposed landscaping/plantings and utilities and/or utility easements cannot be determined until this information is provided on the plans. 2. Decorative pots will annual color cannot be located on top of the fire hydrant south of the fountain. 3. There appears to be conflicts with lighting and utilities and/or utility easements. ? There appears to be a light post in the utility easement and very close to or on top of two fire hydrants southeast of the proposed amphitheater. A minimum clearance of 10' should be maintained between the lights posts and fire hydrant. ? There appears to be a light post in the utility easement and very close to the Detector Check for Building A9. Can the light post be shifted out of the easement? 4. Several sanitary sewer manholes extend off the sewer main located in Old Brick Road and are located within the sidewalk or grassy areas. If these manholes will be Monitoring Manholes, then a utility easement should not be located around them, but DPU would suggest maintaining 10' of clearance between the light posts and private manholes to allow for manhole sampling and maintenance. If these will be standard public manholes, then 10' of clearance should be maintained between the light posts and public manholes. 5. A note shall be added to the Landscaping Plan which states that the Owner is responsible for replacement of any planting, i.e. shrubs, damaged or removed by DPU, or its agent, as required for maintenance of County owned water and/or sewer facilities. If you have any questions, please contact the Department of Public Utilities at 501-5483 for any necessary clarifications. Kristie Garofalo, P.E. Utilities Engineer | |||||
| (H150) Planning Review-LLF | APPR | Kennedy, Mike | |||
| Comments: PLANNING - KENNEDY, MIKE | |||||
| (H70) Div. of Police Review-LLF | DONE | Vann, Kimberly | |||
| Comments: -- | |||||
POD2006-00060 - West Broad Village - Original Plan
Decision Menu
| Description | Submission Date | Due Date | Completed Date | Status | Reviewer |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (I150) Plan of Development Finaled | PASS | Welton, Pamela T. | |||
| Comments: -- | |||||
*This site contains Comments made after February 1, 2007
If you would like to view comments prior to Feb 1 2007, please contact the Planning Department at 804-501-4602.