HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201800030 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2018-11-30
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Patricia Saternye
From: Emily Cox
Date: 15 May 2018
Rev. 1: 09 Aug 2018
Rev. 2: 10 Oct 2018
Rev. 3: 29 Nov 2018
Subject: The Center at Belvedere – Final Site Development Plan (SDP201800030)
The final site development plan for The Center at Belvedere has been reviewed by Engineering. The
following comments will need to be addressed before approval:
1. VSMP Plan must be approved before final site plan can be approved. Rev. 1: Comment still valid.
Rev. 2: Comment still valid. Rev. 3: Comment addressed.
2. The site plan must only contain what is required per Chapter 18-32.6.2 of the county code.
Therefore, erosion & sediment control sheets should be removed from the final site plan. Rev. 1:
Comment addressed.
3. [Section 8 – Design Standards Manual] Slopes steeper than 3:1 must be permanently stabilized
with landscaping vegetation hardier than grass, which will not require mowing. Ensure this is
noted on the landscape plan. Eliminate any slopes steeper than 2:1. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
4. Illustrate internal handicap access routes. Include spots to show grading meets requirements. Rev.
1: Comment addressed.
5. Clearly label the extent of flush curbing vs. CG-6 curbing. Provide a legend if necessary. Rev. 1:
Comment addressed.
6. It appears that changes to the roadway are proposed with this site plan. Changes to the road must
be submitted as a road plan amendment. VDOT approval is also necessary before final site plan
approval. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
7. Stream buffer is shown on plan along with improvements/grading in this buffer. Please show
proposed buffer outside of all improvements. The gravel trail can be inside the buffer. Rev. 1:
Why is grading so extensive (different from last submission) on the northeastern side of the site?
The stream is perennial and buffer should be as close to 100 ft as possible. Rev. 2: Comment
addressed.
8. Is there an easement or maintenance agreement for the 9’ gravel trail? Rev. 1: Who will maintain
the trail? Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
9. Provide top and bottom elevations of retaining walls on the grading plans. Rev. 1: Spots
insufficient to show that walls do not exceed 6ft in height. Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
10. Please show steep slope hatching on grading/layout sheets. Ensure that design standards are
followed for retaining walls in this overlay district (per 18-30.7.5). This includes landscaping with
screening shrubs. Rev. 1: The managed and preserved slopes on Sheet C2.1 appear to be switched.
Also, there appears to be disturbance within the preserved slopes. This is not an allowed
disturbance per County Code 30.7.4. Rev. 2: Extend the pipe and outfall all the way to the water
surface elevation of the pond. Should not outlet in steep slopes. Rev. 3: Comment addressed.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 2
11. Label all entrances with a VDOT designation. Rev. 1: Designation is not clear (CG-9D, etc). Rev.
2: Comment addressed.
12. Are there any loading or dumpsters areas? If so, clearly designate areas and provide dumpster pad
detail. Rev. 1: Dumpster pad detail not provided. Bollard detail is shown. Rev. 2: Comment
addressed.
13. Please adjust linetypes and shading on Sheet C-104. This is the existing conditions sheet, however
all lines are dark, and appear to be similar to proposed linetypes. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
14. Sheet C-106 has a label, “underground utilities to be relocated (by others), but there are no utilities
shown. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
15. C-104 appears to show an easement around the storm drains. Please label the deed book and page
number of this easement. Rev. 1: Comment not addressed. Water easement and storm easement
Db & PG not labeled. Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
16. Why are slopes of storm drains labeled as negative in the profiles on sheet C-109? Rev. 1:
Comment addressed.
17. Sight distance for middle parking aisle, turning left, at the northern side of parking lot, appears
inadequate. Please refer to Chapter 18-4.12.15 (d) for sight distance within parking lots. Rev. 1:
Comment addressed.
18. Label the width (show dimension on road) of the crossing lines on Sheet C-121, item 13 in the
legend. Rev. 1: Since parking and crossing are removed, have parking requirements been met
elsewhere? Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
19. Rev. 1: Provide required rip-rap dimensions and sizing on the plans. Generic detail was provided.
However, correct size and dimensions must be shown on the plans. Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
20. Rev. 1: Provide storm drain calculations. Rev. 2: Calculations are not on the plan and were not in
the submission documents. Rev. 3: Comment addressed. Sheet C6.2 will be inserted into final
plans for signature.
21. Rev. 1: Minimum pipe size is 12”. Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
22. Rev. 1: SWM facility easement is necessary from cartridge filter to outfall. Rev. 2: Cartridge
removed, however easement still necessary at outfall (off site).Rev. 3: Comment addressed.