Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB201800164 Review Comments Road Plan and Comps. 2019-02-19 (3)COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 Road and Drainage plan review Project title: Old Trail Block 32 — Road Plans Project file number: SUB201800164 Plan preparer: Bill Ledbetter [bledbetter@roudabush.com] Owner or rep.: Dave Brockman [dave@oldtrailvillage.com] Date Received: 10 Sept 2018 Rev. 1 Received: 21 Dec 2018 Date of comments: 23 Oct 2018 Rev. 1 comments: 19 Feb 2019 Mr. Ledbetter, We have reviewed the above referenced plans and have the following comments: Engineering (Emily Cox) 1. WPO must be approved before road plan can be approved. Rev. 1: WP0201800077 must be approved before this road plan can be approved. Please add this plan # to the cover sheet Note #2. 2. Provide a copy of permits relating to work in the floodplain. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. 3. Provide permission or easement to grade offsite as shown on the plan. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. 4. Proposed slopes must all be 2:1 or flatter and proposed slopes steeper than 3:1 must have low maintenance ground cover or steep slope seed mix specified on the plan. Rev. 1: Comment not addressed. Grading steeper than 2:1 is shown and note did not include steep slope seed mix option. 5. Note the approved steep slopes exhibit on the plan (date of approval and title of exhibit). Rev. 1: Comment addressed. 6. Label Sheet 13, grading plan, not utility plan. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. 7. Ensure biofilter matches WPO Plan (grading and layout). Rev 1: Comment addressed. 8. Show stormwater management facility easements. Rev. 1: Comment not addressed. SWM facility easement not evident. 9. The typical section on sheets 20 & 21 for Raynor & Charnwood should say private, not public. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. 10. Sight distance lines and easements should be unobstructed. SD#3(building), SD#2 (driveways/cars), and SDI2(building) appear to have obstructions. Rev. 1: Objects are no longer shown, so sight distance cannot properly be checked. Buildings were shown on the V submission. 11. Maximum velocity in storm pipes is 15ft/s. Rev. 1: Comment not addressed. Pipes 19-9, 32-31 and 34-33 are still above 15 ft/s. 12. Provide pavement design calculations (flexible pavement worksheet). Rev. 1: Comment addressed. 13. Is this plan going to be phased? If so, provide phase lines and outline of plan/sequence. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 3 14. Rev. 1: Clarify private road vs. alley. Private roads must have a minimum ROW width of 30 ft. Planning (Andy Reitelbach) 1. See attached review comment letter dated Oct 23, 2018. Rev. 1: See attached comment letter dated Feb 15, 2019. VDOT (Adam Moore) 1. See attached review comment letter dated Oct 23, 2018. Rev. 1: See attached comment letter dated Feb 19, 2019. Fire Rescue (Shawn Maddox) 1. The second point of emergency access will be required prior to the construction of the 31 st structure in this phase. This should be acknowledged in a legally recorded document to ensure compliance. Rev. 1: 1. Please verify via email that this Block 32 will be marked no parking throughout due to street and alley widths. Fire Rescue has no objections to the road plan as submitted as long as the no parking is verified. ACSA (Richard Nelson) 1. Still under review, see attached email. Rev. 1: Still under review. See email dated 2/19/19. GIS (Andrew) 1. No objection. Rev. 1: No objection. ARB (Heather McMahon) 1. By a vote of 5:0 at the 2-12-18 ARB meeting, the board determined that the proposal does not require ARB review because the block will not be visible from the EC. No further ARB review is required. Engineering plan review staff are available from 2-4 PM on Thursdays, should you require a meeting to discuss this review. Process; After approval, plans will need to be bonded. The bonding process is begun by submitting a bond estimate request form and fee to the Department of Community Development. One of the plan reviewers will prepare estimates and check parcel and easement information based on the approved plans. The County's Management Analyst will prepare bond agreement forms, which will need to be completed by the owner and submitted along with cash, certificates or sureties for the amounts specified. The agreements will need to be approved and signed by the County Attorney and County Engineer. This may take 2-4 weeks to obtain all the correct signatures and forms. Stormwater Management Facilities Maintenance agreements will also need to be completed and recorded. The County's Management Analyst or other staff will prepare the forms and check for ownership and Engineering Review Comments Page 3 of 3 signature information. The completed forms will need to be submitted along with court recording fees. After bonding and agreements are complete, county staff will need to enter project information in a DEQ database for state application processing. DEQ will review the application information based on local VSMP authority approval. At this time, the DEQ portion of the application fees will need to be paid directly to the state. For fastest processing, this is done electronically with the emails provided on the application. DEQ should notify applicants with instructions on how to pay fees. When DEQ approves the application, they will issue a permit coverage letter. This should be copied to the county. After DEQ coverage is issued, via the coverage letter, the County can hold a pre -construction conference. Applicants will need to complete the request for a pre -construction conference form, and pay the remainder of the application fee. The form identifies the contractor and responsible land disturber, and the fee remaining to be paid. This will be checked by county staff, and upon approval, a pre -construction conference will be scheduled with the County inspector. At the pre -construction conference, should everything proceed satisfactorily, a joint VSMP and grading permit will be issued by the County so that work may begin. County forms can be found on the county website forms center under engineering; http://www.albemarle.or /g_deptforms.asp?department=cden wWoo If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me either by email (ecox@albemarle.org) or by phone at 434-296-5832 ext. 3565. Sincerely, Emily Cox, P.E. Civil Engineer II k' 01Y AL vit�r�A County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, VA, 22902 Phone 434-296-5832 Memorandum To: Emily Cox (ecox cr,albemarle.org) From: Andy Reitelbach, Senior Planner Division: Planning Date: February 15, 2019 Subject: SUB2018-00164 Old Trail Village — Block 32 - Road Plans Fax 434-972-4126 The County of Albemarle Planning Division will grant or recommend approval of the road plans referenced above once the following comments have been satisfactorily addressed. (The following comments are those that have been identified at this time. Additional comments may be added or eliminated based upon further review.) [Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference, which is to the Subdivision/Zoning Ordinances unless otherwise specified.] 1. [General Comment] A road plan must be a stand-alone document and should not include a site plan or other types of plans. Rev.1: Comment not addressed. 2. [General Comment] Please include a plan view of the road that is separate from the site plan, and include those items required by 18-32.6.6 and 14-304. (A list of items required to be included should also be in the checklist portion of the application document for a road plan, which may be easier to consult than the full ordinance sections.) Everything that is proposed to be in the right-of-way in the road plans, including the sidewalks, planting strips, signage, etc., should be shown and labelled on the aerial plan views. Also, include the dimensions of each element in the right-of-way, as well as the proposed paving materials (e.g., concrete for the sidewalks). Rev.1: Roads plans are reviewed only for those elements that are located within the right-of-way. Lots, open space, interior landscaping, etc. are not reviewed within the road plans. If lot lines and other items are kept in the plan views of the site, it may be helpful to gray out those elements to indicate that they are for reference only, and not for review. Lot lines and other elements outside of the right-of-way are reviewed at the site plan and/or subdivision plat stages. The accessible ramps do not always match uu as onuosite one another. especially on Bishongate Lane between Stedham Place and Charnwood Street. The color of the sidewalk shading changes along Bishopgate Lane at the western pocket park, across from Bishopgate Lane Ext. Is there a reason the sidewalk becomes a different color, or is this proposed as a part of the phasing of development? In addition, shade the sidewalk along the amenity fronts of lots 34-40. The sidewalks and planting strips should extend along Old Trail Drive to the edges of the property lines. Who is proposed to own and maintain the sidewalks in the pocket parks along the front of the amenity -oriented lots? 3. [General Comment] Please include a note on the road plans that the approval of road plans is only for those elements within the right-of-way. Approval of road plans does not grant approval of the entire site plan, or items outside of the right-of-way, such as parcel boundaries, open space locations, etc. Comment addressed. 4. [General Comment] Include on the road plans some labels designating what type of street each street is, such as public or private, as well as the proposed right-of-way width. Rev.l: Provide the right-of-way width and the edge of pavement width for Bishopgate Lane Extended along both the main portion of the proposed street, as well as at the turn -around. Provide the edge of pavement width for Raynor Place and Bicknell Street. The COD indicates that neighborhood streets have a right-of-way width of 54' and alleys have a ROW width of 24'. Several of the neighborhood streets in this block do not have this width. In addition, Stedham Place, the only alley proposed in this block is only 22' in width. 5. [General Comment] The label on sheet 22 for Bishopgate Lane Extended incorrectly reads "Chancery Lane." Please fix. Comment addressed. 6. [14-234] A private street request will be required for Bishopgate Lane Extended. See 14-233 and 14-234 for the requirements, justification, and findings that will need to be made for the private street. If the request is made outside of a subdivision application, a fee is required. In addition, the sidewalk and planting strips will need to be extended along this street, unless an exception or a variation to 14-422 and the application plan is requested and granted. Rev.l: The requests for a private street for Bishopgate Lane Extended and variations to the sidewalks and planting strips should be made with a subdivision plat, in accordance with Section 14-234 of the subdivision ordinance. However, a subdivision plat has now been submitted for Block 32, SUB2019-00023, and the request for private streets will be reviewed in the context of the subdivision plat as well. Please be advised that these requests also must be approved by the Planning Commission. However, staff has reviewed the requests in conjunction with the submitted road plans and offers the following comments and questions: A.) 114-233(A)(1)(i)] The designation of Bishopgate Lane Extended as a private street does not appear to allow the neighborhood model development style to be more fully implemented in this instance than if it were a public street. This street is not acting as an alley or as a private street providing access to amenity -oriented lots, but is instead acting as the main frontage for the lots on this street. Will VDOT not accept this right- of-way as a public street for some reason? B.) [14-233(A)(1)(ii)1 It does not appear that this private street would allow for greater density as supported by the comprehensive plan. There is only 1, or at most 2, depending on fire access requirements, additional lots allowed frontage by this street. However, there are other open areas near the east side of this development that have not lots currently proposed (near the front of Block 32 at the intersection with Old Trail Drive). In addition, the overall density of the block has already been reduced from the preliminary plat, with the reduction in the number of proposed lots. The one or two lots with frontage on this proposed private street do not substantially increase the overall density of Block 32. Please provide density numbers for Block 32 for more analysis. C.) [14-233(A)(1)(iii)l These lots along Bishopgate Lane Ext. do not front a common amenity, and it does not appear that they would have rear vehicular access. D.) 114-233(A)(1)(iv)] It does not appear that a significant environmental resource would be protected by authorizing Bishomate Lane Ext. as a private street. E.) [14-233(A)(1)(v)l It does not appear that relegated parking would be provided by authorizing Bishopgate Lane Ext. as a private street. F.) [14-234(C)(1)1 As a street terminating in a vehicle turn -around and continuing on as a limited -access fire emergency lane, there would be minimal traffic on this street. G.) 114-234(C)(2)1 Staff acknowledges that the ZMA application plan does not show a required public street in the vicinity of the proposed Bishopgate Lane Extended. However, please elaborate on why a private street, as opposed to a public street, would better allow for the density goals of the ZMA and comprehensive plan to be met in this location. There are no other proposed private streets in Block 32 except those associated with amenity -oriented lots, which is specifically supported by the COD. The lots with access from Bishopgate Lane Ext are not proposed to be amenity -oriented. H.) 114-234(C)(3)1 An easement will be needed to allow for the emergency fire access to travel on this street, as this street is the proposed second entrance to Block 32. L) 114-234(C)(4)1 Staff acknowledges that there will be no through -traffic on this street, as it dead -ends at the emergency fire access lane, and only intersects with a public street in one location. J.) [14-234(C)(5)1 This proposed private street is not located within the Flood Hazard Overlav District. 7. [14-234] A private street request will be required for Charnwood Street and Raylor Place. See 14-233 and 14-234 for the requirements, justification, and findings that will need to be made for the private street. If the request is made outside of a subdivision application, a fee is required. It appears, however, that these two streets may be intended to be alleys, as otherwise they would create double -frontage lots that must comply with 14-401. If they are proposed to be private alleys, please label them as such. Also, they will need to conform with the designs for alleys as shown on sheet 4 of the Application Plan and in chapter 14 of the County Code. Rev.1: The private streets, Chancery Lane and Bicknell Street, are in keeping with the Code of Development, as they provide access to amenity oriented lots, page 8 of the COD. As a proposed alley, Stedham Place must conform with the design for alleys as shown on sheet 4 of the Application Plan, and is supported by the COD. 8. [32.5.2; 32.7.9.51 The required street trees and other street landscaping should be shown on the road plans. Also include the landscaping schedule for these plants. Rev.1: Street trees are needed within the planting strips along Old Trail Drive. Street trees will also be needed within the planting strips of Bishopgate Lane Ext. Street trees shall be planted with even spacing of 50' along the right-of-way, in accordance with 32.7.9.5(d) of the Zoning Ordinance. There are several trees throughout the development along all three public streets with street trees provided where this requirement is not met, and where there do not appear to be sight distance easements preventing more even spacing. There are very few street trees located along the interior blocks of Bishopgate Lane. 9. IZMA2015-000011 Please include the proffers associated with this development in the road plans. Comment addressed. 10. [General Comment] If there is going to be on -street parking, please include those areas on the plans. Per the Code of Development, on -street parking should be included. Rev.1: There are "no parking" signs located on the interior sides of Bishopgate Lane. However, in the COD, on page 7, Table 3, note 1, it says that parking should be provided on both sides of public streets. Please clarify why street parking is not proposed for these parts of Bishopgate Lane. 11. [General Comment] Please include a note with the road plans that states the "Associated Plans" with this project, including the project numbers, which would be SDP201800069 for the final site plan. Rev.1: Please revise this note to include the final subdivision plat that was submitted for this project — SUB2019-00023. 12. [General Comment] Please be advised that the second point of emergency access will be required prior to the construction of the 31 st structure in this phase. This proposed emergency access route appears to continue on as an as-yet-unbuilt road on a neighboring property zoned RA, Rural Areas. Where is the connection point for this emergency access route proposed to be? Bollards need to be placed at the entrance to the fire access lane to prevent unauthorized use of the access way. The fire access lane will need to be platted with an easement to allow travel over it. 13. [General Comment] Please include a note in the road plans to state that all landscaping within the rights - of -way shall be installed prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for a structure in Block 32. Comment addressed. 14. [14-208.3] In order to dedicate the right-of-way for the proposed public streets, an Application For A Special Lot must be submitted, reviewed, approved, and recorded. In accordance with Chapter 14, the special lot application does not necessarily need to be approved prior to approval of the road plan application. The applicant may submit the special lot application prior to road plan approval, after road plan approval but prior to construction, during road construction, or after road construction. Please be aware that any other subdividing of parcels proposing to use road frontage along the proposed public streets will not be approved until the right-of-way is dedicated. The same goes for the approval of any final site plans proposing uses on lots that would use frontage of the proposed public streets. Please feel free to contact staff to further discuss timing of the right-of-way dedication. Comment still stands. 15. [ZMA2015-00001] Please include a note in the road plans to state that the roads will be designed to the standard specified in the ZMA201500001 Code of Development and application plan. Comment addressed. New Comments from Submittal 2 16. The Site Data section on the cover sheet should be revised, as much of that information appears to have changed since previous submittals with the revised site layout. Alternatively, much of that data could be removed from the road plan, as zoning information is not reviewed with road plans and is not approved with road plans. 17. The tables on sheet 2 with the proposed lot information and the residential unit information for Old Trail Village as a whole should be removed, as this information does not apply to the road plans and will not be reviewed with this plan. These items will need to be on the site plan and/or subdivision plat, however. Please contact Andy Reitelbach in the Planning Division by using areitelbachgalbemarle.org_or 434-296-5832 ext. 3261 for further information. 4 Stephen C. Brich, P.E. Commissioner COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1601 Orange Road Culpeper. Virginia 22701 February 19, 2019 County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Attn: Emily Cox, P.E. Re: Old Trail Village Block 32— Road Plan SUB-2018-00164 Review #2 Dear Ms. Cox: The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use Section, has reviewed the above referenced plan as submitted by Roudabush, Gale, & Associates, revised 21 December 2018, and offers the following comments: 1. The provided SSAR Waiver for connectivity is currently under review; we will provide notification once review is complete. Based on preliminary review, it appears that the site does meet the requirements for an SSAR Waiver for second connection/stub-out requirements. 2. Provide crossdrains (CD-1/CD-2) where applicable on profiles. 3. There are still several storm sewer pipes that run parallel beneath the road/sidewalk. Pipes should cross the road at 90 degrees, or as close as reasonably possible. Also, sanitary manholes must be removed from the street. 4. Stop bars must be before the pedestrian crossing (CG-12). Additionally, please remove mid -block pedestrian crossings (CG-12s). Note that pedestrian crossing should not be staggered, CG-12s should be directly across from each other. 5. At least 1 foot of right-of-way is required behind the sidewalk; only 6" is proposed. 6. Street trees must be at least 30 feet from the curb radius at intersections. Please provide a copy of the revised plan along with a comment response letter. If further information is desired, please contact Justin Deel at 434-422-9894. A VDOT Land Use Permit will be required prior to any work within the right-of-way. The owner/developer must contact the Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use Section at (434) 422-9399 for information pertaining to this process. Sincerely, 1�4t�L_ � Adam J. Mo re, P.E. Area Land Use Engineer Charlottesville Residency VirginiaDOT.org WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING Emily Cox From: Jeremy Lynn <jlynn@serviceauthority.org> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 2:08 PM To: Emily Cox Subject: RE: Planning Application Review for SUB201800164 OLD TRAIL VILLAGE, BLOCK 32 - ROAD PLANS. Emily, Our last round of comments were returned to Roudabush on January 4, 2019. Jeremy M. Lynn, P.E. Senior Civil Engineer Albemarle County Service Authority 168 Spotnap Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22911 (434) 977-4511 6 ©® aD From: Emily Cox <ecox2@albemarle.org> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 2:06 PM To: Jeremy Lynn <jlynn@serviceauthority.org>; Deel, Justin <justin.deel@vdot.virginia.gov> Subject: Planning Application Review for SUB201800164 OLD TRAIL VILLAGE, BLOCK 32 - ROAD PLANS. Can you let me know the status of your review on the above -mentioned project? Thanks! -Emily