HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB201900170 Correspondence 2020-11-30® ROUDABUSH, GALE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
November 17, 2020
Mr. David James
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Project title: Belvedere Phase 5A
Project file number: SUB-2019-00170 Road Plan Review #4
Dear David,
Please find attached the revised plans. The plans have been revised to address the comments
in accordance with the comments received on the Road Plan and the Final Site Plan.
CDD Inspections — Michael Dellinger
No Objectior,
CDD E911 — Brian Becker
No Objection
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority — Victoria Fort
No obiectior
Fire Rescue — Shawn Maddox
No objec.
Virginia Department of Transportation — Max Greene (SDP-2020-00036 & SUB-2019-
00170)
No objection. Letter received July 16, 2020:
"The Department of Transportation, Charlottesviue Residency i ransponauon ana Lana use
Section, has reviewed the above referenced plan as submitted by Roudabush, Gale, &
Associates, last revision dated June 22, 2020, and find it to be generally acceptable."
County Planning — Cameron Langille (SUB-2019-00170)
[General UVVai� U JML I ai ij ling staff are not reviewing notes
and calculations related to certain Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance
requirements that do not pertain to improvements or land disturbances unrelated
to the actual road construction. For example, the allowable density calculations
and building height notes on Sheet 1 have not been checked. Comment
acknowledged.
2. [4.12.6] One guest parking space per four units is required for single-family
attached units that are providing parking on individual lots. Please clarify the
required parking notes on Sheet 1; the calculation should state 1 guest parking
space per every 4 attached single-family units" and state the required number
(10 spaces, fractions must be rounded up). Comment addressed.
a. Under "Parking Provided" on Sheet 1, state that 18 on -street guest spaces
are provided. Comment addressed.
3. [32.7.9.5 (d)] Street trees must be provided within the 6' landscaping strip within
the public right-of-way, and cannot be provided on private lots within a
landscaping easement unless VDOT specifically says the trees have to be
located outside of the ROW. Conflicts with proposed utilities is a reason that
street trees can be located on private lots under Section 32.7.9.5; this is a design
issue that must be rectified. Trees on lots 2, 4, 8, 33, 34, 35, 36, 39, 42, and 43
need to be relocated so that they are within the landscaping strip within the street
right-of-way. Comment addressed.
4. [32.7.9.5 (d)] Revise the street tree calculation for Fowler Street and Fowler
Circle on Sheet 19. Fractions should be rounded up. 28 trees are required for
Fowler Street and 24 trees are required for Fowler Circle. Comment addressed.
5. [32.7.9.5] Remove the callout for the 8 TC trees at the southeast end of Fowler
Street on Sheet 17, they are not being provided/shown on the plans. Comment
addressed.
6. Trees have been removed along Fowler Circle that were shown on previous
versions of the road plans. 22 trees are required on Fowler Circle but only
20 are shown. Trees have been removed that were previously located near
lots 21/22 and 26/27. Please add two more trees to Fowler Circle to comply
with requirements.
Response: Trees have not been removed. The trees have been moved due to conflicts with
utility easements. 22 trees are required and provided. Please review the exhibit I emailed to
County staff on October 1, 2020 where I numbered each tree individually on the Landscape plan
sheet.
County Engineering — David James (SUB-2019-00170)
1. aneei is
a. Accurate current existing topography and conditions should be field verified
within the last year.
b. Topography may need to be resurveyed (2016 - Last aerial survey). (Rev. 1)
Acknowledged.
2. Include County's'General Construction Notes for Public Streets'. (Rev. 1) Not addressed.
(Rev.2) Acknowledged.
3. Sheet 13:
a. Check that the inlet design is correct (LD-204 worksheet). Inlet 23 shows no DA;
Inlet 3 Cross SI (Sx). Show correct ID downstream. What is Q
intercepted/bypassed, C values (LD-204, Show similar form data)? [Refer to
Table 9.1 of VDOT DM] (Rev.1) Addressed.
b. Correct pipes with velocity under 3 fps (LD-229 worksheet). Show similar form
data. [9.3.5, VDOT DM]. (Rev.1) Not addressed. The minimum scour velocity is 3
fps. Response: The pipe velocity has been increased where possible. The
remaining pipes with velocity under 3 fps are short pipes that join into the system
from the other side of the road. The slopes in these pipes have been increased to
over 7% minimum to aid in the flushing of sediment through the pipes. The
velocity is under 3 fps due the small drainage areas serving these inlets. Multiple
inlets are necessary due to the space restrictions between driveways. Please see
the email from Max Greene, VDOT, on 6/8/2020 where he agrees with the design
of the system as shown. Inlet shaping is called in the structures to prevent
standing water. (Rev.2) Acknowledged.
c. Reduce pipe outlet velocity to 10 fps or less (LD-229 worksheet). (Rev.1)
Addressed.
d. Provide HGL computations (LD-347). (Rev.1) Addressed.
e. Add note or callout to include IS-1, inlet shaping at flow intersections (Str 3, 14,
15, 16, 17). (Rev.1) Addressed.
4. Show/label angle of intersection at entrances. -80 degrees (Min)? [14-410] (Rev.1)
Please add label to both intersections showing the angle. (Rev.2) Acknowledged.
5. Show offsite grading easement for the temporary fire access road grading proposed.
Show a temporary access easement for the road as well. (Rev.1) Addressed.
6. Record access easement prior to road plan approval. (Rev.1/2) Acknowledged;
Comment still valid. Plat undergoing review.
Response: Acknowledged, the easement plat has been submitted for review. The grading
easement at the entrance of Fowler has been added and the widths of the storm easements
have been updated.
7. Submit an amendment to any grading plans affected by the proposed access road
construction. They will have to be reviewed/approved prior to road plan approval.
Response: No amendments are necessary. (Rev.1) Acknowledged.
8. Sheet 7: Show width of on -street parking. Response: Dimensions have been added to
the Site Plan sheet 4. (Rev.1) Addressed.
9. Sheet 9: Show any pipe/utility crossings in the profiles. (Rev.1) Addressed.
10. Sheet 10: Add cross -drains or underdrain at sag. (Rev.1) Stormwater will be impounded
by the access road. Temporary E&SC controls would be needed and a WPO plan would
need to be submitted. (Rev.2) Currently addressed.
11. Sheet 11: It appears that sight distance easements need to be shown for those outside
of the ROW. (Rev.1) Addressed. Submit a plat to recorded them prior to FSP approval.
12. Sheet 12: Where does the road drainage go beyond storm str 12? Show inlets. (Rev.1)
Acknowledged. Submit a WPO plan approval required prior to FSP approval. (Rev.2)
Currently addressed.
13. Provide earthwork vol. estimates of cut & fill for the roads & access grading. Response:
The entire parcel will require 119 cubic yards of import. (Rev.1) Acknowledged.
14. (Rev.1) The grade for the emergency access needs to be 10% or less. [18-4.12.17]
(Rev.2) Addressed.
15. (Rev.1) The minimum recommended storm size pipe is 15" dia. Initial pipe runs can use
12" dia. if the length of pipe is 50' or less. The max access hole spacing is 50' for 12"
dia inn' fnr 15-42" dia. nine I`VF)0T DM 9.3.5. 9.3,6. table 9-31 (Rev.2) Addressed.
16. (Rev. 3) Access road, grading minimum standards: [18-43.3]
Cut and fills — round off contours at the bottom and sides of fill slopes to
eliminate sharp angles.
Response: Contours have been rounded off.
Reverse slope bench — provide 6' min bench and reverse slope.
Response: Reverse slope has been added.
17. (Rev. 3) Sign and date seal.
Response: Plans have been signed and dated.
Albemarle County Service Authority — Jeremy Lynn (SDP-2020-00036 & SUB-2019-00170).
Sheet 1
1. Final dedication of Belvedere Phase 2B required prior to final plan approval.
Response: Acknowledged, Phase 2B has been recorded and accepted. See attached letters.
We thank you for taking the time to review these plans and trust the above adequately
addresses your comments. However, please let me know if you have any questions or require
additional information.
Respectfully,
Riki Van-Niekerk