HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP202000076 Review Comments Initial Site Plan 2021-02-09� AI
?"h
�IRGRTF
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 229024596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
Site Plan review
Project:
River's Edge - ISP
Project file number:
SDP2020-00076
Plan prepares
Shimp Engineering, 912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902
Kelsey Schlein, kelsevAshimo-enaineerina.com
Justin M. Shimp, justin(i�shimy-engineerina.com
Owner or rep.:
River's Edge Holdings LLC / 2027 Woodbrook Ct.
Charlottesville,VA22901 cdbarry1234(i�wnail.com
Plan received date:
16 Dec 2020
Date of comments:
9 Feb 2021
Reviewer:
John Anderson
Project Coordinator: Christopher Perez
Please address comments below with the Final Site Plan (FSP)
1. Engineering recommends proposed grading, improvements, access conform nearly identically with
ZMA201800018 Zoning Map Amendment Application Plan prior to FSP approval. ZAIA201800018 and
SP201800023, approved 8/5/20, include conditions that should translate to design, with slight variation.
SP2018-23 River's Edge Special Use Permit Conditions
1. The limits of disturbance within the Preserved Steep Slopes Overlay District are to be limited to the
sizes, locations, and extents of disturbance as proposed in the "River's Edge: Steep Slopes
Disturbance" application prepared by Shimp Engineering, P.C. and dated February 28, 2020.
2. Improvements related to stormwater, drainage, and grading shown on the final site plan and water
protection ordinance plan for River's Edge must be in general accord with the improvements and
grading shown on the exhibits "River's Edge: Road Grading + Profile" and "River's Edge:
Conceptual Stonnwatee' in the "River's Edge: Zoning Map Amendment Application Plan"
application prepared by Shimp Engineering, P.C. and dated February April 14, 2020.
3. Any blasting of rock must be performed subject to a blasting plan reviewed and approved by the
County Engineer and other Authorities having jurisdiction, prior to commencing such activity.
4. Two -layer erosion and sediment control measures will be installed around the perimeter of the site,
where feasible, at the discretion of the County Engineer.
5. Erosion and sediment control basins and traps may not be located within the floodplain limits.
2. C8 (ISP) vs. Sheet 14 (ZMA Applic. Plan): Consider SP201800023 approval conditions, which direct to
River's Edge: Road Grading + Profile (Zoning Map Amendment Application Plan), which shows a
retaining wall. FSP should be revised to include this retaining wall.
FEMA
f
b
FE 386�I;
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 10
LM
3. C 11 vs. ZMA sheet 19: Engineering recommends FSP design consistent with ZMA conceptual stormwater,
which shows a narrow underground detention system (sheet 19).
Sheet 19 (below) allows future maintenance /replacement of the UG detention. Cl1 does not, and cannot
be approved as depicted. A double line underground detention system would substantially impede ingress
/egress to a number of units. Revise S WM concept shown on C 11, consistent with ZMA Application plan,
sheet 19.
i � I
-EEMA-BFE 38r
4.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 10
Underground detention
Similarly, Cl 1 proposed Engineering Level Spreader is impermissible. It was not presented with
Conceptual Stormwater on sheet 19. Rather, SP /ZMA approved pipe conveyance to North Fork Rivanna
River. An ELS will not be approved at this location for several reasons:
a. Impermissible: 18-30.3.11 does not identify SWM facilities as a Flood or Water Related Use or
Structure; 18-30.3.11 does list stormwater conveyance as a by -right use within the regulatory
floodway and floodway fringe.
b. Storm conveyance is shown with on ZMA Application Plan, sheet 19.
c. A SWM facility (ELS) within mapped floodplain was not presented, discussed or requested during
the ZMA or SP processes, August 2020.
d. An ELS discharging to generally steep grade and then across preserved steep slopes, downslope, is
likely to cause erosion and instability. ELS at this location fails to meet design criteria found at
either VESCH or VA DEQ Stormwater Design Specification No. 2 (Table 2.2), downgradient
Max. slope. FSP should remove any SWM facility within mapped floodplain.
e. An ELS located at this location on slopes above proposed 5' trail poses would likely cause erosion
that would require repetitive effort to maintain trail in passable condition. ZMA Application Plan
did not present ELS on steep slopes above a trail.
- Z 'I
Discharge into waterway j
in accordance with
VSMP regulations
See steep slopes disturbance
exhibit for proposed slopes
40�
5.
0
C11 below [ ELS Jreserved slopes circled ]
Engineering Review Comments
Page 4 of 10
l/
With revised FSP, recommend provide retaining wall -dwelling unit typ. detail that shows in three
dimensions how retaining walls in close proximity to units work, plan view indicates apparent conflicts.
C10: Avoid landscape /SWM facility conflict. Conflict circled, below
7. C8 vs. sheet 12: Remove 3" force main from pavement, per approved SP201800023/sheet 12. Damage to
any portion of 3" main is likely to be difficult to locate and expensive to repair, if located in pavement.
Repair of utilities located in pavement may also require substantial closing of the single point of access to
River's Edge community, if not for residents /guests then for commercial delivery or emergency vehicles.
Engineering is at a loss to explain multiple departures from ZMA Application Plan, and encourages design
ensure the FSP adhere as nearly as possible to utility and retaining wall locations, SWM facility design,
storm conveyance, etc., as shown on the approved ZMA Application Plan.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 5 of 10
Sheet 12
� A
0 0 � 1 �♦ \
1360 �\ F0
O
force- -
60
8. 100 yr. floodplain vs. BFE: It is improper to present a single feature by multiple lines. Mapped floodplain
(100-yr/BFE) has but one meaning: base flood elevation during the statistical 1 % storm event. Provide the
most accurate FEMA FIRM (VFRIS) data possible with FSP. Eliminate any reference to FEMA BFE as
distinct from the 100-yr floodplain (since one and the same).
9. Ensure proposed contour labels are large enough to read (see C8, for example).
10. CIL
Engineering Review Comments
Page 6 of 10
a. Grading & Utilily Plan includes partial view ofjust one of the four natural playscape areas shown
on C7, C 12. Engineering cautions that recreational uses proposed within mapped floodplain will
be evaluated against 18-30.3.11 (use, activity, structure, grading, etc.), and may be impermissible
as proposed. Provide adequate proposed grading for all playscape areas with the FSP.
b. Recommend provide additional inlet, and revise storm drain pipe to minimize impact to parking,
access, and sidewalks with during future maintenance.
,C
11. CI I-C12: Provide additional existing contour labels.
12. C 12:
a. Examine lower tier unit walks (blue circle [typ.] locations, below) to ensure ADA compliant.
V
b. Recommend unit numbers visible on C6 be shown on C 12, as well.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 7 of 10
c. Recommend remove 8" gravity sanitary lines from pavement, as much as possible. For example
(blue lines are conceptual and should avoid storm pipe/landscape conflicts, but make the point):
� m
m
Whether developer or residents bear (future) maintenance expense, it seems better to try with FSP
design to minimize disruption to site access and limit pavement repair expense that may result.
Also, alternative sanitary alignments outside pavement may yield shallower san. system depth.
13
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 8 of 10
d. Relocate circled san. MHs away from proposed UG detention. Any future replacement or repair
e.
r1%
tit
manholes or 8" gravity main/s.
\ _.�l i
Please revise lateral design to minimize penetrations of retaining walls. Recommend revise
location of 8" gravity if compatible with retaining wall /geogrid. [ blue lines, below, may conflict
C 10: 8" sanitary gravity main may not cross the retaining wall near the pump station, 3" FM may not cross
the retaining wall. Please revise with FSP.
Any retaining wall 2:3' ht. requires a building permit.
Any retaining wall >4' requires PE -sealed retaining wall design.
Provide storm pipe and sanitary system profiles.
Provide %:" steel plate in any stepped M][Is with vertical drop (INV IN/OUT) > 4-ft. [VDOT Drainage
Manual, pg. 9-37.]
Provide trail section.
Label discrete areas of disturbance to preserved steep slopes (ft2)
[SP201800023 conditions Aimit: 39,100 sq.ft.].
Provide primary site access section. include shoulder. Incl. GR-2 as needed.
Provide pavement design for access based on peak ADT. Provide parking lot pavement section.
Provide guardrail to (to limit road run-off) along primary access where proposed slopes are unrecoverable.
Provide typical civil /VDOT details: sidewalk, PB-1, IS-1, ST-1, SL-1, ES-1, GR-2, CG-2, CG-6, CG-12,
MH (lid -frame), as applicable.
Provide guardrail (GR-2) at EP at retaining wall with FSP (2 locations, circled, below).
Engineering Review Comments
Page 9 of 10
\� - DP BNEAK INONO ION ZONE(STR1
38P rtNL IDI.
25. Provide stop signs to establish through movement (right-of-way).
26. Provide safety railing for retaining walls > 4-ft. high.
27. Provide safety railing typ. detail.
28. Provide TWBW data, all retaining walls, to aid review and construction.
29. Include ESP notes requiring flagging of all preserved steep slopes, prior to construction.
30. Ensure FSP grading complies with requirements at 18-4.3.3, Grading Standards.
31. Wherever runoff concentrates against curbing, provide CG-6. (18-4.12.15.g.)
32. For curvilinear parking, label narrowest parking space width dimension.
33. All parking: label typ. parking space length x width.
34. Ensure parking conforms with a parking /sidewalk design option listed at p. 17, ACDSM. Link:
hftpS7//www.albemarle.orp/Home/ShowDocument?id=270.
35. Provide internal primary access /parking sight lines.
36. Label curbing.
37. Provide sight distance easement/s, as needed.
38. Ensure HC parking is ADA and county ordinance compliant.
39. Provide CG-12 with HC parking, provide VDOT CG-12 detail.
40. Provide VDOT LD-204, LD-229 inlet and storm pipe computations (tables).
41. Revise 3' wide section of trail between preserved steep slopes and retaining wall. Proposed narrow width
invites hazard similar to driving on a road between a cliff face on one side, and falling terrain on the other.
42. Provide space for a vehicle exiting parking space near unit 97/98 to reverse without multi -point maneuvers.
43. Confirm proposed grading near 3' section of walk and near unit 43-44 is shown (Cl1 image, below):
\ \ \ \ 410
38 PXRKING 5
I \ I F \
44. ESP approval requires approved WPO plan.
��N
Engineering Review Comments
Page 10 of 10
45. WPO plan approval requires an approved FDP (floodplain development permit) application.
46. An approved FDP Application requires a `No RISE' Certificate.
47. FSP approval requires coordination with and approval /acknowledgement from DEQ that the central
sewerage system design is acceptable.
48. Site access will be evaluated against VDOT standards and must meet VDOT standards.
Please feel free to call if any questions: 434.296-5832-x3069.
Thank you
SDP2020-00076 River's Edge ISP 020921