HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB202000004 Approval - County 2021-04-02 (2)� AI
�h
�lRGIISP
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone(4341296-5832 Fax(4341972-4126
Road Plan Review
Project title:
Berkmar Overlook Final Road & Utility Plan
Project Tile number:
SUB202000004
Plan preparer:
Scott Collins, Collins Engineering
200 Garrett St., Suite K, Charlottesville, VA 22902
Owner or rep.:
Berkmar Development, LLC / 2496 Old Ivy Road, Charlottesville, VA 22903
Plan received date:
6 Jan 2020
(Rev. 1)
27 Mar 2020
(Rev. 2)
2 Jun 2020
(Rev. 3, 3a)
27 Sep 2020' 12 Oct 2020 (print error resubmittal)
(Rev. 4)
11 Dec 2020
(Rev. 5)
5 Mar 2021
Date of comments:
28 Feb 2020
(Rev. 1)
19 May 2020
(Rev. 2)
22 Jul 2020, revised 31 Jul 2020 [ Also, email to Applicant, 7/31/2020 3:28 PM ]
(Rev. 3)
22 Oct 2020
(Rev. 4)
28 Jan 2021, email 1/28/2021 10:08 AM
(Rev. 5)
2 Apr 2021 —Approved
Reviewer:
John Anderson
SUB202000004
1. Sheet 1: Revise sheet list table consistent with revised sheet titles. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
2. Include .PDF of public road acceptance procedures on the road plan, link to .PDF outline of procedures:
httD://www.albemarle.or2/uDload/images/forms center/departments/Community Development/forms/Engi
neering and WPO Forms/Road IRSDections & Acceptance - Public Road Acceptance Procedure 07-
26-2012.12df (Rev. 1) Addressed,
3. Sheet 3: Until Swede Street continues SW, stripe two (2) proposed on -street parallel parking spaces SW of
intersection with Marsac Street `No parking' to limit parking, or else provide a turnaround meeting
ACDSM turnaround std. at end of Swede Street for vehicles utilizing these 2 parallel parking spaces.
Design cannot force drivers utilizing on -street parking to enter private driveways or to perform multi -point,
in -street maneuvers to reverse car direction prior to exiting this portion of the development. Drivers would
be required to do one or the other under current design. (Rev. 1) Addressed,
4. Provide PC -PT tangents and roadway CL curve data on the plan. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
Sheets 3, 4
5. Provide and show retaining wall easements. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant (3/23/20 letter): `The wall and
maintenance easements are now shown and labeled on the plans, see sheets 3 and 4.'
6. Revise sheet 3 and 4 sheet titles to site layout. A road plan does not approve a site plan. (Rev. 1)
Addressed,
7. Certain driveway entrances intersect or fall within curved sections of curb at intersections. Locate
driveway entrances outside intersections. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
Engineering Review Continents
Page 2 of 3
8. Revise linework, sheets 3 and 4 consistent with VDOT Sid. entrance gutter detail (CG-9B) [VDOT detail
removed with Rev. 2 review J. 2' R and entrance width accurately depicting Min. R may affect placement
of water meters, utilities, DIs, etc. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
Examples: Lot 20' Lots 25-26: possible conflicts between DI, water meter, drive entrance, if provide CG-
9B linework. [ Example plan images removed with Rev. 2 review. ]
9. Show /label bollards at emergency access tie to Woodburn Road. Provide bollard detail. (Rev. 1)
Addressed.
10. Provide recorded sight distance easements prior to final plat approval, or with final plat. (Rev. 1,
Persists. Applicant: `The sight distances are shown on the plans, and the sight distance will be recorded on
the subdivision plat. The Deed book and page will be added to the final site plan, but not the road plans
(this set of plans) as the road plans will need to be approved prior to the subdivision plat being recorded.
Then, the site plan is approved after these (2) approvals and the recordation of the plat. The recordation in
formation will be added to the final site plan.' (Rev. 2, 3, 4, D No revision to Road Plan required, comment
relates to €itW easement plat approval.
11. Sheets 7 8: Multiple driveways serving attached units are proposed to be steeper than 5%. N-` M
[ Guidance removed with Rev. 2 review ]:
[guidance text removed]
To the extent site plan requirements apply to attached units, please note Max. grade for parking spaces is
5%. [18-4.12.15.c.] (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant: `As discussed during the engineering meeting, this
comment is removed. Driveways are not required to adhere to the 5% max slope. However, as discussed
in the meeting, the driveway slopes have been adjusted, and there are no driveway slopes steeper than 8%
or 9%.'
12. Sheet 9: Revise sheet title to Berkmar Overlook - VSMP /WPO Plan. (Rev. 1) Withdrawn. Review error.
Sheet 16 17 (Rev. 1)
13. Several retaining walls cross lot lines (Lots 22/23, 25-27, 24-27, 35-42). Albemarle requires Agreement
assign maintenance responsibility for retaining walls that cross multiple lot lines to either the subdivision
HOA, or property owners in question. This agreement is recorded prior to final plat approval, or with the
final plat, to reference retaining wall easements shown on the final plat. (Rev. 1, 2) Persists. Applicant:
`As noted in comment #5, the wall and maintenance easements have been shown on the plan sheets, and
these easements will be put to record with the subdivision plat, prior to the approval of the final site plan.'
(Rev. 2, 3, 4, 0 No revision to Road Plan required. Requirement is addressed with final subdivision
easement plat.
14. Note: Flow in pipe between structures 6 and 4 is 96.4% of capacity. Recommend a more conservative
design approach in this section of system. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
15. Increase pipe diameter, slope, or both between SWM and Str. 48. Proposed flow (27.22 cfs) is 99.93% of
capacity. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
16. Str. 38 and outfall. Proposed flow (27.22 cfs) is 99.93% of capacity. Provide margin for error to cover
unforeseen incidents. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
17. Increase pipe diameter, slope, or both between Str. 48 and 38. Proposed flow (27.22 cfs) is 99.2% of
capacity. Provide margin to cover incidence of obstruction, surge, etc. (Rev. 1) Addressed,
18. Provide spot elevations along gutter to ensure 0.14 cfs carryover of inlet 30 reaches inlet 28. (Rev. 1)
Addressed,
Sheet 11
19. Provide VDOT cross -drains at: (Rev. 1) Addressed.
a. Swede Street, -Sta. 11+10, 13+85 (cut /fill transition)
b. Swede Street, Sta. 14+34.74, 14+64.74 (low point sta.)
c. Marsac Street, -Sta. 10+25, 13+00 (cut /fill transition)
d. Empire Street, -Sta. 10+10, 11+80, 15+00 (cut/fill trans)
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 3
20. On road profiles, provide intersecting street name labels. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
21. Sheet 19: Avoid canopy tree /DI conflicts, Lot 33, 34. (Rev. 1) Addressed,
Sheet 20:
22. Provide fencing or similar protection for existing cemeteries. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
23. Avoid canopy tree /DI conflict, Lot 52, Lot 16, and north of proposed recreation field. (Rev. 1) Partially
addressed. Conflict persists at Lot 16. (Rev. 2) Comment persists. Provide more distance between DI
and center of proposed landscape canopy tree at Lot 16. .PDF of revised design welcome. Send as e-
attachment, sheet 20, only. Flag email hi -priority; send today, if possible. Ref. image, image
removed with Rev. 3 review. ] (Rev. 3) Addressed.
New items (2.4, below) and previously noted item (L) are review comments that require design or plan -
related response. Also, please see email to Applicant, July 31, 2020 3:28 PM:
Please see update to Engineering road plan review comments. CV comments:
`UPDATE Oanderson2 7/31/2020 3:27 PM)
Revised Engineering Division ROAD Plan review comments include not -new comments sent with email on
6/23/2020 identified as requesting revision to Berkmar Overlook Road Plan,
Items 2.4. follow a more -detailed review of SUB202000004 that compares existing conditions with
improvements /demolition proposed to occur (near or) on TMP 45-112F:
1. Please ref. first /second emails, a./b. below, and provide design remedy to address non -compliant
parking space geometry outlined in these 6/23 emails. (Rev. 3) Addressed.
a. First email: June 23, 2020 12:52 PM, with appearance of CV -system memo —Also
attached to (this) email sent to Applicant, 3:28 pm, this date.
b. Second email: 6/23/2020 4:32 PM —this email makes explicit reference to both site and
road plan revisions.
2. Provide recorded (offsite) sight -distance easement across TMP 45-112F so that proposed sight
distance easement is continuous along Berkmar Drive, south of development entrance. (Rev. 3) Persists.
Applicant response (9/12/20 letter): `The off -site sight distance easement shall be recorded across TMP 45-
112F as required, it is now labeled on sheet 3.' (Rev. 4, D Persists, but met with easement plat and not
required for ROAD plan approval.
3. Obtain a temporary construction easement to demolish or construct improvements on TMP 45-
112F, as proposed with Road Plan SUB202000004. A right -of -entry (ROE) letter from owner of TMP 45-
112F may suffice. (Rev. 3, 4) Persists. Applicant: `A right -of -entry (ROE) letter from the owner of TMP
45-112F shall be provided as required.' (Rev. 5) Addressed. Email 3/30/2021 9:49 AM attachment: Letter
from Berkmar Development, 12/21/20, to Dave & Margaret Leckrone, Foundation Child Development
Center, provides right of access and grading sufficient for ROAD Plan approval.
4. Clearly, accurately depict existing conditions on TMP 45-112F. Please see satellite imagery
(Pictometry2, image d. 6/26/20). Also, a satellite image is attached to CV Memo sent 3:28 pm, this date.
(Rev. 3) Addressed.
[ image removed with Rev. 3 review. ]
Please feel free to call if any questions.
Thank you
J. Anderson 434.296-5832 -x3069
SUB202000004 Berkmar Overlook RP 040221 rev5_Approv