HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP202200002 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2022-03-03County of Albemarle
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Site Plan review
Project title:
Final Site Plan for RST Residences
Project file number:
SDP202200002
Plan preparer:
Ryan Yauger, PE [ rvaueerkbohlereng.com ]
Bohler Engineering
9100 Arboretum Pkwy, Suite 360
Richmond, VA 23236
Owner or rep.:
AlexArstdevelooment.com
RST Development, LLC
6110 Executive Blvd., #620
Rockville, MD 20852
Plan received date:
20 Jan 2022
Date of comments:
3 Mar 2022
Plan Coordinator:
Kevin McCollum
Reviewer:
John Anderson
Engineering has reviewed the initial site plan and offers these review comments.
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4579
Telephone: 434-296-5832
WWW.ALBEMARLE.ORG
For final site plan (FSP) Approval (comments are ISP Engineering review comments /SDP202100079):
1. VDOT Road Design Manual, Appendix A(1), prohibits `parking within 20 feet of any intersection
measured from the curb return of the intersection.' Recommend remove parking proposed within 20-ft. of
any VDOT Road Design Manual No parking zone. For example: Int. travelway A and private road C,
travelway E and private road C. Ref. Appendix A(1), p. A(1)-77. (FSP) Addressed.
2. Similarly, parallel parking is proposed coincident with curb return on travelway A, at entrance/exit to
roundabout (Int. travelway B and travelway A). Recommend eliminate parallel parking proximate to
roundabout on travelway A, both N and S of the roundabout intersection. (FSP) Addressed.
3. C-501
a. Check match -line labels (recommend revise match -line sheet references to ref. C-503, C-501, etc.)
(FSP) Addressed.
b. Re -designation of steep slopes is a process not accomplished automatically by field run survey, or
submittal of a site plan. Please see 18-30.7.4.b. Lh., and submit new topographic information for
Engineering review. Submit a steep slopes exhibit. (FSP) Persists. Applicant response (letter,
Jan-10, 2022): `Comment acknowledged. Steep slope exhibit will be provided under separate
cover.'
4. Remove proposed improvements (parking /travelway/s, or grading) located on preserved steep slopes
unless such slopes are re -designated as non -steep by Albemarle county, via process outlined at 18-30.7.4.
(FSP) Persists. Applicant: `Comment acknowledged. Improvements have remained for now, while the
steep slope exhibit is under review. Steep Slope exhibit will be provided under separate cover for review.'
5. C400-C404
a. Add flow lines to storm pipes. (FSP) Addressed.
b. Label all travelways. (FSP) Addressed.
c. On either C-400 (Grading) or C-500 (Utility) series of FSP sheets, label all pipes and inlets. (FSP)
Addressed.
d. Provide VDOT LD-204 stormwater inlet computations. (FSP) Persists. Although plan sheet
index indicates utility computations are included, sheets C505 C-506 are not included in the plan
set. Additional comments possible.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 4
e. Provide VDOT LD-229 storm drain design computations. (FSP) Persists. Ref. item 5.d., above.
f. Provide storm profiles. (FSP) Addressed. As follow-up (C-8XX series):
i. Recommend labels on storm profiles showing pipe or inlet structures substantially or
entirely in fill be revised from `Prop. Compacted Fill' to require (or at least include
reference to) 95% compaction.
ii. Revise pipe slope, Str. A-32 to A-31, to >_ 0.50%. Ref. Drainage Plan checklist.
iii. Revise pipe slope, Str. A-24 to A-23, to >_ 0.50%.
iv. Check profile proposed Storm Profile A-20 to A-24, which proposes 15" DIA
downstream of 18" DIA RCP (18" may be a typo).
v. Str. C-10, C-802: Include SL-1 (safety slab) label on profile, since ht. structure >12'.
vi. Proposed storm profile — UG-B to B-30 appears cropped. Please show entire profile.
vii. If Str. UG-B manway ht. >12-11., incl. SL-1 design, provide SL-1 label on profile.
viii. C-803
1. UG-D to D-20 caption appears to require edit (to D-30).
2. UG-D to D-20 profile requires structure /pipe data (D-20).
3. Pipe slope, UG-D to D-10, is <0.50%, revise slope to >_0.50%.
4. Profile UG-F to Ex-FI includes text overlays; revise text so readable.
5. Profile UG-10 to UG-G is incomplete. Provide complete profile details.
6. Revise UG-10 to UG-G leader lines to point to Ex. and proposed grade.
g. With FSP, demonstrate compliance with storm runoff requirements at U.S. Rt. 29, where ISP
proposes to increase runoff onto U.S. Rt. 29, without storrnwater capture or conveyance. (FSP)
Persists. Ref. item 5.d., above.
6. C-500: Label all travelways. (FSP) Addressed.
7. C-503
a. Compare proposed storm structure easement with Albemarle County Design Standards Manual
easement diagram, p. 15, to ensure easement sufficient for installation and future maintenance.
Link: https://www.albemarle.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=270 (FSP) Addressed. As follow-up:
Revise label, C-502, `10' SWM facility easement,' to read [accurate value, or variable width]
SWM facility easement' for UG Detention west of Travelway E.
b. Add flow lines to all storm pipes (C501-0503). Add flow lines to SWM facility outfalls. (FSP)
Addressed.
c. GIS indicates natural conveyance at approximate location of 80,000 cf SWM facility proposed
outfall, but this outfall must comply with state storrnwater management regulations at 9VAC25-
870-65 (water quality' VRRM.xls) and 9VAC25-870-66 (water quantity, energy balance at
discharge to natural conveyance). Please ensure ESP is consistent with WPO Plan design. (FSP)
Addressed. Applicant: `Acknowledged —plans have been revised to be consistent.'
d. Albemarle does not accept improvements within public drainage easement, i.e., retaining walls.
Revised design (C-503) to remove pipe crossing beneath stepped retaining walls. (FSP)
Addressed.
e. Show /label existing drainage easement for existing storm line between Ex. grate inlet (located
along proposed 20,000 cf detention system outfall) and Ashwood Blvd. right-of-way. If easement
does not exist, provide public drainage easement over existing elements of storm line on
development parcel that lie beyond Ashwood Blvd. right-of-way. (FSP) Addressed.
f Since design relies on existing storm elements, verify adequacy of existing storm pipes, grates,
etc. (FSP) Persists. Ref. item 5.d. above. Applicant: `Storm computations have been provided for
the existing system, immediately downstream of the proposed improvements.'
g. Provide public drainage easement between proposed f20,000cf UG detention system (SWM
facility easement) and existing storm system (grate inlet). (FSP) Addressed.
h. Label easement over outfalls (storm pipes) downstream of SWM facilities public drainage, and
submit separate easement plat. (FSP) May persist. Applicant: `The easements over the outfalls
have been labeled as public drainage easements. Please see sheets C-502 and C-503.' Asfollow-
up: Please see and complete separate easement plat application, link:
hftps: //www.albemarle. orp/home/shgW ublisheddocument/ 1052/637624089314100000
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 4
i. Please check match -line sheet reference labels. (FSP) Addressed.
j. Note: Easement plat must be recorded prior to WPO Plan approval, and WPO plan must be
approved prior to ESP approval. (FSP) Persists. Applicant: `Comment acknowledged.'
8. C-403
a. Label underground detention system. (FSP) Addressed.
b. Show /label SWM facility easement. (FSP) Addressed. As follow-up: Revise label, C-403, `10'
SWM facility easement,' to read [accurate value, or variable width] SWM facility easement' for
Vault 1.
c. Avoid impact to currently mapped preserved steep slopes, impact appears imminent with proposed
retaining wall design. Applies to other design elements and grading, C-401, C-402, as well. If
field run survey indicates topography flatter than 25%, comment will be withdrawn provided
applicant coordinates survey with Engineering (slopes exhibit /survey data submittal required).
(FSP) Acknowledged. Applicant: `Steep slope exhibit will be submitted under separate cover for
review.'
d. Acquire temporary off -site construction or permanent grading easement, as needed, to construct
proposed retaining walls along southern parcel boundary. Applies to C-401, C-402, as well,
where proposed grading or improvements may require temporary or permanent easement beyond
development parcel boundary. (FSP) Withdrawn/NA. Applicant: `It is intended for all
construction to take place within the proposed LOD and property boundary as indicated on the
grading plan, including the retaining wall construction.'
9. C-402
a. Label SWM facility easement. (FSP) Addressed.
b. Provide /label public drainage easement over SWM facility outfall pipe. (FSP) Addressed.
10. C-401
a. Provide capture for runoff from entrance to this development, at U.S. Rt. 29, since approximate 8'
vertical grade break sends uncaptured runoff into U.S. Rt. 29 NBL. (FSP) Persists. Applicant:
`System is being analyzed, however currently unable to capture the runoff here due to the depth of
the proposed system.'
b. Resolve apparent conflict between CG-12 and inlet on E side of roundabout (Int. travelway A-
travelway B). (FSP) Addressed.
c. Provide spot elevations to ensure positive drainage to inlets, especially grate inlets in pavement
(travelway E, for example). (FSP) Addressed.
11. C-305
a. Proposed Road A/Rt. 29 sight distance (left) vertical separation between sight line and U.S. Rt. 29
pavement appears to be < 0.25'. If as -built condition prevents 680' sight distance left, the
intersection of Road A / Rt. 29 may require constructive revision prior to zoning (or road plan)
bond release, or VDOT acceptance of this entrance onto U.S. Rte. 29 NBL. (FSP)
Acknowledged.
12. C-303
a. Unless overlooked, please provide paver detail and curb transition detail (Private Road C). (FSP)
May persist. Applicant: `Details have been provided for pavement material.' C-901 provides
construction details, but cannot locate Road C paver detail, please indicate detail location in plan.
b. Recommend remove 6 parking spaces at east end of private road C, 3 spaces north and south of
6.T R curb bullnose to enhance visibility and safety for operators reversing from these six spaces,
and for vehicles approaching on private road C. (FSP) Addressed.
13. C-302
a. 4.5' sidewalk width near retaining wall is insufficient, provide Min. 5' sidewalk width. (FSP)
Addressed.
b. Provide guardrail for parking spaces that face retaining walls. (FSP) NA/addressed. Applicant:
`The walls on sheet C-302 have been removed. Guardrail has been added to sheets C-301 and C-
303 where parking spaces face retaining walls.'
Engineering Review Comments
Page 4 of 4
c. Provide /label street name signs for internal travelways. (FSP) Partially addressed. As follow-up:
Please label street name signs. Revise location of travleway B street name sign to east side of Int.
Archer Ave and Travelway B, opposite stop sign.
14. C-301
a. Provide roll-top curb at roundabout at proposed grass paver fire access since CG-6 may limit
clearance for fire apparatus. (FSP) Addressed.
b. Provide roll-top -to -CG6 curb transition detail. (FSP) Addressed.
15. C-301 — C-303 (C301-C-304) [ Note: certain comments maybe duplicative.]
a. Provide sealed geotechnical drawings for retaining wall height > 4-ft. (FSP) Persists. Applicant:
`Comment acknowledged —plans will be provided under separate cover.'
b. Label all traffic control signs (No parking, stop, speed limit, etc.). (FSP) May persist. Please
label No parking and speed limit signs, or indicate which sheet includes labeled No parking and
speed limit signs.
c. Recommend against curb radii < 3'. Recommend curb wipe -down for radii < 3'since such tight
radii susceptible to damage, or rapid deterioration. (see Roundabout, for example). (FSP)
Addressed.
d. Label curb type/s, incl. CG-12. (FSP) Addressed.
e. Show /label attached unit drive /garage entrance curb radius. (FSP) Not addressed. Please show
and label private driveway entrances for each attached unit, geometry displayed to scale, with
(typ.) radius labeled.
16. C-200: Provide deed bk.-pg. reference for Ashwood Blvd. right-of-way. (FSP) Not addressed. Public
right-of-way deed bk.-pg. reference is required.
New
17. C-308, Truck Movement plan
a. Revise design to avoid wheel -curb strike at parking aisle between Travelway A and Travelway B,
parking area located SW of Travelway A.
b. Auto -turn figure appears to indicate truck must mount Travelway B curb as vehicle approaches
Archer Ave. from the NW. Please revise to avoid wheel -curb strike.
c. Revise to avoid CG-12 — truck conflict at Int. Travelway B and Archer Ave.
d. Revise to avoid wheel -median curb strike at Travelway A exit from roundabout.
e. Design of entrance to development from Rt. 29 appears deficient, with vehicle mounting curb,
walks, planting strip, etc. Please revise design to avoid wheel -curb strike conflicts.
f. Entrance to development from Ashwood Blvd, while not indicating wheel -curb strike is certain,
indicates it is likely with any deviation from the drawn vehicle path. Recommend widen entrance
to avoid possible wheel -curb strike at Ashwood Blvd entrance.
Please feel free to call if any questions: 434.296-5832 -x3069
Thank you
I Anderson
SDP202200002 RST Residences ESP 030322.docx