HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP202200002 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2022-06-06a$ County 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 [ rvaueeda_bohlereng.com ]
Bohler Engineering
9100 Arboretum Pkwy, Suite 360
Richmond, VA 23236
Owner or rep.:
AlexArstdevelopment.com
RST Development, LLC
6110 Executive Blvd., #620
Rockville, MD 20852
Plan received date:
20 Jan 2022
(Rev. 1)
21Apr 2022
Date of comments:
3 Mar 2022
(Rev. 1)
6 Jun 2022
Plan Coordinator:
Kevin McCollum
Reviewer:
John Anderson, PE
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. 3-Mar 2022 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.l.h., 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.' (Rev. 1) Addressed. Additional at item below.
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.'
(Rev. 1) Addressed. Exhibit titled Slope Percentage Exhibit, RST Residencies, d. 3-30-2022, by Eric K.
Niskanen, VA LS # 1524-B includes 4 insets which indicate certain site slopes identified as preserved steep
slopes (>_25%) on GIS are < 25% (ranging 6.7% (Detail B) to 21.2% (Detail D)). Engineering accepts
Exhibit (based on field survey performed Dec 23, 2020) as excluding certain slopes from the preserved
steep slopes district /overlay, since survey indicates certain slopes are <25%.
5. C400-C404
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 5
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 ESP 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. (Rev. 1) Partially addressed. As ollow-u'p:
i. Although B-30 is located at EP of parallel parking (C-503), and not a travel lane, 9.58'
spread may pose inconvenience /risk. Engineering recommends slightly longer STM B-
30 DI-3C throat length.
e. Provide VDOT LD-229 storm drain design computations. (FSP) Persists. Ref. item 5.d., above.
(Rev. 1) Addressed.
f. Provide storm profiles. (FSP) Addressed. As ollow-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. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
ii. Revise pipe slope, Str. A-32 to A-31, to > 0.50%. Ref. Drainage Plan checklist. (Rev. 1)
Addressed.
iii. Revise pipe slope, Str. A-24 to A-23, to > 0.50%. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
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). (Rev. 1) Addressed.
v. Str. C-10, C-802: Include SL-I (safety slab) label on profile, since ht. structure>12'.
(Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant response (letter d. 20-Apr 2022): `Str C-10 has been
updated and is now < 12'. B-20 was updated and is now> 12' so a SL-1 label was added
to the profile.'
vi. Proposed storm profile — UG-B to B-30 appears cropped. Please show entire profile.
(Rev. 1) Addressed.
vii. If Str. UG-B manway ht. >12-ft., incl. SL-1 design, provide SL-1 label on profile. (Rev.
1) Addressed. Applicant: `Str. UG-B was removed from the plan.'
viii. C-803
1. UG-D to D-20 caption appears to require edit (to D-30). (Rev. 1) Addressed,
2. UG-D to D-20 profile requires structure /pipe data (D-20). (Rev. 1) Addressed.
3. Pipe slope, UG-D to D-10, is <0.50%, revise slope to>_0.50%. (Rev. 1)
Addressed.
4. Profile UG-F to Ex-Fl includes text overlays, revise text so readable. (Rev. 1)
Addressed.
5. Profile UG-10 to UG-G is incomplete. Provide complete profile details. (Rev.
1) Partially addressed. As ollow-ug: Please provide SL-1 label for MH Str. Ht.
=12.47'
6. Revise UG-10 to UG-G leader lines to point to Ex. and proposed grade. (Rev. 1)
Addressed.
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 stormwater capture or conveyance. (FSP)
Persists. Ref. item 5.d., above. (Rev. 1) Withdrawn. Engineering defers to VDOT on ESP
design's effect on Ex. (or proposed) storm drain elements within public RW.
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.orgiHome/ShowDocument?id=270 (FSP) Addressed. As follow -
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. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 5
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 stormwater 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 FSP 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.' (Rev. 1) May
persist. Ex-F 1 to Ex-172 approaches 100% capacity of Ex. 18" RCP. Any upset to predicted in-
service performance or bypass of proposed on -site UG SWM facility may yield flows that exceed
capacity of Ex-F 1 to Ex-172. This instance is referred to VDOT since Ex-F2 is proximate to (or
within) Ashwood Blvd. RW. Engineering defers to VDOT on ESP's effect on existing storm
elements within public RW, whether U.S. Rt. 29 NBL or Ashwood Blvd. RW (Ex. pipes /inlets).
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.
https://www.albemarle.ore/home/showpublisheddocument/1052/637624089314100000 (Rev. 1)
Partially addressed. An easement plat was submitted 5/20/22. Although plat (SUB202200091)
d. Apr 29, 2022 is under review, it does not appear to provide easement for SWM (UG detention).
Please submit SWMfacility easement plat or (preferred) revise easement plat to show proposed
variable width SWM facility easement consistent with easement shown on FSP, C-402/C-502.
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 /Bev. 1) Persists. Applicant: `Comment acknowledged.'
Ei=41U1 116'
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. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
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.' (Rev. 1) Addressed. Additional at item above.
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.'
Engineering Review Comments
Page 4 of 5
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 ancaptured 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.' (Rev. 1) Withdrawn. Albemarle Engineering defers to VDOT. VDOT has
jurisdiction over runoff that may attend site development that may reach U.S. Rt. 29 NBL or
increase runoff to existing storm conveyance inlets /pipes on this public street (U.S. Rt. 29).
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.
(Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant: `Area shown as pavers on Road C will be concrete stamped with
a paver design. A label was added to the plan for clarity.'
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.'
c. Provide /label street name signs for internal travelways. (FSP) Partially addressed. As ollow-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. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Note: Travelway B now
named Regan Road.
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> 4-11. (FSP) Persists. Applicant:
`Comment acknowledged —plans will be provided under separate cover.' (Rev. 1) Persists.
Applicant: `Comment acknowledged. A Geotech report will be provided separately.'
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. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
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.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 5 of 5
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. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant: `Townhome driveway radii were added to
the plan. Note 1 on sheets C-301 — C-303 and a label referring to the note were added.'
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. (Rev. 1) Persists. Applicant: `Deed book and page for
Ashwood ROW will be submitted separately.' As follow-up: Please include deed bk.-pg. ref shown on
easement plat, SUB202200091 (bk.-pg.: 130740). This information should appear on FSP, C200 as well.
Neiv
17. C-308, Truck Movement plan (Rev. 1) Persists. Applicant: `Acknowledged. An updated truck movement
plan will be provided separately.' Asfollow-u : Items a.-f will be evaluated against separate submittal once
received. Recommend notify Engineering directly (ianderson2(aalbemarle.orQ ) once an updated truck
movement plan is submitted.
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
J. Anderson
SDP202200002 RST Residences ESP 060622rev Ldocx