Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB202100116 Review Comments Preliminary Plat 2022-07-28 (2)�,1 OF AL County of Albemarle COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT I'IRGINIP/ Memorandum July 28, 2022 Scott Collins 200 Garrett Street Suite K Charlottesville, VA 22902 scottCc�r�,collins-en ing eering com RE: SUB202100116 Granger Property Preliminary Plat Dear Mr. Collins: 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, VA 22902-4579 Telephone:434-296-5832 W W W.ALBEMARLE.ORG The Site Review Committee has reviewed the development proposal referenced above. Initial comments from the following divisions of the Department of Community Development and other agencies, as applicable, are attached: Albemarle County Planning Services (Planner) Albemarle County Engineering Services (Engineer) Albemarle County Building Inspections Albemarle County Department of Fire Rescue Virginia Department of Transportation Albemarle County Service Authority Virginia Department of Health (VDH) Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Albemarle County Parks and Recreation Albemarle County Information Services (13911) Comments reflect information available at the time the development proposal was reviewed, and should not be considered final. However, the Site Review Committee has attempted to identify all issues that will be required to be resolved prior to approval of the preliminary plat. The applicant shall request the project be deferred to allow required revisions if required. Please contact me at your earliest convenience if you have questions or require additional information. Sincerely, /� xvm� / Kevin McCollum Senior Planner Albemarle County Planning Services (Planner) —Kevin McCollum, kmccollum@albemarle.org —Required changes: Comments to be addressed prior to preliminary plat approval: There are two major comments to be addressed. Stream Buffers and Tree Preservation Areas need to be removed from private lots. If the current density cannot be achieved after removing these elements from the lots, the plat must be revised to meet all applicable regulations. See comments below for more information. 1. [18-13.3, 13.4 and 2.4.2] A Zoning Text Amendment recently updated the Bonus Factors section of the Zoning Ordinance. The previous bonus factor that granted a 10% bonus for providing an internal road system is no longer an option under the Zoning Ordinance. Please review the Bonus Factors in Section 4.2 and clarify on the plat which bonus factors are being utilized for the 10% density increase. a. If the applicant cannot demonstrate that one or more bonus factors can be utilized to allow this development to be a bonus level cluster development, then the subdivision will have to meet the Area & Bulk regulations for RI Standard Level Conventional Development or Standard Level Cluster Development. Minimum lots sizes in each of these scenarios is 45,000 sq.ft. and 30,000 sq.ft., respectively. Comment stands. i. [Advisory Comments] As indicated by Engineering Division comment # 14f, Engineering staff do not recommend that any private lots be located within WPO stream buffers. Currently, WPO buffers encroach into lots 16-20 and 50-54. If no bonus factors are available for use, then the applicant will need to revise lot boundaries by default in order to meet lot size requirements of the RI district. Planning staff strongly recommends that WPO buffers be relocated into open space lots. [17-601] Stream Buffers shall be incorporated into the design of the development by keeping stream buffers in open space or natural areas and out of residential lots or areas of active use, to the fullest extent possible. 2. [18-13.4 and 2.4.31 The cover sheet suggests use of the Environmental Standards Bonus Factor. This bonus factor provides a density increase of 10% if existing wooded areas equal to 20% or greater of the site are maintained. a. In order to qualify for this bonus, a conservation plan as specified in section 32.7.9 must be submitted. The conversation checklist is mentioned in section 32.7.9.4(b)(2). b. It is highly encouraged that the tree preservation area is removed from all proposed private lots. It appears Lots 11-21 and 58-60 all have significant portions of tree preservation area on their lots. Several of these lots will lose out of all potential usability of their land if a majority of their property is in a tree preservation area. c. Revise the tree preservation area to include additional acreage that is not on individual lots. It appears there may be additional space that is outside of private lots and any potential easements to include in this tree preservation area. 3. [14-302 (B)(1)] Please add a date of last revision. Comments to be addressed prior to final plat approval: 1. [18-30.3.11] A special use permit to cross the floodplain is required prior to Final Plat approval of Phase II. 2. [32.7.2] Prior to Final Plat approval of Phase II a secondary access road will need to be designed to the satisfaction of all applicable reviewers including but not limited to Fire -Rescue, Planning, and VDOT and/or the lots will be sprinkled. 3. [General Comment] Road plan approval will be required prior to final plat approval. Street tree requirements will be reviewed along with the road plans. 4. [General Comment] Please see Parks comments below regarding the proposed open space and trails. 5. [General Comment] Final plat must demonstrate compliance with all applicable Subdivision Ordinance requirements prior to approval. This includes all applicable Sections of 14-303, 14-302 through 14-312, 14-314, 14-316, 14-317, 14-318, and 14-400through 14-441. 6. [14-302 (A)(14)] Add a note to the plat stating who will own and maintain all private open space areas. 7. [14-303 (A)] On the final plat, please add a statement of consent to division as follows: "The platting or dedication of the following described land [insert a correct description of the land subdivided] is with the free consent and in accordance with the desire of the undersigned owners, proprietors and trustees, if any." 8. [14-303 (L)] Identify the location and dimensions of each public utility, drainage and sight distance easement outside of a street right-of-way; for each existing easement, include a note stating the deed book and page number. 9. [14-303 (M)] The name of each proposed street, which names shall be subject to approval by the agent. See E911 comments for more information. 10. [14-303 (0)] On the first sheet, add signature panels for each owner and for the agent or his designee. The signature panel for the owner shall be located immediately below the statement required by Section 14-303 (A) 11. [14-303 (P)] Add notary panels for the notary to acknowledge the signature of the owner. 12. 114-303 (Q)] Add a note stating that the properties will be served by the public water and sewer system. 13. [14-317] Prior to final plat approval, an instrument evidencing maintenance of all require improvements (open space lots, private easements, etc.) must be submitted and reviewed to ensure compliance all applicable sub- sections of Section 14-317. Please contact Kevin McCollum at the Department of Community Development at kmccollum@albemarle.org or 296- 5832 ext. 3141 for further information. Comments From Other Reviewers: Albemarle County Engineering Services (Engineer) — John Anderson, janderson2galbemarle.org — Requested changes, see attached. Albemarle County Building Inspections — Betty Slough, bslou hg &albemarle.org—No objection (3/7/2022). Albemarle County Department of Fire Rescue — Howard Lagomarsino, hlaQomarsino@albemarle.org—No objection. Virginia Department of Transportation —Doug McAvoy Jr., dou as.mcavoy@vdot.vir ig nia.gov — Requested changes, see attached (2/28/2022). Albemarle County Service Authority — Richard Nelson, melson@serviceauthority.org — Requested changes (3/3/2022). I recommend SUB202100116 Granger Property Preliminary Plat for approval with the following conditions: 1. Utility plan approval will be required prior to final plat approval. 2. RWSA will need to review and approve proposed water and sewer main connections during site plan review. Virginia Department of Health— Alan Mazurowski, alan.mazurowskikvdh.vir iginia.gov —No objection (7/22/2021). Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority —Victoria Fort and Dyon Vega, vfort@rivanna.org and dvega@rinavvan.org — Requested changes (3/3/2022). I believe our previous comments were not addressed. RWSA was looking for Granger property to seek other connections or reduce the amount of connections (water and sewer) made directly to our sewer main. I can send the comments again no problem I just noticed they still proposed 3 connections to our sewer main. We also would like all of RWSAs water and sewer lines to be clearly labeled with size and ownership (waterline is not shown). RWSA is also concerned about erosion over our sewer line where the stormwater outfall is located. Let me know if you have any questions. (Previous comments are below) 1. Sheet No. 8 a. The sewer connection is currently tied into RWSA at 3 different points. Please revise and make all connections to ACSA. b. The Water connection is not specified, please also connect to ACSA. Albemarle County Parks and Recreation (Parks) —Tim Padalino, ipadalino&albemarle.org—Requested changes, see attached. Albemarle County Information Services (E911) — Elise Kiewra, ekiewra@albemarle.org — Requested changes, see attached (3/11/2022). �q off nig 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, VA 22902-4579 County of Albemarle Telephone: 434-296-5832 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT WWW.ALBEMARLE.ORG ��BGIN�Q' Preliminary Plat review Project title: Granger Property Preliminary Plat Project file number: SUB202100116 Plan preparer: Scott Collins, PE, Collins Engineering [ scott(a),collins-engineering.com ] 200 Garret Street, Suite K, Charlottesville, VA 22902 Owner or rep.: Stribling Holdings, LLC P.O. Box 1467, Charlottesville, VA 22902 Applicant: Alan Taylor [ al�riverbenddev.com ] Riverbend Development 455 Second Street SE, Suite 201 / Charlottesville, VA 22902 Plan received date: 30 Jun 2021 (Rev. 1) 18 Feb 2022 (Rev. 2) 28 Jun 2022 Date of comments: 5 Aug 2021 (Rev. 1) 25 Mar 2022 (Rev. 2) 28 Jul 2022 Plan Coordinator: Kevin McCollum Reviewer: John Anderson, PE, CFM Engineering has reviewed the preliminary plat and offers these review comments. 1. General a. Provide drainage system profile, Engineering accepts that complete details will be shown with ROAD plan, but needs preliminary storm system (drainage) profile information before design proceeds too far. (Rev. 1) Not addressed /withdrawn. Will be reviewed with Road Plan. b. Please submit WPO plan for Granger property subdivision. WPO plan approval and FDP approval are required prior to Final Plat approval. (Rev. 1, D Persists. c. Please submit a ROAD plan application for Granger property. ROAD Plan must be approved, and roads either built or bonded prior to Final Plat approval. (Rev. 1, a) Persists. d. Bridges and Emergency access that serve the proposed road network, or that serve as second point of (emergency) access must also be built or bonded prior to Final Plat approval. (Rev. 1, D Persists. e. SWM detention (stormwater quantity) design is shown (conceptual, UG detention). Please provide narrative and schematic conceptual stormwater quality (SWM) design for Granger property subdivision. (Rev. 1) Not addressed /withdrawn. Will be reviewed with WPO Plan. f. 14-304 appears to require that since the proposed subdivision will require disturbing steep slopes, `the subdivider shall submit ... a written request or application under the applicable sections of the zoning ordinance.' Engineering reminds that subdivider /developer has an apparent obligation to submit written request to disturb both managed and preserved steep slopes. Engineering defers to Planning Division. (Rev. 1) Persists. Engineering defers to Planning. (Rev. 2) May persist. Engineering defers to Planning Division. g. Note: It is difficult given extent of interrelated comments to specifically separate and identify which might be required for preliminary plat approval, which may be deferred until final plat submittal, but Engineering understands that Planning Division may require preliminary plat resubmittal (i.e., intends to issue an action letter as opposed to an SRC comment letter). To the extent Planning guides Applicant resubmittal of a preliminary (subdivision) plat for the Granger property, please address as many Engineering review comments with preliminary Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 9 plat resubmittal as is practically possible. (Rev. 1, D Not addressed. Majority of initial preliminary Engineering review comments not addressed. Later plan reviews will consider comments not addressed, or that persist. Engineering recommends preliminary plat disapproval given extent of unaddressed comments, especially lots located in stream buffer. On a related note: No trees on preserved slopes may be removed with proposed development. A number of lots include wooded preserved slopes. WPO plan will identify ordinance limits on development relative to wooded preserved steep slopes, and will recommend Note for final subdivision plat to notify prospective property owners that limited use exists on lots proposed to include preserved steep slopes, and especially lots with wooded preserved steep slopes. h. Given extent of comments, additional preliminary plat comments are possible with preliminary plat resubmittal. (Rev. 1, D Persists. 2. Sheet 2 a. `Limits of WPO buffer and 100 year floodplain' (single label) identifies separate line types. Please revise label to read 100 year floodplain and provide separate label for WPO buffer, and provide leader lines to WPO buffer and 100 year floodplain, independently, consistent with GIS, to avoid confusion. Different limits apply to development within WPO buffer and floodplain. (Rev. 1,, Not addressed. b. Submit a floodplain development permit (FDP) application for development within the floodplain. (Rev. 1,, Not addressed. c. At existing Southern railroad underpass, there appears to be heavy line -type that may indicate proposed grading. Please confirm whether grading or structural work to underpass within Southern Railroad RW is proposed with preliminary plat, and if so, please famish evidence of agreement and approval to grade or construct improvements within Southern RR RW. Engineering will consider proposed grade shown on WPO plan at this location with care. (Rev. 1) Not addressed. (Rev. 2) Withdrawn. No indication of grading within railroad RW with current preliminary plat. d. Sheet 2 shows an 8' x 8' concrete arched culvert beneath Southern Railroad. Sheet 11 does not show this portion of the development. Please resubmit with all portions of developed property displayed in adequate detail. Note: 8' x 8' culvert is shown on Sheet 4 but should display on smaller -scale Grading and Layout sheets, if only as an inset detail. (Rev. 1, D Not addressed. e. Please add label to existing 2 Story building (to be removed) since layout sheet shows building is removed with cul-de-sac development /building lots on Serra Drive. (Rev. 1, Not addressed. f Show /label extents of VEPCO facility, TMP 76B-1-7, specifically, please show existing: (Rev. 1) Not addressed. Withdrawn. i. Entrance to VDPCO facility ii. Facility fencing Ref satellite imagery, below, 6/2/20 [ source: Pictometry - CONNECTExolorerT - Engineering Review Comments Page 3 of 9 3. Sheet 3 a. Show and label OHP to Wingfield residence, TNT 76-3-34 (Sunset Ave. Ext.). Ref. satellite 4. Sheet 4 a. Existing 14'-20' paved asphalt road must be capable of supporting 85,000 lb. emergency fire - rescue apparatus. Provide narrative, evaluation, and propose improvements to ensure ex. paved asphalt road meets fire -rescue width, geometry, and weight -bearing requirements. (Rev. 1) Not addressed. (Rev. 2) May persist. Please advise of location of this information, if overlooked. b. Multiple lots are proposed within existing (presumed high voltage) 120' VEPCO easement: i. Label VEPCO easement. (Rev. 1) Addressed. ii. Engineering defers to Planning Division and VEPCO, but recommends: (Rev. 1, Status of design response unknown. Engineering reiterates recommendations and defers to Planning Division. 1. Applicant coordinate design with VEPCO. 2. Furnish written correspondence between Applicant and VEPCO, that VEPCO approves preliminary plat for Granger Property, to include specific acceptance of a. Portions of Lots (22, 23, 24, 30, 31, 32, 33, 48, 49, 50, 51) within VEPCO easement. b. Grading flatter slopes to a steeper proposed final grade, which may affect VEPCO ability to access or utilize their existing easement. c. Explicit acceptance on Applicant's part that VEPCO easement access likely entitles VEPCO to occupy full easement width, with equipment and /or materials needed to maintain high -voltage lines, with little or no obligation to repair what will become lawn areas. d. Explicit acceptance on Applicant's part of future risk to owners of SF residences on Lots 2, 23, 31, preliminary plat proposes building sites immediately adjacent to VEPCO easement. In case of Lot 22, Engineering Review Comments Page 4 of 9 building site effectively touches VEPCO easement. Ref. typical Lot detail. OTn LOT 22 \ i -�..f LOT z c. Sunset Avenue Extended i. Please label existing roadway width. (Rev. 1, D Not addressed. ii. Ensure existing roadway width at subdivision entrance can accommodate left -turning inbound single -unit (SU) truck design vehicle, as defined by AASHTO, without SU vehicle crossing CL (whether CL is marked, or not) of primary subdivision access (Crespi Bluff Drive), and without crossing CL of Sunset Avenue Ext. except at point of intersection. Note: Graphic of 20-ft wheelbase SU truck design vehicle' is less than wheelbase length of typical moving vehicles that will utilize primary subdivision access, not just with initial owner move -in activities, but perpetually. (Rev. 1) Not addressed. (Rev. 2) Not addressed, unless overlooked. iii. Provide Auto -turn figure at intersection of Crespi Bluff Drive and Sunset Ave. Ext. (Rev. 1) Not addressed. (Rev. 2) Not addressed, unless overlooked. ' Appendix B(1) subdivision street design guide, p. 8. [image, below] https://www.virginiadot.org/business/resources/LocDes/RDM/AooendB Lodf FIGURE B(1)-1 MINIMUM TURNING PATH FOR SINGLE UNIT TRUCK SU-30 Rev 10/20 Engineering Review Comments Page 5 of 9 d. Provide deed book -page ref. for Stribling Avenue. (Rev. 1, 2) Not addressed. 5. Sheets 4-6, Future connector road, multiple issues: (Rev. 1, 2) Items persist. a. Corridor violates ordinance and VDOT standards or requirements, and cannot be constructed in this location, given: i. Preserved slopes ii. Stream buffer iii. Sideslope (required deep cut/fill across slopes, or within stream buffer) b. Illogical or problematic geometry. Proposed future connector road: (Rev. 1, 2) Not addressed. Engineering defers to Planning. i. At south end forms an acute angle intersection with Sunset Avenue Extended. Revise to provide right-angle or near right-angle intersection with Sunset Ave. Ext. ii. At north end terminates abruptly at development boundary within or immediately adjacent to these overlay or zoning features: 100 year floodplain, stream buffer, preserved steep slopes, it is exceedingly unlikely that a future connector road will ever need to be, or will actually be, built along this corridor. iii. Engineering defers to Planning Div. on purpose or requirements that may stipulate a future (road) connector corridor in this location but lists obstacles to construction of a future road in this location, given stream, slope and floodplain impacts. 6. Sheet 7 a. Show full extent of proposed emergency access, from proposed bridge replacement for emergency access to the site, to Stribling Ave. Note: Layout and Grading sheets should show full extent of development. Albemarle can make no assumptions concerning areas not shown. (Rev. 1, 2) Not addressed. b. Show and label footprint of proposed UG detention (SWM facility) on Lot 55. (Rev. 1, 2) Not addressed. c. Show and label proposed SWM facility easement on Lot 55. Ref. sheet 11 for schematic. (Rev. 1, 2) Not addressed. 7. Sheets 8. 10 a. Culvert alignment beneath Sera Drive is problematic, and cannot be approved by Albemarle, it may be disallowed by VDOT, as well. Alignment shows Moore's Creek streamline striking at or behind upstream headwall. Moore's Creek must enter drainage structure at this or revised structure location with very slight (preferably no) angle to avoid long-term erosion, embankment failure, and maintenance concerns. (Rev. 1, 2) Not addressed. 8. Sheet 8 a. Delete reference to proposed 100' WPO buffer, buffer exists as an overlay, is not proposed with development. (Rev. 1, 2) Not addressed. b. Label proposed secondary subdivision emergency access. (Rev. 1, 2) Not addressed. c. Proposed emergency access intersects Stribling Avenue at an acute angle that appears to require fire rescue apparatus to pass beneath railway, via tunnel. Provide Auto -turn and coordinate with ACF&R to ensure responding apparatus (likely City of Charlottesville Fontaine Fire Station 10) can use secondary access, either via tunnel or can navigate acute angle at intersection of subdivision secondary emergency access and Stribling Avenue. (Rev. 1, 2) Not addressed. d. Provide sealed design for bridge capable of supporting 85,000 lb. fire apparatus at Morey Creek (see emergency access roadway design weight -bearing capacity label, sheet 7). (Rev. 1) Not addressed. Will be evaluated with Road Plan. (Rev. 2) Persists. e. 4-line underground SWM detention system shows easement encroaches within proposed 61' RW, future connector road. Remove SWM facility (and easement) from future connector road RW. (Rev. 1, 2) Not addressed. f. Please reference easement width image, ACDSM, p. 15, and revise proposed 4-line SWM facility easement width, per proposed SWM facility design. Proposed easement width will likely not accommodate SWM facility. From ACDSM, p. 15 (Rev. 1, 2) May persist. Will be evaluated with WPO plan. Engineering Review Comments Page 6 of 9 EASEMENT WIDTH . DI METER. ?' . 2 (H-S9. 10' 1-'0' VLV. � g. Revise sanitary sewer alignment, if possible, from shared lot line, Lots 30-31, to shared lot line, Lots 31-32, to minimize impact to preserved steep slopes. Recommend examine storm and sanitary sewer lines within same (or wider) easement, with requisite vertical /horizontal separation. (Rev. 1, D Not addressed. h. Show and label SWM facility access to proposed 4-line UG detention system (see pg. 12, ACDSM for specific requirements). (Rev. 1, D Not addressed. i. Retaining walls (and nearly all portions of development) will be visible from I-64 Entrance Corridor. Engineering defers to Planning-ARB, but recommends: (Rev. 1) Engineering defers to Planning /comment withdrawn. i. Early coordination of retaining wall design (ht., material, color) with ARB. ii. Submit sealed retaining wall design to Planning Division, ARB, for review of retaining wall material, color, etc. j. While development has no apparent obligation to construct barriers between lots and adjacent railroad or interstate to screen lots or attenuate train or interstate ambient noise, Engineering recommends developer consider sound attenuation and visual screening shield development from objectionable levels of ambient rail or interstate sound, likely to increase with time. (Rev. 1) Withdrawn. 9. Sheet 9 a. Ensure primary access to subdivision (Crespi Bluff Drive) conveys the 25-year storm event, without overtopping roadway surface. (Rev. 1,1) May persist. Culvert design /calculations will be reviewed with the Road Plan. b. Label existing VDOT culvert beneath I-64, label culvert type, and dimensions. (Rev. 1, Not addressed. Will be evaluated with Road Plan. c. Provide drainage structure design for primary access, Crespi Bluff Drive, consistent with normal design practice, including downstream receiving drainage structure capacity equal or greater than upstream drainage structures (i.e., culvert beneath I-64). I-64 is, in effect, a dam, and it would be unusual to propose primary subdivision access drainage structure smaller than the structure beneath I-64. (Rev. 1, D Not addressed. Will be evaluated with Road Plan. d. Perform hydraulic modeling for the existing drainage structure beneath 1-64 during the 25- year event to ensure primary access to subdivision has capacity to contend with volume, velocity, tailwater elevation, etc. discharging from existing structure beneath I-64. Existing condition (sheet 3) indicates no other drainage structures between 1-64 and this stream's Engineering Review Comments Page 7 of 9 confluence with Moore's Creek. Only a thorough drainage analysis (especially a design that may propose a primary access culvert smaller than the upstream culvert beneath I-64) is likely to be approved by Albemarle, or VDOT. Provide drainage structure hydraulic calculations, and watershed routings. (Rev. 1,, Not addressed. Will be evaluated with Road Plan. e. Coordinate stream loss requirements with primary subdivision access, Crespi Bluff Drive, with USACE (Vinny Pero), provide written evidence of coordination with USAGE. (Rev. 1, D Not addressed. f. Label managed steep slopes, since grading is proposed across managed steep slopes. (Rev. 1, D Not addressed. g. Label preserved steep slopes, to aid review, to ensure no grading or other impermissible activity occurs on preserved steep slopes. (Rev. 1,, Not addressed. 10. Sheet 10 a. Ref. Attached Drainage Plan checklist for plan reviewers, pg. 1, Drainage, last item, and provide yard inlet capture /conveyance systems for drainage across 3 or more lots: Lots 28, 29, 30. Lots 37, 36, 35. Lots 41, 40, 39, 38. Lots � 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. Lots 42,,4T44,45. (Rev. 1) Partially addressed. Please address comment for remaining lots with WPO plan. (Rev. 2) Persists. 11. Sheets 9. 10 a. Show discharge from proposed UG detention system shown at right margin of these sheets. (Rev. 1, 2) Not addressed. 12. Sheets 10, 11 a. Match -line is discontinuous in moving from sheet 10 to I I, for example: future connector road displayed on sheet 10 does not display on sheet 11 (comment applies to sheets 6 and 7, as well). Revise all sheets referenced to display complete layout and grading details. (Rev. 1, D Partially addressed. As follow-up: Please display entire extent of future connector road /emergency access via inset to existing grading /utility plan sheet, or via separate plan sheet. It must be shown in its entirety, to be approved. 13. Sheets 9, 10, 11 a. Label: (Rev. 1, D Not addressed. i. Moore's Creek ii. WPO stream buffer (Rev. 2) Partially addressed. Buffer labeled on sheet 9, only. iii. 100 year floodplain iv. Limits of the sunny day dam break inundation zone b. Show driveways serving each lot, show with VDOT standard private entrance (true scale) geometry to aid review check of potential conflicts. ROAD Plan will show this detail, but preliminary plat proposes a level of density that supports request for this level of detail with the preliminary plat. (Rev. 1, D Not addressed. Comment may repeat with Road plan review. c. Provide frequent existing terrain contour labels such that proposed contours, wall, and proposed grade may be more easily evaluated against existing grade. (Rev. 1,1) Not addressed. Comment may repeat with WPO plan review if frequent existing terrain contour labels are not provided. 14. Sheet II a. Provide landscape plan for stepped retaining wall system/s (screening shrubs planted on 10' centers). (Rev. 1, D Persists. Comment will be evaluated with WPO plan. b. Provide landscape plan that specifies groundcover /permanent stabilization hardier than grass for any slopes steeper than 3, 1. (Rev. 1,, Persists. Comment will be evaluated with WPO plan. c. Provide retaining wall maintenance easements for any walls that cross individual lot /parcel boundaries, with final subdivision plat. (Rev. 1, D Persists. d. Provide evidence of recorded retaining wall maintenance agreement/s. (Rev. 1, D Persists. e. Provide drainage calculations and ditch linings consistent with calculations to prevent erosion over slopes created by existing and proposed slopes, for example, east -west ditch due south of Engineering Review Comments Page 8 of 9 Lot 73 southeast parcel boundary. (Rev. 1, D Persists. Calculations will be reviewed with WPO plan. f. Remove lots from stream buffer (applies to multiple sheets). Ref. 17-601.C.: Management of stream buffer /Incorporation into development design: `Each stream buffer shall be incorporated into the design of the development by keeping stream buffers in open or natural spaces, and out of residential lots or areas of active use, to the fullest extent possible.' [Note: review comment cleared by county engineer.] (Rev. 1, P Not addressed. Engineering recommends preliminary plat disapproval unless /until lots are removed from stream buffer. g. Note: SWM facility proposed for Lots 55 and 56 poses long-term maintenance obligation on HOA, not the individual owners of Lots 55 and 56. SWM facility deed of dedication will be conditioned accordingly. (Rev. 1,, Persists. h. Ensure design conforms with design standards for steep slopes at 18-30.7.5.A.B./C., for example: at Serra Drive Moore's Creek crossing where there is apparent need for reverse slope benching with surface water diversion. (Rev. 1,, Not addressed. i. Retaining wall on Lot 67 appears to lie within 5' of Southern RR property. It is unclear whether proposed (grading or proposed) retaining walls may be constructed this close (5'-10') to railway property. Recommend distribute development plan to Southern Railroad, and coordinate design with Southern Railroad. Provide follow-up to Albemarle, CDD. Railroad approval of preliminary plat development design is presumed required prior to final plat approval. (Rev. 1, D Persists. j. Provide retaining wall maintenance access from Serra Drive to multiple stepped retaining walls that back lots 67-73. (Rev. 1, D Persists /Not addressed. k. Proposed build sites, Lots 67 and 68, are impractical. In each case, there is 2'-3' offset to sunny day dam break inundation line, side setback lines, or front setback lines. Lot 68 shows proposed grade line touching proposed build site. Each structure (SF residence), as well as residences shown on Lots 69-73 are proposed to be built on fill that approaches 20', in places. Revise preliminary plat to include specific and general geotechnical testing and reporting requirements for SF residences proposed on substantial fill, include: clean /suitable earth fill specifications, testing (Min. compaction, etc.), reporting, qualified professional geotechnical monitoring and testing during placement of fill, specifically for these lots. (Rev. 1, D Persists /Not addressed. I. Proposed build sites, Lots 67-68, are inconsistent with graphic representation of these sites on sheet 4. Revise Sheet 4, consistent with proposed Grading, sheet 11. (Rev. 1) Addressed. in. Provide sealed geotechnical retaining wall design for review /evaluation with WPO or ROAD plan. Sealed Retaining Wall plans for wall ht. > 4-ft are required by Building Inspections and Engineering. Sealed Retaining Wall plans are required prior to WPO or ROAD plan approval. Ref. pg. 22, ACDSM. (Rev. 1, D Persists. To date, Engineering has not received retaining wall plans for this project. n. With WPO and FDP, ensure replacement bridge over Morey Creek conforms with requirements at Ch. 18-30.3, especially concerning fill or impact to horizontal limits of floodplain, or base flood elevation (BFE). (Rev. 1,, Persists. To date, Engineering has not received (internal notification of) WPO or EDP Applications for this project. Please feel free to call if any questions: 434.296-5832 -x3069 Thank you J. Anderson Engineering Review Comments Page 9 of 9 SUB2021-00116 Granger Property_prelim plat 072822_rev2.doc COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Stephen C. Brich, P.E. 1401 East Broad Street Commissioner Richmond, Virginia 23219 February 28, 2022 County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Attn: Kevin McCollum Re: Granger Property — Preliminary Plat SUB-2021-00116 Review #2 Dear Mr. McCollum: (804) 7862701 Fax: (804) 7862940 The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use Section, has reviewed the above referenced plan as prepared by Collins Engineering, dated 7 June 2021, and offers the following comments: 1. Comments 2 through 20 are repeats from the previous comment letter, dated 12 July 2021. Please ensure these comments are addressed, with a Comment Response Letter, since the Department will not approve this plat until all comments are addressed. 2. Approved road plans meeting SSAR, and in compliance with the VDOT Road Design Manual are required prior to plat approval. 3. The portion of Sunset Ave Ext (Rte 781) that is prescriptive Right -of -Way should be dedicated as Public Right -of -Way. 4. Regarding the 61' of Dedicated Public Right -of -Way running from Sunset Ave Ext (Rte 781) north to the property line, does this match the alignment and width required for the County's development plans? 5. It appears the only practical location for an additional connection is to the future road. Please provide a stub -out to connect to the proposed future road at a later date. 6. Provide ITE Trip Generation for this development. 7. Please add "No Parking" signs near intersections to prevent parking within the sight triangles. 8. Provide a plan sheet showing the emergency access road at 1 "=40' scale, and show a match -line on sheet 7. 9. Provide vertical profiles for all roads. 10. Add this plan note: "Landscaping plants and trees adjacent to the sight distance triangle will need to be maintained in area between 2 and 7 feet above ground as a clear zone to preserve sight lines and accommodate pedestrians." 11. Provide intersection sight distance profiles in the sight alignment. VirginiaDOT.org WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING February 28, 2022 Attn: Kevin McCollum 12. Show the radius of the cul-de-sac on Serra Dr. and ensure it complies with Section 4-G of Appendix B(1) of the Road Design Manual. 13. Show curb -and -gutter standard to be used on in the Typical Neighborhood Street Section. 14. Please remove trees within 30' of intersections as shown in Section 5D of Appendix B(1) of the Road Design Manual. 15. Provide a landscaping plan. 16. Is the US Postal Service requiring the use of cluster mailboxes? If so, where will they be located? 17. Provide turn lane warrants for Route 781. 18. Culverts with opening size greater than 36 square feet must be approved by the Culpeper District Structure & Bridge and Hydraulic Sections; this also includes the proposed pedestrian tunnel. Typically these approvals are required prior to plan approval, but may be delayed until acceptance because this was not mentioned in previous reviews. Note that we do not, however, recommend starting construction on these facilities prior to Structure & Bridge approval. Also note that these structures require a Geotechnical report; please see Chapter 3 of the VDOT Manual of Instructions for those requirements. 19. Due to the preliminary nature of this plan, the comments listed may not be exhaustive. 20. Note that the final plan must show conformance with the VDOT Road Design Manual Appendices B(1) and F, as well as any other applicable standards, regulations or other requirements. 21. The Standard Drawings contained in the VDOT Road & Bridge Standards are signed and sealed engineering drawings that are copyrighted materials of VDOT and the Commonwealth of Virginia. VDOT's policy is to offer the Standard Drawings in a secure electronic format and each Standard is available on this website. Plan assemblies using the Road & Bridge Standards shall reference each standard used. Inserting the Standard Drawings into VDOT, locality, or private development plan assemblies, or modifying the Standard Drawings in any way, is not permitted. Please provide a digital copy in PDF format of the revised plan along with a comment response letter. If further information is desired, please contact Doug McAvoy Jr. at (540) 718-6113. A VDOT Land Use Permit will be required prior to any work within the right-of-way. The owner/developer must contact the Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use Section at (434) 422-9399 for information pertaining to this process. Sincerely, Doug McAvoy Jr., P.E. Area Land Use Engineer Charlottesville Residency SUB202100116- Granger Property Preliminary Plat- Digital Parks & Recreation Review Comments 3/11/2022 Previous review comment #2 Not Addressed: ["... ACPR staff also recommends this note be revised to clarify whether the proposed public trail will be constructed by owner/applicant prior to dedicating the proposed open space area(s) to public use. ACPR staff further recommends that the public trail be constructed by the owner/applicant - or if such trail currently exists in part or full, that the trail be maintained and improved to meet Class B Trail standards as specified in the Albemarle County Design Standards Manual prior to conveyance to and acceptance by the County."] A. On the revised plat, "General Notes - Proposed Open Space" states that "A public trail is proposed within the greenway to be dedicated to public use." B. However, please explicitly clarify if the proposal is for the owner/applicant to construct this greenway trail. If so, please identify the greenway trail standard; ACPR staff recommends a Class B Trail as specified in the Albemarle County Design Standards Manual. And if so, please identify the timing of when the greenway trail would be constructed and dedicated — which should be prior to conveyance to and acceptance by the County. C. Please also revise the plat to identify the proposed locations of greenway trail and/or describe trail locations using notes. ACPR staff are concerned that the open space areas behind lots 50-54 may not leave adequate space for construction and maintenance of a greenway trail in that vicinity, and if the lot sizes and configuration remain unchanged, a public use access easement may ACPR staff recommend including the approximate greenway trail locations, and including a note that greenway trail centerlines will be flagged by owner/applicant and field verified by ACPR staff, with ACPR acceptance of trail locations prior to any trail construction activities. D. Please clarify if the intended public trail and greenway dedication is to include the stream buffer limits of phase I I west of Serra Drive along Moores Creek to the end of the property. ACPR recommendations to include this public trail and greenway dedication west of Serra Drive along Moores Creek to the end of property as identified as a future public greenway trail connection in the Southern & Western Urban Neighborhoods Master Plan. Please reference Attach. A: "Western Urban Neighborhood Parks and Greens System Plan" (Figure 7, Page 25). 2. Previous review comment #3 Not Addressed: "...it is not clear where the limits/boundaries of the proposed open space(s) are, relative to the stream buffer areas or relative to the proposed private lots. As a result, staff need more information to understand the locations and boundaries of the proposed open spaces that are proposed to be dedicated to public use." A. The "General Notes - Proposed Open Space" states that "Open Space contained within the 100' stream buffer shall be dedicated to public use as a greenway." However, the area shown as "I 00'WPO Buffer" and "Limits of FloodplainMPO Buffer" extends into numerous private lots. B. Therefore, for clarity during this review and future reference, please revise the plat to explicitly show the proposed open space greenway areas that would be dedicated to public use. This can be done as a separate sheet, by revising the graphics and updating the legend on the existing sheets, or (preferably) both. C. Please also explicitly identify the timing of the proposed dedication of open space to public greenway use; ACPR staff recommends adding the following language to the "Proposed Open Space" note: "...shall be dedicated to public use as a greenway within six (6) months upon demand by the County." 3. Please accommodate the re-route of the Rivanna Trail where necessary or beneficial: A. Please extend public access onto and use of the entire emergency access road below Lots 55 and 56. B. If the Moores Creek stream valley is filled and culverted to accommodate the Serra Drive vehicular crossing (as shown on Sheet 8), please include a "bench" (approximately 5' wide) into both the upstream and downstream sides of that constructed slope, in order to accommodate a re-routed Rivanna Trail across the Moores Creek stream valley. Attach. A: "Western Urban Neighborhood Parks and Greens System Plan" (Fig. 7, Page 25) Y 1 ? y9 CITY Of CHA PCIOTSVI LLE e \„ Figure 7: Western Urban Neighborhood Parks and Green Systems Plan `M,.1. f.1., tldevulw. M•e .�., moo, rwa, f M,4o, .w., ea... .�:: �'=M:.:.::::. mum-purpw Darla ^� LmiYerY b^e• O 0.Mgm�r n.w• O US APPLICATION# TMP: County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 �r PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS - E911 SUB202100116 07600-00-00-02400 DATE: 3/11/22 FROM: Elise Kiewra ekiewra()albemarle.org Geographic Data Services (GDS) www.albemarle.orq/ads (434) 296-5832 ext. 3030 The following road names are acceptable: SOLANO CT CRESPI BLUFF DR BALBOA CT PALOU CT The following road names are not acceptable: SERRA DR Homonym's are not allowed, and Serra sounds exactly like Sara when said out loud. There is also an existing Sarah Dr already. Per Part I, Section 4-j of the County's Road Naming and Property Numbering Manual (page 10 of PDF). "No proposed name shall be a homophone or homograph of an official road name or may be easily confused with an official road name (e.g., "Forrestview" and "Forestvue" are homophones and "bow" in "Bow and Curtsie Ln" and "Bow Tie" We recommend providing three (3) candidate names for each road to our office for review, in case your first choices are not acceptable. A PDF version of the Ordinance and Manual can be found here: htti)s://2isweb.albemarle.or2/2isdata/Road Namine and Property Numberine Ordinance and Manu al.pdf Please consult the County's Road Name Index to check your road names prior to submittal. The Index can be found here: https://Ifweb.albemarle.org/Forms/RoadNamelndex Parcel and mapping information can be found here: https://P,isweb.albemarle.or,g/gpv_51 /V iewer.aspxx If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office.