Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP200900097 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2009-12-23� OF AL ,. vIRGI1`IZP COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 Project: The Reserve (Belvedere Block 2) [SDP- 2009 - 00097] Plan preparer: Mr. Scott Collins, PE; Collins Engineering Owner: Mr. Robert Hauser and Stan Manoogian; Belvedere Station Land Trust Developer: Mr. Todd Dofflemeyer; Cathcart Properties Plan received date: 23 November 2009 Date of comments: 23 December 2009 Reviewer: Phil Custer The site and road plans for The Reserve (Belvedere Block 2), received on 23 November 2009, have been reviewed. Comments for these plans are provided in this letter. Comments from the review of the ESC and SWM Plans will be provided in a separate letter. Engineering review recommends that this project be converted from a final before preliminary to simply a preliminary site plan. A. Final Site Plan [SDP- 2009 - 00097] 1. The variation must be approved by the Director of Planning for all of the listed deviations from the approved application plan. These deviations include the relocation of the stormwater management basin; the relocation of the clubhouse; the removal of Road C; the addition of retaining walls; and, converting all streets from public to private. In addition to those details listed above, engineering review has noticed the following deviations from the approved plan that must be included in the variation: -The site plan does not show the Class B trail to Block 1. The trail must be provided because it is included in the Block 2 section of the Code of Development. Because a 5ft- wide boardwalk is required for the crossing, the path must meet the Class B -High Maintenance standards within the Design Manual. (pg. 9 COD) -The setback for buildings within this block is listed as between 15 and 22 ft. (pg. 33 COD) -The tree protection fencing provided on the current plan has been placed at the preservation line which is not congruent with the Code of Development. The Code of Development requires the tree protection fencing to be placed "no closer than the dripline of any tree growing inside the preservation areas." If a tree survey, stamped and signed by a licensed surveyor, is not provided, place the tree protection fencing and limits of disturbance 20ft off the tree preservation line of the approved application plan. (pg. 28 COD) -The landscape plan does not show the 56 evergreen trees required in Areas A and B as delineated by Exhibit 16 of the approved rezoning plan. The plantings must be placed 20ft from the preservation area line unless a tree survey is provided for the area (please see previous comment). Engineering review will also note Area A is half the size it was in the approved rezoning plan. (pg. 9 and 10 COD) -One of the walls adjacent to the pond is 8ft tall for most of its length. -The pool is smaller than 2000sf. (pg. 10 COD) -The design speeds of Belvedere Circle are called out as 20mph in COD, but on plan it is 15mph. Engineering review believes the 20mph design speed is appropriate. (pg. 30 Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 4 COD) These conflicts with the approved rezoning plan must be included in the variation given by the Director of Planning or the site plan must be modified to eliminate these discrepancies. 2. A critical slope waiver is necessary for this project. A request for critical slope waiver, as outlined by Section 18- 4.2.5.a.1, must be provided to the agent. The action on this waiver must be taken by the Planning Commission because the slopes were not created by an approved site plan. 3. Roads A and B must be public roads unless a variation is granted. If a variation is granted, the process required in section 14 -234 of the Subdivision Ordinance should be carried out at that time so that a road plan review can be performed by engineering review. If a private street is authorized, the design standards of that road should be determined at that time per 14 -234.D and 14- 234.E. Engineering review recommends that if Belvedere Circle North, South, and East are approved as private roads, the roads must meet all current VDOT standards as outlined in the Subdivision Street Manual. The design speed for the vertical alignment of these roads should be 20mph. Alternatively, the applicant can seek a variation to designate Belvedere Circle North, South, and East as travelways which would not require vertical profiles or easements. 4. Please correct the note on the cover sheet regarding the benchmark for this development. 5. The note on the plan regarding the groundcover on all slopes 2:1 is not sufficient. Please callout an adequate groundcover in this note. Examples of adequate groundcovers can be found in Table 3.37C of the VESCH. Please also mark all areas requiring low maintenance, non -grass groundcover with hatching on sheet LL -1 with an appropriate callout to the species proposed. 6. A guardrail is needed along the parking area south of the southwest parking lot above the two walls north of the pond. [DM] 7. Additional ROW is needed at the main entrance to the property where the multi -use path meanders into the property. A plat for this ROW dedication should be submitted, approved, and recorded prior to site plan approval. Please show the adjustment of this property line in the site plan as well. 8. The sanitary sewer line on the western boundary of the property parallel to the Belvedere Blvd. appears to conflict with a gas line. Please provide at letter from Charlottesville Gas that certifies spacing requirements for this line have been met. 9. A public drainage easement will be needed over any storm sewer pipe on site that carries water from Belvedere Blvd. to the stormwater management facility. This easement must be dedicated to public use. Engineering review recommends private easements be kept in the plan for all other pipes that transfer water from another property (current or future subdivision to the north). All easements must be sized using the equation in the design manual. [DM] Because public drainage easements are called for within the project, the applicant must limit the length of the system carrying public water. From the existing VDOT manhole southwest of the clubhouse, construct a new pipe below the retaining wall (keeping the foundation of the retaining wall out of the easement) to structure 1B. (Adding this pipe will also assist with the Erosion and Sediment control plan by allowing a simpler connection to the outlet barrel of the existing sediment basin.) The applicant also has the option of waiving the public maintenance of the pipes carrying runoff from the VDOT ROW, except for the pipes to structure 44. If this option is chosen by the applicant, a new drainage pipe will be needed from the inlets located at the sag of Belvedere Blvd to structure 44. [18- 32.7.4] 10. No structure or tree will be allowed within a public easement to be maintained by the county. [DM] 11. Belvedere Circle North must be adjusted at its intersection with Belvedere Road. The crown of Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review Comments Page 3 of 4 Belvedere Road must be maintained. The grade of the Belvedere Circle North must be 4% or less for at least 40ft from the curb face of Belvedere Blvd. [DM] 12. VDOT approval is required. At this time, VDOT approval has not yet been given. 13. The maximum 5% grade standard is exceeded in several instances in the parking area at the garage entrances when considering the finished floor elevations marked on the plan. [18- 4.12.15.c] 14. Parking spaces in at least one location do not meet the design requirements as outlined in 18- 4.12.16.c.1. 15. If Belvedere Circle North, East, and South are given a variation to travelways, a waiver from the Zoning administrator will be needed for the parallel parking spaces on these roads. Engineering review has no objections to the granting of this waiver. 16. Sidewalk in at least one location does not meet the design requirements as outlined in 18- 4.12.16.e. 17. If no curb is provided for the three spaces at the mail kiosk, bumper blocks are required. [18- 4.12.16.e] 18. A stop sign is needed at the second exit to the mail kiosk lot. [18- 32.7.2] 19. A stop sign is needed on the northbound travelway between buildings 2 and 3. [18- 32.7.2] 20. Engineering review recommends moving the compactor 5ft to the east to allow for pedestrian access across the pad from sidewalk to sidewalk. This is not a requirement. 21. A small sidewalk extension and CG -12 is required west of building 15 for a crossing of Belvedere Circle East. 22. On sheet S -1, I have only counted 286 units, not 294 as the cover sheet indicates. 23. Please provide a temporary construction easement on 61 -159A for the work necessary to build the retaining wall. If the geo -grid required for this wall is 5ft or longer, a permanent easement will be needed on this property. [DM] 24. Please provide estimates of movements at intersections with the public street. An independent left and right turn lane from Belvedere Circle South may be justified. [DM] 25. I recommend converting structure 70 from a DI -213 to DI -3B because of the proximity of the grate to a handicap space. This is not a requirement. 26. The legend for the pavement section detail on S -4 appears to need editing. 27. The pavement design for the parking aisle does not seem to be strong enough. The required depth is 9.93 and only 9.3 is provided. Also, the graphic on Sheet S -4 shows an ADT of 511, but only 250 appears to be used in the computation. [18- 4.12.15.a] 28. The proposed grade in the drainage profile from 1F to the outlet does not appear to be accurate. Please correct. 29. For the main storm sewer line from the property to the north, use an initial time of concentration of 5 minutes and do not consider the inflated time of concentrations of other inlets that are affected by overland sheet flow of the small landscaped areas within their watersheds. [DM] 30. Please correct the total impervious area note on the cover sheet. 31. Please adjust the outlet pipe of the drainage system so that the velocity is less than 15fps. [DM] 32. Please provide calculations for both outlet protections onsite. [DM] B. Road Plan [SDP- 2009 - 00097] 1. A full, official review of the road plan was not performed because a private is sought and the determination has not yet been made by the Planning Department. If and when the private street is authorized by the agent, the design standards of the roadway should be set. The current design appears to meet all VDOT standards in regard to the crosssection and horizontal dimensions. However, the vertical alignment appears to use K- values of a standard less than the design speed of 20mph. Engineering review recommends to the agent that K values of 7 and 17 be used because of the design speed specified by the Code of Development. Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review Comments Page 4 of 4 2. The entrance of Belvedere Circle North should be adjusted so that the crown of Belvedere Blvd. is maintained and the grade of the first 40ft from the face of curb of Belvedere Blvd. is no steeper than 4 %. 3. An additional 2 -3ft of ROW is needed for Belvedere Circle North from the neighboring property. This ROW or easement must be provided prior to site plan approval. This area can be included in the current subdivision plat being reviewed by the Planning Division. 4. Additional ROW is needed at the main entrance to the property where the multi -use path meanders into the property. A plat for this ROW dedication should be submitted, approved, and recorded prior to site plan approval. Please show the adjustment of this property line in the site plan as well. 5. In the crosssection of Belvedere Circle South, please label the parking aisles as 20.1ft. [DM] 6. Please provide a crossover near the VDOT ROW at the entrance of Belvedere Circle South to keep circulation within the property. [DM]