Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP200900097 Review Comments Road Plan and Comps. 2010-03-22� 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 (Rev. 1) 18 February 2010 Date of comments: 23 December 2009 (Rev. 1) 22 March 2010 Reviewer: Phil Custer The first revision to the site and road plans for The Reserve (Belvedere Block 2), received on 18 February 2010, 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. 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) (Rev.]) The path to Block I has been provided. With regard to the trail, please provide the following corrections to the plan before resubmitting. - Please show the handrail on the boardwalk detail. - Please show the grading necessary to meet the minimum requirements of a Class B- High Maintenance trail. - Please provide spot elevations in plan view at the two ends of the boardwalk. - Please specify the stone size of the trail material in the greenway note. - Please provide a direct path from the clubhouse down to the trail as shown in the rezoning plan. Stairways will be necessary. -The setback for buildings within this block is listed as between 15 and 22 ft. (pg. 33 COD) (Rev. 1) Setbacks have been modified in the recently approved variance. The latest front, side, and rear setbacks for this development are 5ft, 5ft, and ]Oft, respectively. However, small sections of a few buildings seem to overlap the 5ft setback lines. For instance, just east of the eastern entrance to building 9, the building appears to drift into the setback. I recommend moving the easement lines of all roads to Ift from the edge of the sidewalk to correct this problem with the setback. Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 6 -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 2011 off the tree preservation line of the approved application plan. (pg. 28 COD) (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. Zoning inspection will confirm in the field that tree protection fencing is placed at the correct locations. -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) (Rev. 1) Many of the trees in Areas A and B are shown as being planted within the dripline of the trees in the preservation area, which is prohibited by the COD: "The location of new plantings shall be outside the dripline of trees contained in the Preservation Areas." (COD pg 10) At least 28 trees within Areas A and B must be at least 6ft tall. (The 28+ trees of 8ft height have been satisfactorily provided in these areas.) On sheets LL -2 and LL -6, please provide the following note: "If any tree with a diameter of 12 inch or greater dies of any natural cause within the first 3 years following final site plan approval for Block 2, the Owner will replace the lost tree(s) with new 2.5" or greater caliper, as measured 24" above the ground, tree(s) of the same species." (COD pg 10) -One of the walls adjacent to the pond is 8ft tall for most of its length. (Rev. 1) The walls of the current plan are consistent with the walls of the plan which was submitted to Planning for the variation. -The pool is smaller than 2000sf. (pg. 10 COD) (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. -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 COD) (Rev. 1) Roads will be reviewed to the 20mph standard. 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. (Rev. 1) A variation approval letter and an updated Code of Development have been issued by the Planning Department. 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. (Rev. 1) Engineering review of the critical slope waiver has been provided in a separate memo. 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 -234.1) and 14- 234.E. Engineering review recommends that if Belvedere Circle North, South, and East are Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review Comments Page 3 of 6 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. (Rev. 1) Engineering will review Belvedere Circle to VDOT standards for a subdivision road with a design speed of 20mph. However, in order for the county to designate these travelways as private roads, the applicant must request private roads per 14 -234. Please provide this request to Summer Frederick or Bill Fritz. This step is not required at this time, but if a subdivision will be sought in the future, I recommend the authorization of the private streets now. 4. Please correct the note on the cover sheet regarding the benchmark for this development. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 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. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 6. A guardrail is needed along the parking area south of the southwest parking lot above the two walls north of the pond. [DM] (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 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. (Rev. 1) This additional ROW (or easement) is not needed until a certificate of occupancy is applied for. Please provide a note on the cover sheet that states a certificate of occupancy shall not be given until the ROW or easement is dedicated to the public for the maintenance of this multi -use path. 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. (Rev. 1) Since these utilities are both in place, this comment will be withdrawn. 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] Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review Comments Page 4 of 6 (Rev. 1) The public drainage pipe has been provided along the property line south of the clubhouse. Please address the following items regarding the drainage easements: -The easement between structures 86 and 84 should be wider than 20ft. My calculations show that the easement should be around 26ft on one side. -In the note at the lower left corner of Sheet S -3, please replace "VDOT" with "public ". - Please show the public drainage easement from structure 82 to the end of pipe la, including the endwall. -All pipes entering Ex2 require a drainage easement dedicated to the public. - Please provide a note on the cover sheet that states before a certificate of occupancy is given for the development, the public drainage easements must be recorded with the appropriate deeds of easement. Please contact the office of the County Attorney to obtain the standard public drainage easement documents. 10. No structure or tree will be allowed within a public easement to be maintained by the county. [DM] (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 11. Belvedere Circle North must be adjusted at its intersection with Belvedere Road. The crown of 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] (Rev. I) The grading at this entrance is acceptable. 12. VDOT approval is required. At this time, VDOT approval has not yet been given. (Rev. 1) VDOT approval is pending. 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] (Rev. 1) The grading in the following areas must be corrected prior to plan approval. - travelway east of structures 56 and 58 should be no steeper than 10% -the 448 contour line at the northern end of the mail kiosk lot should be moved farther south to flatten out the entrance. 14. Parking spaces in at least one location do not meet the design requirements as outlined in 18- 4.12.16.c.1. (Rev. 1) Please remove the bumper block in the parking space adjacent to the maintenance shed. Since a 2ft overhang is being used, the curb will actually act as the wheelstop. All other spaces appear to meet county sizing requirements. 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. (Rev. 1) The approved variation specified that Belvedere Circle as a private road. 16. Sidewalk in at least one location does not meet the design requirements as outlined in 18- 4.12.16.e. (Rev. 1) The sidewalk south of Building 8 should be widened to 6ft or bumper blocks should be provided. 17. If no curb is provided for the three spaces at the mail kiosk, bumper blocks are required. [18- 4.12.16.e] (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 18. A stop sign is needed at the second exit to the mail kiosk lot. [18- 32.7.2] (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 19. A stop sign is needed on the northbound travelway between buildings 2 and 3. [18- 32.7.2] (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 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. Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review Comments Page 5 of 6 (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 21. A small sidewalk extension and CG -12 is required west of building 15 for a crossing of Belvedere Circle East. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 22. On sheet S -1, I have only counted 286 units, not 294 as the cover sheet indicates. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 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] (Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. A portion of the retaining wall is nearly 16ft tall with only 7 -9ft from the face of the wall to the property line. Considering the layback angle of the wall, the length of geogrid, and the excavation needed to install the geogrid, I don't think the plan can be constructed as designed without disturbance to the adjacent property. Please also provide engineering review with a section detail of the retaining wall for the 16ft tall portion of the wall to determine whether a permanent easement is necessary. 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] (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 25. I recommend converting structure 70 from a DI -213 to DI -313 because of the proximity of the grate to a handicap space. This is not a requirement. (Rev. 1) The grate is now outside of the handicap space. 26. The legend for the pavement section detail on S -4 appears to need editing. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 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] (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 28. The proposed grade in the drainage profile from 1F to the outlet does not appear to be accurate. Please correct. (Rev. 1) A few of the structure tops don't appear to match up with the topo on Sheet S -3. 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] (Rev. 1) Drainage calculations are acceptable. 30. Please correct the total impervious area note on the cover sheet. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 31. Please adjust the outlet pipe of the drainage system so that the velocity is less than 15fps. [DM] (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 32. Please provide calculations for both outlet protections onsite. [DM] (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 33. (Rev. 1) Please include the SWM facility, access path and trail, and all necessary walls in Phase I of the plan. 34. (Rev. 1) All of Belvedere Circle (North, South, and East) must be constructed in Phase I of the plan. [18- 32.7.2.4] 35. (Rev. 1) Please include all of the necessary infrastructure systems and grading necessary to construct Phase I. The stormsewer system from inlet 18 to 62 must be constructed in phase I to reduce the runoff into the Belvedere Circle South structures. 36. (Rev. 1) Please clarify the grading at the southeast corner of building 9 where Belvedere Circle South intersects Belvedere Circle East. A contour line is not labeled and disappears in the Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review Comments Page 6 of 6 median. 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. (Rev. 1) Engineering will review Belvedere Circle to VDOT standards for a subdivision road with a design speed of 20mph. However, in order for the county to designate these travelways as private roads, the applicant must request private roads per 14 -234. Please provide this request to Summer Frederick or Bill Fritz. This step is not required at this time, but if a subdivision will be sought in the future, I recommend the authorization of the private streets now. 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%. (Rev. 1) The grading at this entrance is acceptable. 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. (Rev. 1) This access easement must be recorded prior to the approval of the site plan. 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. (Rev. 1) This additional ROW (or easement) is not needed until a certificate of occupancy is applied for. Please provide a note on the cover sheet that states a certificate of occupancy shall not be given until the ROW or easement is dedicated to the public for the maintenance of this multi -use path. 5. In the crosssection of Belvedere Circle South, please label the parking aisles as 20.1ft. [DM] (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 6. Please provide a crossover near the VDOT ROW at the entrance of Belvedere Circle South to keep circulation within the property. [DM] (Rev. 1) After further review of this comment, the engineering review group maintains that this crossover must be provided to reduce or eliminate the risk of the u -turn movement at this entrance. To reduce pavement, the crossover can be designed so that it is only used for the WB to EB movement. Similarly, the existing crossover can be designed so that it is only used for the EB to WB movement since it is likely that the WB to EB movement would be rare at this location. These one -way crossovers would help the site provide close to the same area of green space in the median that was proposed in the first submittal of the plan. 7. (Rev. 1) The low point of both lanes of Belvedere Circle South appears to be around Sta. 5 +75. However, drainage structures are located at Sta. 6 +25. The drainage structures should either be moved or the profile and grading of this section of the roadway should be revised.