HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201000022 Review Comments Preliminary Site Plan 2010-05-14�� pF ALg�
� �'IRGINZP
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Elizabeth Marotta, Senior Planner
From: Amy Pflaum, Engineering Review
Division: Current Development
Date: March 29, 2010
REV #1: May 14, 2010
Subject: SDP201000022, Hollymead Town Center Apartments - Preliminary Site Plan
The preliminary site plan for Hollymead Town Center Apartments, submitted on April 26, 2010, has been
reviewed. Current Development Engineering can recommend approval once the following comments have
been addressed:
General Site Plan Comments
1. Existing critical slopes are proposed to be disturbed. Are impact calculations in the waiver request
correct? It appears that much more than 45% of existing critical slopes are being disturbed. The
plan does not account for 0.227 acres of natural critical slopes that will remain undisturbed. The
waiver request also states that vegetation between the impacted critical slopes area and Towncenter
Drive consists of underbrush, however, the Existing Conditions plan shows it to be within an
"existing wooded area of hardwood trees with some areas of thick underbrush ", please clarify.
[18 -4.2]
REV #1: Comment has been addressed. Percentages have been revised and waiver request
has been submitted.
2. Preliminary peak hour traffic counts show that this development meets the threshold for the
requirement of a Traffic Impact Analysis. [18- 32.5.6.q]
REV #1: Traffic Impact Analysis may wait until Final Site Plan. However, improvements
to Towncenter Drive or changes to the site design that become necessary based on the
analysis may result in the Final Site Plan deviating enough from the Preliminary approval
that a new public process is required.
This plan does not account for the inter - parcel connection (extension of Prestwick Glen Drive)
required with the development of Willow Glen. [18- 32.7.2.5]
REV #1: Interparcel connection is no longer required.
4. The angle of intersection of the easternmost entrance and Towncenter Drive is less than 90
degrees. Per VDOT Access Management Standards Section 4 — Entrance Design, the entrance
centerline should be perpendicular to the state highway centerline. A reduced angle of not less
than 60 degrees can be approved if significant physical constraints exist. [18- 32.7.2.1]
REV #1: Comment has been addressed.
Per the VDOT Access Management Standards Section 4 — Entrance Design, a two -way
commercial entrance shall be 30 -feet wide. This may be reduced to 24 -feet if Towncenter Drive is
considered a "local street" by VDOT. [18- 32.7.2.1]
REV #1: Comment has been addressed. Entrances are 3 -feet wide.
6. Please show the proposed sidewalk tying into the existing Towncenter Drive sidewalk on the outer
sides of the two entrances, as is shown on the inner sides of the entrances. [18- 32.7.2.8]
REV #1: Comment has been addressed.
7. It is difficult to tell if the proposed entrances maintain a grade of 4% or less for 40 -feet off the
edge of Towncenter Drive. Entrance profiles may be required on the Final Site Plan for
verification. [18- 4.12.17]
REV #1: Comment has been addressed. Entrance profiles maybe required on the Final
Site Plan.
8. Private ROW, as shown on the plans, is not required unless the proposed travelways are to be
approved as private streets or future subdivision is expected. An access easement would be more
appropriate for access to TMP 32 -56A if it is expected to be under different ownership.
REV #1: Comment has been addressed.
9. Is Towncenter Way expected to connect through to TMP 32 -49K in the future? If not, curbing is
required across the end. [18- 4.12.15]
REV #1: Comment has been addressed.
10. The parking area to the west of Building #1 is a 200 -foot dead -end travelway. Please provide a
turn - around. [18- 32.7.2.7]
REV #1: Comment has been addressed.
11. The walking trail is proposed with a dead end stub -out at TMP 32 -49K. The Willow Glen
development plans do not allow for any future connection for this dead -end. It is recommended
that the stub -out not be constructed.
REV #1: The connections to Willow Glen walking trails have been removed.
12. The Stormwater Management Notes on Sheet 4 state that the development will drain to the
existing stormwater management pond, as well as to a bio- filter. Please submit information that
shows the pond was designed to store and treat the new run -off from this development. Please
provide more information about the bio- filter, a 50% removal rate is unlikely to meet the needs of
this development. [ 18- 32.5.6.k]
REV #1: The proposed location of this pond appears to interfere with an approved road
plan that connects to Towncenter Drive in this area. Please add the approved road plan
(Shannon Glen Court/Willow Glen) information into this drawing to show that there is
sufficient space for the pond and the forebay as shown.
Note #2 on Sheet #4 references an existing stormwater management pond. I've been unable
locate the files containing design or approval of this pond as an existing stormwater
management facility. Can you please provide further information — Owner of pond who
signed the SWMMA; approved County file number, project name or date; hard copy of the
approved design calculations and/or plan?
The Comment Response Letter dated 4/26/10 states that the pond will function as a "wet
pond with a forebay for 65% removal rates." However, Note #2 on Sheet #4 refers to a bio -
filter that will have a 50% removal rate. Please clarify.
Please submit an estimate for the drainage area of the stormwater management facility, as
well as a conceptual size calculation based on that area and its ultimate potential
imperviousness.
13. The proposed grading on Sheet 4 contains several errors. Contours on both the east and west
boundaries are not properly tied to existing and there are many instances of disconnected contours
within the site. Please review and resubmit. [18- 32.5.6.d]
REV #1: Comment has been addressed.
14. A retaining wall may be needed between Towncenter Way and Building #5, and possibly a
handrail along the sidewalk.
REV #1: Comment has been addressed, handrail has been added above steep slope.
15. A retaining wall may be needed between Towncenter Drive and the parking lots east of Building
#4. The proposed slope appears to interfere with the sidewalk. Guardrail may also be necessary in
this area.
REV #1: Grading has been revised. It's possible that a guard rail may still be required.
This can be determined during the final site plan stage or once grading is completed.
16. Further comments may be added when grading is corrected and more information regarding
stormwater management is submitted.
\\ Cob- dts01 \cityviewlnk\Docs \2010 \SDP \SDP201000022 Hollymead Apts- Pre1im \CDE2_psp_ADP_10 -22 HTC Apt.doc