Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201000055 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2011-01-04� 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: Old Trail Village Block 4, Final Site Plan; SDP -2010 -00055 Plan preparer: Collins Engineering Owner or rep.: March Mountain Properties, LLC Plan received date: 12 July 2010 (Rev. 1) 16 August 2010 (Rev. 2) 23 November 2010 Date of comments: 5 August 2010 (Rev. 1) 24 September 2010 (Rev. 2) 4 January 2011 Reviewer: Phil Custer A Water Protection Application was received at the same time as the site plan. Engineering review provides the following comments on the WPO submittal: a. Water Quantity requirements will be met by the existing detention basin northwest of Block 3 that this site drains to, as anticipated by Sheet 3 of the Rezoning Plan. (Rev. 1) Comment has been acknowledged. b. Water Quality requirements will be met with the payment of the Lickinghole Fee. The cost for Block 4 will be calculated closer to the time of site plan approval. This payment must be provided prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the construction of the buildings. (Rev. 1) Comment has been acknowledged. (Rev. 2) The Lickinghole fee will be computed once the 2011 rate is passed on to Current Development staff. c. An ESC plan is needed for the work shown on this site plan. The ESC plan (WPO -2008- 00106) is not sufficient for the site construction shown within the plan. When the ESC plan is submitted please show the limits and all necessary measures of previously approved ESC plans. The other WPO numbers should be referenced throughout the application and clearly indicate that this ESC will rely on active plans on the Old Trail Property. (Rev. 1) An ESC plan has been submitted. The review of this plan will be provided under separate cover. (Rev. 2) Comment remains unchanged. d. Because no WPO reviews were performed (no ESC plan submitted and SWM requirements met without technical review), there will be a $600 credit towards this application. (Rev. 1) Comment has been acknowledged. e. Please note that the WPO approval for Block 2 (WPO- 2009 - 00026) has expired. [17- 204.G] (Rev. 1) Comment has been acknowledged. 2. The pipe from the 4 drainage structures within the first 100ft of Upland Drive should remain in the VDOT ROW and continue to be routed to the intersection with Claremont Drive. If these pipes must absolutely be routed through Block 4, the system will not be maintained by the County. The easement restrictions on these pipes will need to be worked out with VDOT, the applicant, and the Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 3 County's Attorney's office. The easiest solution may simply be to call the easement through the property a private drainage easement. (Rev. 1) After further discussions with the VDOT on this issue, the 20ft easement from Upland to Claremont must be dedicated to public use. Please show this easement as to be dedicated to the public. When the plat for this property is submitted, please make sure the public easement is shown and it is accompanied by a Deed of Easement. (Rev. 2) Comment has been addressed. 3. The plan does not match the previously approved road plans for Upland and Claremont. It appears this site plan is contingent on the changes to the road sections of this plan. Also, because this site plan is contingent on the construction of Claremont in order to grant access to the site, the limits of the site plan must be extended to eastern ROW line of Claremont. All design information for Claremont must be included in this set as well. (Rev. 1) This site plan cannot be approved until the road plan revision has been approved. At this time, approval has not yet been granted. In addition, the limits of this site plan have not included the road as required. The site plan set must include all necessary information for the construction of this roadway. (Rev. 2) The applicant has included the road plan for Upland Drive and Claremont in this site plan set and has showed the limits of the site plan around Claremont Drive correctly. This site plan cannot be approved until the road plan is approved. This plan is currently under the review of another engineer. I understand that final VDOT approval has not yet been received. 4. Do the houses on Lots 33 -39 have front doors facing Upland Drive? If so, please show the sidewalk from the door to the sidewalk within the VDOT ROW. [18- 32.7.2.8] (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 5. The sidewalk in the "grassed mall" must connect to the sidewalk surrounding the block: a. East of the handicap parking space show a 5ft sidewalk with handicap ramp oriented towards the grass mall sidewalk. [18- 32.7.2.8] (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. b. Similarly, provide a pedestrian connection from the south side of the grass mall to Upland Dr. If the four -unit building was switched with the three -unit building, a connection can be made between the buildings. [18- 32.7.2.8] (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 6. The plan indicates a curb, both graphically and with the contours, at each driveway. Please show driveways at the grade of the existing pavement in the alley. (Rev. 1) The curbs at the driveway have been removed and the grading has been revised accordingly. Comment has been addressed. 7. The driveways for lots 6, 7, and 8 are too steep. Please flatten to 5%. [18- 4.12.15.c] (Rev. 1) The driveways meet the minimum slope. However, the rim elevation of the adjacent drainage structure requires a slope of around 7% from the edge of driveway. (Rev. 2) Comment has not been addressed. The rim of the structure has not been adjusted significantly as indicated in the applicant's response letter. The rim elevation is labeled as 695.36 on sheet S -3 (which was the same elevation in the second submittal), but 695.40 on sheets DP -1 and DP -2. New spot elevations have also been added on the driveways to lots 6, 7, and 8. These spot elevations result in steep slopes in the driveway when computed from the 696 contour line. 8. Please show a private drainage easement on lot 18 for the mall drainage system that passes through it. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 9. Parallel parking spaces must be 9ft wide. [18- 4.12.16.c.2] (Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. Amy's comment in her second review letter of SDP- Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review Comments Page 3 of 3 2009 -00076 that was referred to by the applicant discussed the parking on a public street and alluded to a roadway section within the code of development. If the alleys were designed to public street standards, then a VDOT cross - section with 8ft parking would be acceptable. But, the alleys within Old Trail seem to be consistently designed to meet the standards of 18 -4.12. If 8ft parallel spaces are desired, please request a waiver to the Chief of Current Development per 18- 4.12.2.] (Rev. 2) The Chief of Current Development is reviewing this request now. 10. A short 20% grade is shown on a sidewalk east of Lot 40. Are steps necessary here? Does this sidewalk need to meet ADA requirements? (Rev. I) Comment has been addressed. 11. The dead -end alleys must be 1411 from curb -to -curb. [14 -410] (Rev. I) Comment has been addressed. 12. The plan shows a sewer line that runs through Blocks 13 and 2. This sewer line must be shown on this site plan. The ESC plan for this block must include the construction of this sewer line within its limits of disturbance. (Rev. 1) ACSA approval of the site plan is required. At this time, engineering is not aware of ACSA granting approval to this plan. The review of the ESC plan will provided under separate cover. (Rev. 2) The sewer line is shown on all necessary sheets and covered by the ESC plan. However, no ACSA approval has been received according to the county tracking system. 13. Please specify the structure and grate type in the Storm Sewer Profiles. [DM] (Rev. 1) On all DI -7's within the alleys, please specify Grate B. (Rev. 2) Comment has been addressed. 14. (Rev. 1) Please clarify note I on sheet R -1 regarding the maximum of two lifts for filling operations. It is common practice to fill with no greater than 6" lifts. (Rev. 2) Comment has been addressed.