Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201000086 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2011-02-11� 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: Lockwood Townhomes Phase I Final Before Preliminary Site Plan SDP - 2010 -00086 Plan preparer: Mr. Scott Collins, PE; Collins Engineering Owner or rep.: Route 29, LLC Plan received date: 25 October 2010 (Rev. 1) 5 January 2011 Date of comments: 17 November 2010 (Rev. 1) 11 February 2011 Reviewer: Phil Custer The first resubmittal of the final- before - preliminary site plan, submitted 5 January 2011, has been received and reviewed by Engineering. A review of the WPO plan will be transmitted in separate documents. Engineering review provides the following comments on the final site plan: 1. The Zoning and Planning departments must determine whether the site plan is consistent with the approved rezoning plan. Engineering review has identified a few areas of the site that do not match the approved application plan: a. The width of the park has been considerably reduced from the application plan to 75ft in the current site plan. Page 15 of the approved Code of Development states this park is to be 41,600 sf. Given the constructed distance of Lockwood Drive and Meeting Street of 326ft, a park with a 128ft width is needed to achieve the area specified in the COD. The COD also states this area is to be flat for active recreation. When constructed, the park should be graded at a consistent 5% slope from Meeting Street to Lockwood Drive and no more than a 2% cross slope. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. b. Community Street appeared to be intended as a street with planting strips. The planting strips have been removed. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. c. Page 19 of the Code of Development states "additional stormwater facilities will be implemented as each site is developed and shall be subject to the approval of Albemarle County Engineering Department. Page 37 also states the "design shall work to provide smaller dispersed biofilters and rain gardens in order to increase the functionality of the larger detention ponds." I do not see any facility within this plan other than the regional facility south of Alders Gate Way. (Rev. 1) The county engineer has noted that the four local facilities proposed by the applicant between the multi family buildings will likely be subject to homeowner complaints and will be a nuisance for the HOA and county in the future. Staff also notes that these facilities do not follow any state standards and cannot be counted towards meeting removal rate requirements. County staff would not object to the removal of these facilities for this plan, but notes that future developments need more substantial secondary facilities to meet the above and beyond water quality proffer. 2. Proffer 3 requires two public transit stops to be designed and constructed. The locations of these two stops must be approved by the Director of the Planning Department prior to site plan approval. Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 4 The design of the transit stops will be subject to the review of the county and VDOT when the adjacent area is constructed. (Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. 3. Proffer 5 requires that the greenway be dedicated in fee simple to the county. This must be dedicated (and bonded if construction is not completed) prior to the approval of this site plan. The greenway cannot be dedicated until the construction plans for it are approved by the county. (Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. 4. The site plan cannot be approved until the WPO plan is approved. The review of the WPO plan will be provided in a separate comment letter. (Rev. 1) The review of the second submittal of the WPO plan will be provided in a separate comment letter. 5. It does not seem that it was explicitly stated during the original rezoning whether Community Street would a public or private. In either case, this street must be designed using public street standards. Please use the VDOT standard GS -SSR for the road geometries. This road will also require the standard curb and gutter, sidewalk, and planting strip requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance unless waived by the Planning Commission. I'll note now that Section 14 -234 states the agent cannot authorize a private street that connects two public streets. When the plat is submitted to create the private street, approval from the Planning Commission may be needed. [18- 32.7.3] (Rev. 1) This street appears to meet the horizontal and vertical geometric design standards for an ADT less than 2000, though VDOT will now need to review this plan since it is now intended to be a public facility. The ROW must be placed Ift behind the sidewalk. Please also refer to Andy Slack's comment regarding the naming of this street. 6. The subdivision ordinance requires all streets (both public and private) to provide planting strips, sidewalk, and curb and gutter. I do not believe the travelway behind the lots in the current site plan needs to be approved as a private street in order to subdivide because frontage is currently provided by Lockwood Drive. However, when future plans are submitted for the residue, this alley will need to be called a private street to provide frontage for later townhome lots. At that time, a waiver must be approved by the Planning Commission because the ordinance doesn't exempt developments with approved rezoning applications. (Rev. 1) Comment has been acknowledged by the applicant. 7. Please provide the Deedbook and Page Number for the recordation of Community Street west of development. The site plan is inconsistent in labeling this roadway regarding whether it is publicly or privately maintained. (Rev. 1) The road is now consistently labeled as private. Comment has been addressed. 8. The travelways( "alleys ") must be 20ft in width. The applicant has the option of requesting a waiver to the Chief of Current Development per 18- 4.12.2. [18- 4.12.17] (Rev. 1) The Chief of Current Development is reviewing this waiver now. 9. Curbing is required on the travelways( "alleys ") shown on this plan. The applicant has the option of requesting a waiver to the Chief of Current Development per 18- 4.12.2. [18- 4.12.15] (Rev. 1) The Chief of Current Development is reviewing this waiver now. 10. Please provide street trees in the planting strip along Lockwood Drive. The Code of Development requires these trees to be placed an average of 40ft on center and 2in. caliber. (Rev.]) Comment has not been addressed. The drainage pipe will not prevent trees from being planted within the planting strip. Please provide 2in caliber, VDOT - approved, large shade trees at 40ft -on- center within the planting strip on the east side of Lockwood Drive. 11. Please update the General County Notes for Street Construction and move the notes away from the binding. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review Comments Page 3 of 4 12. Please note that Community Street will need to be constructed to Meeting Street once the development of C1, C3, and C4 totals 50 units. [18- 32.7.2] (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 13. Please place the centerline of Community Street in the center of the roadway on the crown. Will a horizontal curve be needed to line up the two entrances onto Lockwood and Meeting? Please also place the centerlines on the grading sheet. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 14. The centerline for the alley is not shown on the site plan. A profile of the alley is not needed unless the standard approved by the agent during the subdivision plat requires a profile. 15. With the current proposed vertical alignment of the alley, it appears that structure 10 will miss most of the water intended for it. The grate structure should be relocated to the low point of the alley profile. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 16. Please end the vertical curve before the entrance onto Meeting Street (Sta. 13 +50). (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 17. Please provide full buildout ADT projections for the alleys (private streets after future development) and the segment of Community Street between Lockwood Drive and Meeting Street. For the Community Street projection, please consider the connection through D1 and D2 to be built. Community Street through C1, C3, and C4 will be a convenient connection between the residences to the west and the businesses along Route 29. [18- 4.12.15.c] (Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. The numbers used by the applicant appear to underestimate the full buildout traffic on these travelways. For instance, it's expected that there will be at least 22 townhouses served on the northern travelway, which results in an ADT of 129. It should be noted that the rezoning anticipates much denser development in this block than townhouses. The ADT projections should assume a reasonable worst case scenario regarding the traffic loads on these travelways so if multifamily buildings with underground parking are later proposed the pavement will be strong enough to handle the load. 18. The paving calculations and details should be updated based on the full buildout ADTs required above. [ 18- 4.12.15.c] (Rev. 1) See previous comment. 19. Please extend the sidewalk to the northern edge of the rezoning. [18- 32.7.2] (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 20. Sight distance easements are needed on the corners of lots 19 and 20 with the current geometry. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. Sight distance easements are no longer needed on the lots currently being proposed but will likely appear necessary on the lots across from 21 and 22 when future site plans are submitted. 21. I am unfamiliar with the use of DI -5's in travelways. The Road and Bridge Standards state that DI -5 should be used in areas not normally subjected to traffic. Is there a revised detail for this structure that has a different grate that can be subject to traffic loads? (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 22. The table in the upper right corner of DP -5 is not correct because it assumes each inlet is placed in a sump condition. The discharge into this structure is similar to a DI -313 on -grade where a percentage of the water is flowing at the edges of the "spread" and bypasses the structure. How is the amount of bypass flow pass around the DI -5 structure determined? A DI -12 structure might be more suitable. (Rev. 1) The grate inlet carryover calculations appear to be accurate. However, structure 10 should be analyzed as an on -grade facility because water will escape to the west towards structure 18 because of the slope of Lockwood Place. 23. Pipe sizing calculations should updated assuming the full buildout condition (tc, areas, and C) to Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review Comments Page 4 of 4 avoid issues in the future. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. However, calculations will need to be updated if a time of concentration quicker than 12 minutes is a result of future site plans for the 6 acre yet- to -be- developed drainage area. 24. It is county engineering policy to limit the amount of concentrated discharge in travelways to be less than lcfs for safety purposes. The current calculations for the drainage system in the alley appear to adhere to this policy, but in the future it is inevitable that the drainage areas and discharges will be significantly increased when C1 and C4 are developed. Please increase the frequency of the grate inlets using reasonable future watershed estimations. (Rev. 1) On sheet DP -5, the 6.5in 1hr intensities for structures 10, 8, and 6 show flows greater than Icfs. If future watersheds are suspected to be smaller, update the drainage area map and calculations accordingly. 25. The time of concentration differs between sheets DP -1 and SWM -2. For drainage system calculations, please assume a time of concentration for full development. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 26. (Rev. 1) The sanitary sewer main for the project has been altered since the last submittal. The plan now requires an easement on three offsite properties. This easement must be recorded prior to the approval of the site plan.