Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201000021 Review Comments Road Plan and Comps. 2011-03-180 ilil Lin— COUNTY may` � OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 04 April 2011 Richard T. Spurzem Neighborhood Investments — NP LLC P.O. Drawer R Charlottesville, VA 22903 RE: SDP - 2010 -00021 North Pointe Final Site Plan Dear Mr. Spurzem: Pursuant to Virginia Code § 15.2 -2259 and Albemarle County Code § 18- 32.4.37, the above referenced final site plan is disapproved. The specific reasons for disapproval are provided with references to specific duly adopted ordinances, regulations or policies, including the application plan approved for ZMA- 2000 -09, the proffers accepted in conjunction with the approval of ZMA- 2000 -09, the conditions of SP- 2006 -34, and the conditions of SP- 2002 -72. Required modifications or corrections that will permit approval of the site plan are included as well. 1. Countv Site Plan Reaulations a. County Code § 18- 32.7.2.4 (requirement for reasonably direct vehicular access provided from all residential units to two public streets in a development of fifty or more dwelling units): The final site plan shows only one direct vehicular access to Lewis and Clark Drive. Amend the final site plan to include a second vehicular access to Lewis and Clark Drive. b. Courg Code § 18- 32.7.2.8 (requirement for pedestrian walkways): For the sidewalks in front of buildings 1, 2, 6, 8 and 9, the area for pedestrians is not demarcated, which the County Engineer has determined to be necessary under County Code § 18- 32.7.2.4. Demarcate the sidewalks using a range of options: revert back to a concrete walk between the driveways and travelway as proposed in the first revision, hatch or stripe the pedestrian areas as a crosswalk, or use some architectural feature such as painted, stamped asphalt as seen at some of the crosswalks north of the downtown area in Charlottesville. Also, regarding the greenway access point, please widen the public easement to include both of the sidewalks. C. County Code § 18- 32.7.3 (requirement that all roads comply with VDOT standards): VDOT has not approved the road plans. Obtain approval by VDOT of the road plans to demonstration that Zoning Ordinance § 32.7.3 has been satisfied. For a complete set of VDOT's comments, see Attachment 1 (March 18, 2011 and April 1, 2011 comments from Joel DeNunzio). d. Coun , Code § 18- 32.7.5.3 (verification from the Albemarle County Service Authority): The County has not received verification from the Albemarle County Service Authority as required by County Code § 18- 32.7.5.3. Provide verification from the Albemarle County Service Authority that adequate capability exists to serve the development as provided in that regulation. e. County Code § 18- 30.6.4.2 (ARB issuance of certificate of appropriateness): The Architectural Review Board ( "ARB ") has not issued a certificate of appropriateness for this final site plan, which also includes consideration of Conditions 6, 7, 8 and 9 of SP- 2006 -34, as required by County Code § 18- 30.6.4.2 before the final site plan can be approved. Preliminary review of the final site plan by the ARB is scheduled for April 18, 2011. Obtain a certificate of appropriateness from the ARB. 2. The Approved Application Plan for ZMA- 2000 -09 a. Vehicular access: The application plan shows two access points onto Lewis and Clark Drive for the western half of the development. The final site plan shows a single access point onto Lewis and Clark Drive, and it does not conform to the application plan as provided under County Code § 18- 8.5.5.2(c). Amend the final site plan to include a second vehicular access, to Lewis and Clark Drive. b. Location of buildings 25, 26 and 27: The placement of buildings 25, 26 and 27 do not conform the application plan as provided under County Code § 18- 8.5.5.2(c). Either relocate the buildings to conform to the application plan or obtain a variation under Zoning Ordinance § 8.5.5.3, which may be possible on the condition that SWM Facility # 10 is satisfactorily designed. Note that SWM Facility # 10 is also subject to ARB approval as part of the final site plan. The ARB has not issued a certificate of appropriateness for the final site plan as required by County Code § 18- 30.6.4.2 before the final site plan can be approved. Preliminary review of the final site plan by the ARB is scheduled for April 18, 2011. Obtain a certificate of appropriateness from the ARB showing that this condition has been satisfied. 3. Proffers Accepted in Coniunction with ZMA- 2000 -09 a. Proffer 4.1 (flood plain): The final site plan shows a stream crossing. FEMA approval of the conditional letter of map revision will be needed prior to the approval of the stream crossing plan and approval of the stream crossing plan will be needed prior to approval of the final site plan. Obtain FEMA approval of the conditional letter of map revision and the stream crossing plan. See also the comments to Conditions 3, 4 and 5 to SP- 2006 -34. b. Proffer 4.4 (stream buffer and restoration): A mitigation plan is being processed with the stream crossing application but has not been approved. Obtain approval of the mitigation plan under County Code § 17 -322. See also the comments to Conditions 3, 4 and 5 to SP- 2006 -34. C. Proffer 5.3.1(c)(1) (Phase III road improvements required to be approved and bonded before final site plan approval): (i) U.S Route 29 Southbound construction of left turn lane with taper): No associated permits have been obtained and no associated bonds have been posted. Obtain VDOT approval of all applicable road permits and post required bonds, and obtain County (program authority) approval and post required bonds. To post a bond, complete a Bond Estimate Request Form and submit it to the County Engineer after all plans are approved. A road bond will require a fee of $250. To post a road bond, a Schedule of Completion must be approved by the County Engineer. (ii) Northwest Passage from U.S. Route 29 to North Pointe Boulevard: No associated permits have been obtained, and no associated bonds have been posted. Obtain VDOT approval of all applicable road permits and post required bonds, and obtain County (program authority) approval and post required bonds. To post a bond, complete a Bond Estimate Request Form and submit it to the County Engineer after all plans are approved. A road bond will require a fee of $250. To post a road bond, a Schedule of Completion must be approved by the County Engineer. (iii) U.S Route 29 Northbound; construction of a right hand turn lane: No associated permits have been obtained and no associated bonds have been posted. Obtain VDOT approval of all applicable road permits and post required bonds, and obtain County (program authority) approval and post required bonds. To post a bond, complete a Bond Estimate Request Form and submit it to the 2 County Engineer after all plans are approved. A road bond will require a fee of $250. To post a road bond, a Schedule of Completion must be approved by the County Engineer. (iv) North Pointe Boulevard between Northside Drive East and Northwest Passage: No associated permits have been obtained and no associated bonds have been posted. Obtain VDOT approval of all applicable road permits and post required bonds, and obtain County (program authority) approval and post required bonds. To post a bond, complete a Bond Estimate Request Form and submit it to the County Engineer after all plans are approved. A road bond will require a fee of $250. To post a road bond, a Schedule of Completion must be approved by the County Engineer. d. Proffer 5.3.3 (provide signal plans to VDOT for approval prior to approval of plans for improvements): VDOT has not received a signal plan along with a timing plan for the fourth leg and an intersection analysis to determine if the intersection lane capacities are adequate; the lane configuration will need to be verified as adequate prior to permitting construction based on the proposed traffic signal timing plan and storage queues. Provide all of the foregoing information to VDOT and obtain approval of the signal plans. e. Proffer 9.1 (sizing of SWM # 10 to accommodate stormwater from the School Lot): The post - development drainage area limits maintain the pre - development watershed, which is unrealistic; the map and calculations need to be updated to include the bus parking (not the bus stops) which increases the drainage area by approximately 17,000 square feet (approximately 10,000 square feet being impervious area). Also, there is a discrepancy with the elevation of the emergency spillway between the plan view and the detail; the calculations need to be updated by eliminating the references to MS -19 and instead refer to the conditional detention waiver granted by County Engineering after the first review of the plan (the one percent rule does not exempt any development from detention); since it is intended that this facility be an extended detention facility, provide the 30 -hour drawdown calculation showing that the facility meets the design standard (VSMH 3.07). 4. Conditions Imposed under Special Use Permit SP- 2006 -34 a. Condition 1 (County and VDOT approval of the final lane configuration for Northwest Passage over the stream crossing; with the final road plans): This condition has not been satisfied. VDOT has not approved the road plans as required by Zoning Ordinance § 32.7.3. The lane configuration must be verified as adequate prior to permitting of construction based on the proposed traffic signal timing plan and storage queues, and VDOT has not yet received this information. Submit the required information and obtain approval by VDOT of the road plans to demonstrate that this condition has been satisfied. b. Condition 2 (County and VDOT approval of final design plans and hydrolo ig c/hvdraulic computations for the stream crossing): This condition has not been satisfied. Neither the County nor VDOT has approved these computations. Thus, VDOT has not approved the road plans as required by Zoning Ordinance § 32.7.3. Obtain County and VDOT approval of final design plans and the hydrologic/hydraulic computations for the stream crossing to demonstrate that this condition has been satisfied. C. Condition 3 (The applicant must obtain a map revision, letter of revision, or letter of amendment as required from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and copy the County Engineer on all correspondence: This condition has not been satisfied. FEMA approval of the conditional letter of map revision will be needed prior to the approval of the stream crossing plan and approval of the stream crossing plan will be needed prior to approval of the final site plan. Obtain FEMA approval of the conditional letter of map revision or otherwise satisfy this condition and obtain approval of the stream crossing plan. d. Condition 4 (County approval of a rg ading and an erosion and sediment control plan prior to the issuance of a grading permit for modification of the existing stream crossin l: This condition has not been satisfied. The previously approved plan expired. A plan, which includes the design of the culvert, FEMA approval, and approval of the mitigation plan under County Code § 17 -322, is required. 3 Submit a new application, the applicable fee, and a set of the revised stream crossing erosion and sediment control plan showing the construction of sediment basin 1, and include the design of the culvert, a proposed mitigation plan, and obtain FEMA approval. e. Condition 5 (Natural Resources Manager approval of a stream buffer mitigation plan prior to the issuance of a rg ading permit for modification of the existing stream crossing): This condition has not been satisfied. The previously approved plan expired. A plan, which includes the approval of the mitigation plan under County Code § 17 -322, is required. Submit a new application, fee and a set of the revised stream crossing erosion and sediment control plan showing the construction of sediment basin 1, and include a proposed mitigation plan, and obtain FEMA approval. f. Condition 6 (Provide an informal planting of mixed tree and shrub species and sizes to compensate for removed vegetation and low-growing plants to stabilize slopes in the "proposed landscaping areas" shown on the plan submitted for ARB review entitled "Proposed Entry Layout with Landscaping North West Passage Intersection @ Route 29 North" with revision of 12-04-06): This condition has not been satisfied. The ARB has not issued a certificate of appropriateness for this final site plan, which also includes consideration of Conditions 6 through 10 of SP- 2006 -34, as required by County Code § 18- 30.6.4.2. A certificate of appropriateness is required before the final site plan can be approved. Preliminary review of the final site plan by the ARB is scheduled for April 18, 2011. Obtain a certificate of appropriateness from the ARB showing that this condition has been satisfied. g. Condition 7 Provide large shade trees on the north and south sides of Northwest Passage, along the sidewalk and space reserved for the sidewalk, 2 %z" caliper minimum at planting, 40' on center, for a minimum distance of 400' from the existing edge of pavement of Route 29 North): This condition has not been satisfied. The ARB has not issued a certificate of appropriateness for this final site plan, which also includes consideration of Conditions 6 through 10 of SP- 2006 -34, as required by County Code § 18- 30.6.4.2. A certificate of appropriateness is required before the final site plan can be approved. Preliminary review of the final site plan by the ARB is scheduled for April 18, 2011. Obtain a certificate of appropriateness from the ARB showing that this condition has been satisfied. Staff requests, though it is not required, that the 2.5" caliper plantings be extended to Station 14 +60 as stated in Glenn Brooks' May 10, 2010 email to Doug March following their discussion regarding whether more trees could be provided closer to the intersection in order to meet the spirit of extending the trees for a minimum distance of 400' from the existing edge of pavement of Route 29. h. Condition 8 (Provide trees in the median of Northwest Passage, beginning at t the point closest to Route 29 North that can be approved by VDOT and extending for a minimum distance of 400' from the existing edge of pavement of Route 29 North. The planting; shall take the form of a continuous informal mix of large, medium and small deciduous trees ranging from 1 %Z" to 2%z" caliper and evergreen trees ranging from 4' -6' in height): This condition has not been satisfied. The ARB has not issued a certificate of appropriateness for this final site plan, which also includes consideration of Conditions 6 through 10 of SP- 2006 -34, as required by County Code § 18- 30.6.4.2. A certificate of appropriateness is required before the final site plan can be approved. Preliminary review of the final site plan by the ARB is scheduled for April 18, 2011. Obtain a certificate of appropriateness from the ARB showing that this condition has been satisfied. i. Condition 9 (All of the above -noted landscaping shall be shown on the road 1p ans submitted for Northwest Passage. The plans shall include a complete planting schedule keyed to the plan. The plans are subject to review of the AM: This condition has not been satisfied. The ARB has not issued a certificate of appropriateness for this final site plan, which also includes consideration of Conditions 6 through 10 of SP- 2006 -34, as required by County Code § 18- 30.6.4.2. A certificate of appropriateness is required before the final site plan can be approved. Preliminary review of the final site plan by the ARB is scheduled for April 18, 2011. Obtain a certificate of appropriateness from the ARB showing that this condition has been satisfied. j. Condition 10 (Design details of the retaining walls, including column cap design, pier design stone finish other materials etc culvert color, plant size and planting g onfiguration shall be 4 shown on the road plans and are subject to ARB approval as part of the review and approval of the road lans :This condition has not been satisfied. The ARB has not issued a certificate of appropriateness for this final site plan, which also includes consideration of Conditions 6 through 10 of SP- 2006 -34, as required by County Code § 18- 30.6.4.2. A certificate of appropriateness is required before the final site plan can be approved. Preliminary review of the final site plan by the ARB is scheduled for April 18, 2011. Obtain a certificate of appropriateness from the ARB showing that this condition has been satisfied. 5. Conditions Imposed under Special Use Permit SP- 2002 -72 a. Condition 4 (conservation areas with utilities shown on the application plan shall remain undisturbed): The spillway for SWM Facility # 11 (and sediment basin 1) cannot go through the previously undisturbed conservation area unless the program authority approves otherwise as provided in the condition, but it has not done so. Relocate the spillway out of the conservation area, such as by directing the spillway to the outlet of the Contech facility so only one riprapped channel to the stream is needed. The following are additional comments for your information regarding under WPO- 2010 -17. Please provide an updated approval letter from Contech because the watersheds and arrangement of the facilities have been modified since the last approval letter. The spillway is used more frequently than the average stormwater facility because there is only one 15" pipe outlet. The rocklined weir should be eliminated and replaced with a concrete weir because of the uncertainties with the construction and routing of riprapped spillways; the VMSH requires that the armoring of a principle /emergency spillway should begin at the upstream face, not at the top elevation (VMSH 3.02; County Code § 17 -303). Similar to what was done for SWM Facility # 10, the calculations for the downstream emergency spillway and riprapped channel below SWM Facility # 11 need to be updated to make sure it will be non - erosive for the 2 -year storm and capable of carrying the 10 -year flow within its banks. Finally, please provide a graded access path to the facility embankment from the roadway and, under County policy, if the access path is steeper than 10 %, it must be graded. This disapproval may be appealed as provided in Virginia Code § 15.2 -2259 and County Code § 18- 32.4.3.9. Please contact me at your earliest convenience if you have any questions or require additional information. r*" Sincer ly, OQ _2 erald Gatobu, Principal Planner Division of Current Development Department of Community Development Enclosure Attachment 1 (VDOT Comments) Gerald Gatobu From: Philip Custer Sent: Friday, April 01, 2011 10:32 AM To: Gerald Gatobu Subject: FW: North Pointe North Entrance Route 29 Improvement Plan Attachments: List_of Approved_MSE walls- January2005.doc FYI From: DeNunzio, Joel D., P.E. jmailto: Joel .DeNunzioCa)VDOT.virginia.gov Sent: Friday, April 01, 201110:30 AM To: Philip Custer Cc: Ikenberry, Steve G. P.E.; Amburn, Randy M., PE Subject: North Pointe North Entrance Route 29 Improvement Plan Phil, I have reviewed the North Pointe North Entrance Route 29 Improvement Plan and have the following comments: Road Plan 1. Sheet C -5: Use a 4:1 pavement taper, around a 64 foot taper, from the CG -7 to the proposed paved shoulder. 2. FE -CL cannot be placed within the deflection area of the proposed GR -2 as it is shown on the cross sections. 3. The proposed cross sections do not match the left turn lane typical section. Each cross section needs to meet the minimum standards of the paved and graded shoulder and median grading standards in accordance with VDOT GS -1, GS -11 and GS -13. 4. Use 6:1 slopes in the median in accordance with the GS -13 standard. 5. The pavement structure for Route 29 improvements is expected to be 2" surface coarse, 2" intermediate coarse, 10" base coarse and 8" sub base stone. 6. Radial guardrail is not to be used as and end treatment for regular runs of guardrail in accordance with the VDOT GRIT Manual. Appropriate end sections need to be used instead. Be sure to appropriately place the end section on the southern side of the entrance with the proposed CG -7. The placement of the retaining wall just south of the entrance may require adjustment. 7. Place junction boxes connected by conduit fro the future relocation of the fiber optic cable that will be under the new proposed pavement shoulder. Conduit size needs to be determined by the utility owner. 8. Include mill and pave in accordance with WP -2 standard through the existing left turn taper. 9. All pavement markings are to be a Type B Class I or IV and shall be installed in accordance with the VDOT Road and Bridge Specifications, section 704. 10. Sheet C -12 shows a proposed yellow line to the right of the exit taper. This should be a white line. 11. Sheet C -9 is missing drainage calculations on inlet #2. 12. Sheet C -12 pavement marking hatch areas should be parallel to one another. 13. Sheet flow runoff needs to be captured, prior to the top of the retaining wall. This should be designed to allow future widening of the road. CLOMR 1. The outlet protection for the proposed box appears satisfactory. 2. The reduction in the 100 year floodplain elevations will not have an adverse impact on the existing rte. 29 Right of Way. 3. The level of roadway protection from flooding afforded the future Lewis and Clark Drive is satisfactory. 4. The temporary diversion channel for the construction of the box culvert appears satisfactory. 5. If VDOT will be maintaining the box culvert, the entire box culvert including the wing walls and erosion control stone must be included in right of way or permanent drainage easement. The subdivision plat may show more than the CLOMR plans. 6. The base of the proposed retaining wall must be protected from erosion from Flat Branch. The plan shows a riprap symbol, but does not indicate size or thickness. Retaining Wall 1. The proposed T =wall system by Neel Company is acceptable for placement within the VDOT Right of Way. Note #3 on C -18 states that the contractor can use any approved retaining wall system. This wall will support critical infrastructure and any changes from the proposed system will require further VDOT review prior to permitting and construction. A list of approved products is attached. 2. Note #2 on C -18 states the contractor's requirement to provide a geotechnical foundation analysis on the proposed system. This must be submitted and approved by VDOT. Please let me know if you have any comments or questions. Thanks Joel <<List of Approved _MSE_walls- January2005.doc>> Joel DeNunzio, P.E. VDOT Culpeper Land Development 434 =589 -5871 Joel.denunzMavdot.viminia.gov Philip Custer From: Philip Custer Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 4:02 PM To: ' richard@ neighborhoodprops.com';'Herbert F. White III, P .E.';'djensen @wwassociates.net' Cc: Gerald Gatobu; Bill Fritz Subject: FW: North Pointe NW Residential final site plan Please see the email below for Joel's comments regarding the site plan (SDP- 2010 - 00021). From: DeNunzio, Joel D., P.E. fmailto:J oel.DeNunzio@VDOT.virginia.gov] Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 2:52 PM To: Philip Custer Subject: North Pointe NW Residential final site plan North Pointe NW Residential final site plan Phil, I have reviewed the referenced site plan and have the following comments: 1. Structure 11.4 should be placed where the super transition is at +1 % instead of at +2% to maximize water capture prior to the super transition flattening and water will be flowing across the lane. It appears that the drainage area may be miscalculated on this D.I. 2. The proposed easement for the Korean Church is located where it will not meet the Access Management Standards and may be an issue when the church applies for an entrance permit. 3. The lane configuration will need to be verified as adequate prior to permitting of construction based on the proposed traffic signal timing plan and storage queues. VDOT has not yet received this information for review and cannot comment on the adequacy of the storage at this time. 4. Sheet C -10 — Station 13 +50 +/- rt. Has a label for a CG -12A that is no longer there. Also, Station 14 +25 +/- rt labels a CG -12 type M2. 5. Some drop inlets are drawn as di -2's but the summary labels all di's to be type 3's. I don't care if the drawing is changed but did want to point that out because it could cause confusion to the contractor. 6. Considering the 10% downgrade on the approach to the route 29 intersection, it appears that the canopies of the street trees at 10 year growth will obstruct sight distance to the signal heads. The engineer should review this to ensure it's not a conflict. 7. Median trees must have a mature caliper of 4" or less. Trees denoted as ZVG and SJR do not meet this requirement. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks Joel ALg�,�� �'IRGINZ� COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 Project: North Pointe Northwest Residential Area SDP - 2010 -00021 and WPO- 2010 -00017 Plan preparer: Mr. Herb White, PE; W & W Associates Owner or rep.: Neighborhood Investments NP -LLC Date received: 4 March 2010 (plan signed 3 March 20 10) (Rev. 1) 27 July 2010 (Rev. 2) 3 February 2011 Date of Comment: 16 April 2010 (Rev. 1) 9 September 2010 (Rev. 2) 18 March 2011 Engineer: Phil Custer The second revisions to the final site, road, SWM, and ESC plans for the North Pointe Northwest Residential Area project, received on 3 February 2011, have been reviewed. Engineering review can recommend approval to the plan after the following comments have been addressed. A. General review comments 1. This plan cannot be approved until the submittal for the road stream crossing is approved. The ESC plan for this project will not be able to receive a grading permit until the crossing is established. (Rev. 1) Comment has been acknowledged by the applicant. (Rev. 2) The technical aspects of the stream crossing ESC plan (WPO- 2009 - 00061) had been approved in January of 2010 at the request of the applicant so an extension of the Army Corps Permit could be received before an approaching deadline. That technical approval was not given to all other aspects of the stream crossing plan: design of the culvert, FEMA approval, mitigation approval, etc. All of these elements must be approved prior to the approval of this site plan. [SP- 2006 -00034 Condition 2, SP- 2006 -00034 Condition 3, SP- 2006 -00034 Condition 5,17-3221 Per 17- 204.G, the approval of ESC plan for the stream crossing is now void. In the meeting held between county staff and the applicant on June 2e 2010, it was discovered that I had mistakenly allowed disturbance to the conservation area for the construction of a sediment trap and it was agreed upon that sediment basin I would be constructed with the stream crossing WPO plan, but no plan was ever submitted to correct the sequence. Please submit a new application, fee, and a set of the revised stream crossing ESC plan showing the construction of sediment basin 1. 2. The current ESC plan shows disturbance to critical slopes that were shown as being preserved in the approved rezoning plan. Because of this, a critical slope waiver must be approved by the Planning Commission before the current plan can proceed or the ESC plan must be redesigned to stay within the limits shown on the plan approved by the Board of Supervisors. (Rev. 1) The Director of Community Development has made the determination that a critical slope waiver for the additional disturbance is not needed. 3. Property lines cannot go through buildings unless a substantial fire wall is constructed on the boundary. A plat must be submitted and recorded prior to final site plan approval that rectifies this problem. The simplest solution would be to combine the two parcels with a Boundary Line Adjustment Plat. (Rev. 1) It is my understanding that a Boundary Line Adjustment plat has been approved. 4. The plan appears to propose features within the 50ft construction easement granted to the owners of TMP 32 -22K1 in the document recorded in DB 1663, PG 648. The applicant should remove these features from the 50ft easement or amend the agreement so that it works for both parties. (Rev. 1) All important features have been removed from this construction easement. Comment has been addressed. 5. Please provide a note on the cover sheet of the plan which states that before a certificate of occupancy is granted, a plat dedicating the ROW, public drainage easements with associated deeds, stormwater management easements, and temporary construction easements must be recorded. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 6. Per Proffer 4.1, the County will request that the floodplain be dedicated once the Conditional Letter of Map Revision is approved by FEMA and the county. (Rev. 1) It is my understanding that the Conditional Letter of Map Revision is currently under FEMA review. Please forward FEMA approval for this crossing to me once it is received. The County Engineer has reviewed the CLOMR and will sign it as the county official when VDOT approves the plan. This is being tracked with WPO- 2009 - 00061. (Rev. 2) Comment remains unchanged. FEMA approval of the CLOMR will be needed prior to the approval of the stream crossing plan. Approval of the stream crossing plan will be needed prior to the approval of the site plan. 7. Per Proffer 4.4, please provide confirmation that all streambank mitigation required by the Army Corps of Engineers for the Northwest Passage stream crossing is being provided onsite. (Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. Please provide correspondence from the Army Corps of Engineers stating that all mitigation can be provided on site. (Rev. 2) The mitigation plan is being processed with the stream crossing application. The mitigation plan must be approved prior to site plan approval. [17 -3221 B. Site Plan review comments (SDP- 2010 - 00021) 1. The placement of buildings 25, 26, and 27 is not in general accord with the approved rezoning plan. Please work with the Planning Department to find a solution to this issue before the next submittal. (Rev. 1) The Planning Department is currently reviewing this variation request. It appears as though this variation can be approved on the condition that SWM facility #10 is designed satisfactorily. (Rev. 2) Comment remains unchanged. 2. The distance between the private access easement to the church property and Discovery Court is too short for VDOT to provide two entrance permits. These entrances must be either separated to the minimum spacing required by VDOT or consolidated. The resolution to this issue should be addressed simultaneously with the previous comment while in discussion with the Planning Department to assure that the solution is still in general accord with the application plan. (Rev. 1) It appears as though the entrance locations will meet the VDOT separation requirements. County Engineering will defer to VDOT on this issue. In VDOT's last series of comments, it did not appear this issue was raised. Please confirm the adequacy of the entrance locations with VDOT. (Rev. 2) Please refer to Comment #2 from Joel DeNunzio's most recent review (311812011). The future entrance at the access easement's intersection with Lewis and Clark Drive will likely not meet VDOT standards. I recommend that the applicant work with the northern property owner to find a mutually beneficial accesslentrance arrangement for this corner of the site. Please note that this issue may be raised with the latest Zoning Map Amendment plan. 3. The connection to TMP 32 -22KI must be design and constructed with this development. This travelway must be no narrower than 20ft from curb to curb. The travelway must be design and constructed along the existing access easement unless the access easement is modified. [18- 32.7.2.5] (Rev. 1) The Director of Community Development has determined this connection does not need to be constructed with this application. 4. If Buildings 25, 26, and 27 is allowed in the current proposed location, the travelway southwest of building 27 must be redirected slightly and extended to the property boundary of TMP 32 -22P [18-32.7.2.51 (Rev. 1) This comment has been withdrawn. 5. Please provide the date of the topographic information. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 6. Please provide a benchmark on the plan. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 7. Please show the stream buffers on all applicable sheets. Any stream buffer disturbance except exempted items must be mitigated. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. However, additional disturbances in this plan must be accounted for in the previously submitted mitigation plan for this project, WPO- 2009 - 00061. The mitigation plan must be approved prior to the final site plan being signed. Revisions to the ESC and Mitigation plan of this application are needed. (Rev. 2) Comment remains unchanged. [17 -3221 8. Please show the approximate locations of the existing and new flood elevation lines. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 9. On sheet C -8, please shade all critical slopes and show the approximate limits of critical slope disturbance authorized by the Board of Supervisors at the time the rezoning plan was approved. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 10. Please callout the end treatment for each guardrail section. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 11. Please separate the drainage and stormwater management easements. (Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. Pipes (excluding the riser culvert from facility 10 and any pipe to or from a Vortechs or Stormfclter vault) or ditches conveying VDOT water require public easements. SWM facilities will need a separate easement and will be privately maintained, with the possible exception being SWM facility #10. (Rev. 2) All SWM easements must be private. 12. The widths of the public drainage easements from structures 34.3 to outfall and 11 to 10 are not correct. [DM] (Rev. 1) The easement widths for pipes 11 -10, 34.3 -34.2, and 34.2 -34.1 are acceptable. However, the drainage easements downstream of these pipes are not separated from the SWM easements as required in the previous comment. (Rev. 2) Comment has been addressed. 13. Please show all public drainage easements on the landscape plan to confirm that all significant trees are located outside of the easements. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 14. Please provide vertical profiles of the sight distance lines looking north from the entrances south of buildings 11 and 19. The vertical alignment of Northwest Passage seems to obstruct the sight lines. When the road is redesigned, make sure the vertical alignment is corrected to provide adequate sight distance. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 15. Please label each entrance with a VDOT designation. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 16. Entrances cannot have a slope greater than 4% for the first 40ft from the edge of the curbline. Please revise the spot elevations at the Discovery Court entrance so that the cross slope is as close to 4% as reasonably possible. [18- 4.12.17] (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 17. VDOT approval of all road plans must be received before the final site plan can be approved by the County. (Rev. 1) VDOT approval has not yet been received. (Rev. 2) VDOT approval has not yet been received. 18. Curbing is required on the landscaped area between parking spaces. Please either revise the site plan or request a waiver from the Zoning Administrator per 18- 4.12.2.c. [18- 4.12.15.g] (Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. To save space, I recommend eliminating every other grassed island and provide 4 parking spaces centered on the wall separating the units. This would maintain the applicant's desire to have each pair of spaces correlate to a unit and provide a greater width of each landscape island. (Rev. 2) Comment has been addressed. 19. All parking areas and travelways adjacent to parking areas must be no steeper than 5% (this includes all "driveway" spaces adjacent to buildings). This maximum appears to be violated consistently throughout the site. Please either revise the site plan so that no slope is over 5% or request a waiver from the Zoning Administrator per 18- 4.12.2.c. Engineering review does not recommend approval of this waiver. [18- 4.12.15.c] (Rev. 1) A waiver of this ordinance standard has been approved by the Chief of Current Development. 20. A few spaces on the south end of building 6 are less than 18ft long. Please rotate the building so the length meets the minimum requirement for a parking space. [18- 4.12.16.c] (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 21. Please remove the 2 southernmost parking spaces east of building 1. The spaces are too close to the entrance and create an issue when a vehicle is entering the site at the time another is backing from these spaces. [DM and 18- 32.7.2] (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 22. The slope of the travelway adjacent to inlet 29 directs concentrated water across the drive aisle. Please regrade the travelway or move inlet 29 so that it is immediately downhill of the nearby filterra. [18- 32.7.2] (Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. The grading in this area is the same; only a note was added to the plans. Please show how (with contour lines and spot elevations) the contractor is to grade the pavement to direct the spread flow from this curbline into DI -29. Or, please shift the filterra to the north and relocate Inlet 29 before the travelway. (Rev. 2) Comment has been addressed. 23. It appears that an inlet was omitted from the parking area west of building 25. (Rev. 1) The revised grading is acceptable. However, the lack of an inlet in the area makes the downstream inlet, 28, more critical. Similar to Inlet 29, the proposed grading indicates that flow from the curbline will bypass this inlet. (Rev. 2) Comment has been addressed. 24. The pipe from inlet 35.1 to 35 is at an acute angle. Please revise the network so that the change of flow direction is at least 90 degrees. [DM] (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 25. Pull the guardrail behind the fire hydrant north of building 12. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 26. Remove the sediment trap grading north of the entrance in all sheets but the ESC plan, if necessary. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 27. Where is Detail C on Sheet 49 located in the plan? This detail should be removed from the plan if it is not needed. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 28. The standard pavement section is adequate for most of the parking areas and travelways outside of the ROW. However, it appears as though a few of the entrances may have ADT's greater than the approximately 260 trips the standard payment section can handle. Please provide a detail that shows the projected ADT's of each travelway and entrance so that the pavement sections can be verified to be satisfactory. [18- 4.12.15.a] (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 29. Please identify the layback angle of the retaining wall in the detail and consider in plan view the lost horizontal space as the wall height increases. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 30. A bus stop is required on site for the southbound lane of Lewis and Clark Drive. [Proffer 9.2.a] (Rev. 1) I have been informed that these bus stops are not ADA compliant with regard to possessing an appropriate landing area. An 8ft deep by 5ft wide paved landing area is needed around the front of each bus stop. The graphic below is a detail provided by JAUNT which operates buses with a handicap lift at the rear of the vehicle. Since it is anticipated that Charlottesville Area Transit will be servicing this area eventually, please coordinate the design of these stops with their office. (Exhibit Removed) (Rev. 2) Comment has been addressed. 31. In note #6 on the drainage profile sheets, please clarify that the 4ft drop includes water falling from the inlet to the bottom of the manhole. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 32. For all curb inlets that do not have overland flow to SWM facilities, the sizing criteria must use 6.5in /hr. [policy] (Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. Structures 11.1 and IL 2 must have 100% efficiency since the downstream structures are not routed to a SWM facility. It appears this can be achieved with throat lengths of 12ft. The longitudinal slope of the roadway at these structures appears to be around 7 %, not 5 %. Please check all other inlet calculations to make sure the correct longitudinal and cross slopes are applied when the roadway was regraded (the calculation table is dated in December). (Rev. 2) Comment has been addressed. 33. Structures 2 and 3 should be located at the low point of the roadway. (Rev. 1) County Engineering will defer to VDOT on the design of the intersection with Route 29. (Rev. 2) It appears as though a new inlet (2.1) was added to the plan to address the runoff at the low point. The county concerns have been addressed. VDOT will review the hydraulic computations as well. 34. I recommend reevaluating the placement of handicap ramps in parking areas where significant runoff will be traveling in the curbline across ramps. 35. In the Landscape Plan, please provide a low maintenance, non - grassed groundcover on all slopes steeper than 3:1. [DM] (Rev. 1) Please hatch or shade all areas on the landscape plans steeper than 3:1 and refer to Note 31 on Sheet C -46. (Rev. 2) Comment has been addressed. 36. (Rev. 1) Please grade a 6ft wide grass path to the conservation area from the sidewalk south of Building 2 so the county can establish a trail to the greenway when the land is dedicated. From the sidewalk to the top of the hill, it looks as though a 14% grade can be achieved. (Rev. 2) The revised location of the greenway access point is acceptable. However, please widen the public easement to include both of the sidewalks. The public access easement onto Girard Lane and Dillon Court no longer seem necessary now that the public can access the greenway completely from Girard Terrace. 37. (Rev. 2) The site plan is no longer in conformity with the application plan. In the previous two final site plan submittals, the approved preliminary plan, and the approved application plan, there were two access points onto Lewis and Clark Drive for the western half of the development. In the latest submittal, one of these entrances was removed. This change also runs counter to a requirement of the county ordinance which requires 50 or more units to have two connections to a public street. [18- 32.7.2.41 The site plan must be revised to provide two safe entrances onto Lewis and Clark Drive for the western half of this development. [18- 8.5.5.21 38. (Rev. 2) In the previous submittal a concrete sidewalk was provided without curb in front of all of the driveway units (buildings 6, 8, and 9). In the latest submittal (buildings 1, 2, 6, 8, and 9), the concrete was removed and it seems as though the applicant's intention is to have this area be standard asphalt pavement. The area for pedestrians needs to be demarcated in someway. There are several options for the applicant to consider. reverting back to a concrete walk between the driveways and travelway as proposed in the first revision, hatching or striping the pedestrian areas as a crosswalk, or using some architectural feature like painted, stamped asphalt (as seen at some of the crosswalks in the north downtown area of Charlottesville). [18- 32.7.2.8] C. Road Plan review comments (SDP- 2010 - 00021) 1. Before the final site plan can be approved, all road improvements as outlined in Proffer 5.3.1.c must be approved and bonded. The WPO plans associated with these road improvements must also be approved and bonded prior to site plan approval. The design of two of these road improvements (i and iii) has been included in a plan that was previously submitted to the county (WPO- 2009 - 00067). The other three proffered improvements (ii, iv, and v) have not been included in any plan received by the county. All easements (drainage, SWM, ESC /construction, etc.) and ROW associated with the construction of the offsite road improvements must be platted prior to road plan approval. [Proffer 5.3.1.c] (Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. (Rev. 2) Comment remains unchanged. The applicant has submitted a plan which has been reviewed once for items ii and iv. The site plan cannot be approved until all road plans are approved and bonded per this proffer. 2. Prior to the approval of the plans for improvements at any US Route 29 intersection, Owner shall provide VDOT traffic signal network timing plans that VDOT finds acceptably address the impacts of the proposed traffic signals for peak traffic periods. Please provide proof of this approval from VDOT. [Proffer 5.3.21 (Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. (Rev. 2) Comment has not been addressed. When asked in an email this week whether Proffer 5.3.3 (which I incorrectly referenced during the first review of the plan) was addressed, VDOT's response was the following: The attached e-mail is the signal plan that VDOT provided the developer to make their adjustments to. VDOT still needs the signal plan along with a timing plan for the fourth leg and an intersection analysis to determine if the intersection lane capacities are adequate. VDOT has not yet received this information. Furthermore, VDOT's third review sent March 18th included the following comment: The lane configuration will need to be verified as adequate prior to permitting of construction based on the proposed traffic signal timing plan and storage queues. VDOT has not yet received this information for review and cannot comment on the adequacy of the storage at this time. This comment indicates that Proffer 5.3.3 of ZMA- 2000 -00009 has not been met. It also signifies that Condition I of SP- 2006 -00034 has not been met either. (The county will defer to VDOT in regard to the lane configuration). Currently, there is some question as to whether the primary road section for Northwest Passage (Lewis and Clark East) is acceptable to VDOT. If a modification to the typical road section is required by VDOT, a variation must be submitted to the Planning Department so that cross - section NWP3 as shown on sheet D1 of the Rezoning Plan may be altered to meet VDOT standards. [Proffer 5.1] (Rev. 1) The variation to modify the roadway cross - section is currently under review by the Planning Department. The plan view sheets do not match the cross section for most of Northwest Passage. If Planning grants the variation, please modify the plan to match the approved cross section. (Rev. 2) It is my understanding that the dimensions of the street cross - sections shown in this site plan are acceptable to all parties (Current Development Engineering, the Planning Department, and VDOT). 4. The Right of Way must be placed lft outside of the sidewalk and not on its edge. (Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. (Rev. 2) It is my understanding that VDOT will accept the ROW being placed 0.5ft outside of the sidewalk. 5. In the construction set for the extension of Northwest Passage to North Pointe Blvd., the applicant must design and construct a public road to the TMP's 32 -22P and 32 -22G. [18- 32.7.2.5 and 14- 409] (Rev. 1) As a result of the meeting held on June 2e, 2010, this connection does not need to be made with this plan. But, an entrance must be constructed as the applicant has promised to include in the road plan to follow. 6. Please remove the temporary turnaround from all sheets since the roadway will be constructed to North Pointe Boulevard. (Rev. 1) Comment has been withdrawn. 7. Condition 7 of SP- 2006 -00034 has not been met. (Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. All trees must be 2.5" caliper. (Rev. 2) The 2.5" caliber plantings should be extended to Sta. 14 +60 as stated in my May 10" ` 2010 email to Doug March after a discussion was had regarding whether more trees could be provided closer to the intersection. The following is taken from that email. I spoke with Gerald about the condition [ #7]. You do not need to plant any closer to Route 29. However, conditions 7 and 8 should be extended to Sta. 14 +60 to meet the 400ft spirit of the condition since it cannot be met literally. This appears to have been carried out for condition 8, but not condition 7. Inlet 2 and 3 should be located at the low point of the road and the low point should be moved farther into the site. (Rev. 1) County Engineering will defer to VDOT on the design of the intersection with Route 29. (Rev. 2) It appears as though a new inlet (2.1) was added to the plan to address the runoff at the low point. The county concerns have been addressed. VDOT will review the hydraulic computations as well. 9. Immediately prior to site plan approval, the applicant must submit a road bond request form for each road plan. With each bond request, the applicant must fill out a schedule of completion. All bonds (roads, swm, and esc) must be posted prior to final site plan approval. [Proffer 5.3.1.c] (Rev. 1) Comment has been noted by the applicant. (Rev. 2) To request any bond, please complete a Bond Estimate Request Form and submit it to the County Engineer after all plans are approved. A road bond will require a fee of $250. To post a road bond, a Schedule of Completion must be approved by the County Engineer. D. SWM review comments (WPO- 2010 - 00017) 1. Approval from Filterra for the current design has been received. If any change to the Filterra watersheds or placement occurs, an updated letter will be required. (Rev. 1) Comment has been acknowledged by the applicant. (Rev. 2) Comment has been acknowledged by the applicant. A new letter is not needed for this latest submittal because Filterras were only eliminated, not added or modified significantly. 2. An approval letter from the manufacturer of the Stormfilter system is required. (Rev. 1) Approval from Contech for the current design of the Stormfilters has been received. If any change to the Stormfilter watersheds or placement occurs, an updated letter will be required. (Rev. 2) Please provide an updated approval letter from Contech because the watersheds and arrangement of the facilities have been modified since the last approval letter. 3. Please provide a stormwater facility maintenance agreement and fee for each property a facility is located on. (Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. (Rev. 2) Comment has been addressed. 4. I have reviewed the detention waiver request with the County Engineer. The County Engineer will grant the waiver of 2 and 10 year detention for the northern drainage area on the condition that detention is provided upstream of both Stormfilter systems so that the water quality volume is guaranteed to be routed through the water quality units. This must be demonstrated through routings of rational method storms of varying durations. (Rev. 1) The county has reviewed the documents provided by the applicant with the resubmittal. These documents include the site specific approval letter from Contech, a copy of the Stormfilter section of the current edition of the VSMH, and the customary 2004 design method explanation letter which mentions the 0.35 in/hr design storm metric. I could not find any document from Virginia DCR that mentioned this 0.35 in/hr intensity as a standard and I have requested DCR's official opinion on this sizing method. I am currently awaiting a reply and will forward it to the applicant once it is received. Until then, this comment is still pending. In order for me to feel comfortable with this sizing concept without DCR approval, I would need to see an analysis of the rainfall intensities in Virginia showing that at least 90% of annual rainfall occurs with intensities of 0.35 in/hr or less. This kind of information is what I was expecting with the resubmittal. (Rev. 2) The applicant has provided detention upstream for the Contech facilities by moving one unit downstream of the riser for SWM 10 and by the addition of SWM 11 in the northwest corner of the site and moving another Contech structure downhill of this facility. In late November of 2010, the applicant had requested engineering staff, through Mark Graham, to determine whether SWM facility 11 could be allowed within the conservation area with utilities by simply leaving the grading of sediment basin I in place. The response from county engineering was provided by Glenn Brooks on December 8 'h in an email written to Mr. Herb White of WW Associates. The email stated that "the proposal to keep the temporary sediment facility as a permanent facility...is problematic." Glenn further went on to say that "the permanent basin also raises issues with other parts of the [county] organization," namely Zoning (in regard to the site plan's overall compliance with the ZMA) and the ARB with regard to the entrance corridor review. I understand that the ARB has conditionally approved the facility. However, I do not believe Zoning has made an official determination regarding this issue and will be doing so in the next week or two. I have reviewed the new SWM facility 11, and have provided comments immediately below, assuming that the Zoning Department will determine that the site plan still conforms to the application plan. Comments from the modification to SWM 10 will continue in comment D.13. The spillway for SWM #11 (and sediment basin 1) cannot go through the previously undisturbed conservation area. Please direct the spillway to the outlet of the Contech facility so only one riprapped channel to the stream is needed. The previous submittal showed the spillway for sediment basin 1 terminating at the conservation easement line. [SP- 2002 -00072 Condition #4, 17 -318, 17 -319, 17 -3201 The spillway is used more frequently than the average stormwater facility because there is only one 15 "pipe outlet. The rocklined weir should be eliminated and replaced with a concrete weir because of the uncertainties with the construction and routing of riprapped spillways. Also, the VSMH requires that the armoring of a principlelemergency spillway should begin at the upstream face, not at the top elevation. [VSMH 3.02, 17 -303] • Similar to what was done for the channel sections A -A, B -B, and C -C to SWM 10, please provide calculations for the downstream emergency spillway and riprapped channel below SWM 11 to make sure it will be non - erosive for the 2-year storm and capable of carrying the 10 year flow within its banks. • Please provide a graded access path to the facility embankment from the roadway. Where the access path is steeper than 10 0/c, it must be graveled or paved. [Policy] 5. Please show all roof drain collectors on the site plan. Roof drain collectors are required for any portion of any building that does not have overland flow to a drainage inlet. (Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. Roofdrains are necessary for Buildings 1, 2, 9, 14, 18, 21, and 24. (Rev. 2) Comment has been addressed. 6. The ARB must approve all design aspects of Stormwater Facility 10. (Rev. 1) Comment has been acknowledged by the applicant. (Rev. 2) It is my understanding that the ARB has approved the design of SWM facility 10. If any modification to the facility is made, a new review of this facility may be required. 7. Water quality requirements for the site will be met if the applicant can provide enough detention to route the entire water quality volume through the stormfilter systems. This must be demonstrated through routings of rational method storms of varying durations. (Rev. 1) The county has reviewed the documents provided by the applicant with the resubmittal. These documents include the site specific approval letter from Contech, a copy of the Stormfilter section of the current edition of the VSMH, and the customary 2004 design method explanation letter which mentions the 0.35 in/hr design storm metric. I could not find any document from Virginia DCR that mentioned this 0.35 in/hr intensity as a standard and I have requested DCR's official opinion on this sizing method. I am currently awaiting a reply and will forward it to the applicant once it is received. Until then, this comment is still pending. In order for me to feel comfortable with this sizing concept without DCR approval, I would need to see an analysis of the rainfall intensities in Virginia showing that at least 90% of annual rainfall occurs with intensities of 0.35 in/hr or less. This kind of information is what I was expecting with the resubmittal. (Rev. 2) Please refer to Comment D.4. 8. For the CN calculation for the post - development drainage area for SWM 10, use higher CN values than 85 and 90 for townhouses because the impervious percentage for this site is greater than the 65% found in the VSMH table. (Rev. 1) Area I and 2 in the SWM 10 pre- development table appear to be in the incorrect rows. (Rev. 2) Comment has been addressed. 9. Stormwater Facility 10 must also provide detention for as much of the extension of Northwest Passage (and surrounding land that drains to Northwest Passage) that the stubout from 35.3 would collect. Once the full road plans for Northwest Passage are prepared, the detention calculations can be evaluated again for compliance. (Rev. 1) The post- development drainage area limits maintain the pre- development watershed, which is unrealistic. At a minimum, please update the map and calculations to include all of the bus parking. (Rev. 2) Comment has not been addressed. The previous comment was referring to the bus parking at the school site, not the bus stops (which were already within the watershed of SWM 10). It looks as though the drainage area will increase by approximately 17,OOOsf (with — 10,OOOsf of impervious area). 10. For all curb inlets that do not have overland flow to SWM facilities, the sizing criteria must use 6.5in /hr. [policy] (Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. Structures 11.1 and 11.2 must have 100% efficiency since the downstream structures are not routed to a SWM facility. It appears this can be achieved with throat lengths of 12ft. The longitudinal slope of the roadway at these structures appears to be around 7 %, not 5 %. Please check all other inlet calculations to make sure the correct longitudinal and cross slopes are applied when the roadway was regraded (the calculation table is dated in December). (Rev. 2) Comment has been addressed. 11. The downstream slope of the embankment of SWM facility 10 must be 3:1. [VSMH MS 3.01 -13] When this change is made please make sure the embankment width is compliant with Table 3.01 -1 and the work is shown outside of the conservation area and floodplain. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 12. If SWM -10 is to remain a dry detention basin, please provide a low flow channel to the riser from all inlet points. (Rev. 1) Comment no longer applies. 13. Proffer 9.1 states that the applicant will grant all permanent and temporary easements for the use of SWM facility 10 when the county's school lot is developed. Although the proffers and plan do not explicitly require the applicant of this development (NW residential area) to design or build this facility for the school's stormwater runoff, engineering review understands that the approval of the variation to allow buildings 25, 26 and 27 in the current proposed location is contingent upon the design of several aspects of the land surrounding this facility. As proposed, the intent of the design of SWM facility 10 appears to provide detention of only the impervious area from this development, the Northwest Residential Area (though, see comment 9). It can safely be assumed that the facility would require a considerable expansion in order to satisfy a portion of the school's water quality and quantity requirements. There are two ways the facility could be increased to meet SWM requirements for the future development of the school. Without an easement from the property owner of TMP 32 -22P however, the only option for expansion of the facility would be to the east towards Northwest Passage, which would likely require steep slopes and retaining walls. Because the design of the school site has not be initiated and the ultimate size and shape of the facility is unknown, the applicant must show a temporary construction easement bounded by the property line with TMP 32 -22P (south), the conservation line (west and northwest), the road ROW (east), and a line running from east -to -west at structure 34.1 from the ROW to the conservation area (north). The stormwater quality system must be shown outside of this temporary construction easement. The construction easement will need to be platted prior to approval of the final site plan. The plat should indicate that all of the construction easement is reserved for possible future SWM dedication upon demand of the county when the school lot is developed. (Rev. 1) The drainage area to this facility is below the typical acreage needed to maintain a sustainable water quality wet pond. Please provide a water balance calculation to determine whether the wet pond will be drawn down after a 30 -day summer drought by an acceptable amount. Because this is a facility that will be visible from nearly every direction (and subjected to ARB review) and is just 4ft deep, any dry weather drawdown will have significant impacts to the BMP. Section 6.2 of the new proposed SWM pond standards (available online) explains this calculation in detail. Once this calculation is performed, please send this to me. If the drawdown is acceptable, please provide a calculation showing that the aquatic bench area is at least 15% of the surface area of the pond. Please also provide a planting plan for the aquatic bench. If the drawdown is not acceptable, Facility 10 should be designed as a biofilter. If the extension of Northwest Passage from Sta. 27 +80 to North Pointe Blvd. is directed through the Stormfilter system (by connecting structure 46 to structure 35), the grading of the facility could likely remain as proposed with a 6in PVC pipe at the base of the riser and a slight adjustment to the 2 -year orifice. When the school is constructed, the 6" pipe at the base would be extended as an underdrain and the county would fill in the pond with gravel and biofilter mix as necessary to treat the impervious area it directs to this facility. In either case, please also provide an anti - vortex device on the riser and update the routing calculations if the anti - vortex device affects the stage- discharge relationship. (Rev. 2) The design of SWM 10 has been modifed between the last submittal and now. The following comments are provided for SWM facility 10 based on the latest plan modification: a. There is a discrepancy with the elevation of the emergency spillway between the plan view and the detail. b. The calculations will need to be updated based on comment D.9. c. The applicant has intended that this facility to be an extended detention facility. Please provide the 30 -hour drawdown calculation showing that the facility meets this design standard. [VSMH 3.07] 14. The SWM bond will be calculated at the time of WPO plan approval. (Rev. 1) Comment remains unchanged. With the next submittal, please provide a cost estimate (including labor) for the Contech facilities. (Rev. 2) The estimate for the Contech facilities has been received. To request a SWM bond estimate, please provide the county engineer with a completed Bond Estimate Request Form once all plans have been approved. 15. (Rev. 2) The Stormwater narrative has been modified since the last submittal. Please remove any reference to MS -19 with regard to detention for the SWM 11 watershed. Instead, please reference the conditional detention waiver granted by county engineering after the first review of the plan. The one percent rule does not exempt any development from detention. E. Site ESC review comments (WPO- 2010 - 00017) 1. The current ESC plan shows disturbance to critical slopes that were shown as being preserved in the approved rezoning plan. Because of this, a critical slope waiver must be approved by the Planning Commission before the current plan can proceed or the ESC plan must be redesigned to stay within the limits shown on the plan approved by the Board of Supervisors. Engineering review recommends placing the sediment basin on the access easement to the church property (after coming to a mutually acceptable agreement with the property owner) and phasing the construction of buildings 1 and 2. (Rev. 1) The Director of Community Development has made the determination that a critical slope waiver for the additional disturbance is not needed. 2. A portion of Sediment Basin 1 is currently proposed in the conservation area. The program authority will not allow this disturbance inside the conservation area. Engineering review recommends placing the sediment basin on the access easement to the church property (after coming to a mutually acceptable agreement with the property owner) and phasing the construction of buildings 1 and 2. (Rev. 1) The Director of Community Development will allow disturbance to the conservation area as proposed by the applicant. 3. Please identify separate limits of construction for both this ESC plan and the Stream Crossing Plan (WPO- 2009 - 00061). Please provide notes on Sheets 24 and 25 in the area of the stream crossing that refers to the previously approved plan. Please also refer to the previously approved stream crossing plan in the construction sequence and eliminate the reference to guardrail demolition to establish the entrance; this work will be covered by the other plan. This comment assumes that the plans will not be combined. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 4. A grading permit for this project will not be issued until the stream crossing is in place unless the stream cross plan is combined with the site plan set. (Rev. 1) This comment has been acknowledged by the applicant. (Rev. 2) The technical aspects of the stream crossing ESC plan (WPO- 2009 - 00061) had been approved in January of 2010 at the request of the applicant so an extension of the Army Corps Permit could be received before an approaching deadline. That technical approval was not given to all other aspects of the stream crossing plan: design of the culvert, FEMA approval, mitigation approval, etc. All of these elements must be approved prior to the approval of this site plan. [SP- 2006 -00034 Condition 2, SP- 2006 -00034 Condition 3, SP- 2006 -00034 Condition 5,17-3221 Per 17- 204.G, the approval of ESC plan for the stream crossing is now void. In the meeting held between county staff and the applicant on June 24'" 2010, it was discovered that I had mistakenly allowed disturbance to the conservation area for the construction of a sediment trap and it was agreed upon that sediment basin I would be constructed with the stream crossing WPO plan, but no plan was ever submitted to correct the sequence. Please submit a new application, fee, and a set of the revised stream crossing ESC plan showing the construction of sediment basin 1. 5. Per Proffer 4.3.a., this development is required to provide extra erosion and sediment control on site to the satisfaction of the Program Authority. The applicant has identified 6 items that were provided in this plan that he stated were above and beyond standard erosion and sediment control practices. Those 6 items are: 1) All 2:1 slopes to have EC -2 lining, or annual rye hydroseed with tackifier. 2) Use of wire - supported fence on the east side of the site bordering NF Rivanna River. 3) For E &S Control Phase 1, the volume of SB -2 is greater than the required minimum by approximately 60 %. 4) For E &S Control Phase 1, the volume of SB -1 will be greater than the required minimum by more than 200 %. 5) Existing sediment traps, silt fence and other E &S control features installed under WPO- 2009 -0061 will remain in place for as long as feasibly possible. 6) Temporary Slope drains will be installed from the outlets of SB -1 and SB -2. Though engineering review considers at least half of these items normal requirements, we will consider this proffer satisfied if the applicant extends the temporary slope drains from Basins 1 and 2 to the stream. The applicant must also place a note on sheets 24 and 25 that no heavy equipment must be used to install this slope drain and associated riprap. [SP Condition #4] (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 6. The concept for sediment basin 2 does not seem to work during the intermediate stages between the two phases. An additional phase to the plan is necessary to clarify the construction sequence. Please provide a phase between the two existing phases that shows what the site would look like the day before Sediment Basin 2 must be removed. The proposed layout, grading, and stormsewer plan appears to require the basin to be removed or affected too soon. Similarly, the changes required to address comments 1 and 2 will likely have the same issue which could be addressed with this intermediate phase sheet. (Rev. 1) The area west of the curb along the stormsewer system 28 to 23 cannot be solely protected by silt fence to state standards because of the grading required and the total width of disturbance. Though, when the filling of SB2 takes place, the use of silt fence as the sole measure is unavoidable. To minimize the amount of time relying on silt fence in this area, the grading necessary to establish pad for buildings 14 and 24 and the slopes to the west must be performed while SB2 and the fill diversions are in place. Once these slopes are stabilized and the disturbed area is minimized, then SB2 may be removed. Please clearly explain this procedure in step 12 of the construction sequence. Engineering review recommends identifying the area on site where the SB2 fill soil is to be stockpiled prior to the filling of the basin. (Rev. 2) Comment has been addressed. 7. In the Phase I plan, please show the retaining walls needed to install the fill diversions being constructed. The work to install the walls will be performed below the at -grade diversion dikes. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 8. Please move the construction entrance for this ESC plan to just east of the diversions so that the entrance can drain to a sediment trapping measure. The construction entrance in phase 1 should be placed on the existing haul road and in phase 2 the entrance should be placed on Northwest Passage. This comment assumes that the plans will not be combined and the grading permit for this plan will be given after CRS and grass has stabilized the majority of the stream crossing plan. (Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. Construction entrances are required to drain to a sediment trap or basin per VESCH. In the first phase of the stream crossing plan, WPO -2009- 00061, this is difficult to achieve and there are no practical alternatives. Once final grading is achieved at the stream crossing, the area should be stabilized with the gravel base and kept clean by moving the construction entrances east of the ROW diversion so the tire washoff area can be directed to a sediment trapping measure, either SBI or SB2, via diversions (or inlets and pipes in Phase 2). (Rev. 2) Comment has been addressed. 9. In the set, please include the paved wash rack detail found in the county's design manual, available online, and remove the standard detail from the VESCH. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 10. Please provide more DC (both phases) and PS (in Phase 2) symbols throughout the plan. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 11. Please show a location for a staging and parking area on the plan. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 12. Please provide a location for the soil stockpile on the plan. The erosion and sediment narrative refers to an offsite stockpile and waste area plan on another North Pointe parcel. The stockpile must be shown within the limits of an erosion and sediment control plan. (Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. A stockpile is needed on the plan. The applicant is referring to a waste area on an offsite parcel. Presumably, the contractor will need a considerable amount of space to stockpile topsoil and cut, even if it is to be taken elsewhere. If it is anticipated that cut will be hauled offsite, please state in the Offsite Area of the ESC narrative that excess material is to be taken to a site with a permitted ESC plan. (Rev. 2) Comment has been addressed. 13. Please clarify what Phase 1 mass grading is, as referenced in note 7 of the construction sequence. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 14. Please lightly shade or hatch all critical slopes on sheet 24. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 15. Please label the proposed drainage areas to basins 1 and 3 on sheet 25. My calculations show the drainage area to Basin 1 being 10.6 acres in Phase 2. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 16. The phase 2 portion of the ESC plan appears to have omitted the grading required at Sta. 26 +00 of Northwest Passage. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 17. For sediment basin 1, please show the 401 contour in plan view. The actual width of this embankment is only 6ft and must be widened to 8ft. [VESCH MS 3.14] (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 18. Please provide safety fences surrounding all sediment basins stating "danger,quicksand, do not enter." (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 19. Please provide the hydraflow routings of the sediment basin to confirm that the 25 -year storm is at an acceptable elevation. (Rev. 1) The 25 -year routing for Sediment Basin 3 does not appear to match the detail on Sheet C- 29. In the program, the crest is entered at 415.80 rather than the 416.50 exhibited on the detail. Additionally, there is a discrepancy between the program and the detail with regard to the contour areas of the facility. For Sediment Basins I and 2, please confirm that the stage- discharge graph from Plate 3.14 -8 was used for the routing of the crest of each of the risers. The input for these two facilities appears to assume that the top is a regular weir. The dewatering orifice for Sediment Basin 1 on the detail does not match the routing. (Rev. 2) Comment has been addressed. 20. For the CN calculation in the sediment basin calculations, use values of 82 (B soils) and 87 (C soils) for exposed earth. Please also consider the impervious area in Phase H in basins 1 and 3 when checking the 25 -year storm elevation. (Rev. 1) The use of 0.6 is acceptable and all facilities appear to pass the 25 year storm with satisfactory freeboards. 21. The ESC bond will be calculated at the time of WPO plan approval. (Rev. 1) Comment remains unchanged. (Rev. 2) To request a ESC bond estimate, please provide the county engineer with a completed Bond Estimate Request Form once all plans have been approved. 22. (Rev. 1) When additional dry storage is provided in a sediment basin the dewatering orifice should be calculated from the height to the required volume, not provided volume. For instance, in sediment basin 2 the 412.7cy is likely provided around the 402.8ft elevation. In this case, the h/2 value would be 0.95ft rather than 1.3ft. For sediment basin 2, this might not be consequential because a 4.0" orifice was provided anyway. Please update the calculations to confirm that a 4.0" inch orifice is appropriate. A (Rev. 2) All dewatering orifice calculations are acceptable. 23. (Rev. 1) The dewatering orifice calculation for Sediment Basin 3 appears to be incorrect. The contour areas do not match the values I received from the planimeter. The h/2 value should be 1.8ft (or, based on comment #22 above, around 1.5ft), rather than 0.6ft. The detail shows a 16" reducer to be placed over the permanent SWM orifice, but this is not coordinated with the final SWM plan. The only orifice proposed (in the detail on C -38 and in the routing output on C -34) shows a 10.5 orifice with an invert of 410.25, while the dewatering orifice is set at 412.9. (Rev. 2) Comment has been addressed. 24. (Rev. 1) Please specify an anti - vortex device on Sediment Basin 3 since the riser will be RCP. What will the hydraulic effects of the anti - vortex device be for Sediment Basin 3 and SWM facility 10? (Rev. 2) Comment has been addressed. The applicant has provided what he certifies to be an antivortex device on the detail on Sheet 38. 25. (Rev. 2) The location of the emergency spillway for sediment basin I must match the location of the permanent spillway for SWM 11. The spillway should be relocated to the south end of the basin so that less disturbance to the conservation area occurs. [SP- 2002 -00072 Condition #4, 17 -318, 17 -319, 17 -3201 �� OF ALB �'IRGINZP COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald Gatobu, Principal Planner FROM: Margaret Maliszewski, Principal Planner RE: SDP - 2010 -21: North Pointe Northwest Residential Area DATE: February 23, 2011 This development falls within the Route 29 North Entrance Corridor. ARB approval is required prior to final site plan approval. The applicant should submit an application for preliminary ARB review. Applications, checklists, schedules and guidelines are available on line at www.albemarle.oriz. The applicant should anticipate a preliminary ARB review followed by revisions, resubmittal, and a final ARB review. Additional review could be required depending on the proposal and the completeness of the submittals. Also, the applicant should note that, in addition to meeting all relevant EC Guidelines, landscaping conditions of SP- 2006 -34 apply. Those conditions are as follows: 6. Provide an informal planting of mixed tree and shrub species and sizes to compensate for removed vegetation, and low- growing plants to stabilize slopes in the "proposed landscaping areas" shown on the plan submitted for ARB review entitled "Proposed Entry Layout with Landscaping North West Passage Intersection @ Route 29 North" with revision date of 12- 04 -06. 7. Provide large shade trees on the north and south sides of Northwest Passage, along the sidewalk and space reserved for the sidewalk, two and one half inch (21 /z ") caliper minimum at planting, forty feet (40') on center, for a minimum distance of four hundred feet (400') from the existing edge of pavement of Route 29 North; 8. Provide trees in the median of Northwest Passage, beginning at the point closest to Route 29 North that can be approved by VDOT and extending for a minimum distance of four hundred feet (400') from the existing edge of pavement of Route 29 North. The planting shall take the form of a continuous informal mix of large, medium and small deciduous trees ranging from one and one- half inches (11 /z" ) to two and one half inches (21/2" ) caliper and evergreen trees ranging from four feet (4') to six feet (6') in height; 9. All of the above -noted landscaping shall be shown on the road plans submitted for Northwest Passage. The plans shall include a complete planting schedule keyed to the plan. The plans are subject to approval of the Design Planner; ALg�,�� �'IRGINZ� COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 Project: North Pointe Northwest Residential Area SDP - 2010 -00021 and WPO- 2010 -00017 Plan preparer: Mr. Herb White, PE; W & W Associates Owner or rep.: Neighborhood Investments NP -LLC Date received: 4 March 2010 (plan signed 3 March 20 10) (Rev. 1) 27 July 2010 Date of Comment: 16 April 2010 (Rev. 1) 9 September 2010 Engineer: Phil Custer The first revisions to the final site, road, SWM, and ESC plans for the North Pointe Northwest Residential Area project, received on 27 July 2010, have been reviewed. Engineering review can recommend approval to the plan after the following comments have been addressed. A. General review comments 1. This plan cannot be approved until the submittal for the road stream crossing is approved. The ESC plan for this project will not be able to receive a grading permit until the crossing is established. (Rev. 1) Comment has been acknowledged by the applicant. 2. The current ESC plan shows disturbance to critical slopes that were shown as being preserved in the approved rezoning plan. Because of this, a critical slope waiver must be approved by the Planning Commission before the current plan can proceed or the ESC plan must be redesigned to stay within the limits shown on the plan approved by the Board of Supervisors. (Rev. 1) The Director of Community Development has made the determination that a critical slope waiver for the additional disturbance is not needed. 3. Property lines cannot go through buildings unless a substantial fire wall is constructed on the boundary. A plat must be submitted and recorded prior to final site plan approval that rectifies this problem. The simplest solution would be to combine the two parcels with a Boundary Line Adjustment Plat. (Rev. 1) It is my understanding that a Boundary Line Adjustment plat has been approved. 4. The plan appears to propose features within the 50ft construction easement granted to the owners of TMP 32 -22K1 in the document recorded in DB 1663, PG 648. The applicant should remove these features from the 50ft easement or amend the agreement so that it works for both parties. (Rev. 1) All important features have been removed from this construction easement. Comment has been addressed. 5. Please provide a note on the cover sheet of the plan which states that before a certificate of occupancy is granted, a plat dedicating the ROW, public drainage easements with associated deeds, stormwater management easements, and temporary construction easements must be recorded. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 6. Per Proffer 4.1, the County will request that the floodplain be dedicated once the Conditional Letter of Map Revision is approved by FEMA and the county. (Rev. 1) It is my understanding that the Conditional Letter of Map Revision is currently under FEMA review. Please forward FEMA approval for this crossing tome once it is received. The County Engineer has reviewed the CLOMR and will sign it as the county official when VDOT approves the plan. This is being tracked with WPO- 2009 - 00061. Per Proffer 4.4, please provide confirmation that all streambank mitigation required by the Army Corps of Engineers for the Northwest Passage stream crossing is being provided onsite. (Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. Please provide correspondence from the Army Corps of Engineers stating that all mitigation can be provided on site. B. Site Plan review comments (SDP- 2010 - 00021) 1. The placement of buildings 25, 26, and 27 is not in general accord with the approved rezoning plan. Please work with the Planning Department to find a solution to this issue before the next submittal. (Rev. 1) The Planning Department is currently reviewing this variation request. It appears as though this variation can be approved on the condition that SWM facility #10 is designed satisfactorily. 2. The distance between the private access easement to the church property and Discovery Court is too short for VDOT to provide two entrance permits. These entrances must be either separated to the minimum spacing required by VDOT or consolidated. The resolution to this issue should be addressed simultaneously with the previous comment while in discussion with the Planning Department to assure that the solution is still in general accord with the application plan. (Rev. 1) It appears as though the entrance locations will meet the VDOT separation requirements. County Engineering will defer to VDOT on this issue. In VDOT's last series of comments, it did not appear this issue was raised. Please confirm the adequacy of the entrance locations with VDOT. 3. The connection to TMP 32 -22K1 must be design and constructed with this development. This travelway must be no narrower than 20ft from curb to curb. The travelway must be design and constructed along the existing access easement unless the access easement is modified. [18- 32.7.2.5] (Rev. 1) The Director of Community Development has determined this connection does not need to be constructed with this application. 4. If Buildings 25, 26, and 27 is allowed in the current proposed location, the travelway southwest of building 27 must be redirected slightly and extended to the property boundary of TMP 32 -22P [18-32.7.2.51 (Rev. 1) This comment has been withdrawn. 5. Please provide the date of the topographic information. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 6. Please provide a benchmark on the plan. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 7. Please show the stream buffers on all applicable sheets. Any stream buffer disturbance except exempted items must be mitigated. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. However, additional disturbances in this plan must be accounted for in the previously submitted mitigation plan for this project, WPO- 2009 - 00061. The mitigation plan must be approved prior to the final site plan being signed. Revisions to the ESC and Mitigation plan of this application are needed. 8. Please show the approximate locations of the existing and new flood elevation lines. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 9. On sheet C -8, please shade all critical slopes and show the approximate limits of critical slope disturbance authorized by the Board of Supervisors at the time the rezoning plan was approved. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 10. Please callout the end treatment for each guardrail section. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 11. Please separate the drainage and stormwater management easements. (Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. Pipes (excluding the riser culvert from facility 10 and any pipe to or from a Vortechs or Stormfilter vault) or ditches conveying VDOT water require public easements. SWM facilities will need a separate easement and will be privately maintained, with the possible exception being SWM facility #10. 12. The widths of the public drainage easements from structures 34.3 to outfall and 11 to 10 are not correct. [DM] (Rev. 1) The easement widths for pipes 11 -10, 34.3 -34.2, and 34.2 -34.1 are acceptable. However, the drainage easements downstream of these pipes are not separated from the SWM easements as required in the previous comment. 13. Please show all public drainage easements on the landscape plan to confirm that all significant trees are located outside of the easements. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 14. Please provide vertical profiles of the sight distance lines looking north from the entrances south of buildings 11 and 19. The vertical alignment of Northwest Passage seems to obstruct the sight lines. When the road is redesigned, make sure the vertical alignment is corrected to provide adequate sight distance. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 15. Please label each entrance with a VDOT designation. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 16. Entrances cannot have a slope greater than 4% for the first 40ft from the edge of the curbline. Please revise the spot elevations at the Discovery Court entrance so that the cross slope is as close to 4% as reasonably possible. [18- 4.12.17] (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 17. VDOT approval of all road plans must be received before the final site plan can be approved by the County. (Rev. 1) VDOT approval has not yet been received. 18. Curbing is required on the landscaped area between parking spaces. Please either revise the site plan or request a waiver from the Zoning Administrator per 18- 4.12.2.c. [18- 4.12.15.g] (Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. To save space, I recommend eliminating every other grassed island and provide 4 parking spaces centered on the wall separating the units. This would maintain the applicant's desire to have each pair of spaces correlate to a unit and provide a greater width of each landscape island. 19. All parking areas and travelways adjacent to parking areas must be no steeper than 5% (this includes all "driveway" spaces adjacent to buildings). This maximum appears to be violated consistently throughout the site. Please either revise the site plan so that no slope is over 5% or request a waiver from the Zoning Administrator per 18- 4.12.2.c. Engineering review does not recommend approval of this waiver. [18- 4.12.15.c] (Rev. 1) A waiver of this ordinance standard has been approved by the Chief of Current Development. 20. A few spaces on the south end of building 6 are less than 18ft long. Please rotate the building so the length meets the minimum requirement for a parking space. [18- 4.12.16.c] (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 21. Please remove the 2 southernmost parking spaces east of building 1. The spaces are too close to the entrance and create an issue when a vehicle is entering the site at the time another is backing from these spaces. [DM and 18- 32.7.2] (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 22. The slope of the travelway adjacent to inlet 29 directs concentrated water across the drive aisle. Please regrade the travelway or move inlet 29 so that it is immediately downhill of the nearby filterra. [18- 32.7.2] (Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. The grading in this area is the same; only a note was added to the plans. Please show how (with contour lines and spot elevations) the contractor is to grade the pavement to direct the spread flow from this curbline into DI -29. Or, please shift the filterra to the north and relocate Inlet 29 before the travelway. 23. It appears that an inlet was omitted from the parking area west of building 25. (Rev. 1) The revised grading is acceptable. However, the lack of an inlet in the area makes the downstream inlet, 28, more critical. Similar to Inlet 29, the proposed grading indicates that flow from the curbline will bypass this inlet. 24. The pipe from inlet 35.1 to 35 is at an acute angle. Please revise the network so that the change of flow direction is at least 90 degrees. [DM] (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 25. Pull the guardrail behind the fire hydrant north of building 12. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 26. Remove the sediment trap grading north of the entrance in all sheets but the ESC plan, if necessary. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 27. Where is Detail C on Sheet 49 located in the plan? This detail should be removed from the plan if it is not needed. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 28. The standard pavement section is adequate for most of the parking areas and travelways outside of the ROW. However, it appears as though a few of the entrances may have ADT's greater than the approximately 260 trips the standard payment section can handle. Please provide a detail that shows the projected ADT's of each travelway and entrance so that the pavement sections can be verified to be satisfactory. [18- 4.12.15.a] (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 29. Please identify the layback angle of the retaining wall in the detail and consider in plan view the lost horizontal space as the wall height increases. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 30. A bus stop is required on site for the southbound lane of Lewis and Clark Drive. [Proffer 9.2.a] (Rev. 1) I have been informed that these bus stops are not ADA compliant with regard to possessing an appropriate landing area. An 8ft deep by 5ft wide paved landing area is needed around the front of each bus stop. The graphic below is a detail provided by JAUNT which operates buses with a handicap lift at the rear of the vehicle. Since it is anticipated that Charlottesville Area Transit will be servicing this area eventually, please coordinate the design of these stops with their office. Wt U00 01h � t ila�dM� sea i 31. In note #6 on the drainage profile sheets, please clarify that the 4ft drop includes water falling from the inlet to the bottom of the manhole. (Rev. I) Comment has been addressed. 32. For all curb inlets that do not have overland flow to SWM facilities, the sizing criteria must use 6.5in/hr. [policy] (Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. Structures 11.1 and 11.2 must have 100% efficiency since the downstream structures are not routed to a SWM facility. It appears this can be achieved with throat lengths of 12ft. The longitudinal slope of the roadway at these structures appears to be around 7 %, not 5 %. Please check all other inlet calculations to make sure the correct longitudinal and cross slopes are applied when the roadway was regraded (the calculation table is dated in December). 33. Structures 2 and 3 should be located at the low point of the roadway. (Rev. 1) County Engineering will defer to VDOT on the design of the intersection with Route 29. 34. I recommend reevaluating the placement of handicap ramps in parking areas where significant runoff will be traveling in the curbline across ramps. 35. In the Landscape Plan, please provide a low maintenance, non - grassed groundcover on all slopes steeper than 3:1. [DM] (Rev. 1) Please hatch or shade all areas on the landscape plans steeper than 3:1 and refer to Note 31 on Sheet C -46. 36. (Rev. 1) Please grade a 6ft wide grass path to the conservation area from the sidewalk south of Building 2 so the county can establish a trail to the greenway when the land is dedicated. From the sidewalk to the top of the hill, it looks as though a 14% grade can be achieved. C. Road Plan review comments (SDP- 2010 - 00021) 1. Before the final site plan can be approved, all road improvements as outlined in Proffer 5.3.1.c must be approved and bonded. The WPO plans associated with these road improvements must also be approved and bonded prior to site plan approval. The design of two of these road improvements (i and iii) has been included in a plan that was previously submitted to the county (WPO- 2009 - 00067). The other three proffered improvements (ii, iv, and v) have not been included in any plan received by the county. All easements (drainage, SWM, ESC /construction, etc.) and ROW associated with the construction of the offsite road improvements must be platted prior to road plan approval. [Proffer 5.3.1.c] (Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. 2. Prior to the approval of the plans for improvements at any US Route 29 intersection, Owner shall provide VDOT traffic signal network timing plans that VDOT finds acceptably address the impacts of the proposed traffic signals for peak traffic periods. Please provide proof of this approval from VDOT. [Proffer 5.3.2] (Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. 3. Currently, there is some question as to whether the primary road section for Northwest Passage (Lewis and Clark East) is acceptable to VDOT. If a modification to the typical road section is required by VDOT, a variation must be submitted to the Planning Department so that cross - section NWP3 as shown on sheet D1 of the Rezoning Plan may be altered to meet VDOT standards. [Proffer 5.11 (Rev. 1) The variation to modify the roadway cross - section is currently under review by the Planning Department. The plan view sheets do not match the cross section for most of Northwest Passage. If Planning grants the variation, please modify the plan to match the approved cross section. 4. The Right of Way must be placed lft outside of the sidewalk and not on its edge. (Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. 5. In the construction set for the extension of Northwest Passage to North Pointe Blvd., the applicant must design and construct a public road to the TMP's 32 -22P and 32 -22G. [18- 32.7.2.5 and 14- 409] (Rev. 1) As a result of the meeting held on June 24"', 2010, this connection does not need to be made with this plan. But, an entrance must be constructed as the applicant has promised to include in the road plan to follow. 6. Please remove the temporary turnaround from all sheets since the roadway will be constructed to North Pointe Boulevard. (Rev. 1) Comment has been withdrawn. 7. Condition 7 of SP- 2006 -00034 has not been met. (Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. All trees must be 2.5" caliper. 8. Inlet 2 and 3 should be located at the low point of the road and the low point should be moved farther into the site. (Rev. 1) County Engineering will defer to VDOT on the design of the intersection with Route 29. 9. Immediately prior to site plan approval, the applicant must submit a road bond request form for each road plan. With each bond request, the applicant must fill out a schedule of completion. All bonds (roads, swm, and esc) must be posted prior to final site plan approval. [Proffer 5.3.1.c] (Rev. 1) Comment has been noted by the applicant. D. SWM review comments (WPO- 2010 - 00017) 1. Approval from Filterra for the current design has been received. If any change to the Filterra watersheds or placement occurs, an updated letter will be required. (Rev. 1) Comment has been acknowledged by the applicant. 2. An approval letter from the manufacturer of the Stormfilter system is required. (Rev. 1) Approval from Contech for the current design of the Stormfilters has been received. If any change to the Stormfilter watersheds or placement occurs, an updated letter will be required. 3. Please provide a stormwater facility maintenance agreement and fee for each property a facility is located on. (Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. 4. I have reviewed the detention waiver request with the County Engineer. The County Engineer will grant the waiver of 2 and 10 year detention for the northern drainage area on the condition that detention is provided upstream of both Stormfilter systems so that the water quality volume is guaranteed to be routed through the water quality units. This must be demonstrated through routings of rational method storms of varying durations. (Rev. 1) The county has reviewed the documents provided by the applicant with the resubmittal. These documents include the site specific approval letter from Contech, a copy of the Stormfilter section of the current edition of the VSMH, and the customary 2004 design method explanation letter which mentions the 0.35 in /hr design storm metric. I could not find any document from Virginia DCR that mentioned this 0.35 in /hr intensity as a standard and I have requested DCR's official opinion on this sizing method. I am currently awaiting a reply and will forward it to the applicant once it is received. Until then, this comment is still pending. In order for me to feel comfortable with this sizing concept without DCR approval, I would need to see an analysis of the rainfall intensities in Virginia showing that at least 90% of annual rainfall occurs with intensities of 0.35 in /hr or less. This kind of information is what I was expecting with the resubmittal. 5. Please show all roof drain collectors on the site plan. Roof drain collectors are required for any portion of any building that does not have overland flow to a drainage inlet. (Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. Roofdrains are necessary for Buildings 1, 2, 9, 14, 18, 21, and 24. 6. The ARB must approve all design aspects of Stormwater Facility 10. (Rev. 1) Comment has been acknowledged by the applicant. 7. Water quality requirements for the site will be met if the applicant can provide enough detention to route the entire water quality volume through the stormfilter systems. This must be demonstrated through routings of rational method storms of varying durations. (Rev. 1) The county has reviewed the documents provided by the applicant with the resubmittal. These documents include the site specific approval letter from Contech, a copy of the Stormfilter section of the current edition of the VSMH, and the customary 2004 design method explanation letter which mentions the 0.35 in /hr design storm metric. I could not find any document from Virginia DCR that mentioned this 0.35 in /hr intensity as a standard and I have requested DCR's official opinion on this sizing method. I am currently awaiting a reply and will forward it to the applicant once it is received. Until then, this comment is still pending. In order for me to feel comfortable with this sizing concept without DCR approval, I would need to see an analysis of the rainfall intensities in Virginia showing that at least 90% of annual rainfall occurs with intensities of 0.35 in /hr or less. This kind of information is what I was expecting with the resubmittal. For the CN calculation for the post - development drainage area for SWM 10, use higher CN values than 85 and 90 for townhouses because the impervious percentage for this site is greater than the 65% found in the VSMH table. (Rev. 1) Area I and 2 in the SWM 10 pre- development table appear to be in the incorrect rows. 9. Stormwater Facility 10 must also provide detention for as much of the extension of Northwest Passage (and surrounding land that drains to Northwest Passage) that the stubout from 35.3 would collect. Once the full road plans for Northwest Passage are prepared, the detention calculations can be evaluated again for compliance. (Rev. 1) The post- development drainage area limits maintain the pre- development watershed, which is unrealistic. At a minimum, please update the map and calculations to include all of the bus parking. 10. For all curb inlets that do not have overland flow to SWM facilities, the sizing criteria must use 6.5in/hr. [policy] (Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. Structures 11.1 and 11.2 must have 100% efficiency since the downstream structures are not routed to a SWM facility. It appears this can be achieved with throat lengths of 12ft. The longitudinal slope of the roadway at these structures appears to be around 7 01c, not 5 %. Please check all other inlet calculations to make sure the correct longitudinal and cross slopes are applied when the roadway was regraded (the calculation table is dated in December). 11. The downstream slope of the embankment of SWM facility 10 must be 3:1. [VSMH MS 3.01 -13] When this change is made please make sure the embankment width is compliant with Table 3.01 -1 and the work is shown outside of the conservation area and floodplain. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 12. If SWM -10 is to remain a dry detention basin, please provide a low flow channel to the riser from all inlet points. (Rev. I) Comment no longer applies. 13. Proffer 9.1 states that the applicant will grant all permanent and temporary easements for the use of SWM facility 10 when the county's school lot is developed. Although the proffers and plan do not explicitly require the applicant of this development (NW residential area) to design or build this facility for the school's stormwater runoff, engineering review understands that the approval of the variation to allow buildings 25, 26 and 27 in the current proposed location is contingent upon the design of several aspects of the land surrounding this facility. As proposed, the intent of the design of SWM facility 10 appears to provide detention of only the impervious area from this development, the Northwest Residential Area (though, see comment 9). It can safely be assumed that the facility would require a considerable expansion in order to satisfy a portion of the school's water quality and quantity requirements. There are two ways the facility could be increased to meet SWM requirements for the future development of the school. Without an easement from the property owner of TMP 32 -22P however, the only option for expansion of the facility would be to the east towards Northwest Passage, which would likely require steep slopes and retaining walls. Because the design of the school site has not be initiated and the ultimate size and shape of the facility is unknown, the applicant must show a temporary construction easement bounded by the property line with TMP 32 -22P (south), the conservation line (west and northwest), the road ROW (east), and a line running from east -to -west at structure 34.1 from the ROW to the conservation area (north). The stormwater quality system must be shown outside of this temporary construction easement. The construction easement will need to be platted prior to approval of the final site plan. The plat should indicate that all of the construction easement is reserved for possible future SWM dedication upon demand of the county when the school lot is developed. (Rev. 1) The drainage area to this facility is below the typical acreage needed to maintain a sustainable water quality wet pond. Please provide a water balance calculation to determine whether the wet pond will be drawn down after a 30 -day summer drought by an acceptable amount. Because this is a facility that will be visible from nearly every direction (and subjected to ARB review) and is just Oft deep, any dry weather drawdown will have significant impacts to the BMP. Section 6.2 of the new proposed SWMpond standards (available online) explains this calculation in detail. Once this calculation is performed, please send this to me. If the drawdown is acceptable, please provide a calculation showing that the aquatic bench area is at least 15% of the surface area of the pond. Please also provide a planting plan for the aquatic bench. If the drawdown is not acceptable, Facility 10 should be designed as a biofilter. If the extension of Northwest Passage from Sta. 27 +80 to North Pointe Blvd. is directed through the Stormfilter system (by connecting structure 46 to structure 35), the grading of the facility could likely remain as proposed with a 6in PVC pipe at the base of the riser and a slight adjustment to the 2-year orifice. When the school is constructed, the 6 "pipe at the base would be extended as an underdrain and the county would fill in the pond with gravel and biofilter mix as necessary to treat the impervious area it directs to this facility. In either case, please also provide an anti- vortex device on the riser and update the routing calculations if the anti - vortex device affects the stage- discharge relationship. 14. The SWM bond will be calculated at the time of WPO plan approval. (Rev. 1) Comment remains unchanged. With the next submittal, please provide a cost estimate (including labor) for the Contech facilities. E. Site ESC review comments (WPO- 2010 - 00017) 1. The current ESC plan shows disturbance to critical slopes that were shown as being preserved in the approved rezoning plan. Because of this, a critical slope waiver must be approved by the Planning Commission before the current plan can proceed or the ESC plan must be redesigned to stay within the limits shown on the plan approved by the Board of Supervisors. Engineering review recommends placing the sediment basin on the access easement to the church property (after coming to a mutually acceptable agreement with the property owner) and phasing the construction of buildings 1 and 2. (Rev. 1) The Director of Community Development has made the determination that a critical slope waiver for the additional disturbance is not needed. 2. A portion of Sediment Basin 1 is currently proposed in the conservation area. The program authority will not allow this disturbance inside the conservation area. Engineering review recommends placing the sediment basin on the access easement to the church property (after coming to a mutually acceptable agreement with the property owner) and phasing the construction of buildings 1 and 2. (Rev. 1) The Director of Community Development will allow disturbance to the conservation area as proposed by the applicant. 3. Please identify separate limits of construction for both this ESC plan and the Stream Crossing Plan (WPO- 2009 - 00061). Please provide notes on Sheets 24 and 25 in the area of the stream crossing that refers to the previously approved plan. Please also refer to the previously approved stream crossing plan in the construction sequence and eliminate the reference to guardrail demolition to establish the entrance; this work will be covered by the other plan. This comment assumes that the plans will not be combined. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 4. A grading permit for this project will not be issued until the stream crossing is in place unless the stream cross plan is combined with the site plan set. (Rev. 1) This comment has been acknowledged by the applicant. 5. Per Proffer 4.3.a., this development is required to provide extra erosion and sediment control on site to the satisfaction of the Program Authority. The applicant has identified 6 items that were provided in this plan that he stated were above and beyond standard erosion and sediment control practices. Those 6 items are: 1) All 2:1 slopes to have EC -2 lining, or annual rye hydroseed with tackifier. 2) Use of wire - supported fence on the east side of the site bordering NF Rivanna River. 3) For E &S Control Phase 1, the volume of SB -2 is greater than the required minimum by approximately 60 %. 4) For E &S Control Phase 1, the volume of SB -1 will be greater than the required minimum by more than 200 %. 5) Existing sediment traps, silt fence and other E &S control features installed under WPO- 2009 -0061 will remain in place for as long as feasibly possible. 6) Temporary Slope drains will be installed from the outlets of SB -1 and SB -2. Though engineering review considers at least half of these items normal requirements, we will consider this proffer satisfied if the applicant extends the temporary slope drains from Basins 1 and 2 to the stream. The applicant must also place a note on sheets 24 and 25 that no heavy equipment must be used to install this slope drain and associated riprap. [SP Condition #41 (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 6. The concept for sediment basin 2 does not seem to work during the intermediate stages between the two phases. An additional phase to the plan is necessary to clarify the construction sequence. Please provide a phase between the two existing phases that shows what the site would look like the day before Sediment Basin 2 must be removed. The proposed layout, grading, and stormsewer plan appears to require the basin to be removed or affected too soon. Similarly, the changes required to address comments 1 and 2 will likely have the same issue which could be addressed with this intermediate phase sheet. (Rev. 1) The area west of the curb along the stormsewer system 28 to 23 cannot be solely protected by silt fence to state standards because of the grading required and the total width of disturbance. Though, when the filling of SB2 takes place, the use of silt fence as the sole measure is unavoidable. To minimize the amount of time relying on silt fence in this area, the grading necessary to establish pad for buildings 14 and 24 and the slopes to the west must be performed while SB2 and the fill diversions are in place. Once these slopes are stabilized and the disturbed area is minimized, then SB2 may be removed. Please clearly explain this procedure in step 12 of the construction sequence. Engineering review recommends identifying the area on site where the SB2 fill soil is to be stockpiled prior to the filling of the basin. 7. In the Phase I plan, please show the retaining walls needed to install the fill diversions being constructed. The work to install the walls will be performed below the at -grade diversion dikes. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 8. Please move the construction entrance for this ESC plan to just east of the diversions so that the entrance can drain to a sediment trapping measure. The construction entrance in phase 1 should be placed on the existing haul road and in phase 2 the entrance should be placed on Northwest Passage. This comment assumes that the plans will not be combined and the grading permit for this plan will be given after CRS and grass has stabilized the majority of the stream crossing plan. (Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. Construction entrances are required to drain to a sediment trap or basin per VESCH. In the first phase of the stream crossing plan, WPO -2009- 00061, this is difficult to achieve and there are no practical alternatives. Once final grading is achieved at the stream crossing, the area should be stabilized with the gravel base and kept clean by moving the construction entrances east of the ROW diversion so the Lire washoff area can be directed to a sediment trapping measure, either SBI or SB2, via diversions (or inlets and pipes in Phase 2). 9. In the set, please include the paved wash rack detail found in the county's design manual, available online, and remove the standard detail from the VESCH. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 10. Please provide more DC (both phases) and PS (in Phase 2) symbols throughout the plan. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 11. Please show a location for a staging and parking area on the plan. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 12. Please provide a location for the soil stockpile on the plan. The erosion and sediment narrative refers to an offsite stockpile and waste area plan on another North Pointe parcel. The stockpile must be shown within the limits of an erosion and sediment control plan. (Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. A stockpile is needed on the plan. The applicant is referring to a waste area on an offsite parcel. Presumably, the contractor will need a considerable amount of space to stockpile topsoil and cut, even if it is to be taken elsewhere. If it is anticipated that cut will be hauled offsite, please state in the Offsite Area of the ESC narrative that excess material is to be taken to a site with a permitted ESC plan. 13. Please clarify what Phase 1 mass grading is, as referenced in note 7 of the construction sequence. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 14. Please lightly shade or hatch all critical slopes on sheet 24. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 15. Please label the proposed drainage areas to basins 1 and 3 on sheet 25. My calculations show the drainage area to Basin 1 being 10.6 acres in Phase 2. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 16. The phase 2 portion of the ESC plan appears to have omitted the grading required at Sta. 26 +00 of Northwest Passage. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 17. For sediment basin 1, please show the 401 contour in plan view. The actual width of this embankment is only 6ft and must be widened to 8ft. [VESCH MS 3.14] (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 18. Please provide safety fences surrounding all sediment basins stating "danger,quicksand, do not enter." (Rev. I) Comment has been addressed. 19. Please provide the hydraflow routings of the sediment basin to confirm that the 25 -year storm is at an acceptable elevation. (Rev. 1) The 25 year routing for Sediment Basin 3 does not appear to match the detail on Sheet C -29. In the program, the crest is entered at 415.80 rather than the 416.50 exhibited on the detail. Additionally, there is a discrepancy between the program and the detail with regard to the contour areas of the facility. For Sediment Basins 1 and 2, please confirm that the stage- discharge graph from Plate 3.14 -8 was used for the routing of the crest of each of the risers. The input for these two facilities appears to assume that the top is a regular weir. The dewatering orifice for Sediment Basin I on the detail does not match the routing. 20. For the CN calculation in the sediment basin calculations, use values of 82 (B soils) and 87 (C soils) for exposed earth. Please also consider the impervious area in Phase II in basins 1 and 3 when checking the 25 -year storm elevation. (Rev. 1) The use of 0.6 is acceptable and all facilities appear to pass the 25 year storm with satisfactory freeboards. 21. The ESC bond will be calculated at the time of WPO plan approval. (Rev. 1) Comment remains unchanged. 22. (Rev. 1) When additional dry storage is provided in a sediment basin the dewatering orifice should be calculated from the height to the required volume, not provided volume. For instance, in sediment basin 2 the 412.7cy is likely provided around the 402.8ft elevation. In this case, the h/2 value would be 0.95ft rather than 1.3ft. For sediment basin 2, this might not be consequential because a 4.0" orifice was provided anyway. Please update the calculations to confirm that a 4.0" inch orifice is appropriate. 23. (Rev. 1) The dewatering orifice calculation for Sediment Basin 3 appears to be incorrect. The contour areas do not match the values I received from the planimeter. The h12 value should be 1.8ft (or, based on comment #22 above, around 1.5ft), rather than 0.6ft. The detail shows a 16" reducer to be placed over the permanent SWM orifice, but this is not coordinated with the final SWM plan. The only orifice proposed (in the detail on C -38 and in the routing output on C -34) shows a 10.5 orifice with an invert of 410.25, while the dewatering orifice is set at 412.9. 24. (Rev. 1) Please specify an anti- vortex device on Sediment Basin 3 since the riser will be RCP. What will the hydraulic effects of the anti - vortex device be for Sediment Basin 3 and SWM facility 10? Philip Custer From: DeNunzio, Joel D., P.E. [ Joel .DeNunzio @VDOT.virginia.gov] Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 4:30 PM To: Gerald Gatobu Cc: Philip Custer Subject: SDP - 2010 -00021 North Pointe Northwest Residential Area Final SDP - 2010 -00021 North Pointe Northwest Residential Area Final Gerald, We have reviewed the referenced plan and has the following comments: 1. The transition length (LR) for curve C1 should be 46' in accordance with VDOT Standard TC5.04 and 1/3 of the length should occur within the PC and PT of the curve. The design shows LR of 43 feet and not placed properly on the curve. 2. Curve C2 does not show superelevation in accordance with the VDOT TC5.04 standards and does not meet the minimum design criteria. This curve is short at 46 feet long and it is difficult to apply superelevation due to the curve length. Curve lengths should be in accordance with AASHTO publication entitled A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets 2004, under the section named General Controls for Horizontal Alignment. A longer length of horizontal curve will allow proper transitioning for superelevation. 3. Drainage will have to be adjusted for changes to superelevation applications and or curve data and will be reviewed once the roadway geometrics have been corrected. 4. Right of way widths need to be located a minimum 1 foot behind the outermost feature that is to be maintained by VDOT. Sidewalk and guardrail that does not meet this requirement that are located within or partially within the proposed right of way are non compliant and cannot be maintained by the department. These items will need to be permitted within the right of way under a continuous permit and bond with an agreement by Albemarle County for maintenance. 5. Crosswalks need to be located closer to the intersecting roads. Also, crosswalk markings need to be Level I devices, Standard Crosswalk, as described in Guidelines for the Installation of Marked Crosswalks. 6. Sight distances need to be shown in accordance with the requirements of Appendix F of the Road Design Manual. SDL and SDR should be shown according to the 3 lane road standard because of the raised median. SDL at the intersection at station 13 +95 left is drawn incorrectly on the vertical. This location does not appear to have adequate sight distance, especially considering the raised median. 7. Plan views do not accurately reflect the dimensions shown on the typical sections. Plan views continue to show a 12 foot median throughout. All plan views need to be revised. 8. Pavement designs need to reference the 2009 Pavement Design Guide for Subdivisions and Secondary Roads. Sheet C -39 makes reference to the 2000 Guide. Please note that the maximum thickness for SM -9.5 is 1.5 inches. The pavement worksheet does not match the typical insets and the insets have an inadequate Dp value below the required Dr of 17. 9. Sidewalks need to have a consistent typical and should not be placed adjacent to the back of curb at station 27 +40. If they must be placed adjacent to the curb, an 8 foot minimum width is required in accordance with Appendix B of the VDOT Road Design Manual. Otherwise, a minimum 3 foot buffer strip is required. 10. The CG -12's at the intersection at Route 29 need to be placed closer to the intersection. The location on this plan will cause the stop bars to be located far back from the intersection, increase delay at the intersection, decrease sight distance and decrease the turn lane capacity. Also, the turn lane lengths may require modification when the signal and timing plans are submitted and reviewed. 11. There needs to be a break in the median at the intersection of Route 29 and Lewis and Clark for pedestrians. 12. The vertical connection of Lewis and Clark Dr. to Route 29 refers to standard CG -11 which is correct, however, vertical curve values for street connections need to meet the same K values according to the CG -11. 13. The landscaping in the median needs to meet requirements for items within the clear zone. Trees that will grow larger than a 4 foot caliper are not acceptable. Other landscape items in the median need to not obstruct sight distances. 14. The landscape plan needs to be updated to reflect changes in the road typical section. Street trees need to be placed 5 feet behind the curb and three feet from the sidewalk. 15. Pedestrian crossings need to be at the intersections and signs are not necessary a the intersections. 16. The striped turning radius at the intersection of route 29 may need to be widened. A turning diagram should be included to determine the necessary width. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks Joel Joel DeNunzio, P.E. VDOT Culpeper Land Development 434 - 589 -5871 ioel . den unzioCcbvdot.vir4inia.00v �� pF A A$ �IRGLt�iP County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA, 22902 Phone 434- 296 -5834 Memorandum To: Richard Spurzem From: Gerald Gatobu, Principal Planner Division: Zoning and Current Development Date: April 21, 2010 Subject:, SDP2010 -00021 North Pointe Final Site Plan Fax 434 - 972 -4126 The County of Albemarle Division of Zoning and Current Development will grant or recommend approval of the final site plan referred to above once the following comments have been addressed: [Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference, which is to the Subdivision/Zoning Ordinances unless otherwise specified.] 1. [32.7.2.8] Sidewalks: Sidewalks for buildings 6, 8, 9 and 17 need to be provided. Provide sidewalks that will enable pedestrians to walk safely and conveniently between buildings (6, 8, 9), and extend the sidewalk along building 17 (Meriwether Court) by having it connected to adjacent sidewalks within the proposed development. 2. Please provide written certification form a licensed surveyor or engineer confirming that the conservation line shown on the application plan for Zoning Man Amendment 2000 -0009 and the conservation line shown on the site plan are in the exact same location. This comment was included in my preliminary site plan approval letter dated April 24t", 2009. Please provide the requested written certification. 3. [4.12.15.c] The maximum grade for parking spaces, loading spaces and access isles abutting a parking or loading spaces shall not exceed five (5) percent in any direction. Maximum grades for parking spaces shown on the site plan are steeper than 5 percent..See Philip Custer's engineering site plan review comment #19 for guidance. 4. Curbing is required on the landscaped area between parking spaces. Please revise the site plan or request a waiver from the Zoning Administrator per section 4.12.2.c. [4.12.15.g] 5. Please submit_a boundary line adjustment plat that will combine TMP 32 =22K and TMP32 -22H. According to our records, these are two separate parcels owned by Neighborhood investments NP. These two Parcels need to be combined before final site plan approval is granted. 6. Outdoor lighting must comply with section 4.17 of the Zoning Ordinance. A lighting plan needs to be prepared and submitted with this final site plan if outdoor lighting is proposed. Proffers: Proffers that need to be satisfied or addressed are as follows: 1. Proffer 2.1 Creation of a 50 — Foot Buffer along the entrance corridor: This final site plan shows a fifty foot buffer along the entrance corridor. Please be aware that VDOT reduced the portion of the buffer located on its property. The owner of the property shall therefore compensate for the VDOT reduction by extending the buffer on their property in order to maintain a 40 -foot Buffer even if such compensation shall require the removal of parking adjacent to such buffer. Please note that a determination was made by the Zoning Administrator on March 8th 2010 regarding ZNW000 -009 North Pointe Buffer reduction (Proffer 2.1). The 50 foot buffer along the entrance corridor may be decreased to 40 feet as provided for in this proffer. The Zoning Administrator's determination is attached. Please revise the site plan accordingly if the VDOT reduction affects-these properties (TMP 32 -22K and TMP32 -22I). 2. Proffer 2.2 Appearance of Stormwater Management (SWW Facilities. Stormwater management facility (SWM) #10 shall be shown on a plan and be subject to ARB review and approval. SWM facility #10 shall be designed such that its shape, placement, and land form (grading) are integral with the adjacent conservation area. The plan for SWM #10 shall be submitted to the ARB at the time road plans are submitted to the County and VDOT for Northwest Passage. This development falls within the Route.29 North Entrance Corridor. Architectural Review Board approval is required for Storm Water Facility #10 prior to final site plan approval. Submit an application for ARB review. Applications, checklists, schedules and guidelines are available on line at www.albemarle.or2. 3. Proffer 4.1 Flood Plain: compliance: [Action required with this final site plan submittal]. The owner shall provide a survey and prepare the necessary documentation and dedicate the land within such flood plain to the County. This proffer is subject to Albemarle County Engineering Review (see engineering general review comment #6 for guidance). 4. Proffer 5.1 Internal street construction standards compliance: [Action required with this final site plan submittal]. All proffered transportation improvements [phase III road improvements] must be shown on this final site plan. See engineering road review comment #3 for guidance. 5. Proffer 5.3.1.c Phase III Road Improvements compliance. [Action required with this final site plan].Approval of a subdivision plat or site plan for any development of either the Virginia Land Trust Company (32 -22K) or the Jackson Trust Property (32 -22H) or any portion thereof triggers this proffer. See engineering road review comment #1 and # 9 for guidance 6. Proffer 5.3.1.C.1 Northernmost Entrance (Opposite Lewis and Clark Drive) on U.S. Route.29 compliance, Northwest Passage and North Pointe Boulevard: With respect to Northwest Passage and North Pointe Boulevard, it is noted that the proffers require Northwest Passage to be completed between U.S Route 29 and North Pointe Boulevard, and for North Pointe Boulevard to be completed between Northwest Passage and Northside Drive in association with this final site plan and phase (phase IM of the development. These roads must be approved and bonded for construction prior to final site plan approval for this property. This will include erosion and sediment control plans as well as stormwater management plans for the construction. See section i -v of proffer 5.3.1.0 for all of the required Phase III road improvements. Detailed plans and computations are required in conjunction with this final site plan. If all necessary Road plans for the above listed road segments are not received, the final site plan may /will be in violation of the applicable proffer and review of the final site plan may be suspended by-the Zoning Administrator. (See engineering road review comment #1 for guidance) 7. Proffer 8.2.e Each subdivision plat and site plan for land within the property which includes affordable units (which for this Section 8.2(e) shall include moderately — Priced units) shall designate the lots or units as applicable that will be subject-to the-terms and conditions of this _ rp offer. The first such subdivision plat or site plan shall include a minimum of three (3) such affordable units. Designate on the final site plan the units as applicable that will be subject to the terms and conditions of this proffer. 8. Proffer 9.1 Elementary School Site: This proffer needs to be satisfied before final site plan approval can be granted. Please refer to Engineering SWM review comments (WPO -2010- 00017). Specifically, comment #13 that relates to the sizing of SWM facility #10 needs to be addressed. 9. Proffer 9.2.a Owner needs to show the second bus stop turnoff as shown on the application plan. The second bus stop turnoff needs to be shown for the south bound lane of Lewis and Clark Drive. The bus stop turnoff will be placed at a location that is mutually acceptable to the Owner and the County. 2 Special Use Permit Conditions (SP -02 -072) I. Conservation areas with Utilities. The conservation areas with utilities shown on the Application Plan shall remain undisturbed and shall be protected from development impacts to the satisfaction of the Program Authority; except that: (4A). The streets and pedestrian paths shown on the Application Plan may be placed in a conservation area with utilities where shown on the Application Plan. Other pedestrian paths, other streets, and sanitary sewers, storm drainage outfalls, and /or stream mitigation measures may only be placed in a conservation area with utilities if the Program Authority finds that no other location is reasonably available and the disturbance is necessary for such a proposed use. In any event, the construction, maintenance and use of the improvements shall have the minimum environmental impact on the conservation area with utilities necessary for the improvements to be established and maintained, and the long -term impacts shall be adequately mitigated. Nothing in this condition shall be construed to obviate the requirements established for stream buffers under Chapter 17 of the Albemarle County Code or shall constitute a waiver of such requirements. Action required with this final site plan. See Philip Custer's Engineering comment number Sunder E. Site ESC review comments (WPO 2010- 00017). 2. Sanitary Sewers. All residential uses shall be served by gravity sanitary sewers; however basements may have grinder pumps. (ACSA has been notified of this special use permit condition) Variations required before Final Site Plan (SDP2010- 00021) Approval: 1. A variation is still pending for Stormwater facility #10 and buildings 25, 26, and 27. Planning division comments are included below. Comments from the Planning Division (Elaine Echols) On March 9, 2009, in conjunction with SDP - 2008 -00041 North Pointe Preliminary Site Plan dated March 10, 2009 for North Pointe Northwest Residential Area, the applicant requested three variations. Two were granted in the letter from the Planning Director dated April.22, 2009. Action on the third variation request was deferred until the final site plan where design of stormwater management facility #10 was to be shown. The design of that facility impacted the decision on whether to grant the third variation. At this time, the variation cannot be granted because the applicant has not demonstrated that the stormwater management facility can be redesigned and enlarged in the future to accommodate the School Lot stormwater. It is our understanding that the stormwater management facility can handle runoff for the development itself. However, the applicant must ensure that the proffer (Proffer 9.1) to allow for the enlargement of SWM #10 shown on the application plan can be accomplished. Given the information shown on SDP 2010 -021 staff believes that the provision of additional capacity in SWM #10 will involve a larger land area than shown on the plan. The larger land area is in the place where there are buildings shown on the site plan. There is a strong likelihood that the area will be needed for school stormwater. In order to consider whether to approve the third variation, the Planning Director needs to know that the stormwater management facility can be redesigned and enlarged in the future to accommodate the School Lot stormwater as required by Proffer 9.1 Without this assurance, the Director is unable to determine that the requested variation "is in general accord with the purpose and intent of the approved application" under Zoning Ordinance section 8.5.5.3(c)(5). Contact Elaine Echols at (434- 296 -5832 ext 3252) Architectural Review Board Comments (Margaret Maliszewski) This development falls within the Route 29 North Entrance Corridor. ARB approval is required prior to final site plan approval. The applicant should submit an application for preliminary ARB review. Applications, checklists, schedules and guidelines are available on line at www.albemarle.org. Contact Margaret Maliszewski at (434- 296-5832 ext 3276) Comments from Andrew Slack (E911 Addressing, GeoLyraphic and Data Services) THE APPLICANT SHOULD CONTACT THIS OFFICE WITH A LIST OF ROAD NAMES TO REPLACE THE FOLLOWING ROADS: • NORTHWEST PASSAGE • NORTHWEST PASSAGE TERRACE • MERIWETHER COURT • MERIWETHER TERRACE • DISCOVERY COURT PLEASE CONTACT THIS OFFICE WITH A LIST OF THREE (3) REPLACEMENT NAMES FOR APPROVAL. Contact Andrew Slack at (434- 296 -5832 ext 3384) Fire and Rescue Comments (James Barber) 1. Must comply with the Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code. Final approval is subject to field inspection and verification. Contact James Barber at 434 - 296 -5833. Comments from VDOT (Joel DeNunzio) We have reviewed the road plan for the above subject project and have the following comments: 1. This class of road with the proposed horizontal curves will require superelevation in accordance with the GS -7 standard. 2. The drainage system will require a redesign when.the superelevation is applied to the roadway. 3. Please show pavement underdrains on the typical sections of the roadways. 4. A median underdrain, UD -2, will be required on median sections that are on the low side of a superelevated curve. 5. Left turn lanes will be required at the commercial entrances. 6. The minimum width for commercial entrances is 30 feet from face of curb to face of curb and an entrance with one egress lane has a minimum throat length of 30 feet. All entrances from the urban collector must meet this standard. Please refer to VDOT's Road Design Manual, appendix F beginning on page F -80 for additional information. 7. The 10% grade on the main road at the first entrance off Route 29 will cause the CG -12 to be fairly steep. The ramp needs to be lengthened as shown in the CG -12 standard drawing 203.07 in the VDOT Road and Bridge Standards. 8. Street trees must be located out of the 8 foot from face of curb lateral offset of the road as described in appendix A, page A -19 of VDOT's Road Design Manual. The proposed street trees are located 3 feet 4 off the face of curb. The sidewalk and the tree line should be reversed to provide adequate lateral offset. Please contact Joel DeNunzio at 434 - 293 -0011 Ext.120 Comments from Albemarle County Service Authority [ACSAI (Gary Whelan) Gerald, The Service Authority is reviewing the water and sewer construction drawings. I will be sending comments directly to the applicants engineer and will copy you. Gary Please contact Gary Whelan at 434 - 977 -4511 Ext.116 Please contact Gerald Gatobu at the Division of Zoning and Current Development at 296 -5832 ext.3385 for further information. ALg�,�� �'IRGINZ� COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 Project: Plan preparer: Owner or rep.: Date received: Date of Comment: Engineer: North Pointe Northwest Residential Area SDP - 2010 -00021 and WPO- 2010 -00017 Mr. Doug March, PE; W & W Associates Neighborhood Investments NP -LLC 4 March 2010 (plan signed 3 March 20 10) 16 April 2010 Phil Custer The Final Site, road, SWM, and Site ESC plans for the North Pointe Northwest Residential Area project, received on 4 March 2010, have been reviewed. Engineering review can recommend approval to the plan after the following comments have been addressed. A. General review comments 1. This plan cannot be approved until the submittal for the road stream crossing is approved. The ESC plan for this project will not be able to receive a grading permit until the crossing is established. 2. The current ESC plan shows disturbance to critical slopes that were shown as being preserved in the approved rezoning plan. Because of this, a critical slope waiver must be approved by the Planning Commission before the current plan can proceed or the ESC plan must be redesigned to stay within the limits shown on the plan approved by the Board of Supervisors. 3. Property lines cannot go through buildings unless a substantial fire wall is constructed on the boundary. A plat must be submitted and recorded prior to final site plan approval that rectifies this problem. The simplest solution would be to combine the two parcels with a Boundary Line Adjustment Plat. 4. The plan appears to propose features within the 50ft construction easement granted to the owners of TMP 32 -22K1 in the document recorded in DB 1663, PG 648. The applicant should remove these features from the 50ft easement or amend the agreement so that it works for both parties. 5. Please provide a note on the cover sheet of the plan which states that before a certificate of occupancy is granted, a plat dedicating the ROW, public drainage easements with associated deeds, stormwater management easements, and temporary construction easements must be recorded. 6. Per Proffer 4.1, the County will request that the floodplain be dedicated once the Conditional Letter of Map Revision is approved by FEMA and the county. 7. Per Proffer 4.4, please provide confirmation that all streambank mitigation required by the Army Corps of Engineers for the Northwest Passage stream crossing is being provided onsite. B. Site Plan review comments (SDP- 2010 - 00021) 1. The placement of buildings 25, 26, and 27 is not in general accord with the approved rezoning plan. Please work with the Planning Department to find a solution to this issue before the next submittal. 2. The distance between the private access easement to the church property and Discovery Court is too short for VDOT to provide two entrance permits. These entrances must be either separated to the minimum spacing required by VDOT or consolidated. The resolution to this issue should be addressed simultaneously with the previous comment while in discussion with the Planning Department to assure that the solution is still in general accord with the application plan. 3. The connection to TMP 32 -22K1 must be design and constructed with this development. This travelway must be no narrower than 20ft from curb to curb. The travelway must be design and constructed along the existing access easement unless the access easement is modified. [18- 32.7.2.5] 4. If Buildings 25, 26, and 27 is allowed in the current proposed location, the travelway southwest of building 27 must be redirected slightly and extended to the property boundary of TMP 32 -22P [18-32.7.2.51 5. Please provide the date of the topographic information. 6. Please provide a benchmark on the plan. 7. Please show the stream buffers on all applicable sheets. Any stream buffer disturbance except exempted items must be mitigated. 8. Please show the approximate locations of the existing and new flood elevation lines. 9. On sheet C -8, please shade all critical slopes and show the approximate limits of critical slope disturbance authorized by the Board of Supervisors at the time the rezoning plan was approved. 10. Please callout the end treatment for each guardrail section. 11. Please separate the drainage and stormwater management easements. 12. The widths of the public drainage easements from structures 34.3 to outfall and 11 to 10 are not correct. [DM] 13. Please show all public drainage easements on the landscape plan to confirm that all significant trees are located outside of the easements. 14. Please provide vertical profiles of the sight distance lines looking north from the entrances south of buildings 11 and 19. The vertical alignment of Northwest Passage seems to obstruct the sight lines. When the road is redesigned, make sure the vertical alignment is corrected to provide adequate sight distance. 15. Please label each entrance with a VDOT designation. 16. Entrances cannot have a slope greater than 4% for the first 40ft from the edge of the curbline. Please revise the spot elevations at the Discovery Court entrance so that the cross slope is as close to 4% as reasonably possible. [18- 4.12.17] 17. VDOT approval of all road plans must be received before the final site plan can be approved by the County. 18. Curbing is required on the landscaped area between parking spaces. Please either revise the site plan or request a waiver from the Zoning Administrator per 18- 4.12.2.c. [18- 4.12.15.g] 19. All parking areas and travelways adjacent to parking areas must be no steeper than 5% (this includes all "driveway" spaces adjacent to buildings). This maximum appears to be violated consistently throughout the site. Please either revise the site plan so that no slope is over 5% or request a waiver from the Zoning Administrator per 18- 4.12.2.c. Engineering review does not recommend approval of this waiver. [18- 4.12.15.c] 20. A few spaces on the south end of building 6 are less than 18ft long. Please rotate the building so the length meets the minimum requirement for a parking space. [18- 4.12.16.c] 21. Please remove the 2 southernmost parking spaces east of building 1. The spaces are too close to the entrance and create an issue when a vehicle is entering the site at the time another is backing from these spaces. [DM and 18- 32.7.2] 22. The slope of the travelway adjacent to inlet 29 directs concentrated water across the drive aisle. Please regrade the travelway or move inlet 29 so that it is immediately downhill of the nearby filterra. [18- 32.7.2] 23. It appears that an inlet was omitted from the parking area west of building 25. 24. The pipe from inlet 35.1 to 35 is at an acute angle. Please revise the network so that the change of flow direction is at least 90 degrees. [DM] 25. Pull the guardrail behind the fire hydrant north of building 12. 26. Remove the sediment trap grading north of the entrance in all sheets but the ESC plan, if necessary. 27. Where is Detail C on Sheet 49 located in the plan? This detail should be removed from the plan if it is not needed. 28. The standard pavement section is adequate for most of the parking areas and travelways outside of the ROW. However, it appears as though a few of the entrances may have ADT's greater than the approximately 260 trips the standard payment section can handle. Please provide a detail that shows the projected ADT's of each travelway and entrance so that the pavement sections can be verified to be satisfactory. [18- 4.12.15.a] 29. Please identify the layback angle of the retaining wall in the detail and consider in plan view the lost horizontal space as the wall height increases. 30. A bus stop is required on site for the southbound lane of Lewis and Clark Drive. [Proffer 9.2.a] 31. In note #6 on the drainage profile sheets, please clarify that the 4ft drop includes water falling from the inlet to the bottom of the manhole. 32. For all curb inlets that do not have overland flow to SWM facilities, the sizing criteria must use 6.5in/hr. [policy] 33. Structures 2 and 3 should be located at the low point of the roadway. 34. I recommend reevaluating the placement of handicap ramps in parking areas where significant runoff will be traveling in the curbline across ramps. 35. In the Landscape Plan, please provide a low maintenance, non - grassed groundcover on all slopes steeper than 3:1. [DM] C. Road Plan review comments (SDP- 2010 - 00021) 1. Before the final site plan can be approved, all road improvements as outlined in Proffer 5.3.1.c must be approved and bonded. The WPO plans associated with these road improvements must also be approved and bonded prior to site plan approval. The design of two of these road improvements (i and iii) has been included in a plan that was previously submitted to the county (WPO- 2009 - 00067). The other three proffered improvements (ii, iv, and v) have not been included in any plan received by the county. All easements (drainage, SWM, ESC /construction, etc.) and ROW associated with the construction of the offsite road improvements must be platted prior to road plan approval. [Proffer 5.3.1.c] 2. Prior to the approval of the plans for improvements at any US Route 29 intersection, Owner shall provide VDOT traffic signal network timing plans that VDOT finds acceptably address the impacts of the proposed traffic signals for peak traffic periods. Please provide proof of this approval from VDOT. [Proffer 5.3.2] 3. Currently, there is some question as to whether the primary road section for Northwest Passage (Lewis and Clark East) is acceptable to VDOT. If a modification to the typical road section is required by VDOT, a variation must be submitted to the Planning Department so that cross - section NWP3 as shown on sheet D1 of the Rezoning Plan may be altered to meet VDOT standards. [Proffer 5.11 4. The Right of Way must be placed lft outside of the sidewalk and not on its edge. 5. In the construction set for the extension of Northwest Passage to North Pointe Blvd., the applicant must design and construct a public road to the TMP's 32 -22P and 32 -22G. [18- 32.7.2.5 and 14- 409] 6. Please remove the temporary turnaround from all sheets since the roadway will be constructed to North Pointe Boulevard. 7. Condition 7 of SP- 2006 -00034 has not been met. 8. Inlet 2 and 3 should be located at the low point of the road and the low point should be moved farther into the site. 9. Immediately prior to site plan approval, the applicant must submit a road bond request form for each road plan. With each bond request, the applicant must fill out a schedule of completion. All bonds (roads, swm, and esc) must be posted prior to final site plan approval. [Proffer 5.3.1.c] D. SWM review comments (WPO- 2010 - 00017) 1. Approval from Filterra for the current design has been received. If any change to the Filterra watersheds or placement occurs, an updated letter will be required. 2. An approval letter from the manufacturer of the Stormfilter system is required. 3. Please provide a stormwater facility maintenance agreement and fee for each property a facility is located on. 4. I have reviewed the detention waiver request with the County Engineer. The County Engineer will grant the waiver of 2 and 10 year detention for the northern drainage area on the condition that detention is provided upstream of both Stormiilter systems so that the water quality volume is guaranteed to be routed through the water quality units. This must be demonstrated through routings of rational method storms of varying durations. 5. Please show all roof drain collectors on the site plan. Roof drain collectors are required for any portion of any building that does not have overland flow to a drainage inlet. 6. The ARB must approve all design aspects of Stormwater Facility 10. 7. Water quality requirements for the site will be met if the applicant can provide enough detention to route the entire water quality volume through the stormiilter systems. This must be demonstrated through routings of rational method storms of varying durations. 8. For the CN calculation for the post - development drainage area for SWM 10, use higher CN values than 85 and 90 for townhouses because the impervious percentage for this site is greater than the 65% found in the VSMH table. 9. Stormwater Facility 10 must also provide detention for as much of the extension of Northwest Passage (and surrounding land that drains to Northwest Passage) that the stubout from 35.3 would collect. Once the full road plans for Northwest Passage are prepared, the detention calculations can be evaluated again for compliance. 10. For all curb inlets that do not have overland flow to SWM facilities, the sizing criteria must use 6.5in/hr. [policy] 11. The downstream slope of the embankment of SWM facility 10 must be 3:1. [VSMH MS 3.01 -13] When this change is made please make sure the embankment width is compliant with Table 3.01 -1 and the work is shown outside of the conservation area and floodplain. 12. If SWM -10 is to remain a dry detention basin, please provide a low flow channel to the riser from all inlet points. 13. Proffer 9.1 states that the applicant will grant all permanent and temporary easements for the use of SWM facility 10 when the county's school lot is developed. Although the proffers and plan do not explicitly require the applicant of this development (NW residential area) to design or build this facility for the school's stormwater runoff, engineering review understands that the approval of the variation to allow buildings 25, 26 and 27 in the current proposed location is contingent upon the design of several aspects of the land surrounding this facility. As proposed, the intent of the design of SWM facility 10 appears to provide detention of only the impervious area from this development, the Northwest Residential Area (though, see comment 9). It can safely be assumed that the facility would require a considerable expansion in order to satisfy a portion of the school's water quality and quantity requirements. There are two ways the facility could be increased to meet SWM requirements for the future development of the school. Without an easement from the property owner of TMP 32 -22P however, the only option for expansion of the facility would be to the east towards Northwest Passage, which would likely require steep slopes and retaining walls. Because the design of the school site has not be initiated and the ultimate size and shape of the facility is unknown, the applicant must show a temporary construction easement bounded by the property line with TMP 32 -22P (south), the conservation line (west and northwest), the road ROW (east), and a line running from east -to -west at structure 34.1 from the ROW to the conservation area (north). The stormwater quality system must be shown outside of this temporary construction easement. The construction easement will need to be platted prior to approval of the final site plan. The plat should indicate that all of the construction easement is reserved for possible future SWM dedication upon demand of the county when the school lot is developed. 14. The SWM bond will be calculated at the time of WPO plan approval. E. Site ESC review comments (WPO- 2010 - 00017) 1. The current ESC plan shows disturbance to critical slopes that were shown as being preserved in the approved rezoning plan. Because of this, a critical slope waiver must be approved by the Planning Commission before the current plan can proceed or the ESC plan must be redesigned to stay within the limits shown on the plan approved by the Board of Supervisors. Engineering review recommends placing the sediment basin on the access easement to the church property (after coming to a mutually acceptable agreement with the property owner) and phasing the construction of buildings 1 and 2. 2. A portion of Sediment Basin 1 is currently proposed in the conservation area. The program authority will not allow this disturbance inside the conservation area. Engineering review recommends placing the sediment basin on the access easement to the church property (after coming to a mutually acceptable agreement with the property owner) and phasing the construction of buildings 1 and 2. 3. Please identify separate limits of construction for both this ESC plan and the Stream Crossing Plan (WPO- 2009 - 00061). Please provide notes on Sheets 24 and 25 in the area of the stream crossing that refers to the previously approved plan. Please also refer to the previously approved stream crossing plan in the construction sequence and eliminate the reference to guardrail demolition to establish the entrance; this work will be covered by the other plan. This comment assumes that the plans will not be combined. 4. A grading permit for this project will not be issued until the stream crossing is in place unless the stream cross plan is combined with the site plan set. 5. Per Proffer 4.3.a., this development is required to provide extra erosion and sediment control on site to the satisfaction of the Program Authority. The applicant has identified 6 items that were provided in this plan that he stated were above and beyond standard erosion and sediment control practices. Those 6 items are: 1) All 2:1 slopes to have EC -2 lining, or annual rye hydroseed with tackifier. 2) Use of wire - supported fence on the east side of the site bordering NF Rivanna River. 3) For E &S Control Phase 1, the volume of SB -2 is greater than the required minimum by approximately 60 %. 4) For E &S Control Phase 1, the volume of SB -1 will be greater than the required minimum by more than 200 %. 5) Existing sediment traps, silt fence and other E &S control features installed under WPO- 2009 -0061 will remain in place for as long as feasibly possible. 6) Temporary Slope drains will be installed from the outlets of SB -1 and SB -2. Though engineering review considers at least half of these items normal requirements, we will consider this proffer satisfied if the applicant extends the temporary slope drains from Basins 1 and 2 to the stream. The applicant must also place a note on sheets 24 and 25 that no heavy equipment must be used to install this slope drain and associated riprap. [SP Condition #4] 6. The concept for sediment basin 2 does not seem to work during the intermediate stages between the two phases. An additional phase to the plan is necessary to clarify the construction sequence. Please provide a phase between the two existing phases that shows what the site would look like the day before Sediment Basin 2 must be removed. The proposed layout, grading, and stormsewer plan appears to require the basin to be removed or affected too soon. Similarly, the changes required to address comments 1 and 2 will likely have the same issue which could be addressed with this intermediate phase sheet. 7. In the Phase I plan, please show the retaining walls needed to install the fill diversions being constructed. The work to install the walls will be performed below the at -grade diversion dikes. 8. Please move the construction entrance for this ESC plan to just east of the diversions so that the entrance can drain to a sediment trapping measure. The construction entrance in phase 1 should be placed on the existing haul road and in phase 2 the entrance should be placed on Northwest Passage. This comment assumes that the plans will not be combined and the grading permit for this plan will be given after CRS and grass has stabilized the majority of the stream crossing plan. 9. In the set, please include the paved wash rack detail found in the county's design manual, available online, and remove the standard detail from the VESCH. 10. Please provide more DC (both phases) and PS (in Phase 2) symbols throughout the plan. 11. Please show a location for a staging and parking area on the plan. 12. Please provide a location for the soil stockpile on the plan. The erosion and sediment narrative refers to an offsite stockpile and waste area plan on another North Pointe parcel. The stockpile must be shown within the limits of an erosion and sediment control plan. 13. Please clarify what Phase 1 mass grading is, as referenced in note 7 of the construction sequence. 14. Please lightly shade or hatch all critical slopes on sheet 24. 15. Please label the proposed drainage areas to basins 1 and 3 on sheet 25. My calculations show the drainage area to Basin 1 being 10.6 acres in Phase 2. 16. The phase 2 portion of the ESC plan appears to have omitted the grading required at Sta. 26 +00 of Northwest Passage. 17. For sediment basin 1, please show the 401 contour in plan view. The actual width of this embankment is only 6ft and must be widened to 8ft. [VESCH MS 3.14] 18. Please provide safety fences surrounding all sediment basins stating "danger, quicksand, do not enter." 19. Please provide the hydraflow routings of the sediment basin to confirm that the 25 -year storm is at an acceptable elevation. 20. For the CN calculation in the sediment basin calculations, use values of 82 (B soils) and 87 (C soils) for exposed earth. Please also consider the impervious area in Phase H in basins 1 and 3 when checking the 25 -year storm elevation. 21. The ESC bond will be calculated at the time of WPO plan approval. 1 V-VVV1.1 1Vunn rV1I1lC 1CCJ1UUHUdI tUCQ - 111141 F eom: Philip Custer [pcuster @albemarle.org] nt: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 11:44 AM To: dmarch @wwassociates.net Subject: FW: SDP - 2010 -00021 North Pointe Residential Area -final From: Amy Pflaum Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 12 :02 PM To: Philip Custer Subject: FW: SDP - 2010 -00021 North Pointe Residential Area -final From: DeNunzio, Joel D., P.E. [mailto: Joel .DeNunzio @VDOT.virginia.gov] Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 12:00 PM To: Gerald Gatobu Cc: Amy Pflaum Subject: SDP - 2010 -00021 North Pointe Residential Area -final SDP - 2010 -00021 North Pointe Residential Area —final Gerald, We have reviewed the road plan for the above subject project and have the following comments: rage 1 01 G 1. This class of road with the proposed horizontal curves will require superelevation in accordance with the GS -7 standard. 2. The drainage system will require a redesign when the superelevation is applied to the roadway. 3. Please show pavement underdrains on the typical sections of the roadways. 4. A median underdrain, UD -2, will be required on median sections that are on the low side of a superelevated curve. 5. Left turn lanes will be required at the commercial entrances. 6. The minimum width for commercial entrances is 30 feet from face of curb to face of curb and an entrance with one egress lane has a minimum throat length of 30 feet. All entrances from the urban collector must meet this standard. Please refer to VDOT's Road Design Manual, appendix F beginning on page F -80 for additional information. 7. The 10% grade on the main road at the first entrance off Route 29 will cause the CG -12 to be fairly steep. The ramp needs to be lengthened as shown in the CG -12 standard drawing 203.07 in the VDOT Road. and Bridge Standards. 8. Street trees must be located out of the 8 foot from face of curb lateral offset of the road as described in appendix A, page A -19 of VDOT's Road Design Manual. The proposed street trees are located 3 feet off the face of curb. The sidewalk and the tree line should be reversed to provide adequate lateral offset. Please let me know if you have any questions. file: //K: \206095 North Pointe Townhomes \206095.08 Final Design\206095.08 C Final Site... 5/18/2010 t' LWNTDLWCE No. R/w I FA mm(TYP Bow Sloes) NSUA' Preliminary FlniW,P.-Ant Design WPrkshal for Neal SinlimiOP St-ft 2o• A MY coxcom SuRFAGE CoONSE, sM -BSA cP I...e AeM�kc o, mxlNllDam 0 0 J.O" M%DLT CONCRflE BASE COURSE, BM -25.M SN . e. Nwallbne 2.50' 12A0' 25o' p E A e O IS- N- --C-- 1.00' 3,00' VOOT Sm 9.00' 0 1.00' © 9.0• ADSHEMTE BASE MMLRML VWT no. 21A De.e Plwe aso' Ns_2 J.sO' 0 2• (Mw.) TOPSOIL AND SEED _T E`Tw- nDUn®eePDt awnMP�NA JJVM +2TO0 12W' 13.00• a. a Pa 13.00• 1200• x Q LIRFT sNO Gc -e (IMP.) w -T sn L BE umnEO wwN NNE. zB N/W SEE ;wr q_2 1MVEL IMJE TRAVEL WE TRVVEL LAFNE TRVVEL WC I _2 �I ,-(/ PW6 FOR L C-A=- OF CG -T. !CORn IIwoCFA- n.esdrn4•>/J•d..l -I..b- •di.•G•n,.rlby,c�.. ' F0. I �J B G O AppR0VE0 SUBGRADE :CDR, nl.sleeub.l.•.st:s..+:•u.aw . r•ebl.:trr..®.Ir..y,rue W C 1/441' 1/141' 1 441' /i4i 1' '4 1/441' 1/441 2j © H TACK 1/4•:1' PRNE cCOaAi I:IIPCT V I4+rw•Im.eOwA••• ; -2.00' sFE , 130_2 ula�L-r •e• 2.�' -0�' # PRONOE M-F SDNDWD PAVEMENT ERNE DRAIN - fiilCV Ir.�,N.r:trr.11,mmtrza•.wwll n...� vaas�y4st���l INSET` -9 (IMP. BOTH SIDES) INSET n, 'IO le.•. s, ra-- wm,•. A.uitr.dP.Nw.a.ur�e.eeu.N- veduMs LEWISANDCLARKDRIVE ATSTRE,LMCROSSmono2'R/Wt M -4 'SSV .wedveP.tJssV•nW:Rn STAH 00TOSTA12 +J1M. (TYP 80111 SR6) NR :DP I�iu -• av m• Cdr-• abM- •m••ly'itrr.•a.l.rrw...lab.vas.a 1,555 VPO .AO 20• ASPHWS CONCRETE SURFACE COURSE. SY -B3A 'pR jn: r. mYa, w+ d. o. d�mbnnt.dti<v.u.,,,..wprnrr..'•n D.- SPEED -30 NPHT E O 3.0• ASPHALT CONCRETE BASE COURSE, BM -25.M I I I SLUE: 1 " -ID' D A G 91e nTr.mz- w!-••> slG 2rs ��a.Sex D.le - •'•• Iro TOE IYPIGL SE-11 VMICS MON 50. 11+OO TO 12 +27.12 DOE TO NARROWING OF ©o.o' AGGREGATE BASE MlfA01, VpOT M. 21A Sol Senrk BY PAVEYETn wow. (SEE PLAN) oO 2- (MOT.) TOPSO4 Nm sEm I. Pmcx nDr- 1351 I I sx.P< A•.se 1 HO VWT Sm CG -2 (IVP.I CC -3 sML. BE VNIMLEO RRHR RTE 29 PAY. SEE I 2 Tehk 1 n.0 ;fF C PLVJS FOR LOgimNS OF W -J. I.MHCV(SN- I. 5 J OM A rtl PRU4E0 SIION -FIE I qlE © TACK COAT NEW -SHED GRADE 1. EPT- 1 1355 5 O PRIME COAT C STPJG GRADE I A.S CBNr• B9• R/W I Y MMIIENMCE f J. M* Pe 1 1 FASFNJIT (TP DOW -M) -6• VOOT Nn. 2.'ooRCOATE Y- -' 1 STORE- CONPACTED PRWME GCOTEKTLE FABRIC R AREAS OmxatNNC(5:1 -i O EpRP NP -: $SV REOIMING STMLIZATIOH AS I "DO DETERMINED BY THE GEOTECWACN. 5. CANNNFAxm• I I.b $ 3.00' VWT 3qF g 1; ,''.!!. 1.5 SN -9:OA ASPHAL ��• ENGMER. L6 -2 R _ \ t \\ _ _ COUPPCTED SUpCRFDE L95X1 6, pn' ApT 1 135) iA 1200' 4 a m 1200' ` 6W IMVEI IANE I 1RAVEL IANE 8.00' I \ \\ 30" DM 250 ASPIIPL \ \ \ . IJOTfl MY ROCK ENCOUNTERED w11P.4 L t \ \ \ \ \ TOE FIRS 0.5' SIIALL BE REMOVED I J'r cMr 3:1 ` I:� I'. -'I. E: p11� 'f : te1 /a 1 4 1F 1T -11 p 1 IS?: 195 ( iZCi •.�+ -1� ! a �wL,O „aif .�T� I "�3 (-A.�1 v i �2POOT C1A STORE AM 1/4-H m 21A RE 9F m OUNON. IIUIt.n•dl I .. +s, .. SEE SEE GRAVEL PAVEMENT - SECTION 11 mISOD.w .nbptrNernmmllx.k aN. MA..N<.. tMET'A! w_2 WEET'a. PHONE COAT TACK WAr Tror m swE n.,�...lw...em...,.,w,.,.d •...I I r Idxlu LEMM AND CIA DNVE(6YRM DDS STANDARD DUTY ASPHALT PAVEMENT - SECTION NDIC De. MPer%P ea1',.<exvs<emP STA.IJ +lT..TO STA. 11.9337- FULLSUPEIIELEVATION DIP BOTH SIDES) Irol 105[ALL USE MM PAVEMENT SECIroN MR AMIerNNwFon "IhkknatL eAh 1.353 VPO ImIE SWAB FACMY Na 10 ACCESS ROAD SvBI R'SVEC ISh1A3AB ?S i� OFSIGN SPEED -30 MPH SfNIONm OUTY ASPHALT PAVEMENT TO BE USED IN Oaa Il'IM 19.OA Ovc AIHI 3.30 ±IS AJ5 SCA 1 " -10• NL PAVED AREAS OUTSIDE OF MY BIN. SlLhale 16' VpOTNO.21AAp9epte) 6.M 1.00 NODS: LE: Gw As DEPICTED W PL/JIS I AIN 1, n[ iWO:V. S17+7 ON TOE LEFT SIDE uDvOF m FROM scr 12 +SEEP o cE on 3 MO STA I .. 18hBB3T TO 1] +]1.J] WE TO SVPER EIEVAImN 1rJJJn11011. (BEE PROFlL6 ON C-10) �21' -1�- �1 -24•� AR %XT DrmNegltlwe�dae'ale afDA. i E,-EM. N. - G S_ O�UNLE55 OTHERWISE NOIEO ON PENIS, 1 I LI 2[ SLOPE WLESS .MERW6E M EI) ON ALMS -- .-.. - -. 1$ RFCIfCINE AW BORDER • I o.� WHDE DSY 0 ONNER�GNCCN IpOU r �-II- $ WN �� 0 I� P - BACNGPOUND ollo - aHRE % �i \ RAT PAVEI@JT ® TIPIGL AT ALL IIMOaJP sPACES X $ -Roo'- B X I Holm, CpAPACTEO SVBGNADE J -DATE TIt15 SIGN -.- AR. AT Al VNI 2 Z 11.S n PMNNG SPACE yWT 1. TO BE POURED VUDT CLASS M CONCRETE. $�i 300 1,6_2 3.Q0 g 2. DISTANCE BETWEEN SCORE LM NOT TO EXCEED T M PEWLLtt SIGN WIIM WOFOxG AB LONGRUD- ORECTION. REWIRED BY STATE OR LOON TAW 'O 1200' Q a P. 1200• IID16: ne IF TRAVEL TAKE I TRAVEL TAKE TAOC m I SIDEWALK - DETAIL I. SS W.NNS SHALL BE CONSIq 01. foul J.r 1/141' L I I CUE NOT i0 SLNE 1001 NATs II11 - OPdeI_IERY.Iiihll TEL OOT OALVANQEO 'U" g4NN2 POST C(Ar I/f l' 11 /1�A• I 41' 1 /4': 1/441' 1/4':1' 1 441' 3'I ROAD ADD DRDGE-SGEUFICARGHS L '+, ;RU55WALN I.IAIGRIAL COLOR E- BF. tWP:t 211 „yll( ':. ° -411 X10' .b +� �!iGR�.Ii •L'r 9(( .1. F SPA IG OF THE PERFOmKLIAR MARAII.�GS STATEN ko� 3'A rIOF ESCTCJ 7.5 TIMES THE IIIIE nRNt+ SEE -Er ,R PFDESTRAIN CROSSWALK PAVEMENT MARKING DETAIL Rp VOOi AT GENERAL INSET 'A' UD -2 1' IIM1gDM1TI.E N.TS. CONLREFE LLRVISANU 7437MFRIVE(09'Nw) � UD-4 ]4' R/W I EASEMENT (IYP BOOT SIDES) 10 ]+rJ3T TO STA 25.10 (11P BOTH SroES) :'�� P504 AND SEED s-rw.T Ntms VPD DES NPJI $ $ I MINTENMCE R/W' l' .G SCALE: 1' -10' 5.00' % u ,a x I (M BOTH Sn6) $ 8'�.: iF.`'V �; /\ ,:✓ ! 1. ME ILME R UI VARIES FROM STA. 23+80 TO 25 +10 d1E TO AWIIm141 BUS 3' 6 B.00' Y o'- STOP LWE ON l6f SCE (SCE PLAN) $ W 3.00• sm 2W W 9 ILw• � W v `: A4?,�. ; ,,,"�"`+•' Y STA. 35+30 TO 24 +20: EDP TO EDP ON LEFT SINE VARIES fM11 15' TO W. •J � IRS -2 •' �: =� "nn e � `ij "' 50. 24 +20 TO 24 +T0: EDP i0 WP ON LFFr SIDE 6 W. I0 12.00' ¢ a PGL 12A0' N 3-0O YS -2 % SfA 24 +70 TO 25 +10: EDP TO EDP ON IETf SIDE VARIES FliOLI 30' TO 1S'. 9A0' 1MVEL LAN 7MVEL IANE 9.00' mo I $� 3 • �•:' �' • • ,' •: y'' "J'� -2 I 1200' Ca PoL 1200' 8Q PGL I _ 1MVEL TARE TMVFL LWE . • 4iV IR -:Y IH_P I P:P 14 P I fA 1/44P 1 /Po' 1H'M' s :t rAP H L I N ^ �:[ �4.k' `�ti 4 Y�'? •`! EN• L _ 1r it cur 1H41 1 /P:P 1 4t' t V+ 1H4P /4•M' S:A °D t:r.."zi'^• SEE ill SEE 1•..- R..�)II:`.Y 9q •LT 1•_O• ir„ INSEF 'A' IN 'B' -Ii Ir- 9JC uD -z ° arsEr .A. :- HANDICAP PARKING SIGN DETAIL LEWIS ANDC'LARKDRIVE DNTNM1' UD-1 110- 21NSa.g BIA.2f +NDT0 -21F IF DYP BOTH SmF57 LEWISAND CLVRK ORIVE(STR/5V) M-4 xOT m SgtE I,xv vxD srn._D_S1 A. 2-3 OYP eaN sIDES) OESImI SPEED -30 MPH I VPD ONE AT EACH HANDICM SPACE. WHERE HANDICAP SPATES FACE SLATE 1••10' OESCN SPEC -30 MPH EACH OVER FUMOUT W-W-. THERE SHALL BE ONE MSr NN SCVE 1 "�10' SIGNS MWNIED BOTH SIDES ECT 5tf I troKU sORDxs RD15F0 WH vM 1 VIN)" s SUPFREILVA DIU 7/1.110 m Or P qVA °` ""'"'D'N NORTH POINTE- NORTHWEST RESIDENTIAL AREA I9VSm sTUmwO ourc PAVTYENF salNx i nArP .__ I -- .1 R FNO AA N In>NTM ARLE SITE FINAL - -- - - -- - - -- - -- SuAVBTOIU ALBEMARLE CO VIRGINIA Oa.IVNC nuueJ'k PLAw+eRS Br:NFW TYPICAL SECTIONS, ROADWAY DETAILS a: PAVEMENT DESIGN C-39 .ASSOCIATES U,IDAM �A /PIN 1. _•°},i�iv AWA Nurlc'CR: RIF NAMECU'NNC: 51 MiE: rro, mar ana;mv ar wrE slier aTV;.vnr: 9r DATF a t2o6095.0EC saa50ae- CSB.dvP wu sxowx 3/03/10 390/49 Gerald Gatobu From: DeNunzio, Joel D., P.E. [ Joel .DeNunzio @VDOT.virginia.gov] Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 12:00 PM To: Gerald Gatobu Cc: Amy Pflaum Subject: SDP - 2010 -00021 North Pointe Residential Area -final SDP - 2010 -00021 North Pointe Residential Area —final Gerald, We have reviewed the road plan for the above subject project and have the following comments: 1. This class of road with the proposed horizontal curves will require superelevation in accordance with the GS -7 standard. 2. The drainage system will require a redesign when the superelevation is applied to the roadway. 3. Please show pavement underdrains on the typical sections of the roadways. 4. A median underdrain, UD -2, will be required on median sections that are on the low side of a superelevated curve. 5. Left turn lanes will be required at the commercial entrances. 6. The minimum width for commercial entrances is 30 feet from face of curb to face of curb and an entrance with one egress lane has a minimum throat length of 30 feet. All entrances from the urban collector must meet this standard. Please refer to VDOT's Road Design Manual, appendix F beginning on page F -80 for additional information. 7. The 10% grade on the main road at the first entrance off Route 29 will cause the CG -12 to be fairly steep. The ramp needs to be lengthened as shown in the CG -12 standard drawing 203.07 in the VDOT Road and Bridge Standards. 8. Street trees must be located out of the 8 foot from face of curb lateral offset of the road as described in appendix A, page A -19 of VDOT's Road Design Manual. The proposed street trees are located 3 feet off the face of curb. The sidewalk and the tree line should be reversed to provide adequate lateral offset. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks Joel Joel DeNunzio, P.E. Staff Engineer 434 - 293 -0011 Ext. 120 ioel . den unzioCcbvdot.vir4inia.00v pF AL J$ U vIRGIN�p` COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia .22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax.(434) 972 -4126 March 8, 2010 All Property Owners with Route.29 Frontage— North Pointe.ZMA.2000 -009 CWH Properties Limited Partnership P.O. Box 5526 Charlottesville, VA 22905 Neighborhood Investment LLC P.O. Drawer R Charlottesville, VA 22903 Re: REVISED -- Determination Regarding.ZMA 2000- 009 °North Pointe Buffer Reduction (Proffer 2.1) Dear North Pointe Property Owners with Route 29 Frontage: This is a revision of-the January 29th determination letter as it relates to the buffer master plan. The purpose of this letter is to provide a written determination that the 50 foot buffer along the Entrance Corridor may be decreased -to a width of 40 feet, as provided in proffer 2.1. This determination is based on a January 14, 2010 letter from VDOT Staff Engineer, Joel Denunzio. This proffer states: 2.1 Creation of 50 -foot Buffer along the Entrance Corridor. Within six (6) months after the acceptance by the Virginia Department of Transportation ( "VDOT').of the Road Improvements as defined in Section 5.3 that are along the northbound lanes of U.S. Route _29, Owner shall plant and thereafter maintain at all times a landscaped buffer, including hedgerows, along the Entrance Corridor frontage parcels owned by Owner. The buffer will consist of a minimum 50 -foot wide continuous visual. landscape area that shall be subject to Albemarle County Architectural Review_Board ( "ARB') review and approval (the "Buffer"). In the -event VDOT at any in the future reduces any portion of the Buffer located on VDOT property, the Owner shall compensate for such reduction by extending the Buffer on Owner's property in order to maintain a minimum 40-foot Buffer, even if such compensation shall require the removal of parking adjacent to such buffer. Paget March 8, 2010 Revised North Pointe Buffer Determination Based on information provided by Mr. Denunzio, there are two specific actions since approval of this rezoning by which VDOT has effectively reduced a portion of the Buffer located on VDOT property, thereby allowing the Buffer to be reduced from 50 to 40 feet. These actions are as follows: 1. VDOT has determined that "because of the potential fill and the need -to preserve sufficient right -of -way for a future lane widening, a utility installation within the right -of -way may be in conflict with the highway embankment and should not be permitted in accordance with .24 VAC30 -150 -1310, section C3. Therefore, the portion of the ACSA force sewer main that runs parallel to U-.S. Route 29 should be installed outside of the right -of- way." And 2. "...In the time since the Department reviewed the proposed North Pointe Application Plan road improvements prior to the County approval of the North Pointe rezoning in August, 2006, the Department has determined that a thirty foot clear zone in accordance with the requirements of the VDOT Road Design Manual, Appendix A, along U.S. Route 29 in the area of North Pointe will be required." Please be advised that the proffer clearly requires ARB approval of this landscaped . buffer. Staff suggests that the property owners with Route 29 frontage work together to establish and propose a comprehensive or master plan for the landscaped buffer. We would prefer to not approve corridor plantings within a Planned Development on a piecemeal or plan -by -plan basis. The master plan can be in general terms with the details shown later with the individual site plans. Please contact Margaret Maliszewski for further discussion on this topic. The timing for installation of the plantings is established in the current proffer language as within six (6) months of acceptance of road improvements along Route.29 in this area. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate-to contact me. If you are aggrieved by this determination, you have a right to appeal it within thirty (30) days of the date notice of this determination is given, in accordance with Section 15.2 -2311 of the Code of Virginia. If you do not-file a timely appeal, this determination shall be final and unappealable. An appeal shall be taken only by filing with the.Zoning Administrator and the Board of.Zoning Appeals a notice of appeal which specifies the grounds for the appeal.. An appeal application must be completed and filed along with the fee of $120. The date notice of this determination was given is the same as the date of this letter. Smelia bulley, A.I.C.P. Zoning Administrator Cc: ACSA, Gerald Gatobu, Margaret Maliszewski, Joel DeNunzio, Valerie Long, Fred Payne