Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201100013 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2011-05-13� OF AL ,. vIRGI1`IZP COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 Project: Old Trail Village Block 23, Final Site Plan; SDP - 2011 -00013 Plan preparer: Mr. Scott Collins, PE; Collins Engineering Owner or rep.: March Mountain Properties, LLC Plan received date: (Rev. 1) 19 April 2011 16 February 2011 Date of comments: (Rev. 1) 13 May 2011 8 April 2011 Reviewer: Phil Custer The first revision of the site plan for Old Trail Village Block 23 (SDP- 2011 - 00013), received on 19 April 2011, has been reviewed. The comment letter for the 2 °d review of the ESC plan will be provided at a later date. The site plan can be approved after the following comments are addressed. 1. This site plan cannot be approved until the ESC application for the project (WPO- 2011 - 00010) has been approved and the applicant has paid the pro -rata share for use of the Lickinghole SWM Basin. Comments on the ESC plan have been provided in a separate letter. The Lickinghole Basin Fee for this project will be calculated once all technical engineering comments have been addressed. (Rev.]) The ESC plan has not yet been approved. The Lickinghole Basin Fee for the project has been computed to be $3,893.92. If this fee is not paid before January Is` 2012 or if the design changes significantly, it will need to be recalculated. 2. To be in general accord with the application plan, the sidewalks and planting strips along Golf Dr. must be built with this site plan. This road was reviewed, approved, and built prior to the approval of the rezoning plan. The rezoning plan stipulates that both sides of Golf Drive will have a 6ft planting strip. A 5ft sidewalk is required on the south side of Golf Drive and an 8ft sidewalk is required on the north side. Since the original road plan showed 5ft sidewalks on both sides of the roads and trailways off the road, a road amendment will be needed. In the current site plan, please provide sheets that can be included in the previous road plan file showing the planting strips, 8ft sidewalk, and 5ft sidewalk all within a new proposed state ROW. These items will be bonded at the time of subdivision plat approval. The application plan also shows a wider ROW width than what was currently platted. The ROW should be increased to at least Ift behind the edge of both sidewalks. The lack of sidewalks also runs counter to Section 32.7.2.8 of the Zoning Ordinance and the Code of Development which promotes Old Trail Village's orientation to serving pedestrians. (Rev. 1) It is my understanding that Megan has determined how pedestrian connectivity will be enforced on the site plan. The topography of all sheets of the site plan (E -1, S -1, etc.) is noticeably dissimilar to the topography of SWM -1. Which set of contours is correct? The discrepancy is especially noticeable in the area east of lot 9. SWM -1 clearly shows the grading of an emergency spillway which correlates to the previously approved SWM plan that has been attached to this site plan set. However, the survey used on the majority of sheets, which shows no spillway, was field verified by the applicant. Please explain the discrepancy and use the most accurate topography consistently Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 2 throughout the plan. Once the topography is clarified, a determination will be made by engineering regarding whether lots 9 and 10 are within the functional area of the SWM facility. [18- 32.6.6] (Rev. 1) I have visited the site to evaluate this issue and have determined that the topography is not accurate in the southeast corner of this block. As stated above, further review cannot move forward until the topography for the site is solidified, I am unsure the county can remove the SWM easement within this block, as referenced on sheet E -1. 4. Please provide the deedbook and page number for all existing easements and ROWs. [18- 32.5.6i, j, and 1] (Rev. 1) The deedbook and page number for the road ROW has not been provided. Please also note that the plat refers to this road as Reas Creek Drive. Which road name is correct? 5. The drainage easement running through the property was not recorded in the Deedbook that was referenced. (Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. 6. Please provide an approval letter from DEQ consenting to the proposed disturbance for the construction of a storm pipe within their existing conservation easement. (Rev. 1) The storm pipe has been pulled from the DEQ easement. However, the existing topography and proposed grading for the area has been revised considerably since the first submittal. When I went out to the site to investigate this change, I found that from the pipe outfall appears to bean intermittent stream or wetland. Please provide the state permit for the construction work within this wetland or correspondence from the state saying it is not a jurisdictional area. 7. Please remove the entrance onto Golf Drive that is shown north of Lot 1. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 8. Please show a private sanitary sewer easement on Lot 13 for the benefit of Lot 12. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 9. Please clarify which drainage easements are public and which are private. If a pipe carries water from the public roadway, it must be a public easement. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 10. The sight distance triangles shown in the plan are not correct. The design speed of Golf Drive is 30mph. Therefore, the required sight distance at the entrance is 335ft. The point of analysis must be 14.5ft from the edge of pavement/curb. (Rev. 1) The sight distance line to the west stops at the golf course property line. This line assumes that vehicles exiting the golf course site will be stopping (or slowing down considerably) before they enter the state road. This is not reasonable. The applicant should consider the following options to address my sight distance concerns: • Submit a letter of revision for the golf course site to place a stop sign and a "stop ahead" sign on the approach of the golf course travelway to the limit of the state road • Submit a letter of revision for the golf course site to place a speed hump within the first 50ft of the golf course travelway • Determine the 85`h percentile vehicle speed for vehicles exiting the golf course and determine a required sight distance with that speed while making sure that sight distance is provided on the site plan • Design the site plan using a 335ft sight distance line to the west • Request that the Chief of Current Development approve the entrance as designed per 18- 32.7.2.1 since VDOT has approved the western sight distance 11. The directional change in a stormsewer system cannot be sharper than 90 degrees. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 12. Canopy trees must be located within the planting strip where possible. It appears that this can be Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review Comments Page 3 of 3 achieved in all cases except for the tree in lot 13. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 13. The pavement section is adequate. However, please correct the pavement calculation because SM- 9.5A should use a thickness equivalency value of 1.67 because less than 4.5" is provided. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 14. In the general notes on Sheet DP -2, please state that all structures with a drop of greater than 4ft, including from the surface, requires VDOT IS -1. (Rev. I) Comment has been addressed. 15. There is a discrepancy between the top elevation of structure 20 on sheet S -3 and DP -2. (Rev. 1) The storm drain system has been redesigned and it appears to be acceptable except for the graphical problems on the drainage profiles sheets (structures 8 and 10 are floating). However, please consider that the Application Plan for Old Trail requires all of Block 29 and 35 to drain to a stormwater facility. The storm drainage system 5 -5 through 28 appears to be design for some additional water from these blocks but this would not be allowed per the application plan. If one drainage system were to be overdesigned for future development, it should be 14 through 2. No modification to the plan is required now, but I recommend that the pipe system to the SWM facility be designed to allow for greater flexibility in the future. 16. Please provide a VDOT end section or end wall at the outlet of pipe 1. (Rev. I) Comment has been addressed. 17. (Rev. 1) The drainage system has been revised and there are some segments of pipe that require an easement wider than 20ft. Please size all drainage easements based on the formula specified in the design manual. 18. (Rev. 1) After visiting the site to inspect the revised topography provided by the applicant, I noticed that the existing stormwater management pond is currently accessed through Block 23. When the site is developed as proposed, the maintenance path is removed and the pond is isolated. Please somehow replace the facility access path. It appears that a SWM access easement can be provided over the pipes 3 and I if the grades were revised so the slope on the path was less than 10 %. Otherwise, this path would need to be graveled.