HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB201100111 Review Comments Preliminary Plat 2011-10-12 (3)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: Belvedere Phase 2 — Preliminary Plat (SUB- 2011 - 00111)
Plan preparer: Mr. Scott Collins, PE; Collins Engineering
Owner or rep.: Belvedere Station Land Trust
Date received: 19 September 2011
Date of Comment: 12 October 2011
Engineer: Phil Custer
The preliminary plat for Belvedere Phase 2 (SUB- 2011 - 00111), received 19 September 2011, has been
reviewed. The plans cannot be approved as submitted and will require the following corrections before
approval can be granted:
Engineering review notes the following deviations from the approved application plan and Code of
Development:
-The preliminary plat shows a SWM pond, road, and lots within the 100ft wide ROW area
to be reserved for dedication of the North Free State Connector referenced in Proffer 4.2.
Because the proffer is rather explicit about this reservation, it seems to me that any change
to this requirement must be approved by the Board of Supervisors because Planning can
only modify the Code of Development and the Application Plan.
-The proposed layout of Block 8 does not match the approved application plan. A road
and stormwater facility has been added. Park H has been relocated.
- Proposed public street cross - sections within this plat do not match the application plan for
just about every roadway. Roads are often smaller than the minimum allowable in Table 8
of the Code of Development. Two way travelways have been proposed on Roads I and H
rather than one way as stipulated in the Code of Development.
The applicant must modify the preliminary plat or request a variation to the Planning Department
for the above changes. The North Free State Connector ROW issue does not appear to be variable.
2. A critical slope waiver is necessary for this project. A request for critical slope waiver, as outlined
by Section 18- 4.2.5.a.1, must be provided to the agent.
3. Please clearly show the Preservation Area as approved on the rezoning plans on all sheets. A
sanitary sewer line is proposed through the Preservation Area in at least two instances. Please
remove all construction from these preservation areas.
4. An overlot grading plan will be needed before Final Subdivision plat approval is given. The
requirements of the proffered overlot grading plan will require more disturbance in Block 9, that
may encroach upon the preservation areas or will make it difficult for erosion and sediment control
measures to be located outside of the preservation area.
5. Please show sight distance triangles on the grading sheet. For sight lines that travel across
roadway crests or other grading obstructions, such as northern Alley B looking east, please provide
a vertical profile of the sight line. Issues with sight distance may require significant grading
modifications or alternative road alignments.
6. Please extend Alley A to the existing alley serving lots in Block 4.
7. Please provide a county modified simple spreadsheet for each stormwater facility and provide
some preliminary analysis for each stormwater management facility (drainage area, required
removal rate, proposed type, water quality volume, etc.). [14- 302.A.13]
8. Stormwater facility 2 (located in Block 7) is not practical. VDOT will likely have an issue with it
since it will likely back up water into its pipe system. Also, the lowest escape point for water
ponding in this stormwater facility is the low point of the roadway, 448, which creates freeboard
concerns and reduces the usable volume of the pond considerably. It does not appear possible that
all stormwater management requirements can be met internal to Block 7. I recommend moving the
pond to the other side of Farrow Drive to avoid these issues. A sediment basin will be needed in
this location anyway. Any modification to the location of Stormwater facility 2 will need to be
approved by Planning with a variation, which, in this case, engineering will likely support,
depending on the proposal.
9. The ADT's of the development need to take into account the projected development surrounding
these roads. For instance, Farrow Drive and other roads in this area must account for projected
traffic in Block 10.
10. Label roads in this plat so that they match the names given to them during the review of the
rezoning plan.
11. Please label all ROW widths in the cross - sections. Also, the roads drawn on the plan view sheets
do not match what the ROW should be when the widths are calculated from the cross - section. For
instance, for Road C the distance between face of curb and face of curb is dimensioned as 26ft
(9 +9 +8) but it is labeled on the cross - section and drawn in plan view as 24ft. Please check all
cross - sections for these mistakes. Because the cross - sections will undoubtedly be varied, please be
clear when requesting the variation what the cross section for each roadway will be. [14.302.A.5]
12. A note on the cover sheet mentions the use of Private Roads. Please identify these private streets.
If private streets are proposed, this would need to be authorized by the Planning Department with a
variation.
13. Please identify the design speed of each roadway. The design speed of each roadway must match
Table 8 of the Code of Development unless a variation is given by the Planning Department.
Once the proper design speeds are identified, the horizontal curves will be verified. A design
speed of 20mph seems to be acceptable except for all streets except for Belvedere Blvd. and
Farrow Drive.
14. Please update all sight distances based on the results of the previous comment. Sight distance onto
Belvedere Blvd. and Farrow Drive should be longer than 225ft unless a variation is approved by
Planning.
15. Please show sight distance triangles from all alleys.
16. The horizontal curves of Colbert Street are too small. A road with a design speed of 20mph
should use horizontal curves no smaller than 11 Oft. VDOT requirements may be stricter.
[AASHTO]
17. The horizontal curves of Farrow Drive are not labeled.
18. The erosion and sediment control plan for this project will be difficult because of the topographic
challenges, preservation areas, and the railroad property (adequate channel requirements). When
preparing your variation request, I recommend thinking about how an approvable erosion and
sediment control plan can be designed. The county does not review Erosion and Sediment Control
feasibility when approving preliminM gpplications.
File: E1_ppt_PBC_Belvedere Phase 2 Preliminary Plat.doc