HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201200006 Review Comments Minor Amendment 2012-04-04*-&A
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Megan Yaniglos, Project Planner
From: Phil Custer, Engineering Review
Michael Koslow, Engineering Review
Date: 26 January 2012
4 April 2012
Subject: Old Trail Village, Block 2, Site Development Plan first Minor Amendment Letter of
Revision #2 (SDP- 2009 - 00045) (SDP2012- 00006)
The second submittal for the first Minor Amendment for the Old Trail Village Block 2 site plan
(SDP2012- 00006)), received 15 March 2012, has been reviewed by engineering staff. You and I will
likely need to discuss these comments before our memos are sent out. It seems the volume and degree of
these changes may warrant this plan being considered a minor amendment rather than a letter of revision.
The proffered dedication of the park area may complicate any changes to the site plan that are now
proposed on county property unless the dedication was done in such a way that granted permission
to the applicant to modify the site in any way they choose indefinitely. This application may need
to be brought to the attention of the county attorney's office to make sure these changes and the
subsequent construction these changes require are suitable without BOS or County Executive
approval. Disturbances include or will include: the addition of a grease trap and two sewer
laterals, the addition of a drainage pipe from beneath the memory garden, a modification to the
grading of the walking path and the area around it on the eastern side of the building, the
modification to the pipe system north of the building, and the construction of a channel from pipe
19 to the stormwater facility.
(Rev2) With coordination from Parks & Recreation Department, this comment has been
addressed.
2. There are other areas of the site that do not match the approved plan that have not been identified
by the applicant. The applicant should clarify whether these areas are being modified with this
plan or whether the mismatch was an accident and have it corrected on the next submittal. The
road plan for Golf Drive from Sta. 16 +00 to Sta. 19 +50, the drainage system downstream of pipe
19, and the entire lawn area are a few other sections of the site that do not match the approved
plan.
The section of Golf Drive that has been removed is not needed to provide frontage or access for
any lot currently proposed, but there will be a question as to when it will be required. If the zoning
and subdivisions agents allow a portion of this road to be removed from the site plan, they should
clarify when staff should require it be constructed. All road sheets of the original set must be
amended as part of this application. If the daylighting of pipe 19 was an intentional change, a
properly sized channel will need to be designed and constructed from the end section to the
biofilter forebay. The drainage calculation and profiles sheets will also need to be amended
accordingly. Engineering review has no comments on the design of the lawn.
Current Development
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 3
(Rev2) It is unclear from this submittal where construction for the proposed realignment of
Golf Drive associated with Block 2 construction should stop. The approved site plan
(SDP200900045) shows point of ending at station 19 +53 and a VDOT standard road barricade.
On sheet R -1 of this submittal, the plan view implies that Golf Drive construction should stop
near station 19 +40. The profile view shows design to station 25 +50 and includes a note to end
construction at station 17 +64.
Further, the approved Block 13B Road Plans (SUB2011- 00063) include construction of Golf
Drive between approximate sta 17 +64 to sta 19 +82.85. This construction begins in the middle
of a curve with PC sta 16 +25.35.
Please clearly delineate on the Block 2 Minor Amendment plans an alignment for Golf Drive
which corresponds with previously approved Block 13B Road Plans.
Otherwise, if this Block 2 Minor Amendment intends to introduce proposed changes to Golf
Drive's alignment inconsistent with the previously approved Block 13B Road plans, please:
- Submit a revision to the Block 13B Road plans under SUB2011- 00063.
- Pay road review fee. If alignment changes include changes to the adjacent
private travel way, this fee is $400. If not, this fee is $250.
- Submit a new road bond estimate request for Block 13B under
SUB2011- 00063.
- Pay the road bond estimate request fee of $250.
Please label consistent "end construction" stations in plan and proftle view for Golf Drive.
Please show a barricade in plans for safety (unless the tie -in to Fielding Run drive is plan
intended to be parallel with Block 13B construction, in which case please note as much on the
plans).
The grade of the sidewalk to the Memory Garden appears to be at 16 %. As there is no roadway
adjacent to this sidewalk, please provide ramps with handrails and switchbacks or otherwise
regrade the Garden or sidewalk to ensure a maximum sidewalk slope of 20:1 [Americans with
Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) Section 4021. If the wheelchair accessible
route to the Memory Garden is through the inside of the building, please note as much and
design steps and handrails for this external application in accordance with ADAAG.
The applicant will need to provide profiles and pipe computations for the modifications that were
made on the north and southern ends of this site plan. The profile and calculations sheets of the
original application will need to be modified.
(Rev2)
a) The drainage area shown for Structure 44 does not consider the runoff from the
following structures shown on the approved plan for Block 13A (WPO201000036):
2 -48, 2 -50, 2 -52, 2 -54, 2 -56.
Please revise the drainage calculations to include these areas.
Current Development
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 3
b) The drainage area shown for Structure 18 does not consider the runoff from the
following structures shown on the approved plan for Block 13B (WPO201100035):
9- 2,4,6,8, 12, 14, 16, 18, 18B, 20, 20B, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32, 34, 36, 38, 40, 42, 44, 46
Please revise the drainage calculations to include these areas.
c) Please add the following apparently omitted pipe profile runs proposed with this plan
set: 36 -28, 40- 38 -26, 42 -2
d) Please clarify intent of yard drains proposed. "Yard drain design" chart on sheet DP -4
appears to provide data for the following structures: YD1A, YD1B, YD IC, YD 1D,
YD IE, YD 1F, YD 4A, YD 4B. However, these structures are not identified in the
drainage areas shown on sheet DP -1.
4. The sidewalk to the memory garden is graded at a slope of 16% which is hardly convenient for the
citizens who will use this site. [18- 32.7.2.8]
(Rev2) See comment #2 above.
5. (Rev2) Please modify scale for Sign Details on sheet S -2 to match actual scale with printed
scale shown of 1/2" = I'
File: C: \Users\mkoslow\Documents \Current Reviews \SDP201200006 Old Trail Village Block 2 - Nv
Amendment \E2_mia_MAK_sdp201200006. doc