HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201200037 Review Comments Minor Amendment 2012-07-11"11� IIIIM
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, VA, 22902
Phone 434 - 296 -5832 Fax 434 - 972 -4126
Memorandum
To: Thomas R. Gallagher
Herbert F. White III, P.E.
From: Christopher P. Perez, Senior Planner
Division: Zoning and Current Development
Date: July 11, 2012
Subject: SDP201200037 formerly SUB201200043 - District Avenue Road Plan Extension
The County of Albemarle Division of Current Development Planner will recommend approval of the plan
referenced above once the following comments have been satisfactorily addressed (The following comments are
those that have been identified at this time. Additional comments or conditions may be added or eliminated
based on further review.): [Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference, which is to the
Subdivision/Zoning Ordinances unless otherwise specified.]
1. [Comment] On the plan it appears the size of District Ave has changes from 24' width to 22' width?
Revise the plan so the road is shown as its original 24' width. Also on sheet 14 of 21, drawing number C -14
omit the road insert (the middle one) which depicts 11' lanes.
2. [Comment] On sheet 9 of 21, drawing # C -9, the plan depicts a "permanent grading easement" along the
northern property line of the site which extends across portions of the adjacent property which are slated for
clearing and grading. Is this easement proposed or existing? If the easement is existing, provide the
recordation information on the plan; if it is proposed either provide the agreement or provide letter(s) of
intent to grant them from the off- -site property owner. Also, on the plan provide the width of this easement.
3. [Comment] Assure there are no conflicts with the new 20' waterline easement and the ten (10) proposed
shrubs (EK) that are shown on plan at the entrance of District Ave. These shrubs appear to be planted
directly over the easement.
4.. [Comment] Because of the recent addition of slip sheet 10 of 22, drawing # C -9A, all other sheets after said
sheet are incorrectly numbered. To avoid confusion please assure the sheet numbers of each page and the
sheet numbers on the cover sheet match.
As you know the site plan amendments cannot be signed /approved until the ARB has approved the plan
and all other comments have been addressed. It is my understanding that ARB and Engineering have
provided their comments to you individually. For your convenience I have attached them. Additional
comments are forthcoming from ACSA and VDOT. Once these comments are received I will forward
them to you.
Please contact Christopher Perez at the Division of Current Development by using cperez@albemarle.org or
434 - 296 -5832 ext. 3443 for further information.
ARB Comments
Provided by Margaret Maliszewski
7 -10 -12
1. Please provide plants along the Rt. 29 frontage south. of the District Avenue entrance to screen
the drainage swale located there and integrate with the previously approved basin planting (while
avoiding utility conflicts).
2. The following note should be added to the plan: "All site plantings of trees and shrubs shall be
allowed to reach, and be maintained at, mature height; the topping of trees is prohibited. Shrubs
and trees shall be pruned minimally and only to support the overall health of the plant."
NOTE: The applicant has indicated that a portion of the Comdial. chain link fence that runs along..
the northern property line will be removed and replaced with exactly the same type of fence. As
such, it is exempt from EC review, but the work will require a building permit. Should any.
aspect of the fence design be revised, details must be provided for EC review. Also, note that the
approved color for the guardrail is SW 7020 Black Fox.
Christopher Perez
From: Philip Custer
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 5:30 PM
To: Tom Gallagher; rumberger @wwassociates:net; hwhite @wwassociates.net
Cc: Glenn Brooks; Christopher Perez
Subject: Engineering Review of District Avenue ESC and Road Plan
Attachments: E2_rp ecp swm_PBC_wpo- 2012 -00039 sub - 2012 -00043 District Ave Extended.doc
Good evening,
Attached is the engineering memo from the. review of the first revision of District Avenue Extended (WPO- 2012 -00039
and SUB - 2012 - 00043), received 14 June 2012. The remaining comments are minor and will not require additional road
and ESC plan review fees, unless significant changes are proposed.
It is my understanding that a refund of the original fee of $1070 for SUB - 2012 -00043 was initiated at the time that the
site plan application was requested. Since two private street plan reviews were performed, a total fee of $800 is
required for this application. Please provide this fee as soon as possible for the road plan, SUB - 2012 - 00043.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks,
Phil
296 -5832 x3072
^_r, If M- . N.
- l I
2
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
Project: District Avenue Extended; SUB- 2012 -00043 and WPO- 2012 -00039
Plan preparer: Mr. Herb White, PE; W & W Associates
Owner or rep.: Albemarle Place EAAP LLC
Date received: 5 April 2012
(Rev. 1) 14 June 2012
Date of Comment: 14 May 2012
(Rev.. 1) 10 July 2012
Engineer: Phil Custer
The first revision of the ESC and road plans for District Avenue Extended (WPO- 2012 -00039 and SUB -
2012- 00043), received on 14 June 2012, have been reviewed.. The plans can be approved after the
following comments have been addressed:
A. Road Plan Review Comments (SUB- 2012 - 00043)
, , "2 r
1. l.�e�-i.s�:ci Proffer l...l:l (�)%2.3:.�(.1 �.�.} r=a.f'�:rs t €� this t�°r.r.r: €:,: ° <rr��- street :»tartirr�; t part the �lc;:::.i�,rr starrcf.ar °cis for
it rnrrst he approved d b the Director of 1`11e use € ft he rural i:ross-
sectiori i €>r die rrrxj € >r Wy € f leis street is aecept£.i le, €f die; slr •wtt is permis.si ] —
but not .r°€ corr?.metided. by cols by eta f', because; the slops ofth.e �otithborrrr€ la-ut.e would direct
drii:ting �,c;.hicles inu.f the norti.rb€nrrid lame ratther -thair auto tine s;h ctrl €ier a. a norrrrarl c;rovvn.ed .r €rad
r� lcl.
11e pedestrian patb adorn the road rrrrtst be trlrgrad - -d -to art lean. t l_rrinw arnd doubie sea[,
:char €ii trees nnist also be provided on the sorah side € fthe �, •ar.lkirrtl partli at an interval of no greater
tl ,vl 50:f- t..please Pr ovi& an rrnsto pe €i ior District M-enuo and ofie slop. sign..
on Blackbird or l?r€ =vi€ e traIllic data showin.g that a three wain: st € >p i.s ��arf°rarrrt� €i..
(Rev. 1) Camnwnt has been fuhlressed
2. l: °irerc; is ar tia:fe €v issue at tlt€; Rs:itttir /2£) zrrter;c;ct.i.c ;n due try the p.r €?x.i:izi.i.ty o:f'thc .r°etari.rr..ii.ig "aril to the
-Wroi:ng i.r.r. €wellie -m onto District . avenue i:r°orrr 29 Northbound, Please address this coircc:r.n. lfthe
beginning of the reuiiniral.„ t- � -aill can he shitted �� -est. there still be a safi t.y c;4:sn ern associated
with the sla< 1. of the % -�,4ll since it is hisicle tlae. el :°arrz:€ ne. 1-o start, obiarining t-<:rt €?f'f'sit;e eazscrnerii
a pp4larrs s riiieara.
e.Re a .1.1 The ar(;rrsftnew neade l�l° the applicant is a cc eplable.
3. Please provide traffic data supporting that the stacking distances at the intersection with Route 29
will be acceptable for this phase of construction.
(Rev. 1) The stacking distances are currently acceptable, but after further review of the
intersection, a change to the eastbound approach is required. The single eastbound lane must
become the southern -most left turn lane, not the northern. The lane shift of 12ft must occur
over 125ft. Please send a sketch of this change to myself and Joel when the adjustments have
been made.
4. Please provide a gradual transition from the rural section to the urban section by tapering the edge
of the shoulder. Please also gradually increase the height of the curb from 0" to 6" over at least
20ft.
(Rev. 1) The 5ft curb transition is acceptable but the note on sheet C -9 isn't clear.
5. Plez.a:4e l:irovi€ e <a:spe;.ed liriiil siv.ii for tlae no'rthbotind lniffic at a.pI. roxiin,t el St'i. ?4..._00, •I.. l€;
"Peed h.nlat :ign for s€ ullilr €31rsnd tr<a:ftic tappe ai' loo-close to tfie interai;C;t.iO n.
Me o .1) C;Wit emit has been addressed
6. Please cleniv s11o* ill the grading 1. ian wid pro ile. an <zcleqtza e sLarip at :'9 and 140,
(1 ?e. =v. 1) (,7w nent has been aeidhe civtL
7. 1'letas€:: show the existfiigs' and proposed grenade Braes for the cente:r•lirie € - Ferach roadside side €iit.ch.
(Rev, p) The apaprlican." has prq iele °rl road cros,�° ,v°rrctiazzs ak rip; them wall. which is ar:cqlfah € =,
8. l:i:i. addition to the existiri <a 'road o;rade slrovnlr Please provide tlzo <g.rac e before t.r.a.ass gradifiLl
so the areas of actu<al till c<ari lie rri ore clezarty deteradriecl. "l`hi: fie; k- exisiiiiu grade 6irie kv i
iii#'uence N�laetc the correct loc<ati€ w, for tile i`I::3 -i's are.
(Rr. =v. 1) (.7o rrrr ent ilas been adtlr°r.>Nsei
9.- Please provide bile Sh apirig (IS -1) oil all st.r•arewrer: .
( en 1) Comment ent bas been aihlrp,:� erg
10. Please show in the plan all easements necessary for the road, sidewalks, and drainage channels and
pipes.
(Rev. 1) Access and sidewalk easements were not shown within the plan. These easements must
be located at least Ift outside of the channel and sidewalk.
11. "Phe 'lbial plan '1b] the first sever•ral lia.rn €lred fig t: of Foijr•tli Street.
t oin f: oLite 29 will be oNpecte€i. to lirovide 4wde; trees bel�,N—ee.a.a.1he back a:af'c r <znd reizalnina Wall
as . h.o'wtl in th.c; eappraved Preliminary plai:a. It is .recofn.naiended. that the de sig„3;n. €if• this playa account
fix, the e:.xpectsa.tiow, of'the firacal plrari.
12. VDOT approval must be provided. County Engineering supports VDOT's comment requiring a
continuation of the Route 29 cross slope into District Avenue Extended and providing a low point
west of the Route 29 gutterline.
(Rev. 1) VDOT approval has not yet been received.
B. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Review Comments (WPO- 2012 - 00039)
1. This Plan relies €?n tile: dwvraslre.iari sed'iamit. b a,.,,an for the majority of' its effeelivefless. l-lo ee-er,
tlae extemica.0 to the - zn €?ii.tfi st<abi.:lizati €?ii. cleGidl'ine £,game €1 by tli.e County Engineer expire,,; € n July
261;
..l.fth.is plan con - tirades to rely, on the :se €li.t ietat b asia.a.; h will be i:n aliciatc €l .i:f•c;a:atastroc;t'loii is
ririrt coyripleted by ,fatly- 26' arid the Board of Supervisors does riot gr<ara an exie; iii €ati to the pl<art.
in order for the Board to consider ider � ranting all e%teii..si€ ii of'th -t:aa ili:rcatioii re€pikenient; the
regirestriiaasl lie .received fry° the Clerk €3:f't'he.Botar €l of'Supei.Tisor� by 'iii €w 26 "', Nly
re c 44izzarac rr €lGrti €>i.r.
is to make this a• quest to the .l: Board AND dc.'si to this plan. so that it can be
c €iri ;idered hidepemient €if°the rncass g >'rradirigz; pltavi.. ": edirne:rit. li<r.siri. 1-Iiis Can be dwie; by providing a
sediirient: tr•ra.p below st'raacttrre 135 oil(] rephic:iiiigthe gilt fence wesi €?f°this o(Alet will) a €liversic }it
(e . 1) the applicant has Me icared In rlrisplan thar It relles on ffic sedim ew lritsin rzplrz°orvea
acceprr ale unill the parer =ions Plait e xpere.s, in which case the ,clan e°upreat e tinder .rcnview
beee•errr as volil,
2. BenN -een steps 2 taiad 3 io. the coi.a.struct.ion scqu nce, please add a step to €;onstract all pe:°riine=ter
rne,a: ur•es.
(ilk` €ir. l) Comment has been addraysed.
3. It is Critical to this plait to €het the c le ail. w at ;r to bypass the c oia.struction area so that the silt :fence
is not bl€ vv-ii chit.. Please stale hi the coiistr mtiori e €lue:ric:e (:gee 1,1b ive c €arrinierat) that struc:taai•es
l <l l , 14-2, 'l <1.i, 1 <: ;..:l.t ia:ncl 145 as as CSC l:; -1 raiiEl i::'.: " -:3 nnia t be colnple;ted ,nid ;�tabili:�:ed l?efiirre
road c €3i.i.r�truc;tion cati begin.
ller. 1) ^76m e> r has been addressed.
4. :l lie c €imtr i Lion ent:rwic e roust €1riaiii fo a se €:l'irnelit: tr•ra'liliiras; rrte ;a i.ire.
(1?ev. 1) The applicaa"rt has im icared in tir& pz1aft Tat it rejlie -,° on the.> sediment bashl Oppr €,ved
g,fth the num-s grafffitg Plan. Mianee on thA sediment bashtfi)r most of rhe sedimew conlrol is
Ifeceptahk yind! the Previous ohm expin q, hi which rase the plan currendy undvr review
bevor""ev ]"rdA
5. Please provicle ripaj.) oi• .,.od sIabilizatioii oii all diamick, tipstrcai-yi of the stoni)waler pore d aiicl
ClownstrCa.111 of .111ca.s.11-re's jl) this plan
(Rtm 1) The applicant has indicated in thisplan rhar if relies ot? Me sedimew bashi qpproved'
acceprable until the previous plan exphvs. in which case theplan curnwalp under MMA",
becomes vvitl
6. Pl.-Iase P-rovide as RWD across file critraiwe ,u 29 -to direct rui.i.off toward, ffi� . cdimmt basin,Itrap
dowtiArcaiii of trLidaire 1-');;, 0*' lac ,V[)(YF Collifyiel•It re =ardfil;� tf)e Vertic-al prorlie at tills elltrarice
seeiiis to ji-wke Lliis chaiioe howover,)
(Re". 1) Comment has been adeln�V-sed.
7. Please provide a completed Bond Estimate Request Form to the county engineer to receive an ESC
bond. A grading permit cannot be issued until a bond is posted.
(Rev. 1) A Bond Estimate Request Form has not yet been received. The owner of TMP 61 W -3 --
18 will need to sign this form and be party to the ESC bond unless all necessary easements have
been recorded.
8. (Rev. 1) The ESCplan must be modified to show the increase to the land disturbance resulting
from the addition of the waterline work.
C. ("omnMents, (Wff)-2012-00039)
1. file update to storrmvater ealcLilatioiis for the iiiten,rJttcyn poy)d BINUI is acceptable, 'No
modificatioii to the axisfljig SWM plaii iWPO-220 10-000-:2) is warrante(] Frith flilsapplicatioji. At
Ibe 6.1110 of Ibis Pj.aW-., approval. tvioacididonal. copies of Sheet C-1.8 will be necessary R)rnie to
illolod-I in ffie fide.
Fdtttl F`...rp ecp