HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB200700077 Review Comments No Submittal Type Selected 2013-02-07Ahmarle Canter
Service uth rit
�, ; - 4 - ;-1rJ rr.
TO: Christopher Perez
FROM: Alexander J. Morrison, EIT, Civil Engineer
DATE: February 7, 2013
RE: Site Plan Technical Review for: SUB200700077: Stonewater — Final
TMP# 61 -184
The below checked items apply to this site.
✓ 1. This site plan is within the Authority's jurisdictional area for:
✓ A. Water and sewer
B. Water only
C. Water only to existing structure
D. Limited service
✓ 2. A 18 inch water line is located approximately on site distant. (RWSA LINE)
3. Fire flow from, nearest public hydrant, located distant from this site plan, is
Gpm + at 20 psi residual.
✓ 4. A 8 inch sewer line is located approximately 30' distant.
5. An Industrial Waste Ordinance survey form must be completed.
✓ 6. No improvements or obstructions shall be placed within existing or future
easements.
7. and plans are currently under review.
8. and plans have been received and approved.
9. No plans are required.
10. Final and plans are required for our review and approval prior to
granting tentative approval.
11. Final site plan may /may not be signed.
12. RWSA approval for water and /or sewer connections.
13. City of Charlottesville approval for sewer.
✓ Comments:
• On sheet 6 remove waterline easement at the corner of Penfield Lane and Penfield Place.
The Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) has no technical comments on the SUB
being reviewed. Engineering comments are usually reserved for the site plan review stage.
Subdivision plats should correctly show ownership of properties and existing easements.
Recordation of new easements should occur before dedication to and acceptance by the ACSA.
The ACSA can review the proposed subdivision plat and determine if it is included in
the jurisdictional area for water and /or sewer service. Water and /or sewer connections to
the ACSA system are allotted on a first come, first served basis at the time connection
fees are paid. The ACSA does not reserve capacity in its system for a specific project.
168 Spotnap Road • Charlottesville • VA 22911 • Tel (434) 977 -4511 • Fax (434) 979 -0698
www.serviceauthoriy.org
�I'���11111,,'•
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Kirk Hughes
From: Christopher P. Perez, Senior Planner
Division: Current Development
Date: June 5, 2013
Subject: SUB 2007 — 00077 Stonewater — Final Plat (zero lot line revisions)
The County of Albemarle Division of Zoning and Current Development will grant or recommend
approval of the final subdivision plat 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.]
On sheet 5, Lot 20 appears to have two (2) 10' wall maintenance easements located on the lot?
This does not seem appropriate, nor necessary? Also, lots 21, 22, 11, and 12 do not appear to have
any 10' perpetual wall maintenance easements? If they are not intended to they must at a minimum
have 10' side setbacks for each side yard. Revise appropriately.
2. On sheet 1, the Yard Setback Requirements note for the side yard is labeled as 15'; however, this is
incorrect, as 10' is the new side yard minimum per 4.11.3. Revise the side setback note to state
"Minimum sideyard setbacks for this development are 10' per Section 4.11.3 ". The remaining
portion of the note shall remain: "Which may be reduced to zero (0) feet on one side... etc.
On sheet 1, under Notes, add a note that states: "Subdivision to be developed as a Zero Lot Line
Development ". Also for any lots which will not have a 10' wall maintenance easement include a
note under the notes section on the plat which states such, for example: "Lot 25 does not have a
10' perpetual wall maintenance easement ".
4. On sheet 5, Lot 25 does not appear to be a Zero Lot Line lot as such the minim side yard setback of
10' shall be shown on the lot. Currently only one side yard setback is shown for this lot. Revise to
depict and label both.
On sheet 2, Lot 1 has a note associated with it, zoning staff has requested the note be revised to
state: "10' perpetual wall maintenance easement and typical 10' side setback."
6. On sheet 2, it appears the setback lines for Block A and Block B are incorrectly labeled on the plat
and should be revised at this time. Notably these two blocks should each have 3 fronts and one
side. Each have a front on Rio Road East which must depict a 25' setback, each have a front on
Penfield Lane which must depict a 25' setback, Block A has a front on Treesdale Way and Block B
has a front on Stonehenge Way, of which each must depict a 25' setback. See attached diagram for
visual. It appears this was correctly shown on the road plans; however, incorrectly shown on the
final plat. Please revise.
7. On sheet 3, assure the ACSA waterline easement, RWSA utility easements, and 20' sanitary sewer
easement matches up to the required setback lines for Block A and Block B per comment #6 above.
8. The revised declaration of covenants, conditions, restrictions and easements was received on 5 -31-
13 and has been transferred to the County Attorney for review /approval. Once this document has
been approved staff will advice the applicant.
Please contact Christopher Perez at the Division of Zoning and Current Development at 296 -5832 ext.
3443 for further information. Please address all comments.
2
Christopher Perez
From:
Alex Morrison [ amorrison @serviceauthority.org]
Sent:
Thursday, March 28, 2013 1:03 PM
To:
Christopher Perez
Cc:
kirk @khals.net
Subject:
Stonewater Final Subdivision Plat
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Dear Chris :
The Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) has received and reviewed the plan /document /project described above.
All ACSA comments have been addressed by the applicant. The ACSA hereby approves the plan /document /project
described above.
Please feel free to contact me at the number below with any comments or questions you may have.
Thank you.
Alexander J. Morrison, EIT
Civil Engineer
Pt15L•muk (unit
Service Authkily
168 Spotnap Road
Charlottesville, VA 22911
Office: (434)977-4511 EXT: 116
This email may contain confidential information that should not be shared with anyone other than its intended
recipient(s).
�I'���11111,,'•
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Kirk Hughes
From: Christopher P. Perez, Senior Planner
Division: Current Development
Date: March 27, 2013
Subject: SUB 2007 — 00077 Stonewater — Final Plat.
The County of Albemarle Division of Zoning and Current Development will grant or recommend approval of
the final subdivision plat 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.]
[18- 4.7.d] Ownership of open space. Open space may be privately owned or dedicated to public use. Open
space in private ownership shall be subject to a legal instrument ensuring the maintenance and preservation
of the open space that is approved by the agent and the county attorney in conjunction with the approval of
the subdivision plat or site plan. Please provide an instrument that assures the perpetual maintenance and
preservation of the privately owned open space depicted on the plat.
Rev. County Attorney comments are attached. document approved
2. [14 -317] Instrument evidencing maintenance of certain improvements: If the subdivision will contain
one (1) or more improvements that are not to be maintained by the county or any authority or other public
agency, the subdivider shall submit with the final plat an instrument assuring the perpetual maintenance of
the improvement. Please provide an instrument that assures the perpetual maintenance of the private roads
(Treesdale Way and Stonehenge Way) depicted on the plat.
Rev. County Attorney comments are attached. document approved
[14- 418]Where public water is reasonably available, a final plat shall not be approved without
verification from the service authority and the department of fire and rescue that adequate capability
exists to provide adequate fire protection to serve the subdivision, including required fire flows,
together with all other developments to be served by the system. Fire hydrants and distribution systems
shall be installed and constructed by the subdivider. Hydrant locations and fire flow requirements shall be as
prescribed by Insurance Service Offices (ISO) standards and be subject to approval by the department of fire
and rescue, or the service authority, whichever requirements are greater. In areas where public water is not
reasonably available, the department of fire and rescue may require such alternative provisions as deemed
reasonably necessary to provide adequate fire protection.
Rev. Comment addressed.
4. [4.11.3(B)] The plat depicts 5' side yard setbacks for all lots in the development. As shown on the plat it
appears that the applicant intends to apply for reduction of side yards as provided for in section 4.11.3(B) of
the ordinance. In order for this development to qualify for this section of the ordinance please comply with
Fire and Rescue's 4th comment (provided below). Also per section 4.11.3(B) provide the required
information on the final subdivision plat and provide the deed of easement for review by the County
Attorney. These documents once approved by the County Attorney and Community Development will be
required to be recorded with the final plat. Revise. Please note that if the setbacks reductions are approved
this may have implications on building designs permitted.
Rev. While there is a note depicted on sheet 1 to describe the perpetual wall maintenance easements
on the plat, the ordinance (4.11.3(B)) requires these easements be "shown on the final plat "; however
the plat does not show these easements, rather it describes them in the note. Attached I am providing
an example of how the development of Old Trail depicted the easements on the plat. Please revise the
plat to include the easements on the lots, also assure the note currently provided on sheet 1 remains.
5. Note # 5 on sheet 1/9 does not match what is depicted on the plat for the front yard and rear yard drainage
easements.
Rev. Comment addressed.
6. The townhouse lots will require an approved final site plan prior to being built. County records indicate that
two site plans were previously submitted for the townhouses: SDP2008 -129, which was withdrawn and
SDP2009 -48, which is deferred indefinitely. Because of the lack of an approved site plan for the
townhomes it is recommended that the townhouse lots not be subdivided as depicted on this plat, rather it is
advisable that two large lots be depicted on the plat (one on each side of Penfield Lane) with a note
"reserved for 6 townhouse lots" and "reserved for 8 townhouse lots ". Also, provide a note on the plat that
"future site plan is required for townhouse lots."
Rev. Comment addressed. The townhouse lots will require an approved final site plan prior to being built.
7. It appears that fire hydrants have been omitted from the plat? Revise to assure they are appropriately
depicted per Fire and Rescue comments.
Rev. Comment addressed.
8. On sheet 2 of the plat depict the Existing -12' Greenway Access and Stormwater Management Maintenance
Easement DB 3932 — 493 " to assure that it connects with the proposed modification to the "30' Greenway
Access and Stormwater Management Maintenance Easement". Revise.
Rev. Comment addressed.
9. Also, on sheet 2 of the plat depict the Existing portion of the "30' Greenway Access and Stormwater
Management Maintenance Easement" which is located on the Treesdale property TMP 61 -182 to assure
that the modified easement on Stonewater's site matches up with the easement on the Treesdale site. Revise.
Rev. Comment addressed, surveyor acknowledged the need to revise an offsite easement on another plat.
10. With the revised "30' Greenway Access and Stormwater Management Maintenance Easement" the deed for
this easement must be revised, submitted for review by the County Attorney and approved prior to Final
Subdivision Plat approval. This easement will be required to be recorded with the final subdivision plat.
Please revise the easeme- -
Rev. County Attorney comments are attached. document approved
11. It is recommended that the "30' Greenway Access and Stormwater Management Maintenance Easement"
continue from the Existing Stormwater Management Facility to the 50' Greenway Easement in the rear of
the property. Revise to provide this connection.
Rev. Comment addressed, to be provided by Treesdale.
12. With regards to the 50' Greenway Easement dedicated to public use as depicted in the rear of the property.
The previously reviewed/ approved version of this document is over 4 years old. The County Attorney will
need to re- review /approve this document. Please submit the most recent version of this document for
County Attorney review /approval.
Rev. County Attorney comments are attached. document approved w / minor edits as noted in the
attached.
13. [New Comment] The previous version of this plat dated Jan 11, 2013 (pg 4/9) depicted "portion of
existing drainage easement hereby vacated "; however on this most recent version of the plat dated
2
March 1, 2013 (pg 4/9) it is not depicted as an existing drainage easement, nor is it depicted as
hereby vacated. What happened to this easement? Was it vacated on some other plat or is the
easement still in existence?
14. [Comment] Also, the County Attorney reviewed the Drainage Easement and vacation document
and he provided his comments in the attached document, notably it was not approved. Revise and
resubmit for his review.
15. [New Comment] On Sheet 7/9, Lot 26 depicts a portion of the existing 20' drainage easement to be
reserved as a drainage easement. What is the intent of this reservation? What does this mean for the
easement?
Engineering — Mike Koslow
Comments pending (I spoke w / Mike and he hopes to have it completed this week).
ACSA — Alex Morrison
Comments pending (if you have ACSA's approval, please forward it to me via email).
E911— Andrew Slack
Approved
Fire and Rescue — Robbie Gilmer
Approved
VDOT — Joel DeNunzio
Approved
Building Inspection — Jay
No objection
Please contact Christopher Perez at the Division of Zoning and Current Development at 296 -5832 ext. 3443 for
further information. Please address all comments.
Christopher Perez
From:
Robbie Gilmer
Sent:
Sunday, March 10, 2013 11:48 AM
To:
Kirk Hughes
Cc:
Charlotte Harper; Christopher Perez; Mark Hutchison; Scott Collins; Hunter Craig
Subject:
RE: Stonewater Fire Flow Test SUB 2007 -00077 Stonewater Subd. Application
Kirk,
Thank you for adding the No parking signs. That addresses all of my comments for Stonewater.
Thank you,
Robbi e G i I mer
Albemarle County Fire Rescue
Assist. Fire Marshal
460 Stagecoach Road, Suite F
Charlottesville, Va 22902
o- 434 - 296 -5833
c- 434 - 531 -6606
From: Kirk Hughes [mailto:kirk(aOkhals.net]
Sent: Saturday, March 09, 2013 1:14 PM
To: Robbie Gilmer
Cc: Charlotte Harper; Christopher Perez; Mark Hutchison; Scott Collins; Hunter Craig
Subject: RE: Stonewater Fire Flow Test SUB 2007 -00077 Stonewater Subd. Application
Robbie,
I'm attaching a pdf of the approved site plan and I've highlighted the parking signs. I trust this will adequately
addresses your concerns. If you have any questions regarding the above, please do not hesitate to contact me or my
office
Thanks for your assistance.
Kirk
From: Robbie Gilmer [ mailto: rail mer(aOalbemarle.org]
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 5:07 PM
To: Christopher Perez
Cc: Kirk Hughes
Subject: FW: Stonewater Fire Flow Test SUB 2007 -00077 Stonewater Subd. Application
Chris,
Here is the approved fire flow test for Stonewater which will address comment 4 of mine.
Also I have talked with Kirk Hughes about the streets, he informed me that the streets where not approved for
on street parking which will address comments 2 and 3 of mine on the 20 ft unobstructed travel way and the
turning radii.
For comment 1 on the 96 ft FC /FC cul -da -sac; since it was approved on the road plans I will sign off on it. If they
place NO Parking signs around the Cul -da -sac to guarantee that we can enforce the no parking.
Thank you,
Robbi e G i I mer
Albemarle County Fire Rescue
Assist. Fire Marshal
460 Stagecoach Road, Suite F
Charlottesville, Va 22902
o- 434 - 296 -5833
c- 434 - 531 -6606
From: Kirk Hughes [mailto:kirk(aOkhals.net]
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 12:25 PM
To: Robbie Gilmer
Subject: FW: Stonewater Fire Flow Test SUB 2007 -00077 Stonewater Subd. Application
Hello Robbie,
Please find attached the ACSA flow test report. I trust the above test adequately addresses your
concerns required for Item #4 in the above referenced application. If you have any questions regarding
the above, please do not hesitate to contact me or my office. When all your concerns have been
addressed please notify this office.
Thanks for your assistance in reviewing the above.
Kirk
Kirk Hughes, L.S.
Principal
KII'A
Kirk Hughes & Associates
Land Surveyors & Planners
220 East High Street
Charlottesville, VA 22902
(434) 296 -6942, Ext.108
(434) 295 -7540 Fax
kirk aC)khals.net
http: / /goo.gl /maps /81afD
APlease consider the environment before printing this email.
From: Alex Morrison [ mai Ito: amorrison (a)serviceauthority.org]
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 4:44 PM
To: kirk(&khals.net
Subject: Stonewater Fire Flow Test
Attached is the fire flow test conducted today on the new lines in Stonewater. We were unable to
achieve a 10 pound drop for the AWWA Q20 calculation. With a 2 PSI drop we got 1,436 gpm out of the
hydrant.
Alexander J. Morrison, EIT
Civil Engineer
k�
Service Aiuthirily
--�.k --
168 Spotnap Road
Charlottesville, VA 22911
Office: (434)977-4511 EXT: 116
This email may contain confidential information that should not be shared with anyone other than
its intended recipient(s).
Christopher Perez
From: Oleynik, Megan (VDOT) [ Megan .Oleynik @vdot.virginia.gov]
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 10:51 AM
To: Christopher Perez
Cc: Joel DeNunzio, P.E.
Subject: Stonewater Subdivision Plat (Final) - SUB2007 -77
Chris,
Joel and I have reviewed the subject plat and have no comments.
Thanks,
Megan Oleynik
Engineering Intern
VDOT- Culpeper District
Christopher Perez
From: Robbie Gilmer
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 5:07 PM
To: Christopher Perez
Cc: Kirk Hughes
Subject: FW: Stonewater Fire Flow Test SUB 2007 -00077 Stonewater Subd. Application
Attachments: 20130220163029450.pdf
Chris,
Here is the approved fire flow test for Stonewater which will address comment 4 of mine.
Also I have talked with Kirk Hughes about the streets, he informed me that the streets where not approved for on street
parking which will address comments 2 and 3 of mine on the 20 ft unobstructed travel way and the turning radii.
For comment 1 on the 96 ft FC /FC cul -da -sac; since it was approved on the road plans I will sign off on it. If they place NO
Parking signs around the Cul -da -sac to guarantee that we can enforce the no parking.
Thank you,
Robbi e G i I mer
Albemarle County Fire Rescue
Assist. Fire Marshal
460 Stagecoach Road, Suite F
Charlottesville, Va 22902
o- 434 - 296 -5833
c- 434 - 531 -6606
From: Kirk Hughes [mailto:kirk(aDkhals.net]
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 12:25 PM
To: Robbie Gilmer
Subject: FW: Stonewater Fire Flow Test SUB 2007 -00077 Stonewater Subd. Application
Hello Robbie,
Please find attached the ACSA flow test report. I trust the above test adequately addresses your concerns
required for Item #4 in the above referenced application. If you have any questions regarding the above,
please do not hesitate to contact me or my office. When all your concerns have been addressed please notify
this office.
Thanks for your assistance in reviewing the above.
Kirk
Kirk Hughes, L.S.
Principal
YdRA
Kirk Hughes & Associates
Land Surveyors & Planners
220 East High Street
Charlottesville, VA 22902
(434) 296 -6942, Ext.108
(434) 295 -7540 Fax
kirk(a)khals.net
http: / /goo.gl /maps /81afD
APlease consider the environment before printing this email.
From: Alex Morrison [ma i Ito: amorrison (a)serviceauthority.org]
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 4:44 PM
To: kirk(a khals.net
Subject: Stonewater Fire Flow Test
Attached is the fire flow test conducted today on the new lines in Stonewater. We were unable to achieve a 10
pound drop for the AWWA Q20 calculation. With a 2 PSI drop we got 1,436 gpm out of the hydrant.
Alexander J. Morrison, EIT
Civil Engineer
ML•muk CC-MI
Service Authkity
168 Spotnap Road
Charlottesville, VA 22911
Office: (434)977-4511 EXT: 116
This email may contain confidential information that should not be shared with anyone other than its
intended recipient(s).
O
U
_ A7i
�IRGINZP
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Kirk Hughes
From: Christopher P. Perez, Senior Planner
Division: Current Development
Date: February 12, 2013
Subject: SUB 2007 — 00077 Stonewater — Final Plat.
The County of Albemarle Division of Zoning and Current Development will grant or recommend approval of
the final subdivision plat 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. [18- 4.7.d] Ownership of open space. Open space may be privately owned or dedicated to public use. Open
space in private ownership shall be subject to a legal instrument ensuring the maintenance and preservation
of the open space that is approved by the agent and the county attorney in conjunction with the approval of
the subdivision plat or site plan. Please provide an instrument that assures the perpetual maintenance
and preservation of the privately owned open space depicted on the plat.
2. [14 -317] Instrument evidencing maintenance of certain improvements: If the subdivision will contain
one (1) or more improvements that are not to be maintained by the county or any authority or other public
agency, the subdivider shall submit with the final plat an instrument assuring the perpetual maintenance of
the improvement. Please provide an instrument that assures the perpetual maintenance of the private
roads (Treesdale Way and StonehenLye Way) depicted on the plat.
[14- 418]Where public water is reasonably available, a final plat shall not be approved without
verification from the service authority and the department of fire and rescue that adequate capability
exists to provide adequate fire protection to serve the subdivision, including required fire flows,
together with all other developments to be served by the system. Fire hydrants and distribution systems
shall be installed and constructed by the subdivider. Hydrant locations and fire flow requirements shall be as
prescribed by Insurance Service Offices (ISO) standards and be subject to approval by the department of fire
and rescue, or the service authority, whichever requirements are greater. In areas where public water is not
reasonably available, the department of fire and rescue may require such alternative provisions as deemed
reasonably necessary to provide adequate fire protection.
4. [4.11.3(B)] The plat depicts 5' side yard setbacks for all lots in the development. As shown on the plat it
appears that the applicant intends to apply for reduction of side yards as provided for in section 4.11.3(B) of
the ordinance. In order for this development to qualify for this section of the ordinance please comply with
Fire and Rescue's 0 comment (provided below). Also per section 4.11.3(B) provide the required
information on the final subdivision plat and provide the deed of easement for review by the County
Attorney. These documents once approved by the County Attorney and Community Development will be
required to be recorded with the final plat. Revise. Please note that if the setbacks reductions are approved
this may have implications on building designs permitted.
5. Note # 5 on sheet 1/9 does not match what is depicted on the plat for the front yard and rear yard drainage
easements.
6. The townhouse lots will require an approved final site plan prior to being built. County records indicate that
two site plans were previously submitted for the townhouses: SDP2008 -129, which was withdrawn and
SDP2009 -48, which is .deferred indefinitely. Because of the lack of an approved site plan for the
townhomes it is recommended that the townhouse lots not be subdivided as depicted on this plat, rather it is
advisable that two large lots be depicted on the plat (one on each side of Penfield Lane) with a note
"reserved for 6 townhouse lots" and "reserved for 8 townhouse lots ". Also, provide a note on the plat that.
"future site plan is required for townhouse lots."
7. It appears that fire hydrants have been omitted from the plat? Revise to assure they are appropriately
depicted per Fire and Rescue comments.
8. On sheet 2 of the.plat depict the Existing "12' Greenway Access and Stormwater Management Maintenance
Easement DB 3932 — 493" to assure that it connects with the proposed modification to the "30' Greenway
Access and Stormwater Management Maintenance Easement". Revise.
9. Also, on sheet 2 of the plat depict the Existing portion of the "30' Greenway Access and Stormwater
Management Maintenance Easement" which is located on the Treesdale property TNT 61 -182 to assure
that the modified easement on Stonewater's site matches up with the easement on the Treesdale site. Revise.
10. With the revised "30' Greenway Access and Stormwater Management Maintenance Easement" the deed for
this easement must be revised, submitted for review by the County Attorney and approved prior to Final
Subdivision Plat approval. This easement will be required to be recorded with the final subdivision plat.
Please revise the easement and submit it for review.
11. It is recommended that the "30' Greenway Access and Stormwater Management Maintenance Easement"
continue from the Existing Stormwater Management Facility to the 50' Greenway Easement in the rear of
the property. Revise to provide this connection.
12. With regards to the 50' Greenway Easement dedicated to public use as depicted in the rear of the property.
The previously reviewed/ approved version of this. document is over 4 years old. The County Attorney will
need to re- review /approve this document. Please submit the most recent version of this document for
County Attorney review /approval.
E911— Andrew Slack
1) Will the road name 'Stonehenge Way' be connecting into Stonehenge Road? If that is not to be the case
then this road name will not be valid. Please confirm that it will be completed.
Fire and Rescue — Robbie Gilmer
1. Cul -de -sacs shall be 96 ft in diameter FC/FC.
2. All roads shall have a 20 ft wide unobstructed travel way. If on street parking will be purposed then
streets need to be able to accommodate the additional width required by County code for parallel parking.
3. All turning radii shall be a minimum of 25 ft.
4. Fire flow test will be required. Fire flow shall be no less then 1500gpm @ 20 psi due to side yard set
backs. f
Engineering — Mike Koslow
No objections
2
Building Inspection — Jay
No objection
Please contact Christopher Perez at the Division of Zoning and Current Development at 296 =5832 ext. 3443 for
further information. Please find attached comments from ACSA. Comments are pending from VDOT. Please
address all comments.
3
TO: Christopher Perez
FROM: Alexander J. Morrison, EIT, Civil Engineer
DATE: February 7, 2013
RE: Site Plan Technical Review for: SUB200700077: Stonewater— Final
TMP# 61 -184
The below checked items apply to this site. i
✓
1.
This site plan is within the Authority's jurisdictional area for:
✓
A. Water and sewer
B. Water only
C. Water only to existing ,structure
D. Limited service
✓
2.
A 18 inch water line is located approximately on site distant. (RWSA LINE)
3.
Fire.flow from, nearest public hydrant, located distant from this site plan, is
Gpm + at 20 psi residual.
✓
4.
A 8 inch sewer line is located approximately 30' distant.
5.
An Industrial Waste Ordinance survey form must be completed.
✓
6.
No improvements or obstructions shall be placed within existing or future
easements.
7.
and plans are currently under review.
8.
and plans have been received and approved.
9.
No plans are required.
1.0.
Final and plans are required for our review and approval prior to
granting tentative approval.
11.
Final site plan may /may not be signed.
12.
RWSA approval for water and /or sewer connections.
1.3.
City of Charlottesville approval for sewer.
✓
Comments:
• On sheet 6 remove waterline easement at the corner of Penfield Lane and Penfield Place.
The Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) has no technical comments on the SUB
being reviewed. Engineering comments are usually reserved for the site plan review stage.
Subdivision plats should correctly show ownership of properties and existing easements.
Recordation of new easements should occur before dedication to and acceptance by the ACSA.
The ACSA can review the proposed subdivision plat and determine if it is included in
the jurisdictional area for water and /or sewer service. Water and /or sewer connections to
the ACSA system are allotted on a first come, first served basis at the time connection
fees are paid. The ACSA does not reserve capacity in its system for a specific project.
168 Spotnap Road • Charlottesville • VA 22911 • Tel (434) 977 -4511 • Fax (434) 979 -0698
www.serviceauthoriy.org
� 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
Memorandum
From: Michael Koslow, engineering review
To: Chris Perez, planning coordinator
Date: 3 February 2012
Subject: Stonewater Subdivision (SUB200700077) subdivision final plat review
Plan received date: 22 May 2009
(Rev. 1) 27 July 2009
(Rev. 2) 7 December 2011
Date of comments: 24 June 2009
(Rev. 1) 26 August 2009
(Rev. 3) 3 February 2012
Reviewer: Michael Koslow
1. Please correct the scale on the cover sheet. The plat appears to be printed at 50 scale,
rather than 30.
(Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed.
2. The offsite easement plat (SUB- 2008 - 00253) must be recorded before this plat can be
approved.
(Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed.
3. The ROW dedication required on the Treesdale property should be included in this
plat. The previously submitted plat (SUB- 2009 - 00030) for this area appears to just
transfer land to the Stonewater property rather than dedicating it to public use.
(Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed.
4. A Deed of Dedication and Easement is needed for all required drainage easements associated
with this final plat. Please refer to the County's website for the most recent forms and
procedural guidelines that need to be followed when submitting a Deed of Dedication and
Easement. The wording shown for the drainage easements on the Deed of Dedication and
Easement needs to be exactly the same as the wording on the final plat.
(Rev. 1) The deed has been submitted and will be tracked by the Planner for the project.
5. The WPO and road bond must be posted prior to plat approval.
(Rev. 1) The WPO and road bonds have not yet been posted.
(Rev. 2) The comment remains.
6. Please provide a private drainage easement on the back of lots 3 -15 over the swale or
seam between fill and existing grades.
(Rev. 1) Note #5 on the cover sheet of the plat will not suffice. The private drainage
easement (minimum l Oft) must be shown as independent along the rear of the
property as agreed upon in the meeting held on 8/14/09 between the applicant and the
county.
Albemarle County Community Development
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 2
(Rev. 1) The 2006 agreement between Stonewater and Stonehenge was reviewed and meets
the minimum county requirements for consent to allow offsite construction. The connector
road as shown on the plans may remain.
(Rev. 2) The private drainage easement as a requirement is withdrawn for this project.
7. (Rev. 2) The final plat approval is contingent on approval of the road plans, storm water
management plans, and erosion control plans. After above have been completed, the final
plat review will receive further review to ensure that it matches the approved other plans.
Christopher Perez
From: DeNunzio, Joel D., P.E. [ Joel .DeNunzio @VDOT.virginia.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2012 11:32 AM
To: Christopher Perez
Subject: Stonewater Sub Final Plat
Christopher,
I have reviewed the subject plat and it appears that the proposed right of way, drainage easements and sight
distance easements are in accordance with the approved road plan and I have no comments.
Thanks
Joel
Joel DeNunzio, P.E.
VDOT Culpeper
Land Development
ioel . den unzioCcbvdot.viroinia.00v
c��pF AL &FA9'P
�'IRGINIP
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Kirk Hughes
From: Christopher P. Perez, Senior Planner
Division: Current Development
Date: January 6, 2012
Subject: SUB 2007 — 00077 Stonewater — Final Plat.
The County of Albemarle Division of Zoning and Current Development will grant or recommend approval of
the final subdivision plat 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. [18- 4.7.d] Ownership of open space. Open space may be privately owned or dedicated to public use. Open
space in private ownership shall be subject to a legal instrument ensuring the maintenance and preservation
of the open space that is approved by the agent and the county attorney in conjunction with the approval of
the subdivision plat or site plan. Please provide an instrument that assures the perpetual maintenance
and preservation of the privately owned open space depicted on the plat.
2. [14 -317] Instrument evidencing maintenance of certain improvements: If the subdivision will contain
one (1) or more improvements that are not to be maintained by the county or any authority or other public
agency, the subdivider shall submit with the final plat an instrument assuring the perpetual maintenance of
the improvement. Please provide an instrument that assures the perpetual maintenance of the private
roads (Treesdale Way and Stonehenge Way) depicted on the plat.
3. [14 -435] Surety in lieu of completion of on -site improvements. Road bond or road acceptance by the
County Engineer is required prior to final plat approval.
4. [14- 418]Where public water is reasonably available, a final plat shall not be approved without
verification from the service authority and the department of fire and rescue that adequate capability
exists to provide adequate fire protection to serve the subdivision, including required fire flows,
together with all other developments to be served by the system. Fire hydrants and distribution systems
shall be installed and constructed by the subdivider. Hydrant locations and fire flow requirements shall be as
prescribed by Insurance Service Offices (ISO) standards and be subject to approval by the department of fire
and rescue, or the service authority, whichever requirements are greater. In areas where public water is not
reasonably available, the department of fire and rescue may require such alternative provisions as deemed
reasonably necessary to provide adequate fire protection.
5. Note # 5 on sheet 1/9 does not match what is depicted on the plat for the front yard and rear yard drainage
easements.
6. On Stonewater's construction plans the 30' Greenway Access and Stormwater Management Maintenance
Area Easement is depicted as continuing from the Existing Stormwater Management Facility to the 50'
Greenway Easement, however on the final plat this is not shown. Please address this inconsistency.
7. As you know, recently there have been substantial plat and deed work completed on Treesdale with regard
to "Parcel Z" and the drainage easements associated with the two subdivisions. Assure the Stonewater plat
reflects all applicable changes.
8. Per discussions with Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) the approved construction plans dated
June 28, 2010 are set to expire in 22 days. These plans need to be resubmitted to ACSA for re- approval.
Please provide 3 sets of construction plans for ACSA to review.
Please contact Christopher Perez at the Division of Zoning and Current Development at 296 -5832 ext. 3443 for
further information.
2
Albemarle County
Service Auth`rity
semng • Corsemr9
TO: Christopher Perez
FROM: Alexander J. Morrison, EIT, Civil Engineer
DATE: December 28, 2011
RE: Site Plan Technical Review for: SUB200700077: Stonewater — Final
TMP# 61 -184
The below checked items apply to this site.
✓ 1. This site plan is within the Authority's jurisdictional area for:
✓ A. Water and sewer
B. Water only
C. Water only to existing structure
D. Limited service
✓ 2. A 18 inch water line is located approximately on site distant. (RWSA LINE)
3. Fire flow from, nearest public hydrant, located distant from this site plan, is
Gpm + at 20 psi residual.
✓ 4. A 8 inch sewer line is located approximately 30' distant.
5. An Industrial Waste Ordinance survey form must be completed.
✓ 6. No improvements or obstructions shall be placed within existing or future
easements.
7. and plans are currently under review.
8. and plans have been received and approved.
9. No plans are required.
10. Final and plans are required for our review and approval prior to
granting tentative approval.
11. Final site plan may /may not be signed.
12. RWSA approval for water and /or sewer connections.
13. City of Charlottesville approval for sewer.
✓ Comments:
• Easement plat must match approved construction plans.
• Label all water easements: New (20' or Variable Width, use appropriate labeling for each area)
Water Easement Hereby Dedicated to ACSA.
• Label all sanitary sewer easements: New (20' or Variable Width, use appropriate labeling for each
area) Sanitary Sewer Easement Hereby Dedicated to ACSA.
• FH on corner of Penfield PI. and Penfield Ln. must be at least 10' from sewer and is not shown on
approved construction plans.
• Show correct reference for Parcel Z on sheet 6/9.
• Increase easements on all water meters to 20' width, extending 10' off ALL edges of water meter.
• Include 20' wide easement on sewer line between lots 34 & 42 on sheet 3/9.
168 Spotnap Road • Charlottesville • VA 22911 • Tel (434) 977 -4511 • Fax (434) 979 -0698
www.serviceauthoriy.org
Albemarle County
Service Auth`rity
The Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) has no technical
comments on the SUB being reviewed. Engineering comments are usually
reserved for the site plan review stage. Subdivision plats should correctly
show ownership of properties and existing easements. Recordation of new
easements should occur before dedication to and acceptance by the ACSA.
The ACSA can review the proposed subdivision plat and determine if it
is included in the jurisdictional area for water and /or sewer service.
Water and /or sewer connections to the ACSA system are allotted on a first
come, first served basis at the time connection fees are paid. The ACSA
does not reserve capacity in its system for a specific project.
168 Spotnap Road • Charlottesville • VA 22911 • Tel (434) 977 -4511 • Fax (434) 979 -0698
www.serviceauthoriy.org
Christopher Perez
From: Andrew Slack
Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 9:57 AM
To: Christopher Perez
Subject: RE: Final Plat for SUB2007 -00077 Stonewater
Christopher,
Per our conversation on Wednesday about these names and after reviewing the site plan I think all of those names will
meet all the requirements for our ordinance. Thanks for check. Sorry this email was a little slow getting back to you.
Have a nice day.
Andy Slack
GIS Specialist II
GDS - Department of Community Development
Albemarle County, VA
Phone: (434) 296 -5832 ext. 3384
Email: aslack@albemarle.m-
www.albemarle.m-
From: Christopher Perez
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 3:22 PM
To: Andrew Slack
Subject: Final Plat for SUB2007 -00077 Stonewater
Andrew,
I am currently reviewing the Final Plat for SUB2007 -00077 Stonewater. Per Countyview the last road names your office
reviewed for this subdivision were from 8 -12 -2009, "Old Mill Pond Dr" and "Old Mill Pond Court" at that time both
names had not been approved and it was commented that they needed to contact your office to discuss alternative
options.
Per out discussion on 12 -13 -11 the applicant had not contacted you to receive approval for the road names on the most
recent version of the Final Plat. Below are the most recent road names:
- "Penfield Lane" (Public) which connects to Rio Rd East
- "Penfield Place" (Public) a little culdesac rd which comes off Penfield Lane (mentioned above).
- "Treesdale Way" (Private St) which connects to the existing "Treesdale Way" on the adjacent lot.
- "Stonehenge Way" (Private St) which connects to a private street/ parking lot that leads into "Stonehenge Rd" on the
adjacent lot.
I'm seeking approval of these names for the file.
Thank you for your help.
Christopher P. Perez I Senior Planner
Department of Community Development I County of Albemarle, Virginia
401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville, VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext. 3443
� 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: SUB- 2007 - 00077- Stonewater Final Plat
Plan preparer: Mr. Kirk Hughes, LS; Kirk Hughes and Associates
Owner or rep.: Rio Road Holdings, LLC
Plan received date: 22 May 2009
(Rev. 1) 27 July 2009
Date of comments: 24 June 2009
(Rev. 1) 26 August 2009
Reviewer: Phil Custer
1. Please correct the scale on the cover sheet. The plat appears to be printed at 50 scale,
rather than 30.
(Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed.
2. The offsite easement plat (SUB- 2008 - 00253) must be recorded before this plat can be
approved.
(Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed.
3. The ROW dedication required on the Treesdale property should be included in this
plat. The previously submitted plat (SUB- 2009 - 00030) for this area appears to just
transfer land to the Stonewater property rather than dedicating it to public use.
(Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed.
4. A Deed of Dedication and Easement is needed for all required drainage easements associated
with this final plat. Please refer to the County's website for the most recent forms and
procedural guidelines that need to be followed when submitting a Deed of Dedication and
Easement. The wording shown for the drainage easements on the Deed of Dedication and
Easement needs to be exactly the same as the wording on the final plat.
(Rev. 1) The deed has been submitted and will be tracked by the Planner for the project.
5. The WPO and road bond must be posted prior to plat approval.
(Rev. 1) The WPO and road have not yet been posted.
6. Please provide a private drainage easement on the back of lots 3 -15 over the swale or
seam between fill and existing grades.
(Rev. 1) Note #5 on the cover sheet of the plat will not suffice. The private drainage
easement (minimum 10ft) must be shown as independent along the rear of the
property as agreed upon in the meeting held on 8114109 between the applicant and
the county.
(Rev. 1) The 2006 agreement between Stonewater and Stonehenge was reviewed and meets
the minimum county requirements for consent to allow offsite construction. The connector
road as shown on the plans may remain.
c��pF AL &FA9'P
�'IRGINIP
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Jeff Dise
From: Gerald Gatobu, Principal Planner
Division: Zoning and Current Development
Date: June 25, 2009
Subject: SUB 2007 — 00077 Stonewater — Final Plat.
The County of Albemarle Division of Zoning and Current Development will grant or recommend approval of
the final subdivision plat 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. [14 -316, 4.7.d]Ownership of common areas. The intended ownership of all common areas. Ownership of
open space. Open space may be privately owned or dedicated to public use. Open space in private
ownership shall be subject to a legal instrument ensuring the maintenance and preservation of the
open space that is approved by the agent and the county attorney in conjunction with the approval of
the subdivision plat or site plan. Additionally, please indicate the percentage of open space for the entire
property. As a condition of final plat approval, it was required that the planning commission approves the
open space (appropriateness). The ordinance has changed, and staff may be able to approve the open space
administratively. I will look further into the administrative approval and let you know.
2. [14- 303.M]Street names. The name of each proposed street, which names shall be subject to approval by
the agent. Please contact Andy Slack at extension 3384.
3. [14- 303.N] If all the roads in the subdivision will be public, please remove note #14 shown on the cover
sheet. If not all roads are public, a maintenance agreement will be required for any proposed private streets
subject to County Attorney approval per section [14 -317] Instrument evidencing maintenance of certain
improvements: If the subdivision will contain one (1) or more improvements that are not to be maintained
by the county or any authority or other public agency, the subdivider shall submit with the final plat an
instrument assuring the perpetual maintenance of the improvement.
4. [14 -435] Surety in lieu of completion of on -site improvements. Road bond or road acceptance by the
County Engineer is required prior to final plat approval.
5. [14- 418]Where public water is reasonably available, a final plat shall not be approved without
verification from the service authority and the department of fire and rescue that adequate capability
exists to provide adequate fire protection to serve the subdivision, including required fire flows,
together with all other developments to be served by the system. Fire hydrants and distribution systems
shall be installed and constructed by the subdivider. Hydrant locations and fire flow requirements shall be as
prescribed by Insurance Service Offices (ISO) standards and be subject to approval by the department of fire
and rescue, or the service authority, whichever requirements are greater. In areas where public water is not
reasonably available, the department of fire and rescue may require such alternative provisions as deemed
reasonably necessary to provide adequate fire protection.
Please contact Gerald Gatobu at the Division of Zoning and Current Development at 296 -5832 ext. 3385 for
further information.
� 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: SUB- 2007 - 00077- Stonewater Final Plat
Plan preparer: Mr. Kirk Hughes, LS; Kirk Hughes and Associates
Owner or rep.: Rio Road Holdings, LLC
Plan received date: 22 May 2009
Date of comments: 24 June 2009
Reviewer: Phil Custer
1. Please correct the scale on the cover sheet. The plat appears to be printed at 50 scale,
rather than 30.
2. The offsite easement plat (SUB- 2008 - 00253) must be recorded before this plat can be
approved.
3. The ROW dedication required on the Treesdale property should be included in this
plat. The previously submitted plat (SUB- 2009 - 00030) for this area appears to just
transfer land to the Stonewater property rather than dedicating it to public use.
4. A Deed of Dedication and Easement is needed for all required drainage easements associated
with this final plat. Please refer to the County's website for the most recent forms and
procedural guidelines that need to be followed when submitting a Deed of Dedication and
Easement. The wording shown for the drainage easements on the Deed of Dedication and
Easement needs to be exactly the same as the wording on the final plat.
5. The WPO and road bond must be posted prior to plat approval.
6. Please provide a private drainage easement on the back of lots 3 -15 over the swale or
seam between fill and existing grades.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
8 July 2013
William N. Park
Treesdale LP
1821 Avon St. Suite 200
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: Bond inspection requests for proffered Treesdale Roads Pen Park Lane and Treesdale
Way
Your bond inspection request dated 10/31/2012 has been processed. Please note that although
Treesdale LP did not have a bond for this road, an adjacent development (Stonewater Subdivision,
SUB2007- 00077) did bond the subject roads. The amounts listed below refer to the Stonewater
Subdivision bond amounts. You requested a partial reduction of one subdivision - road bond for the
following roads:
1) Penfield Lane (a public road) from Rio Road and Treesdale Way (a private road) from Penfield Lane to
property line between Stonewater Subdivision and Treesdale development (approximately 228'
northeast of Penfield Lane) as part of a total Stonewater road bond amount of $533,840.
Attached, please find a copy of the As -built Road Plan Policy and Public Road Acceptance Procedure.
Please refer to these procedures. Due to items missing below at this time the bond cannot be reduced.
Additional outstanding Public Road Acceptance Procedure items for the Penfield Lane bond include:
1. Inspection Request and fee (this will be required at bond inspection request resubmittal).
2. As -built plan approved by VDOT. We are in receipt of as -built plans for Treesdale Park dated
11/2/2012. However, these plans are not signed and do not follow the county's as -built road policy.
Since the road has not yet been accepted into the VDOT system, the minimum requirements of this
policy must be met. Please note: easements sent via email from Betty Groth on 6/28/2013 address the
requirement for providing easements for this bond inspection.
3. Written documentation of acceptance from VDOT for the entire roadway or for completed items.
Partial release of the bond for Penfield Lane is possible based on email from Dennis Seale (VDOT) to
Glenn Brooks (County Engineer) on 5/17/2013.
Albemarle County
Engineering
Page 2
4. Signed and sealed letter from a professional engineer listing and certifying that completed
improvements are built according to plan.
This letter appears to be missing from documents provided to date for this inspection.
5. Certificate of Completion
This letter is not necessary for the partial release of the bond proposed with the bond inspection
request. It will be necessary when complete release of the $533,840 Stonewater Subdivision road bond
is requested.
Additional outstanding Private Road Acceptance Procedure items for the Treesdale Way bond include:
1. Tests and Inspections:
a. CBR tests — The values appear to be acceptable based on a summary letter for testing performed
by Froehling & Robertson, Inc. and forwarded with a cover letter dated 1/31/2013. However, there
is no record of where some of the bores were drilled nor were CBR values for Treesdale Way
completely listed. These appear to be B -15 through B -18. Please provide a boring location map
and the CBR testing results for these or for bores under Treesdale Way within the Stonewater
subdivision.
b. Stone depth inspections, including installation of under - drains and cross - drains. These appear
to be missing. Please provide.
C. Fill compaction tests. As Treesdale Way was not constructed in fill, these test results are not
necessary.
d. Pipe and drainage structure video inspections or equivalent. Please refer to Treesdale Park
inspection letter dated 7/2/2013 (also attached for reference). These items also apply to Treesdale
Way.
e. Base and surface pavement inspections, documenting materials, thickness and compaction.
Based on materials provided to date, these appear to be missing. Please provide.
f. Concrete tests. These appear to be acceptable.
g. Structural and related inspections for any bridges and foundations. Because there are no
bridges, retaining walls, or culverts for Treesdale Way, these test results are not necessary.
2. As -built plans and plats. We are in receipt of as -built plans for Treesdale Park dated 11/2/2012.
However, these plans are not signed and do not follow the county's as -built road policy. Please note:
easements sent via email from Betty Groth on 6/28/2013 address the requirement for providing
easements for this bond inspection.
3. Bond inspection.
A. Completed Bond Inspection Request Form and Fee. An Inspection Request and fee will be
required at bond inspection request resubmittal for Treesdale Way.
B. As -built documents per items I and 2 above. Please provide missing or incomplete
documentation identified in 1 and 2 for Treesdale Way.
C. Signed and sealed letter from a professional engineer listed and certifying that completed
improvements are built according to the plan. Please provide this.
D. Completed Certificate of Completion. This letter is not necessary for the partial release of the
bond proposed with the bond inspection request. It will be necessary when complete release of the
$533,840 Stonewater Subdivision road bond is requested.
C:\ Users \mkoslow\ Documents \CurrentReviews \SUB200700077
Stonewater\CDD_EN_MAK_BI_Stonewater_SUB200700077.doc
Albemarle County
Engineering
Page 3
Following is an additional punch list of deficient construction based on site inspection 6/27/2013:
1) The sidewalks along Treesdale Way and Penfield Lane are missing.
2) The curb ramps at the intersection of Treesdale Way and Penfield Lane are missing.
3) There is a cut in the curb and road of Treesdale Way near the Stonewater Subdivision and
Treesdale property line. This appears to be for a post - construction utility line.
4) The southbound Treesdale Way stop sign at Penfield Lane is missing.
Sincerely,
Michael Koslow, P.E.
Civil Engineer II
C:\ Users \mkoslow\ Documents \CurrentReviews \SUB200700077
Stonewater\CDD_EN_MAK_BI_Stonewater_SUB200700077.doc
Albemarle County
Public Road Acceptance Procedure
The processing, inspection and acceptance of public roads is administered solely by VDOT. The
County is not involved in this process until the road is ready for acceptance.
County bond releases (or partial releases) will be considered on public roads for all portions approved
by VDOT. The following items are required to be submitted for bond releases to be considered:
1. Bond Inspection Request and fee
A form and fee are required for each bond, such as for a project with multiple phases and bonds.
2. As -built plan approved by VDOT, and copies of all recorded drainage easements, sight easements,
and right -of -way plats. Plats should be copies of the actual recorded documents from the Clerk's
office.
An as -built plan prepared in accordance with the County's As -Built Road Plan Policy is required. VDOT does not
always follow this paperwork or policy, but for bond releases, especially where VDOT has not yet accepted the
road, the minimum requirements of this policy must be met, if only to ensure that all improvements are in right -of-
way and easements.
3. Written documentation of acceptance from VDOT for the entire roadway or for completed items.
Formally, this is sent directly to the county on an AM -4.3 from VDOT, when VDOT requests that the Board of
Supervisors pass a resolution of acceptance. After the resolution of acceptance is sent to VDOT, it is usually about
six weeks before actual acceptance takes place, and VDOT issues a formal memo to the county with the road
additions and new route numbers. This final notification is needed for bond release. For partial bond releases prior
to this, some correspondence from VDOT for items inspected and approved is necessary. This is usually in the form
of letters approving compaction reports, CBR's, pavement cores, pipe video, or other items where partial release is
sought. A final punchlist inspection report from VDOT can be used for a partial bond release, but only if
outstanding items are not too broad. If the punchlist is not official, and only a courtesy review, it carries much less
weight. In any case, if there are problems meeting the eligibility or occupancy minimums, and it is not known how
long improvements may sit, or need replacement, partial releases may not be possible.
4. Signed and sealed letter from a professional engineer listing and certifying that completed
improvements are built according to plan.
Please do not e-mail or fax copies of this letter. An original signature and certifying seal are required. Please do not
use qualifying statements such as "it appeared ", or "to the best of my knowledge ", or "generally in accord ".
Improvements were either built to plan, or they were not. As -built measurements, construction inspections, and
other field verifications should be cited and included. Tolerances should be noted. The items not built according to
plan must be listed, with explanations. Deviation in pavement materials and thicknesses must be listed. If street
trees or sidewalks, or other items were moved, or added, this should be noted. If drainage changed, by addition or
deletion of culverts, inlets, or re- alignments of pipes or grades, this should be verified by revised computations and
attached to the letter. If there are outstanding items or omissions, these should be listed. Graphics are helpful. In
short, please provide more than a statement of opinion or assurance. Please demonstrate that the improvements and
construction have been inspected, investigated and documented, and are certified in detail, and county staff will not
be in the position of discovering discrepancies and deficiencies in the field.
5. Certificate of Completion
This form must be received for release of a bond. It is available on the county website. In the case of reductions, a
letter listing the outstanding items that need to be completed before signing the certification is acceptable. It must
be signed by the owner. This form says all subdivision improvements have been completed. It also says that all
construction conforms to approved plans and any discrepancies have been approved by the County. This means the
as -built plans have been approved by VDOT, and they have agreed to any discrepancies, which should be
documented in acceptance correspondence or punchlists.
1 Nov 2011
Albemarle County
Private Road Acceptance Procedure
This is the procedure developed by the Albemarle County Community Development Department for the
completion of private roads. The items in this list must be completed in the order given.
1. Tests and Inspections: Have all necessary tests and inspections performed by a professional
engineer or geotech, or VDOT certified inspector. This should include, at a minimum,
a. California Bearing Ratio (CBR) tests,
b. stone depth inspections, including installation of under - drains and cross - drains,
c. fill compaction tests,
d. pipe and drainage structure video inspections or equivalent,
e. base and surface pavement inspections, documenting materials, thickness and compaction
f. concrete tests
g. structural and related inspections for any bridges and foundations
Compile a report of these tests, certified by a professional engineer, and submit this report with the
as -built plans.
2. As -built plans and plats: Provide drawings of the constructed improvements according to the
Albemarle County As -built Road Plan Policy. Provide copies of all recorded drainage easements,
sight easements, and right -of -way plats. Plats should be copies of the actual recorded documents
from the Clerk's office. Before completing as -built drawings, make any corrections necessary to
ensure all improvements are within right -of -ways and easements.
3. Bond inspection: Request a bond reduction or release inspection from the County, which will
reduce or release your bond, indicating completion or partial completion, or generate a letter
indicating items in need of documentation or completion. The following documents will be needed
with your bond inspection request;
A. Completed Bond Inspection Request form and fee
A form and fee are required for each bond, such as for a project with multiple phases and bonds.
B. As -built documents per items 1 and 2 above.
An as -built plan prepared in accordance with the County's As -Built Road Plan Policy is required. For any
releases or reductions, the minimum requirements of this policy must be met, if only to ensure that all
improvements are in right -of -way and easements.
C. Signed and sealed letter from a professional engineer listed and certifying that completed
improvements are built according to plan.
Please do not e -mail or fax copies of this letter. An original signature and certifying seal are required.
Please do not use qualifying statements such as "it appeared ", or "to the best of my knowledge ", or
"generally in accord ". Improvements were either built to plan, or they were not. As -built measurements,
construction inspections, and other field verifications should be cited and included. Tolerances should be
noted. The items not built according to plan must be listed, with explanations. Deviation in pavement
materials and thicknesses must be listed. If street trees or sidewalks, or other items were moved, or added,
this should be noted. If drainage changed, by addition or deletion of culverts, inlets, or re- alignments of
pipes or grades, this should be verified by revised computations and attached to the letter. If there are
outstanding items or omissions, these should be listed. Graphics are helpful. In short, please provide more
than a statement of opinion or assurance. Please demonstrate that the improvements and construction have
been inspected, investigated and documented, and are certified in detail, and county staff will not be in the
position of discovering discrepancies and deficiencies in the field.
D. Completed Certificate of Completion
This form must be received for release of a bond. It is available on the county website. In the case of
reductions, a letter listing the outstanding items that need to be completed before signing the certification is
acceptable. It must be signed by the owner. This form says all subdivision improvements have been
completed. It also says that all construction conforms to approved plans and any discrepancies have been
approved by the County.
Albemarle County
As -built Road Plan Policy
As -built drawings shall be prepared for all public and private roadway construction projects within Albemarle
County. The following is a list of the minimum information required on the drawings. Additional information
may be requested. The County only reviews private road as -built plans. The county does not review or
approve public road as- builts. For questions regarding public roads, please consult with VDOT.
1. A signed and dated professional seal of the preparing engineer or surveyor.
2. The name and address of the firm and individual preparing the drawings on the title sheet.
3. "As- built" must be labeled on the drawings with the date of preparation or revision.
4. The constructed location of all items associated with the road construction must be shown. The items
include, but are not limited to the following:
a. Horizontal Alignment — Show and label measurement points, and an interpreted line between
measurements. Show the as -built centerline over the design centerline. Distinguish between the design
and as -built by labels and line type. Measurements shall be at each station as a minimum, and at
frequent enough intervals to accurately portray the as -built centerline, and the position of the roadway
within the right -of -way or easement. Any portions outside the right -of -way or easement must be
corrected by plat or construction.
b. Vertical Alignment — Show and label measurement points, and an interpreted line between
measurements. Show the as -built centerline over the design centerline. Distinguish between them by
labels and line type. Write the constructed vertical elevations adjacent to the design elevations.
Distinguish between the elevations by striking a single line through the design elevation. Measurements
shall be at each station as a minimum, and frequent enough intervals to accurately portray the as -built
centerline. For alignments which deviate significantly from the design, provide curvature and sight -
distances. Corrections may be required for alterations from the design alignment.
c. Edge of Pavement - Display the constructed edges of pavement and width measurements at every
station, or more frequently if necessary to accurately portray the as -built edges. Show the as -built edges
over the design edges. Show and label constructed edge of pavement radii for all intersections and cul-
de -sacs. Edges for sidewalk, as well as ramps and curb cuts must be included.
d. Culverts, Pipes and Drainage Structures - Display the installed type of drainage structure,
culvert/pipe size, material, inlets or end treatment(s), inlet and outlet protection, alignment and invert
elevations compared to design. For slopes flatter than design, or inverts shallower than design, provide
computations verifying design standards.
e. Ditch Lines - Display the constructed location of all ditch lines, including typical section, direction of
flow, and linings.
f. Drainage Easements - Show all platted easements with dead book references labeled. Drainage must
be within platted right -of -way or drainage easements. Provide copies of recorded documents.
g. Guardrail - Display the constructed location of guardrail, including the guardrail type, length and
applied end treatments, compared to design.
h. Right of way and associated easements — Label deed book and page numbers for all dedicated right -
of -ways, sight easements, slope easements, etc., and provide copies of recorded documents.
i. Pavement Designs — Label the as -built pavement and base on the design typical sections. Strike
through any design elements which were not applied. Inspection reports are required for fill
compaction, CBR's, and pavement applications.
j. Street Trees — if street trees are on the design plan, provide design and as -built locations and species.
k. Signs — Show all installed signs and pavement markings. Include any pedestals or other features.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
2 July 2013
William N. Park
Treesdale LP
1821 Avon St. Suite 200
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: Bond inspection requests for proffered Treesdale sewers
Your bond inspection request dated 12/7/2012 has been processed. You requested a partial reduction
or release of one site - sewer bond:
1) $67,080 for approximately 900 feet of 15" RCP sewer, 300 feet of 24" RCP sewer, and 14 drainage
structures.
Per the inspection, the bond can be reduced to $13,420.
Following is a punch list of deficient construction based on review of storm sewer videos
performed on 7/1/2013:
1) There appears to be a broken sewer pipe approximately 9' upstream from Structure S26 under
Penfield Lane.
2) There is debris in the sewer just downstream from Structure 519.
3) There is debris in the sewer approximately 17' upstream from Structure 524.
Sincerely,
Michael Koslow, P.E.
Civil Engineer H
C:\ Users \mkoslow\ Documents \CurrentReviews \SDP201000013
Treesdale \CDD EN MAK BI Treesdale SDP201000013.doc
Michael Koslow
From:
DeNunzio, Joel D., P.E. (VDOT) [ Joel .DeNunzio @VDOT.virginia.gov]
Sent:
Monday, April 23, 2012 2:51 PM
To:
Michael Koslow
Subject:
SUB - 2007 -00077 Stonewater
Michael,
I have reviewed the revisions to the subject site plan and it appears no changes are proposed to the public
roads. I have no comments on the plan.
Thanks
Joel
Joel DeNunzio, P.E.
VDOT Culpeper
Land Development
434 - 589 -5871
ioel .denunzioCd)vdot.viroinia.4ov
Michael Koslow
From: Michael Koslow
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 3:40 PM
To: Christopher Perez
Cc: Philip Custer; Glenn Brooks; 'Scott Collins'; Adam Long
Subject: FW: Engineering Review of SUB200700077
Chris,
The technical aspects of the road plan as submitted on 4/10/2012 as part of this subdivision plat have been approved by
Engineering pending completion of these administrative items:
1) VDOT approval of all public road plans.
2) ACSA approval of water and sanitary sewer plans.
3) Approval of WPO201100088 including adjacent property owner agreement for SWM facility, SWM maintenance
agreement, E &S bond, and grading permit.
Road bonds will be required before approval of the subdivision plat. We will compute road bond estimates for the
public roads for this project next week.
- Michael
From: Scott Collins [ma i Ito: scott @collins- engineering.com]
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2012 12:01 PM
To: Michael Koslow
Cc: Philip Custer; Christopher Perez
Subject: RE: Engineering Review of SUB200700077
Michael-
Thank you for the email, they were dropped off at the County late Friday afternoon, but should be making it to your
desk shortly. I will confirm that they were delivered.
Thank you.
Scott
From: Michael Koslow [ma i Ito: mkoslowCabalbemarle.org]
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2012 12:00 PM
To: Scott Collins
Cc: Philip Custer; Christopher Perez
Subject: RE: Engineering Review of SUB200700077
Scott,
I still haven't received them here. If you didn't already send them, could you send 2 sets of the latest complete road
plans for Stonewater?
Thanks, Michael
Michael Koslow, PE
County of Albemarle
Community Development Department
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
434 - 296 -5832 ext. 3297
434 - 972 -4126 (fax)
mkoslow @albemarle.or
From: Scott Collins [ mailto: scott (acollins- engineering.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2012 12:50 PM
To: Michael Koslow
Cc: Philip Custer
Subject: RE: Engineering Review of SUB200700077
Michael-
Thanks for the email. I will drop off (2) sets of the updated Stonewater Plans to the county this afternoon. As far as the
previously approved plans for Stonewater, the pdfs are too large to email, but if you go to the Approved Treesdale
Project, the approved road plans (in its entirety) was added to the final approved site plan for Treesdale at the back of
the plans. This will give you a copy of the previously approved plan. If you need any additional copies of it, just let me
know.
Thx.
Scott
From: Michael Koslow [ma i Ito: mkoslow(aalbemarle.org]
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2012 12:08 PM
To: Scott Collins
Cc: Philip Custer
Subject: RE: Engineering Review of SUB200700077
Scott,
Sorry for the double reply — could you send a pdf version of the latest- and - greatest SUB200700077 for Stonewater
(entire plan set)? I can review the items you identify from your message below based on pdf for this submittal; however
we're used to looking at hard copies. Unfortunately I can't find the original SUB200700077 plan set from my 2/16/12
review you identified below! Please advise.
Thanks, Michael
Michael Koslow, PE
County of Albemarle
Community Development Department
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
434 - 296 -5832 ext. 3297
434 - 972 -4126 (fax)
mkoslow @albemarle.org
From: Michael Koslow
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2012 11:54 AM
To: 'Scott Collins'
Cc: Philip Custer
Subject: RE: Engineering Review of SUB200700077
Scott,
Thanks for forwarding those sheets. We'll be able to review quicker if your office could send hard copies of those
sheets. I'll also need to visit the site to become familiar with what's been built to address your response to comment
#4. Could your office send hard copies of those sheets?
Thanks, Michael
Michael Koslow, PE
County of Albemarle
Community Development Department
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
434 - 296 -5832 ext. 3297
434 - 972 -4126 (fax)
mkoslow @albemarle.or
From: Scott Collins [mailto:scott(Qlcollins- engineering.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 10:14 AM
To: Michael Koslow
Cc: Philip Custer
Subject: RE: Engineering Review of SUB200700077
Michael-
Attached are the pdfs that address the outstanding comments #5 and #7. This should be all the comments, except for
the SWM agreement, which is being taken care of this week by the developer. I am not sure about comment #4,
because this is already constructed under the Treesdale work, and the extension of Penfield is consistent with the
approved plans. Please let me know if these pdfs address your outstanding comments, and we will submit the full sets
of road plans to the county for your final approval /signature.
Thank you.
Scott Collins
From: Michael Koslow [ mailto:mkoslow(a)albemarle.org]
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 4:13 PM
To: Scott Collins
Cc: Philip Custer; Glenn Brooks; Christopher Perez
Subject: Engineering Review of SUB200700077
Good afternoon Scott,
Please find attached Engineering comment letter from the 111h Road Plans review for Stonewater Subdivision. Please let
me know if you have any questions regarding the review.
Cordially,
Michael Koslow, PE
County of Albemarle
Community Development Department
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
434 - 296 -5832 ext. 3297
434 - 972 -4126 (fax)
mkoslow @albemarle.org
OF Al
O
�IRGNI'
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
Project: Stonewater Subdivision [SUB200700077, WP0200700045]
Plan preparer: Collins Engineering [email: scott@collins-engineering.co m]
Owner or rep.: Rio Road Holdings, LLC [973 -9120]
Plan received date: 18 June 2007
06 Sep 2007 (Revl)
29 Jan 2008 (Rev2)
11 Apr 2008 (Rev3)
04 June 2008 (Rev4)
11 August 2008 (Revs)
27 October 2008 (Rev6)
8 March 2010 (Rev9)
12 May 2010 (Rev 10)
23 Jan 2012 (Rev11)
Date of comments: 10 July 2007
24 Sep 2007 (Revl)
12 Mar 2008 (Rev2)
20 May 2008 (Rev3)
09 July 2008 (Rev4)
08 September 2008 (Revs)
13 November 2008 (Rev6)
30 April 2010 (Rev9)
21 June 2010 (Rev I0)
06 Feb 2012 (Rev11)
Reviewer: Jonathan Sharp (Revl -Rev4)
Phil Custer (Revs- RevIO)
Michael Koslow (Rev11)
Again, this is a review of the Road Plans associated with the final plat application SUB -2007-
00077. This is not a review of a site plan as identified by the applicant in the comment response
letter.
The following comments must be addressed prior to the approval of the road plans.
1. The set should contain all elements for the road plan that had been included in the last set
submitted to the county (signed 15 December 2008). This includes Existing Conditions, Rio Road
Improvements, all road plan details, etc. When the plans are approved, all bubbles should be
removed from the set.
(Rev10) Comment has been addressed.
2. Since the last submittal of this plan, the WPO application associated with the road plan has
expired. The applicant has chosen to include the Stonewater ESC plan within the Treesdale site
plan application. Therefore, the stonewater road plans cannot be approved until WPO -2010-
00011 is approved.
Albemarle County Community Development
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 2
(Rev10) All technical aspects of this plan have been approved. However, updated stormwater
facility maintenance agreements must be recorded prior to final approval.
(Revll) Comment remains until updated stormwater facility maintenance agreements have
been recorded.
3. ACSA approval of the amended utility lines must be received.
(Rev10) Please provide approval from ACSA once it is received.
4. VDOT approval of the storm sewer and private street alignment adjustments must be received.
(Revll) VDOT had approved the storm sewer and private street alignment adjustments
with one comment: a Land Use permit will be required for any construction with the Rio
Road right of way. However, due to the profile revisions to Penfield Lane, this review has
resumed and is pending for VDOT.
5. Please update the storm drainage plan to match the latest Treesdale Site Plan revision.
(Revll) This road plan set must include the drainage profile and calculations for the storm
drainage system from structure S24 to the outfall. The road plan is incomplete without this
information. Again, the design of this drainage line should match the layout and elevations
of the pipe system in the Treesdale Site Plan. There appears to be a significant drop -off
between structure S24 from Stonewater to structure 8 from Treesdale.
6. This road plan cannot be approved without the offsite drainage easements on the Treesdale
property recorded.
(Revll) Comment has been addressed.
7. (Revll) Show profile of Treesdale Way matching the now under construction profile for
this road in the Treesdale Road Plan. Currently, the Treesdale Way profile ends at Station
5 +00 and the plans indicate the road should tie into a 3:1 dropoff.
Philip Custer
From: DeNunzio, Joel D., P.E. [ Joel .DeNunzio @VDOT.virginia.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 1:45 PM
To: Philip Custer
Subject: SUB - 2007 -00077 Stonewater Subdivision Construction Set
SUB - 2007 -00077 Stonewater Subdivision Construction Set
Phil,
I have reviewed the above referenced plan and have no comments. Please let the applicant know that after the county
approves the site plan, a Land Use Permit will be required for any construction within the Rio Road right of way.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks
Joel
Joel DeNunzio, P.E.
Staff Engineer
434 - 293 -0011 Ext. 120
Joel .denunzio@)vdot.virainia.gov
OF Al
O
�IRGNI'
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
Project: Stonewater Subdivision [SUB200700077, WP0200700045]
Plan preparer: Collins Engineering [email: scott@collins-engineering.co m]
Owner or rep.: Rio Road Holdings, LLC [973 -9120]
Plan received date: 18 June 2007
06 Sep 2007 (Revl)
29 Jan 2008 (Rev2)
11 Apr 2008 (Rev3)
04 June 2008 (Rev4)
11 August 2008 (Revs)
27 October 2008 (Rev6)
8 March 2010 (Rev9)
12 May 2010 (Rev10)
Date of comments: 10 July 2007
24 Sep 2007 (Revl)
12 Mar 2008 (Rev2)
20 May 2008 (Rev3)
09 July 2008 (Rev4)
08 September 2008 (Revs)
13 November 2008 (Rev6)
30 April 2010 (Rev9)
21 June 2010 (Rev10)
Reviewer: Jonathan Sharp (Revl -Rev4)
Phil Custer (Rev5- Rev10)
Again, this is a review of the Road Plans associated with the final plat application SUB -2007-
00077. This is not a review of a site plan as identified by the applicant in the comment response
letter.
The following comments must be addressed prior to the approval of the road plans.
1. The set should contain all elements for the road plan that had been included in the last set
submitted to the county (signed 15 December 2008). This includes Existing Conditions, Rio Road
Improvements, all road plan details, etc. When the plans are approved, all bubbles should be
removed from the set.
(Rev10) Comment has been addressed.
2. Since the last submittal of this plan, the WPO application associated with the road plan has
expired. The applicant has chosen to include the Stonewater ESC plan within the Treesdale site
plan application. Therefore, the stonewater road plans cannot be approved until WPO -2010-
00011 is approved.
(Rev10) All technical aspects of this plan have been approved. However, updated
stormwater facility maintenance agreements must be recorded prior to final approval.
3. ACSA approval of the amended utility lines must be received.
(Rev10) Please provide approval from ACSA once it is received.
4. VDOT approval of the storm sewer and private street alignment adjustments must be received.
Albemarle County Community Development
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 2
(Rev10) I have not heard from VDOT on the previous submittal. A copy has been
forwarded to their office.
5. Please update the storm drainage plan to match the latest Treesdale Site Plan revision.
(Rev10) This road plan set must include the drainage profile and calculations for the storm
drainage system from structure S24 to the outfall. The road plan is incomplete without this
information. Again, the design of this drainage line should match the layout and elevations
of the pipe system in the Treesdale Site Plan. Also, Sheet 8A has not been updated with
regard to the drainage line from S24.
6. This road plan cannot be approved without the offsite drainage easements on the Treesdale
property recorded.
(Rev10) Comment has not been addressed.
Page 1 of 1
Philip Custer
From:
Philip Custer
Sent:
Friday, February 06, 2009 3:59 PM
To:
'Scott Collins'
Cc:
Gerald Gatobu; Amy Pflaum
Subject: Engineering Approval of the Stonewater Road, ESC, and SWM plans (WPO- 2007 -00045 and SUB -
2007- 00077)
Good afternoon,
The Road, Erosion & Sediment Control, and Stormwater Management Plans (WPO200700045 and
SUB200700077) submitted 23 December 2008 have been received by Engineering Review and meet Albemarle
County minimum checklist items for approval. When the applicant is preparing to request a grading permit,
please submit to Current Development Engineering 4 copies of the ESC plan (all sheets excluding SWM), 3
copies of the SWM plan (T -1, S -3, DP -1, SWM -1, and SWM -2), and 2 copies of the Road plan (all sheets
excluding ESC and SWM).
The E &SC bond amount is $104,000. The SWM bond amount is $75,000. The Road bond amount is
$562,650. The forms and instructions to post these bonds can be found on the Community Development
Department Web site on www.albemarle.org. You may contact Pam Shifflett (Albemarle County Department of
Community Development) at ext. 3246 for further information on bonding procedures.
Engineering review has been informed that the preliminary plat has expired. A grading permit will not be issued
until this parcel has an approved plat (final or preliminary). Once a subdivision plat has been approved, the E &SC
bond and the SWM bond have been posted, and the offsite SWM and access easement plat has been recorded,
you may contact the Department of Community Development to arrange a pre- construction meeting with a County
Erosion & Sediment Control Inspector. Should the County Inspector find the limits of disturbance increased or the
need for additional control measures required to protect the site, additional fees will be required.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks,
Phil
2/6/2009
� 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:
Stonewater Subdivision [SUB200700077, WP0200700045]
Plan preparer:
Collins Engineering [email: scott @collins -en ing eering com]
Owner or rep.:
Rio Road Holdings, LLC [973 -9120]
Plan received date:
18 June 2007
06 Sep 2007 (Revl)
29 Jan 2008 (Rev2)
11 Apr 2008 (Rev3)
04 June 2008 (Rev4)
11 August 2008 (Revs)
27 October 2008 (Rev6)
Date of comments:
10 July 2007
24 Sep 2007 (Rev 1)
12 Mar 2008 (Rev2)
20 May 2008 (Rev3)
09 July 2008 (Rev4)
08 September (Revs)
13 November 2008 (Rev6)
Reviewer:
Jonathan Sharp
Phil Custer (Revs)
Phil Custer (Rev6)
(Revs) With this site plan submittal, the applicant has submitted an amendment to the WPO plan (WPO-
2007- 00045) that was reviewed with the preliminary subdivision plat and road plans. However, since that
WPO plan has not yet been approved, an amendment cannot be submitted. The review of the WPO plan
with has been performed under the original WPO application number (WPO- 2007 - 00045). Please contact
Debi Moyers for a refund of the amendment application fee. A review of the road plan was not performed
because it was not submitted in the site plan set. All road comments are still outstanding. No WPO plan
can be approved without the approval of the road plans.
(Revs) The plans can be approved once the following items have been addressed. Please note that
since a full set was submitted this time, a review of the road plan discovered an error that needs to
be corrected before approval can be granted. Please see comment 26A.
A. Road & Drainage Plans (SUB200700077)
1. Please provide the date and source of the topographic information: All topography should be at
least visually field verified by the designer within the last year.
Rev]: comments addressed.
2. Please provide all necessary offsite easements needed for right -of -way improvements.
Rev]: It appears that the easement for Stonehenge does not include an easement to construct the
interconnection shown on the plans. Please provide all required easements on the Stonehenge
property.
Rev2: The pending easement plat must be approved prior to approval of the Road plans and WPO
Albemarle County Community Development
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 6
plans.
Rev6: Engineering comments regarding the easement plat for the stormwater facility will be
given in a separate document. It does not appear that the easements on Stonehenge property
have been submitted for County review.
3. VDOT approval is required.
Rev]: VDOT approval is required. Copies of the plans have been forwarded to VDOT for review.
Rev2: VDOT approval is required. Copies of the plans have been forwarded to VDOT for review.
Rev6: VDOT approval has been granted.
4. Portions of the grading for Lots 16 -18 is missing from the grading plan on sheet S -3.
Rev]: comments addressed.
5. Portions of the proposed trails are missing from the plans.
Rev]: comments addressed.
6. Please show the required grading to install the proposed stormwater facility access /trail on the
plans.
Rev]: comments addressed.
7. All drainage easements are a minimum 20' wide. Required width: 10'+ (pipe dia. Or channel
width) + 2'+ 2(depth -5'). The pipe, channel or structure must be within the center third of the
easement.
Rev]: It appears that not all drainage easements meet the Design Manual requirements. For
example, pipe S -3 appears to need up to a 47' wide easement, when only a 30' wide easement is
provided. Please show all drainage easements meeting the Design Manual requirements.
Rev2: comments addressed.
8. Proposed slopes steeper than 3:1 must have low maintenance (not grass) ground cover specified on
the plan.
Rev]: Sod is a type of grass. Please specify a non -grass low maintenance ground cover.
Rev2: comments addressed.
9. Overland relief must be provided for Structure 10 and Structure 10 in case of clogging. The failure
of any system will not cause structures or yards to flood. Engineering recommends placing the low
point in the road between lots 22 and 23 and lots 11 and 12 and then placing a well defined ditch
between the lots. Please clearly label overland relief ditches on the plans and provide adequate
details for installation as they are critical to prevent the flooding of structures or yards.
Rev]: comments addressed.
10. Please provide provisions and easements for drainage across 3 or more lots. Dense development
where fencing, decking, etc is expected should provide yard inlets and pipes rather than ditches.
Rev]: comments addressed.
11. Please provide typical sections for proposed channels with locations referenced from the plan view
sheets.
Rev]: comments addressed.
12. Please provide cross drain locations shown and labeled with VDOT designations (CD -1,2) at every
major cut and fill transition or sag curve on the road profile sheets.
Rev]: comments addressed.
13. Please show and label the station of intersections with the street names on the road profile sheets.
Rev]: comments addressed.
14. Please provide a transitioning detail (20' minimum) for roll -top curbing in front of any inlets.
Rev]: comments addressed.
15. Please provide a VDOT designation (MH -1, DI -313, etc.) for each structure on the drainage
profiles.
Rev]: comments addressed.
16. Please provide the throat length for each drop inlet on the drainage profiles.
Albemarle County Community Development
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 6
Rev]: comments addressed.
17. Please provide the grate type for each grate inlet on the drainage profiles.
Rev]: comments addressed.
18. Please provide a note for concrete inlet shaping (IS -1) specified on any structure with a 4' or
greater drop on sheets DP- 2,3,4.
Rev]: comments addressed.
19. Please provide a not for safety slabs (SL -1) in any structure taller than 12' on sheets DP- 2,3,4.
Rev]: comments addressed.
20. Please provide end sections (ES -1) or endwalls (EW -1) on all pipe outlets. Endwalls for culverts
48" or taller.
Rev]: comments addressed.
21. Please provide scour outlet protection at all outlets, corresponding to computations.
Rev]: comments addressed.
22. Please provide destination structure labels for each drainage area on the proposed pipe and inlet
drainage area map.
Revl: comments addressed.
23. Please show any necessary grading needed for construction of the proposed right -of -way
improvements.
Rev]: comments addressed.
24. Please verify that ponding will not occur from drop inlet structure S -8 on the neighboring property.
An easement may be needed.
Revl: comments addressed.
25. Additional comments may be necessary upon resubmittal.
26. A road bond will be computed once the plans have been approved.
Rev2: Please submit a schedule of completion and road bond estimate request. The road bond
has been set at $532,650. Once you have received VDOT approval, please submit 2 copies of
the road plans for our files.
26A. Rev6. The road plan does not appear to meet our ordinance requirements. Many planting
strips are shown as 4.5ft when the ordinance states that they must be 6ft. Additionally, the
ROW must include all sidewalks. This requirement can only be waived by the Planning
Commission. [14 -410 and 14 -4221
B. Stormwater Management Plan (WPO200700045)
27. Please provide adequate drainage measures to ensure that lots 26 -34 will drain to the proposed
Stormwater facility. One possible solution is to provide a ditch along the proposed Stormwater
facility accessway /trail to the facility.
Rev]: comments addressed.
28. Please provide the following information on the existing drainage area map:
a. coefficient used for each drainage area as used in the comps
b. time of concentration for each drainage area where applicable as used in comps
Rev]: comments addressed.
29. Please provide the following information on the proposed drainage area map:
a. coefficient for each drainage area, labeled on the map matching comps
b. time of concentration for each area labeled on the map where applicable, matching comps
c. for future development to be considered in the analysis, include assumed land uses,
impervious areas, and hydrological coefficients on the proposed drainage map
Rev]: comments addressed.
30. Please provide a plan view of the Stormwater facility as shown on the site or subdivision plan
sheets, preferably at a scale of 1 " =30' or 1 " =20'.
Albemarle County Community Development
Engineering Review Comments
Page 4 of 6
Rev]: comments addressed.
31. Please provide the Albemarle County general Stormwater notes on the plans.
Rev]: comments addressed.
32. Please provide cross - section details of each facility including: embankments, principle spillway,
emergency spillway, and sediment forebay. Please make sure the details include all needed
information from the Albemarle County Design Manual Engineering Final Plan Checklist, pages
7 -8 and are in accord with the Virginia Stormwater Management Handbook.
Rev]: The downhill side of the embankment for the SWM facility must be a minimum of 3:1 in
slope.
Rev2: comments addressed.
33. The extended detention basin must be designed as follows:
a. normal pool elevation is labeled on plans
b. 20% surface area pool areas 1.5' -4' deep; 40% volume
c. 40% surface area shallow marsh 0.5' -1.5' deep, 40% volume, contains 1WQV
d. 40% surface area high marsh 0.5' deep or less; 20% volume
I was unable to verify whether or not the proposed facility meets these criteria, as the plan view of
the pond is not at a suitable scale for review.
Rev]: comments addressed.
34. Vehicle access must be provided to all forebays for the facility. Grade cannot exceed 20 %.
Revl: Please provide adequate access to the forebay below Structure S -1.
Rev2: comments addressed.
35. Please provide a completed Stormwater Maintenance Agreement and fee. The agreement should
reference TMP 61 -183 and TMP 61 -184 and should be signed by both property owners.
Revl: We have not received a copy of the Agreement. Please submit the agreement to Pam
Shifflett.
Rev2: We have not received a copy of the Agreement. Please submit the agreement to Pam
Shifflett.
Rev3: We have not received a copy of the Agreement. Please submit the agreement to Pam
Shifflett.
Rev6: We have not received a SWM facilities maintenance agreement for either property.
Please contact Pam Shifflett for questions regarding the submittal of the maintenance
agreement. The SWM easement plat is currently under review. Engineering comments will be
given for the SWM plat (SUB- 2008 - 00253).
36. Removal rate computations should not include offsite drainage areas (The Stonehenge property
that will not be treated for Stormwater quality should not be included in removal rate
computations.).
Rev]: comments addressed.
37. Please clearly show the assumed impervious values for future development (both the Treesdale
development and the proposed townhouses). Please clearly differentiate between proposed
impervious areas and future impervious areas.
Rev]: comments addressed.
38. Please provide channel computations for erosion and capacity for emergency spillway channels.
Rev]: I cannot find any emergency spillway calculations. Several of the details propose an
emergency spillway (3.07 2a and 2b on SWM -2), while other details do not show an emergency
spillway. If no spillway is proposed, remove all details of emergency spillways.
Rev2: comments addressed.
39. Please provide drawdown computations for the extended detention facility.
Rev]: I cannot find these calculations. Please provide calculations to show that the ]xWQV is
drawdown over a 30 hr period per the VSMH.
Albemarle County Community Development
Engineering Review Comments
Page 5 of 6
Rev2: comments addressed.
40. The routing model is confusing. The tables are not to scale and do not label peak values. The
routing model does not appear to use critical durations.
Rev]: comments addressed.
41. Please provide critical durations for the peak basin volume events for the 2yr, 10yr, and 100yr
storms.
Rev]: comments addressed.
42. Please clearly show the assumed C- values for future development (both the Treesdale development
and the proposed townhouses). Please clearly differentiate between proposed C- values and future
C- values.
Rev]: comments addressed.
43. Please provide computations for composite C- values.
Rev]: comments addressed.
44. Please provide pre - development C- values.
Rev]: comments addressed.
45. Please provide the pre - development time of concentration.
Rev]: comments addressed.
46. Please provide a stage- storage (elevation vs. storage volume) table with water quality
volume /surface area requirements for facilities with volume requirements /surface area
requirements.
Rev]: comments addressed.
47. Please provide the hydraulic dimension and coefficients for each weir, orifice, culvert, or other
control structure used in the routing model, matching the plans.
Rev]: comments addressed.
48. Additional comments may be necessary upon resubmittal.
a. Rev3: The SWM facility has not been routed to the critical storm duration. If a storm
of greater duration was routed through the facility, a higher rate would be
discharged for each of the design storms. Please adjust the calculations.
Rev6: Comment has been addressed.
b. Rev3: The 15" perforated pipe system is not represented in the routing. The
perforated pipe system shown in DCR's detail is generally used to protect the
drawdown orifice from becoming clogged. Please adjust the site specific detail and,
if necessary, routing calculations to place the perforated pipe system over the 2"
WQv orifice.
Rev& Please specify trash racks on all orifices.
c. Rev3: Will the ESC riser be replaced with the SWM riser once stabilization has
occurred? Engineering review recommends designing one riser for both ESC and
SWM purposes. It appears the riser has different top elevations.
Rev6: Comment has been addressed.
d. Rev6: Two feet of freeboard for the 100 year storm is required on all facilities that
do not possess an emergency spillway.
49. A Stormwater Management bond will be computed once the plans are approved.
Rev2: The SWM bond is set at $75, 000.
C. Erosion Control Plan (WPO200600045)
50. There are both limits of clearing and limits of disturbance line on the plan. This is confusing.
Please provide one limits of clearing and grading encompassing all disturbances, entrances,
staging and parking areas, areas where sediment laden runoff will cross, or any construction
Albemarle County Community Development
Engineering Review Comments
Page 6 of 6
related activities. This must match any landscaping and conservation plans.
Rev]: comments addressed.
51. Areas within the limits of clearing and grading are not shown on the erosion control plans.
Revl: comments addressed.
52. Please show the existing drainage divides on the plans.
Rev]: comments addressed.
53. Tree protection should be located at the drip lines of the trees. Tree drip lines should be field
verified. No disturbance can occur within the drip lines of any trees to be saved.
Rev]: comments addressed.
54. No erosion control measures can be located in the way of construction access or grading. Please
remove any silt fence or diversion dikes located in the way of grading.
Rev]: comments addressed.
55. Please provide erosion control measures for all off -site disturbances.
Rev]: comments addressed.
56. Please show outlet protection (OP) at all outlets.
Rev]: comments addressed.
57. Please verify adequate channels (MS -19) at the outfall of the stormwater management facility.
Rev]: Please provide adequate channels from the outfall of the facility to the floodplain.
Rev2. comments addressed.
58. The contour areas used in the sediment basin calculations are incorrect. Please revise the sediment
basin calculations and design the basin in accordance with the Virginia Erosion and Sediment
Control Handbook and the Albemarle County Design Manual.
Rev]: The contour areas and elevations do not match the plans. Also, the bottom of the basin is
shown at 383, and the top of wet storage is shown at 382.
Rev2: comments addressed.
59. Please specify the type of pipe used for the sediment basin and specify a trash rack.
Rev]: comments addressed.
60. The embankment of the sediment basin is at a higher elevation than the permanent facility.
Rev]: comments addressed.
61. Please specify safety fence and signs stating "danger, quick sand, do not enter."
Rev]: comments addressed.
62. The baffle calculations are incorrect. Please provide calculations in accordance with the Virginia
Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook.
Revl: The baffle calculations specify no baffles to be provided and baffles are proposed on the
plans. Please provide adequate baffle calculations. Calculations should be provided for each
concentrated flow into the facility that is 30% or more of the total flow into the facility.
Rev2: comments addressed.
63. Please provide a detail of a paved construction entrance.
Rev]: comments addressed.
64. Additional comments may be necessary upon resubmittal.
65. An Erosion Control bond will be computed once the plans have been approved.
Rev2: The ESC bond is set at $104, 000.
If you have any questions, you can contact me at 296 -5832 ex. 3072.
Philip Custer
From: Denunzio, Joel D., P.E. [ Joel .Denunzio @VDOT.virginia.gov]
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 12:21 PM
To: Philip Custer
Cc: Max Greene
Subject: RE: Stonewater approval
Phil,
This is for the road plan. They are not going to be required to relocate the waterline
but they are providing an easement for its relocation when needed. Treesdale will also
need to provide an easement.
Thanks,
Joel
Joel DeNunzio, P.E.
Staff Engineer
434 - 293 -0011 Ext. 120
joel.denunzio @vdot.virginia.gov
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Philip Custer [mailto:pcuster @albemarle.org]
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 09:11 AM
To: Denunzio, Joel D., P.E.
Cc: Max Greene
Subject: RE: Stonewater approval
Joel,
This approval is for the site plan for the townhomes(SDP200800129) along the private roads
to Stonehenge and Treesdale, correct? As I understand it, there are still outstanding
issues with the road plan for the subdivision plat behind these townhomes, specifically
the relocation of a watermain under Rio. Please let us know.
Thanks, Phil
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Max Greene
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 8:36 AM
To: Philip Custer
Subject: FW: Stonewater approval
Phil,
I was going to place Joel's comments into County View but wasn't sure which one it should
go into. Do you know where these comments belong?
Thanks,
Max
Max Greene
Engineering Technician
Albemarle County, Virginia
mgreene @albemarle.org
296 -5832 ext. 3283
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Denunzio, Joel D., P.E. [mailto: Joel .Denunzio @VDOT.virginia.gov]
1
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 5:13 PM
To: Max Greene
Cc: Scott Collins
Subject: Stonewater approval
Max,
I have reviewed the electronic file submitted for the Stonewater site plan. I am not sure
who at the county is the reviewer. They have addressed all VDOT's comments and I have
nothing additional. Please let the applicant know that a Land Use Permit will be required
for any work within the VDOT ROW.
Please let me know if you have questions.
Thanks,
Joel
Joel DeNunzio, P.E.
Staff Engineer
434 - 293 -0011 Ext. 120
joel.denunzio @vdot.virginia.gov
From: Scott Collins [mailto:scott @collins - engineering.com]
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 03:38 PM
To: Denunzio, Joel D., P.E.
Subject: RE: Stonewater approval
Joel
Thanks for the email. Attached is the R -3 plan with the new site distance revision.
Treesdale will be running their easements much closer to the road. There will have to be
a jog in the waterline with
45 degree bends past the property line on the Treesdale property to move the waterline
closer to the road. I have discussed this with Cox Company and this is what is being
proposed.
If this satisfies everything, please let me and the County know that VDOT has approved
Stonewater.
Thanks.
Scott
From: Denunzio, Joel D., P.E. [mailto: Joel .Denunzio @VDOT.virginia.gov]
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 8:22 AM
To: Scott Collins
2
Subject: RE: Stonewater approval
Scott,
The easement looks good. Please share this with the developer of Treesdale so they can
continue this easement in front of their property.
I also noticed that you show the sight distance as 305' and for 35 mph it should be 390'
I don't think you'll have any trouble getting the 390 feet but it should be shown
properly.
Thanks,
Joel
Joel DeNunzio, P.E.
Staff Engineer
434 - 293 -0011 Ext. 120
joel.denunzio @vdot.virginia.gov
From: Scott Collins [mailto:scott @collins - engineering.com]
Sent: Friday, September 26, 2008 01:42 PM
To: Denunzio, Joel D., P.E.
Subject: Stonewater approval
Joel
Just wanted to check to see if you received by latest pdf this week on the easement for
RWSA along Rio Road. With that now resolved, please let me know if the plans are
approved. I will be happy to come and meet with you early next week and go over any
outstanding items to make sure all is addressed. Hunter Craig is looking to start
construction in the next couple of weeks.
Thanks Joel.
Scott
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http: / /www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.8.2/1737 - Release Date:
10/21/2008 9:10 AM
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter.
We are a community of 5.5 million users fighting spam.
SPAMfighter has removed 4438 of my spam emails to date.
Get the free SPAMfighter here: http: / /www.spamfighter.com /len
The Professional version does not have this message
3
From: Hamidi, Ajmal [ Ajmal.Hamidi @VDOT.virginia.gov]
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 2:12 PM
To: Jonathan Sharp
Cc: Denunzio, Joel D., P.E.
Subject: SUB - 2007 -00077 Stonewater Subdivision
SUB - 2007 -00077 Stonewater Subdivision
Mr. Jonathon Sharp,
We have reviewed the above plan and had the following comments:
General Information
• Stonewater Court and Stonewater Lane are classified as public roads in Table 5 of sheet S -1, but
they are labeled private in sheets R -2 and S -1. On sheet S -1, they are labeled as private with a 40'
Right -of -way. The classification of these roads should be consistent.
• A traffic signal warrant analysis needs to be completed for the intersection of Rio Rd. &
Stonewater Dr.
Geometrics
• According to the curve table on sheet S -1, curves C6 and C7 on Stonewater Ct. have radii of 120'.
The minimum C/L radius for a road with a 25 mph design speed is 200'.
• Sheet S -1 shows that the proposed curb radials at the intersections of Stonewater Dr. &
Stonewater Ct. Stonewater Dr. & Stonewater La. as 20'. Appendix B of the VDOT Road Design
Manual requires that the minimum curb radius at intersections within subdivisions is 25'.
• All the proposed roads have widths of 24' (Edge -of- pavement to edge -of- pavement). If on- street
parking is planned for both sides of these roads, they need to be 36' wide.
• Although the intersection sight distances are adequate, the sight lines have not been drawn
properly according to Appendix B. Of particular concern is the sight distance easement across lot
28 for the intersection of Stonewater Dr. & Stonewater Ct. The properly drawn sight distance line
overlaps the proposed easement.
• The driveways within this subdivision must conform to the VDOT PE -1 standard for private
entrances and the CG -9D standard for entrance gutters.
• A 50' landing should be provided on Stonewater Dr. at its intersection width Rio Rd.
Drainage
• According to Table 7: Grade Inlets Design Table of the storm drainage calculations submitted on
5/20/08, structures 6, 16, and 33 exceed the maximum allowable spread. According to Table 6:
Sump Inlet Design Table, structure 30 exceeds also exceeds the maximum allowable spread.
Chapter 9 of Appendix B defines this as half of the lane width plus the gutter width. In this case
this would be 8 ft. If the roads are designed to accommodate on- street parking, the maximum
allowable spread would be 10 ft.
We had a meeting with the Scott Collins, the engineer who designed these plans, this morning in which we
informed him of the above issues. He said that he would make the necessary changes to the plans. In
particular, he said that the roads will be designed for on- street parking for one side, Stonewater La. will be
private, and the spread calculations do not reflect the addition of yard inlets required by the County.
If you have any questions, please contact Joel DeNunzio or me.
Thanks,
A.J. Hamidi
Tech III
Charlottesville Residency,
(434) 293 -0011
�pF .AI,g
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
Project:
Stonewater Subdivision [SUB200700077, WP0200700045]
Plan preparer:
Collins Engineering [email: scott @collins -en ing eering com]
Owner or rep.:
Rio Road Holdings, LLC [973 -9120]
Plan received date:
18 June 2007
06 Sep 2007 (Revl)
29 Jan 2008 (Rev2)
11 Apr 2008 (Rev3)
04 June 2008 (Rev4)
Date of comments:
10 July 2007
24 Sep 2007 (Rev 1)
12 Mar 2008 (Rev2)
20 May 2008 (Rev3)
09 July 2008 (Rev4)
Reviewer:
Jonathan Sharp [phone: 566 -2578]
A. Road & Drainage Plans (SUB200700077)
1. Please provide the date and source of the topographic information: All topography should be at
least visually field verified by the designer within the last year.
Rev]: comments addressed.
2. Please provide all necessary offsite easements needed for right -of -way improvements.
Revl: It appears that the easement for Stonehenge does not include an easement to construct the
interconnection shown on the plans. Please provide all required easements on the Stonehenge
property.
Rev2: The pending easement plat must be approved prior to approval of the Road plans and
WPO plans.
3. VDOT approval is required.
Revl: VDOT approval is required. Copies of the plans have been forwarded to VDOT for review.
Rev2: VDOT approval is required. Copies of the plans have been forwarded to VDOT for
review.
4. Portions of the grading for Lots 16 -18 is missing from the grading plan on sheet S -3.
Revl: comments addressed.
5. Portions of the proposed trails are missing from the plans.
Revl: comments addressed.
6. Please show the required grading to install the proposed stormwater facility access /trail on the
plans.
Rev]: comments addressed.
7. All drainage easements are a minimum 20' wide. Required width: 10'+ (pipe dia. Or channel
width) + 2'+ 2(depth -5'). The pipe, channel or structure must be within the center third of the
easement.
Rev]: It appears that not all drainage easements meet the Design Manual requirements. For
example, pipe S -3 appears to need up to a 47' wide easement, when only a 30' wide easement is
provided. Please show all drainage easements meeting the Design Manual requirements.
Albemarle County Community Development
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 5
Rev2: comments addressed.
Proposed slopes steeper than 3:1 must have low maintenance (not grass) ground cover specified on
the plan.
Rev]: Sod is a type of grass. Please specify a non -grass low maintenance ground cover.
Rev2: comments addressed.
9. Overland relief must be provided for Structure 10 and Structure 10 in case of clogging. The failure
of any system will not cause structures or yards to flood. Engineering recommends placing the low
point in the road between lots 22 and 23 and lots 11 and 12 and then placing a well defined ditch
between the lots. Please clearly label overland relief ditches on the plans and provide adequate
details for installation as they are critical to prevent the flooding of structures or yards.
Revl: comments addressed.
10. Please provide provisions and easements for drainage across 3 or more lots. Dense development
where fencing, decking, etc is expected should provide yard inlets and pipes rather than ditches.
Rev]: comments addressed.
11. Please provide typical sections for proposed channels with locations referenced from the plan view
sheets.
Rev]: comments addressed.
12. Please provide cross drain locations shown and labeled with VDOT designations (CD -1,2) at every
major cut and fill transition or sag curve on the road profile sheets.
Rev]: comments addressed.
13. Please show and label the station of intersections with the street names on the road profile sheets.
Revl: comments addressed.
14. Please provide a transitioning detail (20' minimum) for roll -top curbing in front of any inlets.
Rev]: comments addressed.
15. Please provide a VDOT designation (MH -1, DI -313, etc.) for each structure on the drainage
profiles.
Revl: comments addressed.
16. Please provide the throat length for each drop inlet on the drainage profiles.
Rev]: comments addressed.
17. Please provide the grate type for each grate inlet on the drainage profiles.
Rev]: comments addressed.
18. Please provide a note for concrete inlet shaping (IS -1) specified on any structure with a 4' or
greater drop on sheets DP- 2,3,4.
Rev]: comments addressed.
19. Please provide a not for safety slabs (SL -1) in any structure taller than 12' on sheets DP- 2,3,4.
Rev]: comments addressed.
20. Please provide end sections (ES -1) or endwalls (EW -1) on all pipe outlets. Endwalls for culverts
48" or taller.
Rev]: comments addressed.
21. Please provide scour outlet protection at all outlets, corresponding to computations.
Rev]: comments addressed.
22. Please provide destination structure labels for each drainage area on the proposed pipe and inlet
drainage area map.
Rev]: comments addressed.
23. Please show any necessary grading needed for construction of the proposed right -of -way
improvements.
Rev]: comments addressed.
24. Please verify that ponding will not occur from drop inlet structure S -8 on the neighboring property.
An easement may be needed.
Albemarle County Community Development
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 5
Rev]: comments addressed.
25. Additional comments may be necessary upon resubmittal.
26. A road bond will be computed once the plans have been approved.
Rev2: Please submit a schedule of completion and road bond estimate request. The road bond
has been set at $532,650. Once you have received VDOT approval, please submit 2 copies of the
road plans for our files.
B. Stormwater Management Plan (WPO200700045)
27. Please provide adequate drainage measures to ensure that lots 26 -34 will drain to the proposed
Stormwater facility. One possible solution is to provide a ditch along the proposed Stormwater
facility accessway /trail to the facility.
Rev]: comments addressed.
28. Please provide the following information on the existing drainage area map:
a. coefficient used for each drainage area as used in the comps
b. time of concentration for each drainage area where applicable as used in comps
Rev]: comments addressed.
29. Please provide the following information on the proposed drainage area map:
a. coefficient for each drainage area, labeled on the map matching comps
b. time of concentration for each area labeled on the map where applicable, matching comps
c. for future development to be considered in the analysis, include assumed land uses,
impervious areas, and hydrological coefficients on the proposed drainage map
Rev]: comments addressed.
30. Please provide a plan view of the Stormwater facility as shown on the site or subdivision plan
sheets, preferably at a scale of 1 " =30' or 1 " =20'.
Rev]: comments addressed.
31. Please provide the Albemarle County general Stormwater notes on the plans.
Rev]: comments addressed.
32. Please provide cross - section details of each facility including: embankments, principle spillway,
emergency spillway, and sediment forebay. Please make sure the details include all needed
information from the Albemarle County Design Manual Engineering Final Plan Checklist, pages
7 -8 and are in accord with the Virginia Stormwater Management Handbook.
Rev]: The downhill side of the embankment for the SWM facility must be a minimum of 3:1 in
slope.
Rev2: comments addressed.
33. The extended detention basin must be designed as follows:
a. normal pool elevation is labeled on plans
b. 20% surface area pool areas 15-4' deep; 40% volume
c. 40% surface area shallow marsh 0.5' -1.5' deep, 40% volume, contains 1WQV
d. 40% surface area high marsh 0.5' deep or less; 20% volume
I was unable to verify whether or not the proposed facility meets these criteria, as the plan view of
the pond is not at a suitable scale for review.
Rev]: comments addressed.
34. Vehicle access must be provided to all forebays for the facility. Grade cannot exceed 20 %.
Rev]: Please provide adequate access to the forebay below Structure S -1.
Rev2: comments addressed.
35. Please provide a completed Stormwater Maintenance Agreement and fee. The agreement should
reference TMP 61 -183 and TMP 61 -184 and should be signed by both property owners.
Rev]: We have not received a copy of the Agreement. Please submit the agreement to Pam
Shifflett.
Albemarle County Community Development
Engineering Review Comments
Page 4 of 5
Rev2: We have not received a copy of the Agreement. Please submit the agreement to Pam
Shifflett.
36. Removal rate computations should not include offsite drainage areas (The Stonehenge property
that will not be treated for Stormwater quality should not be included in removal rate
computations.).
Rev]: comments addressed.
37. Please clearly show the assumed impervious values for future development (both the Treesdale
development and the proposed townhouses). Please clearly differentiate between proposed
impervious areas and future impervious areas.
Rev]: comments addressed.
38. Please provide channel computations for erosion and capacity for emergency spillway channels.
Rev]: I cannot find any emergency spillway calculations. Several of the details propose an
emergency spillway (3.07 2a and 2b on SWM -2), while other details do not show an emergency
spillway. If no spillway is proposed, remove all details of emergency spillways.
Rev2: comments addressed.
39. Please provide drawdown computations for the extended detention facility.
Revl: I cannot find these calculations. Please provide calculations to show that the IxWQV is
drawdown over a 30 hr period per the VSMH.
Rev2: comments addressed.
40. The routing model is confusing. The tables are not to scale and do not label peak values. The
routing model does not appear to use critical durations.
Rev]: comments addressed.
41. Please provide critical durations for the peak basin volume events for the 2yr, 10yr, and 100yr
storms.
Rev]: comments addressed.
42. Please clearly show the assumed C- values for future development (both the Treesdale development
and the proposed townhouses). Please clearly differentiate between proposed C- values and future
C- values.
Rev]: comments addressed.
43. Please provide computations for composite C- values.
Rev]: comments addressed.
44. Please provide pre - development C- values.
Revl: comments addressed.
45. Please provide the pre - development time of concentration.
Rev]: comments addressed.
46. Please provide a stage- storage (elevation vs. storage volume) table with water quality
volume /surface area requirements for facilities with volume requirements /surface area
requirements.
Rev]: comments addressed.
47. Please provide the hydraulic dimension and coefficients for each weir, orifice, culvert, or other
control structure used in the routing model, matching the plans.
Rev]: comments addressed.
48. Additional comments may be necessary upon resubmittal.
49. A Stormwater Management bond will be computed once the plans are approved.
Rev2: The SWM bond is set at $75, 000.
C. Erosion Control Plan (WPO200600045)
50. There are both limits of clearing and limits of disturbance line on the plan. This is confusing.
Please provide one limits of clearing and grading encompassing all disturbances, entrances,
Albemarle County Community Development
Engineering Review Comments
Page 5 of 5
staging and parking areas, areas where sediment laden runoff will cross, or any construction
related activities. This must match any landscaping and conservation plans.
Rev]: comments addressed.
51. Areas within the limits of clearing and grading are not shown on the erosion control plans.
Rev]: comments addressed.
52. Please show the existing drainage divides on the plans.
Rev]: comments addressed.
53. Tree protection should be located at the drip lines of the trees. Tree drip lines should be field
verified. No disturbance can occur within the drip lines of any trees to be saved.
Rev]: comments addressed.
54. No erosion control measures can be located in the way of construction access or grading. Please
remove any silt fence or diversion dikes located in the way of grading.
Rev]: comments addressed.
55. Please provide erosion control measures for all off -site disturbances.
Rev]: comments addressed.
56. Please show outlet protection (OP) at all outlets.
Rev]: comments addressed.
57. Please verify adequate channels (MS -19) at the outfall of the stormwater management facility.
Rev]: Please provide adequate channels from the outfall of the facility to the floodplain.
Rev2: comments addressed.
58. The contour areas used in the sediment basin calculations are incorrect. Please revise the sediment
basin calculations and design the basin in accordance with the Virginia Erosion and Sediment
Control Handbook and the Albemarle County Design Manual.
Rev]: The contour areas and elevations do not match the plans. Also, the bottom of the basin is
shown at 383, and the top of wet storage is shown at 382.
Rev2: comments addressed.
59. Please specify the type of pipe used for the sediment basin and specify a trash rack.
Rev]: comments addressed.
60. The embankment of the sediment basin is at a higher elevation than the permanent facility.
Rev]: comments addressed.
61. Please specify safety fence and signs stating "danger, quick sand, do not enter."
Rev]: comments addressed.
62. The baffle calculations are incorrect. Please provide calculations in accordance with the Virginia
Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook.
Revl: The baffle calculations specify no baffles to be provided and baffles are proposed on the
plans. Please provide adequate baffle calculations. Calculations should be provided for each
concentrated flow into the facility that is 30% or more of the total flow into the facility.
Rev2: comments addressed.
63. Please provide a detail of a paved construction entrance.
Rev]: comments addressed.
64. Additional comments may be necessary upon resubmittal.
65. An Erosion Control bond will be computed once the plans have been approved.
Rev2: The ESC bond is set at $104, 000.
If you have any questions, you can contact me at 566 -2578 or my email: jshaM @albemarle.org.
� OF AL
,. vIRGI1`IZP
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
Project:
Stonewater Subdivision [SUB200700077, WP0200700045]
Plan preparer:
Collins Engineering [email: scott @collins -en ing eering com]
Owner or rep.:
Rio Road Holdings, LLC [973 -9120]
Plan received date:
18 June 2007
06 Sep 2007 (Revl)
29 Jan 2008 (Rev2)
11 Apr 2008 (Rev3)
Date of comments:
10 July 2007
24 Sep 2007 (Revl)
12 Mar 2008 (Rev2)
20 May 2008 (Rev3)
Reviewer:
Jonathan Sharp
A. Road & Drainage Plans (SUB200700077)
1. Please provide the date and source of the topographic information: All topography should be at
least visually field verified by the designer within the last year.
Revl: comments addressed.
2. Please provide all necessary offsite easements needed for right -of -way improvements.
Rev]: It appears that the easement for Stonehenge does not include an easement to construct
the interconnection shown on the plans. Please provide all required easements on the
Stonehenge property.
3. VDOT approval is required.
Rev]: VDOT approval is required. Copies of the plans have been forwarded to VDOT for
review.
4. Portions of the grading for Lots 16 -18 is missing from the grading plan on sheet S -3.
Rev]: comments addressed.
5. Portions of the proposed trails are missing from the plans.
Rev]: comments addressed.
6. Please show the required grading to install the proposed stormwater facility access /trail on the
plans.
Rev]: comments addressed.
7. All drainage easements are a minimum 20' wide. Required width: 10'+ (pipe dia. Or channel
width) + 2'+ 2(depth -5'). The pipe, channel or structure must be within the center third of the
easement.
Rev1: It appears that not all drainage easements meet the Design Manual requirements. For
example, pipe S -3 appears to need up to a 47' wide easement, when only a 30' wide easement is
provided. Please show all drainage easements meeting the Design Manual requirements.
8. Proposed slopes steeper than 3:1 must have low maintenance (not grass) ground cover specified on
the plan.
Rev]: Sod is a type of grass. Please specify a non -grass low maintenance ground cover.
9. Overland relief must be provided for Structure 10 and Structure 10 in case of clogging. The failure
of any system will not cause structures or yards to flood. Engineering recommends placing the low
Albemarle County Community Development
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 5
point in the road between lots 22 and 23 and lots 11 and 12 and then placing a well defined ditch
between the lots. Please clearly label overland relief ditches on the plans and provide adequate
details for installation as they are critical to prevent the flooding of structures or yards.
Revl: comments addressed.
10. Please provide provisions and easements for drainage across 3 or more lots. Dense development
where fencing, decking, etc is expected should provide yard inlets and pipes rather than ditches.
Rev]: comments addressed.
11. Please provide typical sections for proposed channels with locations referenced from the plan view
sheets.
Rev1: comments addressed.
12. Please provide cross drain locations shown and labeled with VDOT designations (CD -1,2) at every
major cut and fill transition or sag curve on the road profile sheets.
Rev]: comments addressed.
13. Please show and label the station of intersections with the street names on the road profile sheets.
Rev]: comments addressed.
14. Please provide a transitioning detail (20' minimum) for roll -top curbing in front of any inlets.
Rev]: comments addressed.
15. Please provide a VDOT designation (MH -1, DI -313, etc.) for each structure on the drainage
profiles.
Rev]: comments addressed.
16. Please provide the throat length for each drop inlet on the drainage profiles.
Rev]: comments addressed.
17. Please provide the grate type for each grate inlet on the drainage profiles.
Rev]: comments addressed.
18. Please provide a note for concrete inlet shaping (IS -1) specified on any structure with a 4' or
greater drop on sheets DP- 2,3,4.
Rev]: comments addressed.
19. Please provide a not for safety slabs (SL -1) in any structure taller than 12' on sheets DP- 2,3,4.
Revl: comments addressed.
20. Please provide end sections (ES -1) or endwalls (EW -1) on all pipe outlets. Endwalls for culverts
48" or taller.
Rev]: comments addressed.
21. Please provide scour outlet protection at all outlets, corresponding to computations.
Rev]: comments addressed.
22. Please provide destination structure labels for each drainage area on the proposed pipe and inlet
drainage area map.
Rev]: comments addressed.
23. Please show any necessary grading needed for construction of the proposed right -of -way
improvements.
Revl: comments addressed.
24. Please verify that ponding will not occur from drop inlet structure S -8 on the neighboring property.
An easement may be needed.
Rev]: comments addressed.
25. Additional comments may be necessary upon resubmittal.
26. A road bond will be computed once the plans have been approved.
B. Stormwater Management Plan (WPO200700045)
27. Please provide adequate drainage measures to ensure that lots 26 -34 will drain to the proposed
Stormwater facility. One possible solution is to provide a ditch along the proposed Stormwater
Albemarle County Community Development
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 5
facility accessway /trail to the facility.
Rev]: comments addressed.
28. Please provide the following information on the existing drainage area map:
a. coefficient used for each drainage area as used in the comps
b. time of concentration for each drainage area where applicable as used in comps
Rev]: comments addressed.
29. Please provide the following information on the proposed drainage area map:
a. coefficient for each drainage area, labeled on the map matching comps
b. time of concentration for each area labeled on the map where applicable, matching comps
c. for future development to be considered in the analysis, include assumed land uses,
impervious areas, and hydrological coefficients on the proposed drainage map
Rev]: comments addressed.
30. Please provide a plan view of the Stormwater facility as shown on the site or subdivision plan
sheets, preferably at a scale of 1 " =30' or 1 " =20'.
Rev]: comments addressed.
31. Please provide the Albemarle County general Stormwater notes on the plans.
Rev]: comments addressed.
32. Please provide cross - section details of each facility including: embankments, principle spillway,
emergency spillway, and sediment forebay. Please make sure the details include all needed
information from the Albemarle County Design Manual Engineering Final Plan Checklist, pages
7 -8 and are in accord with the Virginia Stormwater Management Handbook.
Rev]: The downhill side of the embankment for the SWM facility must be a minimum of 3:1 in
slope.
33. The extended detention basin must be designed as follows:
a. normal pool elevation is labeled on plans
b. 20% surface area pool areas 15-4' deep; 40% volume
c. 40% surface area shallow marsh 0.5' -1.5' deep, 40% volume, contains 1WQV
d. 40% surface area high marsh 0.5' deep or less; 20% volume
I was unable to verify whether or not the proposed facility meets these criteria, as the plan view of
the pond is not at a suitable scale for review.
Rev]: comments addressed.
34. Vehicle access must be provided to all forebays for the facility. Grade cannot exceed 20 %.
Rev]: Please provide adequate access to the forebay below Structure S -1.
35. Please provide a completed Stormwater Maintenance Agreement and fee. The agreement should
reference TMP 61 -183 and TMP 61 -184 and should be signed by both property owners.
Rev]: We have not received a copy of the Agreement. Please submit the agreement to Pam
Shifflett.
36. Removal rate computations should not include offsite drainage areas (The Stonehenge property
that will not be treated for Stormwater quality should not be included in removal rate
computations.).
Rev]: comments addressed.
37. Please clearly show the assumed impervious values for future development (both the Treesdale
development and the proposed townhouses). Please clearly differentiate between proposed
impervious areas and future impervious areas.
Rev]: comments addressed.
38. Please provide channel computations for erosion and capacity for emergency spillway channels.
Rev1: I cannot find any emergency spillway calculations. Several of the details propose an
emergency spillway (3.07 2a and 2b on SWM -2), while other details do not show an emergency
spillway. If no spillway is proposed, remove all details of emergency spillways.
Albemarle County Community Development
Engineering Review Comments
Page 4 of 5
39. Please provide drawdown computations for the extended detention facility.
Rev1: I cannot find these calculations. Please provide calculations to show that the 1xWQV is
drawdown over a 30 hr period per the VSMH.
40. The routing model is confusing. The tables are not to scale and do not label peak values. The
routing model does not appear to use critical durations.
Rev]: comments addressed.
41. Please provide critical durations for the peak basin volume events for the 2yr, 10yr, and 100yr
storms.
Rev]: comments addressed.
42. Please clearly show the assumed C- values for future development (both the Treesdale development
and the proposed townhouses). Please clearly differentiate between proposed C- values and future
C- values.
Rev]: comments addressed.
43. Please provide computations for composite C- values.
Rev]: comments addressed.
44. Please provide pre - development C- values.
Rev]: comments addressed.
45. Please provide the pre - development time of concentration.
Rev]: comments addressed.
46. Please provide a stage- storage (elevation vs. storage volume) table with water quality
volume /surface area requirements for facilities with volume requirements /surface area
requirements.
Rev]: comments addressed.
47. Please provide the hydraulic dimension and coefficients for each weir, orifice, culvert, or other
control structure used in the routing model, matching the plans.
Revl: comments addressed.
48. Additional comments may be necessary upon resubmittal.
49. A Stormwater Management bond will be computed once the plans are approved.
C. Erosion Control Plan (WPO200600045)
50. There are both limits of clearing and limits of disturbance line on the plan. This is confusing.
Please provide one limits of clearing and grading encompassing all disturbances, entrances,
staging and parking areas, areas where sediment laden runoff will cross, or any construction
related activities. This must match any landscaping and conservation plans.
Rev]: comments addressed.
51. Areas within the limits of clearing and grading are not shown on the erosion control plans.
Rev]: comments addressed.
52. Please show the existing drainage divides on the plans.
Rev]: comments addressed.
53. Tree protection should be located at the drip lines of the trees. Tree drip lines should be field
verified. No disturbance can occur within the drip lines of any trees to be saved.
Rev]: comments addressed.
54. No erosion control measures can be located in the way of construction access or grading. Please
remove any silt fence or diversion dikes located in the way of grading.
Rev]: comments addressed.
55. Please provide erosion control measures for all off -site disturbances.
Rev]: comments addressed.
56. Please show outlet protection (OP) at all outlets.
Rev]: comments addressed.
Albemarle County Community Development
Engineering Review Comments
Page 5 of 5
57. Please verify adequate channels (MS -19) at the outfall of the stormwater management facility.
Rev]: Please provide adequate channels from the outfall of the facility to the floodplain.
58. The contour areas used in the sediment basin calculations are incorrect. Please revise the sediment
basin calculations and design the basin in accordance with the Virginia Erosion and Sediment
Control Handbook and the Albemarle County Design Manual.
Rev]: The contour areas and elevations do not match the plans. Also, the bottom of the basin is
shown at 383, and the top of wet storage is shown at 382.
59. Please specify the type of pipe used for the sediment basin and specify a trash rack.
Revl: comments addressed.
60. The embankment of the sediment basin is at a higher elevation than the permanent facility.
Rev]: comments addressed.
61. Please specify safety fence and signs stating "danger, quick sand, do not enter."
Rev]: comments addressed.
62. The baffle calculations are incorrect. Please provide calculations in accordance with the Virginia
Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook.
Rev]: The baffle calculations specify no baffles to be provided and baffles are proposed on the
plans. Please provide adequate baffle calculations. Calculations should be provided for each
concentrated flow into the facility that is 30% or more of the total flow into the facility.
63. Please provide a detail of a paved construction entrance.
Revl: comments addressed.
64. Additional comments may be necessary upon resubmittal.
65. An Erosion Control bond will be computed once the plans have been approved.
If you have any questions, you can contact me at 296 -5832 ex. 3025 or my email: jsharp @albemarle.org.