HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201300044 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2013-08-30k�
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Bill Ledbetter (bill&roudabush.com)
From: J.T. Newberry - Planner
Division: Planning Services
Date: August 30, 2013
Subject: SDP201300044 Old Trail - Block 113 and 3C — Final Site Plan
The Planner for the Albemarle County Department of Community Development will recommend approval of
the plan referred to above when the following items have been satisfactorily addressed. (The following
comments are those that have been identified at this time. Additional comments or conditions may be added or
eliminated based on further review.)
Albemarle County
Planning — J.T. Newberry, inewberry(&albemarle.or2
1. On Sheet 1, please change the application number of the preliminary site plan to SDP201200054.
2. On Sheet 1 under General Notes, please change the number of existing townhouses to "25
townhouses (6 affordable) ".
3. On Sheet 1, please revise the parking information (Provided Parking, Total Spaces Provided,
Required Parking) to reflect the number of spaces shown in the most recent existing shared parking
agreements for Blocks 1, 2 and 3 (as attached to these comments). If these numbers need to be
revised on the site, then please submit updated parking agreements with the resubmittal.
4. [Page 23 of the Code of Development] Table 3 requires Brookley Drive to have a 30' width curb -
to -curb.
5. [General Comment] If applicable, please provide information to satisfy Section 32.6.2(k) Outdoor
lighting. If not, please add a note to Sheet 1 that states all exterior lighting will not exceed 3,000
lumens and is therefore considered exempt under Section 4.17.2(a).
6. Sheet 2 shows that the existing asphalt sidewalk will be removed. On Sheet 3, please identify the
material of the new sidewalk.
7. On Sheet 3 and Sheet 13, please show the variable width sidewalk maintenance easement referenced
on Sheet 2 and label it with the deed book and page number. Please also add maintenance
easements wherever the proposed sidewalk will be located outside of the right -of -way.
8. Please provide a Conservation Checklist to comply with Section 32.7.9.4(b)(2) for the five trees
proposed to remain and any other applicable vegetation.
9. On Sheet 13, please show tree wells for the trees along Brookley Drive that are shown on the
sidewalk (or provide more information about how they will be planted).
10. On Sheet 13, please update the Parking Lot and Street Tree Planting Schedules to reflect the exact
number of each species shown on the plan. There appear to be 13 Crapemyrtles and 7 Mountain
Silverbells proposed to be planted.
11. On Sheet 14, please add information to satisfy Section 32.6.2(1) Parking and loading areas.
12. On Sheet 14, please add gridlines to the Overall Parking Analysis table to make it easier to read.
13. On Sheet 14, please detail how 225 total spaces are provided in Block 1 as described in the shared
parking agreement for Block 1 and Block 2 (approved by Ron Higgins on 8/2/2013 and attached to
this comment letter). There appear to be 182 shared spaces, 16 parallel spaces and 21 private spaces
for a total of 219 parking spaces.
14. On Sheet 14, please detail how 19 on- street parking spaces are available in Block 1 and Block 2. In
Block 1, there appear to be 16 spaces. In Block 2, there appear to be 23 spaces.
15. On Sheet 14, it appears that Block 3 exceeds the 35% shared parking limit. Currently, 49 spaces are
available (30 shared spaces and 19 parallel spaces), but the table shows 53 spaces are available.
16. [General Comment] The layout of Block 3B is shown differently than the latest approved plans for
this area (SDP201300028 and SUB201300074), which has resulted in the loss of 4 parking spaces.
Please either show the latest approved layout or revise the plan to state that it is intended to amend
Block 3B as well.
Engineering — Michael Koslow, mkoslow(&albemarle.org
Please see attached comments.
Fire and Rescue — Robbie Gilmer, rgilmer(&albemarle.org
1. FDC locations shall be on the address side of the buildings and within 50 ft of a fire hydrant.
2. Block 3 parking lot entrance shall have a minimum of a 25 ft radii to allow fire apparatus to gain
access to the townhomes in the middle of the block.
3. Fire Hydrants shall be on a 500 ft per travelway spacing. Please contact Fire Rescue to discuss
possible locations of hydrants.
E911— Andy Slack, aslack(&albemarle.org
The applicant should have the correct road name displayed on the plans for Claremont Lane. On the
cover page it is displayed correctly. On pages 2, 3, 4, and 5 the road name is incorrectly shown as
"Claremont Drive."
Architectural Review Board (ARB) — Margaret Maliszewski, mmaliszewski(&albemarle.org
1. It is anticipated that the upper portions of the proposed buildings will have some visibility from the
Entrance Corridor. Please submit an application for a Countywide Certificate of Appropriateness for
structures 750' or more from the EC, with the corresponding checklist and submittal items.
Approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness is required prior to final site plan approval. Please
note that Entrance Corridor landscape guidelines apply.
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) — Troy Austin, nathran .austin(&vdot.virginia.gov
Please see attached comments.
Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) — Alex Morrison, amorrison(aserviceauthority.org
Please have the applicant submit 3 copies of the final site plan along with water /sewer data sheets to the
ACSA to begin the construction review process. Thank you.
Please contact J.T. Newberry at the Department of Community Development 296 -5832 ext. 3270 for further
information.
Johnathan Newberry
From: Ron Higgins
Sent: Friday, August 02, 2013 9:59 AM
To: Scott Collins
Cc: Johnathan Newberry; David Hilliard
Subject: FW: Old Trail Block 1 &2 final parking analysis
Attachments: Old Trail Parking Analysis Block 1 &2.pdf
Hello, Scott:
I have reviewed your latest Parking Analysis (dated June 30, 2013) for the Old Trail Village Blocks 1 & 2 parking and
approved this reduction in parking and the shared parking between Blocks 1 & 2 as outlined in that analysis. This
represents just under an 18% reduction which is within the 35% acceptable range as specified in Section 4.12.10 of the
zoning ordinance. This is justified by the variety of uses proposed as well as the different times of parking need for the
uses. This replaces any prior parking determinations for Blocks 1 & 2, Old Trail Village.
One minor edit to the Analysis is that Block 1 is East of Old Trail Drive instead of West (paragraph 1 under "Block 1" of
Summary).
Ron Higgins, AICP
Chief of Zoning /Deputy Zoning Administrator
PARKING ANALYSIS
BLOCKS 1 AND 2
OLD TRAIL VILLAGE
June 30, 2013
COLLINS ENGINEERING
Old Trail Village Blocks I & 2 Parking Analysis
I. Summary of proposed development
BLOCK 1
Block 1, located along the west side of Old Trail Drive, between the two roundabouts, is
considered the heart of the Village Center at Old Trail. This block will consist of two phases of
mixed use buildings with commercial/retail spaces along with residential apartments and
townhome units. While a range of uses are allowed by the code of development for Old Trail
Village, some assumptions can be made based on anticipated market conditions and existing
leased space. The following is a breakdown of the anticipated uses for each of the buildings
within block 1:
Block 1 Uses
Building 1:
• residential apartment units
• restaurant /commercial/retail space
• office space
• athletic facility/ health club
Building 2:
• residential units and townhouse units
• restaurant /commercial/retail space
• office space
BLOCK 2
Block 2 will be occupied by a retirement facility serving some residents in a congregate care
environment, while other areas will be devoted to a rest home/ nursing home/ convalescent
home. A 4 -story hotel with a small restaurant is also proposed at the southwest corner of the
block. The following summarizes the uses in Block 2:
Block 2 Uses
• 67 residential units devoted to a multi - family congregate care facility for the
elderly
56 beds devoted to rest home/ nursing home/ convalescent home
21 employees maximum, during a given shift to serve residents of both
components of the facility
52 room Hotel with a 1,900 sf restaurant
II. Parking Required
Block 1 consists of residential apartments and commercial space of varying uses. With at least 4
distinct uses under consideration, analyzing shared parking becomes more complex. To model
the parking scenario anticipated for this block, we have based the parking ratio on a shopping
center square footage basis for the commercial/retail uses (since the total square footage exceeds
50,000 sf) and added in the residential parking for the overall units within the block. Both the
commercial shopping center parking and the residential parking calculations are based on the
parking requirements as set forth in the Albemarle County zoning regulations. The block 2
parking is based on the Albemarle County zoning regulations for the uses of the Hotel building,
Restaurant, and the Retirement facility.
Old Trail Village Blocks I & 2 Parking Analysis
PARKING REQUIRED:
BLOCK 1:
Phase 1
Phase 2
Req'd parking
Residential Units
34
18
99 spaces
Restaurant/ Retail
(Shopping Center)
4.75 spaces / 1000 sf
25,154 sf
26,860 sf
247 spaces
Townhouses
0
7
16 spaces
TOTAL
78
19
362
BLOCK 2:
Lot 1 Lodge
Lot 2 Hotel
Req'd parking
Total Spaces
at Old Trail
driveways
Hotel (1 space/room)
0
52
52
Hotel Restaurant (13
0
1,900
25
spaces /1000 sf)
78
19
183
Congregate Care Units
67 units
0
23
(1 space/3 beds)
provided for
Assisted Living Beds
56 beds
0
14
(1 space/4 beds)
Senior Housing
21
0
21
Employees
employees
TOTAL
1
135
TOTAL PARKING DEMAND BETWEEN BLOCKS 1 & 2:
362 + 135 = 497 SPACES
III. Parking Provided
PARKING PROVIDED:
Block #
Surface Spaces
Garage Spaces/
On- street
Total Spaces
driveways
Spaces
1
185
21
19
225
2
86
78
19
183
Total spaces
271
99
38
408
provided for
Blocks I and 2
Summary:
Total required spaces per zoning ordinance for Block 1 &2: 497 spaces
Total provided spaces on Block 1 &2: 408 spaces
Deficit: 89 spaces
Percentage of reduction:
497 — 408 = 18% shared
497
pF AL
�'IRGINSP
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,TTorth Wing - - - — - - - -- - -- - - - - --
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
December 27, 2011
Scott Collins
Collins Engineering
200 Garrett Street, Suite K
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: Old Trail Block 3 — SDP2011 -45 — Shared Parking Approval
Dear Mr. Collins:
You provided a parking analysis on September 6, 2011 for Block 3, Phases A, B, C & D which I
approved in late September via email. This letter serves to reconfirm that approval. The latest
analysis supports the provision of 209 total parking spaces with a shared parking ratio of 5.5 %,
which is well within the 35% maximum specified in Zoning Ordinance Section 4.12.10- Shared
Parking. This would accommodate the following:
Phase A -pool and adjacent parking lot containing 72 spaces
Phase B -25 townhouse units providing 52 spaces
Phase C -20 townhouse units providing 40 spaces and 10,900 square feet of office
providing 9 spaces
Phase D -4 single family detached lots containing 8 spaces
Claremont Lane -19 parallel spaces
Brookley Drive -9 parallel spaces.
Although the required parking for these uses total 220.85 spaces, your rationale provided in the
parking analysis and breakdown of provided spaces by phase is acceptable. Additionally, Staff
has required that. you note on the Parking Analysis Chart for Phase C the requirement that
employees of the commercial building be designated to park in the pool parking lot as stated in
your correspondence.
Please contact me should you have any questions on this information.
Sincerely,
a.Ba_Idwin
Senior Planner, acting on behalf of the Zoning Administrator
Copy: File: SDP2011 -45, Megan Yaniglos, Senior Planner
COLLINS E N G I N E E P I N G ` 800 E JEFFERSON CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22902
434 293 3719 PH 434 293 3719 FX
www.collins- ongineering.com
September 6, 2011
Ron Higgins
Zoning Administrator
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: OLD TRAIL BLOCK 3 SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS - REVISED
Dear Ron:
Please consider this request for a shared parking arrangement within block 3 of Old Trail
Village. Block 3 has been developed in 4 phases as follows:
Phase A — swimming pool and adjacent parking lot
Phase B — 25 townhouse units
Phase C — 20 townhouses, 10,900 s.f. office space (currently under review)
Phase D — 4 single family detached lots
The following is a summary of the parking required and provided within block 3:
Table 1: Parking Analysis by Phase
PHASE
QUANTITY
USE
REQUIRED PARKING
PARKING
PROVIDED
A
pool
68
spaces
72
spaces
B
25
townhouses
2.25 sp /unit=
56.25
spaces
52
spaces
20
townhouses
2.25 sp /unit=
45
spaces
40
spaces
C
10,900
sf office
1 sp /200 sf GFA =
43.6
spaces
9
spaces
D
4
Single
family
2 sp /unit=
8
spaces
8
spaces
CLAREMONT
LANE
19
spaces
BROOKLEY DRIVE
9
spaces
TOTAL
220.85 209
5.5% shared
A shared parking ratio of 5.5% is proposed for Block 3, which is within the maximum
allowed of 35% by the zoning ordinance.
We believe block 3 is an ideal location for shared parking for the following reasons:
• Employees of the commercial building in phase C will be designated to park in
the pool lot, allowing spaces under the building to remain open for clients and
patrons.
• The pool operates seasonally during the summer months only, therefore the pool
parking lot will be entirely available during 9 months of the year for other users.
• The pool lot is less than a 500' walk (less than one tenth (1 /10) of a mile) to the
proposed mixed use building in phase 3C. New urbanist planners typically
consider' /4 mile a reasonable walking distance within mixed -use communities.
• This section of Old Trail is a densely designed, mixed -use village center, where
seamless pedestrian mobility has been incorporated throughout all areas. It is
anticipated that many residents will choose to walk to nearby services and
businesses, rather than drive.
• Townhouses will include ample space within their driveways for two additional
parked vehicles, in addition to garage spaces.
Thank you for your consideration of this request. Please contact me if you have any
questions or require any further information.
Sincerely,
Scott Collins
TH
GRAPHIC SCALE
30 0 15 30 60 120 -
� v - - - - - - v `w s V - SCOTT R. COLLINS�
S 5/ - - - - - - - - Lie. No. 035791,E
s S I I / \ \ ( IN FEET )
'............ � - � � A � 1 Inch = 30 ft.
ONAL
v _
A v
BLOCK 3
I I a v a v
PH AS
i'
v v v \ v A A \ V O_
L O ° \ v \ \ �' F
° Q Q ° ° \ \ \ �� \ \\ V A \ \ 0-
_ I
I I
V I I + V 1 -L, a' a -° \ A A \ \ I Z LU LU
v °
I � O
- , - _ - - a a v a ° a j y 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN o 0 0
° > LU
/ L'
v -- -_____ ��gz,
- - - -- ON- E PA _G MU ESTRIPED
� Lu
cev v /
v - - - - -- - - - - - -- I �, I � -; NT LAND
M
I �� STR A BUFFER v v � w
I I
—/ v v V �I v v v - 72 SPACES
I 0
cl
68� �I'IIII''' �I'I vv` Q
v BENCHMARK 15 16� 17 18 /9 � �
\ TOP OF BOX= 688.63' T
v 1 I I 1 1 1 v �1�v `v`vv v vv v v
/ 20 X11 1 1 1 11 1 1�1 vvv v vv v vv
- - v o
v � � v ` 1 ,11 vv v v vv vvmss vv
21
- -- - - 22 v �� \ \\61
��v v v v6,
/ ` v v v v �v V6 vv v vv s
v;� v v v v v v v`` v`
\ \ \
� v s s ,�3 v� v�
\ — vvvv vvv v vvv v v``\ vvv CY)
vv
cyi
v v �
v / v \vvv v�vvvv v
\\ \\ \
a I
1
cl
20 UTILITY EASEMENT � \ \ \ p
DB 4016, PG 538
L 0 T
B L C I
CD
- 1 v v - v
-_ - -- BLOCK 7 1 70 ��� �� ,2� � 1 ° � v vvv v `,vvv vvvvv � � /�, / / � vv � � I I N
16.9' c.9 JQ �J �� \v \ v VARIABLE WIDTH SIGHT A v v v v v v v v ! / / / N
E 1 G) ' 15.9' s' - 16� \ \
I 1 v DISTANCE EASEMENT
- - 1 1 n O A V - 1 6'm1 DB 3925, PG 398 v ` v v v A v ` ` \ - , / ' / Q
1 ° YP ��o B v G 1 v vv — W
i--i
°
BLOCK 3 - - -- - co
1 -
VEM€N S ESM - - - - �
, ]�� � vv � U z Lu 1 V -10' L.A. Z;fi6 SF 1 v v v v v ` v v \ V O
9 u
BLOCK 3 PHASE 1 L.A. 3 545 S I z �TYP) B. 842 SFG 1 N 1 \ \ \ \ \ \
� � � _ � I 1 \ L.A. 2,061\ L.A. 1,718 S � .A. 1,705 SF ® � \ \ \ � \ \ 1 \ � J W
- - - - 7 B.A. 853 SF B.A 842 SF B.A 851 SF U B.A 851 SF �2 v
- I
1 L.A. 1,706 S ,�y L.A. 1,707 SF � I\ 0 -- _ � 77 � �-� 1 ® \ ` � \\ 1 \ I I
1 o �� L.A. 3,339 SF B.A 844 SF / B.A 844 SF z
1 7 m v L�J BA 851 SF nl L.A. 4,328 SF \ I Z
\ o B.A 844 SF s H
v n m G�' 1� ON- STREET KING MUST BE STRIPED
z � I L.A. 1,880 SF A v -• � � A � Q
\\ /
B.A 844 SF
24' PRIVATE ACCESS ESMT
U Q
E I I 1 � � 16 �p POSED 10 SETBACK{ y� - � � 1
d .. ��. DB 3 61, PG 27 �5 1 ° ` v vv / / / / LL
1 ° L.A. 11845 SF CO - 16'� : 16' 16' 1
N 1 B.A 842 16 `° Ln
2Q' PRIVATE ACCE S ES-MT DISTANCE TO Pool Lo - 1 \
W
LE \ / / / / / / / / / /
DB 3861 PG 272 475 ESS E M7 Lu
'S/ to N . \ ::BLOCK_ _
I O PAVEM NT — rn -+
1 LOADING SPADE s, 16. u� z �5 O Q
406- 16' I 16' °° 19' oo \ 16 t6' l9' �Fi ` / / 7 / /, - / / / / / / \ v )
1 CG 12 BLOCK 30 PHASE--'2- -1 - — _
� PROP(l D 1 ' R SitfBACK
1 �c
z OFFICE bVEI4PAR��KING� v / LOT � � �� � / / � v ui
1 °- 10 ,� 1--- J---- L--- 1---- L--- 1 - - - -L— \
- -- - - - - -- L.A. 9,584 SF 12 $ I / / / / i / ` �J.J
°
B.A 4,220 SF \ \
L.A. 1 669 S L.A. 1 662 S ��
— COMMERCIAL BUILDING L.A. 668 S /00 L.A. 2 045 S 14 I /
2O 76 B.A 851 SF B.A 843 SF
2ND &03RD FLOORS: 8, 00 SF OFFICE �/� A. 1,667 SF B.A 841 SF L.A. 1,668 S B.A 851 SF B A 843 SF B.A 841 SF 13 LB A 853 SF VARIABLE WIDTH SIGHT
' — L.A. 2,0435E L.A. 1,670 S
TOTAL: 10,900 SF NON- RESIDENTIAL \� //� B:A 851 SF 1�9 B.A 842 SF �' - � I DISTANCE EASEMENT
\ HLOCK1 3C PH 1 n
DB 3925, )PG 398 // I \ \\ Lu
\ 6PLANTING STRIP
N
PAR LLEL PAS NG SPA E� _ _ - - - - - - - -
/ L _ - - - I O
X — — _ _ _ — — — _ — /— —�� O
BROOKLEY DR1�7E��` F//W
/ / / \\
°
- ° - - - w
Lu
Lu
\ \ \ \ 0 _
I— V)
JOB NO.
02006
BLOCK 1
°
SCALE
v I v v v v 1 „ =30'
\ \ \
BLOCK 2 v
0 _ — — — — — — - �0 v v vv v \ SHEET NO.
0
Q
Q
T
0
O U
� Z
_ W
U W
Z
-O CD
�Z
�W
Oz
QJ
_ J
-o
v
0
� o
o
� 0
o
U
N �
U �
0
Q
m
0
0
a
X
a�
0
� 0
�o
o �
0 E5)
z c
Lf --\Z
W 6
W cn
Z
cD E
Z .O
W U
v
z
J O
O o
U U
— O
0\
c
0
Q �
o
Q�
(�
>�
U O
X�
O U
cn
E
O
0
� o
� 0
D L
U •_
O
0
Q c
U Q
0
U
>
° cn
U
O C
cn _
� 0
o >
Q 0
0
Al
vr�N1Q
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
Project: Old Trail Village Blocks 1B & 3C — Final SDP201300044
Plan preparer: Roudabush, Gale and Associates Inc. [fax 434 - 296 -5220]
Owner or rep.: March Mountain Properties I (Block 1)
Craig Enterprises, Inc. (Block 313)
Ja -Zan LLC (Block 3C)
Plan received date: 9 July 2013
Date of comments: 8 August 2013
Reviewer: Michael Koslow
Review coordinator: Jonathan Newberry
The first final site plan and comps submittal (SDP201300044) submitted 8 July 2013 has received
Engineering Review and does not appear to meet Albemarle County minimum checklist items for
approval. This review does not include a review of Erosion & Sediment Control, Mitigation, or
Stormwater Management. Please adequately address the following comments for final site plan
approval:
A. Application Information
1) Per ZMA2004 -00024 proffer #7, please submit an overlot grading plan showing
existing and proposed grading for this project. This could coincide with a road plan or
site plan submittal but is needed for proposed subdivision.
B. Existing Conditions Information
1) Please include the date the topographic information was verified by designer. All
topography should be at least visually field verified by the designer with the last year.
C. Proposed Plan View Information
1) It appears that sidewalk maintenance easements could be necessary to maintain a
minimum of 5' wide sidewalk continuity along proposed NE & SE corners of Old Trail
Drive and Brookley Drive.
2) It appears that an easement for proposed 18" HDPE sanitary sewer might be
needed as it crosses Claremont Drive. Also, the scaled distance for that pipe run is only
65' and it appears to outlet to an existing 8" sanitary sewer pipe. Will defer to ACSA
regarding this comment.
3) Lots 5 -11 and 14 -20 appear to be served via alleys. Please include a proposed
access easement to connect these lots with Brookley Drive.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 2
D. Plan Detail Information
1) Please specify 4" stone base for all proposed sidewalks including variable width
sidewalks proposed on road typical sections on sheet 7.
2) Please update General Construction Notes on sheet 6 per the Design Standards
Manual.
E. Drainage Profiles
1) Storm drain structure # 18 and pipe # 17 appear in profile view on sheet 6 but do
not appear in the grading plan on sheet 5. Please clarify if this structure and pipe are
proposed with this site plan. Please update each profile detail title to match which
structures and pipes are being proposed with each profile view.
2) Storm drain structure # 14 and pipe #13 appear in plan view on the grading plan
on sheet 5 but not in profile view. Please provide a drainage profile for this structure
and pipe if they are proposed with this site plan.
3) Please include and label existing and proposed profile lines for all proposed storm
drains on sheet 6.
4) Please indicate concrete inlet shaping (IS -1) for any structure with a 4' or greater
drop.
5) Please indicate safety slabs (SL -1) for any structure taller than 12'.
Current Development Engineering is available from 2:30 -4 PM on Thursdays to discuss these review
comments. Please contact Michael Koslow at 434 - 296 -5832 ext. 3297 or email mkoslow(,albemarle.org
to schedule an appointment.
•_ i�u�rr tni:
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper, Virginia 22701 -3819
Gregory A. Whirley
Commissioner of Highways
August 12, 2013
Mr. J.T. Newberry
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: SDP2013 -00044 Old Trail Village Block 113 & Block 3C — Final Site Plan
Dear Mr. Newberry:
We have reviewed the Old Trail Village Block 1, Phase B & Block 3, Phase C Final Site Plan
dated July 1, 2013 as submitted by Roudabush, Gale & Associates, Inc. and offer the following
comments:
1. The radii the entrances to Blocks 1B and 3C are shown to be 21' to the face of curb.
They should be 25' to the back of curb as shown in Appendix F of the Road Design
Manual.
2. Additional information needs to be provided at the entrances to Blocks 1B and 3C to
ensure proper drainage of the entrances. I would suggest spot elevations be provided
showing how the entrances will drain.
3. The entrances to Blocks 1B and 3C need to be CG -11 entrances.
4. The entrances to Blocks 1B and 3C need to be aligned with each other. There appears to
be a slight offset.
5. The midblock pedestrian crossing should be removed.
6. The entrances to Blocks 1B and 3C need to be moved as far as possible from the
roundabout. It appears to me that the entrances could be located approximately where the
midblock pedestrian crossing is currently shown or at least shifted to the east once the
midblock crossing is removed.
7. The storm sewer crossings should be located perpendicularly to the streets they are
crossing.
8. The profile for Brookley Road indicates that the grade of the storm sewer between
structures 4 and 6 is 0.47% while the drainage calculations indicate a grade of 0.54 %.
This difference is not likely to change the adequacy of the storm sewer, but the grades
should be consistent.
9. The profile grade between storm structures 6 and 8 is shown as 0.84% while the drainage
calculations indicate a grade of 0.49 %. This difference is not likely to change the
adequacy of the storm sewer, but the grades should be consistent.
10. The storm sewer profile indicates that structure 4 has an invert in from structure 16;
however, the plan view indicates that the invert in should be from structure 14.
11. I believe Storm Profile Str#14 -16 is incorrectly labeled. I believe this is the profile for
structures 20- 18 -Ex. 106.
12. The length of pipe and grade from structure 4 to structure 2 is not consistent between the
storm sewer profile and the profile for Brookley Road.
13. A note should be added that safety slabs (SL -1) shall be required for all storm structures
12' or greater in depth as indicated in the Road and Bridge Standards.
14. A note should be added that steps (ST -1) shall be required for all storm structures 4' or
greater in depth as indicated in the Road and Bridge Standards.
15. Storm sewer profiles for sections 14 -4 and 16 -Ex. 202 were not provided with this site
plan.
16. It appears that it is proposed to not allow parking on Brookley Drive, however, typical
sections are provide for both parking and no parking sections of Brookley Drive. To
avoid confusion, one of the typical sections should be removed.
17. There needs to be at least 1' of right -of -way beyond the sidewalk on the typical section of
Brookley Drive (No Parking). The planting strips shown on this detail could be reduced
from 8' to as low as 6' to accommodate this requirement.
18. The typical section for Brookley Drive (No Parking) indicates that the distance from the
centerline to the right -of -way is 37'. This should be 27' based on the section provided.
19. There are details for rolltop curb and transitions from CG -6 to rolltop included in the
plans. If rolltop is proposed, the locations should be indicated on the plans, if not, the
details should be removed to avoid confusion.
20. Is the "Typical Pavement & Curb Section Private" detail proposed for the entrances off of
Brookley Drive to Blocks 1B and 3C? If it is, the dimensions are incorrect and rolltop
curb is not proposed. If this detail is not for entrances, there should be a detail provided.
21. The street trees shown along Claremont Drive need to be located at least 30' from the end
of radius as shown in Appendix B(1) of the Road Design Manual.
22. Sight lines and profiles for the entrances to Blocks 1B and 3C need to be provided to
ensure that the vertical curve of Brookley Drive does not impact the sight distance.
23. Trip generation needs to be provided for each of the blocks.
24. The pavement design calculation needs to be provided for review.
25. This site plan should not be approved until the road construction plans for Brookley
Drive are ready for approval as the final design of Brookley Drive will impact this site
plan. Many comments in this review letter are also included in the review letter for the
road plans for Brookley Drive which has been included for your information.
If additional information is needed concerning this project, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
/AU
Troy Austin, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Culpeper District
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING