Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA201300012 Review Comments Zoning Map Amendment 2014-01-08Phone 434-296-5832 'Al r County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, VA, 22902 Memorandum Fax 434-972-4126 To: Megan Yaniglos From: Michelle Roberge, Engineering Department Division: Engineering Date: January 7, 2013 Subject: ZMA 2013-00012 Rivanna Village I reviewed the concept plan for the application noted above and offer the following comments for the applicant. The comments are those that have been identified at this time. Additional comments may be added or eliminated based on further review. 1) Please clarify whether roads are public or private. [Revision 1] Comment addressed. 2) Per VDOT standards, please note that a minimum horizontal curve of 200' is required. I recommend providing an outer radius to avoid the sharp 90 degree turns on the unnamed alley and Terrapin Circle. There are 90 degree turns on both ends of Park St. as well. Please clarify since it appears the roads are not shown correctly to reflect the T intersection. [Revision 1] Comment addressed. 3) In (2) locations the access from the frontage road is not clear. Please clarify for the corner lot on Main St and Sweetgum Lane and the lot on Terrapin Circle near the sharp bend. rRevision 1] Comment addressed. 4) Per Section 14-409(B), "All public streets within a subdivision shall be extended and constructed to the abutting property lines to provide vehicular and pedestrian interconnections to future development..." I recommend showing this on plans. [Revision 1] Comment not addressed for Park St and Terrapin Circle. Extend road to property line. This can be addressed at final site plan phase. [Revision 2] Comment addressed. The applicant has shown the ROW for interconnection. At the site plan phase, I recommend a grading easement beyond the ROW to construct the possible future connection. 5) It appears there will be disturbance within the 100' stream buffer. Please show the 100' stream buffer on plans and provide a conceptual plan for the type of mitigation. Please see the attached sheet. Full build- out shows some blocks have minimal space for mitigation. Reforestation may not be an adequate solution. A combination of stream restoration and reforestation may be necessary to satisfy mitigation requirements. [Revision 1] Comment not addressed. The correct buffer is not shown. See the attached sheet. The lighter orange is additional buffer that needs to be shown on plan. Also, the mitigation plan will need to be provided and approved prior to the site plan approval. [Revision 2] 1 recommend the mitigation plan to be fully addressed during the WPO phase. Initially, I was concerned about the minimal space for replanting trees within the buffer area since the site is already heavily wooded. After discussing this issue with the applicant, we determined there are possible areas where stream restoration is an option in addition to replanting trees within the buffer. 6) It is not clear if this subdivision is a phased development. Please note that all roads will need to be bonded prior to a grading permit if project is not phased. If it is a phased development, I recommend providing a plan which shows the limits of each phase. [Revision 1] Comment not addressed. The phasing plan needs to coordinate grading, E&S, SWM, construction of road, utilities, construction of homes and stockpile locations within each phase. See my attached recommended phasing plan. [Revision 2] The phasing plan is improved and works well as a conceptual plan for the ZMA. During the WPO phase, I will ask for a refined limit of disturbance delineation. For example, phase 4 may need to be disturbed in phase 1 to direct runoff to the pond. This can be thoroughly reviewed at the WPO phase. 7) The concept for placing stormwater management facilities within each block is favorable due to the rolling topography and several streams on site. However, there are several areas that are left untreated. I recommend placing facilities where more runoff can be captured and treated instead of narrow spaces behind lots, where it will be very difficult to access and maintain. Also, the proposed wet ponds and wetlands on blocks D and G will not work since it requires, at a minimum, 10 acres of watershed drainage area. Please see the attached mark up. [Revision 1] Comment not addressed. There is an improvement in showing BMPs at low spots and near road for maintenance access. However, there are still areas left untreated. See the attached sheet. Show there is adequate space for maintenance roads to BMPs noted or provide an alternate BMP location. [Revision 2] 1 recommend this item to be fully addressed at the WPO phase. The applicant has attempted to show adequate access to BMPs. I still see potential problems in meeting the minimum requirements for a 10' wide access road at less than a 20% grade. Also, the access road should reach the forebays and outlets areas for maintenance. The applicant has not fully addressed this. 8) 1 recommeno a uur- permit to De omaineo prior to the approval or tnis /-ivies appiication. [Revision 1] Comment acknowledged. The applicant expects COE permit to be obtained before approval of ZMA application. 9) One stormwater management facility is shown on County property, where the fire station is located. I recommend all proposed stormwater management facilities to be on site. [Revision 1] Comment partially addressed. The fire station is now included in project, however maintenance of SWM is still in question. Who will maintain SWM facility? [Revision 2] Comment addressed. The SWM facility within the county property will be managed by the Rivanna Village HOA. 10) 1 do not see the need to -_,urate out wet pond 2 into (3) basins. I recommend only showing one basin. [Revision 1] Comment addressed. One is a forebay to act as a sedimentation pond before it is routed to SWM pond. 11) Please label each stormwater managemeriL ICIUMLy VVllll Uo UVVII UIIIqUC IIUIIIUCI CIIIU Lytic IUI ICICICIII. Wet swale 1 and wetland 1 were used multiple of times. It will be easier to locate on plans without having to figure out blocks first, then the type of facility. (Revision 1] Comment addressed. 12) For drainage area E2, please provide other measures to treat runoff. Downspout disconnects and tree boxes are not adequate. [Revision 1] Comment not addressed. This area is Phase 6 in my recommendation sheet. The alternative BMP is behind homes and is difficult to access for maintenance. [Revision 2] See Comment 6. 13) There are impacts to traffic with this development. Most of the recommendations from the traffic study have been addressed except for two items. I recommend adding an eastbound right turn lane with 200' storage lane and 200' taper on the second entrance, furthest east, off of Richmond Road. I also recommend the northbound right taper at the intersection of Glenmore Way and first entrance. [Revision 1] Comment not addressed. [Revision 2] Comment addressed. 14) The traffic study does not assume a phased development. I recommend that all entrances shown on the traffic study are constructed and fully operational at the initial phase of the project. [Revision 1] Comment addressed. The first entrance will be constructed in Phase 1. The other entrance off of Rte 250 will be constructed in Phase II. Please contact Michelle Roberge in the Engineering Dept at mroberge(@albemarle.org or 434-296-5832 ext. 3458 for further information.