Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB201400063 Review Comments Preliminary Plat 2014-06-20COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 Project: Fontana — Phase 4C Plan preparer: Terra Engineering and Land Solutions, P.C. Owner or rep.: Fontana Land Trust Plan received date: 6 June 2014 Date of comments: 20 June 2014 Reviewer: Michelle Roberge Engineering has completed the review of application SUB2014 -63. A. Preliminary Subdivision Plat (SUB201400063) 1) Please submit a separate road plan with an application. Please address on road plans the abrupt grade changes near the entrance of Belluno Lane and Brunello Ct. Show a sag curves. The road plans included on this preliminary subdivision plat will be thoroughly reviewed with the road plan application. Comment not addressed. This is a subdivision application. Please submit a road plan application for this project. 2) Please state on plan if roads are public or private. Also, label existing roads as public or private. Comment addressed. 3) The pedestrian paths for Phase 4C are not shown. Please clarify the trail location. The trails should show interconnection with other Fontana phases. Comment not addressed. Please show interconnectivity of trailways to existing Fontana Subdivision. 4) Proffer 5 states that pedestrian paths shall be Class A, Type 1 from the Albemarle County Design Standards Manual. Please show section detail. Comment not addressed. Please show interconnectivity of trailways to existing Fontana Subdivision. H. Trail Standards: Classification Min. surface requirements Nlin. width Design alignment Other design considerations Class A — type 2" asphalt 5' surface 10% maximum Drainage design as 1 low- over 4' longitudinal given below maintenance aggregate grade, 2% pedestrian base maximum cross - path grade 5) Trails should be in common areas, and maintained through neighborhood covenants or private agreements. When not in common areas, all trails are required to have easements which must be a minimum of 10' wide. Comment not addressed. Please show interconnectivity of trailways to existing Fontana Subdivision. 6) Brunello Court is proposed as 24' wide f/c to f /c. Are you proposing parking on one side or no parking at all? Please clarify. Comment partially addressed. Engineering still needs to meet with Planning to discuss road width. 7) It is not clear why Belluno Lane is designed as a rural road with a ditch. The curb and gutter waiver request for Belluno Lane does not appear to have been approved by the Planning Commision or the BOS. Also, the road section on sheet C6.0.0 does not appear to meet VDOT road standards. Please revise to meet VDOT road standards from Appendix B(1) -14. Comment not addressed. This will need to be approved by the Board of Supervisors. 8) Previous comments mentioned that a waterline connection from the existing Ashcroft Subdivision may be necessary to achieve adequate fire flows. Please clarify if this is still the case. Comment addressed and applicant clarified waterline connections. 9) Driveways cannot be sloped greater than 10 %. Please label all the driveway grades to clarify if proffer 2(G) is satisfied. Comment addressed. 10) Please note that the SWM and Drainage calcs will be thoroughly reviewed with a WPO application. An approval of this preliminary plat does not allow you to grade the site. An approved WPO application (E &S and SWM plans), along with posting of bonds will be required prior to obtaining a grading permit. Comment acknowledged by applicant. 11) Please show the approved pedestrian/emergency connector from the Cascadia Subdivision to Fontana 4C. This should match the approved ZMA2004 -18. Comment not addressed. The R/W is shown to property line, but the design needs to be shown to the property line. Please discuss with the Planning Dept. 12) Label the standard VDOT driveway aprons and show the detail. Comment addressed. 13) The critical slopes section in the ordinance has changed. A critical slopes waiver was already approved, but plans should meet Section 30.7.5 Design Standards. This is in conjunction with comment # 17. Comment not fully addressed. Not all slopes are "managed slopes." Please refer to Albemarle GIS to clearly show all "preserved" and "managed slopes on plan. Please note a critical slope waiver has already been approved for this project. 14) Please show SWM easements and access easements on plan. Comment not addressed. Please show the easement around the SWM facilities. A SWM agreement will need to be completed prior to the approval of the SUB application. 15) Some trees on the landscaping plan are in conflict with the stormsewer pipes. Please address. Comment addressed. 16) It appears that the existing rip rap should be removed on final grading plan. Please clarify. Comment addressed. 17) Please address the Final Grading Plan comments to satisfy Proffer 2 : a. There appears to be a significant amount of 2:1 slopes behind lots as backyards. Proffer 2(D) calls for 3:1 slopes. Any slopes steeper than 3:1 up to 2:1 should be the last resort since ground cover will be harder to establish. Comment not addressed. The ZMA condition regarding the slopes was to develop the site with less steep slopes. The plan shows a significant amount of 2:1 slopes. b. It will be difficult to grade and maintain the swales behind lots 19 -27 and lots 14 -18. These swales are too close to decks. This also assumes that homeowners will not regrade their own backyards. There are also areas that do not meet the "inlet for every 3 lot" policy. I recommend showing retaining walls to provide backyards for lots and showing easements for swales along the retaining wall. Comment not addressed. Provide an inlet between lot 22 and lot 109. Also, there was no attempt to address reducing the steep slopes. This is in conjunction with comment 17 a. c. Please note the final grading plan shall be approved by the County Engineer prior to the approval of the first preliminary subdivision plat. Comment acknowledged. d. On Brunello Court, there is a low point near station 14 +50. Please label the elevation on Sheet C4.0.1. It appears this area will need to address relief for lots 23,24, and 31 if inlets are clogged. Comment not fully addressed. Please provide inlets on both sides of road at low spot. e. Clarify stormsewer behind lots 30 -34. There is only one inlet between lots 29 -30. Capture as much of the impervious area into the stormsewer. It appears that a substantial berm may be needed to divert drainage from steep slopes to the SWM facility. Comment not addressed. Applicant has designed the roofs of lot 29 -34 to drain to the stormsewer pipes. Roof drains to stormsewer pipes cannot handle the 10 year storm. Provide a swale to capture more runoff to grate inlets behind lots. £ There is a proposed Swale and berm behind lots 1 -5. It appears grading will be beyond the property line. Please address and obtain permission from adjacent property owners. Comment addressed g. Clarify where runoff for single family dwellings will be diverted for lot 5 -11. Will it be towards front of homes or released in backyards? Comment clarified. New Comment: 18) Please note that the extended detention basin and biofilter is not approved under this application. This will be reviewed with a WPO application. 19) Applicant has the option to use the new runoff reduction method that will be in effect on July 1, 2014. Sincerely, �10- Michelle Roberge