HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201300025 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2014-08-06� 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: Cascadia, blocks 4 -7
Plan preparer: Dominion Engineering, Mike Myers [mmyers @dominioneng.com]
Owner or rep.: Redus VA Housing LLC., Charlie Armstrong [carmstrong@southem-
development.com]
Plan received date: 29 July 2014
Date of comments: 5 Aug 2014
Reviewer: Glenn Brooks, P.E.
The Cascadia plans have received Engineering Review. The Following items will need to be
adequately addressed prior to final approval:
A. Street plan (SUB2013000091)
(A separate road and drainage plan is required if the property is to be bonded for subdivision.)
1. VDOT approval is required. We are awaiting approval from VDOT.
B. Site plan (SDP2013000025)
(A site plan is a record of zoning compliance on the property. It should not include VSMP plans.)
1. All comments appear to be addressed. The stormwater management plan and road plans will need to
be approved before I can recommend approval to planning.
C. Plat (SUB2014000106)
(A plat is a record of property division or reservation. Code Chapter 14)
1. All streets and infrastructure must be approved and bonded prior to plat approval.
2. All easements must match approved stormwater and street plans. Please include all stormwater facility
easements, access, and easements for mitigation areas, per the VSMP plans.
D. VSMP: SWPPP and Pollution Prevention Plan (WP02013000032)
(The Virginia stormwater management program, stormwater pollution prevention plan application and
documents)
1. The swppp does not appear to give operator information.
2. Please provide the DEQ coverage letter.
Please provide a pollution prevention plan. A specific plan was not found in the SWPPP document.
Please consult the EPA guidance and templates in preparing your plan;
http: / /water.epa. goy /polwaste /npdes /stormwater / Stormwater- Pollution- Prevention - Plans -for-
Construction - Activities.cfm
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 3
E. VSMP: SWPPP: Stormwater Management Plan (WPO20130000032)
Regarding the pond;
1. The footing for the gabion basket wall is inadequate. There is no way to key the baskets in a gravel
base of unknown dimensions as shown. A similar wall to this, constructed at Hollymead Town Center
has failed repeatedly. It was undermined by scour and sunk in a soft foundation. The foundation will
depend on the underlying bearing capacity of the soil, and on the scour action from the incoming flow.
It will need to be more substantial, and deep or keyed to rock.
2. A planting plan for the aquatic bench was not found.
3. The computation package contains only routings and drawdown. Please provide water quality checks
for volume according to standard spec. 3.06, and pool depth zones per 3.06 -2.
4. All details and sections must be drawn to scale, including the dam and structures.
5. Show vehicle access to all facilities with easements. Include easement to pond 1 from Delphi or an
internal road. Include access to the biofilters and water quality swale.
Regarding the biofilters;
6. The biofilters are too small. Provide sizing to 4% of impervious areas, allowing some small increase
for upstream 2:1 slopes and compacted soils. I get approximately 1000sf for biofilter 1, and 550sf for
biofilter 2.
7. Provide sections of the dams. Each needs an impervious core, minimum top embankment width of 8ft,
and the downstream slope needs to be 3:1 or flatter.
8. Computations need to be provided for the 10year and 100yr storm to ensure operation of spillways.
9. The dimension appear incorrect in the spillway. With a bottom width of 5' and sides slopes of 2:1, a
1' depth requires 9' total width. The dimension downstream beyond the dam would be different.
10. It is not possible to achieve a 1' facility ponding depth with a rip -rap channel spillway. The rip -rap is
going to be deeper than that, and irregular enough to negate any computation. Revise the spillway
liner, remove the bio- filter schematic, and provide an accurate depiction of the facility.
11. Continue the underdrains beyond the center of the facility, and provide actual planting plans. Remove
the generic schematic and provide an accurate depiction.
Regarding the water quality Swale:
12. Provide accurate details for the water quality swale. Show soil mixture, underdrain, minimum bottom
width, maximum slope, side slopes and top width.
13. Provide computations to show hydraulic adequacy per standard spec. 3.13.
14. Detail proper check dams per standard spec. 3.13, with spacing planned according to the planned
slope. Show proper dimensions of check dams to ensure flow over the center. The detail provided is
incorrect in every aspect.
15. Standard spec. 3.13 requires 3:1 or flatter side slopes.
16. Provide a better, to scale and dimensioned, detail of the channel transition, pipe under the access road,
stilling basin, and level spreader at the end of the water quality swale.
F. VSMP: SWPPP: Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (WPO2013000032)
1. The erosion and sediment control plan is approved. Comments have been addressed.
G. Mitigation Plan (WPO2013000032)
(A mitigation plan is a plan of buffer disturbances, and replanting or restorative measures)
1. The mitigation plan is approved. Buffers and easements for mitigation areas will need to be shown on
final plats.
H. Bond Estimate Request for VSMP plans (WPO2013000032)
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 3
L The bond estimate request will be processed when all VSMP plans are approved.
File: E1_rp,fsp,fpt,vsmp_GEB _ template.doc
Megan Yaniglos
From: Alex Morrison [ amorrison @serviceauthority.org]
Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2014 8:48 AM
To: Megan Yaniglos
Cc: mmyers @dominioneng.com
Subject: Cascadia SDP and Road Plan
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Megan,
I am in receipt of the Cascadia Final Site plan which is labeled "Road Plan." The ACSA has completed the review of the
utility construction drawings for the site plan labeled "Cascadia Blocks 4 -7" and has granted utility construction
approval. I hereby recommend approval of SDP2013025. I also hereby recommend approval of the Cascadia Blocks 4 -7
Road Plans. Please forward my approval to the appropriate staff in county engineering. I have copied the applicants'
engineer as well.
Let me know if you have any questions or comments. Thank you.
Alexander J. Morrison, EIT
Civil Engineer
Albemarle County Service Authority
168 Spotnap Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22911
(0) 434 - 977 -4511 Ext. 116
(F) 434 - 979 -0698
Like the ACSA on Facebook at www.facebook.com /acsaconnect
'o - le�L�i�• e'`�t
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper, Virginia 22701
Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E.
Commissioner
May 30, 2014
Ms. Megan Yaniglos
Senior Planner
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: SDP - 2013 -00025 Cascadia
Dear Ms. Yaniglos:
We have reviewed the final site plan for Cascadia, Blocks 4 7 dated 4.!20113 with revisions dated
11/27/13 and 414114 as submitted by Dominion Engineering and offer the following comments:
1. The storm sewer profile for structure 12A to 12 indicates that the pipe length is 1'. This typo
should be corrected.
2. It appears that storm structures 63 and 63A could be lowered so that they are installed in existing
soil.
3. The full flow capacity of lines 87 through 101 has not been included in the storm sewer
calculation table.
4. Several of the storm sewer pipes appear to be near capacity. HGL calculations need to be
provided to verify that there is not a risk of overflowing the drop inlets during a 10 -year storm
event.
5. Street trees should be located at least 30 feet from the end of radius at each intersection in
accordance with Appendix B(1) of the Road Design Manual. The trees at the intersection of
Delphi Drive and Fontana Drive and at the intersection of Delphi Drive and Delphi Lane appear
to be located too close to the intersection.
6. There appears to be a conflict between a street tree and storm structure 7B.
7. There appears to be a street tree at the intersection of Flat Water Lane and Delphi Lane that is
within 30 feet of the end of radius.
If you need additional information concerning this project, please feel free to contact me at
(434) 589 -5871.
Sincerely,
Troy Austin, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Culpeper District
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
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:
Plan preparer:
Owner or rep.:
Plan received date:
Date of comments:
Reviewer:
Review coordinator:
Cascadia Blocks 4 -7 — Final
Dominion Engineering
Redus VA Housing LLC
16 Apr 2014
12 May 2014
Michelle Roberge
Megan Yaniglos
SDP201300025
[fax 434 - 979 -1681]
Engineering has completed the review of SDP201300025. Please address the following comments.
A. Application Information
I) Owner is required to provide a completed copy of the standard stormwater
maintenance agreement and fee for recordation for any stormwater management
facilities.
[Revision 1] Acknowledged by applicant.
2) Please submit a separate set of road plans including proposed drainage and
profiles for all proposed public and private roads. This submittal appears to include
road plan elements; however a standalone application and fee is required for road plan
review.
[Revision 1] Partially addressed. Please remove all road plans from the site plan.
[Revision 21 Please remove all road plans from the site plan.
3) Per ZMA2002 -0004 proffer #5, 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.
[Revision 1] Not addressed. The overlot grading plan has to be included in the site
plan or subdivision plan and not the WPO plan.
[Revision 21 Comment addressed. Overlot grading is shown on sheets SP -6 to
SP12.
4) Prior to final plat approval:
water protection ordinance — erosion and sediment control and stormwater
management and
subdivision — road and sewer
bonds must be calculated by the county (sewer bond is calculated by ACSA) and
paid by owner after receipt of a Bond Request Form from owner.
[Revision 11 Acknowledged by applicant.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 5
B. Proposed Plan View Information
1) Please label all existing and proposed contour elevations including those shown
on detail 1 on sheet SP8 as well as for proposed lots 79 -84 on sheet SP8.
[Revision 11 Comment addressed.
2) Please specify by area in landscape plan low maintenance ground cover for all
proposed slopes steeper than 2:1. Please also note requirements of Proffer 5 from
ZMA2002 -00004 for low maintenance plantings.
[Revision 11 Partially addressed. Landscaping plans do not specify the type of
plantings in 2:1 slope area outside the conservation area. Please specify.
[Revision 21 The groundcover has been specified on SP34. However, the note on
the plans for location of plantings has been removed.
3) Please label all entrance and intersection radii including the corner of Glissade
Lane and Delphi Lane on sheet SP 10.
[Revision 1] Comment addressed.
4) Please label all proposed drainage easements including the proposed easement for
pipe out of proposed structure 7C crossing proposed lot 1 on sheet SP6.
[Revision 1] Comment addressed.
5) Proposed drainage easement for pipe out of proposed structure 7E crossing
proposed lot 4 on sheet SP7 appears to be 10' wide. Please propose a minimum width
of 20' for all proposed drainage easements.
[Revision 1] Comment addressed. Per meeting, 10' wide easements will suffice for
privately owned and maintained drainage systems.
6) Please confirm proposed parking lot curb type (appears to be CG -2) on sheet SP7.
[Revision 1] Comment addressed. CG -6 is proposed.
7) Please widen sidewalk in front of proposed neighborhood center from 5' to 6' or
provide bumper blocks for adjacent parking spaces on sheet SP7.
[Revision 1] Comment addressed. Sidewalk is 6'.
8) Please include stationing for all proposed public streets at minimum 50' intervals.
[Revision 1] Comment not addressed. 50' stations can be clearly marked on plans
to satisfy this comment. The road plans should be separated from the site plan.
Include the subdivision overview sheet in road plan.
[Revision 2] Comment addressed.
9) Please label all PCs and PTs for all proposed public streets.
[Revision 1] Comment addressed. This should be included in the separated road
plan set.
10) Please label the maximum (not average) height for each proposed retaining wall.
[Revision 11 This is addressed, but there is a concern there will disturbance of
TMP78E -H. Please provide actual retaining wall design with safety fence.
[Revision 21 The applicant has increased the distance of walls to the adjacent
property line to equal the maximum height of the wall. The only thing left to
address is to show the safety fence railing detail.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 5
11) A retaining wall appears to be shown on sheets SP6 and SP 10. Please label all
retaining walls on all sheets on which they appear.
[Revision 11 This is addressed, but there is a concern there will disturbance of
TMP78E -H. Please provide actual retaining wall design with safety fence.
[Revision 21 The applicant has increased the distance of walls to the adjacent
property line to equal the maximum height of the wall. The only thing left to
address is to show the safety fence railing detail.
12) Sheet SP38 appears to be part of the landscape plan. Please update sheet name.
[Revision 1] Comment addressed.
13) From our meeting, we discussed capturing more runoff behind lots along Glissade
Lane, Delphi Lane, and Boulder Hill Lane. Please address.
[Revision 2] This will be reviewed with the WPO.
C. Plan Detail Information
1) Please specify 3000 psi strength requirement and 4" stone base for all proposed
sidewalks on road typical sections.
[Revision 1] Comment addressed.
2) Please provide a typical retaining wall detail for each proposed retaining wall.
Please note per code of development p. 24, retaining walls visible from the street or
other public areas (which include both proposed retaining walls as designed) shall be of
a higher material quality and shall be compatible with the adjacent building architecture
materials and/or colors.
[Revision 1] Comment partially addressed. Please show the safety fence railing
detail.
[Revision 2] Comment not addressed. Please show the safety fence railing detail.
D. Drainage Profiles
1) The following structures appear in plan view but appear to be missing in profile
view: 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, and 44A. Please include drainage profiles for all
proposed drainage structures.
[Revision 1] Comment addressed.
2) Please label existing ground and proposed ground elevation lines on all drainage
profiles including profiles for two proposed drainage structures.
[Revision 1] Comment addressed.
3) The following pipe runs appear to have utility conflicts as indicated in plan view
(w = water line, s = sanitary sewer line) but the conflicting utility pipes appear to be
missing in profile view: 2 -3(w), 2 -3(s), 34(s), 10- 1l(s), 14- 15(s), 15- 16(w), 22- 23(s),
23- 24(w), 24- 25(w), 44- 44A(w). Please include all utility conflicts for all proposed
drainage structures in profile view.
[Revision 11 Comment addressed.
4) Station for structure 49 appears to be missing. Recommend including this station
Engineering Review Comments
Page 4 of 5
with drainage profile on sheet SP29.
[Revision 1] Comment addressed.
5) The following pipe run appears to have a slope > 16 %: 6213 -62C. Please include
anchor blocks for all proposed pipe runs with slopes > 16 %.
[Revision 1] Comment addressed.
6) Please prescribe by note or on the profile that concrete Inlet Shaping (IS -1) shall
be included for all proposed drainage structures with a 4' or greater drop.
[Revision 1] Comment addressed.
7) Please prescribe by note or on the profile that Safety Slabs (SL -1) shall be
included for all proposed drainage structures taller than 12'.
[Revision 1] Comment addressed.
8) Please include scour protection for all outlets in profile view, corresponding to
computations and protection shown in plan view.
[Revision 1] Comment addressed.
E. Drainage Computations
1) Due to overwhelming VDOT comments, it is assumed the drainage will be re-
worked for this project at resubmittal. Conceptual review includes the following
missing items which county engineering will be looking for at resubmittal:
a) Please ensure principal access (proposed structures 66 & 67) is free from flooding
during a 100 year storm event.
[Revision 1] Comment addressed. Per sheet SP31, there is an analysis for the
25 year storm, but the response letter states a 10 year storm. Please clarify if
response letter is incorrectly stating 10 yr.
[Revision 21 Comment addressed.
b) Spread for all inlets need to be checked for 4 in /hr intensity per VDOT Drainage
Manual Table 9 -1.
[Revision 11 Comment addressed.
c) Inlet efficiency needs to be checked for 6.5 in/hr per note 4 attached to VDOT
Drainage Manual Table 9 -1.
[Revision 1] Comment not addressed. Please check for DI 4, 4A, 66 and 67.
Also, 4A is bypassing runoff, which should be taken into account when
analyzing DI 67. The efficiency /capture should be increased for DI 67.
[Revision 21 Add the 6.5 in /hr check storm analysis to the final site plan. Also,
please add another inlet right before 4A. The idea is to capture 100% by the time
it gets to 4A and to direct that runoff to the proposed pond and not to the
existing pond.
d) Pipe capacities for proposed enclosed drainage (including proposed yard drains
which feed into street trunkline systems) need to be checked for a 10 -year storm
event at duration equivalent to time of concentration (this appears to be included for
Engineering Review Comments
Page 5 of 5
currently proposed system on sheet SP31 pending comment F 1 e below).
[Revision 1] Comment addressed.
e) Please include time of concentration of drainage area maps shown on sheets SP32
& SP33 (this information appears to be on calculations shown on sheet SP31A).
[Revision 1] Comment addressed.
Current Development Engineering is available from 2:30 -4:00 PM on Thursdays to discuss these review
comments. Please contact Michelle Roberge at 434 - 296 -5832 ext. 3458 or email mrobergegalbemarle.or�
to schedule an appointment.
Review Comments
Project Name: Cascadia - Final Final Site Development Plan
Date Completed: ITLIesday. May 05. 2014
Revievier: Margaret Maliszewski
Department'DivisioWAgency: pARB
Reviews Comments:
1_ Afence detail was requested; a photo was added to the plan_ Please supplement the photo with a traditional detail
drawing that specifies height, sizes, material and color.
2_ An increase in the number of shrub species was requested so that no single shrub species exceeds 25% of the total
number of shrubs proposed for the site_ Abelia, Boxwood, Forsythia, Winter jasmine, and Viburnum are proposed for a
total of 284 shrubs_ 25% of that total is 71 shrubs. The 84 Abelia exceed 26% of the total- Please revise the plan so that
no single shrub species exceeds 25% of the total number of shrubs proposed for the site_
I Clarify on the plan the reason for the two different plant schedules shown on sheet 34 and sheet 35e The plant sizes on
Sheet 34 cannot be approved for the ARB_
Review status: Requested Changes I ' I
Page: 1 Count of A.1bemarle Cn: 412T2015
Review Comments
Project Name: Cascadia - Final Final Site Development Plan F-I
Date Completed: ITLIesday. February 11. 2014
Reviewer: unassigned engineer F-I
D e p a rtm e nt'D ivi s i o W.Ag e n cy: Engineering F-I
Reviews Comments:
Review Status: Pending F-I
Page: 1 Count of A.1 b e m a rl e C n: F4,' 2 T 2 0-15
Review Comments
Project Name: Cascadia - Final Final Site Development Plan
Date Completed: a Monday, December 09, 2013
Revievrer: Margaret Malisz rski
Department' "Divi9ion Agenc : ARB
Reviews Comments:
ARB approval is required prior to final site
plan approval., When a revised ARB application is received, the proposal will be
scheduled for review.
Review Status:
Requested Changes
n
Rage: 1 Count of A.1bemarle Cn: 4!21!2015
Review Comments
Project Name: Cascadia - Final Final Site Development Plan
Date Completed: lWednesday, September 18: 2013
Revievrer: Megan Yaniglos
Department, "Divi9ion1.Agenc ,: Planning
Reviews Comments:
variations- going to the BOS Oct 2nd
Review status: See Recommendations F-]
I
Rage: 11 Count of Albemarle Cn: 4!21!2015
Review Comments
Project Name: Cascadia - Final Final Site Development Plan
Date Completed: Monday: May 13: 2013
Reviewer: Margaret Maliszewski a
D e p a rtm e nt'D ivi s i o WAg e n cy: ARB
Reviews Comments:
Parcels 62 -25, 78 -59, and 78E -H1 fall within the Route 20 Entrance Corridor. Proposed development on these parcels is
subject to ARB review /approval, with the exception of single family residences_
Parcel 78 -59A does not lie within the Entrance Corridor overlay districts Proposed development on this parcel does not
require ARB rev�iew /approval_
For those areas subject to ARB review!approval, ARB approval is required prior to final site plan approval. ARB
applications, checklists and guidelines are available on -line at v9ww.albemarle.org ?ARB.
When an ARB application is made, it would be helpful to include a plan that overlays the parcel lines on the block plan for
easier identification of areas subject to review.
Review Status: Requested Changes I ' I
Rage: 1 County of Albemarle On: 1412T2015
Review Comments
Project Name: Cascadia - Final Final Site Development Plan
Date Completed: Sunday, may 175, 21713
Rey ievrer: Shawn Madtiox
Department, "Divi9ion1.Agenc ,: Fire Rescue
Reviews Comments:
Please verify via email or in }xriting that the cul -de -sac on Boulder Hill Lane is marked no parking due to not meeting the
mi[IimLim size requirements Other ise Fire Rescue has no objections to the plans dated 4!"20!"13
Review Status:
No Objection
Page: 1 Counts of A.1bemarle
Cn: 4J21J2015
Review Comments
Project Name: Cascadia - Final Final Site Development Plan
Date Completed: Y Monday, April 29, 2013
Revievrer: Andrew Slack
Departments "Di vi9ionl.Agenc ': E911
Reviews Comments:
Review Status: Approved I ' I
Rage: 11 County of Albemarle !On: 4121!2015
Review Comments
Project Name: Cascadia - Final Final Site Development Plan
Date Completed: lWednesday, April 24. 2013
Revie),ver: Jay Schlothauer
D e p a rtm e nt,D i vi 9 i o n.1.Ag e n cy: Inspections 7
Reviews Comments:
Review Status: No Objection I - I
Page: 1 County of Albemarle On: 14121V2015
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:
Plan preparer:
Owner or rep.:
Plan received date:
Date of comments:
Reviewer:
Review coordinator:
Cascadia Blocks 4 -7 — Final
Dominion Engineering
Redus VA Housing LLC
11 Feb 2014
26 Feb 2014
Michelle Roberge
Megan Yaniglos
SDP201300025
[fax 434 - 979 -1681]
Engineering has completed the review of SDP201300025. Please address the following comments.
A. Application Information
1) Owner is required to provide a completed copy of the standard stormwater
maintenance agreement and fee for recordation for any stormwater management
facilities.
[Revision 1] Acknowledged by applicant.
2) Please submit a separate set of road plans including proposed drainage and
profiles for all proposed public and private roads. This submittal appears to include
road plan elements; however a standalone application and fee is required for road plan
review.
[Revision 1] Partially addressed. Please remove all road plans from the site plan.
3) Per ZMA2002 -0004 proffer #5, 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.
[Revision 1] Not addressed. The overlot grading plan has to be included in the site
plan or subdivision plan and not the WPO plan.
4) Prior to final plat approval:
water protection ordinance — erosion and sediment control and stormwater
management and
subdivision — road and sewer
bonds must be calculated by the county (sewer bond is calculated by ACSA) and
paid by owner after receipt of a Bond Request Form from owner.
[Revision 11 Acknowledged by applicant.
B. Proposed Plan View Information
1) Please label all existing and proposed contour elevations including those shown
on detail 1 on sheet SP8 as well as for proposed lots 79 -84 on sheet SP8.
[Revision 1] Comment addressed.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 4
2) Please specify by area in landscape plan low maintenance ground cover for all
proposed slopes steeper than 2:1. Please also note requirements of Proffer 5 from
ZMA2002 -00004 for low maintenance plantings.
[Revision 11 Partially addressed. Landscaping plans do not specify the type of
plantings in 2:1 slope area outside the conservation area. Please specify.
3) Please label all entrance and intersection radii including the corner of Glissade
Lane and Delphi Lane on sheet SP 10.
[Revision 1] Comment addressed.
4) Please label all proposed drainage easements including the proposed easement for
pipe out of proposed structure 7C crossing proposed lot 1 on sheet SP6.
[Revision 1] Comment addressed.
5) Proposed drainage easement for pipe out of proposed structure 7E crossing
proposed lot 4 on sheet SP7 appears to be 10' wide. Please propose a minimum width
of 20' for all proposed drainage easements.
[Revision 1] Comment addressed. Per meeting, 10' wide easements will suffice for
privately owned and maintained drainage systems.
6) Please confirm proposed parking lot curb type (appears to be CG -2) on sheet SP7.
[Revision 1] Comment addressed. CG -6 is proposed.
7) Please widen sidewalk in front of proposed neighborhood center from 5' to 6' or
provide bumper blocks for adjacent parking spaces on sheet SP7.
[Revision 1] Comment addressed. Sidewalk is 6'.
8) Please include stationing for all proposed public streets at minimum 50' intervals.
[Revision 1] Comment not addressed. 50' stations can be clearly marked on plans
to satisfy this comment. The road plans should be separated from the site plan.
Include the subdivision overview sheet in road plan.
9) Please label all PCs and PTs for all proposed public streets.
[Revision 1] Comment addressed. This should be included in the separated road
plan set.
10) Please label the maximum (not average) height for each proposed retaining wall.
[Revision 11 This is addressed, but there is a concern there will disturbance of
TMP78E -H. Please provide actual retaining wall design with safety fence.
11) A retaining wall appears to be shown on sheets SP6 and SP 10. Please label all
retaining walls on all sheets on which they appear.
[Revision 11 This is addressed, but there is a concern there will disturbance of
TMP78E -H. Please provide actual retaining wall design with safety fence.
12) Sheet SP38 appears to be part of the landscape plan. Please update sheet name.
[Revision 11 Comment addressed.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 4
New Comment
13) From our meeting, we discussed capturing more runoff behind lots along
Glissade Lane, Delphi Lane, and Boulder Hill Lane. Please address.
C. Plan Detail Information
1) Please specify 3000 psi strength requirement and 4" stone base for all proposed
sidewalks on road typical sections.
[Revision 11 Comment addressed.
2) Please provide a typical retaining wall detail for each proposed retaining wall.
Please note per code of development p. 24, retaining walls visible from the street or
other public areas (which include both proposed retaining walls as designed) shall be of
a higher material quality and shall be compatible with the adjacent building architecture
materials and/or colors.
[Revision 1] Comment partially addressed. Please provide actual retaining wall
design with safety fence.
D. Drainage Profiles
1) The following structures appear in plan view but appear to be missing in profile
view: 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, and 44A. Please include drainage profiles for all
proposed drainage structures.
[Revision 1] Comment addressed.
2) Please label existing ground and proposed ground elevation lines on all drainage
profiles including profiles for two proposed drainage structures.
[Revision 1] Comment addressed.
3) The following pipe runs appear to have utility conflicts as indicated in plan view
(w = water line, s = sanitary sewer line) but the conflicting utility pipes appear to be
missing in profile view: 2 -3(w), 2 -3(s), 34(s), 10- 11(s), 14- 15(s), 15- 16(w), 22- 23(s),
23- 24(w), 24- 25(w), 44- 44A(w). Please include all utility conflicts for all proposed
drainage structures in profile view.
[Revision 1] Comment addressed.
4) Station for structure 49 appears to be missing. Recommend including this station
with drainage profile on sheet SP29.
[Revision 1] Comment addressed.
5) The following pipe run appears to have a slope > 16 %: 6213-62C. Please include
anchor blocks for all proposed pipe runs with slopes > 16 %.
[Revision 11 Comment addressed.
6) Please prescribe by note or on the profile that concrete Inlet Shaping (IS -1) shall
be included for all proposed drainage structures with a 4' or greater drop.
[Revision 11 Comment addressed.
7) Please prescribe by note or on the profile that Safety Slabs (SL -1) shall be
included for all proposed drainage structures taller than 12'.
[Revision 11 Comment addressed.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 4 of 4
8) Please include scour protection for all outlets in profile view, corresponding to
computations and protection shown in plan view.
[Revision 1] Comment addressed.
E. Drainage Computations
1) Due to overwhelming VDOT comments, it is assumed the drainage will be re-
worked for this project at resubmittal. Conceptual review includes the following
missing items which county engineering will be looking for at resubmittal:
a) Please ensure principal access (proposed structures 66 & 67) is free from flooding
during a 100 year storm event.
[Revision 1] Comment addressed. Per sheet SP31, there is an analysis for the
25 year storm, but the response letter states a 10 year storm. Please clarify if
response letter is incorrectly stating 10 yr.
b) Spread for all inlets need to be checked for 4 in/hr intensity per VDOT Drainage
Manual Table 9 -1.
[Revision 1] Comment addressed.
c) Inlet efficiency needs to be checked for 6.5 in/hr per note 4 attached to VDOT
Drainage Manual Table 9 -1.
[Revision 1] Comment not addressed. Please check for DI 4, 4A, 66 and 67.
Also, 4A is bypassing runoff, which should be taken into account when
analyzing DI 67. The efficiency /capture should be increased for DI 67.
d) Pipe capacities for proposed enclosed drainage (including proposed yard drains
which feed into street trunkline systems) need to be checked for a 10 -year storm
event at duration equivalent to time of concentration (this appears to be included for
currently proposed system on sheet SP31 pending comment F 1 e below).
[Revision 1] Comment addressed.
e) Please include time of concentration of drainage area maps shown on sheets SP32
& SP33 (this information appears to be on calculations shown on sheet SP31A).
[Revision 1] Comment addressed.
Current Development Engineering is available from 2:30 -4:00 PM on Thursdays to discuss these review
comments. Please contact Michelle Roberge at 434 - 296 -5832 ext. 3458 or email mrobergeC&albemarle.org
to schedule an appointment.
o� .arm
LrFiGil�t',
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
February 7, 2014
Michael Myers, P.E. - Dominion Engineering
172 S. Pantops Dr.
Charlottesville, Va 22911
RE: ARB- 2013 -186: Cascadia Blocks 4 -7
TMP 06200000002500, 07800000005900, 078000000059A0, 078E0000000
Dear Mr. Myers:
The Albemarle County Architectural Review Board reviewed the above noted item at its meeting on Monday,
February 3, 2014. The Board, by a vote of 5:0, approved the request, pending staff administrative approval of
the following conditions:
1. Add the standard mechanical equipment note to the site and architectural plans: "Visibility of all
mechanical equipment from the Entrance Corridor shall be eliminated."
2. Revise the landscape schedule to show that at least 27 of the large shade trees along the EC will be
planted at 3'/2" caliper.
3. Clearly identify the location and length of the board fence on the plans. Provide a fence detail in the
plans.
4. Add the plant labels to the plant schedule.
5. Include the VR shrub in the plant schedule.
6. Revise the plant schedule to show shrubs along the EC at 24" minimum.
7. Consider a greater proportion of evergreen trees in the mix of plants along the EC frontage.
8. Revise the plant schedule to show interior road trees at 2'/2" caliper minimum.
9. Provide landscape plans with plant labels.
10. Add the standard plant note to the plan: "All site plantings of trees and shrubs shall be allowed to
reach, and be maintained at, mature height; the topping of trees is prohibited. Shrubs and trees shall
be pruned minimally and only to support the overall health of the plant."
11. Increase the number of shrub species so that no single shrub species exceeds 25% of the total number of
shrubs proposed for the site.
12. Round contours with a ten foot minimum radius where they meet the adjacent condition.
Please provide:
1. Two full sets of revised drawings addressing each of these conditions. Include updated ARB revision
dates on each drawing.
2. A memo including detailed responses indicating how each condition has been satisfied. If changes
other than those requested have been made, identify those changes in the memo also. Highlighting
the changes in the drawing with "clouding" or by other means will facilitate review and approval.
3. The attached "Revised Application Submittal" form. This form must be returned with your revisions to
ensure proper tracking and distribution.
When staff's review of this information indicates that all conditions of approval have been met, a Certificate of
Appropriateness may be issued.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Margaret Maliszewski
Principal Planner
Cc: Cascadia Development LLC
170 South Pantops Dr
Charlottesville Va 22911
File
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
REVISED APPLICATION SUBMITTAL
This form must be returned with your revisions to ensure proper tracking and distribution. County staff
has indicated below what they think will be required as a resubmission of revisions. If you need to submit
additional information please explain on this form for the benefit of the intake staff. All plans must be
collated and folded to fit into legal size files, in order to be accepted for submittal.
TO: Margaret Maliszewski DATE:
PROJECT NAME: ARB- 2013 -186: Cascadia Blocks 4 -7
Submittal Type Requiring Revisions ( ) indicates submittal Code
County Project Number
# Copies
Erosion & Sediment Control Plan (E &S)
# Copies
Distribute To:
Mitigation Plan (MP)
2
Margaret Maliszewski
Waiver Request (WR)
Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP)
Road Plan (RP)
Private Road Request, with private /public comparison (PRR)
Private Road Request Development Area (PRR -DA)
Preliminary Site Plan PSP
Final Site Plan (or amendment) (FSP)
Final Plat FP
Preliminary Plat (PP)
Easement Plat EP
Boundary Adjustment Plat (BAP)
Rezoning Plan (REZ
Special Use Permit Concept Plan (SP -CP)
Reduced Concept Plan (R -CP)
Proffers (P)
Bond Estimate Request (BER)
Draft Groundwater Management Plan (D -GWMP)
Final Groundwater Management Plan (F -GWMP)
Aquifer Testing Work Plan (ATWP)
Groundwater Assessment Report (GWAR)
Architectural Review Board (ARB)
ARB2013 -186
Other: Please explain
(For staff use only)
Submittal Code
# Copies
Distribute To:
Submittal Code
# Copies
Distribute To:
ARB
2
Margaret Maliszewski
OS'' ALr�7
� IRGS*1LP
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Mike Myers
From: Megan Yaniglos- Senior Planner
Division: Planning Services
Date: May 17, 2013
Rev1: January 22, 2014
Subject: SDP2013 -025 Cascadia- Final Site Plan
The Planner for the Planning Services Division of the Albemarle County Department Community
Development will recommend approve 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.) [Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference to the Albemarle
County Code.]
1. [32.7.9.4(c)] Provide the general type of trees within the wooded area.
Deciduous /evergreen /mix?
Rev1: Comment addressed
2. [32.7.9.7(c)] Lot street shrubs are required between the street and parking lot at the
community center since the parking lot is located such that parked cars will be visible
from the public street. Provide a row of shrubs five feet on center.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
3. [Code of Development; page 18] Provide a typical lot layout with plantings required for
each lot width as shown in the chart in the COD.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
4. [Code of Development; page 17] The unit types being shown do not meet the
Architectural and Fagade Treatment requirements. All garages must be recessed more
than three feet from the face of the building on a single family dwelling where the
garage is facing the street. Revise to meet the requirement.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
5. [Code of Development; page 17] Lot 103, which was shown as open space in the
preliminary plan, is now a single family dwelling. The garage for this dwelling must have
access off of the alley in the rear of the lot.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
6. [Code of Development; page 16] Some of the lots may not meet the requirement of the
build to range when the garage is setback per comment #4. Lot 33 is an example. 50% of
a structure's fagade shall be built within eighteen inches of either side of the build to
line within that Building Block. Check all lots to be certain that this requirement is met.
7. [Code of Development; page 14] Show all of the greenway on the plans. Sheet SP9 does
not show the whole trail. The trail should extend down behind lots 60 -67.
Rev1: The trail cannot be within the preservation area. Preservation area is defined as:
"An area identified on a plan submitted for approval which contains natural
features such as non -tidal wetlands, floodplain, streams and stream buffers that are
to be preserved in a natural state and not be developed with any manmade feature."
Revise so that trail is outside of preservation area, as shown on the application plan.
8. [Code of Development; page 13] Show the landscaping in accord with the Architectural
Review Board plan for the Entry Park.
Rev1: The plan that was provided is going to the architectural review board on
February 3rd, the decision made at the Board will be the recommendation for the Entry
Park.
9. [Code of Development; page 14] Provide a tot lot in one of the Hill District Parks (Oval or
Summit)
Rev1: Provide the square footage of the tot lot on the plan.
10. [Code of Development; page 20] Streetscapes along greenspace /amenity areas shall be
designed by a landscape architect. Provide an affidavit or have a landscape architect seal
the landscape plans for these areas.
Rev1: Comment addressed. Landscape Architect will need to sign the seal before the
plans are signed by the County.
11. [Code of Development; page 13] One of the Hill district parks should have a plaza space
with a minimum of two permanent benches and walls outlining the plaza.
Rev1: Comment addressed
12. [Code of Development; page14] Provide the Amen ity / Greenspace chart that was in the
preliminary plans on the final plans. Update as necessary to reflect actual acreage /area
of provided greenspace areas.
Rev1: The amenity language needs to match the Code of Development chart language.
Also, the amount of area approved with the Code of Development and what is being
provided do not match. I have turned this over to the Zoning Administrator for an
interpretation on what needs to be provided, as the chart is not clear.
13. [Code of Developme —, page 191 Whe � street tr... a � IIUL N, �vided in landscape strip
due to utilities, easements, site distance etc, they must be provided on the lots as close
to the street as possible.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
14. [Code of Development; page 24] All 2:1 slopes must be landscaped
Rev1: Comment addressed.
15. [Code of Development; page 24] Provide a tree protection plan using measure
consistent with the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook for land disturbing
activity in the Conservation Areas or when disturbance activity is adjacent to
Preservation Areas.
Rev' • r^mment addressed.
16. [Code of Development; page 241 Landscaping needs to be provided at the base and /or
top of walls to integrate these structures into the site and reduce their massing.
Rev1: Provide landscaping along the top of the proposed wall that is located in the 30'
buffer close to Fontana. The landscaping should include evergreen trees and /or
shrubs.
17. [Code of Development; page 24] Walls over 6 -feet tall from the top of the wall to the
top of the footer shall be allowed only at the discretion of the Director of Community
Development. Provide information concerning the materials and construction of these
walls, including details. Also, show the width accurately, as some modular walls are
wider than what is shown on the plans.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
18. [Proffer #1] Provide Affordable housing information on the plans. A minimum of 15%
affordable housing is required. Label the lots as well as provide a chart for tracking
purposes.
Rev1: Comment addressed
Please contact Megan Yaniglos at the Department of Community Development 296 -5832 ext.
3004 for further information.
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper, Virginia 22701 -3819
Gregory A. Whirley
Commissioner of Highways
December 19, 2013
Ms. Megan Yaniglos
Senior Planner
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: SDP - 2013 -00025 Cacadia —Final Site Plan
Dear Ms. Yaniglos:
We have reviewed the Final Site Development Plan for Cascadia, Blocks 4 -7 dated 4120113 with
revisions dated 11/27/13 as submitted by Dominion Engineering and offer the following
comments:
General Comments
1. All storm sewer lines need to maintain at least a 90° angle between each sewer line
segment. Sections in particular that need to be looked at are as follows:
a. Structure 3 — Structure 2 — Outlet
b. Structure 7B — Structure 7A — Structure 7
c. Structure 37A -- Structure 37 — Structure 36
d. Structure 21 — Structure 20 — Structure 19
e. Structure 27 — Structure 28 — Structure 29
f. Structure 32A — Structure 32 — Structure 31
g. Structure 35— Structure 34— Structure 33
2. There needs to be a noted added to the storm sewer profiles indicating that ST -1 steps
will be required in all structures with a 4' or greater depth.
3. A note needs to be added to the storm sewer profiles in areas that the storm sewer
structure is located within fill indicating that "Contractor shall place fill under inlet(s) at
95% compaction & embankment material shall consist predominantly of soil & be placed
in successive uniform layers not more than 8" in thickness before compaction in
accordance wl VDOT 2007 Road & Bridge Specification 303.04. After 3' vertical
placement of fill, contractor shall excavate recently laid fill and install compacted VDOT
std. 21A stone in an 8'x8' o.c. compacted 21A area centered on the inlet(s). Contractor
shall repeat this operation until an 8'x8' o.c. compacted 21A stone base in installed
between the existing ground and the proposed inlet(s) base in efforts to reduce the risk of
settling. Contractor shall provide VDOT wl fill compaction results prior to road
acceptance."
4. Several of the street trees are located too close to the intersections. Street trees should be
offset from the intersections in accordance with Appendix B(1) of the Road Design
Manual.
5. There are several inlets that are located just over the minimum of 2' from proposed
entrances. Typically, we like to see approximately 4' of separation to provide better
clearance of the inlets. When inlets are located at the end of the radius of new entrances,
there is a risk for vehicles to hit/run over the inlet as they turn into the entrance. This
creates to the potential of damaging the inlet and/or the vehicle.
Sheet 3 of 47
1. Several of the typical sections call for IM -19 placed between the aggregate sub -base and
the surface course. IM -19 is typically used as an intermediate course between a base
mix, such as BM -25, and a surface mix such as SM -9.5. The preference would be that
the IM -19 courses shown be replaced with BM -25. If the applicant would prefer to not
do this, we need a justification for using the IM -19.
2. The pavement design should consider future trips that are likely to occur as Cascadia
develops beyond the limits of this submittal. Glissade Lane in particular should be
looked at.
Sheet 21 of 47
1. Structures 48 and 54 need to be located outside of the right -of -way for Flat Waters Lane,
similar to the location of Structure 57. The previous review comment was referencing
the fact that private structures were shown in the right -of -way more so than the fact that
they were Nyloplast.
Sheet 26 of 47
1. The inlet information for Structure 4 does not match the inlet information for Structure 4
as shown on a profile on Sheet 27 of 47.
Sheet 29 of 47
1. All storm sewer upstream from Structure 47 will be privately owned and maintained and
should be reflected as such on the profiles.
2. Structures 63 and 64 do not meet the minimum depth as shown in the 2008 Road and
Bridge Standards.
3. The storm sewer downstream from Structure 63 will not be maintained by VDOT.
If additional information is needed concerning this project, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Troy Austin, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Culpeper District
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
�� OF A
i"
A
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
Project:
Plan preparer:
Owner or rep.:
Plan received date:
Date of comments:
Reviewer:
Review coordinator:
Cascadia Blocks 4 -7 — Final
Dominion Engineering
Redus VA Housing LLC
23 April 2013
12 June 2012
Michael Koslow
Megan Yaniglos
SDP201300025
[fax 434 - 979 -1681]
The first final site plan and comps submittal (SDP201300025) submitted 22 April 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) Owner is required to provide a completed copy of the standard stormwater
maintenance agreement and fee for recordation for any stormwater management
facilities.
2) Please submit a separate set of road plans including proposed drainage and
profiles for all proposed public and private roads. This submittal appears to include
road plan elements; however a standalone application and fee is required for road plan
review.
3) Per ZMA2002 -0004 proffer #5, 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.
4) Prior to final plat approval:
water protection ordinance — erosion and sediment control and stormwater
management and
subdivision — road and sewer
bonds must be calculated by the county (sewer bond is calculated by ACSA) and
paid by owner after receipt of a Bond Request Form from owner.
B. Proposed Plan View Information
1) Please label all existing and proposed contour elevations including those shown
on detail 1 on sheet SP8 as well as for proposed lots 79 -84 on sheet SP8.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 3
2) Please specify by area in landscape plan low maintenance ground cover for all
proposed slopes steeper than 2:1. Please also note requirements of Proffer 5 from
ZMA2002 -00004 for low maintenance plantings.
3) Please label all entrance and intersection radii including the corner of Glissade
Lane and Delphi Lane on sheet SP 10.
4) Please label all proposed drainage easements including the proposed easement for
pipe out of proposed structure 7C crossing proposed lot 1 on sheet SP6.
5) Proposed drainage easement for pipe out of proposed structure 7E crossing
proposed lot 4 on sheet SP7 appears to be 10' wide. Please propose a minimum width
of 20' for all proposed drainage easements.
6) Please confirm proposed parking lot curb type (appears to be CG -2) on sheet SP7.
7) Please widen sidewalk in front of proposed neighborhood center from 5' to 6' or
provide bumper blocks for adjacent parking spaces on sheet SP7.
8) Please include stationing for all proposed public streets at minimum 50' intervals.
9) Please label all PCs and PTs for all proposed public streets.
10) Please label the maximum (not average) height for each proposed retaining wall.
11) A retaining wall appears to be shown on sheets SP6 and SP 10. Please label all
retaining walls on all sheets on which they appear.
12) Sheet SP38 appears to be part of the landscape plan. Please update sheet name.
C. Plan Detail Information
1) Please specify 3000 psi strength requirement and 4" stone base for all proposed
sidewalks on road typical sections.
2) Please provide a typical retaining wall detail for each proposed retaining wall.
Please note per code of development p. 24, retaining walls visible from the street or
other public areas (which include both proposed retaining walls as designed) shall be of
a higher material quality and shall be compatible with the adjacent building architecture
materials and /or colors.
D. Drainage Profiles
1) The following structures appear in plan view but appear to be missing in profile
view: 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, and 44A. Please include drainage profiles for all
proposed drainage structures.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 3
2) Please label existing ground and proposed ground elevation lines on all drainage
profiles including profiles for two proposed drainage structures.
3) The following pipe runs appear to have utility conflicts as indicated in plan view
(w = water line, s = sanitary sewer line) but the conflicting utility pipes appear to be
missing in profile view: 2 -3(w), 2 -3(s), 34(s), 10- 11(s), 14- 15(s), 15- 16(w), 22- 23(s),
23- 24(w), 24- 25(w), 44- 44A(w). Please include all utility conflicts for all proposed
drainage structures in profile view.
4) Station for structure 49 appears to be missing. Recommend including this station
with drainage profile on sheet SP29.
5) The following pipe run appears to have a slope > 16 %: 62B -62C. Please include
anchor blocks for all proposed pipe runs with slopes > 16 %.
6) Please prescribe by note or on the profile that concrete Inlet Shaping (IS -1) shall
be included for all proposed drainage structures with a 4' or greater drop.
7) Please prescribe by note or on the profile that Safety Slabs (SL -1) shall be
included for all proposed drainage structures taller than 12'.
8) Please include scour protection for all outlets in profile view, corresponding to
computations and protection shown in plan view.
E. Drainage Computations
1) Due to overwhelming VDOT comments, it is assumed the drainage will be re-
worked for this project at resubmittal. Conceptual review includes the following
missing items which county engineering will be looking for at resubmittal:
a) Please ensure principal access (proposed structures 66 & 67) is free from flooding
during a 100 year storm event.
b) Spread for all inlets need to be checked for 4 in/hr intensity per VDOT Drainage
Manual Table 9 -1.
c) Inlet efficiency needs to be checked for 6.5 in/hr per note 4 attached to VDOT
Drainage Manual Table 9 -1.
d) Pipe capacities for proposed enclosed drainage (including proposed yard drains
which feed into street trunkline systems) need to be checked for a 10 -year storm
event at duration equivalent to time of concentration (this appears to be included for
currently proposed system on sheet SP31 pending comment F 1 e below).
e) Please include time of concentration of drainage area maps shown on sheets SP32
& SP33 (this information appears to be on calculations shown on sheet SP31A).
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.
G� pp11�,
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper, Virginia 22701 -3819
Gregory A. Whirley
Commissioner of Highways
June 10, 2013
Ms. Megan Yaniglos
Senior Planner
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: SDP - 2013 -025 Cascadia
Dear Ms. Yaniglos:
I have completed my review on the Final Site Development Plan for Cascadia — Blocks 4 -7 dated
4122 {13 as submitted by Dominion Engineering and offer the following comments:
General Comments
1. It would be helpful if the drop inlet location and structure inforination were shown on the
profile views of the road plans.
Sheet 2 of 47
1. The General Notes inspection of all of the roads within the development will be made by
the County. VDOT needs to be involved in the inspection of all roads that will be
maintained by VDOT.
2. CD -2 locations should be shown on the profiles instead of simply making a generic
statement in the General Notes.
Sheet 3 of 47
1. The pavement design for typical sections shown should be based on the 2009 Pavement
Design Guide for Subdivision and Secondary Roads and all supporting documents should
be submitted for review.
2. The curb should be CG -6 on both sides of all roads instead of CG -6 on one side and
rolltop curb on the other as shown on the typical sections for Oval Park Lane and Flat
Waters Lane.
Sheet 14 of 47
1. The center line intersection of Delphi Drive should be shown in the profile with station
and elevation of the intersection noted.
2. The 8" sewerline crossing shown in plan view near Station 10 +60 should be shown in
profile view.
3. The spacing between storm structure 8A and the entrance to Lot 2 should be checked to
make sure that a CG -9B entrance can be installed.
Sheet 15 of 47
1. The spacing between storm structure 11 A and the entrance to Lot 9 should be checked to
make sure that a CG -9B entrance can be installed.
2. The spacing between storm structure 12A and the entrance to Lot 13 should be checked
to snake sure that a CG -9B entrance can be installed.
3. The spacing between storm structure 15 and the entrance to Lot 91 should be checked to
snake sure that a CG -9B entrance can be installed.
4. Storm structure 36 is shown located with the driveway for Lot 89.
5. The center line intersection of Oval Park Lane should be shown in the profile with station
and elevation of the intersection noted.
Sheet 16 of 47
1. Stonn structure 38 is shown located partially in the driveway for Lot 78. Spacing
between the structure and the entrance should be checked to make sure that a CG -9B
entrance can be installed.
2. Storm structure 22A is shown located partially in the driveway for Lot 75. Spacing
between the structure and the entrance should be checked to make sure that a CG -9B
entrance can be installed.
3. The CG -12 shown at the intersection of Delphi Lane and Oval Park Lane opposite of
Lot77 should be located at the midpoint of the intersection radius.
4. The spacing between storm structure 28 and the entrance to Lot 37 should be checked to
make sure that a CG -9B entrance can be installed.
5. The spacing between stone structure 29 and the entrance to Lot 39 should be checked to
make sure that a CG -9B entrance can be installed.
6. Are the CG -12's located at Lots 108 and 44 necessary?
7. The center line intersection of Boulder Hill Lane should be shown in the profile with
station and elevation of the intersection noted.
8. The center line intersection of Oval Park Lane should be shown in the profile with station
and elevation of the intersection noted.
9. The center line intersection of Glissdale Lane should be shown in the profile with station
and elevation of the intersection noted.
10. The center line intersection of Flat Waters Lane should be shown in the profile with
station and elevation of the intersection noted.
Sheet 17 of 47
1. The center line intersection of Backwater Alley should be shown in the profile with
station and elevation of the intersection noted.
2. The center line intersection of Glissdale Lane should be shown in the profile with station
and elevation of the intersection noted.
3. The radius length needs to be added to the plan view for the intersection of Glissdale
Lane and Delphi Lane.
Sheet 19 of 47
1. The spacing between storm structure 63 and the entrance to Lot 82 should be checked to
make sure that a CG -9B entrance can be installed.
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
2. The spacing between storm structure 64 and the entrance to Lot 80 should be checked to
snake sure that a CG -913 entrance can be installed.
Sheet 20 of 47
1. The center line intersection of Flat Waters Lane should be shown in the profile with
station and elevation of the intersection noted.
2. Are the CG -12's located at Lots 137 and 56/57 necessary? The CG -12 shown for Lot
137 appears to be located within the entrance for the lot.
Sheet 21 of 47
1. The storm sewer system upstream of structure 56 will be privately owned and
maintained.
2. As designed, the storm sewer system upstream of structure 47 will be privately owned
and maintained.
3. The Nyloplast structures 48 and 54 need to be located outside of the right -of -way for Flat
Waters Lane as these structures will be privately owned and maintained.
4. A detail for the air relief valve shown needs to be provided for review. The assembly
may need to be located outside of the asphalt.
Sheet 26 of 47
1. Structure 2 needs to be a DI -4C due to the stonn pipe size of 36 ". It appears from the
plan view this should actually be a DI -4B. Please refer to the 2008 Road and Bridge
Standards.
2. Structure 3 needs to be a 13I -413 due to the storm pipe size of 36 ". Please refer to the
2008 Road and Bridge Standards.
3. It appears that Structure 7 could be lowered so that the base rests on existing soil. If this
were done, the structure would meet the minimum height requirement as defined in the
2008 Road and Bridge Standards.
4. It appears that Structures 9 and 10 could be lowered so that they met the minimum height
requirement as defined in the 2008 Road and Bridge Standards.
5. The sewerline crossing between Structures 10 and 11 needs to be added to the profile.
Sheet 27 of 47
1. The profile for Structures 7A thru 14 has been duplicated from Sheet 26. It appears that
this profile should have been for Structures 14 thru 26, which I believe has been excluded
from the plans.
2. Structure 35 does not meet minimum height as defined by the 2008 Road and Bridge
Standards.
3. Structure 6A does not meet minimum height as defined by the 2008 Road and Bridge
Standards.
4. The length of pipe between Structures 11 and 11 A has been cut off of the profile.
Sheet 28 of 47
1. The storm sewer between Structures 7B and U will be privately owned and maintained.
2. The stonn sewer between Structures 13A and 13F will be privately owned and
maintained.
3. The stonn sewer between Structures 14 and 15 needs to be shown in profile view.
4. The top type of Structure 42 is different from the type shown for the saine structure on
the profile on Sheet 29.
5. The length of Structure 39 is different from the length shown for the same structure on
the profile on Sheet 29.
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
Sheet 29 of 47
1. Structure 43 should be lowered so that the base is installed in/on exiting soil.
2. Structure 45 should be lowered so that the base is installed in/on exiting soil. Structure
44 may need to be adjusted to provide an adequate grade between the two structures.
3. Nyloplast structures will not be accepted as part of the VDOT maintained stonn sewer
system. Structures 48 and 54 will either need to be changed to standard VDOT inlets or
relocated outside of the right -of -way for Flat Waters Lane.
4. The sewer line crossing between Structures 66 and 67 needs to be shown in profile view.
5. Structure 62C should be lowered so that the base is installed in/on exiting soil.
6. The profile view indicates that the storm sewer between Structures 63A, 63, and 64 will
be RCP. However, the plan view on Sheet 19 indicates that this pipe will be HDPE.
Sheet 31 of 47
1. The pipe size for Line No. 1 is different than that shown on the profile for this section of
pipe. In addition, the inverts up and down for the section of pipe are also different.
2. Lines 27 and 34 through 39 are modeled as 15" pipes while being shown as 18" in the
profiles. Over sizing of the pipes are likely to have no impact on the model, but to be
consistent, the pipes should be modeled as designed.
3. The invert up for Line No. 36 is different than that shown in the profile, which results in a
different grade than that shown in profile. This should be corrected to make the model
consistent with the designed storm sewer.
4. Lines 96 through 101 are modeled as 12" pipes while being shown as 15" in the profiles.
Over sizing of the pipes are likely to have no impact on the model, but to be consistent,
the pipes should be modeled as designed.
5. The inverts for Line No. 99 are different than that shown in the profile, resulting in a
significantly different grade for this section of pipe. This should be corrected in the
model.
If you have questions or comments concerning this project, please feel free to contact me. With
the number of comments included in this review, it may be beneficial to meet with the design
engineer prior to resubmitting the plans.
Sincerely,
1
Tro Austin, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Culpeper District
VirgmiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
OS'' ALr�7
� IRGS*1LP
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To:
Mike Myers
From:
Megan Yaniglos- Senior Planner
Division:
Planning Services
Date:
May 17, 2013
Subject:
SDP2013 -025 Cascadia- Final Site Plan
The Planner for the Planning Services Division of the Albemarle County Department Community
Development will recommend approve 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.) [Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference to the Albemarle
County Code.]
1. [32.7.9.4(c)] Provide the general type of trees within the wooded area.
Deciduous /evergreen /mix?
2. [32.7.9.7(c)] Lot street shrubs are required between the street and parking lot at the
community center since the parking lot is located such that parked cars will be visible
from the public street. Provide a row of shrubs five feet on center.
3. [Code of Development; page 18] Provide a typical lot layout with plantings required for
each lot width as shown in the chart in the COD.
4. [Code of Development; page 171 The unit types being shown do not meet the
Architectural and Fagade Treatment requirements. All garages must be recessed more
than three feet from the face of the building on a single family dwelling where the
garage is facing the street. Revise to meet the requirement.
5. [Code of Development; page 17] Lot 103, which was shown as open space in the
preliminary plan, is now a single family dwelling. The garage for this dwelling must have
access off of the alley in the rear of the lot.
6. [Code of Development; page 16] Some of the lots may not meet the requirement of the
build to range when the garage is setback per comment #4. Lot 33 is an example. 50% of
a structure's fagade shall be built within eighteen inches of either side of the build to
line within that Building Block. Check all lots to be certain that this requirement is met.
7. [Code of Development; page 14] Show all of the greenway on the plans. Sheet SP9 does
not show the whole trail. The trail should extend down behind lots 60 -67.
8. [Code of Development; page 13] Show the landscaping in accord with the Architectural
Review Board plan for the Entry Park.
9. [Code of Development; page 14] Provide a tot lot in one of the Hill District Parks (Oval or
Summit)
10. [Code of Development; page 20] Streetscapes along greenspace /amenity areas shall be
designed by a landscape architect. Provide an affidavit or have a landscape architect seal
the landscape plans for these areas.
11. [Code of Development; page 13] One of the Hill district parks should have a plaza space
with a minimum of two permanent benches and walls outlining the plaza.
12. [Code of Development; page14] Provide the Amen ity / Greenspace chart that was in the
preliminary plans on the final plans. Update as necessary to reflect actual acreage /area
of provided greenspace areas.
13. [Code of Development; page 19] Where street trees are not provided in landscape strip
due to utilities, easements, site distance etc, they must be provided on the lots as close
to the street as possible.
14. [Code of Development; page 24] All 2:1 slopes must be landscaped
15. [Code of Development; page 24] Provide a tree protection plan using measure
consistent with the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook for land disturbing
activity in the Conservation Areas or when disturbance activity is adjacent to
Preservation Areas.
16. [Code of Development; page 24] Landscaping needs to be provided at the base and /or
top of walls to integrate these structures into the site and reduce their massing.
17. [Code of Development; page 24] Walls over 6 -feet tall from the top of the wall to the
top of the footer shall be allowed only at the discretion of the Director of Community
Development. Provide information concerning the materials and construction of these
walls, including details. Also, show the width accurately, as some modular walls are
wider than what is shown on the plans.
18. [Proffer #1] Provide Affordable housing information on the plans. A minimum of 15%
affordable housing is required. Label the lots as well as provide a chart for tracking
purposes.
Please contact Megan Yaniglos at the Department of Community Development 296 -5832 ext.
3004 for further information.
o
�IRGI`VI�'
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832
Fax (434) 972 -4126
TO:
Megan Yaniglos, Senior Planner - Planning Services
FROM:
Rebecca Ragsdale, Senior Planner- Zoning Services
DATE:
May 13, 2013
RE:
SDP 2013 -25 Cascadia Final Site Plan- First submittal- 4/22/13
Review comments below focus on the proffers approved with the Cascadia (ZMA 2002 -04) and
the major elements required on the general development plan and in the code of development.
Proffer 1- Affordable Housing- No information is provided to indicate how the affordable
housing proffer will be met. The proffer requires that all affordable units be designated on
the final site plan or during the subdivision process. A table should be provided with all final
site plan and all plat submittals that indicates minimum affordable units are provided,
including minimum requirements of proffer 1 B. The applicant should contact Ron White,
Housing Director regarding this proffer.
Proffer 2- Route 20 Improvements- A 20' dedication along the Route 20 frontage of the
property is required with the first subdivision plat. I did'nt see where this was shown on any
plan sheets.
Proffer 5- Overlot Grading Plan- Engineering should assure the requirements of this proffer
are met along with the special exception request approved January 9, 2013.
Built Form Standards Page 16 of the code of development- Prior to final site plan or
subdivision plat approval the build -to lines (see Note 1 of Code) and other setback notes
should be provided. SDP 2012 -46 proposed a variation to keep a front build -to range and
typical lots were shown as part of that preliminary site plan on sheet PS 14. 1 don't see
where the proposed final site plan addresses this or whether a variation was ever approved.
If no variation was approved, then the site plan should meet the requirements on Page 16 of
the Code of Development. Notes should be added to Sheet SP2 and plan lines clarified on
all plan sheets. It appears the Code requirements are shown correctly for townhouse lots but
not for the single family detached lots.
Grading and Buffer /Screening requirements Pages 24 and 25 of the code of development - I
remain concerned about the 30' vegetative buffer area and retaining wall between Cascadia
and Fontana.
While retaining walls are allowed, those over 6' must be approved by the Director of
Community Development and all other requirements of the Code. All details of the
retaining wall designs should be provided to ensure the requirements listed on page
24 are met.
Grading in the 30' buffer with Fontana is permitted, however the 20' screening strip
requirements must be addressed. This is shown on Sheet SP 39 and I believe it was
the intent of the Code that the 20' screening would be provided between the way and
the Fontana Lots