HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB201400063 Review Comments Preliminary Plat 2014-09-16County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To:
Steven Driver
From:
Christopher P. Perez- Senior Planner
Division:
Planning Services
Date:
9 -16 -14
Subject: SUB201400063 Fontana — Phase 4C Preliminary Subdivision Plat
The Planner for the Planning Services Division of the Albemarle County Department Community
Development will recommend approval of the plat referred 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. 1„°.- ...9x.3? }, - ,ti l Vile pkiblic ilo6ficaioil J��e € 1 11,200 rim i.}xlit lIiior to t171:. SR
{.. €;trlilri4riti 11li e bn' efi l-it i t'll I '4 ii i._ riiceflll =?. f1lea.se pav the ft e pi•ic� r to arr.'
I:Cirllit;r I "c'.v,i'4',1t- €.>:S' £l'ie Plat, . <�eG 3, 01s€. ¢e ika%F..ib;'<v:ised,
2. [ZMA2004 -18, Proffer 2,14- 302(A4) and (A5),14- 305,14 -311] It was determined
by the Zoning Administrator that the final grading plan noted in proffer 2 is permitted to
be a part of the preliminary plat in order to work towards compliance with proffer 2. It
shall be up to the Review Engineer (John Anderson & Glenn Brooks) to determine if the
final grading plan submitted meets the criteria to satisfy proffer 2. Please contact
Engineering for this item. Rev 2. Comment not adequately addressed, Engineering
has not approved the final grading plan and requires additional changes to the plan.
xF t£.. °i?c tP i € ?I Li.I .E I., fv c , a d i`I'`S
f,?i' "y'F,'1 €.jt`T? =iE'77t L s"t;z7 ➢s �I":,E. J: §' .3'i7t.Tz�i � C'C1;7.St "`t #x. t. _ i�t C'7 i i ':tt` c,'2..i 1; E #7tfr �, t?1 e.'7`, :. 7s 7t, : fd ti's`
s.'t : %7I? 311Caz7£;a,' t -i1h sc'i:'rior,. t.,l -.Z "< Curb xi,ll i gutters— l €.1(;i l:Ilia 'ti'lt1 Iillitisc"ipc strips are
�.,
t`e€ii.il'1'i;i. le ='i' l:3(;illS.ilt} i..ti'115..�e�' 2m .,oni't�,'z�> : xfitd'3` €;h7�3uA�o
11.% t}f. 1 <7; .. , d7i7 4. [ r ; �"W4— 8q �M. 101.1*.- -' �`D�"n _0, x4 3i M
x,1 7 "t`i'7if (1 >f- r71::7" f.1t LW1
use o h. -r (')" -"' ers r"n 117'1' strls'di ) t ir." n s"pZai OR It`2i;
i i' gil�,`dlteill �.t t' €lr7rtl'dEx7�y° J,Itt, .i il�, li; «.€ Il.ill. a .j. '�,
plan for Z V A l4 -0 t i>
' os 1at�G 9;1`i ii1
t iSil iii p'la'ie ?l, Sec; 101'1 CoIllI Wt.ii "i,; frO111 f.: € Clz€ i.i'xl.i ti 111 1 €s itari'r.' F€ (l io ss ir°rotai(liYlg
i"lt i =:Ilii)i?1'l'i€1ti l.. 3i)tt;('Q'L(;'Gil L''P'r ti'l'l :ii "..;t, }la.i: ",�w!%. ) til4)Y ! tit, c''fi'. &ECIe {)f
III °.e..,.i.J O LA:N:i::ia
iirolll t.li'e c\i.il- ie -jai% Yt t1.'€ l'i - ...alts h and' 4 t o AS! ...l(I.1RO.`'j... Rrw?lyioiis 1:t3'pi°ofl' 1roin
Zk'iA/'- ?11 1 -1 do m)f YI£;gzi"tC ffie 1'=w'€.'jUiFC—MfJA 6CW tlleSe .i`s1.rl t;f:i be provided, iri €:iI'iit;rto
eotapl1' 1'il' }i. I'lds t`f5quir4eryr et1'1. «'lhc Lrad's I)cetl'to be clepictod i ?.il tb.l , i.rb:llrYlliiary ptat.,,md
dic:(.ia,,d pb)i'.Ako. asst( -''", Illo'1 arc €'acl -'i wllll'in a Wl:t'%Ide eascmew1 .Ai: oz oa I'll€; ptaL
r, Vidl , wA.1-lershir' nr l %w
S
r x..... ......� .. rw .... ... .,. biz.. ,.... ..S "... Er ^. ^........„,.
5. "..� ^.lx ^a .),,er . , c . , x.2a,r ;. I ;ICi.' ;;is,:z�f7 €3i7,
t f aa.€ t "" 3 '? `" 1w t:' ".it ?f' i;,I,i€Y ;t` .: £';.� a�. ���I
L `i ;. i7. t . 'Ytt'i` f3f £ tl, <. I£aiif I t.l7tse i ,.% r. .,Tr,. ,; f: I .St;, f i a .>s'r`?`, is
fX r. e:ci`?flt`> i:;> COMM €.il flt€ f31 t3 £? r lZa' :'' :_ tie a1i;'rj' ^..,OIkl Vial,, r ,.' �
tTdell"I 7h {t`i P, z € ?W inC t''! €tII,01[o ti.1:`1. §1t. .1t, ?ti. "`hais 4" Secli( 3, ab tc y'?liP.
si'm? n 1"�ic:''r s`de' ifl, i (o I -he t; Hi i lroiii :hoi.a on?ana ibitho€fC� t�' "s'i'�,t�"i"h
li< i <ii&':'. ..,( €. ... €3 z i , t "r. „ i ( '. -. fl l( oi:s . 3
€11.'tl "ails ,ti € € ".i[)1T€ 4:iitfw't4='. t'llc I,i'b1;€; €l''<i.ti.':
A possible solutioil i:. "'o contil -Itic, tile {: %zK;thi,W Emil. l,"orn the i'S'.zki' o 09 =ii t;F (, .
alofm the J', --a' l ; 1h)Q ti .],ot, 18 - mss. alon;l , the t ii, lo[ .. €??�` ot" ,(?t .. "tip tho ; ",i# i.ti Lill
,., dd gg 77
,vn € 3 i `i Y o }, 106 .10 e �.'?. z i..,is ° 4B, 5.�.ia`c
..". €: }i.•� >zz �t t:l ?� 4 I:�Cliii: "s�.111 �..z t..:.: t
soh.ltsvll vvifll -€ tI ",'tiitf'P`iiiEs li' €il 1'1l,?iin-h ,; 111 1 3'i , lyt fl ?1:3foj,),.i i,e1;','.
m W
6. AI 3(02t-;.j.> l' €t €tttx: i,£ i La °: ^j1i#'1g Est ^3t';if;'Y ns iYWi , i£i..s:?,i (,i 1 "'l3'3 fiiL f,.A'..,..3 €J <)
an id vO "!c rZr'rii. °iNIP d?e rh 'MC c1 t fl <t , u',!),7Ic H � ?
1£' � =zit tz�',1', icL :i1ii3ng
1 ri'P:1i easelncms ii.ilE.i provides deed I "1i: ili ii.i'i5z i3fz€ s„ I'w i' 'I" 'iii;t; 41? €S # "I €ti t'it It 1:411t xl €' :?it' ; S'W
)l <.°vide the I"i<I.lno or tho ombli.c t?SL`ncr ot,rc',-o d. ]�.eikc to jii° -ovido (Y €� twryhip .Alt's, rnla ian
.>a:a_�a K,-, 'as, U
7. f .5�.;� �, ay i dle :>;3?'la e CIi' 1Ct t£? £1ti the i IN to be del i ,<ltGSt 1y ii;d t't'f' s3- ii'i'ile .3w
ti
he 1i so, ro%ide this iP7't't3i'lT' ai -io'l on Ille ' °itit :t ilt7z, l,'JmiYl 1C; it � €'} be sus .,ic%l'b: d
8. [ZMA2004 -18] The residue of Phase 4C Section 3, depicted on the preliminary plat as
"A - 0.75 acres " shall be added to Lot 118 on the final plat for Phase 4C, OR on another
plat to be recorded in the Clerk's Office prior to approval of the final subdivision plat, at
which point Deed Book Page Reference Number of said plat shall be provided on the
final plat for Phase 4C. Revise appropriately. Rev 2. Comment acknowledged by the
applicant on prelim plat, sheet C2, in a note. This item shall be a condition of final
subdivision plat approval.
[ZMA2004- 18,14 -409] The Cascadia Connector (pedestrian and emergency access)
located in Phase 4C Section 3 shall connect to Fontana Drive and be built to the property
line. Revise the preliminary plat to depict this connector road, to include road width.
Design of this road shall be a part of the road plan for Phase 4C. Also, on the final plat
there shall be a note for this road which states: "Reserved for dedication on demand by
the County for a public road connection between Fontana and Cascadia. This access
way shall not he used for construction traffic. "
Rev 2. The Cascadia connector has been depicted on the preliminary plat as a 40
foot R/W; however, the R/W shall be a minimum of 50 foot wide to meet VDOT
requirements for the public road design. As such, the road plan shall dictate the
specific design of the public road. The design of the road is needed for an overlot
2
grading plan to be approved by Engineering, as grading is going to take place with
the construction of this road. The Cascadia Connector (pedestrian and emergency
access) located in Phase 4C Section 3 shall connect to Fontana Drive and be built to
the property line or bonded prior to final subdivision plat approval. This item shall
be a condition of final subdivision plat approval.
In the applicant's response letter they state that the road shall be built and designed by
Cascadia. The County does not dictate who builds the road, as long as it's built or
bonded Please note that only the property owner can bond the approved road The
final platfor Fontana cannot be approved till it's built or bonded (Ifi the applicant
would like to seek an exception or variation to the requirement of 14-409, such a
request shall he provided by the applicant, the appropriate fee shall he paid, and the
item shall he sent to the Planning Commission for review /approval.
10. [30.7.5] Preserved Slopes. Alcaso discofflillu", "11C of'tho I-Crul -F-nucal �ijopc,`
dlrolwholn fll�, phul_ :i;, the slopt's are II(A4. deffil,�"d -I al�d
as dzf i,Icd In; tlhb ,-�Viat,cb N '2f 7F.IOS .lan-Qs to fl),o lop'-'s" J. C41 iIBe;,:)IaL
po'cli.on of (lie aj)d3,0.'.-3 adopto,�J-,).'-� 3) 14,"
t'evlke ;:heel C"2,0,0 JaDel sk-)13(:s di"ming"LJ"1111w those vvhioh afe
Flmsei,ved �af)G' those Also.. oil
the vo.rbjag 'Vop-
AddhreN�5,ed.
D
IN74il-c-, it ha, bccn &-wrad.j"'Wi, tllai the di�.,curbwaco o¢ the � r,-wrVQd, sk,,pe :tn�
appro-VoIA is aot tho trh 'ger rbfdhi�.,. as fl,,.al:
vv e i i i - w,. i s a s S o �,;Ia: f, zl,, d ?fill) 008- a 1) 1 a: t, 1Ohi €.t I t i 1 1 te I V d t� I I i 'e. (I . f 1. s
the "-aiver no Rather the te,oisjadvW aov I iol.". ortlll
dl";a!-.3p, icam' ,, ability io di.,nui-b ihe (o, 'E'wi'tlofl'
Please note that the proposed disturbance shall meet the design standards
of Section 30.7.5, Engineering will determine if the proposal satisfies these requirements.
Their approval of this item shall be required prior to final plat approval.
Disturbance to the Managed slopes onsite are permitted by right provided that design
standards listed in 30.7.5 are satisfied to mitigate the impacts caused by the disturbance
of the slopes. Engineering staff shall determine if the proposed improvements meet these
design standards. Their approval of this item shall be required prior to final plat approval.
Rev 2. Comment partially addressed. Please work with Engineering to assure the
slopes are being disturbed as provided for in the design standards.
11. 302 15. 1 .- 0.2 1 �, '2fl i si. SJ 1, C t 11, d C. r 1) 1 C J la I a., G j e �; i d c n i j a I . I i t -� ; i
,
incorreQtk, jjsteday,-?O' tlniis/,wre, Re-sidemial is kt'produot of flle'ntal
munberof dw-ollina I.-Inics In 'a dj�j,,Ied. by th , aroa. 'J *he tl-t>c
ac-J-0, vise, Rev L
der�sity isfol. the is I �98 —;M
add. nI:,II3--�-E'IIIL
12. [114-102A(31,q E,,dV?4,-u or Yireels. OTI th� , pha provi(.k "Public-, (,-,r
desiamitim for tip; e%istilh-y arid prolxmA roads in -the devotoptue.11t, '.Rev I-
a
L
13 i;, i. 1ii.Uey ? 3 "i;j i," :..,., ii t, ...:-ply iW
x
E "! Al ..,ei t
14. 3 . 41 3 0 2 il y ,? 7. %° .I J I, 1'£P.'v 'r . � r.' iYx.� ' , l 3i "i t 1 *.' C<1t, g�ar• iii �;� i; ti12 �� �lie;'l'o " ; �1
1,x'1 €:3 I'c�l3li ct. titer € ? ibc Rix' 11 "Ircel S:i'i` Ibc, 11'E3p€;='rt tI £`wrcrl k
i2!'w st31 `, 1S li:ld.ii €:T m"t£ Tw, %41.a 1 SE" " <3€ i A", l:W , :. w 81T1P €'
15. £ ? J-30,'-Z, , J1, i. s a::t £ t J'r'lli.> ? ?[ ..1Y , i 3Pl Ulf,
Si7a; � ri- r v ;� u ' 51.) t z I nt . i c
6,3. .1S 1x .j A.1.
F $
16. ,:.:, i ,'tf t' Xi? %Ife' OR i"W011ii4't1t,t 11w pretijniil,iry phi L ''f.ftz i;iltl€ uf.i the
I "011 lvvimi i "i €SS's;,; ?,t.ga: it l ?/ >;ow".1b,"' a.l r l :'Ii:fiFi ,3 ? %' that L,'fl 1Y,t lE >c L1 ith 't'f;tt "i31=' f 1 t;i li7fs
R.. v .M6 ,. _„ann,.,k.s,
av;. c `s'-�;'ss.% c...
17. .. iizl/ti Y1, RL i'z'u€ # " ''liii€ i rc ; ti;c:i. (Y 7. ot; t t f`
18. Z. ::.;, 004, 8 Ai nmle ghat. €.,s. to d1 1'kml plai per pro'[1w'1' ... >: -diiC: � "Oi 3r s ,',w
/ .Cti i 1;1If. aH6 z "i : =:Si'. <, 6i, 7r., t, ti. t.x;Tr£ CY ° =i P..£, i °£1 {3i. £.£dti i.f .i1€.' Jc. c.'z £ ) €' +. jr<
-el ,.m Cr i T'n.ui nC a,d 61--,, '5 .,�'l
19. [ZMA2004 -18] A note shall be added to the final plat per proffer #5 and the new trails
within phase 4C: "The Owner shall not request that the County issue the ninth (91")
building permit until the paths have been completed to the satisfaction of the County
Engineer. " Rev 1. Comment acknowledged by the applicant. The note shall be
provided on the final plat.
20. [ZMA2004 -18, Proffer 4] Landscaping. The applicant has chosen to fulfill proffer 4
through the installation of new plantings. Thus the required new trees shall be bonded
prior to signature / final approval of the final plat. Rev 1. Comment acknowledged by
the applicant. This item shall be a condition of final subdivision plat approval.
21. [14 -435] Road plans shall be provided and approved prior to final subdivision plat
approval. Also, roads must be built or bonded prior to the signing of the final plat.
Rev 1. Comment acknowledged by the applicant.
22. [14 -317] Instrument evidencing maintenance of certain improvements. Prior to Final Plat
approval, an instrument evidencing maintenance of the Open Space, Required plantings
associated with proffer 4 (an exhibit shall be provided in the HOA dots which depicts the
5 trees per lot that are required), and Trail Easements will need to be submitted for
County review and approval. The County Attorney will be required to review/ approve
the maintenance documents prior to final plat approval. Submit the draft documents to
Planning staff for cursory review and then we'll forward them to the County Attorney for
review/ approval. Rev 1. Comment acknowledged by the applicant. This item shall be
a condition of final subdivision plat approval.
lEW COMMENT Rev 2.
3. [ZMA2004 -18, ZMA2011 -1, Proffer 10,14- 302(A)14] The location, acreage, and.
current owner of all the land intended to be dedicated for public use, or to be reserved in
a deed for the common use of lot owners in the subdivision shall be shown on the
preliminary plat. The trails have been depicted on the preliminary subdivision plat;
however, they are not labeled, nor listed as being in open space (fee simple), nor are they
labeled as being in easements. On the final subdivision plat, the required trails shall be
labeled, dimensioned, and specified to be in easements or open space (fee simple). This
item shall be a condition of final subdivision plat approval.
Engineering — John Anderson
Comments attached dated Sept 9, 2014 and revised Sept 16, 2014
E911- Andrew Slack
Approved.
Building Inspections - Jay Schlothauer
No objection
Fire and Rescue — Robbie Gilmer
No objection
VDOT — Troy Austin
Comments pending, to be forwarded once received.
ACSA — Alex Morrison
Comments pending, to be forwarded once received.
Please contact Christopher P. Perez at the Department of Community Development 296 -5832 ext.
3443 for further information.
AL!
,y72
ci �5�.r cn
� >RCtN�P
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:
Fontana — Phase 4C
Plan preparer:
Terra Engineering and Land Solutions, P.C.
Owner or rep.:
Fontana Land Trust
Plan received date:
6 June 2014
(Rev. 1)
31 July 2014, not reviewed, revised
(31 -July plans revised, re- submitted 26 August)
Date of comments:
20 June 2014
(Rev. 1)
9 September 2014 (26 -Aug plan set); rev. 16- Sep -14
Reviewer:
Michelle Roberge
(Rev. 1)
John Anderson
Project Coordinator:
Christopher Perez
Engineering has completed the review of application SUB2014 -63.
A. Preliminary Subdivision Plat (SUB201400063)
A major comment immediately follows. It is new to the extent it addresses design, safety, and Open Space in more detail than
prior comments on grading, steep slopes overlay district, SWM requirements, and WPO application. Please see prior comments
#10, 13, 14, 17.c, and 18, p.2. Prior comments spotlight need for design protections that meet county or state requirements.
Grading and design associated with proposed extended detention SWM basin design (at this location) is problematic:
a. Extended Detention proposed top of embankment width is 8 -ft. The top of embankment is proposed to serve as vehicle
access in support of maintenance needs. A width sufficient as safe to support this use and protect personnel is required.
b. 3:1 slopes shown in profile view of proposed basin understate grade. Existing slopes are 2 %Z:1. GIS displays grade as 42%
(vert. /horiz: 24/57: contours 496' -472'; 36/86: 508'- 472'). The most favorable least steep contours are 512' -468', 44'/121',
or 36.4 %. Slopes > 3:1 affect design and review.
c. Waiver to disturb preserved slopes (by right through legislative zoning action, § 18- 30.7.4.b. Lg) remains subject to design
standards listed at §18- 30.7.5.c.1. ( #13, below). "Whenever vertical interval (height) of any 3:1 (thirty -three (33) percent)
slope exceeds 30', reverse slope benches or a surface water diversion shall be provided." To construct either requires
further disturbance of preserved slopes, pushes untenable grade further past limits.
d. Extended Detention design will be reviewed carefully under WPO application. Without details of basin, aquatic bench,
forebay, primary/emergency spillways or pipe outfall, it is unclear if proposed SWM facility will impact proposed grade.
e. Open Space may include SWM facilities ( §18 -4.7, OPEN SPACE /b.) within limits ( §18- 4.7,c.3.). Proposed SWM facility
and preserved slopes occupy 90 -95% of 0.85 Ac. open space, which exceeds limits. Ref. Limitation on Certain Elements.
f. Please furnish L x W dimensions for basin access turnaround shown in schematic view, C3.0.0. Turnaround must allow
service trucks larger than cars space to reverse and exit in a forward direction.
g. Existing conditions: show contours below proposed detention basin at least as far as stream, elev. 460' ±. Show Fontana
Drive, C2.0.0, C3.0.0, at least this far. Existing conditions include slope, road, and stream, each relevant to review.
h. Hyland Ridge: Easement agreement with property to north is required to maintain drainage: basin to stream ( §14 -431).
i. Basin outfall with WPO application, furnish details of ESC measures for primary spillway: basin to stream. 2 -yr.. storm
and bypass events may not concentrate flow (surface water) on the face of 2 %:1 preserved slopes ( §30.7.5.d).
j. Sequence —with WPO application, outline steps for constructing sediment basin assumed to be coincident with extended
detention basin location. Show ESC measures required to construct a basin while protecting streams and off -site areas.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 6
k. Show temporary construction easements.
1. DEQ Stormwater Design Specification, Appendix A, Earthen Embankment, Ver. 1.0, March 1, 2011, defines height (p. 1):
The height ofan earthen emhankment is the vertical distance from the natural bed of the stream
or watercourse, measured at the downstream toe of the embankment, to the top of the
embankment. If the embankment does not span a stream or watercourse, the height is the
vertical distance between the lowest elevation, measured at the outside limit of the embankment,
and the top of the embankment.
For total height of embankment 25 or more feet, table (p. 9) states minimum top width is 15 -ft. —Link:
hU:// www. vwrrc .vt.edu/swc/NonPBMPSpecsMarchll /Introduction App %20A Earthen %20Embankments SCraftonRev 03012011.pdf
Yet widening top of embankment creates steeper slopes. Request to widen embankment does not suggest downslope grade
may exceed 3:1. Rather, requirements highlight need for alternative design or new SWM facility location, away from
preserved slopes above Hyland Ridge.
m. VDEQ Construction Specifications for Earthen Embankments (item k.) is referenced. Design considerations for site:
Maintenance & Safety (p. 10/1.4., Link, above) — "a 6 to 10 foot wide bench should be provided at intervals of 10 to 15
feet of height, particularly if slopes are steeper than 3H:1V "; piping (p. 8); soils investigation (p. 3/l. -3.); embankment
stability (p. 5/1. -3.). All considerations apply to proposed location.
n. A geotechnical investigation is required for this location prior to final grading plan approval, and prior to preliminary plat
approval ( #17.c., below).
o. A. -N. may be read in context of adjacent properties, downstream resources, transfer of SWM maintenance responsibility to
HOA, those who will maintain SWM facilities, and families of Fontana, and in light of trust ordinance places in imperative
need to evaluate design against risk.
p. Water quality design criteria at 9VAC25- 870 -63 (Part II -B) or energy balance equation may offer relief from design or
space constraints (item h.). [Links: http:// albemar leengineer.blogspot.com /2014/02 /how -to- avoid -fixin - inadequate.html
VAC: http: / /lis.vir inia.gov /cgi- bin /legp604.exe ?000 +reg +9VAC25- 870 -63 ]
[ Code references: § 18- 8.5.5.2.e. Applicability of chapter 17; § 18- 8.5.5.4.b/c, grading; § 17- 102.a. /b. /c. purpose (ch.17);
§ 17 -107 —State laws; § 18- 30.7.1 steep slopes overlay district; § 14 -104.A — (other) applicable requirements. ]
A. Preliminary Subdivision Plat (SUB201400063), cont.-
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. (Rev. 1) Comment response: Applicant indicates road plans are being prepared.
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. (Rev. 1) Comment addressed; Applicant response: "The trails have been resolved and
approved by Amelia McCauley."
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. (Rev. 1) Comment partially addressed; see item 3. As follow -up, two pedestrian section
details are confusing. Class A type 1 trails occur not only on Via Florence. Select and revise a single trail
typical section: retain Class A type 1 label and 10' corridor width — ACDSM, I.7.H. [Also, end doc]
Engineering Review Comments
. Page 3 of 6
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 addressed. Please show interconnectivity oftrailways to existing Fontana Subdivision.
(Rev. 1) Comment partially addressed; see #4 above. Label trails and common areas, C3.1.0., C4.1.1.
6) Brunello Court is proposed as 24' wide f e to Vc. 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.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
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. (Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
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. ACCD restates comment, which has been acknowledged.
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. (Rev. 1) Comment partially addressed;
Applicant's response expresses legal position (ref response letter, 20- Aug -14): "The grantor, Fontana Land
Trust, will convey upon demand..." Contours and design for the emergency connector from Cascadia
Subdivision to Fontana (Phase 4C) must be shown on preliminary plat, and built prior to final plat
approval.
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. (Rev. 1) Comment not addressed. Ref. pg. 1 /c. Revise
grading on preserved slopes in accordance with §18- 30.7.5.c.1. Also, display managed /preserved steep
slopes (drawing layers) on sheets C4.0.0, C4.1.0.
14) Please show SWM easements and access easements on plan.
Continent 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. (Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
15) Some trees on the landscaping plan are in conflict with the stormsewer pipes. Please address.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 4 of 6
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. (Rev. 1) Comment
not adequately addressed; response: "The amount of 2:1 slopes has been reduced (about 17 0/0)
by adding retaining walls and re- grading as requested by County Engineering." Retaining wall on
Lots 23 -27 eliminates some 2:1 slopes, but 2:1 slopes remain in this area and in back of Lots 29-
33. Please consider ways to further limit or eliminate 2:1 slopes, consistent with proffer
condition/Grading Plan.
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.
(Rev. 1) Comment partially addressed. As follow -up, please select line weight, symbol, or
other convention to demarcate swales /berms on Lots 20 -26, 15 -18, wherever they occur. Dot -
dash lines /arrows appear to show flow lines, but may indicate swales. BP (highpoint) /berm
labels provide clues but not enough clarity for review or construction. If ditch section, C4.1.0,
applies to ditches on C4.1.0, please label ditches in plan view. If ditch section applies to berm or
swales, it is unclear. Three terms lend confusion as to what, exactly, ditch section applies to.
Please clarify plan view features (berm/swales /ditches); tie each to berm, swale, or ditch detail.
Provide cross sections of drainage feature at points along berm/swale on Lots 21, 23, 25, C4.0.0.
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. (Rev. 1) ACCD restates comment, which has been 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 loan spot.
(Rev. 1) Comment substantively addressed. As follow -up, relocate curb inlet, Lot 31, which
conflicts with driveway entrance.
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. (Rev. 1) Comment
addressed. As follow -up, see 17.b., above; there is need for clarity with respect to swales,
berms, and ditches.
£ 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?
Engineering Review Comments
Page 5 of 6
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. (Rev. 1) Comment noted. ACCD restates comment, which has been
noted.
19) Applicant has the option to use the new runoff reduction method that will be in effect on July 1, 2014.
(Rev. 1) Comment noted.
New, Rev.1
20) Please include note with trail section detail; from ACDSM:
Drainage provisions where referenced above are to follow VDOT standards for a 2year
design storm. Concentrated runoff must not run across the trail, and culverts or footbridges
are to be provided, especially where the trail crosses ditches. Where the trial crosses swampy
areas, provisions such as boardwalks are to be provided for a dry surface. Where a non-
paved surface is used, trail breaks and erosion prevention measures must be used on grades
above 7% to prevent repeated washout of the surface.
21) Label BW elevations for corresponding TW elevations for walls behind Lots 23 -27, and Lots 29 -30.
22) Drive entrances, lots 12 -18, Via Florence Road, intersect street without curved dimension; please revise
per detail below, R=12'. [VDOT Road Design Manual, Appendix B, Subdivision Street Design Guide, Sec. B -4,
H. 3. Private Entrance Detail]
Notes:
See VDOT Road and Bridge Standards, Sid. PE-1 forcuttfit details.
All entrance grades shall start back of the shoulder line.
If drainage is necessary, the ditch tine may be moved back to provide 9 inches (min.) cover over pipe.
Entrances shag be 124wide and transition smoothly Into the roadway surface. Driveway entrance
pavement shag extend to the right of lime. When an existing street is re- developed and modification of
an existing driveway entrance is required, the entrance pavement shag be extended to the right of way
Ina or the extent of dial nbance to the existing driveway.
N
DesUabie Radius Mote:
p g I For entrances to roadways having ADTaf 2000 or more,
t5 a use radius o120 feet. ForADT under 200D radius may
5 I be 12 teat
t a $
Pipe culvert
-
t[necessary
12 FT
SURFACE"
RADE 10 FT
$ fle 62 5
Ditch Now tine
Radius Note St
Shoulder
LU a
Edge of roadway pavement
�+- +- ROADWAY PAVEMENT -r►+r
FIGURES— PRIVATE ENTRANCE DETAIL
Link: http: //www.virsiniadot.org /business /resources /appendb.odf
23) Retaining wall, Lot 29, is 8' high in one location (TW 556.0; C4.0.0). §18-30.7.5.a./1,2 proscribes
retaining walls > 6' on preserved slopes. Propose alternative design.
24) Furnish detail for proposed yard inlet (typical).
Engineering Review Comments
Page 6 of 6
25) Show and label flow lines as swale/berm (C.4.1.0) across back yards of Lots 4, 3, 2. Define drainage on
Lot 3, especially, to indicate storm runoff reaches yard inlet on Lot 2, rather than releasing onto the
Ashcroft Development.
26) C4.1.1, Belluno Lane: Ascending steep grade (400') may require additional inlets. (The road plans
included on this preliminary subdivision plat will be thoroughly reviewed with the road plan application.
—see #1, above)
27) 4H:1V slope beyond Belluno Lane (C4.1.1, sta. 15 +20) may present driveway (max grade) design
challenge. Recommend ensure driveway grade, Lot 5, meets Proffer Grade Plan.
28) Furnish guardrail on Brunello Court and Fontana Drive Ext. as vehicular barrier above proposed 2:1
slopes above proposed extended detention SWM facility, C4.0.0.
Sincerely,
John Anderson
434.296 -5832 —ext. 3069
ACDSM, I.7.HJTrai1 Standards:
H. Trail Standards:
Classification
Min. surface
requirementi
Min.
width
Design
alignment
Other design
considerations
Class A — type
T' asphalt
5' surface
10% maximum
Drainage design as
1 low
over4"
longitudinal
given below
maintenance
aggregate
grade, 2%
pedestrian
base
maximum cross -
path
grade
S U B201400063- IbntanAC- 11 1'T- 090914