HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB201400063 Review Comments Preliminary Plat 2014-11-14I4112"
aIA
s.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
November 14, 2014
Anthony Nichols
605 Fontana Drive
Charlottesville, Virginia 22911
RE: SUB2014 -63 Fontana- Phase 4C- Preliminary Subdivision Plat .
Mr. Nichols:
The Agent for the Board of Supervisors hereby grants administrative approval to the above referenced
subdivision plat.
This approval shall be valid for a period of five (5) years from the date of this letter, provided that the
subdivider submits a final plat for all or a section of a subdivision as shown on an approved preliminary
plat within one (1) year after the date of this letter as provided in 14 -226 of the Subdivision Ordinance of
the County Code, and thereafter diligently pursues approval of the final subdivision plat.
The final subdivision plat will not be considered to have been officially submitted until the following
items are received:
1. A final subdivision plat that satisfies all of the requirements of 14 -226 of the Subdivision
Ordinance.
2. A fee of $1,230.
Please submit eight (8) copies of the subdivision plat to the Community Development Department. The
assigned Lead Reviewer will then distribute the plans to. all reviewing agencies. Once you receive the
first set of comments on the final subdivision plat, please work with each reviewer individually to
satisfy their requirements.
The final subdivision plat will not be approved until the following conditions are met:
The. Department of Community Development shall not accept submittal of the final subdivision plat for
signature until tentative approvals for the following conditions have been obtained:
Planning Division Approval of (3 copies):
1. A plat meeting all the requirements for final subdivision plats per the subdivision ordinance.
2. [ZMA2004 -181 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
age Reference Number of said plat shall be provided on
[ZMA2004- 18,14 -409] The Cascadia Connector has been depicted on the preliminary plat as 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 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.
4. [ZMA2004 -181 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 (9`h) building permit until
the paths have been completed to the satisfaction of the County Engineer. "
5. [ZMA2004 -181 A note shall be added to the finial plat per proffer #9: "The colors for the fagade
treatments and the colors and materials for the roofs shall be subject to prior approval by the
Director of Planning. "
6. [ZMA2004 -18, Proffer 41 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.
7. [14 -4351 Road Plans and )APO application must be approved, all required improvements must be
built or bonded, and all required Deeds and Declarations must be reviewed and approved prior to
Final Plat approval.
8. [14 -3171 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 docs which depicts the 5 trees
per lot that are required), and Trail maintenance docs 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.
9. [ZMA2004 -18, ZMA2011 -1, Proffer 10,14- 302(A)141 The required trails have been depicted
and labeled on the preliminary subdivision plat in open space. On the final subdivision plat assure
that dimensions of the trail open space area is provided (ex. 10' wide).
Please contact Christopher P. Perez at 296 -5832 ext 3443 if you have questions or require additional
information.
Enizineerin2 Division Approval of (1 copy of subdivision plat; WPO plan number stated in
application):
1. VSNIP permit approval is a requirement for final plat approval.
2. See attached conditions of approval dated November 7, 2014.
Please contact John Anderson at 296 -5832 ext 3069 if you have questions or require additional
information.
ACSA Approval to include (1 copy to County, 3 copies to ACSA): -
1. Submit 3 copies of the final site plan along with water /sewer data sheets directly to the ACSA
(Attn: Jeremy Lynn, P.E.) for construction review and approval.
2. Lots 12 -18 will require private PRV's.
3. Lots 19 -34 may require private PRV's.
4. All. taps must be single taps.
5. Include the current ACSA General Conditions
6. Include any relevant profiles and details.
Please. contact Alex Morrison at 977 -4511 ext 116 if you have questions or require additional
information.
2
Fire & Rescue Approval to include (1 cony):
Please contact Shawn Maddox at 296 -5833 if you have questions or require additional information.
VDOT approval to include (1 copy):
Please contact Troy Austin at 422 -9782 if you have questions or require additional information.
E911 approval to include (1 copy):
Please contact Andrew Slack at 296-5 83 2 if you have questions or require additional information.
If you have any questions about these conditions or the submittal requirements please feel free to contact
me at extension 3443, cperez @albemarle.org.
Sincerely,
Christopher P. Perez
Senior Planner
c
r�
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)
(Rev. 2)
1 October 2014
(Rev. 3)
5 November 2014
Date of comments:
20 June 2014
(Rev. 1)
9 September 2014 (26 -Aug plan set); rev. 16- Sep -14
(Rev. 2)
23 October 2014
(Rev. 3)
6 November 2014, rev 7- Nov -2014
Reviewer:
Michelle Roberge
(Rev. 1, 2, 3)
John Anderson
Project Coordinator:
Christopher Perez
Engineering has completed the review of application SUB2014 -63. _
A. Preliminary Subdivision Plat (SUB201400063)
A n7ajor ccarn€nent itr €cnediately followvs. It i.s 'newt/ to the extent it addresses design, safety, and Open Space
in more detail than prior comments on grading, steep slopes overlay di. trict, SWM requirements, and WPC)
application. Please see prior comments X10, 13, 1.4. 17.c; and 1.5, p2. 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. (Rev. 2) Applicant suggests specific ite €ns are fbeus ol:'revised design which will address
many comments (below) with next preli €ninary plat submittal: (Rev. 3) Comment addressed.
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 maixctenance needs. A width sufficient as safe to support this use
and protect personnel is required. (Rev. 2) Assign evaluation of SWM facility to VSMP/WPO
Application.
b. 3 :1 slopes shown in profile view of proposed basin understate grade. Ex:i.sting slopes are 21:1. GIS
displays grade as 42% (vert. /ho €iz: 24/57: contours 496' - 472'; 36/86: 508'- 472'). The most favorable
least steep contours are 5.12' -468', 44'/1.21', or 36644 0. Slopes > 3:1 affect design and review. (Rev.
2) Comment (will be) addressed through revised design. Terra Engineering e -mail references slopes
below SWM basin: "All proposed slopes are 3:1, some existing slopes are slightly steeper, but are
planned to be left undisturbed outside grading limits." (October 23, 2014 5:13 PM). (Rev. 3) Comment
addressed.
c. Waiver to disturb preserved slopes (by right through legislative zoning action, §1 8-30.7.4.b.l.g)
remains subject to design sty €ndards listed at 18- 30.7.S.c.1. ('i 13, belorv"Vi�f €enever verticalinterva
(height) of any 3:1 (thirty -three (33) percent) slope exceeds 30', reverse slope benches or a surf.-'ace
water diversion shall be provided." To construct either requires further disturbance of preserved
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 8
slopes. pushes untenable grade .hither past limits. (Rev. 2) Comment will be addressed. Conceptual
stepped wall system above basin satisfies design standards found §1.8- 30.7.5.c.1. (Rev. 3) Comment
addressed.
d. Extended .Detention design will be reviewed carefully under W110 application. Without details of
basin, aquatic bench, forebay, primary /emergency spillways or pipe outfal.l, it is unclear if proposed
S W.lvl facility will impact proposed grade. (Rev. 2) Assign evaluation of SWM facility to
VSN1I? /WPO Application. (Rev. 3) Comment addressed — preliminary review of extended detention
SWM facility indicates proposed (or similar) design could provide 2xWQV (210.9cy x 2) needed to
treat 113,256 SF impervious, 292,426 SF turf runoff (post- development - /section 3, portions sec. 1) if
basin depth = 4.6'(f), x- sectional basin area 2.3' above floor =2,475 SF. Statement does not indicate
SWM plan or basin design approval. ACCD will furnish supportive detail. It is imperative that design
consider: direction of section 1 runoff, and whether runoff is routed to section 2 bio- filter, to section 3
extended detention basin, or is uncollected (front of Lots 16, 17, 18; essentially all of Lots 12, 13).
e. Open Space may include SWM facilities ( §1.8 -4.7, OPEN St,ac,F'/b.) within limits ( §1.8- 4.7,c.3.).
Proposed. S'�'tirlvl facility and preserved slopes occupy 90 -95% of 0.85 Ac. open space, which exceeds
limits. Ref. Litnitution on Certain Elements. (Rev. 2) Comment withdrawn; defer to Planning.
Note- with stepped wall system above basin. preserved slope areas diminish.
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.
(Rev. 2) Assign evaluation of SWM facility to VSMP/WPO Application.
g. Exisfing Conditions: show contours below proposed detention basin at least as far as stream, elev.
460'1.:. Show Fontana Drive, 02.0.0, C3.0.0, at least this far. Existing conditions include slope, road,
and stream, each relevant to review. (Rev. 2) Comment not addressed. As fo.11oW -up, ACCD
acknowledges obstacle to working on adjacent property. Retrieve contour data (< 2 -yr old) from data
repository - County GIS, for example if possible. Request restated as recommendation. (Rev. 3)
Comment addressed.
h. LIvIand .T?id -e: Easement: ag €eent.ent with property to north is required to Maintain drainage: basin to
stream ( §14- 43:1). (Rev. 2) Comment withdrawn. Off'-site drainage easement not required if Q€()
past - development < Qio pre- development.
i. Aasin nutfall with.WPO application, furnish details of ESC measures forprimary spillway: basin to
stream. 2 -yr. storm and b33.tass events may not concentrate flow (surface water) on the face of 21/'2:1
preserved slopes ( §30.7.5.d). (Rev. 2) Assign evaluation of SWM facility to VSMP/WPO
Application.
j. WPO application. outline steps for constructing sediment basin assumed to be
coincident with extended detention basin location. S.bow. ESC; measures required to construct a basin
while protecting streams and aff =site areas. (Rev. 2) Assign evaluation of SWM facility to
VSMP/WPO Application.
k. Show temporary construction easements. (Rev. 2) Comment withdrawn; show limits of disturbance
on VSMP /WPO Application.
1. DEQ St:ormwater Design Specification, Appendix. A, .Eartlrr n.Fmbcrnlcrnent, Ver. 1.0, .March 11 201. 1.,
defines height (p. 1):
The ireigltt of'an :earthen enihnnlirtrew is the vertical. distance from the natural bed of the stream
orwatercourse, measured at the downstrearn toe of the embankment, to the top of the
embankment If the embankment clues. not span a stream or watercourse, the height t i<s the
vertical distance between the lowest elevation, measured. at the outside limit of the ernbankmeni
and the top of the embanlartent.
For total height of embankment 25 or more feet, table (p. 9) states minimum top width is 15 -ft. —Link:
httr!/ ��w��. r�+ trc. vt. eclu/ stiuc/ NouP:€ 3 :niPS.ecsMatrch11.I1ntroduction A> °/(20A [3artheii %201:imbanlcnteut SCrafto
nitei_ ;0301201 I.ndt'
Yet widening top of embankment creates steeper slopes. Request to widen embankment does not suggest
downslope grade tna.y exceed 3::1. Rather, requirements highlight need for alternative design or new
StV.iVt facility location., away tram preserved slopes above .Hylan.d .K dge. (Rev. 2) Assign evaluation of
SWM facility to VSMP /WPO Application. Also, website lists BMP technical specifications for projects
subject to 9VAC25- 870 -65. Project appears to be subject to 9VAC25- 870 -96 criteria (old criteria).
J
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 8
in, VDEQ Construction :Specifications for.ls "arlhen Isnrbanknrents (item k.) is referenced. Design
considerations for site :'.11crintenance & 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:I V "; pil?ing {1). 8); soils investigation (p. 3/L-3.); ernbankrnent stability (p. 5/l.. -3.). All
considerations apply to proposed location.. (Rev. 2) Comment withdrawn. -..see item 1., above.
n. A geotechn:i.cal investigation is required for this location prior to final gradizzg plan approval, and
prior to preliminary plat approval {TT 17.c., below). (Rev. 2) Assign evaluation of SWM facility to
VSMP/WPO Application. Also, item 1., above.
o. A. -N. may be read in context of adjacent properties, downstream resources, transfer of SWM.
maintenance responsibility to HOA, those who will :maintain SkVM facilities. and families of .Fontana,
and in light of trust ordinance places in imperative need to evaluate design against risk. (. dev. 2)
Comment is opinion, withdrawn.
p. Water quality, design criteria at 9VAC25- 870 -63 (Part I1 -B) or energy balance equation may relief relief frorn. design or space constraints (item h.). .l.inlcs:
littn:// a.lbemarleen,,rineer,blou,spot. corn / 2014 /02 /hory -to- avoid- f:ixirlg,; -made zra_ ct te.litzril VAC:
la:(/ lis. virainia .�.xov /cei- binlJeU604.exe ?000 +rea; +9VA.C;25 -870 -fi3 .] (Rev. 2) Assign evaluation
of SWM facility to VSMP/WPO Application.
[
Code references: § 18- 8.5.5.2.e. — ,tp/Vicability of chapter 17; fi 18- 8.5.5.4.b/c, �tvding §17-
102.a./b. /c. fpurpose (ch.17); §17 -107 -5tate lmvs, §18- 30.7.1 -steep slojws overlay district; §14-
104.A — (other) apjllieable requirements. ]
A. Preliminary Subdivision Plat (SUB201400063), cont-
1) Please submit a separate road plan -Mtb an application. Please address on road plans
the abrupt grade changes near the entrance: ofBelluno Lane and Brunello C:t. 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. (Rev. 2/3) ACCD requests road plans once Final Grading Plan is
approved. Road plans may be submitted prior to preliminary plat approved, once Proffer
Condition #2 Final Grading Plan is approved.
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 otber Fontana phases.
Comment not addressed. Please shoNv interconnectivity of trailways to existing Fontana
Subdivision. (Rev. I) 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 I from the Al.ber,zarle
County Design Standards Manual. Please show section detail.. Comment not addressed.
Please slrostir intercorzrzect:ivity of trail.ways to existing Fontana. Subdivision. (Rev. 1.) Comment
partially addressed; see item 3. As follow -up, tovo pedestrian section details are corrfc�sizng.
Class A type 1. trails occur riot only on Via .Florence. Select arzd revise a single trail typical
section: retain Class .A. type I label and :10' corridor width — AC.DSM.,1..7.H. [Also, end doe]
(Rev. 2) Comment not addressed. Two pedestrian section details are confusing. Retain. Class
A type I label and :10' corridor width — eliminate Pedestrian .Path section, C5.2.0. — please call to
discuss. (Rev. 3) Comment addressed.
5) Trails should be in common areas, and maintained through neighborhood co- venants or private
agreements. When not in common areas, all trails are required to have easements which Must be a
Engineering Review Comments
Page 4 of 8
minimum of 10' wi.de.
Comment addressed. Please show interconnectivity of trailways to existing Fontana Subdivision.
(Rev. 1) Comment partially addressed; see -.04 above. Label -trails and common areas, C3.1.0., C4.1.1.
(Rev. 2) C'ornment not addressed; please address. (Rev. 3) Comment addressed.
6) Bruneflo Court is proposed as 24' widef/c tof/c. Are you proposing parking on one side or no
parking at all? Please clarify.
Comaketki partially addressed. Engineering still needs to meet with Plannin6 to discuss road width.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
7) It is not clear why Belluno Lane is designed as a rural road with ditch. The curb and gutter
waiver request for Belluno Lane does not appear to have been approved. by the Planning Commission
or the BOS. Also, the road section on sheet 06.0.0 does not appear to meet NTDOT Mad standards.
Please revise to meet VDOT road standards from Appendix B(l)-1.4. 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 maybe necessary to achieve adequate fire flows. Please clarify if this is still the case.
Comment addressed and applicant clarified waterline conueetions.
9) Driveways cannot be sloped greater than 1.0%. Please label all the driveway grades to clarify if
proffer 2(G) is satisfied.
Comment- addressed.
10) Please note that the SWMand Drainage calos will. be thoroughly reviewed with a WPC)
application. An approval ofthis preliminary plat does not allow you to grade the site—AT.) approved
WPO application (L,&S and SWM plans), along with posting of bonds will be required. prior to
obtaining a grading permit.
Comment acknowledged by applicant. (Rev. 1/2/3) ACCD restates comment, which has been
acknowledged.
1, 1) Please show the approved pedestrian/einergency connector from the Caseadia 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-1.4): "The grantor, Tiontana.
].,,and Trust, will convey upon demand..." Contours and design far the emergency COT.Mector '.from
Cascadia Subdivision to Fontana (Phase 4C) must be shown on preliminary plat, and built prior tofi.nal
plat approval. (Rev. 2/3) Comment not addressed; issue is in dispute. Engineering cannot resolve but
resolution does not affect Final Grading Plan approval since grading for a Caseddia Connector is shown
on C4.0.0.
12) Label the standard VDOT drive-way aprons and show the detail.
-Comment addressed.
13) The critical slopes section in the ordinance has changed. A critical slopes w,'dver was already
approved, but plans should meet Section 3 )0.7.5 Design Standards. This is in conjunction with
comment #17.
Comment not fully addressed. Notall slopes are "managed slopes." Please refer to Albeinarle 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. Vc. Revise
adin
grz Z Oil D
g resened slopes in accordance with §18-30.7.5.c. 1. Also, display managed/ reserved &teep
slopes (draving havers) on sheets C4.0.0. C4.1.0. (Rev. 2) Comment not addressed, Wease address. —
see underlined text, above. (Rev. 3) Comment addressed.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 5 of 8
14) Please show SWM easements and access easements on plan.
Comment not addressed. Please show the easement around the W.Nif facilities. A SWN1. agreement
will need to be completed prior to the approval of the ISPrl3 application. (Rev. 1) Comment
addressed.
15) Some trees on the landscaping plan are in conflict with the storm sewer pipes. Please address.
Comment addressed.
1.6) It appears that the existing rip rap should be reinoved on final grading plan. Please clarify.
Comment addressed.
17) Please address Final Grading Plan camrnents to satisfy Proffer 2. .Rev. 2 Also, please incorporate
prnllcrse clesigli,,,fe f rr s...j? ..-£7ct...?,3- Oct -1 e ngit _tcs „fix;tent_rteces5az :,..as_rey'ai,red to Tneet:._PrOf!'er..42.;
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. "f'he ZMA condition regarding; the slopes was to develop the site with
less steep slopes. The plats shows a significant amount of 2:1 slopes. (Rev. 1) Comment not
:tclecluately addressed; response: "The amount of 2:1 slopes has been reduced (about 17 %) by adding
retaining walls anal. 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.
(Rev. 2) Comment (twill. be) addressed through revised design. Terra Engineering e -mail: "fill lawn
areas are now 3:1 or flatter in all of Section 3.” (October 22,.20141:59 MO. (Rev. 3) Comment
addressed.
b. It will be difficult to grade and maintain the swales behind lots 19 -27 and lots 14 -1.8. These swales
are too close to decks. 'Mis also assumes that homeowners will not regrade their own backyards. '1'llere
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 shoMng 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.'rhis is in conjunction with comment 1.7 a. (Rev. 1.)
Comment partially addressed. As follow -up, please select line weight, symbol, or other convention
to demarcate swales /berms on Lots 20- 20,15-18, wherever they occur. Dot-dash lines. /arrows appear
to show flow lines, but may indicate swales. HP (highpoint) /berm labels provide clues but not enough
clarity for review or construction, If ditch section, C4.1.0, applies to ditches on C'4,1,0,' please label
ditches in plan view. I1'ditcli 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 ofd.rainaee
feature at points along berm /swal.e on Lots 21, 23, 25; C'4,0.0. (.Rev. 2) Comment not addressed —
please call to discuss. (Rev. 3) Comment addressed.
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. 1/2/3) ACCD restates comment, which has been acknowledged.
d. On lirunello 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 3 1. if Inlets are clogged.
Comment not fully addressed. Please provide inlets on both sides of road at low spot. (Rev. 1)
Comment substantively addressed. As follow -up, relocate curb inlet. Lot 31., which conflicts with
driveway entrance. (Rev. 2) Comment not addressed; please address. —see uriderli ned text, above.
e. Clarify storm. sewer behind lots 30-34. There is only one inlet between lots 29 -30. Capture as much
of the impervious area into the storm sewer. It appears that a substantial berm may be needed to divert
Engineering Review Comments
Page 6 of 8
drainage from steep slopes to the SWM facility.
Comment not addressed. Applicant has designed the roofs of lot 29-34 to drain to the storm
server pipes. Roof drains to storm server pipes cannot handle the 10 year storm. Provide a swale
to capture snore runoff to -rate inlets behind lots. (Rev. I.) Comment addressed. As fOlIOW-11Dmm.
59.e. .......... 1 7 above, there is need for clarity with respect to sNvales, bernis, and ditches. (Rev. 3)
Comment addressed.
f. There is a proposed swale and berm behind lots 1-5.1t appears gradingwill be beyond the
property line. Please address and obtain permission from adjacent property owners.
Comment addressed
I.. Clarify where runoff for single family dwellings will be diverted for rlot 5-11. Will it be towards
r, Ch y Z�
front of homes or released in. backyards? Comment clarified.
New Comment:
18) Please note that the extended detention basin and bio-filter is not approved under this application,
This will be reviewed with a WPO application. (Rev. 1/2/3) Comment noted. ACQD 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 I.,
2014. (Rev. 1) Comment noted.
New, Rev.1
20) Please include note with. trail section detail; froni.ACE)SM: (Re-v2.) Comment not addressed,
please include Note. (Rev. 3) Comment addressed.
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.rootbridges
.—are-to-be-provided,-especiall-,,t-Nvbere the trail. crosses ditches. Where the trial crosses swampy
areas, provision,, such. as boardwalks are to be provided for a dry surface. Where a non-
paved surface is used, trail break.,; and erosion prevention measures must be used on bmOes
above 7% to prevent repeated washout of the Surface.
21) Label BW elevations for corresponding TW elevaflons, for walls behind Lots 23-27, and Lots 29-
30. (Rev 2.) Comment not addressed; please label. BW Elev. (Rev. 3) Comment addressed.
22) Drive entrances, lots 12 -1.8, Via Florence Road., intersect street without cw-ved- dimension; please
revise per detail below, R =12'. [VDOTRoa.d Design-Manual , Appendix B. Subdivision Street Design Guide,
See. B-4, H.3. 11rivate Entrance Detail]. (R.ev2.) Comment not addressed. (Rev. 3) Comment
addressed.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 7 of 8
Notes:
See VDQTRoad and Bridge Standards, Std. PE-4 foreut/fdl details_
Ail entrance grades shall star bark of the shoulder line.
Fdrainage is necessary, the ditch line may be moved back to provide 9 inches (min.) coveraver pipe.
Entrances shall be 12 it wide and.trensition smoothly into ilia roadway surface. Driveway entrance
pavement shalt extend to the right of tine. When an e%Isfing street is re•dsvatoped and modification or
an exisling :: driveway entrance is requited, the entrance pavement shall he extended to the riahtafway
line or the extent of disturbance to the existing drvvevay.
Pipe culvert
SAO
Desirable Radius Note:
k
For entrances to roadways having ADT of 20116 o, more.
ra
use radius &.20 feet. ForADT under 20M radius may
m M
be 12 feet
SURFACE'
Pipe culvert
it necessary
12 FT
;a T
SURFACE'
`a £' Z5,
F E' S1
BADE 10 FTI
See a`t.
Ditch flour line
:Radius Note
Shoulder
w
_......
Edge of madway pavement
— y—
r---- ROADWAY PAVEMENT
---� —�
FIGURE 9— PRIVATE ENTRANCE DETAIL
Link: http: / /www.virginiadot.org /business /resources /apPendb -odf
23) 'Retaining wall, .Lot 29, is 8' lush in one .location ( "l W 556.0; C4.0.0). §18-330.7.5.a./1,2
proscribes retaining walls > 6' on preserved slopes. Propose alternative design. (.Rev 2.) Comment
withdrawn —cannot apply §18-30,7.5.a./1,2, to this location in this instance while insisting no lawns
slopes exceed 3:1. (Proffer Conditiorn ;rr2, Final Grading flan)
24) F=urnish detail for proposed yard inlet (typical). (Rev. 2) Comment not addressed — please call,
if overlooked. (Rev. 3) Comment addressed.
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 ,F1shoroft Development. (Rev 2.) Comment not addressed; please address. (Rev. 3)
Comment addressed.
26) C4. L:1, .Bel.luno .l,ain.e:.Ascericlirig steep grade (400 ") may rectiiire additional inlets. (The road
plans included on this preliminary subdivision plat will be thoroughly reviewed with the road plan
application. —see --1, above). (Rev. 2/3) Comment re- stated.
27) 4H: 1V slope beyond Bel.luno .bane (C4.:1.1. sta. 1.5 +20) may present driveway (max grade)
design challenge. Recommend ensure driveway grade, Lot 5, :meets Proffer Grade Plan. (Rev 2.)
Comment withdrawn,
28) Furnish guardrail on Brrinello Court and :Fontana Drive Ext, as vehicular barrier above proposed
2:1 slopes above proposed extended detention. SWN4 facility, C4.0.0. (Rev 2.) C:'or nment (apparently)
not addressed. F Urnisb guardrail. (Rev. 3) Comment addressed.
Sincerely,
John Anderson
434.296 - 5832 —ext. 3069
ACDSM, I.7.H./Trail Standards:
H. Trail. Standards:
I�
Engineering Review Comments
Page 8 of 8
Classification
Min. surface
requirements
Min.
width
Design
alignment
Other design
considerations
Class A —type
2" asphalt
5' surface
10% niaxiinuin
Drainage design. as
.l :low-
over 4"
longitudinal
given below
inaintenance
aggregate
grade; 2%
pedestrian
base
Maximum crOss-
path
glade