HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201300025 Correspondence Final Site Plan and Comps. 2014-07-28 ers
oe0(5 /1
C. 4.
e' Dominion 172 South Pantops Drive
h Engineering Charlottesville, VA 22911
0.d`. 434.979.8121 (p)
��� 434.979.1681 (f)
oe�s s DominionEng.com
July 28, 2014
Ms. Megan Yaniglos, ASLA
Senior Planner
Albemarle County Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
RE: Cascadia Final Site Plan and Road Plans- Comment-Response Letter-SDP2013-00025 and
SUB2013-00091
Dear Megan,
Enclosed please find three (3) sets of the revised Final Site Plan and two (2) sets of the revised Road Plans.
Please note that we have revised the site plan to address Engineering and ARB comments and we have revised
the road plans to address VDOT comments. Please note the following plan approval status:
Site Plan
Planning 5-6-14
Inspections 5-13-14
Fire and Rescue 5-13-14
E911 5-13-14
ACSA—5-10-14
Engineering—pending
ARB—pending
Road Plans
Engineering—approved 5-5-14
VDOT—pending
*NOTE: We will provide engineering with two revised set of road plans with phasing lines added once we
received approval from VDOT.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS ON SITE PLAN DATED MAY 12, 2014
A. Application Information
1) J'+. , qu,r ,u LP provide a completed copy of the standard stormwater maintenance agreement and fee
for recordation for any stormwater management facilities.
[Revision it 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 2] Please remove all road plans from the site plan.
Page 1 of 7
ets
<$•.,,o<s
Dominion 172 South Pantops Drive
► Engineering Charlottesville, VA 22911
d�NOV
434.979.8121 (p)
P. 434.979.1681 (f)
ens DominionEng.com
RESPONSE: The road plans have been removed from the site plan. Two sets of the road plans have
been provided to be submitted to VDOT. Once VDOT approves the road plans, we will provide the
County with two complete road plan sets with phasing lines
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 2] 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 1] Acknowledged by applicant.
B. Proposed Plan View Information
1) Please label all existing and proposed contour elevations including those shown or, detail 1 on sheet SP8 as
well as for proposed lots 79-84 on sheet SP8.
[Revision 1] 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 1] Partially addressed. Landscaping plans do not specify the type of plantings in 2:1 slope
area outside the conservation area. Please specify.
[Revision 2] The groundcover has been specified on SP34. However, the note on the plans for location
of plantings has been removed.
RESPONSE: The note on the plans for location of the 2:1 plantings has been added to all landscape
plan sheets SP35-SP41. We have also added a note to the grading plan sheets to refer to the landscape
plan for all treatment of non-paved areas.
3) Please label all entrance and intersection radii including the corner of Glissade ., and Delw,i Lai c U;:
sheet SP10.
[Revision 1] Comment addressed.
4) Please label all proposed drainage easements including the proposed easement for pipe out of proposeu
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.
Page 2 of 7
�S
•O�t8
:4f4I"i Dominion 172 South Pantops Drive
� • Engineering Charlottesville, VA 22911
v
a , 'ff, 434.979.8121 (p)
"rr��?� � (— 434.979.1681 (f)
@rs DominionEng.com
[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.
RESPONSE: See response to Comment 2 above.
10) Please label the maximum (not average) height for each proposed retaining wall.
[Revision 1]This is addressed, but there is a concern there will disturbance of TMP78E-H. Please
provide actual retaining wall design with safety fence.
[Revision 2] 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.
RESPONSE: The detail for the safety railing has been added to Sheet SP43.
11) A retaining wall appears to be shown on sheets SP6 and SP10. Please label all retaining walls on all sheets
on which they appear.
[Revision 1] This is addressed, but there is a concern there will disturbance of TMP78E-H. Please
provide actual retaining wall design with safety fence.
[Revision 2] 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.
RESPONSE: The detail for the safety railing has been added to Sheet SP43.
12) Sheet SP38 appears to be part of the landscape plan. Please upuui,; sheet name.
(Revision 11 Comment adrirecced
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.
RESPONSE: Refer to WPO plan for capturing of more runoff behind these lots.
B. Plan Detail Information
Page 3 of 7
woe
,Vs
`c1°Vs
4+ _— Dominion 172 South Pantops Drive
h, Engineering Charlottesville, VA 22911
69 I,/ 434.979.8121 (p)
tis,t) ' - 434.979.1681 (f)
®0epa a DominionEng.com
1) Please specity 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.
RESPONSE: The detail for the safety railing has been added to Sheet SP43.
C. 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), 3-4(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%: 62B-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 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
Page 4 of 7
5
.
ce+e. Dominion 172 South Pantops Drive
:.$
4111/ ■ Engineering Charlottesville, VA 22911
s , 434.979.8121 (p)
6
0,11 e < _ .- 434.979.1681 (f)
9 ,s s DominionEng.com
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 2] Comment addressed.
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.
[Revision 2] 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.
RESPONSE: The 6.5 in/hr check storm has been added to Sheet 31 A. Another inlet has not been added
right before 4A because 4A now has 100%efficiency for both the design and check storm. This is due
to offsite water being directed away from 4A by the addition of a ditch behind the sidewalk.
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 Fl 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 SP31 A).
[Revision 1] Comment addressed.
ARB COMMENTS DATED MAY 6, 2014
1. A fence 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.
RESPONSE: A fence detail has been added to Sheet SP34 to indicate height, size, 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 25% 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.
RESPONSE: The landscape schedule has been updated accordingly so that no single shrub exceeds
25%of the total number of shrubs provided.
Page 5 of 7
C5
C�e s
c�4,e ! Dominion 172 South Pantops Drive
h Engineering Charlottesville, VA 22911
���,-` 434.979.8121 (p)
",. o 434.979.1681 (f)
e
ss DominionEng.com
3. Clarify on the plan the reason for the two different plant schedules shown on sheet 34 and sheet 35. The
plant sizes on Sheet 34 cannot be approved for the ARB.
RESPONSE: The plant schedule on Sheet 34 indicates compliance with the tree cover canopy
requirements only. This schedule has been updated to include the proper plant sizes for EC plantings
that can be approved by the ARB. The plant schedule on Sheet 35 is a plant list that the landscape
contractor will use for ordering of the planting materials. The two schedules have been coordinated and
match with respect to species, minimum planting size and quantities. The only difference is that the
schedule on Sheet 35 includes a range of plant sizes and provides some additional planting comments.
Note that the range of plant sizes on Sheet 35 has the smaller number as the minimum plant size to
ensure compliance with ARB plant size requirements.
VDOT COMMENTS DATED MAY 30, 2014
1. The storm sewer profile for structure 12A to 12 indicates that the pipe length is 1'. This typo
should be corrected.
RESPONSE: This typo has been corrected on Sheet SP27.
2. It appears that storm structures 63 and 63A could be lowered so that they are installed in existing
soil.
RESPONSE: Structures 63 and 63A have been lowered so that they are installed in existing soil. Refer
to Sheet SP29.
3 The full flow capacity of lines 87 through 101 has not been included in the storm sewer
calculation table.
RESPONSE: The full flow capacities for lines 87 through 101 have been added Refer to Sheet SP31.
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.
RESPONSE: HGL calculations have been performed and added to Sheet SP31. In no case, does the 10-
year water surface elevation in the structures overflow the drop inlets.
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.
RESPONSE: Street trees have been adjusted to be located at least 30 feet from the end of radius at
each intersection.
6 There appears to be a conflict between a street tree and storm structure 7B.
RESPONSE: The street tree has been removed.
Page 6 of 7
e
�A4o 1 Dominion 172 South Pantops Drive
■ Engineering Charlottesville, VA 22911
�NI,% 434.979.8121 (p)
'00>oe�am 434.979.1681 (f)
eps s DominionEng.com
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.
RESPONSE: These street trees have been adjusted to be located at least 30 feet from the end of radius
at each intersection.
We trust the above adequately addresses your comments. Please let me know if you have any questions or
require additional information.
Very truly yours,
ichael Myers, P.E., C.F.M.
Attachments
Cc: Keith Lancaster
Page 7 of 7
nr. ..r
'5
ee �s
o - Dominion 172 South Pantops Drive
g`MP ■ Engineering Charlottesville, VA 22911
d `��' 434.979.8121 (p)
��o� «uos - 434.979.1681 (f)
.90 era DominionEng.com
a
April 11, 2014
Ms. Megan Yaniglos, ASLA
Senior Planner
Albemarle County Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
RE: Cascadia Final Site Plan and Road Plans- Comment-Response Letter-SDP2013-00025 and
SUB2013-00091
Dear Megan,
Enclosed please find three (3) sets of the revised Final Site Plan and two (2) sets of the Road Plans. Please
note that we will submit additional Road Plans directly to VDOT and we will submit additional site plans directly
to the ACSA. Please note that we have revised the site plan to address your comments dated January 22, 2014
in accordance with the following:
PLANNER COMMENTS
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.
RESPONSE: The trail has been revised to be outside of the preservation area.
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.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged. The applicant received ARB approval subject to the approval
conditions listed further in the body of this letter.
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.
RESPONSE: The square footages of the tot lots have been added to the plans.
Page 1 of 6
0C
5
4 46,;11 Dominion 172 South Pantops Drive
141 ► Engineering Charlottesville, VA 22911
' 434.979.8121 (p)
61001 I0.P 434.979.1681 (f)
e^Ps DominionEng.com
a
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.
Revi: Comment addressed. Landscape Architect will need to sign the seal before the plans are
signed by the County.
RESPONSE:the Landscape Architect has signed the landscape sheets.
12. [Code of Development; pagel4] Provide the Amenity/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 provided 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. After consulting with Zoning,the total amount of green space being provided for the entire
project needs to be 30%. It appears that the plan has lost some green space, and you will need to
keep track of how much is being provided so that at the end of the development you will have 30%
total. Also,fixing the Code of Development chart to reflect the correct numbers based on the plan is
recommended.
RESPONSE: We have updated the tabulations below the COD chart to more clearly indicate
compliance with the Greenspace requirements. The issue we are having is that the chart from the
COD is very unclear as the total green space for each block is actually listed under the column
heading Amenity & Green Space Area, and that column is not even consistent. We felt it much
clearer to list out the amenity and green space area in each block in list format below the COD chart.
We also added an overall tabulation showing the overall green space required for Blocks 4-7 and
overall provided,which is approximately 80,000-sf in excess.
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.
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.
RESPONSE: The landscape plan has been updated accordingly.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS ON SITE PLAN
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.
Page 2 of 6
s
eet l s
CA 46 0 ' Dominion 172 South Pantops Drive
:IMP • Engineering Charlottesville, VA 22911
+` 434.979.8121 (p)
,,�I 434.979.1681 (f)
roe^ s DominionEng.com
[Revision 1] Partially addressed. Please remove all road plans from the site plan.
RESPONSE: A separate set of road plans has been provided and the road plans have been
removed from the site plan set.
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.
RESPONSE: As discussed the site plan sheets included in the final site plan meet all of the
requirements of Proffer#5.
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 1] Acknowledged by applicant.
B. Proposed Plan View Information
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)
[Revision 1] Partially addressed. Landscaping plans do not specify the type of plantings in
2:1 slope area outside the conservation area.
RESPONSE: We have added a specification for the 2:1 plantings on the landscape plans,
sheet 37.
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.
RESPONSE: We have indicated station labels every 100'. At 50' stations, we have indicated
a tic mark,which is standard operating procedure for site plans.
11) A retaining wall appears to be shown on sheets SP6 and SP10. Please label all retaining
walls on all sheets on which they appear.
[Revision 1]This is addressed, but there is a concern there will disturbance of TMP78E-H.
Please provide actual retaining wall design with safety fence.
Page 3 of 6
5
`owe *eel
e.et t
CO 4.∎I'") Dominion 172 South Pantops Drive
� ► Engineering Charlottesville, VA 22911
�d 11109
to 434.979.8121 (p)
� „
434.979.1681 (f)
rs DominionEng.com
RESPONSE: As discussed,the applicant is not prepared to perform a full-blown retaining
wall as part of the land development permit process. As is customary,the retaining wall
design will be completed with the building permit process and this is how the applicant has
structured the project progression. However,we do understand your concern relative to the
geo-grid and its potential impact on TMP 78E-H. To this end,we have shifted the retaining
walls so that the wall is 1.7—2 times the height of the wall away from the common property
line. This will leave ample room for the wall construction since the length of geogrid tie back
is customarily equal to the height of the retaining wall. We hope and trust this addresses
Engineering's concern, and that the actual final design of the retaining walls can be handled
at the building permit process following site plan approval.
13) From our meeting, we discussed capturing more runoff behind lots along Glissade Lane, Delphi
Lane, and Boulder Hill Lane. Please address.
RESPONSE: As contained in the WPO plans for the project,we have addressed the runoff
concerns by virtue of adding a rain garden and water quality swale behind these lots.
C. Plan Detail Information
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.
RESPONSE: See response to#11 above.
D. Drainage Profiles(all comments have been addressed)
E. Drainage Computations
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.
RESPONSE: This is to clarify that the response incorrectly stated the 10-year storm and the analysis
was indeed for the 25-year storm.
b) 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 Dl 67.
Page 4 of 6
cs
•
go vs
�o;/.■"J Dominion 172 South Pantops Drive
d 1�� I. Engineering Charlottesville, VA 22911
mr 10 �F' 434.979.8121 (p)
,„I
434.979.1681 (f)
®0 �s DominionEng.com
RESPONSE: We have added computations with the 6.5 in/hr check storm for the recommended inlets
on Sheet SP 32. Please also note we have adjusted throat lengths accordingly to address the efficiency
issue.
ARB COMMENTS
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."
RESPONSE: The note has been added to Sheet SP2 of the site plan.
2. Revise the landscape schedule to show that at least 27 of the large shade trees along the EC will be
planted at 31/2'caliper.
RESPONSE: A plant list has been added to Sheet SP38 to indicate the larger-caliper trees along the EC.
3. Clearly identify the location and length of the board fence on the plans. Provide a fence detail in the
plans.
RESPONSE: The fence has been shown on the plans and detail 6 has been added to Sheet 43.
4. Add the plant labels to the plant schedule.
RESPONSE: The plant labels have been added to the plant list on Sheet SP38.
5. Include the VR shrub in the plant schedule.
RESPONSE: The VR shrub has been added.
6. Revise the plant schedule to show shrubs along the EC at 24" minimum.
RESPONSE: A plant list has been added to Sheet SP38 to indicate 24" shrubs along the EC.
7. Consider a greater proportion of evergreen trees in the mix of plants along the EC frontage.
RESPONSE: We have provided a greater proportion of evergreen trees along the EC frontage.
8. Revise the plant schedule to show interior road trees at 21/2'caliper minimum.
RESPONSE: A plant list has been added to Sheet SP38 to indicate 24" shrubs along the EC.
9. Provide landscape plans with plant labels.
RESPONSE: The plant labels have been added.
Page 5 of 6
s
46 401 Dominion 172 South Pantops Drive
4'6) Engineering Charlottesville, VA 22911
434.979.8121 (p)
Tv'�o�y 434.979.1681 (f)
4>e�ps DominionEng.com
s
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."
RESPONSE: The note has been added to the final landscape plan, sheet SP37.
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.
RESPONSE: We have provided four shrub species as indicated on the plans.
12. Round contours with a ten foot minimum radius where they meet the adjacent condition.
RESPONSE: As discussed,we have added a note to the plans to alert the contractor to the need to
provide smooth grade tie-in. This note has been added to Sheet 2. As discussed,there is little control
that the design engineer or even project surveyor has over the tie-in of the grades as we only indicate
the limits of clearing and grading. We have found that skilled contractors do indeed make every attempt
to tie in the grades with a smooth, natural feel as this creates a much more attractive finished product.
We trust the above adequately addresses your comments. Please let me know if you have any questions or
require additional information.
Very truly yours,
Michael Myers, P.E., C.F.M.
Attachments
Cc: Keith Lancaster
Page 6 of 6
Megan Yaniglos
From: Mike Myers [mmyers @dominioneng.com]
Sent: Friday, January 03, 2014 4:35 PM
To: Megan Yaniglos
Cc: 'Keith Lancaster'; Charlie Armstrong; Clint Shifflett
Subject: RE: Cascadia Exhibit
Attachments: 78-59-CASCADIA-ARBHILL.pdf; 78-59-CASCADIA-ARBTOWN.pdf
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Megan, Enclosed please find two exhibits that have been revised in accordance with our responses in red to your
comments below. Please consider these changes part of the site plan SDP2013-00025 that is currently under review.
Thanks very much and let's kick off the New Year with some approvals!
Thanks so much for your assistance with this project. Do you have any ideas of when you think you might be completed
with your review? I believe Engineering is looking to have their review completed by 1.23.14. Thanks again! Mike
From: Megan Yaniglos [mailto:myaniglosalbemarle.org]
Sent: Monday, December 02, 2013 11:39 AM
To: Mike Myers
Cc: 'Keith Lancaster'
Subject: RE: Cascadia Exhibit
Mike:
Margaret, Rebecca, Wayne and myself just sat down to discuss this and below is what we concluded.
In order for the plan to be in compliance with the Code of Development, Application Plan, and Proffers the
following needs to be shown on the site plan:
1. Add some shrubs in with the trees shown along Route 20.
RESPONSE: Additional shrubs have been interspersed with the trees along Route 20.
2. The right of way for Cascadia Drive and additional roads (Meadow Lane, Delphi Lane) needs to be
shown and conceptually graded including where the building sites will be located. It is hard to tell how
the Entry Park will ultimately be shaped without this information. We don't want to get in a situation
where we let this one go, and then later the Entry Park doesn't conform or work as it was shown on the
Application Plan.
RESPONSE: We have provided an additional exhibit entitled CASCADIA-ARBTOWN that shows the
conceptual grading for the Town District as requested. Comparing the two exhibits,the Entry Park
conforms to the Application Plan in both cases.
3. The 30' easement connection does not meet Proffer #3 in that a driveway cannot be constructed in this
easement for Broadus Woods Church. What we suggest is looking at a connection from Meadow Lane
to the church property, but keep the trail in the Entry Park.
RESPONSE: The plan as presented meets the intent of Proffer#3 in that we have provided a 30' easement that
runs along the centerline of a 10'-wide Class A trail (suitable for a driveway) to the intersection of Cascadia
Drive and Delphi Lane. The location adjacent to the pond is actually the most feasible spot to make the
connection since that location has the least amount of elevation difference between the Cascadia site and the
1
church driveway. A connection at Meadows Lane does not appear feasible based on the topography.
However, please note that we have revised the alignment of the Class A Trail/Driveway and the 30'-wide
easement to eliminate the T-intersection and providing a radius for a smoother connection for the church.
•
Basically, after reviewing the Code of Development and discussing the Entry Park, we need some more
information to ensure that the Entry Park will be what was laid out in the COD and Application Plan. We feel
this is very important, as it is the face of the development and the main entrance along Route 20.
Let me know if you have questions, or if anything is unclear.
Thank you,
Megan
From: Mike Myers [mailto:mmyersCadominioneng.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2013 1:57 PM
To: Megan Yaniglos
Cc: Margaret Maliszewski; Rebecca Ragsdale; 'Keith Lancaster'
Subject: RE: Cascadia Exhibit
Thanks Megan! Luckily I was able to catch Keith by the collar just before he jumped in! Totally kidding, thanks so much
for discussing with David and Wayne and have a great Thanksgiving! Mike
From: Megan Yaniglos [mailto:myaniglosCaalbemarle.orq]
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2013 1:45 PM
To: Mike Myers
Cc: Margaret Maliszewski; Rebecca Ragsdale; 'Keith Lancaster'
Subject: RE: Cascadia Exhibit
Mike,
I am going to need to discuss this with David and Wayne. Wayne is out this week, but will get with him early
next week to talk about it.
Thanks,
Megan
From: Mike Myers [mailto:mmyers@dominioneng.com]
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2013 4:57 PM
To: Megan Yaniglos
Cc: Margaret Maliszewski; Rebecca Ragsdale; 'Keith Lancaster'
Subject: RE: Cascadia Exhibit
Megan, I just had to pull Keith off of the hill as he was getting ready to throw himself into the Rivanna after I told him he
needs another$425 variation fee. Can you give me some more background as to why we need to submit a variation, as I
would like to humbly request that you reconsider. We have already been through two rounds of variations, and in this
case,we feel like we are not only meeting, but exceeding the planting shown on the COD exhibit. We are proposing
more landscaping in between the pond and Route 20 than the COD exhibit and adding supplemental features such as a
three-board fence and wildflowers along the embankment. We also have created an entry park area in between the
proposed and existing pond. The existing pond could never have had trees planted because the embankment runs all
the way to the property line and there is a VEPCO easement on the south side of the pond. The developer would
certainly plant trees there if they were able to, but instead he is proposing the three-board fence and wildflower
plantings there. Thanks very much for your consideration to reconsider the need for Variation#3. Thanks! Mike
2
r.r ..r
From: Megan Yaniglos [mailto:myaniglosOalbemarle.orq]
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2013 3:11 PM
To: Mike Myers
Cc: Margaret Maliszewski; Rebecca Ragsdale
Subject: RE: Cascadia Exhibit
Mike,
We looked at it, and suggest that you just submit it as a variation and we will process it from there. Margaret
thought this was the best thing to see what the ARB thinks. We thought it was a better design, although am still
wondering why no landscaping was placed near the existing pond?
Anyway, hope this helps.
Thanks,
Megan
From: Mike Myers [mailto:mmyers(adominioneng.com]
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 11:21 AM
To: Megan Yaniglos
Subject: FW: Cascadia Exhibit
Hello Megan, I was just following up to see if you had been able to review our exhibit and had any comment on the next
steps to take,thanks! Mike
From: Mike Myers [mailto:mmyersCa�dominioneng.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2013 1:06 PM
To: 'Megan Yaniglos'; 'Rebecca Ragsdale'; 'Margaret Maliszewski'
Cc: 'Charlie Armstrong'; 'Keith Lancaster'; 'Clint Shifflett'
Subject: FW: Cascadia Exhibit
Megan, Rebecca and Margaret,Thanks so much for meeting with us on Monday to discuss the site plan conformance
with the ARB exhibit and COD. We certainly appreciate your suggestions and have incorporated them into this
response. To summarize, we have made the following changes to the attached Route 20 landscape exhibit, which also
includes a site cross-section:
For the"long" pond on the south side of the Route 20 frontage:
1) We have revised the embankment to a serpentine shape to provide ample space for 2 and 3-deep clusters of
tree plantings in between the embankment and the Route 20 right-of-way. As discussed,we are not allowed to
plant any trees or shrubs within the footprint of the embankment.
2) We have added a 3-board fence along the entire length of the embankment. The fence has been placed
approximately 3 feet vertically below the embankment such that the top of the fence will align roughly with the
embankment. This will certainly help to attenuate the embankment. Please refer to the representative
photograph of the fence on the attached exhibit.
3) To further cushion the appearance of the embankment, we are proposing a native wildflower mix to be planted
in the general location shown.
4) To mitigate the rear slope of the pond,we have provided tree plantings which will soften this slope.
For the park area in between the"long" pond and the existing pond:
5) We are proposing additional plantings in this location and designated this as a park area.
6) We have also added the future trail location that will meander through the park area.
3
For the existing pond on the north side of the Route 20 frontage:
7) We are proposing a 3-board fence and the native wildflowers on the embankment similar to the "long" pond.
8) We are proposing to maintain the existing onsite vegetation as shown.
9) We can not further plant on the downstream side of this existing embankment because no new trees can be
planted in an embankment.
10) There is also a 100'VEPCO easement on the north side of this pond, under which we can not plant anything
except grass.
If these changes are adequate, please advise and we will incorporate these into the final plans and our ARB
resubmission. If you feel we need to meet to sit down and discuss,then please let us know your next available time to
do so. Thanks again for your help with this, Mike
Michael F. Myers, P.E., C.F.M.
Director of Engineering
Dominion Engineering and Design, LLC
172 South Pantops Drive
Charlottesville, VA 22911
434.979.8121 x140 (office)
434.906.3161 (mobile)
a°o ' Dominion
* Engineering &
Desi n LLC
,0 •..
`; l�
4
ls
tree'°l s
ra4e 40" Dominion 172 South Pantops Drive
°'y` ► Engineering Charlottesville, VA 22911
0 �11 434.979.8121 (p)
N o,,101411I 1.I 434.979.1681 (f)
:OA DominionEng.com
s
November 25, 2013
Ms. Megan Yaniglos,ASLA
Senior Planner
Albemarle County Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
RE: Cascadia Final Site Plan and Road Plans-Comment-Response Letter-SDP2013-00025 and
SUB2013-00091
Dear Megan,
Enclosed please find eight (8)sets of revised Final Site Plan. Please note that we have revised the site plan to
address your comments dated May 17, 2013 in accordance with the following:
PLANNER COMMENTS
1. [32.7.9.4(c)] Provide the general type of trees within the wooded area. Deciduous/evergreen/mix?
RESPONSE: The general types of trees within the wooded area has been added to the existing
conditions sheet and to the landscape plan sheets.
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.
RESPONSE: A row of shrubs has been provided to screen the parking lot from the public street.
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.
RESPONSE: A typical lot layout has been provided on Sheet 34.
4. [Code of Development;page 17]The unit types being shown do not meet the Architectural and Façade
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.
RESPONSE: The plans have been revised in accordance with approved Variation requests#5 to
address this comment.
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.
RESPONSE: Lot 103 has been revised to access off of the private alley.
Page 1 of 12
.y.
, o<
pzi Dominion 172 South Pantops Drive
y tD \ Engineering Charlottesville, VA 22911
o�'�,'r1 434.979.8121 (p)
0.o yl 434.979.1681 (f)
10 oee�s DominionEng.com
s
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 façade 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.
RESPONSE: In accordance with approved Variation#6,all build-to lines have been established in
accordance with the block plan that has been made Sheet 5A of the site plan.
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.
RESPONSE: The trail has been extended in accordance with the COD.
8. [Code of Development; page 13] Show the landscaping in accord with the Architectural Review Board
plan for the Entry Park.
RESPONSE: The landscape plan has been revised to indicate plantings in accordance with the ARB
plan.
9. [Code of Development; page 14] Provide a tot lot in one of the Hill District Parks ( val or Summit)
Summit Park. 2)O 2 e 1
RESPONSE: A tot lot has been provided in Su t • ,
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.
RESPONSE: The landscape plan has been closely coordinated with and revised by Steven Edwards,a
landscape architect. The landscape plans as submitted show his seal,however, Mr. Edwards will
provide his signature on the final approved sets.
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.
RESPONSE: Summit Park has been revised to include two permanent benches and walls outlining the
plaza.
12. [Code of Development;pagel 4] Provide the Amenity/Greenspace chart that was in the preliminary
plans on the final plans. Update as necessary to reflect actual acreage/area of provided greenspace
areas.
X11 RESPONSE: The Amenity/Greenspace chart has been shown on Sheet 3 of he plans. The actual re
of greenspace areas has been provided below this chart. qir n '
0)41 13. [Code of Development; page 19]Where street trees are not provided in Ian scape stn. due to utilities,( "-
a d^ •
easements, site distance etc, they must be provided on the lots as close to the street as possible. °1''
''y
RESPONSE: The landscape plan has been revised accordingly.
14. [Code of Development; page 24]All 2:1 slopes must be landscaped.
' 5 `x, 5-33
Zq 552•41 131aciictif Page 2of 12
3CLC--Nre5
2 , ■ 32 3( Le
Noe
vs
�t>
c 4
444 I Dominion 172 South Pantops Drive
°7 y � Engineering Charlottesville, VA 22911
434.979.8121 (p)
0 9'. l∎ �I 434.979.1681 (f)
190ere s a DominionEng.com
RESPONSE: Notes have been added throughout the landscape plan to provide a low maintenance
ground cover on all 2:1 slopes.
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.
RESPONSE: Tree protection in accordance with the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook
has been provided on the WPO plans. The plans address not only tree protection in the conservation
area and adjacent to the Preservation Area, but for the entire site. Also,the conservation checklist has
been added to the Cover Sheet.
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.
RESPONSE:The landscape plans have been addressed to bolster the landscaping at the retaining walls
throughout the site.
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.
RESPONSE: All retaining walls are to be green walls as approved by County Engineering. We have also
indicated the extent of the geogrid support system to ensure no disturbance of offsite properties.
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.
RESPONSE: The ADU's have been labeled on the site plan sheets and a chart has been provided on
Sheet 5A.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS ON SITE PLAN
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.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
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.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged. A separate road plan submission is being made.
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.
Page 3 of 12
1.110* NEW V
tS
Oe015
■
c4 Dominion 172 South Pantops Drive
0:t • Engineering Charlottesville, VA 22911
4*11 v 434.979.8121 (p)
� *,, 434.979.1681 (f)
'vaePs DominionEng.com
RESPONSE: The overlot grading plan has been made part of 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.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
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.
RESPONSE: Additional labels of existing and proposed contours have been provided throughout the
plan set.
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.
RESPONSE: Stabilization of 2:1 slopes have been provided via note throughout the landscape plan
sheets in accordance with Proffer#5D.
3)Please label all entrance and intersection radii including the corner of Glissade Lane and Delphi
Lane on sheet SP10.
RESPONSE: All entrance and'intersection radii have been labeled.
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.
RESPONSE: All proposed drainage easement have been labeled.
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.
RESPONSE: As discussed at the post-submission Engineer's meeting,the privately owned and
maintained drainage systems may continue to have 10'-wide easements. All public drainage easements
are 20'-minimum width.
6)Please confirm proposed parking lot curb type (appears to be CG-2) on sheet SP7.
RESPONSE: The parking lot curb type has been clarified.
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.
Page 4 of 12
'..Aoc s
0,"L i Dominion 172 South Pantops Drive
°i h`� Engineering Charlottesville, VA 22911
tm,j 434.979.8121 (p)
s� * I - 434.979.1681 (f)
e
* s DominionEng.com
RESPONSE: The sidewalk in front of the neighborhood center has been expanded to 6'-wide.
8)Please include stationing for all proposed public streets at minimum 50' intervals.
RESPONSE: Stationing has been provided on the site plan sheets.
9)Please label all PCs and PTs for all proposed public streets.
RESPONSE: PCs and PTs have been labeled on the road profile sheets.
10) Please label the maximum (not average) height for each proposed retaining wall.
RESPONSE: The maximum height has been labeled.
11) A retaining wall appears to be shown on sheets SP6 and SP10. Please label all retaining
walls on all sheets on which they appear.
RESPONSE: An inset has been added to clarify the wall on Sheets 6 and 10.
12) Sheet SP38 appears to be part of the landscape plan. Please update sheet name.
RESPONSE: Sheet 38 has been labeled as Landscape Plan.
C. Plan Detail Information
1)Please specify 3000 psi strength requirement and 4"stone base for all proposed sidewalks on
road typical sections.
RESPONSE: The road typical sections have been updated accordingly.
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.
RESPONSE: All retaining walls are to be green walls as agreed. Typical details have been added to the
plans and the limits of geogrid reinforcement have been added to the site plan.
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.
RESPONSE: All storm drain profiles have been shown.
2) Please label existing ground and proposed ground elevation lines on all drainage
profiles including profiles for two proposed drainage structures.
RESPONSE: Existing and proposed ground elevation lines have been labeled on all drainage profiles.
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
Page 5 of 12
NOW 11e0
s
oe ors
Dominion 172 South Pantops Drive
d,`a • Engineering Charlottesville, VA 22911
1`�,i 434.979.8121 (p)
„�o I„I 434.979.1681 (f)
seers DominionEng.com
s
profile view: 2-3(w), 2-3(s), 3-4(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.
RESPONSE: The profiles have been updated to indicate all utility conflicts.
4) Station for structure 49 appears to be missing. Recommend including this station with
drainage profile on sheet SP29.
RESPONSE: Station has been provided.
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%.
RESPONSE: The slopes have been revised to be less than 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.
RESPONSE: Notes have been added to all profile sheets.
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'.
RESPONSE: Notes have been added to all profile sheets.
8) Please include scour protection for all outlets in profile view, corresponding to
computations and protection shown in plan view.
RESPONSE: The scour protection has been indicated in profile view and rectified with the
computations and 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:
RESPONSE: All VDOT comments have been addressed.
a) Please ensure principal access (proposed structures 66&67) is free from flooding during
a 100 year storm event.
RESPONSE: As discussed at post-submission engineer's meeting,culvert computations for the
existing culvert have been added that show there is adequate freeboard for a 10-year design storm.
b) Spread for all inlets need to be checked for 4 in/hr intensity per VDOT Drainage Manual
Table 9-1.
RESPONSE: Spread for all inlets has been computed using standard VDOT methodology.
Page 6 of 12
via" Nair
xs
I" Dominion 172 South Pantops Drive
h Cal •. Engineering Charlottesville, VA 22911
oa
434.979.8121 (p)
� , I rI 434.979.1681 (f)
.o0eeps DominionEng.com
s
c) Inlet efficiency needs to be checked for 6.5 in/hr per note 4 attached to VDOT Drainage
Manual Table 9-1.
RESPONSE: As discussed at the post-submission engineer's meeting,there are no conditions where
the 6.5 in/hr check storm is required for this development.
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 Fl below).
RESPONSE: The storm sewer design has been prepared in accordance with County/VDOT standards
for a 10-year design storm using the appropriate time of concentration.
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 SP31 A).
RESPONSE: The storm sewer design has been prepared in accordance with County/VDOT standards
for a 10-year design storm using the appropriate time of concentration.
COUNTY ENGINEERING COMMENTS ON ROAD PLAN
A. Application Information
1) A 12'tall retaining wall and two 8'tall retaining walls are proposed on sheet SP10.
The Code of Development for Cascadia p. 24 states that walls over 6-feet tall, as
measured from top of wall to the top of the footer, shall be allowed only at the
discretion of the Director of Community Development. Per correspondence with the
Director on 7/10/2013:
a. The Department finds the 8'tall wall proposed behind Lots 56-58 acceptable with
any material.
b. The Department does not find the 12' wall and other 8'wall proposed in the
Vegetative Buffer along the property line for Fontana Subdivision acceptable
pending any potential stream buffer incurrence (see comment B2). It is imperative to
keep grading outside of the 30' Vegetative Buffer. Two alternative options available
for these walls are:
1. A green wall (with vegetation in front of the vegetative buffer) of maximum
height 20' located outside of the vegetative buffer(preferred option).
2. A series of terraced walls of maximum height 6' located outside the
vegetative buffer. Because they are visible from the street, these walls
should be made of a higher material quality(finished with brick, interlocking
concrete block or stacked fieldstone per p. 24 of the Code of Development).
See also comment D2 regarding the proposed retaining walls.
RESPONSE: All retaining walls are to be green walls as agreed. Also, upon further discussion with
Engineering, grading in the 30' vegetative buffer is allowed subject to the screening planting as
provided on the landscape plan. Typical green wall details have been added to the plans and the limits
of geogrid reinforcement have been added to the site plan.
Page 7 of 12
vs
oe ovs
144'4' Dominion 172 South Pantops Drive
0:101 \ Engineering Charlottesville, VA 22911
gm Aim
� live 434.979.8121 (p)
0�o ICI 434.979.1681 (f)
e,,ee's DominionEng.com
2) Per ZMA2002-00004 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.
RESPONSE: The overlot grading plan has been made part of the WPO plan. Also refer to same
comment under site plan review.
B. Existing Plan View Information
13) Please label all existing contour elevations including those shown on detail 1 on sheet SP8 as
well as for proposed lots 79-84 on sheet SP8.
RESPONSE: Additional labels of existing and proposed contours have been provided throughout the
plan set. Also refer to same comment under site plan review.
14) An unnamed tributary to Rivanna River appears to run behind east end of project. Please
include a stream analysis to determine if this stream is a perennial or intermittent stream.
RESPONSE: As discussed,this stream is a perennial stream and a 100' stream buffer has been
provided.
C. Proposed Plan View Information
1)Some traffic signs appear to be missing including:
Stop sign at the the corner of Boulder Hill Lane and Delphi Lane
Label for stop sign at the corner of Oval Park Lane and Delphi Lane
Stop sign at Glissade Lane and Delphi Lane
Labels for stop signs at ends of Flat Waters Lane
Speed limit signs throughout the development
Street name signs throughout the development
Please include all required traffic signs on proposed road plans.
RESPONSE: The traffic signs have been added to the site plan and road plans.
2)Please label all proposed contour elevations including those shown on detail 1 on sheet SP8 as
well as for proposed lots 79-84 on sheet SP8.
RESPONSE: Additional labels of existing and proposed contours have been provided throughout the
plan set. Also refer to same comment under site plan review. Also refer to same comment under site
plan review.
3)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.
RESPONSE: Stabilization of 2:1 slopes have been provided via note throughout the landscape plan
sheets in accordance with Proffer#5D. Also refer to same comment under site plan
review.
4)Please label all entrance and intersection radii including the corner of Glissade Lane and Delphi
Lane on sheet SP10.
Page 8 of 12
Now *lose
C"5
Oe 0�5
ae�410 Dominion 172 South Pantops Drive
Q7 h` • Engineering Charlottesville, VA 22911
434.979.8121 (p)
•AI 434.979.1681 (f)
oe,s DominionEng.com
s
RESPONSE: All entrance and intersection radii have been labeled. Also refer to same comment under
site plan review.
5)Please label all proposed drainage easements including the proposed easement for pipe out of
proposed structure 7C crossing proposed lot 1 on sheet SP6.
RESPONSE: All proposed drainage easement have been labeled. Also refer to same comment under
site plan review.
6)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.
RESPONSE: As discussed at the post-submission Engineer's meeting,the privately owned and
maintained drainage systems may continue to have 10'-wide easements. All public drainage easements
are 20'-minimum width. Also refer to same comment under site plan review.
7)Please confirm proposed parking lot curb type (appears to be CG-2) on sheet SP7.
RESPONSE: The parking lot curb type has been clarified. Also refer to same comment under site plan
review.
8)Please widen sidewalk in front of proposed neighborhood center from 5'to 6' or provide bumper
blocks for adjacent parking spaces on sheet SP7.
RESPONSE: The sidewalk in front of the neighborhood center has been expanded to 6'-wide. Also refer
to same comment under site plan review.
9)Please include stationing for all proposed streets at minimum 50' intervals.
RESPONSE: Stationing has been provided on the site plan sheets. Also refer to same comment under
site plan review.
10) Please label all PCs and PTs for all proposed streets.
RESPONSE: PCs and PTs have been labeled on the road profile sheets. Also refer to same comment
under site plan review.
11) Please label the maximum (not average) height for each proposed retaining wall.
RESPONSE: The maximum height has been labeled. Also refer to same comment under site plan
review.
12) A retaining wall appears to be shown on sheets SP6 and SP10. Please label all retaining
walls on all sheets on which they appear.
RESPONSE: An inset has been added to clarify the wall on Sheets 6 and 10. Also refer to same
comment under site plan review.
13) Sheet SP38 appears to be part of the landscape plan. Please update sheet name.
Page 9 of 12
%eV NNW
eols
o� A�s I
A/ .i Dominion 172 South Pantops Drive
d:fa ■ Engineering Charlottesville, VA 22911
�C�,' 434.979.8121 (p)
�� � INN OW' 434.979.1681 (f)
10 op DominionEng.com
RESPONSE: Sheet 38 has been labeled as Landscape Plan. Also refer to same comment under site
plan review.
D. Plan Detail Information
1)Please specify 3000 psi strength requirement and 4"stone base for all proposed sidewalks on
road typical sections.
RESPONSE: The road typical sections have been updated accordingly. Also refer to same comment
under site plan review
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.
RESPONSE: All retaining walls are to be green walls as agreed. Typical details have been added to the
plans and the limits of geogrid reinforcement have been added to the site plan. Also refer to same
comment under site plan review
3)Please include Albemarle County General Construction Notes for Streets.
RESPONSE: The notes have been added to Sheet 2.
4)Street Profiles
1)Please label existing and proposed grade at each 50 feet.
RESPONSE: The existing and proposed grade has been labeled.
2)Please indicate proposed drainage structures on road profile sheets.
RESPONSE: As discussed,to drainage structure has been added to the labeling of the storm crossings
on the road profile sheets.
3)Please include cross drains (CD-1 or CD-2) at cut-fill transition points.
RESPONSE: Cross drains have been added to the road profile sheets.
4)Please indicate road intersection stations in profile view.
RESPONSE: Road intersection stations have been added to the profile view.
5) Street Details
1)Please propose a pavement design on typical sections for each public and private road
proposed which supports proposed traffic loadings per 2009 VDOT Pavement Design Guide
for Subdivision and Secondary Roads in Virginia or equivalent.
RESPONSE: Preliminary pavement design sheets have been included with this submission.
Page 10 of 12
ls
\C,+o's '
Now NNW
ca`a��' Dominion 172 South Pantops Drive
• Engineering Charlottesville, VA 22911
434.979.8121 (p)
1,KP 434.979.1681 (f)
0 ep
$ DominionEng.com
s
2)Please specify 3000 psi strength requirement and 4"stone base for all proposed sidewalks on
road typical sections.
RESPONSE: See response to road plan comment D1 above.
3)Please propose a transition detail for roll top curbing proposed for Oval Park Lane at proposed
drainage structures.
RESPONSE:The roll-top curb has been removed from the plan in favor of CG-2 and CG-9 entrances.
G. 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.
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), 3-4(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.
RESPONSE: Refer to responses to Site Plan Comments D1-D8 above.
H. Drainage Computations
3) 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 F1e 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 SP31 A).
Page I 1 of 12
*11111110 ,
s
oe ors
p4:4� " Dominion 172 South Pantops Drive
v y`� L. Engineering Charlottesville, VA 22911
1/4`�'�, 434.979.8121 (p)
.o'�I�I 434.979.1681 (f)
*et DominionEng.com
DominionEng.com
s
RESPONSE: Refer to responses to Site Plan Comments E3a—E3h above.
ARB 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 district. Proposed development on this parcel does not require ARB
review/approval.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
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 www.albemarle.ora/ARB.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
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.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged. The developer is planning to resubmit for preliminary ARB review on
December 9,2013.
FIRE AND RESCUE COMMENTS
Please verify via email or in writing that the cul-de-sac on Boulder Hill Lane is marked no parking due to not
meeting the minimum size requirements. Otherwise Fire Rescue has no objections to the plans dated 4/20/13.
RESPONSE: No parking"signage has been added to Boulder Hill Lane.
We trust the above adequately addresses your comments. Please let me know if you have any questions or
require additional information.
Very truly yours,
Mic ael Myers, P.E., C.F.M.
Attachments
Cc: Keith Lancaster
Page 12 of 12