Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201400070 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2015-06-18�pF A vt�r�1Q 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: Stonefield Block D2 — SDP - Final Plan preparer: WW Associates Owner or rep.: Albemarle Place EAAP, LLC Plan received date: 17 Jun 2015 Date of comments: 18 Jun 2015 Reviewer: Michelle Roberge Engineering has completed the review of SDP201400070. Please address the following comments. A. Site Development Plan (SDP2014000070) 1) The retaining walls should be designed to meet 30.7.5 if the walls were not approved on the ZMA plans. Please verify if walls were approved on ZMA. If approved on ZMA, only address b. a) Retaining walls over 6' should be broken into stepped walls. The separation between walls is Yand shall be landscaped with screening shrubs planted on ten (10) foot centers. b) Address 30.7.5 9(b)(3)(ii). The abutting parcels will be impacted when constructing the retaining wall. Please note there appears to be a staircase to lot 2L. Also, there are accessory structures near the boundary line of lot 6R or 6L. C) Address 30.7.5 9(c)(2), Width and location of benches. The reverse slope shall be approximately 17% or flatter. The bench gradient to the outlet shall be between two (2) percent) and three (3) percent. [Revision 11 Comment partially addressed. The retaining walls were approved on the ZMA. To address comment 1(b), please show on plan approximate location of geogrid. [Revision 21 Comment addressed. 2) There are three areas where the slopes are 2:1 or greater. The areas are behind lots 7 -14, near lot 40, and the slope along Houston St. Add a note to provide low maintence (not grass) ground cover at those locations. Please provide for all 2:1 slopes. [Revision 11 Comment partially addressed. Provide a note on landscaping plan for slopes greater than 3:1 to have low maintenance (not grass) ground cover. Specify type of groundcover. [Revision 2] Comment addressed. 3) Please note the slope along Houston St. is steeper than 2:1. Provide guard rails. Also, per the Design Standards Manual, "Constructed slopes steeper than 2:1 must have a waiver from the County Engineer." Requests for the waiver should include provisions for permanent stabilization and structural stability. Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 7 [Revision 11 The steep slope groundcover has been addressed for this location. Liriope is the groundcover. [Revision 21 Comment not addressed. Label 2:1 slopes near retaining wall by lot 30. Also, label 2:1 slopes near str 23.3. Another option is to place a note on the landscaping plan, "groundcover (not grass)" at the areas mentioned above. 4) Please follow VDOT road standards. See image below for a typical section. Note that road plans will require approval prior to subdivision of lots. I recommend 29' curb to curb with parking on both sides. Issues arise with a 24' wide road since residents tend to park on both sides of the street. When this happens, Fire Rescue will require no parking signs on one side. This needs to be discussed with fire rescue. [Revision 11 An alternative pavement section is to pitch the road 2% to one side. [Revision 21 Comment addressed. 5) It appears with the typical VDOT pavement section the stormsewer layout will need to be revised. [Revision 11 An alternative pavement section is to pitch the road 2% to one side. The following curbs are proposed. [Revision 21 Comment addressed. Face of Curb !avert One . 6� ---Y- C\, Rolltop Curb Pa+rerrre t Rlbbon Cwrp Slope r match a acenr Roadway Slope b Ribbon Curb Engineering Review Comments Page 3 of 7 T1 4'. r R SEE SINfACE NOTE B+KE xeeesE 6" 6) The reverse rolltop curbing will not work with the typical VDOT pavement section. Remove reverse rolltop curbing. [Revision 11 Comment partially addressed. The standard rolltop is now used. Please add VDOT detail of mountable curb on sheet C7. Do the same for VDOT ribbon curb detail. The pavement section should show 2% slope for ribbon curb to match pavement. [Revision 21 Comment addressed. 7) Use the standard VDOT rolltop curb detail. Also, please note that rolltop curbs need to transition to drainage inlets or CG -6. It appears what is shown will not work since the depth and width for these sections are different. It appears a transition design will need to be addressed. Provide a typical section for transistion. Faced Irnat Line 19n� R 183n �4•� r R T;- R1ft8m &WWa QP &:Wea may he Rolbm d.t fo bff wipe d / abhae amrirrum d7 iuhes is rl9indired. � 1.. 2ft0in 6" E FY6irdW MINT . EMPADIS I 7R METALS OF IH�.ET JCffT slim ■ CGWER OAN OF $IpE'A *k =E STAMARD 11 n F 11 F 1 MARS 6 11 1'M � L9AiA f 'IE Lk RRS C FACE OF CURB :RLK :GNTROL J71h1; GUTTER CRACK CONTROL PLAN E- Y+RL46LE - WAX 29 _I I' 10. MAX [Revision 11 Comment partially addressed. The applicant has revised so there is room for the transition between the different curb types and between the curb types and inlets. There are still areas that need to be addressed. Engineering Review Comments Page 4 of 7 a) Extend ribbon curb past lot 40 to and lot 104. b) Shift str 247 away from roll top curb. C) Provide info on transition from str 242 to driveway and str 242 to CG -9B. [Revision 21 Comment a, b, c addressed. Applicant should detail the transition from the 3' roll top curb with the 2' gutter in front of the inlet. Applicant and I discussed adding a note to clarify the transition. 8) Revise all curb return radius to 25'. [Revision 11 Comment not addressed. [Revision 21 Comment addressed. The applicant does not need to provide 25' radius on private roads and alleys. A 10' -20' radius is stated in the code of development. 9) The 37' horizontal curvature does not meet our standards. Please follow VDOT standards. We have used 60' on private roads. [Revision 11 Comment not addressed. Per section 14.4.12(b) Private streets in the development areas[shall be] deemed adequate by the county engineer to be equivalent to or greater than the applicable standard in the design standards manual[.] The minimum requirement for the horizontal radius of a private road is 40'. Please revise for Kober Way. [Revision 21 Comment addressed. The main road for fire access has been revised to 40'. The 2 horizontal curves on Kober lane remains unchanged, but has been approved by the County Engineer. 10) Shift the parking space in front of lot 90 to provide unobstructed sight distance. [Revision 1]Comment addressed. There is a 100' unobstructed sight distance. 11) Please label the street as public or private. [Revision 1]Comment partially addressed. What is the street north of retaining wall? [Revision 21 Comment addressed. Per direction of Emergency 911 staff, no street name is required. There are no dwellings that front this alley. 12) Easements will need to be shown for drainage, sight distance, and R/W. These easements should be addressed when you subdivide the lots. [Revision 1]Comment partially addressed. Show drainage easement for drainage pipes from lots 81 -89. Also note that a road plan will need to be submitted prior to approval of subdivision plat. Include the phasing plan on the road plan. Note that the owner should be prepared to bond the plan in its entirety. Legal bond agreements require that the plan be referenced to the bond agreement using the exact title of the plan document. The county is trying to avoid multiple bond agreements referring to a single plan. Therefore, phases to be bonded separately should be separated into stand -alone plan packages to accompany each bond. [Revision 21 Comment addressed. Pipes shifted to private road. Also, applicant will be submitting a road plan. 13) Verify unobstructed sight distance for the alleys. Engineering Review Comments Page 5 of 7 [Revision 11 Comment partially addressed. Show sight easements on landscaping plan also. Then, shift plantings to be outside sight easements. [Revision 21 Comment addressed. 14) All entrances should not exceed 4% grade for a distance of 40' from the intersected steet measured anywhere at the entrance. [Revision 11 The main entrance is 5 %. 15) The driveways should be 7' in length or greater. [Revision 11 There is an incentive to prohibit parking on driveway by minimizing the length, but safety was another factor considered when determining a reasonable length. The county engineer has determined that the minimum proposed length is adequate. 16) Label the driveway grades. The driveway grade should not exceed 10 %. For example lots 68 -80, have driveway grades greater than 10 %. Please revise all other driveway grades greater than 10 %. [Revision 11 Comment addressed. The minimum slope standard is 16 %.The majority are 10% and below. Only 6 lots are between 10% and 14 %. 17) Some spot elevations show positive drainage towards garage. For example lot 67 has spot elevation at 10.06 and garage at 9.99. Please revise all areas like this to provide positive drainage away from garage. [Revision 11 Comment addressed. 18) For lots 46 -67, show stairs from sidewalk with adequate landing where there is a 2' elevation change. [Revision 1] Comment addressed. 19) The sidewalk in front of 103 -104 narrows down to 2'. Please show at a minimum 4' sidewalk to match other lots. [Revision 1] Comment addressed. 20) Clarify grade for sidewalk in front of lot 93, close to the Swale. [Revision 1] Comment addressed. 21) Please provide railing for parking areas. Also, sidewalk abutting parking should be 6' at a minimum. [Revision 1] Comment addressed. 22) Please clarify the open space between lots 89 -90. It is not clear how to access this space. [Revision 1] Comment addressed. 23) Please remove the alleys. I recommend turning into a pedestraian walkway for the following reasons. First, the alleys do not appear to be necessary since there are other other ways to circulate the site. Second, the spacing from the entrance does not meet VDOT standards. Typically, there is a 50' spacing. The proposed alleys are misaliagned from the entrance.Third, the open space appears to be decorative. It should be functional to serve residents. Fourth, pedestrian walkway will enhance pedestrian circulation to the Stonefield commercial area. [Revision 11 The alley is now Strong Blvd. Please clarify the other road name. [Revision 21 Comment addressed. See comment 11. Engineering Review Comments Page 6 of 7 24) Address turnarounds for roads near lot 1 and lot 45. [Revision 11 We discussed shared driveways for two lots. Please address. [Revision 21 Comment addressed. Lots 43 -44 share a driveway and fronts Kober Way. Lot 45 fronts Kober Way. 25) Show a guard rail at the end of the road, between lots 45 &46. [Revision 1] Comment addressed. Applicant has provided a wall. 26) Place a general note regarding space beween the driveways. Will it be grass or stone? [Revision 11 Comment addressed. The applicant proposes river rock. New Comment 27) Address the sanitary sewer manhole locaton on curb location. Shift manholes away from curb. This is near lot 4. [Revision 21 Comment addressed. Frame is away from roll top curb, but structure will be under roll top curb. 28) Shift crosswalk line near lot 75. [Revision 21 Comment addressed. 29) Inverse crown for drainage between parking and road does not work well. Please provide inlets at the low spot of parking. [Revision 21 Comment addressed. 30) Crosswalk near lot 85 should not be on travelway. Shift east. Do the same for crosswalk near lot 74. Crosswalks lines per MUTCD guidelines should not be less than 61. [Revision 21 Comment addressed. 31) Label CG -2 near lots 51 and 67. [Revision 21 Comment partially addressed. Label near 67. 32) Please clarify the guardrail location meets VDOT standards. They have guidelines for clearzones, etc. Also, specify type of guardrail. [Revision 21 Comment addressed. 33) Show street sign for Blair St on opposite side of the stop signs. [Revision 21 Comment not addressed. 34) Label one way sign near lot 90. [Revision 21 Comment addressed. 35) Show street sign near lot 45. [Revision 21 Comment addressed. There are two existing street signs. 36) Show Houston St sign at entrance. [Revision 21 Comment addressed. See comment 35. Engineering Review Comments Page 7 of 7 Sincerely, IA&qlr- Michelle Roberge �pF A vt�r�1Q 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: Stonefield Block D2 — SDP - Final Plan preparer: WW Associates Owner or rep.: Albemarle Place EAAP, LLC Plan received date: 20 Apr 2015 Date of comments: 06 May 2015 Reviewer: Michelle Roberge Engineering has completed the review of SDP201400070. Please address the following comments. A. Site Development Plan (SDP2014000070) 1) The retaining walls should be designed to meet 30.7.5 if the walls were not approved on the ZMA plans. Please verify if walls were approved on ZMA. If approved on ZMA, only address b. a) Retaining walls over 6' should be broken into stepped walls. The separation between walls is Yand shall be landscaped with screening shrubs planted on ten (10) foot centers. b) Address 30.7.5 9(b)(3)(ii). The abutting parcels will be impacted when constructing the retaining wall. Please note there appears to be a staircase to lot 2L. Also, there are accessory structures near the boundary line of lot 6R or 6L. C) Address 30.7.5 9(c)(2), Width and location of benches. The reverse slope shall be approximately 17% or flatter. The bench gradient to the outlet shall be between two (2) percent) and three (3) percent. [Revision 11 Comment partially addressed. The retaining walls were approved on the ZMA. To address comment 1(b), please show on plan approximate location of geogrid. 2) There are three areas where the slopes are 2:1 or greater. The areas are behind lots 7 -14, near lot 40, and the slope along Houston St. Add a note to provide low maintence (not grass) ground cover at those locations. Please provide for all 2:1 slopes. [Revision 11 Comment partially addressed. Provide a note on landscaping plan for slopes greater than 3:1 to have low maintenance (not grass) ground cover. Specify type of groundcover. 3) Please note the slope along Houston St. is steeper than 2:1. Provide guard rails. Also, per the Design Standards Manual, "Constructed slopes steeper than 2:1 must have a waiver from the County Engineer." Requests for the waiver should include provisions for permanent stabilization and structural stability. [Revision 11 The steep slope groundcover has been addressed for this location. Liriope is the groundcover. Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 6 4) Please follow VDOT road standards. See image below for a typical section. Note that road plans will require approval prior to subdivision of lots. I recommend 29' curb to curb with parking on both sides. Issues arise with a 24' wide road since residents tend to park on both sides of the street. When this happens, Fire Rescue will require no parking signs on one side. This needs to be discussed with fire rescue. [Revision 11 An alternative pavement section is to pitch the road 2% to one side. 5) It appears with the typical VDOT pavement section the stormsewer layout will need to be revised. [Revision 11 An alternative pavement section is to pitch the road 2% to one side. The following curbs are proposed. Face of Curb Invert Une l' 120, R-12:5'— QtrlNisr•S��p�7ObQnDeQ3lr� Rolltop Curb Let frV)f of ra +feme t Rlbbon Curti Slope Foadway Slb� nr a d+ P P Ribbon Curb Engineering Review Comments Page 3 of 6 6) The reverse rolltop curbing will not work with the typical VDOT pavement section. Remove reverse rolltop curbing. [Revision 11 Comment partially addressed. The standard rolltop is now used. Please add VDOT detail of mountable curb on sheet C7. Do the same for VDOT ribbon curb detail. The pavement section should show 2% slope for ribbon curb to match pavement. 7) Use the standard VDOT rolltop curb detail. Also, please note that rolltop curbs need to transition to drainage inlets or CG -6. It appears what is shown will not work since the depth and width for these sections are different. It appears a transition design will need to be addressed. Provide a typical section for transistion. Face oFIrnat Line EX- Ah510H R1R3in 19n� Y R �- R1RSin 4F $IpE'A,+�k z L K a'4 - NOTE � &JdNs Opion: Nea may he oawec a.. L_' prmideda mninum F������ / / /// Golan dcm6ma� too. ofi ff1C}— ISIIHIII�. 4 ° -•w- B�Sf IN 110u -2ftbin 6" "Di ."HT A [Revision 11 Comment partially addressed. The applicant has revised so there is room for the transition between the different curb types and between the curb types and inlets. There are still areas that need to be addressed. a) Extend ribbon curb past lot 40 to and lot 104. b) Shift str 247 away from roll top curb. C) Provide info on transition from str 242 to driveway and str 242 to CG -9B. 8) Revise all curb return radius to 25'. [Revision 11 Comment not addressed. 9) The 37' horizontal curvature does not meet our standards. Please follow VDOT standards. We have used 60' on private roads. EX- Ah510H FOR DEUM OF INLET X INT - Y -171 rSCF FRAM- k rCYER 4F $IpE'A,+�k z - %miA O IC 2. 1�6.+4�i 9 IN G ° n FMS 14"7 � w W II KW F LBAR A ARE C �LLxdddrrrRx FACE OFCRA �IIL1 IcRRCa dcl4_ WIER K CONTROL A"T PLAN A [Revision 11 Comment partially addressed. The applicant has revised so there is room for the transition between the different curb types and between the curb types and inlets. There are still areas that need to be addressed. a) Extend ribbon curb past lot 40 to and lot 104. b) Shift str 247 away from roll top curb. C) Provide info on transition from str 242 to driveway and str 242 to CG -9B. 8) Revise all curb return radius to 25'. [Revision 11 Comment not addressed. 9) The 37' horizontal curvature does not meet our standards. Please follow VDOT standards. We have used 60' on private roads. Engineering Review Comments Page 4 of 6 [Revision 11 Comment not addressed. Per section 14.4.12(b) Private streets in the development areas[shall be] deemed adequate by the county engineer to be equivalent to or greater than the applicable standard in the design standards manual[.] The minimum requirement for the horizontal radius of a private road is 40'. Please revise for Kober Way. 10) Shift the parking space in front of lot 90 to provide unobstructed sight distance. [Revision 1]Comment addressed. There is a 100' unobstructed sight distance. 11) Please label the street as public or private. [Revision 1]Comment partially addressed. What is the street north of retaining wall? 12) Easements will need to be shown for drainage, sight distance, and R/W. These easements should be addressed when you subdivide the lots. [Revision 1]Comment partially addressed. Show drainage easement for drainage pipes from lots 81 -89. Also note that a road plan will need to be submitted prior to approval of subdivision plat. Include the phasing plan on the road plan. Note that the owner should be prepared to bond the plan in its entirety. Legal bond agreements require that the plan be referenced to the bond agreement using the exact title of the plan document. The county is trying to avoid multiple bond agreements referring to a single plan. Therefore, phases to be bonded separately should be separated into stand -alone plan packages to accompany each bond. 13) Verify unobstructed sight distance for the alleys. [Revision 11 Comment partially addressed. Show sight easements on landscaping plan also. Then, shift plantings to be outside sight easements. 14) All entrances should not exceed 4% grade for a distance of 40' from the intersected steet measured anywhere at the entrance. [Revision 11 The main entrance is 5 %. 15) The driveways should be 7' in length or greater. [Revision 11 There is an incentive to prohibit parking on driveway by minimizing the length, but safety was another factor considered when determining a reasonable length. The county engineer has determined that the minimum proposed length is adequate. 16) Label the driveway grades. The driveway grade should not exceed 10 %. For example lots 68 -80, have driveway grades greater than 10 %. Please revise all other driveway grades greater than 10 %. [Revision 11 Comment addressed. The minimum slope standard is 16 %.The majority are 10% and below. Only 6 lots are between 10% and 14 %. 17) Some spot elevations show positive drainage towards garage. For example lot 67 has spot elevation at 10.06 and garage at 9.99. Please revise all areas like this to provide positive drainage away from garage. [Revision 11 Comment addressed. 18) For lots 46 -67, show stairs from sidewalk with adequate landing where there is a 2' elevation Engineering Review Comments Page 5 of 6 change. [Revision 11 Comment addressed. 19) The sidewalk in front of 103 -104 narrows down to 2'. Please show at a minimum 4' sidewalk to match other lots. [Revision 11 Comment addressed. 20) Clarify grade for sidewalk in front of lot 93, close to the Swale. [Revision 11 Comment addressed. 21) Please provide railing for parking areas. Also, sidewalk abutting parking should be 6' at a minimum. [Revision 11 Comment addressed. 22) Please clarify the open space between lots 89 -90. It is not clear how to access this space. [Revision 11 Comment addressed. 23) Please remove the alleys. I recommend turning into a pedestraian walkway for the following reasons. First, the alleys do not appear to be necessary since there are other other ways to circulate the site. Second, the spacing from the entrance does not meet VDOT standards. Typically, there is a 50' spacing. The proposed alleys are misaliagned from the entrance.Third, the open space appears to be decorative. It should be functional to serve residents. Fourth, pedestrian walkway will enhance pedestrian circulation to the Stonefield commercial area. [Revision 11 The alley is now Strong Blvd. Please clarify the other road name. 24) Address turnarounds for roads near lot 1 and lot 45. [Revision 11 We discussed shared driveways for two lots. Please address. 25) Show a guard rail at the end of the road, between lots 45 &46. [Revision 11 Comment addressed. Applicant has provided a wall. 26) Place a general note regarding space beween the driveways. Will it be grass or stone? [Revision 11 Comment addressed. The applicant proposes river rock. New Comment 27) Address the sanitary sewer manhole locaton on curb location. Shift manholes away from curb. This is near lot 4. 28) Shift crosswalk line near lot 75. 29) Inverse crown for drainage between parking and road does not work well. Please provide inlets at the low spot of parking. 30) Crosswalk near lot 85 should not be on travelway. Shift east. Do the same for crosswalk near lot 74. Crosswalks lines per MUTCD guidelines should not be less than 6'. 31) Label CG -2 near lots 51 and 67. 32) Please clarify the guardrail location meets VDOT standards. They have guidelines for clearzones, etc. Also, specify type of guardrail. 33) Show street sign for Blair St on opposite side of the stop signs. 34) Label one way sign near lot 90. 35) Show street sign near lot 45. Engineering Review Comments Page 6 of 6 36) Show Houston St sign at entrance. Sincerely, Michelle Roberge • §NMWO 4 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development Planning Services 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 January 14, 2015 Rob Umberger WW Associates, Inc. 3400 Avemore Square Place Charlottesville, VA 22911 RE: SDP201400070 Stonefield D2 Final Site Plan I' • . The following divisions of the Department of Community Development and other agencies, as applicable, have reviewed the above -noted application. Preliminary comments are listed below: Community Development Planning Division -Sarah Baldwin 1. [comment]. Zoning has made the determination that garage openings may be a minimum of 16'. Based upon our prior conversations, I understand this may change parking in townhomes as well as street parking or parking areas which will require further analysis. 2. [32.6.2.1]. Provide details on the active /passive for both the tot lot and area where the "decorative landscape" feature is located. At a minimum, the tot lot must meet the minimum standards as stated in the Ordinance -see Section 4.16.2. The other area should contain usable space for residents. See engineering comment regarding the allies for additional suggestions. 3. [32.7.2.3]. There are several areas on Sheets 8 & 9 where sidewalks are missing such as between buildings 6 & 7, 11 &12, 16& 17. Sidewalks are also missing on corners. It is recommended that you view our site plan mark -up or call to further discuss additional locations. 4. [32.7.9.4]. The landscape schedule quantities do no match the plan for AF, OG, PA2, QP1 &2, OC, RB, IH or WB. 5. [4.17]. Confirm lighting for the neighborhood, park and passive recreation areas and ensure it meets ordinance requirements. Community Development Engineering Division - Michelle Roberge See attached. Community Development Building Division -Jay Schlothauer Based on plans dated November 14, 2014: 1. Any dwelling /townhouse taller than three stories must be provided with an automatic fire sprinkler system. Include a note to this effect on Drawing Number C -1. 2. No objection, comments or conditions regarding the phasing plan. Albemarle County -Fire Rescue - Robbie Gilmer Based on plans dated 11/17/14: 1. All radii included in the fire lane travel way shall have a minimum of 25 ft radii. 2. The island in the main entrance shall have mountable curbs or be shorted to not interfere with fire access. Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Troy Austin -See attached Albemarle County Architectural Review Board — Margaret Maliszewski- received under separate letter. Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) -Alex Morrison 1. Please instruct the applicant to submit 3 copies of utility drawings, a water data sheet and a sewer data sheet, to the ACSA for construction review. The submission should be to Jeremy Lynn's attention. For those reviewers with outstanding comments, please work directly with them from this point on to satisfy those comments and have them notify me when their tentative approval has been obtained. Staff has provided references to provisions of Chapter 18 of the Code of the County of Albemarle. The Code is kept up to date by the County Attorney's office. The Code may found on the County Attorney's website which may be found under "Departments and Services" at Albemarle.org. In accord with the provisions of Section 32.4.3.5 of Chapter 18 of the Code if the developer fails to submit a revised final site plan to address all of the requirements within six (6) months after the date of this letter the application shall be deemed to have been voluntarily withdrawn by the developer. Please contact me at your earliest convenience if you have questions or require additional information. Sincerely, Sarah D. Baldwin Senior Planner �pF A vt�r�1Q 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: Stonefield Block D2 — SDP - Final Plan preparer: WW Associates Owner or rep.: Albemarle Place EAAP, LLC Plan received date: 1 Dec 2014 Date of comments: 12 Jan 2015 Reviewer: Michelle Roberge Engineering has completed the review of SDP201400070. Please address the following comments. A. Site Development Plan (SDP2014000070) 1) The retaining walls should be designed to meet 30.7.5 if the walls were not approved on the ZMA plans. Please verify if walls were approved on ZMA. If approved on ZMA, only address b. a) Retaining walls over 6' should be broken into stepped walls. The separation between walls is Yand shall be landscaped with screening shrubs planted on ten (10) foot centers. b) Address 30.7.5 9(b)(3)(ii). The abutting parcels will be impacted when constructing the retaining wall. Please note there appears to be a staircase to lot 2L. Also, there are accessory structures near the boundary line of lot 6R or 6L. C) Address 30.7.5 9(c)(2), Width and location of benches. The reverse slope shall be approximately 17% or flatter. The bench gradient to the outlet shall be between two (2) percent) and three (3) percent. 2) There are three areas where the slopes are 2:1 or greater. The areas are behind lots 7 -14, near lot 40, and the slope along Houston St. Add a note to provide low maintence (not grass) ground cover at those locations. Please provide for all 2:1 slopes. 3) Please note the slope along Houston St. is steeper than 2:1. Provide guard rails. Also, per the Design Standards Manual, "Constructed slopes steeper than 2:1 must have a waiver from the County Engineer." Requests for the waiver should include provisions for permanent stabilization and structural stability. 4) Please follow VDOT road standards. See image below for a typical section. Note that road plans will require approval prior to subdivision of lots. I recommend 29' curb to curb with parking on both sides. Issues arise with a 24' wide road since residents tend to park on both sides of the street. When this happens, Fire Rescue will require no parking signs on one side. This needs to be discussed with fire rescue. Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 4 5) It appears with the typical VDOT pavement section the stormsewer layout will need to be revised. 6) The reverse rolltop curbing will not work with the typical VDOT pavement section. Remove reverse rolltop curbing. 7) Use the standard VDOT rolltop curb detail. Also, please note that rolltop curbs need to transition to drainage inlets or CG -6. It appears what is shown will not work since the depth and width for these sections are different. It appears a transition design will need to be addressed. Provide a typical section for transistion. Face of !_ - i.n R183in --7 1Bn - R1R8M . F WE 6olanoF cu�6 idlorr ape d� % ___ �� &.Ide1s Opion: Wea may he oonaeB BASE d7 nJ a mnim�m irh oF7 es is mirkned. e 1lOn �2RBn . F R - !ONimim, i 1� HL'*��'GCZTRX 11 * ' �� •r Engineering Review Comments Page 3 of 4 8) Revise all curb return radius to 25'. 9) The 37' horizontal curvature does not meet our standards. Please follow VDOT standards. We have used 60' on private roads. 10) Shift the parking space in front of lot 90 to provide unobstructed sight distance. 11) Please label the street as public or private. 12) Easements will need to be shown for drainage, sight distance, and R/W. These easements should be addressed when you subdivide the lots. 13) Verify unobstructed sight distance for the alleys. 14) All entrances should not exceed 4% grade for a distance of 40' from the intersected steet measured anywhere at the entrance. 15) The driveways should be 7' in length or greater. 16) Label the driveway grades. The driveway grade should not exceed 10 %. For example lots 68 -80, have driveway grades greater than 10 %. Please revise all other driveway grades greater than 10 %. 17) Some spot elevations show positive drainage towards garage. For example lot 67 has spot elevation at 10.06 and garage at 9.99. Please revise all areas like this to provide positive drainage away from garage. 18) For lots 46 -67, show stairs from sidewalk with adequate landing where there is a 2' elevation change. 19) The sidewalk in front of 103 -104 narrows down to 2'. Please show at a minimum 4' sidewalk to match other lots. 20) Clarify grade for sidewalk in front of lot 93, close to the swale. 21) Please provide railing for parking areas. Also, sidewalk abutting parking should be 6' at a minimum. 22) Please clarify the open space between lots 89 -90. It is not clear how to access this space. 23) Please remove the alleys. I recommend turning into a pedestraian walkway for the following reasons. First, the alleys do not appear to be necessary since there are other other ways to circulate the site. Second, the spacing from the entrance does not meet VDOT standards. Typically, there is a 50' spacing. The proposed alleys are misaliagned from the entrance.Third, the open space appears to be decorative. It should be functional to serve residents. Fourth, pedestrian walkway will enhance pedestrian circulation to the Stonefield commercial area. 24) Address turnarounds for roads near lot 1 and lot 45. 25) Show a guard rail at the end of the road, between lots 45 &46. Engineering Review Comments Page 4 of 4 26) Place a general note regarding space beween the driveways. Will it be grass or stone? Sincerely, )�Fx� Michelle Roberge V t rM /7 CJ COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1601 Orange Road Culpeper, Virginia 22701 Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E. Commissioner December 18, 2014 Ms. Sarah Baldwin Senior Planner County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: SDP -2014 -00070 Stonefield, Block D2 Dear Ms. Baldwin: We have reviewed the final site plan for Stonefield, Block D2 dated 1 1114.E 14 as submitted by W W Associates and offer the following comments: I. VDOT has no objection to the proposed site plan as submitted. If you need additional information concerning this project, please do not hesitate to contact me at (434) 422 -9782. Sincerely, Troy Austin, P.E. Area Land Use Engineer Culpeper District WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING