Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201400075 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2015-07-10Al vr�N1Q COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 Project: Cascadia Blocks 1 —3 Final Site Plan & Road Plan Plan preparer: Dominion Engineering Owner or rep.: Cascadia Development LLC Plan received date: 19 Jun 2015 Date of comments: 9 Jul 2015 Reviewer: Michelle Roberge Engineering has completed the review of SDP201400075 and SUB201400207. Please address the following comments. Final Site Plan 1) On sheet SP4, there should be a diversion from the scc to pond 2. [Revision 11 Comment addressed. 2) On SP4, show the remaining managed slopes. [Revision 11 Comment addressed. The remaining managed slopes are shown on the parcels to be developed. 3) Show dumpster pad detail. [Revision 11 Comment partially addressed. Applicant has shown the dumpster enclosure detail. Please add a note for the dumpster pad to be "a minimum of 4" stone base and 6" concrete of 3000 psi at 28 days or stronger, reinforced with a minimum grid of wire reinforcement or #4 bars at 12" on center." [Revision 21 Comment addressed. 4) There is a 6' wide min sidewalk requirement for sidewalk in front of bldg. Please dimension. [Revision 11 Comment addressed. 5) The northern parallel parking in the commercial area will be difficult to maneuver. Please address. [Revision 11 A SU truck can maneuver into the commercial area, but please describe movement to exit this area. [Revision 21 Comment addressed. The bldg is labeled for office space only. 6) Label CG -2 on commercial parking. Show detail. [Revision 11 Comment partially addressed. Show CG -2 detail in sheet SP34. [Revision 21 Comment addressed. Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 5 7) Relocate spot elevation for dumpster pad to be legible. The site shall be designed so that stormwater does not run through, and drains away from, areas where dumpsters are located in order to minimize the potential for contaminating stormwater runoff due to contact with solid waste. [Revision 11 Comment addressed. 8) It appears another wall will be necessary behind lots 18 and 19 to avoid grading over sanitary sewer mh. However, it also appears the geogrid will extend beyond bldg foundations for lots 16- 19. Please address. [Revision 11 Please discuss with ACSA to let them know of the change. I just need to document that they are okay with the revision. [Revision 21 Comment addressed. 9) The geogrid appears to extend beyond bldg foundation of lot 22. Please address. [Revision 11 Comment addressed. The applicant has shown the geogrid location. It is still close to the house and caution is necessary when constructing bldg foundation. 10) All retaining walls facing Rte 20 will require ARB approval. [Revision 11 Comment acknowledged. 11) Show a crosswalk at entrance of commercial area. [Revision 11 Comment addressed. 12) Show low maintenance ground cover, not grass, for all areas with 2:1 slopes. See the following areas: Area near str 14C, slopes adjacent to stairs, north of lot 6 near retaining wall, near lot 22, near north of commercial bldg, within Park A, etc. This can be shown with landscaping plan. [Revision 11 Comment addressed. The "site plan" sheets labels the 2:1 slopes. 13) It does not appear you are meeting Proffer 1 (G) and (H). Please verify and address. [Revision 11 Comment addressed. 14) Show calcs for existing 7A and downstream stormsewer, where 43 ties into. Verify that existing 24" HDPE is adequate. Do the same for existing 5. [Revision 11 Comment addressed. 15) 15" pipes are the minimum requirement. Revise 12" stormsewer pipes. [Revision 11 Comment addressed. Applicant has provided pipe capacity analysis for the 12" pipes. Also, pipes will be privately maintained and will convey runoff from lots to the public stormsewer system. 16) 58A will be prone to clogging. How will it be constructed with the SCC? Also, the grate will not capture entire runoff and area is subject to erosion. Divert excess runoff to an adequate outlet. Can existing sediment trap be converted to a permanent BMP? Show access road to BMP. [Revision 1]Applicant has shown structure 58A to be in a sump condition. The water surface elevation for the10 yr storm has also been determined. I recommend sizing sump area slightly larger in the event the grate is clogged and with back to back storms. I recommend designing with an assumption that grate is 50% clogged 50. 17) Profile and calculations should match. Please address for downstream pipes after str 37, 36, 31 and Engineering Review Comments Page 3 of 5 30. [Revision 11 Comment addressed. 18) Please show profile for 46A -46. [Revision 11 Comment addressed. 19) For str 32 -31, show drainage easement on lot 59. [Revision 11 Comment addressed. 20) For str 1413-14 A, revise drainage easement to include pipes. [Revision 11 Comment addressed. 21) For str 62 -ex 5, show drainage easement. [Revision 1] Comment addressed. 22) For str 9 -ex 3, show drainage easement on lot 37. [Revision 11 Comment addressed. 23) Show existing SWM easement and access easement for pond 1. [Revision 11 Comment addressed. 24) Remove plantings on drainage easements. For example, see str 22 -23. Verify for other locations. [Revision 11 Comment addressed. 25) Match Ex 2 and Ex 3 downstream pipes with approved site plan from Blocks 4 -7. Please verify they match. [Revision 11 Comment addressed. There is a field revision for 4 -7 to incorporate blocks 1 -3 design. 26) Show details for nyoplast dome grates. [Revision 11 Comment addressed. 27) Verify direction of flow change in each drainage structure is 90 degrees or greater: 48- 46, 45 -44, 27A -26, 21 -19, and 8A -7. [Revision 11 Comment addressed. 28) Show all DI structure details. [Revision 11 Comment addressed. 29) It appears you are showing grinder pumps. Please show a private onsite central sewerage system for those lots. Then it can be pumped to tie into the public sewer system. Please discuss with [Revision 11 Engineering recommends approval of grinder pumps even though it is the Engineering Dept's opinion that grinder pumps will be a burden to the homeowners in the event of a power outage and when the grinder pumps need maintenance. ACSA has expressed their concern and believes a private pump station would present more of a public health issue in the event of a failure. It appears ACSA will not provide a plan approval for any developments that propose a private pump station within their jurisdicational area. Road Plan Engineering Review Comments Page 4 of 5 30) Per proffer 2, VDOT approval is required for proposed 20' additional public R/W along the edge of existing Rte 20 right of way. The owner shall dedicate to address future potential improvements along Rte 20. [Revision 1] I defer to VDOT. It appears to be addressed, but I need verification. [Revision 21 Comment addressed. 31) The interconnection for Broadus Baptist Church is shown. The 30' wide easement is centered along the trail. If a future connection is to be made, how will an adequate driveway be built if the retaining wall from the commercial building abuts the trail? Also, slope east of pond 2 will need to be regraded, but it is already at 2:1 slope. If a wall is built, it will be subject to ARB review. Please address. [Revision 11 Applicant has adjusted 30' easement to be centered along trail. It appears unlikely for a private drive to be constructed here. 32) It appears Knoll Lane is proposed as a one way road since it cannot meet VDOT sight distance requirements for vehicles turning into Delphi Lane. I recommend ending Knoll Lane with a cul de sac and adding landscaping for screening. Also, increase road width to 24' wide with 2% cross slopes (typical VDOT cross- section) with no parking signs on both sides. Discuss with Fire Rescue. R= 30flr�-n Jnpaved kea F � Offset llulb Cul -d "ac 33) Please remove the perpendicular parking on Knoll Lane. [Revision 1]Comment addressed. 34) If the subdivision plats will be phased, note the road plans will need to be delineated to match phasing plan with proper turnarounds. We have a policy that one road plan with appropriate title should correspond with subdivision plat phase. [Revision 1]Comment acknowledged and phasing plan is shown. 35) Label all signs on road plan. [Revision 1]Comment partially addressed. a) Please label stop sign at the intersection of Terrace Ln and Delphi Dr. b) Move street sign on intersection of Terrace Lane and Delphi Lane. Same comment for Knoll Lane and Delphi Lane. [Revision 21Comment not addressed. Shift street sign on Terrace Lane and Knoll Lane. Also, show all stop sign location at Delphi Drive and Delphi Lane intersection. (It is not clear when you compare the blocks 4 -7 road plan with this plan). Revise the street sign location in Engineering Review Comments Page 5 of 5 this location as well. 36) Show intersections within a road profile. Label elevation and station. [Revision 1]Comment addressed. 37) Show sidewalk detail per VDOT standards. [Revision 1]Comment addressed. 38) Road plans shall be approved by VDOT, Fire Rescue, and ACSA. [Revision 1]Comment acknowledged. New comments: 39) Show sight distance profile for Knoll lane that we discussed via email. [Revision 21Comment addressed. 40) Scale is wrong for sheet SPSA. [Revision 21Comment addressed. [Revision 21Comment addressed. 41) The stubout should be revised to a cul -de -sac per our discussions. [Revision 21Comment addressed. 42) Provide approval from all other county agencies. 43) The title should clearly state "Road Plan" and "Site Plan" as they will be filed separately. Current Development Engineering is available from 2:30 -4:00 PM on Thursdays to discuss these review comments. Please contact Michelle Roberge at 434 - 296 -5832 ext. 3458 or email mrobergekalbemarle.org to schedule an appointment. Al vr�N1Q COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 Project: Cascadia Blocks 1 —3 Final & Road Plan Plan preparer: Dominion Engineering Owner or rep.: Cascadia Development LLC Plan received date: 20 Mar 2015 Date of comments: 24 Apr 2015 Reviewer: Michelle Roberge Engineering has completed the review of SDP201400075 and SUB201400207. Please address the following comments. Final Site Plan 1) On sheet SP4, there should be a diversion from the sec to pond 2. [Revision 11 Comment addressed. 2) On SP4, show the remaining managed slopes. [Revision 11 Comment addressed. The remaining managed slopes are shown on the parcels to be developed. 3) Show dumpster pad detail. [Revision 11 Comment partially addressed. Applicant has shown the dumpster enclosure detail. Please add a note for the dumpster pad to be "a minimum of 4" stone base and 6" concrete of 3000 psi at 28 days or stronger, reinforced with a minimum grid of wire reinforcement or #4 bars at 12" on center." 4) There is a 6' wide min sidewalk requirement for sidewalk in front of bldg. Please dimension. [Revision 11 Comment addressed. 5) The northern parallel parking in the commercial area will be difficult to maneuver. Please address. [Revision 11 A SU truck can maneuver into the commercial area, but please describe movement to exit this area. 6) Label CG -2 on commercial parking. Show detail. [Revision 11 Comment partially addressed. Show CG -2 detail in sheet SP34. 7) Relocate spot elevation for dumpster pad to be legible. The site shall be designed so that stormwater does not run through, and drains away from, areas where dumpsters are located in order to minimize the potential for contaminating stormwater runoff due to contact with solid waste. [Revision 11 Comment addressed. Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 5 8) It appears another wall will be necessary behind lots 18 and 19 to avoid grading over sanitary sewer mh. However, it also appears the geogrid will extend beyond bldg foundations for lots 16- 19. Please address. [Revision 11 Please discuss with ACSA to let them know of the change. I just need to document that they are okay with the revision. 9) The geogrid appears to extend beyond bldg foundation of lot 22. Please address. [Revision 11 Comment addressed. The applicant has shown the geogrid location. It is still close to the house and caution is necessary when constructing bldg foundation. 10) All retaining walls facing Rte 20 will require ARB approval. [Revision 11 Comment acknowledged. 11) Show a crosswalk at entrance of commercial area. [Revision 11 Comment addressed. 12) Show low maintenance ground cover, not grass, for all areas with 2:1 slopes. See the following areas: Area near str 14C, slopes adjacent to stairs, north of lot 6 near retaining wall, near lot 22, near north of commercial bldg, within Park A, etc. This can be shown with landscaping plan. [Revision 11 Comment addressed. The "site plan" sheets labels the 2:1 slopes. 13) It does not appear you are meeting Proffer 1 (G) and (H). Please verify and address. [Revision 11 Comment addressed. 14) Show calcs for existing 7A and downstream stormsewer, where 43 ties into. Verify that existing 24" HDPE is adequate. Do the same for existing 5. [Revision 11 Comment addressed. 15) 15" pipes are the minimum requirement. Revise 12" stormsewer pipes. [Revision 11 Comment addressed. Applicant has provided pipe capacity analysis for the 12" pipes. Also, pipes will be privately maintained and will convey runoff from lots to the public stormsewer system. 16) 58A will be prone to clogging. How will it be constructed with the SCC? Also, the grate will not capture entire runoff and area is subject to erosion. Divert excess runoff to an adequate outlet. Can existing sediment trap be converted to a permanent BMP? Show access road to BMP. [Revision 1]Applicant has shown structure 58A to be in a sump condition. The water surface elevation for the10 yr storm has also been determined. I recommend sizing sump area slightly larger in the event the grate is clogged and with back to back storms. I recommend designing with an assumption that grate is 50% clogged 50. 17) Profile and calculations should match. Please address for downstream pipes after str 37, 36, 31 and 30. [Revision 11 Comment addressed. 18) Please show profile for 46A -46. [Revision 11 Comment addressed. 19) For str 32 -31, show drainage easement on lot 59. [Revision 11 Comment addressed. Engineering Review Comments Page 3 of 5 20) For str 1413-14 A, revise drainage easement to include pipes. [Revision 11 Comment addressed. 21) For str 62 -ex 5, show drainage easement. [Revision 11 Comment addressed. 22) For str 9 -ex 3, show drainage easement on lot 37. [Revision 11 Comment addressed. 23) Show existing SWM easement and access easement for pond 1. [Revision 11 Comment addressed. 24) Remove plantings on drainage easements. For example, see str 22 -23. Verify for other locations. [Revision 11 Comment addressed. 25) Match Ex 2 and Ex 3 downstream pipes with approved site plan from Blocks 4 -7. Please verify they match. [Revision 11 Comment addressed. There is a field revision for 4 -7 to incorporate blocks 1 -3 design. 26) Show details for nyoplast dome grates. [Revision 11 Comment addressed. 27) Verify direction of flow change in each drainage structure is 90 degrees or greater: 48- 46, 45 -44, 27A -26, 21 -19, and 8A -7. [Revision 11 Comment addressed. 28) Show all DI structure details. [Revision 11 Comment addressed. 29) It appears you are showing grinder pumps. Please show a private onsite central sewerage system for those lots. Then it can be pumped to tie into the public sewer system. Please discuss with [Revision 11 Engineering recommends approval of grinder pumps even though it is the Engineering Dept's opinion that grinder pumps will be a burden to the homeowners in the event of a power outage and when the grinder pumps need maintenance. ACSA has expressed their concern and believes a private pump station would present more of a public health issue in the event of a failure. It appears ACSA will not provide a plan approval for any developments that propose a private pump station within their jurisdicational area. Road Plan 30) Per proffer 2, VDOT approval is required for proposed 20' additional public R/W along the edge of existing Rte 20 right of way. The owner shall dedicate to address future potential improvements along Rte 20. [Revision 1] I defer to VDOT. It appears to be addressed, but I need verification. 31) The interconnection for Broadus Baptist Church is shown. The 30' wide easement is centered along the trail. If a future connection is to be made, how will an adequate driveway be built if the retaining wall from the commercial building abuts the trail? Also, slope east of pond 2 will need to Engineering Review Comments Page 4 of 5 be regraded, but it is already at 2:1 slope. If a wall is built, it will be subject to ARB review. Please address. [Revision 11 Applicant has adjusted 30' easement to be centered along trail. It appears unlikely for a private drive to be constructed here. 32) It appears Knoll Lane is proposed as a one way road since it cannot meet VDOT sight distance requirements for vehicles turning into Delphi Lane. I recommend ending Knoll Lane with a cul de sac and adding landscaping for screening. Also, increase road width to 24' wide with 2% cross slopes (typical VDOT cross - section) with no parking signs on both sides. Discuss with Fire Rescue. R = 34 fl mi- JnPaved Area F � Offset S u l b CUVde—sac 33) Please remove the perpendicular parking on Knoll Lane. [Revision 1]Comment addressed. 34) If the subdivision plats will be phased, note the road plans will need to be delineated to match phasing plan with proper turnarounds. We have a policy that one road plan with appropriate title should correspond with subdivision plat phase. [Revision 1]Comment acknowledged and phasing plan is shown. 35) Label all signs on road plan. [Revision 1]Comment partially addressed. a) Please label stop sign at the intersection of Terrace Ln and Delphi Dr. b) Move street sign on intersection of Terrace Lane and Delphi Lane. Same comment for Knoll Lane and Delphi Lane. 36) Show intersections within a road profile. Label elevation and station. [Revision 1]Comment addressed. 37) Show sidewalk detail per VDOT standards. [Revision 1]Comment addressed. 38) Road plans shall be approved by VDOT, Fire Rescue, and ACSA. [Revision 1]Comment acknowledged. New comments: 39) Show sight distance profile for Knoll lane that we discussed via email. 40) Scale is wrong for sheet SPSA. 41) The stubout should be revised to a cul -de -sac per our discussions. Engineering Review Comments Page 5 of 5 Current Development Engineering is available from 2:30 -4:00 PM on Thursdays to discuss these review comments. Please contact Michelle Roberge at 434 - 296 -5832 ext. 3458 or email mrobergegalbemarle.or� to schedule an appointment. • ^�- 11�illr IlIIf1.�• COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 April 1, 2015 Michael Myers Dominion Engineering 172 S Pantops Dr Charlottesville VA 22911 RE: ARB- 2015 -05: Cascadia Blocks 1 — 3 Dear Mr. Myers, I have reviewed your plan with revision date of 3/12/15 and I have the following comments. (Numbers refer to comments in my March 12, 2015 comment letter.) Regarding the interim plan, I sent you an email on March 17, 2015 indicating that the ARB said that the plan was acceptable with the addition of notes: 1) identifying that the area would be graded and seeded, and 2) that the landscaping shown on the final plan in the vicinity of the commercial building would be planted at the same time as the other landscaping - it would not wait for the construction of the commercial building. Please add these notes to the interim plan and send me a copy of the revised plan. Also, regarding the phasing of the commercial building, I've spoken with Megan Yaniglos and she has indicated that the site plan should be revised to show the commercial building footprint (footprint only) as Phase 5. Please revise the Block/Phasing plan to show this change. 2. Regarding window glass, your March 13, 2015 response memo stated that all architectural drawings shall include the standard glass note. However, no revised architectural drawings were submitted. Please submit revised architectural drawings that include the note: "Visible light transmittance (VLT) shall not drop below 40 %. Visible light reflectance (VLR) shall not exceed 30 %." 5. Regarding shade trees on interior roads, I am coordinating with Megan Yaniglos on this issue and will forward comments as soon as possible. 8. Regarding tree protection fencing, your response memo indicated that an E &S plan with tree protection fencing was submitted for review. The E &S plan was not included in the submittal. Please submit for review the E &S plan showing tree protection fencing. Please provide: 1. One set of revised drawings addressing each of these conditions. Include updated ARB revision dates on each drawing. 2. A memo including detailed responses indicating how each condition has been satisfied. If changes other than those requested have been made, identify those changes in the memo also. Highlighting the changes in the drawing with "clouding" or by other means will facilitate review and approval. 3. The attached "Revised Application Submittal" form. This form must be returned with your revisions to ensure proper tracking and distribution. When staff s review of this information indicates that all conditions of approval have been met, a Certificate of Appropriateness may be issued. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Margaret Maliszewski Principal Planner cc: Cascadia Development, 170 South Pantops Dr., Charlottesville VA 22911 File COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development REVISED APPLICATION SUBMITTAL This form must be returned with your revisions to ensure proper tracking and distribution. County staff has indicated below what they think will be required as a resubmission of revisions. If you need to submit additional information please explain on this form for the benefit of the intake staff. All plans must be collated and folded to fit into legal size files, in order to be accepted for submittal. TO: Margaret Maliszewski DATE: PROJECT NAME: ARB- 2015 -05: Cascadia Blocks 1 — 3 Submittal Type Requiring Revisions ( ) indicates submittal Cade County Project Number # Copies Erosion & Sediment Control Plan (E &S) # Copies Distribute To: Mitigation Plan (MP) 1 Margaret Maliszewski Waiver Request WR Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) Road Plan RP Private Road Request, with private /public comparison (PRR) Private Road Request — Development Area (PRR -DA Preliminary Site Plan (PSP) Final Site Plan or amendment FSP Final Plat (FP) Preliminary Plat PP Easement Plat (EP) Boundary Adjustment Plat BAP Rezoning Plan (REZ) Special Use Permit Concept Plan (SP -CP) Reduced Concept Plan (R -CP) Proffers (P) Bond Estimate Request (BER) Draft Groundwater Management Plan (D -GWMP) Final Groundwater Management Plan (F -GWMP) Aquifer Testing Work Plan (ATWP) Groundwater Assessment Report (GWAR) Architectural Review Board (ARB) ARB2015 -05 Other: Please explain (For staff use only) Submittal Code # Copies Distribute To: Submittal Code # Copies Distribute To: ARB 1 Margaret Maliszewski County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Mike Myers From: Megan Yaniglos- Principal Planner Division: Planning Services Date: April 3, 2015 Subject: SDP - 2014 -075 Cascadia- Blocks 1 -3 Final Site Plan The Planner for the Planning Services Division of the Albemarle County Department Community Development will recommend approve the plan referred to above when the following items have been satisfactorily addressed. (The following comments are those that have been identified at this time. Additional comments or conditions may be added or eliminated based on further review.) [Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference to the Albemarle County Code.] Requirements: 1. [32.6] Signature Panel. Revise the signature panel to not include "Current Development ". That division no longer exists, "Planner" and "Engineer" will suffice. Rev1: Comment addressed. 2. [Sheet SP51 Remove the variance note on this sheet. Those variations were approved for Blocks 4 -7. New variations have been received and are being processed. Rev1: Comment addressed. 3. Clarify if Phase 2 will include the entrance onto Rt. 20. It is a little unclear on the phasing plan. Rev1: Comment addressed 4. [32.7.9] Street trees. There are many areas where street trees are not being provided. If the trees cannot be provided in the right of way because of conflicts with easement and utilities, provide them in a landscape easement on the lots. Rev1: See attached pictures. Revise landscaping and street trees to accommodate additional trees to meet the requirements of the ordinance. Also, landscaping needs to be provided for screening for double frontage lots. 5. [32.7.9] Street trees. There are many areas where street trees are spaced farther than 50 feet on center. Adjust areas so that additional trees can be provided. Rev1: See comment #4. 6. [General] Lots 68 and 69 are not labeled on the landscape sheets. Add the labels. Rev1: Comment addressed. 7. [Proffer] Designate which lots /units will be affordable on the plans. Rev1: One additional unit needs to be provided, you need to round up, not down on the 15 %. 1 8. [Variation Requests] The variations are being reviewed and are tentatively set to go to the Board on February 11tH Rev1: Variations have been revised and are now tentatively scheduled to go to the Board on May 13tH Please contact Megan Yaniglos at the Department of Community Development 296- 5832 ext. 3004 for further information. OT 7i �r ■ - YryfN , 2 t` E 7-7 AL- t� 77 ■ ■ ■■w&, HT SPr-e Al vr�N1Q COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 Project: Cascadia Blocks 1 —3 Final & Road Plan Plan preparer: Dominion Engineering Owner or rep.: Cascadia Development LLC Plan received date: 11 Dec 2014 Date of comments: 27 Jan 2015 Reviewer: Michelle Roberge Engineering has completed the review of SDP201400075 and SUB201400207. Please address the following comments. Final Site Plan 1) On sheet SP4, there should be a diversion from the scc to pond 2. 2) On SP4, show the remaining managed slopes. 3) Show dumpster pad detail. 4) There is a 6' wide min sidewalk requirement for sidewalk in front of bldg. Please dimension. 5) The northern parallel parking in the commercial area will be difficult to maneuver. Please address. 6) Label CG -2 on commercial parking. Show detail. 7) Relocate spot elevation for dumpster pad to be legible. The site shall be designed so that stormwater does not run through, and drains away from, areas where dumpsters are located in order to minimize the potential for contaminating stormwater runoff due to contact with solid waste. 8) It appears another wall will be necessary behind lots 18 and 19 to avoid grading over sanitary sewer mh. However, it also appears the geogrid will extend beyond bldg foundations for lots 16- 19. Please address. 9) The geogrid appears to extend beyond bldg foundation of lot 22. Please address. 10) All retaining walls facing Rte 20 will require ARB approval. 11) Show a crosswalk at entrance of commercial area. 12) Show low maintenance ground cover, not grass, for all areas with 2:1 slopes. See the following areas: Area near str 14C, slopes adjacent to stairs, north of lot 6 near retaining wall, near lot 22, near north of commercial bldg, within Park A, etc. This can be shown with landscaping plan. 13) It does not appear you are meeting Proffer 1 (G) and (H). Please verify and address. 14) Show calcs for existing 7A and downstream stormsewer, where 43 ties into. Verify that existing 24" HDPE is adequate. Do the same for existing 5. 15) 15" pipes are the minimum requirement. Revise 12" stormsewer pipes. 16) 58A will be prone to clogging. How will it be constructed with the SCC? Also, the grate will not capture entire runoff and area is subject to erosion. Divert excess runoff to an adequate outlet. Can existing sediment trap be converted to a permanent BMP? Show access road to BMP. 17) Profile and calculations should match. Please address for downstream pipes after str 37, 36, 31 and 30. 18) Please show profile for 46A -46. Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 3 19) For str 32 -31, show drainage easement on lot 59. 20) For str 1413-14 A, revise drainage easement to include pipes. 21) For str 62 -ex 5, show drainage easement. 22) For str 9 -ex 3, show drainage easement on lot 37. 23) Show existing SWM easement and access easement for pond 1. 24) Remove plantings on drainage easements. For example, see str 22 -23. Verify for other locations. 25) Match Ex2 and Ex 3 downstream pipes with approved site plan from Blocks 4 -7. Please verify they match. 26) Show details for nyoplast dome grates. 27) Verify direction of flow change in each drainage structure is 90 degrees or greater: 48- 46, 45 -44, 27A -26, 21 -19, and 8A -7. 28) Show all DI structure details. 29) It appears you are showing grinder pumps. Please show a private onsite central sewerage system for those lots. Then it can be pumped to tie into the public sewer system. Please discuss with Road Plan 30) Per proffer 2, VDOT approval is required for proposed 20' additional public R/W along the edge of existing Rte 20 right of way. The owner shall dedicate to address future potential improvements along Rte 20. 31) The interconnection for Broadus Baptist Church is shown. The 30' wide easement is centered along the trail. If a future connection is to be made, how will an adequate driveway be built if the retaining wall from the commercial building abuts the trail? Also, slope east of pond 2 will need to be regraded, but it is already at 2:1 slope. If a wall is built, it will be subject to ARB review. Please address. 32) It appears Knoll Lane is proposed as a one way road since it cannot meet VDOT sight distance requirements for vehicles turning into Delphi Lane. I recommend ending Knoll Lane with a cul de sac and adding landscaping for screening. Also, increase road width to 24' wide with 2% cross slopes (typical VDOT cross - section) with no parking signs on both sides. Discuss with Fire Rescue. JnPaved Area F C Ofset a U1 ID Cul -de 33) Please remove the perpendicular parking on Knoll Lane. 34) If the subdivision plats will be phased, note the road plans will need to be delineated to match phasing plan with proper turnarounds. We have a policy that one road plan with appropriate title should correspond with subdivision plat phase. 35) Label all signs on road plan. 36) Show intersections within a road profile. Label elevation and station. Engineering Review Comments Page 3 of 3 37) Show sidewalk detail per VDOT standards. 38) Road plans shall be approved by VDOT, Fire Rescue, and ACSA. Current Development Engineering is available from 2:30 -4:00 PM on Thursdays to discuss these review comments. Please contact Michelle Roberge at 434 - 296 -5832 ext. 3458 or email mroberge(&albemarle.org to schedule an appointment. l' L, COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1601 Orange Road Culpeper Virginia 22791 Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E. Commissioner January 26, 2015 Ms. Megan Yaniglos Senior Planner County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: Cascadia, Blocks 1 -3 SDP -2014 -00075 Site Plan SUB - 2014 -00207 Road Plans Dear Ms. Yaniglos: We have reviewed the final site development plan and the road plans for Cascadia, Blocks 1 -3 dated 1211114 as submitted by Dominion Engineering and offer the following comments: Site Plan/Road PIan 1- It would be helpful for review if the road plan and profile sheets were included within the site plan. 2. Pavement design calculations need to be provided for review. 3. The limits and locations of the proposed on- street parking should be shown in plan view as parked vehicles are an obstruction to sight distance. It is very difficult to determine the appropriate side and/or extents of on- street parking on the current plan sheets. 4. What is the purpose of 1.5' of right -of -way beyond the sidewalk on Delphi Lane? 5. The width of travel lanes should be 12'. The typical section of entry of Cascadia Drive shows 11' lanes. 6. Sheet 5 of 36 labels the ADT for Marietta Drive as 380 vpd. Does this number take into account adjacent parcel trips should Marietta Drive be extended and the adjacent parcel developed? 7. All CG -12's should be clearly labeled on the plan sheets. 8. All crosswalk locations should be consistently marked. The crosswalks at the intersections of Marietta Drive and Delphi Drive, Knoll Lane and Delphi Drive and Lane should be marked as each of the other crosswalks in the development are proposed to be marked. 9. The sight lines for the intersection of Cascadia Drive and Delphi Lane need to be added to the plan. 10. The stop condition at the intersection of Cascadia Drive and Delphi Lane should not be Cascadia Drive. The stop condition should be for the Delphi Lane traffic and the vehicles leaving the commercial entrance on the north side of Cascadia Drive. 11. Rather than having the crosswalk across Delphi Lane at the intersection of Cascadia Drive and Delphi Lane, the crosswalk should be moved to the opposite side so that pedestrians cross the commercial entrance. This likely will require relocated storm structure 21. 12. It does not appear that the northern most parallel parking space (shown in the 3 parallel spaces) is usable. 13. Can storm structure 2I connect to storm structure 22 instead of structure 20? 14. What is the reasoning for shifting the waterline in Delphi Lane from the western lane to the eastern lane? If a leak will develop in a waterline, it is more likely to develop at a fitting. Our preference would be to continue the waterline in the western lane. 15. The sight line to the right at the intersection of Terrace Lane and Marietta Drive should be added to the plan to determine if a sight line easement is needed should Marietta Drive be extended. 16. The sanitary sewer from manhole I to manhole H should cross Terrace Lane perpendicularly. This may require an additional manhole. 17. Can a diversion be run behind lots 14 through 22 to keep off -site runoff out of the storm sewer system? 18. Why does the waterline in Terrace Lane switch from the eastern lane to the western lane? These additional fittings could create potential leaks of the waterline. It appears that if the waterline remained on the eastern side of the road, the 10' minimum separation to the sanitary sewer line could be maintained. 19. Storm structure I5A needs to be a DI -3 rather than a DI -2. 20. Why does the waterline in Delphi Drive switch from the eastern Iane to the western lane? These additional fittings could create potential leaks of the waterline. It appears that if the waterline remained on the eastern side of the road, the 10' minimum separation to the sanitary sewer line could be maintained. 21. Storm structure 2 is labeled as a DI4B in one profile and a DI -3B in another profile. Since there are 36" pipes coming to structure 2, this should be a DI4B. 22. DI -2A, B, or Cs are applicable only to depths of 8'. For structures deeper than 8', DI- 2AA, BB or CCs should be used as applicable. Structures noted that this would apply to are: a. Structure 23 23. DI -3A, B, or Cs are applicable only to depths of 8'. For structures deeper than 8', DI- 3AA, BB or CCs should be used as applicable. Structures noted that this would apply to are: a. Structure 14 b. Structure 14A c. Structure 15 d. Structure 24 24. DI -4A, B, or Cs are applicable only to depths of 8'. For structures deeper than 8', Dl- 4AA, BB or CCs should be used as applicable. Structures noted that this would apply to are: a. Structure 2 b. Structure 3 c. Structure 4 d. Structure 6 25. It appears that storm sewer profiles between structures 46A and 46 and between structures 27A and 27 have been excluded from the plans. 26. The length of storm structure 38 has been left off of the storm sewer profile. 27. The inverts of several structures differ between the calculations and the profile. The difference does not appear to generate a redesign of the storm sewer, however the numbers should match. The structures noted are: a. Structure 30 b. Structure 31 c. Structure 32 d. Structure 36 e. Structure 37 28. It appears that the available sight distance at the intersection of Delphi Lane and Delphi Drive is impacted by landscaping. This needs to be addressed. 29. It appears that the available sight distance at the intersection of Marietta Drive and Delphi Drive is impacted by landscaping. This needs to be addressed. 30. It appears that the available sight distance at the intersection of Delphi Drive and Terrace Lane is impacted by landscaping. This needs to be addressed. 31. The sight lines for intersections of Knoll Lane and Delphi Lane and for Terrace Lane and Delphi Lane need to be added to the plan. 32. It appears that the available sight distance at the intersections of Knoll Lane and Delphi Lane and of Terrace Lane and Delphi Lane are impacted by landscaping. This needs to be addressed. 33. The detail for CG -913 is not the most current detail. 34. The detail for CG -12 is not the most current detail. Road Plan Please be advised that review comments on the road plan are based on review of the sheets excluded from the site plan, i.e. sheets 10 through 16A. The assumption is that all remaining sheets are the same as those provided in the site plan. 1. On sheet 1 l of 36, the profile indicates that the super- elevation slope of Route 20 is 8% at the proposed street connection. This seems steep. Please provide survey elevations confirming this cross - slope. 2. The 10 foot vertical curve needs to be redesigned in accordance with AASHTO policy and the applicable requirements of the VDOT Road Design Manual including stopping sight distance and K value as indicated in note 8 of the detail for CG -11 connections found in the Road and Bridge Standards. 3. It appears that a CD -2 is required at approximately station 11 +35 on the profile for Cascadia Drive. 4. Is the 12xl2x8 Tee for the waterline connection shown in the profile for Cascadia Drive a new Tee to be cut in or a wet tap? 5. The centerline intersection of Cascadia Drive and Delphi Lane should be shown on the profile for Delphi Lane. The station and elevation should be listed as well. 6. It appears that a CD -2 is required at approximately station 12 +50 on the profile for Delphi Lane. 7. The profile for Marietta Drive indicates at station 10 +00 there is an intersection with Village Drive. However, the plan view indicates that this road is actually Delphi Drive. 8. The centerline intersection of Terrace Lane and Marietta Drive should be shown on the profile for Marietta Drive. The station and elevation should be listed as well. 9. It appears that a CD -2 is required at approximately station 17 +00 on the profile for Marietta Drive. 10. The centerline intersection of Marietta Drive and Delphi Drive should be shown on the profile for Delphi Drive. The station and elevation should be listed as well. 11. It appears that a CD -2 is required at approximately station 13 +15 on the profile for Terrace Lane. 12. It appears that a CD -2 is required at approximately station 18 +20 on the profile for Terrace Lane. 13. What is the purpose of the 13 foot tangent section in the Terrace Lane profile beginning at station 14 +75? Could this be replaced with one continuous vertical curve? 14. It appears that there is a low spot on the east side of Delphi Drive at the intersection with Terrace Lane that will not drain. Spot elevations should be provided at this intersection near storm structure 32 to demonstrate that the intersection will adequately drain. 15. The centerline intersection of Delphi Drive and Terrace Lane should be shown on the profile for Terrace Lane. The station and elevation should be listed as well. 16. As indicated on WP -2, the northbound lane in Route 20 is to be resurfaced. 17. The cross -slope change from the super - elevated Route 20 to the proposed right turn lane should occur at the edge of the travel lane /edge of turn lane. It appears that the cross - slope grade is shown to change in the existing 12' through lane. 18. The cross section for the Route 20 improvements indicate 2" of SM -9.5A and 6" of BM- 21 AA. The pavement structure shall at least match the existing pavement structure of Route 20. 19. Sheet 18 of 36 does not list the length of the turn lane or taper on Route 20. 20. The turn radius for Cascadia Drive at the intersection with Route 20 should be checked. The narrow width of the ingress lane may create problems for larger vehicles such as school buses, trash trucks, delivery/moving trucks etc. attempting to turn from Route 20 to Cascadia Drive. 21. The typical section for the proposed Route 20 improvements should comply with the GS- 6 standard found in Appendix A of the Road Design Manual. If additional information is needed 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 r� Ot'AL p�r � IRGS?at� County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Mike Myers From: Megan Yaniglos- Senior Planner Division: Planning Services Date: January 9, 2015 Subject: SDP - 2014 -075 Cascadia- Blocks 1 -3 Final Site Plan The Planner for the Planning Services Division of the Albemarle County Department Community Development will recommend approve the plan referred to above when the following items have been satisfactorily addressed. (The following comments are those that have been identified at this time. Additional comments or conditions may be added or eliminated based on further review.) [Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference to the Albemarle County Code.] Requirements: 1. [32.6] Signature Panel. Revise the signature panel to not include "Current Development ". That division no longer exists, "Planner' and "Engineer" will suffice. 2. [Sheet SP5] Remove the variance note on this sheet. Those variations were approved for Blocks 4 -7. New variations have been received and are being processed. 3. Clarify if Phase 2 will include the entrance onto Rt. 20. It is a little unclear on the phasing plan. 4. [32.7.9] Street trees. There are many areas where street trees are not being provided. If the trees cannot be provided in the right of way because of conflicts with easement and utilities, provide them in a landscape easement on the lots. 5. [32.7.9] Street trees. There are many areas where street trees are spaced farther than 50 feet on center. Adjust areas so that additional trees can be provided. 6. [General] Lots 68 and 69 are not labeled on the landscape sheets. Add the labels. 7. [Proffer] Designate which lots /units will be affordable on the plans. Please contact Megan Yaniglos at the Department of Community Development 296- 5832 ext. 3004 for further information. 1