HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201500007 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2015-10-30o� AiaE
�IRGI1`�P
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Chris Mulligan (CMulligangroudabush.com)
CC: Bill Ledbetter (BLedbetter(&roudabush.com)
From: J.T. Newberry (jnewberrykalbemarle.org)
Division: Planning
Date: June 12, 2015; October 30, 2015 (Revision date: June 23, 2015)
Subject: SDP201500007 Old Trail Village Block 12, Phase 2 and Phase 3 — Final Site Plan
The Planner will recommend approval of 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.)
Planning
1. [Section 32.4.3.6] I have not yet received indication of approval from ARB. I've pasted ARB comments below.
2. [Section 32.5.2(a)] On September 2, 2015, the Board of Supervisors approved the following variations to the
Code of Development. Please update Sheet 1, under Site Data, to reflect these approvals including each of their
conditions:
a. To permit lot sizes below 4,000 square feet, subject to the following condition:
■ No lot size for a single - family attached unit shall be less than 1,800 square feet.
b. To permit a building height above the maximum 2.5 stories permitted, subject to the following condition:
■ No building height shall be greater than 3.5 stories.
c. To reduce the setbacks, subject to the following conditions:
• Lots 13 -24 shall have five (5) foot front, zero (0) foot side and five (5) foot rear setbacks.
• Lots 8 -12 shall have five (5) foot front, side and rear setbacks.
d. To allow roof overhangs and eaves to encroach the building setback, subject to the following condition:
■ Roof overhangs and eaves shall not be permitted to project further than one foot into the
building setback.
3. [Comment] Several of the column totals in the cumulative overall development table are incorrect. Please revise
this table and confirm the accuracy of the numbers being provided. The total columns that do not add up are titled:
Single - family Attached Units, Townhouse Units, Condo /Apartment Units, Total Units, For Sale, For Rent
Apartments, Total: Number of Units. Other columns may also need revision and will likely impact the percentage
calculations.
Please contact J.T. Newberry at 434 - 296 -5832, ext. 3270 or jnewbeny&albemarle.org for further information about the
comments above.
Architectural Review Board (ARB)
A Certificate of Appropriateness is required prior to final site plan approval. The applicant shall submit an application for
a County -wide Certificate of Appropriateness for structures 750' or more from the EC. Applications and checklists can be
found at www.albemarle.org /arb. Preliminary comments on the proposal follow.
1. Note 6 on Sheet 4 indicates that lots 8 -24 will use the same materials and typical elevations as those approved in
Block 11. Note that units 8 — 12 are detached dwellings and do not require ARB approval. For units 1 -7 and 13-
24, submit to -scale architectural elevations with materials and colors identified on the drawings.
2. The mechanical equipment note is included on the site plan, but it is also required on the architectural drawings:
Visibility of all mechanical equipment from the Entrance Corridor shall be eliminated.
3. Revise lighting notes 2 and 3 on the cover sheet to read as follows:
Each outdoor luminaire equipped with a lamp that emits 3,000 or more initial lumens shall be a full cutoff
luminaire and shall be arranged or shielded to reflect light away from adjoining residential districts and away
from adjacent roads.
The spillover of lighting from luminaires onto public roads and property in residential or rural areas zoning
districts shall not exceed one -half footcandle.
4. Add Entrance Corridor (EC) Overlay District to the "Zoning" designations under "Site Data" on the cover sheet.
5. Throughout the site plan, adjust the "Private Alley A" note to correspond to the alley location.
Please contact Margaret Maliszewskit at 434 - 296 -5832, ext. 3276 or MMaliszewskigalbemarle.org for further
information about the comments above.
Project:
Plan preparer:
Owner or rep.:
Plan received date:
(Rev. 1)
(Rev. 2)
(Rev. 3)
Date of comments:
(Rev. 1)
(Rev. 2)
(Rev. 3)
Reviewer:
Project Coordinator:
YlAGIl`11A
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Old Trail Village Block 12 — Final (SDP- 2015- 00007)
Chris Mulligan, Bill Ledbetter, Raleigh Davis — Roudabush, Gale & Assoc, Inc
914 Monticello Road, Charlottesville, VA 22902, cmulligan(a),roudabush.com,
bledbetter(a)roudabush.com, rdavisAroudabush.com
March Mountain Properties LLC [1005 Heathercroft Circle, Suite 100]
Dave Brockman, dave a oldtrailvilla eg com
19 Feb 2015
23 Apr 2015
25 Jun 2015
5 Aug 2015
18 Mar 2015
13 May 2015
21 Jul 2015
25 Aug 2015
John Anderson
J. T. Newberry
Initial site plan included block 15 /undivided block 12 (no phases); only block 12, phase 2 & 3 included with this
review.
Engineering comments to address for Final Site Plan:
Ref also 22 Jan 2014 comments, Initial Site Plan (SDP201400001, Michelle Roberge)
Review comments addressed with prior or current revision removed for clarity. A single comment remains.
Comment 10.c. Retaining Wall (sheet 7): Provide sufficient design for construction. (Rev. 1) Partially addressed,
ref. follow -up comments. (Rev. 2) As follow -up: sheet 7 —Depth to base of retaining wall foundations stem/overturn
key is 5' -5" below sidewalk grade. Please check this depth against inverts of the two, 12 11 sections of 12" Cl. V
RCP that pass under foundation stems. For example, 665.05' and 665.60' sidewalk Elev. at steps in front of Lots 9
and 8 give approx. sidewalk Elev. of 665.32' at point 12" RCP passes beneath stem —WV of pipe is listed as 659.25'
which appears to conflict with base of stem. [Sheet 7 details are comprehensive and clear. Thank you ] (Rev. 3)
Not addressed. — please discuss with Engineering during plan review meeting scheduled for 27 -Aug.
Reminder: Final site plan approval requires an approved road plan, and an approved VSMP permit.
Contact John Anderson, Engineering Dept, if any questions. janderson2@albemarle.org / 434.296 -5832 -x3069
File: SDP20150000701d Trail Village block 12, ph- ii_rev3_082515.doc
Project:
Plan preparer
Owner or rep.:
Plan received date:
(Rev. 1)
(Rev. 2)
Date of comments:
(Rev. 1)
(Rev. 2)
Reviewer:
Project Coordinator:
YlAGIl`11A
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Old Trail Village Block 12 — Final (SDP- 2015- 00007)
Chris Mulligan, Bill Ledbetter, Raleigh Davis — Roudabush, Gale & Assoc, Inc
914 Monticello Road, Charlottesville, VA 22902, cmulligan(a),roudabush.com,
bledbetter(c)roudabush.com, rdavis(a)roudabush.com
March Mountain Properties LLC [1005 Heathercroft Circle, Suite 100]
Dave Brockman, dave(&oldtrailvilla eg com
19 Feb 2015
23 Apr 2015
25 Jun 2015
18 Mar 2015
13 May 2015
21 Jul 2015
John Anderson
J. T. Newberry
Initial site plan included block 15 /undivided block 12 (no phases); only block 12, phase 2 & 3 included with this
review.
Engineering comments to address for Final Site Plan:
Ref also 22 Jan 2014 comments, Initial Site Plan (SDP201400001, Michelle Roberge)
Minor Follow -up + carryover VSMP/WPO- related comments (as reminder). Appreciate response and design effort.
SDP2015 -00007
1. Eliminate Phase 3 Lots 13 -24 on sheets 4, 15. Replace with label: Future Development (REF sheet 3, Ex.
conditions). Alternatively, include Lots 13 -24, revise plan title, and provide SWM for Lots 8 -24. (Rev. 1)
Addressed. Added Phase 3 to the Titles.
2. Provide SWM for Phase 2 (Phase 3, if included) as prerequisite to site plan approval. VSMP Application
required. (Rev. 1) Comment acknowledged. Applicant response: "WPO to follow upon Master Plan
Approval." ACCD: At this point, given discussion concerning revision required for agreement on
principles and details of 15 -Apr 2015 Stantec Stormwater Master Plan Update (see 29 -Apr 2015 County
response), proposal to replace SWM facility approved under WP0201300021 requires: County acceptance
of a Master Plan, and, with change in SWM facility type, a variation to ZMA200400024. A separate email
will follow that comments on WP0201300021, but does not comment on Stantec Stormwater Master Plan.
(Rev. 2) Despite meetings 5 -Jun and 9 -Jul between Anderson/ACCD and Glenn Muckley / Stantec, progress
toward Master Plan conceptual agreement has not advanced. This leaves block 12, phase 2 & 3 site plan
approval in a precarious state.
3. Sheet 3 — Do not show block 15 lots as Existing unless Final Site Plan for these lots is approved. This is
more properly a planning comment, but plans for blocks 15 and 12 were once combined, then split, then
phased. Each successive iteration affects engineering comment since we must eliminate (or note) design
features which may be under concurrent review, but are not yet approved —as is the case with block 15.
(Rev. 1) Addressed.
4. Sheet 4 — Eliminate Note 5. —Also SUB201500020, 18 -Mar 2015. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
5. Sheet 4 — Label Variable Width Sight Distance Esmt. —SW corner, Lot 12. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
6. Provide narrative /timeline for extending Alley `A' to serve additional Lots. Alternatively, provide cul -de-
sac, if permanent street end. Exemption does not exist for permanent street length <150'. T -type
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 4
turnarounds and branch -type turnarounds have been discontinued as ineffective (Ref. ACDSM). (Rev. 1)
Partially Addressed /Initial comment revised. Applicant response: "The road stub to these lot was shown
exactly as it was originally approved on the initial site plan.... it has been modified to more of a privately
maintained situation, where Lots 23 and 24 will share their driveway and lot portion of the driveways would
be constructed with the Phase 3 construction of the units." As follow -up, initial comment revised: (Rev. 1):
Restore roadway geometry approved with initial site plan; revise road plan /drainage (inlets /storm lines) as
necessary (re£ image from SDP201400001, Old Trail Village, block 12 & block 15, initial site plan):
8451N
(Rev. 2) Addressed.
-j rX V.
nv� fir 20 uTU
�7
Sheet 3 — Delete reference to SWMP dated March 20, 2013 since it does not provide SWM for 12, phase 2.
Revise note, consistent with WPO2014- 00047. Note: block 15 VSMP Application is under review. Block
12, phase 2/block 15 VSMP approval /s may require review /approval of SWM Master Plan being developed
to reflect layout and concept of Zoning SWM Plan. (SWM Master Plan by Stantec, Williamsburg, VA.)
(Rev. 1/2) Comment acknowledged. Applicant response: "WPO to follow upon Master Plan Approval."
ACCD: Ref. item #2, above.
8. Remove sheets 5, 6% 9, 10, 12, 13, 14 from Site Plan. Retain sheets 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 13 with road plans.
Comment coordinated with Planning/J.T. Newberry. -Also, SUB201500020 comments, 18 -Mar 20151
* Relocate /preserve Final Plan Notes
t Utility roadway /drainage improvements /suxETY- 14.434. Surety attaches to SUB plan/subdivision ordinance. (Rev.
1) Addressed.
9. Sheet 4 — Evaluate width, drainage /utility easements, against depth of burial (ACDSM). For example:
easement width > 20' is required to install storm line pipe 17 (from MH -18) 10' below existing grade.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 4
ACDSM, 6.A.3.b. indicates a 24.5'(±) wide drainage easement is required at this point. Provide
schedule /table for ESMT. > 20 -ft. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
Image, ACDSM (Rev. 1/Not shown)
10. Retaining Wall (sheet 44 7): (Rev. 1) Partially addressed. As follow -up, see a.; b. vi vii ; a., (Rev. 2) E.
below:
a. Provide sealed structural plans (Rev. 1) As follow -up: Sheet 7 requires original professional
engineer signature /date (on PE seal). (Rev. 2) Addressed.
b. Provide /revise detail, including:
i. Foundation drain (Rev. 1) Addressed.
ii. Engineered section, behind wall (Rev. 1) Addressed.
iii. Thermal expansion, as needed (Rev. 1) Addressed.
iv. Details, corners /turns at steps (Rev. 1) Addressed.
v. TYP detail, foundation drain at steps (plan - profile) (Rev. 1) Addressed.
vi. Water meters located above/behind wall, not between street and sidewalk. (Rev. 1)
Addressed. Applicant response: "The water meters shall remain within the grass strip per
ACSA."
vii. TYP detail /water line: water service line under curb, sidewalk, wall (penetration) —Avoid
engineered backfill, if possible. (Rev. 1) As follow up: Extend 1 -'h" PVC sleeve to clear
7' -4" horizontal base of retaining wall and daylight in planting strip, BW /at grade, TW.
Note: it is imperative to revise schematic. Sleeve provides transit through 18" wide stem
of wall, but 4' deep on low side, and up to 9.5' on the high side, with 2.3' and 3.5' insets
beneath 7' -4" wall base, sleeve is inaccessible. Construction Note detailing requirement
is encouraged; schematic revision is required. (Rev. 2) Addressed.
viii. Show entire wall in sufficient detail to allow contractor to install: steps, concrete/brick,
reinforcement, water service laterals, foundation collector drain, foundation drain/roof
leaders to DI. Show wall elements in relation to walk, street, utilities, and storm system.
(Rev. 1) As follow -up: Provide turndown concrete at face of top step so that face of step
is concrete, not subgrade, and 24" #4 expansion dowel with sleeve embeds in concrete.
(Rev. 2) Addressed.
c. Provide sufficient design for construction. (Rev. 1) Partially addressed, ref. follow -up comments.
(Rev. 2) As follow -U: sheet 7 —Depth to base of retaining wall foundations stem/overturn key is
5' -5" below sidewalk grade. Please check this depth against inverts of the two, 12 l.f. sections of
12" Cl. V RCP that pass under foundation stems. For example, 665.05' and 665.60' sidewalk
Elev. at steps in front of Lots 9 and 8 give approx. sidewalk Elev. of 665.32' at point 12" RCP
passes beneath stem —INV of pipe is listed as 659.25' which appears to conflict with base of stem.
[Sheet 7 details are comprehensive and clear. Thank you ]
d. Eliminate 2:1 slope —storm runoff water may not pass over the top of the wall; f, below. (Rev. 1)
As follow -up: Revise Concrete retaining wall faced with brick detail to show proposed grade /max.
slope =3:1. Post - construction ground cover behind TW, Lots 8 -12, is lawn (grass stabilization).
Max. slope for lawns =3:1, per ACDSM, 8.A.2. Also: revise 6" Max. label (top of brick/grade) to
include Min. dimension. 3 -6" Min, for example, may help ensure storm runoff does not cross wall.
Note curtain wall foundation detail label: "Provide Min. 4" Wall height as necessary to maintain
4" over finished grade." Please transfer this design parameter to concrete retaining wall detail.
(Rev. 2) Applicant response noted: "Additional grades, slopes, labels and detailing added. The
front yards shall remain at 2:1 with landscaping proposed along the 2:1 maximum slopes. All
areas of 3:1 and lesser grade will be sodded."
e. Relocate weeps to discharge beneath sidewalk directly into DI (do not discharge to walk, or street).
Engineering Review Comments
Page 4 of 4
(Rev. 1) Addressed.
f. Provide swale at top of wall. (Rev. 1) Addressed via grading and 24" Nylo -plast Yard Inlets (RI,
R2, R3, R4).
g. Provide swale comps (10 -yr event; capacity). (Rev. 1) Withdrawn.
h. Provide roof drain discharge lines. Avoid release to lawns above wall, route to DI, if possible
(Lots 8 -12). (Rev. 1) Addressed.
i. Provide top of wall elevations, #12, below. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
j. Eliminate brick bearing on sidewalk. Furnish concrete foundation ledge for brick face. (Rev. 1)
Addressed.
k. Ensure sidewalk may be repaired, sections replaced; j., above. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
11. Future Phase 3/Note: Lots 13, 18, 19 -20' CG -6 to roll -top curb transition may limit driveway width.
Ensure adequate driveway width. (Rev. 1) Applicant response: "Since Albemarle will not accept the
VDOT standard A -nose style inlet (intended for roll -face curb), there are 5' transitions proposed adjacent to
each alleyway inlet. Str#5 was oriented at the end of the alleyway to avoid the need for the transition."
ACCD: As follow -up, Restore Approved initial site plan roadway geometry. Provide roll- top /CG6 curb
transitions at all inlets. —Also, #6, above. (Rev. 2) Addressed.
12. There are proffers on driveway standards and entrances to dwellings. Proposed layout of units is shown.
On sheet 7 /Grading Plan, please provide elevation at the bottom of stairs leading to porch of each dwelling,
Lots 8 -12, and provide top of wall elevation in front of each dwelling. Compare with proffer statement:
driveways not steeper than 20 %; grades no steeper than 10% adjacent to possible entrances to dwellings not
served by a stairway. [Ref. 9 Jan 2014 initial site plan, sheet 6, PROFFER STATEMENT, OLD TRAIL VILLAGE,
7. Overlot Grading Plan, H. /L; Also, initial site plan comments, 22 Jan 2014, Item #3] (Rev. 1) Addressed.
13. Revise /increase proposed RW width, Rowcross Street, to include proposed retaining wall, Lots 8 - 12.
(Rev. 1/2) As follow-Lip: Please ensure Esmt. leader lines /Arrows extend to identify edge of proposed
private 15' drainage, sidewalk, & maintenance easement (sheet 4). (Rev. 2) Arrows appear to indicate 5'
Private drainage, sidewalk, and maintenance Esmt.
14. Final site plan approval requires an approved road plan, approved VSMP permit, and approved final plat.
(Rev. 1/2) Ref. items #2/7, above.
15. New: Revise storm sewer schedule, sheet 6, consistent with Road Plan revisions. (Rev. 2) Addressed.
Contact John Anderson, Engineering Dept, if any questions. janderson2(a)albemarle.org / 434.296 -5832 x3069
File: SDP20150000701d Trail Village block 12, ph- ii_rev2_072115.doc
r
?Ltr
, ®
11RGiNaA
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Chris Mulligan(CMulligan@roudabush.com)
CC: Bill Ledbetter(BLedbetter@roudabush.com)
From: J.T.Newberry(inewberry@albemarle.org)
Division: Planning
Date: June 12,2015
Subject: SDP201500007 Old Trail Village Block 12, Phase 2—Final Site Plan
The Planner will recommend approval of the plat 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.)
Planning
• [Question] Is this site plan for Phase 2 or Phase 2 and 3?If it is just Phase 2,then remove Phase 3 from Sheet 1
and the side title on each sheet. If it is for Phase 2 and Phase 3,then please remove"future"from the Phase 3 area
on Sheet 2.
• [Comment] On Sheet 1,under Site Data,please specify the location,type and square footage of the non-
residential use(s)within Lots 13-24 from the list of permitted uses within Table 4 on page 25 of the Code of
Development(COD).
• [Comment] Throughout the plan,please show Court Mont Way as a private 24' alley(as approved under
SUB201500014).
[Section 32.5.2(a)] On Sheet 1,under Site Data,please revise the single family side setback to be 0' but note that
a minimum 10' building separation is required by Fire/Rescue.
. [Comment] On Sheet 2,please show the existing approved portion of Claremont Lane was approved under Block
12,Phase 1 (as shown in SUB201500014). Also, is Block 15 going to be phased?If so,please show the
/ continuation of Court Mont Way as Block 15, Phase 1.
[Section 32.5.2(n)] On Sheet 4,please show the building footprints(not just the building envelope)of each lot
and remove Note 3. On Sheet 1,please denote the percentage of lot coverage for each lot or add a note that states
each lot may not exceed 60%lot coverage.
[Section 4.6.6] On Sheet 4,please extend Private Alley A or show other vehicular access for Lots 23-24.
8. [Comment] Please note that the private portion of Rowcross Street may be authorized by the Agent under Section
i
14-233(B)(1).
A. [Section 32.7.9] On Sheet 8,please adjust labels or use arrows to specify the tree symbols for the trees adjacent
to Lots 15-18.
V 10. [Comment] Please provide an updated overall development table cumulative of Block 12.
Please contact J.T.Newberry at 434-296-5832,ext. 3270 or inewberrya,albemarle.org for further information about the
comments above.
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Chris Mulligan(CMulligan@roudabush.com)
CC: Bill Ledbetter(BLedbetter@roudabush.com)
From: J.T.Newberry(jnewberry@albemarle.org)
Division: Planning
Date: June 12,2015
Subject: SDP201500007 Old Trail Village Block 12, Phase 2—Final Site Plan
The Planner will recommend approval of the plat 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.)
Planning
1. [Question] Is this site plan for Phase 2 or Phase 2 and 3? If it is just Phase 2,then remove Phase 3 from Sheet 1
and the side title on each sheet. If it is for Phase 2 and Phase 3,then please remove"future"from the Phase 3 area
on Sheet 2. Removed Future.
2. [Comment] On Sheet 1, under Site Data,please specify the location,type and square footage of the non-
residential use(s)within Lots 13-24 from the list of permitted uses within Table 4 on page 25 of the Code of
Development(COD). All proposed uses are to be Single Family Residential. Tables,setbacks and notes
on Sheet 1 have been revised to address the Single Family detached and attached dwelling units.
Appropriate exceptions or waivers have been requested for setbacks and minimum square footage.
3. [Comment] Throughout the plan,please show Court Mont Way as a private 24' alley(as approved under
SUB201500014). Noted accordingly.
4. [Section 32.5.2(a)] On Sheet 1, under Site Data,please revise the single family side setback to be 0' but note that
a minimum 10' building separation is required by Fire/Rescue. Noted, as suggested
5. [Comment] On Sheet 2,please show the existing approved portion of Claremont Lane was approved under Block
12, Phase 1 (as shown in SUB201500014). Also, is Block 15 going to be phased? If so,please show the
continuation of Court Mont Way as Block 15, Phase 1. Block 15 Road plans were approved as phased plan to
permit construction of Block 12,Phase 1. The continuation of Claremont,Rowcross, Court Mont Way and
Fielding Run were approved as Phase 2 of Block 15. I've added the phase line for clarity;the Block 15 Road
Plan was phased, and is awaiting an approved WPO plan for storm-water management compliance. Block 12,
Phase 1, only approved the construction of Court Mont Way and Lots 1-7.
6. [Section 32.5.2(n)] On Sheet 4, please show the building footprints(not just the building envelope)of each lot
and remove Note 3. On Sheet 1, please denote the percentage of lot coverage for each lot or add a note that states
each lot may not exceed 60% lot coverage. Notes and building footprints added
7. [Section 4.6.6] On Sheet 4,please extend Private Alley A or show other vehicular access for Lots 23-24. Revised to
match the initial site plan.
8. [Comment] Please note that the private portion of Rowcross Street may be authorized by the Agent under Section
14-233(B)(1). Noted.
9. [Section 32.7.9] On Sheet"8;please,adjust labels or use arrows to specify the tree symbols for the trees adjacent
to Lots 15-18. Tree Labels shifted for clarity.
10. [Comment] Please provide an updated overall development table cumulative of Block 12. Cumulative Table added
to the Phasing plan sheet.
Please contact J.T.Newberry at 434-296-5832, ext. 3270 or jnewberry@albemarle.org for further information about the
comments above.
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper Virginia 72701
Charles A.Kilpatrick,P.E.
Commissioner
May 19,2015
Mr.John Anderson
Mr.J.T.Newberry
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville,VA 22902
Re: SUB-2015-00020 Old Trail Village Block 12,Phase 2&3 Road Plan
SDP-2015-00007 Old Trail Village Block 12,Phase 2&3 Final Site Plan
Dear Gentlemen:
The Old Trail Village Block 12, Phase 2 & 3 Road Plan (with revision dates of October 24, 2014,
February 4, 2015, March 19, 2015 and April 14, 2015) as well as the Final Site Plan(with revision dates
of October 24, 2014, February 4, 2015 and April 14, 2015) have been reviewed and we offer the
following comments:
1. All previous review comments have been adequately addressed.
2. VDOT has no objection to the approval of the Road Plan/Final Site Plan as submitted.
3. Prior to commencement of construction activities, there will need to be a pre-construction
conference for this project. Please contact this office at least 48 hours prior to a
requested pre-construction conference to schedule this meeting.
If you need further information concerning this project,please do not hesitate to contact meat
(434)422-9894.
Sincerely,
zfoi,e_i_f „.61:4',15d,
Shelly A. P aster
Land Development Engineer
Culpeper District
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
YlAGIl`11A
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Project: Old Trail Village Block 12 — Final (SDP- 2015- 00007)
Plan preparer: Chris Mulligan, Bill Ledbetter, Raleigh Davis — Roudabush, Gale & Assoc, Inc
914 Monticello Road, Charlottesville, VA 22902, cmulligan(aroudabush.com,
bledbetter(c)roudabush.com, rdavis(a)roudabush.com
Owner or rep.: March Mountain Properties LLC [1005 Heathercroft Circle, Suite 100]
Dave Brockman, dave(&oldtrailvilla eg com
Plan received date: 19 Feb 2015
(Rev. 1) 23 Apr 2015
Date of comments: 18 Mar 2015
(Rev. 1) 13 May 2015
Reviewer: John Anderson
Project Coordinator: J. T. Newberry
Initial site plan included block 15 /undivided block 12 (no phases); only block 12, phase 2 & 3 included with this
review.
Engineering comments to address for Final Site Plan:
Ref also 22 Jan 2014 comments, Initial Site Plan (SDP201400001, Michelle Roberge)
SDP2015 -00007
1. Eliminate Phase 3 Lots 13 -24 on sheets 4, 15. Replace with label: Future Development (REF sheet 3, Ex.
conditions). Alternatively, include Lots 13 -24, revise plan title, and provide SWM for Lots 8 -24. (Rev. 1)
Addressed. Added Phase 3 to the Titles.
2. Provide SWM for Phase 2 (Phase 3, if included) as prerequisite to site plan approval. VSMP Application
required. (Rev. 1) Comment acknowledged. Applicant response: "WPO to follow upon Master Plan
Approval." ACCD: At this point, given discussion concerning revision required for agreement on
principles and details of 15 -Apr 2015 Stantec Stormwater Master Plan Update (see 29 -Apr 2015 County
response), proposal to replace SWM facility approved under WP0201300021 requires: County acceptance
of a Master Plan, and, with change in SWM facility type, a variation to ZMA200400024. A separate email
will follow that comments on WP0201300021, but does not comment on Stantec Stormwater Master Plan.
3. Sheet 3 — Do not show block 15 lots as Existing unless Final Site Plan for these lots is approved. This is
more properly a planning comment, but plans for blocks 15 and 12 were once combined, then split, then
phased. Each successive iteration affects engineering comment since we must eliminate (or note) design
features which may be under concurrent review, but are not yet approved —as is the case with block 15.
(Rev. 1) Addressed.
4. Sheet 4 — Eliminate Note 5. —Also SUB201500020, 18 -Mar 2015. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
5. Sheet 4 — Label Variable Width Sight Distance Esmt. —SW corner, Lot 12. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
6. Provide narrative /timeline for extending Alley `A' to serve additional Lots. Alternatively, provide cul -de-
sac, if permanent street end. Exemption does not exist for permanent street length <150'. T -type
turnarounds and branch -type turnarounds have been discontinued as ineffective (Ref. ACDSM). (Rev. 1)
Partially Addressed /Initial comment revised. Applicant response: "The road stub to these lot was shown
exactly as it was originally approved on the initial site plan.... it has been modified to more of a privately
maintained situation, where Lots 23 and 24 will share their driveway and lot portion of the driveways would
be constructed with the Phase 3 construction of the units." As follow -up, initial comment revised: (Rev. 1):
Restore roadway eg ometry approved with initial site plan; revise road plan /drainage (inlets /storm lines) as
necessary (ref image from SDP201400001, Old Trail Village, block 12 & block 15, initial site plan):
B'IP rt IV °�oveo a !U SA
BUStiuir�8r�u+w. ,�.,� 3fA►
�A7A'AGf40 20' IfT1iJ
T
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 4
Sheet 3 — Delete reference to SWMP dated March 20, 2013 since it does not provide SWM for 12, phase 2.
Revise note, consistent with WPO2014- 00047. Note: block 15 VSMP Application is under review. Block
12, phase 2/block 15 VSMP approval /s may require review /approval of SWM Master Plan being developed
to reflect layout and concept of Zoning SWM Plan. (SWM Master Plan by Stantec, Williamsburg, VA.)
(Rev. 1) Comment acknowledged. Applicant response: "WPO to follow upon Master Plan Approval."
ACCD: Ref. item #2, above.
Remove sheets 5, 6% 9, 10, 12, 13, 14 from Site Plan. Retain sheets 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 13 with road plans.
Comment coordinated with Planning/J.T. Newberry. -Also, SUB201500020 comments, 18 -Mar 20151
* Relocate /preserve Final Plan Notes
f Utility roadway /drainage improvements /SURETY- 14.434. Surety attaches to SUB plan/subdivision ordinance. (Rev.
1) Addressed.
9. Sheet 4 — Evaluate width, drainage /utility easements, against depth of burial ( ACDSM). For example:
easement width > 20' is required to install storm line pipe 17 (from MH -18) 10' below existing grade.
ACDSM, 6.A.3.b. indicates a 24.5'( ±) wide drainage easement is required at this point. Provide
schedule /table for ESMT. > 20 -ft. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
Image, ACDSM (Rev. 1/Not shown)
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 4
10. Retaining Wall (sheet 44 7): (Rev. 1) Partially addressed. As follow-U, see a.; b. vii /viii; d., below:
a. Provide sealed structural plans (Rev. 1) As follow -up: Sheet 7 requires original professional
engineer signature /date (on PE seal).
b. Provide /revise detail, including:
i. Foundation drain (Rev. 1) Addressed.
ii. Engineered section, behind wall (Rev. 1) Addressed.
iii. Thermal expansion, as needed (Rev. 1) Addressed.
iv. Details, corners /turns at steps (Rev. 1) Addressed.
v. TYP detail, foundation drain at steps (plan - profile) (Rev. 1) Addressed.
vi. Water meters located above/behind wall, not between street and sidewalk. (Rev. 1)
Addressed. Applicant response: "The water meters shall remain within the grass strip per
ACSA."
vii. TYP detail /water line: water service line under curb, sidewalk, wall (penetration) —Avoid
engineered backfill, if possible. (Rev. 1) As follow un: Extend 1 -' /z" PVC sleeve to clear
7' -4" horizontal base of retaining wall and daylight in planting strip, BW /at grade, TW.
Note: it is imperative to revise schematic. Sleeve provides transit through 18" wide stem
of wall, but 4' deep on low side, and up to 9.5' on the high side, with 2.3' and 3.5' insets
beneath 7' -4" wall base, sleeve is inaccessible. Construction Note detailing requirement
is encouraged; schematic revision is required.
viii. Show entire wall in sufficient detail to allow contractor to install: steps, concreteibrick,
reinforcement, water service laterals, foundation collector drain, foundation drain/roof
leaders to DI. Show wall elements in relation to walk, street, utilities, and storm system.
(Rev. 1) As follow -0: Provide turndown concrete at face of top step so that face of step
is concrete, not subgrade, and 24" #4 expansion dowel with sleeve embeds in concrete.
c. Provide sufficient design for construction. (Rev. 1) Partially addressed, re£ follow -up comments.
d. Eliminate 2:1 slope —storm runoff water may not pass over the top of the wall; f , below. (Rev. 1)
As follow-M: Revise Concrete retaining wall faced with brick detail to show proposed grade /max.
slope =3:1. Post - construction ground cover behind TW, Lots 8 -12, is lawn (grass stabilization).
Max. slope for lawns =3:1, per ACDSM, 8.A.2. Also: revise 6" Max. label (top of brick/grade) to
include Min. dimension. 3 -6" Min, for example, may help ensure storm runoff does not cross wall.
Note curtain wall foundation detail label: "Provide Min. 4" Wall height as necessary to maintain
4" over finished grade." Please transfer this design parameter to concrete retaining wall detail.
e. Relocate weeps to discharge beneath sidewalk directly into DI (do not discharge to walk, or street).
(Rev. 1) Addressed.
f. Provide swale at top of wall. (Rev. 1) Addressed via grading and 24" Nylo -plast Yard Inlets (RI,
R2, R3, R4).
g. Provide swale comps (10 -yr event; capacity). (Rev. 1) Withdrawn.
h. Provide roof drain discharge lines. Avoid release to lawns above wall, route to DI, if possible
(Lots 8 -12). (Rev. 1) Addressed.
i. Provide top of wall elevations, #12, below. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
j. Eliminate brick bearing on sidewalk. Furnish concrete foundation ledge for brick face. (Rev. 1)
Addressed.
k. Ensure sidewalk may be repaired, sections replaced; j., above. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 4 of 4
11. Future Phase 3/Note: Lots 13, 18, 19 -20' CG -6 to roll -top curb transition may limit driveway width.
Ensure adequate driveway width. (Rev. 1) Applicant response: "Since Albemarle will not accept the
VDOT standard A -nose style inlet (intended for roll -face curb), there are 5' transitions proposed adjacent to
each alleyway inlet. Str#5 was oriented at the end of the alleyway to avoid the need for the transition."
ACCD: As follow -up, Restore Approved initial site plan roadway geometry. Provide roll- top /CG6 curb
transitions at all inlets. —Also, #6, above.
12. There are proffers on driveway standards and entrances to dwellings. Proposed layout of units is shown.
On sheet 7 /Grading Plan, please provide elevation at the bottom of stairs leading to porch of each dwelling,
Lots 8 -12, and provide top of wall elevation in front of each dwelling. Compare with proffer statement:
driveways not steeper than 20 %; grades no steeper than 10% adjacent to possible entrances to dwellings not
served by a stairway. [Ref. 9 Jan 2014 initial site plan, sheet 6, PROFFER STATEMENT, OLD TRAIL VILLAGE,
7. Overlot Grading Plan, H./L; Also, initial site plan comments, 22 Jan 2014, Item #3] (Rev. 1) Addressed.
13. Revise /increase proposed RW width, Rowcross Street, to include proposed retaining wall, Lots 8 - 12.
(Rev. 1) As follow-M: Please ensure Esmt. leader lines /Arrows extend to identify edge of proposed private
1 S' drainage, sidewalk, & maintenance easement (sheet 4).
14. Final site plan approval requires an approved road plan, approved VSMP permit, and approved final plat.
(Rev. 1) Ref. items #2/7, above.
15. New: Revise storm sewer schedule, sheet 6, consistent with Road Plan revisions
Contact John Anderson, Engineering Dept, if any questions. janderson2nalbemarle.org / 434 - 296 -5832 x3069
File: SDP20150000701d Trail Village block 12, ph -ii revl_051315
YlAGIl`11A
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Project: Old Trail Village Block 12 — Final (SDP- 2015- 00007)
Plan preparer: Chris Mulligan, Bill Ledbetter, Raleigh Davis — Roudabush, Gale & Assoc, Inc
914 Monticello Road, Charlottesville, VA 22902, cmulligan(aroudabush.com,
bledbetter(c)roudabush.com, rdavis(a)roudabush.com
Owner or rep.: March Mountain Properties LLC [1005 Heathercroft Circle, Suite 100]
Dave Brockman, dave(&oldtrailvilla eg com
Plan received date: 19 Feb 2015
Date of comments: 18 Mar 2015
Reviewer: John Anderson
Project Coordinator: J. T. Newberry
Initial site plan included block 15 /undivided block 12 (no phases); only block 12, phase 2 included with this review.
Engineering comments to address for Final Site Plan:
Ref also 22 Jan 2014 comments, Initial Site Plan (SDP201400001, Michelle Roberge)
SDP2015 -00007
1. Eliminate Phase 3 Lots 13 -24 on sheets 4, 15. Replace with label: Future Development (REF sheet 3, Ex.
conditions). Alternatively, include Lots 13 -24, revise plan title, and provide SWM for Lots 8 -24.
2. Provide SWM for Phase 2 (Phase 3, if included) as prerequisite to site plan approval. VSMP Application
required.
3. Sheet 3 — Do not show block 15 lots as Existing unless Final Site Plan for these lots is approved. This is
more properly a planning comment, but plans for blocks 15 and 12 were once combined, then split, then
phased. Each successive iteration affects engineering comment since we must eliminate (or note) design
features which may be under concurrent review, but are not yet approved —as is the case with block 15.
4. Sheet 4 — Eliminate Note 5. —Also SUB201500020, 18 -Mar 2015.
5. Sheet 4 — Label Variable Width Sight Distance Esmt. —SW corner, Lot 12.
6. Provide narrative /timeline for extending Alley `A' to serve additional Lots. Alternatively, provide cul -de-
sac, if permanent street end. Exemption does not exist for permanent street length <150'. T -type
turnarounds and branch -type turnarounds have been discontinued as ineffective (Ref. ACDSM).
7. Sheet 3 — Delete reference to SWMP dated March 20, 2013 since it does not provide SWM for 12, phase 2.
Revise note, consistent with WP02014- 00047. Note: block 15 VSMP Application is under review. Block
12, phase 2/block 15 VSMP approval /s may require review /approval of SWM Master Plan being developed
to reflect layout and concept of Zoning SWM Plan. (SWM Master Plan by Stantec, Williamsburg, VA.)
8. Remove sheets 5, 6*, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14 from Site Plan. Retain sheets 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 13 with road plans.
Comment coordinated with Planning/J.T. Newberry. -Also, SUB201500020 comments, 18 -Mar 20151
* Relocate /preserve Final Plan Notes
f Utility roadway /drainage improvements /suxETY- 14.434. Surety attaches to SUB plan/subdivision ordinance.
9. Sheet 4 — Evaluate width, drainage /utility easements, against depth of burial (ACDSM). For example:
easement width > 20' is required to install storm line pipe 17 (from MH -18) 10' below existing grade.
ACDSM, 6.A.3.b. indicates a 24.5'(±) wide drainage easement is required at this point. Provide
schedule /table for ESMT. > 20 -ft.
Image, ACDSM
Current Development
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 3
LASEMENT NVIDTH u DIAMETEN t? IfE -5`I t 10' 1'_0" NILti'.1
10. Retaining Wall (sheet 11):
a. Provide sealed structural plans
b. Provide /revise detail, including:
i. Foundation drain
ii. Engineered section, behind wall
iii. Thermal expansion, as needed
iv. Details, corners /turns at steps
v. TYP detail, foundation drain at steps (plan - profile)
vi. Water meters located above/behind wall, not between street and sidewalk
vii. TYP detail /water line: water service line under curb, sidewalk, wall (penetration) —Avoid
engineered backfill, if possible
viii. Show entire wall in sufficient detail to allow contractor to install: steps, concretelbrick,
reinforcement, water service laterals, foundation collector drain, foundation drain/roof
leaders to DI. Show wall elements in relation to walk, street, utilities, and storm system.
c. Provide sufficient design for construction.
d. Eliminate 2:1 slope —storm runoff water may not pass over the top of the wall; f, below.
e. Relocate weeps to discharge beneath sidewalk directly into DI (do not discharge to walk, or street).
f. Provide swale at top of wall.
g. Provide swale comps (10 -yr event; capacity).
h. Provide roof drain discharge lines. Avoid release to lawns above wall, route to DI, if possible
Current Development
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 3
(Lots 8 -12).
i. Provide top of wall elevations, #12, below.
j. Eliminate brick bearing on sidewalk. Furnish concrete foundation ledge for brick face.
k. Ensure sidewalk may be repaired, sections replaced; j., above.
11. Future Phase 3/Note: Lots 13, 18, 19 -20' CG -6 to roll -top curb transition may limit driveway width.
Ensure adequate driveway width.
12. There are proffers on driveway standards and entrances to dwellings. Proposed layout of units is shown.
On sheet 7 /Grading Plan, please provide elevation at the bottom of stairs leading to porch of each dwelling,
Lots 8 -12, and provide top of wall elevation in front of each dwelling. Compare with proffer statement:
driveways not steeper than 20 %; grades no steeper than 10% adjacent to possible entrances to dwellings not
served by a stairway. [Ref. 9 Jan 2014 initial site plan, sheet 6, PROFFER STATEMENT, OLD TRAIL VILLAGE,
7. Overlot Grading Plan, H./L; Also, initial site plan comments, 22 Jan 2014, Item #3]
13. Revise /increase proposed RW width, Rowcross Street, to include proposed retaining wall, Lots 8 - 12.
14. Final site plan approval requires an approved road plan, approved VSMP permit, and approved final plat.
Contact John Anderson, Engineering Dept, if any questions. janderson2nalbemarle.org / 434 - 296 -5832 x3069
File: SDP20150000701d Trail Village block 12, ph- ii_031815