HomeMy WebLinkAboutWPO201500069 Review Comments WPO VSMP 2015-11-13John Anderson
From: John Anderson
Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2015 12:41 PM
To: 'William Salomone'
Subject: RE: Planning Application Review for WP0201500069 Cash Corner - Amendment.
Thanks, Bill —I was far too slow responding.
Will approve when receive. Thanks, again.
Take care,
434.296 -5832 —x3069
From: William Salomone [ mailto :WSalomone @ClarkNexsen.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2015 11:53 AM
To: John Anderson <janderson2 @albemarle.org>
Cc: Justin Y. Yoon <jyoon @ClarkNexsen.com >; Stephen Waller <stephen.waller @gdnsites.com >; Matt Winstead
<mwinstead @nbcllc.com>
Subject: RE: Planning Application Review for WP0201500069 Cash Corner - Amendment.
John,
Thank you for taking the time to review this project, and your cooperation efforts.
Regarding your question below. The proposed area of disturbance as shown on the Sheet G -1 and Sheet C -4A is 20,400
sf. In the Clark Nexsen letter to you dated October 2, 2015, under Item 4, the response references a disturbance of
"close to one acre ". This value is not the proposed area of disturbance, but is rather a hypothetical amount of
disturbance that was discussed in the Clark Nexsen letter to Glen Brooks dated 6- August 2015, paragraph 3. The
hypothetical disturbance would be required if increased stormwater controls are implemented. The proposed limit of
disturbance is only 20,400 sf.
The applicant, Verizon Wireless, will submit hard copies as requested below. Please let me know if you have any
questions or if there is anything you would like to discuss. Thank you again for your time and attention to this project.
Best Regards,
[R
William Salomone PE
Civil Engineer
CLARKNEXSEN,
1111 East Main Street Suite 1905
Richmond, VA 23219
804.644.1484 Direct
804.644.4690 Office
wsalomone @clarknexsen.com
From: John Anderson [ mailto :landerson2 @albemarle.org]
Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2015 8:31 AM
To: William Salomone <WSalomone @ClarkNexsen.com>
Cc: Justin Y. Yoon <Iyoon @ClarkNexsen.com>
Subject: RE: Planning Application Review for WP0201500069 Cash Corner - Amendment.
Bill,
Question: 2 -Oct comment response letter references disturbance "close to one acre" while plan sheet C -4A lists
disturbance = 20,400 SF. This is confusing —which is it: 20,400 SF, or close to one acre?
I will look for your email, anticipate consistent reference to Area of disturbance, and then, no need for further
preview. Simply submit.
We need four (4), 11" x 17" copies of plans for quick Approval.
After submittal, it may take several days for 11" x 17" print copies to reach me —when they do, I will approve same day.
I regret the delay responding to your note —you have been patient and responsive.
Thank you
434.296 -5832 —x3069
From: William Salomone [ mailto :WSalomone @ClarkNexsen.com]
Sent: Friday, October 02, 2015 1:57 PM
To: John Anderson <janderson2 @albemarle.org>
Cc: Justin Y. Yoon <jyoon @ClarkNexsen.com>
Subject: RE: Planning Application Review for WP0201500069 Cash Corner - Amendment.
John,
I have attached a letter with responses to the comments below, as well as a set of drawings that will be submitted with
the revised WPO application. Both items are for review per your suggestion in Item #6 below.
Please feel free to contact me if there is anything you would like to discuss, or if you have comments on the attached
items. Thank you again for all your assistance and guidance with this project.
Best Regards,
William Salomone PE
Civil Engineer
CLARKNEXSEN,
1111 East Main Street Suite 1905
Richmond, VA 23219
804.644.1484 Direct
804.644.4690 Office
wsalomone @clarknexsen.com
From: John Anderson [ mailto :ianderson2 @albemarle.org]
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2015 12:48 PM
To: William Salomone <WSalomone @ClarkNexsen.com >; Stephen Waller <stephen.waller @gdnsites.com>
Subject: Planning Application Review for WP0201500069 Cash Corner - Amendment.
The Review for the following application has been completed:
Application Number = WP0201500069
Reviewer = John Anderson
Review Status = Denied
Completed Date = 09/29/2015
Thanks for your patience.
CV comments:
1. Revise plan to include just those sheets included with WP0201400040. Please remove the rest. Include
revisions /updates to sheets since 4/24/14. Note: Sheet A -1, if unavailable, is not critical; include at your discretion. This
Project Comment email sent to William Salomone and Stephen Waller includes side -by -side scan image of
WP0201400040 / WP0201500069 cover sheet, G -1.
2. Revise G -1 Index —see #1.
3. C -4A —List Area of Land Disturbance (SF or Ac). Also, see #4.
4. ESC Plan Narrative and SWM Plan Narrative, p. 4 (Report/June 5, 2014): Area of disturbance given as 0.47
Ac. C1arkNexsen letter d. 6 -Aug 2015 refers to 0.3 Ac. disturbance. Revise area of disturbance in report, if
inaccurate. Clarify limit of disturbance referenced in 6 -Aug letter.
5. Per County correspondence (8/19/2015 9:56 AM), please: "Confirm that conditions that reasonably may be
expected to exist after completion of the land development activity (12' gravel Access /cell tower) will result in negligible
changes to the pre - development runoff characteristics, after final stabilization."
6. Note: Applicant encouraged to send email attachments for preview prior to submitting print copies to save time
and expense.
janderson2 9/29/2015 12:31 PM"
434.296 -5832 —0069
f
%ow ,a Ai* '`�
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SUB2015-069 Hill Brook- Private Street Staff: Ellie Carter Ray, Senior Planner
Request
Planning Commission Public Hearing: Board of Supervisors Hearing:
May 19, 2015 Not applicable
Owner: Hilltop Partners, LLC Applicant: Justin Shimp, Shimp Engineering
Acreage: 2.63 acres Rezone: Not applicable
Special Use Permit for: Not applicable
TMP: 06100-00-00-12600 By-right use: Residential R-2
Location: Old Brook Road, approximately 200 feet from
intersection of Redington Lane. [Attachment A]
Magisterial District: Rio DA—X RA—
Requested#of Dwelling Lots: 6 single family detached lots Proffers/Conditions: None
previously approved.
Character of Property: Undeveloped, partially wooded. Comp. Plan Designation: Neighborhood 2-Places 29-
Neighborhood Density Residential—residential(3—6
units/acre)supporting uses such as religious institutions,
schools and other small-scale non-residential uses.
Proposal: Use of Surrounding Properties: Single Family Residential.
1. Request for private street approval in accordance with
14-233 and 14-234 of the Subdivision Ordinance.
Factors Favorable: Factors Unfavorable:
1. Engineering staff has no objections to the authorization of No unfavorable factors have been identified at this time.
a private street.
2. The proposed street meets the requirements for
authorization under 14-233(A)(3) & 14-234
RECOMMENDATION:
1. 14-233 and 14-234-Staff recommends approval of the Private Street.
1
STAFF PERSONS: Ellie Carter Ray, Senior Planner
PLANNING COMMISSION: May 19, 2015
AGENDA TITLE: SUB2015-069 Hill Brook—Private Street Request
APPLICANT: Hilltop Partners, LLC; Shimp Engineering
PROPERTY OWNER: Hilltop Partners, LLC
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL:
A preliminary plat has already been approved to create six single family detached lots on this parcel.
This proposal is a request to allow a private street to serve these six lots. [Attachment B].
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Neighborhood Density Residential in the Places 29
Master Plan.
REASON FOR PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW:
The applicant has requested a private street be authorized per Section 14-233 and 14-234, Authorization
of a Private Street within the Development Areas [Attachment C].
Approval of the modification for private street authorization would also be the approval of the street in
accordance with Sections 14-233 and 14-234 of the Subdivision Ordinance. The required standard for
private streets is specified in Section 14-412, and all requirements of this section will need to be met
with the approval of the final plat and road plans.
SELECTED PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY:
• SUB2014-176—Approval of a Preliminary Plat to create six single family detached lots and an
open space parcel. [Attachment B]
1. AUTHORIZATION OF PRIVATE STREETS
Private streets may be authorized by the Planning Commission as provided by any one of the provisions
of Section 14-233.
The applicant has requested approval of one private street(Hillbrook Court) using General Welfare
[Section 14-233(A)(3)] as justification [Attachment C]. (ordinance language presented in bold italics
followed by staff comment):
ANALYSIS OF SECTION 14-233(A)(3) General Welfare.
May be authorized if the general welfare, as opposed to the proprietary interest of the subdivider,
would be better served by the construction of one or more private streets than by the construction of
public streets.
The subdivision includes 6 lots that are served by the proposed street, and the surrounding area is
developed with single family homes. The applicant has stated that using private street standards will
allow them to lessen the impact on adjacent property owners by reducing the number of truckloads of
soil that will need to be hauled off-site,thus reducing the traffic impact and the length of construction.
The data in the request and justification support this assertion. [Attachment C]
2
County Engineering staff ha wialyzed the street as required by Chapter``le, Section 234(Procedure to
authorize private streets and related matters) of the County Code. Staff has found that the design of the
subdivision meets the requirement for authorization for a private street under this section.
ANALYSIS OF SECTION 14-234:
Per Section 14-234(c),the Commission may authorize one or more private roads to be constructed in a
subdivision if it finds that one or more of the circumstances described in section 14-232 of 14-233 exists
and that: (ordinance language presented in bold italics followed by staff comment)
1. The private road will be adequate to carry the traffic volume which may be reasonably expected to
be generated by the subdivision.
The amount of traffic expected on this private street is minimal, as the street serves only six lots. The
subdivision is surrounded by existing residential lots, so the road will not be extended or further
developed. The proposed design is adequate for this volume of traffic.
2. The comprehensive plan does not provide for a public street in the approximate location of the
proposed private road;
The Comprehensive Plan does not provide for a public street in the location of this private street.
3. The fee of the private road will be owned by the owner of each lot abutting the right-of-way thereof
or by an association composed of the owners of all lots in the subdivision,subject in either case to any
easement for the benefit of all lots served by the road;
Section 14-317 of the Subdivision Ordinance requires that a maintenance agreement be submitted for
review by Planning staff and the County Attorney in all situations where required improvements are to
be privately maintained. The applicant has indicated that the private streets will be entirely owned and
maintained by the Hill Brook HOA.
4. Except where required by the commission to serve a specific public purpose, the private road will
not serve through traffic nor intersect the state highway system in more than one location; and
The private streets will not serve through traffic,nor intersect the state highway system in more than one
location.
S. If applicable, the private road has been approved in accordance with section 30.3,flood hazard
overlay district, of the zoning ordinance and other applicable law.
As proposed the private streets will not require any upgrades nor impact the flood plain.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
This proposal meets the requirements of the ordinance; therefore, Staff recommends approval of the
private street request outlined below:
1. Section 14-233 and 14-434-Authorization of a Private Street within the Development Areas
(Hillbrook Court).
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Vicinity Map
B. Approved Preliminary Plat
C. Private Street Request and Justification
3
Austin Deel
From: Justin Deel
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 2:06 PM
To: 'justin @shimp-engineering.com'
Subject: Planning Application Review for SUB201500069 Hill Brook- Road Plans.
Attachments: SUB201500089 Eng. Road Plan Review.pdf'; CDP1_sub_ECR_Hilltop-Road Plans.pdf
See attached reviews from Engineering and Planning. Other reviews (VDOT, ACSC) will be forwarded as they
are received.
The Review for the following application has been completed:
Application Number=SUB201500069
Reviewer=Justin Deel
Review Status = Requested Changes
Completed Date =05/13/2015
1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,Room 227
Charlottesville,Virginia 22902-4596
Phone(434)296-5832 Fax(434)972-4126
Road and Drainage Plan Review
Project title: Hillbrook
Project file number: SUB-2015-00069
Plan preparer: Shimp Engineering,PC
Owner or rep.: Hilltop Partners,LLC
Plan received date: 20 April 2015
Date of comments: 13 May 2015
Reviewers: Justin Deel
1. Please show limits of sidewalk replacement and CG-6 removal.
2. Please explain note"Area to be Vacated 4,740 SF"on existing conditions sheet.
3. Please show and label managed slopes.
4. Show stationing at 50' minimum on plans and profiles.
5. Please provide dimensions for and clearly show extent of the private storm sewer easement along
Old Brook Road.
6. Should there be a separate easement for sidewalks as they are outside of the street ROW?
7. Please label proposed grade on road profile. Show and label crossdrains and utilities on profiles.
8. Provide a drainage plan. Please show excess drainage will not be flowing into Old Brook Road.
Provide storm sewer profile(s). What will inlet 5A be capturing? Pre-cast inlets will obviously
lessen your curb entrance radii,do these have to be placed on the entrance?
9. Provide details and profiles for proposed new storm sewer on Old Brook Road.
10. Although this is intended to be a private street,VDOT approval is required for intersection and
utility improvements along Old Brook Road.
11. Provide pavement design calculations.
12. Provide sidewalk detail.
Please address the following comment provided by Robbie Gilmer,Fire&Rescue:
Fire Flow test required.Fire Flow needed is 1,000 gpm @ 20 psi.
jf u
`lXGIl3�A
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville,VA,22902
Phone 434-296-5832 Fax 434-972-4126
Memorandum
To: Justin Deel
From: Ellie Ray, CLA, Senior Planner
Division: Planning
Date: May 13, 2015
Subject: SUB 201500069 Hill Brook—Road Plans
I have reviewed the road plans referenced above and the following comments from the Conditional Approval of
the Preliminary Plat have not been satisfactorily addressed:
1. [Comment] This application has been reviewed for items relevant to the Road Plans only. Additional
comments regarding requirements for Final Plat approval will be provided when the Final Plat is submitted.
2. [14-302(A)3] Existing or platted streets. Clarify the existing public right-of-way line and the 30' prescriptive
easement line. The right-of-way line looks much like other lines on the plan, so it is difficult to tell which
lines depict r/w. Is the prescriptive easement only along the subject parcel? Why is it shown over the
existing public right-of-way?
• Will be reviewed with the Final Plat.
3. [14-302(A)4&5] Private &public easements. Verify that the location and dimensions of all existing and
proposed private and public easements are shown. Existing easements should be labeled with the
appropriate DB and PG reference. Proposed easements should be labeled with the intended holder. The
plan proposes both sewer and storm on private lots;these utilities will require easements. Additionally, if
sidewalk is not located within the proposed public right-of-way, a sidewalk easement will be required with
the appropriate maintenance agreement.
• Will be reviewed with the Final Plat; however, it appears additional easements for storm sewer
will be required.
4. [14-302(A)4&5] Private &public easements. Will an easement be necessary for the off-site sewer
connection? If so, show it on the plat and add impacted property owner(s)as signees.
• Will be reviewed with the Final Plat. However,this easement should be in place prior to the
approval of any construction activities on the neighboring parcel.
5. [14-302(A)8] Proposed lots. Clarify the total acreage of the proposed lots on the cover sheet. The sum of
all lots is 1.68 acres not 1.70; using 1.70(the sum of rounded lot acreages)gives a total development area
of 2.56 acres.
• Will be reviewed with the Final Plat.
6. [14-302(A)8] Proposed lots. Indicate on the cover sheet that cluster development standards are being used.
• The open space provided does not meet the standard for a cluster development;a minimum of
25%is required. This will be reviewed in more detail on the Final Plat, but is being included in
this comment letter in case it changes the road design.
7. [14-302(A)8] Proposed lots. Provide a frontage dimension for all proposed lots.
• Frontage is measured as a straight line not an arc; some lots may not meet the frontage
requirement. This will be reviewed in more detail on the Final Plat.
1
°more 'woo
8. [14-302(A)10] Right of further division of proposed lots. Please remove the development rights note (note
#2)as development rights are not applicable on R-2 zoned land.
• Will be reviewed with the Final Plat.
9. [14-302(A)11] Instrument creating property proposed for subdivision. The legal reference provided should
be a Will Book reference, not a Deed Book reference.
• Will be reviewed with the Final Plat.
10. [14-302(A)12] Topography. Label the existing topography.
• Comment addressed.
11. [14-302(B)5] Zoning classification. Add Airport Impact Area (AIA)to the Zoning note.
• Will be reviewed with the Final Plat.
12. [18-4.6.1] Frontage and lot width measurements. The required frontage may be reduced on a cul-de-sac
provided driveway separation meets VDOT standards. However, minimum lot width must be maintained
between the front and rear yards; the front setback may need to be moved back to where minimum lot width
is achieved.
• Frontage is measured as a straight line not an arc; some lots may not meet the frontage
requirement. This will be reviewed in more detail on the Final Plat.
13. [18-14.4.1] Environmental standards. To qualify for the bonus factor for maintenance of existing wooded
areas you must show that the area maintained meets the definition of`wooded area' in Section 3.
• This information is not included in the road plans, it must be provided prior to Road Plan
approval.
14. [18-14.4.1] Environmental standards. To qualify for this bonus, a conservation plan as specified in section
32.7.9 is required.
• The conservation plan checklist must be completed and signed.
15. [14-317] Instrument evidencing maintenance of certain improvements. A maintenance agreement will be
required for the proposed sidewalks(if they remain outside of the proposed public right-of-way) and the
open space parcel.
• Will be reviewed with the Final Plat.
16. [14-422] Sidewalks and planting strips. Label and dimension the sidewalks and planting strips. Planting
strips must be 6'wide.
• Comment addressed.
17. [32.7.9.5] Street trees. The plant counts in the landscape schedule do not match the number of symbols
shown on the plan; please verify and revise so that the plan and schedule are consistent. Additionally,
some street trees are shown on top of utilities or too close to proposed driveways; relocate street trees with
conflicts to appropriate locations.
Please contact Ellie Ray in the Planning Division by using erava.albemarle.ora or 434-296-5832 ext. 3432 for
further information.
2
°.mow .,+,'
a
iO\
`}v
COMMONWEALTH of IRQINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Charles A. Kilpatrick, P,E,
Commrss:oner
May 19, 2015
Mr.Justin Decl
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 Mclntirc Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: SUB-2015-00069 Hillbrook Drive Road Plans
Dear Mr. Dccl:
We have reviewed the road plans for Hillbrook dated 4i16115 as submitted by Shimp Engineering and offer the
following comments:
1. No portion of the private stormwatcr management facility should be located within public right-of-way.
2. We recommend relocating proposed drop inlets 5 and 5A to the tangent section of Hillbrook Court,i.e. at
approximately station 10- 50. These inlets should be designed with 100%capture,and the capacity of the
existing inlet on Old Brook Road cast of this site needs to be confirmed as adequate for the existing runoff
and the new runoff from Hillbrook Court that will be downstream of drop inlets 5 and 5A. The curb and
gutter along at the southern return of the Hillbrook/Old Brook intersection will need to be installed as
reverse curb so that the runoff along Old Brook flows across Hillbrook Court.
3. Typically,we do not allow midblock pedestrian crossings as shown on this plan and we do not support the
crossing of Old Brook Road shown. In addition, when the Old Brook Road crossing is removed,the
sidewalk along Hillbrook Court would not be continuous with the existing pedestrian facilities. We would
recommend the removal of the sidewalk along Hillbrook Court. This would be consistent with the side
roads off of Old Brook Road for the rest of the development as they do not typically have sidewalk along
the roadway.
4. The areas along Old Brook Road located within the sight line will need to be posted as no parking so that
sight distance is not obstructed at Hillbrook Court.
5. The right-of-way line to the south of Hillbrook Court is shown to be approximately 6' behind the back of
curb. The right-of-way to the north of Hillbrook Court should be dedicated along the frontage of Old
Brook Road such that right-of-way section is uniform.
If you need additional information concerning this project,please do not hesitate to contact me at(434)422-9782.
Si ncerely,
1;9 A
Troy Austin, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Culpeper District
„S:. KEE1 VIRGINIA C)VING
Ellie Ray
From: Ellie Ray
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 4:52 PM
To: Justin Deel
Subject: Planning Application Review for SUB201500069 Hill Brook- Road Plans.
The Review for the following application has been completed:
Application Number= SUB201500069
Reviewer= Ellie Ray
Review Status= Requested Changes
Completed Date = 06/17/2015
I have reviewed the revised road plan submittal dated 6/5/15 and have the following comments:
1. The note below the Wooded Area Tabulation references a 26,707 SF conservation area, while the preserved
wooded space is labeled as 23,764 SF;please clarify and revise, if necessary.
2. The 'new canopy'number in the tree canopy calculation doesn't match that provided in the Landscape
Schedule; verify and revise.
Justin Deel
From: Justin Deel
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2015 4:19 PM
To: 'Justin Shimp, P.E.'
Subject: Planning Application Review for SUB201500069 Hill Brook- Road Plans.
Attachments: SUB201500069 Eng. Road Plan Review R1.pdf
The Review for the following application has been completed:
Application Number=SUB201500069
Reviewer=Justin Deel
Review Status = Requested Changes
Completed Date =06/26/2015
1
err 'MOO
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 Mclntire Road,Room 227
Charlottesville,Virginia 22902-4596
Phone(434)296-5832 Fax(434)972-4126
Road and Drainage Plan Review
Project title: Hillbrook
Project file number: SUB-2015-00069
Plan preparer: Shimp Engineering,PC
Owner or rep.: Hilltop Partners,LLC
Plan received date: 20 April 2015
(Rev. 1) 6 June 2015
Date of comments: 13 May 2015
(Rev. 1) 26 June 2015
Reviewers: Justin Deel
1. Please show limits of sidewalk replacement and CG-o removal.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
2, Please ex plait, note"Area to be Vacated 4.740 S1," on e..istittg conditions sheet.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
3. 1'iease show and label managed slopes.
(Re.. I) Comment addressed.
4. Show stationing at$0' minimum;Al plans and profiles.
(Rex. I) Comment addressed.
5. Please provide dimension:, for and clearly show extent of the private storm sewer easement along
Old Book Road,
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
6. Shoukl there be a separate easement for sidewalks as they are outside of the street ROW?
(Rey. 1) Comment addressed.
7. Please label proposed grade on road profile. Show and label crossdrain,, and utilities on profiles.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
8. Provide a drainage plan. Please show excess drainage will not be flowing into Old Brook Road.
Provide storm sewer profile(s). What will inlet 5A be capturing? Pre-cast inlets will obviously
lessen your curb entrance radii,do these have to be placed on the entrance?
(Rev. 1) Comment partially addressed. Drainage area plan not found.
9, Provide details and profiles for proposed new storm sewer on Old Brook Road,
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
to. Although this is intended to he a private street. \`I)OT appro.al is required for intersection and
utility improvements along Old Brook Road.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
11. Provide pavement design calculations.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
12. Provide sidewalk detail.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 2
Revision 1 Comments:
13. Please reflect the requested changes to the overall SWM/drainage plan from the 26 June 2015
VSMP review letter.
Please address the following comment provided by Ellie Ray,Planning:
1. The note below the Wooded Area Tabulation references a 26,707 SF conservation area,while the
preserved wooded space is labeled as 23,764 SF;please clarify and revise,if necessary.
2. The'new canopy'number in the tree canopy calculation doesn't match that provided in the
Landscape Schedule;verify and revise.
Please address the following comment provided by Robbie Gilmer,Fire&Rescue:
Fire Flow test required.Fire Flow needed is 1,000 gpm @ 20 psi.
�_.�•. Ik �; Noise
1,
Ate:,
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper Vrgnia 22701
Charles A. Kilpatrick,P.E.
Commissioner
July 21, 2015
Mr.Justin Deel
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: SUB-2015-00069 Hillbrook Road Plans
Dear Mr. Deel:
We have reviewed the road plans for Hillbrook dated 4/6/15 with revisions dated 6/5/15 as submitted by
Shiimp Engineering and offer the following comments:
1. It appears that additional no parking signs may be necessary to better define the areas along Old
Brook Road.
2. The"Private Storm Sewer Easement"along Old Brook Road should not be private as VDOT will
maintain the storm sewer between structures 2 and X4.
3. The erosion and sediment control plan needs to be provided for review. This can be a separate
submittal(WPO for example).
4. Structure 1,a new MH-1, appears to be included only as a feature of the underground detention
system. As such, this structure should be removed from the right-of-way. Furthermore, as
designed,there will always be standing water in structure 2. As this is a drop inlet that will be
maintained by VDOT, the storm sewer needs to be revised so that there will not be standing water
in this structure.
5. We do not support a marked crosswalk at this location and the crosswalk and CG-12 in for the
sidewalk on the western side of Old Brook Road should be removed.
6. We continue to recommend that the sidewalk along Hillbrook Court be removed. The response
letter to our prior review indicates that the engineer/developer would like to explore other options
for connecting with the existing pedestrian facilities. Have any other options been proposed?
If you need additional information concerning this project, please do not hesitate to contact me at(434)
422-9782.
-Siincerely,
1
Troy Austin, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Culpeper District
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
Ellie Ray
From: Ellie Ray
Sent Wednesday,July 29, 2015 9:55 AM
To: Justin Deel
Subject: Planning Application Review for SUB201500069 Hill Brook- Road Plans.
The Review for the following application has been completed:
Application Number=SUB201500069
Reviewer= Ellie Ray
Review Status= Requested Changes
Completed Date =07/29/2015
I have reviewed the revised road plan submittal dated 7/24/15 and have the following comment:
1. The note below the Wooded Area Tabulation chart references a 26,707 SF conservation area, while the
preserved wooded area is labeled as 23,696 SF; please clarify and revise, if necessary.
1
*we Nlagge
Justin Deel
From: Justin Deel
Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2015 2:16 PM
To: 'Justin Shimp, P.E.'; 'Lauren Gilroy'
Subject: Planning Application Review for SUB201500069 Hill Brook- Road Plans.
Attachments: SUB201500069 Eng. Road Plan Review R2.pdf
The Review for the following application has been completed:
Application Number=SUB201500069
Reviewer=Justin Deel
Review Status= Requested Changes
Completed Date =08/26/2015
1
'"1114,` A0V AL8p,L.
4>A111T.N%
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,Room 227
Charlottesville,Virginia 22902-4596
Phone(434)296-5832 Fax(434)972-4126
Road and Drainage Plan Review
Project title: Hillbrook
Project file number: SUB-2015-00069
Plan preparer: Shimp Engineering,PC
Owner or rep.: Hilltop Partners,LLC
Plan received date: 20 April 2015
(Rev. 1) 6 June 2015
(Rev.2) 27 July 2015
Date of comments: 13 May 2015
(Rev. 1) 26 June 2015
(Rev. 2) 26 August 2015
Reviewers: Justin Deel
1. Please show limits of sidewalk replacement and CG-6 removal.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
2. Please explain note"Area to be Vacated 4,740 on existing conditions sheet.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
3. Please show and label managed slopes.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
4. Show-stationing at 50' minimum on plans and profiles.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
5. Please provide dimensions for and clearly show extent of the private storm sewer easement along
Old Brook Road.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
6. Should there be a separate easement for sidewalks as they are outside of the street ROW?
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
7. Please label proposed grade on road profile. Show and label crossdrains and utilities on profiles.
(Rev. 1 Comment addressed.
S. Provide a drainage plan. Please show excess drainage will not be flowing into Old Brook Road.
Provide storm sewer profile(s). What will iniet 5A he capturing? Pre-east inlets will obviously
lessen your curb entrance radii, do these have to he placed on the entrance?
(Rev. 1) Comment partiall) addressed. Drainage area plan not found.
(Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
9. Provide details and profiles for proposed new storm sewer on Old Brook Road.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
10. Although this is intended to be a private street, VDOT approval is required for intersection and
utility improvements along Old Brook Road.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
11. Provide pavement design calculations.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
12, Provide sidewalk detail,
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
/aegineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 2
Revision 1 Comments:
13. Please reflect the requested changes to the overall SWM/drainage plan from the 26 June 2015
VSMP review letter.
(Rev.2) Comment partially addressed. Please reflect additional changes requested in the 20
August 2015 VSMP review letter.
Revision 2 Comments:
14. Please adequately address all VDOT comments. Provide evidence of ASCA approval.
Please address the following cornmeal provided by Ellice Ray. Planning:
1. The note below the Wooded Area Tabulation references a 26,707 SF conservation area, while the
preserved wooded space is labeled as 23,764 SF;please clarify and revise,if necessary.
(Rev.2)Comment not addressed.
2. The 'new canopy number in the tree canopy calculation doesn't match that provided in the
Landscape Schedule: verify and revise.
Please address the following comment provided by Robbie Gilmer,Fire&Rescue:
Fire Flow test required.Fire Flow needed is 1,000 gpm @ 20 psi.
(Rev.2) I have not yet received feedback concerning the provided fire flow calculation from Fire
&Rescue. I will let you know once that information is received.
1 t: h
dlV{ I
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper,Virginia 22701
Charles A. Kilpatrick,P.E.
Commissioner
September 1, 2015
Mr. Justin Deel
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: SUB-2015-00069 Hillbrook Road Plans
Dear Mr. Deel,
We have reviewed the road plans for the proposed Hillbrook development dated 4/6/15 with
revisions dated 6/5/15 and 7/24/15 as submitted by Shimp Engineering and offer the following
comments:
1. The CG-12's shown on the plan are located at the midpoint of the intersection radii. This
alignment tends to direct the visually impaired towards the center of the intersection
instead of the opposite CG-12. The CG-12's should be aligned more perpendicularly
with proposed Hillbrook Court.
2. Sheet 12 of the VSMP Plans show the erosion and sediment control plan for this
development. There appears to be a diversion from the overflow of sediment trap I to the
storm sewer, but there is no detail for the construction of the diversion to ensure that the
discharge does not run directly into Old Brook Road.
If you need additional information concerning this project, please do not hesitate to contact me at
(434)422-9782.
Sincerely,
//11)
Troy Austin, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Culpeper District
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
i.r' w.rf
Justin Deel
From: Ellie Ray
Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 4:36 PM
To: Justin Deel
Subject: Planning Application Review for SUB201500069 Hill Brook- Road Plans.
The Review for the following application has been completed:
Application Number= SUB201500069
Reviewer= Ellie Ray
Review Status = No Objection
Completed Date = 10/05/2015