HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201500020 Review Comments 2015-10-27 NNW NOW
Christopher Perez
From: Christopher Perez
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 7:20 AM
To: Justin Deel; 'Plaster, Shelly(VDOT)'
Subject: Road design/width discussion -SDP2015-20: Inglewood Terrace - Initial Site Plan
Justin& Shelly,
Road design/width discussion- SDP2015-20: Inglewood Terrace-Initial Site Plan
During our initial review of this proposal and currently the applicant proposed that the road would be a private road, as
they plan to vacate the portion of`public right of way"which was never accepted into the state's secondary system. They
have yet to submit a plat to accomplish the vacation but that is their plan prior to final site plan.
The road standards for the proposed road, regardless of it being proposed as a public rd or a private, are that of VDOT
standards per County Code Sections 14-412(A)(3), 14-412(A)(3)(b)and 14-412(B), based on the number of lots and type
of units served by it (see ordinance section provided below).
Michelle Roberg's comment#7 on the above referenced site plan and the applicant's response need to be addressed with
this resubmittal based on the limited space in this area.
Michelle's Comment#7: "Provide 24'width for the road(face of curb to face of curb)from Appendix B of VDOT road
design manual. See County Code 14-412(A)(3)(b). "
Applicant's Response: "According to VDOT Appendix B, Table 1, Footnote 9 we can reduce the width of the road by 2'
based on engineering judgment and VDOT approval. VDOT did not make a comment about the width of the road. "
I have provided both sections of the ordinance below for your reference. If you have any questions please let me know.
Shelly,please note that Justin Deel is the new Engineer on this project for the County.
County Code Sections
[14-412(A)(3)]Streets serving six lots or more. Each private street serving six(6)or more lots shall satisfy Virginia Department of Transportation
standards,provided:
[14-412(A)(3)(b)]Private streets in the development areas.For such private streets in the development areas,the agent may approve Virginia
Department of Transportation standards for mountainous terrain or an alternative standard deemed adequate by the county engineer to be equivalent
to or greater than the applicable standard in the design standards manual,so as to adequately protect the public health,safety or welfare.
[14-412(B)]Private streets serving non-residential, non-agricultural,attached residential,multi-unit residential and combined residential and non-
residential uses. Each private street authorized to serve non-residential,non-agricultural,attached residential,multi-unit residential and combined
residential and non-residential uses under sections 14-232 or 14-233 shall satisfy Virginia Department of Transportation standards or an alternative
standard deemed adequate by the agent,upon the recommendation of the county engineer,to be equivalent to or greater than the applicable standard
in the design standards manual,so as to adequately protect the public health,safety or welfare.The agent may require minimum travelway widths to
provide for on-street parking upon a determination that the provisions for off-street parking may be inadequate to reasonably preclude unauthorized
on-street parking.
Christopher P. Perez 1 Senior Planner
Department of Community Development 1County of Albemarle, Virginia
401 McIntire Road 1 Charlottesville,VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext. 3443
1
Ne r "Fr. *toe awr
apt iA
®n`+ktr
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,Room 227
Charlottesville,Virginia 22902-4596
Phone(434)296-5832 Fax(434)972-4126
Project: Inglewood Terrace—Initial Site Plan
Plan preparer: Shimp Engineering, P.C.
Owner or rep.: Gillispie,Brian and Gillispie,Jennifer
Plan received date: 28 Apr 2015
Date of comments: 3 Jun 2015
Reviewer: Michelle Roberge
A. SDP(SDP2015000020)
1) Verify the stream is not classified as a perennial stream. Buffers need to be shown for perennial
streams in the development area.
2) TMP 61 K-05-OD-4 can potentially be considered an erosion impact area. The stream continues
to flow from the project site to this parcel. It is important to be verify or address the impacts of the
development and existing waters that appear to pass through this adjacent property during and
after construction. The true drainage area needs to be verified.
Erosion impact area. The term"erosion impact area"means an area of land not associated with
current land disturbing activity but subject to persistent soil erosion resulting in the delivery of
sediment onto neighboring properties or into State waters;provided that the area of land is not a lot
or parcel of ten thousand(10,000)square feet or less used for residential purposes or a shoreline
where the erosion results from wave action or other coastal processes.
3) Provide drainage easements for swm facilities.
4) Also provide drainage easement for pipe conveying runoff from adjacent property to the
property line. See 14-431.
5) Provide a concept plan for the BMP to ensure adequate space is provided.
6) Show sanitary easement line.
x , !'
8) Provide curb,gutter an p anting strips on both sides of the road.Also,a 6' planting strip
should be shown near the entrance. Otherwise, a request for a variation needs to be submitted
prior to or with submittal of a preliminary plat.
9) The parking lot sidewalk should be a minimum 5' with bumper blocks or 2' grass overhang.
Otherwise show 6' wide.
10) Show existing shrub and other plantings that appear to be adjacent to parcel 61K-10-I. This
will impact improvements near the entrance.
11) Show more of existing condition at Inglewood Ct intersection on plan. Show at least 50' in
each direction.
- Niu/ '4 ear
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 2
12) Clarify horizontal curve. It appears to not meet the minimum 200' standard.
13) What is the pavement striping?It appears to be loading for handicap parking that is not
marked.
14) Provide sag curve near entrance to capture runoff.
15) Obtain an easement for drainage pipe on TMP 61K-10-1.
16) Provide curb inlets on both sides of private road.
17) DI shown on parking does not work well.This design has been discontinued with VDOT and
the county follows VDOT standards. Provide curb inlets.
18) Verify a portion of existing asphalt from TMP 61K-10-Al is on project site and is to be
impacted.
19) Clarify type of home.
20) Clarify grading for the lot 2 garden.It appears to be higher than proposed deck elevation in lot
For Final Site Plan
21) Retaining walls need railing for over 4'
22) Design proper inlet for stormsewer pipe bypassing runoff north of site. It appears there is an
existing channel. Are you proposing to improve the channel to the stormsewer inlet?
23) Verify channel at outfall is adequate.
24) Please note a separate road plan will need to be approved and bonded prior to the approval of
a subdivision plat.
25) VDOT approval is necessary for connection to public road and for improvements within their
R/W.
26) Show groundcover,not grass,for slopes greater than 3:1.
27) A VSMP application shall be submitted and approved prior to the approval of the final site
plan.
28) One parallel parking does not meet the 18' requirement for length.
29) Verify guardrails are not warranted under GRIT manual. Otherwise please show.
Sincerely,
1
Michelle Roberge
Christopher Perez
From: Justin Deel
Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2015 2:33 PM
To: Christopher Perez
Subject: Planning Application Review for SDP201500020 Inglewood Terrace- Initial.
Attachments: SDP201500020 Inglewood Terrace ISP.doc; SDP201500020 Inglewood Terrace ISP.pdf
The Review for the following application has been completed:
Application Number=SDP201500020
Reviewer =Justin Deel
Review Status = Requested Changes
Completed Date = 11/03/2015
Updated with comment concerning retaining walls in steep slopes overlay district.
i
. �...�
ot AN
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Christopher Perez, Planning
From: Justin Deel,Engineering
Date: 3 November 2015
Subject: Inglewood Terrace(SDP201500020)
The initial site plan for Ingleside Terrace has been reviewed. The following concerns should be addressed;
1. The neighboring community,according to at least one member of that community,has expressed
intent to provide an additional study to contest the provided determination,because they strongly
feel that the stream is indeed perennial. Should a new study be presented to conflict with the
provided determination,this new information must be reviewed and considered.
2. Concerning previous comment#2;this comment is referring to TMP 61K-05-0D-4's potential to
be an erosion impact area during and after construction. The comment response that the ultimate
configuration will not be erosive does not address the E&SC (construction)phase. This can be
addressed with the E&SC plan,and will be vigorously scrutinized at that time. The previously
requested drainage area verification will need to be provided as well.
3. Within the steep slopes overlay district,the maximum height of a single retaining wall is 6 feet
[18-30.7.5]. This plan proposes a 9' to 10' wall passing through an area designated as a managed
slope. Please adjust. Note that the minimum horizontal distance between individual walls in a
stepped wall system is 3 feet.
4. The previously requested drainage and SWM easements are not shown.
5. Concerning road width(previous comment#7);the referenced footnote in the comment response
does not allow for a reduction in the minimum 24' face of curb to face of curb width for up to
2,000 ADT;rather it allows for a reduction in the minimum width's for 2,001 to 4,000 ADT.
Note that there is no reference to footnote 9 in the up to 2,000 ADT widths. The minimum width
is 24', please adjust.
6. Stormwater quality does not appear to be addressed with this plan. The previously requested
concept BMP plan has not been provided.
7. Parking lot sidewalks do not meet the minimum 5' width. There are no exceptions to this. See
Albemarle County Design Standards Manual for minimum configurations.
Comments for Final Site Plan (previously provided by Michelle Roberge and remain unaddressed on
plans and in comment response letter)
8. Retaining walls greater than 4' require railing.
9. Design proper inlet for stormsewer pipe bypassing runoff north of site. It appears there is an
existing channel. Are you proposing to improve the channel to the stormsewer inlet?
10. Verify channel at outfall is adequate.
11. A separate road plan will need to be approved and bonded prior to the approval of a subdivision
plat.
12. VDOT approval is necessary for connection to public road and for improvements within their
right-of-way.
13. Show groundcover,not grass,for slopes greater than 3:1.
14. A VSMP application shall be submitted and approved prior to the approval of the final site plan.
15. One parallel parking does not meet the 18' requirement for length.
16. Verify guardrails are not warranted under GRIT manual. Otherwise,please show.
Nary ‘141e
Christopher Perez
From: Christopher Perez
Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2015 9:19 AM
To: 'Lee Miller'
Subject: RE: Inglewood Terrace Stream Report
Lee,
See my responses below in red.
Christopher P. Perez Senior Planner
Department of Community Development County of Albemarle,Virginia
401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext.3443
From: Lee Miller [mailto:le_miller @prodigy.net]
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 12:19 PM
To:Christopher Perez<cperez @albemarle.org>
Subject: Re: Inglewood Terrace Stream Report
Hi Christopher,
It's seems deceiving & odd that in their 10/15/2015 response letter to you that they did not indicate this report. It
does seem odd, but they have provided it now and Justin Deel was able to review it prior to finishing his review of
the site plan. It also appears to be conducted on a single day after an extended drought period. That is not scientific.
You should require testing periods at different time periods. Ask your County Engineer what he saw at the site visit
the other day! Engineering has deemed the study to meet their requirements to classify the stream. I understand
you and other adjacent land owners do not agree with the study and are planning on contracting another study on
your own accord. Engineering has agreed to review this second study when it comes in. The only issue I see with
this is. you do not have permission to be on the applicant's property to conduct the study. Thus you would
be trespassing.You may be able to get around this by conducting the study on adjacent owners lands prior
to reaching the owners property, provided they agree to it. Just something to think about. For the initial site
plan I have legal obligation to take Action on the project, provided I have all comments in hand(I'm waiting on
VDOT's comments), once I have their comments I will assess what they say and take action. Thus in order to
account for and make accommodations for the second study which may come in 2 - 3 weeks from now, I'll make
sure to provide a condition in my initial site plan Action Letter about additional information which may be forthcoming
on the stream classification which may affect the development. Justin Deel already did so in his comments. If you
choose to do this second study, please have it conducted and submitted as soon as possible, and assure it's
provided to both Justin Deel and myself. We'll also be providing Justin Shimp a copy of the study when it comes in.
Hope this helps.
A study by an approved independent company, not paid for by the development engineering company, who is on
the developer's payroll would serve the community! Once again, this is the Department of Community Development,
not the Department for Developers. In a meeting with others in the community last night, others feel left out in not
receiving information to all of the joining land owners! The adjacent land owners who contacted me during the initial
review of SRC who requested to be notified of the resubmittal were notified via email of the resubmittal. Of those
you and two others contacted me to look at the revised plan. If others are interested they should contact me.
Thank you,
Lee Miller
From: Christopher Perez <cperezOalbemarle.orq>
To: Lee Miller<le milleraprodigy.net>
Cc: Justin Deel <ideek albemarle.org>
1
•Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 10:45 AM
Subject: FW: Inglewood Terrace Stream Report
Lee,
SDP2015-20 Inglewood Terrace — initial site plan
Inglewood Terrace Stream Report
Attached is a stream categorization analysis which was just provided by Justin Shimp. Engineering
staff is reviewing it to determine if it will suffice to determine what the feature truly is.
Christopher P. Perez I Senior Planner
Department of Community Development ICounty of Albemarle,Virginia
401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville, VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext. 3443
From: Justin Shimp, P.E. [mailto:iustin( shimp-engineerinq.corn]
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2015 9:06 PM
To: Justin Deel <jdeelCc�albemarle.orq>
Cc: Christopher Perez <cpereza.albemarle.orq>
Subject: Inglewood Terrace Stream Report
Justin,
As discussed earlier, here is the report from David Powell noting that the stream is intermittent.
Justin Shimp, P.E.
434-953-6116
2