HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP201500003 Review Comments 2015-09-18 •
Claudette Grant
From: Margaret Maliszewski
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 11:12 AM
To: Claudette Grant
Subject: RE: North Pointe Middle Entrance Amendment- SP2015-00003
See comments in red
From:Claudette Grant
Sent:Thursday, September 17, 2015 5:30 PM
To: Margaret Maliszewski<MMaliszewski @albemarle.org>
Subject: North Pointe Middle Entrance Amendment-SP2015-00003
Margaret,
I am working on the staff report and conditions for the subject project.
Greg provided the following comments that relate to the Design Planner conditions#10 and 11, for the subject
project:
10.When does the applicant need to obtain approval of the landscape plan?Change the first sentence to: "Prior to
obtaining approval of the road plans for North Side Drive,the applicant shall obtain approval of a landscape
plan." Fine.
11. Replace"etc." with language such as"and similar design details." Fine. Does the design planner need to approve
the design details YES or just review them? For what purpose if they are only reviewed by need not be approved?
The following are the conditions with Greg's suggested language and the old language stricken out:
Design Planner approval of a landscape plan. Prior to obtaining approval of the road plans and erosion and sediment
control plans for North Side Drive,the applicant shall obtain approval of a landscape plan.•. _ • - _. _ : . . - - - • •• - - - - - • - • - - - - ' . The
landscape plan shall include a complete planting schedule keyed to the plan and shall provide the following:
a. Existing tree line and proposed tree line to remain,the limits of clearing and grading, and tree
protection;
b. Provide an informal planting of mixed tree and shrub species and sizes to compensate for removed
vegetation, and low-growing plants to stabilize slopes in the areas of proposed grading and tree
removal;
c. Provide large shade trees on the north and south side of North Side Drive, along the sidewalk and space
reserved for the sidewalk,two and one-half(21/2) inches caliper minimum at planting, forty(40)feet on
center,for a minimum distance of four hundred (400)feet from the existing edge of pavement of Route
29 North, and
11. Design details of the retaining walls, including column cap design, pier design, stone finish,eta and similar
design details shall be shown on the road plans and are subject to review and approval of the Design Planner;
Please let me know your thoughts and answers to Greg's questions. It would be great if you could get back to me in the
next couple of days.Thank you
1
OF AL4e_„,e
es�fir
law
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
•
Memorandum
To: Claudette Grant,Planning
From: Glenn Brooks,Engineering
Date: 27 Feb 2015
Rev.1: 20 May 2015
Rev.2: 31 July 2015
Subject: North Point amendment(SP201500003, amending SP200700003)
The special use permit application and floodplain development permit for amending the middle entrance
crossing of Flat Branch at the proposed North Point development has been reviewed. There is not enough
information provided to make a full review of the floodplain impacts and changes to the special use permit.
The following comments and requests for information are provided for Planning and the applicant;
Rev.1: Please see the comments for revision 1 below. There are too many issues with the computer model
and the proposed design to recommend approval with this revision.
Rev.2: Approval is recommended.
1. Please provide a comparison of the approved arch span and the proposed amendment using box
culverts. Show the differences to the stream and to the floodplain, as well as the hydraulic models.
Rev.1: The comparison shows an unexpected result. It was expected that the culverts would have less
hydraulic efficiency, and that both the arch and culverts would have a headwater. The revised
application documents and model seem to propose that the culverts(and arch)will have no impacts,
and actually reduce,rather than increase the floodplain limits upstream. This is highly unusual. In the
case of the box culverts, it seems to have been done by proposing four culverts where two might
suffice. This is not likely to stand up to final plan review through VDOT. Please provide a
preliminary review or approval from VDOT that the extent of culverts proposed will be acceptable for
the public road. Typically,VDOT will require that the number of culverts be minimized,and lengths
be reduced, and the fill over the culverts as low as possible,to allow for maintenance.
Rev.2: The double box arrangement appears approvable through final plans.
2. Please provide the HEC-RAS analysis on disc. The computer files are needed for adequate review.
Rev.1: Thank you for providing the model. Please address the following issues with the model;
a. The ineffective flow areas upstream and downstream of the culverts do not appear correct.
b. Additional cross-sections are required upstream and downstream of the culverts to model the
expansion and contraction correctly. Refer to HEC-RAS modeling instructions on-line.
c. Modify the channel sections to model the enlargement and armoring of the channel on either side
of the culverts.
d. Provide hydrologic computations to adjust flows for proposed development. FEMA values
typically only reflect existing conditions at the time the model is developed. This is part of a
development proposal and should reflect the build-out year also.
e. The extent of the culvert in the model appears incorrect. On the plan drawing section"0"at
MOW
woe
Albemarle County Community Development
Engineering Review comments
Page 2 of 4
station 5105 is shown in the culverts. On the model this station is upstream, although section"0"
has been removed.
f. The model indicates a hydraulic jump in the culverts. This would seem to require inlet control,
which when specified in the model changes headwater results. The worst case scenario should be
used. In smaller storms,the hydraulic jump would likely occur downstream,necessitating more
structured energy dissipation measures,which should be shown.
Rev.2:Modeling issues have been addressed.
3. The HEC-RAS model appears to be independently generated. The FEMA model must be used.
Please obtain the FEMA model for Flat Branch,and update the existing model with the surveyed
cross-sections to establish the base flood. Use the existing model to generate the proposed model.
Rev.1:Provide verification this is the most current model from FEMA. The current FEMA Flood
Insurance Study for Albemarle gives an elevation of 423' at section"0", and 1950cfs at the North
Fork Rivanna and 1290cfs at the study limit. This data does not appear to match the model.
Rev.2: Addressed.
4. Please provide data to demonstrate compliance with 18-30.3.13B and 18-30.3.14. Specify the
floodplain rise,how obstruction or fill is minimized and protected against erosion or pollution.
Rev.1:
a. It is not clear that anything has been done to reduce the amount of fill in the floodplain. For
example,if the road were lowered and crossed more perpendicular to the stream,it could
significantly reduce grading and culvert lengths.
b. The culverts entrances are too skewed in relation to the creek,with the potential to push water into
the left bank. This appears to be caused by both the angle of the crossing,the grading for the
multi-use path,and the placement of wingwalls. The culvert entrance should be more
perpendicular,with the wing-walls arranged to accommodate the fill slopes and protect the banks.
Rev.2:Addressed.
5. Much of the grading activity shown on the plans is not for the crossing. Please clarify that this fill area
is not part of this permit.
Rev.1:A note may not be sufficient. It would be better to remove this from the plan or separate it
somehow. The WPO does not allow encroachment more than 50ft into the buffer on the sides,which
is not related to the stream crossing,but appears to be for the commercial area and stormwater basin,
and for the multi-use path. It should be clear that the road layout and grading are not part of the plan
for the special use permit, and the extent of the grading for the commercial area and stormwater
management, and the roadway features and intersection are not included in any action.
Rev.2:Addressed.
6. The plans show only one floodplain line beyond the fill area,implying there is no change. This is not
usually the case in front of a culvert constriction. Please show lines before and after the proposal, so
the changes to the floodplain are clear.
Albemarle County Community Development
Engineering Review comments
Page 3 of 4
Rev.1: This has been shown on a reduced size plan sheet. Please provide a full sized sheet,and include
stationing and all sections used in the model in the vicinity of the crossing.
Rev.2:Addressed.
7. Condition#1 should be revised to reflect new ordinance requirements. 18-30.3.13 requires a
Conditional Letter of Map Revision prior to construction. A Letter of Map Amendment or Revision is
required after construction. It is recommended that plan and plat approvals be conditioned on both
these FEMA approvals.
Rev.1: Please reflect the distinction between a conditional letter of map revision,and a letter of map
revision. The former is obtained prior to construction, and the latter after. j)^
o
Rev.2: Under condition 1 of the special use permit,modify as follows: "The applicant must obtain a 1-0 - - 7
conditional letter of map revision(CLOMR, or CLOMA)prior to final road plan approval,and a letter ,y/4.-, S .
of map revision(LOMR or LOMA)prior to road acceptance." e„e Ai-�1,, a 5} )r�c�y� �4
8. Please show appropriate transition between the stream channel and the box culverts,clarifying the
ore
length of stream necessary to be disturbed. This will be for comparison with the arch. '
Rev.1: Please provide information on the channel transitions.
Addressed.
9. Conditions 2, 3,4,and 9 are unnecessary, as these are required by ordinance. As an example,in
condition#9,the county no longer has a Natural Resources Manager position, and in addition to
mitigation and erosion control plans,a VSMP/SWPPP may be required.
Rev.1: Regarding revised conditions;
a. New condition 4 implies that the county engineer can permit disturbances closer than 50 feet to the
channel bank. Buffer requirements in the Water Protection Ordinance do not appear to give the
county engineer this authority.
Condition 4 also implies permission to build the multi-use path within the buffer. Where the path
encroaches into the buffer, such permission will need to be separate from the SP for the crossing.
Nature trails are a by-right use in the buffers, as they involve no clearing and grading. This path is
shown on exhibits as a multi-use, graded and surfaced path, which is a different item. It would
need to follow the normal Water Protection Ordinance requirements for development.
Rev.2: Condition removed. Adressed.
10. Please provide a copy of the wetland and stream disturbance documentation submitted to the state.
The difference in stream impacts at this crossing is pertinent to the review, as it appear the prior
approval emphasized minimizing impacts to the stream in the use of the arch.
Rev.1: This has been received. S ,hM o
T
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
a;n Ora y«
.L°;,ene V an a .7
Cnarie:.A.6;?1patrtek.P.E.
:,cmmz smriee°
April 3,2015
Mr.Brian Mitchell,P.E.
Townes Site Engineering
9850 Lori Road
Suite 201
Chesterfield,VA 23832
Re: North Pointe Middle Entrance
Dear Mr.Mitchell:
Culpeper District Land Development Planning and Traffic Engineering staff has reviewed the Intersection
Capacity Analysis report for the proposed"middle entrance"of the North Pointe development dated
9-`8.2014 as prepared by Davenport and offer the following comments:
1. The original study was prepared in 2001,which was prior to the development of the current
regulations regarding Access Management,Traffic Impact Analysis,and Corridors of Statewide
Significance. As a result,there are additional items that must be considered before new accesses
and signals will be permitted on Route 29.
2. Route 29 is classified as a Principal Arterial,a National Highway System(NHS)Route,and a
Corridor of Statewide Significance. As such,VDOT does not recommend or support additional
signals on the Route 29 Corridor. Any potential signal will be permitted only as the last option,
and only after all other alternatives have been evaluated and ruled out as viable options. In
addition,signals will only be permitted once warrants for the signals are met based on existing
traffic conditions.
3. The original study included improvements to address access changes and crossover relocation
impacts to properties on the west side of Route 29. These impacts were proposed to be mitigated
through the construction of a connector road parallel to Route 29 from Northside Drive to
Cypress Drive. This improvement is not shown as part of the current plan. Access concerns
associated with the impacted properties need to be resolved with the property owners prior to the
relocation of the existing crossover.
4. The growth rate to be used should be 1%.
5. Based on the proposed layout,the non-residential uses are setup as traditional Highway
Commercial uses with the residential use segregated behind it. This format does not capture
many,if any,of the residential trips except as pass-by trips,which are already included.
6. The ITE 820 code for shopping centers already includes internal capture for the other uses. As a
result,internal capture reduction should not be included for this study.
7. Based on the proposed site plan,there are additional development properties that front on the
spine road that have not been included in the analysis. These properties include a proposed
school,another apartment complex,and an office building. Without any indication that the
remaining two entrances to North Pointe will be constructed prior to the development of these
properties,the access to these properties will have to be via the"middle entrance"and should be
included in this analysis.
Site Nore
8. The status of the 184 townhouse development at the"northern entrance"of the North Pointe
development is unknown at this time,and there are no guarantees that this connection will be in
place prior to the build-out of the North Pointe development. Therefore,do not consider this
connection to Route 29; instead,consider the additional traffic on Route 29 when developing the
future background no-build and build scenarios.
9. The build-out year does not appear reasonable given the growth currently experienced in the area.
A market analysis needs to be done to determine a reasonable build-out year. The final build-out
year will need to be reviewed and agreed to by VDOT and Albemarle County.
10. The VDOT Exhibit,20140064-VDOT Exhibit,the Modified Application Plan(North Pointe Site
Plan layout),the plan included in the analysis report and the analysis files appear to be
inconsistent with each other. The analysis shows two southbound lanes and a through right lane
when there are only two through lanes and a right turn lane. These exhibits/analysis need to be
clarified and reflect what is intended to be constructed.
11. As discussed previously in review comments,the construction of a partial through lane is not
acceptable. The through lane will need to be constructed from the proposed entrance to Airport
Road. Partial lanes are seldom used by the traveling public and do not address impacts at the
proposed entrance. In addition,this design would create an additional weave maneuver which
would likely have a negative impact on the flow of traffic.
12. The analysis shows many movements having levels of service`D' or`E'and states that this is
typical for heavily trafficked areas. That is generally true for existing areas,but not for new
facilities,which should meet level of service`C'or better with proposed improvements.
13. The proposal has impacts on the adjacent signalized intersections at Airport Road and Lewis and
Clark Drive;however,these intersections were not analyzed in the study,nor are there any
improvements being made to address the impacts at these intersections. Both intersections were
identified in the original study,with improvements proffered to address the entire development
impact on the corridor. This included additional lanes on Route 29 in addition to intersection
improvements. The interim impacts to these intersections need to be evaluated to determine if
improvements will be required as part of the"middle entrance"construction to address the
impacts.
If you need additional information concerning this project,please do not hesitate to contact me at(434)
422-9782.
Sincerely,
,-"71/10. hutk.
Troy Austin,P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Culpeper District
CC: Marshall Barron,Culpeper District Transportation and Land Use Director
Charles Proctor,Culpeper District Planning and Land Development
Nathan Umberger,Area Traffic Engineer-NWRO Culpeper District
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
Claudette Grant
From: Alex Morrison [amorrison @serviceauthority.org]
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2015 10:46 AM
To: Claudette Grant
Subject: SP201500003: North Pointe Middle Entrance Amendment
Claudette,
I have reviewed the special use permit and have the following comments:
• Remove the proposed sanitary sewer manhole located on top of the proposed pedestrian crossing.
• Show the proposed water main in plan and profile views.
• Call out 95%compaction in fill areas.
• Update the utility drawings to reflect the amendment for review and approval by the ACSA during the utility
construction review phase.
Thank you.
Alexander J. Morrison, EIT
Civil Engineer
Albemarle County Service Authority
168 Spotnap Road
Charlottesville,Virginia 22911
(0)434-977-4511 Ext. 116
(F)434-979-0698
Like the ACSA on Facebook at www.facebook.com/acsaconnect