Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201100013 Review Comments 2011-04-08r im Philip Custer From: Philip Custer Sent: Friday, April 08, 2011 4:45 PM To: 'Scott Collins'; 'Adam Long'; 'Justin Beights' Cc: Megan Yaniglos; Bill Fritz Subject: Engineering review of SDP - 2011 -00013 Attachments: E1_fsp_PBC_Old Trail Block 23_SDP- 2011- 00013.doc Good afternoon, Attached is the engineering comment letter from the first review of the final site plan for Old Trail Village Block 23 (SDP - 2011- 00013), received 16 February 2011. Please let me know if you have any questions regarding any of the comments. All time slots are available on Thursday next week if you want to meet to discuss these comments and those provided on the ESC plan. Thanks, Phil 296 -5832 x3072 OF A U `1" l A� `�RGI�P COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone(434)296 -5832 Fax(434)972 -4126 Project: Old Trail Village Block 23, Final Site Plan; SDP - 2011 -00013 Plan preparer: Mr. Scott Collins, PE; Collins Engineering Owner or rep.: March Mountain Properties, LLC Plan received date: 16 February 2011 Date of comments: 8 April 2011 Reviewer: Phil Custer The site plan for Old Trail Village Block 23 (SDP- 2011 - 00013), received on 16 February 2011, has been reviewed. The review of the ESC plan was provided in a separate letter. The site plan can be approved after the following comments are addressed. 1. This site plan cannot be approved until the ESC application for the project (WPO-201 1 -00010) has been approved and the applicant has paid the pro -rata share for use of the Lickinghole SWM Basin. Comments on the ESC plan have been provided in a separate letter. The Lickinghole Basin Fee for this project will be calculated once all technical engineering comments have been addressed. 2. To be in general accord with the application plan, the sidewalks and planting strips along Golf Dr. must be built with this site plan. This road was reviewed, approved, and built prior to the approval of the rezoning plan. The rezoning plan stipulates that both sides of Golf Drive will have a 6ft planting strip. A 5ft sidewalk is required on the south side of Golf Drive and an 8ft sidewalk is required on the north side. Since the original road plan showed 5ft sidewalks on both sides of the roads and trailways off the road, a road amendment will be needed. In the current site plan, please provide sheets that can be included in the previous road plan file showing the planting strips, 8ft sidewalk, and 5ft sidewalk all within a new proposed state ROW. These items will be bonded at the time of subdivision plat approval. The application plan also shows a wider ROW width than what was currently platted. The ROW should be increased to at least 1 ft behind the edge of both sidewalks. The lack of sidewalks also runs counter to Section 32.7.2.8 of the Zoning Ordinance and the Code of Development which promotes Old Trail Village's orientation to serving pedestrians. 3. The topography of all sheets of the site plan (E -1, S -1, etc.) is noticeably dissimilar to the topography of SWM -1. Which set of contours is correct? The discrepancy is especially noticeable in the area east of lot 9. SWM -1 clearly shows the grading of an emergency spillway which correlates to the previously approved SWM plan that has been attached to this site plan set. However, the survey used on the majority of sheets, which shows no spillway, was field verified by the applicant. Please explain the discrepancy and use the most accurate topography consistently throughout the plan. Once the topography is clarified, a determination will be made by engineering regarding whether lots 9 and 10 are within the functional area of the SWM facility. [ 18- 32.6.6] 4. Please provide the deedbook and page number for all existing easements and ROWS. [18- 32.5.61, j, and 1] 5. The drainage easement running through the property was not recorded in the Deedbook that was referenced. AlbemarmoCounty Community Development Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 2 6. Please provide an approval letter from DEQ consenting to the proposed disturbance for the construction of a storm pipe within their existing conservation easement. 7. Please remove the entrance onto Golf Drive that is shown north of Lot 1. 8. Please show a private sanitary sewer easement on Lot 13 for the benefit of Lot 12. 9. Please clarify which drainage easements are public and which are private. If a pipe carries water from the public roadway, it must be a public easement. 10. The sight distance triangles shown in the plan are not correct. The design speed of Golf Drive is 30mph. Therefore, the required sight distance at the entrance is 335ft. The point of analysis must be 14.5ft from the edge of pavement/curb. 11. The directional change in a stormsewer system cannot be sharper than 90 degrees. 12. Canopy trees must be located within the planting strip where possible. It appears that this can be achieved in all cases except for the tree in lot 13. 13. The pavement section is adequate. However, please correct the pavement calculation because SM- 9.5A should use a thickness equivalency value of 1.67 because less than 4.5" is provided. 14. In the general notes on Sheet DP -2, please state that all structures with a drop of greater than 4ft, including from the surface, requires VDOT IS -1. 15. There is a discrepancy between the top elevation of structure 20 on sheet S -3 and DP -2. 16. Please provide a VDOT end section or end wall at the outlet of pipe 1.