Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201100013 Review Comments 2011-06-08.., Philip Custer From: Philip Custer Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 20116:12 PM To: 'Scott Collins'; kirsten @collins - engineering.com; 'justin @beights.com'; 'justin @beightsdevelopment.com' Cc: Megan Yaniglos; Bill Fritz; Mark Graham Subject: Engineering Review of Old Trail Block 23 Attachments: E4_fpt_PBC_SUB- 2011 -00006 Old Trail Block 23 Final Plat.doc; E3 '7- Trail Block 23_SDP- 2011- 00013.doc; E2_esc_PBC_WPO- 2011 -00010 Old Trail Block 23 ESC Plan.doc Good evening, Attached are the engineering comment letters from the latest review of the ESC plan, mitigation plan, site plan, and final subdivision plat for Old Trail Block 23 (SDP- 2011 - 00013, WPO- 2011 - 00010, SUB - 2011 - 00006). Each plan has three or less minor revisions to make to receive engineering approval. When these revisions have been made, please submit all affected sheets (or the full set) to me directly and let me know when they have been dropped off. I will review these sheets as soon as they come in because of this project's unique urgency. Because the modifications to the ESC plan are minor, no additional review fee will be necessary. All plans are close enough to approval that bond estimates can be computed. To request these bond estimates, please drop off a completed Bond Estimate Request Form with appropriate fees to the County Engineer when the sheets referenced above are submitted. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Phil 296 -5832 x3072 �'IRG[N1P COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 229024596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 9724126 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: (Rev. 1) 19 April 2011 16 February 2011 Date of comments: (Rev. 1) 13 May 2011 8 April 2011 Reviewer: Phil Custer The first revision of the site plan for Old Trail Village Block 23 (SDP- 2011- 00013), received on 19 April 2011, has been reviewed. The comment letter for the 2"a review of the ESC plan will be provided at a later date. 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. (Rev. 1) The ESC plan has not yet been approved. The Lickinghole Basin Fee for the project has been computed to be $3,893.92. If this fee is not paid before January Is` 2012 or if the design changes significantly, it will need to be recalculated. 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. (Rev. 1) It is my understanding that Megan has determined how pedestrian connectivity will be enforced on the site plan. 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 Albemarli"t�oanty Community Development Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 3 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] (Rev. 1) I have visited the site to evaluate this issue and have determined that the topography is not accurate in the southeast corner of this block. As stated above, further review cannot move forward until the topography for the site is solidified; I am unsure the county SWM easement within this block, as referenced on sheet E -. can remove the . Please provide the deedbook and page number for all existing easements and ROWs. [18- 32.5.61, I 4 j, and 1] (Rev 1) The deedbook and page number for the road ROW has not been provided. Please also note that the plat refers to this road as Reas Creek Drive. Which road name is correct? 6. Please provide an approval letter from DEQ consenting to the proposed distur construction of a storm pipe within their existing conservation easement. bance for the (Rev. 1) The storm pipe has been pulled from the DEQ easement. However, the existing topography and proposed grading for the area has been revised consideraby since the first submittal When I went out to the site to investi lgate this change, I found that from the pipe outfall appears to be an intermittent stream or wetland. Please provide the state permit for the construction work within this wetland or correspondence from the state saying it is not a jurisdictional area. 10. The sight distance triangles shown in the plan are not correct. The design eed 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. (Rev. I) The sight distance line to the west stops at the golf course property line. This line assumes that vehicles exiting the golf course site will be stopping (or slowing down considerably) before they enter the state road. This is not reasonable. The applicant should consider the following options to address my sight distance concerns: • Submit a letter of revision for the golf course site to place a stop sign and a "stop ahead" sign on the approach of the golf course travelway to the limit of the state road • Submit a letter of revision for the golf course site of the golf course travelway 50ft to place a speed hump within the first • Determine the 85'h percentile vehicle speed for vehicles exiting the golf course and determine a required sight distance with that speed while making sure that sight distance is provided on the site plan • Design the site plan using a 335ft sight distance line to the west • Request that the Chief of Current Development approve the entrance as designed per 18- 32.7.2.1 since VDOT has approved the western sight distance on Albemarte'tounty Community Development Engineering Review Comments Page 3 of 3 However, please consider that the Application Plan for Old Trail requires all of Block 29 and 35 to drain to a stormwater facility. The storm drainage system 5 -5 through 28 appears to be design for some additional water from these blocks but this would not be allowed per the application plan. If one drainage system were to be overdesigned for future development, it should be 14 through 2. No modification to the plan is required now, but I recommend that the pipe system to the SWM facility be designed to allow for greater flexibility in the future. 17. (Rev. 1) The drainage system has been revised and there are some segments of pipe that require an easement wider than 20ft. Please size all drainage easements based on the formula specified in the design manual, 18. (Rev. 1) After visiting the site to inspect the revised topography provided by the applicant, I noticed that the existing stormwater management pond is currently accessed through Block 23. When the site is developed as proposed, the maintenance path is removed and the pond is isolated. Please somehow replace the facility access path. It appears that a SWM access easement can be provided over the pipes 3 and I if the grades were revised so the slope on the path was less than 10 %. Otherwise, this path would need to be graveled.