Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB201500112 Review Comments Road Plan and Comps. 2016-02-16COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1681 Orange Road Culpeper. Virginia 22701 Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E. Commissioner February 16, 2016 Mr. John Anderson County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: SUB -2015-00112 Dunlora V Road Plans Dear Mr. Anderson, We have reviewed the road plans for Dunlora V dated 6122115 with revisions dated 9.'9`15, 11/11/15, 12117115, 1113116, and 215116 as submitted electronically by Timmons and offer the following comments. I . Previous review comments appear to be adequately addressed. 2. Two signed copies of the plan need to be provided to this office. 3. Prior to beginning construction, a preconstruction conference with the VDOT Permit Specialist needs to be held. This office will need to be contacted at least 48 hours prior to schedule this conference. If you need additional information concerning this project, please do not hesitate to contact me at (434) 422-9782. Sincerely, ..'� At�'t Troy stin, P.E. Area Land Use Engineer Culpeper District WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1801 Orange Road Culpeper, Virginia 22701 Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E. Commissioner February 1, 2016 Mr. John Anderson County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: SUB -2015-00112 Dunlora V Road Plans Dear Mr. Anderson, We have reviewed the road plans for Dunlora V dated 6.'-'22.--'l 5 with revisions dated 9:9 `15, 11/ 11/ 15, and 12117/ 15 as submitted electronically by Timmons and offer the following comments: 1. The inverts of storm sewer pipe 225 do not match between the hydraulic calculations and the storm sewer profile. The invert difference is incrementally the same on both ends, so the pipe design is acceptable; however, the numbers should match. 2. The spread of stone structure 214 exceeds the maximum allowable spread. An inlet length longer than 2' should be considered to reduce the design spread. 3. As we have previously discussed, the emergency shown to Rio Road needs to be removed and revised to a configuration similar to that shown in the 11!11115 submittal. The access will need to utilize the existing access to Rio Road rather than add a new access. 4. Remaining review comments have been addressed. If you need additional information concerning this project, please do not hesitate to contact me at (434) 422-9782. Sincerely, /7 Abk� V Troy Austin, P.E. Area Land Use Engineer Culpeper District WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING Phone 434-296-5832 AL IRGII4Z� County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, VA, 22902 Memorandum Fax 434-972-4126 To: John Anderson From: Ellie Ray, CLA, Senior Planner Division: Planning Date: July 16, 2015 Rev 1: September 28, 2015 Rev 2: December 8, 2015 Rev 3: December 23, 2015 Subject: SUB 201500112 Dunlora V — Road Plans I have reviewed the road plans referenced above and have the following comments (some taken from Preliminary Plat comments): 1. [Comment] If public streets are proposed, VDOT requires the R/W to extend 1' outside of the sidewalk. Rev1: Comment addressed. 2. [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 plan. This easement must be approved with the Final Plat, or be in place prior to approval of the Final Plat. However, this easement should also be in place prior to the approval of any construction activities on the impacted parcel. Revl : Comment not fully addressed. The easement plat for the off-site sewer connection should be submitted, approved and recorded prior to Final Plat approval. If any disturbance is proposed outside of the right-of-way (even for construction) the easement should be established prior to Road Plan approval. Rev2: Comment not fully addressed. The comment response letter indicates that the easement has been removed, but the plans still show a proposed easement; as noted above, if disturbance is proposed on private property not owned by the applicant the easement needs to be submitted, approved and recorded prior to road plan approval. Additionally, there is now a temporary grading easement shown at the end of the cul-de-sac, a letter of intent from the adjacent property owner should be provided prior to road plan approval. Rev3: Comment addressed. The off-site sewer and temporary grading easements have been removed from the plans. 3. [14-302(A)12] Topography. Show and label the areas of managed steep slopes on the subject parcel and the areas of preserved steep slopes across Shepherd's Ridge Road that may be impacted by the proposed sewer connection. If impact to preserved steep slopes is proposed for the sewer connection, please clarify if an alternate connection is possible that does not impact the slopes. Rev1: Comment addressed. 4. [18-15.4.1] 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. Revl : Comment not fully addressed. A tree survey must be provided that verifies that the proposed preserved wooded areas meet the `wooded areas' definition in Section 3 of the Zoning Ordinance (see below). Rev2: Comment addressed. Wooded area, forested area: An area containing one of the minimum number of trees of specified size, or combinations thereof, from the following table: Diameter of Tree Per Per One - at Breast Height Acre Half Acre 3.0" - 4.9" 60 30 5.0" - 6.9" 38 19 7.0" - 8.9" 22 11 9.011- 10.9" 14 7 11.0" - 12.9" 10 5 13.0" - 14.9" 7 4 15.0"+ 5 3 5. [18-15.4.1] Environmental standards. To qualify for this bonus, a conservation plan as specified in section 32.7.9 is required, including the limits of clearing and tree protection. The conservation plan checklist must be completed and signed. Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. Tree protection must be shown on the Road Plans. The conservation plan checklist must be completed, signed and dated prior to Road Plan approval. Rev2: Comment not fully addressed. Tree protection for the conservation areas must be provided and shown on the Road Plans. The conservation plan checklist must be completed, signed and dated prior to Road Plan approval. Additionally, there are two conservation plan checklists in the plan set; one is fill out but not signed or dated (on the Cover) and the other is blank (11-1.1), please remove one of the checklists. Rev3: Comment not fully addressed. The conservation plan checklist has been corrected. However, tree protection for the conservation areas must be provided and shown on the Road Plans; the checklist states that trees to be preserved within 40' of any proposed building or grading activity must be protected by fencing. Show tree protection fencing around all areas of preserved trees within 40' of proposed building or grading activity. This may be shown on the WPO application, but it must also be on the road plans for tree preservation purposes. 6. [14-401] Double frontage lots. Double frontage lots (see definition, includes those with less than 20' of common area between the rear of the lot and the second street) are prohibited. This can be varied or excepted as provided in 14-203.1; either provide at least 20' of common area between the rear of lots 5, 6, 7, and 8 and the second street or apply for the exception. If an exception is approved, the lots must be screen as provided in 14-419. This screening must be shown on the road plans. Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. The exception request must be submitted, reviewed and approved prior to Final Plat approval. ff approved, the lots must be screened as provided in section 32.7.97 (see below). In order to meet this standard a plant schedule listing species, planting size etc must be provided (to demonstrate minimum plant size requirement has been met). The standard calls for a double -staggered row of evergreens; while some deciduous plants are approvable it seems more evergreens may be necessary. If plant symbols were drawn at a more realistic size (75% of mature size) it would be easier to evaluate the proposal. The screening must extend along the entire rear lot lines; please add additional screening where it is currently missing. Any screening in private lots will require a landscape easement, and maintenance of the required plantings will need to be addressed in the covenants & restrictions for the subdivision (reviewed and approved by the County Attorney's Office). As an aside, Leyland cypress planted that close to homes will likely cause issues; you may want to consider a smaller, more reliable evergreen species. Rev2: Comment not fully addressed. The exception request is currently under review and must be approved prior to Final Plat approval. In order to gain approval, the lots must be screened as provided in section 32.7.9.7 (see below). Provide a plant schedule listing species (not simply common name), planting size, and number of plants proposed (to demonstrate minimum plant size requirement has been met). The required screening must extend along the entire rear lot lines; please add additional screening along Lot 5 as what is currently proposed is only a single row. If there isn't enough space for another row of trees, a row of evergreen shrubs 10' o.c. is sufficient. Any screening in private lots will require a landscape easement, and maintenance of the required plantings will need to be addressed in the covenants & restrictions for the subdivision (reviewed 2 and approved by the County Attorney's Office) (the easements and C&R will be reviewed with the Final Plat). The plant counts shown on the plan are inaccurate; the plan lists 13 White Fir but shows 16, and lists 24 Foster Holly but shows 30. Please revise accordingly and make sure the plant schedule matches what is shown on the plan. Rev3: Comment addressed. Approval of the exception request will be issued when the road plans are approved. d. Minimum depth and spacing requirements for a planting strip or existing vegetation. If only a planting strip or existing vegetation is provided as screening, the planting strip or the existing vegetation shall not be less than twenty (20) feet in depth. If a planting strip is provided, the plant materials shall consist of a double staggered row of evergreen trees planted fifteen (15) feet on center, or a double staggered row of evergreen shrubs planted ten (10) feet on center, or an alternative vegetative screening approved by the agent. 7. [14-409] Coordination and extension of streets. As discussed, the proposal on the adjacent parcel does not include a street, the lots are served by an alley. If that proposal is approved, the extension shown on this plat may not be necessary; this issue can be resolved with the Final Plat. Any change to the road layout will require an amendment to the road plans. Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. During and after the SRC meeting there was much conversation about how to meet VDOT, Fire Rescue and Engineering comments. It seemed that a phased plan including a temporary cul-de-sac was the solution to address all concerns. This plan does not provide the design that was discussed in our meetings and may not satisfy the comments provided on the original submittal. Rev2: Comment addressed. 8. [Comment] The landscape notes/calculations provided include several inaccuracies (Ash canopy is 165 sf (not 253) and residential developments less than 10 du/ac require 20% tree canopy (not 10), etc). However, tree canopy is only required for developments subject to section 32; please remove any reference to the tree canopy provided other than that necessary to meet the tree preservation bonus factor. Rev1: Comment addressed. 9. [Comment] The location of many of the proposed street trees has now changed and there appear to be several conflicts with proposed utilities; revise tree and/or utility locations to resolve these conflicts. Rev2: Comment addressed. However, the plan indicates 22 Pin Oak are provided but it appears that only 20 are proposed; please revise. Rev3: Comment addressed. Please contact Ellie Ray in the Planning Division by using eray@albemarle.org or 434-296-5832 ext. 3432 for further information. ( K' COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1601 Orange Road Culpeper. Virginia 22701 Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E. Commissioner December 9, 2015 Mr. John Anderson County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: SUB -2015 -00112 Dunlora V Road Plans Dear Mr. Anderson, We have reviewed the road plans for Dunlora V dated 6122/15 with revisions dated 9/9115 and 11/11/15 as submitted electronically by Timmons and offer the following comments: 1. The tick marks should be added to the road centerlines in plan view. 2. There is a note on sheet C4.0 indicating that structure 100 will be tied to the existing pipe. I understand that the 18" RCP under Shepherd's Ridge Road will be replaced with 15" HDPE, however, the note on sheet C4.0 could be interpreted that the structure will be connected to the existing 18" RCP. It appears that this note should be removed. 3. The label for structure 214 is overlaying the spot elevation label. For clarity, one of the labels should be shifted. 4. The hydraulic calculations have not been provided to me for review. 5. Once the above items have been addressed and the hydraulic calculations have been reviewed and approved, two sets of signed hardcopies of these plans need to be provided to this office. Note, review of the hydraulic calculations may potentially generate additional comments. If you need additional information concerning this project, please do not hesitate to contact me at (434) 422 -9782. Sincerely, Troy Austin, P.E. Area Land Use Engineer Culpeper District WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING Phone 434 - 296 -5832 AL IRGII4Z� County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, VA, 22902 Memorandum Fax 434 - 972 -4126 To: John Anderson From: Ellie Ray, CLA, Senior Planner Division: Planning Date: July 16, 2015 Rev 1: September 28, 2015 Rev 2: December 8, 2015 Subject: SUB 201500112 Dunlora V — Road Plans I have reviewed the road plans referenced above and have the following comments (some taken from Preliminary Plat comments): 1. [Comment] If public streets are proposed, VDOT requires the R/W to extend 1' outside of the sidewalk. Revi : Comment addressed. 2. [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 plan. This easement must be approved with the Final Plat, or be in place prior to approval of the Final Plat. However, this easement should also be in place prior to the approval of any construction activities on the impacted parcel. Revl : Comment not fully addressed. The easement plat for the off -site sewer connection should be submitted, approved and recorded prior to Final Plat approval. If any disturbance is proposed outside of the right -of -way (even for construction) the easement should be established prior to Road Plan approval. Rev2: Comment not fully addressed. The comment response letter indicates that the easement has been removed, but the plans still show a proposed easement; as noted above, if disturbance is proposed on private property not owned by the applicant the easement needs to be submitted, approved and recorded prior to road plan approval. Additionally, there is now a temporary grading easement shown at the end of the cul -de -sac, a letter of intent from the adjacent property owner should be provided prior to road plan approval. 3. [14- 302(A)12] Topography. Show and label the areas of managed steep slopes on the subject parcel and the areas of preserved steep slopes across Shepherd's Ridge Road that may be impacted by the proposed sewer connection. If impact to preserved steep slopes is proposed for the sewer connection, please clarify if an alternate connection is possible that does not impact the slopes. Revi : Comment addressed. 4. [18- 15.4.1] 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. Revl : Comment not fully addressed. A tree survey must be provided that verifies that the proposed preserved wooded areas meet the `wooded areas' definition in Section 3 of the Zoning Ordinance (see below). Rev2: Comment addressed. Wooded area, forested area: An area containing one of the minimum number of trees of specified size, or combinations thereof, from the following table: Diameter of Tree Per Per One - at Breast Height Acre Half Acre 3.0" - 4.9" 60 30 5.0" - 6.9" 38 19 7.0" - 8.9" 22 11 9.011- 10.9" 14 7 11.0" - 12.9" 10 5 13.0" - 14.9" 7 4 15.0 "+ 5 3 5. [18- 15.4.1] Environmental standards. To qualify for this bonus, a conservation plan as specified in section 32.7.9 is required, including the limits of clearing and tree protection. The conservation plan checklist must be completed and signed. Revl : Comment not fully addressed. Tree protection must be shown on the Road Plans. The conservation plan checklist must be completed, signed and dated prior to Road Plan approval. Rev2: Comment not fully addressed. Tree protection for the conservation areas must be provided and shown on the Road Plans. The conservation plan checklist must be completed, signed and dated prior to Road Plan approval. Additionally, there are two conservation plan checklists in the plan set; one is fill out but not signed or dated (on the Cover) and the other is blank (11-1.1), please remove one of the checklists. 6. [14 -401] Double frontage lots. Double frontage lots (see definition, includes those with less than 20' of common area between the rear of the lot and the second street) are prohibited. This can be varied or excepted as provided in 14- 203.1; either provide at least 20' of common area between the rear of lots 5, 6, 7, and 8 and the second street or apply for the exception. If an exception is approved, the lots must be screen as provided in 14 -419. This screening must be shown on the road plans. Revl : Comment not fully addressed. The exception request must be submitted, reviewed and approved prior to Final Plat approval. If approved, the lots must be screened as provided in section 32.7.97 (see below). In order to meet this standard a plant schedule listing species, planting size etc must be provided (to demonstrate minimum plant size requirement has been met). The standard calls for a double- staggered row of evergreens; while some deciduous plants are approvable it seems more evergreens may be necessary. If plant symbols were drawn at a more realistic size (75% of mature size) it would be easier to evaluate the proposal. The screening must extend along the entire rear lot lines; please add additional screening where it is currently missing. Any screening in private lots will require a landscape easement, and maintenance of the required plantings will need to be addressed in the covenants & restrictions for the subdivision (reviewed and approved by the County Attorney's Office). As an aside, Leyland cypress planted that close to homes will likely cause issues; you may want to consider a smaller, more reliable evergreen species. Rev2: Comment not fully addressed. The exception request is currently under review and must be approved prior to Final Plat approval. In order to gain approval, the lots must be screened as provided in section 32.7.9.7 (see below). Provide a plant schedule listing species (not simply common name), planting size, and number of plants proposed (to demonstrate minimum plant size requirement has been met). The required screening must extend along the entire rear lot lines; please add additional screening along Lot 5 as what is currently proposed is only a single row. If there isn't enough space for another row of trees, a row of evergreen shrubs 10' o.c. is sufficient. Any screening in private lots will require a landscape easement, and maintenance of the required plantings will need to be addressed in the covenants & restrictions for the subdivision (reviewed and approved by the County Attorney's Office) (the easements and C &R will be reviewed with the Final Plat). The plant counts shown on the plan are inaccurate; the plan lists 13 White Fir but shows 16, and lists 24 Foster Holly but shows 30. Please revise accordingly and make sure the plant schedule matches what is shown on the plan. 2 d. Minimum depth and spacing requirements for a planting strip or existing vegetation. If only a planting strip or existing vegetation is provided as screening, the planting strip or the existing vegetation shall not be less than twenty (20) feet in depth. If a planting strip is provided, the plant materials shall consist of a double staggered row of evergreen trees planted fifteen (15) feet on center, or a double staggered row of evergreen shrubs planted ten (10) feet on center, or an alternative vegetative screening approved by the agent. 7. [14 -409] Coordination and extension of streets. As discussed, the proposal on the adjacent parcel does not include a street, the lots are served by an alley. If that proposal is approved, the extension shown on this plat may not be necessary; this issue can be resolved with the Final Plat. Any change to the road layout will require an amendment to the road plans. Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. During and after the SRC meeting there was much conversation about how to meet VDOT, Fire Rescue and Engineering comments. It seemed that a phased plan including a temporary cul -de -sac was the solution to address all concerns. This plan does not provide the design that was discussed in our meetings and may not satisfy the comments provided on the original submittal. Rev2: Comment addressed. 8. [Comment] The landscape notes /calculations provided include several inaccuracies (Ash canopy is 165 sf (not 253) and residential developments less than 10 du /ac require 20% tree canopy (not 10), etc). However, tree canopy is only required for developments subject to section 32; please remove any reference to the tree canopy provided other than that necessary to meet the tree preservation bonus factor. Rev1: Comment addressed. 9. [Comment] The location of many of the proposed street trees has now changed and there appear to be several conflicts with proposed utilities; revise tree and /or utility locations to resolve these conflicts. Rev2: Comment addressed. However, the plan indicates 22 Pin Oak are provided but it appears that only 20 are proposed; please revise. Please contact Ellie Ray in the Planning Division by using erayCa)albemarle.ora or 434 - 296 -5832 ext. 3432 for further information. pF A vt�r�1Q 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: Dunlora V —Road Plans Plat /Plan preparer: Craig Kotarski, Timmons Group 919 2 °a St. SE, Charlottesville, VA 22902 craig.kotarski(ac ) timmons.com Owner: Valerie M. Shepherd, 26 Clifton Terrace, Weehawken, NJ 07086 Applicant: Milestone Partners, 300 2 °a St. NE, Charlottesville, VA 22920 li(a-)milestonepartners. co Plan received date: 22 Jun 2015 / ee plans (Rev. 1) 11 Sept 2015 / ee plans (Rev. 2) 13 Nov 2015 / ee plans Date of comments: 11 Aug 2015 / e- review (Rev. 1) 15 Oct 2015 / e- review (Rev. 2) 29 Nov 2015 / e- review Reviewer: John Anderson A. Road and drainage plans (SUB201500112) 1. Sheet C3.0 /plan and C5.1 /profile should refer to Road `A' or `1', Road `B' or `2' — please revise. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 2. Sheet C5.1 —Road 1 Centerline: Clarify if intersection with Shepherds Ridge Rd. is EP or CL intersection. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 3. Sheet C5.1 — Ensure that street grade is less than 4% for a minimum of 40' from the edge of pavement of the intersected street. (This grade can be within the first road curve which transitions from the 2% intersected cross grade) —Ref. Alb. County road plan checklist, link: http:// www.albemarle.org /upload/images /forms_ center / departments /Community Development/forms/Engineering and _WPO_Forms /En ing eering Review _ Road _ Plan_ Checklist_28Jan2015.pd£ (Rev. 1) Addressed. 4. Sheet C5.1 —Road 1 and 2 Centerline: show /label cross drain locations with VDOT designations (CD -1,2) at every major cut and fill transition or sag curve. —Re£ road plan checklist, profile, p. 3. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 5. Sheet C5.1 — Revise Road 1 Centerline 70' VC for Min. K, sag curve =15.0 (proposed 10.77 —ref ACDSM 7.F., Standards table /p. 19). (Rev. 1) Addressed. 6. Confirm Min. roadway width with VDOT (22' FC/FC). Defer to VDOT on roadway width for public streets. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 7. Extend RW 1' beyond sidewalk. RW coincident with edge of walk prevents maintenance without trespass. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 8. Provide sidewalk/landscape easements. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 9. C3.0 — Please ref. ACDSM for cul -de -sac detail (paved /unpaved center). Note ACF &R request for 96' cul- de -sac (48' radius). (Rev. 1) Partially addressed — County relies on VDOT acceptance. ACF &R indicates existing emergency access (beyond PL equipped w/bollards) meets fire /rescue access needs. VDOT response will be sent when received. Re. Alb. County Schools (Timmons email: 10/7/2015 7:05 PM) "I have confirmed with Jim Foley, schools director of transportation that they would not go up into these streets, but rather have kids meet down at the intersection with Shepherds Ridge. Elementary school Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 2 students are allowed to walk up to 0.3 miles to the bus stop and this distance would be a max of 0.1 miles." (Rev. 2) Addressed. VDOT accepts 30' cul -de -sac radius. Ref. VDOT ROAD Plan review comment #7, 3 -Nov 2015. 10. C4.0 — Provide flow arrows /% slope for each driveway to ensure drainage away from garages. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 11. C4.0 — Provide a defined swale on south and west sides of Lot 20. On S side, slight contoured channel ends at 466'. Define and extend swale with reasonable depth/dimension toward street. Provide yard inlet /grates and grades to protect structure at Lot 20. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 12. New — Provide driveway entrance detail: CG -9B. Check driveway entrance geometry against C3.0, Road B —for example: water meters between lots 15 and 16. — Ref. VDOT Road Design Manual, Appendix B -1, Sec. B -4, H. —Also, 203.02, rev. 07/15 - http: / /www.extranet.vdot. state .va.us /LocDes /Electronic_ Pubs /2008 Standards /CSection200.pdf half - plan/pedestrian access details, below [Rev. 2, detail below, deleted] — please include full detail: (Rev. 2) Addressed. 13. New — Revise C5.1 storm drain profiles consistent with revisions to VSMP plan. (Rev. 2) Addressed. 14. New —Label structure 109A, C4.0. (Rev. 2) Addressed. 15. New — Revise N end, Road B, to provide acceptable turnaround, as discussed via email /phone. (Rev. 2) Addressed. Thank you - 434.296 -5832 —x3069 SUB201500112— Dunlora V— RP- 112915rev2 COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1601 Orange Road Culpeper Virgirda 22701 Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E. Commissioner November 3, 2015 Mr. John Anderson County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: SUB -2015-00112 Dunlora V Road Plans Dear Mr. Anderson, We have reviewed the road plans for Dunlora V dated 6122115 with revisions dated 9:'9.'15 as submitted electronically by Timmons and offer the following comments: 1. In order to comply with DPOR requirements, each plan sheet needs to be either signed or marked as preliminary. This applies to calculations as well. Future submittals that have not been signed or marked preliminary will not be reviewed. 2. The pavement design for the proposed roads is acceptable•, however, the Road Cross Section is a little misleading. The following items should be added/revised on the cross section: • It is understood that the cross section is not to scale, but the hatching for the BM-25.OA is shown to be placed under the curb and gutter. Based on the thicknesses of the SM-9.OA and the BM-25.OA, this pavement will not be located under the curb and gutter. • The curb and gutter should be labeled as CG -6 in the cross section. • The cross slope of the roadway should be added to the cross section. • The aggregate should extend I' beyond the back of curb. • The design speed of the roads should be clearly indicated. • The design standard being used should also be included on the cross section. For this project, the SSAR standard is appropriate. 3. The details provided should be from the MUTCD, the VA Supplement to the MUTCD, the Road Design Manual, or the 2008 Road and Bridge Standards as appropriate. 4. UD4 should be provided along the curb and gutter. 5. There is a detail provided for CG -2, however there does not appear to be CG -2 called for in the plans. 6. The pavement replacement joint detail should be in accordance with the WP -2 detail in the 2008 Road and Bridge Standards. 7. As previously discussed, the branch -type temporary turnaround needs to be replaced with a cul- de-sac. The cul-de-sac may be offset, and if acceptable to the County and Emergency Services, may have a 30' radius. This radius is based on the understanding that school buses would not drive into this section of Dunlora, rather, it would pick children up at the intersection with Shepherd's Ridge Road. In addition, a CG -9 would need to be provided for the emergency access so that emergency service vehicles would not be driving over the curb. Bollards would still need to be utilized to prevent normal traffic from accessing Rio Road via this connection. 8. The road centerline of Road B needs to be shown in plan view. In addition, stationing and tick marks need to be included for the road and storm sewer centerlines in plan view. 9. A sight line easement needs to be provided on Lot 19 and Lot 20 in order to ensure adequate sight distance for Road B. 10. Sheet C4.0 indicates that structure 100 will tie into the existing pipe. However, sheet C2.0 indicates that the existing 18" RCP will be removed. Furthermore, the storm sewer profile indicates that pipe 99 is 15" in diameter and HDPE, not the 18" existing RCP. What is proposed for the storm sewer at this location? 11. Rather than removing the existing 18" RCA under Shepherd's Ridge Road and replacing it with Storm Sewer Pipe 99, can the storm sewer be rerouted from Structure 100 to connect to the other existing 18" RCP that is to remain under Shepherd's Ridge Road? This would eliminate the need to open -cut Shepherd's Ridge Road to remove and replace the storm sewer pipe. 12. On Sheet C4.0, the labels for sight distance at the intersection of Road A and Shepherd's Ridge Road have been left on, but the sight lines have been turned off. 13. It appears that a drainage easement is necessary between storm structures 120 and 122. 14. The labels for storm structures 222 and 224 need to be added in plan view. 15. The storm sewer between structures 222 and 224 should cross Road B perpendicularly. This will likely occur when the road plans are revised to include the offset cul-de-sac. 16. CG -12's should be added at the intersection of Roads A and B. 17. If storage system #2 needs to be excavated for any reason, what is the impact going to be to the right-of-way, sidewalk, and roadway? This system is located very close to the proposed right-of- way and I do not believe that the 96" pipe can be excavated without impacting the right-of-way. 18. Spot elevations should be added to the radius of the intersection of Roads A and B to ensure positive drainage from the cul-de-sac of Road A to structure 214. 19. Based on the profile for STRI04-EX2, it appears that structure 100 should be relocated so that it is located in the invert of the roadside ditch. 20. The labels for the drainage areas on sheet C5.3 need to be including in a legend so that each of the numbers included are defined. 21. There is an existing house and driveway on TMP 6217-313 that does not appear to be included in the impervious surface in the drainage calculations. In the calculations, only 0.02 acres were used for a C -factor of 0.9. I believe that this acreage is the asphalt of Shepherd's Ridge Road. 22. The hydraulic calculations indicated that pipe 215 is 18" in diameter; however, the storm sewer profile indicates that this pipe is 15" in diameter. 23. HGL calculations need to be provided for the storm sewer. 24. Three street trees along Road A are located within the sight triangle for Road B and will impact sight distance. These trees should be located outside of the sight triangle. 25. In order to improve plan review cycle times, VDOT has developed checklist to aid in review and preparation of construction plans. These checklists have been included with this letter and are recommended to be provided with future submittals. Note that these comments are for the Road Plans only. Comments concerning the Preliminary Plat must be addressed in addition to those included in this letter. If you need additional information concerning this project, please do not hesitate to contact me at (434) 422-9782. Sincerely, /*_�_ h4k Troy Austin, P.E. Area Land Use Engineer Culpeper District WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING pF A vt�r�1Q 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: Dunlora V —Road Plans Plat /Plan preparer: Craig Kotarski, Timmons Group 919 2 °a St. SE, Charlottesville, VA 22902 craig.kotarski(ac ) timmons.com Owner: Valerie M. Shepherd, 26 Clifton Terrace, Weehawken, NJ 07086 Applicant: Milestone Partners, 300 2 °a St. NE, Charlottesville, VA 22920 li(a-)milestonepartners. com Plan received date: 22 Jun 2015 / ee plans (Rev. 1) 11 Sept 2015 / ee plans Date of comments: 11 Aug 2015 / e- review (Rev. 1) 15 Oct 2015 / e- review Reviewer: John Anderson A. Road and drainage plans (SUB201500112) 1. Sheet C3.0 /plan and C5.1 /profile should refer to Road `A' or `1', Road `B' or `2' — please revise. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 2. Sheet C5.1 —Road 1 Centerline: Clarify if intersection with Shepherds Ridge Rd. is EP or CL intersection. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 3. Sheet C5.1 — Ensure that street grade is less than 4% for a minimum of 40' from the edge of pavement of the intersected street. (This grade can be within the first road curve which transitions from the 2% intersected cross grade) —Ref. Alb. County road plan checklist, link: http:// www.albemarle.org /upload/images /forms_ center / departments /Community Development/forms/Engineering and _WPO_Forms/Engineering LReview_ Road_ Plan_ Checklist_28Jan2015.pd£ (Rev. 1) Addressed. 4. Sheet C5.1 —Road 1 and 2 Centerline: show /label cross drain locations with VDOT designations (CD -1,2) at every major cut and fill transition or sag curve. —Ref. road plan checklist, profile, p. 3. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 5. Sheet C5.1 — Revise Road 1 Centerline 70' VC for Min. K, sag curve =15.0 (proposed 10.77 —ref ACDSM 7.F., Standards table /p. 19). (Rev. 1) Addressed. 6. Confirm Min. roadway width with VDOT (22' FC/FC). Defer to VDOT on roadway width for public streets. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 7. Extend RW 1' beyond sidewalk. RW coincident with edge of walk prevents maintenance without trespass. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 8. Provide sidewalk/landscape easements. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 9. C3.0 — Please ref. ACDSM for cul -de -sac detail (paved /unpaved center). Note ACF &R request for 96' cul- de -sac (48' radius). (Rev. 1) Partially addressed — County relies on VDOT acceptance. ACF &R indicates existing emergency access (beyond PL equipped w/bollards) meets fire /rescue access needs. VDOT response will be sent when received. Re. Alb. County Schools (Timmons email: 10/7/2015 7:05 PM) "I have confirmed with Jim Foley, schools director of transportation that they would not go up into these streets, but rather have kids meet down at the intersection with Shepherds Ridge. Elementary school students are allowed to walk up to 0.3 miles to the bus stop and this distance would be a max of 0.1 miles." Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 3 10. C4.0 — Provide flow arrows /% slope for each driveway to ensure drainage away from garages. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 11. C4.0 — Provide a defined swale on south and west sides of Lot 20. On S side, slight contoured channel ends at 466'. Define and extend swale with reasonable depth/dimension toward street. Provide yard inlet/grates and grades to protect structure at Lot 20. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 12. New — Provide driveway entrance detail: CG -913. Check driveway entrance geometry against C3.0, Road B —for example: water meters between lots 15 and 16. — Ref. VDOT Road Design Manual, Appendix B -1, Sec. B -4, H. —Also, 203.02, rev. 07/15 - htt2://www.extranet.vdot.state.va.us/LocDes/Electronic Pubs/2008 Standards /CSection200.pdf half - plan/pedestrian access details, below — please include full detail: C _�1_7 EXPANSION JOINT ENTRANCE WIDTH DESIRABLE MNIMUM 16' ABSOLUTE MINIMUM 12' EDGE OF PAVEMENT IV (HALF PLAN C CG -9 WIDTH OF ENTRANCE z_ LIMITS OF PED. LIMITS OF PED. ACCESS ROUTE ® o ACCESS ROUTE NON - TRAVERSABLE J UNPAVED SPACE _.___ n UNPAVED SPACE WIDTH OF ENTRANCE LIMITS OF PED. o` LIMITS OF PED. CCESS ROUTE ❑*E NON - TRAVERSABLE. ACCESS ROUTE ®� PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ROUTE DETAIL WITH & WITHOUT UNPAVED SPACE 13. New — Revise C5.1 storm drain profiles consistent with revisions to VSMP plan. 1/2 WIDTH OF ENTRANCE a-� EXISTING OR PROPOSED EXPANSION JOINT SIDEWALK OR SIDEWALK SPACE o 2 -0 w U � Z_ F_ EXPANSION JOINT J w E E w z r w (0 U w V c? Lw CURB INCLUDED IN U z w ENTRANCE GUTTER aC) � z as Z w z 0 r Z FLOW LINE EXPANSION JOINT ENTRANCE WIDTH DESIRABLE MNIMUM 16' ABSOLUTE MINIMUM 12' EDGE OF PAVEMENT IV (HALF PLAN C CG -9 WIDTH OF ENTRANCE z_ LIMITS OF PED. LIMITS OF PED. ACCESS ROUTE ® o ACCESS ROUTE NON - TRAVERSABLE J UNPAVED SPACE _.___ n UNPAVED SPACE WIDTH OF ENTRANCE LIMITS OF PED. o` LIMITS OF PED. CCESS ROUTE ❑*E NON - TRAVERSABLE. ACCESS ROUTE ®� PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ROUTE DETAIL WITH & WITHOUT UNPAVED SPACE 13. New — Revise C5.1 storm drain profiles consistent with revisions to VSMP plan. Engineering Review Comments Page 3 of 3 14. New —Label structure 109A, C4.0 15. New — Revise N end, Road B, to provide acceptable turnaround, as discussed via email /phone. Thank you - 434.296 -5832 —0069 SUB201500112_Dunlora V_RP_101515revl Phone 434 - 296 -5832 AL IRGII4Z� County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, VA, 22902 Memorandum Fax 434 - 972 -4126 To: John Anderson From: Ellie Ray, CLA, Senior Planner Division: Planning Date: July 16, 2015 30 Rev 1: September 28, 2015 Subject: SUB 201500112 Dunlora V — Road Plans I have reviewed the road plans referenced above and have the following comments (some taken from Preliminary Plat comments): 1. [Comment] If public streets are proposed, VDOT requires the R/W to extend 1' outside of the sidewalk. Revi : Comment addressed. 2. [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 plan. This easement must be approved with the Final Plat, or be in place prior to approval of the Final Plat. However, this easement should also be in place prior to the approval of any construction activities on the impacted parcel. Revl : Comment not fully addressed. The easement plat for the off -site sewer connection should be submitted, approved and recorded prior to Final Plat approval. If any disturbance is proposed outside of the right -of -way (even for construction) the easement should be established prior to Road Plan approval. 3. [14- 302(A)12] Topography. Show and label the areas of managed steep slopes on the subject parcel and the areas of preserved steep slopes across Shepherd's Ridge Road that may be impacted by the proposed sewer connection. If impact to preserved steep slopes is proposed for the sewer connection, please clarify if an alternate connection is possible that does not impact the slopes. Revi : Comment addressed. 4. [18- 15.4.1] 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. Revl : Comment not fully addressed. A tree survey must be provided that verifies that the proposed preserved wooded areas meet the `wooded areas' definition in Section 3 of the Zoning Ordinance (see below). Wooded area, forested area: An area containing one of the minimum number of trees of specified size, or combinations thereof, from the following table: Diameter of Tree Per Per One - at Breast Height Acre Half Acre 3.0" - 4.9" 60 30 5.0" - 6.9" 38 19 7.0" - 8.9" 22 11 9.011- 10.9" 14 7 11.0" - 12.9" 10 5 13.0" - 14.9" 7 4 15.0 "+ 5 3 5. [18- 15.4.1] Environmental standards. To qualify for this bonus, a conservation plan as specified in section 32.7.9 is required, including the limits of clearing and tree protection. The conservation plan checklist must be completed and signed. Revl : Comment not fully addressed. Tree protection must be shown on the Road Plans. The conservation plan checklist must be completed, signed and dated prior to Road Plan approval. 6. [14 -401] Double frontage lots. Double frontage lots (see definition, includes those with less than 20' of common area between the rear of the lot and the second street) are prohibited. This can be varied or excepted as provided in 14- 203.1; either provide at least 20' of common area between the rear of lots 5, 6, 7, and 8 and the second street or apply for the exception. If an exception is approved, the lots must be screen as provided in 14 -419. This screening must be shown on the road plans. Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. The exception request must be submitted, reviewed and approved prior to Final Plat approval. If approved, the lots must be screened as provided in section 32.7.97 (see below). In order to meet this standard a plant schedule listing species, planting size etc must be provided (to demonstrate minimum plant size requirement has been met). The standard calls for a double- staggered row of evergreens; while some deciduous plants are approvable it seems more evergreens may be necessary. If plant symbols were drawn at a more realistic size (75% of mature size) it would be easier to evaluate the proposal. The screening must extend along the entire rear lot lines; please add additional screening where it is currently missing. Any screening in private lots will require a landscape easement, and maintenance of the required plantings will need to be addressed in the covenants & restrictions for the subdivision (reviewed and approved by the County Attorney's Office). As an aside, Leyland cypress planted that close to homes will likely cause issues; you may want to consider a smaller, more reliable evergreen species. d. Minimum depth and spacing requirements for a planting strip or existing vegetation. If only a planting strip or existing vegetation is provided as screening, the planting strip or the existing vegetation shall not be less than twenty (20) feet in depth. If a planting strip is provided, the plant materials shall consist of a double staggered row of evergreen trees planted fifteen (15) feet on center, or a double staggered row of evergreen shrubs planted ten (10) feet on center, or an alternative vegetative screening approved by the agent. 7. [14 -409] Coordination and extension of streets. As discussed, the proposal on the adjacent parcel does not include a street, the lots are served by an alley. If that proposal is approved, the extension shown on this plat may not be necessary; this issue can be resolved with the Final Plat. Any change to the road layout will require an amendment to the road plans. Revl : Comment not fully addressed. During and after the SRC meeting there was much conversation about how to meet VDOT, Fire Rescue and Engineering comments. It seemed that a phased plan including a temporary cul -de -sac was the solution to address all concerns. This plan does not provide the design that was discussed in our meetings and may not satisfy the comments provided on the original submittal. 8. [Comment] The landscape notes /calculations provided include several inaccuracies (Ash canopy is 165 sf (not 253) and residential developments less than 10 du /ac require 20% tree canopy (not 10), etc). However, tree canopy is only required for developments subject to section 32; please remove any reference to the tree canopy provided other than that necessary to meet the tree preservation bonus factor. Revl : Comment addressed. 9. [Comment] The location of many of the proposed street trees has now changed and there appear to be several conflicts with proposed utilities; revise tree and /or utility locations to resolve these conflicts. Please contact Ellie Ray in the Planning Division by using erayCa)albemarle.ora or 434 - 296 -5832 ext. 3432 for further information. 2 UUMMUN WEALM of VIRGINIA DEPAK i AIER i OF i RAMMUR i A i iON 1501 Or mij= Re -d ealpcpa, 71rgiml. « a. 1x -alas A. R11,..tF1aR, P.E. Commissioner July 20, 2015 ms. zllie Carter Ray Senior Planner Cuu„ ty of Albemarle Depart,,,e„t of Community Development 401 Mul„ tiro Read Charlottesville_ v H L1-901 Re: SUB -2015 -00102 Dunlora V Prelin,ivary Plat Dear Mu. Roy: We have reviewed the preliiiiinary plat for Dunlora V dated 15 as submitted by Timmons Group elect,v,tically and offer the following coututents: 1. ITE Comae 230 i3 rur CundvminiumlTownnou3e. Based on the lot layout, it appears that 210 Single- family uetached would be more aPPropnat4. 2. The Traffic Generatiotl table should include a total Hu t for each street as this is used for mini,nu,,, st,cet seUiuu requirements as aetined in Appendix B(1) of the Road Design Mm-..al. 3. Per Table 1 in Appendix B(1 ) uf the Road DLs;gn Manual, the u,i„iu,un, width of the proposed streets is /.4' face to face. 4. The Road Cross Section detail should clearly indicate that the street trees will be located a minhauu, ut 37 bchi„a the back of curb. 5. 1 nc Road Cross Section should dearly indicate that the , ight -uf -way is to be a miuiu,um of 1- beyond the edee Ur tFIC 3 ;dcwalks. 6. The Road Crass Section should clearly indicate whetn4, un- 3truct parking is prop03Ca ij-, ,tot. 7. Sight lines and profiles need to be provided at each iuuadway intersection. S. The eA ;3t ; „g a3pnalt path along Shephe,a'3 Ridge Road appears to ba located outside of the existinr Pedestrian easement. E ;tner additional cmc,,,c „t in the open space aria on lot 20 should be provided to cover the asphalt path, or the asphalt Patn snuuia uz; rm-mcated within the existing pedestrian easement. 9. A„ access easement is p, vpusea for TMP 6217-313. Rather than creating an easement. could to ;3 area oc cu„,uyed to TMP 62F -313'! 10. Each fittin, in the waterline eraats tn,, potential w lCaKagz.. It would be preferable tar the waterline to be installed with radial deflection instead of angle ntti.,,3 it mcatzd under the paved surtace. 11. It i3 our understanding that the adjacent parcel aft of Belvedere Blvd. will be constructed with r.rivate allied anCi that per Albe ... arle County Cvge, an inter - parcel connection with Dunlora V will net be allowed. As such, Road B w;ii nvt be considered a Stub out ana the alternative Branch Type turnaround should be replaced with a cul -de -sac. Furthermore, this cul -& -Sac will be u petnianent turnaround and will need to be located within aea;cateu night -of -way. i/-. It seems that a connecti —.n ur tric pedestriaan rZt dift3 within Du„lv,a V to Rio Roaa should be made. 13. It appea,5 that there will be an unpaved island in the center of the cul -de -sac for Road A. This Should bu clearly noted at the plan. If there is rtot an unpaved island, the minimum radius of the cul- de -3m; ;3 45' as notes it, Appendix B(1) at the Road Design Manual. This radius can be reduced to 30' wnLn specifically app.u,,ed by Albe,narm County i„ conStlhation with emergency services. 14. It there will be an unpaved island in the cul -de -sac. the minimum radius of the island is 30' as indicates it, Appendix B(1) at the Road Design Manual. Furthennure, the travel - wu.Y mz..d th% island wAi r,ced to be des;gnea as a 1 -way travel -way ill accordance with Table -i in appendix B( l) of the Rvaa DC3ign Manual, rasa u..- Street parking will not be allowed within the cul -de -sac. 15. All aetlectivn angles of the stuurm sewer system should be a minimum of 9U =. it appears that the minimum 5utiection is not ,,,et un the storm Sewei located on Road B. 16. Directiunai a,,vri3 showing tnc now in the sto,,,, sewet system shoula be added to the plan. It is assumed that the under5.ouna detention adjacent tv iet 9 Will discharge to the storm sewer system in Rio Road. 17. Is the a ,&;ati,ig 15" RCP at Rio Road adequate to accommodate the discharge from the u..aurground detention basin as well as the developed runott that will by -pass the detention? 18. Is the existing 18'- mCr under Sher,herd_a Riagu Road adequate tu azeummodate the developed runoff that is by- passing detention? 19. The Seco„aary Street Acceptance Regulations (SSAR) requires a minimum of two externai connections. It appears that a cotu,ection will not be available to Belvedere due to the develo,.met,t ca tnz adjacent parcel and VDOT has inaicated that there will not be a new connection to trio noad. Written documentation rrm the Duniera HOA needs to be ptovidcd indicating that the HOA will net allow a connection across land cu�entiy owned by the HOA adjacent to Dunlora Drive in order tar this SSAR requirement to be waives. If you need additional information concernin, thi3 pr-jeut, pieuse do not he3itatc; to contact me at (434) 422 -9782. Sincerely, // <J Auh',L l Troy A stin, P.E. area Land Use En,;neer Culpeper District vvE KEEP ORuIICiH 14 OAMG pF A vt�r�1Q 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: Dunlora V —Road Plans Plat /Plan preparer: Craig Kotarski, Timmons Group 919 2 °a St. SE, Charlottesville, VA 22902 craig.kotarski(ac ) timmons.com Owner: Valerie M. Shepherd, 26 Clifton Terrace, Weehawken, NJ 07086 Applicant: Milestone Partners, 300 2 °a St. NE, Charlottesville, VA 22920 li(a-)milestonepartners. com Plan received date: 22 Jun 2015 / ee plans Date of comments: 11 Aug 2015 / e- review Reviewer: John Anderson A. Road and drainage plans (SUB201500112) 1. Sheet C3.0 /plan and C5.1 /profile should refer to Road `A' or `1', Road `B' or `2' — please revise. 2. Sheet C5.1 —Road 1 Centerline: Clarify if intersection with Shepherds Ridge Rd. is EP or CL intersection. 3. Sheet C5.1 — Ensure that street grade is less than 4% for a minimum of 40' from the edge of pavement of the intersected street. (This grade can be within the first road curve which transitions from the 2% intersected cross grade) —Ref. Alb. County road plan checklist, link: http:// www.albemarle.org/upload/images /forms center /departments /Community Development/forms /Engineering and _WPO_Forms /En in,>z erin2 Review _ Road _ Plan_ Checklist_28Jan2015.pdf 4. Sheet C5.1 —Road 1 and 2 Centerline: show /label cross drain locations with VDOT designations (CD -1,2) at every major cut and fill transition or sag curve. —Reff, road plan checklist, profile, p. 3 5. Sheet C5.1 — Revise Road 1 Centerline 70' VC for Min. K, sag curve =15.0 (proposed 10.77 —ref ACDSM 7.F., Standards table /p. 19). 6. Confirm Min. roadway width with VDOT (22' FC/FC). Defer to VDOT on roadway width for public streets. 7. Extend RW 1' beyond sidewalk. RW coincident with edge of walk prevents maintenance without trespass. 8. Provide sidewalk/landscape easements. 9. C3.0 — Please ref. ACDSM for cul -de -sac detail (paved/unpaved center). Note ACF &R request for 96' cul- de -sac (48' radius). 10. C4.0 — Provide flow arrows /% slope for each driveway to ensure drainage away from garages. 11. C4.0 — Provide a defined swale on south and west sides of Lot 20. On S side, slight contoured channel ends at 466'. Define and extend swale with reasonable depth/dimension toward street. Provide yard inlet/grates and grades to protect structure at Lot 20. Thank you - 434.296 -5832 —x3069 SUB201500112— Dunlora V— RP_081115 Phone 434 - 296 -5832 _ p County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, VA, 22902 Memorandum To: John Anderson From: Ellie Ray, CLA, Senior Planner Division: Planning Date: July 16, 2015 Subject: SUB 201500112 Dunlora V — Road Plans Fax 434 - 972 -4126 I have reviewed the road plans referenced above and have the following comments (some taken from Preliminary Plat comments): 1. [Comment] If public streets are proposed, VDOT requires the R/W to extend 1' outside of the sidewalk. 2. [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 plan. This easement must be approved with the Final Plat, or be in place prior to approval of the Final Plat. However, this easement should also be in place prior to the approval of any construction activities on the impacted parcel. 3. [14- 302(A)12] Topography. Show and label the areas of managed steep slopes on the subject parcel and the areas of preserved steep slopes across Shepherd's Ridge Road that may be impacted by the proposed sewer connection. If impact to preserved steep slopes is proposed for the sewer connection, please clarify if an alternate connection is possible that does not impact the slopes. 4. [18- 15.4.1] 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. 5. [18- 15.4.1] Environmental standards. To qualify for this bonus, a conservation plan as specified in section 32.7.9 is required, including the limits of clearing and tree protection. The conservation plan checklist must be completed and signed. 6. [14 -401] Double frontage lots. Double frontage lots (see definition, includes those with less than 20' of common area between the rear of the lot and the second street) are prohibited. This can be varied or excepted as provided in 14- 203.1; either provide at least 20' of common area between the rear of lots 5, 6, 7, and 8 and the second street or apply for the exception. If an exception is approved, the lots must be screen as provided in 14 -419. This screening must be shown on the road plans. 7. [14 -409] Coordination and extension of streets. As discussed, the proposal on the adjacent parcel does not include a street, the lots are served by an alley. If that proposal is approved, the extension shown on this plat may not be necessary; this issue can be resolved with the Final Plat. Any change to the road layout will require an amendment to the road plans. 8. [Comment] The landscape notes /calculations provided include several inaccuracies (Ash canopy is 165 sf (not 253) and residential developments less than 10 du /ac require 20% tree canopy (not 10), etc). However, tree canopy is only required for developments subject to section 32; please remove any reference to the tree canopy provided other than that necessary to meet the tree preservation bonus factor. Please contact Ellie Ray in the Planning Division by using eray@albemarle.org or 434 - 296 -5832 ext. 3432 for further information.