Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP200500019 Study 2005-03-25Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District March 25, 2005 2134 Berkmar Dr Charlottesville, VA 22901 975 -0224 TO:Francis MacCall 3y Planning Department RE:Soils Report for: Hollymead Town Center - Area D See soils reports prepared: 10/02 and 10/04 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:Hollymead Town Center, Area D, Abington Place Plan preparer:Rivanna Engineering [fax 984 -8863] Owner or rep.:Birkhead LLC [P.O. Box 5207 Charlottesville VA 22905] Plan received date: 15 Mar 2005 Date of comments: 1 Apr 2005 Reviewer:Glenn Brooks A. Final Site Plan (SDP200500019) The final site plan submitted without a preliminary site plan has been reviewed and can be approved when the following items are satisfactorily addressed; 1. Easements must be provided for off -site work on properties of S -V Associates and NYC Land Trust. DM 1102] 2. The proposed BMP's are shown within the area proffered to be deeded to the County as greenway. These should be relocated so that they are not within land to be given to the County. 3. Please provide drainage maps and computations. [DM909] Because of lack of information, proposed drainage was not reviewed. The following comments are preliminary: a. Pipes and channels draining rear yards must be in easements, have a minimum 12" diameter, and use standard manholes or DI -7 type structures. [DM505, 909,] b. Release channels and easements must continue to an adequate channel, beyond the proposed greenway trail. [DM505] 4. Shoulder and guardrail will be required on the 2:1 slopes falling away from proposed Powell Creek Circle per VDOT standards. These can be shown on road plans. 5. Planning Commission private road authorization is required. [18- 32.7.3, 14 -232]. It does not appear to have been given with the rezoning [ZMA2002 -2]. 6. Critical slopes must be shown on the plan. Disturbance of critical slopes will require a waiver per section 18 -4.2. A written request and justification must be provided. 7. The existing file for Hollymead Town Center basin #2 has an approval subject to receiving revised drainage area maps which actually show the sub -areas used in the computation. These must be received prior to any approvals for this project. 8. Please provide preliminary removal rate computations to demonstrate adequate area has been provided for water quality features. [DM503A] 9. VDOT approval is required for the proposed public roads and entrances. 10. A signed and dated professional seal is required on all plans. [ 18 -32] 11. All drainage and stormwater management easements must be shown on plans. [ 18- 32.7.5.2] 12. The alleys must be provided with turnarounds, or continue through to intersect a street in two locations. [DM 604B] Road details, and BMP details, were not reviewed with this submittal, as complete information was not available, and applications had not been made. B. Road Plans Ai marle Community Development Engineering review comments Page 2 of 2 Road plans (separate from the site plan) and supporting pavement and drainage computations are required for the proposed private and public roads. C. Stormwater Management Plan Stormwater management plans and supporting computations and maps are required for the proposed BMP facilities. An application, fee and plans must be provided. D. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan An erosion and sediment control plan (separate from the site plan), narrative and computations are required. An application, fee and plans must be provided. oF A RGINP 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:Hollymead Town Center, Area D, Abington Place Plan preparer:Rivanna Engineering [fax 984 -8863] Owner or rep.:Birkhead LLC [P.O. Box 5207 Charlottesville VA 22905] Plan received date: 15 Mar 2005 Date of comments: 1 Apr 2005 Reviewer:Glenn Brooks A. Final Site Plan (SDP200500019) The final site plan submitted without a preliminary site plan has been reviewed and can be approved when the following items are satisfactorily addressed; 0 Easements must be provided for off -site work on properties of S -V Associates and NYC Land Trust. DM 1102]kic.4.t • 6 .a teme A: C:. The proposed BMP's are shown within the area proffered to be deede nw to the County as greenway. These should be relocated so that they are not within land to be given to the County. Please provide drainage maps and computations. [DM909] Because of lack of information, proposed drainage was not reviewed. The following comments are preliminary: a. Pipes and channels draining rear yards must be in easements, have a minimum 12" diameter, and use standard manholes or DI -7 type structures. [DM505, 909,] b. Release channels and easements must continue to an adequate channel, beyond the proposed greenway trail. [DM505] 0 Shoulder and guardrail will be required on the 2:1 slopes falling away from proposed Powell Creek Circle per VDOT standards. These can be shown on road plans. Planning Commission private road authorization is required. [18- 32.7.3, 14 -232]. It does not appear to SK have been given with the rezoning [ZMA2002 -2]. 0 Critical slopes must be shown on the plan. Disturbance of critical slopes will require a waiver per section 18 -4.2. A written request and justification must be provided. C ) The existing file for Hollymead Town Center basin #2 has an approval subject to receiving revised drainage area maps which actually show the sub -areas used in the computation. These must be received prior to any approvals for this project. Please provide preliminary removal rate computations to demonstrate adequate area has been provided for water quality features. [DM503A] Cr ) VDOT approval is required for the proposed public roads and entrances. 0. A signed and dated professional seal is required on all plans. [18 -32] 49 All drainage and stormwater management easements must be shown on plans. [18- 32.7.5.2] IV The alleys must be provided with turnarounds, or continue through to intersect a street in two locations. [DM 604B] Road details, and BMP details, were not reviewed with this submittal, as complete information was not available, and applications had not been made. B. Road Plans Albemarle Community Development Engineering review comments Page 2 of 2 Road plans (separate from the site plan) and supporting pavement and drainage computations are required for the proposed private and public roads. C. Stormwater Management Plan Stormwater management plans and supporting computations and maps are required for the proposed BMP facilities. An application, fee and plans must be provided. D. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan An erosion and sediment control plan (separate from the site plan), narrative and computations are required. An application, fee and plans must be provided. 1,1 RC=LT COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 April 6, 2005 Rivanna Engineering & Surveying, PLC. C/O Justin Shimp P 0 Box 5207 Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Re: SDP 05 -019 Hollymead Town Center Final Site Plan Dear Mr. Shimp: The Site Review Committee has reviewed the above - referenced development proposals. Preliminary comments from the following agencies, as applicable, are attached. Albemarle County Department of Community Development - Current Development Division Albemarle County Department of Community Development - Inspections Division Albemarle County Division of Fire and Rescue Albemarle County Service Authority Virginia Department of Transportation Please make the revisions that have been identified as necessary for completion of reviews by the Site Review Committee. In accordance with Section 32.4.2.3, if you choose not to make any of the requested revisions, you must submit a written justification for not incorporating such revisions. Submit eight (8) full sized copies and one 11"x17" reduced copy of the plan to the Department of Planning and Community Development. Responses to the attached comments of the Site Review Committee must be submitted by Monday, April 18, 2005. Failure to submit the required information by this date will result in suspension of the review schedule and will incur a $65 reinstatement fee upon submittal. Please contact me at your earliest convenience if you have questions or require any additional information. Sincerely, Stephen B. Waller, AICP Senior Planner Current Development Attachments: Site Review Comments Copy: file SDP 05 -019 Review Comment:.. Project Name:Hollymead TC Area D (Abington Place)Final — Residential — Commission Date Completed:Wednesday, April 06, 2005 Reviewer:Jay Schlothauer Department/Division /Agency Inspections Reviews CommentE Based on plans dated March 14, 2005. No comments or conditions. Review Status:Administrative Approval Page: 1.00 County of Albemarle Printed 0 Wednesday, April OE r ll - i a,s COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE FIRE RESCUE ADMINISTRATION 401 McIntire Road, Room 222 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Tcl: (434) 296-5833 Fax: (434) 972 -4123 Memorandum TO: Stephen Waller FROM: James Barber DATE: March 30, 2005 RE: SDP 2005 -00019 Hollymead town Center Area D (Arlington Place). Stephen, 1 have had a chance to review the plans submitted and can offer the following comments on behalf of the Department of Fire /Rescue. All portions of all lot frontages must be within 400 feet of a fire hydrant by way of a prepared travelway. (Albemarle County Subdivision Ordinance 14 -521). Verify adequate fire flow is available. Required fire flow is 1500 GPM @ 20 PSI. (Albemarle County Subdivision Ordinance 14 -521). Please let me know if you have questions. Albemarle County Service Authority TO:Stephen Waller, Planner FROM: Gary Whelan, Engineering Technician DATE: April 1, 2005 RE:Site Plan Technical Review for: Hollymead Town Center Area D Abington Place) TM 32, Parcel 46) The below checked items apply to this site. SDP - 2005 -00019 X 1. This site plan is within the Authority's jurisdictional area for: X A. Water and sewer B. Water only C. Water only to existing structure D. Limited service X 2. A 12 inch water line is located onsite. X 3. Fire flow from nearest public hydrant, located 400' distant from this site plan, is gpm + at 20 psi residual. X 4. An 8 inch sewer line is located onsite. 5. An Industrial Waste Ordinance survey form must be completed. 6. No improvements or obstructions shall be placed within existing or future easements. 7.and plans are currently under review. 8.and plans have been received and approved. 9. No plans are required. X 10. Final water and sewer plans are required for our review and approval prior to granting tentative approval. 11. Final site plan may /may not be signed. 12. RWSA approval for water and /or sewer connections. Comments: Submit water and sewer plans separately to ACSA. Spacing between fire hydrants and structures should be addressed on plans. The site plan does not show or incorrectly shows: meter locations waterline size waterline locations sewer line size sewer line locations expected wastewater flows easements expected water demands J NU/11•0 A 6V AL IRGI County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To:Justin Shimp, Rivanna Engineering From:Stephen B. Waller AICP, Senior Planner Division:Current Development Date:April 6, 2005 Subject:SDP 05 -019 Hollymead Town Center Area D (Abington Place) The Albemarle County Department of Community Development has reviewed revisions to the above - mentioned final site plan for planning and zoning issues. Final tentative approval from the Department of Community Development will not be granted until the following comments have been addressed satisfactorily. [These are the conditions that have been identified at this time. Additional conditions may be added or eliminated based on the review further revisions to the plan.]: 1.ZMA 02 -02 - Code of Development for Abington Place at Hollymead Town Center] All requirements of the approved Code of Development (COD) for this project shall be accounted for in this site plan. Staff has attempted to address as many of those items as possible with the Zoning Ordinance comments provided below. However, it is the applicant's responsibility to identify and address any desired changes or variations that are not clearly provided for in the COD. Please be aware that any such changes are subject to the approval of the Director of Planning. A.Revise the setback notes to correspond with the approved minimum yard requirements and build -to lines that are set forth in Table D of the Code of Development. t .The block identified as "Block IV" on Sheet 12 is actually Block VI on the approved application plan. C.Alley crossings through the linear park shall be expanded to match minimum widths of the rest of alleys, as shown on the application plan, subject to the approval of the reviewing engineer. 0 32.5.3] In accordance with Section 4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, the earth disturbing activity on N •slopes of 25% or greater requires a waiver from the Planning Commission. 03. 32.5.6b] Provide the square footages for all of the recreational and open space areas shown on the plan. 0 32.5.6d] The parking schedule still does not reflect the correct number of required parking spaces F for multi - family units with two (2) or more bedrooms per unit as set forth in Section 4.12.6. The 0 (0 final required parking calculation sum shall also include the requirement for one (1) guest space per k )-four units. 5. [32.5.6e] Show the pipes and rip -rap that extend into the portion of trees to be saved in the Woodland Park Area" on the landscape plan. Please also revise the proposed treeline and make any necessary adjustments to locations of the proposed landscaping items. Noe Nome Hollymead TC (Abington Place) Revisions June 9, 2005 Page 2 G [32.5. 6k] There still appears to be several areas on the landscape plan in which the proposed landscaping items are located within utility easements. It is the responsibility of the developer and r , F / or landscape designer to work directly with the agencies that will accept and maintain any proposed f 1 ' public utility easements in order to determine what types plantings (if any) are acceptable within the easements and the circumstances under which they will be accepted. A [32.6.6(j)] Note number 3 under "Site Specific Notes" must either be deleted or revised as wall - mounted residential light fixtures are not the only type of outdoor lighting on the plan. 5 32.6.60)] Submit catalogue specification/descriptions and photographs or diagrams of the outdoor luminaires that are proposed within the Community Green and any other common areas. C9_ :. ) 32.6.60] [4.17.4(b)] Submit a photometric plan demonstrating that all outdoor luminaires are in compliance with 4.17.4 b. 32.7.9.4(c)(1)] Indicate the general types of trees that exist within the treelines. 1 11. 32.7.9.4.6(d)] Street trees planted within the public road right -of -way shall be selected from a list of acceptable species and are subject to the approval of the Virginia department of Transportation. OD [32.7.9.4.6(d)] All street trees planted adjacent to private roads shall be protected through an open space or easement arrangement and shall be maintain by the home owner's association. 13. 32.7.9.9(c)] Please be aware that recreation areas, open space and lands to be dedicated to public use may be deducted from the total area for which canopy is required, at the developer's option. 1 32.7.9.9(d)] Please be aware that the total area where existing trees will be maintained to provide canopy at ten (10) years maturity can be multiplied by a factor of 1.25 before being added to the canopy that will be provided by the newly proposed plantings. 15 Virginia Department of Transportation and County Engineer approval for the design of all improvements related to the proposed public and private roads, alleys and access easements. 16. Please note that the word right -of -way has been misspelled "ride -of -way" in the Land Use notes. For future reference, the following requirements shall be met prior to the approval of a subdivision plat creating individual lots: 1.14 - 313] Submittal of documents identifying all parties are responsible for the maintenance of private roads and common area/open space, subject to County Attorney review and approval. 2.The Planning Commission must grant approval of the proposed private roads and a request for private road approval must be submitted for staff review and Commission consideration. Please be aware that this requirement may be addressed now or with the submittal of a subdivision plat creating the townhouse blocks. Hollymead TC (Abington Placep evisions June 9, 2005 Page 3 In accordance with Section 32.6.1, two (2) mylar copies of the final site plan must be sealed, signed and dated by an architect, professional engineer, land surveyor, or certified landscape architect when submitted for final approval. Mylars will not be accepted for signatures until all departments and reviewers have granted final tentative approval. Please contact me at your earliest convenience if you have any questions or require further assistance. Attachment: Conservation Plan Checklist Copy: SDP 05 -019 cf..44J air 6f Nfir LIRG113 P County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To:Justin Shimp, Rivanna Engineering From:Stephen B. Waller AICP, Senior Planner Division:Current Development Date:April 6, 2005 Subject:SDP 05 -019 Hollymead Town Center Area D (Abington Place) The Albemarle County Department of Community Development has reviewed the above - mentioned final site plan for planning and zoning issues. Final tentative approval from the Department of Community Development will not be granted until the following comments have been addressed satisfactorily. [These are the conditions that have been identified at this time. The comments have been categorized according to the specific items that are being addressed, and where appropriate each comment is preceded by the applicable reference. Additional conditions may be added or eliminated based on the review further revisions to the plan.] 1.ZMA 02 -02 - Code of Development for Abington Place at Hollymead Town Center] All requirements of the approved Code of Development (COD) for this project shall be accounted for in this site plan. Staff has attempted to address as many of those items as possible with the Zoning Ordinance comments provided below. However, it is the applicant's responsibility to identify and address any desired changes or variations that are not clearly provided for in the COD. Please be aware that any such changes are subject to the approval of the Director of Planning. A.Provide a context plan labeling the blocks that are shown on the approved application plan.13 The Greenway Path scales at 5 feet in width on the plan, but is required to be 10 feet wide. C.Provide a description of the amenities to be included in each of the recreational areas. D.The road identified as Powell Creek Circle is replacing of Road F from the approved application plan, and therefore, shall have a minimum right -of -way width of 56 feet. E.Although it appears that the tot lot that was proposed for the area originally identified as Block VI has been moved into the area adjacent to Townhouse Lot 149, the area identified as a "Pocket Park" in that block is not clearly accounted for on the plan. F.Provide sidewalks or walkways on the western side of the Deerwood Drive, as represented on the approved application plan. 32.5.3] In accordance with Section 4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, the earth disturbing activity onM+' slopes of 25% or greater requires a waiver from the Planning Commission. Please provide a request Q • t for approval of a waiver allowing disturbance of critical slopes that addresses each of the concerns OA/set forth in the ordinance. 3.32.5.6a] Please revise the owner information on the plan. According to the County's Real Estate records the current owner of the subject parcel is Birckhead LLC. 32.5.6a] Provide a north point and scale on the landscape plan sheet. tr/n Hollymead TC (Abington Place) April 6, 2005 Page 2 5.32.5.6a1 Show the minimum building setback lines established in the document entitled "Code of Development for Abington Place at Hollymead Town Center (ZMA 02 -02) ", dated June 10, 2003. 6. - 32.5.6b] Provide a notation of the total parcel area in acreage. 7.32.5.6b] Provide the gross residential density of the proposed development. is [32.5.6b] Provide the square footages of all recreational areas. Please be aware that the recreational areas shall be designed and located in a manner that is consistent with the size specifications and Gpercentages that are set forth in the document entitled "Code of Development for Abington Place at nA Jr Hollymead Town Center (ZMA 02 -02) ", dated June 10, 2003. 32.5.6b] Provide the total sum of the acreage and percent of all open space areas to be held in common ownership. e10. 32.5.6d] Revise the parking schedule to correspond with the correct number of required parking spaces for townhouses as set forth in Section 14.12.6. This calculation shall also include the requirement for one (1) guest space per four units. 11 32.5.6bJ The site plan shall show the locations and delineate all of the spaces indicated in the schedule of parking. This includes identifying the area where required parking will be provided in garages and demonstrating that each typical parking space will be in accordance with the sizing equirements provided in Section 4.12.16. 0 32.5.6b1 The parking bays for townhouses that are proposed with access from the alleys do not meet the minimum 10 -foot width and 18 -foot length requirements. In accordance with Section 4.12.6, the area dedicated toward parking bays shall not overlap into the access easements for the private alleys. 4 0 32.5.6c1 Although phasing is not required, it is recommended due to of the number of buildings proposed at this site. This would allow the projected timing of construction to be shown on the site plan in order to ensure that all improvements are being installed as required for the occupancy of each building (e.g. parking, recreational amenities, landscaping, etc.). Please note that without such phasing in place the Zoning Division may require a bond for all sitework that has not been completed, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the first building. 14. 32.5.6dJ Identify any areas of the site where existing slopes are 25% or greater. 32.5.6eJ Provide a label to identify the location of the stream on this property. 16 32.5.6e] Identify the limits of clearing, grading and construction and indicate all areas where existing vegetation is to remain undisturbed. These areas shall give consideration for any S '' disturbance that will result from the installation of utilities, grading along roads and paths, and 16- erosion and sediment control measures. Please be aware that pipes and rip -rap are shown to extend s into a portion of trees in the "Woodland Park Area" that appears to be the identified for conservation t; „t, on the landscape plan. 1,4( Hollymead TC (Abington Place) r April 6, 2005 Page 3 17. 32.5.6i] Show the locations and dimensions of the required bike lanes on the road identified as Rivanna Way. 8. 32.5.6k] There are several areas on the landscape plan in which proposed landscaping will conflict with the proposed locations of utility easements. r `, - rkf area. 19.32.5.6m] Provide the distance from the proposed points of ingress /egress for this site to the nearest existing or approved street intersection. 20. 0. 32.5.6n] Provide dimensions of the maximum building footprints for each row of townhouses and any other structures, such as garages. 1. 32.5.6n] Provide the typical dimensions and paving material types for all sidewalks, walkways, paths, and parking areas (bays). 32.5.6n] Identify the locations of any curb cuts to be provided in order to ensure safe and convenient access for wheelchairs and strollers to the sidewalks adjacent to the streets and travelways. @ 32.5.6n] Show the locations of all outdoor lighting proposed in this development. f'‘ 91 ' +C l/ 24. ' 32.5.6o] Provide notes on the plan to demonstrate that the areas identified as Greenways will be dedicated to the County in accordance with the requirements of ZMA 02 -02, Proffer 4. 32.6.6(j)J Submit descriptions and photographs or diagrams and show the location of each type of outdoor luminaire that emits 3,000 or more initial lumens. Please be aware that installation of such luminaires in the future that are not shown on this plan shall require an amendment to this plan. 4 32.6.60)] [4.17.4(b)] Submit a photometric plan demonstrating that all outdoor luminaires are in compliance with 4.17.4 b. 27. 32.7.9] Submit a final landscape plan that depicts the species types, number and location of all proposed planting materials and in accordance wit all requirements set forth in the zoning ordinance. 28. 32.7.9.4a] Some of the tree species that are named by type on the landscape plan are not listed in f the Plant Schedule. i'v29. 32.7.9.4b] A conservation plan checklist shall be completed and incorporated into the site plan with notes to show how all individual trees and groups of trees designated to remain will be protected during the construction of this project. The locations of any tree protection fencing and other methods of protection must be shown on the plan for clear identification during field inspections. l 0. All sidewalks located outside of the public road rights -of -way shall be located within easements and t. =subject to covenants and/or agreements that ensure they will be kept accessible to all residents and their guest, and maintained in perpetuity by a homeowners association. 4 44 4. Review Comment: Project Name:Hollymead TC Area D (Abington Place)Final — Residential — Commission Date Completed:Wednesday, March 23, 2005 Reviewer:Julie Mahon Department /Division /Agency Historic Preservation Reviews Comment Historic resources identified by DHR in the area have been negatively impacted by previous development. No additional impact is expected as a result of this project. Review Status:No Objection Page: 1.00 County of Albemarle Printed 0 Wednesday, April OE vF ALkkt, 1[r FGINI County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To:Justin Shimp, Rivanna Engineering From:Stephen B. Waller AICP, Senior Planner Division:Current Development Date:April 6, 2005 Subject:SDP 05 -019 Hollymead Town Center Area D (Abington Place) The Albemarle County Department of Community Development has reviewed the above - mentioned final site plan for planning and zoning issues. Final tentative approval from the Department of Community Development will not be granted until the following comments have been addressed satisfactorily. [These are the conditions that have been identified at this time. The comments have been categorized according to the specific items that are being addressed, and where appropriate each comment is preceded by the applicable reference. Additional conditions may be added or eliminated based on the review further revisions to the plan.] : 1.ZMA 02 -02 - Code of Development for Abington Place at Hollymead Town Center] All requirements of the approved Code of Development (COD) for this project shall be accounted for in this site plan. Staff has attempted to address as many of those items as possible with the Zoning Ordinance comments provided below. However, it is the applicant's responsibility to identify and address any desired changes or variations that are not clearly provided for in the COD. Please be aware that any such changes are subject to the approval of the Director of Planning. A.Provide a context plan labeling the blocks that are shown on the approved application plan. B.The Greenway Path scales at 5 feet in width on the plan, but is required to be 10 feet wide. C.Provide a description of the amenities to be included in each of the recreational areas. D.The road identified as Powell Creek Circle is replacing of Road F from the approved application plan, and therefore, shall have a minimum right -of -way width of 56 feet. E.Although it appears that the tot lot that was proposed for the area originally identified as Block VI has been moved into the area adjacent to Townhouse Lot 149, the area identified as a "Pocket Park" in that block is not clearly accounted for on the plan. F.Provide sidewalks or walkways on the western side of the Deerwood Drive, as represented on the approved application plan. 2.32.5.3] In accordance with Section 4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, the earth disturbing activity on slopes of 25% or greater requires a waiver from the Planning Commission. Please provide a request for approval of a waiver allowing disturbance of critical slopes that addresses each of the concerns set forth in the ordinance. 3.32.5.6a] Please revise the owner information on the plan. According to the County's Real Estate records the current owner of the subject parcel is Birckhead LLC. 4.32.5.6a] Provide a north point and scale on the landscape plan sheet. Hollymead TC (Abington P1ac i April 6, 2005 Page 2 5.32.5.6a] Show the minimum building setback lines established in the document entitled "Code of Development for Abington Place at Hollymead Town Center (ZMA 02 -02) ", dated June 10, 2003. 6.32.5.6b] Provide a notation of the total parcel area in acreage. 7.32.5.6b] Provide the gross residential density of the proposed development. 8.32.5.6b] Provide the square footages of all recreational areas. Please be aware that the recreational areas shall be designed and located in a manner that is consistent with the size specifications and percentages that are set forth in the document entitled "Code of Development for Abington Place at Hollymead Town Center (ZMA 02 -02) ", dated June 10, 2003. 9.32.5.65] Provide the total sum of the acreage and percent of all open space areas to be held in common ownership. 10. 32.5.6d] Revise the parking schedule to correspond with the correct number of required parking spaces for townhouses as set forth in Section 14.12.6. This calculation shall also include the requirement for one (1) guest space per four units. 11. 32.5.6b] The site plan shall show the locations and delineate all of the spaces indicated in the schedule of parking. This includes identifying the area where required parking will be provided in garages and demonstrating that each typical parking space will be in accordance with the sizing requirements provided in Section 4.12.16. 12. 32.5.6b] The parking bays for townhouses that are proposed with access from the alleys do not meet the minimum 10 -foot width and 18 -foot length requirements. In accordance with Section 4.12.6, the area dedicated toward parking bays shall not overlap into the access easements for the private alleys. 13. 32.5.6c] Although phasing is not required, it is recommended due to of the number of buildings proposed at this site. This would allow the projected timing of construction to be shown on the site plan in order to ensure that all improvements are being installed as required for the occupancy of each building (e.g. parking, recreational amenities, landscaping, etc.). Please note that without such phasing in place the Zoning Division may require a bond for all sitework that has not been completed, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the first building. 14. 32.5.6d] Identify any areas of the site where existing slopes are 25% or greater. 15. 32.5.6e] Provide a label to identify the location of the stream on this property. 16. 32.5.6e] Identify the limits of clearing, grading and construction and indicate all areas where existing vegetation is to remain undisturbed. These areas shall give consideration for any disturbance that will result from the installation of utilities, grading along roads and paths, and erosion and sediment control measures. Please be aware that pipes and rip -rap are shown to extend into a portion of trees in the "Woodland Park Area" that appears to be the identified for conservation on the landscape plan. Hollymead TC (Abington Place April 6, 2005 Page 3 17. 32.5.6i] Show the locations and dimensions of the required bike lanes on the road identified as Rivanna Way. 18. 32.5.6k] There are several areas on the landscape plan in which proposed landscaping will conflict with the proposed locations of utility easements. 19.32.5.6m] Provide the distance from the proposed points of ingress /egress for this site to the nearest existing or approved street intersection. 20. 32.5.6n] Provide dimensions of the maximum building footprints for each row of townhouses and any other structures, such as garages. 21. 32.5.6n] Provide the typical dimensions and paving material types for all sidewalks, walkways, paths, and parking areas (bays). 22. 32.5.6n] Identify the locations of any curb cuts to be provided in order to ensure safe and convenient access for wheelchairs and strollers to the sidewalks adjacent to the streets and travelways. 23. 32.5.6n] Show the locations of all outdoor lighting proposed in this development. 24. 32.5.6o] Provide notes on the plan to demonstrate that the areas identified as Greenways will be dedicated to the County in accordance with the requirements of ZMA 02 -02, Proffer 4. 25. 32.6.60)] Submit descriptions and photographs or diagrams and show the location of each type of outdoor luminaire that emits 3,000 or more initial lumens. Please be aware that installation of such luminaires in the future that are not shown on this plan shall require an amendment to this plan. 26. 32.6.60)] [4.17.4(b)] Submit a photometric plan demonstrating that all outdoor luminaires are in compliance with 4.17.4 b. 27. 32.7.9] Submit a final landscape plan that depicts the species types, number and location of all proposed planting materials and in accordance wit all requirements set forth in the zoning ordinance. 28. 32.7.9.4a] Some of the tree species that are named by type on the landscape plan are not listed in the Plant Schedule. 29. 32.7.9.4bJ A conservation plan checklist shall be completed and incorporated into the site plan with notes to show how all individual trees and groups of trees designated to remain will be protected during the construction of this project. The locations of any tree protection fencing and other methods of protection must be shown on the plan for clear identification during field inspections. 30. All sidewalks located outside of the public road rights-of-way shall be located within easements and subject to covenants and /or agreements that ensure they will be kept accessible to all residents and their guest, and maintained in perpetuity by a homeowners association. Hollymead TC (Abington Plauc-, April 6, 2005 Page 4 31. Virginia Department of Transportation and County Engineer approval for the design of all improvements related to the proposed public and private roads, alleys and access easements. For future reference, the following requirements shall be met prior to the approval of a subdivision plat creating individual lots: 1.14 -3131 Submittal of documents identifying all parties are responsible for the maintenance of private roads and common area /open space, subject to County Attorney review and approval. 2.The Planning Commission must grant approval of the proposed private roads and a request for private road approval must be submitted for staff review and Commission consideration. Please be aware that this requirement may be addressed now or with the submittal of a subdivision plat creating the townhouse blocks. In accordance with Section 32.6.1, two (2) mylar copies of the final site plan must be sealed, signed and dated by an architect, professional engineer, land surveyor, or certified landscape architect when submitted for final approval. Mylars will not be accepted for signatures until all departments and reviewers have granted final tentative approval. Please contact me at your earliest convenience if you have any questions or require further assistance. Attachment: Conservation Plan Checklist Copy: SDP 05 -019 llF AI,j, 0„,„ N ` ,r County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To:Justin Shimp, Rivanna Engineering From:Stephen B. Waller AICP, Senior Planner Division:Current Development Date:April 6, 2005 Subject:SDP 05 -019 Hollymead Town Center Area D (Abington Place) The Albemarle County Department of Community Development has reviewed revisions to the above - mentioned final site plan for planning and zoning issues. Final tentative approval from the Department of Community Development will not be granted until the following comments have been addressed satisfactorily. [These are the conditions that have been identified at this time. Additional conditions may he added or eliminated based 011 the review Iiirther revisions to the plan.]. 1.ZMA 02 -02 - Code of Development for Abington Place at Hollymead Town Center] All requirements of the approved Code of Development (COD) for this project shall be accounted for in this site plan. Staff has attempted to address as many of those items as possible with the Zoning Ordinance comments provided below. However, it is the applicant's responsibility to identify and address any desired changes or variations that are not clearly provided for in the COD. Please be aware that any such changes are subject to the approval of the Director of Planning. A.Revise the setback notes to correspond with the approved minimum yard requirements and build -to lines that are set forth in Table D of the Code of Development. B.The block identified as `Block IV" on Sheet 12 is actually Block VI on the approved application plan. C.Alley crossings through the linear park shall be expanded to match minimum widths of the rest of alleys, as shown on the application plan, subject to the approval of the reviewing engineer. 2.3 2.5.3] In accordance with Section 4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, the earth disturbing activity on slopes of 25% or greater requires a waiver from the Planning Commission. 3.32.5.6h] Provide the square footages for all of the recreational and open space areas shown on the plan. 4.32.5.6d] The parking schedule still does not reflect the correct number of required parking spaces for multi - family units with two (2) or more bedrooms per unit as set forth in Section 4.12.6. The final required parking calculation sum shall also include the requirement for one (1) guest space per four units. 5.32.5.6e] Show the pipes and rip -rap that extend into the portion of trees to be saved in the Woodland Park Area" on the landscape plan. Please also revise the proposed treeline and make any necessary adjustments to locations of the proposed landscaping items. Hollymead TC (Abington Place) Revisions June 9, 2005 Page 2 6.32.5.6k] There still appears to be several areas on the landscape plan in which the proposed landscaping items are located within utility easements. It is the responsibility of the developer and or landscape designer to work directly with the agencies that will accept and maintain any proposed public utility easements in order to determine what types plantings (if any) are acceptable within the easements and the circumstances under which they will be accepted. 7.32.6.60)J Note number 3 under "Site Specific Notes" must either be deleted or revised as wall - mounted residential light fixtures are not the only type of outdoor lighting on the plan. 8.3 2.6.6(j)] Submit catalogue specification/descriptions and photographs or diagrams of the outdoor luminaires that are proposed within the Community Green and any other common areas. 9.32.6.6(7)J [4.17.4(h)] Submit a photometric plan demonstrating that all outdoor luminaires are in compliance with 4.17.4 b. 10. 32.7.9.4(c)(1)J Indicate the general types of trees that exist within the treelines. 1 L 32.7.9.4.6(d)] Street trees planted within the public road right -of -way shall be selected from a list of acceptable species and are subject to the approval of the Virginia department of Transportation. 12. 32.7.9.4.6(d)] All street trees planted adjacent to private roads shall be protected through an open space or easement arrangement and shall be maintain by the home owner's association. 13. 32.7.9.9(c)] Please be aware that recreation areas, open space and lands to be dedicated to public use may be deducted from the total area for which canopy is required, at the developer's option. 14. 32.7.9.9(d)] Please be aware that the total area where existing trees will be maintained to provide canopy at ten (10) years maturity can be multiplied by a factor of 1.25 before being added to the canopy that will be provided by the newly proposed plantings. 15. Virginia Department of Transportation and County Engineer approval for the design of all improvements related to the proposed public and private roads, alleys and access easements. 16. Please note that the word right -of -way has been misspelled "ride -of -way" in the Land Use notes. For future reference, the following requirements shall be met prior to the approval of a subdivision plat creating individual lots: 1.14 - 313] Submittal of documents identifying all parties are responsible for the maintenance of private roads and common area /open space, subject to County Attorney review and approval. 2.The Planning Commission must grant approval of the proposed private roads and a request for private road approval must be submitted for staff review and Commission consideration. Please be aware that this requirement may be addressed now or with the submittal of a subdivision plat creating the townhouse blocks. Hollymead TC (Abington Place ttevisions June 9, 2005 Page 3 In accordance with Section 32.6.1, two (2) mylar copies of the final site plan must be sealed, signed and dated by an architect, professional engineer, land surveyor, or certified landscape architect when submitted for final approval. Mylars will not be accepted for signatures until all departments and reviewers have granted final tentative approval. Please contact me at your earliest convenience if you have any questions or require further assistance. Attachment: Conservation Plan Checklist Copy: SDP 05 -019 Hollymead TC (Abington Place) April 6, 2005 Page 4 31. Virginia Department of Transportation and County Engineer approval for the design of all improvements related to the proposed public and private roads, alleys and access easements. For future reference, the following requirements shall be met prior to the approval of a subdivision plat creating individual lots: 1.14 - 313] Submittal of documents identifying all parties are responsible for the maintenance of private roads and common area /open space, subject to County Attorney review and approval. 2.The Planning Commission must grant approval of the proposed private roads and a request for private road approval must be submitted for staff review and Commission consideration. Please be aware that this requirement may be addressed now or with the submittal of a subdivision plat creating the townhouse blocks. In accordance with Section 32.6.1, two (2) mylar copies of the final site plan must be sealed, signed and dated by an architect, professional engineer, land surveyor, or certified landscape architect when submitted for final approval. Mylars will not be accepted for signatures until all departments and reviewers have granted final tentative approval. Please contact me at your earliest convenience if you have any questions or require further assistance. Attachment: Conservation Plan Checklist Copy: SDP 05 -019 COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 701 VDOT Way CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22911 PHILIP A. SHUCET James S. Utterback, PMP COMMISSIONER Residency Administrator April 6, 2005 Glenn Brooks Department of Engineer and Development 401 McIntire Rd. Charlottesville, VA 22902 Subject:Site Review Meeting Comments Dear Mr. Brooks: Below are VDOT' s comments for the Site Plans reviewed at the March 29, 2005 Site Plan Review Meeting: SDP 2005 -00018 Hollymead Town Center Area C Block 5, Route 29: (Francis MacCall) Phase three Timberwood Blvd plans have not yet been approved. Any changes to those plans may impact the design of this site. One item of concern is the transition through the intersection opposite the left turn lane. This needs to be addressed. It appears the weave through the intersection is substandard and will need to be corrected; Sight distances need to be shown on the plans for each connection. Sight easements will be required if sight distances cross ROW boundaries; CG -12 Handicap ramps are required at each connection; If roadways are to be publicly maintained they need to be labeled; SUB 2005 -00071 Riley, Betty M., Route 231: (Steve Tugwell) Route 231 is a Primary Road classified as a Rural Minor Arterial Road in the AASHTO manual governing Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. Small lot strip subdivision along this roadway is not in line with the general characteristics of this roadway and is not recommended; Lot 4 can only have one point of access. This access should be located off of Route 615, Lindsey Road; TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 CENTURY Mr. Brooks April 6, 2005 Page Two Recommend access to the other three lot be provide through an access easement or road off of Route 615; Entrance need to be designed in accordance with the Minimum Standards for Entrances to State Highway; Streets need to be designed in accordance with the current Subdivision Street Standards; Sight distances need to be shown on the plans. SDP 2005 - 00019 Hollymead Town Center Area D (Abington Place), Route 29: (Stephen Waller) All public roads and ROW widths need to be clearly identified on the plans; Public Streets shall to be designed in accordance with the current Subdivision Street Standards; Curb and Gutter shown on public roadways requires CG -6, CG -7 or Roll top curb depending on the application. On Deerwood Drive and Rivanna Way CG -6 is required; Entrance and Connections to public roadways shall be designed in accordance with the Minimum Standards for Entrances to State Highway (Private street connections need to be minimum 24' wide to a distance 25' from the edge of the roadway with minimum 25'radi); Sight distances at all connection points needs to be shown on the plans. Sight easements will be required if sight distances cross ROW boundaries; CG -12 Handicap ramps are required at each connection; Drainage computations and pavement design calculations are required; The waterline on Rivanna Way should be located in the center of the non - travel lane area of the pavement (approximately 6 -7' from the face of curb). This will reduce the impacts to the travel way and provide sufficient area to service the facility. Please request the applicants submit a written description of the revisions when resubmitting for review. If you should have concerns with these comments, please discuss with this office prior to sharing with the applicants. Sincerely, C. C. Proctor III Assistant Resident Engineer cc Alan Schuck, Steve Snell, Bill Fritz, David Benish, Juan Wade, Elaine Echols, Joan McDowell, Francis MacCall, Steve Tugwell, Stephen Waller, John Giometti, and Marshall Barron 1350 Stony Point Road Rivanna Engineering 434.984.1599 Charlottesville, VA 22911 Surveying, PLC F) 434.984.8863 Memorandum To: Chuck Proctor From: Justin Shimp CC: Date: May 19` 2005. Re: SDP 2005 -19 Dear Chuck, The following revisions have been made to the Abington Place siteplan in response to VDOT's comments. Please note that road plans are forthcoming which will include complete drainage maps and computations. Please disregard any errors in the storm profiles on the siteplan. The design will be further revised and submitted to VDOT on the road plans. 1. Rivanna Way and Deerwood Drive shall be public roads, and are labeled with the R/W width on the plan. 2. Road plans shall be submitted showing the road design details. 3. CG -6 has been added to Rivanna Way and Deerwood Drive. 4. The entrances have been designed with 25' Radii, but only measure 20' width at the property line. The width is dictated by the Code of Development from the rezoning plan. 5. Site distances shall be included on the road plans. 6. General note #6 states that CG -12 entrances shall be provided at all crosswalks, and notes have been added at each location. 7. Drainage Computations shall accompany the road plans. 8. The waterline under Rivanna Way has been shifted between the bike lane and parking lane. If you have any additional questions please give me call. 4 lY It 8 eel, tfft(;ly \ County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum From:Glenn Brooks Division: Current Development, Engineering Plan Review Date:1 June 2005 Subject: Abington Place, Hollymead Town Center Area D critical slope waiver request The critical slope waiver request has been reviewed. The engineering analysis of the request follows: Description of critical slope area and proposed disturbance: This is a natural slope with small isolated areas exceeding 25 %. It is an open field with some trees where it leads down to a creek adjacent to the Deerwood Subdivision. The site is proposed to be completely re- graded for roads and townhouses, with slopes off the back side down to the creek. Areas Acres Total site 23.16 Critical slopes 1 estimated 4% of site Critical slopes disturbed 1 estimated 95% of critical slopes disturbed Exemptions to critical slopes waivers for driveways, roads and utilities without reasonable alternative locations: Rivanna Way, Glenn Street, and Powell Creek Circle, are all placed over patches of critical slopes. These roads were part of the approved rezoning plan, and are necessary to achieve that plan in their current alignment. These disturbances are exempt. A large BMP is proposed over a patch of critical slopes next to the creek. This is not exempt, as alternative locations are possible, and the removal of the BMP facilities from the buffer to be dedicated to the County has been requested. Compliance with Zoning Ordinance 18 -4.2: movement of soil and rock" Proper slope construction, control of drainage, and vegetative stabilization will prevent any movement of soil. excessive stonnwater runoff' Stormwater runoff is proposed to be controlled by BMPs at the rear of the site, but these are not well situated in relation to the buffers on the current proposal. siltation" Inspection and bonding by the County will ensure siltation control during construction. Proper stabilization and maintenance will ensure long teem stability. loss of aesthetic resource" This area is visible from Deerwood Subdivision. septic effluent" This is not a concern as the site will be serviced by public sewer. Based on the review above, and the proposed placement of the BMP, approval of the critical slopes waiver is not recommended. J. lr l' 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:Hollymead Town Center, Area D, Abington Place Plan preparer:Rivanna Engineering [fax 984 -8863] Owner or rep.:Birkhead LLC [P.O. Box 5207 Charlottesville VA 22905] Plan received date: 15 Mar 2005, (Rev.1) 24 May 2005 Date of comments: 1 Apr 2005, (Rev. 1) 1 June 2005 Reviewer:Glenn Brooks A. Final Site Plan (SDP200500019) The final site plan submitted without a preliminary site plan has been reviewed and can be approved when the following items are satisfactorily addressed; 1. Easements must be provided for off -site work on properties of S -V Associates and NYC Land Trust. DM 1102] Rev.]: Grading on TM32 -41D, TM32 -46, and outlet protection, release channel, and sanitary and drainage easements on TM32 -50. 2. The proposed BMP's are shown within the area proffered to be deeded to the County as greenway. These should be relocated so that they are not within land to be given to the County. Rev.]: not addressed. 3. Please provide drainage maps and computations. [DM909] Because of lack of information, proposed drainage was not reviewed. The following comments are preliminary: a. Pipes and channels draining rear yards must be in easements, have a minimum 12" diameter, and use standard manholes or DI -7 type structures. [DM505, 909,] b. Release channels and easements must continue to an adequate channel, beyond the proposed greenway trail. [DM505] Rev.]: not addressed. 4. Shoulder and guardrail will be required on the 2:1 slopes falling away from proposed Powell Creek Circle per VDOT standards. These can be shown on road plans. Rev.1: GR added on southwest side, and still needed on north side. 5. Planning Commission private road authorization is required. [18- 32.7.3, 14 -232]. It does not appear to have been given with the rezoning [ZMA2002 -2]. Rev.1: Designations of the code of development are acknowledged. The decision on whether to take this issue to the Planning Commission will he up to the Lead planner. 6. Critical slopes must be shown on the plan. Disturbance of critical slopes will require a waiver per section 18 -4.2. A written request and justification must be provided. Rev.1: See separate review letter. 7. The existing file for Hollymead Town Center basin #2 has an approval subject to receiving revised drainage area maps which actually show the sub -areas used in the computation. These must be received prior to any approvals for this project. Reev.1: not addressed. 8. Please provide preliminary removal rate computations to demonstrate adequate area has been provided for water quality features. [DM503A] Rev.1: not addressed. Albemarle Community Development Engineering review comments Page 2 of 2 9. VDOT approval is required for the proposed public roads and entrances. Rev.1: comments f root VDOT will be forwarded when received. 10. A signed and dated professional seal is required on all plans. [18 -32] Rev.1: addressed. 11. All drainage and stormwater management easements must be shown on plans. [18- 32.7.5.2] Rev.1:Easements not shown for pass- through drainage to TM32 -50. 12. The alleys must be provided with turnarounds, or continue through to intersect a street in two locations. [DM 604B] Rev. 1: Dead end alleys still shown at lots 90 and 91. Road details, and BMP details, were not reviewed with this submittal, as complete information was not available, and applications had not been made. B. Road Plans Road plans (separate from the site plan) and supporting pavement and drainage computations are required for the proposed private and public roads. Rev.1: nothing received. C. Stormwater Management Plan Stormwater management plans and supporting computations and maps are required for the proposed BMP facilities. An application, fee and plans must be provided. Rev.1: nothing received. D. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan An erosion and sediment control plan (separate from the site plan), narrative and computations are required. An application, fee and plans must be provided. Rev.1: nothing received. Review Comments Project Name:Hollymead TC Area D (Abington Place)Final — Residential — Commission Date Completed:Friday, June 03, 2005 Reviewer:James Barber Department/Division /Agency Fire Rescue Reviews Comments Subject to field inspection and verification and comments submitted 05/19/05. Review Status:No Objection Page: 1.00 County of Albemarle Printed 01 Wednesday, June 0£ SDP 05 -019 Abington Place Page 1 of 1 Stephen Waller From: Proctor, Charles C. [Charles .Proctor @VDOT.Virginia.gov] Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 1:49 PM To:Stephen Waller Cc:Glenn Brooks Subject: SDP 05 -019 Abington Place Stephen, Sheets S4 and S9 still have Deerwood Drive labeled as an Access Easement. If this is to be a state road it will need to be public right -of -way as shown on sheet S1. It appears my other comments have been address or will be addressed with the roadway plans (i.e. road profiles, drainage comps, etc.) If ther are any question please contact me at the residency office. Chuck Charles C. Proctor III Assistant Resident Administrator Charlottesville Residency Office - 434- 293 -0014 Mobile - 434 - 531 -2849 E -mail - charles .proctor @VDOT.virginia.gov 7/26/2005 OF AL6F, y r rrcaN 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:Hollymead Town Center, Area D, Abington Place Plan preparer:Rivanna Engineering [1350 Stony Point Drive Charlottesville VA 22911] Owner or rep.:Birkhead LLC [P.O. Box 5207 Charlottesville VA 22905] Plan received date: 15 Mar 2005, (Rev.1) 24 May 2005, (Rev.2) 7 July 2005, Date of comments: 1 Apr 2005, (Rev.1) 1 June 2005, (Rev.2) 15 July 2005, Reviewer:Glenn Brooks A. Final Site Plan (SDP200500019) The final site plan submitted without a preliminary site plan has been reviewed and can be approved when the following items are satisfactorily addressed; 1. Easements must be provided for off -site work on properties of S -V Associates and NYC Land Trust. DM 1102] Rev.1: Not addressed. Grading on TM32 -41D, TM32 -46, and outlet protection, release channel, and sanitary and drainage easements on TM32 -50. Rev2: Not addressed. Off -site grading is still required on the plan, and copies of easements have not been received. 2. The proposed BMP's are shown within the area proffered to be deeded to the County as greenway. These should be relocated so that they are not within land to be given to the County. Rev. 1: Not addressed. Rev.2: Not addressed. The plan still notes easement area to be dedicated to the County. Proffer 4 states "...to dedicate to Albemarle County a 100 foot wide greenway.. except for land that is required for the purpose of storunwater management as determined by the County Engineer. " There has been no determination by the County Engineer. In my opinion, as the designated County Engineer for Current Development, too much of the buffer area (and critical slope) has been compromised, and the plan should be revised to place some of the burden of stormwater management areas within the development. 3. Please provide drainage maps and computations. [DM909] Because of lack of information, proposed drainage was not reviewed. The following comments are preliminary: a. Pipes and channels draining rear yards must be in easements, have a minimum 12" diameter, and use standard manholes or DI -7 type structures. [DM505, 909,1 b. Release channels and easements must continue to an adequate channel, beyond the proposed greenway trail. [DM505] Rev.1: Not addressed. Rev.2: Not addressed. 4. Shoulder and guardrail will be required on the 2:1 slopes falling away from proposed Powell Creek Circle per VDOT standards. These can be shown on road plans. Rev.1: GR added on southwest side, and still needed on north side. Rev.2: Partially addressed. Guardrail must extend around the cu over the slope. 5. Planning Commission private road authorization is required. [18- 32.7.3, 14 -232]. It does not appear to have been given with the rezoning [ZMA2002 -2]. Rev.]: Designations of the code of development are acknowledged. The decision on whether to take Albemarle Community Development Engineering review comments Page 2 of 3 this issue to the Planning Commission will be up to the lead planner. Rev.2: It has been determined that private road authorization was given with the ZMA. 6. Critical slopes must be shown on the plan. Disturbance of critical slopes will require a waiver per section 18 -4.2. A written request and justification must be provided. Rev.1: See separate review letter. Rev. 2: Con addressed. 7. The existing file for Hollymead Town Center basin #2 has an approval subject to receiving revised drainage area maps which actually show the sub -areas used in the computation. These must be received prior to any approvals for this project. Rev.1: Not addressed. Rev.2: Not addressed. 8. Please provide preliminary removal rate computations to demonstrate adequate area has been provided for water quality features. [DM503A] Rev.1: Not addressed. Rev. 2: Not addressed. 9. VDOT approval is required for the proposed public roads and entrances. Rev.1: Comments from VDOT will be forwarded when received. 10. A signed and dated professional seal is required on all plans. [18 -32] Rev.1: Addressed. 11. All drainage and stormwater management easements must be shown on plans. [18- 32.7.5.2] Rev.1: Easements not shown for puss - through drainage to TM32 -50. Rev.2: Addressed. 12. The alleys must be provided with turnarounds, or continue through to intersect a street in two locations. [DM 604B] Rev.1: Dead end alleys still shown at lots 90 and 91. Rev.2: Addressed. Road details, and BMP details, were not reviewed with this submittal, as complete information was not available, and applications had not been made. Rev.1: 170 change. Rev.2: no change. B. Road Plans Road plans (separate from the site plan) and supporting pavement and drainage computations are required for the proposed private and public roads. Rev.1: nothing received. Rev. 2: nothing received. C. Stormwater Management Plan Stormwater management plans and supporting computations and maps are required for the proposed BMP facilities. An application, fee and plans must be provided. Rev.1: nothing received. Rev.2: nothing received. D. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan An erosion and sediment control plan (separate from the site plan), narrative and computations are required. An application, fee and plans must be provided. Rev.1: nothing received. Albemarle Community Development Engineering review comments Page 3 of 3 Rev.2: nothing received. ofA JOJ, fL COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE hNC Department of Community Development 4,/1,1 401 Alclntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 Project:Hollymead Town Center, Area D, Abington Place Plan preparer:Rivanna Engineering [1350 Stony Point Drive Charlottesville VA 22911] Owner or rep.:Birkhead LLC [P.O. Box 5207 Charlottesville VA 22905] Plan received date: 15 Mar 2005, (Rev.1) 24 May 2005, (Rev.2) 7 Jul- 2005, Date of comments: 1 Apr 2005, (Rev.1) 1 June 2005, (Rev.2) 15 Jul' 2005, Reviewer:Glenn Brooks A. Final Site Plan (SDP200500019) The final site plan submitted without a preliminary site plan has been reviewed and can be approved when the following items are satisfactorily addressed; 1. Easements must be provided for off -site work on properties of S -V Associates and NYC Land Trust. DM 1102] Rev.1: Not addressed. Grading on TM32-41D, TM32 -46, and outlet protection, release channel and sanitary and drainage easements on TM32 -50. Rev2: Not addressed. Off -site grading is still required on the plan, and copies of easements have not been received. 2. The proposed BMP's are shown within the area proffered to be deeded to the County as greenway. These should be relocated so that they are not within land to be given to the County. Rev.1: Not addressed. Rev.2: Not addressed. The plan still notes easement area to be dedicated to the County. Proffer 4 states "...to dedicate to Albemarle County a 100 foot wide greenway..except for land that is required for the purpose of stornnrater management as determined by the Count' Engineer. " There has been no determination by the Count }' Engineer. In nil' opinion, as the designated County Engineer for Current Development, too much of the buffer area (and critical slope) has been compromised, and the plan should be revised to place some of the burden of stornnt'ater management areas within the development. 3. Please provide drainage maps and computations. [DM909] Because of lack of information, proposed drainage was not reviewed. The following comments are preliminary: a. Pipes and channels draining rear yards must be in easements, have a minimum 12" diameter, and use standard manholes or DI -7 type structures. [DM505, 9091 b. Release channels and easements must continue to an adequate channel, beyond the proposed greenway trail. [DM505] Rev.1: Not addressed. Rev.2: Not addressed. 4. Shoulder and guardrail will be required on the 2:1 slopes falling away from proposed Powell Creek Circle per VDOT standards. These can be shown on road plans. Rev.1: GR added on southwest side, and still needed on north side. Rev.2: Partially addressed. Guardrail must extend around the curve over the slope. 5. Planning Commission private road authorization is required. [ 18- 32.7.3, 14 -232]. It does not appear to have been given with the rezoning [ZMA2002 -2]. Rev.1: Designations of the code of development are acknowledged. The decision on whether to take Albemarle Community Development Engineering review comments Page 2 of 3 this issue to the Planning Commission will be up to the lead planner. Rev.2: It has been determined that private road authorization was given with the ZNIA. 6. Critical slopes must be shown on the plan. Disturbance of critical slopes will require a waiver per section 18 -4.2. A written request and justification must be provided. Rev.1: See separate review letter. Rev.2: Comment addressed. 7. The existing file for Hollymead Town Center basin #2 has an approval subject to receiving revised drainage area maps which actually show the sub -areas used in the computation. These must be received prior to any approvals for this project. Rev.1: Not addressed. Rev?: Not addressed. 8. Please provide preliminary removal rate computations to demonstrate adequate area has been provided for water quality features. [DM503A] Rev.1: Not addressed. Rev. 2: Not addressed. 9. VDOT approval is required for the proposed public roads and entrances. Rev.1: Continents fr-om VDOT will be fonvarded when received. 10. A signed and dated professional seal is required on all plans. [18 -32] Rev.1: Addressed. 11. All drainage and stormwater management easements must be shown on plans. [18- 32.7.5.2] Rev. l: Easements not shown for pass - through drainage to TIVI32 -50. Rev.2: Addressed. 12. The alleys must be provided with turnarounds, or continue through to intersect a street in two locations. [DM 604B] Rev.1: Dead end alleys still shown at lots 90 and 91. Rev.2: Addressed. Road details, and BMP details, were not reviewed with this submittal, as complete information was not available, and applications had not been made. Rev.1: no change. Rev.2: no change. B. Road Plans Road plans (separate from the site plan) and supporting pavement and drainage computations are requiredfortheproposedprivateandpublicroads. Rev.1 : nothing received. Rev.2: nothing received. C. Stormwater Management Plan Stormwater management plans and supporting computations and maps are required for the proposed BMP facilities. An application, fee and plans must be provided. Rev. 1: nothing received. Rev.2: nothing received. D. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan An erosion and sediment control plan (separate from the site plan), narrative and computations are required. An application, fee and plans must be provided. Rev.1: nothing received. Albemarle Community Development Engineering review comments Page 3 of 3 Rev.2: nothing received. F 17.1 .rI i U ® Fs; J County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To:Justin Shimp, Rivanna Engineering From:Stephen B. Waller AICP, Senior Planner Division:Current Development Date:July 26, 2005 Subject:SDP 05 -019 Hollymead Town Center Area D (Abington Place) The Albemarle County Department of Community Development has reviewed revisions to the above - mentioned final site plan for planning and zoning issues. Final tentative approval from the Department of Community Development will not be granted until the following continents have been addressed satisfactorily. [These are the conditions that have been identified at this time. Additional conditions may he added or eliminated bused on the review , further revisions to the plan.]: 1.IZMA 02 - 02 - Code of Development for Abington Place at Hollymead Town Center] All requirements of the approved Code of Development (COD) for this project shall be accounted for in this site plan. Staff has attempted to address as many of those items as possible with the Zoning Ordinance continents provided below. However, it is the applicant's responsibility to identify and address any desired changes or variations that are not clearly provided for in the COD. Please be aware that any such changes are subject to the approval of the Director of Planning. A.Provide plan notes corresponding with the front build -to lines (not just the setbacks). This includes the minimum percentage of front building elevations at or within the build -to lines as provided in Table D of the Code of Development. B.Previous discussions surrounding difficulties with the construction of Rivanna Way resulted in a compromise that allowed that road to be phased and designed to terminate with a cul- de -sac as a temporary solution to those issues. However, no such permission was granted to allow the other parallel roads to terminate in cul -de -sacs and /or turnarounds, as they are now being shown. Furthermore, the elimination of the road identified as Road G on the approved application plan was not made in to response to previous review corrunents and has not been authorized by the Director of Planning.. C.The Deerwood Drive extension is identified as a 50 -foot wide public right -of -way on the cover sheet and a 56 -foot wide access easement on other sheets. Please be aware that the existing portions of Deerwood Drive are already in the state system revise the plan to address these discrepancies. 2.32.5.611] Although a plan note under the "Site Data" heading indicates that 150 dwelling units, only 149 are shown on the plan 3.32.5.6h] Provide a statement of the gross residential density based on the correct number of dwellings that are being proposed. Hollymead TC (Abington Placeevisions July 26, 2005 Page 2 4.32.5.6d] Revise the parking calculations to correspond with the 149 (not 150) dwelling units shown on the site plan. Additionally, the Ordinance only allows the number of parking spaces to exceed the required number of spaces by twenty percent (20 %). Please be aware that a parking surplus of approximately thirty percent (30 %) is being proposed in this particular case. 5.32.5.6k] There are still several areas on the landscape plan in which the proposed landscaping items are located within utility easements. Areas ofparticular concern include the trees that are still shown within ten (10) feet of the storm water lines on Community Street, Abington Drive, and in the Linear Park, and the trees that is very close to the fire hydrant in the Linear Park. It is the responsibility of the developer and or landscape designer to work directly with all agencies that will accept and maintain any proposed public utility easements in order to determine what types and the circumstances under which plantings (if any) are allowed within the easements. 6.32.6.6(j)] Submit catalogue specification/descriptions and photographs or diagrams of the outdoor luminaires that are proposed within the Community Green and any other common areas. 7.32.6.6(j)] [4.17.4(h)] Submit a photometric plan demonstrating that all outdoor luminaires are in compliance with 4.17.4(b). This includes any outdoor lights in the linear park and, all other common areas where light could spillover onto adjacent residential or public streets. 8.32.7.9.4.60] Street trees planted within the public road right -of -way shall be selected from a list of acceptable species and are subject to the approval of the Virginia department of Transportation. 9.4.7.2] The area between lots 133 and 134, identified as "Open Space B ", contains a travelway and parking spaces which are not uses that are permitted in open space and must instead be identified as an alley or private road constructed in accordance with all relevant regulations. 10. Please add at least two smaller paths providing more direct links to the greenway trail from the dwellings that are located to the southwest and farther away from the trail access. 11. Virginia Department of Transportation and County Engineer approval for the design of all improvements related to the proposed public and private roads, alleys and access easements. For future reference, the following requirements shall be met prior to the approval of a subdivision plat creating individual lots: 1.14 - 313] Submittal of documents identifying all parties are responsible for the maintenance of private roads and common area /open space, subject to County Attorney review and approval. 2.32.7.9.4.6(d)1 All street trees planted adjacent to private roads shall be protected through an open space or easement arrangement and shall be maintain by the home owner's association. Please contact me at your earliest convenience if you have any questions or require further assistance. Copy: SDP 05 -019 14. 0Y AL k Y. RGN County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To:Justin Shimp, Rivanna Engineering From:Stephen B. Waller AICP, Senior Planner Division:Current Development Date:July 26, 2005 Subject:SDP 05 -019 Hollymead Town Center Area D (Abington Place) The Albemarle County Department of Community Development has reviewed revisions to the above - mentioned final site plan for planning and zoning issues. Final tentative approval from the Department of Community Development will not be granted until the following comments have been addressed satisfactorily. [These are the conditions that have been identified at this time. Additional conditions may be added or eliminated based on the review further revisions to the plan] : 1.ZMA 02 - 02 - Code of Development for Abington Place at Hollymead Town Center) All requirements of the approved Code of Development (COD) for this project shall be accounted for in this site plan. Staff has attempted to address as many of those items as possible with the Zoning Ordinance comments provided below. However, it is the applicant's responsibility to identify and address any desired changes or variations that are not clearly provided for in the COD. Please be aware that any such changes are subject to the approval of the Director of Planning. fly* J A.Provide plan notes corresponding with the front build -to lines (not just the setbacks). This includes the minimum percentage of front building elevations at or within the build -to lines as provided in Table D of the Code of Development. B.Previous discussions surrounding difficulties with the construction of Rivanna Way resulted in a compromise that allowed that road to be phased and designed to terminate with a cul- de -sac as a temporary solution to those issues. However, no such permission was granted to allow the other parallel roads to terminate in cul -de -sacs and/or turnarounds, as they are now being shown. Furthermore, the elimination of the road identified as Road G on the approved application plan was not made in to response to previous review comments and has not been authorized by the Director of Planning.. C.The Deerwood Drive extension is identified as a 50 -foot wide public right -of -way on the cover sheet and a 56 -foot wide access easement on other sheets. Please be aware that the existing portions of Deerwood Drive are already in the state system revise the plan to address these discrepancies. 32.5.6b] Although a plan note under the "Site Data" heading indicates that 150 dwelling units, only 149 are shown on the plan OA,/ 5 e4(3.32.5.6b] Provide a statement of the gross residential density based on the correct number of dwellings that are being proposed. Hollymead TC (Abington Place) Revisions July 26, 2005 Page 2 k}4.32.5.6d] Revise the parking calculations to correspond with the 149 (not 150) dwelling units shown on the site plan. Additionally, the Ordinance only allows the number of parking spaces to exceed the required number of spaces by twenty percent (20 %). Please be aware that a parking surplus of approximately thirty percent (30 %) is being proposed in this particular case. 32.5.6k] There are still several areas on the landscape plan in which the proposed landscaping items are located within utility easements. Areas ofparticular concern include the trees that are still shown within ten (10) feet of the stormwater lines on Community Street, Abington Drive, and in the Linear Park, and the trees that is very close to the fire hydrant in the Linear Park. It is the responsibility of the developer and or landscape designer to work directly with all agencies that will accept and maintain any proposed public utility easements in order to determine what types and the circumstances under which plantings (if any) are allowed within the easements. 32.6.60)] Submit catalogue specification/descriptions and photographs or diagrams of the outdoor luminaires that are proposed within the Community Green and any other common areas. 1 t° 7.32.6.60)] [4.17.4(b)] Submit a photometric plan demonstrating that all outdoor luminaires are in G , . C15 compliance with 4.17.4(b). This includes any outdoor lights in the linear park and, all other C)''common areas where light could spillover onto adjacent residential or public streets. a 8. 32.7.9.4.6(d)] Street trees planted within the public road right -of -way shall be selected from a list of acceptable species and are subject to the approval of the Virginia department of Transportation. t 4.7.2] The area between lots 133 and 134, identified as "Open Space B ", contains a travelway and parking spaces which are not uses that are permitted in open space and must instead be identified as an alley or private road constructed in accordance with all relevant regulations. 10. Please add at least two smaller paths providing more direct links to the greenway tr 'i from e - dwellings that are located to the southwest and farther away from the trail access. 11. Virginia Department of Transportation and County Engineer approval for the design of all improvements related to the proposed public and private roads, alleys and access easements. For future reference, the following requirements shall be met prior to the approval of a subdivision plat creatingeating individual lots: 1. G 14 -313] Submittal of documents identifying all parties are responsible for the maintenance of private roads and common area/open space, subject to County Attorney review and approval. 32.7.9.4.6(d)] All street trees planted adjacent to private roads shall be protected through an open2.n space or easement arrangement and shall be maintain by the home owner's association. Please contact me at your earliest convenience if you have any questions or require further assistance. Copy: SDP 05 -019 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:Hollymead Town Center, Area D, Abington Place Plan preparer:Rivanna Engineering [fax 984 -8863] Owner or rep.:Southern Development [fax 245 -0895] Plan received date: final site plan: 15 Mar 2005, Rev.1) 24 May 2005, Rev.2) 7 July 2005, Rev 3) stormwater management plan: 19 July 2005 public road plan: 28 July 2005 private road plan and drainage map: 2 Aug 2005 erosion control plan: 26 July 2005 Date of comments: 1 Apr 2005, Rev.1) 1 June 2005, Rev.2) 15 July 2005, Rev.3) 4 Aug 2005 (for swm, rp, ecp) Reviewer:Glenn Brooks This is the third revision (Rev.3) of these continents. A. Final Site Plan (SDP200500019) The final site plan submitted without a preliminary site plan has been reviewed and can be approved when the following items are satisfactorily addressed; Rev.3: A revised site plan was not received. See comments for the stormwater, road and erosion control plans in subsequent sections: 1. Easements must be provided for off -site work on properties of S -V Associates and NYC Land Trust. DM 1102] Rev.1: Not addressed. Grading on TM3 2 -41 D, TM32 -46, and outlet protection, release channel, and sanitary and drainage easements on TM32 -50. Rev2: Not addressed. Off -site grading is still required on the plan, and copies of easements have not been received. 2. The proposed BMP's are shown within the area proffered to be deeded to the County as greenway. These should be relocated so that they are not within land to be given to the County. Rev.1: Not addressed. Rev.2: Not addressed. The plan still notes easement area to be dedicated to the Countv. Proffer 4 states "...to dedicate to Albemarle County a 100 foot wide greentivay..except for land that is required for the purpose of stormwater management as determined by the County Engineer. " There has been no determination by the County Engineer. In nil' opinion, as the designated County Engineer for Current Development, too much of the buffer area (and critical slope) has been compromised, and the plan should be revised to place some of the burden of stormwater management areas within the development. 3. Please provide drainage maps and computations. [DM909] Because of lack of information, proposed drainage was not reviewed. The following comments are preliminary: Albemarle Community Development Engineering review comments Page 2 of 4 a. Pipes and channels draining rear yards must be in easements, have a minimum 12" diameter, and use standard manholes or DI -7 type structures. [DM505, 909,] b. Release channels and easements must continue to an adequate channel, beyond the proposed greenway trail. [DM505] Rev.1: Not addressed. Rev.2: Not addressed. 4. Shoulder and guardrail will be required on the 2:1 slopes falling away from proposed Powell Creek Circle per VDOT standards. These can be shown on road plans. Rev.1: GR added on southwest side, and still needed on north side. Rev.2: Partially addressed. Guardrail must extend around the curve over the slope. 5. Planning Commission private road authorization is required. [18- 32.7.3, 14 -232]. It does not appear to have been given with the rezoning [ZMA2002 -2]. Rev.1: Designations of the code of development are acknowledged. The decision on whether to take this issue to the Planning Commission will be up to the lead planner. Rev.2: It has been determined that private road authorization was given with the ZMA. 6. Critical slopes must be shown on the plan. Disturbance of critical slopes will require a waiver per section 18 -4.2. A written request and justification must be provided. Rev.1: See separate review letter. Rev.2: Comment addressed. 7. The existing file for Hollymead Town Center basin #2 has an approval subject to receiving revised drainage area maps which actually show the sub -areas used in the computation. These must be received prior to any approvals for this project. Rev.1: Not addressed. Rev.2: Not addressed. 8. Please provide preliminary removal rate computations to demonstrate adequate area has been provided for water quality features. [DM503A] Rev.1: Not addressed. Rev.2: Not addressed. 9. VDOT approval is required for the proposed public roads and entrances. Rev.1: Comments from VDOT will be forwarded when received. 10. A signed and dated professional seal is required on all plans. [18 -32] Rev.]: Addressed. 11. All drainage and stormwater management easements must be shown on plans. [18- 32.7.5.2] Rev.1: Easements not shown for pass - through drainage to TM32 -50. Rev. 2: Addressed. 12. The alleys must be provided with turnarounds, or continue through to intersect a street in two locations. [DM 604B] Rev.1: Dead end alleys still shown at lots 90 and 91. Rev.2: Addressed. Road details, and BMP details, were not reviewed with this submittal, as complete information was not available, and applications had not been made. Rev.1: no change. Rev.2: 110 change. Rev.3: see subsequent sections. B. Road Plans, Public Road plans (separate from the site plan) and supporting pavement and drainage computations are required Albemarle Community Development Engineering review comments Page 3 of 4 for the proposed private and public roads. Rev.1: nothing received. Rev. 2: nothing received. Rev.3: Public road plans have been forwarded to VDOTfor review. Please note VDOT has indicated they are awaiting drainage computations with this submittal, which were not in the package I received and forwarded. Private road plans were submitted in a separate package. See below. BB. Road Plans, Private The private road plans submitted with Rev. 3 have been reviewed, with the following comments. 1. Rev.3) The elimination of the loop road with this revision (and Rev.2 of the site plan) will require approval of the Agent as to general accord with the rezoning. It does not appear in general accord, as previous comments from Stephen Waller have indicated. 2. Rev.3) All the inlet computations assume gutters, and none are provided on the plan. (It is suggested that the computation work or computer input /output he provided also, rather than only the results spreadsheet, and perhaps these types of major errors could be caught before submittal.) 3. Rev.3) There should he sag inlets at low points, and none are shown in the results spreadsheet. 4. Rev.3) Computations for paved flumes and approach curbing were not provided. 5. Rev.3) The drainage area snap provided with the road plans is illegible. The drainage divides and labels are lost among the lines. Further review of drainage could not be conducted. 6. Rev.3) Pavement computations were not provided. Rev.3) Review of the road plan package was stopped at this point, due to their lack of completeness and the computation errors. A sample checklist is attached for guidance on the next submittal. Ifyou wish to have drainage computations and snaps also attached to the public road plans or forwarded to review, the required three additional copies input he provided. C. Stormwater Management Plan (WP0200500058) Stormwater management plans and supporting computations and maps are required for the proposed BMP facilities. An application, fee and plans must be provided. Rev.1: nothing received. Rev.2: nothing received. Rev.3: 1. Rev.3:) The use of creative drainage areas to improve the BMP removal rate computations is not correct. Please provide computations for the actual areas draining to the facilities; 6 acres and 2.3 acres, or as revised with layout changes to address previous comments mentioned below. This appears to leave uncaptured small impervious areas on the southwest side. The hi ffer areas downstream offacilities are not included. Rev.3:) Further review of stormwater management plans cannot he conducted until the layout issues associated with items 1, 2, 6, and 7 in section A are adequately addressed, including Planning Commission approval of the critical slope waiver, which will likely require revision to the layout and placement of biofilters. D. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan An erosion and sediment control plan (separate from the site plan), narrative and computations are required. An application, fee and plans must be provided. Rev. 1: nothing received. Rev.2: nothing received. Rev.3: mass grading plan received. See below. Albemarle Community Development Engineering review comments Page 4 of 4 DD. Mass Grading Plan - Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (WPO20050058) A mass grading plan, rather than an erosion control plan to accompany the site plan has been provided with Rev.3. These plans show the buffer and off- site disturbances which remain unaddressed from comments 1, 2, 6, and 7 in section A above. Review is not possible until these issues are resolved. In addition, it does not appear the state checklist has been followed, computations were not provided, and pertinent details were not provided for current off -site area conditions, which must be included in addition to the notes referencing other plans. Message Page 1 of 4 Glenn Brooks From: Mark Graham Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 2:34 PM To:tim @rivannaengineering.com'; Justin Shimp; Glenn Brooks Cc:Rob Duncan; Bill Fritz Subject: RE: Abington Place Tim, I can meet on Thursday before 10:30 or Friday after 3:30. If there are more than 3 of you attending, I need to know so I can see if there is a meeting space. Otherwise, we can simply meet in my office. For the meeting, I assume you are referring to Glenn's point 2. I've reviewed the plans and I am not sure why you can't move the southern BMP out of the stream buffer. Locating a BMP in the buffer is allowed, but only after staff has determined that, to the extent practical, it can't be located further out of the stream buffer. I have trouble applying this criteria to this situation. (This is 17 -320 B. 1 of the Water Protection Ordinance) It can't be simply a matter of convenience or because you believe there is plenty of remaining buffer. It must be demonstrated to staff that you've done what you can to locate the facility out of the buffer. P.S. I'll add that don't find a level spreader acceptable immediately above the greenway path. Level spreaders have proven extremely troublesome and unreliable. I would give this arrangement no more than a year before it starts to wash out the trail and erode down to the stream. From: Tim Miller [ mailto :tim @rivannaengineering.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 2:06 PM To: Justin Shimp; Glenn Brooks Cc: Rob Duncan; Bill Fritz; Mark Graham Subject: RE: Abington Place Mark, We cannot wait for Glenn to get back from vacation to get a decision on this issue. When can we meet with you to discuss the BMP issue? We will change our schedules to meet at your earliest conveyance. Thanks. Tim Miller Rivanna Engineering & Surveying, PLC 1350 Stony Point Road Charlottesville, VA 22911 P: 434.984.1599 F: 434.984.8863 Original Message From: Glenn Brooks [mailto: GBROOKS @albemarle.org] Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2005 12:20 PM To: Justin Shimp Cc: Mark Graham; Bill Fritz; Tim Miller Subject: RE: Abington Place Justin, I appreciate your lengthy explanations for not wanting to change the plans. I do not 8/29/2005 Message Page 2 of 4 think it changes any of the comments, or the 4 points I gave you earlier, which are at the bottom of this e -mail. There was one new area of questioning in your e -mail below. Regarding the stormsewer for the garages and units; This system must be in easement and designed according to DSM505. You may request a smaller easement width for a shallow system in backyards, which has been granted on other projects. I will be out of the office for the next two weeks. This may give you time to obtain off - site easements, agent approval for the road layout change, County Engineer approval for BMP in buffer locations, etc. From: Justin Shimp [ mailto :justin ©rivannaengineering.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 4:49 PM To: Glenn Brooks Cc: Mark Graham; Bill Fritz Subject: RE: Abington Place Glenn, appreciate you getting back to me yesterday, unfortunately I have a little sewer issue at home and spent the afternoon figuring out what I would have to sell to pay for the repairs, looks like I'm loosing either a kidney or two cars. Anyway as far as the grading easement, the owner is trying to work that out with Mr. Wood. We will take the road alignment to Stephen Waller. in case you do not know we eliminated the loop road in order to intersect Abington Drive with Towncenter Drive. I understand that isn't your matter to review, but that does come into play with the drainage. The stormwater management facilities seem to be a real hang -up for the entire site, Let me tell you my reasoning for the current locations. In an effort to capture the entire site I had to place the large BMP n the lowest portion of the site possible. If you look at the grading you can see that I have the absolute minimum depth of storm structures to get the pipe outfall into the BMP from Aldersgate Way. In your comment response you indicated that it was your opinion that too much of the greenway area was compromised by the BMP location, and I'm curious, quantitatively why do you feel that the amount disturbed is too much? I estimate approximately 18,000 of the 120,000 sf (or 15 %) greenway area has been taken for the Bio- filters. Unfortunately the wording of the proffers leaves the amount of greenway eligible for stormwater management up for debate. I felt that 15% of the area was a reasonable amount of greenway, especially considering that the Bio - filter will become a heavily landscaped feature. Onto other issues, I would like more input on the proposed private storm sewer between the detached garages and units, I have tried to explain our intent on the past two revisions, but you have only indicated not addressed'. From that response I can not know if such a system is permitted, or if you even read my response. I regretfully forgot to include storm calculations with the public roads, but I did quickly mail them to Mike Viar for his review, I will contact Chuck and have tell him to send the plans on. On that note, for the private plans I do understand why the plans cannot be reviewed, I would argue that the drainage calcs could be reviewed, but even if you do not find them complete I do not think that effects the road geometry. I would like to have some input from you about the the vertical and horizontal alignment, and especially the entrance landings which seem to always be a point of contention. Concerning Stormwater management, I feel your "creative drainage areas" statement refers to the areas used for the RR% calculation on the BMP sheet, My practice has always been to include the entire parcel area within a drainage area when calculating BMP requirements. The size, or actual SF of Bio - 8/29/2005 Message Page 3 of 4 Filter Surface area is calculated based on the actual drainage area to the facility. If the simple4 spreadsheet were calculated based on the actual drainage area to the facility the developer would be given no credit for land downstream of the bio- filter that was left undisturbed, or put into a buffer. My understanding is that the performance based criteria is based on a comparison of post development land use vs.. an average land cover for the entire parcel, not just the area drainage to a given facility. Do you disagree? There are several other issues I would like to discuss, and I understand that you are busy, any attention you can give to my questions will be appreciated. In the future I will attempt to include more detailed explanations with my comment responoses and maybe we can avoid this many questions left unresolved after several revisions. Justin Original Message From: Glenn Brooks [mailto:GBROOKS @albemarle.org] Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 1:59 PM To: Justin Shimp Cc: Mark Graham; Stephen Waller; Bill Fritz Subject: RE: Abington Place Justin, I called. You were out for the day. I have a pretty full week, and then a vacation planned. Let's discuss this on the phone, or e -mail me your proposed changes. From what I recall, your main issues are: 1. Your showing grading on adjacent property without easement. 2. Your showing BMP's in buffer without approval from the County Engineer (per proffer). 3. Your showing disturbance of critical slopes without Planning Commission approval. 4. You have eliminated the loop road which has been determined not to be in accord with the rezoning plan, and you do not have Agent or Board approval. I cannot really do anything about these, since they all require action by others. I also understand Tim has taken this up with Mark Graham, prior to your contacting me, so perhaps they are working around some of these. Glenn Brooks, P.E. Senior Engineer Albemarle County From: Justin Shimp [mailto:justin©rivannaengineering.com] Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 12:22 PM To: Glenn Brooks Subject: Abington Place Glenn, I think we need to have a meeting to discuss some of your issues. I can be flexible with my sechedule to meet with you at your earliest opertunity. Let me know a date /time. 8/29/2005 Message Page 4 of 4 thanks, Justin Shimp Project Engineer Rivanna Engineering & Surveying, PLC. 1350 Stony Point Rd. Charlottesville, VA 22911 P: (434) 984 -1599 F: (434) 984 -8863 8/29/2005 Abington Place at Hollymead T' 'wncenter Page 1 of 1 Stephen Waller From: Proctor, Charles C. [Charles .Proctor @VDOT.Virginia.gov] Sent: Monday, September 19, 2005 2:16 PM To:Glenn Brooks Cc:Stephen Waller Subject: Abington Place at Hollymead Towncenter Glenn, We have completed our review of the site plans and have the following comments: o The pipe system under Deerwood Drive between station 14 +50 and 15 +00 was previously reviewed and approved as part of the SWM Basin #2, Extension of Deerwood Drive into Hollymead Town Center. However, the connecting sag inlets on Deerwood Drive were shown on the plans as "future DI -3Cs" as part of the "future extension of Deerwood Village Drive" and were never submitted for review. They were to be part of the plans when Deerwood Drive was finalized. The computations for these inlets should be included in this review. Approach spreads from left and right sides of the sag inlets should be included with the midpoint values. o The Deerwood Drive typical section indicates on- street parking. Since this road will operate as a connector road" between Deerwood Subdivision and Hollymead Town Center, and carries more than 400 VPD parking will not be permitted or the road will need to be widen to 36'. o The ADT for Deerwood Drive is reported as 500 TPD. This road will connect to a subdivision with more than 125 existing and proposed proposed single family lots. Based on the proposed roadway network, the traffic distribution will shift a larger protion of the daily vehicle trips to this connection. Currently the Deerfield development has only one access point in /out located on Airport Road. This connection will be the second. The network proposed for the Hollymead Town Center development will provide many accesss points for the vehicle and many services internal to the development that will draw vehicle trips to this connection. Based on this I estimate the distribution split to be larger for this connection probable near 70% or 700 VPD. In addition some of the traffic from the proposed Abington will use the connection as an ingress /egress point (30% of 900 VDP or 300 VPD). Use 1000 ADT for determining pavement and geometric design parameters. o The intersection landing for Deerwood Drive with Gathering Place does not meet current subdivision standards. The grade should not exceed 2% at a distance of 50' from the edge of pavement of Gathering Place. o The pipe systems from 27 to 26 and 20 to 19 exceed the maximum access spacing requirement. Please refer to the VDOT Drainage Manual, Section 9.3.6 and Table 9 -3 for design guidance. o The design speeds for Gathering Place and Deerwood Drive should be noted on the plans and typical section, so the roadway geometrics can be properly reviewed. Chuck Charles C. Proctor III Assistant Residency Administrator Charlottesville Residency 701 VDOT Way Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Office - 434 - 293 -0011 Ext 120 Mobile - 434 - 531 -2849 E -mail - charles .proctor @VDOT.virginia.gov 9/19/2005 i Jf 1®? ci 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:Hollymead Town Center, Area D, Abington Place Plan preparer:Rivanna Engineering [fax 984 -8863] Owner or rep.:Southern Development [fax 245 -0895] Plan received date: final site plan: 15 Mar 2005, Rev.1) 24 May 2005, Rev.2) 7 July 2005, Rev 3) stormwater management plan: 19 July 2005 public road plan: 28 July 2005 private road plan and drainage map: 2 Aug 2005 erosion control mass grading plan: 26 July 2005 Rev 4) 26 Sep 2005 erosion control mass grading plan Date of comments: 1 Apr 2005, Rev.1) 1 June 2005, Rev.2) 15 July 2005, Rev.3) 4 Aug 2005 (for swm, rp, ecp) Rev 4) 12 Oct 2005 erosion control mass grading plan only Reviewer:Glenn Brooks This is the fourth revision (Rev.4) of these con A. Final Site Plan (SDP200500019) The final site plan submitted without a preliminary site plan has been reviewed and can be approved when the following items are satisfactorily addressed; Rev.3: A revised site pla was not received. See con for the stormwater, road and erosion control plans in subsequent sections: 1. Easements must be provided for off -site work on properties of S -V Associates and NYC Land Trust. DM1102] Rev.1: Not addressed. Grading on TM32 -41 D, TM3 2 -46, and outlet protection, release channel, and sanitary and drainage easements on TM32 -50. Rev2: Not addressed. Off -site grading is still required on the plan, and copies of easements have not been received. 2. The proposed BMP's are shown within the area proffered to be deeded to the County as greenway. These should be relocated so that they are not within land to be given to the County. Rev.1. Not addressed. Rev. 2: Not addressed. The plan still notes easement area to be dedicated to the County. Proffer 4 states "...to dedicate to Albemarle County a 100 foot wide greenway..except,for land that is required for the purpose of stormwater management as determined by the Countv Engineer. " There has been no determination by the County Engineer. In my opinion, as the designated Countv Engineer for Current Development, too much of the buffer area (and critical slope) has been compromised, and the plan should be revised to place some of the burden of stormwater management areas within the development. Albemarle Community Development Engineering review comments Page 2 of 4 3. Please provide drainage maps and computations. [DM909] Because of lack of information, proposed drainage was not reviewed. The following comments are preliminary: a. Pipes and channels draining rear yards must be in easements, have a minimum 12" diameter, and use standard manholes or DI -7 type structures. [DM505, 909,] b. Release channels and easements must continue to an adequate channel, beyond the proposed greenway trail. [DM505] Rev.1: Not addressed. Rev. 2: Not addressed. 4. Shoulder and guardrail will be required on the 2:1 slopes falling away from proposed Powell Creek Circle per VDOT standards. These can be shown on road plans. Rev.1: GR added on southwest side, and still needed on north side. Rev. 2: Partially addressed. Guardrail must extend around the curve over the slope. 5. Planning Commission private road authorization is required. [18- 32.7.3, 14 -232]. It does not appear to have been given with the rezoning [ZMA2002 -2]. Rev.1: Designations of the code of development are acknowledged. The decision on whether to take this issue to the Planning Commission will be up to the lead planner. Rev. 2: It has been determined that private road authorization was given with the ZMA. 6. Critical slopes must be shown on the plan. Disturbance of critical slopes will require a waiver per section 18 -4.2. A written request and justification must be provided. Rev.1. See separate review letter. Rev.2: Comment addressed. 7. The existing file for Hollymead Town Center basin #2 has an approval subject to receiving revised drainage area maps which actually show the sub -areas used in the computation. These must be received prior to any approvals for this project. Rev.1: Not addressed. Rev.2: Not addressed. 8. Please provide preliminary removal rate computations to demonstrate adequate area has been provided for water quality features. [DM503A] Rev.1: Not addressed. Rev.2: Not addressed. 9. VDOT approval is required for the proposed public roads and entrances. Rev.1: Comments from VDOT will be forwarded when received. 10. A signed and dated professional seal is required on all plans. [18 -32] Rev.1: Addressed. 11. All drainage and stornlwater management easements must be shown on plans. [18- 32.7.5.2] Rev.1: Easements not shown for pass- through drainage to TM32 -50. Rev. 2: Addressed. 12. The alleys must be provided with turnarounds, or continue through to intersect a street in two locations. [DM 604B] Rev.1: Dead end alleys still shown at lots 90 and 91. Rev. 2: Addressed. Road details, and BMP details, were not reviewed with this submittal, as complete information was not available, and applications had not been made. Rev.1: no change. Rev.2: no change. Rev.3: see subsequent sections. Albemarle Community Development Engineering review comments Page 3 of 4 B. Road Plans, Public Road plans (separate from the site plan) and supporting pavement and drainage computations are required for the proposed private and public roads. Rev.1: nothing received. Rev.2: nothing received. Rev.3: Public road plans have been, forwarded to VDOTfor review. Please note VDOT has indicated they are awaiting drainage computations with this submittal, which were not in the package I received and forwarded. Private road plans were submitted in a separate package. See below. BB. Road Plans, Private The private road plans submitted with Rev. 3 have been reviewed, with the following comments. 1. Rev.3) The elimination of the loop road with this revision (and Rev.2 of the site plan) will require approval of the Agent as to general accord vt'ith the rezoning. It does not appear in general accord, as previous comments from Stephen Waller have indicated. 2. Rev.3) All the inlet computations assume gutters, and none are provided on the plan. (It is suggested that the computation work or computer input /output be provided also, rather than only the results spreadsheet, and perhaps these types of major errors could be caught before submittal.) 3. Rev.3) There should be sag inlets at low points, and none are shown in the results spreadsheet. 4. Rev.3) Computations for paved flumes and approach curbing were not provided. 5. Rev.3) The drainage area map provided with the road plans is illegible. The drainage divides and labels are lost among the lines. Further review of drainage could not be conducted. 6. Rev.3) Pavement computations were not provided. Rev.3) Review of the road plan package was stopped at this point, due to their lack of completeness and the computation errors. A sample checklist is attached for guidance on the next submittal. If you wish to have drainage computations and maps also attached to the public road plans or forwarded to review, the required three additional copies must be provided. C. Stormwater Management Plan (WPO200500058) Stormwater management plans and supporting computations and maps are required for the proposed BMP facilities. An application, fee and plans must be provided. Rev.1: nothing received. Rev.2: nothing received. Rev. 3: 1. Rev.3:) The use of creative drainage areas to improve the BMP removal rate computations is not correct. Please provide computations, for the actual areas draining to the facilities; 6 acres and 2.3 acres, or as revised with layout changes to address previous comments mentioned below. This appears to leave uncaptured small impervious areas on the southwest side. The buffer areas downstream offacilities are not included. Rev.3:) Further review of stormwater management plans cannot be conducted until the layout issues associated with items 1, 2, 6, and 7 in section A are adequately addressed, including Planning Commission approval of the critical slope waiver, which will likely require revision to the layout and placement of biofilters. D. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan An erosion and sediment control plan (separate from the site plan), narrative and computations are required. An application, fee and plans must be provided. Rev.1: nothing received. Rev.2: nothing received. Albemarle Community Development Engineering review comments Page 4 of 4 Rev.3: mass grading plan received. See below. DD. Mass Grading Plan - Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (WP020050058) Rev.3: A mass grading plan, rather than an erosion control plan to accompany the site plan has been provided with Rev.3. These plans show the butter and offsite disturbances which remain unaddressed from comments 1, 2, 6, and 7111 section A above. Review is not possible until these issues are resolved. In addition, it does not appear the state checklist has been followed, computations were not provided, and pertinent details were not provided Ibt. current offsite area conditions, which must he included in addition to the notes referencing other plans. Rev.4: The mass grading plan revision has been reviewed. Specific comments are as follows;L Grading is shown outside the limits of disturbance. 2. The construction entrance and access are shown outside the limits of disturbance. 3. The following state checklist items do not appear to be addressed in the narrative: a) Off -site areas. The site will obtain fill off -site. b) Critical 4reas. i) The protection of critical slopes in the middle of a drainage swale for a 9 acre disturbance is not workable. Pursuing the site plan and critical slopes waiver is recommended, or alternative waste area plan on one side of the site. ii) The stream buffers are not shown on the plan, and must be fenced off as to be protected. c) Stormwater runoff considerations d) Calculations i) Computations are needed for the diversion dike for the 9 acre area. This should be a conveyance channel, as there does not appear to be enough longitudinal slope to conveytherunoffexpected. ii) The sediment basin areas are overstated in the computations. No further review was possible, as the basins appear too small. 4. The following state checklist items do not appear to be addressed on the plan: a) Vicinity Map b) Existing contours: The contours for the disturbed portions of the site to the south and east do not appear to be accurate. The existing contours for the existing basin are not shown. Please update contour information for the entire site, and adjacent off -site areas. c) Soils d) Off -site areas e) Maintenance 5. General erosion control notes must be on the plan. [DSM CD -17]6. Safety fence and signs must be provided around basins, as this is a residential area. 7. Seeding specifications as referenced in the narrative must be on the plans. [MS 1,3] A 0VA 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:Hollymead Town Center, Area D, Abington Place Plan preparer:Rivanna Engineering [fax 984 -8863] Owner or rep.:Southern Development [fax 245 -0895] Plan received date: final site plan: 15 Mar 2005, Rev.1) 24 May 2005, Rev.2) 7 July 2005, Rev 3) stormwater management plan: 19 July 2005 public road plan: 28 July 2005 private road plan and drainage map: 2 Aug 2005 erosion control mass grading plan: 26 July 2005 Rev 4) 26 Sep 2005 erosion control mass grading plan Rev.5) 12 Oct 2005 site plan revision only Date of comments: 1 Apr 2005, Rev.1) 1 June 2005, Rev.2) 15 July 2005, Rev.3) 4 Aug 2005 (for swm, rp, ecp) Rev 4) 12 Oct 2005 erosion control mass grading plan only Rev.5) 1 Nov 2005 site plan revision only Reviewer:Glenn Brooks This is the fifth revision (Rev.5) of these comments. A. Final Site Plan (SDP200500019) The final site plan submitted without a preliminary site plan has been reviewed and can be approved when the following items are satisfactorily addressed; Rev.3: A revised site plan was not received. See comments for the stormwater, road and erosion control plans in subsequent sections: 11. Easements must be provided for off -site work on properties of S -V Associates and NYC Land Trust. DM1102] Rev. 1: Not addressed. Grading on TM32 -41D, TM32 -46, and outlet protection, release channel, and sanitary and drainage easements on TM32 -50. Rev2: Not addressed. Off-site grading is still required on the plan, and copies of easements have not been received. Rev.5: Easements not provided. 2. The proposed BMP's are shown within the area proffered to be deeded to the County as greenway. These should be relocated so that they are not within land to be given to the County. Rev.]: Not addressed. Rev.2: Not addressed. The plan still notes easement area to be dedicated to the County. Proffer 4 states "...to dedicate to Albemarle County a 100 foot wide greenway.. except for land that is required for the purpose of stormwater management as determined by the County Engineer." There has been no determination by the County Engineer. In my opinion, as the designated County Engineer for kid Albemarle Community Developmentmentp Engineering review comments Page 2 of 5 Current Development, too much of the buffer area (and critical slope) has been compromised, and the plan should be revised to place some of the burden of stormwater management areas within the development. Rev.5: BMP's within buffer and greenway approved in concept by Mark Graham, Director ofCommunityDevelopment. 3. Please provide drainage maps and computations. [DM909] Because of lack of information, proposed drainage was not reviewed. The following comments are preliminary: a. Pipes and channels draining rear yards must be in easements, have a minimum 12" diameter, and use standard manholes or DI -7 type structures. [DM505, 909,] b. Release channels and easements must continue to an adequate channel, beyond the proposed greenway trail. [DM505] Rev.1: Not addressed. Rev.2: Not addressed Rev.5 a) Not addressed. Please follow DSM505. In some circumstances, where flooding of lot 7 improvements is not a concern, and where the pipe length is less than 50', a 12 " minimum pipe size may be allowed with justification. Likewise, a 10' minimum easement for shallow pipe systems may be allowed in some cases. DI -1, DI -7 or an alternative approved manhole and grate detail must be used. b) The computations for concrete ditches alongside the alley do not appear to be using 10yrflowvaluesperDSM505. 17 c) Please revise all pipes (ST -20A to ST -19) to be within capacity for open channel flow.17 - d) Please use appropriate charts or computations from the VDOT design manual for grate inlets, rather than placing these with the curb inlet computations. e) Please address carryover drainage running off the end of the streets. f) Please remove drainage items for phase 2 from the plans and tables. These cannot be approved without the site plan details. g) The inlets at the corners ofparking areas appear to be in sumps, and the computations need to be changed accordingly. h) The check storm for inlets is required. v i) Where pipes exceed 10' in depth the drainage easement will t exceed 20' minimum width. 1 „/" - j) Spot elevations need to be provided in the rear yards to ensure overland relief is provided should the inlets clog. t. k) Step down manhole protection and safety slabs need to be provided per DSM505E9 1) EC -1 scour protection needs to be specified at all outlets. 4. Shoulder and guardrail will be required on the 2:1 slopes falling away from proposed Powell Creek Circle per VDOT standards. These can be shown on road plans. Rev.1: GR added on southwest side, and still needed on north side. Rev.2: Partially addressed. Guardrail must extend around the curve over the slope.Rev.5: addressed. 5. Planning Commission private road authorization is required. [18- 32.7.3, 14 -232]. It does not appear tohavebeengivenwiththerezoning [ZMA2002 -2]. Rev. 1: Designations of the code of development are acknowledged. The decision on whether to take this issue to the Planning Commission will be up to the lead planner. ev.2: It has been determined that private road authorization was given with the ZMA.6. Critical slopes must be shown on the plan. Disturbance of critical slopes will require a waiver persection18 -4.2. A written request and justification must be provided. Rev.1: See separate review letter. u Albemarle Community Development Engineering review comments Page 3 of 5 Rev.2: Comment addressed. Rev. 5: This comment was addressed with revision 2 by a request being made. The memorandum for fl the Planning Commission was prepared and is attached for reference. This item has not yet been to the Planning Commission. V7. The existing file for Hollymead Town Center basin #2 has an approval subject to receiving revised drainage area maps which actually show the sub -areas used in the computation. These must be received prior to any approvals for this project. Rev.1: Not addressed. Rev.2: Not addressed. Rev. 5: Not addressed. The same map with two aggregate areas has been provided again. There are 8 sub -areas on page 9 of the calculation. 8. Please provide preliminary removal rate computations to demonstrate adequate area has been provided for water quality features. [DM503A] Rev.1: Not addressed. Rev.2: Not addressed. Rev. 5: please refer to WPO review. 0 VDOT approval is required for the proposed public roads and entrances. Rev.1: Comments from VDOT will be forwarded when received. Rev. 5: VDOT approval still required.. 4:0. A signed and dated professional seal is required on all plans. [18 -32] Rev. 1: Addressed. V1 All drainage and stormwater management easements must be shown on plans. [18- 32.7.5.2] Rev.1: Easements not shown for pass- through drainage to TM32 -50. Rev.2: Addressed. 12. The alleys must be provided with turnarounds, or continue through to intersect a street in two locations. [DM 604B] Rev.1: Dead end alleys still shown at lots 90 and 91. Rev.2: Addressed. Road details, and BMP details, were not reviewed with this submittal, as complete information was not available, and applications had not been made. Rev.1: no change. Rev.2: no change. v / - Rev.3: see subsequent sections. C4 / Rev.5: Please see comment DD4b below. The existing contours for the site are not accurate at all locations and must be corrected. The comments on the erosion control plan will affect the site plan. It is recommended that the submittals be coordinated and provided together. B. Road Plans, Public Road plans (separate from the site plan) and supporting pavement and drainage computations are required for the proposed private and public roads. Rev.1: nothing received. Rev.2: nothing received. Rev.3: Public road plans have been forwarded to VDOTfor review. Please note VDOT has indicated they are awaiting drainage computations with this submittal, which were not in the package I received and forw /forwarded. Private road plans were submitted in a separate package. See below.arded. 111.0d Sid Albemarle Community Development Engineering review comments Page 4 of 5 BB. Road Plans, Private The private road plans submitted with Rev. 3 have been reviewed, with the following comments. 1. Rev.3) The elimination of the loop road with this revision (and Rev.2 of the site plan) will require approval of the Agent as to general accord with the rezoning. It does not appear in general accord, as previous comments from Stephen Waller have indicated. Rev.3) All the inlet computations assume gutters, and none are provided on the plan. (It is suggested ZZ I that the computation work or computer input /output be provided also, rather than only the results za fl spreadsheet, and perhaps these types of major errors could be caught before submittal.) I vi. Rev.3) There should be sag inlets at low points, and none are shown in the results spreadsheet. 2 4. Rev.3) Computations for paved flumes and approach curbing were not provided. d?t' 3 l/5. Rev.3) The drainage area map provided with the road plans is illegible. The drainage divides and 13A labels are lost among the lines. Further review of drainage could not be conducted. 6. Rev.3) Pavement computations were not provided. I / (Rev.3) Review of the road plan package was stopped at this point, due to their lack of completeness and the computation errors. A sample checklist is attached for guidance on the next submittal. Ifyou wish to have drainage computations and maps also attached to the public road plans or forwarded to review, the required three additional copies must be provided. C. Stormwater Management Plan (WP0200500058) Stormwater management plans and supporting computations and maps are required for the proposed BMP Itywiji‘- facilities. An application, fee and plans must be provided. Revd : nothing received. Rev.2: nothing received. Rev.3: 1. (Rev.3:) The use of creative drainage areas to improve the BMP removal rate computations is not correct. Please provide computations for the actual areas draining to the facilities; 6 acres and 2.3 acres, or as revised with layout changes to address previous comments mentioned below. This appears to leave uncaptured small impervious areas on the southwest side. The buffer areas downstream offacilities are not included. Rev.3:) Further review of stormwater management plans cannot be conducted until the layout issues associated with items 1, 2, 6, and 7 in section A are adequately addressed, including Planning f Commission approval of the critical slope waiver, which will likely require revision to the layout and placement of biofilters. Rev.5: Items 1, 6, and 7 are not yet addressed. The critical slope disturbance has not been approved by the Planning Commission. (This comments is made with the site plan review, as a WPO revision was not received with revision 5 of these comments.) D. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan An erosion and sediment control plan (separate from the site plan), narrative and computations are required. An application, fee and plans must be provided. Rev.]: nothing received. Rev.2: nothing received. Rev.3: mass grading plan received. See below. DD. Mass Grading Plan - Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (WP020050058) Rev.3: A mass grading plan, rather than an erosion control plan to accompany the site plan has been provided with Rev.3. These plans show the buffer and off-site disturbances which remain zi" unaddressed from comments 1, 2, 6, and 7 in section A above. Review is not possible until these Albemarle Community Development Engineering review comments Page 5 of 5 issues are resolved. In addition, it does not appear the state checklist has been followed, computations were not provided, and pertinent details were not provided for current off -site area conditions, tii'hich must be included in addition to the notes referencing other plans. Rev.4: The mass grading plan revision has been reviewed. Specific comments are as follows; 1. Grading is shown outside the limits of disturbance. 2. The construction entrance and access are shown outside the limits of disturbance. 3. The following state checklist items do not appear to be addressed in the narrative: a) Off -site areas. The site will obtain fill off -site. b) Critical areas. i) The protection of critical slopes in the middle of a drainage swale for a 9 acre disturbance is not workable. Pursuing the site plan and critical slopes waiver is recommended, or alternative waste area plan on one side of the site. ii) The stream buffers are not shown on the plan, and must be fenced off as to be protected. c) Stormwater runoff considerations d) Calculations i) Computations are needed for the diversion dike for the 9 acre area. This should be a conveyance channel, as there does not appear to be enough longitudinal slope to convey the runoff expected. ii) The sediment basin areas are overstated in the computations. No further review was possible, as the basins appear too small. 4. The following state checklist items do not appear to be addressed on the plan: a) Vicinity Map b) Existing contours: The contours for the disturbed portions of the site to the south and east do not appear to be accurate. The existing contours for the existing basin are not shown. Please update contour information for the entire site, and adjacent off -site areas. c) Soils d) Off -site areas e) Maintenance 5. General erosion control notes must be on the plan. [DSM CD -17] 6. Safety fence and signs must be provided around basins, as this is a residential area. 7. Seeding specifications as referenced in the narrative must be on the plans. [MS 1,3] V70 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:Hollymead Town Center, Area D, Abington Place Plan preparer:Rivanna Engineering [fax 984 -8863] Owner or rep.:Southern Development [fax 245 -0895] Plan received date: final site plan: 15 Mar 2005, Rev.1) 24 May 2005, Rev?) 7 Jule 2005, Rev 3) stormwater management plan: 19 July 2005 public road plan: 28 July 2005 private road plan and drainage map: 2 Aug 2005 erosion control mass grading plan: 26 July 2005 Rev 4) 26 Sep 2005 erosion control mass grading plan Rev.5) 12 Oct 2005 site plan revision only Rev. 6) 26 Oct 2005 mass grading plan only Date of comments: 1 Apr 2005, Rev.]) 1 June 2005, Rei'.2) 15 JuIv 2005, Rev.3) 4 Aug 2005 (for swm, rp, ecp) Rev 4) 12 Oct 2005 erosion control mass grading plan only Rev.5) 1 Nov 2005 site plan revision only Rev.6) 8 Nov 2005 mass grading plan only Reviewer:Glenn Brooks This is the sixth revision (Rev.6) of these comments. A. Final Site Plan (SDP200500019) The final site plan submitted without a preliminary site plan has been reviewed and can be approved when the following items are satisfactorily addressed; Rev.3: A revised site plan was not received. See comments, for the stormwater, road and erosion control plans in subsequent sections: 1. Easements must be provided for off -site work on properties of S -V Associates and NYC Land Trust. DM1102] Rev.1: Not addressed. Grading on TM32 -41D, TA'[3 2 -46, and outlet protection, release channel, and sanitar v and drainage easements on TM32 -50. Rev2: Not addressed. Off site grading is still required on the plan, and copies of easements have not been received. Rev.5: Easements not provided. 2. The proposed BMP's are shown within the area proffered to be deeded to the County as greenway. These should be relocated so that they are not within land to be given to the County. Re v.1: Not addressed. Rev?: Not addressed. The plan still notes easement area to he dedicated to the County. Profjer 4 states "...to delicate to Albemarle County a 100 foot wide greenway..exccpt for land that is required Albemarle Community Development Engineering review continents Page 2 of 6 for the purpose of stornnvater management as determined by the County Engineer. " There has been 110 determination by the County Engineer. In nn' opinion, as the designated County Engineer fbr Ci -rent Development, too much of the buffer area (and critical slope) has been compromised, and the plan should be revised to place some of the burden of stormwater management areas within the development. Rev.5: BMP's within buffer and greenwav approved in concept by Mark Graham, Director of Community Development. 3. Please provide drainage maps and computations. [DM909] Because of lack of information, proposed drainage was not reviewed. The following comments are preliminary: a. Pipes and channels draining rear yards must be in easements, have a minimum 12" diameter, and use standard manholes or DI -7 type structures. [DM505, 909,] b. Release channels and easements must continue to an adequate channel, beyond the proposed greenway trail. [DM505] Rev.1: Not addressed. Re v.2: Not addressed Rev.5: a) Not addressed. Please follow DSM505. In some circumstances, where flooding of lot improvements' is not a concern, and ii'here the pipe length is less than 50', a 12" minimum pipe size may be allowed with justification. Likewise, a 10' minimum easement for shallow pipe systems may be allowed in some cases. DI -1, DI -7 or an alternative approved manhole and grate detail must be used. b) The computations for concrete ditches alongside the alley do not appear to be using 10yr flow values per DSM505. c) Please revise all pipes (ST-20A to ST-19) to be within capacity for open channel flop'. d) Please use appropriate charts or computations from the VDOT design manual for grate inlets, rather than placing these with the curb inlet computations. e) Please address carryover drainage running off the end of'the streets. f) Please remove drainage items for phase 2 from the plans and tables. These cannot be approved without the site plan details. g) The inlets at the corners ofparking areas appear to be in sumps, and the computations need to be changed acconlingly. h) The check storm for inlets is required. i) Where pipes exceed 10' in depth the drainage easement tii'ill the exceed 20' minimum width. j) Spot elevations need to be provided in the rear yards to ensure overland relief is provided shoukl the inlets clog. k) Step down manhole protection and safety slabs need to be provided per DSM505E9 1) EC -1 scour protection needs to be specified at all outlets. 4. Shoulder and guardrail will be required on the 2:1 slopes falling away from proposed Powell Creek Circle per VDOT standards. These can be shown on road plans. Rev.1: GR added on southwest side, and still needed on north side. Rev. 2: Partially addressed. Guardrail must extend around the curve over the slope. Rev.5: addressed. 5. Planning Commission private road authorization is required. [18- 32.7.3, 14 -232]. It does not appear to have been given with the rezoning [ZMA2002 -2]. Rev.1: Designations of the code of development are acknowledged. The decision on whether to take this issue to the Planning Commission will be up to the lead planner. Rev. 2: It has been determined that private road authorization was given with the ZNL4. 6. Critical slopes must be shown on the plan. Disturbance of critical slopes will require a waiver per Albemarle Community Development Engineering review comments Page 3 of 6 section 18 -4.2. A written request and justification must be provided. Rev.1: See separate review letter. Rev.2: Comment addressed. Rev.5: This comment was addressed with revision 2 by a request being made. The memorandum for the Planning Conunissiotl was prepared and is attachedfor reference. This item has not let been to the Planning Co1111111SS1o11. 7. The existing file for Hollymead Town Center basin #2 has an approval subject to receiving revised drainage area maps which actually show the sub -areas used in the computation. These must be received prior to any approvals for this project. Rev.1: Not addressed. Rev.2: Not addressed. Rev.5: Not addressed. The same map y4'ith two aggregate areas has been provided again. There are 8 sub -areas on page 9 of the calculation. 8. Please provide preliminary removal rate computations to demonstrate adequate area has been providedforwaterqualityfeatures. [DM503A] Rev.1: Not addressed. Rev?: Not addressed. Rev.5: please refer to WPO review. 9. VDOT approval is required for the proposed public roads and entrances. Rev.1: Comments from ['DOT will beforwarded when received. Rev.5: VDOT approval still required.. 10. A signed and dated professional seal is required on all plans. [ 18 -32] Rev.1: Addressed. 11. All drainage and stormwater management easements must be shown on plans. [18- 32.7.5.2] Rev.1:Easements not shown for pass- through drainage to TM32 -50. Rev?: Addressed. 12. The alleys must be provided with turnarounds, or continue through to intersect a street in two locations. [DM 604B] Rev. 1: Dead end alleys still shown at lots 90 and 91. Rev. 2: Addressed. Road details, and BMP details, were not reviewed with this submittal, as complete information was not available, and applications had not been made. Rev. 1: no change. Rev.2: no change. Rev.3: see subsequent sections. Rev.5: Please see comment DD4b below. The existing contours for the site are not accurate at all locations and must be corrected. The comments on the erosion control plan will affect the site plan. It is recommended that the submittals be coordinated and provided together. B. Road Plans, Public Road plans (separate from the site plan) and supporting pavement and drainage computations are requiredfortheproposedprivateandpublicroads. Rev.1: nothing received. Rev.2: nothing received. Rev.3: Public road plans have been forwarded to VDOT fbr review. Please note ['DOT has indicated theyareawaitingdrainagecomputationswiththissubmittal, Yt'hic11 were not in the package 1 received and Albemarle Community Development Engineering review continents Page 4 of 6 forwarded. Private road plans were submitted in a separate package. See beloit'. BB. Road Plans, Private The private road plans submitted with Rev. 3 have been reviewed, with the following comments. 1. Rev.3) The elimination of the loop road with this revision (and Rev.2 of the site plan) will require approval of the Agent as to general accord with the rezoning. It does not appear in general accord, as previous coinntents from Stephen Waller have indicated. 2. Rev.3) All the inlet computations assume glitters, and none are provided on the plan. (It is suggested that the computation work or computer input /output be provided also, rather than only the results spreadsheet, and perhaps these types of major errors could he caught before submittal.) 3. Rev.3) There should be sag inlets at low points, and none are shown in the results spreadsheet. 4. Rev.3) Computations for paved flumes and approach curbing were not provided. 5. Rev.3) The drainage area map provided with the road plans is illegible. The drainage divides and labels are lost among the lines. Further review of drainage could not be conducted. 6. Rev.3) Pavement computations were not provided. Rei'.3) Review of the road plan package was stopped at this point, due to their lack of completeness and the computation errors. A sample checklist is attached for guidance on the next submittal. If _von wish t0 have drainage computations and /naps also attached to the public road plans or forwarded to review, the required three additional copies input be provided. C. Stormwater Management Plan (WP0200500058) Stormwater management plans and supporting computations and maps are required for the proposed BMP facilities. An application, fee and plans must be provided. Rev.1: nothing received. Rev?: nothing received. Rev.3: 1.(Rev.3.) The use of creative drainage areas to improve the BMP removal rate computations is not correct. Please provide computations for the actual areas draining to the ftwilities; 6 acres and 2.3 acres, or as revised with layout changes to address previous comments' mentioned below. This appears to leave uncaptured small impervious areas on the southwest side. The buffer areas downstream offaclllties are not included. Rev.3:) Further review ofstorn management plans cannot be conducted until the layout issues associated with items 1, 2, 6, and 7 in section A are adequately addressed, including Planning Commission approval of the critical slope waiver, which will likely require revision to the layout and placement of biofilters. Rev.5: Items 1, 6, and 7 are not yet addressed. The critical slope disturbance has not been approved by the Planning Commission. (This comments is made with the site plan reViei1', as a WPO revision was not received with revision 5 of these comments.) D. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan An erosion and sediment control plan (separate from the site plan), narrative and computations are required. An application, fee and plans must be provided. Rev.1: nothing received. Rev?: nothing received. Rev.3: mass grading plan received. See below. DD. Mass Grading Plan - Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (WP020050058) Rev.3: A mass grading plan, rather than an erosion control plan to accompany the site plan has been Albemarle Community Development Engineering review comments Page 5 of 6 provided with Rev.3. These plans show the buffer and off-site disturbances which remain unaddressed from comments 1, 2, 6, and 7 in section A above. Review is not possible until these issues are resolved. In addition, it does not appear the state checklist has been followed, computations were not provided, and pertinent details were not provided for current off -site area conditions, which must be included in addition to the notes referencing other plans. Rev.4: The mass grading plan revision has been reviewed. Specific comments are as follows; 1. Grading is shown outside the limits of disturbance. Rev.6: comment addressed. 2. The construction entrance and access are shown outside the limits of disturbance. Rev.6: con addressed. 3. The following state checklist items do not appear to be addressed in the narrative: a) Off -site areas. The site will obtain fill off -site. Rev.6: comment addressed. b) Critical areas. Rev.6: con not addressed. i) The protection of critical slopes in the middle of a drainage swale for a 9 acre disturbance is not workable. Pursuing the site plan and critical slopes waiver is recommended, or alternative waste area plan on one side of the site. Rev.6: commend not addressed. This is not a workable concept. The critical slope waiver needs to be obtained. ii) The stream buffers are not shown on the plan, and must be fenced off as to be protected. Rev.6: comment addressed. c) Stormwater runoff considerations Rev.6: continent addressed. d) Calculations i) Computations are needed for the diversion dike for the 9 acre area. This should be a conveyance channel, as there does not appear to be enough longitudinal slope to convey the runoff expected. Rev.6: Comment not adequately addressed. A table of stations and channels were adclecl, but a diversion dike with 110 stations is 011 the plan, and the details do not account for the slope. ii) The sediment basin areas are overstated in the computations. No further review was possible, as the basins appear too small. Rev.6: Comment not addressed. Areas measured by planinleter are still significantly smaller. 4. The following state checklist items do not appear to be addressed on the plan: a) Vicinity Map Rev.6.: Continent addressed. b) Existing contours: The contours for the disturbed portions of the site to the south and east do not appear to be accurate. The existing contours for the existing basin are not shown. Please update contour information for the entire site, and adjacent off -site areas. Rev.6: Comment not addressed. c) Soils Rev.6: comment addressed. d) Off -site areas Rev. 6: continent addressed. Albemarle Community Development Engineering review comments Page 6 of 6 e) Maintenance Rev. 6: comment addressed. 5. General erosion control notes must be on the plan. [DSM CD -17] Rev.6: comment addressed. 6. Safety fence and signs must be provided around basins, as this is a residential area. Rev.6: comment addressed. 7. Seeding specifications as referenced in the narrative must be on the plans. [MS 1,3] Rev.6: comment addressed. UV \l./iF.tl J® r J 4 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development, Current Development Division Engineering Plan Review To: VDOT, John Winn From: Glenn Brooks Subject: Abington Place, phase 1, Hollymead Town Center, road plans Date: 9 Mar 2006 Please find attached 3 copies of road plans, drainage maps, pavement comps and correspondence. Stormwater Management review Ybington Place at Hollymead Town Center uOP° Zte' 5 coo Tamara Jo Ambler March 29, 2006 1. Check drainage areas — is everything being treated that is supposed to? BMP Drainage area map DM3 dated 7/29/05 - shows drainage area to biofilter (BF) #1 at 6.47 acres at buildout. Shows drainage area to BF #2 at 2.30 acres at buildout. Remainder of site drains to Hollymead Basin #2. Inflow is very close to outflow — but site conditions don't offer much alternative. Off site runoff along the western portion of the site is discharged offsite with no treatment. 2. Check calculations — do they match the drainage area plan? Hydrologic/Hydraulic calculations for BF #1 dated 2/2/06 agree with the 6.47 ac drainage area. Same calculations for BF #2 agree with 2.3 ac drainage area The BMP calculations for the BF #1 show 6.40 acre project area, and for BF #2 show a 2.37 drainage area. Minor difference — OK 3. Check site plan — does it match the calculations and drainage area map? Sheet 9 of the Final Site Development Plans shows the drainage area for BF #1 as 5.6 acres. Does not match the 6.47 acres in the calcs and map. However, filtration area is provided for the 6.47 acres, so OK. Same plan shows the drainage area of BF #2 as 2.3 acres, which matches calcs and map. 4. Check the size of the biofilter and its removal requirements Need to have 61% removal; therefore need to capture first 1" of runoff. For BF #1 need 9112.40 square feet of biofilter. Final Site Development plans show the size of BF #1 at 9,500 square feet, providing capture of 1" so removal rate is 65 %. For BF #2 need 3103.54 square feet. Same plans show size of BF #2 at 3,120 square feet, providing capture of 1" so removal rate is 65 %. Site plans appear to correctly illustrate the specified area. 5. Check elevations for flow and design issues Final site development plans show the floor elevation of BF #1 is 520.3, and top of outlet structure is 521.3. This provides required 12" storage. The top of the berm is 523.0, which provides 1.7' of freeboard. The peak elevation of the ten year storm is 521.71, so the routing shows that the ten year storm can be contained without overtopping the berm. Floor elevation of BF #2 is 534 and top of outlet structure is 535. This provides required 12" storage. The top of the berm is 536.5, which provides 1.5' of freeboard. The peak elevation of the ten year storms is 535.32, so the routing shows that the ten year storm can be contained without overtopping the berm. 6. Check planting plan Planting plan on the final site development plans correctly calls for the wildflower mix and shrubs species. Shrub species called out. Need 95 trees for BF #1 — 96 provided. Need 32 trees for BF #2 — 30 provided. OK Iakz 5 w` ii ep`t\ a.(kow S — 4,,,- ca,ro.3,,.4..k o cl 2 _ ' 1 M.d y F 2..2 .0 Page 1 of 1 Tamara Ambler From: Tamara Ambler Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2006 12:26 PM To:Glenn Brooks Subject: Abington Place at Hollymead Town Center Glenn, As I was working on the bond estimate, I did find something that needs to be reconciled regarding the design of the two biofilters. According to our Design manual (WR -11) each biofilter is supposed to have a minimum of 1' underdrain gravel, and a minimum of 2' 6" of soil mix. According to the elevations provided for each structure on Sheet 9 of the final site development plans, Biofilter #1 is only 2.8 feet deep, and Biofilter #2 is only 3.0 feet deep. The detail on Sheet 9 of the final site development plans also shows the gravel layer at 1' minimum thickness, and the soil mix at 2' minimum thickness. This should meet our design standards, and Biofilter #1 does not meet their own standards, only providing 1.8' feet of soil mix. So, even though this is the only comment, I thought should call this out. Your opinion? k),6 Thanks,v Tamara cal )(61)117' No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.3/296 - Release Date: 3/29/2006 3/30/2006 Page 1 of 2 Glenn Brooks From: Winn, Jr., John W. L.S. [Johnl.Winn ©VDOT.Virginia.gov] Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 11:20 AM To:Glenn Brooks Subject: RE: Abington Place at Hollymead Towncenter, Albemarle County Rte 29 Glenn, There were no n values listed on the computations. Please have the applicant correct the deficiencies andresubmit. John W. Winn Jr. L.S. Contract Administrator Construction) Charlottesville Residency Tel # 434-293-0011, Ext.1 19 john I.winnra virginiadot.org From: Glenn Brooks [mailto:GBROOKS @albemarle.org] Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 10:58 AM To: Winn, Jr., John W. L.S. Subject: RE: Abington Place at Hollymead Towncenter, Albemarle County Rte 29 John, This did not sound correct, so I checked just the right side of Livingston Drive. The applicant's numbers on page5oftheplanshowspreadsexceeding4', even with incorrect slopes. The spread on the curb to the right of inlet 29 should be 7.3 ft. On the left curb it is 4.85 ft. At the inlet it is 5.45ft. This accounts for carryover because inlet 19D is at 91% and inlet 19C is at 95 %. (This is using n =0.013 forcurbflow. The applicant appears to be using n= 0.016, which would improve inlet efficiency but increase curbspread. With n= 0.016, the right side curb spread at 29 is 7.8 ft.) The applicant put in the incorrect gutter slopes in all cases. The efficiencies and spreads appear to be off. Glenn Brooks, P.E. Senior Engineer Albemarle County From: Winn, Jr., John W. L.S. [ mailto :Johnl.Winn @VDOT.Virginia.gov] Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 4:25 PM To: Glenn Brooks Subject: Abington Place at Hollymead Towncenter, Albemarle County Rte 29 Glenn, I have reviewed the latest revisions for this section of Hollymead Towncenter and all of my previous concernshavebeenaddressed. Even though the sag inlet grades were computed with a .002 ft. /ft. slope instead of a .001ft. /ft. slope, the spreads still do not exceed 4' and will be okay. The numbering of these two sag inlets should becorrectedonthecomputationsheet. John W. Winn Jr. L.S. Contract Administrator 4/11/2006 Page 2 of 2 Construction) Charlottesville Residency Tel # 434-293-0011, Ext.l 19 john 1.winn?virginiadot.org No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.0/306 - Release Date: 4/9/2006 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.0/306 - Release Date: 4/9/2006 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.0/306 - Release Date: 4/9/2006 4/11/2006 4. 01 AL i 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:Hollymead Town Center, Area D, Abington Place Plan preparer:Rivanna Engineering [fax 984 -8863] Owner or rep.:Southern Development [fax 245 -0895] Plan received date: final site plan: 15 Mar 2005, Rev.]) 24 May 2005, Rev.2) 7 July 2005, Rev 3) stormwater management plan: 19 July 2005 public road plan: 28 July 2005 private road plan and drainage map: 2 Aug 2005 erosion control mass grading plan: 26 July 2005 Rev 4) 26 Sep 2005 erosion control mass grading plan Rev.5) 12 Oct 2005 site plan revision only Rev. 6) 26 Oct 2005 mass grading plan only Rev.7) 7 Mar 2005 fsp, ecp, swm, rp Date of comments: 1 Apr 2005, Rev.1) 1 June 2005, Rev.2) 15 July 2005, Rev.3) 4 Aug 2005 (for swm, rp, ecp) Rev 4) 12 Oct 2005 erosion control mass grading plan only (Rev.5) 1 Nov 2005 site plan revision only Rev. 6) 8 Nov 2005 mass grading plan only Rev.7) 11 Apr 2006 Reviewer:Glenn Brooks, Tamara Ambler (Rev.7 swm), Ray Lilly (Rev.7 ecp) This is the seventh revision (Rev.7) of these comments. A. Final Site Plan (SDP200500019) The final site plan submitted without a preliminary site plan has been reviewed and can be approved when the following items are satisfactorily addressed; Rev.3: A revised site plan was not received. See comments for the stormwater, road and erosion control plans in subsequent sections: 1. Easements must be provided for off -site work on properties of S -V Associates and NYC Land Trust. DM1102] Revd : Not addressed. Grading on TM32 -41D, TM32 -46, and outlet protection, release channel, and sanitary and drainage easements on TM32 -50. Rev2: Not addressed. Off -site grading is still required on the plan, and copies of easements have not been received. Rev.5: Easements not provided. Rev.7: Nothing received. 2. The proposed BMP's are shown within the area proffered to be deeded to the County as greenway. These should be relocated so that they are not within land to be given to the County. Albemarle Community Development Engineering review comments Page 2 of 7 Rev.1: Not addressed. Rev.2: Not addressed. The plan still notes easement area to be dedicated to the County. Proffer 4 states "...to dedicate to Albemarle County a 100 foot wide greenway.. except for land that is required for the purpose of stormwater management as determined by the County Engineer." There has been no determination by the County Engineer. In my opinion, as the designated County Engineer for Current Development, too much of the buffer area (and critical slope) has been compromised, and the plan should be revised to place some of the burden of stormwater management areas within the development. Rev.5: BMP's within buffer and greenway approved in concept by Mark Graham, Director ofCommunityDevelopment. 3. Please provide drainage maps and computations. [DM909] Because of lack of information, proposed drainage was not reviewed. The following comments are preliminary: a. Pipes and channels draining rear yards must be in easements, have a minimum 12" diameter, and use standard manholes or DI -7 type structures. [DM505, 909,] b. Release channels and easements must continue to an adequate channel, beyond the proposed greenway trail. [DM505] Rev.1: Not addressed. Rev.2: Not addressed Rev.5: a) Not addressed. Please follow DSM505. In some circumstances, where flooding oflot improvements is not a concern, and where the pipe length is less than 50, a 12" minimum pipe size may be allowed with justification. Likewise, a 10' minimum easement for shallow pipe systems may be allowed in some cases. DI -1, DI -7 or an alternative approved manhole and grate detail must be used. b) The computations for concrete ditches alongside the alley do not appear to be using 10yrflowvaluesperDSM505. c) Please revise all pipes (ST -20A to ST -19) to be within capacity for open channel flow. d) Please use appropriate charts or computations from the VDOT design manual for grate inlets, rather than placing these with the curb inlet computations. e) Please address carryover drainage running off the end of the streets. f) Please remove drainage items for phase 2 from the plans and tables. These cannot be approved without the site plan details. g) The inlets at the corners ofparking areas appear to be in sumps, and the computations need to be changed accordingly. h) The check storm for inlets is required. i) Where pipes exceed 10' in depth the drainage easement will the exceed 20' minimum width. j) Spot elevations need to be provided in the rear yards to ensure overland relief is providedshouldtheinletsclog. k) Step down manhole protection and safety slabs need to be provided per DSM505E9 I) EC -1 scour protection needs to be specified at all outlets. Rev. 7: Comments addressed. 4. Shoulder and guardrail will be required on the 2 :1 slopes falling away from proposed Powell Creek Circle per VDOT standards. These can be shown on road plans. Rev.1: GR added on southwest side, and still needed on north side. Rev.2: Partially addressed. Guardrail must extend around the curve over the slope.Rev. 5: addressed. 5. Planning Commission private road authorization is required. [18- 32.7.3, 14 -232]. It does not appeartohavebeengivenwiththerezoning [ZMA2002 -2]. Rev.1: Designations of the code of development are acknowledged. The decision on whether to take Albemarle Community Development Engineering review comments Page 3 of 7 this issue to the Planning Commission will be up to the lead planner. Rev.2: It has been determined that private road authorization was given with the ZMA. 6. Critical slopes must be shown on the plan. Disturbance of critical slopes will require a waiver per section 18 -4.2. A written request and justification must be provided. Rev.1: See separate review letter. Rev.2: Comment addressed. Rev. 5: This comment was addressed with revision 2 by a request being made. The memorandum for the Planning Commission was prepared and is attached for reference. This item has not yet been to the Planning Commission. Rev.7: The Planning Commission approved the critical slopes waiver on 13 Dec 2005. 7. The existing file for Hollymead Town Center basin #2 has an approval subject to receiving revised drainage area maps which actually show the sub -areas used in the computation. These must be received prior to any approvals for this project. Rev.]: Not addressed. Rev.2: Not addressed. Rev. 5: Not addressed. The same map with two aggregate areas has been provided again. There are 8 sub -areas on page 9 of the calculation. Rev. 7: Comment addressed. The map does not exactly match the computation, but the difference appears to be minor. 8. Please provide preliminary removal rate computations to demonstrate adequate area has been provided for water quality features. [DM503A] Rev.1: Not addressed. Rev.2: Not addressed. Rev. 5: please refer to WPO review. Rev.7: refer to section C below. 9. VDOT approval is required for the proposed public roads and entrances. Rev.1: Comments from VDOT will be forwarded when received. t •v.5: VDOT approval still required. Re 7: VDOT approval has not been received. 1 A signed and dated professional seal is required on all plans. [18 -32] Rev.1: Addressed. 11. All drainage and stormwater management easements must be shown on plans. [18- 32.7.5.2] Rev.1: Easements not shown for pass- through drainage to TM32 -50. Rev.2: Addressed. 12. The alleys must be provided with turnarounds, or continue through to intersect a street in two locations. [DM 604B] Rev.]: Dead end alleys still shown at lots 90 and 91. V Rev.2: Addressed. Road details, and BMP details, were not reviewed with this submittal, as complete information was not available, and applications had not been made. Rev.1: no change. Rev.2: no change. Rev.3: see subsequent sections. Rev.5: Please see comment DD4b below. The existing contours for the site are not accurate at all locations and must be corrected. The comments on the erosion control plan will affect the site plan. It is recommended that the submittals be coordinated and provided together. ftd Albemarle Community Development Engineering review comments Page 4 of 7 B. Road Plans, Public Road plans (separate from the site plan) and supporting pavement and drainage computations are required for the proposed private and public roads. Rev.]: nothing received. Rev.2: nothing received. Rev.3: Public road plans have been forwarded to VDOTfor review. Please note VDOT has indicated they are awaiting drainage computations with this submittal, which were not in the package I received andforwarded. Private road plans were submitted in a separate package. See below. VDOT has indicated there are problems with the inlet computations. The labels appear to be incorrect, the approach slope for curb to sag inlets should be 0.001, and the other slopes must be revised to match plans. The assumed n value must be provided. The efficiencies and spreads appear to be off. Please revise and resubmit. BB. Road Plans, Private The private road plans submitted with Rev. 3 have been reviewed, with the following comments. 1. Rev.3: The elimination of the loop road with this revision (and Rev.2 of the site plan) will require approval of the Agent as to general accord with the rezoning. It does not appear in general accord, as previous comments from Stephen Waller have indicated. Rev. 7: Comment addressed for phase 1. The phase 2 portion is to be resolved on future plans. 2. Rev.3: All the inlet computations assume gutters, and none are provided on the plan. (It is suggested that the computation work or computer input /output be provided also, rather than only the results spreadsheet, and perhaps these types of major errors could be caught before submittal.) Rev.7 :: The inlet computations have been corrected and could be reviewed. Please adjust the design r by adding flanking inlets to split the drainage areas to inlets 21, 20A, 7, 8, 3, 13A and 16. These g A proposed inlets have large openings and large spreads creating a nuisance at the front entrance to residential units, or allowing curb flow to run across intersections. 3. Rev.3: There should be sag inlets at low points, and none are shown in the results spreadsheet. Rev.7: It appears sag inlets have been eliminated in phase 1. 4. Rev.3: Computations for paved flumes and approach curbing were not provided. Rev. 7: These appear to have been eliminated in phase 1. 5. Rev.3: The drainage area map provided with the road plans is illegible. The drainage divides and labels are lost among the lines. Further review of drainage could not be conducted. Rev.7: Comment addressed. 6. Rev.3: Pavement computations were not provided. Rev.7: comment addressed. Rev.3: Review of the road plan package was stopped at this point, due to their lack of completeness and the computation errors. A sample checklist is attached for guidance on the next submittal. Ifyou wish to have drainage computations and maps also attached to the public road plans or forwarded to review, the required three additional copies must be provided. vRev.7: Review completed with this revision. Comment 2 regarding drainage design is the last remaining comment in this section. C. Stormwater Management Plan (WP0200500058) Stormwater management plans and supporting computations and maps are required for the proposed BMP facilities. An application, fee and plans must be provided. Rev.1: nothing received. Rev.2: nothing received. Rev.3: r/ Albemarle Community Development Engineering review comments Page 5 of 7 1. Rev.3: The use of creative drainage areas to improve the BMP removal rate computations is not correct. Please provide computations for the actual areas draining to the facilities; 6 acres and 2.3 acres, or as revised with layout changes to address previous comments mentioned below. This appears to leave uncaptured small impervious areas on the southwest side. The buffer areas downstream offacilities are not included. Rev.3: Further review of stormwater management plans cannot be conducted until the layout issues associated with items 1, 2, 6, and 7 in section A are adequately addressed, including Planning Commission approval of the critical slope waiver, which will likely require revision to the layout and placement of biofilters. Rev. 5: Items 1, 6, and 7 are not yet addressed. The critical slope disturbance has not been approved by the Planning Commission. (This comments is made with the site plan review, as a WPO revision was not received with revision 5 of these comments.) Rev. 7: The biofilters were reviewed with this revision, as the section A comments were addressed. Please revise the biofilters to provide the required 2.5' of soil mix and 1 ' of underdrain stone. They do not currently appear to allow for the minimum filter and underdrain depths. D. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (WP0200500058 An erosion and sediment control plan (separate from the site plan), narrative and computations are required. An application, fee and plans must be provided. Rev.1: nothing received. Rev.2: nothing received. Rev.3: mass grading plan received. See below. Rev.7: An erosion control plan for phase 1 was submitted with this revision and reviewed by Ray Lilly. This plan is different than the mass grading plan reviewed with previous submittal packages, although we are still using the same application, WP0200500058). The following comments are provided; 1. Rev. 7: Sewer work is shown outside the limits of disturbance. Please revise so all work is in the limits of disturbance. 1/2: Rev. 7: Please provide easements or agreements with the owners of stormwater basin 3 and off-site t owners for all off-site work, such as installation ofpipe on the adjacent property. Rev. 7: SB -1 shows no protection during installation. Please show SF downhill of SB -1.1/1. Rev. 7: Show SF protection for the installation of the outlet pipe for Bio- filter 2. 5. Rev. 7: Show a detail of the gapped stub out to be plugged. t/6. Rev.7: Please show an area for top soil storage on the plan. I Rev. 7: Please move items out of the 50 stream buffer, including the DD. 8. Rev.7: DD needs to be 3' minimum with a cut ditch in front, computations provided. 09. Rev.7: SB -1 requires baffles to accept SCC -2. Please provide basin computations using pgIII -112 VESCH. 10. Rev. 7: Please provide a detail of the emergency spillway showing RR to acceptable channel. Rev.7: Please show required dam width on the plans. 2. Rev.7: Off-site borrow not addressed. 1 / DD. Mass Grading Plan - Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (WP0200500058) Rev.3: A mass grading plan, rather than an erosion control plan to accompany the site plan has been provided with Rev.3. These plans show the buffer and off-site disturbances which remain unaddressed from comments 1, 2, 6, and 7 in section A above. Review is not possible until these issues are resolved. In addition, it does not appear the state checklist has been followed, computations were not provided, and pertinent details were not provided for current off -site area conditions, which must be included in addition to the notes referencing other plans. Albemarle Community Development Engineering review comments Page 6 of 7 Rev.4: The mass grading plan revision has been reviewed. Specific comments are as follows; 1. Grading is shown outside the limits of disturbance. Rev.6: comment addressed. 2. The construction entrance and access are shown outside the limits of disturbance. Rev.6: comment addressed. 3. The following state checklist items do not appear to be addressed in the narrative: a) Off -site areas. The site will obtain fill off -site. Rev.6 :: comment addressed. b) Critical areas. Rev.6: comment not addressed. i) The protection of critical slopes in the middle of a drainage swale for a 9 acre disturbance is not workable. Pursuing the site plan and critical slopes waiver is recommended, or alternative waste area plan on one side of the site. Rev.6 :: commend not addressed. This is not a workable concept. The critical slope waiver needs to be obtained. ii) The stream buffers are not shown on the plan, and must be fenced off as to be protected. Rev.6: comment addressed. c) Stormwater runoff considerations Rev.6: comment addressed. d) Calculations i) Computations are needed for the diversion dike for the 9 acre area. This should be a conveyance channel, as there does not appear to be enough longitudinal slope to convey the runoff expected. Rev.6: Comment not adequately addressed. A table of stations and channels were added, but a diversion dike with no stations is on the plan, and the details do not account for the slope. ii) The sediment basin areas are overstated in the computations. No further review was possible, as the basins appear too small. Rev.6: Comment not addressed. Areas measured by planimeter are still significantly smaller. 4. The following state checklist items do not appear to be addressed on the plan: a) Vicinity Map Rev.6: Comment addressed. b) Existing contours: The contours for the disturbed portions of the site to the south and east do not appear to be accurate. The existing contours for the existing basin are not shown. Please update contour information for the entire site, and adjacent off -site areas. Rev.6: Comment not addressed. c) Soils Rev.6: comment addressed. d) Off -site areas Rev. 6: comment addressed. e) Maintenance Rev. 6: comment addressed. 5. General erosion control notes must be on the plan. [DSM CD -17] Rev.6: comment addressed. 6. Safety fence and signs must be provided around basins, as this is a residential area. Rev.6: comment addressed. 7. Seeding specifications as referenced in the narrative must be on the plans. [MS 1,3] VRev.6: comment addressed. Rev.7: The mass grading plan appears to have been abandoned. Please refer to comments on the erosion Albemar°ie Community Development Engineering review comments Page 7 of 7 control plan for phase 1 in section D. irfflicp 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:Hollymead Town Center, Area D, Abington Place Plan preparer:Rivanna Engineering [fax 984 -8863] Owner or rep.:Southern Development [fax 245 -0895] Plan received date: final site plan: 15 Mar 2005, Rev.1) 24 Mav 2005. Rev.2) 7 July 2005, Rev 3) stormwater management plan: 19 July 2005 public road plan: 28 July 2005 private road plan and drainage map: 2 Aug 2005 erosion control mass grading plan: 26 July 2005 Rev 4) 26 Sep 2005 erosion control mass grading plan Rev.5) 12 Oct 2005 site plan revision only Rev.6) 26 Oct 2005 mass grading plan only Rev. 7) 7 Mar 2005 fsp, ecp, suvn, rp Rev.8) 9 May 2006,fsp, ecp, swat, rp Date of comments: 1 Apr 2005, Rev.1) 1.June 2005. Rev.2) 15 July 2005, Rev.3) 4 Aug 2005 (for swm, rp, ecp) Rev 4) 12 Oct 2005 erosion control mass grading plan only Rev.5) 1 Nov 2005 site plan revision only Rev.6) 8 Nov 2005 muss grading plan only Rev. 7) 11 Apr 2006 Rev.8) 20 Jun 2006 Reviewer:Glenn Brooks, Tamara Ambler (Rev.7 swm), Ray Lilly (Rev.7 ecp) This is the eighth revision (Rev.8) of' these comments. Only the remaining comments have been retained. A. Final Site Plan (SDP200500019) Comments have been addressed. Please make changes as noted for the inlet below and provide two copies for approval. B. Road Plans, Public Road plans (separate from the site plan) and supporting pavement and drainage computations are required for the proposed private and public roads. Rev.1: nothing received. Rev.2: nothing received. Rev.3: Public road plans have been tbrirarded to VDOT fnr review. Please note VDOT has indicated they are awaiting drainage computations with this submittal, which were not in the package I received and fin-warded. Primate road plans were submitted in a separate package. See below. Rev.7: VDOT has indicated there are problems with the inlet computations. The labels appear to he Albemarle Community Development Engineering review comments Page 2 of 2 incorrect, the approach slope for curb to sag inlets should be 0.001, and the other slopes must he revised to match plans. The assumed n value must he provided. The efficiencies and spreads appear to be off. Please revise and resubmit. Rev.8: VDOT approval has not been received for the public road plans. (Nou' called Lockwood Drive and Livingston Drive) New public road plans were not received with this revision. BB. Road Plans, Private 2. Rev.3: All the inlet computations assume gutters, and none are provided on the plan. (It is suggested that the computation work or computer input /output he provided also, rather than only the results spreadsheet, and perhaps these types of mejor errors could be caught before submittal.) Rev.7: The inlet computations have been corrected and could he reviewed. Please adjust the design by adding flanking inlets to split the drainage areas to inlets 21, 20A, 7, 8, 3, 13A and 16. These proposed inlets have large openings and large spreads creating a nuisance at the front entrance to residential units, or allowing curl . flow to run across intersections. Rev.8: Please move inlet 13.4 or adjust inlet 13, or add an inlet as shown below. Drainage should not run across the intersection. Please provide three copies of corrected plans for approval. i yy Vi ` -) \ 9• ' j Sri t 1h :f„',5+ d ' y 8x1 1 ti Ami 1 .A 1 .4 zY xrYf'r H t y iertt.r ; .t,J' k an 'R rr.w tb om 11 E 111 I ,il1HU r 0 c fin inlet is Herded }sexy 1 1 1 1 C. Stormwater Management Plan (WPO200500058) Comments have been addressed. The bond amount for stormwater management is $142,000. D. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (WPO200500058 Comments have been addressed. The bond amount for erosion control is $83,000. After corrections for the inlets as noted above, please provide four copies of the plan and narrative for approval. i COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 Project:Hollymead Town Center, Area D, Abington PlacePlanpreparer:Rivanna Engineering [fax 984 -8863]Owner or rep.:Southern Development [fax 245 -0895]Plan received date: final site plan: 15 Mar 2005, Rev.1) 24 May 2005, Rev.2) 7 July 2005, Rev 3) stormwater management plan: 19 July 2005 public road plan: 28 July 2005 private road plan and drainage map: 2 Aug 2005 erosion control mass grading plan: 26 July 2005 Rev 4) 26 Sep 2005 erosion control mass grading plan Rev.5) 12 Oct 2005 site plan revision only Rev. 6) 26 Oct 2005 mass grading plan only Rev.7) 7 Mar 2005fsp, ecp, swm, rp Rev.8) 9 May 2006 fsp, ecp, swm, priv, rp Rev. 9) 20 July 2006 "Sp, ecp, priv. rp x E' DDateofcomments: 1 Apr 2005, Rev.]) 1 June 2005, Rev.2) 15 July 2005, Rev.3) 4 Aug 2005 (for swm, rp, ecp) Rev 4) 12 Oct 2005 erosion control mass grading plan only Rev.5) 1 Nov 2005 site plan revision only Rev. 6) 8 Nov 2005 mass grading plan only Rev.7) 11 Apr 2006 Rev.8) 20 Jun 2006 Rev. 9) 26 July 2006 Reviewer:Glenn Brooks, Tamara Ambler (Rev.7 swm), Ray Lilly (Rev.7 ecp) This is the ninth revision (Rev. 9) of these comments. Only the remaining comments have beenretained. A. Final Site Plan (SDP200500019) Comments have been addressed. Thank you. B. Road Plans, Public Road plans (separate from the site plan) and supporting pavement and drainage computations are requiredfortheproposedprivateandpublicroads. Rev. 1: nothing received. Rev. 2: nothing received. Rev.3: Public road plans have been fbrwarded to VDOT for review. Please note VDOT has indicated theyareawaitingdrainagecomputationswiththissubmittal, which were not in the package 1 received andforwarded. Private road plans were .submitted in a . package. See below. Albeharle Community Development Engineering review comments Page 2 of 2 Rev. 7: VDOT has indicated there are problems with the inlet computations. The labels appear to be incorrect, the approach slope for curb to sag inlets should be 0.001, and the other slopes must he revised to match plans. The assumed n value must he provided. The efficiencies and spreads appear to he off: Please revise and resubmit. Rev.8: VDOT approval has not been received for the public road plans. (Now culled Lockwood Drive and Livingston Drive) New public road plans were not received with this revision. Rev. 9: We are still waiting on VDOT approval. The new people at VDOT have indicated they are waiting on a new submittal. When we receive VDOT approval and copies of the approval public road plans, the other plans will be approved, and because this is the last remaining item, another comment memo will not be sent. BB. Road Plans, Private Comments addressed. Thank you. C. Stormwater Management Plan (WPO200500058) Comments have been addressed. The bond amount for stormwater management is $142,000. D. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (WPO200500058 Comments have been addressed. The bond amount for erosion control is $83,000. We received four copies of the plan. Please provide four copies of the narrative for approval. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Communit> Development, Current Development Division Engineering Plan Review To: VDOT, Joel Denunzio From: Glenn Brooks Subject: Abington Place, public road plans Date: 17 Aug 2006 Please find attached 3 copies of public road plans for this project. You sent an e -mail earlier indicating you were approving Abington Place plans, but because I was not in the loop. 1 could not be sure which plans you were referencing. Please confirm these are the correct plans. (Unlike the previous copies I saw, these plans are sealed by the designer also. and so are approvable by the County.) I will he reviewing separately the private road plans that tie into these public roads. and 1 would like to approve them all at the same time. 677 Abington Place, public road plans Page 1 of 1 Glenn Brooks From: Denunzio, Joel D., P.E. [ Joel .Denunzio ©VDOT.virginia.gov] Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 3:46 PM To:Glenn Brooks Subject: Abington Place, public road plans Glenn, I reviewed the latest submission of the Abington Road Plans that you sent on the 17 of August. All comments I had have been addressed with this set of plans. Thanks, Joel Joel DeNunzio, P.E. Residency Program Manager 434 - 293 -0011 Ext. 120 joel.denunzio ©VirginiaDOT.org 8/30/2006 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:Hollymead Town Center, Area D, Abington Place Plan preparer:Rivanna Engineering [fax 984 -8863] Owner or rep.:Southern Development [fax 245 -0895] Plan received date: final site plan: 15 Mar 2005, Rev.1) 24 May 2005, Rev.2) 7 July 2005. Rev 3) stormwater management plan: 19 July 2005 public road plan: 28 July 2005 private road plan and drainage map: 2 Aug 2005 erosion control mass grading plan: 26 July 2005 Rev 4) 26 Sep 2005 erosion control mass grading plan Rev.5) 12 Oct 2005 site plan revision only Rev. 6) 26 Oct 2005 mass grading plan only Rev. 7) 7 Mar 2005 fsp, ecp, swm, rp Rev.8) 9 May 2006 fsp, ecp, swnr, priv. rp Rev. 9) 20 July 2006 fsp, ecp, priv. rp Rev.10) 15 Aug 2006 rp Date of comments: 1 Apr 2005, Rev.1) 1 June 2005. Rev. 2) 15 July 2005, Rev.3) 4 Aug 2005 (for swm, rp, ecp) Rev 4) 12 Oct 2005 erosion control mass grading plan only Rev.5) 1 Nov 2005 site plan revision only Rev. 6) 8 Nov 2005 mass grading plan only Rev. 7) 11 Apr 2006 Rev.8) 20 Jun 2006 Rev. 9) 26 July 2006 Rev.10) 31 Aug 2006 Reviewer:Glenn Brooks, Tamara Ambler (Rev.7 swm), Ray Lilly (Rev.7 ecp) A. Final Site Plan (SDP200500019) Comments have been addressed. B. Road Plans, Public Comments have been addressed. BB. Road Plans, Private Comments addressed. C. Stormwater Management Plan (WP0200500058) Comments have been addressed. The bond amount for stormwater management is $142,000. D. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (WP0200500058) Comments have been addressed. The bond amount for erosion control is $83,000. The final plans for phase 1 are approved. Abington Place, public road pl "ns Page 1 of 1 Glenn Brooks From:Glenn Brooks Sent:Thursday, August 31, 2006 8:15 AM To:Yadira Amarante' Cc:Mark Graham; David E. Pennock Subject:Abington Place plans Attachments: E11_fsp,swm,ecp,rp_GEB_HTC area D Abington.doc Finally, the Abington ('lace phase I public road plan. pri,atc road plan, site plan, Iorrm\\ater plan, and cro control plan arc appro\engineering. "the official memo attached. t.lu,t so Vou know, it would he simple courtousy to wait at least fa months bcl`ore amendin the plans:} Glenn From: Denunzio, Joel D., P.E. [mailto:Joel.Denunzio @VDOT.virginia.gov] Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 3:46 PM To: Glenn Brooks Subject: Abington Place, public road plans Glenn, I reviewed the latest submission of the Abington Road Plans that you sent on the 17th of August. All comments I had have been addressed with this set of plans. Thanks, Joel Joel DeNunzio, P.E. Residency Program Manager 434 - 293 -0011 Ext. 120 joel.denunzio @VirginiaDOT.org 8/31/2006