Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP200900097 Review Comments 2009-12-281l13(. ti County of Albemarle Department of Community Development To:Scott Collins; Collins Engineering via email: scottnu collins- engineerinq.com CC:Todd Dofflemeyer; Cathcart Properties via email: todd @cathcartproperties.com From: Summer Frederick, Senior Planner Division: Current Development Date:December 28, 2009 Subject: SDP2009 -97 The Reserve at Belvedere — Final prior to preliminary The Planner for the Current Development Division of the Albemarle County Department Community Development will recommend approve the plan referred to above when the following items have been satisfactorily addressed. (The following comments are those that have been identified at this time. Additional comments or conditions may be added or eliminated based on further review.) [Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference to the Albemarle County Code.] 1. Sec. 18- 32.5.6(a)] Please provide name of developer. 2. [Sec. 18- 32.5.6(a)] All relevant rezoning, proffer, and variance information must be specifically listed on cover sheet. 3. Sec. 18- 32.5.6(a)] Datum reference for elevation seems to be inaccurate. 4. Sec. 18- 32.5.6(a)] All information regarding owner, zoning, tax map and parcel number and present use of all adjacent parcels must be included on plan. 5. [Sec. 18- 32.5.6(b)] Maximum height of all buildings must be specified on plan. 6. [Sec. 18- 32.5.6(c)] If phasing of plan is anticipated, phase lines and proposed timing of development must be indicated on plan. 7. Sec. 18- 32.5.6(m)] Distance to centerline of the nearest existing street intersection must be shown on plan. 8. Sec. 18- 32.5.6(p), 18- 32.6.6(i), 18- 32.7.9] Not all labels /lines point to graphics. Please correct. 9. [Sec. 18- 32.5.6(p), 18- 32.6.6(i), 18- 32.7.9] Graphic depictions of plants do not match numbers listed in planting schedule. Please correct. 10. [Sec. 18- 32.5.6(p), 18- 32.6.6(i), 18- 32.7.9] Landscape plan needs to be shown at a larger scale in order to ensure accurate review is possible. 11. [Sec. 18- 32.5.6(p), 18- 32.6.6(i), 18- 32.7.9] Owner's signature is required on conservation checklist. 12. [ZMA2004 -007, Proffer 6.1] A final report for the archeological survey done on the Belvedere project site is due January 1, 2010. Failure to meet this proffer deadline will result in all approvals being withheld for projects on parcels included in the rezoning. 13. A complete critical slopes waiver application must be submitted. 14. Approval of all applicable variations must be granted by the Director of Planning. It is understood that neither the appropriate variation application, nor the requested accurately revised Code of Development, have been submitted to Long Range Planning. It is also understood that the letter presented with this site plan regarding deviations from the application plan does not cover all changes identified on site plan. Applicant and owner will need to work with Long Range Planning to correct the status of the required variations. Please contact Summer Frederick at the Department of Community Development 296 -5832 ext. 3565 for further information. 1 cc* , AL 8 =rev f COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 December 29, 2009 To:Scott Collins; Collins Engineering via email: scott@collins- engineerinq.com CC:Todd Dofflemeyer; Cathcart Properties via email: todd ©cathcartproperties.com From: Summer Frederick, Senior Planner Division: Current Development Date:December 28, 2009 Subject: SDP2009 -97 The Reserve at Belvedere — Final prior to preliminary Dear Sirs: The Site Review Committee has reviewed the development proposal referenced above. Preliminary comments for the following divisions of the Department of Community Development and other agencies, as applicable, are attached: Albemarle County Division of Zoning & Current Development (Engineer) Albemarle County Division of Zoning & Current Development (Planner) Albemarle County Division of Planning (E911) Albemarle County Division of Planning (Architectural Review Board) Albemarle County Division of Planning (Historic Preservation) Albemarle County Division of Planning (Water Protection) Albemarle County Department of Fire Rescue Albemarle County Service Authority Virginia Department of Health Virginia Department of Transportation Comments reflect information available at the time the development proposal was reviewed, and should not be considered final. However, the Site Review Committee has attempted to identify all issues that could affect approval of the proposed project. Please make the revisions that have been identified as necessary for preliminary approval by the Site Review Committee. If you choose not to make the requested revisions, please submit in writing justification for not incorporating such revisions. Submit eight (8) full size copies and one (1) 11" x 17" copy to the Department of Community Development including responses to each of the attached comments of the Site Review Committee by January 12, 2010. Failure to submit this information by this date will result in suspension of the review schedule. Review will resume when revisions are submitted along with a reinstatement fee of $65. Please contact me at your earliest convenience if you have questions or require additional information. Sincerely, Summer Frederick Senior Planner Zoning & Current Development ti nF :1 Lf3i, t County of Albemarle Department of Community Development To:Scott Collins; Collins Engineering via email: scott(ccollins- engineering.com CC:Todd Dofflemeyer; Cathcart Properties via email: todd @cathcartproperties.com From: Summer Frederick, Senior Planner Division: Current Development Date:December 28, 2009 Subject: SDP2009 -97 The Reserve at Belvedere – Final prior to preliminary The Planner for the Current Development Division of the Albemarle County Department Community Development will recommend approve the plan referred to above when the following items have been satisfactorily addressed. (The following comments are those that have been identified at this time. Additional comments or conditions may be added or eliminated based on further review.) [Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference to the Albemarle County Code.] yt. Sec. 18- 32.5.6(a)] Please provide name of developer. 2. Sec. 18- 32.5.6(a)] All relevant rezoning, proffer, and variance information must be specifically listed on cover sheet. — etMi4{1 2r V3. Sec. 18- 32.5.6(a)] Datum reference for eleva n s ems to be inaccurate. v4. Sec. 18- 32.5.6(a)] All information regarding owner, zoning, tax map and parcel number and present use of all adjacent parcels must be included on plan. Sec. 18- 32.5.6(b)] Maximum height of all buildings must be specified on plan. 6. Sec. 18- 32.5.6(c)] If phasing of plan is anticipated, phase lines and proposed timing of development must be indicated on plan. 7. Sec. 18- 32.5.6(m)] Distance to centerline of the nearest existing street intersection must be shown on plan. 8. Sec. 18- 32.5.6(p), 18- 32.6.6(i), 18- 32.7.9] Not all labels /lines point to graphics. Please correct. 9. Sec. 18- 32.5.6(p), 18- 32.6.6(i), 18- 32.7.9] Graphic depictions of plants do not match numbers listed in planting schedule. Please correct. 10. [Sec. 18- 32.5.6(p), 18- 32.6.6(i), 18- 32.7.9] Landscape plan needs to be shown at a larger scale in order to ensure accurate review is possible. 11. [Sec. 18- 32.5.6(p), 18- 32.6.6(i), 18- 32.7.9] Owner's signature is required on conservation checklist. 12. [ZMA2004 -007, Proffer 6.1] A final report for the archeological survey done on the Belvedere project site is due January 1, 2010. Failure to meet this proffer deadline will result in all approvals being withheld for projects on parcels included in the rezoning. 13. A complete critical slopes waiver application must be submitted. 14. Approval of all applicable variations must be granted by the Director of Planning. It is understood that neither the appropriate variation application, nor the requested accurately revised Code of Development, have been submitted to Long Range Planning. It is also understood that the letter presented with this site plan regarding deviations from the application plan does not cover all changes identified on site plan. Applicant and owner will need to work with Long Range Planning to correct the status of the required variations. Please contact Summer Frederick at the Department of Community Development 296 -5832 ext. 3565 for further information. f y r ., COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 Project:The Reserve (Belvedere Block 2) [SDP -2009- 00097] Plan preparer:Mr. Scott Collins, PE; Collins Engineering Owner:Mr. Robert Hauser and Stan Manoogian; Belvedere Station Land Trust Developer:Mr. Todd Dofflemeyer; Cathcart Properties Plan received date: 23 November 2009 Date of comments: 23 December 2009 Reviewer:Phil Custer The site and road plans for The Reserve (Belvedere Block 2), received on 23 November 2009, have been reviewed. Comments for these plans are provided in this letter. Comments from the review of the ESC and SWM Plans will be provided in a separate letter. Engineering review recommends that this project be converted from a final before preliminary to simply a preliminary site plan. A. Final Site Plan [SDP- 2009 - 00097] 1. The variation must be approved by the Director of Planning for all of the listed deviations from the approved application plan. These deviations include the relocation of the stormwater management basin; the relocation of the clubhouse; the removal of Road C; the addition of retaining walls; and, converting all streets from public to private. In addition to those details listed above, engineering review has noticed the following deviations from the approved plan that must be included in the variation: The site plan does not show the Class B trail to Block 1. The trail must be provided because it is included in the Block 2 section of the Code of Development. Because a 5ft- wide boardwalk is required for the crossing, the path must meet the Class B -High Maintenance standards within the Design Manual. (pg. 9 COD) The setback for buildings within this block is listed as between 15 and 22 ft. (pg. 33 COD) The tree protection fencing provided on the current plan has been placed at the preservation line which is not congruent with the Code of Development. The Code of Development requires the tree protection fencing to be placed no closer than the dripline of any tree growing inside the preservation areas." If a tree survey, stamped and signed by a licensed surveyor, is not provided, place the tree protection fencing and limits of disturbance 20ft off the tree preservation line of the approved application plan. (pg. 28 COD) The landscape plan does not show the 56 evergreen trees required in Areas A and B as delineated by Exhibit 16 of the approved rezoning plan. The plantings must be placed 20ft from the preservation area line unless a tree survey is provided for the area (please see previous comment). Engineering review will also note Area A is half the size it was in the approved rezoning plan. (pg. 9 and 10 COD) One of the walls adjacent to the pond is 8ft tall for most of its length. The pool is smaller than 2000sf. (pg. 10 COD) The design speeds of Belvedere Circle are called out as 20mph in COD, but on plan it is 15mph. Engineering review believes the 20mph design speed is appropriate. (pg. 30 Albemarle Community Development Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 4 COD) These conflicts with the approved rezoning plan must be included in the variation given by the Director of Planning or the site plan must be modified to eliminate these discrepancies. 2. A critical slope waiver is necessary for this project. A request for critical slope waiver, as outlined by Section 18- 42.5.a.1, must be provided to the agent. The action on this waiver must be taken by the Planning Commission because the slopes were not created by an approved site plan. 3. Roads A and B must be public roads unless a variation is granted. If a variation is granted, the process required in section 14 -234 of the Subdivision Ordinance should be carried out at that time so that a road plan review can be performed by engineering review. If a private street is authorized, the design standards of that road should be determined at that time per 14 -234.D and 14- 234.E. Engineering review recommends that if Belvedere Circle North, South, and East are approved as private roads, the roads must meet all current VDOT standards as outlined in the Subdivision Street Manual. The design speed for the vertical alignment of these roads should be 20mph. Alternatively, the applicant can seek a variation to designate Belvedere Circle North, South, and East as travelways which would not require vertical profiles or easements. 4. Please correct the note on the cover sheet regarding the benchmark for this development. 5. The note on the plan regarding the groundcover on all slopes 2:1 is not sufficient. Please callout an adequate groundcover in this note. Examples of adequate groundcovers can be found in Table 3.37C of the VESCH. Please also mark all areas requiring low maintenance, non -grass groundcover with hatching on sheet LL -1 with an appropriate callout to the species proposed. 6. A guardrail is needed along the parking area south of the southwest parking lot above the two walls north of the pond. [DM] 7. Additional ROW is needed at the main entrance to the property where the multi -use path meanders into the property. A plat for this ROW dedication should be submitted, approved, and recorded prior to site plan approval. Please show the adjustment of this property line in the site plan as well. 8. The sanitary sewer line on the western boundary of the property parallel to the Belvedere Blvd. appears to conflict with a gas line. Please provide at letter from Charlottesville Gas that certifies spacing requirements for this line have been met. 9. A public drainage easement will be needed over any storm sewer pipe on site that carries water from Belvedere Blvd. to the stormwater management facility. This easement must be dedicated to public use. Engineering review recommends private easements be kept in the plan for all other pipes that transfer water from another property (current or future subdivision to the north). All easements must be sized using the equation in the design manual. [DM] Because public drainage easements are called for within the project, the applicant must limit the length of the system carrying public water. From the existing VDOT manhole southwest of the clubhouse, construct a new pipe below the retaining wall (keeping the foundation of the retaining wall out of the easement) to structure 1 B. (Adding this pipe will also assist with the Erosion and Sediment control plan by allowing a simpler connection to the outlet barrel of the existing sediment basin.) The applicant also has the option of waiving the public maintenance of the pipes carrying runoff from the VDOT ROW, except for the pipes to structure 44. If this option is chosen by the applicant, a new drainage pipe will be needed from the inlets located at the sag of Belvedere Blvd to structure 44. [18- 32.7.4] 10. No structure or tree will be allowed within a public easement to be maintained by the county. DM] 1 1. Belvedere Circle North must be adjusted at its intersection with Belvedere Road. The crown of AlbemarI;ounty Community Development Engineering Review Comments Page 3 of 4 Belvedere Road must be maintained. The grade of the Belvedere Circle North must be 4% or less for at least 40ft from the curb face of Belvedere Blvd. [DM] 12. VDOT approval is required. At this time, VDOT approval has not yet been given. 13. The maximum 5% grade standard is exceeded in several instances in the parking area at the garage entrances when considering the finished floor elevations marked on the plan. [18- 4.12.15.c] 14. Parking spaces in at least one location do not meet the design requirements as outlined in 18- 4.12.16.c.1. 15. If Belvedere Circle North, East, and South are given a variation to travelways, a waiver from the Zoning administrator will be needed for the parallel parking spaces on these roads. Engineering review has no objections to the granting of this waiver. 16. Sidewalk in at least one location does not meet the design requirements as outlined in 18- 4.12.16.e. 17. If no curb is provided for the three spaces at the mail kiosk, bumper blocks are required. [18- 4.12.16.e] 18. A stop sign is needed at the second exit to the mail kiosk lot. [18-32.7.2] 19. A stop sign is needed on the northbound travelway between buildings 2 and 3. [18- 32.72] 20. Engineering review recommends moving the compactor 5ft to the east to allow for pedestrian access across the pad from sidewalk to sidewalk. This is not a requirement. 21. A small sidewalk extension and CG -12 is required west of building 15 for a crossing of Belvedere Circle East. 22. On sheet S -1, I have only counted 286 units, not 294 as the cover sheet indicates. 23. Please provide a temporary construction easement on 61 -159A for the work necessary to build the retaining wall. if the geo -grid required for this wall is 5ft or longer, a permanent easement will be needed on this property. [DM] 24. Please provide estimates of movements at intersections with the public street. An independent left and right turn lane from Belvedere Circle South may be justified. [DM] 25. I recommend converting structure 70 from a DI -2B to DI -3B because of the proximity of the grate to a handicap space. This is not a requirement. 26. The legend for the pavement section detail on S -4 appears to need editing. 27. The pavement design for the parking aisle does not seem to be strong enough. The required depth is 9.93 and only 9.3 is provided. Also, the graphic on Sheet S -4 shows an ADT of 511, but only 250 appears to be used in the computation. [18- 4.12.15.a] 28. The proposed grade in the drainage profile from 1 F to the outlet does not appear to be accurate. Please correct. 29. For the main storm sewer line from the property to the north, use an initial time of concentration of 5 minutes and do not consider the inflated time of concentrations of other inlets that are affected by overland sheet flow of the small landscaped areas within their watersheds. [DM] 30. Please correct the total impervious area note on the cover sheet. 31. Please adjust the outlet pipe of the drainage system so that the velocity is less than 15fps. [DM] 32. Please provide calculations for both outlet protections onsite. [DM] B. Road Plan [SDP- 2009 - 00097] 1. A full, official review of the road plan was not performed because a private is sought and the determination has not yet been made by the Planning Department. If and when the private street is authorized by the agent, the design standards of the roadway should be set. The current design appears to meet all VDOT standards in regard to the crosssection and horizontal dimensions. However, the vertical alignment appears to use K- values of a standard less than the design speed of 20mph. Engineering review recommends to the agent that K values of 7 and 17 be used because of the design speed specified by the Code of Development. Albemarlounty Community Development Engineering Review Comments Page 4 of 4 2. The entrance of Belvedere Circle North should be adjusted so that the crown of Belvedere Blvd. is maintained and the grade of the first 40ft from the face of curb of Belvedere Blvd. is no steeper than 4 %. 3. An additional 2 -3ft of ROW is needed for Belvedere Circle North from the neighboring property. This ROW or easement must be provided prior to site plan approval. This area can be included in the current subdivision plat being reviewed by the Planning Division. 4. Additional ROW is needed at the main entrance to the property where the multi -use path meanders into the property. A plat for this ROW dedication should be submitted, approved, and recorded prior to site plan approval. Please show the adjustment of this property line in the site plan as well. 5. In the crosssection of Belvedere Circle South, please label the parking aisles as 20.1 ft. [DM] 6. Please provide a crossover near the VDOT ROW at the entrance of Belvedere Circle South to keep circulation within the property. [DM] Application #:SDP20O900097 jbnori 1"[eview comments Project Name:LThe Reserve At Belvedere-- Final LFin Non - residential — Commission Date Completed:12/23/2009 Reviewer:Andrew Slack E911 Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments: THE APPLICANT SHOULD HAVE THE ROAD NAME LABELED AS "BELVEDERE CIRCLE" TO MEET ROAD NAMING STANDARDS. Date Completed:12/18/2009 Reviewer:James Barber Fire Rescue Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments: Must comply with the Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code. Please ensure all buildings are within 400 feet of a fire hydrant by way of a prepared travel way. Final approval is subject to field inspection and verification.J Date Completed:12/17/2009 Reviewer:Jay Schlothauer Inspections Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments: Based on plans dated November 23, 2009. Every residential building, except # 12 and # 13, must have at least one barrier -free, van - accessible parking space located as close as practicable to the accessible building entrance. Show these spaces, along with their associated striped acess aisles and curb cuts. Review Comments Project Name:The Reserve At Belvedere - Final Final — Non-residential — Commission Date Completed:Tuesday, August 09, 2011 Reviewer:Ellie Ray Department/Division /Agency: CommDev- Current Development Reviews Comments: Received this application from Gerald on 8/2/11. Went over the proposed changes with Phil. Retaining wall needs to have note specifying handrail. Review Status:Requested Changes Page: 11 County of Albemarle Printed On: 108/10/2011 Review Comments Project Name:The Reserve At Belvedere - Final Final — Non residential — Commission Date Completed:Tuesday, August 09, 2011 Reviewer:Jay Schlothauer Department/Division /Agency: Inspections Reviews Comments: Based on LOR dated July 6, 2011. Show the curb cut and a short connector sidewalk from the striped access aisle at the barrier -free parking spaces to the main sidewalk. Review Status:Requested Changes Page: 11 County of Albemarle Printed On: 108/09/2011i v IRGIt COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 December 30, 2009 Mr. L.J. Lopez Stonehaus Development 2421 Ivy Road Charlottesville, VA 22903 RE: ZMA 07 -04 Belvedere Code of Development SDP 09 -97 The Reserve at Belvedere Dear L.J.: Thank you for your submittal of the revised Code of Development on December 18, 2009. This letter provides comments on changes which are needed to the Code of Development in conjunction with your request to withdraw certain variation requests /approvals. Thank you for providing the variation number approved variations in the Code of Development. With the variation numbers, I have been able to reread the approved variations to make sure that they are appropriately stated in your revised Code and have found additional changes that are needed to your revised Code. This letter provides information on those changes as well as additional variation requests which need to be made on the County's application form. Changes needed to the Code of Development 1. Provide a date on the footer of the Code of Development that matches the date on the front cover. 2. On Page 11 for Variations #16, 17, 18, please reword as follows: Variations # 15, 16, 17, and 18 (approved 9.17.09) — The Neighborhood Center area will provide amenities for the Belvedere development as well as for the Charlottesville /Albemarle community. A fieldhouse will be provided with a footprint of approximately 39,000 square feet which will consist of an indoor multi - purpose playing surface to be primarily used for soccer as well as associated offices, locker rooms, storage and other customary accessory uses. A private educational facility or day care with a building of no more than 8,000 square feet plus outdoor play area will be provided on the Neighborhood Center site. A community meeting house for Belvedere will be provided 1 p I in the Neighborhood Center area. This meeting house may include meeting rooms, offices, small -scale retail /food and beverage facilities and restrooms /changing rooms. It may also include a hardscape plaza for gatherings. Other amenities for the Belvedere development will include provision of a minimum of 100 memberships in the Fairview Swim Club. Part of the parking requirements may be satisfied using on- street parking, if determined by the County as appropriate, as part of the site review process. 3. On Page 13 for SUP 2007 -58, please change the last sentence to say, "This amenity package is to include turf fields, a concession area, and an organic farm." 4. On page 15 for Variation 13, I see that you have noted the deficit in Blocks 3,4A, 5A, 6 9A, but, I'm having difficulty understanding how the table on page 14 is to be used with the table on page 15. It may be something simple that I am not seeing. In addition, it isn't clear where the deficit will be made up in Block 2. 5. On page 32, you have some changes to the table that are not noted with their variation number. I think that some of the changes on this page are not correct because Variation requests 10 and 11 were not approved. If there is a variation that was approved for the changes to Roads D, B, Bl, C, C -1, E, F, G, H, I, M, N, 0, Q, S, and K, please note it so I can recheck it. Also, I see "Roundabout #1deleted ". Please provide the variation # associated with this change. 6. For Table 9 on page 35, the table and words in the Code should match exactly what was approved with Variation 21, 22, and 23 in the letter dated July 25, 2008. 7. For Table 10 on page 36, our letter of July 25, 2008 is not clear as to the exact changes granted with the variation for Blocks 1, 2, and 4. There is some ambiguity on our part that we need to help resolve so that Table 10 is correct. As it is shown in your revised Code, the numbers aren't the same as the ones which you requested in your variation request and our letter doesn't note the exact numbers which were approved. Additional Variations Request On November 23, Scott Collins provided a letter indicating the changes that were being requested by variation. The request needs to be made by your firm on the County Form and should be explicit as indicated below: Variations you should request are to: 26 Replace the central part of Block 2 with an apartment complex. Block 2 on the approved General Development Plan has a mixture of housing types. 27 Move the neighborhood center to the corner of Belvedere Blvd. in Block 2 from a more central location. 28 Move the detention pond from where it is shown on -line in a stream to an area near the same location that is not on the stream. 2 29 Provide small units facing Belvedere Blvd. to block the view of the parking lot. 30 Provide diagonal parking spaces in front of a portion of the units. 31 Eliminate road C shown on the General Development Plan but provide sidewalks to connect both sides of the development. 32 Change the streets in this section of Block 2 from public to private streets. Scott's letter provides the rationale for the variation requests that I can attach to the form. In addition, you need to request the following variations in support of the site plan: 33 Modification of Tables 1 and 2 to reflect the desired mix of unit types by block. 34 Change in layout of Block 2A with the conceptual drawing which we reviewed last fall. 35 Change of wording of paragraph for Block 2 page 7 of the Code. Recommended language: "With close proximity to Rio Road, potential non - residential uses and the Community Center site, Block 2 has been patterned for higher density residential uses oriented towards a center median and surrounded by open space on two sides. A neighborhood center serving the recreational needs of the residents in Blocks 1 and 2 will be oriented to the development in Block to and will back onto Town Run. The greenway corridor along Belvedere Boulevard will extend along the front of Block 2." Please include all ten variation requests on the variation form you submit. Please provide your justifications for Variations 33 and 34 so that they can be part of the written record we use to track variations. I look forward to receiving your revised Code of Development with items 1 — 6 from the first part of this letter addressed. For item 7, I will need to provide additional information next week. I also look forward to receiving the variation form with the 10 variation requests. With both of these items, I can let the other reviewers know the current state of variations so that they can review your next submittal with all of the up -to -date information. Sincerely, gaivvIL Elaine K. Echols, AICP Principal Planner for the Development Areas C: Summer Frederick, Senior Planner for Current Development Philip Custer, Current Development Engineer e -copy to Scott Collins representing Cathcart Development 3 Application #:0SDP2090009'Short Review o,..'ents Project Name:'The Reserve At Belvedere - Final Final — Non - residential — Commission Date Completed:12/23/2009 Reviewer:Andrew Slack E911 Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments: THE APPLICANT SHOULD HAVE THE ROAD NAME LABELED AS "BELVEDERE CIRCLE" TO MEET ROAD NAMING STANDARDS. Date Completed:03/08/2010 Reviewer:Andrew Slack E911 Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments: DEPENDING ON WHERE THE PRIMARY ACCESS IS LOCATED IT COULD CHANGE THE NUMBER OF ROAD NAMES NEEDED. PLEASE CLARIFY WHERE THE PRIMARY ACCESS FOR THE UNITS WILL BE LOCATED FOR THIS PROJECT. Date Completed:03/10/2010 Reviewer:Elaine Echols Planning Review Status:No Objection Reviews Comments: I general, the site plan conforms to approved variations. A detailed review for conformity with the approved rezoning and variations will be done by Current Development. Please provide elevations to Elaine Echols for review prior to submittal for signatures. Also, please provide a signature block for Planning. Date Completed:03/11/2010 Reviewer:Gary Whelan ACSA Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments: (Email received 03.11.2010: Summer, The water and sewer construction drawings are currently under review. Comments are being made directly to the applicant's engineer and Bill will receive a copy of the approval letter. Gary Date Completed:03/11/2010 Reviewer:James Barber Fire Rescue Review Status:No Objection Reviews Comments: Must comply with the Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code. Final approval is subject to field inspection and verification. Date Completed:12/18/2009 Reviewer:James Barber Fire Rescue Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments ', Must comply with the Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code. Please ensure all buildings are within 400 feet of a fire hydrant by way of a prepared travel way. Final approval is subject to field inspection and verification. Date Completed:12/17/2009 Reviewer:Jay Schlothauer Inspections Review Status:Requested Changes Page: 1.00 County of Albemarle Printed On: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 Reviews Comments: Based on plans c November 23, 2009. IEvery residential building, except # 12 and # 13, must have at least one barrier -free, van - accessible parking space located as close as practicable to the accessible building entrance. Show these spaces, along with their associated striped acess aisles and curb cuts. Date Completed:03/09/2010 Reviewer:Jay Schlothauer Inspections Review Status:No Objection Reviews Comments: Based on plans revised February 10, 2010. No further comments or conditions. Date Completed:06/04/2010 Reviewer:Philip Custer Engineer Z &CD Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments: 'Trail issue must be resolved and all offsite easements recorded before final approval Date Completed:06/04/2010 Reviewer:Philip Custer Engineer Z &CD Review Status:Approved Reviews Comments: All technical road comments have been addressed. Needs offsite easements recorded before final approval. Date Completed:03/24/2010 Reviewer:Summer Frederick CommDev- Current Development Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments: Critical slope waiver issue needs to be decided. update: per Bill Fritz - critical slope disturbance approved via previously approved waiver associated with original WPO. Page: 2.00 County of Albemarle Printed On: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 V147 V lea° 1 6-1 LOUISA ALBEMARLE NELSON FLUVANNA Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District 706 Forest St, Ste G Charlottesville, VA 22903 975 -0224 March 10, 2010 TO:Summer Frederick Planning Department RE:Soils Report and Comments for: The Reserve at Belvedere 14x r;" ti1Ci L ti 2'C wat 39E 9›, 88 . a r_ 34D W 27C 16 A 27C 34C 27D 27B i n 27C 39E 34D 95 --' N>...,„,7:: 0 sto{ 93E 50E .D dnD 4D 27B 93E 93D 76 1r 27C 39E J 34D Q 34C 34D 39E 27C O _ 39D estm• elan 27B `.,276 8339D% A 93E ® 34D 83 ,, WP,IHICIIIIIIIIIPM 41111 ?Il 28C3 27B 27C c.,. 34D 27C 4 11141\27B 27B 34D*ea\39D 27Cu27C 278 39D 27B 39D 50D 34C 34C 196, 39C 1<:7 7/h 39D 39E t' 56B p 83 ti co 27B 6 20D3 r it 1 63B 20C3 5°28D3 ... 41rO M 6'" / idersgate 88GiChur328 o 4 I98 i 39D 76 34C 8327B 39C 27C 0 o,t 1 27C J 20D3 I9 i 39D S'39D o-F 414-4,27B 6 ] 19B 2C 39CI208390MOONCEMETE B 1. 1 39C k 278 G 39DIVA!V 39D 4o 2C i10 568 D lV N.n: iYg5 -i .v. vICVjv 39E 83 3`1/v 2B Y 7 ,- Q 39D 48E t 10 dbillire°'2' 34C 21B 6 Q 21C 2C 39D Q 6'0 21C 34 "A A 48D 92C3 20 It 3 lub 21B 34C 34C dilt, 5000 Feet 4000 3000 SCALeet athjf l/2 4 p 2000 f Opp 1000 Meters 800 600 400 200 L_t s ALBEMARLE COU(' USDA United States Natural Prepared by: Thomas Jefferson Soil & Water Department of Resources Conservation District Agriculture Conservation 434- 975 -0224 Service Soils Report SOILS REPORT FOR: Reserve at Belvedere Soil Survey Area: Albemarle County, Virginia Survey Status: Published Correlation Date: 12/01/1981 Distribution Date: 10/21/2002 Map Unit: 2B Albemarle fine sandy loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Albemarle is a gently sloping to moderately sloping, shallow, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is fine sandy loam about 5 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderately low content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is moderate. It has a low available water capacity and a low shrink swell potential. This soil is not flooded and is not ponded. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of more than 6 feet. The land capability classification is 2e. The Virginia soil management group is JJ. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 2C Albemarle fine sandy loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Albemarle is a strongly sloping to moderately steep, shallow, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is fine sandy loam about 5 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderately low content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is moderate. It has a low available water capacity and a low shrink swell potential. This soil is not flooded and is not ponded. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of more than 6 feet. The land capability classification is 3e. The Virginia soil management group is JJ. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 19B Cullen loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Cullen is a gently sloping to moderately sloping, very deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is loam about 8 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderately low content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is moderate. It has a moderate available water capacity and a moderate shrink swell potential. This soil is not flooded and is not ponded. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of more than 6 feet. The land capability classification is 2e. The Virginia soil management group is N. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 19C Cullen loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Cullen is a strongly sloping to moderately steep, very deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is loam about 8 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderately low content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is moderate. It has a moderate available water capacity and a moderate shrink swell potential. This soil is not flooded and is not ponded. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of more than 6 feet. The land capability classification is 3e. The Virginia soil management group is N. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 20C3 Cullen clay loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes, severely eroded Description Category: Virginia FOTG Cullen is a strongly sloping to moderately steep, very deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is clay loam about 8 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderately low content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is moderate. It has a moderate available water capacity and a moderate shrink swell potential. This soil is not flooded and is not ponded. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of more than 6 feet. The land capability classification is 4e. The Virginia soil management group is N. This soil is not hydric. Thomas Jefferson SWCD 1 3/10/10 Map Unit: 21B Culpeper fine sandy loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Culpeper is a gently sloping to moderately sloping, deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is finesandyloamabout8inchesthick. The surface layer has a moderately low content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is moderate. It has a moderate available water capacity and a moderate shrink swell potential. Thissoilisnotfloodedandisnotponded. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of more than 6 feet. The land capability classification is 2e. The Virginia soil management group is X. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 21C Culpeper fine sandy loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Culpeper is a strongly sloping to moderately steep, deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is finesandyloamabout8inchesthick. The surface layer has a moderately low content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is moderate. It has a moderate available water capacity and a moderate shrink swell potential. Thissoilisnotfloodedandisnotponded. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of more than 6 feet. The land capability classification is 3e. The Virginia soil management group is X. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 22C3 Culpeper clay loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes, severely eroded Description Category: Virginia FOTG Culpeper is a strongly sloping to moderately steep, deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is clayloamabout8inchesthick. The surface layer has a moderately low content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is moderate. It has a moderate available water capacity and a moderate shrink swell potential. Thissoilisnotfloodedandisnotponded. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of more than 6 feet. The land capability classification is 4e. The Virginia soil management group is X. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 39D Hazel loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Hazel is a moderately steep to steep, moderately deep, excessively drained soil. Typically the surface layer isloamabout10inchesthick. The surface layer has a moderately low content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is moderately rapid. It has a low available water capacity and a low shrink swell potential. This soilisnotfloodedandisnotponded. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of more than 6 feet. The land capability classification is 4e. The Virginia soil management group is JJ. This soil is not hydric. Dwellings With Basements - Dominant Condition Map Symbol Soil Name Rating 2B Albemarle fine sandy Somewhat limited loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes 2C Albemarle fine sandy Somewhat limited loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes 19B Cullen loam, 2 to 7 percent Somewhat limited slopes 19C Cullen loam, 7 to 15 Somewhat limited percent slopes 20C3 Cullen clay loam, 7 to 15 Somewhat limited percent slopes, severely eroded 21B Culpeper fine sandy loam, Somewhat limited 2 to 7 percent slopes 21C Culpeper fine sandy loam, Somewhat limited 7 to 15 percent slopes 22C3 Culpeper clay loam, 7 to Somewhat limited Thomas Jefferson SWCD 2 3/10/10 15 percent slopes, severely eroded 39D Hazel loam, 15 to 25 Very limited percent slopes Mapunit Hydric Rating Map Symbol Soil Name Rating 2B Albemarle fine sandy Not hydric loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes 2C Albemarle fine sandy Not hydric loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes 19B Cullen loam, 2 to 7 percent Not hydric slopes 19C Cullen loam, 7 to 15 Not hydric percent slopes 20C3 Cullen clay loam, 7 to 15 Not hydric percent slopes, severely eroded 21B Culpeper fine sandy loam, Not hydric 2 to 7 percent slopes 21C Culpeper fine sandy loam, Not hydric 7 to 15 percent slopes 22C3 Culpeper clay loam, 7 to Not hydric 15 percent slopes, severely eroded 39D Hazel loam, 15 to 25 Not hydric percent slopes Soil Shrink -Swell - Dominant Soil Top Depth : 0 Bottom Depth : 0 Map Symbol Soil Name Rating 2B Albemarle fine sandy 1.5 loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes 2C Albemarle fine sandy 1.5 loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes 19B Cullen loam, 2 to 7 percent 1.5 slopes 19C Cullen loam, 7 to 15 1.5 percent slopes 20C3 Cullen clay loam, 7 to 15 4.5 percent slopes, severely eroded 21B Culpeper fine sandy loam, 1.5 2 to 7 percent slopes 21C Culpeper fine sandy loam, 1.5 7 to 15 percent slopes 22C3 Culpeper clay loam, 7 to 1.5 15 percent slopes, severely eroded 39D Hazel loam, 15 to 25 1.5 Thomas Jetterson SWCD 3 3/10/10 percent slopes Corrosion Concrete - Dominant Condition Map Symbol Soil Name Rating 2B Albemarle fine sandy Moderate loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes 2C Albemarle fine sandy Moderate loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes 19B Cullen loam, 2 to 7 percent Moderate slopes 19C Cullen loam, 7 to 15 Moderate percent slopes 20C3 Cullen clay loam, 7 to 15 Moderate percent slopes, severely eroded 21B Culpeper fine sandy loam, Moderate 2 to 7 percent slopes 21C Culpeper fine sandy loam, Moderate 7 to 15 percent slopes 22C3 Culpeper clay loam, 7 to Moderate 15 percent slopes, severely eroded 39D Hazel loam, 15 to 25 High percent slopes Corrosion Steel - Dominant Condition Map Symbol Soil Name Rating 2B Albemarle fine sandy Moderate loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes 2C Albemarle fine sandy Moderate loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes 19B Cullen loam, 2 to 7 percent High slopes 19C Cullen loam, 7 to 15 High percent slopes 20C3 Cullen clay loam, 7 to 15 High percent slopes, severely eroded 21B Culpeper fine sandy loam, Moderate 2 to 7 percent slopes 21C Culpeper fine sandy loam, Moderate 7 to 15 percent slopes 22C3 Culpeper clay loam, 7 to Moderate 15 percent slopes, severely eroded 39D Hazel loam, 15 to 25 Low percent slopes Thomas Jefferson SWCD 4 3/10/10 t 3 County of Albemarle Department of Community Development To:Scott Collins; Collins Engineering via email: scotta(collins- engineerinq.com CC:Todd Dofflemeyer; Cathcart Properties via email: todd @cathcartproperties.com From: Summer Frederick, Senior Planner Division: Current Development Date:March 15, 2010 Subject: SDP2009 -97 The Reserve at Belvedere — Final prior to preliminary The Planner for the Current Development Division of the Albemarle County Department Community Development will recommend approve the plan referred to above when the following items have been satisfactorily addressed. (The following comments are those that have been identified at this time. Additional comments or conditions may be added or eliminated based on further review.) [Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference to the Albemarle County Code.] Second review comments are in bold italics. 1. Sec. 18- 32.5.6(a)] Please provide name of developer. Comment addressed. 2. [Sec. 18- 32.5.6(a)] All relevant rezoning, proffer, and variance information must be specifically listed on cover sheet. Comment addressed. 3. Sec. 18- 32.5.6(a)] Datum reference for elevation seems to be inaccurate. Comment addressed. 4. Sec. 18- 32.5.6(a)] All information regarding owner, zoning, tax map and parcel number and present use of all adjacent parcels must be included on plan. Comment addressed. 5. [Sec. 18- 32.5.6(b)] Maximum height of all buildings must be specified on plan. Comment addressed. 6. Sec. 18- 32.5.6(c)] If phasing of plan is anticipated, phase lines and proposed timing of development must be indicated on plan. Comment addressed. 7. [Sec. 18- 32.5.6(m)] Distance to centerline of the nearest existing street intersection must be shown on plan. Comment addressed. 8. Sec. 18- 32.5.6(p), 18- 32.6.6(i), 18- 32.7.9] Not all labels /lines point to graphics. Please correct. Comment addressed. 9. [Sec. 18- 32.5.6(p), 18- 32.6.6(i), 18- 32.7.9] Graphic depictions of plants do not match numbers listed in planting schedule. Please correct. Comment addressed. 10. [Sec. 18- 32.5.6(p), 18- 32.6.6(i), 18- 32.7.9] Landscape plan needs to be shown at a larger scale in order to ensure accurate review is possible. The Landscape plan does not accurately reflect requirements found in the "Green Space and Amenities" portion, "Block 2 Open Space 6.2 acres" section of the Belvedere Code of Development, dated February 3, 2010. Please correct. 11. [Sec. 18- 32.5.6(p), 18- 32.6.6(i), 18- 32.7.9] Owner's signature is required on conservation 1 checklist. Comment addressed. 12. [ZMA2004 -007, Proffer 6.1] A final report for the archeological survey done on the Belvedere project site is due January 1, 2010. Failure to meet this proffer deadline will result in all approvals being withheld for projects on parcels included in the rezoning. Comment addressed. 13. A complete critical slopes waiver application must be submitted. Comment addressed. 14. Approval of all applicable variations must be granted by the Director of Planning. It is understood that neither the appropriate variation application, nor the requested accurately revised Code of Development, have been submitted to Long Range Planning. It is also understood that the letter presented with this site plan regarding deviations from the application plan does not cover all changes identified on site plan. Applicant and owner will need to work with Long Range Planning to correct the status of the required variations. Comment addressed. Please contact Summer Frederick at the Department of Community Development 296 -5832 ext. 3565 for further information. County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To:Summer Frederick, Current Development Planner From:Phil Custer, Current Development Engineer Date:15 March 2010 Subject: The Reserve at Belvedere; Critical Slope Waiver (SDP -2009- 00097) The critical slope waiver request has been reviewed. The engineering analysis of the request follows: Description of critical slope area and proposed disturbance: The current site plan proposes to construct an apartment complex which includes several buildings, private roads, parking lots, a clubhouse, recreational areas, and a stormwater management facility. In 2007, a mass grading plan was approved for the project and the topography of the property was considerably altered. During that process many slopes steeper than 4:1 (the threshold for critical slopes) were created. Because these slopes were not created with an approved site plan, the Ordinance requires that any disturbance to them be approved by the Planning Commission. These areas of manmade critical slopes constitute approximately 70% of all critical slopes disturbed. The natural areas of critical slopes are well - stabilized forests. Areas Acres Total site 16.1 acres, approximately Critical slopes 2.49 acres 15.4% of property Critical slopes disturbed 2.49 acres 100% of critical slopes 18- 4.2 -6.c- Exemptions to critical slopes waivers for driveways, roads and utilities without reasonable alternative locations: The portion of critical slope disturbance for the placement of the SWM facility may be considered exempt. This area is about 15% of total critical slopes disturbed and 70% of the total natural critical slope area disturbed. I believe there is no other reasonable location for the BMP, given the layout of the approved rezoning plan, other than in -line with the stream which would surely cause greater environmental damage. Compliance with Zoning Ordinance 18 -4.2: movement of soil and rock" Movement of soil can be limited with an appropriate sediment trapping measure before site runoff leaves the site. excessive stormwater runoff' Stormwater discharge will be increased with development. However, this increase will be mitigated by the SWM facility limiting runoff of the 2 and 10 year storms to the pre - development rate. siltation" Inspection and bonding by the County will ensure siltation control during construction. Proper stabilization and maintenance will ensure long term stability. loss of aesthetic resource" Engineering review has not evaluated the site's aesthetic value. Albemarle Cxfunty Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 2 of 2 septic effluent"' The property will be served by public sewer facilities. Engineering review has no objection to the approval of this critical slopes waiver. Engineering requests that the approval letter specify any latitude given, if at all, to county reviewers in approving more critical slope disturbance if deemed necessary after future reviews of the plan. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (4341296 -5832 Fax (4341972 -4126 Project:The Reserve (Belvedere Block 2) [SDP -2009- 00097] Plan preparer:Mr. Scott Collins, PE; Collins Engineering Owner:Mr. Robert Hauser and Stan Manoogian; Belvedere Station Land Trust Developer:Mr. Todd Dofflemeyer; Cathcart Properties Plan received date: 23 November 2009 Rev. 1) 18 February 2010 Date of comments: 23 December 2009 Rev. 1) 22 March 2010 Reviewer:Phil Custer The first revision to the site and road plans for The Reserve (Belvedere Block 2), received on 18 February 2010, have been reviewed. Comments for these plans are provided in this letter. Comments from the review of the ESC and SWM Plans will be provided in a separate letter. A. Final Site Plan [SDP 2009 00097] 1. The variation must be approved by the Director of Planning for all of the listed deviations from the approved application plan. These deviations include the relocation of the stormwater management basin; the relocation of the clubhouse; the removal of Road C; the addition of retaining walls; and, converting all streets from public to private. In addition to those details listed above, engineering review has noticed the following deviations from the approved plan that must be included in the variation: The site plan does not show the Class B trail to Block 1. The trail must be provided because it is included in the Block 2 section of the Code of Development. Because a 5ft- wide boardwalk is required for the crossing, the path must meet the Class B -High Maintenance standards within the Design Manual. (pg. 9 COD) Rev. 1) The path to Block 1 has been provided. With regard to the trail, please provide the following corrections to the plan before resubmitting. Please show the handrail on the boardwalk detail. Please show the grading necessary to meet the minimum requirements of a Class B- High Maintenance trail. Please provide spot elevations in plan view at the two ends of the boardwalk. Please specify the stone size of the trail material in the greenway note. Please provide a direct path from the clubhouse down to the trail as shown in the rezoning plan. Stairways will be necessary. The setback for buildings within this block is listed as between 15 and 22 ft. (pg. 33 COD) Rev. 1) Setbacks have been modified in the recently approved variance. The latest front, side, and rear setbacks for this development are 5ft, 5ft, and lOft, respectively. However, small sections of a few buildings seem to overlap the 5ft setback lines. For instance, just east of the eastern entrance to building 9, the building appears to drift into the setback. 1 recommend moving the easement lines of all roads to lft from the edge of the sidewalk to correct this problem with the setback. Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 6 The landscape plan does not show the 56 evergreen trees required in Areas A and B as delineated by Exhibit 16 of the approved rezoning plan. The plantings must be placed 20ft from the preservation area line unless a tree survey is provided for the area (please see previous comment). Engineering review will also note Area A is half the size it was in the approved rezoning plan. (pg. 9 and 10 COD) Rev. 1) Many of the trees in Areas A and B are shown as being planted within the dripline of the trees in the preservation area, which is prohibited by the COD: "The location of new plantings shall be outside the dripline of trees contained in the Preservation Areas." (COD pg 10) At least 28 trees within Areas A and B must be at least 6ft tall. (The 28+ trees of 8ft height have been satisfactorily provided in these areas.) On sheets LL -2 and LL -6, please provide the following note: If any tree with a diameter of 12 inch or greater dies of any natural cause within the first 3 years following final site plan approval for Block 2, the Owner will replace the lost tree(s) with new 2.5" or greater caliper, as measured 24" above the ground, tree(s) of the same species." (COD pg 10) 2. A critical slope waiver is necessary for this project. A request for critical slope waiver, as outlined by Section 18-4.2.5.a.1, must be provided to the agent. The action on this waiver must he taken by the Planning Commission because the slopes were not created by an approved site plan. Rev. 1) Engineering review of the critical slope waiver has been provided in a separate znemo. 3. Roads A and B must be public roads unless a variation is granted. If a variation is granted, the process required in section 14 -234 of the Subdivision Ordinance should be carried out at that time so that a road plan review can he performed by engineering review. If a private street is authorized, the design standards of that road should be determined at that time per 14 -234.D and 14- 234.E. Engineering review recommends that if Belvedere Circle North, South, and East are Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review Comments Page 3 of 6 approved as private roads, the roads must meet all current VDOT standards as outlined in the Subdivision Street Manual. The design speed for the vertical alignment of these roads should be 20mph. Alternatively, the applicant can seek a variation to designate Belvedere Circle North, South, and East as travelways which would not require vertical profiles or easements. Rev. 1) Engineering will review Belvedere Circle to VDOT standards for a subdivision road with a design speed of 20znph. However, in order for the county to designate these travelways as private roads, the applicant must request private roads per 14 -234. Please provide this request to Summer Frederick or Bill Fritz. This step is not required at this time, but if a subdivision will be sought in the future, 1 recommend the authorization of the private streets now. 7. Additional ROW is needed at the main entrance to the property where the multi -use path meanders into the property. A plat for this ROW dedication should be submitted, approved, and recorded prior to site plan approval. Please show the adjustment of this property line in the site plan as well. Rev. 1) This additional ROW (or easement) is not needed until a certificate of occupancy is applied for. Please provide a note on the cover sheet that states a certificate of occupancy shall not be given until the ROW or easement is dedicated to the public for the maintenance of this multi -use path. 9. A public drainage easement will be needed over any storm sewer pipe on site that carries water from Belvedere Blvd. to the stormwater management facility. This easement must be dedicated to public use. Engineering review recommends private easements be kept in the plan for all other pipes that transfer water from another property (current or future subdivision to the north). AU easements must be sized using the equation in the design manual. [DM] Because public drainage easements are called for within the project, the applicant must limit the length of the system carrying public water. From the existing VDOT manhole southwest of the clubhouse, construct a new pipe below the retaining wall (keeping the foundation of the retaining wall out of the easement) to structure 1B. (Adding this pipe will also assist with the Erosion and Sediment control plan by allowing a simpler connection to the outlet barrel of the existing sediment basin.) The applicant also has the option of waiving the public maintenance of the pipes carrying runoff from the VDOT ROW, except for the pipes to structure 44. If this option is chosen by the applicant, a new drainage pipe will be needed from the inlets located at the sag of Belvedere Blvd to structure 44. [18- 32.7.4] Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review Comments Page 4 of 6 Rev. I) The public drainage pipe has been provided along the property line south of the clubhouse. Please address the following items regarding the drainage easements: The easement between structures 86 and 84 should be wider than 20ft. My calculations show that the easement should be around 26ft on one side. In the note at the lower left corner of Sheet S -3, please replace "VDOT" with "public ". Please show the public drainage easement from structure 82 to the end ofpipe la, including the endwall. All pipes entering Ex2 require a drainage easement dedicated to the public. Please provide a note on the cover sheet that states before a certificate of occupancy is given for the development, the public drainage easements must be recorded with the appropriate deeds of easement. Please contact the office of the County Attorney to obtain the standard public drainage easement documents. 12. VDOT approval is required. At this time, VDOT approval has not yet been given. Rev. 1) VDOT approval is pending. 13. The maximum 5% grade standard is exceeded in several instances in the parking area at the garage entrances when considering the finished floor elevations marked on the plan. [18- 4.12.15.c] Rev. 1) The grading in the following areas must be corrected prior to plan approval: travelway east of structures 56 and 58 should be no steeper than 10% the 448 contour line at the northern end of the mail kiosk lot should be moved farther south to flatten out the entrance. 14. Parking spaces in at least one location do not meet the design requirements as outlined in 18- 4.12.16.c.1. Rev. 1) Please remove the bumper block in the parking space adjacent to the maintenance shed. Since a 2ft overhang is being used, the curb will actually act as the wheelstop. All other spaces appear to meet county sizing requirements. 16. Sidewalk in at least one location does not meet the design requirements as outlined in 18- 4.12.16.e. Rev. 1) The sidewalk south of Building 8 should be widened to 6ft or bumper blocks should be provided. Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review Comments Page 5 of 6 23. Please provide a temporary construction easement on 61 -159A for the work necessary to build the retaining wall. If the geo -grid required for this wall is 5ft or longer, a permanent easement will he needed on this property. [DM] Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. A portion of the retaining wall is nearly 16ft tall with only 7 -9ft from the face of the wall to the property line. Considering the layback angle of the wall, the length of geogrid, and the excavation needed to install the geogrid, 1 don't think the plan can be constructed as designed without disturbance to the adjacent property. Please also provide engineering review with a section detail of the retaining wall for the l6ft tall portion of the wall to determine whether a permanent easement is necessary. 28. The proposed grade in the drainage profile from IF to the outlet does not appear to be accurate. Please correct. Rev. 1) A few of the structure tops don't appear to match up with the topo on Sheet S -3. 33. (Rev. 1) Please include the SUM facility, access path and trail, and all necessary walls in Phase 1 of the plan. 34. (Rev. 1) All of Belvedere Circle (North, South, and East) must be constructed in Phase 1 of the plan. [18- 32.7.2.4j 35. (Rev. 1) Please include all of the necessary infrastructure systems and grading necessary to construct Phase 1. The stormsewer system from inlet 18 to 62 must be constructed in phase 1 to reduce the runoff into the Belvedere Circle South structures. 36. (Rev. 1) Please clarify the grading at the southeast corner of building 9 where Belvedere Circle South intersects Belvedere Circle East. A contour line is not labeled and disappears in the Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review Comments Page 6 of 6 median. B. Road Plan [SDP -2009- 00097] 1. A full, official review of the road plan was not performed because a private is sought and the determination has not yet been made by the Planning Department. If and when the private street is authorized by the agent, the design standards of the roadway should be set. The current design appears to meet all VDOT standards in regard to the crosssection and horizontal dimensions. However, the vertical alignment appears to use K- values of a standard less than the design speed of 20mph. Engineering review recommends to the agent that K values of 7 and 17 be used because of the design speed specified by the Code of Development. Rev. 1) Engineering will review Belvedere Circle to VDOT standards for a subdivision road with a design speed of 20mplz. However, in order for the county to designate these travelways as private roads, the applicant must request private roads per 14 -234. Please provide this request to Summer Frederick or Bill Fritz. This step is not required at this tine, but if a subdivision will be sought in the future, I recommend the authorization of the private streets now. 3. An additional 2 -3ft of ROW is needed for Belvedere Circle North from the neighboring property. This ROW or easement must be provided prior to site plan approval. This area can be included in the current subdivision plat being reviewed by the Planning Division. Rev. 1) This access easement must be recorded prior to the approval of the site plan. 4. Additional ROW is needed at the main entrance to the property where the multi -use path meanders into the property. A plat for this ROW dedication should be submitted. approved, and recorded prior to site plan approval. Please show the adjustment of this property line in the site plan as well. Rev. 1) This additional ROW (or easement) is not needed until a certificate of occupancy is applied for. Please provide a note on the cover sheet that states a certificate of occupancy shall not be given until the ROW or easement is dedicated to the public for the maintenance of this multi -use path. 6. Please provide a crossover near the VDOT ROW at the entrance of Belvedere Circle South to keep circulation within the property. [DM] Rev. I) After further review of this comment, the engineering review group maintains that this crossover must be provided to reduce or eliminate the risk of the u -turn movement at this entrance. To reduce pavement, the crossover can be designed so that it is only used for the WB to EB movement. Similarly, the existing crossover can be designed so that it is only used for the EB to WB movement since it is likely that the WB to EB movement would be rare at this location. These one -way crossovers would help the site provide close to the same area of green space in the median that was proposed in the first submittal of the plan. 7. Rev. 1) The low point of both lanes of Belvedere Circle South appears to be around Sta. 5 +75. However, drainage structures are located at Sta. 6 +25. The drainage structures should either be moved or the profile and grading of this section of the roadway should be revised. pt AI., COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 Project:The Reserve (Belvedere Block 2) [SDP- 2009 - 00097] Plan preparer:Mr. Scott Collins, PE; Collins Engineering Owner:Mr. Robert Hauser and Stan Manoogian; Belvedere Station Land Trust Developer:Mr. Todd Dofflemeyer; Cathcart Properties Plan received date: 23 November 2009 Rev. 1) 18 February 2010 Rev. 2) 23 April 2010 Date of comments: 23 December 2009 Rev. 1) 22 March 2010 Rev. 2) 4 June 2010 Reviewer:Phil Custer The second revision to the site and road plans for The Reserve (Belvedere Block 2), received on 23 April 2010, and supplemental sheets, received on 3 June 2010. have been reviewed. Comments for these plans are provided in this letter. Comments from the review of the ESC and SWM Plans will be provided in a separate letter. A. Final Site Plan [SDP- 2009 - 00097] 1. The variation must be approved by the Director of Planning for all of the listed deviations from the approved application plan. These deviations include the relocation of the stormwater management basin; the relocation of the clubhouse; the removal of Road C; the addition of retaining walls; and, converting all streets from public to private. In addition to those details listed above, engineering review has noticed the following deviations from the approved plan that must be included in the variation: The site plan does not show the Class B trail to Block 1. The trail must be provided because it is included in the Block 2 section of the Code of Development. Because a 5ft- wide boardwalk is required for the crossing, the path must meet the Class B -High Maintenance standards within the Design Manual. (pg. 9 COD) Rev. 1) The path to Block 1 has been provided. With regard to the trail, please provide the following corrections to the plan before resubmitting. Please show the grading necessary to meet the minimum requirements of a Class B -High Maintenance trail. Rev. 2) The proposed grade of the path is too steep. A more usable path must be provided from the clubhouse to the stream crossing. When redesigning this path please strive to keep the height of retaining walls no taller than 6ft. Sections greater than 6ft may be allowed if the section is small percentage (-20%-30%) of the wall length. The path may also be only Sft in width. This length of gravel path will be an area of concern with regard to preventing erosion and conveying runoff. I recommend a shallow perforated pipe underdrain on one side of the trail. Albemarle` county Community Development Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 7 Please provide a direct path, from the clubhouse down to the trail as shown in the rezoning plan. Stainvays will be necessary. Rev. 2) The proposed grade of the path is too steep. A more usable path must be provided from the clubhouse to the stream crossing. When redesigning this path please strive to keep the height of retaining walls no taller than 6ft. Sections greater than 6ft may be allowed if the section is small percentage (20 % -30 %) of the wall length. The path may also be only 5ft in width. This length of gravel path will be an area of concern with regard to preventing erosion and conveying runoff I recommend a shallow perforated pipe underdrain on one side of the trail. Albemarle - county Community Development Engineering Review Comments Page 3 of 7 Albemarle Community Development Engineering Review Comments Page 4 of 7 9. A public drainage easement will be needed over any storm sewer pipe on site that carries water from Belvedere Blvd. to the stormwater management facility. This easement must be dedicated to public use. Engineering review recommends private easements be kept in the plan for all other pipes that transfer water from another property (current or future subdivision to the north). All easements must be sized using the equation in the design manual. [DM] Because public drainage easements are called for within the project, the applicant must limit the length of the system carrying public water. From the existing VDOT manhole southwest of the clubhouse, construct a new pipe below the retaining wall (keeping the foundation of the retaining wall out of the easement) to structure 1B. (Adding this pipe will also assist with the Erosion and Sediment control plan by allowing a simpler connection to the outlet barrel of the existing sediment basin.) The applicant also has the option of waiving the public maintenance of the pipes carrying runoff from the VDOT ROW, except for the pipes to structure 44. If this option is chosen by the applicant, a new drainage pipe will be needed from the inlets located at the sag of Belvedere Blvd to structure 44. [18- 32.7.4] Rev. 1) The public drainage pipe has been provided along the property line south of the clubhouse. Please address the following items regarding the drainage easements: The easement between structures 86 and 84 should be wider than 20ft. My calculations show that the easement should be around 26ft on one side. In the note at the lower left corner of Sheet S -3, please replace "VDOT" with ' public ". Please show the public drainage easement from structure 82 to the end ofpipe la, including the endwall. All pipes entering Ex2 require a drainage easement dedicated to the public. Please provide a note on the cover sheet that states before a certificate of occupancy is given for the development, the public drainage easements must be recorded with the appropriate deeds of easement. Please contact the office of the County Attorney to obtain the standard public drainage easement documents. Rev. 2) The offsite drainage easement must be recorded before the site plan can be signed. Albemarle - county Community Development Engineering Review Comments Page 5 of 7 Albemarle -county Community Development Engineering Review Comments Page 6 of 7 37. (Rev. 2) The conservation checklist must be signed when submitted for final approval to the County. B. Road Plan [SDP- 2009 - 00097] Albemarle Community Development Engineering Review Comments Page 7 of 7 3. An additional 2 -3ft of ROW is needed for Belvedere Circle North from the neighboring property. This ROW or easement must be provided prior to site plan approval. This area can be included in the current subdivision plat being reviewed by the Planning Division. Rev. 1) This access easement must be recorded prior to the approval of the site plan. Rev. 2) This access easement has not yet been provided. Aemk C Service Authrity June 3, 2010 Serving Conserving Collins Engineering Attn: Scott Collins, P.E. 800 E. Jefferson Street Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Re: The Reserve at Belvedere Apartment Complex Dear Mr. Collins: The plan, entitled "The Reserve at Belvedere Apartment Complex" dated November 23, 2009, last revised April 30, 2010, is hereby approved for construction. One set of the approved plan is enclosed for your records. Any previously approved plans are voided with this approval. This approval is for basic compliance with the General Water & Sewer Construction Specifications of the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) and does not relieve the contractor from responsibility for his work as it relates to the plan and specifications. The ACSA requires that a copy of the approved construction plan be on the job site. The contractor is responsible for marking up a copy of the approved construction plan showing as -built information, and provides this data to your client at the completion of utility installation. The final as -built plan shall be submitted in a format of one paper copy and one mylar copy. A preconstruction conference shall be scheduled with the project manager to ensure coordination and answer any questions. This will be a short meeting to review the project, materials, test methods and schedule, in order to expedite construction. Please have the proper party call me at 977 -4511 to schedule the meeting. This approval is valid for a period of 18 months from this date. If construction is not in progress at the end of this time period, the approval shall be void. The pressure for water may exceed 80 psi at some meter locations. If you have any questions, or if we can be of assistance, please give us a call at (434) 977 -4511. Sincerely, Thomas A. Garrison, P.E. TAG:dmg Senior Civil Engineer cc: Cathcart Construction, LLC State Health Department Current Development, Bill Fritz Bldg Codes & Zoning Services Soil Erosion Inspector 050601 CollinsBelvedereLtr060310 168 Spotnap Road • Charlottesville, VA 22911 Tel (434) 977-4511 Fax (434) 979 -0698 www.serviceauthority.org Philip Custer From:Philip Custer Sent:Friday, June 04, 2010 7:18 PM To:Scott Collins'; 'Graham Murray'; 'TODD @CATHCARTPROPERTIES.COM' Cc:Summer Frederick; Amy Pflaum Subject:3rd Engineering review of The Reserve at Belvedere (SDP- 2009 -00097 and WPO- 2009 - 00065) Attachments:E3_swm_esc_PBC_The Reserve - Belvedere Block 2.doc; E3_fsp_rp_PBC_The Reserve - Belvedere Block 2.doc Good evening, Attached are the engineering comment letters after the third review of the site, road, esc, and swm plans for The Reserve at Belvedere (SDP- 2009 -00097 and WPO- 2009 - 00065), received 23 April 2010. All technical comments have been addressed with the SWM and road plans. However, a stormwater facility maintenance agreement and offsite easement are both still outstanding. The only outstanding technical comment regarding the site plan has to do with the alignment and design of the clubhouse trail. Additionally, please note before full approval of the site plan can be given, all offsite easements must be recorded (sidewalk /road ROW on the property to the north, the public drainage and greenway easement on the property to the south, and temporary construction easements on all surrounding parcels). The ESC plan will require another review to work out issues with the adequate channel analysis and the design of the southwest corner of the site. Please contact me if you have any questions. Thanks, Phil 296 -5832 x3072 1 Philip Custer From:Philip Custer Sent:Wednesday, July 07, 2010 2:03 PM To:Scott Collins'; 'Graham Murray'; 'info @Iincolnsurveying.com'; TODD @CATHCARTPROPERTI ES. COM' Cc:Summer Frederick Subject:Engineering Review of The Reserve at Belvedere (SDP- 2009 -00097 and WPO- 2009 - 00065) Attachments:E1_ept_PBC_sub20100080.doc Good afternoon, Engineering has reviewed the latest revision to the Erosion and Sediment Control and Site Plan (WPO- 2009 -00065 and SDP - 2009 - 00097), received on 24 June 2010. All technical /design comments have been addressed. Engineering can recommend approval to the site plan and approve the ESC, Road, and SWM plans once the following remaining administrative comments are addressed: the stormwater management facility maintenance agreement is recorded; and the offsite easement plat, SUB - 2010 - 00080, is recorded (comments for this application are attached to this email) The ESC Bond amount has been computed to be $113,700. The SWM Bond amount has been computed to be $44,500. To post the bonds, please contact Ana Kilmer at 296 -5832 x3246 after reviewing the documents available online. Engineering review needs additional copies of the set to pass off to the WPO inspectors and to create a road plan file. Please provide the county with 4 copies of the ESC plan (complete sets or sets excluding sheets S -6, S -7, S -10, and LL -1 through LL -8), 1 copy of the SWM plan (sheets T -1, E -1, S -3, DP -1 through DP -5, and SWM -1 through SWM -3), and 2 copies of the Road plan (sheets T -1, E -1, S -1, S -3 through S -5, R -1 through DP -5, and LL -2). Once the remaining administrative comments have been addressed (above), the ESC, SWM, and Road sets transmitted to engineering review, the final site plan has been signed, the bonds have been posted, and the first year permit and inspection fees have been paid, please contact Kenny Thacker at 296 -5832 x3390 to schedule a pre- construction meeting. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Phil 296 -5832 x3072 1