HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201600006 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2016-08-16Short Review Comments Report for:
SDP201600006
SubApplication Type:
Old Trail Village, Blks, 10,16,17 & 18 - Final
Date Completed:02/26/2016
Reviewer:Megan Yaniglos CDD Planning
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:02/03/2016
Reviewer:Jay Schlothauer CDD Inspections
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:Based on plans dated January 25, 2016.
No comments or conditions.
Division:
Date Completed:02/14/2016
Reviewer:Robbie Gilmer Fire Rescue
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:Based on plans dated 1/25/16.
1. Golf Drive shall be marked "No Parking" on one side per Albemarle County code.
Division:
Date Completed:02/23/2016
Reviewer:Troy Austin VDOT
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:02/25/2016
Reviewer:Alexander Morrison ACSA
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:02/26/2016
Reviewer:Victoria Fort RWSA
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:02/09/2016
Reviewer:Andrew Slack CDD E911
Review Status:Approved
Reviews Comments:The applicant should be aware that Crozet Post Office will not be providing curb side mail delivery.
All mail delivery will be made into a CDU (Centralized Delivery Unit) from the Crozet Post Office. The
applicant will be responsible for providing the CDU and should contact the Postmaster of the Crozet
Post Office if they have further questions.
Division:
Date Completed:03/05/2016
Reviewer:John Anderson CDD Engineering
Review Status:Pending
Reviews Comments:preview comments emailed to Applicant on 3-5-16; preview for discussion, error check -janderson2
3/6/2016 6:22 AM
Division:
Page:1 of 2 County of Albemarle Printed On:February 07, 2017
Date Completed:05/15/2016
Reviewer:John Anderson CDD Engineering
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:05/15/2016
Reviewer:Robbie Gilmer Fire Rescue
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:Based on plans dated 5/2/16.
No comments or objections.
Division:
Date Completed:05/18/2016
Reviewer:Megan Yaniglos CDD Planning
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:06/16/2016
Reviewer:Megan Yaniglos CDD Planning
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:06/08/2016
Reviewer:Victoria Fort RWSA
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:06/06/2016
Reviewer:Justin Deel VDOT
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:06/16/2016
Reviewer:John Anderson CDD Engineering
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:Engineering review comments addressed with this or prior revision
Division:
Date Completed:08/16/2016
Reviewer:Megan Yaniglos CDD Planning
Review Status:Approved
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Page:2 of 2 County of Albemarle Printed On:February 07, 2017
Project:
Plan preparer:
Owner or rep.:
Plan received date:
(Rev. 1)
(Rev. 2)
Date of comments:
(Rev. 1)
(Rev. 2)
Reviewer:
Project Coordinator:
SDP2016-00006
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Old Trail Village Block 10, 16, 17, 18 & 30 —Final
Ammy George, Bill Ledbetter, Jeremy Fox —Roudabush, Gale & Assoc, Inc
914 Monticello Road, Charlottesville, VA 22902, aceorge(aroudabush.com
bledbetter(a)roudabush.com, jfox(a)roudabush.com
March Mountain Properties LLC [1005 Heathercroft Circle, Suite 100]
Dave Brockman, dave a,oldtrailvilla eg com
10 Feb 2016
3 May 2016
6 Jun 2016
5 Mar 2016
15 May 2016
16 Jun 2016 —No obiection
John Anderson
Megan Yaniglos
Blocks 10, 16, 17, 18 & 30 (block 30 Added with Rev. 1)
Petyward Lane serving Lots 16-20 and 32-34 (8 lots) with 30' private RW is required to meet VDOT Stds.
ACDSM, 7.F. Table, Private Street (6 -lot) Standards are the "same as VDOT standards." Also: please see
14-412.A.3. (b.) — VDOT standard apply. Proposed design is not deemed equivalent to or greater than the
applicable standard in the Design Standard Manual. Proposed 37' CL radius is equivalent to certain
entrance standards, is far less than the least minimum radius found in VDOT Road and Bridge Standards
Vol. 2, TC -5.01, Sheet 802.24, Design Factors for a Design Speed of 20 MPH (127 -ft, 160 -ft, 179 -ft ... ).
Also: VDOT Road Design Manual, Appendix B(1), Subdivision Street Design Guide (SSAR), Table 1, for
Min design speed of 25 MPH for up to 2000 ADT, minimum CL radius —200' Design does not adequately
protect public health, safety or welfare. Engineering could support 20 MPH 127 ft radius yadditional
VDOT design factors for a design speed of 20 MPH were met, but this appears impossible with subdivision
layout —only 70' f separate 37' R curves. VDOT R&B Std./Vol. 2, TC -5.01/802.24, requires Lr, super
elevation runoff section, and Lt, tangent runout section. Design should provide minimum horizontal curve
radius that satisfies: VDOT R&B/Road Design Manual, and Albemarle County subdivision ordinance and
ACDSM. [14-412.A.3.(b) allows agent to approve VDOT standards for Mountainous Terrain. See GS -SSR / Table
1, below — R =100'] (Rev. 1) Addressed. 3 May 2016 Applicant response: "Petyward Lane has been
redesigned in order to meet VDOT and Albemarle County standards for a Private Street; the road has been
divided into a private street segment, which retains the name of Petyward Lane and a private alley that has
been named Priory Terrace."
FOR MINIMUM DESIGN FACTORS FOR VARIOUS DESIGN SPEEDS FOR URBAN CONDITIONS SEE SHEETS 802.24 THRU 802.31
GEOMETRIC DESIGN STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION STREETS (GS- SSR)
TABLE 1— CURB AND GUTTER SECTION'
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 4
1. For mountainous terrain, maximum percent of grade may be 16% for ADT up to 400 and
14% for 401-4000 ACTT.
2. 26'allowed for streets< 400 vpd with concurrence of local officials.
3. 36' allowed for streets that are internal to the sub -division, with concurrence of local officials.
4. Pavement widths may be reduced if parking is not allowed. See page 12 of this Guide for
roadway width exceptions criteria.
5. 100' minimum radius allowed in mountainous terrain
6. For curb and gutter streets with parking lanes, the clear zone is accommodated within the
parking lane. However, VDOT has established a 3' minimum setback requirement behind the
curb.
7. Based on 25 MPH Design Speed
Overall Plan, sheet 2, shows design of Petyward Lane is similar to prior -approved designs in blocks 13, 11,
and 14. Engineering supports VDOT standards, yet if Lots 21-30 have frontage on Rowcross (please
confirm w/Planning), it appears that only that portion of Petyward from Fielding Run to midway through the
37'-R curve at Lot 20 is, in strict terms, a private street. We strongly discourage blending streets and alleys.
I am unsure if the approach has been tried or approved at Old Trail or elsewhere, but proposed design is
similar to streets in blocks 11 and 14. The 37'-R curve does not meet VDOT Standards, but Killdeer Lane
(Creekside) may suggest a possible approach: a median that signals road END. A similar feature could be
used to indicate transition, street to alley, but design must accommodate fire rescue needs. An alley has no
horizontal curve geometric standards. No combination of calming, control, signs, etc. will revise
Engineering belief that VDOT standards apply to Petyward at this point, but perhaps combination of
median calming, pavement reflectors, signs, etc, could be used to indicate street end/transition to alley.
Killdeer Lane, image bele (note 110' R), may provide ideas or basis of discussion with Planning/Engr.
Also, i3hote, 124/1 -5
2. Sheets 4-5: Add note "Coordinate with VDOT on need to repair or replace pavement on Glen Valley and
Upland Drives at Intersections with Fielding Run if ongoing grading/development have damaged asphalt
surface. Note applies to very limited portions: Fielding Run to points east (hammerhead) of intersections."
Areas have stored debris. Surface may be fine, or may require repair (Upland/Fielding Run —photos 9/5/15).
(Rev. 1) Addressed.
3. Sheet 6 —Label EP -EP: Highgate Row, Rowcross St, and Golf Drive. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
4. Sheet 6 —Beechen Lane: Show roll-top/CG-6 transitions at inlets. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
5. Sheets 6, 7, 9 make reference to wood post guardrail —Provide VDOT Detail. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
Guardrail design removed; 3 May response: "After consulting the VDOT Traffic Barrier Warrant Table
(Appendix I, Table 1-3-1), it was determined that Rowcross Street did not meet the warrant in any location.
As a result, the guardrail has been removed from the plans."
6. Sheets 6, 7, 8 —Recommend label/reference speed limit, all streets. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
Sheet 7
7. Confirm 3 -way stop intersection at Fielding Run Drive/Upland Drive. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
8. Provide street sign at Int. Fielding Run Drive/Upland Drive. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
9. Recommend label CG -6 on streets where used. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
10. Recommend sidewalks for Lots 9-13 (defer to Planning). (Rev. 1) Addressed.
11. Label EP -EP, Highgate Row. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
Sheet 8
12. Label EP -EP, Rowcross Street. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
13. Recommend label CG -6 on streets where used. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 4
14. Revise C19 CL R to 127' Min. (see #1). (Rev. 1) Addressed. "VDOT has approved the use of a 110'
radius in this location. I have attached a copy of the correspondence with VDOT and their approval for
your records." [VDOT email will be scanned to CV RMS on-line document system.]
15. Provide guardrail mounted delineators/safety measures as required (ref. MUTCD). For example chevron
curve/caution signs. Post C19 curve 20 MPH. [VDOT Road and Bridge Standards Vol. 2, TC -5.01, Sheet 802.24]
(Rev. 1) Addressed. 3 May response: "Per MUCTD Table 2C.5, Horizontal Alignment Sign Selection,
the chevron signs (W 1-8) are optional when the difference in speeds is 5 mph. We have placed a turn
advisory sign (W1-1) and an advisory speed sign (WP 13-1P) at each end of curve C19. VDOT has not
requested additional signage for this segment of road; therefore, we will not be adding the chevrons to the
signage for this segment of the road."
16. Sheets 9, 10, 11: See WP0201600009/ESCP comments (to be issued soon). (Rev. 1) Acknowledged.
17. Sheets 9, 10, 11: provide walk/curb, guardrail break/gap for permanent vehicular SWM facility access.
(Rev. 1) Addressed. "RGA will coordinate with Stantec for the location of the stormwater management
facility access. The appropriate entrance will be added once the location is determined."
Sheet 10
18. Revise water meter placement. 5-11. space (side-by-side meters) has proven unworkable design (Collins
Engineering), block 23, Baywick Circle, where it is too late to resolve a situation that includes intense
homeowner dissatisfaction w/driveway entrance design. Note CG -9B, Standard Entrance Gutter, sheet 13:
this detail will not work with driveway entrances separated by 5'. Encourage visit/review block 23. Please
provide separate, per -lot (individual) water laterals that avoid meter placement in narrow 5' width between
driveways. Lots 1-6, 8-13. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
Photos [Removed with Rev. 1 review comments]—Baywick Circle/does not match CG -9B (5/6/14 County photos)
Sharp curb taper at sidewalk is major source of complaint (wheel strike, car drop)
19. Related to item #18, revise driveway entrance design to match CG -9B dimensions. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
Design specifies "roll top curb for the private streets and private alleys. This precludes the use of CG -9B
for the driveway entrances."
20. Recommend show houses on Lots 1-22, 30-32. (Rev. 1) Addressed. "The house /house footprint will be
selected by the individual buyers after the plans have been approved and the lots recorded."
21. Provide sanitary lateral, Lot 32. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
22. Avoid sanitary line/guardrail conflict. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Guardrail has been removed from design.
23. Recommend adopt variable width private drainage easement design that reduces width on residential lot
portions across Lots 10-12, similar to block 15 ROAD Plan field revision to private drainage easements.
(Rev. 1) Addressed.
Sheet 11
24. Avoid sanitary line/guardrail conflict. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Guardrail has been removed from design.
25. Please provide separate, per -lot (individual) water laterals that avoid meter placement in narrow 5' width
between driveways: Lots 15-18, 31-34. (see #18, above) (Rev. 1) Addressed.
26. Sheet 13: Provide VDOT guardrail detail. [VDOT R&B Spec/Vol. 1 -GR-2, 2A; sheets 1 and 2; rev. date 7/11]
(Rev. 1) Addressed. Guardrail has been removed from design.
27. Sheet 13: Recommend pavement design with Site Plan. Pavement design is required with ROAD Plan.
(Rev. 1) Addressed. As follow-up, see New item #36, below. (Rev. 2) Addressed.
28. Recommend Site Plan reference Old Trail Stormwater Master Plan under review. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
29. Provide Site Plan Note specifying that SWM design/Final SWM Plan required for a block be reviewed and
approved prior to Site Plan approval of a specific block. (Rev. 1) Addressed. As follow-up, please revise
title sheet Note stating that `Site Plan approval is dependent upon the approval of the Old Trail Stormwater
Master Plan and Stormwater Management plans for blocks 10, 16, 17-18' to include reference to block 30
and to Master Plan acceptance, April 2016. [Also: E-mail, J. Anderson to Applicant: April 12, 2016 6:34 AM]
(Rev. 2) Addressed.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 4 of 4
30. Recommend Applicant submit SWM plans for all blocks as soon as possible; recommend reference to
design concepts presented in Stormwater Master Plan Update for Old Trail (MP), dated 5 Feb 2016. (Rev.
1) Acknowledged.
31. Recommend Applicant work closely with Planning on variance required to ZMA200400024. Variance is
necessary since Final detailed design plans will differ from Sheet 3, GDP, ZMA200400024. It is a certainty
that SWM design required to support development of blocks 10, 16, 17, 18 requires Zoning Variance,
though not, at this point, a rezoning. Engineering, Applicant, Stantec/RGA are likely nearing acceptance of
MP. A prerequisite to Site Plan approval is Variance to ZMA200400024 GDP/Sheet 3. (Rev. 1)
Addressed /Comment withdrawn. [E-mail, March 21, 2016 2:59 PM, J. Anderson to Dave Brockman; Bill
Ledbetter; Glenn Muckley: "Late Friday, Dave Benish and I examined Old Trail Village Stormwater Master Plan (Fig.
9) which shows proposed locations and types of best management practices (SWM facilities) proposed at Old Trail.
We compared this figure/ concept plan with Zoning Plan of Development Sheet 3, d. 8/26/05 (Attached). Dave Benish
believes Variance to ZMA200400024 is not required if Albemarle County enters an Agreement with Old Trail centered
on Fig. 9, a suite of 11 biofilters and 4 retention basins."]
32. Similar to #31, recommend Applicant coordinate with Parks and Recreation, as needed, to obtain legal
Agreements that allow permanent SWM facilities on Parks and Recreation property. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
3 May response: "Acknowledged. RGA and applicant [will] coordinate with Parks and Recreation to obtain
all necessary legal agreements concerning this plan."
33. Encourage Applicant to cross-reference ESC/ROAD plan comments (to be issued shortly). (Rev. 1)
Acknowledged.
34. Note: March Mountain, RGA, and Stantec have shown commitment and patience in meetings and studies
focused on compliance with ZMA200400024, 9VAC25-870-96, -97, -98, over a period of several years.
Engineering appreciates this effort, recognizes Dave Brockman's attention to detail, RGA's response to
comments and deliberate commitment to plan review relationship, Stantec's comprehensive design efforts.
These combined provide level of assurance relative to ZMA, current requirements, and future needs. This
commitment, if less than obvious, is no less true. We appreciate in particular William Ledbetter and Glenn
Muckley whose sincerity, patience, and availability to Engineering are cause for optimism. Dave Brockman
lends level of support vital to success. We are grateful to all three.
New
35. Minor: Recommend revise Block 10 Plant List table title include block 30, if true (Sheet 18) (Rev. 2)
Addressed. Not required.
36. Minor: Recommend check Highgate Row and Upland Drive VPD values —Dp likely sufficient (Sheet 13).
(Rev. 2) Addressed.
Please call if any questions : 434.872-4501 —x3069 —new Tel. #
File: SDP201600006-Old Trail Village blocks_ 10,16,17,18&30_fsp_061616rev2
IV
RA
N695 MOO CREEK LANE
N CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA VA 22902-9016
TEL: 434.977.2970
FAX: 434.293.8858
WWW.RIVANNA.ORG
WATER & SEWERAUTHORITY
FLOW ACCEPTANCE REVIEW
Date: June 8, 2016
Project: Old Trail Blocks 10, 16, 17, 18 & 30
To: Albemarle County Service Authority
The Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority (RWSA) has reviewed a written request from the ACSA to accept
up to 28,080 gallons average daily wastewater flow with a point of connection to the RWSA Crozet
Interceptor at manholes CZI-MH-112, CZI-MH-131, and CZI-MH-132. The increased wastewater is
proposed by the ACSA to serve 104 residential units in Old Trail Blocks 10, 16, 17, 18 & 30. Construction
of these homes is expected to begin in late summer of 2016 with full build -out by late summer of 2017.
We have reviewed the average daily flow of the RWSA systems that would receive this flow as proposed,
and reviewed the appropriate design factors specified under the Virginia SCAT Regulations (9VAC 25-790).
On the basis of these reviews, under present average daily flow conditions, RWSA agrees to accept the
additional wastewater flow as specified above.
Please be advised that RWSA does not reserve capacity in its system for a specific project, and this letter
should not be interpreted in any way as a reservation or allocation of flow or the granting of regulatory
approval related to other agencies. Substantial changes in future average daily flow to the RWSA systems,
changes in regulations, or other future factors could result in changes in RWSA's capability to accept
additional flow. We strongly request that ACSA update RWSA on the status of this project on an annual
basis, and further require that a new request for flow acceptance be made for all or any portion or phase
of the above request for which sewer extension design has not been approved under a Certificate to
Construct by the appropriate regulatory authority and is under construction within twenty-four months
of the date of this letter.
An updated review for flow acceptance shall be requested if the project's scope, time frame or connection
point as initially specified changes. Please note that under no circumstances can a direct connection be
made into RWSA's interceptor system without the written approval and physical inspection by the RWSA
Engineering Department.
Respectfully yours,
I w-2�
Jennifer A. Whitaker, P.E.
Chief Engineer
v10
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Read
Culpeper Wginia 22705
Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E.
Commissioner
June 6, 2016
Ms. Megan Yaniglos & Engineering Staff
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: SUB -2016-00021 and SDP -2016-006 - Old Trail Blocks 10, 16, 17 & 18
Dear Ms. Yaniglos and Engineering Staff:
We have reviewed the Road Plan and Site Plan, submitted by Roudabush, Gale & Associates,
Inc., dated January 25. 2016 with a revision date of May 20, 2016, and offer the following
comments:
1. Previous comment: "When on -street parking is proposed on one side, clearly identify
which side of the street the parking will be located, the locations of "No Parking" signs
should also be included. "
Please clarify Highgate Row; will there be on -street parking?
2. Previous comment: "Sight line triangles should include the available sight distance,
offset from the edge of travel way and centerline offset. The sight distances lengths have
been corrected, however, the sight lines should be ineasured to the center of the lane. For
example: the sight lines for Beechen Lane should not be extended into fixture block 30.
When the lines are accurately drawn they significantly impact lots 1-9. "
This comment is largely unaddressed. The Albemarle County Design Standards Manual,
which actually only refers to stopping sight distance, does not apply to intersections of
public streets. In the case of a private street intersecting a public street, the appropriate
intersection sight distance for a 25 mph design speed is 280% please show this on all
public street intersections. As previously noted, this will significantly impact lots 1-9.
Note that decision point A should be located 4 feet from the centerline of the minor
roadway and 14.5 feet from the edge of pavement of the major roadway; please ensure
that this is the case for all sight distance triangles (point A at Golf DrivelRowcross Street
appears to be less than 14.5 feet from the edge of pavement). Decision point B should be
located in the middle of the nearest travel lane of the major roadway, decision point C
should be located 4 feet from the centerline or the left edge of pavement. The right sight
distance lines for the intersections of Fielding Run/Upward and Fielding Run/Byward are
not completely shown as they extend beyond what is shown on this plan, as is the Ieft
sight distance line for Golf Drive/Fielding. Please ensure that all public street
intersections have sight distance triangles in accordance with Appendix B(1), pages B(1)-
19 & -20, and please show all offset dimensions for the sight distance triangles.
3. Previous comment: "Site Plan Sheetsl5-18: The intersection sight distance lilies should
be shown on these sheets. The proposed plantings should not lie within the sight distance
triangle. "
This intent of this comment was to provide intersection sight distance lines on the
profiles. Please do this once the sight lines are drawn correctly on the plans, per previous
comment. If there are trees and landscaping in the vicinity of the new sight lines, please
include on the profiles.
If additional information is needed concerning this project, please do not hesitate to contact me at
(434) 422-9894.
Sincerely,
ennis Seale
Engineering Specialist
Culpeper District
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
h" 0,,,,,,,,,/
x 1 -
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Chris Mulligan (cmulligan@roudabush.com)
From: Megan Yaniglos,AICP-Principal Planner
Division: Planning Services
Date: May 18,2016
Subject: SUB-2016-021 Old Trail-Blocks 10, 16, 17/18-Road Plans
The Planner for the Planning Services 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.]
Requirements:
1. Indicate which streets are public and which are private.
2. Street trees need to be provided within the planting strip between the curb and
sidewalk.There are a number of trees that are shown in the one foot area at the back of
the sidewalk that could be relocated to be in the planting strip.See example below.
Revise.
L 15 16. 17
';. ,10
-- - - --
-. - r
.
It A •! ♦
_
w
00
w ------
- ------ —
21+00 40
•
te .. A p•qiz.
Aq ta
1
Nie
,..., _
i
', a 9'''' -:*'. ''::*4''''''';', « * * it'''''''«*'' ' '''''''''4 #.«; II lit V/100 "I'4' "Ift7.1'''''' '*''' ''
hr , ., .__,....,.._,,...., '''''' ,,,, --*.0;8;7 '''?,11-' f i''. vorfolgre.107
�3t,
, • ,,, ,.. ,„„,„,,,...—......— e. - . 'h,0'1
....dovii,_ ii-A,.1—t+ ,-- , •% • ,,
ir
''' p1' ''''';'t 1:4",!"«#:-M144'''''t:4:7''''si ''''' 4;#' - , ,,,. . ‘ ''''' 4'''' ',,:4;-*i.,':''':"`":-**:;'',''''!"',:::'4::::'''''')7.'*"*;;::''''''',,,''''';''''
‘,, *'..::*i
m..
'` Oxy 1116 441"1-7
,� r ;'""�. '
i
- 4 . ' I� h : y
'..i.,',.'fiis. ,
� � BAR � 1-''''',,''',/,i„ � #
41W
PU
1
ftt
� � � 8�,1� a ,� �
4 ,
RA1 A
00000000.-
3. The number of street trees\ I provided is not correct. For the calculations per linear feet
needs to round up, not down. Example: Upland Drive states that 19.3 trees are required
and 19 are provided, however 20 need to be provided.
4. Remove any trees not within the right of way,as these are not necessary for the road
plans.
5. Street trees are not required per the recently approved ZMA,for private streets where
lots face an amenity.The trees provided along Byward Street and Petyward Lane are not
required.
Please contact Megan Yaniglos at the Department of Community Development 296
5832 ext. 3004 for further information.
2
o� AiaE
LfR("I'3t�'
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Chris Mulligan (cmulligan@roudabush.com)
From: Megan Yaniglos, AICP- Principal Planner
Division: Planning Services
Date: February 26, 2016
Rev1: May 18, 2016
Subject: SDP -2016-006 Old Trail- Blocks 10, 16, 17/18- Final Site Plan
The Planner for the Planning Services 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.]
Requirements:
1. [32.5.2] Update all notes on the plans to reference the recently approved ZMA2015-001.
Setbacks, lot sizes, etc all have changed for these blocks since the initial approval. Revise
to state the current requirements.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
2. [32.5.2; Proffers/COD] Provide a table that contains all the information regarding all the
proposed blocks, built and unbuilt/under review. This table is necessary to track all the
requirements of the ZMA.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
3. [32.5.2] Will any of the lots be proposed as affordable? A minimum of 15% of affordable
units are required per the proffer. Identify which lots/units will be affordable.
Rev1: The lots need to be identified on the plan. The notes that were provided do not
meet the requirements of the proffer. As previously stated, staff recently revised the
letter of revision policy to allow non-physical changes to site plans to not count
toward that three maximum LOR's allowed.
1
2. Affordable Housing. The Owner shall provide affordable housing units equal to fifteen percent
(15%) of the total residential mots constructed on the Property, in the form of for -sale units, far -rent mnits,
"accessory units" (as defined in paragraph 2(C)(3) herein), and "carriage emits" (as defined in paragraph
2(C)(3) herein) and subject to the terns herein ("Affordable Units"). The Affordable Units shall be
reasonably interspersed throughout the Property as provided in this paragraph 2, subject to the
requirements of the Application Plan and the Code of Development. If the Owner elects at its option to
provide for -sale single family detached Affordable Units, such routs shall be applied toward the 15%
requirement. Each subdivision plat and site plan for land within the Property shall designate the lots or
units, as applicable. that will, subject to the terms and conditions of this proffer. incorporate Affordable
Units as described herein. and the aggregate munber of such lots or units designated for Affordable Units
within each subdivision plat and site plan shall constitute a ninirnurn of fifteen percent (15%) of the lots
in such subdivision plat or site plan. Notwithstanding the foregoing, however, the Owner may "carry-
over" or "bank" credits for Affordable Units in the event an individual subdivision plat or site plan
designates Affordable Units that in the aggregate exceed the fifteen percent (15%) nninimuuu for such
subdivision plat or site plan, and such additional Affordable Units may be allocated toward the fifteen
percent (15%) minitnurn on any future subdivision plat or site plan, provided however, that the rnaxirnuum
number of Affordable Units that may be carried over or banked shall not exceed fifteen percent (15%) of
the total uuuts on any subdivision plat or site plan.
4. [32.7.9] Indicate whether or not the pocket parks will count towards the required
acreage for pocket parks per the Code. Provide a table that shows how many, which
blocks, and acreage to date for the pocket parks.
QQv1: Comment addressed.
Additional Comments:
1. Single family detached units do not require site plan approval. Block 30 does not need
to be shown on the site plan, and subdivision review has not been done for this block
or other single family detached lots. A subdivision plat will need to be submitted for
all single family detached lots.
2. Coordinate the road plan comments for the street trees with the site plan landscape
sheets.
Please contact Megan Yaniglos at the Department of Community Development 296-
5832 ext. 3004 for further information.
A695 MOORES CREEK LANE
RivANN' CHARLOTTESVILLE,VA 22902-9016
TEL:434.977.2970
FAX:434.293.8858
1 WWW.RIVANNA.ORG
WATER&SEWERAUTHORITY
FLOW ACCEPTANCE REVIEW
Date: March 25,2016
Project: Old Trail Blocks 10,16,17,&18
To: Albemarle County Service Authority
The Rivanna Water&Sewer Authority(RWSA) has reviewed a written request from the ACSA to accept
up to 24,570 gallons average daily wastewater flow with a point of connection to the RWSA Crozet
Interceptor at manholes CZI-MH-112, CZI-MH-131, and C2I-MH-132. The increased wastewater is
proposed by the ACSA to serve 91 residential units in Old Trail Blocks 10, 16, 17, & 18. Construction of
these homes is expected to begin in summer of 2016 with full build-out by the summer of 2017.
We have reviewed the average daily flow of the RWSA systems that would receive this flow as proposed,
and reviewed the appropriate design factors specified under the Virginia SCAT Regulations (9VAC 25-
790). On the basis of these reviews, under present average daily flow conditions, RWSA agrees to
accept the additional wastewater flow as specified above.
Please be advised that RWSA does not reserve capacity in its system for a specific project, and this letter
should not be interpreted in any way as a reservation or allocation of flow or the granting of regulatory
approval related to other agencies. Substantial changes in future average daily flow to the RWSA
systems, changes in regulations, or other future factors could result in changes in RWSA's capability to
accept additional flow. We strongly request that ACSA update RWSA on the status of this project on an
annual basis, and further require that a new request for flow acceptance be made for all or any portion
or phase of the above request for which sewer extension design has not been approved under a
Certificate to Construct by the appropriate regulatory authority and is under construction within twenty-
four months of the date of this letter.
An updated review for flow acceptance shall be requested if the project's scope, time frame or
connection point as initially specified changes. Please note that under no circumstances can a direct
connection be made into RWSA's interceptor system without the written approval and physical
inspection by the RWSA Engineering Department.
Respectfully yours,
Jennifer A.Whitaker, P.E.
Chief Engineer
Project:
Plan preparer:
Owner or rep.:
Plan received date:
(Rev. 1)
Date of comments:
(Rev. 1)
Reviewer:
Project Coordinator:
SDP2016-00006
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Old Trail Village Block 10, 16, 17, 18 & 30 —Final
Ammy George, Bill Ledbetter, Jeremy Fox —Roudabush, Gale & Assoc, Inc
914 Monticello Road, Charlottesville, VA 22902, aceorge(a),roudabush.com
bledbetter(a)roudabush.com, jfox(&roudabush.com
March Mountain Properties LLC [1005 Heathercroft Circle, Suite 100]
Dave Brockman, dave a,oldtrailvilla eg com
10 Feb 2016
3 May 2016
5 Mar 2016
15 May 2016
John Anderson
Megan Yaniglos
Blocks 10, 16, 17, 18 & 30 (block 30 Added with Rev. 1)
Petyward Lane serving Lots 16-20 and 32-34 (8 lots) with 30' private RW is required to meet VDOT Stds.
ACDSM, 7.F. Table, Private Street (6 -lot) Standards are the "same as VDOT standards." Also: please see
14-412.A.3. (b.) — VDOT standard apply. Proposed design is not deemed equivalent to or greater than the
applicable standard in the Design Standard Manual. Proposed 37' CL radius is equivalent to certain
entrance standards, is far less than the least minimum radius found in VDOT Road and Bridge Standards
Vol. 2, TC -5.01, Sheet 802.24, Design Factors for a Design Speed of 20 MPH (127 -ft, 160 -ft, 179 -ft ... ).
Also: VDOT Road Design Manual, Appendix B(1), Subdivision Street Design Guide (SSAR), Table 1, for
Min design speed of 25 MPH for up to 2000 ADT, minimum CL radius =200' Design does not adequately
protect public health, safety or welfare. Engineering could support 20 MPH 127 ft radius yadditional
VDOT design factors for a design speed of 20 MPH were met, but this appears impossible with subdivision
layout —only 70' f separate 37' R curves. VDOT R&B Std./Vol. 2, TC -5.01/802.24, requires Lr, super
elevation runoff section, and Lt, tangent runout section. Design should provide minimum horizontal curve
radius that satisfies: VDOT R&B/Road Design Manual, and Albemarle County subdivision ordinance and
ACDSM. [14-412.A.3.(b) allows agent to approve VDOT standards for Mountainous Terrain. See GS -SSR / Table
1, below — R =100'] (Rev. 1) Addressed. 3 May 2016 Applicant response: "Petyward Lane has been
redesigned in order to meet VDOT and Albemarle County standards for a Private Street; the road has been
divided into a private street segment, which retains the name of Petyward Lane and a private alley that has
been named Priory Terrace."
FOR MINIMUM DESIGN FACTORS FOR VARIOUS DESIGN SPEEDS FOR URBAN CONDITIONS SEE SHEETS 802.24 THRU 802.31
GEOMETRIC DESIGN STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION STREETS (GS- SSR)
TABLE 1— CURB AND GUTTER SECTION'
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 5
1. For mountainous terrain, maximum percent of grade may be 16% for ADT up to 400 and
14% for 401-4000 ACTT.
2. 26'allowed for streets< 400 vpd with concurrence of local officials.
3. 36' allowed for streets that are internal to the sub -division, with concurrence of local officials.
4. Pavement widths may be reduced if parking is not allowed. See page 12 of this Guide for
roadway width exceptions criteria.
5. 100' minimum radius allowed in mountainous terrain
6. For curb and gutter streets with parking lanes, the clear zone is accommodated within the
parking lane. However, VDOT has established a 3' minimum setback requirement behind the
curb.
7. Based on 25 MPH Design Speed
Overall Plan, sheet 2, shows design of Petyward Lane is similar to prior -approved designs in blocks 13, 11,
and 14. Engineering supports VDOT standards, yet if Lots 21-30 have frontage on Rowcross (please
confirm w/Planning), it appears that only that portion of Petyward from Fielding Run to midway through the
37'-R curve at Lot 20 is, in strict terms, a private street. We strongly discourage blending streets and alleys.
I am unsure if the approach has been tried or approved at Old Trail or elsewhere, but proposed design is
similar to streets in blocks 11 and 14. The 37'-R curve does not meet VDOT Standards, but Killdeer Lane
(Creekside) may suggest a possible approach: a median that signals road END. A similar feature could be
used to indicate transition, street to alley, but design must accommodate fire rescue needs. An alley has no
horizontal curve geometric standards. No combination of calming, control, signs, etc. will revise
Engineering belief that VDOT standards apply to Petyward at this point, but perhaps combination of
median calming, pavement reflectors, signs, etc, could be used to indicate street end/transition to alley.
Killdeer Lane, image below note 110' R), may provide ideas or basis of discussion with Planning/Engr.
INTERSECTION OF JARS GAP OAD EX��SSTIN¢ KI EER L E.
&-KILLDEER LANE IS UPGRADO. / / 0?9ERLpY E STING ILLDFZR
// OR E -IN FROM TA. 12+25
/ END CURB AND r UTTER O STA. 13+00.
AT STA. 12+17 J1�ff 1 I �I 1
BM IN /
POWER POLE elk KILLDEER O�D , J
I
X�STING 0 BROW
LEV= 8 1
v�a.s w
�AL �2u O.
-
o J T/3TA. 12+ lig ,?
X40 AC. „ �� s� + o� P P E 6' 1 �� `
0.047 AC. 2 w . • •PL T NG�ST P('� , IA: 0.1 ACS
__{ C-6 C •� ..4/ TR�ET Ti ES A: 0.0 AC.
31r-� .._AND TT f '' OCl1. 42
�2u Pu uNE /S At DSC P LAi4
2' P FC
R- s
74'
0.124 Af'/
G 0�;,. `1.q
0.043 C. NI39.3 _ ss C-2 PROP{]SE q
\ A 0.04'0 CC \\
` TYP 5'
PAINT UNE CiRB SIDE4ALK
7?' 0 R— I9
PAR 1 LA,:. '0 143 V1C'
S
S. 033
,5_ _. - >3 _ \q
R-T 5 �ti
0.128 AC. - .-
0.045 ACS
PAV
SIGN
EVA
J io.o ,Lk 0.103 AC.��`?Cl / CGy9D
BA: 0.031 AC / �1 - Tr /
Also, photo, 12/7/15
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 5
2. Sheets 4-5: Add note "Coordinate with VDOT on need to repair or replace pavement on Glen Valley and
Upland Drives at Intersections with Fielding Run if ongoing grading/development have damaged asphalt
surface. Note applies to very limited portions: Fielding Run to points east (hammerhead) of intersections."
Areas have stored debris. Surface may be fine, or may require repair (Upland/Fielding Run —photos 9/5/15).
(Rev. 1) Addressed.
3. Sheet 6 —Label EP -EP: Highgate Row, Rowcross St, and Golf Drive. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
4. Sheet 6 —Beechen Lane: Show roll-top/CG-6 transitions at inlets. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
5. Sheets 6, 7, 9 make reference to wood post guardrail —Provide VDOT Detail. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
Guardrail design removed; 3 May response: "After consulting the VDOT Traffic Barrier Warrant Table
(Appendix I, Table I-3-1), it was determined that Rowcross Street did not meet the warrant in any location.
As a result, the guardrail has been removed from the plans."
6. Sheets 6, 7, 8 —Recommend label/reference speed limit, all streets. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
Sheet 7
7. Confirm 3 -way stop intersection at Fielding Run Drive/Upland Drive. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
8. Provide street sign at Int. Fielding Run Drive/Upland Drive. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
9. Recommend label CG -6 on streets where used. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
10. Recommend sidewalks for Lots 011 i a f - ni.,,,,,i,, . (Rev. 1) Addressed.
11. Label EP -EP, Highgate Row. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
Sheet 8
12. Label EP -EP, Rowcross Street. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
13. Recommend label CG -6 on streets where used. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
14. Revise C19 CL R to 127' Min. (see #1). (Rev. 1) Addressed. "VDOT has approved the use of a 110'
radius in this location. I have attached a copy of the correspondence with VDOT and their approval for
your records." [VDOT email will be scanned to CV RMS on-line document system.]
15. Provide guardrail mounted delineators/safety measures as required (ref. MUTCD). For example chevron
curve/caution signs. Post C19 curve 20 MPH. [VDOT Road and Bridge Standards Vol. 2, TC -5.01, Sheet 802.24]
(Rev. 1) Addressed. 3 May response: "Per MUCTD Table 2C.5, Horizontal Alignment Sign Selection,
the chevron signs (W1-8) are optional when the difference in speeds is 5 mph. We have placed a turn
advisory sign (W1-1) and an advisory speed sign (WP13-1P) at each end of curve C19. VDOT has not
requested additional signage for this segment of road; therefore, we will not be adding the chevrons to the
signage for this segment of the road."
16. Sheets 9, 10, 11: See WP0201600009/ESCP comments (to be issued soon). (Rev. 1) Acknowledged.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 4of5
17. Sheets 9, 10, 11: provide walk/curb, guardrail break/gap for permanent vehicular SWM facility access.
(Rev. 1) Addressed. "RGA will coordinate with Stantec for the location of the stormwater management
facility access. The appropriate entrance will be added once the location is determined."
Sheet 10
18. Revise water meter placement. 5 -ft. space (side-by-side meters) has proven unworkable design (Collins
Engineering), block 23, Baywick Circle, where it is too late to resolve a situation that includes intense
homeowner dissatisfaction w/driveway entrance design. Note CG -913, Standard Entrance Gutter, sheet 13:
this detail will not work with driveway entrances separated by 5'. Encourage visit/review block 23. Please
provide separate, per -lot (individual) water laterals that avoid meter placement in narrow 5' width between
driveways. Lots 1-6, 8-13. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
Photos [Removed with Rev. 1 review comments]—Baywick Circle/does not match CG -9B (5/6/14 County photos)
Sharp curb taper at sidewalk is major source of complaint (wheel strike, car drop)
19. Related to item #18, revise driveway entrance design to match CG -913 dimensions. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
Design specifies "roll top curb for the private streets and private alleys. This precludes the use of CG -9B
for the driveway entrances."
20. Recommend show houses on Lots 1-22, 30-32. (Rev. 1) Addressed. "The house /house footprint will be
selected by the individual buyers after the plans have been approved and the lots recorded."
21. Provide sanitary lateral, Lot 32. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
22. Avoid sanitary line/guardrail conflict. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Guardrail has been removed from design.
23. Recommend adopt variable width private drainage easement design that reduces width on residential lot
portions across Lots 10-12, similar to block 15 ROAD Plan field revision to private drainage easements.
(Rev. 1) Addressed.
Sheet 11
24. Avoid sanitary line/guardrail conflict. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Guardrail has been removed from design.
25. Please provide separate, per -lot (individual) water laterals that avoid meter placement in narrow 5' width
between driveways: Lots 15-18 31-34. (see #18, above) (Rev. 1) Addressed.
26. Sheet 13: Provide VDOT guardrail detail. [VDOT R&B Spec/Vol. 1 -GR-2, 2A; sheets 1 and 2; rev. date 7/11]
(Rev. 1) Addressed. Guardrail has been removed from design.
27. Sheet 13: Recommend pavement design with Site Plan. Pavement design is required with ROAD Plan.
(Rev. 1) Addressed. As follow-up, see New item #36, below.
28. Recommend Site Plan reference Old Trail Stormwater Master Plan under review. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
29. Provide Site Plan Note specifying that SWM design/Final SWM Plan required for a block be reviewed and
approved prior to Site Plan approval of a specific block. (Rev. 1) Addressed. As follow-up, please revise
title sheet Note stating that `Site Plan approval is dependent upon the approval of the Old Trail Stormwater
Master Plan and Stormwater Management plans for blocks 10, 16, 17-18' to include reference to block 30
and to Master Plan acceptance, April 2016. [Also: E-mail, J. Anderson to Applicant: April 12, 2016 6:34 AM]
30. Recommend Applicant submit SWM plans for all blocks as soon as possible; recommend reference to
design concepts presented in Stormwater Master Plan Update for Old Trail (MP), dated 5 Feb 2016. (Rev.
1) Acknowledged.
31. Recommend Applicant work closely with Planning on variance required to ZMA200400024. Variance is
necessary since Final detailed design plans will differ from Sheet 3, GDP, ZMA200400024. It is a certainty
that SWM design required to support development of blocks 10, 16, 17, 18 requires Zoning Variance,
though not, at this point, a rezoning. Engineering, Applicant, Stantec/RGA are likely nearing acceptance of
MP. A prerequisite to Site Plan approval is Variance to ZMA200400024 GDP/Sheet 3. (Rev. 1)
Addressed /Comment withdrawn. [E-mail, March 21, 2016 2:59 PM, J. Anderson to Dave Brockman; Bill
Ledbetter; Glenn Muckley: "Late Friday, Dave Benish and I examined Old Trail Village Stormwater Master Plan (Fig.
9) which shows proposed locations and types of best management practices (SWM facilities) proposed at Old Trail.
We compared this figure/ concept plan with Zoning Plan of Development Sheet 3, d. 8/26/05 (Attached). Dave Benish
believes Variance to ZMA200400024 is not required if Albemarle County enters an Agreement with Old Trail centered
on Fig. 9, a suite of 11 biofilters and 4 retention basins."]
Engineering Review Comments
Page 5 of 5
32. Similar to #31, recommend Applicant coordinate with Parks and Recreation, as needed, to obtain legal
Agreements that allow permanent SWM facilities on Parks and Recreation property. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
3 May response: "Acknowledged. RGA and applicant [will] coordinate with Parks and Recreation to obtain
all necessary legal agreements concerning this plan."
33. Encourage Applicant to cross-reference ESC/ROAD plan comments (to be issued shortly). (Rev. 1)
Acknowledged.
34. Note: March Mountain, RGA, and Stantec have shown commitment and patience in meetings and studies
focused on compliance with ZMA200400024, 9VAC25-870-96, -97, -98, over a period of several years.
Engineering appreciates this effort, recognizes Dave Brockman's attention to detail, RGA's response to
comments and deliberate commitment to plan review relationship, Stantec's comprehensive design efforts.
These combined provide level of assurance relative to ZMA, current requirements, and future needs. This
commitment, if less than obvious, is no less true. We appreciate in particular William Ledbetter and Glenn
Muckley whose sincerity, patience, and availability to Engineering are cause for optimism. Dave Brockman
lends level of support vital to success. We are grateful to all three.
New
35. Minor: Recommend revise Block 10 Plant List table title include block 30, if true (Sheet 18).
36. Minor: Recommend check Highgate Row and Upland Drive VPD values —DP likely sufficient (Sheet 13).
Please call if any questions : 434-296-5832 -0069
File: SDP201600006-OldTrail Village blocks_10,16,17,18&30_fsp_051516rev1
Megan Yaniglos
From:
Victoria Fort <vfort@rivanna.org>
Sent:
Friday, February 26, 2016 7:32 PM
To:
Megan Yaniglos
Cc:
Alex Morrison
Subject:
SDP20160006 Old Trail Blocks 10, 16, 17,18
Attachments:
RWSA General Notes.doc
Megan,
RWSA has reviewed the Final Site Plan for Old Trail Blocks 10, 16, 17, 18 as prepared by Roudabush, Gale & Associates
and dated January 25, 2016 and has the following comments:
General Plan Comments:
1. Include the applicable RWSA General Water and Sewer Notes on the plans (attached).
2. A flow acceptance letter from RWSA will be required prior to final site plan approval.
Sheet 9 of 18:
1. The connection point for the proposed sanitary sewer (beyond structures B & A) should be called out on the
plans (e.g. by others if not part of this block).
Sheets 11 and 17:
1. Can the proposed sanitary sewer be rerouted to connect into the existing 8" ACSA sewer through Block 31 in
order to eliminate the connection into the RWSA Crozet Interceptor at CZI-MH-131?
2. If the RWSA connection cannot be eliminated, include the following notes on the plans:
a. All connections to RWSA manholes shall be watertight and made with a flexible rubber boot.
b. All coring methods, the coring contractor and all materials for construction shall be approved by RWSA
in writing prior to construction.
c. RWSA Engineering Staff shall be present for all cores into the manholes. Contact RWSA Engineering a
minimum of 3 business days in advance to schedule a core of a manhole.
d. Bypass pumping may be required at the sole discretion of RWSA staff.
e. Grouting of the manhole bench or interior may be required, at the sole discretion of RWSA staff, for a
smooth transition of flow.
f. Existing manholes shall be backfilled to original grade to the satisfaction of RWSA.
3. Please provide a sanitary sewer profile for review.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Thank you,
Victoria
Victoria Fort, P.E.
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority
695 Moores Creek Lane
Charlottesville, VA 22902
(P): (434) 977-2970 ext. 205
(F): (434) 295-1146
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Chris Mulligan (cmulligan@roudabush.com)
From: Megan Yaniglos, AICP- Principal Planner
Division: Planning Services
Date: February 26, 2016
Subject: SDP -2016-006 Old Trail- Blocks 10, 16, 17/18- Final Site Plan
The Planner for the Planning Services 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.]
Requirements:
1. [32.5.2] Update all notes on the plans to reference the recently approved ZMA2015-001.
Setbacks, lot sizes, etc all have changed for these blocks since the initial approval. Revise
to state the current requirements.
2. [32.5.2; Proffers/COD] Provide a table that contains all the information regarding all the
proposed blocks, built and unbuilt/under review. This table is necessary to track all the
requirements of the ZMA.
3. [32.5.2] Will any of the lots be proposed as affordable? A minimum of 15% of affordable
units are required per the proffer. Identify which lots/units will be affordable.
4. [32.7.9] Indicate whether or not the pocket parks will count towards the required
acreage for pocket parks per the Code. Provide a table that shows how many, which
blocks, and acreage to date for the pocket parks.
Please contact Megan Yaniglos at the Department of Community Development 296-
5832 ext. 3004 for further information.
Megan Yaniglos
From: Alex Morrison<amorrison@serviceauthority.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2016 9:13 AM
To: Megan Yaniglos
Subject: SDP2016006: Old Trail Blocks 10, 16, 17 and 18 - Final Site Plan & Road Plan
Megan,
The road plan for the above referenced application is currently under construction review at the ACSA for the proposed
utilities. Once construction approval has been granted I will recommend approval of the Final Site Plan and Road Plan.
Alexander J. Morrison, P.E.
Civil Engineer
Albemarle County Service Authority
168 Spotnap Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22911
(0) 434-977-4511 Ext. 116
(C) 434-981-5577
(F) 434-979-0698
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper. Virginia 22701
Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E.
Commissioner
February 23, 2016
Ms. Megan Yaniglos
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: SUB -2016-00021 and SDP -2016-006 - Old Trail Blocks 10, 16,17 & 18
Dear Mr. Anderson and Ms. Yaniglos:
We have reviewed the Road Plan and Site PIan, submitted by Roudabush, Gale & Associates,
Inc., dated January 25. 2016, and we offer the following comments:
1. The design speed should be provided on the plan sheets and profiles.
2. When on -street parking is proposed on one side, clearly identify which side of the street
the parking will be located, the locations of "No Parking" signs should also be included.
3. Sight line triangles should include the available sight distance, offset from the edge of
travel way and centerline offset. The sight distances lengths have been corrected,
however, the sight lines should be measured to the center of the lane. For example: the
sight lines for Beechen Lane should not be extended into future block 30. When the lines
are accurately drawn they significantly impact lots 1-9.
4. Storm sewer computations, HGL computations and Storm inlet computations should be
provided. Also, there does not appear to be any horizontal or vertical constraints to the
storm sewer system therefore we do not recommend the use of DI -2's.
5. A detail should be provided showing the roadway layout with ADT of each roadway.
This will support the pavement design.
6. Roadway Typical Section: The sidewalk and buffer/planting strip cross -slope should be
shown graphically. Street trees should also be shown graphically with a dimension to the
back of curb as applicable. The roadway design speed should also be identified.
7. Pavement Marking/Signage Plan
a. Pavement markings and signage should be shown on the plan view.
b. All markings and appropriate signage shall be shown in accordance with the
current version of the MUTCD an&or the Virginia Supplement to the MUTCD.
c. Individual signs should have the MUTCD sign label reference included on the
plan.
8. Roll-top curb should not transition into CG -6 within the entrance radii. The transition
should happen within the private right-of-way prior to the CG -12's.
9. Road Plan Sheets 9-11: additional spot elevations should be provided around entrance
radii to ensure positive drainage.
10. Road Plan Sheet 10:
a. Golf Drive- Station 23+50- the crown of the road has been shifted. Is this the
intent?
b. The drainage easement shown for storm structures 92 and 94 should be designated
as private.
11. Road Plan Sheet 11: Rowcross Street - Station 17+70 thru 20+50- the grading does not
accurately depict the proposed typical section, it appears as if a ditch is behind the CG -6.
12. Guardrail beyond the limits of the right-of-way will not be maintained by VDOT. In
addition, guardrail itself can be a hazard. We do not recommend using guardrail if it is
not warranted. Also, we do not recommend installing guardrail over the sanitary sewer
line. The minimum depth of a GR -2 system is 6'. The depth of the post vs. sanitary depth
and future maintenance issues should be considered.
13. Road Plan Sheets 16-19: The design speeds should be identified on each sheet. Also a
landing, having a minimum of 50' in length and maximum vertical grade of 2% should be
provided at each intersection. For example: Upland Drive, station 19+37, does not appear
to meets the minimum landing requirements.
14. Road Plan Sheet 17: Upland Drive
a. Station 24+19.83 Centerline elevation conflicts with Rowcross profile.
b. For 25 mph the minimum K value in a sag condition is 26. The profile shows a K
value of 24.10.
15. Road Plan Sheet 18: Rowcross Street
a. The centerline elevation at intersection station 17.1.70.10 does not match sheet 11.
CIL elevation of 661.92 vs. 667.33. The profile appears to have been drawn at
667.33.
b. The GR -2 detail should be updated to the latest revision of 8.14.
16. Road Plan Sheet 20:
a. Storm profile 31-33 appears to be missing.
b. There are multiple areas where the proposed grades are not tied into the storm
structures. For example: storm sewer profile 121-129, structures 1 B, 5, 37, 109,
53, 59, 51 etc.
17. Road Plan Sheet 23: There are multiple areas where the proposed grades are not tied into
MH's. For example: R and S
I8. Site Plan Sheets 15-18: The intersection sight distance lines should be shown on these
sheets. The proposed plantings should not Iie within the sight distance triangle.
If additional information is needed concerning this project, please do not hesitate to contact me at
(434)422-9782.
Sincerely,
7�� *4k,-
TroY Austin P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Culpeper District
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING