HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB201500069 Review Comments Road Plan and Comps. 2015-10-06 I
".ti ‘Ili;
4:;,,:,/,,r,
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper Virginia 22701
Charles A. Kilpatrick,P.E.
Commissioner
October 6, 2015
Mr. Justin Deel
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: SUB-2015-00069 Hillbrook Road Plans
Dear Mr. Deel,
We have reviewed the road plans for the proposed Hillbrook development dated 4/6/15 with
revisions dated 6/5/15, 7/24/15 and 9/8/15 as well as the VSMP Plans with revisions dated
6/5/15, 7/24/15 and 9/8/15, as submitted by Shimp Engineering, and offer the following
comments:
1. All previous road plan review comments have been addressed.
2. VSMP Plan, Sheet 12: Cross-sections should be provided for the outfall/riprap channel
for sediment trap 1. Where the channel turns to run parallel to Old Brook Road it is
approximately 6"deep. It should be demonstrated that the discharge will remain within
the designed channel and not jump the turning point and flow straight into Old Brook
Road.
If you need further information concerning this project, please do not hesitate to contact me at
(434) 422-9894.
Sincerely,
>fr�GG �/.n.°J'4',-' i
Shelly A. Plaster
Land Development Engineer
Culpeper District
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
01 ,,
e
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper,Virginia 22701
Charles A.Kilpatrick,P.E.
Commissioner
September 1, 2015
Mr. Justin Deel
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: SUB-2015-00069 Hillbrook Road Plans
Dear Mr. Deel,
We have reviewed the road plans for the proposed Hillbrook development dated 4/6/15 with
revisions dated 6/5115 and 7/24/15 as submitted by Shimp Engineering and offer the following
comments:
1. The CG-12's shown on the plan are located at the midpoint of the intersection radii. This
alignment tends to direct the visually impaired towards the center of the intersection
instead of the opposite CG-12. The CG-12's should be aligned more perpendicularly
with proposed Hillbrook Court.
2. Sheet 12 of the VSMP Plans show the erosion and sediment control plan for this
development. There appears to be a diversion from the overflow of sediment trap 1 to the
storm sewer, but there is no detail for the construction of the diversion to ensure that the
discharge does not run directly into Old Brook Road.
If you need additional information concerning this project, please do not hesitate to contact me at
(434)422-9782.
Sincerely,
//1° All°1"
Troy Austin, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Culpeper District
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
a
F
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 Mclntire Road,Room 227
Charlottesville,Virginia 22902-4596
Phone(434)296-5832 Fax(434)972-4126
Road and Drainage Plan Review
Project title: Hillbrook
Project file number: SUB-2015-00069
Plan preparer: Shimp Engineering,PC
Owner or rep.: Hilltop Partners,LLC
Plan received date: 20 April 2015
(Rev. 1) 6 June 2015
(Rev. 2) 27 July 2015
Date of comments: 13 May 2015
(Rev. 1) 26 June 2015
(Rev. 2) 26 August 2015
Reviewers: Justin Deel
1. Please show limits of sidewalk replacement and CG-6 removal.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
2. Please explain note"Area to be Vacated 4,740 SF"on existing conditions sheet.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
3. Please show and label managed slopes.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
4. Show stationing at 50' minimum on plans and profiles.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
5. Please provide dimensions for and clearly show extent of the private storm sewer easement along
Old Brook Road.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
6. Should there be a separate easement for sidewalks as they are outside of the street ROW?
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
7. Please label proposed grade on road profile. Show and label crossdrains and utilities on profiles.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
8. Provide a drainage plan. Please show excess drainage will not be flowing into Old Brook Road.
Provide storm sewer profile(s). What will inlet 5A be capturing? Pre-cast inlets will obviously
lessen your curb entrance radii, do these have to be placed on the entrance?
(Rev. 1) Comment partially addressed. Drainage area plan not found.
(Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
9. Provide details and profiles for proposed new storm sewer on.Old Brook Road.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
10. Although this is intended to be a private street, VDOT approval is required for intersection and
utility improvements along Old Brook.Road.
(Rev. I) Comment addressed.
1.1. Provide pavement design calculations.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
12. Provide sidewalk detail.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
i tgineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 2
Revision 1 Comments:
13. Please reflect the requested changes to the overall SWM/drainage plan from the 26 June 2015
VSMP review letter.
(Rev.2) Comment partially addressed. Please reflect additional changes requested in the 20
August 2015 VSMP review letter.
Revision 2 Comments:
14. Please adequately address all VDOT comments. Provide evidence of ASCA approval.
Please address the following comment provided by Ellie Ray,Planning:
1. The note below the Wooded Area Tabulation references a 26,707 SF conservation area,while the
preserved wooded space is labeled as 23,764 SF;please clarify and revise, if necessary.
(Rev.2)Comment not addressed.
2. The 'new canopy'number in the tree canopy calculation doesn't match that provided.in the
Landscape Schedule;verify and revise.
Please address the following comment provided by Robbie Gilmer,Fire&Rescue:
Fire Flow test required. Fire Flow needed is 1,000 gpm @ 20 psi.
(Rev.2) I have not yet received feedback concerning the provided fire flow calculation from Fire
&Rescue. I will let you know once that information is received.
File: St.;.1.32OI.I0ou(T9 hug, Road Plan Review R2.doe
Justin Deel
From: Justin Deel
Sent: Wednesday,August 26, 2015 2:16 PM
To: 'Justin Shimp, P.E.; 'Lauren Gilroy'
Subject: Planning Application Review for SUB201500069 Hill Brook- Road Plans.
Attachments: SUB201500069 Eng. Road Plan Review R2.pdf
The Review for the following application has been completed:
Application Number=SUB201500069
Reviewer=Justin Deel
Review Status= Requested Changes
Completed Date = 08/26/2015
1
Ellie Ray
From: Ellie Ray
Sent: Wednesday,July 29, 2015 9:55 AM
To: Justin Deel
Subject: Planning Application Review for SUB201500069 Hill Brook- Road Plans.
The Review for the following application has been completed:
Application Number=SUB201500069
Reviewer= Ellie Ray
Review Status = Requested Changes
Completed Date =07/29/2015
I have reviewed the revised road plan submittal dated 7/24/15 and have the following comment:
1. The note below the Wooded Area Tabulation chart references a 26,707 SF conservation area,while the
preserved wooded area is labeled as 23,696 SF; please clarify and revise, if necessary.
1
PROJECT MGEMENT
SHIMP CIVIL ENGINEERING
LAND PLANNING
ENGINEERING
July 24, 2015
Troy Austin, PE
Area Land Use Engineer
Culpeper District
Regarding: SUB 2015 00069 Hillbrook
Road Plans
Dear Mr.Austin,
We have submitted revisions to the Road Plans for Hillbrook. Your comments for the first submittal and the changes
we have made in response are below.
1. It appears that additional no parking signs may be necessary to better define the areas along Old
Brook Road.
Additional no parking signs are now provided to clarify the ban on parking near the intersection of Old Brook
Road and Hillbrook Court.
2. The"Private Storm Sewer Easement" along Old Brook Road should not be private as VDOT will
maintain the storm sewer between structures 2 and X4
The storm design in the area has been updated per the phone conversation on July 23, and the storm sewer
easement is now private.
3. The erosion and sediment control plan needs to be provided for review. This can be a separate
submittal (WPO for example).
Two additional copies of the VSMP plan have been attached to the current WPO submittal, and we have
requested that the County forward them to you.
4. Structure 1, a new MH-1, appears to be included only as a feature of the underground detention
system. As such, this structure should be removed from the right-of-way. Furthermore, as
designed, there will always be standing water in structure 2. As this is a drop inlet that will be
maintained by VDOT, the storm sewer needs to be revised so that there will not be standing water
in this structure.
The storm design has been updated to remove MH-1 from the right of way and to privately maintained, so that
no part of the detention system is in VDOT maintained areas.Additionally,the drafting on STM-2 has been
corrected to show flow away from the structure from both pipes,to eliminate standing water.
5. We do not support a marked crosswalk at this location and the crosswalk and CG-12 in for the
sidewalk on the western side of Old Brook Road should be removed.
The marked crosswalk and CG-12 at this location have been removed to reduce potential pedestrian-vehicle
conflicts.
•
6. We continue to recommend that the sidewalk along Hillbrook Court be removed. The response
letter to our prior review indicates that the engineer/developer would like to explore other options
for connecting with the existing pedestrian facilities. Have any other options been proposed?
Other options for pedestrian connection have been explored, and found to be cost-prohibitive, as many
hundreds of feet of sidewalk would be required to tie in to the sidewalk on the east side of Old Brook Road.
The internal sidewalk for the development is required by County Code.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at your earliest opportunity. I may be reached at:
Justinshimp-enqineerinq.com or by phone at 434-953-6116.
Best Re, : ,
,ji
4111V4111.6.
stin Shimp, P.E.
Shimp Engineering, P.C.
oilipol
PROJECT *AGEMENT
CIVIL ENGINEERING
LAND PLANNING
ENGINEERING
July 24, 2015
Justin Deel
Regarding: SUB 2015 00069 Hillbrook
Road Plans
Dear Mr. Deel,
I have attached ten copies of the Road Plans for Hillbrook, as the ACSA has requested three. Please let me know if
any additional copies would be helpful.Your comments for the second submittal and the changes we have made in
response are below.
8. (Rev. 1) Comment partially addressed. Drainage area plan not found.
An 11"x17"drainage area plan has been attached to the calculation packet for this submittal. If a black and
white full size drainage area plan would be easier for you to review, please email me at lauren@shimp-
engineering.com or call me at 434.227.5140 x4 and I will deliver one as soon as possible.
Revision 1 Comments:
13. Please reflect the requested changes to the overall SWM/drainage plan from the 26 June 2015
VSMP review letter.
This submittal reflects the changes requested in the 26 June 2015 VSMP review letter as discussed in our
meeting on July 9,2015.
Planning Comments:
A separate comment response letter is provided for comments by Ellie Ray.
Fire Marshal Comment
Fire Flow test required. Fire Flow needed is 1,000 gpm @ 20 psi.
A fire flow calculation has been attached to the calculation packet for this submittal.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at your earliest opportunity. I will be out of the office
from July 27-31; during this time, please contact Justin Shimp at:Justin anshimp-engineering.com or by phone at 434-
953-6116.
Best Regards,
„zfuepi, il
Lauren Gilroy
Shimp Engineering, P.C.
girl"
1;4
Y-mss
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper.V rgmia 22701
Charles A. Kilpatrick,P.E.
Commissioner
July 21, 2015
Mr.Justin Deel
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: SUB-2015-00069 Hillbrook Road Plans
Dear Mr. Deel:
We have reviewed the road plans for Hillbrook dated 4/6/15 with revisions dated 6/5/15 as submitted by
Shiimp Engineering and offer the following comments:
1. It appears that additional no parking signs may be necessary to better define the areas along Old
Brook Road.
2. The"Private Storm Sewer Easement"along Old Brook Road should not be private as VDOT will
maintain the storm sewer between structures 2 and X4.
3. The erosion and sediment control plan needs to be provided for review. This can be a separate
submittal(WPO for example).
4. Structure 1,a new MH-1, appears to be included only as a feature of the underground detention
system. As such, this structure should be removed from the right-of-way. Furthermore, as
designed,there will always be standing water in structure 2. As this is a drop inlet that will be
maintained by VDOT, the storm sewer needs to be revised so that there will not be standing water
in this structure.
5. We do not support a marked crosswalk at this location and the crosswalk and CG-12 in for the
sidewalk on the western side of Old Brook Road should be removed.
6. We continue to recommend that the sidewalk along Hillbrook Court be removed. The response
letter to our prior review indicates that the engineer/developer would like to explore other options
for connecting with the existing pedestrian facilities. Have any other options been proposed?
If you need additional information concerning this project,please do not hesitate to contact me at(434)
422-9782.
Sincerely, 2 . �,.
/ I
Troy Austin,P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Culpeper District
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
PROJECT MAN GEMENT
sHimpCIVIL ENGINEERING
LAND PLANNING
•
ENGINEERING W:
July 14, 2015
Ms. Ellie Ray
Regarding: SUB 2015 00069 Hillbrook
Road Plans
Dear Ms. Ray,
We have submitted revisions to the Road Plans for Hillbrook. Your comments for the first submittal and the changes
we have made in response are below.
1. The note below the Wooded Area Tabulation references a 26,707 SF conservation area, while the
preserved wooded space is labelled as 23,764 SF; please clarify and revise, if necessary.
In the previous submittal,the open space was not clearly differentiated from the wooded area. For this
submittal,we have labelled the open space parcel as "Open Space, Dedicated to HOA, 27,555 SF."This
includes both the preserved wooded space and the bioretention facility. To distinguish between the two,we
have added a tree preservation easement around the bioretention facility,the area of which is 23,696 SF.
Please let us know if we can clarify the plan any further.
2. The 'new canopy' number in the tree canopy calculation doesn't match that provided in the
Landscape Schedule; verify and revise.
Thank you for catching this error.We have verified the tree count and canopy calculation and revised to
show accurate numbers.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at your earliest opportunity. I may be reached at:
Justin ac shimp-engineerinq.com or by phone at 434-953-6116.
Best Regards,
Justin Shimp, P.E.
Shimp Engineering, P.C.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,Room 227
Charlottesville,Virginia 22902-4596
Phone(434)296-5832 Fax(434)972-4126
Road and Drainage Plan Review
Project title: Hillbrook
Project file number: SUB-2015-00069
Plan preparer: Shimp Engineering,PC
Owner or rep.: Hilltop Partners,LLC
Plan received date: 20 April 2015
(Rev. 1) 6 June 2015
Date of comments: 13 May 2015
(Rev. 1) 26 June 2015
Reviewers: Justin Deel
1. Please show limits of sidewalk replacement and CG-6 removal.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
2. Please explain note"Area to be Vacated 4,740 SF"on existing conditions sheet.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
3. Please show and label managed slopes.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
4. Show stationing at 50' minimum on plans and profiles.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
5. Please provide dimensions for and clearly show extent of the private storm sewer easement along
Old Brook Road.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
6. Should there be a separate easement for sidewalks as they are outside of the street ROW?
(Rev.1) Comment addressed.
7. Please label proposed grade on road profile. Show and label crossdrains and utilities on profiles.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
8. Provide a drainage plan. Please show excess drainage will not be flowing into Old Brook Road.
Provide storm sewer profile(s). What will inlet 5A be capturing? Pre-cast inlets will obviously
lessen your curb entrance radii,do these have to be placed on the entrance?
(Rev.1) Comment partially addressed. Drainage area plan not found.
9. Provide details and profiles for proposed new storm sewer on Old Brook Road.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
10. Although this is intended to be a private street, VDOT approval is required for intersection and
utility improvements along Old Brook Road.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
11. Provide pavement design calculations.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
12. Provide sidewalk detail.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
4
d
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 2
Revision 1 Comments:
13. Please reflect the requested changes to the overall SWM/drainage plan from the 26 June 2015
VSMP review letter.
Please address the following comment provided by Ellie Ray,Planning:
1. The note below the Wooded Area Tabulation references a 26,707 SF conservation area,while the
preserved wooded space is labeled as 23,764 SF;please clarify and revise, if necessary.
2. The'new canopy'number in the tree canopy calculation doesn't match that provided in the
Landscape Schedule;verify and revise.
Please address the following comment provided by Robbie Gilmer,Fire&Rescue:
Fire Flow test required. Fire Flow needed is 1,000 gpm @ 20 psi.
File: St B OA SOOO(S.(tt , Ro=ad Plan Review- R .doe
Ellie Ray
From: Ellie Ray
Sent: Wednesday, June 17. 2015 4:52 PM
To: Justin Deel
Subject: Planning Application Review for SUB201500069 Hill Brook- Road Plans.
The Review for the following application has been completed:
Application Number= SUB201500069
Reviewer= Ellie Ray
Review Status = Requested Changes
Completed Date = 06/17/2015
I have reviewed the revised road plan submittal dated 6/5/15 and have the following comments:
1. The note below the Wooded Area Tabulation references a 26,707 SF conservation area, while the preserved
wooded space is labeled as 23,764 SF;please clarify and revise, if necessary.
2. The 'new canopy'number in the tree canopy calculation doesn't match that provided in the Landscape
Schedule; verify and revise.
1
PROJECT MANAM
CIVIL ENGINEERINGGEENT
LAND PLANNING
ENGINEERING
June 4, 2015
Justin Deel
Regarding: SUB 2015 00069 Hillbrook
Road Plans
Dear Mr. Deel,
I have attached six copies of the Road Plans for Hillbrook. Your comments for the first submittal and the changes we
have made in response are below.
1. Please show limits of sidewalk replacement and CG-6 removal.
The limits of sidewalk replacement and CG-6 removal are now shown in the existing conditions/demolition
plan sheet.
2. Please explain note "Area to be Vacated 4,470 SF"on existing conditions sheet.
Per a survey by Roudabush, Gale, and Associates dated 10/18/2014, a portion of Old Brook Road in front of
the development parcel was never dedicated to public right-of-way, and the current property line passes
approximately through the centerline of the road.We are dedicating this portion of the property to VDOT. The
note has been revised to state "5,317 SF to be dedicated to VDOT."
3. Please show and label managed slopes.
Managed slopes are now delineated with a hatch and labelled.
4. Show stationing at 50' minimum on plans and profiles.
50'stationing is now shown on the road profile and all plan views.
5. Please provide dimensions for and clearly show extent of the private storm sewer easement along
Old Brook Rd.
The private storm sewer easement along Old Brook Road will be delineated with metes and bounds with the
subdivision plat. The edge farthest from the road is 10' off the centerline of the pipe.
6. Should there be a separate easement for sidewalks as they are outside of the street ROW?
A sidewalk easement is now shown on the C3 and C6.
7. Please label proposed grade on road profile. Show and label crossdrains and utilities on profiles.
The proposed grade is now labelled on the road profile. Crossdrains and utilities are now shown and labelled
on profiles.
8. Provide a drainage plan. Please show excess drainage will not be flowing into Old Brook Road.
Provide storm sewer profile(s). What will inlet 5A be capturing?Pre-cast inlets will obviously
lessen your curb entrance radii, do these have to be placed on the entrance?
The drainage plan is included with this submittal,with an LD-204 showing that excess drainage will not be
flowing into Old Brook Road and storm sewer profiles. The inlets have been re-located to be outside of the
curb entrance radii.
•
skS
9. Provide details and profiles for proposed new storm sewer on Old Brook Road.
Details and profiles are now provided for proposed new storm sewer on Old Brook Road.
10. Although this is intended to be a private street, VDOT approval is required for intersection and
utility improvements along Old Brook Road.
Plans have been submitted to VDOT and we are working to address their comments.
11. Provide pavement design calculations.
Pavement design calculations are attached to this letter.
12. Provide sidewalk detail.
A separate sidewalk detail has been provided with this submittal.
Fire Marshal Comment
Fire Flow test required. Fire Flow needed is 1,000 gpm @ 20 psi.
A fire flow test has been requested, and the results will be included with the next submittal.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at your earliest opportunity. I may be reached at:
Justin(ashimp-engineering.com or by phone at 434-953-6116.
Best Regards,
Justin Shimp, P.E.
Shimp Engineering, P.C.
.....,
,..,,,
r
1
♦ +4r;.7',i
1
k
A
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1C:1Cr, 1,:eFoar:
Cu'peper V.ra-,1 727ir1
Charles A. Kilpatrick, P,E.
Commissioner
May 19,2015
Mr.Justin Decl
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 Mclntirc Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: SUB-2015-00069 Hillbrook Drive Road Plans
Dear Mr. Decl:
We have reviewed the road plans for Hillbrook dated 4/16115 as submitted by Shimp Engineering and offer the
following comments:
1. No portion of the private stormwatcr management facility should be located within public right-of-way.
2. We recommend relocating proposed drop inlets 5 and 5A to the tangent section of Hilibrook Court,i.e. at
approximately station 10+50. These inlets should be designed with 100%capture,and the capacity of the
existing inlet on Old Brook Road east of this site needs to be confirmed as adequate for the existing runoff
and the new runoff from Hillbrook Court that will be downstream of drop inlets 5 and 5A. The curb and
gutter along at the southern return of the Hillbrook/Old Brook intersection will need to be installed as
reverse curb so that the runoff along Old Brook flows across Hilibrook Court.
3. Typically,we do not allow midblock pedestrian crossings as shown on this plan and we do not support the
crossing of Old Brook Road shown. In addition,when the Old Brook Road crossing is removed,the
sidewalk along Hillbrook Court would not be continuous with the existing pedestrian facilities. We would
recommend the removal of the sidewalk along Hillbrook Court. This would be consistent with the side
roads off of Old Brook Road for the rest of the development as they do not typically have sidewalk along
the roadway.
4. The areas along Old Brook Road located within the sight line will need to be posted as no parking so that
sight distance is not obstructed at Hillbrook Court.
5. The right-of-way line to the south of Hillbrook Court is shown to be approximately 6'behind the back of
curb. The right-of-way to the north of Hillbrook Court should be dedicated along the frontage of Old
Brook Road such that right-of-way section is uniform.
If you need additional information concerning this project,please do not hesitate to contact mc at(434)422-9782.
Sincerely,
iAuZ
c
Troy Austin, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Culpeper District
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
`wrr► Nkrill
cg AI
. �It�[ldSP
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,Room 227
Charlottesville,Virginia 22902-4596
Phone(434)296-5832 Fax(434)972-4126
Road and Drainage Plan Review
Project title: Hilibrook
Project file number: SUB-2015-00069
Plan preparer: Shimp Engineering,PC
Owner or rep.: Hilltop Partners,LLC
Plan received date: 20 April 2015
Date of comments: 13 May 2015
Reviewers: Justin Deel
1. Please show limits of sidewalk replacement and CG-6 removal.
2. Please explain note"Area to be Vacated 4,740 SF"on existing conditions sheet.
3. Please show and label managed slopes.
4. Show stationing at 50' minimum on plans and profiles.
5. Please provide dimensions for and clearly show extent of the private storm sewer easement along
Old Brook Road.
6. Should there be a separate easement for sidewalks as they are outside of the street ROW?
7. Please label proposed grade on road profile. Show and label crossdrains and utilities on profiles.
8. Provide a drainage plan. Please show excess drainage will not be flowing into Old Brook Road.
Provide storm sewer profile(s). What will inlet 5A be capturing? Pre-cast inlets will obviously
lessen your curb entrance radii,do these have to be placed on the entrance?
9. Provide details and profiles for proposed new storm sewer on Old Brook Road.
10. Although this is intended to be a private street,VDOT approval is required for intersection and
utility improvements along Old Brook Road.
11. Provide pavement design calculations.
12. Provide sidewalk detail.
Please address the following comment provided by Robbie Gilmer,Fire&Rescue:
Fire Flow test required.Fire Flow needed is 1,000 gpm @ 20 psi.
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville,VA,22902
Phone 434-296-5832 Fax 434-972-4126
Memorandum
To: Justin Deel
From: Ellie Ray, CLA, Senior Planner
Division: Planning
Date: May 13, 2015
Subject: SUB 201500069 Hill Brook— Road Plans
I have reviewed the road plans referenced above and the following comments from the Conditional Approval of
the Preliminary Plat have not been satisfactorily addressed:
1. [Comment] This application has been reviewed for items relevant to the Road Plans only. Additional
comments regarding requirements for Final Plat approval will be provided when the Final Plat is submitted.
2. [14-302(A)3] Existing or platted streets. Clarify the existing public right-of-way line and the 30' prescriptive
easement line. The right-of-way line looks much like other lines on the plan, so it is difficult to tell which
lines depict r/w. Is the prescriptive easement only along the subject parcel? Why is it shown over the
existing public right-of-way?
• Will be reviewed with the Final Plat.
3. [14-302(A)48,5] Private&public easements. Verify that the location and dimensions of all existing and
proposed private and public easements are shown. Existing easements should be labeled with the
appropriate DB and PG reference. Proposed easements should be labeled with the intended holder. The
plan proposes both sewer and storm on private lots;these utilities will require easements. Additionally, if
sidewalk is not located within the proposed public right-of-way, a sidewalk easement will be required with
the appropriate maintenance agreement.
• Will be reviewed with the Final Plat; however, it appears additional easements for storm sewer
will be required.
4. [14-302(A)48t5]Private &public easements.Will an easement be necessary for the off-site sewer
connection? If so, show it on the plat and add impacted property owner(s)as signees.
• Will be reviewed with the Final Plat. However,this easement should be in place prior to the
approval of any construction activities on the neighboring parcel.
5. [14-302(A)8]Proposed lots. Clarify the total acreage of the proposed lots on the cover sheet. The sum of
all lots is 1.68 acres not 1.70; using 1.70 (the sum of rounded lot acreages) gives a total development area
of 2.56 acres.
• Will be reviewed with the Final Plat.
6. [14-302(A)8] Proposed lots. Indicate on the cover sheet that cluster development standards are being used.
• The open space provided does not meet the standard for a cluster development; a minimum of
25% is required. This will be reviewed in more detail on the Final Plat,but is being included in
this comment letter in case it changes the road design.
7. [14-302(A)8] Proposed lots. Provide a frontage dimension for all proposed lots.
• Frontage is measured as a straight line not an arc; some lots may not meet the frontage
requirement. This will be reviewed in more detail on the Final Plat.
1
8. [14-302(A)10] Right of further division of proposed lots. Please remove the development rights note (note
#2) as development rights are not applicable on R-2 zoned land.
• Will be reviewed with the Final Plat.
9. [14-302(A)11] Instrument creating property proposed for subdivision. The legal reference provided should
be a Will Book reference, not a Deed Book reference.
• Will be reviewed with the Final Plat.
10. [14-302(A)12] Topography. Label the existing topography.
• Comment addressed.
11. [14-302(6)5] Zoning classification. Add Airport Impact Area (AIA)to the Zoning note.
• Will be reviewed with the Final Plat.
12. [18-4.6.1] Frontage and lot width measurements. The required frontage may be reduced on a cul-de-sac
provided driveway separation meets VDOT standards. However, minimum lot width must be maintained
between the front and rear yards;the front setback may need to be moved back to where minimum lot width
is achieved.
• Frontage is measured as a straight line not an arc; some lots may not meet the frontage
requirement. This will be reviewed in more detail on the Final Plat.
13. [18-14.4.1] Environmental standards. To qualify for the bonus factor for maintenance of existing wooded
areas you must show that the area maintained meets the definition of'wooded area' in Section 3.
• This information is not included in the road plans, it must be provided prior to Road Plan
approval.
14. [18-14.4.1] Environmental standards. To qualify for this bonus, a conservation plan as specified in section
32.7.9 is required.
• The conservation plan checklist must be completed and signed.
15. [14-317] Instrument evidencing maintenance of certain improvements. A maintenance agreement will be
required for the proposed sidewalks(if they remain outside of the proposed public right-of-way)and the
open space parcel.
• Will be reviewed with the Final Plat.
16. [14-422] Sidewalks and planting strips. Label and dimension the sidewalks and planting strips. Planting
strips must be 6'wide.
• Comment addressed.
17. [32.7.9.5] Street trees. The plant counts in the landscape schedule do not match the number of symbols
shown on the plan; please verify and revise so that the plan and schedule are consistent. Additionally,
some street trees are shown on top of utilities or too close to proposed driveways; relocate street trees with
conflicts to appropriate locations.
Please contact Ellie Ray in the Planning Division by using eravaalbemarle.orq or 434-296-5832 ext. 3432 for
further information.
2
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
CIVIL ENGINEERING
LAND PLANNING
ENGINEERINGa
June 4, 2015
Justin Deel
Regarding: SUB 2015 00069 Hillbrook
Road Plans
Dear Mr. Deel,
I have attached six copies of the Road Plans for Hillbrook. Your comments for the first submittal and the changes we
have made in response are below.
1. Please show limits of sidewalk replacement and CG-6 removal.
The limits of sidewalk replacement and CG-6 removal are now shown in the existing conditions/demolition
plan sheet.
2. Please explain note "Area to be Vacated 4,470 SF"on existing conditions sheet.
Per a survey by Roudabush, Gale, and Associates dated 10/18/2014, a portion of Old Brook Road in front of
the development parcel was never dedicated to public right-of-way,and the current property line passes
approximately through the centerline of the road.We are dedicating this portion of the property to VDOT. The
note has been revised to state "5,317 SF to be dedicated to VDOT."
3. Please show and label managed slopes.
Managed slopes are now delineated with a hatch and labelled.
4. Show stationing at 50' minimum on plans and profiles.
50'stationing is now shown on the road profile and all plan views.
5. Please provide dimensions for and clearly show extent of the private storm sewer easement along
Old Brook Rd.
The private storm sewer easement along Old Brook Road will be delineated with metes and bounds with the
subdivision plat. The edge farthest from the road is 10'off the centerline of the pipe.
6. Should there be a separate easement for sidewalks as they are outside of the street ROW?
A sidewalk easement is now shown on the C3 and C6.
7. Please label proposed grade on road profile. Show and label crossdrains and utilities on profiles.
The proposed grade is now labelled on the road profile. Crossdrains and utilities are now shown and labelled
on profiles.
8. Provide a drainage plan. Please show excess drainage will not be flowing into Old Brook Road.
Provide storm sewer profile(s). What will inlet 5A be capturing? Pre-cast inlets will obviously
lessen your curb entrance radii, do these have to be placed on the entrance?
The drainage plan is included with this submittal,with an LD-204 showing that excess drainage will not be
flowing into Old Brook Road and storm sewer profiles. The inlets have been re-located to be outside of the
curb entrance radii.
Sari 'toad
9. Provide details and profiles for proposed new storm sewer on Old Brook Road.
Details and profiles are now provided for proposed new storm sewer on Old Brook Road.
10. Although this is intended to be a private street, VDOT approval is required for intersection and
utility improvements along Old Brook Road.
Plans have been submitted to VDOT and we are working to address their comments.
11. Provide pavement design calculations.
Pavement design calculations are attached to this letter.
12. Provide sidewalk detail.
A separate sidewalk detail has been provided with this submittal.
Fire Marshal Comment
Fire Flow test required. Fire Flow needed is 1,000 gpm @ 20 psi.
A fire flow test has been requested, and the results will be included with the next submittal.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at your earliest opportunity. I may be reached at:
JustinAshimp-engineering.com or by phone at 434-953-6116.
Best Regards,
Justin Shimp, P.E.
Shimp Engineering, P.C.
%we •r;i...' '!1
1
•
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
cr._ ..rc'. . 2770'
Charles A. Kilpatrick, P,E.
Commissioner
May 19,2015
Mr.Justin Dccl
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 Mclntirc Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: SUB-2015-00069 Hillbrook Drive Road Plans
Dear Mr. Decl:
We have reviewed the road plans for Hillbrook dated 4/16/15 as submitted by Shimp Engineering and offer the
following comments:
1. No portion of the private stormwatcr management facility should be located within public right-of-way.
2. We recommend relocating proposed drop inlets 5 and 5A to the tangent section of Hillbrook Court,i.e.at
approximately station 10+50. These inlets should be designed with 100%capture,and the capacity of the
existing inlet on Old Brook Road east of this site needs to be confirmed as adequate for the existing runoff
and the new runoff from Hillbrook Court that will be downstream of drop inlets 5 and 5A. The curb and
gutter along at the southern return of the Hillbrook/Old Brook intersection will need to be installed as
reverse curb so that the runoff along Old Brook flows across Hillbrook Court.
3. Typically,we do not allow midblock pedestrian crossings as shown on this plan and we do not support the
crossing of Old Brook Road shown. In addition,when the Old Brook Road crossing is removed,the
sidewalk along Hillbrook Court would not be continuous with the existing pedestrian facilities. We would
recommend the removal of the sidewalk along Hillbrook Court. This would be consistent with the side
roads off of Old Brook Road for the rest of the development as they do not typically have sidewalk along
the roadway.
4. The areas along Old Brook Road located within the sight line will need to be posted as no parking so that
sight distance is not obstructed at Hillbrook Court.
5. The right-of-way line to the south of Hillbrook Court is shown to be approximately 6'behind the back of
curb. The right-of-way to the north of Hillbrook Court should be dedicated along the frontage of Old
Brook Road such that right-of-way section is uniform.
If you need additional information concerning this project,please do not hesitate to contact me at(434)422-9782.
Sincerely,
AtjliZ
Troy Austin, P.E.
Arca Land Usc Engineer
Culpeper District
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
�r r..j
VW—
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,Room 227
Charlottesville,Virginia 22902-4596
Phone(434)296-5832 Fax(434)972-4126
Road and Drainage Plan Review
Project title: Hillbrook
Project file number: SUB-2015-00069
Plan preparer: Shimp Engineering,PC
Owner or rep.: Hilltop Partners,LLC
Plan received date: 20 April 2015
Date of comments: 13 May 2015
Reviewers: Justin Deel
1. Please show limits of sidewalk replacement and CG-6 removal.
2. Please explain note"Area to be Vacated 4,740 SF"on existing conditions sheet.
3. Please show and label managed slopes.
4. Show stationing at 50' minimum on plans and profiles.
5. Please provide dimensions for and clearly show extent of the private storm sewer easement along
Old Brook Road.
6. Should there be a separate easement for sidewalks as they are outside of the street ROW?
7. Please label proposed grade on road profile. Show and label crossdrains and utilities on profiles.
8. Provide a drainage plan. Please show excess drainage will not be flowing into Old Brook Road.
Provide storm sewer profile(s). What will inlet 5A be capturing? Pre-cast inlets will obviously
lessen your curb entrance radii,do these have to be placed on the entrance?
9. Provide details and profiles for proposed new storm sewer on Old Brook Road.
10. Although this is intended to be a private street,VDOT approval is required for intersection and
utility improvements along Old Brook Road.
11. Provide pavement design calculations.
12. Provide sidewalk detail.
Please address the following comment provided by Robbie Gilmer,Fire&Rescue:
Fire Flow test required.Fire Flow needed is 1,000 gpm @ 20 psi.
fir►` *S✓
OC nt,
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville,VA,22902
Phone 434-296-5832 Fax 434-972-4126
Memorandum
To: Justin Deel
From: Ellie Ray, CLA, Senior Planner
Division: Planning
Date: May 13, 2015
Subject: SUB 201500069 Hill Brook—Road Plans
I have reviewed the road plans referenced above and the following comments from the Conditional Approval of
the Preliminary Plat have not been satisfactorily addressed:
1. [Comment] This application has been reviewed for items relevant to the Road Plans only. Additional
comments regarding requirements for Final Plat approval will be provided when the Final Plat is submitted.
2. [14-302(A)3] Existing or platted streets. Clarify the existing public right-of-way line and the 30'prescriptive
easement line. The right-of-way line looks much like other lines on the plan,so it is difficult to tell which
lines depict Ow. Is the prescriptive easement only along the subject parcel? Why is it shown over the
existing public right-of-way?
• Will be reviewed with the Final Plat.
3. [14-302(A)4&5] Private&public easements. Verify that the location and dimensions of all existing and
proposed private and public easements are shown. Existing easements should be labeled with the
appropriate DB and PG reference. Proposed easements should be labeled with the intended holder. The
plan proposes both sewer and storm on private lots;these utilities will require easements. Additionally, if
sidewalk is not located within the proposed public right-of-way, a sidewalk easement will be required with
the appropriate maintenance agreement.
• Will be reviewed with the Final Plat; however,it appears additional easements for storm sewer
will be required.
4. [14-302(A)48,5] Private &public easements.Will an easement be necessary for the off-site sewer
connection? If so, show it on the plat and add impacted property owner(s)as signees.
• Will be reviewed with the Final Plat. However,this easement should be in place prior to the
approval of any construction activities on the neighboring parcel.
5. [14-302(A)8] Proposed lots. Clarify the total acreage of the proposed lots on the cover sheet. The sum of
all lots is 1.68 acres not 1.70; using 1.70 (the sum of rounded lot acreages)gives a total development area
of 2.56 acres.
• Will be reviewed with the Final Plat.
6. [14-302(A)8] Proposed lots. Indicate on the cover sheet that cluster development standards are being used.
• The open space provided does not meet the standard for a cluster development;a minimum of
25% is required. This will be reviewed in more detail on the Final Plat, but is being included in
this comment letter in case it changes the road design.
7. [14-302(A)8] Proposed lots. Provide a frontage dimension for all proposed lots.
• Frontage is measured as a straight line not an arc;some lots may not meet the frontage
requirement. This will be reviewed in more detail on the Final Plat.
1
Seri `sod
8. [14-302(A)10] Right of further division of proposed lots. Please remove the development rights note (note
#2)as development rights are not applicable on R-2 zoned land.
• Will be reviewed with the Final Plat.
9. [14-302(A)11] Instrument creating property proposed for subdivision. The legal reference provided should
be a Will Book reference, not a Deed Book reference.
• Will be reviewed with the Final Plat.
10. [14-302(A)12] Topography. Label the existing topography.
• Comment addressed.
11. [14-302(B)5] Zoning classification. Add Airport Impact Area (AIA)to the Zoning note.
• Will be reviewed with the Final Plat.
12. [18-4.6.1] Frontage and lot width measurements. The required frontage may be reduced on a cul-de-sac
provided driveway separation meets VDOT standards. However, minimum lot width must be maintained
between the front and rear yards;the front setback may need to be moved back to where minimum lot width
is achieved.
• Frontage is measured as a straight line not an arc; some lots may not meet the frontage
requirement. This will be reviewed in more detail on the Final Plat.
13. [18-14.4.1] Environmental standards. To qualify for the bonus factor for maintenance of existing wooded
areas you must show that the area maintained meets the definition of`wooded area' in Section 3.
• This information is not included in the road plans, it must be provided prior to Road Plan
approval.
14. [18-14.4.1] Environmental standards. To qualify for this bonus, a conservation plan as specified in section
32.7.9 is required.
• The conservation plan checklist must be completed and signed.
15. [14-317] Instrument evidencing maintenance of certain improvements. A maintenance agreement will be
required for the proposed sidewalks(if they remain outside of the proposed public right-of-way)and the
open space parcel.
• Will be reviewed with the Final Plat.
16. [14-422] Sidewalks and planting strips. Label and dimension the sidewalks and planting strips. Planting
strips must be 6'wide.
• Comment addressed.
17. [32.7.9.5] Street trees. The plant counts in the landscape schedule do not match the number of symbols
shown on the plan; please verify and revise so that the plan and schedule are consistent. Additionally,
some street trees are shown on top of utilities or too close to proposed driveways; relocate street trees with
conflicts to appropriate locations.
Please contact Ellie Ray in the Planning Division by using eravCa albemarle.orq or 434-296-5832 ext. 3432 for
further information.
2
*441111 V
t41iti'ip -1
�IRGINIP
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville,VA,22902
Phone 434-296-5832 Fax 434-972-4126
Memorandum
To: Justin Deel
From: Ellie Ray, CLA, Senior Planner
Division: Planning
Date: May 13, 2015
Subject: SUB 201500069 Hill Brook—Road Plans
I have reviewed the road plans referenced above and the following comments from the Conditional Approval of
the Preliminary Plat have not been satisfactorily addressed:
[Comment] This application has been reviewed for items relevant to the Road Plans only. Additional
go, comments regarding requirements for Final Plat approval will be provided when the Final Plat is submitted.
[14-302(A)3] Existing or platted streets. Clarify the existing public right-of-way line and the 30'prescriptive
asement line. The right-of-way line looks much like other lines on the plan, so it is difficult to tell which
LOCtillnes depict r/w. Is the prescriptive easement only along the subject parcel? Why is it shown over the
existing public right-of-way?
• Will be reviewed with the Final PM.,
(14-302(A)4&5] Private &public easements. Verify that the location and dimensions of all existing and
0;4404.proposed private and public easements are shown. Existing easements should be labeled with the
appropriate DB and PG reference. Proposed easements should be labeled with the intended holder. The
Uo` plan proposes both sewer and storm on private lots;these utilities will require easements. Additionally, if
sidewalk is not located within the proposed public right-of-way, a sidewalk easement will be required with
Q the appropriate maintenance agreement.
• Will be reviewed with the Final Plat; however, it appears additional easements for storm sewer
/ will be required.
/4. [14-302(A)4&5]Private &public easements.Will an easement be necessary for the off-site sewer
$ connection? If so,show it on the plat and add impacted property owner(s)as signees.
ti Will be reviewed with the Final Plat. However,this easement should be in place prior to the
VP approval of any construction activities on the neighboring parcel.
el ` j14-302(A)8] Proposed lots. Clarify the total acreage of the proposed lots on the cover sheet. The sum of
tfriN all lots is 1.68 acres not 1.70; using 1.70(the sum of rounded lot acreages)gives a total development area
L.F of 2.56 acres.
• Will be reviewed with the Final Plat.
,8'* [14-302(A)8] Proposed lots. Indicate on the cover sheet that cluster development standards are being used.
• The open space provided does not meet the standard for a cluster development; a minimum of
0� P\ 25%is required. This will be reviewed in more detail on the Final Plat,but is being included in
this comment letter in case it changes the road design.
[14-302(A)8]Proposed lots. Provide a frontage dimension for all proposed lots.
• Frontage is measured as a straight line not an arc; some lots may not meet the frontage
requirement. This will be reviewed in more detail on the Final Plat.
1
`mm/
[14-302(A)10] Right of further division of proposed lots. Please remove the development rights note(note
#2)as development rights are not applicable on R-2 zoned land.
• Will be reviewed with the Final Plat.
/9:-'114-302(A)11] Instrument creating property proposed for subdivision. The legal reference provided should
be a Will Book reference, not a Deed Book reference.
• Will be reviewed with the Final P
14-302(A)12] Topography. Label the existing topography.
• Comment addressed.
t, 'i./[14.302(B)5] Zoning classification. Add Airport Impact Area (AIA)to the Zoning note.
• Will be reviewed with the Fill Plat.
7[18-4.6.1] Frontage and lot width measurements. The required frontage may be reduced on a cul-de-sac
provided driveway separation meets VDOT standards. However, minimum lot width must be maintained
between the front and rear yards;the front setback may need to be moved back to where minimum lot width
is achieved.
• Frontage is measured as a straight line not an arc; some lots may not meet the frontage
requirement. This will be reviewed in more detail on the Final Plat.
13. [18-14.4.1] Environmental standards. To qualify for the bonus factor for maintenance of existing wooded
areas you must show that the area maintained meets the definition of'wooded area' in Section 3.
• This information is not included in the road plans, it must be provided prior to Road Plan
approval. C 4,64.44.54 - $ ►' j-1..uJ a�CoA S4.4VOZ1'i6d1 Inot iJak,
2. $2• pakxfa cw-`Str 04:Atea .Im 6044,,L "Lt4 Ocrti
[18-14.4.1] Environmental standards. To qualify for this bonus, a conservation plan as specified in section
32.7.9 is required.
• The conservation plan checklist must be completed and signed.
�. [14-317] Instrument evidencing maintenance of certain improvements. A maintenance agreement will be
required for the proposed sidewalks(if they remain outside of the proposed public right-of-way)and the
open space parcel.
• Will be reviewed with the Final Plat.
.18114-422] Sidewalks and planting strips. Label and dimension the sidewalks and planting strips. Planting
strips must be 6'wide.
• Comment addressed.
j.732.7.9.5] Street trees. The plant counts in the landscape schedule do not match the number of symbols
shown on the plan;please verify and revise so that the plan and schedule are consistent. Additionally,
_1 some street trees are shown on top of utilities or too close to proposed driveways; relocate street trees with
404 conflicts to appropriate locations.
Com`
a.�t.a c C --1 1-4464C391 C f�. 4/4 '&3,11.0.0i'.+uaa.
Please contact Ellie Ray in the Planning Division by using eravCa)_albemarle.orq or 434-296-5832 ext. 3432 for
further information.
2
PROJECTPROJECT MANS CIVIL ENGINEERING
LAND PLANNING
ENGINEERINGi ''
April 8, 2015
Michelle Roberge
Glenn Brooks
sus 20t5CDtda +Iiu_ geoo .
Regarding: Sa13-2044 00176 Hilltop
Private Road Request
Dear Ms. Roberge and Mr. Brooks,
As discussed during our meeting March 26,we are requesting authorization of Hillbrook Court as a private street to
reduce earthwork requirements, in compliance with Albemarle County Code Sec. 14-233A, under the general welfare
provision. We believe that authorization will serve the public welfare by substantially reducing the number of trucks
running through an existing residential neighborhood,as well as reducing the duration of construction.
This request complies with all requirements of Albemarle County Code Sec. 14-234C as follows:
1. The private street will be adequate to carry the traffic volume which may be reasonable expected
to be generated by the subdivision.
The development will comprise six single-family lots,with an ITE Code 210 traffic generation of 60 ADT. Because the
site is surrounded on all sides by existing residential lots, Hillbrook Court will not be extended or further developed.
The private street is therefore more than adequate to carry the expected traffic volume.
2. The comprehensive plan does not provide for a public street in the approximate location of the
proposed private street.
No public street is provided in the comprehensive plan for this approximate location, as it is only serving a single large
lot.
3. The fee of the private street will be owned by the owner of each lot abutting the right-of-way
thereof or by an association composed of the owners of all lots in the subdivision, subject in either
case to any easement for the benefit of all lots served by the street.
A homeowners'association will be formed and dues will be collected from the homeowners to cover all costs related
to maintaining the private street, the sidewalk, the landscaping strip, the storm sewer, the stormwater management
facilities, and the preserved open space lot.
4. Except where required by the commission to serve a specific public purpose, the private street will
not serve through traffic nor intersect the state highway system in more than one location.
The proposed private street is a 200' cul de sac which will only serve residents of the surrounding homes,and it
connects to Old Brook Road in only one location.
5. If applicable, the private street has been approved in accordance with section 30.3, flood hazard
overlay district, of the zoning ordinance and other applicable law.
There is no flood hazard in the development parcel.
',Nr/
The attached exhibits demonstrate compliance with the requirements of the private road authorization statutes:
Exhibit 1: Public Street Profile v. Private Street Profile.
Exhibit 2: Site Grading with Public Street
Exhibit 3: Site Grading with Private Street
Exhibit 4: Carlson Earthwork Reports
The results of the earthwork analysis are tabulated below:
Cut(CY)
Public Private Reduction
Street Street
ROW Only 3,037 2,051 32.5%
Full Site 12,197 4,581 62.4%
Earthwork Calculations
Because the proposed driveways are short—only about 20' behind the sidewalk—the road grade is the primary factor
driving the grading of the site.VDOT's requirement of a 50' landing at 2%therefore forces the whole site to a lower
grade, if all other factors are held constant. This ultimately results in approximately 423 additional truckloads of dirt
being hauled off the site.
We believe Hillbrook Court should be authorized as a private street. If you find any issues with this request, or if you
have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at your earliest opportunity. I may be reached at:
Justin(a,shimp-engineering.com or by phone at 434-953-6116.
Best Regards,
Justin Shimp, P.E.
Shimp Engineering, P.C.
Nlime Now
00 ,c, tip U (P CT
O O
�r O (T O (P O CT
o PVC STA. 10+14.99 -- —
PVC ELEV. 492.37
-05'' tncn
-m° �m � 'v,
1 , . PVC .TA. 10+14.99 EDGE OF PAVEMENT
:-4,P1-7-1?- a -I I s s m PVC LEV. 492.97 EX. OLD BROOK ROAD
cOOi�c''<o r < - Amo"a a cng
STA. 10+14.99
-'.�", ,r`pi,'1\oio�c� ELEV. 492.93
90• ^ 0 voc-) NP STA. 10+34.93
1 +.. P ELEV. 493.37
PVT STA. 10+24.99 �'
PVT ELEV. 492.97 %`
PVC •TA. 10+3949
PVC LEV. 493.67
1 Ss
d.
rn,Am-; m u'�OmDE' 0
O 7000 + '
PVC STA 10+64.99 io<n+,+' ' o
PVC ELE/. 493.77 \\ g ", m
v
w mcn PVT .TA. 10+79.99
� o<n> PVT LEV. 497.45
i g'
00 i5,cp
co
A A J
v,D r?i\ C
CO
a ----vr STA.114-1K-99 -- --- — r
o
i n
VT ELEV. 496.;7
PVC STA. 11+06.29 ''g DRIVEWAY OTS 1 & 6 cn
PVC ELEV. 497.15I
PVC STA. 1412.29 7i —
PVC ELEV. $01.62 r— im
EDGE OF t�l1L DE SAC Duin- _
s s s ST 11+27.29 m W_
-OpV'j D D --� (n I (2 _,
070•CO<� Np c:,. IT,.r ,1 O
C7p SpA 16'4- 1 D[]nc.•-r A/ m
A
C.' �J
ENT STA. 11+60.61 r
rn
PVT STA. 11+6 .29
�VT ELEV. 506.19
PVT ELEV. 502 75 ENTER OF CUL DE SAC
DRIVEWAY LO 2& 5 / STA. 11+62.29
rn
.S / of
DRIVEWAY LOTS 3& 4
/
•ND OF CUL DE SAC
N
+--- --- -- — STA. 11+97.29_
o
O /
O
N
/ N
N
/
/
co c0 u) 00O (P (r
U 0 Cr, 0 O CT 0 (T
\ \
OLp ROAD'
am",a
....,..\, ,,, ,
,
(--- ---- '---- �` \ -_—__
\\\\ \
UU / Ai \ \
\ \
� \ \ \ \
.� .o \ �w \-
ll
— I x
I �t I a� $ 1
lic; c:,..11.'
jr)
x ---- _•
x
�� ,— _ J
\ As_-___ 1 ---_
______ -
//
tg. ,...... N.... !
! IlL.11110))."
;re _a.ox !8;
,
,
L Q\--djtIIIIIII Y
0
m
\ / 1 N ,
, __ 4.4441
'J✓'eet 3,,i '.1 S�tiG. ODS
4;%., 0 \
•
/ —OOs—
i
V] W 499 .9 `\
II
co
N _. —_�8 —
W
O , �' n --
N.
N a
/ / D 11 1
/ _ — S:2 n m
to \ \ W
\ \\ z ND
\\\\ \ —— — asv —
• \ \
\ fir"
t3a 7
�, 8 � OLDtnook ROAD /
1
t� _
-- b �_
\ - 4L111 ; \ \ Nw\ N ,
_ II T!1:19
�
, , .„, iiii
��- 00,....___ \ j
-
i. IL _ 1 �"__ _ II
o ± 1i
� ��' '1/4lu 1 m
111
1__---1___ 17_______:il,:: _ 4._
ii::,'
——� �_�_-.MOW- # '': --�_900-
_ 411*-- ---- 1 isle
441410' \ \"-
cidiVAtif
ti
°Ilk— N)---13----
/11
/ \y,_ / b05 //
—OOS
J.
\\ /r \` //A�— — //te – \
w w -�
0 0 -
II --
w
\Q `\\--,. --/----- -969------_-
\ T11----411l
G7
\°90 -----� D D
I-
---
--/
\\ \ ---
/ ---- ori m
D m
NIAso
Exhibit 4: Carlson Reports
ETO Public ROW
Volumes by Triangulation (Prisms) Mon Apr 06 15:34:15 2015
Existing Surface: S:\Projects\13.029 - old Brook Rd\Carlson\xtopo.tin
Final Surface: S:\Projects\13.029 - old Brook Rd\Carlson\new.tin
Cut volume: 82,012.7 C.F. , 3,037.51 C.Y.
Fill volume: 25.5 C.F. , 0.94 C.Y.
Area in Cut : 9,442.5 S.F. , 0.22 Acres
Area in Fill : 47.9 S.F. , 0.00 Acres
Total inclusion area: 9,490.4 S.F. , 0.22 Acres
Average Cut Depth: 8.69 feet
Cut to Fill ratio: 3217.14
Export Volume: 3,036.6 C.Y.
Elevation Change To Reach Balance: 8.639
volume Change Per .1 ft: 35.1 C.Y.
Cut (C.Y.) / Area (acres) : 13941.80
Fill (C.Y.) / Area (acres) : 4.33
Page 1
41,00
ETO Private ROW
Volumes by Triangulation (Prisms) Mon Apr 06 17:29:23 2015
Existing Surface: S:\Projects\13.029 - old Brook Rd\Carlson\xtopo.tin
Final Surface: S:\Projects\13.029 - Old Brook Rd\Carlson\new.tin
Cut volume: 58,136.9 C.F. , 2,153.22 C.Y.
Fill volume: 2,763.0 C.F. , 102.33 C.Y.
Area in Cut : 7,747.3 S.F. , 0.18 Acres
Area in Fill : 1,743.3 S.F. , 0.04 Acres
Total inclusion area: 9,490.6 S.F. , 0.22 Acres
Average Cut Depth: 7.50 feet
Average Fill Depth: 1.58 feet
Cut to Fill ratio: 21.04
Export Volume: 2,050.9 C.Y.
Elevation Change To Reach Balance: 5.835
volume Change Per .1 ft: 35.2 C.Y.
Cut (C.Y.) / Area (acres) : 9882.90
Fill (C.Y.) / Area (acres) : 469.69
Page 1
'fir/ 'gape
ETO Public Street
volumes by Triangulation (Prisms) Thu Mar 26 11:52:34 2015
Existing Surface: S:\Projects\13.029 - old Brook Rd\Carlson\xtopo.tin
Final Surface: S:\Projects\13.029 - old Brook Rd\Carlson\new.tin
Cut volume: 336,926.1 C.F. , 12,478.74 C.Y.
Fill volume: 7,679.2 C.F. , 284.41 C.Y.
Area in Cut : 66,710.6 S.F. , 1.53 Acres
Area in Fill : 10,155.4 S.F. , 0.23 Acres
Total inclusion area: 76,881.3 S.F. , 1.76 Acres
Average Cut Depth: 5.05 feet
Average Fill Depth: 0.76 feet
Cut to Fill ratio: 43.88
Export Volume: 12,194.3 C.Y.
Elevation Change To Reach Balance: 4.283
volume Change Per .1 ft: 284.7 C.Y.
Cut (C.Y.) / Area (acres) : 7070.30
Fill (C.Y.) / Area (acres) : 161.15
Page 1
`✓
ETO Private Street
volumes by Triangulation (Prisms) Mon Apr 06 17:28:33 2015
Existing Surface: S:\Projects\13.029 - old Brook Rd\Carlson\xtopo.tin
Final Surface: S:\Projects\13.029 - old Brook Rd\Carlson\new.tin
Cut volume: 181,801.4 C.F. , 6,733.39 C.Y.
Fill volume: 58,122.0 C.F. , 2,152.67 C.Y.
Area in Cut : 40,577.7 S.F. , 0.93 Acres
Area in Fill : 30,535.8 S.F. , 0.70 Acres
Total inclusion area: 71,242.5 S.F. , 1.64 Acres
Average Cut Depth: 4.48 feet
Average Fill Depth: 1.90 feet
Cut to Fill ratio: 3.13
Export volume: 4,580.7 C.Y.
Elevation Change To Reach Balance: 1.736
Volume Change Per .1 ft: 263.9 C.Y.
Cut (C.Y.) / Area (acres) : 4117.01
Fill (C.Y.) / Area (acres) : 1316.21
Page 1
„...., ,...,
sHimp ,,,,,PROJ
CIVILECT ME AN NG AI NG EEEMR EI NN GT
LAND PLANNING
ENGINEERING
April 6, 2015
Ms. Ellie Ray
Regarding: SUB 2014 00176 Hilltop
Preliminary Subdivision Plat
Dear Ms. Ray
I have attached 8 copies of the Road Plans for Hillbrook. Your comments for the Preliminary Subdivision Plat and the
changes we have made in response are below.
Please note that the Preliminary Subdivision Plat called for a public street, and we are now applying for a variation to
make Hillbrook Court a private street.
Planning Division
1. A plat meeting all the requirements for final subdivision plats per the subdivision ordinance.
We will submit a final subdivision plat after we have heard back regarding the status of accepting Hillbrook Court as a
private street.
2. Existing or platted streets. Clarify the existing public right-of-way line and the 30' prescriptive
easement line. The right-of-way line looks much like other lines on the plan, so it is difficult to tell
which lines depict r/w. Is the prescriptive easement only along the subject parcel? Why is it shown
over the existing public right-of-way?
We hope that the linework has been clarified with this submittal. Our surveyor was not able to find any records
dedicating a portion of Old Brook Road to Public R.O.W., including a portion that is across the street from the
development parcel. However, the areas to the north and south of this portion were dedicated.
3. Private&public easements. Verify that the location and dimensions of all existing and proposed
private and public easements are shown. Existing easements should be labeled with the appropriate
DB and PG reference. Proposed easements should be labeled with the intended holder. The plan
proposes both sewer and storm on private lots; these utilities will require easements. Additionally,
if sidewalk is not located within the proposed public right-of-way, a sidewalk easement will be
required with the appropriate maintenance agreement.
Existing and proposed easements have been labelled appropriately and a sidewalk easement has been added to the
plan.A maintenance agreement will be submitted with the final subdivision plat.
4. Private&public easements. Will an easement be necessary for the off-site sewer connection? If so,
show it on the plat and add impacted property owner(s) as signees.
The off-site sewer connection has been re-designed according to the recommendation of the ACSA and VDOT
reviewers, and the required plat has been submitted to the ACSA.
5. Proposed lots. Indicate on cover sheet that cluster development standards are being used.
The cover sheet has been updated to indicate that cluster development standards are being used.
6. Proposed lots. Clarify the total acreage of the proposed lots on the cover sheet. The sum of all lots
is 1.68 acres not 1.70; using 1.700 (the sum of the rounded lot acreages) gives a total development
area of 2.56 acres.
The area summary table on the cover sheet has been updated and the computations should now be correct.
7. Proposed lots. Provide a frontage dimension for all proposed lots.
A frontage dimension is now provided at the front building setback line for all proposed lots.
8. Right of further division of proposed lots. Please remove the development rights note (note#2) as
development rights are not applicable on R-2 zoned land.
The note has been removed.
9. Instrument creating property proposed for subdivision. The legal reference provided should be a
Will Book reference, not a Deed Book reference.
The legal reference has been updated to indicate the Will Book and Page.
10. Topography. Label the existing topography.
A field-run topographic survey has replaced the prior GPS topographic data.
11. Zoning classification. Add Airport Impact Area(AIA)to the Zoning note.
The Zoning note has been updated to indicate that the parcel is within the Airport Impact Area.
12. Frontage and lot width measurements. The required frontage may be reduced on a cul-de-sac
provided driveway separation meets VDOT standards. However, minimum lot width must be
maintained between the front and rear yards; the front setback may need to be moved back to
where minimum lot width is achieved.
The minimum 65' lot width has been shown at the front setback line for all lots.
13. Environmental standards. To qualify for the bonus factor for maintenance of existing wooded areas
you must show that the area maintained meets the definition of"wooded area" in Section 3.
A detailed map of the location and species of each tree on the property will be provided with the next submittal.
14. Environmental standards. To qualify for this bonus, a conservation plan as specified in section
32.7.9 is required.
A conservation checklist and tree protection fencing have been added to the plan.
15. Instrument evidencing maintenance of certain improvements. A maintenance agreement will be
required for the proposed sidewalks (if they remain outside of the proposed public right-of-way)
and the open space parcel.
A maintenance agreement for the street, sidewalk, landscaping, and open space will be submitted with the final plat.
16. Sidewalks and planting strips. Label and dimension the sidewalks and planting strips. Planting
strips must be 6' wide.
In the plan view and the typical road section, the sidewalks are labelled to be 5'wide and the planting strip is labelled
to be 6'wide.
Ni.d err+
Engineering Division
1. Entrances should not exceed 4% grade for a distance of 40' from the intersected street, measured
anywhere in the entrance [18-4.12.17].
A landing has been provided for the private street that the County Engineer has indicated will be adequate.
2. Show access/easement to open space if area is dedicated to HOA.
An access easement to the open space has been added to the plans.
3. Maximum driveway slope is 16%. Please show that driveways do not exceed this slope for all lots.
Driveway slopes and spot elevations have been added for all lots.
4. The underground detention needs to be deep enough but also be able to connect to the existing
inlet on Old Brook Rd. This can be verified with the VSMP application.
The VSMP application will include detailed plans, profiles, and sections for the storm facilities.
5. Show easements around SWM facilities. This will need to be dimensioned on the plat.
The SWM facilities will be privately maintained.All necessary easements will be shown and dimensioned on the plat.
6. Show sight distance easements and dimension.
A sight distance easement has been added. It will be dimensioned in the final plat.
7. How will quality requirements be addressed? This can be clarified with a VSMP application, but
easements will need to be shown prior to plat approval.
A portion of the site's runoff will be treated with an infiltration facility. The remainder of the water quality requirement
will be met through the purchase of off-site credits.
8. VDOT approval is required for the proposed public road.
As noted above, we are hoping to receive acceptance of the road as private.
9. The sanitary sewer lateral for lot 4 will need an easement. Shift the sanitary sewer lateral for lot 4
off lot 3 to avoid an easement.
The lateral has been re-designed to avoid an easement.
10. Label road as Public Road.
The road has been labelled "Private R.O.W."to be consistent with the application.
11. A road plan approval and a road bond will be required prior to the approval of this plat.
So noted.
12. Please dimension all easements on the plat.
The final subdivision plat will include metes and bounds for all easements.
13. An inlet should be provided in front of lot 6 to avoid runoff into Old Brook Road. If an inlet is not
provided,please show that the released runoff can be captured with the existing inlet on Old Brook
Road. The drainage divides are changing with this project so the effect of the runoff into an older
system should be verified. This analysis can be included when checking channel protection.
The inlets have been relocated to the edge of the proposed entrance, matching the low point of Hillbrook Court. Their
drainage areas and the capacity of the existing system will be verified with the WPO submittal.
ACSA
1. If the proposed sewer connection in Hearthglow Lane is to remain, a reconfiguration of the
alignment per VDOT and ACSA comments will be required. This sewer connection may require
offsite easements.
The sewer connection has been re-designed as suggested in comments#2 and#4, and the connection in Hearthglow
Lane has been eliminated.
2. The ACSA would like the applicant to further explore a sanitary sewer connection(via doghouse
manhole)to the existing sanitary sewer main on TMP# 46A2-7-F. A connection to this sewer
would reduce your overall sewer installation by approximately 340 linear feet. This would also
reduce the cost of restoration in an existing VDOT row,traffic control measures and the vertical
feet of manholes that will be required.
This option is much better than the original planned connection at Hearthglow Lane and has been designed in this
submittal.
3. Show proposed ACSA easements and call them out.
Proposed ACSA easements for water and sewer have been drawn and labelled.
4. Provide a summary of attempts to acquire a sanitary sewer easement on TMP#46-A2-7-F. Also
provide a written response from the HOA representative. If you provide contact information for the
HOA representative, the ACSA can contact the representative to address any questions or concerns
they may have about a proposed public sewer connection.
We have negotiated with the Raintree HOW and obtained an easement, which has been submitted to the ACSA.
5. Correctly show water meter locations.
Water meters are now shown in the planting strip between the sidewalk and the back of curb.
6. Will there be any irrigation on this site?
There is no irrigation planned for this site.
7. Add cover note that the ACSA water and sewer easements are to be centered on the utilities as-
built location.
The note has been added to the cover sheet.
Fire&Rescue
1. Radii entering on to Hilltop Court shall not be less than 25 ft.
The radii have been called out as 25'.
2. Cul-de-sac shall be 96ft FC/FC.
As previously discussed, the cul-de-sac radius has been set at 35'
3. Fire Flow test required before final approval. Required fire flow shall be 1000 gpm @ 20 psi.
The ACSA will conduct a Fire Flow test as soon as possible, and before final approval, to verify sufficient pressure
and flow.
VDOT
1. As shown on the preliminary plat, the sidewalk would need to be located within an easement and
maintained through a maintenance agreement.
A sidewalk easement is shown and labelled on the plans. A maintenance agreement will be submitted with the final
plat.
2. Appendix B (1)of the Road Design Manual allows for a cul-de-sac to have a minimum radius of
30' on short, low volume roads provided that emergency services has no objection.
Fire and Rescue has allowed a radius of 35'.
3. Available intersection sight distance at the proposed connection to Old Brook Road needs to be
confirmed. It is likely that significant slope grading will be required to provide adequate sight
distance. In addition, on street parking along Old Brook Road would likely need to be restricted
near the proposed street connection so that parked cars to not impact the sight distance.
Sight distance plan and profile are included on this submittal, as are signs restricting the parking.
4. The sewer route through Old Brook Road is unacceptable. The sewer line will need to either:
a. Cross Old Brook and run along the shoulder on the north side of Old Brook.
b. Run along the shoulder on the south side of Old Brook.
c. Or preferable, connect to the existing sanitary sewer that runs on TMP 46A2-7-F. This
option likely would require obtaining an easement to make the connection.
The preferred connection to the existing sanitary sewer that runs on TMP 46A2-7-F is much better, and is now
specified in the design documents.
E911
1. The name"Hilltop Court"cannot be used for this development. The applicant should contact this
office with a list of three (3) alternative names for approval.
The street name has been changed to Hillbrook Court.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at your earliest opportunity. I may be reached at:
Justin4shimp-engineering.com or by phone at 434-953-6116.
Best Re. .
Ju•tin Shimp, P.E.
Shimp Engineering, P.C.
PROJECT eNAGEMENT
CIVIL ENGINEERING
LAND PLANNING
ENGINEERING
June 4, 2015
Ms. Ellie Ray
Regarding: SUB 2015 00069 Hillbrook
Road Plans
Dear Ms. Ray,
We have submitted revisions to the Road Plans for Hillbrook. Your comments for the first submittal and the changes
we have made in response are below.
1. [Comment] This application has been reviewed for items relevant to the Road Plans only.
Additional comments regarding requirements for Final Plat approval will be provided when the
Final Plat is submitted.
2. Will be reviewed with the Final Plat.
3. Will be reviewed with the Final Plat; however, it appears additional easements for storm sewer will
be required.
Additional easements for storm sewer are called out on this set of plans.
4. [14-302(A)4&5] Private &public easements. Will an easement be necessary for the off-site sewer
connection?If so, show it on the plat and add impacted property owner(s) as signees.
• Will be reviewed with the Final Plat. However, this easement should be in place prior to the
approval of any construction activities on the neighboring parcel.
The easement for the off-site sewer connection has been platted and is shown in this submittal.
5. Will be reviewed with the Final Plat.
6. [14-302(A)81 Proposed lots. Indicate on the cover sheet that cluster development standards are
being used.
• The open space provided does not meet the standard for a cluster development; a minimum of
25%is required. This will be reviewed in more detail on the Final Plat, but is being included
in this comment letter in case it changes the road design.
The boundary for the dedicated open space has been updated to meet the 25% requirement. The computation
is on the cover sheet.
7. [14-302(A)8] Proposed lots. Provide a frontage dimension for all proposed lots.
• Frontage is measured as a straight line not an arc; some lots may not meet the frontage
requirement. This will be reviewed in more detail on the Final Plat.
The frontage dimension has been changed and should now be shown correctly.
8. Will be reviewed with the Final Plat.
9. Will be reviewed with the Final Plat.
10. Comment addressed.
11. Will be reviewed with the Final Plat.
store %Nei
12. [18-4.6.1] Frontage and lot width measurements. The required frontage may be reduced on a cul-
de-sac provided driveway separation meets VDOT standards. However, minimum lot width must
be maintained between the front and rear yards; the front setback may need to be moved back to
where minimum lot width is achieved.
• Frontage is measured as a straight line not an arc; some lots may not meet the frontage
requirement. This will be reviewed in more detail on the Final Plat.
The frontage dimension has been changed and should now be shown correctly.
13. [18-14.4.1] Environmental standards. To qualify for the bonus factor for maintenance of existing
wooded areas you must show that the area maintained meets the definition of`wooded area' in
Section 3.
• This information is not included in the road plans, it must be provided prior to Road Plan
approval.
A map showing existing trees has been added to the landscape plan for this submittal.
14. [18-14.4.1] Environmental standards. To qualify for this bonus, a conservation plan as specified in
section 32.7.9 is required.
• The conservation plan checklist must be completed and signed.
A completed and signed conservation plan checklist has been added to the plan.
15. Will be reviewed with the Final Plat.
16. Comment addressed.
17. [32.7.9.5] Street trees. The plant counts in the landscape schedule do not match the number of
symbols shown on the plan; please verify and revise so that the plan and schedule are consistent.
Additionally, some street trees are shown on top of utilities or too close to proposed driveways;
relocate street trees with conflicts to appropriate locations.
The landscaping plan has been revised to show the same number of plants as the schedule and the trees
have been moved away from utilities and proposed driveways.Additionally, landscaping easements have
been added around the trees that are now outside of the planting strip.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at your earliest opportunity. I may be reached at:
Justin@shimp-engineering.com or by phone at 434-953-6116.
Best Regards,
Justin Shimp, P.E.
Shimp Engineering, P.C.
�pF A
vt�r�1Q
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
Project title:
Project file number:
Plan preparer:
Owner or rep.:
Plan received date:
(Rev. 1)
Date of comments:
(Rev. 1)
Reviewers:
Road and Drainage Plan Review
Hillbrook
SUB- 2015 -00069
Shimp Engineering, PC
Hilltop Partners, LLC
20 April 2015
6 June 2015
13 May 2015
26 June 2015
Justin Deel
Please show limits of sidewalk replacement and CG -6 removal.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
2. Please explain note "Area to be Vacated 4,740 SF" on existing conditions sheet.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
3. Please show and label managed slopes.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
4. Show stationing at 50' minimum on plans and profiles.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
5. Please provide dimensions for and clearly show extent of the private storm sewer easement along
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
6. Should there be a separate easement for sidewalks as they are outside of the street ROW?
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
7. Please label proposed grade on road profile. Show and label crossdrains and utilities on profiles.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
8. Provide a drainage plan. Please show excess drainage will not be flowing into Old Brook Road.
Provide storm sewer profile(s). What will inlet 5A be capturing? Pre -cast inlets will obviously
lessen your curb entrance radii, do these have to be placed on the entrance?
(Rev. 1) Comment partially addressed. Drainage area plan not found.
9. Provide details and profiles for proposed new storm sewer on Old Brook Road.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
10. Although this is intended to be a private street, VDOT approval is required for intersection and
utility improvements along Old Brook Road.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
11. Provide pavement design calculations.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
12. Provide sidewalk detail.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 2
Revision 1 Comments:
13. Please reflect the requested changes to the overall SWM /drainage plan from the 26 June 2015
VSMP review letter.
Please address the following comment provided by Ellie Ray, Planning:
1. The note below the Wooded Area Tabulation references a 26,707 SF conservation area, while the
preserved wooded space is labeled as 23,764 SF; please clarify and revise, if necessary.
2. The 'new canopy' number in the tree canopy calculation doesn't match that provided in the
Landscape Schedule; verify and revise.
Please address the following comment provided by Robbie Gilmer, Fire & Rescue:
Fire Flow test required. Fire Flow needed is 1,000 gpm @ 20 psi.
File: SUB201500069 Eng. Road Plan Review Rl.doc
�pF A
vt�r�1Q
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
Project title:
Project file number:
Plan preparer:
Owner or rep.:
Plan received date:
Date of comments:
Reviewers:
Road and Drainage Plan Review
Hillbrook
SUB- 2015 -00069
Shimp Engineering, PC
Hilltop Partners, LLC
20 April 2015
13 May 2015
Justin Deel
1. Please show limits of sidewalk replacement and CG -6 removal.
2. Please explain note "Area to be Vacated 4,740 SF" on existing conditions sheet.
3. Please show and label managed slopes.
4. Show stationing at 50' minimum on plans and profiles.
5. Please provide dimensions for and clearly show extent of the private storm sewer easement along
Old Brook Road.
6. Should there be a separate easement for sidewalks as they are outside of the street ROW?
7. Please label proposed grade on road profile. Show and label crossdrains and utilities on profiles.
8. Provide a drainage plan. Please show excess drainage will not be flowing into Old Brook Road.
Provide storm sewer profile(s). What will inlet 5A be capturing? Pre -cast inlets will obviously
lessen your curb entrance radii, do these have to be placed on the entrance?
9. Provide details and profiles for proposed new storm sewer on Old Brook Road.
10. Although this is intended to be a private street, VDOT approval is required for intersection and
utility improvements along Old Brook Road.
11. Provide pavement design calculations.
12. Provide sidewalk detail.
Please address the following comment provided by Robbie Gilmer, Fire & Rescue:
Fire Flow test required. Fire Flow needed is 1,000 gpm @ 20 psi.
File: SUB201500069 Eng. Road Plan Review.doc
Phone 434 - 296 -5832
OF ALA
�'IRGINZP
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, VA, 22902
Memorandum
To:
Justin Deel
From:
Ellie Ray, CLA, Senior Planner
Division:
Planning
Date:
May 13, 2015
Subject:
SUB 201500069 Hill Brook — Road Plans
Fax 434 - 972 -4126
I have reviewed the road plans referenced above and the following comments from the Conditional Approval of
the Preliminary Plat have not been satisfactorily addressed:
1. [Comment] This application has been reviewed for items relevant to the Road Plans only. Additional
comments regarding requirements for Final Plat approval will be provided when the Final Plat is submitted.
2. [14- 302(A)3] Existing or platted streets. Clarify the existing public right -of -way line and the 30' prescriptive
easement line. The right -of -way line looks much like other lines on the plan, so it is difficult to tell which
lines depict r /w. Is the prescriptive easement only along the subject parcel? Why is it shown over the
existing public right -of -way?
• Will be reviewed with the Final Plat.
3. [14- 302(A)4 &5] Private & public easements. Verify that the location and dimensions of all existing and
proposed private and public easements are shown. Existing easements should be labeled with the
appropriate DB and PG reference. Proposed easements should be labeled with the intended holder. The
plan proposes both sewer and storm on private lots; these utilities will require easements. Additionally, if
sidewalk is not located within the proposed public right -of -way, a sidewalk easement will be required with
the appropriate maintenance agreement.
• Will be reviewed with the Final Plat; however, it appears additional easements for storm sewer
will be required.
4. [14- 302(A)4 &5] Private & public easements. Will an easement be necessary for the off -site sewer
connection? If so, show it on the plat and add impacted property owner(s) as signees.
• Will be reviewed with the Final Plat. However, this easement should be in place prior to the
approval of any construction activities on the neighboring parcel.
5. [14- 302(A)8] Proposed lots. Clarify the total acreage of the proposed lots on the cover sheet. The sum of
all lots is 1.68 acres not 1.70; using 1.70 (the sum of rounded lot acreages) gives a total development area
of 2.56 acres.
• Will be reviewed with the Final Plat.
6. [14- 302(A)8] Proposed lots. Indicate on the cover sheet that cluster development standards are being used.
• The open space provided does not meet the standard for a cluster development; a minimum of
25% is required. This will be reviewed in more detail on the Final Plat, but is being included in
this comment letter in case it changes the road design.
7. [14- 302(A)8] Proposed lots. Provide a frontage dimension for all proposed lots.
• Frontage is measured as a straight line not an arc; some lots may not meet the frontage
requirement. This will be reviewed in more detail on the Final Plat.
8. [14- 302(A)10] Right of further division of proposed lots. Please remove the development rights note (note
#2) as development rights are not applicable on R -2 zoned land.
• Will be reviewed with the Final Plat.
9. [14- 302(A)11] Instrument creating property proposed for subdivision. The legal reference provided should
be a Will Book reference, not a Deed Book reference.
• Will be reviewed with the Final Plat.
10. [14- 302(A)12] Topography. Label the existing topography.
• Comment addressed.
11. [14- 302(8)5] Zoning classification. Add Airport Impact Area (AIA) to the Zoning note.
• Will be reviewed with the Final Plat.
12. [18- 4.6.1] Frontage and lot width measurements. The required frontage may be reduced on a cul -de -sac
provided driveway separation meets VDOT standards. However, minimum lot width must be maintained
between the front and rear yards; the front setback may need to be moved back to where minimum lot width
is achieved.
• Frontage is measured as a straight line not an arc; some lots may not meet the frontage
requirement. This will be reviewed in more detail on the Final Plat.
13. [18- 14.4.1] Environmental standards. To qualify for the bonus factor for maintenance of existing wooded
areas you must show that the area maintained meets the definition of 'wooded area' in Section 3.
• This information is not included in the road plans, it must be provided prior to Road Plan
approval.
14. [18- 14.4.1] Environmental standards. To qualify for this bonus, a conservation plan as specified in section
32.7.9 is required.
• The conservation plan checklist must be completed and signed.
15. [14 -317] Instrument evidencing maintenance of certain improvements. A maintenance agreement will be
required for the proposed sidewalks (if they remain outside of the proposed public right -of -way) and the
open space parcel.
• Will be reviewed with the Final Plat.
16. [14 -422] Sidewalks and planting strips. Label and dimension the sidewalks and planting strips. Planting
strips must be 6' wide.
• Comment addressed.
17. [32.7.9.5] Street trees. The plant counts in the landscape schedule do not match the number of symbols
shown on the plan; please verify and revise so that the plan and schedule are consistent. Additionally,
some street trees are shown on top of utilities or too close to proposed driveways; relocate street trees with
conflicts to appropriate locations.
Please contact Ellie Ray in the Planning Division by using erayCcDalbemarle.org or 434 - 296 -5832 ext. 3432 for
further information.
pE A
YlAGIl`11A
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Ellie Ray, Planning
From: Justin Deel, Engineering
Date: 28 April 2015
Subject: Hill Brook Private Street Request (SUB201500069)
The private street request for Hill Brook has been reviewed and approval is recommended. The applicant
seeks authorization of Hillbrook Court as a private street under the general welfare provision [Sec. 14-
233(A)(3)]. Due to the reduced construction traffic and lessened environmental impact allowed by less
stringent private street grading requirements, the stated case for the general welfare provision is deemed
acceptable in this circumstance. The applicant has shown that all requirements in Sec. 14- 234(C) has or
can be met upon the formation of an association composed of the lot owners guaranteeing maintenance of
the private street, sidewalk(s), landscaping strip, storm sewer, stormwater management facility(s), and
preserved open space(s).
Note that this is not a recommended approval for the Hillbrook Court Road Plan, currently under review
under the same project number.
file: SUB201500069 Pvt St Request.doc