HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201800016 Review Comments Major Amendment, Final Site Plan 2018-06-06
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
Site Plan review
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Project: Keswick Hall Additions and Site Improvements – Major Site Plan
AmendmentOld Trail Village Block cks 12 and 1125 – Final (SDP-2015-00007400040)
Plan preparer: Craig Kotarski, PE, Timmons Group – 608 Preston Ave, Suite 200,
Charlottesville, VA 22903 [craig.kotarski@timmons.com ]
Plan preparer: Chris Mulligan, Bill Ledbetter, Raleigh Davis –Roudabush, Gale & Assoc, Inc
914 Monticello Road, Charlottesville, VA 22902 , cmulligan@roudabush.com,
bledbetter@roudabush.com, rdavis@roudabush.com
Owner or rep.: Historic Hotels of Albemarle, LLC; 701 Club Drive, Keswick, March Mountain
Properties LLC VA 22947[1005 Heathercroft Circle, Suite 100]
Dave Brockman, dave@oldtrailvillage.com
Plan preparer: Roudabush, Gale & Associates, Inc.
Engineer: Roudabush, Gale & Associates, Inc.
Plan received date: 4 May 201219 Feb 2 May 201420185
Date of comments: 6 June 2018218 Mar 1 July 20142015
Reviewer: John AndersonJohn Anderson
Project Coordinator: Megan NedostupJ. T. Newberry
Note: Initial site plan included block 15/undivided block 12 (no phases); only block 12, phase 2 included 2,
which was removed and is not included in final site plan under with this review.
Engineering comments Comments to address for Final Site Plan: (:
Ref also 22 Jan 2014 comments, Initial Site Plan (SDP201400001, Michelle Roberge)):
SDP2018-00016DP2015-00007
Required prior to Major Site Plan Amendment Approval
1. Permeable Pavers (in certain respects, several comments relate to VSMP plan and will be shared with
Applicant as follow-up to VSMP Engineering plan review comments):
a. Provide design consistent with VDEQ Design Spec. #7, 6.6, Conveyance and Overflow
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
Formatted: Indent: Hanging: 1.5"
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
Field Code Changed
Field Code Changed
Field Code Changed
Field Code Changed
Formatted: Font: Italic, Underline
Formatted: Right: 0.5"
Formatted: Font: 9 pt, Bold, Underline
Formatted: Font: Bold, Underline
Formatted: Font: 10.5 pt
Formatted: List Paragraph
Formatted: No underline
Formatted: No bullets or numbering
Formatted: Font: Italic, No underline
Formatted: No underline
Formatted: No underline
Formatted: No underline
Formatted: Underline
Formatted
Formatted: Underline
Formatted: Font: Bold
Formatted: Underline
Current Development
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 10
Formatted: Font: 9 pt
Formatted: Font: 9 pt
Formatted: Font: 9 pt
Formatted: Font: 9 pt
Formatted: Font: 9 pt
i. Provide storm drain inlets flush with elevation of the permeable pavement.
ii. Route excess flows to another detention or conveyance system.
iii. Provide curb and gutter in parking areas and along travelways, per 18-4.12.15.g.
iv. Label curb and gutter type on site plan sheets, C4.00-4.04.
b. Ensure planting plan is consistent with VA DEQ Stormwater Design Specification No. 7.
From Spec. #7, Sec. 5 –Physical Feasibility and Design Applications:
c. Evaluate proposed tree species in parking areas (upgradient drainage) and consider replacing
species that shed pods, fronds, filaments, needles, cones, or tiny leaves that tend to blind
openings between permeable pavers.
d. Include (with VSMP plan): permeable paver construction installation and maintenance notes
(Spec. #7), third-party construction inspection checklist, and periodic inspection checklist:
i. Include VA DEQ Stormwater Design Specification No. 7 (Spec. #7), Section 9.3
Maintenance Inspections, in its entirety, on plans. (Link to Spec. 7:
http://vwrrc.vt.edu/swc/documents/2013/DEQ%20BMP%20 Spec%20No%207_PERME
ABLE%20PAVEMENT_Final%20Draft_v1-8_03012011.pdf )
ii. Include Attached 2-p. (periodic /Annual) inspection checklist on plans. (Link to source:
https://www.harrisonburgva.gov/sites/default/files/CommunityDevelopment/files/Enginee
ring/BMP%20Maint%20%26%20Insp%20Checklists_Final_July2013.pdf )
iii. Include on plans 2-p. third-party construction inspection checklist and certification
(Permeable Pavement) located at:
https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/publicworks/sites/publicworks/files/assets/documents/pdf/
publications/spec-7-permeable-pavement.pdf.
2. Revise proposed parking aisle grade north of bioretention facility #3 (see contours 446’-452’) to 5% or
less, per 18-4.12.15.c.
Formatted: Indent: Left: 1", No bullets or numbering
Formatted
Formatted: Font: Italic
Formatted: Font: Bold
Formatted: Underline
Formatted: Indent: Left: 1", No bullets or numbering
Formatted
Formatted: Highlight
Formatted: Underline, Highlight
Formatted: Font: Times New Roman
Formatted
Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 10 pt
Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 10 pt
Formatted: Font: Times New Roman
Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 10 pt
Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 10 pt
Formatted: Space After: 0 pt, Add space between
paragraphs of the same style, Line spacing: single
Formatted: Font: Times New Roman
Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 10 pt
Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 10 pt
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
Current Development
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 10
Formatted: Font: 9 pt
Formatted: Font: 9 pt
Formatted: Font: 9 pt
Formatted: Font: 9 pt
Formatted: Font: 9 pt
3. Ensure dumpster pad, if proposed, is shown, and meets minimum design standards at 18-4.12.19.
Provide detail for dumpster pad, if proposed, and ensure design limits storm runoff through the
dumpster enclosure to reduce potential for storm runoff contamination.
C4.00-C4.04:
4. Show managed steep slopes.
5. Label curb type. If curb is flush with sidewalks, provide labels to clarify this is the case (in addition to
spot elevations).
6. At pedestrian crossings, provide CG-12 ramps (required, as needed). Ensure walks are ADA-
compliant.
a. C4.00 –Provide pedestrian pavement markings at 6’ and 10’ sidewalk /travelway crossings.
b. C4.01 –Provide pedestrian pavement markings at 6’ sidewalk /travelway crossings.
c. Provide pedestrian pavement markings at other sidewalk /travelway crossings.
7. Provide stop bars /pavement marking and/or stop /yield signs to establish principal and secondary
traffic movement for all intersections between internal travelways and Club Drive, and between
internal travelways and internal parking aisles.
C4.01
8. Provide wheel stops for the four (4) 18’ L parking spaces fronting the 6’ walk. See C4.04 for
compliant design; also ACDSM, Sec. 7.C.6.
9. Provide radii for stub turnaround for reinforced turf emergency access.
10. Specify emergency access radius at Club Drive.
11. Revise 4’ walk width to 5’ minimum.
12. Recommend minimum curb radius of 3’.
13. Provide tick marks that define tangent (or curve-curve) endpoints for all radii >10’.
14. If proposed roof runoff connects with proposed or existing storm drain systems, show and label
connections in both plan and profile view (C4.00-C4.04; C7.00-7.03).
15. L3.40: Clarify whether planting plan proposes landscaping vegetation hardier than grass for slopes
steeper than 3:1. Example, Guest Wing, C5.01. Ref. ACDSM, Sec. 8, Grading, A.2 (p. 22 of .PDF; link:
http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/forms_center/departments/community_development/forms/design_standards_
manual/Albemarle_County_Design_Standards_Manual_2015-04-25_draft.pdf ).
16. C5.05-5.09: Provide top and bottom of wall (TW /BW) elevations at frequent intervals for all retaining
walls (RW).
17. If RW is proposed on managed slopes, design must meet standards at 18-30.7.5.
18. State building code requires building permits when a wall retains three (3) or more feet of unbalanced
fill. Albemarle County Building Inspections Division requires engineered design when wall is four (4)
or more feet in height, in addition to a building permit. Please submit engineered design /building
permit application, if needed.
Drainage
19. C5.00-5.04: Provide drainage design tables on plans, not only in SWM calculations booklet. Include:
structure descriptions table; spread at curb /grate inlets (4” rain); pipe design tables (design for 10 -yr.
event: slope, material, diameter, length); inlet data; HGL. Additional comments possible.
20. C5.00-5.04: Show and label (with alphanumeric identifiers) all permeable paver underdrain
connections to proposed drainage system in profile view. For example: two permeable paver 6”
underdrains connect to Str. 316. Provide invert data for all permeable paver underdrains. Account for
all underdrains.
21. Str. 328 – Str. 316 profile caption does not match profile structure labels. Revise (C7.01).
Formatted: No bullets or numbering
Formatted: Underline
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.25", No bullets or
numbering
Formatted
Formatted: Font: Italic
Formatted: Underline
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5", No bullets or numbering
Formatted: Underline
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.25", No bullets or numbering
Formatted: Underline
Formatted: Underline
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Underline
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Underline
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
Formatted: Font: 9 pt
Formatted: Font: 9 pt
Formatted: Underline
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.25", No bullets or numbering
Formatted: Font: Bold
Formatted: List Paragraph, Space After: 8 pt, Don't add
space between paragraphs of the same style, Line spacing:
Multiple 1.08 li
Formatted: Underline
Formatted: No underline
Formatted: Underline
Formatted: No underline
Current Development
Engineering Review Comments
Page 4 of 10
Formatted: Font: 9 pt
Formatted: Font: 9 pt
Formatted: Font: 9 pt
Formatted: Font: 9 pt
Formatted: Font: 9 pt
22. Storm conveyance system minimum pipe diameter is 12”. Ensure all pipe is minimum diameter. (pipe
# 429, 437, 509, 511, etc.)
23. Str. 512 design is problematic: 6” cleanout is inadequate access to storm pipe at 10.42’ depth. Revise.
24. Show existing downstream pipe outlet from Ex. Str. 204 (C5.01).
25. Ensure storm pipes do not exceed 16% max. grade (pipe # 511).
26. C5.02: Provide alphanumeric labels to identify (permeable paver) underdrain pipe/s that outfall to
bioretention facility #3. Provide profile of this system –see item #20, above.
27. Provide table to depict /check design of pipe clearance beneath permeable pavers, wherever pipes
(other than underdrains) pass beneath pavers. List pipes, mini mum clearance required to permit
permeable paver installation at proposed grade, and clearance provided.
28. Engineering relies on VDOT storm system collection (curb /gutter; R&B Std.) and conveyance (inlets
/pipes /MHs, etc.; Drainage Manual) standards. Albemarle County Design Standards Manual
(ACDSM), Sec. 6 –Drainage:
Also, from ACDSM, Sec. 7:
Delete Nyloplast as principal inlet, riser, and pipe material. At times, Nyloplast products may
be acceptable; for example, limited collection of residential runoff from lawns, or in biofilter design,
but overall this design proposes near-exclusive reliance on a non-VDOT/proprietary product.
Nyloplast is not equivalent to VDOT standards, and is inappropriate for this site /use, for travel
/parking areas, and appears inaccessible (for example: Str. 446 =14’; pipe 511). Revise drainage per
VDOT standards and ACDSM, above. Address Spec. #7, 6.6, Conveyance and Overflow
Formatted: No underline
Formatted: No underline
Formatted: Underline
Formatted: No underline
Formatted: No underline
Formatted: No underline
Formatted: No underline
Formatted: No underline
Formatted: No underline
Formatted: No underline
Formatted: No underline
Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 10.5 pt
Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 10.5 pt, Bold
Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 10.5 pt
Formatted: Font: 10.5 pt
Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 10.5 pt
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5", No bullets or
numberingFormatted: Font: Times New Roman, 10.5 pt
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5", No bullets or numbering
Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 10.5 pt
Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 10.5 pt
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5", No bullets or
numberingFormatted: Font: Times New Roman, 10.5 pt
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5", No bullets or numbering
Formatted: Underline
Formatted: Font: Italic
Formatted: Font: Italic
Formatted: Underline
Formatted: Font: Bold
Formatted: Underline
Current Development
Engineering Review Comments
Page 5 of 10
Formatted: Font: 9 pt
Formatted: Font: 9 pt
Formatted: Font: 9 pt
Formatted: Font: 9 pt
Formatted: Font: 9 pt
specifications /requirements.
29. Recommend min. storm pipe slope of 0.55%. Frequent use of 0.50% minimum slope invites
installation error, storm system analysis to ensure As-built hydraulic capacity is adequate, and, in
certain cases, replacement. Ensure min. slope of 0.50% (note instance of 0.49% slope (pipe 103)).
30. SWM Facility Deed of Dedication, and SWM Facility Maintenance Agreement must be recorded.
31. Provide SWM facility easements for SWM facilities. Record SWM easements with Deed of
Dedication prior to Site Plan approval.
32. Provide permanent drainage easements for storm collection and conveyance to include all pipes
outside Public RW, from point of collection to ultimate outfall point of release. Record drainage
easements prior to Site Plan approval.
33. VSMP Plan approval is required for Site Plan approval.
Increase proposed RW, Golf View Drive, to match existing 61’ public RW.
Increase proposed RW, Alpha Street. E; extend 1-ft beyond past sidewalk (61’ public RW).
Related to items #1, 2, 164: Revise private drainage easements for inlets in alleys and pipes that would
fall within a 61-ft public RW (Alpha St. and Golf View Drive). If drainage items lie within a 61’ public RW,
eliminate private drainage easements.
Related to item #3: Shift inlet structures 207, 205, and 213 so they are located within public RW.
20’ Private drainage easement leader line, Alley A, appears to point to FH which would fall within 61’
RW/Alpha Street. Revise. Increase RW. Eliminate easement. Mixing Combining private drainage easements
(inlets) for inlets with storm lines (between inlets) within public RW storm lines between inlets lends
ambiguous maintenance responsibility.
Remove extraneous variable width sight distance easement labels, sheet 4.
Str. 226 and 227 labels, sheets 4 and 5, are confusing. The re appear to be two pipe sections, and a
MH, connecting block 27 storm drain system and Upper Ballard Pond (UBP). Provide complete data on this
storm line with block 27 road plans. Note: pipe #157 (, 226-lf 36” DIA) pipe is bonded with block 28/29B
RP.).
Label, sheet 4, is confusing: “Outfall & storm pipe #157 to be removed and relocated” is misleading
since it cannot be installed until all upslope contributing drainage areas are stabilized. It has not been installed,
yet design proposes to , and is now proposed to be remove ited. Revise this label for accuracy.
Add or transfer Nnotes to block 27 final site plan similar to Notes displayed in images below, and
included on Approved WPO201400004 plan sheets 5 and 10 –please call if any questions.
Submit road plan.
S; submit revised storm sewer pipe schedules for inlets on Belgrove Street (blocks 26/29B) slated to
receive additional runoff from block 27. Also, anticipate and calculate additional runoff from future block 7
(turf/impervious), that may reach Alpha Street storm drain inlets. Failure to consider additional future block 7
runoff may compromise design. Confirm and submit detailed, revised drainage computations fo r Belgrove
Street inlets approved under road plan, SUB201400092, prior to block 27 final site plan approval. Ensure
design of block 28/29B drainage system is not compromised with addition of block 27 runoff to Belgrove
Street.
Road plan for block 27 must provide stormwater runoff collection and , conveyance to sediment basin
approved under WPO201400004, not Upper Ballard Pond, until all upslope contributing DAs (blocks 28, 29B,
27, 7, Additional future blocks) are stabilized. Sediment EDIMENT from un-stabilized, upslope areas will
reach UBP unless storm system design routes to existing sediment basin approved under WPO201400004.
This may present challenge.
Provide design showing and sequence describing storm lines/system needed to convey runoff to
sediment basin adjacent to Old Trail Drive, as long as conveyance is required (until contributing DAs
stabilized).
Revise block 27 ISP and/or amend SUB201400092 Str. 148 storm inlet location. Inlet is shown
extending beyond face of curb FC, into Belgrove Street.
Revise title sheet/ Erosion Control & SWM Note. Phase I & II Erosion control is not provided by the
Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 10.5 pt
Formatted: Normal
Formatted: Underline
Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 10.5 pt
Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 10.5 pt
Formatted: Font: 10.5 pt
Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 10.5 pt
Formatted: Font: 10.5 pt
Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 10.5 pt
Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 10.5 pt
Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 10.5 pt
Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 10.5 pt
Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 10.5 pt
Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 10.5 pt
Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 10.5 pt
Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 10.5 pt
Formatted: Normal, Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering
Style: 1, 2, 3, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at:
0.25" + Indent at: 0.5"
Formatted: Font: 10.5 pt
Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 10.5 pt
Formatted: List Paragraph, Indent: Left: -0.25", Space
After: 8 pt, Don't add space between paragraphs of the
same style, Line spacing: Multiple 1.08 li, Numbered + Level:
1 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment:
Left + Aligned at: 0.25" + Indent at: 0.5"
Formatted: List Paragraph, No bullets or numbering
Formatted: Font: 10.5 pt, Italic
Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 10.5 pt
Formatted: Font: 10.5 pt, Underline
Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 10.5 pt
Formatted: Font: 10.5 pt, Underline
Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 10.5 pt
Formatted: Font: 10.5 pt, Italic
Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 10.5 pt
Current Development
Engineering Review Comments
Page 6 of 10
Formatted: Font: 9 pt
Formatted: Font: 9 pt
Formatted: Font: 9 pt
Formatted: Font: 9 pt
Formatted: Font: 9 pt
existing SWM bioretention pond (Upper Ballard Pond).. Initial site plan does not include ESC phase sheets.
Block 28/29B (WPO201400004) Phase I, Intermediate Ggrading, and Phase II ESC is provided by a sediment
basin. Final site plan approval, block 27, requires VESCP Application. Also, since ISP proposes modification
to WPO201400004 (outfall pipe #157 will not be built as shown), WPO201400004 requires Amendment, prior
to block 27 site plan approval. Revise ESC/SWM text description/, title sheet.
Subdivision ordinance (appears to apply) requires that “the principal means of access to a subdivision
shall be either a public street or a private street.” (14-410.F.). Unless ZMA200400024 Code of Development
allows otherwise, revise Alley ‘A’ and ‘B’ to public street/VDOT standards, unless applying for private street
authorization under 14-233. Design does not provide public (or private) street frontage to many lots.
Sheet 2 –Show pipe #156A, temporary stormwater outfall to sediment basin (under Approved
WPO201400004).
Sheet 3 –Label curb type/s.
Sheet 6 –Provide 1’ contours.
On road plan, show CG-6 to roll-top curb transition.
Eliminate Phase 3 Lots 13-24 on sheets 4, 15. Replace with label: Future Development (REF sheet 3,
Ex. conditions). Alternatively, include Lots 13-24, revise plan title, and provide SWM for Lots 8-24.
Provide SWM for Phase 2 (Phase 3, if included) as prerequisite to site plan approval. VSMP
Application required.
Sheet 3 – Do not show block 15 lots as Existing unless Final Site Plan for these lots is approved. This
is more properly a planning comment, but plans for blocks 15 and 12 were once combined, then split, then
phased. Each successive iteration affects engineering comment since we must eliminate (or note) design
features which may be under concurrent review, but are not yet approved –as is the case with block 15.
Sheet 4 – Eliminate Note 5. –Also SUB201500020, 18-Mar 2015.
Sheet 4 – Label Variable Width Sight Distance Esmt. –SW corner, Lot 12.
Provide narrative/timeline for extending Alley ‘A’ to serve additional Lots. Alternatively, provide cul -
de-sac, if permanent street end. Exemption does not exist for permanent street length <150’. T-type
turnarounds and branch-type turnarounds have been discontinued as ineffective (Ref. ACDSM).
Sheet 3 – Delete reference to SWMP dated March 20, 2013 since it does not provide SWM for 12,
phase 2. Revise note, consistent with WPO2014-00047. Note: block 15 VSMP Application is under review.
Block 12, phase 2/block 15 VSMP approval/s may require review/approval of SWM Master Plan being
developed to reflect layout and concept of Zoning SWM Plan. (SWM Master Plan by Stantec, Williamsburg,
VA.)
Remove sheets 5, 6*, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14 from Site Plan. Retain sheets 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 13 with road plans.
Comment coordinated with Planning/J.T. Newberry. -Also, SUB201500020 comments, 18-Mar 2015†
* Relocate/preserve Final Plan Notes
† Utility roadway/drainage improvements/SURETY-14.434. Surety attaches to SUB plan/subdivision
ordinance.
Sheet 4 – Evaluate width, drainage/utility easements, against depth of burial (ACDSM). For example:
easement width > 20’ is required to install storm line pipe 17 (from MH-18) 10’ below existing grade.
ACDSM, 6.A.3.b. indicates a 24.5’(±) wide drainage easement is required at this point. Provide schedule/table
for ESMT. > 20-ft.
Image, ACDSM
Formatted: Font: 10.5 pt, Italic
Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 10.5 pt
Formatted: Font: 10.5 pt, Italic
Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 10.5 pt
Formatted: Font: 10.5 pt, Italic
Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 10.5 pt
Formatted: Font: 10.5 pt, Small caps
Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 10.5 pt
Formatted: Font: 10.5 pt, Italic
Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 10.5 pt
Formatted: List Paragraph, Space After: 0 pt, No bullets or
numbering
Formatted: Font: 10.5 pt, Superscript
Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 10.5 pt
Formatted: Font: 10.5 pt, Superscript
Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 10.5 pt
Formatted: List Paragraph, Indent: Left: 0", Space After: 0
pt
Formatted: Font: 10.5 pt, Small caps
Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 10.5 pt
Formatted: List Paragraph, No bullets or numbering
Formatted: Font: 10.5 pt, Bold, Underline, Font color: Blue
Current Development
Engineering Review Comments
Page 7 of 10
Formatted: Font: 9 pt
Formatted: Font: 9 pt
Formatted: Font: 9 pt
Formatted: Font: 9 pt
Formatted: Font: 9 pt
Retaining Wall (sheet 11):
Provide sealed structural plans
Provide/revise detail, including:
Foundation drain
Engineered section, behind wall
Thermal expansion, as needed
Details, corners/turns at steps
TYP detail, foundation drain at steps (plan-profile)
Water meters located above/behind wall, not between street and sidewalk
TYP detail/water line: water service line under curb, sidewalk, wall (penetration) –Avoid engineered
backfill, if possible
Show entire wall in sufficient detail to allow contractor to install: steps, concrete/brick, reinforcement,
water service laterals, foundation collector drain, foundation drain/roof leaders to DI. Show wall elements in
relation to walk, street, utilities, and storm system.
Provide sufficient design for construction.
Eliminate 2:1 slope –storm runoff water may not pass over the top of the wall; f., below.
Relocate weeps to discharge beneath sidewalk directly into DI (do not discharge to walk, or street).
Provide swale at top of wall.
Provide swale comps (10-yr event; capacity).
Provide roof drain discharge lines. Avoid release to lawns above wall, route to DI, if possible (Lots 8-
12).
Provide top of wall elevations, #12, below.
Eliminate brick bearing on sidewalk. Furnish concrete foundation ledge for brick face.
Ensure sidewalk may be repaired, sections replaced; j., above.
Future Phase 3/Note: Lots 13, 18, 19 -20’ CG-6 to roll-top curb transition may limit driveway width. Ensure
adequate driveway width.
There are proffers on driveway standards and entrances to dwellings. Proposed layout of units is
shown. On sheet 7/Grading Plan, please provide elevation at the bottom of stairs leading to porch of each
Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 10.5 pt
Formatted: Font: 10.5 pt, Underline
Formatted: Font: 10.5 pt, No underline
Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 10.5 pt
Formatted: Font: 10.5 pt, No underline
Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 10.5 pt
Formatted: Font: 10.5 pt, Underline
Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 10.5 pt
Formatted: Font: 10.5 pt, Italic, Underline
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"
Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 10.5 pt
Formatted: Font: 10.5 pt, Underline
Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 10.5 pt
Formatted: List Paragraph, No bullets or numbering
Current Development
Engineering Review Comments
Page 8 of 10
Formatted: Font: 9 pt
Formatted: Font: 9 pt
Formatted: Font: 9 pt
Formatted: Font: 9 pt
Formatted: Font: 9 pt
dwelling, Lots 8-12, and provide top of wall elevation in front of each dwelling. Compare with proffer
statement: driveways not steeper than 20%; grades no steeper than 10% adjacen t to possible entrances to
dwellings not served by a stairway. [Ref. 9 Jan 2014 initial site plan, sheet 6, PROFFER STATEMENT, OLD
TRAIL VILLAGE, 7. Overlot Grading Plan, H./I.; Also, initial site plan comments, 22 Jan 2014, Item #3]
Revise/increase proposed RW width, Rowcross Street, to include proposed retaining wall, Lots 8 - 12.
1. FThere are proffers on driveway standards and entrances to dwellings. It will be helpful if the
proposed layout of all townhomes and driveways can be shown on this plan to see if driveway standards, sight
distances from garages, and overlot grading works with the site. Mass grading does not appear to exceed 5%,
but include construction note for proffer statement: driveways not steeper than 20%; grades no steeper than
10% adjacent to possible entrances to dwellings not served by a stairway. [Ref. 9 Jan 2014 initial site plan,
sheet 6, PROFFER STATEMENT, OLD TRAIL VILLAGE, 7. Overlot Grading Plan, H./I.; Also, initial site plan
comments, 22 Jan 2014, Item #3]
2. The steep grading on Private Road “A” near lot 1 should be revised. [Applies to block 12; initial site
plan comment]
3. The zoning approval allowed for the use of alleys when lots front along a green space or common
amenity. According to the proposed plan, lot 14 does not front green space. Please address. [Applies to block
12; initial site plan comment].
4. The type of temporary turnaround near lots 12, 13, and 14 has been problematic with other approved
plans. It has been used for parking spaces. Please connect road “A” to Glenn Valley Drive to avoid the
turnaround. This will also resolve comment 5 since green space can be provided for lot 14. [Applies to block
12; initial site plan comment].
5. Remove the temporary turnaround near lot 1. [Applies to block 12; initial site plan comment].
6. Show location of transition from roll top to full CG-6 near DI’s on Court Mont Way, consistent with
transition detail, sheet 13. Also, unless connections for street intersections with commercial entrances are
proposed, delete detail and replace with VDOT CG-9 (A, B, or C) special design entrance gutter [VDOT Road
Design Manual, Appendix B-1, Sect. 4, Elements of Typical Section, H., Private Entrances –Figure 7, Roll Top
Curb Entrance Detail. Also: General Construction Notes for Streets, Title p., Note #5. Link:
http://www.extranet.vdot.state.va.us/locdes/Electronic_Pubs/2005%20RDM/AppendB(1).pdf ].
7. Lots 13-18 do not meet the access requirements for fire rescue access if road “A” will serve as primary
access to lots. E/P to E/P should be 20’ wide at a minimum. [Applies to block 12; initial site plan comment]
8. It appears a waiver for the frontage road, private alley “A”, is necessary for planting strips and
sidewalks. Please discuss with planning. [Applies to block 12; initial site plan comment].
9. VDOT Road & Bridge Standards, 2008 Edit, SMH-1 specifies construction details for sanitary sewer
manholes over 12’ in height. Please add a note to the profile (sheet 11) that all sanitary manhole structures
with a depth of 12’ or greater shall have safety slabs in accordance with VDOT standards. [Link:
http://www.extranet.vdot.state.va.us/LocDes/Electronic_Pubs/2008Standards/Section1400/1411_01.pdf ]
10. Please add note to the profiles that all structures with a depth of 4’ or greater shall have steps in
accordance with standard ST-1 as found in the 2008 Road and Bridge Standards [Link:
http://www.extranet.vdot.state.va.us/LocDes/Electronic_Pubs/2008Standards/Section100/106_09.pdf ].
11. Provide permanent public drainage easement for pipe 58 beyond VDOT R.W. (Rowcross St./Fielding
Run Drive)
Formatted: List Paragraph
Formatted: List Paragraph, No bullets or numbering
Formatted: List Paragraph
Formatted: List Paragraph, No bullets or numbering
Formatted: List Paragraph
Formatted: List Paragraph, No bullets or numbering
Formatted: List Paragraph
Formatted: List Paragraph, No bullets or numbering
Formatted: List Paragraph
Formatted: List Paragraph, No bullets or numbering
Formatted: List Paragraph
Formatted: List Paragraph, No bullets or numbering
Formatted: List Paragraph
Formatted: List Paragraph, No bullets or numbering
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"
Formatted: List Paragraph, No bullets or numbering
Commented [g1]: Did you mean storm sewer
manholes?
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"
Formatted: List Paragraph, No bullets or numbering
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"
Formatted: List Paragraph, No bullets or numbering
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"
Current Development
Engineering Review Comments
Page 9 of 10
Formatted: Font: 9 pt
Formatted: Font: 9 pt
Formatted: Font: 9 pt
Formatted: Font: 9 pt
Formatted: Font: 9 pt
12. Furnish ‘No Parking’ signs along N side of Rowcross Street to prevent 2-way parking.
13. Provide the sidewalk detail.
14. CG-12 should be added at NE corner of Fielding Run and Rowcross Street. (VDOT road plan
comments, 12-June 2014, Item #4)
15. Show and shade stream buffer impacts associated with sanitary utility line installation, sheets 5 and 8
(impacts to be mitigated under WPO/VSMP application).
16. Provide public drainage easements for pipes 62 and unnumbered pipe leaving structure 27 (Rowcross
St.–Ref sheet 2, 9 Jan 2014 initial site plan for example of recorded drainage easement , this block).
17. VDOT must approve plans for public roadways (Claremont Lane, Fielding Run Drive, Rowcross
Street).
18. Final site plan approval/block 27 requires: an approved road plan, approved VESCP/block 27, and
Amendment to VSMP/WPO201400004 (blocks 28/29B; Approved 26-Aug-14).SMP permit, and approved
final plat.
Images re. Iitems #9, 12 , above.
Formatted: List Paragraph, No bullets or numbering
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"
Formatted: List Paragraph, No bullets or numbering
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"
Formatted: List Paragraph, No bullets or numbering
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"
Formatted: List Paragraph, No bullets or numbering
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"
Formatted: List Paragraph, No bullets or numbering
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"
Formatted: List Paragraph, No bullets or numbering
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"
Formatted: List Paragraph, No bullets or numbering
Formatted: Font: 10.5 pt, Italic, Underline, Font color: Blue
Formatted: List Paragraph
Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 10.5 pt
Formatted: Font: 10.5 pt, Italic, Underline, Font color: Blue
Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 10.5 pt
Formatted: Font: 10.5 pt, Italic, Underline, Font color: Blue
Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 10.5 pt
Formatted: Font: 10.5 pt, Italic, Underline, Font color: Blue
Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 10.5 pt
Current Development
Engineering Review Comments
Page 10 of 10
Formatted: Font: 9 pt
Formatted: Font: 9 pt
Formatted: Font: 9 pt
Formatted: Font: 9 pt
Formatted: Font: 9 pt
Please cContact John Anderson, in the Engineering Dept, Please feel free to call if any questions. at
janderson2@albemarle.org or / : 434.296-5832 -296-5832 –xxext. 3069 if any questions.
Thank you
SDP201800016-Keswick Hall Additions–Site Improvements_Maj_060618.docFile: SDP201400040-500007Old Trail
Village block 12, ph-ii_5031815- FSP-072114
Formatted: Font: 10.5 pt
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.25", First line: 0.25"
Formatted: Font: 10.5 pt
Formatted: Font: 10.5 pt
Formatted: Font: 10.5 pt
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"
Formatted: Font: 9 pt
June 6, 2018
Megan Nedostup, Principal Planner
Albemarle County Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: Keswick Hall Additions & Site Improvements
Site Plan Review
SDP2018-16
Ms. Nedostup:
As requested, I’ve reviewed the subject site plan for the proposed construction, and offer
the following comments:
Sewage Disposal: Assuming the proposed renovations and additions are to be
connected to the existing sewage discharge system, it will be the owner’s responsibility to
coordinate with the VA Department of Environmental Quality to either ensure the total
sewage flows remain within the current permitted capacity, or apply for system
expansion.
Water Source: Likewise, it will be the owner’s responsibility to work with the
Office of Drinking Water to determine whether the proposed construction will result in
the facility exceeding the current capacity of the communal water system, or to make any
upgrades necessary.
Restaurant: The proposed relocation of the restaurant will require submission
of a Food Service Plan Review to this office. It is recommended that our staff have the
opportunity to review that plan prior to submittal of the final site development plan to the
County.
If there are any questions or concerns, please give me a call, 434-972-4306.
Sincerely,
Alan Mazurowski
Environmental Health Supervisor
Thomas Jefferson Health District
alan.mazurowski@vdh.virginia.gov
1
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
________________________________________________________________________
Memorandum
To: Craig Kotarski
From: Megan Nedostup- Principal Planner
Division: Planning Services
Date: June 4, 2018
Subject: SDP-2018-016 Keswick Hall Additions- Major Amendment
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. The notification fee of $215 has not been paid. The major site plan amendment will not
be approved until the fee is paid.
2. [32.5.2(a)] The special use permit (SP2018-001) that will allow these changes has not
been approved by the Board of Supervisors to date. The plan will not be approved until
the SP is approved. In addition, the special use permit number and any conditions will
need to be added to the plan once/if the SP is approved. For the time being, at a
minimum add the special use permit number under the zoning. Also, it was discussed
with the SP that the laundry and maintenance facility may move locations, if this occurs
additional comments may be given during the resubmittal.
3. [32.5.2(a)] Under the zoning information, list ‘Rural Area’ after RA.
4. [32.5.2(a)] Provide the heights of the proposed buildings.
5. [32.5.2(a)] Remove the power plant from the site plan, or add a notation/reference that
it is under a different site plan number and bubble that area.
6. [32.5.2(a)] Remove the WPO/VSMP sheets from the site plan. These are not approved
with the site plan and are a separate application and approval.
7. [32.5.2(a)] Include the materials legend on all sheets (L1.0-L1.5).
8. [4.17] It is unclear if the light fixtures that are over 3000 lumens are full cut off. It should
state that lighting is full cut off to meet the ordinance.
a) How many lumens are the bollards? Any fixture that is more than 3000
lumens is required to be full cut off.
b) How many lumens are the string lights? Any fixture that is more than 3000
lumens is required to be full cut off.
2
c) Provide the Loss Light Factor for the fixtures- it needs to be set at 1.0.
d) Provide the footcandle information on the lighting plan so that it can be
determined if the spillover requirements are being met.
9. [32.5.2(d); 4.2] It appears that there are existing critical slopes in the areas that are
proposed to be demolished. Show the critical slopes and apply for a critical slopes
waiver for Board of Supervisors approval (this is also being requested to be provided
with SP2018-001). The justification will need to address the criteria 4.2.5.
10. [32.7.9] Show the grading on the landscape plan. This is needed to verify existing
landscaping that will remain and if screening needs to be provided due to the removal
of existing landscaping on site.
11. [32.7.9] Provide the parking lot tree required number of trees and provided number of
trees information to the landscape sheet.
12. [32.7.9.8] Provide the tree canopy information for all landscaping that is 5’ in height
after 10 years. State how much is required vs how much is being provided.
13. [32.7.9.5(e)] Provide landscape screening along the parking lot for the laundry and
maintenance building to screen it from Keswick Road.
14. [32.7.9.7] Provide screening of the laundry and maintenance building.
15. [32.5.2(a); 4.12.6] Include the square footage of the restaurant space and all other uses
for parking calculations that are outlined in Section 4.12.6. Provide the amount required
and provided for all uses.
Please contact Megan Nedostup at the Department of Community Development 296-5832 ext.
3004 for further information.