HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201400061 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2017-01-09Short Review Comments Report for:
SDP201400061
SubApplication Type:
Old Trail Village, Block 12, Phase 1 - Final
Final Site Development Plan
Date Completed:08/25/2014
Reviewer:Andrew Slack CDD E911
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:The applicant will need to contact this office with a list of three (3) road names for approval to replace
the roadway designated 'Private Alley 'A'' before final approval is given.
Division:
Date Completed:12/11/2014
Reviewer:Johnathan Newberry CDD Planning
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:09/17/2014
Reviewer:John Anderson CDD Engineering
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:08/28/2014
Reviewer:Margaret Maliszewski CDD ARB
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:A Certificate of Appropriateness is required prior to final site plan approval. The applicant shall submit
an applicaitn for a County-wide Certificate of Appropriateness for structures 750’ or more from the
EC. The applicant is advised that:
1. Building mass, roof form, building materials/colors, and landscaping will be the focus of review.
2. Trees, 2½” caliper at planting, 40’ on center, are required along Old Trail Drive, Lower Loop Lane,
Glenn Valley Drive, and Claremont Lane.
3. The following note is required on the site plan: All site plantings of trees and shrubs shall be
allowed to reach, and be maintained at, mature height; the topping of trees is prohibited. Shrubs and
trees shall be pruned minimally and only to support the overall health of the plant.
4. The following note is required on the site and architectural plans: Visibility of all mechanical
equipment from the Entrance Corridor shall be eliminated.
Division:
Date Completed:08/25/2014
Reviewer:Jay Schlothauer CDD Inspections
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:Based on plans dated August 15, 2014.
No comments or conditions.
Division:
Date Completed:09/11/2014
Reviewer:Troy Austin VDOT
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:09/24/2014
Reviewer:Alexander Morrison ACSA
Review Status:See Recommendations
Reviews Comments:JT,
Not sure if I sent this before but I wanted to let you know that the above referenced plan is currently
under construction review by Jeremy Lynn. I will advise once construction approval has been granted
by the ACSA.
Alexander J. Morrison, EIT
Civil Engineer
Division:
Page:1 of 3 County of Albemarle Printed On:June 23, 2018
Not sure if I sent this before but I wanted to let you know that the above referenced plan is currently
under construction review by Jeremy Lynn. I will advise once construction approval has been granted
by the ACSA.
Alexander J. Morrison, EIT
Civil Engineer
Date Completed:08/30/2014
Reviewer:Robbie Gilmer Fire Rescue Admin
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:Based on plans dated 8/15/14
No Comments or objections
Division:
Date Completed:12/11/2014
Reviewer:Johnathan Newberry CDD Planning
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:12/11/2014
Reviewer:Margaret Maliszewski CDD ARB
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:A Certificate of Appropriateness is required prior to final site plan approval for each phase of the
development. The applicant shall submit an application for a County-wide Certificate of
Appropriateness for structures 750’ or more from the EC. The applicant is advised that:
1. Building mass, roof form, building materials/colors, and landscaping will be the focus of review.
Material/color samples are required.
2. Trees, 2½” caliper at planting, 40’ on center, are required along Glenn Valley Drive, Claremont
Lane and Court Mont Way.
3. The following note is required on the site and architectural plans: Visibility of all mechanical
equipment from the Entrance Corridor shall be eliminated.
Division:
Date Completed:12/12/2014
Reviewer:John Anderson CDD Engineering
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:12/09/2014
Reviewer:Robbie Gilmer Fire Rescue Admin
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:Based on SDP dated 11/20/14
No objections or comments
Division:
Date Completed:12/19/2014
Reviewer:Margaret Maliszewski CDD ARB
Review Status:Approved
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:12/22/2014
Reviewer:Johnathan Newberry CDD Planning
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:12/29/2014
Johnathan NewberryPage:2 of 3 County of Albemarle Printed On:June 23, 2018
Reviewer:Johnathan Newberry CDD Planning
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:01/09/2015
Reviewer:Johnathan Newberry CDD Planning
Review Status:Approved
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:01/09/2017
Reviewer:David James CDD Engineering
Review Status:Approved
Reviews Comments:Applied reduction to original bond amount
Division:
Page:3 of 3 County of Albemarle Printed On:June 23, 2018
Q
A <
N 2
§111 a k A pl lAll 1
liJ1I
mV A alA b01 1 11 .. t 1 i T�<..-..i ski �d jja 00$9. I H ! : WAg 'A ill ''w E t 3 la vl � #wU44b+ o:3.
10 Ii i- ' -2 M ii t Pi 0211 Yd_ w
0 ° i CI 1 i t-1-;g 1 ki A fill 0.1 4, 6
e4 2 Mili i 1 Illi
Z 88t- Ars es
s ,, p a $ i 1
.72. M aSa' $ la' gA t i 1 -' '1 ligl; g8 li
1j9vIm r
t.
zm
a
m
swot
vl
H1210N �U INDIA O
11 a L
d 11 s> ;Pi! 2 ^♦A Z Crj IMMI
> -0 r
"
yy H �~ ^ A' O
1 Ali :! AE - :41/ . Z o D —
i ! 1 ! f i 1 1- !i ;x+ N 9) I ca '"4'6 ' , ', ,
§ -0 " ma Nom
itI 'i :
'� —+g @ 1 1 '! i 1 il 4M III ).- ' ' ',,,' 1 , IV
F
1
101 1142
2
GI)
AP
} m
N . . n
>
g- 18A4 "8i 4P PA $ $ $ITiT'x' 8$ ngmgN mn m
" " mmT el' $so iry 18
m u��i'9f r I$ITIEi ...
88A4 '' 2 b 8IA
m p pi i p s px {x� s i = ig "I'; F1 �e 1'8 "1" F 2' g = .="ffl" M4$ '44o gg, m
s]q
11111111 9 t 11 9 -'I 1 -'I $ �'1 9 �'I 9 AA i, A q MI! ' n gR off in mi €€+w"IV 8!:
Ilf Q '� ID a V a 0l a a N a iio' 5n iRy tP ink Afa 9� 1 9$ �y�F m 3T F$ i F /�.
+ gm "ooi 48 g=$ Age pF ^A nm .AHm m .2 • �/�,
11 / 1
I I I I I I I I I I I w $ m '8' „, ��2 : 3'",f ..;,... FTR..^ oa. am..". i$`"' ► k /
0>0
'm `'-9 igil i mN a go 8' t4 81 ' g>bm _
imi
F.
iiglif51
! ik-
PillitE
_ m§ a�y "_ �$ "� 9$1 y - >tirm ,nm� ZeiP S *t 1
im 7, k3 E nm ifim !N Ph. $" > FF ori �mm MA/ ANggl$i .
=4� Ps�R e m �j a mo$ bg Pr Zai MT g.:: 0 n 5 mih !> N: pool mow •
1-i 1� n " nV giFF �O5 55�i"� » >"off �`$
0v n r o"F ,," $" 4`$ 4n l r F F ,; i% yy `84rTi0 phi$
y Vtig �T -ITyti T
ca
Is..„, ; J, g 2 55 ! x $ 8m § r$ Ino �$8 �f€ �A o$�$ u �� iTZ � .
e.T ,,,ott" 1 it Z
0 S I9 >F m mM 81 �w ' F F '"ggf IFR $v>R8 im;
P i $ ,!._ i 1" s= ag !! 1 1 :1!:; Ili 1;ip: li i !
vy
8 l9 m' €> m 9 4 4 PH"� m A41 .i" w�
a '8"- 8 2 m bf 1' 1 a rF4 $ �4o 2" mrW sP Y1
!2 m eIli > m� D g; goo yw 7
0 `om 5o o i' 4i '' ' F e-p "� o�
ig F r -
coW
21
OLD TRAIL BLOCK 12 ROUDABUSH,GALE&ASSOCIATES,INC.
i I: I ENGINEERS,SURVEYORS AND LAND PLANNERS
it g
COVER SHEET a r R AB
PROFE88/ONAL CORPORATION
-
s BER ft. 8V1 ICA B/NOE fife
]111 M
ll
II
914 ROAD- s
w�BEYMLF COUNiY,Wi[iINIA + PHONE 494.977-0205-FAX 494-288.5220-EMAIL
WFO®ROUDAA8 8 i.COAA
Johnathan Newberry
From: Johnathan Newberry
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 5:00 PM
To: 'Bill Ledbetter'
Cc: Margaret Maliszewski; Megan Yaniglos; Chris Mulligan; 'Raleigh Davis';
dave@oldtrailvillage.com
Subject: RE: OT 12 plat
Bill,
The plat for Block 12, Phase 1 has been signed and I'm just summarizing a few items from our
conversation this morning to move forward on getting the site plan completed (and thereby
releasing the building permits for Lot A on the plat).
I appreciate receiving the updated copies of the site plan as we've continued our review. A
.PDF of the changes below will suffice to complete review of the site plan.
/1. With the revision to the setbacks on the plat, the same revision should be reflected
throughout the site plan. I believe this change impacts Sheets 2, 4, 5 and 11.
J2. Landscaping: Sheet 11 shows a total of 4 required trees that lie outside of the right-
of-way. Three trees are found on Lot 7 and one is located across the alley from Lot 1.
For site plans that show required trees outside of common areas or right-of-way, we use
landscaping easements to ensure their long-term survival. Megan and I are comfortable
with them being platted on future plats for this area, but they should be shown on
/ Sheet 11 of the site plan.
J 3. Lighting: The lighting comment on Sheet 1 of the site plan and under Note 8 of the "ARB
plan" should be revised to accurately reflect Section 4.17. The three elements that
need to be noted in this case are:
a. All proposed lighting will not exceed 3,000 lumens.
b. Spillover lighting onto public roads and residential property shall not exceed
one-half foot candle.
c. All outdoor lighting shall be arranged or shielded to reflect light away from
adjoining residential districts and away from adjacent roads.
The current note addresses lighting above 3,000 lumens (which is not proposed here) and
incorrectly implies that the spillover limit and the requirement to arrange lighting
away from residential districts and roads is associated with the number of lumens.
This is not the case. The requirements for both spillover and the arrangement of
lighting apply regardless of the number of lumens.
Thanks,
J.T. Newberry
Planner
County of Albemarle, Planning Division
434-296-5832, ext. 3270
Original Message
From: Bill Ledbetter [mailto:BLedbetter(aroudabush.corn]
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 12:36 PM
To: Johnathan Newberry
Subject: OT 12 plat
JT
1
Plat should be at the county within an hour.
Thanks again for your help with this.
Thanks,
Bill Ledbetter
Roudabush, Gale and Associates
2
r 0) N mvmmmmDND oo ���� lm -{cn Dia -1�mw Omr., nv0- z \,
o-Z7AZJAZ7= rZ1S' ZJ' 2' za 22r' mD
O 0,00002 >r Dm' O m py mmo mo =-0> -m O
o N N3 W k G CO_ N C� C� �Am�3�Zr�Zr NOUS OS r^5 Dim <OT.r NT.m 5-ADmoZS Fl
2 o a (� o y 7. Z�ACOOfOr7mm Nr Npm fN�1A ZO-ym �D� �n�A ��D -,>2.--i,-.
DfT�i�f�•1�N (n �CDj
W o o [n A y n ib O <K c-c-p m ›- r m m m m
O o i x N r _ D_o Sm., r-1, Om Dr . . DrrO m m mazmDr
v 7 flit
,��T2 oMa m m C7 N m N m 0 0 m D ;i m Q m r.0 .,Kcm �'ly 1I o m m Z000rAm 71-1v OMMo _ - m �c U) I o I �Z Z D N�ON pr =m r o =�C �7< ZOO ZC rTtO
n, ° m N D D m=+o�pm�c.iocl o�"� ,o pr oD? O�-aiz MoD �zvo' m us to D
s s oA m n �%, (� u m r r x y ZpOp A= Om D Z p �m Or N A pro %11 Z p-1 ,N
mo n n = 0 ' p 1 n 1 n i or -98,_- z N= mZ z<z fv vomsm, CO CO
c c 8 8 z o g G 0 rt�1• CC rC Q 0.3,—,CoK x0- 0 xz >m1- z~o=z *Fri roh mm m r r- P I0
m rn
i .5".
$ y m m Y O Y O D C O AO'NO��Z;D m�m A F D D-D�Ip I Di > D p0 Z 0u 1T1 ' Z
(` m a
c5-;5 ',45,' 0 H �. O -• I >of-Im--O Z mMZ 0 mr MO m ,-[D]- >z ZO m r,,,,m-D Z Z
11 I m oDDz m�0->0 0 1 O
N _ ,,� ;, C m Z NZ m mr-o nrmmm9 0fn v mo 0NS Z-uz 00� O,c_DO O m m
+ s \ N \ 1N ; T� AN�Z�cm xnc� v ��N vApo ZD Zz�o{o + to m
.w & -C C_ S S Z mD y=v��x Nr m 'ma �, _o
Nva m noOZ-I zF, -m3 ooD-1 AZ �rZ_loX a' x 9'
+ �TP
N �1p or-mm 4'' aZ m GGzzx m- n o2, p
m n Y/ r D S p m D T ~ Z Z wtr, Nese
g " I. C mRr1 =*Dp,*, o mo > �m o m,z r� n -1o czi r o
Z
5 m o ti b 0 II M 31 M 33Z z z<<mzSv A N o ? my o zmm z o
m I m 1 m< Z O mN 0 p Z
e 0b. H or ��_ rnrri
i m !n 0 ln a m Z o x \ --,-_ m sn
l'-'1 m1Zof M TRq _ --
m ,� B�2R-0-71/0 L RIVE
i o 13 m P, o 0, p, N m m D.B. 2886 pp 14/ PEAT- �' — — —
®y mo o m r'''
o v o k __�__ — - -
Ll ,� —� — - - - -
m —
03 CD CO m + �/J/��_ \ EX. TREE LINE T v m $ I /I 1
�m I�
r F m N I j
z
o m . z "I 1::‘1:ET-''r:-15
� ��V Ilr ,; 1Ned
y------:2 o D4
,,,,, ..,, g,„.— , 45- ,,, ,,- ii‘ - ' 1 1,,' 1
Opp C Z�tiO -------11:"'"'-----42:11111H:_____401-
/,//r--, r j rs,r.,
-�
OpCO�n m `,1 m� >O �...1Z
o� —_-`ROLL_' Twp CgC -� I , m �.. III
,tpN�� / ��'r*�im ,,J,_
m� �o __1111il.'-. _ ± r'11:-
I
WLnU,O� Z2vrx zC z-o T _,`," �7+• -
a'o�_1 CJl ZD mD 1�1� ��� ;
OM z Ul / m mya»� 0 I ro➢` 1\ a 3
(0(.�A� aaiA ��. o II x II :1
ms 'aI- I .8
Y A
n 't ND 10N F` ���� � '-'nvI
ii}00
\ N N 30'3614"W 95' III
'1 I ,J, 1
/ '
z�.. II fl I z 1„�
➢ xI
I mn FoI I -
"
/ o I c m° ""
0
\ < TI N 30'3614"W 98I _ -�N
1 l q
r........„,.., `N.,,,, r M ----i / L.• 3 0
\ R1 I $ �� 1_I I CO11 d 4 I,i C + G 4 1 C N i
~ v 1 v;r. o a_... N
\� m u la y
_ 1
\ \ D m c N 30'3614"W 100' I (;� I�.--"_ it
r i'.I i , I
13
�m ID I I I °plZ I 1
m �
0.
16'EP-EP
22'BC-BC
O ---
I
ESMTCCESS � I � „-.• I X�..
-----7/
p '� � _ N 30'3614"W 102' _ � �� I
-,,,,, ''fik-''::__Ii \
il
Ui
jf
Pill.-
c2.cp-mr:C D m N 30'36'14"W 104' N
ca rmmOm I I I S. 9 00 I o 9 II
' �� II
r�
a < =mv
o I
ii al
IS
11
D O p D
m m�in
mOZ m I o N n �' » ifs' ,`,�., .I
vZ -z� 1�1 II I �•+ 8 `° ((L��� 1 +1 I'
zero D r mjNZN 30'36'14"W 105 � Wr1 J°;o < O I I I'Io �_ O V a (n I I I )19,,,*
Q _
fl
N v fr1 aio q
32IFC-FC
@ m I I I NA I w I l�1 R••• n
HH
I I II rrl.'� ®� �b ��pt //� ,
0.,„ :,,,_f,(4,04.
~ CLAR ' qNT LA I -Mi
aP 1 — — —
` s .t 4"E 61 PUBLIC R-1 W 292 Bs' + y 'X3,L
0 o
Zig; p5H oo f } I o N N
m c = - -
M1ffq' 4�`,Xe �y�o 69.0.-A-0 -.016 a��s._ '�t.� .—��_ �\ 0 0' E$ _ r e f/ ,„
f. o i
g.
c)1'6,0,01' i '01��� s s
i 3 15 SoI ITORKS@Ld1 ozo _ / ..
1, \ .9 V -tet 1111 - 1 Y 0�
I ir NZ1)30O .m 'z 8 fto I .,OD .p Nov
0'4, o mayzp a f a _ I m� 1 OOOG, Vl
. I NprnNm ' o O l
,S' 14-00 $ mN �w_mAK y � I Il /1L1
I P� ` V
CJ; 'his -i ^�� o�m_i-1 1 I � .. p9
00 co 0
-{4 I0 -00
m III". . ! 0•
IN I 2 0
n I' II 1 nz Iu I 2
g c g ,o ROUDABUSH,GALE&ASSOCIATES,INC.
OLD TRAIL BLOCK 12, PHASE 1 -1'�< T ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS AND LAND PLANNERS
G O. N
S, 1111
C r> a 3 N G SERVINGEVIRGINIA SL INCE 1956' N
E SITE PLAN ti N � 3� 3� Z
M o 0) 914 MONTICELLO ROAD-CHARLOTTESVILLE,VIRGINIA 22902 S r
31 aP aA
J ALBEMARLE COUNTY,VIRGINIA P J PHONE 434-977-0205-FAX 434-2965220-EMAIL INFO@ROUDABUSH.COM
`./ `r.•,
e, ` ,
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Read
Culpeper,Mrgiroa 22701
Charles A. Kilpatrick,P.E.
Commissioner
December 16,2014
Mr.Johnathan Newberry
Senior Planner
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville,VA 22902
Re: SDP-2014-00061 Old Trail Village Block 12 Phase I Site Plan
Dear Mr.Newberry:
The Old Trail Village Block 12 Phase 1 Site Plan, with revisions dates of November 20, 2014 and
December 12,2014,has been reviewed and we offer the following comments:
1. VDOT has no objection to the Phase 1 Site Plan as submitted.
2. It is understood that the proposed lots will have direct access to a private street,Court Mont Way,
however, in the interest of assuring an adequate, convenient and safe access to public roads,
VDOT recommends the grades along private entrances not exceed 10%.
3. The proposed "Road Closed" barricades shall be Type 3 Barricades (with alternating chevron
fluorescent orange and white stripes)placed in accordance with the 2011 VWAPM.
If you need further information concerning this project,please do not hesitate to contact me at
(434)422-9373.
Sincerely,
Shelly A.Plaster
Land Development Engineer
Culpeper District
YlAGIl`11A
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Project:
Old Trail Village - blocks 12 and 15
Plan preparer:
Roudabush, Gale & Associates, Inc.
Engineer:
Roudabush, Gale & Associates, Inc.
Owner or rep.:
March Mountain Properties LLC
[dave @oldtrailvillage. com]
Plan received date:
22 May 2014
(Rev. 1, block 15)
30 Jul 2014
(1St submittal, block 12)
22 Aug 2014
(Rev. 1, block 12)
4 December 2014 (Phase 1)
Date of comments:
21 July 2014 (block 15)
(Rev. 1, block 15)
17 Sep 2014 (block 15, 12)
(Rev. 1, block 12)
12 December 2014 (Phase 1) - No objection
Reviewer:
John Anderson
Project Coordinator:
J. T. Newberry
This is a final site plan revision review for block 12. Block 15 Final Site Plan comments are unchanged [reserved]
since no block 15 final site plan submission since last revision: 30 -Jul. Blocks 12 and 15 are adjacent.
Comments to address, OTV Block 15 Final Site Plan — (SDP - 201400040) [RESERVED]
(Ref also 22 Jan 2014 comments, Initial Site Plan (SDP201400001, Michelle Roberge)
There 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] (Rev. 1) Comment not addressed — Options: i) include preliminary
site plan sheet 6 in its entirety (SDP201400001; PROFFER STATEMENT, OLD TRAIL VILLAGE, 14 -Sep 2005,
ZMA2004- 00024); ii) include proffer statement, condition 7.H. /I.; or, iii) add brief notes to plan sheets as
requested: driveways not steeper than 20 %; ,grades no steeper than 10% adjacent to possible entrances to
dwellings not served by a stairway. Proposed grading is a condition of initial and final site plans. Proffer
conditions relating to grading have direct bearing on project design and construction. Select option, include
information. Notes can be added to sheet 8 grading notes. Applies to blocks 15 and 12. [§ 18- 32.5.2.d.]
[Comment reserved.]
2. [Applies to block 12; see below]
3. [Applies to block 12; see below]
4. [Applies to block 12; see below]
5. [Applies to block 12; see below]
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,
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 5
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 ]. (Rev. 1)
Comment addressed.
7. [Applies to block 12; see below]
8. [Applies to block 12; see below]
9. VDOT Road & Bridge Standards, 2008 Edit, SMH -1 specifies construction details for utility manholes over
12' in height. Please add a note to the profile (sheet 11) that all manhole structures with a depth of 12' or
greater shall have safety slabs in accordance with VDOT standards. [Link:
hlW: / /www.extranet .vdot.state.va.us /LocDes / Electronic_ Pubs /2008Standards /Sectionl400 /1411 0I.pdf ]
(Rev. 1) Comment not addressed; request restated —sheet #s changed; please add note to sheet 12.
[Comment reserved.]
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:
hlW: / /www.extranet.vdot.state.va.us /LocDes /Electronic_ Pubs /2008Standards /Section100 /106 09.pdf ].
(Rev. 1) Comment not addressed; request restated —sheet #s changed; please add note to sheets 11, 12.
[Comment reserved.]
11. Provide permanent public drainage easement for pipe 58 beyond VDOT R.W. (Rowcross St./Fielding Run
Drive) (Rev. 1) Comment addressed; pipe 58 between inlets 57 and 59 has been eliminated.
12. Furnish `No Parking' signs along N side of Rowcross Street to prevent 2 -way parking. (Rev. 1) Comment
addressed; `No Parking' signs provided on south side of Rowcross Street.
13. Provide the sidewalk detail. (Rev. 1) Comment not addressed. Provide detail as requested. [Comment
reserved.]
14. CG -12 should be added at NE corner of Fielding Run and Rowcross Street. (VDOT road plan comments,
12 -June 2014, Item 94) (Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
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). (Rev. 1) Comment not addressed. Ref. sheets
2, 3 of WPO201400047 which show buffer impact area hatched. RGA comment response letter, 29 -Jul
2014, estimates impact =850sf. Show (shade) and label impact area on final site plan, as initially requested.
An estimate of 840sf (24' X 35') appears reasonable. A lesser figure is likely unreasonable. [§ 18-
32.7.4.1.a-§17-406.A.1.] [Comment reserved.]
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). (Rev. 1)
Comment addressed, but review error. ACCD Asst. County Attorney -led training on easements,
dedications, etc, on 22 -Aug 2014, requires reversal of comment, and revision. Drainage easements beyond
public RW are private, and will not be maintained by Albemarle County or State (VDOT). Please label or
re -label all drainage easements beyond public RW PRIVATE. Comment applies to blocks 12 and 15 — please
check labels carefully (existing /modified sediment basin, Rowcross St, Court Mont Way, Private alley `A'),
and please accept apology for error. This will be a standard item of review with future site and road plans,
and with plats. Easements beyond public RW are Private. (§ 18- 32.7.4.2.a.1.) [Comment reserved.]
17. VDOT must approve plans for public roadways (Claremont Lane, Fielding Run Drive, Rowcross Street).
[Comment reserved.]
18. Final site plan approval requires an approved road plan, and approved VSMP permit. [Comment reserved.]
New
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 5
19. Include VDOT IS -1 inlet shaping detail. [Comment reserved.]
20. Reference road plan comments, sent /dated 15 -Sep 2014. Incorporate revisions per road plan comments.
[Comment reserved.]
21. Revise sheet 9: Plans reference a bioretention basin approved under WP02012 -00013 and reference "block
14 SWM Plan submitted under separate cover." That plan is WP02013- 00021. Revise bioretention basin
label to reference WP02013- 00021, and to read MODIFIED BIORETENTION BASIN. [Comment reserved.]
22. Sheet 9 — Confirm that Ex. 12" D.I. W/L shown on Claremont Lane is to be abandoned. [Comment
reserved.]
23. Compare sheet 11 Rowcross St. profile with sheet 13 storm sewer profile Ex. #32 - #27A, especially sta.
12 +50 -17 +70 (Rowcross St) with storm sewer section between inlet 47 (Fielding Run Drive/Rowcross St)
and inlet 27 (sta. 12 +50). Note difference in existing contours. Revise to show accurate existing elevations
in each profile (required for review, construction, and accurate earthwork estimate /road - drainage bond).
[Comment reserved.]
Comments to address, OTV Block 12 Final Site Plan — (SDP - 201400061)
(Also, see 22 -Jan 2014 comments, Initial Site Plan (SDP201400001, Michelle Roberge)
1. Include grading note, condition, or initial site plan sheet #6 in its entirety. Select option, include
information. [Applies to block 12 and 15 -see item #1, p. 1, above] (Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
2. The steep grading on Private Road "A" near lot 1 should be revised. [Initial site plan comment; with
current design: NA]
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. [Initial site plan
comment; with current design: NA].
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. [Initial site plan comment;
with current design: NA].
5. Remove the temporary turnaround near lot 1. [Initial site plan comment.] Furnish pavement geometry at
north end of Private Alley `A' sufficient for a car /non - commercial truck to enter /exit garage, Lot 12. Revise
north end Alley `A' —see design, Private Road `A', initial site plan. (Rev. 1) Comment does not apply to
the block 12 phase 1 plans. —Lot 12 removed.
6. Show location of transition from roll top to full CG -6 near DI's on Court Mont Way and Private Alley `A'
consistent with transition detail, sheet 12 (§ 18- 32.6.2.e.3.) (Rev. 1) Comment addressed /review error.
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. Initial site plan comment restated: Lots 1 -12
do not meet access requirements for fire rescue access. Private Alley "A" will serve as primary access to
these lots. (§18-32.7.2.1.a.) E/P to E/P should be 20' wide, minimum. Ref. -§14-410.D. — "The design
specifications shall be determined by the county engineer." (Rev. 1) Comment withdrawn — Fire /rescue
trucks will be able to drive on the gutters. W= 20' F /F.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 4of5
8. It appears a waiver for the frontage road, private alley "A ", is necessary for planting strips and sidewalks.
Please discuss with planning. [Initial site plan comment; with current design: defer to Planning] (Rev. 1)
Comment does not apply to the block 12 phase 1 plans.
9. Furnish specific project phasing information. If all roads and utilities within the entire site are included in
phase 1, it is unclear what "Phase 2 will solely consist of the construction of infrastructure for Lots 1 -12"
means. Clarify if this includes everything except dwelling units. Please provide timing of phase 2 and
which approvals —from Applicant's point of view —will remain outstanding, and be required prior to
commencing phase 2 of project. [§ 18- 32.5.2.c.] (Rev. 1) Comment does not apply to the block 12 phase
1 plans.
10. Sheet 2, phasing plan: Identify (number) each lot. (Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
11. Sheet 3 — Remove reference to public drainage easement for any drainage easement beyond VDOT R/W
(see #16, above/block 15, #24, below). (Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
12. Indicate via note or label that block 15 development features are proposed, not existing. Delete labels and
reference to existing block 15 curb, signs, pavement, inlets, etc, unless constructed or approved to be built
(sheet 3 / other sheets, as necessary). (Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
13. Sheet 3 —Do not show sidewalk, south side Glen Valley Drive, unless it exists or is approved to be built.
(Rev. 1) Comment withdrawn.
14. Sheet 4 — Furnish radius of Private Alley `A' (§ 18- 32.5.2.1.). (Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
15. Sheet 4 —Show paved width, Court Mont Way. (Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
16. Sheet 4 —Show sidewalk width north of lots 12 -19. (Rev. 1) Comment does not apply to the block 12
phase 1 plans.
17. Provide sidewalk detail. (Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
18. Sheet 4 — revise location of street sign, west end Court Mont Way, to avoid pipe conflict. (Rev. I )
Comment addressed.
19. Sheet 4 — Provide typical section for proposed 8' wide sidewalk west of Lots 1 -12 (Phase 2 development).
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
20. Sheet 4 —Add note to indicate private alley `A' driveway entrances will not be VDOT CG -9 or Std PE -1.
Furnish typical for private alley `A' driveway entrances. (Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
21. Shift private - public ROW line on Rowcross St. east to radius return at Int. Rowcross St.- Claremont Lane.
(Rev. 1) Comment does not apply to the block 12 phase 1 site plans —shown on block 15 road plans.
22. Defer to Planning on Alley /Pvt. Access Easement concept for Lots 1 -12, but this concept discards a more
favorable initial site plan design. Initially, six lots were proposed to front a private alley. Current proposal
has 12 lots fronting a private alley. Further, with this design, future development lots to the south are tied to
access via Alley/Pvt. Easement. This does not meet § 14 -403: "Each lot within a subdivision shall have
frontage on an existing or proposed street." Alley `A' paved width, excluding roll -top gutter width, should
be 20' minimum —47, above. Proposed 16' EP -EP is insufficient width; design proposes primary access via
alley, without private or VDOT street standards. Engineering recommends connecting Alley `A' through to
Glen Valley Drive, barring VDOT objection. (§ 14- 410.D) (Rev. 1) Recommendation withdrawn. —
Paved feature is a turn- around. It is not a street.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 5 of 5
23. Revise sheet 8: Plans reference a bioretention basin approved under WP02012 -00013 and reference "block
14 SWM Plan submitted under separate cover." That plan is WP02013- 00021. Revise bioretention basin
label to reference WP02013- 00021, and to read MODIFIED BIORETENTION BASIN. (Rev. 1) Comment
addressed.
24. Please label (or re- label) all drainage easements beyond public R/W PRIVATE. Comment applies to blocks
12 and 15 — please check labels carefully (existing/modified sediment basin, Rowcross St, Court Mont Way,
Private alley `A'). This will be a standard item with future site /road plans, and plats. Easements beyond
public RW are Private. (§ 18- 32.7.4.2.a.1.) (Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
25. Sheet 8 —Add grading notes, per Proffer Statement —see item #1, p. -1 (block 15). (Rev. 1) Comment
addressed.
26. Reference road plan comments, sent /dated 15 -Sep 2014. Incorporate revisions per road plan comments.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
27. Sheet 11- Revise detail, Typical Section Rowcross Street, to reference private R/W, public R/W stations.
(Rev. 1) Comment does not apply to the block 12 phase 1 plans.
28. VDOT must approve plans for public roadways (Claremont Lane, Fielding Run Drive, Rowcross Street).
(Rev. 1) Comment acknowledged —VDOT approval required for intersection Claremont/Court Mont.
29. Final site plan approval requires an approved road plan, and approved VSMP permit. (Rev. 1) Comment
does not strictly apply: ref. 428 for VDOT approval —VSMP permit is active. Block 12 SWMP approval
and SWPPP revision approval pending. E- Notification of pending approvals sent, 12/12/14.
Please contact John Anderson at janderson2@albemarle.org, or 434 - 296 -5832 - 0069, if any questions.
File: SDP201400061 -Old Trail Village block 12 -FSP- 121214 -revl
Johnathan Newberry
From: Johnathan Newberry
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 6:45 PM
To: 'Bill Ledbetter'
Cc: 'David Jordan'; Chris Mulligan; John Anderson; Dave Brockman; 'Raleigh Davis'
Subject: Final Site Plan and Subdivision Plat Comments for Block 12, Phase 1
Bill,
I know we're going to meet tomorrow morning on the plat, but here are some of the minor checklist items I mentioned
yesterday. Also, David Benish informed me there is an outstanding$200 notification fee from SDP201400001 (Blk. 12
and 15—Initial). Please pay this fee when this revision is submitted.
Planning Comments on final site plan (SDP201400061):
[General Comment] On Sheet 1, please revise the application number to show SDP201400061.
[General Comment] On Sheet 1, please remove the Health Department from the signature panel.
[Proffer 7(H)] On Sheet 2, please confirm the driveway for Lots 1-7 is at least 18 feet in length. Please label the 18'
length for Lot 1.
[General Comment]Throughout the plan, please label Court Mont Way as an "alley" instead of a "private right-of-way."
[Section 32.7.9 and ARB Comment] On Sheet 11, please revise the landscaping plan in accordance with ARB
requirements(see below).
ARB Comments(issued on 12-11-14 by Margaret Maliszewski,434-296-5832,ext. 3276):
A Certificate of Appropriateness is required prior to final site plan approval for each phase of the development.The
applicant shall submit an application for a County-wide Certificate of Appropriateness for structures 750'or more from
the EC.The applicant is advised that:
7.1)
1. Bu'lding mass, roof form, building materials/colors,and landscaping will be the focus of review. Material/color
am les are required.
ees,2%" caliper at planting,40' on center, are required along Glenn Valley Drive, Claremont Lane and Court Mont
ay. Yep- ••• i AIlit t:•..c
3.The following note is required on the site and architectural plans:Visibility of all mechanical equipment from the
Entrance Corridor shall be eliminated.
Planning Comments on final plat (SUB201400061):
[Section 14-302(6)(5)] Under Zoning, please spell out the "Neighborhood Model District."
[Section 14-302(6)(6)] At the request of our County Attorney's office, please show the full 14 digit tax map and parcel
number for TMP 055E0-01-00-000A1 wherever it is shown on the plat(Area summary,Statement to consent to division,
under Owners Approval, etc.).
[Section 14-302(B)(7)] Please revise the reservoir watershed note to read: "This site lies within a water supply protection
area and specifically is within the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir water supply watershed."
[Section 14-302(B)(8)] Please revise the side setback to show 0'.
Thanks,
J.T. Newberry
Planner
County of Albemarle, Planning Division
434-296-5832, ext. 3270
1
November 20, 2014
Mr. John Anderson
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: Old Trail Block 12 & 15—Final Site Plan (SDP201400061 and SDP201400040)
Dear Mr. Anderson,
I have reviewed and addressed your comments. The individual responses to the Block 12
comments are below.
Comments to address, OTV Block 12 Final Site Plan—(SDP201400061)
1. Include grading note, condition, or initial site plan sheet#6 in its entirety. Select option, include
information. [Applies to block 12 and 15 —see item#1, p. 1, above]
There 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]. (Rev. 1) Comment not addressed—
Options: i)include preliminary site plan sheet 6 in its entirety(SDP201400001; PROFFER
STATEMENT OLD TRAIL VILLAGE, 14-Sept 2005,ZMA2004-00024); ii) include proffer statement,
condition 7.H./I.; or, iii)add brief notes to plan sheets as requested: driveways not steeper than 20%;
grades no steeper than 10%adjacent to possible entrances to dwellings not served by a stairway.Notes
can be added to sheet 8 grading notes.Applies to blocks 15 and 12.
I chose Option 2,which was to include condition 7.H./I. of the proffer statement. These two
statements were added to the Grading Notes on sheet 8 for both the Block 15 and Block 12 plans.
2. The steep grading on Private Road"A"near lot 1 should be revised. [Initial site plan comment; with
current design: N/A].
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. [Initial
site plan comment; with current design: N/A].
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 Glen Valley Drive to avoid
the turnaround. This will also resolve comment 5 since green space can be provided for lot 14.
[Initial site plan comment; with current design: N/A].
swe
5. Remove the temporary turnaround near lot 1. [Initial site plan comment]. Furnish pavement
geometry at north end of Private Alley 'A' sufficient for a car/non-commercial truck to enter/exit
garage, Lot 12. Revise north end Alley 'A' —see design, Private Road 'A', initial site plan.
The temporary turnaround near Lot 1 does not apply to the Block 12,Phase 1 plans.
6. Show location of transition from roll-top to full CG-6 near DI's on Court Mont Way and Private
Alley 'A' consistent with transition detail, sheet 12.
The locations of the transitions from roll-top to CG-6 on Court Mont Way and Private Alley 'A'
are shown on the plans and seem to be consistent with the transition detail. The roll-top curbing
on the plans only shows the back-of-curb and the edge-of-pavement; however,the face-of-curb is
shown in the transitions on the CG-6 areas.
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. Initial site plan comment
restated: Lots 1-12 do not meet access requirements for fire rescue access. Private Alley 'A' will
serve as primary access to these lots. E/P to E/P should be 20' wide, minimum.
The width from the face-of-curb to face-of curb is 20 feet. Fire and rescue trucks will be able to
drive on the gutters. Because the length from F/C to F/C is 20', there should be no issues with the
trucks being able to drive on the private road.
8. It appears a waiver for the frontage road,private alley"A", is necessary for planting strips and
sidewalks. Please discuss with planning. [Initial site plan comment; with current design: defer to
Planning].
Does not apply to the Block 12,Phase 1 Plans.
9. Furnish specific project phasing information. If all roads and utilities within the entire site are
included in phase 1, it is unclear what"Phase 2 will solely consist of the construction of
infrastructure for Lots 1-12"means. Clarify if this includes everything except dwelling units. Please
provide timing of phase 2 and which approvals—from Applicant's point-of-view—will remain
outstanding and be required prior to commencing phase 2 of project.
Does not apply to the Block 12,Phase 1 Plans.
10. Sheet 2, phasing plan: Identify (number) each lot.
Lot numbers are now shown on sheet 2.
11. Sheet 3 —Remove reference to public drainage easement for any drainage easement beyond VDOT
R/W (see#16, above/block 15, #24, below).
Revised accordingly.
12. Indicate via note or label that block 15 development features are proposed, not existing. Delete
labels and reference to existing block 15 curb, signs,pavement, inlets, etc., unless constructed or
approved to be built(sheet 3 /other sheets, as necessary).
I deleted all labels that reference elements of Block 15 as "existing". Instead, I included an
asterisk(*)with all of the labels that reference elements of the Block 15 plan. There is also a
note with most of the sheets stating that an asterisk means that it was a part of the Block 15
plans.
13. Sheet 3 —Do not show sidewalk, south side Glen Valley Drive, unless it exists or is approved to be
built.
The sidewalk on the south side of Glen Valley Drive does not currently exist, but was approved
under the Block 11 Final Site Plans (SUB201200008).
14. Sheet 4—Furnish radius of Private Alley 'A'.
Revised accordingly.
15. Sheet 4—Show paved width, Court Mont Way.
Revised accordingly.
16. Sheet 4—Show sidewalk width north of lots 12-19.
Revised accordingly.
17. Provide sidewalk detail.
The detail showing the "Typical Sidewalk Section" is shown on sheet 8 (the 'Road & Utility
Profiles, Typical Sections' sheet).
18. Sheet 4—Revise location of street sign, west end Court Mont Way,to avoid pipe conflict.
I moved the location of the pipe, and there is no longer a conflict with this.
19. Sheet 4—Provide typical section for proposed 8' wide sidewalk west of Lots 1-12 (Phase 2
development).
The typical section for the proposed 8' wide sidewalk is going to be the same typical section as the
proposed 5' wide sidewalk(detail on sheet 8). I edited the "Sidewalk Typical Section" detail to
read "5' or 8"'width.
20. Sheet 4—Add note to indicate private alley 'A' driveway entrances will not be VDOT CG-9 or Std
PE-1. Furnish typical for private alley 'A' driveway entrances.
A note was added to sheet 4 to provide residential driveway entrances, CG-9B. Also, the CG-9B
detail was added to the Construction Notes and Details sheet.
21. Shift private-public ROW line on Rowcross St. east to radius return at intersection of Rowcross and
Claremont Lane.
Revised accordingly with the Block 15 Road Plans; does not apply to the Block 12 Phase 1 Plans.
22. Defer to Planning on Alley/Pvt. Access Easement concept for Lots 1-12, but this concept discards a
more favorable initial site plan design. Initially, six lots were proposed to front a private alley.
•
**44001
Current proposal has 12 lots fronting a private alley. Further, with this design, future development
lots to the south are tied to access via Alley/Pvt. Easement. This does not meet 14-403: "Each lot
within a subdivision shall have frontage on an existing or proposed street". Alley 'A' paved width,
excluding roll-top gutter width, should be 20' minimum-#7, above. Proposed 16" EP-EP is
insufficient width; design proposes primary access via alley, without private or VDOT street
standards. Engineering recommends connecting Alley 'A' through to Glen Valley Drive, barring
VDOT objection.
Does not apply to the Block 12 Phase 1 Plans.
23. Revise sheet 8: Plans reference a bioretention basin approved under WP02012-00013 and reference
"block 14 SWM Plan submitted under separate cover". That plan is WP0201300021. Revise
bioretention basin label to reference WP0201300021, and to read MODIFIED BIORETENTION
BASIN.
The plans should now only reference WP0201300021, the MODIFIED BIORETENTION BASIN.
24. Please label (or re-label) all drainage easements beyond public R/W PRIVATE. Comment applies to
blocks 12 and 15 —please check labels carefully(existing/modified sediment basin, Rowcross St,
Court Mont Way, Private alley `A'). This will be a standard item with future site/road plans, and
plats. Easements beyond public RW are Private.
Revised accordingly. The easements around the existing/modified sediment basin are existing, and
therefore, can't be changed to private, since the plans have already been approved having
"public" easements.
25. Sheet 8 —Add grading notes, per Proffer Statement—see item#1, p. 1 (block 15).
The notes about grading stated in the Proffer Statement were added to sheet 8.
26. Reference road plan comments, sent/dated 15 Sept 2014. Incorporate revisions per road plan
comments.
Revisions per the road plan were incorporated.
27. Sheet 11 —Revise detail, Typical Section Rowcross Street,to reference private R/W, public R/W
stations.
Does not apply to the Block 12 Phase 1 Plans .
28. VDOT must approve plans for public roadways (Claremont Lane, Fielding Run Drive, Rowcross
Street).
Acknowledged.
29. Final site plan approval requires an approved road plan, and approved VSMP permit.
Acknowledged.
Note: Final site plan approval requires VSMP approval. Please consider VSMP plan review comments
to extent they reference final site plan elements. Anticipate VSMP comments 17/18 Sept 2014.
November 20, 2014
Mr. John Anderson
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: Old Trail Block 12 & 15—Final Site Plan (WPO201400071 and WPO201400047)
Dear Mr. Anderson,
I have reviewed and addressed your comments. The individual responses to the comments for
Block 12 are below.
A. VSMP: SWPPP and Pollution Prevention Plan—Block 12 (WPO201400071) (Section 17-405)
(The Virginia stormwater management program, stormwater pollution prevention plan application
and documents)
Refer to Block 15 comments; Comments are virtually identical. Oct-2 meeting scheduled for
questions.
Responses to comments concerning the SWPPP are addressed in the WPO comments for
Block 15.
B. VSMP: SWPPP: Stormwater Management Plan—Block 12 (WP0201400071)
Refer to Block 15 comments. WP0201400047 SWM comments (2-8) apply to Blocks 15 and 12
equally.
2. Attach or transfer relevant sheets, elements and details of block 14 approved WPO
(WPO201300021)to current application to lend guidance and clarity during WPO review of block
15, during bonding, inspection, and construction. WPO plans for block 15 may not be approved by
simple reference to an approved WPO without transferring relevant information. To reiterate,please
include plan sheets listed below for purposes of guidance and clarity(not analysis), since nearly all
block 15 post-development runoff routes to an approved modified (future) bioretention facility. (At
present, and for some time, the facility will serve as a sediment basin). Transfer sheets 4, 5, and 6 of
approved WPO210300021 plan set(March 20, 2013)without change. Please label each sheet as a
plan sheet taken from approved WPO201300021. (Rev. 1) Comment partially addressed: as
follow-up: please label each sheet as originating with WPO201300021.
Each sheet now has a note in the lower right-hand corner stating"Taken from WPO201300021*".
3. In addition, from sheet 2 of March 20, 2103 plan set, attach or transfer: sediment basin narrative,
sediment basin schematic elevations detail (including design elevations with emergency spillway),
and plan view of basin—label this information taken from approved WP0201300021. Further,
please label major contours (640', 650'). Confirm and label existing base of sediment basin elevation
=635.0'. (Rev. 1) Comment partially addressed. As follow-up to 10-Sept discussion,please
\.r/ Nue
remove sheet 2 of WPO201300021. The appearance of existing Block 14 ESC measures may
confuse. Instead, from WP0201300021/sheet 2, please include (with both Block 15 and Block 12
VSMP plans): Sediment Basin Narrative; Sequence of Construction; Sediment Basin Schematic
Elevations. These details line WP0201300021 modified sediment basin design data to a future
bioretention facility.
Sheet 2 from WP0201300021 was removed from the plan set. I copied the Sediment Basin
Narrative;Sequence of Construction;Sediment Basin Schematic Elevations from sheet 2 of
WP0201300021 and put them on the EC Narrative sheet for both Block 15 and Block 12.
Note/see New. #4, below: Bioretention has been approved for Blocks 14 and 11, not the entire 19.25
Ac. Area shown on sheet 5, WP0201300021. While WPO201300021 provides perimeter ESC for
Block 12 and most of Block 15, and provides SWM for Blocks 11 and 14, it does not provide future
development(Block 15 and 12) stormwater control beyond 46,286 s.f. of impervious area and
158,208 s.f. of lawn/cultivated turf area—ref. Short Version BMP Computation spreadsheet detail
shown on Sheet 5, WPO201300021.
New:
4. WP0201400021 provides SWM control for 46,286 s.f of future development impervious area.
WP0201400021 schematic of Blocks 11, 14, 12 & 15,as well as drainage area defined as 19.25 Ac., shows
future impervious area= 125,000 s.f.(12 & 15). With revised WP0201400047, please compare 46,286 s.f.
impervious and 158,208 s.f. lawn(area)available under WP0201300021 with proposed Block 15
development. If proposed impervious/lawn exceeds what is available under WP0201300021, provide
treatment.Note: Please see water quality narrative, bullet 3, sheet 5, WP0201300021: 8,700 sf x 12 in/ft--
104,400 cu.in; 104,400 in3,under this methodology,provides WQ control for Y2"runoff for 208,800 sf of
impervious area.Average of 208,800 and 348,000 sf=278,400 sf. Taking Block 11 and 14 impervious areas
into consideration, 46,286 s.f. is available—not 50,330 s.f. listed in bullet 3. This calculation does not affect
Block 11 or 14 approvals,but bioretention basin(treatment)volume available for future(Block 15 and 12)
development is central to current reviews. We discussed this briefly 24-Sept-14.
The proposed impervious area for Block 12,Phase 1 =33,308 s.f.,which is less than the 46,286 s.f.of
impervious area that is allowed with WP0201300021.
5. Part II-B water quality criteria appear to apply to stormwater facility design of future development, to Block
15 areas not covered by WP0201300021 (ref 9VAC25-870-63). Please utilize VaRRM spreadsheet design
methodology for areas not covered under WPO201300021.
All of the area for Block 12,Phase 1 is covered under WP0201300021.
6. In reporting post-development characteristics for use with VaRRM(or Short Version BMP),CN, drainages,
and land use/cover(including future Blocks 17, 18)should be checked. Fielding Run Drive is east boundary
of Block 15,and appears a divide,with areas just SW and to the east drainage east. It appears that proposed
contours do not allow runoff from certain areas within the 19.25 Acreage on sheet 5 (WPO201300021)to
reach the modified sediment basin/future bioretention facility. Underlying suppositions bear review. It
appears a portion of runoff from `current' (9.32 Ac.)and `additional' (9.93 Ac)areas depicted as reaching the
modified facility does not. Figures used to show compliance for Blocks 11 and 14 appear problematic or
invalid,and require revision to show SWM compliance for Blocks 15 and 12.
,'. r
The entire impervious area proposed with the WPO plan for Block 12,Phase 1,is covered under the
WP0201300021 plans.
7. With revised WPO201400047, please furnish existing conditions with soil types/boundaries.
The existing conditions sheet,which shows the soil types and boundaries,is now included in the plan set.
8. Furnish pre-/post-development drainage area maps.
Because the impervious area proposed with the Block 12,Phase 1 plans is covered under the
WP0201300021 plans,I feel that showing the pre-/post-development drainage area maps is not necessary
for the WPO plans for Block 12,Phase 1.
C. VSMP: SWPPP: Erosion Control Plan—Block 12 (WP0201400071)—The erosion control plan
content requirements can be found in County Code section 17-402.
1. Provide diversion dike or ditch, west side of modified sediment basin, sheet 3.
A 94 foot diversion ditch is now proposed to allow runoff of the western side of the site to drain
into the modified sediment basin.
2. Revise CE to paved CE with wash rack, sheet 2.
The "Erosion and Sediment Control Legend" on sheets 3 and 4, now states that the CE symbol is a
"Paved Construction Entrance with Wash Rack". The detail for a paved construction entrance
with a wash rack is on sheet 7.
3. Revise 668' contour to 666', lower right quadrant, sheet 2, near Future Development Area label.
Grading labels revised.
4. Label all drainage easements beyond public RW PRIVATE. Comment applies to Blocks 12 and 15—
please check labels carefully(existing/modified sediment basin, Rowcross St, Court Mont Way,
Private Alley `A'), and please accept apology for error. This will be a standard item of review with
future VSMP plans. Easements beyond public RW are Private. (Section 18-32.7.4.2.a.1)
Revised accordingly.
YlAGIl`11A
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Project:
Old Trail Village - blocks 12 and 15
Plan preparer:
Roudabush, Gale & Associates, Inc.
Engineer:
Roudabush, Gale & Associates, Inc.
Owner or rep.:
March Mountain Properties LLC
[dave @oldtrailvillage. com]
Plan received date:
22 May 2014
(Rev. 1, block 15)
30 Jul Aug 2014
(1St submittal, block 12)
22 Aug 2014
Date of comments:
21 July 2014 (block 15)
(Rev. 1, block 15)
17 Sep 2014 (block 15, 12)
Reviewer:
John Anderson
Project Coordinator:
J. T. Newberry
Note: Initial site plan included blocks 12 & 15. This is a first final site plan review for block 12, second final site
plan review for block 15. Comments for each block follow under separate headings. These blocks are adjacent.
Comments to address, OTV Block 15 Final Site Plan — (SDP - 201400040)
(Ref also 22 Jan 2014 comments, Initial Site Plan (SDP201400001, Michelle Roberge)
There 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.A.; Also, initial site
plan comments, 22 Jan 2014, Item #3] (Rev. 1) Comment not addressed — Options: i) include preliminary
site plan sheet 6 in its entirety (SDP201400001; PROFFER STATEMENT, OLD TRAIL VILLAGE, 14 -Sep 2005,
ZMA2004- 00024); ii) include proffer statement, condition 7.H. /I.; or, iii) add brief notes to plan sheets as
requested: driveways not steeper than 20 %; grades no steeper than 10% adjacent to possible entrances to
dwellings not served by a stairway. Proposed grading is a condition of initial and final site plans. Proffer
conditions relating to grading have direct bearing on project design and construction. Select option, include
information. Notes can be added to sheet 8 grading notes. Applies to blocks 15 and 12. [§ 18- 32.5.2.d.]
2. [Applies to block 12; see below]
3. [Applies to block 12; see below]
4. [Applies to block 12; see below]
5. [Applies to block 12; see below]
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).pd ]. (Rev. 1)
Comment addressed.
New
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 5
7. [Applies to block 12; see below]
8. [Applies to block 12; see below]
9. VDOT Road & Bridge Standards, 2008 Edit, SMH -1 specifies construction details for utility manholes over
12' in height. Please add a note to the profile (sheet 11) that all 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 /Sectionl400 /1411 01.pdf ]
(Rev. 1) Comment not addressed; request restated —sheet #s changed; please add note to sheet 12.
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 ].
(Rev. 1) Comment not addressed; request restated —sheet #s changed; please add note to sheets 11, 12.
11. Provide permanent public drainage easement for pipe 58 beyond VDOT R.W. (Rowcross St. /Fielding Run
Drive) (Rev. 1) Comment addressed; pipe 58 between inlets 57 and 59 has been eliminated.
12. Furnish `No Parking' signs along N side of Rowcross Street to prevent 2 -way parking. (Rev. 1) Comment
addressed; `No Parking' signs provided on south side of Rowcross Street.
13. Provide the sidewalk detail. (Rev. 1) Comment not addressed. Provide detail as requested.
14. CG -12 should be added at NE corner of Fielding Run and Rowcross Street. (VDOT road plan comments,
12 -June 2014, Item #4) (Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
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). (Rev. 1) Comment not addressed. Ref. sheets
2, 3 of WPO201400047 which show buffer impact area hatched. RGA comment response letter, 29 -Jul
2014, estimates impact = 850sf. Show (shade) and label impact area on final site plan, as initially requested.
An estimate of 840sf (24' X 35') appears reasonable. A lesser figure is likely unreasonable. [§ 18-
32.7.4. l .a -§17-406.A.1.]
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). (Rev. 1)
Comment addressed, but review error. ACCD Asst. County Attorney -led training on easements,
dedications, etc, on 22 -Aug 2014, requires reversal of comment, and revision. Drainage easements beyond
public RW are private, and will not be maintained by Albemarle County or State (VDOT). Please label or
re -label all drainage easements beyond public RW PRIVATE. Comment applies to blocks 12 and 15 — please
check labels carefully (existing /modified sediment basin, Rowcross St, Court Mont Way, Private alley `A'),
and please accept apology for error. This will be a standard item of review with future site and road plans,
and with plats. Easements beyond public RW are Private. (§ 18- 32.7.4.2.a.1.)
17. VDOT must approve plans for public roadways (Claremont Lane, Fielding Run Drive, Rowcross Street).
18. Final site plan approval requires an approved road plan, and approved VSMP permit.
19. Include VDOT IS -1 inlet shaping detail.
20. Reference road plan comments, sent /dated 15 -Sep 2014. Incorporate revisions per road plan comments.
21. Revise sheet 9: Plans reference a bioretention basin approved under WPO2012 -00013 and reference "block
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 5
14 SWM Plan submitted under separate cover." That plan is WP02013- 00021. Revise bioretention basin
label to reference WP02013- 00021, and to read MODIFIED BIORETENTION BASIN.
22. Sheet 9 — Confirm that Ex. 12" D.I. W/L shown on Claremont Lane is to be abandoned.
23. Compare sheet 11 Rowcross St. profile with sheet 13 storm sewer profile Ex. #32 - #27A, especially sta.
12 +50 -17 +70 ( Rowcross St) with storm sewer section between inlet 47 (Fielding Run Drive/Rowcross St)
and inlet 27 (sta. 12 +50). Note difference in existing contours. Revise to show accurate existing elevations
in each profile (required for review, construction, and accurate earthwork estimate /road - drainage bond).
Comments to address, OTV Block 12 Final Site Plan — (SDP- 201400061)
(Also, see 22 -Jan 2014 comments, Initial Site Plan (SDP201400001, Michelle Roberge)
1. Include grading note, condition, or initial site plan sheet #6 in its entirety. Select option, include
information. [Applies to block 12 and 15 -see item #1, p. 1, above]
2. The steep grading on Private Road "A" near lot 1 should be revised. [Initial site plan comment; with
current design: NA]
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. [Initial site plan
comment; with current design: NA].
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. [Initial site plan comment;
with current design: NA].
5. Remove the temporary turnaround near lot 1. [Initial site plan comment.] Furnish pavement geometry at
north end of Private Alley `A' sufficient for a car /non - commercial truck to enter /exit garage, Lot 12. Revise
north end Alley `A' —see design, Private Road `A', initial site plan.
6. Show location of transition from roll top to full CG -6 near DI's on Court Mont Way and Private Alley `A'
consistent with transition detail, sheet 12 (§ 18- 32.6.2.e.3.)
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. Initial site plan comment restated: Lots 1 -12
do not meet access requirements for fire rescue access. Private Alley "A" will serve as primary access to
these lots. (§ 18- 32.7.2.1.a.) E/P to E/P should be 20' wide, minimum. Ref. -§ 14- 410.D. — "The design
specifications shall be determined by the county engineer."
8. It appears a waiver for the frontage road, private alley "A ", is necessary for planting strips and sidewalks.
Please discuss with planning. [Initial site plan comment; with current design: defer to Planning]
9. Furnish specific project phasing information. If all roads and utilities within the entire site are included in
phase 1, it is unclear what "Phase 2 will solely consist of the construction of infrastructure for Lots 1 -12"
means. Clarify if this includes everything except dwelling units. Please provide timing of phase 2 and
which approvals —from Applicant's point of view —will remain outstanding, and be required prior to
commencing phase 2 of project. [§18-32.5.2.c.]
10. Sheet 2, phasing plan: Identify (number) each lot.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 4of5
11. Sheet 3 — Remove reference to public drainage easement for any drainage casement beyond VDOT R/W
(see #16, above/block 15, #24, below).
12. Indicate via note or label that block 15 development features are proposed, not existing. Delete labels and
reference to existing block 15 curb, signs, pavement, inlets, etc, unless constructed or approved to be built
(sheet 3 / other sheets, as necessary).
13. Sheet 3 —Do not show sidewalk, south side Glen Valley Drive, unless it exists or is approved to be built.
14. Sheet 4 — Furnish radius of Private Alley `A' (§ 18- 32.5.2.1.).
15. Sheet 4 —Show paved width, Court Mont Way.
16. Sheet 4 —Show sidewalk width north of lots 12 -19
17. Provide sidewalk detail.
18. Sheet 4 — revise location of street sign, west end Court Mont Way, to avoid pipe conflict.
19. Sheet 4 — Provide typical section for proposed 8' wide sidewalk west of Lots 1 -12 (Phase 2 development).
20. Sheet 4 —Add note to indicate private alley `A' driveway entrances will not be VDOT CG -9 or Std PE -1.
Furnish typical for private alley `A' driveway entrances.
21. Shift private - public ROW line on Rowcross St. east to radius return at Int. Rowcross St.- Claremont Lane.
22. Defer to Planning on Alley /Pvt. Access Easement concept for Lots 1 -12, but this concept discards a more
favorable initial site plan design. Initially, six lots were proposed to front a private alley. Current proposal
has 12 lots fronting a private alley. Further, with this design, future development lots to the south are tied to
access via Alley/Pvt. Easement. This does not meet § 14 -403: "Each lot within a subdivision shall have
frontage on an existing or proposed street." Alley `A' paved width, excluding roll -top gutter width, should
be 20' minimum —#7, above. Proposed 16' EP -EP is insufficient width; design proposes primary access via
alley, without private or VDOT street standards. Engineering recommends connecting Alley `A' through to
Glen Valley Drive, barring VDOT objection. (§14-410.D)
23. Revise sheet 8: Plans reference a bioretention basin approved under WP02012 -00013 and reference "block
14 SWM Plan submitted under separate cover." That plan is WP02013- 00021. Revise bioretention basin
label to reference WP02013- 00021, and to read MODIFIED BIORETENTION BASIN.
24. Please label (or re- label) all drainage easements beyond public R/W PRIVATE. Comment applies to blocks
12 and 15 — please check labels carefully (existing/modified sediment basin, Rowcross St, Court Mont Way,
Private alley `A'). This will be a standard item with future site /road plans, and plats. Easements beyond
public RW are Private. (§ 18- 32.7.4.2.a.1.)
25. Sheet 8 —Add grading notes, per Proffer Statement —see item #1, p. -1 (block 15)
26. Reference road plan comments, sent /dated 15 -Sep 2014. Incorporate revisions per road plan comments.
27. Sheet 11- Revise detail, Typical Section Rowcross Street, to reference private R/W, public R/W stations.
28. VDOT must approve plans for public roadways (Claremont Lane, Fielding Run Drive, Rowcross Street).
29. Final site plan approval requires an approved road plan, and approved VSMP permit.
Note: Final site plan approval requires VSMP approval. Please consider VSMP plan review comments to
Engineering Review Comments
Page 5 of 5
extent they reference final site plan elements. Anticipate VSMP comments 17/18 -Sep 2014.
Please contact John Anderson in the Engineering Dept at janderson2galbemarle.org or 434 - 296 -5832 ext. 3069 if
any questions.
File: SDP201400061- SDP201400040 -Old Trail Village blocks 12- 15 -FSP- 091714
fid' r✓
A L,
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper Virgsn a 21701
Charles A.Kilpatrick,P.E.
Commissioner
September 11,2014
Mr.Johnathan Newberry
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville,VA 22902
Re: SDP-2014-00061 Old Trail Block 12 Final Site Plan
Dear Mr.Newberry:
We have reviewed the road and utility plan for Old Trail Village,Block 12 dated August 15,2014 as
submitted by Roudabush,Gale&Associates,Inc.and offer the following comments:
1. All roads shown on the plan for this block will be privately owned and maintained. They include
Court Mont Way,the private alley 'A',and the portion of Rowcross Street shown in these plans.
2. The right-of-way Iine for Rowcross Street should be moved to the end of radius at the intersection
with Claremont Lane rather than at the location currently shown.
3. The sight lines for Claremont Lane at the intersection with Rowcross Street. On-street parking on
the north side of Rowcross Street may interfere with the available sight distance at this
intersection. It may work better with the on-street parking being on the south side of Rowcross
Street.
4. The drop inlets on the south side of Rowcross Street appear to be graphically inaccurate. The
manhole structure appears to be located in the paved surface as evidenced by the alignment of the
storm sewer pipe.
5. The storm sewer pipe between existing structure 27 and structure 20a is labeled as pipe 25 in plan
view and as pipe 27B in the profile from structure#24 to the outfall.
6. The storm sewer profile from existing structure 27B to structure 20a should be added to the plan.
7. The street trees shown along Claremont Lane should be a minimum of 30' from the end of radius
at each intersection. It appears that two of the trees on the west side of Claremont Lane north of
Court Mont Way should be removed.
If you need additional information concerning this project,please do not hesitate to contact me at(434)
422-9782.
Sincerely,
94"
/64' t
Troy A stin,P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Culpeper District
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING