HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201800071 Review Comments Initial Site Plan 2018-11-13Short Review Comments Report for:
SDP201800071
SubApplication Type:
TIMBERWOOD SQUARE - INITIAL
Initial Site Plan
Date Completed:11/06/2018
Reviewer:Tori Kanellopoulos CDD Planning
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:Initial SDP201100042 was approved. Two finals were withdrawn- SDP201400039 and
SDP201500023. The file for SDP2015 appears to be missing, however John Anderson has the
VSMP plan. SDP2015 shows the final road configuration and appears to match SDP2018. JT
Newberry reviewed SDP2015 and in his most recent CountyView comment from 6/15/2017, the only
Planning comment left to address was a parking instrument for the standalone parking.
Division:
Date Completed:10/15/2018
Reviewer:John Anderson CDD Engineering
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:1. Note: Combined (Engineering) Road Plan (SUB201500077) and Final Site Plan review comments
(SDP201500023) were sent to Applicant on 6/18/16 (Timberwood Square).
2. Final Site, Road, WPO Plans for this proposed development did not reach point of approval.
SDP201500023 (FSP) expired due to inactivity.
2a. Text of email sent to Applicant (8/31/2018 10:03 AM), reads, in part: "…this application was
withdrawn in January due to inactivity in accordance with 32.4.3.5(b). In addition, your initial has
expired since it was approved in 2011 and that is only valid for 5 years. So, you will need to submit
an initial site plan and fee and start your application again.”
2b. Text, email, Engineering to Planning (6/18/2016 2:11 PM -also RMS docs, SDP201500023):
"(SDP201500023) –Engineering has No Objection to FSP design. Engineering comments addressed
with this or prior submittal. FSP Approval requires ROAD Plan Approval, and requires that roads
(Lois Lane, Landon Lane) be built or bonded. ROAD Plan is not approved. FSP Approval requires
that WPO be approved and bonded. Planning coordinator should confirm that SWM Maintenance
Agreements have been signed, that project has received VPDES Permit coverage letter from DEQ.
Please confirm WPO status with Max Greene, Engineering Div."
3. Current SDP201800071, Initial Site Development Plan for Timberwood Square, may be identical
with SDP201500023. Engineering requests cloud revisions for any design change made to
SDP201500023 (since basis of SDP201800071) since Final Site Plan set dated 8 Jun 2016 (2nd
Revision). If no changes, please respond 'SDP201500023 is identical with SDP201800071'.
4. Lot Lines are illogical, apart from property valuation purposes. It is unorthodox to place half a
private street easement within lots (Lois Lane). If SDP201800071 is identical with SDP201500023,
and lot lines shown are permissible by ordinance, and /or previously reviewed and accepted by
Planning Division, then Engineering does not object. Otherwise, provide conventional right-of-way
(RW). RW prevents any portion of Lois Lane being included with Lots 25 - 32.
5. Ch. 14 Division 5, Procedures for the Approval of Private Streets, Sec. 14-233, When private
streets in development areas may be authorized is relevant. It appears no element of initial site plan
approval persists, and that request for approval of private streets in the development area is required.
6. Street design standards: Engineering recently met with RGA (10/4/18) to discuss conceptual
layout for 770 Rio Road East. VDOT and AASHTO standards apply to street design for six or more
lots, and apply to Timberwood Square. If RGA can accept county position that in this particular
instance, since a Road Plan CL radius of 110' (Lois Lane) was accepted in 2016, and Road Plan was
virtually approved, provided RGA does not reference 110' CL radius in future applications unless
supported by VDOT /AASHTO standards, then Engineering will not reverse and require what would
amount to major redesign of Lois Lane. Options: Indicate understanding of County willingness to
approve a 110' CL radius for Lois Lane; identify VDOT /AASHTO reference to 110' CL radius
(Engineering is unaware of a CL radius standard this low); redesign Lois Lane to meet
VDOT /AASHTO CL radii standards. Engineering welcomes RGA acceptance that if 110' CL radius
is less than published applicable VDOT /AASHTO standards, Engineering does not in the future
intend to accept 110' (or any measure of) radius that does not meet VDOT /AASHTO minimum
design parameters.
7. Related to item 4., above, large portions of back yards of Lots 25 – 32 are in proposed landscape
easement, trail easement, or ACSA easement. This is problematic, but Engineering defers to
Planning on whether lot lines, Lots 25-32, meet ordinance.
8. Related to items 4. and 7., Landon Lane is shown entirely within lots. No RW is provided. If
Landon Lane is to serve as a private street established with subdivision, please provide right-of-way
required for private streets. Lois Lane and Landon Lanes are not yet approved as private streets.
They are public roads, by default. They are not alleys. They require, whether public roads or private
streets, right-of-way. Please revise affected lot lines to provide public road /private street RW for
both Lois Lane and Landon Lane.
9. Submit Road Plan that addresses remaining Road Plan review comments, at earliest
convenience. Engineering requests cloud revisions for any design change made to SUB201500077
Road Plan set received 7 Jun 2016 (2nd Revision). If no changes, please state ‘Road Plan submittal
identical with most recent Road Plan for Timberwood Square, SUB201500077.’ Again, please show
any changes as cloud revisions.
10. Carefully review Engineering Division Road and Site Plan comments dated 18-Jun 2016. (Also
Attached. Also in CV.)
11. Final Site Plan Approval requires Planning Division to authorize private streets in the
development area, if private streets are proposed.
12. Final Site Plan Approval requires Road Plan meet VDOT-AASHTO standards, with exception
outlined in item 6., above.
13. Final Site Plan Approval requires roads be built or bonded.
14. Final Site Plan Approval requires WPO Approval. Last action on WPO201500032: review
comments sent to Applicant, 6/27/16. If Applicant re-submits a WPO plan based on
WPO201500032, Engineering requests cloud revisions of any change to plans since last submittal of
WPO20500032.
15. This Initial Site Plan appears to require an Initial and/or Final Plat.
Division:
Page:1 of 3 County of Albemarle Printed On:December 14, 2018
intend to accept 110' (or any measure of) radius that does not meet VDOT /AASHTO minimum
design parameters.
7. Related to item 4., above, large portions of back yards of Lots 25 – 32 are in proposed landscape
easement, trail easement, or ACSA easement. This is problematic, but Engineering defers to
Planning on whether lot lines, Lots 25-32, meet ordinance.
8. Related to items 4. and 7., Landon Lane is shown entirely within lots. No RW is provided. If
Landon Lane is to serve as a private street established with subdivision, please provide right-of-way
required for private streets. Lois Lane and Landon Lanes are not yet approved as private streets.
They are public roads, by default. They are not alleys. They require, whether public roads or private
streets, right-of-way. Please revise affected lot lines to provide public road /private street RW for
both Lois Lane and Landon Lane.
9. Submit Road Plan that addresses remaining Road Plan review comments, at earliest
convenience. Engineering requests cloud revisions for any design change made to SUB201500077
Road Plan set received 7 Jun 2016 (2nd Revision). If no changes, please state ‘Road Plan submittal
identical with most recent Road Plan for Timberwood Square, SUB201500077.’ Again, please show
any changes as cloud revisions.
10. Carefully review Engineering Division Road and Site Plan comments dated 18-Jun 2016. (Also
Attached. Also in CV.)
11. Final Site Plan Approval requires Planning Division to authorize private streets in the
development area, if private streets are proposed.
12. Final Site Plan Approval requires Road Plan meet VDOT-AASHTO standards, with exception
outlined in item 6., above.
13. Final Site Plan Approval requires roads be built or bonded.
14. Final Site Plan Approval requires WPO Approval. Last action on WPO201500032: review
comments sent to Applicant, 6/27/16. If Applicant re-submits a WPO plan based on
WPO201500032, Engineering requests cloud revisions of any change to plans since last submittal of
WPO20500032.
15. This Initial Site Plan appears to require an Initial and/or Final Plat.
Date Completed:10/04/2018
Reviewer:Andrew Walker CDD E911
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:11/13/2018
Reviewer:Adam Moore VDOT
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:Note that an acceptable Maintenance of Traffic plan must be provided on the Final Site Plan.
Division:
Date Completed:11/02/2018
Reviewer:Shawn Maddox Fire Rescue
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:1. A knox box will be required on the new office building. Please add a note indicating such and that
location can be coordinated with the fire marshal's office.
2. If any of these buildings will be sprinklered the FDC must be shown on the site plan and located
within 100' of a fire hydrant.
3. If the buildings are to be 30' or higher the travel way must be increased to 26' of clear travel width.
4. Due to the number of one or two family dwelling units exceeding 30 there must be a second
entrance/exit provided. SNM
Division:
Date Completed:11/06/2018
Reviewer:Richard Nelson ACSA
Review Status:See Recommendations
Reviews Comments:I recommend approval for SDP201800071 Initial Site Plan Review Comments with the following
conditions:
Submit 3 copies to ACSA for review ATTN: Jeremy Lynn
Division:
Page:2 of 3 County of Albemarle Printed On:December 14, 2018
Submit 3 copies to ACSA for review ATTN: Jeremy Lynn
Date Completed:10/31/2018
Reviewer:Michael Dellinger CDD Inspections
Review Status:See Recommendations
Reviews Comments:Retaining walls greater than 3 feet in height require a separate building permit. Walls exceeding 4
feet in height require an stamped engineered design also.
Parking spaces and access isles shall not have a surface slope greater than 1:48. Access isles shall
be at the same level as the parking space they serve.
Division:
Page:3 of 3 County of Albemarle Printed On:December 14, 2018
Stephen C. Brich, P.E.
Commissioner
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper Virginia 22701
November 13, 2018
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Attn: Tori Kanellopoulos
Re: Timberwood Square — Initial Site Plan
SDP -2018-00071
Review #1
Dear Ms. Kanellopoulos:
The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use
Section, has reviewed the above referenced plan as submitted by Roudabush, Gale, &
Associates, dated 21 September 2018, and offers the following comment.
• Note that an acceptable Maintenance of Traffic plan must be provided on the Final Site
Plan.
A VDOT Land Use Permit will be required prior to any work within the right-of-way. The
owner/developer must contact the Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use
Section at (434) 422-9399 for information pertaining to this process. If further information is
desired, please contact Justin Deel at 434-422-9894.
Sincerely,
Adam J. Moore, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Charlottesville Residency
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
GfRGSIytP
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Dustin Greene
From: Tori Kanellopoulos - Planner
Division: Planning Services
Date: November 6, 2018
Subject: SDP201800071- Timberwood Square - Initial Site Plan
The Planner for the Planning Services Division of the Albemarle County Department
Community Development will recommend approve the plan referred to above when the
following items have been satisfactorily addressed. (The following comments are those that have
been identified at this time. Additional comments or conditions may be added or eliminated
based on further review.) [Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference to the
Albemarle County Code.]
Initial Site Plan Comments
Required Prior to Initial Site Plan Approval:
[18-32.3.4] Fees. The required mailing notice fee must be paid prior to initial site plan
approval.
Required Prior to Final Site Plan Approval:
Planning Comments:
1. See attached direction from the Post Master regarding group mailboxes. Please
coordinate location with the Post Master.
2. [18-32.5.2.a] Zoning. Include the minimum lot size for standard R-15 development,
which is 2,904 square feet on SP2.
3. [18-32.5.2.a] Zoning. Maximum building height: List the maximum building height for
the office use and for the residential uses (Townhomes) separately on SP2. See 18-4.19
and 18-4.20 for building height requirements.
4. [18-32.5.2.a] Zoning. Add the Airport Impact Area overlay to Notes for Zoning on SP2.
5. [Comment] Remove the reference to "approved residential density"; there is only
"proposed residential density" at this stage. The proposed density is within the R-15
density requirements.
6. [18-32.5.2.b] Written schedules or data. Revise note to read "office use" instead of
"commercial use", for Parking Tabulations and Square Footage, as the office use has
specific parking requirements that are distinct from other commercial uses, on SP2.
7. [18-32.5.2.b] Written schedules or data. According to GIS, the proposed tabulations
(acreage for each lot) are actually the existing tabulations (SP2).
8. [18-32.5.2.a] Setback lines and yards. Revise Setback Note on SP2 and remove the
reference to Townhomes. Refer to 18-4.19 for non -infill setback requirements and use
those requirements.
9. [18-32.5.2.n] Existing and proposed improvements. Include the proposed paving
materials for the trail and for the parking areas.
10. [18-32.5.2.d] In the development areas, the critical slopes ordinance has been revised to
create an overlay map of 'managed' and' preserved' steep slopes. Please remove all
reference to "critical slopes" (SP2).
11. [18-32.5.2.m] Ingress and egress. The location of existing and proposed ingress to and
egress from the property, showing the distance to the centerline of the nearest existing
street intersection.
12. [18-32.5.2.1] Existing and proposed utilities. Label all utilities as either existing or
proposed. Include the deed book and page number of all existing easements. Proposed
easements that are not yet recorded must be recorded with an easement plat prior to final
site plan approval.
13. [18-32.5.2.1 and 18-4.11.41 Existing and proposed utilities. Revise the easements that are
conflicting with any structures. See Lot 10 as an example (appears easement conflicting
with deck).
14. [18-4.12.6] Minimum number of parking spaces. Include the number of bedrooms for the
Townhomes in order to ensure that parking has been calculated correctly on SP2.
15. [18-4.12.6] Minimum number of parking spaces. Add maximum number of employees
for the office use to SP2.
16. [18-4.12.6] Minimum number of parking spaces. Include a copy of the previously
approved parking waiver, such as a letter or an email.
17. [18-4.12.13] Dumpster pad placement. The location of the dumpster pad appears to be
interfering with two parking spaces. Revise the placement of the dumpster pad.
18. [18-4.12.4(b)] ADA accessible spaces. Label the van -accessible ADA spaces as "van'.
19. [18-4.12.5] Location of parking areas. Parking is required to be on the same lot as the
primary use, except as authorized by 18-4.12.8. The lot lines for all of the lots overlap
with the parking spaces in such a way that the parking spaces are split by the lot lines.
Some lots contain one full parking space and one or two parts of other parking spaces,
however only some lots (1, 2, 6, 10, 11, 15, 19, 20, 28 and 32) contain at least two full
parking spaces. A shared parking agreement will be required for the lots for the
townhomes.
20. [18-4.12.16(c)] Parking space widths. A parking space between Lots 7 and 8 appears to
be 8.5', and four parking spaces in front of Lot 10 appear to be 9.5' wide. Revise to meet
the 9' width requirement. The two end parking spaces in the row of spaces in front of
Lots 25-32 also do not appear to be sufficiently wide. They appear to be 7' and 8' wide,
which is below the 9' width requirement.
21. [18-4.12] Parking. Include `No Parking Signs' along Lois Lane.
22. [18-4.12.8(e)] Instrument assuring continuation of off-site parking. Stand-alone parking
for the commercial area: If stand-alone parking or off-site shared parking is to be
provided, the applicant shall submit with the application for a site plan, site plan waiver
or, if a site plan is not required, with an application for a zoning compliance clearance, an
instrument that restricts the use of that part of the land on which parking is provided to
that use, and assures that a minimum number of parking spaces as required by this section
shall be established and maintained for the life of the use. The instrument shall be in a
form that is suitable for recording, shall be subject to review and approval as to form and
substance by the county attorney, and shall be recorded in the office of the clerk of the
circuit court of the county before the site plan or site plan waiver is approved. As the
parking requirements for the use or structure change, subsequent instruments may be
submitted, reviewed, approved and recorded that rescind or modify the prior instrument.
a. This is a requirement prior to final site plan approval.
23. [18-4.12.11(b)] Identification of use served. For standalone parking, at least one (1) sign
shall be posted in the parking area identifying the off-site use served by the parking area.
24. [18-32.7.9.4] Contents of a landscape plan. Revise the small notes counting the number
of trees on SP9 and SP 10, as some are incorrect.
25. [18-32.7.9.4] Contents of a landscape plan. IG (Illex Glabra) appears to be Inkberry, not
Winterberry as indicated in the Commercial Landscaping Tabulations on SP 11.
26. [18-32.7.9.4(b)(1)] Areas and other features shown on landscape plan. Show the limits
of clearing, location and type of protective fencing, grade changes requiring tree wells or
walls, and trenching or tunneling proposed beyond limits of clearing for preserved
existing trees. This could be shown on the demolition plan or the landscaping plan.
27. [18-32.7.9.5(d)] Landscaping along streets. Street trees are required for private and
public streets. 1 large street tree is required every 50' of frontage, or 1 medium shade tree
every 40' of frontage. Sections of the private streets do not appear to meet this
requirement. See Code for full requirements.
28. [18-32.7.9.7(e)] Screening. Include the height of the proposed screening fences. Note that
the minimum height is 6'.
29. [18-32.7.9.7(a)(4)] Double frontage lots. Double frontage lots need to be sufficiently
screened from the public ROW. Lot 11 does not appear to be sufficiently screened from
Worth Crossing.
30. [18-32.7.9.7(a)(2)] Parking areas. Parking areas need to be screened from adjacent
residential districts. The parking for Lots 11-14 does not appear to be sufficiently
screened from the adjacent property. Show if existing trees/landscaping will be preserved
to provide screening.
31. [18-32.7.9.8(b)] Tree canopy. In order to count toward the tree canopy requirement,
plants/trees must exceed 5' in height at a maturity of 10 years after planting. Some of the
landscaping shown on SP 11 is 5' or less at maturity, and therefore does not count toward
this requirement. The residential tree canopy calculations appear to now be below the
requirement. Please revise to meet the requirement.
32. [18-4.16.1(3)] Minimum area. Note that groundcover shall consist of turf grass or
contained mulch such as pine bark, shredded tires, or pea gravel for recreational areas.
33. [18-4.16.1(3)] Minimum area. Indicate how the recreational area is being calculated. In
the residential area, there appears to be 2,525 sq. ft. for the tot lot, 25,289 sq. ft. for one
section of open space and 4,692 sq. ft. for the other section of open space. The
recreational area is listed as 17,376 sq. ft.
34. [18-4.16.2.1] Recreational minimum facilities. Note that the swing is required to have
four (4) seats. The image shown on SP 11 only has three seats.
35. [18-4.16.2.1] Recreational minimum facilities. The proposed tot lot must be fenced, as it
is adjacent to a street and to private backyards.
36. [18-4.17] Outdoor lighting. Resubmit the lighting information so that it is legible. It is
not possible to read the information on the types of lights provided on SP 12 and SP 13.
37. [18-4.17.4] Standards. Any outdoor luminaire that emits 3,000 or more lumens must be a
full cutoff luminaire. Therefore, both the Mediterranean light and the KVF2 light must be
full cutoff, or a different type of luminaire must be chosen that is less than 3,000 lumens.
The Mediterranean light is not full cutoff and does not comply. The KVF2 light has a
light bulb that hangs down, and therefore may not be full cutoff.
38. [18-32.7.2.3] Sidewalks. Sidewalks or trails must be provided on both sides of Lois Lane.
The trail on the East side may serve as pedestrian connectivity. A sidewalk is needed on
the West side and must connect to the other sidewalks shown.
39. [18-32.7.2.3] Sidewalks. Provide a sidewalk or other pedestrian access across the
curb/planting strip (if this is ultimately kept) between Lots 1 and 15, so that pedestrians
may have safe access to the other side of the development and the office uses.
40. [18-32.7.2.3] Sidewalks. Provide a sidewalk on the north side of the existing Private Road
to connect with the existing sidewalk and the proposed residential area.
41. [18-32.7.2.3] Sidewalks. Request for applicant to provide sidewalks along Timberwood
Blvd. and Worth Crossing along the edge of the property. Provide ADA accessible ramps
at the corner of Timberwood Blvd and Worth Crossing, and at the trailhead where it
meets Worth Crossing. The sidewalks in the public ROW will need to be dedicated to the
County and maintained by VDOT. Additional detail pending VDOT's comments.
42. [Comment] Additional clarification is needed for the curb and planting strip that restricts
vehicle access between Lots 1 and 15. It appears to still contain curb and gutter, which
would no longer be needed. Additional details are needed to determine what the use and
structure of this section is. Fire/Rescue has comments as well, as there are more than 30
lots with only one point of access, and this section may need to be changed.
43. [Comment] Include one sheet that shows an overall detailed layout of the proposed site
design. All of the detailed pages are split into two pages. This is helpful for measuring
and level of detail, however there should also be one sheet showing the entire site.
44. [Future Application Comments]
a. [Comment]: Private maintenance agreement will be required for the open space
and common/recreational areas. Shared parking agreements will be required for
the townhomes. An instrument to assure continuation of off-site parking will be
required for the commercial area. A private maintenance agreement or dedication
to public use will be needed for the trail.
b. [Comment]: Note that Subdivision plat will be needed to create lots for the
Townhomes.
c. [Comment]: The proposed private streets will need to meet the private streets
standards in Chapter 14 (Subdivision Ordinance) during the subdivision phase of
this development.
d. [Comment]: Easement plats will be required for all proposed easements prior to
final site plan approval. Additional landscaping easements will be required for
any landscaping shown on residential lots.
e. [Comment]: Note that approved Road Plans, WPO and VSMP are required prior
to final site plan approval.
Engineering Comments
1. Note: Combined (Engineering) Road Plan (SUB201500077) and Final Site Plan review
comments (SDP201500023) were sent to Applicant on 6/18/16 (Timberwood Square).
2. Final Site, Road, WPO Plans for this proposed development did not reach point of
approval. SDP201500023 (FSP) expired due to inactivity.
a. Text of email sent to Applicant (8/31/2018 10:03 AM), reads, in part: "...this
application was withdrawn in January due to inactivity in accordance with
32.4.3.5(b). In addition, your initial has expired since it was approved in 2011 and
that is only valid for 5 years. So, you will need to submit an initial site plan and
fee and start your application again."
b. Text, email, Engineering to Planning (6/18/2016 2:11 PM -also RMS docs,
SDP201500023): "(SDP201500023) —Engineering has No Objection to FSP
design. Engineering comments addressed with this or prior submittal. FSP
Approval requires ROAD Plan Approval, and requires that roads (Lois Lane,
Landon Lane) be built or bonded. ROAD Plan is not approved. FSP Approval
requires that WPO be approved and bonded. Planning coordinator should confirm
that SWM Maintenance Agreements have been signed, that project has received
VPDES Permit coverage letter from DEQ. Please confirm WPO status with Max
Greene, Engineering Div."
3. Current SDP201800071, Initial Site Development Plan for Timberwood Square, maybe
identical with SDP201500023. Engineering requests cloud revisions for any design
change made to SDP201500023 (since basis of SDP201800071) since Final Site Plan set
dated 8 Jun 2016 (2nd Revision). If no changes, please respond 'SDP201500023 is
identical with SDP201800071'.
4. Ch. 14 Division 5, Procedures for the Approval of Private Streets, Sec. 14-233, When
private streets in development areas may be authorized is relevant. It appears no element
of initial site plan approval persists, and that request for approval of private streets in the
development area is required.
5. Street design standards: Engineering recently met with RGA (10/4/18) to discuss
conceptual layout for 770 Rio Road East. VDOT and AASHTO standards apply to street
design for six or more lots, and apply to Timberwood Square. If RGA can accept county
position that in this particular instance, since a Road Plan CL radius of 110' (Lois Lane)
was accepted in 2016, and Road Plan was virtually approved, provided RGA does not
reference 110' CL radius in future applications unless supported by VDOT /AASHTO
standards, then Engineering will not reverse and require what would amount to major
redesign of Lois Lane. Options: Indicate understanding of County willingness to approve
a 110' CL radius for Lois Lane; identify VDOT /AASHTO reference to 110' CL radius
(Engineering is unaware of a CL radius standard this low); redesign Lois Lane to meet
VDOT /AASHTO CL radii standards. Engineering welcomes RGA acceptance that if
110' CL radius is less than published applicable VDOT /AASHTO standards,
Engineering does not in the future intend to accept 110' (or any measure of) radius that
does not meet VDOT /AASHTO minimum design parameters.
6. Submit Road Plan that addresses remaining Road Plan review comments, at earliest
convenience. Engineering requests cloud revisions for any design change made to
SUB201500077 Road Plan set received 7 Jun 2016 (2nd Revision). If no changes, please
state `Road Plan submittal identical with most recent Road Plan for Timberwood Square,
SUB201500077.' Again, please show any changes as cloud revisions.
7. Carefully review Engineering Division Road and Site Plan comments dated 18 -Jun 2016.
(Also Attached. Also in CV.)
8. Final Site Plan Approval requires Planning Division to authorize private streets in the
development area, if private streets are proposed.
9. Final Site Plan Approval requires Road Plan meet VDOT-AASHTO standards, with
exception outlined in item 6., above.
10. Final Site Plan Approval requires roads be built or bonded.
11. Final Site Plan Approval requires WPO Approval. Last action on WP0201500032:
review comments sent to Applicant, 6/27/16. If Applicant re -submits a WPO plan based
on WP0201500032, Engineering requests cloud revisions of any change to plans since
last submittal of WP020500032.
12. This Initial Site Plan appears to require an Initial and/or Final Plat.
Inspections Comments:
1. Retaining walls greater than 3 feet in height require a separate building permit. Walls
exceeding 4 feet in height require a stamped engineered design also.
2. Parking spaces and access isles shall not have a surface slope greater than 1:48. Access
isles shall be at the same level as the parking space they serve.
Fire/Rescue Comments:
1. A knox box will be required on the new office building. Please add a note indicating such
and that location can be coordinated with the fire marshal's office.
2. If any of these buildings will be sprinklered the FDC must be shown on the site plan and
located within 100' of a fire hydrant.
3. If the buildings are to be 30' or higher the travel way must be increased to 26' of clear
travel width.
4. Due to the number of one or two-family dwelling units exceeding 30 there must be a
second entrance/exit provided.
ACSA
Submit 3 copies to ACSA for review ATTN: Jeremy Lynn.
VDOT
1. Note that an acceptable Maintenance of Traffic Plan must be provided on the final site
plan.
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
Project title: Timberwood Square
Project file number: SDP201800071
Plan preparer: Dustin Greene, EIT –Roudabush, Gale & Associates [dgreene@roudabush.com ]
172 S. Pantops Drive, Charlottesville, VA 22911
Owner or rep.: Highlife Townhomes Inc., 307 West Rio Road [rhauser@stonehaus.net]
250 Pantops Mountain Road, Charlottesville, VA 22901
Plan received date: 25 Sept 2018
Date of comments: 15 Oct 2018
Plan Coordinator: Tori Kanellopoulos
Reviewers: John Anderson
SDDP201800071
1. Note: Combined (Engineering) Road Plan (SUB201500077) and Final Site Plan review comments
(SDP201500023) were sent to Applicant on 6/18/16 (Timberwood Square).
2. Final Site, Road, WPO Plans for this proposed development did not reach point of approval.
SDP201500023 (FSP) expired due to inactivity.
2a. Text of email sent to Applicant (8/31/2018 10:03 AM), reads, in part: "…this application was
withdrawn in January due to inactivity in accordance with 32.4.3.5(b). In addition, your initial has expired
since it was approved in 2011 and that is only valid for 5 years. So, you will need to submit an initial site
plan and fee and start your application again.”
2b. Text, email, Engineering to Planning (6/18/2016 2:11 PM -also RMS docs, SDP201500023):
"(SDP201500023) –Engineering has No Objection to FSP design. Engineering comments addressed with
this or prior submittal. FSP Approval requires ROAD Plan Approval, and requires that roads (L ois Lane,
Landon Lane) be built or bonded. ROAD Plan is not approved. FSP Approval requires that WPO be
approved and bonded. Planning coordinator should confirm that SWM Maintenance Agreements have been
signed, that project has received VPDES Permit coverage letter from DEQ. Please confirm WPO status
with Max Greene, Engineering Div."
3. Current SDP201800071, Initial Site Development Plan for Timberwood Square, may be identical with
SDP201500023. Engineering requests cloud revisions for any design change made to SDP201500023
(since basis of SDP201800071) since Final Site Plan set dated 8 Jun 2016 (2nd Revision). If no changes,
please respond 'SDP201500023 is identical with SDP201800071'.
4. Lot Lines are illogical, apart from property valuation purposes. It is unorthodox to place half a private
street easement within lots (Lois Lane). If SDP201800071 is identical with SDP201500023, and lot lines
shown are permissible by ordinance, and /or previously reviewed and accepted by Planning Division, then
Engineering does not object. Otherwise, provide conventional right-of-way (RW). RW prevents any
portion of Lois Lane being included with Lots 25 - 32.
5. Ch. 14 Division 5, Procedures for the Approval of Private Streets, Sec. 14-233, When private streets in
development areas may be authorized is relevant. It appears no element of initial site plan approval
persists, and that request for approval of private streets in the development area is required.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 2
6. Street design standards: Engineering recently met with RGA (10/4/18) to discuss conceptual layout for
770 Rio Road East. VDOT and AASHTO standards apply to street design for six or more lots, and apply to
Timberwood Square. If RGA can accept county position that in this particular instance, since a Road Plan
CL radius of 110' (Lois Lane) was accepted in 2016, and Road Plan was virtually approved, provided RGA
does not reference 110' CL radius in future applications unless supported by VDOT /AASHTO standards,
then Engineering will not reverse and require what would amount to major redesign of Lois Lane. Options:
Indicate understanding of County willingness to approve a 110' CL radius for Lois Lane; identify VDOT
/AASHTO reference to 110' CL radius (Engineering is unaware of a CL radius standard this low); redesign
Lois Lane to meet VDOT /AASHTO CL radii standards. Engineering welcomes RGA acceptance that if
110' CL radius is less than published applicable VDOT /AASHTO standards, Engineering does not in the
future intend to accept 110' (or any measure of) radius that does not meet VDOT /AASHTO minimum
design parameters.
7. Related to item 4., above, large portions of back yards of Lots 25 – 32 are in proposed landscape
easement, trail easement, or ACSA easement. This is problematic, but Engineering defers to Planning on
whether lot lines, Lots 25-32, meet ordinance.
8. Related to items 4. and 7., Landon Lane is shown entirely within lots. No RW is provided. If Landon
Lane is to serve as a private street established with subdivision, please provide right-of-way required for
private streets. Lois Lane and Landon Lanes are not yet approved as private streets. They are public roads,
by default. They are not alleys. They require, whether public roads or private streets, right-of-way. Please
revise affected lot lines to provide public road /private street RW for both Lois Lane and Landon Lane.
9. Submit Road Plan that addresses remaining Road Plan review comments, at earliest convenience.
Engineering requests cloud revisions for any design change made to SUB201500077 Road Plan set
received 7 Jun 2016 (2nd Revision). If no changes, please state ‘Road Plan submittal identical with most
recent Road Plan for Timberwood Square, SUB201500077.’ Again, please show any changes as cloud
revisions.
10. Carefully review Engineering Division Road and Site Plan comments dated 18-Jun 2016. (Also
Attached. Also in CV.)
11. Final Site Plan Approval requires Planning Division to authorize private streets in the development
area, if private streets are proposed.
12. Final Site Plan Approval requires Road Plan mee t VDOT-AASHTO standards, with exception outlined
in item 6., above.
13. Final Site Plan Approval requires roads be built or bonded.
14. Final Site Plan Approval requires WPO Approval. Last action on WPO201500032: review comments
sent to Applicant, 6/27/16. If Applicant re-submits a WPO plan based on WPO201500032, Engineering
requests cloud revisions of any change to plans since last submittal of WPO205 00032.
15. This Initial Site Plan appears to require an Initial and/or Final Plat.
Thank you
J. Anderson 434.296-5832 -x3069
File: SDP201800071 Timberwood Square_101518.doc