HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201800031 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2019-01-0401 Al, e
14
.t �'IRGilvl'z'r
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
Phone (434) 296-5832
January 4, 2019
Alan Franklin
427 Cranberry Lane
Crozet VA 22932
RE: SDP2018-31 Rivanna Village Phase 2 (Blocks D, F, G, H, I, and J) - Final Site Plan
Dear Sir:
Department of Community Development has reviewed the above referenced site plan (dated 6-5-17) against applicable
Code of Development, Proffers, Application Plan, and other codes and ordinances. Comments are provided below;
however, additional comments or conditions may be added or eliminated based on further review.): [Each comment is
preceded by the applicable reference, which is to the Subdivision/Zoning Ordinances unless otherwise specified.]
1. [ZMA201300012 Proffers] All proffers shall be adhered to as dictated in the proffers. Final: Comment still
relevant. Rev 1: Comment still relevant.
2. [COD Sec 3.31 Lot Regulation/Setbacks. Replace the setbacks listed and depicted throughout the plan
with the new setback chart (provided below) which was approved by the BOS on December 6, 2017.
Please do not reword anything in the chart, merely provide the exact chart on the site plan.
Additionally, revise the setbacks and buildable area depicted on all lots throughout the plan utilizing
these new setbacks and the various factors provided in the chart. Final: Comment addressed.
3. [COD Sec 3.41 Building Height. Throughout the site plan label the maximum height of each structure by block
that is being platted. See table 3.4 of the Code of Development as each block has different heights permitted
based on the use. Example: Block G is permitted a maximum building height of 40 feet. Final: Comment
addressed.
4. [COD Sec 7.11 Parking. The only portion of the development not subject to the 20% maximum rule for
parking provided in excess of required parking, is that for Block D, as a waiver was granted during the
rezoning for this block. All other blocks shall meet the 20% maximum for parking provided. Final: Comment
addressed.
Additionally, the minimum number of parking required in Blocks C, D, E, and F for NON-RESIDENTIAL
uses in these blocks shall be based on the requirements for Shopping Centers, as contained in Section 4.12.6 of
the County Code. Also, the calculations for NON-RESIDENTIAL parking shall be based on the total square
footage within the block and not upon a per lot basis. Final: Comment still relevant but only for the
nonresidential section, which is being pushed to a separate site plan.
Also, provide parking calculation for the public park and identify the locations of these spaces. These spaces
may be satisfied by either on -street spaces along perimeter of Block J, or provided using on -street or surface
lots available to the public in adjacent blocks or in Block K's surface parking lot (see Sec 8 of the COD)).
Final: The fire station parking lot in Block K is being proposed to serve the public park. As such this
parking area shall be included on this final site plan. Permission shall be granted from the Fire Station
and the offsite parking agreement shall be recorded in the Clerk's Office documenting the terms of this
agreement. Based on existing conditions the parking lot will need to be upgraded to meet current
parking lot standards. Also, provide the required parking study for a public recreation area (this should
be developed in consultation with Dan Mahon of Parks and Recreation). The number of required spaces
for the park shall be determined by the zoning administrator in consideration of the recommendations
in the parking study, traffic generation figures either known to the industry or estimated by the Institute
of Transportation Engineers, peak parking demands, and other relevant information.
Rev 1. Proffer 6 requires the construction and dedication of the park and recreational areas, this
includes all required parking for the park. If on street parking along perimeter of Block J covers the
required spaces, then we can move forward without seeking parking on the fire station site. While
utilizing the existing fire station/county parking area may be permitted it is not guaranteed. If you seek
to utilize this area to provide "required parking for the park" provide written request to include a
justification and a revised parking study. The parking study shall accounts for the fire station use
documenting it's "required parking" needs are still met.
Once received staff will begin moving the request through the Zoning Administrator and the County
Attorney's Office for processing to determine what agreements would be required for the use of this
area. Prior to approval of this area for use as parking to serve the public park, the BOS shall hold a
public hearing.
In order to fully assess if the current fire station parking lot meets parking standards the parking area
would need to be included in the site plan. Depict and dimension all existing conditions of this parking
area. Staff will review to determine if it meets current standards for parking lots. If it does not, it will
need to be upgraded with the site plan. Last time I visited the site this parking lot appeared to have
severely degraded/cracked pavement in various locations and the stripping was not clear. Additionally, I
don't think it has curb and gutter, nor is the lighting in this parking area up to current regulations.
Additionally, the drainage would need to be verified with the site plan that it meets current regulations.
IZMA201300012 Proffer 9] Affordable Housing. Designate which lots are the affordable units throughout the
final site plan and final plat. Also, under the chart provide the full statement that reads: "The owner shall
contribute cash to the County in the amount of Twenty -One Thousand, One Hundred Fifty Dollars ($21,150)
instead of constructing each required affordable unit. Such payment shall be made after completion of the
final inspection and prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy for any such unit for which payment in
lieu of constructing affordable housing is made. " Final: Comment not adequately addressed, applicant
response to this condition is not adequate. On the plan identify the lots which will be the ADUs.
Rev 1. Comment addressed.
6. IZMA201300012 Proffer 2] Cash Proffer for Capital Improvement. The required cash contribution for each
unit shall be dictated by the proffer and is required to be paid after completion of final inspection and prior to
the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for each unit. Final: Applicant acknowledges the comment.
7. [ZMA201300012 Proffer 7, COD 5.4.2, COD 5.4.3] Rte. 250 Landscape Buffer and Right of Way
Dedication. Label, dimension, and depict the required 70' reservation zone and the 30' landscape buffer along
Rte 250. These improvements shall be reserved for public use and dedicated upon the request of the County.
The developer shall preserve the existing vegetation in this area as described in the proffer. Final: Comment
not addressed. The Route 250 Landscape Buffer and Right-of-way dedication shall be appropriately
labeled and dimensioned throughout the plan. Currently this area is labeled as "Amenity Space";
however, this is not an acceptable use of this land. Additionally, it is also labeled "SWMBMP
Forest/Open Space Easement"; however, this land shall not be used for this purpose either. The
rezoning calls out the permitted uses in this area which can take place on the land until it is dedicated to
the County upon demand for Rte 250 widening. Specifically, sidewalks, landscaped open space, signage,
and utilities. Remove the above uses from this land. Rev 1. Comment not adequately addressed.
On the plan provide a note for this area: "The 70' reservation zone and 30' landscape buffer are reserved
for public use and dedication upon the demand of the County, " "The maintenance and upkeep of these
areas and their landscaping shall be the responsibility of the HOA until the County demands dedication and
accepts it.' Rev 1. Comment addressed.
[COD Sec 3.2(4)] Density Regulations. A minimum of 20,000 SF of non-residential uses shall be in the
development. On the plans label and depict where the required 20,000 SF non-residential use shall be located
and assure there is enough area for 20,000 SF. Revise the Density by Block chart on sheet 4 to provide these
calculations. Presumably these uses are to be in either Block D.
Final: The `Density by Block' chart on sheet 4 contains incorrect density ranges for Blocks A. B. D. E, I, and J.
Also, revise note #1 of the chart to mention the 20,000 SF nonresidential development in Block D.
Rev 1. Comment addressed.
9. [COD Sec 8] Open Space/Greenspace Preservation. Throughout the plan label the park as "Hereby Dedicated
to the County of Albemarle for Public use as a Public Park". Final: Comment addressed.
10. [COD Sec 8] Open Space/Greenspace Preservation. Prior to final site plan approval the Director of Parks and
Recreation is required to approve a park plan, which shall ensure amenities provided meet the needs of the
County and satisfy the rezoning. Final: Comment still relevant. Dan Mahon provided the applicant
comments on the park plan. Pending revisions of the final site plan to address these review comments.
Rev 1. Comment still relevant. Please work with Parks and Recreation to receive an approved park plan
and ensure the site plan matches.
11. [COD Sec 81 Open Space/Greenspace Preservation. The wetlands areas in the park shall be labeled as
"Preserved Wetland Areas ". Omit the reference to "Future Park" on sheet 4, as this area shall be part of the
park with phase 2 of development. Final: Comment addressed.
12. [COD Sec 8] Open Space/Greenspace Preservation. Depict, label, and design a maintenance facility within the
development for use by the County Parks and Recreation Department to maintain the public park facility. Also,
coordinate with Parks and Recreation Department on the width and design of the trails throughout the park.
Once coordinated provide `typicals' of these access ways. Prior to approval engineering and the Parks and Rec
department shall sign off that these trails are adequate for use by motorized maintenance vehicles.
Final: Comment is still relevant. These improvements shall be depicted on the site plan and approved by
Parks and Recreation prior to final site plan approval. Rev 1. Comment still relevant, as I have not
received review comments or approval from Parks. While utilizing the existing fire station/county lot
may be permitted for a possible maintenance facility it is not guaranteed. If you seek to utilize this area
Please depict it within this site plan and provide a written request to include a iustification. Prior to
approval of this area for use as a maintenance area to serve the park, the BOS shall hold a public
hearing and take an action on the request.
13. [COD Sec 81 Open Space/Greenspace Preservation. The park has two required trail connects to the Eastpark
Road. Currently these are depicted as easements; however, this is not appropriate and shall be revised to be fee
simple dedications to the park. Depict, label, and dimension these trail connections. Additionally, the trail
connections shall be increased in width above the 6' width as currently provided. These trail connections are to
be utilized as access points for the public as well as used by Parks and Recreation Department to maintain the
public park facility. Revise. Final: Comment addressed.
14. [Comment] On either sheet 4 or 5 provide a table of content overlay, which labels which sheets each section of
various blocks can be found on. Final: Comment addressed.
15. [32.5.2(a), 32.5.2(i)] Existing or platted streets. Label all streets (public) and all alleys (private). Provide
directional arrows on each alley to signify one way or two-way traffic. Also, provide the widths of all streets.
Final: Comment addressed.
16. [32.5.2(a), 32.5.2(i)] Alleys. On the plan provide a note that states no public agency, including VDOT, and the
County of Albemarle will be responsible for maintaining the alleys. Also, provide information on the plans that
the alleys shall be dedicated and maintained by the HOA. Final: Comment addressed.
17. [ZMA201300012 Proffer 3] Route 250 and Eastern Entrance Improvements. "The owner shall either
construct left and right turn lanes on Route 250 at the eastern entrance to the property or bond these
improvements prior to aRproval of thenfirst site plan or subdivision plat for the development... "
Final: A road plan for the above referenced entrance improvements and all the roads in phase 2 shall be
submitted and approved prior to final site plan approval. Staff is aware that the entrance improvements
onto Rte. 250 are currently bonded; however, no road plan was ever submitted or approved for these
improvements. One is required. The lst review of the final site plan does not cover a review of the
improvements along Rte. 250, rather, such heavy lifting will be done on the road plan and it's review.
Once submitted and reviewed the road plan and the final site plan shall match for these improvements.
Rev 1. Comment still relevant.
18. [Code of Development Section 4.21 Covenants to Provide Architectural Review Committee. Prior to final site
plan and/or final subdivision plat approval a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for
Rivanna Village Phase II shall be reviewed/approved by the County Attorney's office in consultation with
County Planning staff. The above document shall be approved by the County and recorded by the developer
prior to final site plan and/or final subdivision plat approval. The DB page reference information of this
recorded document shall be noted on the final site plan and/or final subdivision plat. Revl: Comment not
addressed. While this requirement was addressed for phase I, per conversations with the County
Attorney it is not addressed for phase II. Please submit a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and
Restrictions for Rivanna Village Phase II. Rev 1. Comment still relevant.
19. [32.6.26)] Landscape plan. A landscape plan that complies with section 32.7.9 is required with the final site
plan. Final: Comment Addressed.
20. [32.5.2(n)] Proposed Improvements. Provide the maximum footprint for all proposed townhome buildings.
Final: Comment not addressed. Rev 1. Comment addressed.
21. [32.5.2(n)] Proposed improvements. How is daily household trash going to be disposed of for these units? If
each lot is going to have its own trash container for curbside pickup, where are these containers going to be
stored when not in use? Final: Comment addressed.
22. [32.7.4.2] Easements for stormwater management facilities. Provide access to the stormwater management
facility. Also, provide an easement over the facility and the access. Final: Comment addressed.
23. 132.8.2, 14-3111 Infrastructure improvement plans. Road plans must be approved and built or bonded prior to
approval. On the initial site plan Fire and Rescue commented that the road widths are not adequate for on street
parking. They have not provided staff comments on the plan yet. Work with Fire and Rescue to ensure the
roads are wide enough to accommodate onstreet parking and that the spaces are dimensioned and labeled.
Final: Comment still relevant. Rev 1: Comment still relevant. Fire and Rescue has provided additional
review comments on road widths. Please ensure these are addressed. County parallel parking standards
may cause some of these on -street spaces to be lost, unless a waiver is granted for reduced width (see
county review comment #48 below). Review.
24. 132.5.2(p) & 32.7.9.71 Screening. Proposed SWM Facilities shall be screened from the adjacent residential
lots. Final: Comment addressed.
25. [32.7.2.1] Vehicular Access to Site. Each entrance onto any public street shall be designed and constructed as
required by the standards of the Virginia Department of Transportation. VDOT approval of the entrance to the
site shall be required prior to final site plan and/or final plat approval. Final: Comment still relevant.
Rev 1: Comment still relevant.
26. [Comment] Provide the dimensions of proposed easements and whether they are to be publicly or privately
maintained. Final: Comment addressed.
27. [32.6.2(e)] Public facilities and utilities. All water and sewer facilities to be dedicated to public use and the
easements for those facilities and shall be identified by a statement that the facilities are to be dedicated to the
Albemarle County Service Authority. Final: Comment addressed.
28. [Comment] On sheet 1 provide the site plan number and when submitted ensure it is labeled as Final Site Plan.
Please omit Road Plan from the title. Final: On the plan provide the following SDP#: "SDP2018-31".
Rev 1. Comment addressed.
Additional Comments on the Final
29. [14-409] Coordination & Extension. All public streets within a subdivision shall be extended and constructed
to the abutting property lines to provide vehicular and pedestrian interconnections to future development on
adjoining lands, terminating within the subdivision with a temporary turnaround. The three cul-de-sac streets
that shall meet the above requirement are: Mossy Rock Road, Terrapin Trace, and Lazy Branch Lane. Please
depict and label the right of way dedications to the property lines, reservation of the areas are appropriate at
this time through the following note: `Area reserved for future right-of-way dedication upon demand of the
County. " Rev 1. Comment addressed.
30. [Comment] Label the land use of the hatched area adjacent to and fronting lots I-59, I-60, I-61, I-62, and J-48.
What does the hatching signify? Hopefully it is a reservation zone for future right-of-way dedication, if so,
labeled it `Area reserved for future right-of-way dedication upon demand of the County. " Rev 1. Comment
addressed.
31. [14-303] Cattail Court needs to be modified to a "30' private street easement". This private street is being
relied upon for frontage of the townhomes. Rev 1. Comment addressed.
32. [4.12] Parking. Label and dimension the two required parking spaces per lot for Lots F7, F8, F9, F10, F11, and
F12. Additionally, on the site plan, with arrows, locate the guest parking spaces for these lots (staff assumes
they are along Sedgwick Lane). Rev 1. Each of these lots shall have a minimum of 2 spaces on the lot it
serves. For the TH units in Block F it is unclear where the garage starts on each lot, also it is unclear the
length of the driveway for each lot. Ensure each driveway is a min of 18' long (outside of the R/W and
outside the sidewalk). Provide dimensions and label these features.
Revise sheet 2 parking calculations to accurately reflect the required spaces and the provided spaces
based on the information above: I suggest — "48 spaces required, 48 spaces provided (42 spaces provided
on the lots and 6 spaces provided on street as guest spaces)'. Also, omit parking note #1: "Only the 21
townhomes with..."as the above suggested note covers the information more accurately.
33. [4.12.5, 4.12] Location of Parking Areas. All parking spaces shall be established on the same lot with the
primary use to which it is appurtenant, except as authorized by section 4.12.8. Lots G-11, G-25, G-26, G-27,
G-41, G-42 are not provided 2 parking spaces on each lot. Nor are they provided guest parking spaces.
Additionally, none of the full spaces are encompassed on the lot; rather, every space is a quarter outside of the
lot. Block G is lacking the minimum number of required parking spaces.
To correct this staff suggests you revise the parking area in Block G to no longer be on the individual lots, but
instead locate them in congregate parking bays within a parking easements for the entire block. If you go this
route the guest parking space requirement no longer applies. If you modify this, ensure the lots continue to
meet the minimum lot size of 1,300 SF. Also, provide an instrument ensuring continuation of off -site parking
shall be recorded prior to final site plan approval. Rev 1. Comment mostly addressed. Zoning does not have
a template for such an agreement. I suggest the covenants and restrictions document contain the
language to cover this parking agreement. The final plat will need to depict, label, and dimension the
easement.
If you do not modify parking as recommended, the required parking spaces and the required guest spaces will
need to be provided for all lots in this block. Rev 1. This has been modified.
34. [4.12] Parking. Which townhome lots are the 21 lots you believe have a parking deficiency? Their location and
access to on -street parking will determine if their parking is met through this alternative. If it is Block G you
speak of, on -street parking will not suffice because it is separated by a public road. Rev 1. See review
comment #32 above.
35. [4.12.6] Parking Requirements. Dimension all parking spaces. Rev 1. Comment still relevant.
36. [32.5.2(n)] Trails. Throughout the plan label and dimension the trail and the trail easements (most are but some
are not). Also, provide a cutsheet for trail design specifications. Rev 1. Comment addressed.
37. [4.12] Parking. Provide column titles for the parking calculations chart. Rev 1. Comment addressed.
38. [COD Sec 8] Open Space/Greenspace Preservation. Please work with Parks and Recreation to determine the
appropriate method to separate and distinguish private residential lots from the public park (either fencing,
berm, evergreen landscaping, or a combination). Prior to final site plan approval please depict and label the
solution. Rev 1. Comment still relevant. Planning staff requests at a minimum a single row of approved
evergreen trees be planted behind all of the homes surrounding the park. Lots J20427 and Lots J28 -
J33 shall be provided plantings behind these homes, if existing preserved trees are to remaining, please
label these. Currently the plan is not clear that this is taking place.
39. [Comment] The final site plan shall not be approved until all SRC reviewers have approved the plan. Their
comments attached. Rev 1. Comment still relevant.
40. [ZMA201300012 Proffer 91 Affordable Housing. The affordable housing calculations on sheet 4 are incorrect,
this appears to merely be an addition error of the totals in each block. Currently it is listed as 18; however, I
believe it should truly be 44. Revise.
41. [ZMA201300012] Application Plan — Open Space Statistics. Sheet 5 of the site plan shall be revised to
accurately label and account for the different areas throughout the development which are Open Space (HOA
maintained in perpetuity — i.e. open space areas with no trails and not part of the larger park), Linear Park w/
Trail (County maintained once built by the developer and accepted by the County), and Community Park
(County maintained once built and accepted by the County). Currently the plan lists all these spaces as Amenity
Space and does not provide intended ownership/maintenance. This shall be revised to match the rezoning.
42. [COD 3.3] Lot Regulations. While sheet 4 correctly lists the setbacks, the setbacks throughout the rest of the
plan are incorrectly depicted and labeled. These shall be revised to match the approved setbacks in the COD.
While buildable area may be different than setbacks, the setbacks shall match the approved setback regulations.
Revise.
43. 132.5.2(n), 32.7.2.3, 14-422, 32.7.9.51 Sidewalks & planting strips. Continue sidewalks, landscaping strip, and
street tree plantings along Rte. 250 (the entire frontage of the property).
44. [32.7.9.51 Landscaping Along Streets. Revise the landscape calculations to provide the required street tree
calculations to assure compliance with the ordinance.
45. [COD Sec 7.11 Parking. The parking study shall be approved by the Zoning Administrator prior to final site
plan approval. While staff appreciates the parking calculations for recreational uses, the ordinance has separate
regulations for the Public Recreational facility in which the Zoning Administrator shall determine the
calculations for the use. I recently forwarded the study to the Zoning Administrator and am awaiting a response
to the study. I anticipate Zoning's review comments of the study no later than 1-28-19 (hopefully sooner).
46. [4.12] Parking. This is a publicly dedicated County Park, ADA accessible parking spaces are required. Provide
a minimum of 4 ADA parking spaces for the park.
47. [4.12] Parking. Staff is only able to locate 88 spaces dedicated to the park.
48. [4.12.16] Minimum Design of Parking. Ensure all parallel parking spaces meet the minimum space
requirements of 9 feet x 20 feet. This includes all on street parking spaces. To permit spaces of reduced width
an administrative waiver is needed and shall be reviewed and approved by the Zoning Administrator in
consultation with County Engineering. Provide the written request along with justification and an explanation
of how the modification would equally or better serve the public health, safety or welfare. If the waiver is
approved on the cover sheet reference the modification of these parking space sizes and reference Section
4.12.2(c)(2) of the County Code.
49. [Comment] Dimension and provide easement for trail on Lot J-1, see sheet 18.
50. [Comment] Depict and label an offsite grading easement that permits grading and improvements on TMP
08000-00-00-058A0, which are outside of the right-of-way. Provide deed book page reference information on
the site plan. Also, depict and label all offsite grading easements that permit grading and road improvements to
Rte. 250 which are offsite. Provide deed book page reference information for these easements.
51. [Comment] Is the offsite sewer connection on TMP 80-47 (see sheet 60) existing or proposed? If it is existing
provide deed book page reference information for the sewer easement. If it is required and the existing
easement is not recorded, an offsite sewer easement shall be acquired and platted prior to final site plan.
52. [Comment] Sheet 51, Lot I-36 has an "Amenity Space" note on it. Is this accurate? Amenity space shall not be
on individual lots.
53. [Comment] Pending review comments from ACSA, Parks and Recreation, and the Zoning Administrators
review of the parking study.
Please contact Christopher Perez in the Planning Division by using cnerez&albemarle.org or 434-296-5832 ext.
3443 for further information or if you have questions.
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:
Rivanna Village Phase 2, Block F, G, H, I, & J —Final Site Plan
Plan preparer:
Alan Franklin PE, LLC /427 Cranberry Lane, Crozet, VA 22932
[alan@a,alanfranklin ep com ]
Owner or rep.:
Rivanna Investment Holdings LLC, 150 West Main St. Suite 1100
Norfolk, VA 23510
Plan received date:
4 May 2018
(Rev. 1)
23 Oct 2018
Date of comments:
26 June 2018
(Rev. 1)
14 Dec 2018
Reviewer:
John Anderson
Project Coordinator: Christopher Perez
SDP2018-00031 For clarity, comments Addressed with Rev. 1 are "graved" out
VSMP Approval required prior to Final Site Plan Approval.
a. Provide VSMP Plan that meets requirements of 17-401. (Rev. 1) Comment withdrawn,
review error. As follow-up: Revise plan reference to read `WP0201800007, Approved
5/09/18.'
b. Provide vehicular access /Access easements to SWM facilities. (Rev. 1) Partially addressed;
though vehicular access may be shown on WP0201800007, easements must be recorded.
May require further work.
c. Provide receipt of recordation of SWM Facility Deed of Dedication. (Rev. 1) Not addressed;
provide book -page reference to SWM Facility Deed of Dedication unless Applicant plans to
record easements with final subdivision plats.
d. Ref. prior -approved WPO# if prior approved plans are relied upon. (Rev. 1) Addressed; see
La., above for correct WPO Plan #.
e. Provide Mitigation for stream buffer and wetland impacts. (Rev. 1) Comment withdrawn,
review error. Reference AT0201800007.
2. Road Plan Approval required prior to Final Site Plan Approval. (Rev. 1) Not addressed. Applicant
response: `Road Plan Application forthcoming.'
3. Provide trail standard detail meeting Albemarle County Design Standards Manual Std.
4. Sheet 2, Note 17: Owner shall be responsible for posting the ESC bond. Revise note.
5. Sheet 2, Note 24: Appears incomplete. Please revise.
6. Sheet 4: Label all wetlands. Label 100' stream buffers.
7. A separate Road Plan is required. Please submit a Road Plan with Application and required fee.
8. Sheet 4: Provide calculations for ADT. ADT appears inconsistent; for example: Cattail Court 42
Attached units (GI-G42), ADT =200, while Terrapin Trace 14 Attached units (I48-I62) ADT =200.
Mossy Rock Rd. 18 single-family (J39-J57) ADT =100 appears low, while Meander Way (12 single-
family units, 135-I47) ADT =100, is more reasonable. Reference ITE Trip Generation Manual, most
recent volume, when calculating ADT.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 6
Sheet 6: Rt. 250 Improvements single lane addition typical section appears to indicate 2" SM-12.5A
tapers to zero thickness (0") at edge of 8' paved shoulder; confirm consistent with VDOT standards.
Sheet 8 / CONTECH BridgeCor® Arch Structure (Rev. 1) Not addressed. Applicant response to item 10,
applies to items 11-18, as well: `Previous submittal included Contech arch bridge details and specifications
as an example for pricing by the contractor. While the details are similar to what we expect, they do not
apply to this project. Sorry for the confusion. Contech is currently working to provide the appropriate
pans and calculations package for review and approval by the County and VDOT. It will likely be
included with the Road Plan application to the County and VDOT. Details in question have been removed
form set to eliminate further confusion.' Engineering accepts this response.
10. Ref. 2016 VDOT Road & Bridge Specifications for pre -cast arch requirements /302.03.b.
(b) Precast Drainage Structures: Submittal of designs for precast items included in the Road and
Bridge Standards will not be required provided fabrication is in accordance with the Standards.
Submittal of designs for precast box culverts produced under the VDOT Precast Concrete
Quality Assurance Program by a manufacturer on the Materials Division's Approved Products
List 34 will not be required provided the Contractor submits a certification that the item shall
be fabricated in accordance with the preapproved design drawings.
Requests for approval of a precast design shall include detailed plans and supporting com-
putations that have been signed and sealed by a Professional Engineer having at least 5 years
experience in structural design of precast structures or components proposed and licensed to
practice engineering in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Unless otherwise specified, concrete
11. Provide high definition images with legible text details for each CONTECH BridgeCor® Arch
Structure detail. Most text is illegible. (Rev. 1) Not addressed. See item 8, above.
12. Illegible Specifications for Manufacture and Installation of CONTECHBridgeCor® Arch Structure is
of particular concern. Please provide legible Mfr./Installation text. (Rev. 1) Not addressed. See item
8, above.
13. Provide PE -seal for each CONTECH BridgeCor® Arch Structure detail. Site Plan PE -seal is
insufficient unless Site Plan Professional Engineer holds PE certification in structural engineering
discipline, and seals each CONTECH detail on sheet 8, not simply plan sheet 8. (Rev. 1) Not
addressed. See item 8, above.
14. Provide structural details, including plan /profile view with dimensions, for reinforced concrete
headwall. Detail on this sheet indicates `supplied by others.' Furnish plan /profile structural detail
sufficient to evaluate adequacy and integrity of concrete headwall design. (Rev. 1) Not addressed.
See item 8, above.
15. Provide reinforcement detail, including plan /profile views with dimensions, for reinforced concrete
arch footing. (Rev. 1) Not addressed. See item 8, above.
16. Albemarle County Building Inspections Division permit may be required. Applicant is encouraged to
coordinate with Building Inspections on building permit requirements for proposed 34'-1" X 9'-2"
[structure]. (Rev. 1) Not addressed. See item 8, above.
17. Note: Notes on schematic of proposed Contech detail (top right corner, sheet 8) are problematic:
"Footing dimensions and details shown are conceptual only"; "Final dimensions and details to be
furnished by the Project Engineer"; "Foundation reinforcing to be determined." These notes indicate
final design is to be performed by Project Engineer, relative to arch footings. Provide: footing
dimensions and calculations supporting design for this site and location (soil type, dead /live load,
etc.); final dimensions /details; and foundation reinforcing details. Provide calculations that support
footing design. (Rev. 1) Not addressed. See item 8, above.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 6
18. Details reference single radius arch: This does not appear to be a single radius structure; check label.
(Rev. 1) Not addressed. See item 8, above.
19. Sheets 9-19: Base sight lines on design speed (posted speed limit + 5MPH). Example: sight line at Int.
Moose Lane and Lazy Branch Lane would appear to be 335'. Check /revise sight lines, as needed.
20. Sheets 9-19 /CG-12: Ramps at perpendicular crossings are shown as diagonal crossing ramps. Revise
per VDOT standard [removed with Rev. 1]:
C4 [image removed with Rev. 1 ]
21. Sheet 11: Provide Auto -turn figs. /driveway geometry, multiple lots, including I-60, -61, -62, -64, J-1
(sheet 18), etc. Propose smooth curves as opposed to angles which necessitate off -pavement turns
/maneuvers to enter and exit drives. Review all driveways. (Also item #36)
[image removed with Rev. 1 ]
22. Sheet 14: Street Name signs are proposed for atypical locations at Int. Lazy Branch Lane and Moose
Lane, and at Int. Lazy Branch Lane and Cattail Court. Revise to appear in conventional location on
street with stop sign. Defer to VDOT comments for public roads.
23. Sheet 14: Recommend relocate street name /speed limit and any required signs from radial sections of
roadway to tangent sections, wherever possible.
24. Sheet 14: Revise Matchline (right margin) to read sheet 15.
25. Sheet 15: Provide sight line easement on Lot I-4.
26. Sheet 16/18, 18/19 (at Matchline) —Label road radii, Lazy Branch Lane. Review horizontal road curves.
Label all horizontal road curve radii in plan view.
27. Sheet 20: Revise value in parenthesis to match design speed (60, not 25). Check profiles captions.
28. Sheets 20/21: Profile ref. to Butterfield and Park may not match proposed road names. Please confirm.
29. Ensure arch spans on Terrapin Trace (sheet 24) and Lazy Branch Lane (between Mossy Rock Rd. and
Moose Ln.; sheet 25), the two 8' x 4' and the 4' x 2' double box culvert (sheet 26) pass the 25-year
storm event without roadway flooding. Portions of development have no outlet save crossing one or
more of these culverts. Recent local flooding lends particular impetus to conservative design. (Rev.
1) Partially addressed. As follow-up: Engineering cannot locate culvert design analysis for arch span
on Terrapin Trace, Sta. 18+15(f). Please provide Q25 analysis for this structure, unless overlooked.
Q25 analyses for structures on Lazy Branch Lane are accepted.
30. Sheet 28: Provide paved concrete channel (and detail) between two pipes south of Rt. 250 to prevent
nuisance ponding. Fall between outfall of one and inlet of the other is only 0.5% (0.12' over 23.5'±).
31. Sheet 28: Provide drainage easement for storm pipe, NE corner lot 1-3 1.
32. Shct Provide drainage easement for storm line between SD 2J3-1 and SD 2J3.
33. Sheet 34: Proposed forest /open space easement 1' from edge of basketball court and on a portion of
tennis court playing surface is ambitious. While proposed Forest /Open Space easements are generally
consistent with DEQ Training Module 4, Engineering cannot approve proposed easements in such
close proximity to developed features (sports courts, lots, etc.). Revise, as needed. (Rev. 1)
Addressed. As follow -lip: Although proposed Forest /Open Space easements under AT02018000073
were approved, if Forest /Open Space easements are 1' from playing surface, or intersect tennis court,
and have yet to be recorded, Albemarle intends to coordinate with the WPO plan designer to amend
easements in limited areas, consistent with DEQ guidance. County will strive to minimize any delay
of issuance of Grading permit for Phase 2 development.
(hgps://www.deq.vir iig iia.goy/portals/0/deq/connectwithdeq/traininWswm/planreviewswm pg modul
e4.pdf )
Sheet 34
[image removed with Rev. I]
Sheet 34 —Revise proposed Forest /Open Space Easement located interior to Lot lines. Do not show
Engineering Review Comments
Page 4 of 6
Forest /Open Space Easements on any portion of any lot unless Owner intends to convey lots with
portions that may never be turf or impervious but must remain open space /forest, in perpetuity. (Rev.
1) Not addressed. Applicant response: `Easement adjusted as needed on the site plans. An
amendment to the WPO plan will be required to "match up" the revised site plans and the ESC/SWM
Plans and to incorporate any required revisions to the BMP easement.' Engineering agrees. Also,
follow-up, immediately, above.
[image removed with Rev. I]
34. Sheet 36: Provide yard drains for drainage across 3 or more lots (ref design at Lots J-12 thru J-14).
Ref. Drainage Plan checklist. Examine all grading /utility plan sheets; provide yard drains with plan
/ rp ofile data including invert in/out, rim, and profile: diameter, length, slope, etc. Provide drainage
computations /tables —consider spread, Qio capacity. Note: Min. pipe diameter is 12". Link:
http://www.albemarle.ore/upload/images/forms center/departments/Community_ Development/forms/En ing eering and
_WPO_Forms/Engineering Review_ Drainage Plans_ Checklist_1Dec2014.pdf
Also: Provide yard drains at: Lots I-32 thru I-36 (sheets 28/32); I-48 thru I-57 (back yards, sheet 29);
J-39 thru J-44 (front yards, sheets 33/35). [ image removed with Rev. I]
[image removed with Rev. 1 ]
35. Sheet 37: Revise proposed grades that intersect porches, walks, etc., unless intentional .
(Review all sheets.) [image removed with Rev. 1]
36. Sheet 37: Provide Auto -turn diagrams that show a 2°d vehicle may park next to an already -parked
vehicle: Lots J-20, -21, -22. Revise design to ensure two vehicles may enter /exit and park in space
fronting dwellings (this sheet, and elsewhere).
* Note: Albemarle has received complaint concerning negative experience based on unrealistic design
driveway access, similar to proposed. Provide Auto -turn figure for any lot where design configuration
is similar, or problematic.
[image removed with Rev. I]
37. Sheet 37: Proposed Entrance, Lot J-20 does not work; revise such that a car may enter /exit without
exceptional maneuvers, without dropping off curb. Albemarle has received severe complaint post -
construction relating to misalignment of apron and driveway edge. Propose alignment similar to blue
line. Examine all entrance aprons /all sheets, especially in cul-de-sacs and curves (sheet 36, Lots J-1,
J_2, for example). Revise as necessary. (Rev. 1) Partially addressed. As follow-up: Design at Lots
J-1, J-2 requires revision.
[ image removed with Rev. 1 ]
38. Sheet 37: Provide off -site temporary construction easements required to grade to adjacent property
lines. Image, below —examine and provide remedy for similar proposed grading to property line.
( ; image removed with Rev. 1)
39. Sheet 40: Sanitary Sewer Aerial Crossing provide a Floodplain Development Permit Application to
address requirements of Code 18-30.3 if development is proposed in FEMA Zone A /AE floodplain.
[image removed with Rev. 1 ]
40. Sheet 63: Revise d/h column values, Inlets in Sump.
41. Sheets 64-68: Label each pipe. Provide pipe structure numbers.
42. Sheets 64-68: Engineering strongly recommends that storm sewer pipe in fill sections be RCP. Any
HDPE or RCP pipe with As -built slope < 0.5% will be rejected by Albemarle, and will need to be
replaced at Owner's expense. Note, for example:
a. `2F' profile:
i. 114.54 LF of 15" HDPE @ 1.75% (placed on 5' fill).
ii. 40.86 LF of 15" HDPE @ 0.88% (placed on 3' fill).
b. `2G' Profile: 50.94 LF of 15" HDPE @ 1.75% (4-5' fill).
c. `2H' Profile: Recommend revise grade of 38.84 LF of 15" HDPE @ 0.51%.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 5 of 6
d. `2P' Profile: 82.23 LF of 15" HDPE @ 0.91%.
e. `2Q' Profile: 82.46 LF of 18" HDPE @ 0.73%
f `2M' profile:
i. 144.84 LF of 24" HDPE @ 2.74%.
ii. 52.22 LF of 24" HDPE @ 3.03%.
iii. 31.84 LF of 24" HDPE @ 0.94%.
iv. 50.08 LF of 15" HDPE @ 5.73%.
g. `2S' profile: 164.95 LF of 15" HDPE @ 1.81% (5-6' fill).
43. Sheet 67: Str. SD 2S3, 2S4 (height str. >12') provide label and detail for VDOT SL-1 (safety slab).
44. Sheet 67: Revise structure label SD S24 to read 2S4.
45. Sheet 68: Provide box culvert endwalls based on VDOT standards. Provide VDOT Std. for Modular
Block retaining wall as EW, if such exists. Show VDOT Std. EW on plans. Provide and show Wing
Wall Std. on plans. Ref. profile of proposed box culverts at Lazy Branch Ln Sta. 31+63 and 26+40.
(Rev. 1) Not addressed. Applicant response: `All of the box culver endwalls will be custom, modular
block walls designed by Circeo Engineering. Unfortunately, there is no VDOT standard to modular
wall. The Circeo wall plans will be provided once complete."
46. Sheet 68: Specify minimum slope of each proposed box culvert. Albemarle recognizes need for invert
elevations to be adjusted per verification of stream inverts.
47. Provide Note stating: "All fill material supporting roadways, embankments, and structures within the
right-of-way shall consist of Type I Select Material as defined in Section 207 of the 2016 VDOT Road
and Bridge Specifications and must be placed in successive uniform lifts not exceeding 8" and
compacted to 95% of the soil's maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D698."
48. MH Structures SD 2172, 2173, 2G2, 2K2, 2L2, 2M9, 2M10, 2M11, 2M12, 2R1-B, 2S-11 are proposed
in fill sections and require inspection by qualified personnel reporting to the Engineer that installation
is per VDOT specification, item #47.
49. Provide VDOT Std. PB-1, General Notes on plans (107.00; Spec. Ref. 302 /303 -.PDF p. 112 of
VDOT on-line CSection100)
50. Provide VDOT Std. PB-1, Pipe Bedding and Backfill, Method `A" on plans (107.01 p. 113 of
CSection100).
51. Provide VDOT Std. PB-1, Pipe Arch Bedding and Backfill on plans (107.03 p. 115 of CSection100).
52. Provide VDOT Std. PB-1, Bedding and Backfill /Box Culverts, Method "A" on plans (107.04 p. 116
of CSection100).
53. Provide VDOT Std. DSB-1, Bedding for Inlet, MH, and JB on plans (106.15, p. 111 of CSection100).
54. Provide VDOT 2016 VDOT R&B Spec. Note (303.04(g)):
[image removed with Rev. 1 ]
Also:
[image removed with Rev. I]
Comments 55, 56, sent to Planning Division review coordinator as email: 7/10/2018 12:15 PM
55. Sheet C10 includes a proposed 200' taper and 200' right turn lane on U.S. Rt. 250 EBL. While
Road Plan/s for this and other portions of public roads and privates streets (if any) internal to the
development will present design information to be reviewed by County, VDOT, and others, at first
glance, a 200' taper may be insufficient for a primary arterial roadway (55 MPH limit). Design for a
similar development entrance located on U.S. primary arterial Rt. 29 with identical design /posted
limits serves preliminary indication (prior to County review of traffic impact analysis) that proposed
200' taper to 200' right turn lane may require revision to ensure safe movement on Rt. 250, EBL, at
current or future ADT projections. Please reference TIA, by date and title, that supports 200' taper
and 200' turn lane for U.S. Rt. 250 EBL. As stated elsewhere, please submit road plans as required by
ordinance. (Rev. 1) Engineering defers to VDOT. Applicant response: `The proposed 200' X 200'
Engineering Review Comments
Page 6 of 6
turn lane and taper are in excess of the recommendations of the approved TIA, which suggested only a
full width and taper and no storage. The proposed improvements as shown are in accordance with
VDOT review to date.' Engineering accepts response, defers to VDOT.
56. No portion of the 70' reservation zone or 30' landscape buffer that may in the future be dedicated
to Albemarle County, upon demand, for widening of Rt. 250 may be placed in SWM /BMP Forest
/Open Space Easement. Revise calculations or water quality compliance strategies that may at present
rely on buffer areas that cannot with any assurance be preserved in perpetuity as forest /open space."
(Rev. 1) Applicant response: `We disagree that this area shall not be allowed to be counted as
Amenity Space or SWM/BMP Forest/Open Space for the project as these designations were always
identified on the rezoning documents. Further research and discussion will be required to address this
comment prior to approval.' Areas that coincide with 70' reservation zone or 30' landscape buffer,
unless approved through/by zoning action, exist as proposed SWM Forest/Open Space Easement as a
partial compliance strategy to meet state stormwater management water quality requirements. Other
SWM compliance options exist. Engineering contends that an area proposed as SWM Forest /Open
Space Easement may not exist in an area already designated for possible future widening of U.S. 250.
57. New: Recommend revise image of letter /document that appears on sheet 50; recommend print as
black text on white background.
58. New: Rather than (or in addition to) listing proffer #10 on sheet 2, Engineering recommends
Attached be included with FSP (shown on plans), since CTM is approved.
Please feel free to call if any questions: 434.296-5832 —x3069
Thank you
SDP201800031_Rivanna Village Phase 2—block F-G-H-I-J_FSP_121418revl
Stephen C. Brich, P.E.
Commissioner
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper, Virginia 22701
December 4, 2018
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Attn: Christopher Perez
Re: Rivanna Village Phase II — Final Site Plan
SDP-2018-00031
Review #2
Dear Mr. Perez:
The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use
Section, has reviewed the above referenced plan as submitted by Alan Franklin PE, LLC, revised
1 October 2018, and offers the following comments:
1. As stated in previous reviews, the oversized arches will only be approved if a
maintenance agreement is recorded with the County of Albemarle. This includes
retaining/wing walls that accompany these structures.
2. The design of the proposed arches, and retaining walls that are located within the ROW
or support structures within the ROW, must be approved by the Culpeper District
Structure & Bridge Section, as well as the Culpeper District Hydraulics Section prior to
permit issuance. A maintenance agreement with the County/HOA for retaining walls
located in or supporting structures within the ROW should be recorded prior to street
acceptance. Please provide structural plans for all structures requiring Culpeper District
review, including geotechnical report (see Chapter 3 of the Manual of Instructions) and
hydraulic information and calculations. Once received, these plans will be forward to the
Culpeper District Structure & Bridge and Hydraulic Sections for review.
3. More "No Parking" signs are needed on the sides of the streets where parking is
prohibited, particularly in areas where parking would obstruct intersection sight distance
lines.
4. Street sections must remain consistent throughout, not taper down as ADT is decreased.
5. The Route 250 intersection sight distance lines were not found in plan view.
6. Provide the curve radius between STA 14+00 and 15+00 on Mossy Rock Road.
7. It does not appear that marked crosswalks on Lazy Branch Lane, Steamer Drive, and
Village Park Avenue are not warranted given the anticipated ADT of these streets.
Additionally, the two midblock CG-I2s on Lazy Branch Lane should be removed as mid -
block crossings should not be encouraged.
8. The left intersection sight distance line at Cattail Court and Lazy Branch Lane is not
adequate as it is tangent to the proposed grade.
9. Provide sight distance line and profile for the left turn in to the site from Route 250.
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
December 4, 2018
Christopher Perez
Page 2
10. Only 5' of the required 8' shoulder is required to be paved along Route 250. This pertains
to the improvements east of the entrance where curb is not being proposed.
Please provide two copies of the revised plan along with a comment response letter. If further
information is desired, please contact Justin Deel at 434-422-9894.
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.
Sincerely,
Adam J. Moore, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Charlottesville Residency
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
Review Comments for SDP201800031 lFinal Plat 1-1
Project Name: Rivanna Village, Phase 2 (Blk_ F,G_H_I and J) - Final
Date Completed: Monday, November 26, 2018 DepartmentlDivisionlAgency: Review Sys:
Reviewer: Fhawn Maddox [][Fire Rescue Requested Changes
1 _ The turn around on Cattail Court shall be 20' wide and 70' deep, (this can include the travel lane)-
2- All street segments less than 36' wide shall be marked no parking on one side-
3- Afire flow test will be required prior to final acceptance-
4- If the structures are going to be more than 30' in height access to one side of the strLicture shall be via a 29 travel way_
Page: County of Albemarle Printed On: 0 04120'19
Review Comments for SDP201800031 IFinal Plat 1-1
Project Name: Rivanna Village, Phase 2 (Blk_ F,O_H_1 and J) - Final
Date Completed: Tuesday, November 13, 2018 DepartmentlDivisionlAgency: Review Sys:
Reviewer: rMargaretMalisze ski F-I OBBARB Requested Changes
1. Ornamental trees were added to the landscape buffer, but large shrubs were not_ Add large shrubs to the landscape buffer-
2- On the landscape plan, a note points to the existing wooded area to remain, but the extent of the wooded area is not drawn_
Show the extent of the wooded area to remain on the landscape plan_
3_ At the top left of sheet 29, a conflict remains between grading and wooded area to remain_ Please resolve the conflict_
Page: County of Albemarle Printed On: 0 04120'19