HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201800031 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2019-04-04ALAN FRANKLIN PE, LLC
427 Cranberry Lane
Crozet, Virginia 22932
(434) 531-5544
alan@alanfranklinpe.com
March 29, 2019
Mr. Christopher Perez
Senior Planner
County of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
RE: Rivanna Village Phase 2 (Blocks D, F, G, I, and J) Final Site Plan – 3rd Submittal (SDP2018-31)
Dear Chris,
Please accept for review and approval the attached revised final site plans which attempt to address
all of the agency initial plan review comments. This letter is intended to accompany the revised plans
and serve as written response to the comment letter dated January 4, 2019. Each reviewer that
provided comments will receive revised plans and response letter directly.
Planning (Christopher Perez)
1. [[ZMA201300012 Proffers] All proffers shall be adhered to as dictated in the proffers.
Response: Noted.
Final: Comment still relevant.
Response: No action required.
Rev1: Comment still relevant.
Response: No action required.
2. [COD Sec 3.3] 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.
Response: Provided chart added to the plans.
Final: Comment addressed.
3. [COD Sec 3.4] 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.
Response: The maximum building height table from the COD has been added to the plans.
Final: Comment addressed.
4. [[COD Sec 7.1] 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.
Response: It is our opinion that the “20% maximum” rule is only intended to apply to parking
lots, or “parking areas having four or more spaces” per 4.12.2(1). For instance, every single
family detached home with a two-car garage and a one or two-car driveway would violate this
20% rule by providing 4 parking spaces where only 2 are required. Similarly, it is also our opinion
that the 20% rule is not intended to restrict on-street parking. Plentiful on-street parking is
beneficial to NMD neighborhoods, providing for both required and non-required guest parking
and parking for uses such as the park and other non-residential uses. Our parking table is
intended to provide assurance that there is adequate parking on a majority of the residential lots
and that there is adequate room for guest parking on the streets. To help eliminate the
appearance that the site is over parked, the parking table has been revised to eliminate garage
spaces on the single family detached lots. Parking requirement calculations for the park have
been added to the plan and the location of this parking has been noted. Required parking
calculations for any other non-residential use will be provided once the use is proposed and the
calculations will be based on the proposed use.
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.
Response: Please find the attached parking study for consideration by the Zoning Administrator
to determine the required parking spaces for the Park. While the Fire Department has already
agreed to allow their parking lot to be utilized for park parking as memorialized in the Code of
Development, we are demonstrating that the park parking requirements, pending zoning
approval, can be met on-street around the perimeter of the park. We have a couple of questions
that may determine if we move pursue the use of the firehouse parking. If the Code of
Development states that the Fire Department has agreed to share it parking lot, then what
further steps would be required? Would this need to go to the BOS? And finally, what disqualifies
the fire house parking lot as meeting current parking lot standards?
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 account 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.
Response: The park parking requirements have been revised based on a change in amenities
proposed in the park (see letter). Our calculations show that 117 parking spaces are required by
the park. On the plans, we show 119 on-street parking spaces within 1/8 of a mile from any one
of three park access points.
5. [ZMA201300012 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.”
Response: Note added to chart. Blocks G and I are the locations set aside for affordable units.
The owner shall determine and notify the County which unit(s) in a particular Block is (are) to be
subject to the affordable housing criteria prior to transferring ownership of any lot within that
Block. The owner reserves the right to contribute the stipulated cash amount in lieu of
constructing an affordable unit. The affordable housing requirement may be met through a
combination of affordable unit construction and monetary contributions.
Final: Comment not adequately addressed, applicant response to this condition is not adequate.
On the plan identify the lots which will be the ADUs.
Response: ADU lots identified on plans.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
6. [ZMA201300012 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.
Response: Noted.
Final: Comment still relevant.
Response: No action required for plan approval.
7. ZMA201300012 Proffer 7] 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.
Response: Requested dimensions and labels added to the plan. One point of clarification is that
this area is proffered as a “reservation” zone not a “preservation” zone. The clearing, grading,
and utilities shown on the plans are permitted. The proffered 30’ landscape buffer is intended to
mitigate lost vegetation in the 70’ reservation zone.
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 “SWM/BMP 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,
landscaped open space, signage, utilities. Remove the above uses from this land.
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.
Rev1: Comment not adequately addressed.
Response: The 70’ reservation zone has been removed from the SWM/BMP Forest/Open Space
Easement, pending approval of revised WPO application, and from the Amenity Space
calculations. The 30’ landscape buffer area will remain as both SWM/BMP Forest/Open Space
Easement and Amenity Space because, unlike the reservation zone, this area will always be
owned and maintained by Rivanna Village.
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.”
Response: We feel that labeling has been added to address this portion of the comment
adequately.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
8. [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 Block D.
Response: It is presumed that all of the required non-residential uses will be in the remainder of
Block D. The height restrictions for this Block envision construction to encompass several floors.
The plan labels have been revised to indicate this.
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.
Response: The Density by Block chart was re-checked, but no incorrect density ranges were
identified. At least now, the chart appears to be correct. The non-residential note was added.
Rev1: 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”.
Response: Note added.
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.
Response: Noted. We have been meeting and coordinating with Parks and Rec.
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.
Response: The plans have been revised to reflect the review meetings with Dan Mahon.
Rev 1. Comment still relevant. Please work with Parks and Recreation to receive an approved
park plan and ensure the site plan matches.
Response: The park plans have been revised to reflect the review meetings with Parks and Rec.
11. [COD Sec 8] 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.
Response: Labels added/revised.
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.
Response: The maintenance facility was not part of the proffer. We have been meeting and
coordinating with Parks and Rec on all of these details and they will be added to the plans as we
progress. The maintenance facility will likely be located on the firehouse property.
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.
Response: The maintenance facility was not part of the proffer. We have been meeting and
coordinating with Parks and Rec on all of these details and they will be added to the plans as we
progress. The maintenance facility will likely be located on the firehouse property.
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 justification. 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.
Response: Per the staff/owner meeting with Parks and Rec, the maintenance facility is not the
responsibility of Rivanna Village. Path widths, and paving sections are provided and reflect
feedback from Parks and Rec.
13. [COD Sec 8] 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.
Response: The lot layout has been revised to provide the connections to the park as “fee
simple”. We are coordinating required trail widths with Parks and Rec.
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.
Response: Added to Sheet 4 and to the key on the title block.
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.
Response: Labels indicating private/public added to each road label. Direction arrows added to
the parking lot in Block G. Widths of each street on each sheet that it is shown are on the layout
plan sheets.
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.
Response: There are no alleys proposed in Phase 2. The note was modified and applied to Cattail
Court which is a private road/access.
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 approval of the first site plan or subdivision plat for the
development…”
Response: Bond has been posted.
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. This 1st 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.
Response: VDOT has been reviewing and providing comments, requirements, and
recommendations on the Route 250 improvements and all of the neighborhood streets since all
of the road plan information is provide in the Initial and Final Site Plans. It is understood that a
separate Road Plan submittal will be required to be reviewed and approved but it will largely be a
repeat set of the Final Site Plans. Bridge details will be included in the Road Plans which will
require additional, heavy VDOT review.
Rev1: Comment still relevant.
Response: It is understood that a separate Road Plan submittal will be required to be reviewed
and approved but it will largely be a repeat set of the Final Site Plans. Bridge details will be
included in the Road Plans which will require additional, heavy VDOT review. Road Plan
application will likely occur on the heels of site plan re-submittal.
18. [Code of Development Section 4.2] 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 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.
Response: We believe this to be complete.
Final: 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.
Response: The documents in question will be revised to include Phase II and submitted for
review and approval separately.
Rev1: Comment still relevant.
Response: Revisions to the Phase 1 documents are in progress for submittal.
19. [32.6.2(j)] Landscape plan. A landscape plan that complies with section 32.7.9 is required with
the final site plan.
Response: Landscape plans are included.
Final: Comment addressed.
20. [32.5.2(n)] Proposed Improvements. Provide the maximum footprint for all proposed buildings.
Response: The building setbacks shown on the Layout Plan represent the maximum footprints
for buildings. We have worked very closely with the building contractor and used their
construction plans to create the building footprints shown for the product they intend to build.
Final: Comment not addressed.
Response: Maximum building footprint square footages have been added to all townhouse units
on the plan.
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?
Response: Daily household trash will be handled by individual toter cans for each unit. On units
with garages, the trash cans will be stored in the garage. For the units without garages, in Block
G, a dumpster, pad, and enclosure are shown on the plans.
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.
Response: Another firm is preparing the E&S/SWM plans for the project. We are coordinating
closely with them to show the easements to match those plans.
Final: Comment addressed.
23. [32.8.2, 14-311] Infrastructure improvement plans. Road plans must be approved and built or
bonded prior to approval. Fire and Rescue has commented that the road widths are not
adequate for on street parking. If on street parking is to be provided assure the roads are
widened and that the spaces are dimensioned and labeled.
Response: It should be clarified that Fire and Rescue requested that we ensure that road widths
are adequate for on street parking. We have verified that the road dimensions match the typical
road sections which show adequate room for parking on one or both sides, depending on the
street. The on-street parking zones have been identified on Sheet 4. These zones are limited by
the required intersection sight distance lines which are also shown.
Final: Comment still relevant.
Response: We have verified that the road dimensions match the typical road sections which
show adequate room for parking on one or both sides, depending on the street. The on-street
parking zones have been identified on Sheet 4. These zones are limited by the required
intersection sight distance lines which are also shown. Fire and Rescue did not have any
objection during the latest plan review.
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.
Response: Road sections have been revised as follows:
No change to Terrapin Trace, Mossy Rock Road, Meander Way, Steamer Drive as those sections
are adequately sized to allow for parking on one side of the street at 29’ minimum curb-curb.
Lazy Branch Lane & Butterfield Lane sections were revised to 31’curb-curb with parking allowed
on one side. Previously Butterfield Lane was 36’ wide with parking allowed on both sides. Due to
sight distance easements, parking on both sides was not feasible so the road section was
changed to only allow parking on one side. The road width was reduced to 31’, which is slightly
larger than the minimum requirement, and the planting strip widths increased since it is a main
thoroughfare for the neighborhood. The same is true for Lazy Branch Lane. Previously, the cul-de-
sac leg of Lazy Branch was 29’ wide. VDOT would not allow a varying road section so now that
portion of Lazy Branch is 31’ curb-curb. Cattail Court road/access aisle width had to be
increased from 24’ to 26’ per the Fire and Rescue. Parallel parking space dimensions were
corrected to 9’ wide on the plans. I want to reiterate that VDOT and Fire and Rescue standards
still recognize 29’ from curb to curb as adequate road section for on-street parking on one side
for the projected traffic ranges for Rivanna Village.
24. [32.5.2(p) & 32.7.9.7] Screening. Proposed SWM Facilities shall be screened from the adjacent
residential lots.
Response: Screening of SWM facilities is included on Landscape Plan.
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.
Response: Noted. The final site plan addresses VDOT comments from the initial plan.
Final: Comment still relevant.
Response: These plans include revisions to address VDOT review comments.
Rev1: Comment still relevant.
Response: VDOT approval to be obtained through approval of this plan and road plans.
26. [Comment] Provide the dimensions of proposed easements and whether they are to be publicly
or privately maintained.
Response: Dimensions of easements and private/public notation added.
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.
Response: Note added to Sheet 2.
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.
Response: The final site plan will receive a new number. It will be added when assigned. “Road
Plan” remains in the title for now as a majority of the review and approval pertains to the roads
infrastructure approval.
Final: On the plan provide the following SDP#: “SDP2018-31”.
Response: The new site plan application tracking number has been added to Cover Sheet.
29. [Comment] [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.”
Response: Notes and depictions added as requested.
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.”
Response: You are correct, notes and depictions added to clarify as requested.
31. [Comment] [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.
Response: Plans modified as requested.
32. [Comment] [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).
Response: Labels and dimensioning added as requested. Guest parking can be accommodated
on Sedgwick Lane or Lazy Branch 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.
Response: Labels and dimensioning added as to demonstrate satisfaction of the requirement.
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.
Response: Made changes as suggested to table.
33. [Comment] [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 easement
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.
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.
Response: We chose to address this as suggested in your second paragraph above. An
instrument recording the parking agreement will be provided separately for review and approval.
Is there a template that you could provide?
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.
Response: The language will be included in the covenants and restrictions document as
suggested and will show on the final plat to match what is shown and dimensioned on the site
plan.
34. [Comment] [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.
Response: Lots F7-F11 and Lots I48-I62 require guest parking. Lots F7-F11 require 2 guest
spaces which are available on either Sedgewick Lane or Lazy Branch Lane. Lots I48-I62 require
4 guest spaces which are available nearby on Terrapin Trace.
Rev 1. See review comment #32 above.
Response: Made changes as suggested above to table.
35. [Comment] [4.12.6] Parking Requirements. Dimension all parking spaces.
Response: Additional dimensioning added.
Rev1: Comment still relevant.
Response: More dimensions added. This should be covered now.
36. [Comment] [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.
Response: Additional labeling added and a trail section detail added as well.
37. [Comment] [4.12] Parking. Provide column titles for the parking calculations chart.
Response: Parking table display has been corrected.
38. [Comment] [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.
Response: See attached “Distinguishing between Park Land and Private Property” document.
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 J20-J27 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.
Response: Per our meeting with Parks and Rec., the treatment around the perimeter of the park
adjacent to private lots will be distinguished with a combination of proposed and existing
landscaping and small marker signs on posts/stakes. Plans have been revised to better identify
these treatments. A single row of white pines has been added behind units J-20-33. The limits of
grading and other disturbance in these areas should result in preservation of the existing
treeline, so these evergreen plantings are intended to be supplemental in terms of providing
screening. Their main purpose is to physically delineate the general limits between private and
public property.
39. [Comment] The final site plan shall not be approved until all SRC reviewers have approved the
plan. Their comments attached.
Response: Response to al SRC reviewers that provided comments is provided in this letter.
Rev1: Comment still relevant.
Response: Response to al SRC reviewers that provided comments on this revision is provided in
this letter
40. [ZMA201300012 Proffer 9] 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.
Response: The table was corrected. 44 AHUs are required.
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.
Response: The plan labeling and table has been revised as requested.
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.
Response: The setback labeling has been revised as requested.
43. [32.5.2(n) 32.7.2.3, 14-422, 32.7.9.5] Sidewalks & planting strips. Continue sidewalks,
landscaping strip, and street tree plantings along Rte. 250 (the entire frontage of the property).
Response: A 10’ wide asphalt path and street tree plantings have been added to the Rte. 250
frontage.
44. [32.7.9.5] Landscaping Along Streets. Revise the landscape calculations to provide the required
street tree calculations to assure compliance with the ordinance.
Response: Landscape calculations revised to include street tree calculations.
45. [COD Sec 7.1] 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).
Response: No feedback from Zoning provided to us regarding the parking study/justification. The
park elements changed, per our meeting with Parks and Rec., so we have revised the parking
study/justification and the matching calculations on the site plan. The intent is still to satisfy the
park parking requirements with on-street parking in the proximity (reasonable) of the park, which
would be possible if the attached parking study/justification is approved.
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.
Response: 6 ADA spaces and a loading zone were added for the park.
47. [4.12] Parking. Staff is only able to locate 88 spaces dedicated to the park.
Response: The plan has been revised. There are now 119 street spaces identified as park
parking with a #P label on the space. Please see the attached parking requirement study letter.
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.
Response: The on-street parallel parking spaces have been laid out using a 9’ x 20’ block in
Autocad to ensure that there is no overlap of parking space on curved roadway sections. The
spaces have been dimensioned at 9’ min. to meet the parking requirement. Again, I want to
reiterate that VDOT and Fire and Rescue standards still recognize 29’ from curb to curb as
adequate road section for on-street parking on one side for the projected traffic ranges for
Rivanna Village. All of the roads in Rivanna Village with allowable on street parking are at least
29’ wide from curb-curb. The two roadways with the majority of on-street parking are proposed 2’
wider at 31’.
49. [Comment] Dimension and provide easement for trail on Lot J-1, see sheet 18.
Response: Dimension of trail and easement added.
Note: I see on the plan after printing that missed this. Digital pdf plan set will be updated to
correct this prior to uploading to County.
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.
Response: TMP80-58A is only parcel affected by the Route 250 improvements. Minimal grading
and drainage improvements appear to be required as shown on the plan, mainly in the vicinity of
the entrance to Cumbria Lane. A note has been added to the plans requiring a letter of
cooperation or an easement, if needed, will be obtained prior for plan approval. Rivanna
Investments, LLC shares access and maintenance responsibilities for Cumbria Lane so they may
already have permission to make the improvements at the entrance. Note: I also see on the plan
after printing that the note is missing. Digital pdf plan set will be updated to correct this prior to
uploading to County.
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.
Response: The sewer is tie in is at an existing manhole on the Rivanna Village property. The off-
site connection was made for Phase 1. Deed book and page references for the existing
easements has been added to Sheet 37.
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.
Response: The “Amenity Space” label in question has been removed.
53. [Comment] Pending review comments from ACSA, Parks and Recreation, and the Zoning
Administrators review of the parking study,
Response: ACSA comments have been addressed separately. We met with Park and Rec. No
feedback was provided by Zoning as the park elements were going to change.
Engineering (John Anderson)
1. VSMP Approval required prior to Final Site Plan Approval.
a. Provide VSMP Plan that meets requirements of 17-401. Response: VSMP Plan for Phase 2
has been approved. Reference to prior approved WPO added to grading sheets.
Rev1: Comment withdrawn.
b. Provide vehicular access /Access easements to SWM facilities. Response: Thought this was
established as part of VSMP Plan approval. May need further work.
Rev1: May require further work.
Response: I realized I overlooked this comment after printing plans. SWM facility access routes
will be identified on plan and updated sheet sent to you. May require update to WPO.
c. Provide receipt of recordation of SWM Facility Deed of Dedication. Response: Not sure of the
status of this.
Rev1: Not addressed; provide book-page reference to SWM Facility Deed of Dedication unless
Applicant plans to record easements with final subdivision plat/s.
Response: SWM/BMP easements to be on Subdivision Plat or on a prior Plat for to finalize WPO
approval.
d. Ref. prior-approved WPO# if prior approved plans are relied upon. Response: Reference to
prior approved WPO added to grading sheets.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
e. Provide Mitigation for stream buffer and wetland impacts. Response: Approved VSMP Plan for
Phase 2 included mitigation for stream buffer impacts.
Rev1: Comment withdrawn.
2. Road Plan Approval required prior to Final Site Plan Approval.
Response: Road Plan application forthcoming. The Road Plan will essentially be a copy of the site
plans as all of the required information for road plans has been in the road plans all along and
VDOT has been providing road plan review comments. One additional item that the road plans
will include is bridge design which will likely need to be reviewed by VDOT in Culpeper.
Rev1: Comment still relevant.
Response: See previous response.
3. Provide trail standard detail meeting Albemarle County Design Standards Manual Std.
Response: Trail detail added to the plans.
4. [Sheet 2], Note 17: Owner shall be responsible for posting the ESC bond. Revise note.
Response: Note corrected.
5. [Sheet 2], Note 24: Appears incomplete. Please revise.
Response: Note corrected
6. [Sheet 4]: Label all wetlands. Label 100' stream buffers.
Response: Wetland and stream buffer labels added.
7. A separate Road Plan is required. Please submit a Road Plan with Application and required fee.
Response: Road Plan application forthcoming. The Road Plan will essentially be a copy of the site
plans as all of the required information for road plans has been in the road plans all along and
VDOT has been providing road plan review comments. One additional item that the road plans
will include is bridge design which will likely need to be reviewed by VDOT in Culpeper
8. [Sheet 4;: Provide calculations for ADT. ADT appears inconsistent; for example: Cattail Court 42
Attached units (Gl -G42), ADT =200, while Terrapin Trace 14 Attached units (148-162) ADT
=200. Mossy Rock Rd. 18 single-family (J39-J57) ADT =100 appears low, while Meander Way
(12 single family units, 135-147) ADT =100, is more reasonable. Reference ITE Trip Generation
Manual, most recent volume, when calculating ADT.
Response: The original ADT/street provide came directly from the TIA that was prepared for the
project. However, since the TIA report, the unit count/mix per block has been altered slightly so
the listed ADTs did get slightly skewed based on the current plan. I’ve adjusted the ADTs to bring
them into agreement with the current plan and unit mix.
9. [Sheet 6]: Rt. 250 Improvements single lane addition typical section appears to indicate 2" SM-
12.5A tapers to zero thickness (O") at edge of 8' paved shoulder; confirm consistent with VDOT
standards.
Response: VDOT requested that the paving materials in the sections “daylight” at the shoulder.
The typical section that you refer to had been revised to address this but it was still incorrect. The
sections have now been revised to what we believe to be the intent of VDOT request.
10. [Sheet 8] / CONTECH BridgeCor® Arch Structure: 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
computations that have been signed and sealed by a Professional Engineer having at least 5
years of experience in structural design of precast structures or components proposed and
licensed to practice engineering in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Unless otherwise specified,
concrete
Response: 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 plans 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 an VDOT. Details in question
have been removed from set to eliminate further confusion.
11. Provide high definition images with legible text details for each CONTECH BridgeCor® Arch
Structure detail. Most text is illegible.
Response: See previous response regarding bridge details. They have been removed for now.
12. Illegible Specifications for Manufacture and Installation of CONTECH BridgeCor® Arch Structure
is of particular concern. Please provide legible Mfr./Installation text.
Response: See previous response regarding bridge details. They have been removed for now.
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.
Response: See previous response regarding bridge details. They have been removed for now.
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.
Response: See previous response regarding bridge details. They have been removed for now.
15. Provide reinforcement detail, including plan /profile views with dimensions, for reinforced
concrete arch footing.
Response: See previous response regarding bridge details. They have been removed for now.
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".
Response: Noted.
17. Note: Notes on schematic of proposed Contech detail (top right comer, 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.
Response: See previous response regarding bridge details. They have been removed for now.
18. Details reference single radius arch: This does not appear to be a single radius structure; check
label.
Response: See previous response regarding bridge details. They have been removed for now.
Comments #10-#18 to be addressed with Road Plans and Bridge Details (Contech) review.
19.
20. [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.
Response: The base sight lines for all of the proposed roads are based on design speed of 25
MPH, not posted speed, so I believe they are correct. For existing roads such as at the Route 250
intersection, VDOT requires using the posted speed + 5, or 60 MPH.
21. Sheets 9-19 /CG-12: Ramps at perpendicular crossings are shown as diagonal crossing ramps .
Revise per VDOT standard
Response: Corrected as suggested per our meeting and your sketches.
22. Sheet 11: Provide Auto-tum figs. /driveway geometry, multiple lots, including 1-60, -61, -62, -64,
J-1 (sheet 18), etc. Propose smooth curves as opposed to angles which necessitate off-
pavement turns (Also item #36)
Response: All of the awkward driveway configurations have been corrected/improved to provide
smooth curves as recommended. Static turning templates were used to verify the improved
design. With the improved layout, I do not believe that auto-turn exhibits are necessary any
longer. Please let me know.
23. 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.
Response: Corrected as suggested per our meeting.
24. Sheet 14: Recommend relocate street name /speed limit and any required signs from radial
sections of roadway to tangent sections, wherever possible.
Response: Corrected as suggested.
25. Sheet 14: Revise Matchline (right margin) to read sheet 15.
Response: Corrected.
26. Sheet 15: Provide sight line easement on Lot 1-4.
Response: Sight line easement added.
27. 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.
Response: Missing road radii labels added.
28. Sheet 20: Revise value in parenthesis to match design speed (60, not 25). Check profiles
captions.
Response: Corrected.
29. Sheets 20/21: Profile ref. to Butterfield and Park may not match proposed road names. Please
confirm.
Response: Corrected. Moose Lane renamed to Butterfield Lane.
30. 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.
Response: All box culvert designs analysis increased to 25 year storm check. See attached
calculations.
Rev1: Partially addressed. As follow-u p: Engineering cannot locate culvert design analysis for
arch span on Terrapin Trace, Sta. 18+15(±). Please provide Q2s analysis for this structure,
unless overlooked. Q2s analyses for structures on Lazy Branch Lane are accepted.
Response: Arch span at Terrapin Trace is oversized, not to disturb the meandering channel
banks at this location per our DEQ permit. Q2 analysis not provided due to no constriction of
channel. Please let me know if you still need this analysis when you get to this review. I will have
it done by then and I may provide it to you shortly after this plan submittal.
31. 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'±)
Response: Paved concrete channel added as suggested.
32. Sheet 28: Provide drainage easement for storm pipe, NE comer lot 1-31.
Response: Drainage easement added.
33. Sheet 32: Provide drainage easement for storm line between SD 2J3-1 and SD 2J3.
Response: Drainage easement added.
34. 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.
Sheet 34 - Revise proposed Forest /Open Space Easement located interior to Lot lines. Do not
show 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.
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.
Rev1: Not completely addressed. As follow up: Although proposed Forest /Open Space
easements under WPO2018000073 were approved, if Forest /Open Space easements are l'
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.
Response: Easements have been adjusted as needed with the revisions on this site plan and I
have coordinated with the preparer of the WPO Plans. An amendment to the WPO plan is
planned to “match up” the revised site plans and the ESC/SWM Plans and to incorporate any
required revisions to the BMP easements.
35. 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/profile data including invert in/out, rim, and profile: diameter, length, slope, etc.
Provide drainage computations /tables - consider spread, Q10 capacity. Note: Min. pipe
diameter is 12".
Also: Provide yard drains at: Lots 1-32 thru 1-36 (sheets 28/32); 1-48 thru 1-57 (backyards,
sheet 29); J-39 thru J-44 (front yards, sheets 33/35)
Response: Plans revised to incorporate suggested items to address this concern.
36. Sheet 37: Revise proposed grades that intersect porches, walks, etc, unless intentional.
Response: Grades lines in question corrected/adjusted.
37. Sheet 37: Provide Auto-tum diagrams that show a 2nd 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-tum figure for any lot where design
configuration is similar or problematic.
Response: All of the awkward driveway configurations have been corrected/improved to provide
smooth curves as recommended. Static turning templates were used to verify the improved
design. With the improved layout, I do not believe that auto-turn exhibits are necessary. Please
let me know.
38. 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.
Response: Proposed entrance alignment and width corrected as suggested.
Rev1: Partially addressed. As follow up: Design at Lots J-1 and J-2 needs revision.
Response: Driveway layouts for Lots J-1 and J-2 have been corrected/improved
39. Sheet 37: Provide off-site temporary construction easement required to grade adjacent property
lines.
Response: Cul de sac and grading shifted to provide at least 5’ from the property boundary to the
limits of work required.
40. 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.
Response: Note changed. Not crossing a FEMA floodplain.
41. Sheet 63: Revise d/h column values, Inlets in Sump.
Response: Table corrected.
42. Sheets 64-68: Label each pipe. Provide pipe structure numbers.
Response: Pipe labels added to profiles.
43. 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%.
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 of24" HDPE @ 2.74%.
ii. 52.22 LF of24" HDPE @ 3.03%.
iii. 31.84 LF of24" HDPE @ 0.94%.
iv. 50.08 LF of 15" HDPE @ 5.73%.
v. '2S' profile: 164.95 LF of 15" HDPE @ 1.81% (5-6' fill).
Response: Storm drain profiles revised to significantly decrease the quantity of storm drain and
structures required to be constructed on fill. Additionally, construction and inspection notes
added to the profile sheets.
44. Sheet 67: Str. SD 2S3, 2S4 (height str. >12') - provide label and detail for VDOT SL-1 (safety
slab).
Response: SL-1 label and detail added.
45. Sheet 67: Revise structure label SD S24 to read 2S4.
Response: Corrected.
46. 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.
Response: All of the box culvert 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.
Rev1: Not addressed.
Response: Modular block wall details will be included in the Contech details package. In the
meantime, I have added simple, typical details showing how these improvements can/will be
constructed with notes directing the contractor to use the permit drawings provided by structural
engineer.
47. Sheet 68: Specify minimum slope of each proposed box culvert. Albemarle recognizes need for
invert elevations to be adjusted per verification of stream inverts.
Response: A note requiring a minimum slope of 0.50% has been added to the box culvert
profiles.
48. 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."
Response: Construction and inspection notes added to the profile sheets.
49. MH Structures SD 2F2, 2F3, 20 2, 2K2, 2L2, 2M9, 2M l0, 2Ml 1, 2M12, 2R l -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.
Response: Construction and inspection notes added to the profile sheets
50. Provide VDOT Std. PB-1, General Notes on plans (107.00; Spec. Ref. 302 /303 -.PDF p. 112 of
VDOT on-line CSectionlO0)
51. Provide VDOT Std. PB-1, Pipe Bedding and Backfill, Method "A" on plans (107.01 -p. 113 of
CSection 100).
Response: Detail added to plans.
52. Provide VDOT Std. PB-1, Pipe Arch Bedding and Backfill on plans (107.03 -p. 115 of CSection
100).
Response: Detail added to plans.
53. Provide VDOT Std. PB-1, Bedding and Backfill /Box Culverts, Method " A" on plans (107.04 - p.
116 of CSection 100).
Response: Detail added to plans.
54. Provide VDOT Std. DSB-1, Bedding for Inlet, MH, and JB on plans (106.15, p. 111 of CSection
100).
Response: Detail added to plans.
55. Provide VDOT 2016 VDOT R&B Spec. Note (303.04(g)):
(g) Backfilling Openings Made for Structures: Backfill shall be suitable material removed for the
structure, although the Engineer may require that backfill material be obtained from a source
within the construction limits entirely apart from the structure, or other approved material. The
opening to be backfilled shall be dewatered prior to backfilling. Backfill shall not be placed
against-or over cast-in-place box culverts or other structures until the top concrete-slab
section(s) has been in place 14 days, exclusive of days on which the average high-low ambient
temperature is below 40 degrees F in the shade or until the concrete control cylinder(s) has
attained a compressive strength equal to 93 percent of the 28-day minimum design
compressive strength.
Also:
Box culverts shall not be opened to construction equipment traffic until concrete has attained
100 percent of the 28-day design minimum compressive strength and has a backfill cover of at
least 4.0 feet. The minim um height of backfill cover required to protect pipe culverts from
construction equipment shall be in accordance with Standard Drawing PC-1 for the type and size
specified.
Response: Notes added to profiles.
56. 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.”
Response: The proposed 200’ x 200’ 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.
Rev1: Defers to VDOT.
Response: Noted.
57. 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.”
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.
Rev1: 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.
Response: The 70’ reservation zone has been removed from the SWM/BMP Forest/Open Space
Easement on this plan, pending approval of revised WPO application, and from the Amenity
Space calculations. The 30’ landscape buffer area will remain as both SWM/BMP Forest/Open
Space Easement and Amenity Space because, unlike the reservation zone, this area will always
be owned and maintained by Rivanna Village.
58. Rev1: Recommend revise image of letter/document that appears on sheet 50; recommend print
as black text on white background.
Response: I did not do this. I will work on getting a better image for the signature set.
59. Rev1: Rather than (or in addition to) listing proffer #10 on sheet 2, Engineering recommends
attached approved CTM be included with FSP (shown on plans).
Response: Approved CTM added as Sheet 72 of the set and reference to Sheet 72 made on
Sheet 2 Proffers section.
Fire and Rescue (Shawn Maddox)
1. The turnaround on Cattail Court shall be 20’ and 70’ deep. (this can include travel lane)
Response: Plans revised to add turnaround requested.
2. All street segments less than 36’ wide shall be marked no parking on one side.
Response: Plan shows “No Parking” sign/zone layout for all streets.
3. A fire flow test will be required prior to final acceptance.
Response: The water source for this project is going to the be the newly constructed water tank
at the fire house. No pressure or flow data is available to provide calculations. ACSA has
expressed that pressure and flow is not going to be a concern. Please advise.
4. If the structures are going to be more than 30’ in height, access to on side or other shall be via a
26’ travel way.
Response: It was assumed that this comment referred to the units in Block G. These units may
exceed 30’ in height so Cattail Court and the parking aisle were increased to 26’ width curb-curb.
CDD Inspections (Michael Dellinger)
No objections to the Final Site Plan.
Response: No action required.
VDH (Alan Mazurowski)
No objections to the Final Site Plan.
Response: No action required.
E911 (Elise Kiewra)
No objections to the Final Site Plan.
Response: No action required, however, after further investigation on-site it has been determined
that the neighborhood entrance road off of Route 250 does not line up with Moose Lane. We request
Butterfield Lane as a road name replacement of Moose Lane in our neighborhood.
ARB (Margaret Maliszewski)
1. Show the boundaries of the 30' buffer on the landscape plans.
Response: Boundaries and labels added/improved.
2. Add ornamental trees and large shrubs in the landscape buffer.
Response: Ornamental trees added but shrubs were not added because we did not feel that shrubs
would not be visible that far away from Route 250.
3. Distribute the trees and shrubs in the landscape buffer to fully populate the 30' depth and to
achieve a natural appearance.
Response: Landscape plan revised to better distribute plantings throughout width of buffer.
4. On the landscape plan, label the existing wooded area to remain and include notes identifying
the character of the wooded area
Response: Request information added.
5. Revise the plan to remove all conflicts between grading and wooded area to remain.
Response: Conflicts corrected.
6. Add the standard plant health note to the landscape plans: "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."
Response: Note added to Landscape Plans.
Please provide:
1. One set of revised drawings addressing each of these conditions. Include updated ARB revision
dates on each drawing.
2. A memo including detailed responses indicating how each condition has been satisfied. If
changes other than those requested have been made, identify those changes in the memo also.
Highlighting the changes in the drawing with "clouding" or by other means will facilitate review
and approval.
3. The attached "Revised Application Submittal" form. This form must be returned with your
revisions to ensure proper tracking and distribution.
REV 1:
1. Add large shrubs to the landscape buffer.
Response: Large shrub clusters have been added to the landscape buffer along route 250.
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.
Response: Extent of wooded areas to remain have been added.
3. At the top left of Sheet 29, a conflict remains between grading and wooded area to remain
Please resolve conflict.
Response: Extent of wooded areas to remain has been corrected where in conflict with grading.
Parks and Rec (Dan Mahon)
No written comments provided as of July 11, 2018. (Plan submitted May 4, 2018)
Response: Plans reflect suggested revisions and requests provided by staff at meetings.
REV 1:
Meeting held on January 29, 2019 at COB.
Response: Park plans and site plans have been revised to reflect recommendations from 01/29
meeting.
VDOT (Adam Moore/Justin Deel)
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.
Response: The Developer would like to begin review of the required Maintenance Agreement. We
will work with the County Engineer.
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.
Response: Contech has just recently been release to finalize the bridge details for review and
approval in the Culpeper District. This design package along with geotechnical report and the
current site plans packaged as a subdivision road application with the County will be provided.
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.
Response: More “No Parking” signs added to the plans as suggested to address concern,
particularly at areas of concern
4. Street sections must remain consistent throughout, not taper down as ADT is decreased.
Response: Road sections have been revised as follows:
Lazy Branch Lane & Butterfield Lane sections were revised to 31’curb-curb with parking allowed
on one side. Previously Butterfield Lane was 36’ wide with parking allowed on both sides. Due to
sight distance easements, parking on both sides was not feasible so the road section was
changed to only allow parking on one side. The road width was reduced to 31’, which is slightly
larger than the minimum requirement, and the planting strip widths increased since it is a main
thoroughfare for the neighborhood. The same is true for Lazy Branch Lane. Previously, the cul-de-
sac leg of Lazy Branch was 29’ wide. It is now 31’ wide throughout its alignment.
5. The Route 250 intersection sight distance lines were not found in plan view.
Response: The Route 250 intersection sight distance lines are now displayed.
6. Provide the curve radius between STA 14+00 and 15+00 on Mossy Rock Road.
Response: Curve radius label question is now displayed.
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-12s on Lazy Branch Lane should be removed as midblock crossings should not be
encouraged.
Response: It would appear that we ignored or did the opposite of this comment. The County
Planner and Parks and Recreation Staff requested that we leave the two mid-block pedestrian
crossings at the park entrance and remove the two crossings at the intersections. The park is
going to be a County Park and the two mid-block crossings line up with the future Block D
commercial zone and the main park entrance features.
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.
Response: A vertical crest curve in Lazy Branch Lane created the sight line conflict. The crest
curve was lengthened which flattened the grade and eliminated the conflict.
9. Provide sight distance line and profile for the left turn in to the site from Route 250.
Response: Sight distance line and profile for the left turn into the site from Route 250 has been
added.
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.
Response: The typical section for the improvements east of the Route 250 was revised per this
comment.
Note: County Planning comment required us to add street trees and 10’ pedestrian path
adjacent to entire Route 250 frontage.
ACSA (Jeremy Lynn)
Revisions and responses delivered directly to ACSA.
Please note that VDOT requested
Please do not hesitate to call me at (434) 531-5544 or email at alan@alanfranklinpe.com with any
questions or request for additional information that will aid in review of the final site plans.
Sincerely,
Alan Franklin, PE
cc:
David Harner; HCM Rebecca Amster; Mark Keller
Attachments: Parking Requirement Study