HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201800087 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2019-04-15 (5)COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
Final Site Plan Review
Project title:
Timberwood Square — FSP
Project file number:
SDP201800087
Plan preparer:
Dustin Greene, EIT—Roudabush, Gale & Associates [dgreene(aroudabush.com]
172 S. Pantops Drive, Charlottesville, VA 22911
Owner or rep.:
Highlife Townhomes Inc., 307 West Rio Road [rhauser(a)stonehaus.net]
250 Pantops Mountain Road, Charlottesville, VA 22901
Plan received date:
5 Dec 2018
(Rev. 1)
15 March 2019
Date of comments:
14 Jan 2019
(Rev. 1)
15 April 2019
Plan Coordinator:
Tori Kanellopoulos
Reviewer:
John Anderson
SDP201800087 — source: SDP201800071 review comments (Initial Site Plan Engr.)/2rayscale, if NA for Final
Site Plan, ISP review comment addressed, or if comment withdrawn.
1. Note: Combined (Engineering) Road Plan (SUB201500077) and Final Site Plan review comments
(SDP201500023) were sent to Applicant on 6/18/16 (Timberwood Square).
2. Final Site, Road, WPO Plans for this proposed development did not reach point of approval.
SDP201500023 (FSP) expired due to inactivity.
2a. Text of email sent to Applicant (8/31/2018 10:03 AM), reads, in part: "...this application was
withdrawn in January due to inactivity in accordance with 32.4.3.5(b). In addition, your initial has expired
since it was approved in 2011 and that is only valid for 5 years. So, you will need to submit an initial site
plan and fee and start your application again."
2b. Text, email, Engineering to Planning (6/18/2016 2:11 PM -also RMS docs, SDP201500023):
"(SDP201500023) —Engineering has No Objection to FSP design. Engineering comments addressed with
this or prior submittal. FSP Approval requires ROAD Plan Approval, and requires that roads (Lois Lane,
Landon Lane) be built or bonded. ROAD Plan is not approved. FSP Approval requires that WPO be
approved and bonded. Planning coordinator should confirm that SWM Maintenance Agreements have
been signed, that project has received VPDES Permit coverage letter from DEQ. Please confirm WPO
status with Max Greene, Engineering Div." (1/14/19 review) Comment persists; see item 25., below.
(Rev. 1) Comment persists.
3. Current SDP201800071, Initial Site Development Plan for Timberwood Square, maybe identical with
SDP201500023. Engineering requests cloud revisions for any design change made to SDP201500023
(since basis of SDP201800071) since Final Site Plan set dated 8 Jun 2016 (2" Revision). If no changes,
please respond 'SDP201500023 is identical with SDP201800071'.
4. Lot Lines are illogical, apart from property valuation purposes. It is unorthodox to place half a private
street easement within lots (Lois Lane). If SDP201800071 is identical with SDP201500023, and lot lines
shown are permissible by ordinance, and /or previously reviewed and accepted by Planning Division, then
Engineering does not object. Otherwise, provide conventional right-of-way (RW). RW prevents any
portion of Lois Lane being included with Lots 25 - 32. (1/14/19) Comment withdrawn.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 3
5. Ch. 14 Division 5, Procedures for the Approval of Private Streets, Sec. 14-233, When private streets in
development areas may be authorized is relevant. It appears no element of initial site plan approval
persists, and that request for approval of private streets in the development area is required. (1/14/19) Since
private roads are being proposed, please submit private street authorization request. Please ref. Sec. 14-
233 for procedure. Recommend contact and coordinate with FSP review coordinator. (Rev. 2) Addressed.
Private street authorization request under review. Engineering comments sent to Applicant on 8-Apr 2019.
6. Street design standards: Engineering recently met with RGA (10/4/18) to discuss conceptual layout for
770 Rio Road East. VDOT and AASHTO standards apply to street design for six or more lots, and apply
to Timberwood Square. If RGA can accept county position that in this particular instance, since a Road
Plan CL radius of 110' (Lois Lane) was accepted in 2016, and Road Plan was virtually approved, provided
RGA does not reference 110' CL radius in future applications unless supported by VDOT /AASHTO
standards, then Engineering will not reverse and require what would amount to major redesign of Lois
Lane. Options: Indicate understanding of County willingness to approve a 110' CL radius for Lois Lane;
identify VDOT /AASHTO reference to 110' CL radius (Engineering is unaware of a CL radius standard
this low); redesign Lois Lane to meet VDOT /AASHTO CL radii standards. Engineering welcomes RGA
acceptance that if 110' CL radius is less than published applicable VDOT /AASHTO standards,
Engineering does not in the future intend to accept 110' (or any measure of) radius that does not meet
VDOT /AASHTO minimum design parameters. (1/14/19) Applicant ISP comment response (11/30/18
letter): `The 110' radius is allowed in grandfathered developments with an ADT less than 400.'
Engineering comment: Grandfathered status does not apply; for the record, 110' is (typically) insufficient
horizontal radius of curvature, but is accepted in this instance. No design revision required.
7. Related to item 4., above, large portions of back yards of Lots 25 — 32 are in proposed landscape
easement, trail easement, or ACSA easement. This is problematic, but Engineering defers to Planning on
whether lot lines, Lots 25-32, meet ordinance.
8. Related to items 4. and 7., Landon Lane is shown entirely within lots. No RW is provided. If Landon
Lane is to serve as a private street established with subdivision, please provide right-of-way required for
private streets. Lois Lane and Landon Lanes are not yet approved as private streets. They are public roads,
by default. They are not alleys. They require, whether public roads or private streets, right-of-way. Please
revise affected lot lines to provide public road /private street RW for both Lois Lane and Landon Lane.
(1/14/19) Comment withdrawn.
9. Submit Road Plan that addresses remaining Road Plan review comments, at earliest convenience.
Engineering requests cloud revisions for any design change made to SUB201500077 Road Plan set
received 7 Jun 2016 (2nd Revision). If no changes, please state `Road Plan submittal identical with most
recent Road Plan for Timberwood Square, SUB201500077.' Again, please show any changes as cloud
revisions. (1/14/19) Applicant response: `Due to the nature of these comments there have been too many
changes to just cloud them on the plans. Please review accordingly.'
10. Carefully review Engineering Division Road and Site Plan comments dated 18-Jun 2016. (Also
Attached. Also in CV.) (1/14/19) Applicant response: `Comments have been reviewed and the plan has
been updated accordingly.' No additional action required, apart from need to address remaining comments.
(Rev. 1) Addressed.
11. Final Site Plan Approval requires Planning Division to authorize private streets in the development
area, if private streets are proposed. (1/14/19) Applicant response: `Private roads are being proposed.
Comment noted.' As follow-up: Please coordinate private street authorization request with FSP plan
coordinator, Tori Kanellopoulos. Also, item 5., above. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Private street authorization
request under review. Engineering review comments sent to Applicant on 8-Apr 2019.
12. Final Site Plan Approval requires Road Plan meet VDOT-AASHTO standards, with exception outlined
in item 6., above. (1/14/19) No action, or design revision required.
13. Final Site Plan Approval requires roads be built or bonded. (1/14/19) Applicant response: `Comment
noted.' (Rev. 1) Comment persists.
14. Final Site Plan Approval requires WPO Approval. Last action on WP0201500032: review eommen4s
n4 to Applicant, 6/27/1 6. If Applicant re -submits a WPO plan based on WPO201500032, Engineering
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 3
requests cloud revisions of any change to plans since last submittal of WPO201500032. (1/14/19)
VSMP/WPO Plan submitted. A new VMSP/WPO file# to be assigned. Plan was reviewed, and comments
sent to Applicant on 12/28/18. A VSMP/WPO Application fee is required (see comment Memo email).
(Rev. 1) Comment persists. WPO201900015 is under review.
15. This Initial Site Plan appears to require an Initial and/or Final Plat. (1/14/19) Applicant response: `A
final plat will be provided under separate cover.' (Rev. 1) Comment persists.
New:
16. Storm Sewer Profile Str. 5A-5 (sheet 15): Pipe length label is 7-. 0' 11.11, inconsistent with plan view
scale (-40'; sheet 5); revise for consistency. Also, structure labels should match; i.e., Ex. 5A, Ex. 5. (Rev.
1) Not addressed. If review error, please notify Engineering.
17. Lois Lane parking and street typical section note: `There is a transition period from 12+20 to 12+75
where the road width goes from 20' to 24." Please confirm transition is limited to 55' section. Plan view
(sheet 5) transition appears more gradual and appears to extend to cover additional roadway stations. (Rev.
1) Addressed.
18. Lois Lane profile (sheet 16): Revise Str. E7 so that top of Str. matches proposed grade. (Rev. 1)
Addressed.
19. Provide detail for tot lot permanent fencing shown on sheet 5. Ensure fence design /material /height do
not obscure sight distance on Lois Lane. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Proposed wire -backed 3' high wooden rail
tot lot fence should not impede sight distance.
20. Revise plan title to include SDP201800087. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
21. Provide dumpster pad section detail. (Rev. 1) Not addressed. Applicant response: `Dumpster pad
detail shown on sheet I V Cannot locate detail on sheet 18, please advise.
22. Relocate pin oak (sheet 9) between drainage structure 11 and E7, to eliminate conflict. (Rev. 1)
Addressed.
23. Engineering defers to VDOT on Left Turn Restriping Plan and MOT Plan (sheet 20). (Rev. 1)
Addressed. Applicant response: `VDOT comments have been satisfied with this submittal.'
24. Sheets 5 and 7: Show and label Arbor Lake waters' edge. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
25. As discussed I/10/19, please provide copy of letter of agreement between Timberwood Square and
Forest Lakes HOA stipulating /permitting Timberwood Square's use of Arbor Lake for SWM purposes.
(Rev. 1) Comment persists. Applicant response: `A copy of the letter of agreement will be provided prior
to FSP approval.'
26. New Rev. 11 See Private Street Authorization Request Engineering review comment Memo, item 1.
(d. 8 Apr 2019): Follow-IM comments /request for plan revision, SUB201800220 [FSPI:
a. Revise sheet 5 of Road Plan, SUB 201800220 [FSP] to show roadway stationing, Lois Lane.
b. Revise sheet 14, Road Plan [sheet 16, FSPI, to show base and surface asphalt, and base stone
depths for Lois Lane, Sta. 13+64 - 14+64, consistent with structural stone and asphalt depths
shown on all other travelway /roadway /parking sections, this sheet; i.e.: 6" VDOT 21A, 2.5"
25.OA, 1.5" SM-9.5A.
c. Revise sheet 14, Road Plan [sheet 16, FSPI, to show Lois Lane section with structural depths, Sta.
10+00 - 13+64.
27. New Rev. 1 . Ref. 1/18/19 Planning comments, item #10 /SP6: Provide CG-12 detectable surface
(but not ramp) where asphalt path intersects EP, Worth Crossing. Show existing asphalt path, N
side, Worth Crossing.
Please feel free to call if any questions. Thank you
J. Anderson 434.296-5832 -x3069
Fi1c: SDP201800087 Tinberwood Squarc_FSP 041519rcv1