HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201800081 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2019-05-13Phone 434-296-5832
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, VA, 22902
Memorandum
To: Justin Shimp (justin(a shimp-engineering.com)
From: Paty Saternye, Senior Planner
Division: Planning
Date: December 22, 2018
Rev. 1: Mav 10, 2019
Rev. 1 UPDATE May 13, 2019
Subject: SDP 201800081 Royal Fern Townhomes — Final Site Plan
Fax 434-972-4126
The County of Albemarle Planning Division will recommend approval of the plan referenced above once the
following comments have been satisfactorily addressed (The following comments are those that have been
identified at this time. Additional comments or conditions may be added or eliminated based on further review.):
[Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference, which is to the Subdivision/Zoning Ordinances unless
otherwise specified.]
Initial Site Plan Comments (from conditional approval letter dated 4/20/18 [UPDATEII:
2. A site plan meeting all the requirements of section 32.6 of Chapter 18 of the Code.
Final: Comment not fully addressed. See comments below
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed.
4. [32.7.2.3(a)] Provide in the site plan a sidewalk parallel to 5t" street for the full length of the parcel. Work
with VDOT, engineering and planning to determine the section that will be required for the intersection with
the road. The existing asphalt trail is not of sufficient width and is not properly maintained.
Final: Comment addressed. Address the comment.
Rev. 1: Comment Dartially addressed. However. see and address comment from transportation
planner about a shared -use path or sidewalk with bike lanes.
5. [32.5.1(c) & 32.5.2(a)] Address the following:
III. Include information (TMP, Owner, Developer, Zoning, etc.) for the adjoining parcel in the data on the
coversheet since part of that parcel is being utilized to meet stormwater requirements.
Final: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following:
a) Portions of the subject and adjoining parcel information on the existing conditions sheet is no longer
shown. Provide this information on the existing conditions sheet.
b) There appears to be two different labels for the adjoining site and they do not provide the same
information. Ensure the correct adjoining lot information is shown.
c) Easement plats, deeds, and maintenance agreements will be required for any proposed
improvements on the adjoining lots that are shown on this site plan.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following:
a) Easement plats, deeds, and maintenance agreements will be required for any proposed
improvements on the adjoining lots that are shown on this site plan.
b) Provide the zoning of the full proposed project under "Zoning" on the cover sheet. Since a
BLA will incorporate some of the adioining R-2 lot that zoning should also be specified.
Page 1 of 11
V
VII
c) The cluster development, and residential densities, are CORRECTLY calculated based upon
the R-10 portion of the protect. However, the portion of the protect that will be added, from
the R-2 lot, does not appear to be incorporated in the other calculations or its square footage
labeled in the layout. Ensure that the extra R-2 land is included in the Zoning, Land Use
Schedule, Source of Title, etc.
Provide the bearing and distances for the existing boundaries.
Final: Comment not addressed. Although there is a curve table shown, no labels for that curve table or
for bearing and distances are shown on the existing conditions sheet for the parcel(s). Address the
comment.
Rev. 1: Comment not addressed. Provide the bearing and distance on all existing parcel lines
and proposed lot lines.
Revise the setback lines in the site plan to be correct. Address the following:
a) Provide garage minimum setback on the coversheet.
Final: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following:
i. Ensure that all the dimensions for the garage setbacks are placed accurately. Some of
the dimensions appear to have been shifted.
ii. Ensure the buildings are places accurately. Some of the units appear to be shifted and
therefore are not meeting the setback requirements where they are currently placed.
iii. Show the garages in the units. None are shown and they will be required since the
driveways are not large enough to be counted for two vehicles.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Revise the dimensions for the _garage setback to
be placed where the building is closest to the private street or alley easement. Centering
them on the unit does not dimension in a way that demonstrates they meet the minimum
setback requirements.
b) Show the Front Minimum garage setback for the units which front the internal "private street".
The units along the private street do not currently appear to meet the Front Minimum Garage
Setback. IMPORTANT: Note that the front setback is measured either from the edge of the
private street easement (not the property line in the middle of the private street) or any sidewalk
if it is outside of the private road easement.
Final: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following:
i. The minimum private street easement width is 30'. Revise the private street easement
to all have a minimum of 30' in width for their whole length.
ii. Ensure dimensions for the private street easement are placed accurately and point to
the edge of the easement.
iii. Required improvements should be within the 30' easement.
iv. The private street easement cannot overlap required areas, such as the recreational
either shift the 30' private street easement outside of the recreational area or make
changes in the site plan to shift the recreational area while still meeting the minimum
recreational requirements.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following:
i. Revise the layout so that unit all units meet all setbacks. T22 do not meet the
minimum garage setback. See above about placement of dimensions for
setbacks at the closest point to the easements.
ii. Front setbacks are measured either from the street easement/ROW or from
sidewalks outside of the street easement/ROW. The sidewalk that wraps around
T22 changes where the front setback is measured from. Staff suggests changing
the layout of the sidewalk it crosses the street prior to the proposed Lot T22
parcel line. If not revise the unit layout to meet the requirement in another way.
iii. IF any improvement are allowed to be outside of the private street easement the
easements for the improvements must be approved by the county and recorded
prior to the final site plan approval. Also, maintenance agreements, meeting all
County checklist requirements. must be reviewed by and approved by the County
and then recorded with the easement plat.
iv. Proof of perpetual maintenance of all required improvements must be provided,
and meet all County checklist requirements for required improvements. Submit
for review any HOA and/or maintenance agreements.
V. Clearly delineate what portion of Private Road B is proposed with this site plan.
Ensure that all requirements are met for this road, and its layout, whether the
future adloining development (with Road A) is developed or not.
Page 2 of 11
vi. The Wahoo Way and/or the front setbacks along that private street, do not appear
to have been updated for the revisions to the layout. Revise the easement lines
and/or layout so that they match the provided section and all setback
requirements.
vii. After addressing the comment just above, dimension the front setbacks for the
units along Wahoo Way/Road B in order to meet the minimum requirements.
Ensure the dimensions for the setbacks are located at the closest point between
the easement line and the building to show that the building is never closer to the
easement than specified by the requirement.
viii. See engineering comments about what must be included in the private street and
alley easement areas.
ix. Drainage/gutter for Alley B should be within the alley easement.
X. On the revised Sheet C4 (provided on 4/29/19) that shows the proposed lot lines
(not shown in the most recent submission) it appears that the rear setback for
lots T16 through T21 has not been revised to meet the minimum. The setback in
question is the one that is adjacent to TMP 76-46A. It is currently showing only 5
feet where 20 feet is required. There also appears to be sufficient distance to the
proposed BLA line in order to have the full 20 feet setback. So, this lot line may
just have not been updated with the most recent submission. Revise the rear lot
lines for these lots to meet the minimum requirements.
c) Revise the location of the units which front on the internal "private street" so that their garages
meet the minimum Front Setback for garages.
Final: Comment not fully addressed. Units T16 through T22 appear to be shifted and do not
meet the minimum setback requirements on the front or back. Shift the unit so that they meet
the setback requirements.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. See other comments about lots T22 and T25 not
meeting this requirement. Address those comments.
d) [NEW COMMENT] UPDATE: April 20, 2018: Front setbacks should be shown for the sides of
the two buildings that adjoin the proposed private street(s).
Final: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following:
i. Provide the full 30' private street easement width between units T25 & T26.
ii. If sidewalks are along public or private streets are outside of the right of way then the
minimum and maximum front setback for the units along those roads/streets are
measured from the outside (closest to unit) edge of the sidewalk and not from the right
of way or street easement. Revised setback lines to meet this requirement.
iii. It does not appear that T26 will meet the minimum front setback on the side of the unit.
Revise the plan to meet this requirement.
iv. Setbacks along a private street easement cannot be placed ON the easement line.
They are either measured from the easement line or from any sidewalk outside the
easement line.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following:
i. A front setback now must be shown on the side of Lot T22.
ii. Ensure that if any portion of the sidewalk is outside of the private street
easement (see other comments about changing this) ensure that the setback is
measured from the sidewalk which is closer to the unit than the street easement
line.
e) [NEW COMMENTI UPDATE: April 20, 2018: Ensure that the front setback, on the two building
along Wahoo Way that have their sides facing the proposed private street, is measured from
whichever is the closer of the ROW of the private street and the back of the sidewalk along the
private street.
Final: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following:
a) Provide a sidewalk along the side of Lot T25, as specified elsewhere.
b) If the sidewalk is placed outside of the private street easement then the setback is measured
from the sidewalk.
c) If the sidewalk is inside of the private street easement then measure the setback from the
easement line.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Not fully addressed. See other comment about
setbacks to Lot TT22.
Page 3 of 11
g) Show the Front Minimum and Front Maximum setbacks along 51h street. Ensure that the
buildings meet these requirements. (NOTE: The units along 51h street are currently shown as
double frontage lots, which are not allowed. See above in the comments on how to address the
double frontage issue.)
Final: Comment not fully addressed. If sidewalks are along public or private streets are outside
of the right of way then the minimum and maximum front setback for the units along those
roads/streets are measured from the outside (closest to unit) edge of the sidewalk and not from
the right of way or street easement. Revised setback lines to meet this requirement.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. See other comments about Lot T22 and the
setback requirements.
i) Show the rear setback lines for all of the units that have their garages along the alleys.
Final: Comment not fully addressed. Revise the dimensions so that they are accurately placed
and the arrows point to what is supposed to be dimensioned.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Addressing following:
i. Show proposed lot lines in both sheets C4 & C5 at a minimum.
ii. Ensure that the setback lines are measured from the correct property line.
iii. Revise the lot lines as specified in other comments prior to offsetting and checking
spthark lines_
iv. Ensure the correct setback tvne (Front. side. rear. etc.) is used and show.
V. Revise the street sections on sheet C12 to show the correct setbacks. Address the
following:
a. Specify the correct Minimum for the setbacks in the section.
b. Create a separate section for the garages along private streets veruse private
alleys. They have different required setback.
c. Ensure the extension lines for the dimensions come within close proximity to
the item they are dimensioning from. Having the dimensions almost 2" above
the area of the curb/putter does not allow the reviewer to accurately determine
what portion of the curb/putter is being measured from. Ensure the curb/putter
is within the alley or street easement and not within the building setback.
j) It appears that the units that have garages facing the rear of the lot, along the private alleys, are
not meeting the 20' minimum rear setback requirement. Revise the lot layout so that the units
meet the requirement. IMPORTANT: Note that the front setback is measured from the edge
private alley easement and not the property line in the middle of the private alley.
Final: Comment not fully addressed. Revise the dimensions so that they are accurately placed
and the arrows point to what is supposed to be dimensioned.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following:
i. See engineering comments about required improvements being within the private
street and alley easements.
ii. The private alley easement must include the curb/putter and is also shown as
part of the alley drive aisle. Therefore, the setback must come from the outside,
not the inside of the curb/putter. Lots T25, T27, T28 & T30 do not appear to meet
the "Rear Setback" from the private alley. The easement location is shown
improperly on sheet C6 and the Dimension on sheet C4 are not shown for those
lots and must be.
iii. Ensure that the private street and private alley easement lines and labels are all
shown on the sheets showing that the lots meet the required setbacks. If the
easement lines are not shown then the minimum setbacks dimensions cannot be
evaluated properly.
6. [32.5.2(b) & 17.3] Revise the "Proposed Use" portion of the coversheet data to specify that the site plan is
a "Cluster Development", or a "Cluster Development" with "Bonus Levels" or increase the lot sized in order
to meet the minimum lot size of the R-10 "Conventional Development". The lot sizes shown do not meet the
minimum lot size for "Conventional Development".
Final: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following:
I. R10 zoned property is only 2.88 Acres. Therefore, the number of units allowed is based on that size
and not on the size after the future BLA (see emails from Francis M. on 4/19/18). 2.88 acres x 10 units
per acre is 28.8 dwelling units. Revise the plan to meet this requirement.
II. Ensure calculations are based on the correct acreage for the specific purpose. As mentioned above,
the allowed density is based on the area within the zoning district. There are also a few places in the
Page 4 of 11
calculations and in the plan where the acreage of the lot after the BLA is specified as 3.4 AC instead of
the 3.1 AC.
III. BLA must be submitted, reviewed, approved and recorded prior to final site plan approval.
IV. Ensure that open space area is labeled individually and that the label includes the size. Include a Talley
of the open spaces within the site plan. Also, ensure that the minimum open space for the cluster
development is provided.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following:
I. The only sheet that appears to label open space did not include the proposed lot lines.
Therefore, where the open spaces boundaries are can not be seen. On the revised sheet C4
(provided on 4/29/19) the open space labels were not shown. Also, it appears from that sheet
even if the labels had been shown there are no dividing lines provided between some of the
open spaces to delineate them (ex. Those labeled 15,928, 3,085 and 2,150). Provide labels and
clear delineation lines for each open space area.
II. Ensure only allowed items are included in the area of open space utilized to meet the Cluster
Development open space requirement.
III. Ensure that the open space meets the requirements of 4.7(b). It does not appear that the open
the majority of the open spaces are being maintained in their "natural state".
IV. Ensure that required improvements for the private streets, alleys, etc. are not included in the
open space area calculations.
V. There does not appear to be a tally for the open space areas for the project, and the areas
labeled do not match the total open space specified on the cover sheet. Include a tally of open
spaces. Ensure that the totals on the coversheet match those shown in the layout sheets.
VI. Ensure the open spaces included meet the Cluster Development open space requirements and
4.7(b). Ensure that the totals on the coversheet match those shown in the layout sheets.
VII. BLA must be submitted, reviewed, approved and recorded prior to final site plan approval.
7. [32.5.2(b) & 32.5.2(n)] The number of required guest spaces are shown to be met within the lot. However,
"Visitor Parking Along Wahoo Way" is listed in the parking calculations. If this continues to be specified on
the site plan address the following:
II. Dimension the parking in the site plan.
Final: Comment not fully addressed. See comment directly above.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. The parking in the quest spaces does not appear to be
sufficient width for a 20' drive aisle. Either expand the width of the parking spaces to 10' wide or
expand the width of the alley drive aisle width (at least in the area of the parking) to be 24' in
width.
III. Ensure that the proposed road section meets all road, parking & pedestrian access requirements.
There does not appear to be enough width in either the existing or the proposed private street
section to include parking even on one side.
Final: Comment not fully addressed. See comment above and provided all required improvements
within the private street easement or proposed public street right of way.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. See the other comments on required street improvements
and see engineering comments on both street and alley improvements.
IV. Engineering, Fire & Rescue and planning will have to approve the designs and sections.
Final: Comment not fully addressed. Engineering, Fire & Rescue and planning will have to approve the
designs and sections.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Fully address the comment. See engineering comments.
V. Include a calculation, or both unit and guest parking, in the "Parking" portion of the coversheet data.
Final: Comment addressed.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Revise the "required" portion of the parking calculation to
include the fact that "one quest space per four units" is also required, in addition to the two
spaces per unit.
8. [32.5.2(b) & 32.5.2(n)] Provide the required recreational facilities/tot lot and address the following:
I. Show and include the details of the recreational equipment.
Final: Comment not addressed. Address the comment, including the details for all of the equipment,
and ensure all recreational facilities/equipment is provided. It appears that insufficient equipment is
being provided and no request for alternative recreational uses has been officially submitted.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Provide specification and detail sheets, with images, for
each of the pieces of recreational equipment in the site plan.
Page 5 of 11
II. Show and provide details for the required fencing.
Final: Comment addressed.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Label the minimum height of the fence around the
recreational area.
III. Show pedestrian connections to the tot lot that includes handicapped ramps and warning strips.
Final: Comment addressed.
Rev. 1: Comment no longer fully addressed. Show the gate locations for the fence around the
recreational area.
IV. Ensure that the interior of the fenced area meets the minimum of 200 square feet per residential unit (30
units x 200 square feet = 6,000 square feet required).
Final: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following:
a) There can be no overlap in the recreational area and the private street easement. Revise site plan
to remove this overlap.
b) Ensure and confirm that the minimum of 200 square feet of recreational area per residential unit is
provided WITHIN the fenced in area and not inside of any of the street or alley easements.
c) Provide legal documentation, or letters, from the proposed utility easement holders that states that
recreational equipment may be placed over top of their easements or relocate the equipment within
the recreational area to no longer sit on top of the easements.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed.
a) Either provide legal documentation, or letters, from the proposed utility easement holders
that states that recreational equipment may be placed over top of their easements or
relocate the eauiament within the recreational area to no lonaer sit on toa of the easements.
9. [32.5.2(e), 32.5.2(p) & 32.7.9] Provide a full landscape plan that provides all required landscaping,
calculations and meets the buffer & landscaping requirements for 32.7.9, the entrance corridor guidelines
and to avoid any double frontage lots. Ensure all calculations and graphics correctly represent the existing
and proposed plantings and planting areas.
Final: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following:
I. Ensure all the calculations utilize the correct acreages of the lot. The lot after the BLA will be 3.01 AC
and not 3.4 AC.
Rev. 1: Comment not addressed. Ensure all the calculations utilize the correct acreages of the
whole protect area which is larger than the existing R-10 zoned lot. Revise the calculations to
include the whole project area.
10. [32.5.2(e), 32.5.2(p) & 32.7.9.5] Provide street trees on both sides of all private or public streets at the
required spacing for the entrance corridor.
UPDATE: April 20, 2018: Provide street trees on both sides of all private and public streets at the required
spacing for the entrance corridor or request, and be granted, a waiver (32.3.5(b)) for that requirement from
32.7 for the portions of the private streets that you do not propose to include street trees. See GREEN
highlight in attached markup. Staff may be able to support a waiver for the portions of the markup not
highlighted in GREEN if the additional street trees are provided along all of the GREEN highlighted areas.
Final: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following:
I. Provide street trees along the internal private street easement. No trees have been provided.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Address the comment below, in reference to the
calculations, and then ensure each street on both sides meet the minimum requirements.
II. Provide an internal private street tree calculation. None is provided for the private street in front of
lots T16 through T26.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following:
a) Provide a street tree calculation for BOTH sides of Private Street C.
b) Ensure that the minimum street trees for the Entrance Corridor is met for the full length of
Private Street C (all the way from Wahoo Way).
c) Provide a street tree calculation for the far side of Private Street B (Wahoo Way).
d) Provide the required number of street trees for far sides of Private Street B (Wahoo Way)
for the full length of any improvements for this site plan. Although some trees are shown
on the far side they were included in the "provided" number for the near side of the street
even though the street length on the far side was not included in the calculation.
e) Both sides of Private Street B (Wahoo Way) must be included in the calculation, for the full
length of any street improvements, and street trees of the required number provided.
Page 6 of 11
f) Ensure that the number of trees required on the near side of Private Street B (Wahoo Way)
are provided on the near side. The street trees required for the near side were provided
split between the near side and the far side of the street.
IV. Include the full length of Wahoo Way in the street calculations. One side appears to be approximately
460' long and no length has been specified in the calculation for the other side.
Rev. 1: Comment not addressed. Address the comment above.
11. [32.5.2(b), 32.5.2(e), 32.5.2(p) & 32.7.9] Provide the value of the maximum amount of paved parking and
other vehicular circulation areas on the coversheet and on the Landscape Plan and utilize it in the
landscaping calculation.
Final: Comment not addressed. Provide the value of the maximum amount of paved parking and other
vehicular circulation areas on the coversheet and on the Landscape Plan and utilize it in the landscaping
calculation. This is not the same as the impervious area for the whole development. Then provide the
calculation to show that the 5% parking lot landscape area requirement has been met.
Rev. 1: Comment not addressed. Please provide the calculation specified in 32.7.9.6(a). This should
include both the parking area and the drive aisle behind the parking area (because it includes
circulation area for the parking). Additional plantings, along the edges of the parking spaces, may
be required in order to meet this regulation. The square footage found by the calculation must be
provided in planting beds, with trees and shrubs planted in them. It is possible that the area around
the two trees currently shown may provide enough square footage. However, the calculation is
required to be included in the site plan and sufficient planting bed area provided for any parking
area with 5 or more Darkina spaces.
12. [32.5.2(i) & (n)] Address the following
I. Dimension the width, and centerline radii, and corner radii of all roads and alleys and ensure that the
roads meet or exceed minimum road requirements.
Final: Comment not fully addressed. Dimension the width, and centerline radii, and corner radii of all
roads and alleys and ensure that the roads meet or exceed minimum road requirements. Only the
internal curb radii have been provided. The information for Wahoo Way and Road A has not been
provided.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Dimension the centerline radii of all roads and alleys.
11. Revise the width of "Road A Private", or the alley converted from "Road A Private", to be 20' in width.
Final: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following:
a) Adjust all road and alley dimensions to point to the correct Iinework.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. See other comments about Alley B's easement line
not being located correctly. Once the easement line is relocated correctly ensure the
dimension lines point to the correct Iinework.
b) Label all roads correctly. Wahoo Way is labeled as Road B in one sheet.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. The existing Wahoo Way extends into the Proposed
"Road B" which should actually be labeled "Private Street B". Label this road in a combined
way (ex. Wahoo Way/Private Street B) or provide both delineations on the street in on all
sheets.
c) Ensure that it is obvious what streets are being proposed with this site plan.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. As specified in other comments, provide a clear
delineation as to the portion of Private Road B (the extension of Wahoo Way) will be built
with this site plan and what will be built with the future single family development in TMP 76-
46A.
111. Provide all road and alley names on the site plan.
Final: Comment not fully addressed. Label Roads and alleys with unique names and designations of
private and public. Public street labels should include "Dedicated to County for Public Use".
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Ensure that the street and alley names are shown on all
proposed layout sheets.
IV. Show on the site plan all of the existing and proposed private street, alley and access easements.
UPDATE: April 20, 2018: Show and dimension on the site plan all of the existing and proposed private
street, alley and access easements. Address the following:
a) Ensure that the proposed private street easement width encompasses all required street
improvements (curb & gutter, planting strip, street trees, and sidewalk) and is at least 30' in width,
which is the minimum for a private street easement.
Final: Comment not addressed. Address the comment.
Page 7 of 11
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. See engineerinq comments on required
improvements being inside the easement and comments above in reference to if there will be
any required easements outside of the private street and alley easements.
b) Show the existing private street easement for Wahoo Way as well as the easement for its proposed
extension.
Final: Comment not fully addressed. The existing private street easement for Wahoo Way is not
shown properly on the existing conditions sheet. The linework is no longer complete and there is no
label for the private street easement.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Revise the existing conditions sheet to show the
"existing" easements and property lines along Wahoo Way as were created/modified with
the recorded documents (1131135123 PG214) that was submitted to the County for review.
c) Show the proposed private alley easements.
Final: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following:
i. Provide all road and alley sections. Some alleys appear to need more than one section
because of changing widths.
ii. Ensure all alley labels and width dimensions are correct.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. See other comments specifically listing the changes
and additions that need to be made to the sections that were provided on sheet C12.
e) Show where the road easement ends and the alley easements begin.
Final: Comment not fully addressed. Address the comment. Where road and alley easement end is
not clearly defined.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Ensure where Private Street C and Alley B merge
meets the requirements specified by engineering. Revise the linework delineating the
transition if necessary.
h) Show the location of any outdoor lighting. Any free standing or building mounted lighting, including
front porch lights, must be shown in a photometric plan and meet all requirements.
Final: Comment not fully addressed. Even if there will be no free standing lighting in the project, not
even inside of the recreational area, if there will be porch lights on the front of the units they need to
be considered. If any porch lighting will below 3,000 lumens then a note on the coversheet stating
that would be sufficient.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. This comment appears to not have a response in the
3/8/2019 letter. Address this comment.
i) Show all proposed signage on the site plan.
Final: Comment not addressed. Address the comment.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. This comment appears to not have a response in the
3/8/2019 letter. Address this comment.
14. [32.5.2(k)] Revise the plan to show the proposed sanitary sewer, water and drainage facilities and
easements. Include the direction of flow on all pipes channels and watercourses with arrows. Address the
following:
VI. Final — [NEW COMMENT]: All easements and deeds of easements must be submitted, reviewed,
and approved prior to final site plan approval. For water and sewer work directly with ACSA and/or
RWSA. All proposed drainage and stormwater management easements will be reviewed by the
County.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Address the comment.
VII. Final — [NEW COMMENT]: If there is to be any SWP/SWM area show its location and any
required easements both for the facility and for the pipes leading to it.
17. [32.5.2(n)] Provide the following
I. Additional walkways and crosswalks
UPDATE: April 20, 2018: Additional walkways and crosswalks (see attached markup showing
possible pedestrian connection layout for development.)
d) It is suggested that there be a sidewalk along at least two sides of the tot lot in order to connect,
by way of crosswalks, the tot lot to the rest of the site.
UPDATE: April 20, 2018: It is suggested that there be a sidewalk along at least two sides of the
tot lot in order to connect, by way of crosswalks, the tot lot to the rest of the site. See the
ORANGE Highlights and BLUE crosswalks showing these additional pedestrian linkages.
Page 8 of 11
Final: Comment not fully addressed. Although it was only "suggested" that there be sidewalk on
two sides of the tot lot, it is "required" that there be sidewalk along the side of the private street.
Therefore, another sidewalk should be added to the side of the tot lot.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Address this comment, in reference to the
requirements along the private streets, or request a waiver. Private Street C does not
have sidewalk on both sides for any portion of its length. Either provide a sidewalk on
both sides of the whole length of this private street or request a waiver.
j) Provide a crosswalk across Wahoo Way and connecting the proposed pedestrian network to
the existing sidewalk on the far side of the Wahoo Way.
UPDATE: April 20, 2018: Provide two crosswalks across Wahoo Way and connecting the
proposed pedestrian network to the existing and proposed sidewalks on the far side of the
Wahoo Way. See RED Crosswalk in attached markup.
Final: Comment addressed.
Rev. 1: Comment no addressed. One of the two proposed crosswalks shown in the
previous submission has been removed. Add the 2nd pedestrian connection across
Wahoo Way.
1) NEW COMMENT - UPDATE: April 20, 2018: Provide sidewalks along all sides of the private
streets or request, and be granted, a waiver (32.3.5(b)) for that requirement from 32.7 for the
portions of the private streets that you do not propose to include sidewalks. See GREEN
highlight in attached markup. Staff may be able to support a waiver for the portions of the
markup not highlighted in GREEN if all additional pedestrian connections are provided within
the site in order to provide a full pedestrian network.
Final: Comment not addressed. Fully address comment or request the waiver. See comments
above in reference to where sidewalks are still not provide along the private streets.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Any STREET is required to have sidewalks on
both sides of the street. You have private streets without sidewalks on both sides. The
response to the comment was "Sidewalk circulation has been altered. Sidewalk has
been provided around entire interior recreational area to provide better circulation."
Although access to and around the recreational area is important your response to the
comment does not address the multiple location (not adjacent to the private streets)
where sidewalks that are required are not being provided. As stated in earlier versions
of this comment even if staff could support a waiver request for sidewalks along some of
the private streets the waiver must be officially requested. No official request has been
received by planning for sidewalks not being provided on any of the private or public
streets.
m) NEW COMMENT - UPDATE: April 20, 2018: Provide curb and gutter along all sides of the
private streets or request, and be granted, a waiver (32.3.5(b)) for that requirement from 32.7
for the portions of the private streets that you do not propose to include curb and gutter. See
GREEN highlight in attached markup. Staff may be able to support a waiver for the portions of
the markup not highlighted in GREEN if it is supported by engineering.
Final: Comment not fully addressed. Fully address the comment or request a waiver. Still
areas where no curb and gutter are provided.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following:
i. See and address Engineering comments.
ii. Fully address the comment or request a waiver. Still areas where no curb and
gutter are provided.
IV. Open space areas (ensure parking areas are not park of open space calculations)
Final: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following:
a) Provide labels for each individual area of open space with a letter designation and specifying
the square footage of that area.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Not all common areas were labeled as open space
areas with the square footage. Also, as specified in another comment, delineation
between common space areas is not provided. There is unclear as to where one open
space ends and another starts.
b) Ensure parking areas are not included in the open spaces.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Comment response only stated parking was
removed from recreational area. Ensure the 8 parking spaces at the end of the alley are
not part of the open space areas, since they do not appear to be part of the alley
easement.
Page 9 of 11
c) Ensure all open spaces are part of the development and meet the minimum cluster
development requirements.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. See comment 6 above and address the comments
in reference to the open spaces meeting the minimum characteristics and types as
specified in the ordinance.
d) [NEW COMMENTI Rev. 1: Ensure that when the lot layout for T16-T21 is updated to
provide the correct amount of rear setback that that area is removed from the open
space area tally.
19. [32.7.2.2, 14-411 & 14-412(B)] Ensure that each private street and travel way within the development is
designed and constructed to the standards of Virginia Department of Transportation.
Final: Comment addressed. Address the following:
I. Ensure Road A (Public Road) is designed to meet VDOT Standards. Get VDOT approval.
II. All roads and internal travelways must get engineering and fire rescue approval.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. See engineering comments.
20. [Comment] Address the following
II. Indicate the available sight distance for the new entrance onto Wahoo Way.
Final: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following:
a) Indicate the sight distance at Wahoo Way and Road A intersections.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Provide a clear delineation of what portion of
Private Street B will be built. If it will be built only to, and exactly at, the boundary of the
"Area of Site Plan" then this comment will be withdrawn. However, if it will be built to
the edge of Public Road A then site distances should be shown and easements
provided if required. Address the comment or show that the comment is not
IV. Provide a copy of all off -site easements, or letters of intent to grant them from off -site property owners.
Final: Comment not addressed. Address the comment.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Some existing easements were submitted. Please either
provide an existing, or show a proposed, sidewalk easement for the portion of sidewalk on the far
side of Wahoo Way that is on within the subject property.
Rev. 1 UPDATE: Comment not fully addressed. Some existing easements were submitted.
Please either provide any other existing, or show any proposed, sidewalk and landscaping
maintenance easements for the portion of sidewalk and street trees on the far side of Wahoo
Way that is not within the subject property or the private road right of way.
23. [Comment] See the attached comments from the other SRC reviewers.
Final: Comment not fully addressed. See the attached comments from the other SRC reviewers.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. See the attached comments from the other SRC reviewers.
24. [NEW COMENT] UPDATE: April 20, 2018: Show any off -site easements that will be required for sidewalk
and storm water ponds on the adjoining property.
Final: Comment not addressed. Address the comment.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Address the comment. There are still sidewalks on adjoininq
parcels that do not show a label or an easement. All off site easements must be reviewed and
approved by the County, and recorded, prior to site plan approval.
25. Final — [NEW COMMENTI: Revise private street easement labels to state "30' Private Street Easement".
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following:
I. Revise Sheet C6, which aapears to be the only sheet showina the street and allev easements
to include the labels for the "30' Road C Private Street Easement", "26' Alley A Access
Easement", "22' Alley B, One Way, Access Easement", and "53' Road B Private Street
Easement".
II. If these widths change, based upon engineering comments, then revise the labels
appropriately.
III. Ensure private "street" is part of the labels for the private streets and not "road".
IV. Clearly delineate the portion of Private Street B that will be built with this site plan.
V. One sheet should show all proposed private alleys & street easements, their labels, and their
extents.
Page 10 of 11
26. Final — [NEW COMMENT]: It appears that a portion of the existing private street easement must be vacated
for this project. Address the following:
I. Show the portion that will be vacated on the site plan.
II. Label the proposed portion of Wahoo Way as a proposed private street easement.
III. A deed vacating the old portion and creating the new portion must be submitted, reviewed, approved
and recorded prior to final site plan approval.
IV. A maintenance agreement, for all private streets, that meet the minimum County requirements must
also be submitted, reviewed, approved and recorded with the easement and deed mentioned above.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. A previously recorded document was submitted that
appears to include provide maintenance for a portion of the existing private street. However, the
following needs to be addressed:
a) Submit the maintenance agreement for all proposed private streets and alleys. The
document submitted only appears to cover changes in the area of the existing easement, not
the extension of Wahoo Wav or any of the internal private streets or alleys. Please note,
maintenance of the alleys must also be provided.
b) The previously recorded document, for changes to the existing private street easement for
the first portion of Wahoo Way, should be resubmitted with the required maintenance
checklist, with the document highlighted and numbered to show where each checklist item
is provided within the document.
c) Provide documentation and clarification on the portion of the existing Wahoo Way that is
labeled as "Portion of VDOT ROW to Remain Accessible to TMP 76-54 & 76-46A Approx. 4,76
SQ. FT.". The planning reviewer consulted VDOT and they did not have records of any
existing portion of Wahoo Wav being part of the VDOT Public road system. Provide all
documentation that exists showing this portion of the road is public. Include in that
documentation any deed books and page numbers of any previously recorded items.
29. Final — [NEW COMMENT]: The BLA must be submitted, reviewed, approved and recorded prior to site plan
approval.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Address the comment.
30. [NEW COMMENT] Rev. 1: Please note that there are multiale location within these comments where
staff has stated that waivers could be requested if the applicant is not able to provide the item
specified on both sides of the proposed private streets. No waiver requests have been submitted.
Some of these requests may be able to be supported by staff and may be agent approvable, but an
official waiver must be submitted before it can be evaluated. Please submit waivers for review.
31. [NEW COMMENT] Rev. 1: The protect area box, and proposed improvements information, on sheet
C4 appears to be for the wrona oroiect. Please update this linework and information.
Staff has provided references to provisions of Chapter 18 of the Code of the County of Albemarle. The Code is
kept up to date by the County Attorney's office. The Code may found on the County Attorney's website which
may be found under "Departments" at Albemarle.org.
In accord with the provisions of Section 32.4.3.5 of Chapter 18 of the Code if the developer fails to submit a
revised final site plan to address all of the requirements within six (6) months after the date of this letter the
application shall be deemed to have been voluntarily withdrawn by the developer.
Please contact Paty Saternye in the Planning Division by using psaternye(a)albemarle.org or 434-296-5832 ext.
3250 for further information.
Page 11 of 11
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
Site Plan Review
Project title:
Royal Fern Townhomes — Final
Project file number:
SDP201800081
Plan preparer:
Justin Shimp, Shimp Engineering, 912 E. High St., Charlottesville, VA 22902
justinnshimp-engineering com
Owner or rep.:
Gambit LLC and Snow Paws LLC et al / P.O. Box 6846, Charlottesville, VA 22906
Plan received date:
2 Nov 2018
(Rev. 1)
12 Mar 2019
Date of comments:
14 Dec 2018
(Rev. 1)
28 Apr 2019
Plan Coordinator:
Paty Saternye
Reviewer:
John Anderson
SDP201800081
1. Title of Plan is Royal Fern Townhomes, yet Site Plan Overview, C3, shows 16 detached residences. Defer
to Planning on whether elements of preliminary subdivision (16 lots) may be mixed with a Final Site Plan,
but submitted plan appears to mix subdivision with site plan elements. Plan title does not fit overview.
Recommend revise title. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
2. If this Final Site Plan does not provide details for 16-lot (detached) single-family portion of development,
remove this portion of development from Townhomes site plan. (Rev. 1) Withdrawn. Planning asked
Applicant to include 16 lots.
3. Provide demolition plan that bridges existing -to -proposed development condition.
a. Label features to be demolished. (Rev. 1) Partially addressed. Asfollow-up: Indicate via
linework or hatching area of Wahoo Way to be removed. That is, show limits of demolition.
b. Provide pavement mill/joint details; provide pavement and drainage typical details. (Rev. 1)
Addressed.
c. New: Label existing drainage structure along SR 631 (5' Street) that ties to new storm drain line.
The storm pipe from this Ex. DI (5' Street) to outfall labeled Inv. Out=413.00, will be partially
removed, but portion shown to remain does not match pipe shown on C8. Please revise sheets C2
and C8 for consistency.
4. Provide relevant civil details for: inlets, MHs, bedding, inlet shaping, roads, alleys, entrances, walks, ramps.
(Rev. 1) Partially addressed. As follow-up: Please provide VDOT Std. ST-1, PB-1 details.
5. Engineering restates initial site plan comment: "Private streets should follow VDOT and AASHTO
regulations, such as a minimum angle of intersection of 60 degrees. The smaller curb radii shown will need
to be verified to be adequate by showing vehicle turning movements and will also need to be approved by
Fire Rescue." Provide vehicle turning movements (Auto -turn figures for Fire -Rescue vehicles). (Rev. 1)
Not addressed. This is an Engineering review comment, not an ACFR comment. Please ref. ACDSM,
Sec. 7, Table, Private Street Standards for Albemarle County, Footnote 1. Comment restated: Revise to
provide minimum 80-degree angle of intersection. Applicant response: `Vehicle turning movements will
not be provided.' Provide auto turn figure using a single -unit (SU) truck design vehicle (VDOT Road
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 7
Design Manual, Appx. B(1)-3.B.1.) at Road C intersection with Alley B, for SU design vehicle traveling
north on Road C turning right onto Alley B.
6. Review and apply Engineering site plan review checklist to design prior to resubmitting. (Rev. 1)
Comment persists. Comment noted.
C2
7. Label all managed slopes. (Rev. 1) Partially addressed. Applicant response: `Managed slopes are
labelled on the Existing Conditions sheet. Managed slopes have been turned off on Grading Plan for
clarity, the hatch makes it difficult to read other aspects of the drawing.' As follow up: Engineering
appreciates response, and requests managed slopes be shown on C7, which shows proposed structures.
Without steep slopes shown with proposed grading and structures, direct comparison of proposed design
against ordinance is impeded. Linework with label/s is required.
8. Eliminate angled pipe connection at Str. U. (Rev. 1) Addressed. As follow-up: Eliminate proposed
angled pipe connection, C8, Str. M2A.
(ref. Engineering drainage plan review checklist)
9. Label apparent wetland or aquatic features. (Rev. 1) Withdrawn.
10. Show entire limits of proposed new storm conveyance system, to ultimate discharge. Provide drainage
easements, as needed. (Rev. 1) Not addressed. Applicant response: `This site plan is subject to
WPO201800084. These items shown on the WPO plan.' Request for drainage information shown with the
site plan is a standard review comment. Ref. Final Site Plan checklist, drainage plans. Engineering, with
few if any exceptions, requires complete drainage design be shown with final site plans. Drainage design
informs both site plan and WPO plan approval. Engineering encourages design receptive to request for
elements or information typically required to be shown with any site plans.
11. Label Wahoo Way public or private. Label R/W width. Label speed limit of this road. (Rev. 1)
Addressed.
C3
12. Provide TMP labels for parcels proposed to be developed; provide ownership data: Name of property
owner, and book -page ref. (Comment applies to C4, as well.) (Rev. 1) Addressed.
13. Provide TMP labels for adjacent parcels; provide ownership data; provide ownership data: Name of
property owner, and book -page ref. (Comment applies to C4, as well.) (Rev. 1) Addressed.
14. If 36' wide public road (Road A) is proposed with this FSP, provide roadway profile. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
Applicant response: `Road A is part of a separate site plan.' Asefollow-up: Provide Note that references
separate subdivision plat (SUB201800034).
15. Provide Road Plan. An approved Road Plan must be built or bonded prior to final site plan approval.
(Rev. 1) Comment persists. Applicant response: `Acknowledged. A Road Plan will be provided.'
16. Revise Road B and Alley C designs: (Rev. 1) Partially addressed. Applicant response: `Roads have been
revised. If there is a specific horizontal separation required, please provide resource.' Asefollow-up, see
below.
a. Revise angle of intersection to approach right angles. Additional comments reserved for road plan.
(Rev. 1) Not addressed. Also, see items 5, 47.
b. Intersection approach/exit width:
i. Revise Alley C width to 20-ft; remove one-way designation as 2-way options exist that
likely serve an equal number of townhomes. (Rev. 1) Not addressed, but withdrawn.
No objection to one-way alley provided review agencies do not object and provided final
site plan review comments relating to street or alley design, geometry, width, easement,
corner clearance, etc., are addressed.
c. Provide adequate horizontal separation between driveway apron entrances and alley/road
intersections for Lots: T16, T22, T25, T26, T31. Eliminate 0', 1', 5' horizontal separation.
Increase (listed) lot drivewav entrance horizontal clearance to travelwav intersection radii returns.
(Rev. 1) Not addressed; RESOURCE: VDOT Road Design Manual, Appx. F, pg. F-92, Fig. 44A.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 7
Revise design consistent with VDOT Road Design Manual. Provide adequate throat clearance,
between Wahoo Way and Alley A, for vehicle reversing from drives at unit T1, T2, traveling west.
Inadequate sight distance impairs movement out of each driveway, requiring blind maneuvers.
17. Revise private alley labels, to read `alley' (there are no public alleys). (Rev. 1) Addressed.
18. Road B design is illogical. Wahoo Way should be extended to Road A, with consistent width and cross-
section that matches Ex. Wahoo Way. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
19. Road B at point it turns off Wahoo Way to serve townhome units, should be re -labeled; for example, Road
C. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
20. Recommend increase offset distance, corner of T31 to edge of sidewalk. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
C4
21. Provide typical labels (partial list):
a. Street name signs (Rev. 1) Addressed.
b. Traffic control signs (Rev. 1) Addressed.
c. Curb type (CG-2, GC-6, CG-12, etc.) (Rev. 1) Partially addressed. Asfollow-up: For alleys,
eliminate ribbon gutter since it is not a gutter, and lacks a flow line. For private street (Road C),
provide crown section cross-section with either CG-6 or roll-top curbing. At driveway entrances,
provide a typical VDOT driveway entrance design (Road Design Manual, Appx. 13(1), pg. B(1)-
29, Fig. 8, Rolltop Curb Entrance Detail Section, or VDOT 2016 R&B Std, CG-9A), and include
VDOT Std. (details) on the site plan for entrance (gutter) types used. Eliminate ribbon curb at all
drive entrances. Where approved in the past, it has not worked —proposed design does not meet
VDOT standards. This item and design options were discussed with and guided by the County
Engineer. Revised design adopting VDOT standards need not sacrifice lots /density. Last,
wherever separation between drives prevents full transition to rolltop or CG-6, ensure rolltop or
CG-9A profile design data transfers to plan view in sufficient detail to guide construction in
interstitial areas. Profiles, below [consult VDOT Road Design Manual; 2016 R&B Std.]:
Radius Return
Warp curb profile to match
driveway entrench Sidon
Within 4 feel each eitle 0r opr air On
rabove invert line.
Driveway Entrance Apron for Rolltop Curb
Part Section A
FIGURE 8 - ROLLTOP CURB ENTRANCE DETAIL SECTION
TO MATCH THE MOUNTABLE CURB CONFIGURATION,uuaiw
WIDTH OF ADJACENT Ox TO 1OX CHANGE PARABOLIC CURVE
UTTER B" WIDTH OF SIDEWALK
I�/ _�i
FACE OF A - -
- - ' - �•
CURB
',� e
Q.vea a
ea paaa Re SYo 4' ' �`
CLAM A7 fH.E.5.1 CANC.
12X MAXIMI,M INCREASE M SLOPE AT MINIMUM 10' INTERVALS
CS YvY b; 1- �,-12X MAX. SLID
•�• 3X MAXII DFCRFASF IN SLOPE FOR FIRST 10'INTERYAL AND
6" AGGR. BASE TYPE I SIZE 21B
SX MAXIIAl1M DECREASE FOR SUCCEEDING MINIMUM 10' INTERVALS
® I
(D FOR SIDEWALK, CURB AND GUTTER - BUILT CONCURRENTLY.
® FOR INITIAL CURB AND CUTTER ONLY.
® FOR INITIAL SIDEWALK ONLY - 7" SIDEWALK TO BE DIPPED.
SECTION C-C
® FOR PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ROUTE - MNIMUM C-O" TRAVERSABLE
WIDTH IS REQUIRED WITH A MAXIMUM 29 CROSS SLOPE.
® FOR CURB AND GUTTER ONLY - AFTER INITIAL SIDEWALK.
FOR CURB AND SIDEWALK ONLY - WITHOUT GUTTER.
A INDICATES POINT Or GRADE CHANGE.
`/DOT
ROAD AID BRIDGE STANDARDS
STANDARD
ENTRANCE GUTTER WITH FLARED OPENING
(FOR USE ACROSS SIDEWALK)
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
SPECIFICATION
REFERENCE
SHEET 1 OF I
REVISION DATE
502
203.01 I
2016 ROAD & BRIDGE STANDARDS
Engineering Review Comments
Page 4 of 7
22. Label walkway width. Provide minimum 5' width. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
23. Provide true graphic representation of CG-12, matching VDOT standard for GC-12 for radial curb. (Rev.
1) Partially addressed. As follow-up: Revise CG 12 ramp at SE corner of recreational space to align with
receiving ramp, Alley A.
24. Provide CG-12 on east side of north end of Alley C. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
25. Ensure sidewalk grade does not exceed 5% grade. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
26. Provide turnarounds at every proposed dead end; or, preferably, eliminate dead ends. (Rev. 1) Not
addressed. Applicant response: `The roads have been redesigned to leave only one dead end. A parking
striped area and road bump out have been provided to allow easier vehicle turn around. Since the length of
this alley stub is only 150' long, vehicles can easily reverse. Length =420', Turnaround not required.'
Albemarle is positioned to state requirements. At this point, Albemarle would like to meet with Applicant.
Design and letter d. 3/8/19 reflect misunderstanding of county role and approval process, and do not
adequately address requirements of ACDSM, County code, VDOT standards, or prior review comments.
Examples: `Turning movements will not be provided; If there is a separate horizontal separation required,
please provide resource; turnaround not required; it is not a requirement for the easements to be centered on
the travelway; and this is not required.' All meeting slots are open May 2, 2019. Note: Road, site, or a
subdivision dead-end design that requires a vehicle to reverse to exit will not be approved. Where it has
been approved, it fails to serve the public interest. Provide design consistent with ACDSM that allows a
single unit (SU) truck design vehicle (item 5.) to turn with adequate clearance. Provide turnaround, per
ACDSM, pg. 17, 88, 20. Graphic /text images, below:
Albemarle County Design Standards Manual — Engineering
4. Alleys must intersect streets at two locations. Dead-end alleys with turnarounds may be
permitted by waiver from the county engineer.
Albemarle County Design Standards Manual — Engineering -
R=30 tt min resulenuai,
45 R min mixedlcommmial
R=30Rmin
/ Unpaved Area /-
� I R=39ftmin
c Unpaved Area
m o
�c
�1 F
Surface _ _ Z_
Completely Paved Center Unpaved
Concentric Bulb Cul-cle-sac Offset Bulb Cu"*-sac
T-type turnarounds and branch -type turnarounds
have been discontinued, as inneffective. Poor
construction, driveways and parking have made
them inneffective_
All dimensions are subject to approval by the
Department of Fire and Rescue-
* 25' radii added by the County
Engineering Review Comments
Page 5 of 7
27. Revise CG-12 ramps at Road RC -Alley A intersection to align perpendicularly. (Rev. 1) Partially
addressed. As follow-up: Review orientation of every ramp /detectable surface. Show detectable surface,
accurately. For example, ramp on north side of crosswalk at north end of recreational space should not
show a rectangular detectable surface, but an arc. See VDOT Std. (image, below). Also, include VDOT
Std. CG-12 on C13. CG-12 on west side of south side of recreational space does not align as it must with
receiving ramp. Consider effect on visually impaired /blind who use detectable surfaces to gauge where a
receiving ramp is located.
11. WHEN ONLY ONE CURB RAMP IS PROVIDED FOR TWO CROSSINGS IDIAGONI TYPE C
A 4'. 4'LAMDINC AREA SHALL BE PROVIDED TO MANEUVER A WHEELCHAIR PARALLEL & PERPENDICULAR
INTO THE CROSSWALK WITHOUT GOING INTO THE TRAVELWAY. THIS 4•, 4•
LANDING AREA MAY INCLUDE THE GUTTER PAN. TRUNCATED DOME Vt
12. ALL CASES WHERE CURB RAMPS INTERSECT A RADIAL SECTION OF 1.6'•-2.4- C-C
CURB AT ENTRANCES OR STREET CONNECTIONS THE DETECTABLE
WARNING SURFACE SHALL HAVE A FACTORY RADIUS OR BE FIELD �-O
0 0-MODIFIED AS RECOMMENDED BY THE MANUFACTURER TO MATCH
THE BACK Or CURB. - O tL=O O O O O O C� [ - 0 O D 0 0 0 O O O
LANDING RAMP 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 o
+ - D O D O D O D O D O D O D O O -
`;+ C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C
D O O O D O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
50/-65/ OF BASE DIAMETER 0 0 0 0 C, C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0
IAM
DETECTABLE WARNING
o��
AT BACK OF CVRB T r- "T D.9"-1.4" f I VARIABLE FULL WIDTH OF RAMP FLOOR
SEE NOTE 12. BASE DIAMETER pAY LIMITS
DETECTABLE WARNING TRUNCATED DOME DETECTABLE WARNING
INSTAL ON A RADIUS DETAIL DETAIL
\v T CG-12 DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE SRECRENCEON
IFICAB
ROAD AND B IDGE STANDARDS
SHEET 1OF 5 REVISION DATE (GENERAL NOTES) 105
203.05
07/15 VIRCINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 5D2
2016 ROAD & BRIDGE STANDARDS
Replace obsolete or VDOT-revised details with current detail; for example, CG-12 detail d. 7/05, rev. 7/15.
28. If multiple curb types proposed, show and label curb -curb transitions. (Rev. 1) Partially addressed. See
items 21.e., 55. Revise ribbon curb.
C5
29. Label roads and alleys. (Rev. 1) Partially addressed. Label roads and alleys on C5, C6, C7, C8, C9.
30. Show and label existing right-of-way, 5` a(reet. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
31. Show and label existing easement or right-of-way, Wahoo Way. (Rev. 1) Partially addressed. As ollow-
yp: Locate copy of separate exhibit titled Wahoo Way Proposed Easement Exhibit, July 17, 2018 on plan
sheet C5 (upper left, overwrite linework). On C6, provide ref. to Exhibit on C5. Revise Exhibit since it
matches the initial site plan (road) design, not the current submittal.
32. Show sight lines. Provide sight distance easements where sight lines extend onto lots (Int. Road B-Road B).
(Rev. 2) Comment may persist if site plan includes subdivision of lots. Confirm whether subdivision is
proposed. If so, sight line easements may be required.
33. Center easements on travelways; for example, 30' access easement for private road B does not provide a
30' functional width. (Rev. 1) Not addressed. Ref. three (3) .PDF attachments. If request for centered
easements for alleys is unclear, please see ACDSM (Sec. 7.D.1. [easement centered], or for easements
centered on streets appears without basis, please review ACDSM Sec. 7.F.Table (* table footnote), Code 14-
412.13, VDOT Road Design Manual Appx. B(1)-3, B.3.b.Table 1 (below); B(1)-4.M. (Right -of -Way),
Appx. B(1)-5.A.Clear Zone (Fig. 10), which require at least 3' clearance /clear zone, which is to be within
easement /right-of-way, clear zone to be measured from rolltop /CG-6. If requirement is unclear, please
save questions for when we meet to discuss this and other issues that extend beyond this site plan.
2. with parking lanes, the horizontal clearance (measured from face of curb) is 1.5' (Min). 2011 AASHTO Green Book
Chapter 5 (Page 5-20). However, VDOT has established a 3' minimum setback requirement behind the curb (This
Manual, Section B-5, Figure 10).
34. Although internal network road design will be revised to meet to VDOT and ACDSM standards, alley
easements cannot be clearly traced. Ensure easements are clearly defined, and cover all travelways. (Rev.
1) Partially addressed. As follow-up /C6: On south side of Alley A at Wahoo Way, a radial section of
curb is outside proposed easement. Revise alley easement at this /other locations, per VDOT /ACDSM
requirements.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 6 of 7
C6
35. Ensure sidewalk grades are ADA-compliant. (Rev. 1) Comment persists /Applicant acknowledges.
C7
36. Label TMPs. (Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
37. WPO Plan has been submitted (WPO201800084); revise FSP consistent with WPO plan review comments.
(Rev. 1) Comment persists /Applicant response: `Comment noted.'
38. Label proposed underground detention feature. (Rev. 1) Comment withdrawn. It appears that the
underground detention SWM facility has been removed.
39. Eliminate grate only inlet type in paved areas; provide VDOT standard drop inlets. (Rev. 1) Not
addressed. See item 21.c. County Engineer personally reviewed proposed design; storm drain grate
located in a driveway entrance will not be approved. Please address.
40. Provide drainage calculations on the FSP. (Rev. 1) Not addressed. Also, item 10.. Please address.
a. Provide LD-204 (stormwater inlet design)
b. Provide LD-229 (stormwater pipe design)
41. More comments possible when Road Plan is submitted. (Rev. 1) Comment persists. Applicant
acknowledges.
C10
42. Provide profiles for all roads. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
43. Provide UDs at cut/fill transition/s. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
44. Reference Road Plan review checklist. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
C12
45. Label storm inlet structures, use VDOT designations (DI-3, for example). (Rev. 1) Addressed.
46. More comments possible when Road Plan is submitted. (Rev. 1) Comment persists. Applicant
acknowledges.
New:
C4
47. Per County Engineer review: Alley B - Road C intersection must be perpendicular, with Road C through -
movement meeting minimum horizontal radius of curvature. R =25' does not meet minimum horizontal
radius of curvature.
48. Label radius of curb at E end of 8 guest parking spaces.
49. Ensure water meter locations are protected with reasonable clearance once driveway entrances are revised.
50. Provide road /alley stationing on this sheet, not just C7, to aid review and provide point of reference.
51. Indicate Road C, Alley A and B proposed speed limits. Provide speed limit signs for each.
52. Ensure Road C has a crown design with flow lines, drainage, C&G, inlets etc. that meets VDOT standards
(Road Design Manual). Related comments, elsewhere.
53. Label recreational space sidewalk width.
54. Label sidewalk width between unit T25 and T26.
55. Label reading: `Gutter transition to reverse CG-6' is inconsistent with proposed grading shown on C7.
Eliminate label. Provide grading consistent with CG-I I at Road C intersection with Wahoo Way.
56. Concrete ribbon gutter is inappropriate. Ribbon curb (VDOT Road Design Manual, Appx. B(1)-4.H.) is a
pavement edging that does not convey runoff longitudinally, but rather provides a durable edge across
which storm runoff sheets at an angle. Eliminate ribbon curb from this design. Please also see item 21.c..
57. C5: Please check label reading New Access Easement along Wahoo Way back of curb. Revise as needed.
58. C6: Center easements on alleys.
59. Provide Min. 3' clear zone (within easement) for Road C. Related: item 33.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 7 of 7
C7
60. Revise grading at Int. Road C — Wahoo Way. Related: item 55.
61. Provide inlet, NE corner 8 guest parking spaces.
C8
62. Two (2) storm inlets are likely required at SW corner of Recreational Space to avoid storm line passing
beneath proposed fencing.
63. Label all storm line pipe constructed with this plan immediately north, west or south of Lots T1-T5. Once
labeled, include in LD-229 design table. Related: items 10, 40.
64. Review drainage plan checklist, and revise angle of pipe leaving Str. M2A. Related: item 8.
65. Label inlets immediately north of Int. Road C — Wahoo Way, which appear to be built with this site plan.
Once labeled, include pipe (if constructed with SDP201800081) in LD-229, and inlets in LD-204.
66. Revise design to ensure storm pipe does not cross beneath proposed recreational area fencing. Recommend
additional inlet.
C11
67. Revise plan /profile titles that ref. Road B. There is only proposed Road C.
68. On Private Road C profile, label Int. with Alley A, and Alley B.
69. C12: Revise ref. to Private Road A, since not included on C4.
70. C13: Ensure pavement design is included with Road Plan, if subdivision proposed. Ensure pavement
design for Road C is included with SDP201800081, if subdivision is not proposed.
C15:
71. Profile label reads L1 — L5, but only M3, L4, L5 are shown. Include Str. L1 — L3 in profile. In plan view,
show full extents of drainage system. Related: item 10.
72. Storm profile: M2 — M2A needs to show connection with existing storm pipe that remains once 17.63' is
demolished. Profile, LD-229 must include portions of existing storm line incorporated in design. Related:
item 62.
Thank you
J. Anderson 434.296-5832 -0069
SDP201800081 Royai r crn Townhomes FSP 042619rev1
Review Comments for SDP201800081 Final Plat 1-1
Project Name: Royal Fern Townhomes - Final
Date Completed: Monday, April 22, 2019 DepartmenVDiuisiorVAgency: Review Status:
Reviewer: Kernn McDermott --E FEED Plan nina - Requested Changes
The Southern and Western Areas Master Plan calls for Bicycle and Pedestrian accomodations on 5th St Extended. Request
the Site Plan shows either a Shared -use Path or Sidewalk and Bike Lanes on that Corridor adjacent to the parcels proposed
for development. The Site Plan continues to only show a 5' sidewalk. This is insufficient_
Page: 1 County of Albemarle Printed ❑n: 05I10±2019
Review Comments for SDP201800081 Final Plat 1-1
Project Name: Royal Fern Townhames - Final
Date Completed: Tuesday, March 12, 2019 DepartmenVDiuisionlAgency: Review Status:
Reviewer:
Heather McMahon CDD ARB 0 See Reoommendations
A Certificate of Appropriateness is required prior to the approval of this Final Site Plan. An incomplete application (ARB-2018-
162) was submitted in December 2018. Further materials were submitted February 5, 2019, however, the application is still
incomplete_ The following materials are requested:
1. Material samples are required for review. The architect/client must revise the materials notes on the submitted elevations,
page 1 of 9; to clarify the following:
a. The name of the brand of brick and its color
b. Identify the siding material (is it composite? Wood? What brand?)
C. Select a color 'tan' for the trim and provide a paint sample
d. Name and provide samples for the two paint colors applied to the siding that is shown on the renderings
e. Name the brand and provide a paint sample for 'iron ore"
2. A model of the proposed wall -mounted light must be selected and the manufacturer's specifications provided for review. If
the manufacturer's specifications include a photometric diagram that will verify that no light over half (O.5) a footcandle will spill
over onto the right-of-ways (both Fifth Street Ext. and Wahoo Way), then a photometric lighting plan can be omitted from the
site plan set. Spillover must be reviewed and verified in some capacity and it is the client's anus to meet the submittal
requirements of any application.
3. The three pages of elevations previously submitted show a three-story townhouse model, yet the renderings submitted
recently show a mix of three- and two-story units; similarly, the elevations show wooden decks on side and rear elevations that
are not shown in the renderings. Supply elevations, plans, and renderings for all proposed unit types. Label them according to
the proposed clusters (i_e_, T1-5, T 26-31)_ ARB will review all of the lots facing Fifth Street Extended as well as those on the
south end of Wahoo Way. Provide plans for the units.
4. Your transmittal letter dated 2-4-19 and signed by Keane Rucker states 'All mechanical equipment will be ground -mounted
and placed between the townhouse driveways, thus screened by the buildings from the entrance corridor." Yet the side
elevations that were submitted previously show two 'outdoor units' on the sides of end units, not between driveways and thus
obscured by the building masses themselves. If all mechanical units are proposed for the driveways, then add the quoted
sentence above to the beginning of note 11 on the cover page of the site plan set and revise the side elevations to show the
°outdoor units' in their prescribed locations.
Page: 1 County of Albemarle Printed ❑n: 05I10±2019
Review Comments for SDP201800081 Final Plat 1-1
Project Name: Royal Fern Townhomes - Final
Date Completed: Tuesday, March 19, 2019 DepartmenVDiuisiorVAgency: Review Status:
Reviewer:
Andrew Slack - FEDD E911 - Requested Changes
This application will require two (2) new road names -
'Road B — 36' Private°
'Private Road B — 20'
Please contact our office (aslacka@albemarle.org) to reserve road names for this application.
An option to consider is renaming the portion of Wahoo Way that extends from the intersection of 5th St. to the beginning of
the planned "Road B.' This portion would be renamed to the same name as 'Road BA to prevent a potentially confusing
situation in which Wahoo Way appears to change names midway through. The addresses of the apartments off of Wahoo
Way would not be affected because, as indicated on the submitted plan, Wahoo Way continues onto parcel 76-54A1 (i.a. the
portion of Wahoo Way that goes through the parking area would not be renamed). Since our department is not in a position to
initiate this change, you would need to work with the property owner of parcel 76-54A1 to move this option forward_ If this is of
interest to both parties, our office would facilitate the change. I would reiterate that this is not necessary to do, but it is our
recommendation to make the road naming in this area more predictable, particularly for emergency response.
.A
Page: 1 County of Albemarle Printed ❑n: 05I10±2019
Review Comments for SDP201800081 Final Plat 1-1
-
Project Name: Royal Fern Townhomes - Final
Date Completed: Tuesday, March 19, 2019 aepartmenVIDivisionlAgency: Review Status:
Reviewer: Shawn Maddox
0 Fire Rescue - See Reoommendations El
Please ensure all of these streets/alleys are marked no parking. Once that is acknowledged Fire Rescue has no objections to r
the plans. SNM
Page: 1 County of Albemarle Printed ❑n: 05I10±2019
Review Comments for SDP201800081 Final Plat 1-1
Project Name: Royal Fern Townhomes - Final
Date Completed: Friday, April 19, 2019 DepartmenVDiuisionlAgency: Review Status:
Reviewer:
Richard Nelson F-I ACSA - Requested Changes
2019-04-19: SDP2O1 MI Royal Fern Townhomes — Final is currently under review_ Comments have been submitted to
Shimp April 5_
Page: 1 County of Albemarle Printed ❑n: 05I10±2019
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper Virginia 22701
Stephen C. Brich, P.E.
Commissioner
April 11, 2019
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Attn: Paty Saternye
Re: Royal Fern — Final Site Plan
SDP-2018-00081
Review #1
Dear Ms. Saternye:
The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use
Section, has reviewed the above referenced plan as submitted by Shimp Engineering, revised 8
March 2019, and finds it to be generally acceptable.
A VDOT Land Use Permit will be required prior to any work within the right-of-way. The
owner/developer must contact the Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use
Section at (434) 422-9399 for information pertaining to this process. If further information is
desired, please contact Justin Deel at 434-422-9894.
Sincerely,
C064vt, dlil.i1
Adam J. Moore, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Charlottesville Residency
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING