HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201800031 Review Comments Appeal to BOS 2019-05-29ALg�,�
IRGVSk
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
(434) 296-5832
May 29, 2019
Alan Franklin
427 Cranberry Lane
Crozet VA 22932
RE: SDP2018-31 Rivanna Village Phase 2 (Blocks D, F, G, H, I, and J) - Final Site Plan
Dear Sir:
Department of Community Development has reviewed the above referenced site plan (dated 3-27-19) against applicable
Code of Development, Proffers, Application Plan, and other codes and ordinances. Comments are provided below;
however, additional comments or conditions may be added or eliminated based on further review.): [Each comment is
preceded by the applicable reference, which is to the Subdivision/Zoning Ordinances unless otherwise specified.]
1. IZMA201300012 Proffers] All proffers shall be adhered to as dictated in the proffers. Rev 2: Comment still
relevant.
2. [COD Sec 3.31 Lot Regulation/Setbacks. Final: Comment addressed.
3. [COD Sec 3.41 Building Height. Final: Comment addressed.
4. [COD Sec 7.11 Parking. Rev 2. Comment addressed. All park parking is being provided on street.
Attached is a parking determination for the proposal.
5. IZMA201300012 Proffer 9] Affordable Housing. Rev 1. Comment addressed.
6. [ZMA201300012 Proffer 21 Cash Proffer for Capital Improvement. Final: Applicant acknowledges the
comment.
7. [ZMA201300012 Proffer 7, COD 5.4.2, COD 5.4.31 Rte. 250 Landscape Buffer and Right of Way
Dedication. Rev 2. Comment addressed.
On the plan provide a note for this area: "The 70' reservation zone and ... Rev 2. Comment addressed.
8. [COD Sec 3.2(4)] Density Regulations. Rev 1. Comment addressed.
9. [COD Sec 8] Open Space/Greenspace Preservation. Final: Comment addressed.
10. [COD Sec 8] Open Space/Greenspace Preservation. Prior to final site plan approval the Director of Parks and
Recreation is required to approve a park plan, which shall ensure amenities provided meet the needs of the
County and satisfy the rezoning. Final: Comment still relevant. Dan Mahon provided the applicant
comments on the park plan. Pending revisions of the final site plan to address these review comments.
Rev 1. Comment still relevant. Please work with Parks and Recreation to receive an approved park plan
and ensure the site plan matches. Rev 2. Comment still relevant. Please work with Parks and Recreation
to finalize an approved park plan and ensure the site plan matches. See Parks and Recreation comments
#56 through #63 provided below.
1 1. [COD Sec 81 Open Space/Greenspace Preservation. Final: Comment addressed.
12. [COD Sec 8] Open Space/Greenspace Preservation. Rev 2. Comment addressed.
13. [COD Sec 81 Open Space/Greenspace Preservation. Final: Comment addressed.
14. [Comment] On either sheet 4 or 5 provide a table of content overlay, which labels which sheets each section of
various blocks can be found on. Final: Comment addressed.
15. 132.5.2(a), 32.5.2(i)] Existing or platted streets. Final: Comment addressed.
16. [32.5.2(a), 32.5.2(i)] Alleys. 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... "
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. Site plan review does not guarantee VDOT or Engineering have
completed a full review of the improvements along Rte. 250; rather, such heavy lifting will be done on
the road plan and its review. Once submitted and reviewed the road plan and the final site plan shall
match for these improvements. Rev 2. Comment still relevant.
18. [Code of Development Section 4.21 Covenants to Provide Architectural Review Committee. Prior to final site
plan and/or final subdivision plat approval a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for
Rivanna Village Phase II shall be reviewed/approved by the County Attorney's office in consultation with
County Planning staff. The above document shall be approved by the County and recorded by the developer
prior to final site plan and/or final subdivision plat approval. The DB page reference information of this
recorded document shall be noted on the final site plan and/or final subdivision plat. Rev 1: Comment not
addressed. While this requirement was addressed for phase I, per conversations with the County
Attorney it is not addressed for phase II. Please submit a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and
Restrictions for Rivanna Village Phase II. Rev 2. Please submit the Declaration of Covenants,
Conditions and Restrictions for Rivanna Village Phase II.
19. 132.6.20)] Landscape plan. Final: Comment Addressed.
20. [32.5.2(n)] Proposed Improvements. Rev 1. Comment addressed.
21. [32.5.2(n)] Proposed improvements. Final: Comment addressed.
22. [32.7.4.2] Easements for stormwater management facilities. Final: Comment addressed.
23. [32.8.2, 14-3111 Infrastructure improvement plans. Road plans must be approved and built or bonded prior to
approval. On the initial site plan Fire and Rescue commented that the road widths are not adequate for on street
parking. They have not provided staff comments on the plan yet. Work with Fire and Rescue to ensure the
roads are wide enough to accommodate on street parking and that the spaces are dimensioned and labeled.
Rev 2: Fire and Rescue has no objections to the site plan, however, a road plan is still lacking. Please
submit the road plan for review.
24. [32.5.2(p) & 32.7.9.71 Screening. 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. Rev 2: Comment still relevant.
26. [Comment] Provide the dimensions of proposed easements and whether they are to be publicly or privately
maintained. Final: Comment addressed.
27. [32.6.2(e)] Public facilities and utilities. 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. Rev 1. Comment addressed.
Additional Comments on the Final
29. [14-409] Coordination & Extension. Rev 1. Comment addressed.
30. [Comment] Label the land use of the hatched area adjacent ... Rev 1. Comment addressed.
31. [14-303] Cattail Court needs to be modified to a "30' private street easement"... Rev 1. Comment addressed.
32. [4.12] Parking. Label and dimension the two required parking spaces... Rev 2. Comment addressed.
Revise sheet 2 parking calculations to accurately reflect the required ... Rev 2. Comment addressed.
33. 14.12.5, 4.121 Location of Parking Areas. Rev 2. Comment addressed.
34. 14.121 Parking. Rev 2. Comment addressed.
35. 14.12.61 Parking Requirements. Dimension all parking spaces. Rev 2. Comment addressed.
36. [32.5.2(n)] Trails. Throughout the plan label and dimension the trail and ... Rev 1. Comment addressed.
37. 14.121 Parking. Provide column titles for the parking calculations chart. Rev 1. Comment addressed.
38. [COD See 8] Open Space/Greenspace Preservation. Please work with Parks and Recreation to determine the
appropriate method to separate and distinguish private residential lots from the public park (either fencing,
berm, evergreen landscaping, or a combination). Prior to final site plan approval please depict and label the
solution. Rev 1. Comment still relevant. Planning staff requests at a minimum a single row of approved
evergreen trees be planted behind all of the homes surrounding the park. Lots J20427 and Lots J28 - J33 shall
be provided plantings behind these homes, if existing preserved trees are to remain, please label these.
Currently the plan is not clear that this is taking place. Rev 2. Replace all Pinus Strobus plantings that are
proposed in and around the perimeter of the park with Juniperus Virginiana plantings. Also, provide a
note on the plans that states that wooden post and County Park decals will be provided along the
boundaries of all residential and park areas in Block J. These improvements shall help distinguish
between private and public areas. Provide a cutsheet depicting the design of this feature.
39. [Comment] The final site plan shall not be approved until all SRC reviewers have approved the plan. Their
comments attached. Rev 2. Comment still relevant.
40. [ZMA201300012 Proffer 91 Affordable Housing. Rev 2. Comment addressed.
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.
Rev 2. Comment not fully addressed. Portions of the proposed Community Park are not appropriate to
be taken into the park system/maintained by the County. These areas shall be revised to HOA
maintained open space. Omit the space area adiacent to Lot J49.
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. Rev 2. Comment addressed.
43. [32.5.2(n), 32.7.2.3, 14-422, 32.7.9.51 Sidewalks & planting strips. Continue sidewalks, landscaping strip, and
street tree plantings along Rte. 250 (the entire frontage of the property). Revl. The master plan for this area
plans for a 10' wide asphalt bike/shared multi use path along this roadway. Ensure the landscape strip
for the required street trees is provided. The road plan will be the main review document to cover these
items; however, the site plan shall mirror what is approved for this roadway improvement. VDOT shall
also review and approve these items. Rev 2. Please locate the required street trees in a 6' landscape strip
area adiacent to the road and locate the 10' shared use path behind it.
44. [32.7.9.51 Landscaping Along Streets. Rev 2. Comment addressed.
45. [COD Sec 7.11 Parking. The parking study shall be approved by the Zoning Administrator ... Rev 2. Comment
addressed. Attached is the parking determination dated May 291h, 2019.
46. [4.12] Parking. Rev 2. Comment addressed.
47. [4.12] Parking. Staff is only able to locate 88 spaces dedicated to the park. Rev 2. Comment addressed.
48. [4.12.16] Minimum Design of Parking. Rev 2. Comment addressed.
49. [Comment] Dimension and provide easement for trail on Lot J-1, see sheet 18. Rev 2. Comment addressed.
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. Rev 2. Prior to
final site plan approval provide signed and recorded agreements from all the effected property owners
granting permission for offsite grading and driveway improvements. It appears TMP 08000-00-00-
058A0, TMP 08000-00-00-05800, and TMP 08000-00-00-046BO require these agreements. If other lots
are effected by offsite work obtain those agreements too. Provide recordation information on the final
site plan.
If required physical improvements for the project or a land take is proposed, then an easement plat,
BLA or R/W dedication plat shall be required prior to final site plan approval. Provide the recordation
information on the final site plan.
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. Rev 2.
Comment addressed, see sheet 37 for recordation information of recorded ACSA easement.
52. [Comment] Sheet 51, Lot 1-36 has an "Amenity Space" note on it. Is this accurate? Amenity space shall not be
on individual lots. Rev 2. Comment addressed.
53. [Comment] Pending review comments from ACSA, Parks and Recreation, and the Zoning Administrators
review of the parking study. Rev 2. Pending review comments from ACSA.
54. [Proffer 6] Linear Trails. The project is required to dedicate to the County 13.26 acres of linear parks and
trails outside the Community Park; however, the current proposal only provides 11.95 acres. Revise the plan to
provide the additional acreage to the linear park. The acreage from the fire station's linear park land is not
included in the requires acreages.
55. [ZMA201300012] Application Plan. On sheet 5 accurately depict the linear trails in Block K and Block A.
Provide recordation information on the final site plan for these existing trail easements.
56. [COD Sec 8, Sec 3.2 Open Space/Greenspace Preservation] Park Master Planning. Residential Lots 59 and
60 shall be removed from the plans or located elsewhere further away from the park's pavilion facilities.
Redesign the area as a flat multipurpose lawn, which can be utilized for programming. Also, modify the
proposed landscaping around the new multipurpose lawn so it connects with the adjacent multipurpose lawn.
57. [COD Sec 8 Open Space/Greenspace Preservation] Park Master Planning. Please remove and discontinue
the use of all shrubs proposed around the perimeter and throughout the multipurpose lawn, the lawn, the
playgrounds, and the pavilion areas. Omit the use of shrubs in the park as these plantings will require
unnecessary maintenance.
58. [COD Sec 8 Open Space/Greenspace Preservation] Park Master Planning. Replace all Pinus Strobus
plantings that are proposed in and around the perimeter of the park with Juniperus Virginiana plantings.
59. [COD Sec 8 Open Space/Greenspace Preservation] Park Master Planning. The two playground areas shall
be combined into a single large playground. Ensure this playground area is ADA accessible with ramps. Also,
revise the age groups served by the entire playground to be ages 2-12.
60. [COD Sec 8 Open Space/Greenspace Preservation] Park Master Planning. Revise the multipurpose lawn,
the lawn, the playgrounds, the pavilion areas, and the playing field to be ADA accessible.
61. [COD Sec 8 Open Space/Greenspace Preservation] Park Master Planning. Discontinue the playground's
shredded rubbed surface and replace with ADA approved double shredded mulch.
62. [COD Sec 8 Open Space/Greenspace Preservation] Park Master Planning. Label all fence types throughout
the park.
63. [COD Sec 8 Open Space/Greenspace Preservation] Park Master Planning. Provide a note on the plans that
states that wooden post and County Park decals will be provided along the boundaries of all residential and
park areas in Block J. These improvements shall help distinguish between private and public areas. Provide a
cutsheet depicting the design of this feature.
Please contact Christopher Perez in the Planning Division by using 0ereznalbemarle.org or 434-296-5832 ext.
3443 for further information or if you have questions.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
May 29, 2019
Alan Franklin
427 Cranberry Lane
Crozet, VA 22932
RE: Parking Determination — SDP201800031 Rivanna Village Phase 2 Park Parking
Requirement
Dear Mr. Franklin:
This letter is an official determination of the parking requirements for the Rivanna Village
community park. This determination is made in accordance with Section 7 of the Rivanna
Village Amended and Restated Code of Development (ZMA-2013-12), approved July 9, 2014,
and Section 18-4.12.6 of the Albemarle County Code. In making this determination, the Zoning
Administrator considered the parking requirement study submitted by the applicant (attached
below), Section 18-4.12.6 of the Albemarle County Code, parking calculations from approved
parks in Albemarle County, American Planning Association (APA) parking standards, and
Section 34-984 of the Charlottesville City Code. Using a combination of the resources
referenced above, the parking requirements for the Rivanna Village community park are
determined to be as follows:
Parking Schedule: Rivanna Village Community Park
Pavilions (1,782sf): 1 parking space / 75 square feet = 23 required parking spaces
Playfield (1): 24 parking spaces per field = 24 required parking spaces
Paved Trails (3,7751f): 10 required parking spaces'
Multi -Purpose Lawn and Playgrounds (18,090sf): 1 parking space / 600 square feet2 =
30 required parking spaces
Dog Park (1): 10 parking spaces per dog park = 10 required parking spaces
Total Required Parking Spaces: 97 parking spaces
The parking requirements for the park, shown above, are proposed to be accommodated
through the use of on -street parking spaces. Section 7 of the Rivanna Village Amended and
Restated Code of Development provides that the Zoning Ordinance is modified to permit on-
' APA suggests that there should be at least 10 spaces minimum for trails
2 The City of Charlottesville Code requires
May 29, 2019
Rivanna Village Park Parking Requirement
Page 2
street parking spaces, which are located within 500 feet of a use, to count towards the parking
requirement generated by that use. The parking layout shown on the proposed site plan
SDP2018-31 appears to meet these parking requirements by providing 119 on -street spaces.
If you are aggrieved by this determination, you have a right to appeal it within thirty (30) days of
this notice, in accordance with Virginia Code § 15.2-2311. If you do not file a timely appeal, this
determination shall be final and unappealable.
An appeal may be taken only by filing an appeal application with the Zoning Administrator and
the Board of Zoning Appeals, in accordance with Albemarle County Code § 18-34.3, along with
a fee of $258. Additionally, a separate fee is required for the cost of providing notice and
advertising of the appeal for a public hearing.
Applications for Appeal of the Zoning Administrator's Determination are available at the
Department of Community Development located at 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia
22902 or online at www.albemarle.org/cdapps. This form applies to the appeal of a decision of
the zoning administrator or any other administrative officer pertaining to the Zoning Ordinance.
Regulations pertaining to the filing of an appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals are located in
Chapter 18, Section 34.3 of the Zoning Ordinance. They may be reviewed online at
www.albemarle.ora/countvcodebza.
(Please note that our online documents are in Adobe Acrobat PDF format and must be viewed
with the Adobe Acrobat Reader or an equivalent. A link to download the free plug-in is available
at the bottom of www.albemarle.org/cdapps.)
Please contact me if you have questions or require additional information.
Sincerely,
Kevin McCollum
Planner
Designee to the Zoning Administrator
ALAN FRAN KLI N PE, LLC
427 Cranberry Lane
Crozet, Virginia 22932
(434) 531-5544
alan@alanfranklinpe.com
March 29, 2019
Ms. Amelia McCulley
Zoning Administrator
County of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
RE: SDP2018-31 Rivanna Village Phase 2 Park Parking Requirement Study
Dear Amelia,
As part of the Rivanna Village neighborhood, approximately 19 acres of Block J will be developed and
dedicated as a community park that will serve as recreational and outdoor space for not only the residents of
Rivanna Village, but for other County residents. The park improvements will be built by the owner and will
include two picnic shelters, two multi -purpose lawn areas, a large playfield, two playgrounds, a restroom
facility, a dog park, a quarry pond, a storm/amenity pond, paved trails, and natural areas.
In determining the parking requirements for the proposed park, we used Section 18-4.12.6 of the County
Code as guidance. Not all of the proposed park uses were defined in the County Code section. For these uses,
we utilized parking calculations taken from the site plan documents for other Albemarle County parks such as
Darden Towe Park and Crozet Park. Using the combination of resources referenced above, we propose the
requirements as shown on the table below.
PARKING REQUIREMENT CALCULATION FOR RIVANNA VILLAGE COMMNITY PARK
FEATURE
QTY
UNIT
REQMT
SUBTOTAL
Pavilions
1,782
SF
1 SP/75 SF
23
Playfield
1
EA
24 SP PER
24
Paved Trails
3,775
LF
1 SP/1,000 LF
4
Multi -purpose Lawn
11,660
SF
1 SP/2,500 SF
5
Playground
6,430
SF
1 PER 125 SF
51
Dog Park
1
EA
ESTIMATE
10
TOTAL PARKING REQUIREMENT
117
We envision that a majority of the park users will originate from within the neighborhood, travelling via foot on
the proposed street sidewalk and open space trail network. The park will also serve residents in the
surrounding neighborhoods who will likely drive. The parking requirements for the park are proposed to be
accommodated through the use of on -street parking spaces within 1/8 of a mile of one of the three park
access points on the proposed neighborhood streets. The site plan identifies 119 on -street spaces that meet
the requirements listed above to serve the park. Loading space and 6 ADA spaces are also provided.
Thank you in advance for your consideration of this request.
Sincerely, A
l/ L qi>�
Alan Franklin, PE
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
Project:
Plan preparer:
Owner or rep.:
Plan received date:
(Rev. 1)
(Rev. 2)
Date of comments:
(Rev. 1)
(Rev. 2)
Reviewer:
Project Coordinator:
Site Plan review
Rivanna Village Phase 2, Block F, G, H, I, & J —Final Site Plan
Alan Franklin PE, LLC /427 Cranberry Lane, Crozet, VA 22932
[alankalanfranklinpe.com ]
Rivanna Investment Holdings LLC, 150 West Main St. Suite 1100
Norfolk, VA 23510
4 May 2018
23 Oct 2018
9 Apr 2019
26 June 2018
14 Dec 2018
14 May 2019
John Anderson
Christopher Perez
SDP2018-00031 For clarity, comments Addressed with Rev. 1 are "graved" out
VSMP Approval required prior to Final Site Plan Approval.
a. Provide VSMP Plan that meets requirements of 17-401. (Rev. 1) Comment withdrawn,
review error. As follow-up: Revise plan reference to read `WP0201800007, Approved
5/09/18.' (Rev. 2) Comment persists. Please provide requested WPO plan reference on sheet 2.
b. Provide vehicular access /Access easements to SWM facilities. (Rev. 1) Partially addressed;
though vehicular access may be shown on WP0201800007, easements must be recorded.
May require further work. (Rev. 2) Comment persists. Applicant response: `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.' As follow-up: Please address as soon as possible.
c. Provide receipt of recordation of SWM Facility Deed of Dedication. (Rev. 1) Not addressed;
provide book -page reference to SWM Facility Deed of Dedication unless Applicant plans to
record easements with final subdivision plat/s. (Rev. 2) Comment persists. Applicant
response: `SWM/BMP easements to be on Subdivision Plat or on a prior Plat for to finalize WPO
approval.' Engineering accepts response as acknowledgment of plat recordation requirement,
which may occur with final subdivision plat. 5/9/19, Engineering met with Engineer /Developer,
and discussed idea of phased WPO bonds, which would require separately -recorded SWM Facility
/Access easement plats (each phase), and would require phase lines to be shown on this Site Plan.
d. Ref. prior -approved WPO# if prior approved plans are relied upon. (Rev. 1) Addressed; see
l.a., above for correct WPO Plan #.
e. Provide Mitigation for stream buffer and wetland impacts. (Rev. 1) Comment withdrawn,
review error. Reference WP0201800007.
Road Plan Approval required prior to Final Site Plan Approval. (Rev. 1) Not addressed. Applicant
response: `Road Plan Application forthcoming.' (Rev. 2) Comment persists. See previous response,
item #I' above.'
Provide trail standard detail meeting Albemarle County Design Standards Manual Std.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 7
4. Sheet 2, Note 17: Owner shall be responsible for posting the ESC bond. Revise note.
5. Sheet 2, Note 24: Appears incomplete. Please revise.
6. Sheet 4: Label all wetlands. Label 100' stream buffers.
7. A separate Road Plan is required. Please submit a Road Plan with Application and required fee.
8. Sheet 4: Provide calculations for ADT. ADT appears inconsistent; for example: Cattail Court 42
Attached units (G1-G42), ADT =200, while Terrapin Trace 14 Attached units (I48-162) 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.
9. Sheet 6: Rt. 250Improvements single lane addition typical section appears to indicate 2" SM-12.5A
tapers to zero thickness (0") at edge of 8' paved shoulder; confirm consistent with VDOT standards.
Sheet 8 / CONTECH BridgeCor® Arch Structure (Rev. 1) Not addressed. Applicant response to item 10,
applies to items 11-18, as well: `Previous submittal included Contech arch bridge details and specifications
as an example for pricing by the contractor. While the details are similar to what we expect, they do not
apply to this project. Sorry for the confusion. Contech is currently working to provide the appropriate
pans and calculations package for review and approval by the County and VDOT. It will likely be
included with the Road Plan application to the County and VDOT. Details in question have been removed
form set to eliminate further confusion.' Engineering accepts this response.
10. Ref. 2016 VDOT Road & Bridge Specifications for pre -cast arch requirements /302.03.b. (Rev. 2)
Comment persists. See Applicant response, item #18, below.'
(b) Precast Drainage Structures: Submittal of designs for precast items included in the Road and
Bridge Standards will not be required provided fabrication is in accordance with the Standards.
Submittal of designs for precast box culverts produced under the VDOT Precast Concrete
Quality Assurance Program by a manufacturer on the Materials Division's Approved Products
List 34 will not be required provided the Contractor submits a certification that the item shall
be fabricated in accordance with the preapproved design drawings.
Requests for approval of a precast design shall include detailed plans and supporting com-
putations that have been signed and sealed by a Professional Engineer having at least 5 years
experience in structural design of precast structures or components proposed and licensed to
practice engineering in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Unless otherwise specified, concrete
11. Provide high definition images with legible text details for each CONTECH BridgeCor® Arch
Structure detail. Most text is illegible. (Rev. 1) Not addressed. See item 8, above. (Rev. 2)
Comment persists. See Applicant response, item #18, below.'
12. Illegible Specifications for Manufacture and Installation of CONTECH BridgeCor® Arch Structure is
of particular concern. Please provide legible Mfr./Installation text. (Rev. 1) Not addressed. See item
8, above. (Rev. 2) Comment persists. See Applicant response, item #18, below.'
13. Provide PE -seal for each CONTECH BridgeCor® Arch Structure detail. Site Plan PE -seal is
insufficient unless Site Plan Professional Engineer holds PE certification in structural engineering
discipline, and seals each CONTECH detail on sheet 8, not simply plan sheet 8. (Rev. 1) Not
addressed. See item 8, above. (Rev. 2) Comment persists. See Applicant response, item #18, below.'
14. Provide structural details, including plan /profile view with dimensions, for reinforced concrete
headwall. Detail on this sheet indicates `supplied by others.' Furnish plan /profile structural detail
sufficient to evaluate adequacy and integrity of concrete headwall design. (Rev. 1) Not addressed.
See item 8, above. (Rev. 2) Comment persists. See Applicant response, item #18, below.'
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 7
15. Provide reinforcement detail, including plan /profile views with dimensions, for reinforced concrete
arch footing. (Rev. 1) Not addressed. See item 8, above. (Rev. 2) Comment persists. See Applicant
response, item #18, below.'
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'-l" X 9'-2"
[structure]. (Rev. 1) Not addressed. See item 8, above. (Rev. 2) Comment persists. See Applicant
response, item #18, below.'
17. Note: Notes on schematic of proposed Contech detail (top right corner, sheet 8) are problematic:
"Footing dimensions and details shown are conceptual only"; "Final dimensions and details to be
furnished by the Project Engineer"; "Foundation reinforcing to be determined." These notes indicate
final design is to be performed by Project Engineer, relative to arch footings. Provide: footing
dimensions and calculations supporting design for this site and location (soil type, dead /live load,
etc.); final dimensions /details; and foundation reinforcing details. Provide calculations that support
footing design. (Rev. 1) Not addressed. See item 8, above. (Rev. 2) Comment persists. See Applicant
response, item #18, below.'
18. Details reference single radius arch: This does not appear to be a single radius structure; check label.
(Rev. 1) Not addressed. See item 8, above. (Rev. 2) Comment persists. Applicant response:
`Comments #10418 to be addressed with Road Plans and Bridge Details (Contech) review.'
19. Sheets 9-19: Base sight lines on design speed (posted speed limit + 5MPH). Example: sight line at hit.
Moose Lane and Lazy Branch Lane would appear to be 335'. Check /revise sight lines, as needed.
20. Sheets 9-19 /CG-12: Ramps at perpendicular crossings are shown as diagonal crossing ramps. Revise
per VDOT standard [removed with Rev. 1]:
�keet�4 [image removed with Rev. I]
21. Sheet 11: Provide Auto -turn figs. /driveway geometry, multiple lots, including I-60, -61, -62, -64, J-1
(sheet 18), etc. Propose smooth curves as opposed to angles which necessitate off -pavement turns
/maneuvers to enter and exit drives. Review all driveways. (Also item #36)
[image removed with Rev. I]
22. Sheet 14: Street Name signs are proposed for atypical locations at Int. Lazy Branch Lane and Moose
Lane, and at Int. Lazy Branch Lane and Cattail Court. Revise to appear in conventional location on
street with stop sign. Defer to VDOT comments for public roads.
23. Sheet 14: Recommend relocate street name /speed limit and any required signs from radial sections of
roadway to tangent sections, wherever possible.
24. Sheet 14: Revise Matchline (right margin) to read sheet 15.
25. Sheet 15: Provide sight line easement on Lot I-4.
26. Sheet 16/18. 18/19 (at Matchline) —Label road radii, Lazy Branch Lane. Review horizontal road curves.
Label all horizontal road curve radii in plan view.
27. Sheet 20: Revise value in parenthesis to match design speed (60, not 25). Check profiles captions.
28. Sheets 20/21: Profile ref. to Butterfield and Park may not match proposed road names. Please confirm.
29. Ensure arch spans on Terrapin Trace (sheet 24) and Lazy Branch Lane (between Mossy Rock Rd. and
Moose Ln.; sheet 25), the two 8' X 4' and the 4' X 2' double box culvert (sheet 26) pass the 25-year
storm event without roadway flooding. Portions of development have no outlet save crossing one or
more of these culverts. Recent local flooding lends particular impetus to conservative design. (Rev.
1) Partially addressed. As follow-up: Engineering cannot locate culvert design analysis for arch span
on Terrapin Trace, Sta. 18+15(zL). Please provide Q25 analysis for this structure, unless overlooked.
Q25 analyses for structures on Lazy Branch Lane are accepted. (Rev. 2) Comment persists. Applicant
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
Engineering Review Comments
Page 4 of 7
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.' As follow-up: Please provide Q2 analysis, when
available.
30. Sheet 28: Provide paved concrete channel (and detail) between two pipes south of Rt. 250 to prevent
nuisance ponding. Fall between outfall of one and inlet of the other is only 0.5% (0.12' over 23.5'±).
31. Sheet 28: Provide drainage easement for storm pipe, NE corner lot 1-3 1.
32. Sheet 32: Provide drainage easement for storm line between SD 2J3-1 and SD 2J3.
33. Sheet 34: Proposed forest /open space easement 1' from edge of basketball court and on a portion of
tennis court playing surface is ambitious. While proposed Forest /Open Space easements are generally
consistent with DEQ Training Module 4, Engineering cannot approve proposed easements in such
close proximity to developed features (sports courts, lots, etc.). Revise, as needed. (Rev. 1)
Addressed. As follow-up: Although proposed Forest /Open Space easements under AT02018000073
were approved, if Forest /Open Space easements are 1' from playing surface, or intersect tennis court,
and have yet to be recorded, Albemarle intends to coordinate with the WPO plan designer to amend
easements in limited areas, consistent with DEQ guidance. County will strive to minimize any delay
of issuance of Grading permit for Phase 2 development.
(https://www.deg.vir ig nia.goy/portals/0/deg/connectwithdeg/trainin /g swm/planreviewswm ne_modul
e4.pdf )
Sheet 34
[image removed with Rev. 1]
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. (Rev.
1) Not addressed. Applicant response: `Easement adjusted as needed on the site plans. An
amendment to the WPO plan will be required to "match up" the revised site plans and the ESC/SWM
Plans and to incorporate any required revisions to the BMP easement.' Engineering agrees. Also,
follow-up, immediately, above. (Rev. 2) Comment persists. Applicant 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 [Blossom Consulting/Engineering]. An amendment to the WPO Plan is planned to "match up" the
revised site plan and the ESC/SWM Plans and to incorporate any require revisions to the BMP easements.'
[image removed with Rev. I]
34. Sheet 36: Provide yard drains for drainage across 3 or more lots (ref design at Lots J-12 thm J-14).
Ref. Drainage Plan checklist. Examine all grading /utility plan sheets; provide yard drains with plan
/ rp ofile data including invert in/out, rim, and profile: diameter, length, slope, etc. Provide drainage
computations /tables —consider spread, Qio capacity. Note: Min. pipe diameter is 12". Link:
htip://www.albemarle.oriz/unload/images/forms center/departments/Community Development/forms/Engineering and
WPO Forms/En ing eering Review Drainage Plans Checklist_Mec2014.pdf
Also: Provide yard drains at: Lots I-32 thru I-36 (sheets 28/32); I-48 thm I-57 (back yards, sheet 29);
J-39 thru J-44 (front yards, sheets 33/35). [ image removed with Rev. 1]
[image removed with Rev. I]
35. Sheet 37: Revise proposed grades that intersect porches, walks, etc., unless intentional iffiage, belaiv.
(Review all sheets.) [image removed with Rev. 1]
36. Sheet 37: Provide Auto -turn 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 -turn figure for any lot where design configuration
is similar, or problematic.
[image removed with Rev. 1 ]
Engineering Review Comments
Page 5 of 7
37. Sheet 37: Proposed Entrance, Lot J-20 does not work; revise such that a car may enter /exit without
exceptional maneuvers, without dropping off curb. Albemarle has received severe complaint post -
construction relating to misalignment of apron and driveway edge. Propose alignment similar to blue
E. Examine all entrance aprons /all sheets, especially in cul-de-sacs and curves (sheet 36, Lots J-1,
J=2, for example). Revise as necessary. (Rev. 1) Partially addressed. As follow-up: Design at Lots
J-1, J-2 requires revision. (Rev. 2) Addressed.
[ image removed with Rev. 1 ]
38. Sheet 37: Provide off -site temporary construction easements required to grade to adjacent property
lines. Image, below —examine and provide remedy for similar proposed grading to property line.
( ; image removed with Rev. 1)
39. Sheet 40: Sanitary Sewer Aerial Crossing —provide a Floodplain Development Permit Application to
address requirements of Code 18-30.3 if development is proposed in FEMA Zone A /AE floodplain.
[image removed with Rev. I]
40. Sheet 63: Revise d/h column values, Inlets in Sump.
41. Sheets 64-68: Label each pipe. Provide pipe structure numbers.
42. Sheets 64-68: Engineering strongly recommends that storm sewer pipe in fill sections be RCP. Any
HDPE or RCP pipe with As -built slope < 0.5% will be rejected by Albemarle, and will need to be
replaced at Owner's expense. Note, for example:
a. `217' 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 @
d. `2P' Profile: 82.23 LF of 15" HDPE @ 0.91 %.
e. `2Q' Profile: 82.46 LF of 18" HDPE @ 0.73%
f. `2M' profile:
i. 144.84 LF of 24" HDPE @ 2.74%.
ii. 52.22 LF of 24" HDPE @ 3.03%.
iii. 31.84 LF of 24" HDPE @ 0.94%.
iv. 50.08 LF of 15" HDPE @ 5.73%.
g. `2S' profile: 164.95 LF of 15" HDPE @ 1.81% (5-6' fill).
43. Sheet 67: Str. SD 253, 2S4 (height str. >12') —provide label and detail for VDOT SL-1 (safety slab).
44. Sheet 67: Revise structure label SD S24 to read 2S4.
45. Sheet 68: Provide box culvert endwalls based on VDOT standards. Provide VDOT Std. for Modular
Block retaining wall as EW, if such exists. Show VDOT Std. EW on plans. Provide and show Wing
Wall Std. on plans. Ref. profile of proposed box culverts at Lazy Branch Ln Sta. 31+63 and 26+40.
(Rev. 1) Not addressed. Applicant response: `All of the box 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." (Rev. 2) Comment persists. Applicant
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.' As follow-up: Please
provide Contech details package (to include endwalls designed to VDOT standards) as soon as possible.
46. Sheet 68: Specify minimum slope of each proposed box culvert. Albemarle recognizes need for invert
elevations to be adjusted per verification of stream inverts.
47. Provide Note stating: "All fill material supporting roadways, embankments, and structures within the
right-of-way shall consist of Type I Select Material as defined in Section 207 of the 2016 VDOT Road
Engineering Review Comments
Page 6 of 7
and Bridge Specifications and must be placed in successive uniform lifts not exceeding 8" and
compacted to 95% of the soil's maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D698."
48. MH Structures SD 2172, 2173, 2G2, 2K2, 2L2, 2M9, 2M10, 2M11, 2M12, 2R1-B, 2S-11 are proposed
in fill sections and require inspection by qualified personnel reporting to the Engineer that installation
is per VDOT specification, item #47.
49. Provide VDOT Std. PB-1, General Notes on plans (107.00; Spec. Ref. 302 /303 -.PDF p. 112 of
VDOT on-line CSection100)
50. Provide VDOT Std. PB-1, Pipe Bedding and Backfill, Method `A" on plans (107.01 p. 113 of
CSection100).
51. Provide VDOT Std. PB-1, Pipe Arch Bedding and Backfill on plans (107.03 —p. 115 of CSection100).
52. Provide VDOT Std. PB-1, Bedding and Backfill /Box Culverts, Method `A" on plans (107.04 p. 116
of CSection100).
53. Provide VDOT Std. DSB-1, Bedding for Inlet, MH, and JB on plans (106.15, p. 111 of CSection100).
54. Provide VDOT 2016 VDOT R&B Spec. Note (303.04(g)):
[image removed with Rev. I]
Also:
[image removed with Rev. I]
Comments 55, 56, sent to Planning Division review coordinator as email: 7/10/2018 12:15 PM
55. Sheet C10 includes a proposed 200' taper and 200' right turn lane on U.S. Rt. 250 EBL. While
Road Plan/s for this and other portions of public roads and privates streets (if any) internal to the
development will present design information to be reviewed by County, VDOT, and others, at first
glance, a 200' taper may be insufficient for a primary arterial roadway (55 MPH limit). Design for a
similar development entrance located on U.S. primary arterial Rt. 29 with identical design /posted
limits serves preliminary indication (prior to County review of traffic impact analysis) that proposed
200' taper to 200' right turn lane may require revision to ensure safe movement on Rt. 250, EBL, at
current or future ADT projections. Please reference TIA, by date and title, that supports 200' taper
and 200' turn lane for U.S. Rt. 250 EBL. As stated elsewhere, please submit road plans as required by
ordinance. (Rev. 1) Engineering defers to VDOT. Applicant response: `The proposed 200' X 200'
turn lane and taper are in excess of the recommendations of the approved TIA, which suggested only a
full width and taper and no storage. The proposed improvements as shown are in accordance with
VDOT review to date.' Engineering accepts response, defers to VDOT. (Rev. 2) Comment persists.
Applicant response: `Noted.'
56. No portion of the 70' reservation zone or 30' landscape buffer that may in the future be dedicated
to Albemarle County, upon demand, for widening of Rt. 250 may be placed in SWM /BMP Forest
/Open Space Easement. Revise calculations or water quality compliance strategies that may at present
rely on buffer areas that cannot with any assurance be preserved in perpetuity as forest /open space."
(Rev. 1) Applicant response: `We disagree that this area shall not be allowed to be counted as
Amenity Space or SWM/BMP Forest/Open Space for the project as these designations were always
identified on the rezoning documents. Further research and discussion will be required to address this
comment prior to approval.' Areas that coincide with 70' reservation zone or 30' landscape buffer,
unless approved through/by zoning action, exist as proposed SWM Forest/Open Space Easement as a
partial compliance strategy to meet state stormwater management water quality requirements. Other
SWM compliance options exist. Engineering contends that an area proposed as SWM Forest /Open
Space Easement may not exist in an area already designated for possible future widening of U.S. 250.
(Rev. 2) Partially addressed. Applicant response: `The 70' reservation zone has been removed from the
SWMBMP 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
SWMBMP Forest/Open Space Easement and Amenity Space because, unlike the reservation zone,
this area will always be owned and maintained by Rivanna Village.' As,follow-up: R.O.W. Dedication
Engineering Review Comments
Page 7 of 7
label leader line (sheet 10) appears ambiguous. Please revise arrow to identify a line (sheet 10). Please
confirm that R.O. W. Dedication is identical with 70' reservation zone, else label reservation zone.
Engineering anticipates Reservation Zone and Forest/Open Space Easement will lie on opposite sides of a
line in vicinity of U.S. Rt. 250.
57. New: Recommend revise image of letter /document that appears on sheet 50; recommend print as
black text on white background. (Rev. 2) Comment persists. Applicant response: `...will work on
getting a better image for the signature set.' Engineering accepts this response.
58. New: Rather than (or in addition to) listing proffer #10 on sheet 2, Engineering recommends
Attached be included with FSP (shown on plans), since CTM is approved. (Rev. 2) Comment persists.
Applicant response: `Approved CTM added as Sheet 72 of the set and reference to Sheet 72 made on Sheet
2 Proffers section.' As follow-up: Digital submittal ends with sheet 68. Please include sheet 72, and 69-71.
Please feel free to call if any questions: 434.296-5832 —x3069
Thank you
SDP201800031_Rivanna Village Phase 2—block F-G-H-I-J FSP_051419rev2
Review Comments for SDP201800031 IFinal Plat 0
Project Name: Rivanna Village, Phase 2 (Blk_ F,G,H,I and J) - Final
Date Completed: Tuesday, April 30, 2019 DepartmentlDivisionfAgency: Review Sys:
Reviewer: rArlargaret Maliszewski CDD ARB Requested Changes
04 out of 311 shrubs are proposed as Burk -wood Viburnum- To help support plant health, it is recommended that the species of }
shrubs be diversified so that no single shrub type represents more than 25% of the total shrub count_ A mix of evergreen and
deciduous shrubs is recommended_
Page: County of Albemarle Printed On: 10512912019
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper Virginia 22701
Stephen C. Brich, P.E.
Commissioner
May 10, 2019
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Attn: Christopher Perez
Re: Rivanna Village Phase II - Final Site Plan
SDP-2018-00031
Review #3
Dear Mr. Perez:
The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use
Section, has reviewed the above referenced plan as submitted by Alan Franklin PE, LLC, revised
I October 2018, and offers the following comments:
1. Per previous comments and responses, oversized arches, including accompanying
retaining and wingwalls, will only be approved if a maintenance agreement(s) is recorded
with the County of Albemarle. Design of all structures located within or supporting other
structures within the ROW must be approved by the Culpeper District Structure & Bridge
and Hydraulic Sections, regardless of public or private maintenance. At the time of this
Ietter, design plans for these structures have not been received. Once received they will
be forwarded to Culpeper District staff for review. Road Plans cannot be approved until
all structures are approved.
?. On Sheet 10 the label for ROW dedication does not point to a line. Please identify limits
of any proposed ROW dedication. Furthermore, if the 10' trail is within the ROW it must
meet the shared use path design standards, or, if it is to be concrete it must meet sidewalk
standards. If the trail is to be outside the ROW, VDOT has no comment.
3. The stop bar at the Route 250 entrance cannot be within the crosswalk. Please see
Appendix A(1).
If further information is desired, please contact Justin Deel at 434-422-9894,
A VDOT Land Use Permit will be required prior to any work within the right-of-way. The
owner/developer must contact the Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use
Section at (434) 422-9399 for information pertaining to this process.
Sincerely,
N&U,, 1k, �r,'OUk-/
Adam J. Moo e, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Charlottesville Residency
Virginial)OT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
Review Comments for SDP201800031 IFinal Plat 1-1
Project Name: Rivanna Village, Phase 2 (Blk_ F,G_H_1 and J) - Final
Date Completed: Friday, April 26, 2019 DepartmentlDivisionlAgency_ Review Sys:
Reviewer: Fha n Maddox [] Fire Rescue Admin No Objection
Thank you for addressing previous comments_ I have spoken with ACSA and flow testing will take place after the tank is placed
in service_
Page: County of Albemarle Printed On: 051291 00'19