HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201800091 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2019-06-03County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Steve Edwards(steveCc)_edwardsdesignstudio.com)
From: Paty Saternye — Senior Planner
Division: Planning
Date: February 12, 2019
Rev. 1: June 2, 2019
Subject: SDP-2018-0091 (Oakleigh — Minor Site Plan Amendment)
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.]
[ZMA2016-15 Proffer #3] The proposed changes to the site plan will impact at least 4 of the
trees proffered to be preserved. Address the following:
a) Include sheet 6 in the minor amendment sheet set
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
b) Revise all tree preservation information for the new layout.
Rev. 1: Comment not vet fully addressed. Revise the chart on sheet 7, for the
preservation of the trees as follows:
i. Tree #30 was removed from the chart but should not have been since it is not
the one that died. Put Tree #30 back into the plans.
ii. Tree #31A has been crossed off. Please clarify why. It appears to still be shown
in the plans.
iii. Tree #31, which has been stated is the one that died, has a note next to it but is
not crossed off even though this is the tree that died.
iv. Remove the portion of note #6 on bonding reimbursement. Bonding will be in
place for the replacement of the tree that will replace tree #31.
c) Provide updated information from an arborist approving the location, method and timing of
all work to be completed within the proximity of the trees to be preserved. Ensure all tree
preservation requirements are met or revised the layout to no longer increase the impact to
the trees specified to be preserved in the proffer.
Rev. 1: Comment not yet fully addressed. The letter has been provided. Ensure all
measures specified by the arborist are specified in the plan set. Provide a separate
"pavement section" for the area under the preserved trees and within their dripline
that meets the specifications listed by the Arborist and ensure the plan view has the
different section clearly specified for those areas. Those details do not appear to be
specified in any section currently provided.
2. [ZMA2016-15 Proffer #4] The proposed changes to the private street easements may impact
the public's access to the sidewalks within the development, which is required with Proffer 4.
Ensure that the public has legal access to all pedestrian ways (sidewalk and other) within Block
4. Provide a copy of the recorded Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions and highlight the
section that specifies public pedestrian access. It also appears that public access was granted
to the private streets, which include sidewalks, in DB 4928 PG 85. With the proposed changes
to the length and extent of the private roads have been changed, and therefore public access
to those same areas will be more restricted depending on the wording and structure of the
Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions. If any other plats or legal documents provide
pedestrian access to the public provide the deed book and page number to the planning
reviewer.
Rev. 1: Comment not addressed. Address the following:
a) Proffer #4 requires that "The declaration of for the project shall contain a provision
which grants a public right of pedestrian access over all sidewalks within the
projects. This right shall be in perpetuity and the Declaration shall name the County
of Albemarle, Virginia as a third party beneficiary with the express right to enforce
the provisions." This proffer must be met. The comment response letter stated that
"Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions are not available. These are between the
owner and the seller and won't be completed and available until after the site plan
approval." Nothing has been submitted for review with this site plan amendment to
show that the proffered public access to all pedestrian ways is in place. Since the
layout of the roads and sidewalks have changed the public pedestrian access is in
question. If for some reason this was done during the previous site plan reviews
with easements please clarify this point and provide any justification as to why it
was not done with the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions as specified in the
proffer.
b) PLEASE NOTE: Zoning has stated that this proffer must be confirmed before the
C.O. for the Blake is granted.
4. [ZMA2016-15, 32.5.2(a) & 32.6.2(a)] Either request a variation for the building and parking
setbacks or revise the site plan in order to meet these requirements. Both the building, and the
parking along two sides of the proposed building, are located too close to the existing property
lines to meet the minimum setbacks. The variation request will be reviewed if/when submitted.
Please note that if a variation is requested, a maintenance easement on the adjoining property
may be discussed in reference to whether staff will be able to support the requested variation.
Rev. 1: Comment not vet fully addressed. A special exception reauest has been
submitted for review for some parking and building setbacks. The building has also
been located sufficient distance from the rear property line. Once the special exception
is acted upon by the BOS then the site plan, layout, labels and tables must be revised to
address the BOS's action. This site plan can not be approved until the BOS takes their
action or the site Dian is revised to match all reauirements of the Dreviously aaaroved
ZMA.
10. [Comment] Include clouds around all changes to the site plan proposed with the amendment.
This includes clouds around items in all the charts as well as in the plan views, the site data,
and calculations on the coversheet. Many of the changes in this site plan do not have clouds
shown around them. There are changes to many of the charts, and the data provided, that are
not clouded. Although the word "Breakdown" in the Project data is clouded the data actually
revised in this submission is not in a cloud and it should be. There are changes in both the
Parking Data and Trip Generation tables that are not yet shown as clouded. On sheet 4A there
is a note that has been revised that has not been clouded, where the Phase 4 description was
revised to specify an apartment building instead of townhomes. Also, although the layout
changes are shown clouded on some sheets, they are not shown clouded on 4A, 12, 17, 17A
or 19. Ensure all changes on all sheets are shown as clouded in the layout, the charts, the
details, etc.
Rev. 1: Comment not yet fully addressed. Comment response states "Clouds have been
added. No other areas outside these bubble areas should be under review by staff.
However, there are changes that have not been clouded/bubbled. This plan must not
show items changed since the previously approved site plans that are not clouded.
Ensure all changes have been clouded. Please note that some of the items not clouded
are where a title may have been clouded but the actual change has not. Also, adding a
triangle with a number does not take the place of clouding a change. One example is
the addition of a sheet in the sheet index. The sheet number and name are not clouded.
11. [Comment] Include all sheets from the original Major Amendment, or the last Minor
Amendment, where the changes are shown. Add sheets 6 & 9 to the submission set and
ensure all the changes are shown and clouded.
Rev. 1: Comment not yet fully addressed. Ensure all changes from the approved major
and minor amendments have been clouded on all sheets in the site plan set. There are
changes that have not been clouded. Only clouded revisions to the site plan will be
considered approved once the site plan is approved.
13. [32.5.2(i) & 32.6.2(a)] All easements that already exists but will be impacted by these proposed
changes to the layout must be amended, approved, recorded and proof of recordation provided
to the planning reviewer prior to the approval of the minor amendment. The following
easements appear to be impacted:
a) Private Street Easement for Eckerson Court
b) Stormwater easement
c) Emergency Access
d) Sidewalks and pedestrian accesses (Proffer #4)
e) Utilities (water, sanitary sewer, gas, etc.)
f) Provide information on any other easements that may be impacted by the proposed
changes.
Rev. 1: Comment not yet addressed. An easement plat is to be submitted tomorrow.
The easements must be approved, recorded and proof of recordation provided to the
planning reviewer prior to the approval of the minor amendment.
17. [32.5.2(b), 32.5.2(n) & 32.6.2(a)] The Open Space parcels will no longer be correct if this
minor amendment is approved. An amendment to the subdivision plat will be required. These
revisions could be incorporated into the revision of the easement plats mentioned above.
Rev. 1: Comment not yet addressed. Address this comment. An subdivision plat is to
be submitted tomorrow. This minor amendment will not be approved until the
subdivision plat has been reviewed, and approved by the County and then signed by the
owners and recorded. Proof of recordation must be submitted to the reviewers prior to
site plan approval.
18. [32.5.2(b) & 32.6.2(a)] Open Space — Provide on the chart on sheet 2 the common open
space area and the percentage of the site. This chart should break down the open space for
each outdoor Amenity Area (Pocket Park A, Pocket Park B, the Sunken Plaza, etc). Where
areas are not a portion of a specific amenity then specify that as "Common Open Space" and
its Block (ex. Block 2 — Common Open Space). Ensure that the amount of common open
space has not been reduced by the changes to below the required 20% of the whole project
area (76,857 SF).
Rev. 1: Comment not yet fully addressed. The area of open space is being reduced by
the changes in this minor amendment. Therefore, it must be shown that the reduction in
square footage of open space does not reduce any of the "Block Green Space and
Amenities" areas to be below that required on the chart on Sheet 4 of the ZMA
application plan. Therefore, despite previous approvals without this breakdown, it is
required for this minor amendment. Fully address the comment specified with the first
round of comments.
19. [32.5.2(n) & 32.6.2(a] Revise the site plant to specify the maximum footprint of the proposed
apartment building.
Rev. 1: Comment not yet fully addressed. It is stated in the comment response letter
that the maximum footprint for the apartment building is "noted on Sheet 4". Please
specify in your comment response letter what part of sheet 4 this information is
provided. The numeric value of the square footage of the building does not appear to be
shown on the building or in the notes.
20. [32.5.2(b), 32.5.2(n), 32.6.1(e) & 32.6.2(a)] Based on the increased number of residential units
proposed with the plan revise all requirements and address the following:
a) [32.5.2(b) & 32.6.2(i)] Either revise the calculation for the number of required parking
spaces for the one -bedroom apartments in Block 4 to be 2 spaces per unit (as specified I
the parking notes on sheet 4 of the application plan).
Rev. 1: Comment not addressed. A ZMA (Application Plan and Code of Development)
supersedes the default zoning. Since the parking calculation is specifically called out
on the ZMA documents that is the calculation that must be utilized unless a change is
approve. Either revise the parking calculation to meet the approved ZMA, and ensure
the parking requirements of the ZMA are met, or submit a request with a basic
Parking study. If shared parking is part of the equation then include in that study all
Blocks that are being proposed to share the parking. Please note this change does
not take a variation request. In the Application Plan it states, "A parking study shall
be provided to Albemarle County Department of Community Development to justify
anv parkina reductions below this standard at the time of the Final Site Plan
approval."
b) [32.5.2(b) & 32.6.2(i)] Ensure the required number of parking spaces are provided for this
use. Since the calculation for the 1-bedroom apartments appears to be incorrect the
number required is not correct and therefore the number provided may not meet the
requirement.
Rev. 1: Comment not addressed. Address this comment. See Rev. 1 comment above.
c) [32.5.2(b) & 32.6.2(i)] Provide a copy of the existing shared parking agreement for review.
Ensure that the existing parking agreement covers the situation of the parking lots on, or
partially on, the adjoining lot or revise the shared parking agreement in order to address this
new shared parking circumstance.
Rev. 1: Comment not addressed. Address this comment. No shared parking
agreement appears to have been submitted to the County that Block IV was party to.
Therefore, for any shared parking with Block 4 a new shared agreement is required.
d) [32.5.2(b) & 32.6.2(I)] Provide the minimum recreational facilities and area required now
that the number of residential units has increased to 40. Provide all required information
and specifications for the required tot lot and ensure it is shown on the site plan and meets
the minimum size and equipment regulations. An area for a future tot lot is shown on the
plan. Change this to be an actual tot lot.
Rev. 1: Comment not yet fully addressed. Revise the plan to address the following:
i. Show the required fenced for the tot lot and gate
ii. Show the square footage of the fenced tot lot. Ensure it meets the minimum tot
lot requirement for the number of residential units in all of Oakleigh.
iii. Provide and show all required equipment or submit a request to have other
equipment allowed in their place.
iv. Provide and show the required benches.
V. Include in the site plan details of all equipment and benches.
21. [32.5.2(n), 32.6.1(e), 32.6.2(a)& 32.6.2(i)] Address the following in reference to parking and
parking access:
a) Ensure all drive aisle widths, parking space widths, and parking space depths meet the
minimum standards. Address the following:
i. All drive aisles, including those going through the building and for the full length of the
building meet the minimum design standards.
a. A 24' drive aisle is required for 9' wide parking spaces. This includes the parking
under the building.
Rev. 1: Comment not vet fully addressed. There are three 9' parking spaces in
the parking below the building, that do not have 24' drive aisle. Ensure all
sections of the drive aisle that have parking along them have sufficient drive
aisle width.
iii. Every portion of the parking area and drive aisles for the parking area, including the
bump outs, must meet the parking setback. Address the following:
a. There are two places, on two sides of the parcel, where the parking bump outs for
pulling out of the parking spaces appears to not meet the parking lot setback
requirements.
Rev. 1: Comment not vet fully addressed. Revise the setbacks for parking.
No setback for the side parking setback in Block 4 is shown. Ensure the
parking bump outs meet the requirements. The special exception under
review has a request to reduce the parking setback for bump outs/turn
arounds. Once BOS has acted upon the special exception request revise the
Plan appropriately.
b. The parking spaces along the boundary do not meet the parking setback
requirements. See zoning comments about when the parking setback is
applicable. Although Block IV has a "0" front and side parking setback Block V
has a "10"' front and side setback. These parking spaces are within Block V and
do not meet the Block V parking setbacks. Either do a Boundary Line Adjustment
to put these spaces within Block IV, revise the parking layout to meet both the
Block V parking setbacks, or request a special exception for this requirement.
Rev. 1: Comment not vet fully addressed. The parking spaces in the area of
the added parking along Pocket Park B do not meet the parking setback
requirements for the ZMA. However, a special exception under review has a
request to revise the parking setback. Once BOS has acted upon the
special exception request revise the plan appropriately.
c. If some of the proposed parking remains within Block V then a parking easement
and either a new or updated shared parking agreement will be required. They
would need to be submitted, approved, and recorded prior to the minor
amendment approval.
Rev. 1: Comment not addressed. Address the comment.
d. The parking setback lines, and labels specifying what the line represents, must be
shown parallel to all property lines that do not have a 0' parking setback. This line
and label should also be shown in Block V in the vicinity of the proposed parking
as long as parking is proposed within Block V.
Rev. 1: Comment not vet fully addressed. See the above comments that
specify the requested special exception. Once BOS has acted upon the
special exception request revise the plan appropriately.
23. [32.5.2(n), 32.6.2(a) & 32.6.2(k)] Address the following on the photometric plan:
a) Cloud all changes in the photometric layout and charts for changes with this minor
amendment.
Rev. 1: Comment not vet fully addressed. Cloud the quantities that have changed in
the Luminaire Schedule (E, VP, WB, & WP1) and cloud total rows for 87 through 101
in the Luminaire Location Summary since all of those rows have been added to the
chart.
24. [32.5.2(p), 32.6.2(a)] & [32.6.20)] The landscaping plan has changed from the approved site
plan. Address the following:
a) Landscaping has changed. Cloud all changes in the layout, charts and calculations.
Ensure all calculations are updated for the proposed landscaping.
Rev. 1: Comment not yet fully addressed. Address the following:
i. The quantity of about'/2 of the required plantings have changed, and 4 rows of
new plants have been added. These rows and columns should be clouded.
ii. Cloud the area where the preserved tree died, in both the Landscape Plan and
the Supplemental Landscape Plan.
b) Revise all "County Calculations:" on sheet 17 to be correct for the revised landscape plan.
Rev. 1: Comment not yet fully addressed. Address the following:
i. Please clarify why the site acreage increased, the open space credit
decreased, and yet the "basis for canopy" decreased. It appears that both of
those changes should have increased the "basis for canopy" and not
decreased it.
ii. Revise the parking lot tree calculation for the new count of parking. This
calculation does not appear to have changed, even though the number of
surface parking spaces has increased on the plan.
d) The "preserved area" appears to be reduced based on this site plan. Revise the
calculations or provide information to the planning reviewer on why the preserved area is
not decreasing.
Rev. 1: Comment not addressed. Revise the "Preserved Area". This should have
decreased. Either revise or clarify why it did not decrease.
g) Provide a tally of the proposed trees at the bottom of each proposed planting sheet, since
the total number of provided trees is included in the calculations.
Rev. 1: Comment not yet fully addressed. Comment revised. IF changes to County
Calculation (mentioned above) show that some additional tree canopy is required
(above those preserved) then provide a total of tree canopy provided at the bottom
of the required plant list. In order to generate the provided tree canopy the canopy
of each tree should also be included in a column.
h) Rev. 1: [NEW COMMENT1 Revise the Supplemental Landscape Plan to no have a
minor amendment triangle with the number next to the Supplimental Plant list. There
does not appear to be any changes to this list. If this is incorrect, then cloud the
specific changes in both the chart and the layout.
25. [32.5.2(n) & 32.6.2(a)] Revise the plan to include a label for the maximum height of each
retaining wall and provide a retaining wall detail.
Rev. 1: Comment not vet fully addressed. A separate label for each retainina wall
stating the maximum height of the retaining wall is a requirement. This is a separate
label from either spot elevations or the TW/BW labels. Instead it states what the
maximum heiaht for that one wall is. Provide the reauired label or specifv where in the
site plan it has been already been provided.
26. [32.5.2(n), 32.5.2(r) & 32.6.2(a)] Ensure hatching can be distinguished on site plan and either
provide a legend for what the different hatches represent or provide more labels, in each area,
specifying what the hatches represent. It is not clear where permeable pavers may be located
or where traditional asphalt is located. The previously approved minor amendment appeared
to show permeable pavers for the full length of Eckerson Court and for all of the parking for the
townhomes. In addition to ensuring the hatching is visible and distinguishable also add
additional labels to clarify the extents of the areas of permeable paving.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed. However, please ensure that on the PRINT, and not iust
the PDF, of the next submission the hatching for the permeable paving can be easily
distinauished. The print version is what is approved, and retained in the proiect folder.
and therefore must be legible.
27. [32.5.2(a) & 32.6.2(a)] Address the following in reference to building setbacks:
a) The building setback for the assisted living parcel, that goes through Pocket Park B, does
not appear to be correct and is not labeled as a building setback. Either label this dashed
line for something other than a building setback or label it as the building setback and
ensure it is parallel to the parcel line, or propose a Boundary Line that will make the
setback correct as shown.
b) Show and label all of the building setback lines in Block 4 on Sheet 4.
Rev. 1: Comment not vet fully addressed. Ensure all building setbacks are labeled for
all Blocks. Also, once special exception request goes in front of the BOS ensure that
setback lines, and labels, for all blocks are revised to match whatever is approved by
the BOS.
29. [32.5.2(n) & 32.6.2(a)] Provide labeling for what appears to be a fence at the back of the
apartment building and along the retaining walls. No legend appears to be provided, so
labeling is required.
Rev. 1: Comment not vet fully addressed. Revise labeling of the fencing, if it is meant to
provided required screening, to ensure that all parking and parking drive aisles in Block
4 are screened to the adjacent residential parcel. There does not appear to be sufficient
area in order to provide screening with landscaping, and landscape screening has of the
area has not been shown on the landscape plan.
31. [Comment] Ensure the revision dates are correct and a new revision date is added prior to
resubmission. In the recent submission no revision date was added for Sheet 17A despite
changes to that sheet.
Rev. 1: Comment not vet fully addressed. Ensure the revision dates are correct and a
new revision date is added prior to the next resubmission.
32. [Comment] See the attached comments from the other reviewers. The site plan will not be
approved without the approval of the other reviewers.
Rev. 1: Comment not vet fully addressed. See the attached comments from the most of
the other reviewers. It appears that ACSA comments were provided to the application,
but were never forwarded to the County for the review. Once an official ACSA comment
is provided to the reviewers it will be foreward to the applicant. The site plan will not be
approved without the approval of the other reviewers.
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 be
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 psaternye6D-albemarle.org or
434-296-5832 ext. 3250 for further information.
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 Amendment Review
Project title:
Oakleigh — Minor Site Plan Amendment
Project file number:
SDP201800091
Plan preparer:
Steve Edwards [steve(&edwarddesignstudio.com]
4936 Old Boonesboro Road, Lynchburg VA 24503
Alan Franklin, P.E., LLC [alan@alanfranklinpe.com]
427 Cranberry Lane, Crozet VA 22932
Owner or rep.:
Oakleigh Albemarle LLC — 690 Berkmar Circle / Charlottesville, VA 22901
Plan received date:
20 Dec 2018
(Rev. 1)
17 Apr 2019
Date of comments:
7 Feb 2019
(Rev. 1)
10 May 2019; Rev. 13 Maw
Plan Coordinator:
Paty Saternye
Reviewer:
John Anderson
SDP201800091
Compare approved impervious area (224,639 ft2) with proposed Amendment (232,586 ft2); a slight 3.4%
increase. Amend VSMP/WPO Plan for this site plan, including VSMH Vol. 2 Appendix 5D worksheets.
(Note: proposed routing of paved surface runoff directly into a Level-1 biofilter requires pre-treatment)
Link: https://www.deq.vir ig'nia.gov/Portals/O/DEQ/Water/Publications/HndbkVolumeI.pdf - p. 3.11-14 and
FIG. 3.11-7. "Like other infiltration basins, bioretention basins must always be preceded by a pretreatment
facility to remove grease, oil_ floatable organic material, and settleable solids..."
SDP201700005, Sheet 2: (Rev. 1) Comment persists. WP02017-00023, Amendment 2, is under review.
BREAKDOWN: BUILDINGS:
79,924
1.83
21%
ROADSISIDEWALKS:
PAVED PARKINGIROADS
121,505
2.79
32%
SIDEWALKS:
23,210
0.53
6%
PERVIOUS AREAIOPEN SPACE:
15 .
3.67
42,.
TOTAL SITE ACREAGE:
384,206
8.822
100%
NOTES:
1 The minimum required open space is 20% (per Section 20A.9.a.1)
2 Pervious area)Open Space includes land within ROW and on any inchAdual lot. `• �
3. Common open space excludes land within ROW and on inclMdual lots.
4. Lots Include only those indn9dual lots and nothing more. i
2. Include reference to approved VSMP/WPO for Oakleigh: list WP0201700023, Approved 3/26/18, as an
associated plan. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 3
Sheet 4
3. Provide gutter along Eckerson Court, from Int. with Nichols Court, to parking area entrance at proposed
apartments. Ref. 18-4.12.15.g. Label curb and gutter using VDOT nomenclature, CG-7, for example.
(Rev. 1) Partially addressed. Applicant response: `We are using CG-3 so we wouldn't have to install
gutter on the access.' As follow-up: Please revise CG-3 to CG-6. Ref. 18-32.7.2.2.a. which references
Chapter 14. Please ref. 14-412.13. which states VDOT standards apply. Please ref. VDOT Road Design
Manual, Appendix B(1) -pg. B(1)-7, Table 1, Geometric Design Standards for Residential and Mixed Use
Subdivision Streets (GS-SSAR), Curb and Gutter section. Gutter is required. It is optimistic to assume
permeable pavers will be maintained over the life of this facility to the point design storm events do not
cause runoff requiring drainage design that prevents flooding at low point, Eckerson Court. Provide CG-6.
4. Concrete dumpster pad does not appear to extend 8' from back face of enclosure gates to edge of asphalt
surface. Revise to obtain min. 8' length, measured from back face of enclosure gates to edge of asphalt.
Ref. 18-4.12.19. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
5. Dimension Eckerson Court travelway width. Provide width label. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
6. Revise Note 5., Restrictions/Requirements/Notes: to read `All travelways are private with public access
easements over them.' (Rev. 1) Not addressed.
7. Label emergency access concrete apron /entrance at Rio Road using VDOT nomenclature (CG-9a, for
example). Ref. Final Site Plan checklist, pg. 2, entrances and right-of-way improvements. (Rev. 1)
Addressed.
8. SDP201700005, Oakleigh — Major Site Plan Amendment does not appear to include retaining wall design.
Provide retaining wall C' sign. See Final Site Plan and Retaining Wall checklists (attached to this Memo).
(Rev. 1) Withdrawen. Applicant response: `Was provided to the County on 4/20/2017.'
9. Provide L X W (Typ.) cons for the three proposed parking spaces just west of the emergency access.
(Rev. 1) NA. Spaces removed.
10. Provide auto turn for typical passenger vehicles at Sta. 12+50f, Eckerson Ct, to show that a car exiting may
pass a car entering without striking curb or parked vehicles, with at least 2' clearance between vehicles.
Revise design to provide minimum 2' clearance between two typ. passenger vehicles at this location. (Rev.
1) Withdrawn. Applicant response: `This is no longer an issue with circulation being one way towards the
dumpster.'
11. Label travelway width between Sta. 12+50(f) and dumpsters, Eckerson Court (appears to be —14' FC-FC).
(Rev. 1) Addressed.
12. This section of travelway is too narrow for two-way travel. Provide signs indicating `one-way' travel
unless inconsistent with site plan requirements or Albemarle County Planning Division review, or policy.
(Rev. 1) Addressed.
13. Provide auto -turn for waste management vehicle (Typ.) to illustrate how WM vehicles may perform reverse
movement to exit this area without striking pedestrians, curbs, or parked vehicles. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
14. Revise subterranean parking drive aisle dimension to 24' (apparent typo). (Rev. 1) Addressed.
15. Revise 9' w (non-HC) parking space (adjacent to 8' w HC space) to 10' width. Ref. 18-4.12.16.c.1. (Rev.
1) Addressed.
16. Label sidewalk width, for walk located north of Eckerson Court. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
17. Provide curb cut required for drainage to bioretention midway along 8 parking spaces south of apartments.
(Rev. 1) Addressed.
18. Provide bioretention basin pre-treatment for this (asphalt surface) storm runoff, item above. (Rev. 1)
Partially addressed. Applicant response: `Pre-treatment for this bioretention basin is based on the old
stormwater regulations. It is a forebay as shown on the plans.' Additional comments possible with VSMP
/WPO2017-00023, Amendment 2. Comments will be based on VSMH, First Edit., 1999, Min. Std. 3.11.
19. Provide `do not enter' sign at south exit of subterranean parking. Alternatively, revise travelway width,
north side of apartments to 20', min. Ref. 18-4.12.17.c. L-2. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
Sheet 5
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 3
20. Provide storm inlets and conveyance from paved surface of Eckerson Court. Please ref. proposed profile.
From proposed H.P. Sta. 11+20, surface runoff flows west, without any inlets on the travelway. This
runoff bypasses the parking area fronting east side of proposed apartments, and washes into a dumpster
enclosure. Provide VDOT storm drainage design, for both culvert pipes and inlets. Eckerson may (likely
will) flood and present hazard under proposed curb without gutter and inlet design. (Rev. 1) Not
addressed. Permeable pavers are like!), to blind with debris if improperly maintained. in that case, suFfa,
run ff has no outlet. Request GC inlet design. Recommend - 120' pipe from inlet at L.P. Eckerson Ct. Sta.
124=46 (4E) to Stf. 142. There is suffieient gFade foF mild slope between these points. Flooding at the 10'A
point would stfa a residents f the atme t complex. Withdrawn. Sheet 5 label ref. to 8"AOC trench
drain provides second tier drainage in event permeable pavers (Eckerson Ct.) are infrequently maintained.
21. Revise I/8 (4" curb) detail to VDOT CG-7. Ref. 2016 Road and Bridge Standard, CG-7, 201.04, Rev. 9/06.
(Rev. 1) Partially addressed. As follow-up: Provide barrier -type curb appropriate to design speed. Ref.
Sheet 8, VDOT CG-3 detail, Note 5. Also, item 3. Comment is revised to request design provide CG-6.
(Rev. 1, Rev. 5/13) Please provide CG-2 label if item 3 (once discussed internally) is withdrawn. Reviewer
cannot locate CG-2 curb type label for Eckerson Ct. Curb type will be either CG-2 or CG-6 (see item 3).
22. Provide dumpster pad detail. Ref. 18-4.12.19. Specify /provide minimum 4" stone base, 6" concrete depth,
3000psi at 28 days, with minimum grid of wire reinforcing or #4 bars at 12" on center. Final Site Plan
checklist, p. 3, parking and circulation, item 8. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
23. Revise proposed grade so that Eckerson Court storm runoff does not wash through dumpster pad enclosure.
Collect and convey storm runoff to avoid spread greater than'/Z travel lane width + gutter pan. (Rev. 1)
Addressed.
Sheet 8:
24. Revise Ksag value, Eckerson Court, PVI Sta. 12+46 (K proposed = 5.00) to nearly approximate approved
site plan Ksag PVI Sta. 12+86, K=12.00. Recommend Ksag = 15.00 as a design target. (Rev. 1) Not
addressed.
private street becomes more like a travelway and dropped the private road standards and feel is adequa
for this application.' Ref. code 18 32.7.2.2.a. which references Chapter 14. Please ref. 14 412.B. (Priva
Streel1111111hich states VDOT standards apply. Please address. Required for site plan approval. Withdrawn.
Sta. 12+46 low point is beyond radius return at entrance to apartment complex parking area. Speeds are
reduced. It is borderline beyond travelway, and may reasonably be argued beyond travelway limits.
25. Provide emergency access section (detail). (Rev. 1) Addressed. Sta.
26. Provide grasspave detail. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
27. Detail D/8: Include VDOT Class A3 General concrete design parameters; i.e., compressive strength, slump,
air, etc. Link: http://www.virginiadot.org/VDOT/Business/asset upload_file4l 3529.pdf , p. C-18. (Rev.
1) Not addressed. include specifications forA3 general or pa on plans for site plan approval.
This is a specification. item missed on prio. 11v that does, not alter design and requires limited revisi
appears basis of applicant response: 'This detail has been approved twice in pre—i—te and we feel
doesn't require being addressed at this time.' Addressed.
28. Provide S.I. Storey Streetguard (guardrail) detail, as well as technical information that demonstrates this
product is equivalent to VDOT Std. in terms of barrier protection. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
29. Nichols Court, Sta. 11+00(f): provide cross drain (VDOT CD-1, 2) at cut/fill transition. (Rev. 1)
Withdrawn. Review error: `This road has been built. This cannot be added.'
30. Note: An approved VSMP Plan Amendment is required prior to Site Plan Amendment approval. (Rev. 1)
Comment persists. Applicant response: `Noted.' VSMP/WPO 2017-00023 is under review.
Please feel free to call if any questions. Thank you
J. Anderson 434.296-5832 -0069
SDP201800091 Oakleigh Minor 051019rev1-rcv051319
Review Comments for SDP2O18OOO91 1 Minor Amendment
Project Name: OAKLEIGH - MINOR
Date Completed: Thursday, May 23, 2019 DepartmenVDivisionlAgency: Review Status:
Reviewer: Rebecca Ragsdale FED Zoning No Objection
Page: 1 County of Albemarle Printed On: 05131 /2019
Review Comments for SDP201800091 1 Minor Amendment
Project Name: OAKLEIGH - MINOR
Date Completed: Friday, April 26, 2019 DepartmenVDivisiorVAgency: Review Status:
Reviewer: Margaret Maliszewski Coo ARB Approves El
Page: 1 County of Albemarle Printed On: 05131 /2019