HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201900067 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2019-12-10COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
Memorandum
To: Mr. Keane Rucker, E.I.T., Shimp Engineering (keanekshimp-engineering com) — Primary Contact
Ecovillage Holdings Inc. — c/o Mr. Tom Hickman (thickman56(aa�gmail.com) — Owner
From: Tim Padalino, AICP
Division: Community Development — Planning
Date: December 10, 2019
Subject: Review Comment Letter #1— SDP-2019-00067 (Ecovillage — Final Site Plan)
The plan referred to above has been reviewed by the Planning Services Division of the Albemarle County
Department of Community Development (CDD) and by other members of the Site Review Committee (SRC).
The Planner the will approve the plan referred to above when the following items (below, from CDD-Planning and
from applicable SRC plan reviewers) have been satisfactorily addressed and when each applicable SRC plan
reviewers have indicated in writing their tentative approval of SDP201900067.
The following comments include those that have been identified as outstanding from the initial site plan review as
well as those identified in reviewing the final site plan; additional comments or conditions may be added or
eliminated based on revision and/or based on further review. Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference
to the Albemarle County Code.
REVIEW COMMENTS REQUIRING REVISIONS TO SDP201900067:
[SP-2018-16 Conditions of Approval #1, #3, and #41: Please note the following review comments regarding
SP201800016 conditions of approval #1, #3, and #4, primarily relating to the following requirements
established by the Board of Supervisors through special use permit SP201800016: (#1) the Limits of
Disturbance shown on Final Site Plan SDP201900067 and WP0201900053 being in general accord with the
"Supplementary Exhibits" packet dated 2/4/2019; (0) the Stormwater, Drainage, and Grading Plans shown on
Final Site Plan SDP201900067 and WP0201900053 being in general accord with the "Stormwater
Improvements" exhibit and "Proposed Entrance Layout" exhibit dated 2/27/2019 (inclusive of required
modifications); and (#4) the on -site provision of DEQ-approved BMPs for water quality compliance.
a. Please see CDD-Engineering comments for SDP201900067 and WP0201900053, and address and
resolve those comments in coordination with CDD-Engineering staff. CDD-Planning staff remain
available to assist with any and all questions relating to the Final Site Plan (and associated Water
Protection Ordinance Plan) being in general accord with the application materials for SP201800016
referenced above and specified in the conditions of approval.
2. [SP-2018-16 Condition of Approval #2]: Please note the following review comments regarding SP201800016
condition of approval #2, primarily relating to the Landscape Plan shown on Final Site Plan SDP201900067
being in general accord with the "Habitat Planting Plan" and "Landscape Schedule" exhibit dated 2/26/2019
(inclusive of required modifications):
a. (#2a): The "Landscape Schedule: Trees" for the "Habitat Planting Plan" on Sheet C9 ("Habitat
Redevelopment Plan") specifies large shade trees at 1.5" caliper, which generally meets the minimum
requirements specified by County Code § 18-32.7.9.5.c. However, SP201800016 condition of approval
#2a establishes the specific requirement that 25% - 33% of tree plant materials and shrub plant materials
meet the Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines, which specify a minimum caliper of 3.5" for large shade
trees, and which specify large shade trees to be provided every 35' on center.
Therefore, please revise the Landscape Schedule: Trees to ensure that 25% - 33% of the large shade trees
are specified at a minimum caliper of 3.5;" the remaining 67% - 75% of the large shade trees can continue
to be specified at 1.5" minimum caliper.
b. (#2b): The "Landscape Schedule: Trees" for the "Habitat Planting Plan" on Sheet C9 ("Habitat
Redevelopment Plan") specifies evergreen trees (Ilex opaca / American Holly) with a minimum height of
4' — 5' at time of planting. The corresponding "Habitat Planting Plan" appears to show 12 such trees.
These specifications are acceptable relative to SP201800016 conditions of approval #2b.
However, please revise the Habitat Planting Plan to include additional evergreen plants (Ilex opaca l
American Holly tree; or Kalmia latifolia / Mountain Laurel shrub; or other native evergreen trees or
c. Additionally, please cross-reference CDD-Planning comment #29 regarding the need to further revise
Sheet C9 ("Habitat Redevelopment Plan") through the addition of landscape materials in the area between
the two terraced retaining walls in the Steep Slopes Overlay District, as required per the applicable
minimum design standards specified in County Code § 18-30.7.5. (Note: CDD-Planning staff
acknowledge that, in this particular context, it might potentially be acceptable to satisfy this design
standard through an alternative design other than "screening shrubs planted on ten foot centers," and
remain available to answer questions, consider alternative designs, or otherwise assist.)
3. [18-32.6.2(a) and 18-32.5.2(a)]: Please add reference to SP201800016 approved by the Board of Supervisors
on 5/1/2019 to Cover Sheet (C1), and please insert a copy of the Conditions of Approval to the Final Site Plan.
4. [18-32.6.2(a),18-32.5.2(a), and 18-32.5.2(b)]: Annotation on Sheet C2 indicates that the co -owned inheld
parcel (TMP #06100-00-00-210A0) is to be formally added to TMP #06100-00-00-21000 ["TMP 61A-201A to
be added to parent parcel (TMP 61-210 Parcel A-1)"]. (Note: the parcel reference appears to be incorrect; this
should be "210A" and not "201A.") This proposed modification to existing parcels of record would require the
submittal of a separate application for a final plat showing this vacation/boundary line adjustment for review,
approval, and recordation prior to Final Site Plan approval.
Alternately, please add existing parcel of record TMP #06100-00-00-210A0 to the Cover Sheet and please
ensure the acreage information is accurate.
5. [18-32.6.2(a) and 18-32.5.2(a)]: On the Cover Sheet, please include specify the total number of sheets in the
Sheet Index.
6. [18-Sec. 32.6.2(a) and 18-32.5.2(a)]: Please add the application number for this final site plan
(SDP201900067) to the Cover Sheet, and please also include reference to the approved initial site plan
application number (SDP201800056) on this sheet for reference purposes.
7. [18-15.4 and 18-2.41: Bonus Factors. Additional information is required for County staff to have sufficient
detail to make a determination of the proposed bonus factor(s). Specifically, more information is required
regarding the Environmental Standards, Development Standards, and Affordable Housing Bonus Factors, as
identified in the following comments. Staff recommends adding an additional sheet which focuses on
identifying all details, calculations, and justification of the proposed bonus factors.
8. [18-15.4.1, 18-2.4, and 18-32.7.91: Bonus Factors: Environmental Standards. In order to qualify for this bonus
factor ("maintenance of existing wooded areas equal to 10-19% of the site"), a conservation plan as specified in
section 32.7.9 is required. Please provide the required conservation plan and ensure Final Site Plan contains all
necessary information.
Additionally, the Cover Sheet (C1) indicates that this Final Site Plan includes "10% area preserved [as] oven
space" and proposes a 5% density bonus (or 1.3 additional units). However, per County Code § 18-15.4.1, the
"environmental standards" for this bonus factor require "maintenance of existing wooded areas" — not
"preserved open space." Please re -calculate this (potential) bonus factor using the correct criteria ("maintenance
of existing wooded areas").
Specifically, please identify the location, extent, and size of the "wooded area(s)" that are to be maintained on
the applicable sheets; and please demonstrate that the "wooded areas" to be "maintain[ed]" are eligible for this
bonus factor (relative to the definition of "wooded area" in County Code § 18-3, below), by identifying the
"minimum number of trees of specified size or combinations thereof' in each "existing wooded area" to be
"maintain[ed]."
Wooded area, forested area: An area containing one of the minimum number of trees of specified
size, or combinations thereof, from the following table:
Diameter of Tree at Breast Height:
Per One Acre:
Per One -Half Acre:
3.0" - 4.9"
60
30
5.0" - 6.9"
38
19
7.0" - 8.9"
22
11
9.0" - 10.9"
14
7
11.0" - 12.9"
10
5
13.0" - 14.9"
7
4
15.0"+
5
3
9. [18-15.4.2 and 18-2.41: Bonus Factors: Development Standards. Staff acknowledges the proposed "public
access easement — 0.49 acres dedicated to public use" and the "0.12 acres dedicated to public ROW (added to
Rio Road)." Please note the following review comments regarding the proposed "public access easement — 0.49
acres dedicated to public use."
a. (18-15.4.2 — "For dedication of land to public use not otherwise required by law, density may be
increased as follows: [... J "): The proposed establishment of a public use access easement for a shared -
use path technically does not qualify as being eligible for the "Development Standards Bonus Factor" for
"dedication of land to public use not otherwise required by law." To pursue bonus density utilizing this
bonus factor (if desired/as may be applicable), the proposed easement would need to be modified to a
proposed special lot for open space to be dedicated to the County for public use.
Such a special lot would need to be established and dedicated on an approved and recorded plat, and
would need to include a maintenance agreement establishing acceptable terms of maintenance of the
shared -use path by the homeowners association/property owners association — all of which must be
submitted, approved, and recorded prior to approval of the final site plan.
b. (18-15.42 — "The dedication shall be accepted by the board of supervisors prior to final approval. "): Any
such proposal for the "dedication of land to public use not otherwise required by law" (as may be applicable)
must be sent to the Board of Supervisors for Board review and acceptance during the "Regular Board
Action" portion of a regularly -scheduled Board meeting. (Note: this process does not require public hearing.)
Additional communication and coordination with CDD-Planning staff and staff in the County Attorney's
Office is necessary in order to prepare any such proposal/request for Board review and action.
c. Any bonus density through this proposed "Development Standards Bonus Factor" is subject to further
coordination with, and tentative approval by, Mr. Kevin McDermott, Principal Planner/Transportation
and Mr. Frank Pohl, County Engineer (in coordination with CDD-Planning staff and Albemarle County
Parks and Recreation staff).
Please note that additional coordination with County staff is necessary in order to refine the proposed
public access shared -use path prior to BOS review and (potential) acceptance. Specifically, the following
aspects of the proposed path require further review and potential revision:
■ the proposed location and alignment of the public access easement — including its proposed
termination at the Alwood Lane private street and not at the Rio Road E. public right of way; and
■ the potential need to incorporate signage that clearly communicates to members of the public that
the shared -use path through the Ecovillage development is open to the public.
10. [18-15.4.2 and 18-2.41: Bonus Factors: Affordable Housing Standards. Please provide additional details to
explain the bonus density for proposed affordable housing. Staff acknowledge that the Bonus Density
Calculations indicate that this bonus factor will yield an additional 7.8 units; however, this information must be
incorporated into the Site Plan with more detailed information [such as, at minimum, a note which confirms that
"at least one-half of the additional housing units allowed by this density bonus shall be developed as affordable
housing units" and which specifies the number of such affordable units, pursuant to County Code § 18-
15.4.3(a)].
Any bonus density through this proposed "Affordable Housing Bonus Factor" is subject to further coordination
with, and tentative approval by, Mrs. Stacy Pethia, Principal Planner/Housing (in coordination with CDD-
Planning staff).
11. [Z.O. Sec. 32.6.2(a), 32.5.2(o)]: Sheet C3 includes proposed right-of-way dedication along Rio Road E. Please
add a note stating that this area is "dedicated to the County for public use — new right-of-way."
Additionally, please note that any such dedication requires the submission, approval, and recordation of a plat
containing the note "hereby dedicated to the County for public use" prior to final site plan approval. More
details regarding platting requirements will be provided during the review of the pending final plat and/or
easement plat.
12. [18-32.6.2(a) and 18-32.5.2(b)]: Annotation on Sheet C2 indicates that the existing structure addressed as 480
Rio Road East will be retained in the proposed development ("Demo all ex. Structures except this building").
Please ensure this existing structure is clearly shown on all other sheets in this Final Site Plan (as applicable).
13.[18-32.6.2(a), 18-32.5.2(a), 18-32.5.2(d), 18-30.7.4, and 18-30.7.51: Please revise the applicable sheets in this
Final Site Plan to clearly show the location and extent of all Steep Slopes Preserved and Steep Slopes Managed.
Staff acknowledges the note on Sheet C2 which states, "Note: managed slopes shown on this sheet only since
they have no effect on this plan." However, these managed steep slopes do need to be shown, and the proposed
public access easement for the proposed shared -use path appears to go through areas containing managed steep
slopes — and would therefore need to comply with all applicable minimum design standards specified in County
Code § 18-30.7.5.
14.[18-32.6.2(a), 18-32.5.2(a), 18-32.5.2(d), 18-30.7.4.b.1(h), and 18-30.7.51: Staff acknowledges the information
on Sheet C2 which shows areas identified as "preserved slopes surveyed < 25%," and further acknowledges that
the "Slopes" information on the Cover Sheet (C1) state that "9,866 SF of preserved slopes overlay was surveyed
at less than 15% and do not qualify as preserved slopes." (Note: the reference appears to be incorrect; this
should be "25%" and not "15%."). Staff also acknowledges that grading and/or improvements are proposed
within the preserved steep slopes overlay district as shown on Sheet C3.
However, no disturbance or improvements are permissible within the preserved steep slopes overlay district,
unless and until new topographic information is submitted pursuant to County Code § 18-30.7.4.b. 1 (h) which
demonstrates to the satisfaction of the County Engineer that the slopes are less than 25 percent. All disturbance
or improvements proposed following any such acceptance/approval by the County Engineer must comply with
all applicable design standards contained in County Code § 18-30.7.5.
15. [18-32.6.2(a) and 18-32.5.2(r)] : Please revise the legend and/or plans to clearly distinguish between "Property
Line" and "Vacated Property Line." It is difficult to accurately determine the proposed property boundary(s)
and proposed ROW limit(s) on Sheet C3 ("Site Layout").
16.[18-32.6.2(a), 18-32.5.2(a), 18-32.5.2(b), 18-15.3, and 18-4.191: Please verify that all proposed dwellings
comply with the minimum front yard setback (5') and maximum front yard setback (25') requirements.
17.[18-32.6.2(a), 18-32.5.2(a), 18-32.5.2(b), 18-15.3, and 18-4.191: It appears that portions of the existing
dwelling that will be retained (identified as "Common House 1" and for which "Tourist Lodging" uses are
proposed) does not meet the minimum front yard setback (5').
18. [18-32.6.2(a) and 32.5.2(b)] : It appears that portions of the proposed "5' Sidewalk" are partially within the
right of way of the proposed private streets and partially within proposed lots and/or proposed Open Space.
Please clarify and/or please revise to locate sidewalk entirely within right of way or entirely within Open Space,
as appropriate. Additional coordination with CDD-Planning staff and VDOT staff may be necessary. [Note:
sidewalk standards and specifications will be subject to the requirements contained in County Code §§ 14-
410.H ("Standards for all streets and alleys.") and 14-422 ("Sidewalks and planting strips."), unless certain
variations or exceptions are formally requested and approved (as may be appropriate) pursuant to County Code
§ § 14-422.E and 14.203.1, in conjunction with a pending application for a corresponding plat.]
19.[18-32.6.2(a),18-32.5.2(a),18-32.6.2(1), 18-15.7, and 18-4.161: ("Recreation regulations. Developed
recreational area(s) shall be provided for every development of 30 units or more equal to or exceeding four
dwelling units per acre, except for single-family and two-family dwellings developed on conventional lots.')
Please identify the proposed developed recreation areas and facilities which meet or exceed the "minimum
facilities" required by County Code § 18-4.16.2.
Please also note that "Substitutions of equipment or facilities may be approved by the director of planning and
community development, provided they offer a recreational amenity equivalent to the facilities listed above, and
are appropriate to the needs of the occupants" may be requested pursuant to County Code § 18-4.16.2.1.
20. [18-32.6.2(a) and 18-32.5.2(n)]: On Sheet C3, please specify the maximum height of Common House 2. (Note:
Staff acknowledges this proposed amenity appears to be a one story structure.)
21. [18-Sec. 32.6.2(a) and 18-32.5.2(n)]: Please ensure that specifications and details for all proposed paving
materials and/or other surface materials for all sidewalks, paths, parking lots, driveways, and similar proposed
improvements are included in the Final Site Plan.
22. [18-Sec. 32.6.20) and 18-32.7.91: Staff acknowledges the "Lighting" note on the Cover Sheet which states that
"No outdoor lighting is proposed..." Please verify the intent that no outdoor lighting is proposed anywhere
within this proposed development; however, please note that CDD-Planning staff might potentially require
outdoor lighting in certain locations such as along the proposed public shared -use path (following additional
coordination with other County staff — to be determined). Additionally, please also revise the "Lighting" note to
reference the Final Site Plan (and not "Initial").
23. [18-Sec. 32.6.20) and 18-32.7.91: On Sheets C8 and C9, please add genus and species names (or abbreviations)
to identify the locations of proposed landscape materials.
24. [18-32.6.2(j), 18-32.7.9.4(b-c), and 18-32.7.9.5(b)]: Sheet C8 ("Landscape Plan") identifies areas labeled as
"Trees to be Preserved." The following revisions are necessary in order for these calculations to be permissible:
a. Please identify the location/extent and quantify the area of the existing tree canopy that will be preserved
and maintained, as it appears that this area is being used for the proposed bonus density and
(presumably) to meet tree canopy requirements and/or street tree requirements.
b. Please insert a signed Conservation Checklist onto one of the Landscape Plan sheets and include any
information required by the checklist into the plan documents (as specified by County Code § 18-
32.7.9.4.b.2).
c. Please also revise the Grading Plan sheets and Landscape Plan sheets (where necessary) to clearly show
the limits of disturbance, tree preservation practices, and all other required details (as specified in Z.O.
32.7.9.4.b.1) in relationship to the areas labeled as "Trees to be Preserved," in order to demonstrate that
required conservation practices will be utilized for successfully preserving these existing trees.
d. Please also cross-reference CDD-Planning comment #9.
25. [Z.O. Sec. 32.6.20), 32.7.9.4(b-c), 32.7.9.5(b)] : Please ensure that all new street trees are located outside of the
Rio Road East right-of-way.
26. [18-32.3, 14-410.H]: Numerous street trees required per the "Landscaping Along Streets" requirements
contained in County Code § 18-32.7.9.5 appear to be proposed in locations outside the right of way (ROW) for
proposed new private streets. This is not permissible, unless a variation is formally requested and approved (as
may be appropriate) pursuant to County Code § 18-32.3.5.b, and unless one or more private landscape
easement(s) are established.
Any such private landscape easement(s) to accommodate the required street trees outside of the ROW, if
requested and if approved, would need to be shown on the corresponding final plat, and a note would need to be
included on the final site plan and final plat, as follows (or similar): "The purpose of this landscape easement is
to provide a location outside of the private street right way for the installation and perpetual maintenance of
street trees, in order to satisfy the "landscaping along streets " requirements contained in Zoning Ordinance
Section 32.7.9.5. The location of the required street trees within this landscape easement is permissible per a
variation approved with conditions by the Agent, pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 32.3.5, on "
27. [18-32.7.9.4(d)]: Please add the required "verification of compliance" note; and please include the following
standard plant health note: "All site plantings of trees and shrubs shall be allowed to reach, and be maintained
at, mature height; the toping of trees is prohibited. Shrubs and trees shall be pruned minimally and only to
support the overall health of the plant."
28. [18-30.7.51: The plan shows two proposed retaining walls within the Steep Slopes Overlay District, with
proposed maximum heights of five (5) feet, as is permissible per SP201800016. However, these proposed
retaining walls need to comply with all applicable design standards in County Code § 18-30.7.5. Therefore, it
appears that revisions to the proposed retaining walls may be necessary in order to comply with the design
standards contained in County Code § 18-30.7.5.a.2 ("Multiple stepped walls; separation") which specifies that
"a minimum horizontal distance of three feet shall be maintained between each individual wall in a stepped wall
system, and shall be landscaped with screening shrubs planted on ten foot centers." Please cross-reference
CDD-Planning comment #2c.
(Note: CDD-Planning staff acknowledge that, in this particular context, it might potentially be acceptable to
satisfy this landscaping requirement through an alternative design other than "screening shrubs planted on ten
foot centers," and remain available to answer questions, consider alternative designs, or otherwise assist.)
29. [18-15.3]: Minimum lot size for bonus -level conventional lots in the R-4 Residential District is 7,260 SF. Please
identify the size of the proposed lots.
30. [18-32.7.3, 18-4.12.8, and 18-4.12.111: In order to allow parking spaces that are required to meet minimum
parking requirements to be located separately from the residential lots, a Shared Parking Agreement must be
submitted for review pursuant to County Code § 18-4.12.11 and approved (as may be appropriate) by the
Zoning Administrator.
31. [18-32.7.3, 18-4.12.2(c), and 18-4.12.81: Sheet C1 indicates that the proposed uses require a minimum of 81
total parking spaces, but further indicates that the total number of parking spaces provided is 76. This
discrepancy between required and provided parking spaces is not permissible unless a written request for
parking alternatives is submitted pursuant to County Code § 18-4.12.8 and is reviewed and approved (as may be
appropriate) by the Zoning Administrator.
ADDITIONAL REVIEW COMMENTS APPLICABLE TO PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT:
32. [18-32.5.2(i), 14-233, 14-234, and 14-2351: This plan proposes private streets that would serve single
family detached units and single family attached units. While streets (public or private) are not reviewed or
approved with site plan applications, it should be noted that a private street authorization request must be
submitted with any subdivision plat application for this project.
Therefore, please submit the required private street request pursuant to County Code §§ 14-233-A and 14-
234, inclusive of the required justification, for review and approval (as may be applicable) by the Planning
Commission in conjunction with staff review of the pending subdivision application.
Additionally, per County Code § 14-235, a maintenance agreement for the private street must be submitted
for review and approval by the County Attorney's Office with the subdivision application.
33. [14-401, 14-419, and 14-203.11: Proposed lots 9A — 16A are double -frontage lots, which are not
permissible unless a special exception is formally requested and approved (as may be appropriate)
pursuant to County Code § 14.203.1. Additionally, if double -frontage lots are approved by special
exception, County Code § 14-419 requires such lots to be screened as provided in County Code § 18-
32.7.9.7. Those screening requirements may be varied or excepted as provided in County Code § 14-203.1.
Please submit an application for any such special exception request with required information and
justification in conjunction with a pending application for a corresponding plat.
34. [18-32.7.2.2(a), 14-410, 14-412, 14-234(D), and 18-2.51: It appears that the proposed "Road B," "Road
C," and "Road D" do not meet all applicable private street standards, and would only be permissible with
County Engineer approval. While streets (public or private) are not reviewed or approved with site plan
applications, it should be noted that any desired private street standards waiver requests must be submitted
with the subdivision plat application for this project.
Therefore, please submit any such private street standards waiver request(s) pursuant to County Code
§§ 14-234(D) and 18-2.5 for review in conjunction with the pending subdivision plat application. Please
ensure all such waiver requests identify each applicable County Code provision for which a waiver is
being requested, the proposed alternative, and corresponding justification for review and approval (as may
be applicable) by the County Engineer.
35. [18-32.6.2(a),18-32.5.2(1), and 18-32.5.2(o)] Prior to final site plan approval, it is necessary to obtain County
approval of a plat showing all proposed easements (such as utility easements, stormwater management facility
easements, and public use recreation easements) as well as all areas intended for dedication to the County for
public use. The platting of easements and lands to be dedicated to the County for public use can be shown all
together on one plat, or separately — however the applicant prefers.
36.[18-32.6.2(a), 18-32.5.2(a), 18-32.4.3.2(b), and County Code Chapter 141: It appears that proposed new
residential lot lines are shown on the plan, but no subdivision plat application has been submitted. If division of
the subject property is intended, please submit an application for a plat for review and approval (as may be
appropriate) by an authorized Agent in the Community Development Department, as required by County Code
§ Chapter 14. A plat showing proposed new lots can be incorporated into the same plat application showing
proposed easements and lands to be dedicated to the County for public use, or separately — however the
applicant prefers.
37. [18-32.4.3.2 and 18-32.4.3.61: The County cannot approve Final Site Plan SDP201900067 unless and until all
applicable SRC reviewers have confirmed that all of their respective review comments have been satisfactorily
addressed and have each confirmed their tentative approval by indicating a review status of "No Objection."
38. Additionally, the following remaining (separate) applications and approvals are required prior to approval of
Final Site Plan SDP201900067:
a. [18-32.7.4.2 and 18-32.7.5.31: Easement Plat
b. [18-32.7.2 and County Code Chapter 141: Road Plans
c. [18-32.7.4.1 and County Code Chapter 171: Water Protection Ordinance Plan (Note: Staff
acknowledge that Water Protection Ordinance Plan application AT0201900053 is under review.)
SRC REVIEWERS:
Albemarle County Engineering Services (Engineer)
Contact: John Anderson, janderson2&albemarle.org
Review Status: "Requested Changes" (12/6/19); see attached comments
Albemarle County Information Services (E911)
Contact: Andy Slack, aslack&albemarle.org
Review Status: "Requested Changes" (11/8/19); see attached comments
Albemarle County Building Inspections
Contact: Michael Dellinger, mdellingergalbemarle.org
Review Status: "Requested Changes" (11/7/19); see attached comments
Albemarle County Department of Fire Rescue
Contact: Shawn Maddox, smaddox(&albemarle.oriz
Review Status: PENDING (as of 12/10/19); review comments will be forwarded upon receipt
Albemarle County Service Authority
Contact: Richard Nelson, rnelson@serviceauthority.org
Review Status: PENDING (as of 12/10/19); review comments will be forwarded upon receipt
Virginia Department of Transportation
Contact: Adam Moore, adam.moore(&vdot.vir ig nia.gov
Review Status: PENDING (as of 12/10/19); review comments will be forwarded upon receipt
Please contact Tim Padalino at the Department of Community Development at (434)-296-5832 ext. 3088 or
ttpadalino@albemarle.org for further information or assistance regarding Final Site Plan application
SDP201900067 (or associated applications).
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: Ecovillage Charlottesville — Final
Project file number: SDP2019-00067
Plan preparer: Shimp Engineering Justin M. Shimp; Keane Rucker
Owner or rep.: Ecovillage Holdings Inc.
Plan received date: 6 Nov 2019
Date of comments: 6 Dec 2019
Plan Coordinator: Tim Padalino
Reviewer: John Anderson
SDP2019-00067
1. Address WPO Plan review comments sent 12/4/19 (WP0201900053). WPO Plan approval is required
prior to Final Site Plan (FSP) Approval.
2. If project is to be subdivided, SWM Facility, SWM Facility Access, and public /private drainage easements
may be recorded with the subdivision plat, meaning, once WPO Plan is approved, SWM Facility
Maintenance Agreement is recorded, VAR10 (DEQ) VPDES permit issued, and WPO Plan bonded, the
project is eligible to receive a Grading Permit (eligible for pre -construction). Also: see items 28 and 45.
3. Submit Road Plan and Private Street Authorization request at earliest convenience. Engineering defers to
Planning Division on Private Street request, yet is involved and reminds Applicant of code requirements at
14-234 if making private street authorization request. Engineering will support request, given density and
comprehensive plan goals, and prior Ecovillage special use permit and initial site plan approvals (SP2018-
00016, SDP2018-00056, respectively), which reflect design consistent with planning goals. Nevertheless,
private streets are subject to VDOT design standards /specifications, Albemarle County Design Standards
Manual guidance, and Drainage and Road Plan Checklists for plan reviewers. Please submit Road Plan
with Application, with minimum number of print copies (or digital road plan) as soon as possible. Roads
must be built or bonded prior to Final Plat approval. Road plan must be approved prior to FSP approval.
4. FSP is subject to SP201800016 and SDP201800056 conditions /conditional approval requirements.
Engineering defers to Planning concerning interpretation or effect of these approval documents.
Cl
5. Slopes Note: Provide LS name /date that 9,866 SF of preserved slopes overlay was surveyed less than 15%.
6. Provide related plan references: SP201800016, SDP201800056, WP0201900053, SUB2019-XXXXX
(Road Plan).
7. Provide description of any steep slopes waiver granted, with reference to legislative action. Provide details
of waiver or exemption to disturb steep slopes.
8. Provide copies of detailed PE -sealed geotechnical retaining wall designs for wall ht. > 4' max. associated
with parking or any road /travelway prior to FSP approval. See Final Site Plan checklist for plan reviewers,
p. 1. Also Retaining Wall Plan checklist; Attached.
C2
9. Show /label preserved steep slopes on TMP #61-21013. Applies to additional sheets; C17, for example.
10. Label stream buffer (TMP #61-210B).
C3
11. Label typ. parking stall depth and width, all parking areas. For perpendicular radial (curvilinear) parking,
label stall width `at narrowest point along the length of the space.' (18-4.12.16.c.4.)
12. Label HC-parking space width (2 separate locations).
13. Revise Road A 32 ' Private to clarify that paved surface is 20', not 32'.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 4
14. Similarly, revise Road B, C, D, 30' Private to clarify width of geocell pavers (vs. 30' easement width).
15. At relevant points along Road D, label radii. (See Roads B, C.)
16. Provide VDOT GR-2 guardrail on south side of lower parking lot for any parking space fronting retaining
wall, or space facing a grade of -3:1, or steeper.
17. Label 10' Multi -use pedestrian trail.
18. Label 14' Emergency Fire Access.
19. Provide CG-6 (curb with gutter) to match VDOT Road Design Manual typ. CG section in urban setting, not
CG-2. Provide CG-6 for Road A between Rio Rd. E entrance and the 4 perpendicular parking spaces just
north of the 2 HC- parking spaces on west side of Road A, thru R5' radius return. CG-2 does not meet
VDOT standard for urban design; please revise to VDOT standard. Also, 18-4.12.15.g.
20. Provide CG-6, continuous from point identified in item 19., through last curvilinear parking space (End of
Road A).
21. Provide CG-6, not CG-2, in all parking areas. Ref. 18-4.12.15 a. No exception appears to exist under
Resolution adopted May 1, 2019 (SP201800016), or special permit condition 3., which reads (in part):
`Improvements related to stormwater, drainage, and grading shown on the final site plan and water
protection ordinance plan for Ecovillage Charlottesville shall be in general accord with the same
improvements and grading shown on the "Stormwater Improvements" exhibit and "Proposed Entrance
Layout" exhibit prepared for SP201800016 by Shimp Engineering, P.C. and dated 2/4/2019 and
subsequently revised 2/27/2019, inclusive of additional modifications as noted in a. — c. below, and to the
satisfaction of the County Engineer.' CG-6 is required to meet ordinance design requirements for parking,
and VDOT typ. section for subdivision roads.
22. Recommend Site Summary include Ref. to WP0201900053 1.26 Ac. Forest /Open Space Easement.
23. Label 12' and 14' turnaround W (narrowest) and L dimensions, to clarify, and avoid misunderstanding.
24. Ensue SU design vehicle has adequate room to maneuver at proposed 12' and 14' turnarounds, including
without striking screening enclosure at trash tote storage adjacent to 12' turnaround. [Ref. VDOT Road
Design Manual, Appendix B 1, Fig. 2-2]
1. A single -unit (SLI) truck design vehicle, as defined by AASHTO, should be used for
the design of all local subdivision streets. Dimensions for this vehicle are depicted
in Figure 2-2 of the AASHTO Geometric Design of Highways and Streets 2011,
shown as Figure 1.
0j �!A t0A
p1M 'F6m
• cor
FIGURE 1 - "FIGURE 2-2" SCANNED FROM "A POLICY ON GEOMETRIC
DESIGN OF HIGHWAYS AND STREETS," AASHTO, 2011
25. Provide sight distance line to ensure 100' min., unobstructed stopping sight distance through curvilinear
section with perpendicular parking, Road A.
26. Label all easement linework.
27. Label all drainage easements downstream of any SWM facility (incl 38 raingardens) as public drainage
easements. Also, reference /address WP0201900053 12/4/19 Engineering review comments.
28. Provide deed bk.-pg. reference to recorded (off -site) sight -distance easement (right), 390' for 35 MPH,
across TMP# 61-190. Ref. Ecovillage Proposed Entrance Layout, SE Engineering, 02-27-2019. This
easement is required prior to Final Site Plan approval. There is no safe safe no from development unless
this sight -distance easement is obtained /recorded. Show /label sight distance easement on C3.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 4
ECOVILLAGE: PROPOSED ENTRANCE LAYOUT
oa-aiaoie
29. C3/C4: Identify multi -use pedestrian trail material, either in legend, on plan, or both. Provide typ. detail.
30. C3/C4: Show northern -most extent of 14' Emergency Fire Access (Secondary Exit) point of connection
with: Rio Road, Ex. paths /sidewalks, etc. Any work within VDOT R/W Rio Road E, requires land use
permit, and VDOT approval.
31. Note: Road Plan should provide profile of 14' Emergency Fire Access for comparison with fire apparatus
ground clearance requirements.
C5
32. With CG-6, ensure no nuisance ponding. Provide spot elevations as needed to ensure positive drainage.
33. Revise 8% grade < 5% where Road A serves perpendicular parking spaces. (18-4.12.15.c.)
34. Revise 6% grade < 5% where Road A serves perpendicular HC-parking spaces. (18-4.12.15.c.)
35. Road Plan approval requires 70' CL radius (20 MPH design speed) 4% super -elevation, but proposed grade
reverses required super -elevation, causing inadequate side friction through the 70' R curve. Revise per
Exhibit 5, AASHTO Guidelines for Geometric Design of Very Low -Volume Local Roads (ADT < 400).
AASHTO�Guidelines for Geometric Design of Eery Low -Volume Local Roads (ADT 5400)
Metric
Reduced
Maximum
Minimum radius (m), R,„,,,
Design
design
design side
speed
speed
friction
Max. superelevation rate (%), a,,,
(kmth)
(km/h)
factor, fa:
4
6 8
10
12
20
20
0.180
15
15 10
10
10
30
25
0.170
25
20 20
20
20
40
30
0.170
35
30 30
25
25
50
35
0,170
45
40 40
35
35
60
45
0.165
80
70 65
60
55
70
50
0.160
100
90 80
75
70
80
60
0.150
150
135 125
115
105
90
70
0.140
215
195 175
160
150
100
80
0-140
280
250 230
210
195
US Customary
Reduced
Maximum
Minimum radius (ft), R_
Design
design
design side
speed
speed
friction
Max. superelevation rate
%, era,
(mph)
(mph)
factor, fax
4
6 8
10
12
15
15
0.175
70
65 60
55
50
20
15
0.175
70
65 60
55
50
25
20
0,110
125
115 105
100
90
30
20
0.170
125
115 105
100
90
35
25
0.165
205
185 170
155
145
40
30
0A 60
300
275 250
230
215
45
35
0.155
420
380 350
320
295
50
40
0.150
560
510 465
425
395
55
45
0.140
750
675 615
565
515
60
50
0.140
925
835 760
695
640
Exhibit 5. Guidelines for Maximum Side Friction Factor and Minimum Radius (New
Construction, ADT <250 veh/day, Limited Heavy Vehicle Traffic)
36. Provide inlet capture along inside of Road A revised 70' R curve (w CG-6).
C6
Engineering Review Comments
Page 4 of 4
37. Relocate SWM Facility access (MH) from parking space to parking lot access aisle, to permit access.
38. With CG-6, revise depiction of VDOT-typ. inlets. Integrate inlets with CG-6 as opposed to cut /fill section.
39. Label StormTech Bayfilter SWM Facility Easement width. Compare with ACDSM diagram /equation, p.
15; image, below (Ensure Min. width for proposed SWM Facility — provide calc. /show equation):
Albemarle County Design Standards Manual — Engineering 0
EA5E51E,NTnNT1T. I1LOU ER- Miff-S;•WiNMES,i
EASEIM Tq'
1I.-
Enl]P�IE:T
c. Drainage easements are to be labeled on plans and plats; "Drainage Easement" and
"dedicated to public use".
d. Drainage easement plats must be accompanied by a deed. Standard deeds are
provided by the Count Attorney, along with administrative guidelines. These are also
available in the documents forms center of the county website;
btV-//www.albemarle.orp,/detforms.M?department--cdengyMo.
40. C6/C7: Revise storm inlet /pipe design consistent with WPO201900053 Engineering review comments.
41. C8: Relocate plantings to resolve conflicts with proposed SWM Facility or public drainage easements,
including 38 individual raingardens (easements not currently shown). As a general rule, do not locate plant
center -points within 2' of an easement for storm pipe, or SWM facility, since plants are not points, but
develop central stems /trunks, and extensive root systems. Tree protection typically requires canopy to be
located outside limits of disturbance. In this case, a better design is to ensure mid- to large -caliper species
canopies lie outside public drainage easements. Once SWM facility easements are shown, Engineering
anticipates revision to plant locations. At least 3 large shade trees are shown inside raingardens; at least 3
large shade trees touch raingardens. All six, and perhaps others, must be relocated for raingardens to
function, or be maintained, or for FSP /WPO plan approval.
42. CI51C16: Revise storm sewer profiles consistent with WP0201900053 12/4/19 Engineering review
comments.
C16
43. Revise easement across TMP #61-210B to New 20' Public Drainage Esmt. An easement downstream of a
SWM facility is public. Albemarle requires access for future inspection /possible maintenance.
44. Please check (TMP #61-21013) Parcel A-1-A label; this appears inconsistent with GIS /Real Estate records.
45. C 17: Provide copy of recorded on -site sight -distance easement, left. Sight -distance easements (left /right)
are prerequisite to FSP approval.
46. Sign /date C 1 of FSP. There is instance of recorded Shimp Engineering Site Plan with unsigned /undated
C1 PE -seal, marked review only. Albemarle will (try to) avoid this in the future. (Ref SDP2018-00039)
47. Revise per 18-Sep 2018 Engineering ISP review comment 10, image, below:
10. Slopes steeper than 3:1 must specify a plant type or grass on the landscape plan that can
withstand the steep slope.
48. Provide geocell paver detail.
Please feel free to call if any questions. Thank you
J. Anderson 434.296-5832 -x3069
SDP201900067 Ecovilla-c FSP 120619
Review Comments for SDP201900067 lFinal Site Development Plan
Project Name: ECO VILLAGE CHARLOTTEVILLE - FINAL - DIGITAL
Date Completed: Friday, November 08, 201 DepartmentlaivisionlAgency: Review Sys:
Reviewer: Andrew flack � CDD I Requested Changes
The applicant should contact this office with a list of three (3) proposed road names for 'Road A', 'Road B', 'Road 0, and 'Road
D' before this application can be approved_
Page: County of Albemarle Printed On: 1 25120'19
Review Comments for SDP201900067 lFinal Site Development Plan
Project Name: ECO VILLAGE CHARLOTTEVILLE - FINAL - DIGITAL
Date Completed: Thursday, November 07, 201 DepartmentlaivisionlAgency: Review Sys:
Reviewer: Michael Dellinger CDD Inspections Requested Changes Nd
Add the following note to the general notes page:
Building or structures built before January 1, 1985 must have an asbestos survey performed in order to apply for a permit_
Asbestos removal permits are required if positive for such_ Contact VDOLI for additional requirements and permits for
demolition projects_
Add the following note to the general notes page:
Retaining walls greater than 3 feet in height require a separate building permit_ Walls exceeding 4 feet in height require a
stamped engineered design also_ Walls require inspections as outlined in the UBC_
Add the following note to the general notes page:
Accessible parking spaces and access isles shall not have a surface slope greater than 1:48 Access isles shall be at the
same level as the parking space they serve_ Provide cutsheet of accessible parking space and required signage_
Add the following note to the general notes page:
ALL water lines, sewer lines, and fire lines from the main to the structure MUST have a visual inspection performed by the
building department_
Note to developer:
Due to required distances from lot lines and structures as required by the NFPA, underground propane tanks may be prohibited_
Plan accordingly_ May want conisder a jurisdictional system for LP gas if desired_
A
Page: County of Albemarle Printed On: 1 25120'19