HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201800085 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2019-12-16COUNTY 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. Trey Steigman, Management Services Corporation (tsteig_anknisc-rents.com)
Mr. Jim Taggart, P.E., Roudabush, Gale & Associates, Inc. (jtaggart(c-r�,roudabush.com)
Ms. Riki Van-Niekerk, Roudabush, Gale & Associates, Inc. (rvan-niekerkkroudabush.com)
From: Tim Padalino, AICP
Division: Community Development — Planning
Date: December 16, 2019
Subject: Review Comment Letter #4 — SDP-2018-00085 (Vistas at South Pantops — Final Site Plan)
The plan referred to above (revision date 10/30/2019) 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 the Planner and from
other SRC plan reviewers) have been satisfactorily addressed and when all SRC plan reviewers have indicated in
writing their tentative approvals.
The following comments are those that have been identified as outstanding from the initial site plan review as well as
those identified in reviewing the final plan (revision date 10/30/2019); additional comments or conditions may be
added or eliminated based on further review. [Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference to the
Albemarle County Code.]
REQUIRED CHANGES / SDP201800085:
[Z.O. Sec. 32.6.2(a), 32.5.2(a)] On Sheet 1, please amend the project number for this final site plan to
"SDP2018-00085." Please also include the initial site plan project number (SDP2018-00008) on this sheet for
reference purposes.
Rev. Comm. #2: Addressed.
2. [Z.O. Sec. 32.6.1(b)] Please submit one (1) reduced copy of the final site plan no larger than l lxl7 inches in
size.
Rev. Comm. #2: Addressed.
3. [Z.O. Sec. 32.6.2(a), 32.5.2(a)] Review of the deed book records and County GIS indicate this parcel (78-20) is
13.12 acres in size, as compared to the 13.31 acres listed in the site plan. Please review and revise these values
to conform with parcel records.
Rev. Comm. #2: Addressed staff acknowledge the 2017 boundary survey identifying the subject property as
13.308 acres (or 13.31 acres when rounded).
4. [Z.O. Sec. 32.6.2(a), 32.5.2(r)] The plans do not appear to adhere to, or include, many items included in the
legend on Sheet 1. Please revise the legend and/or plans to be consistent with one another.
Rev. Comm. #2: Addressed.
5. [Z.O. Sec. 32.6.2(a), 32.5.2(r)] Throughout the plan, please ensure that all identifying lines are labeled, by
connected leader line or legend, and that they are easily distinguished from one another. Please pay particular
attention to Sheets 2 and 7.
Rev. Comm. #2: Addressed.
6. [Z.O. Sec. 32.6.1(e)(6), 32.6.2(a), 32.5.1(c)(4)] Please provide horizontal dimensions for all proposed
structures.
Rev. Comm. #2: Addressed.
7. [Z.O. Sec. 32.6.2(a), 32.5.2(s)] With regard to utilities noted on Sheet 6, please include notes if any lines will
be demolished, disturbed, or relocated during construction.
Rev. Comm #2: Addressed — staff acknowledge additional demo notes on Sheet 2 (Existing Conditions &
Demo Plan) and Sheet 5 (Utility Plan).
8. [Z.O. Sec. 32.6.2(g)] Please ensure that all existing and proposed public easements are identified in the plans.
Rev. Comm. #2: Addressed.
9. [Z.O. Sec. 32.6.2(a), 32.5.2(s)] Please identify each easement as public or private.
Rev. Comm. #2: Addressed.
10. [Z.O. Sec. 32.6.2(a), 32.5.2(1), 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 processed all
together in one plat application, or separately, however the applicant prefers.
Rev. Comm. #2: Not addressed. However, staff acknowledge applicant's intentions to revise Special Lot Plat
SUB201800176; and staff anticipate submission of a separate easement plat (with corresponding legal
documents) to establish new required easements and new proposed easements (and to show existing easements).
Please also see review comments #31 and #34.
Rev. Comm. #3: Partially addressed. Staff acknowledge recent resubmittal of Special Lot Plat SUB201800176
and recent submittal of Easement Plat SUB201900115. Special Lot Plat 201800176 (dated 6/14/2019) was
received on 6/24/2019, and a review comment letter identifying minor required revisions was provided on
6/28/2019. Easement Plat SUB201900115 (dated 6/21/2019) was received on 7/1/2019, transmitted to
applicable SRC reviewers on 7/2/2019, and is currently under review.
Rev. Comm. #4. Partially addressed. Staff acknowledges previous resubmittal of Special Lot Plat
SUB201800176 and recent submittal of Easement Plat SUB201900115. Special Lot Plat 201800176 (dated
6/14/2019) was received on 6/24/2019, and a review comment letter identifying minor required revisions
was provided on 6/28/2019. Easement Plat SUB201900115 (dated 6/21/2019) was received on 7/1/2019,
transmitted to applicable SRC reviewers on 7/2/2019, and a review comment letter identifying required
revisions was provided on 7/24/2019.
11. [Z.O. Sec. 32.6.2(a), 32.5.2(o)] On Sheet 5, it is not clear if a right-of-way dedication is being indicated by the
hatched fill on/adjacent to the roadway. If this is the case, please add a label on Sheet 5, update the legend, and
also add a note stating that "the land is to be dedicated or reserved for public use." Please note that any such
dedication requires the submission and approval of a plat and corresponding deed of dedication. (See previous
note regarding easements.)
Rev. Comm. #2: Addressed — Sheet 3 (Site Layout Plan) appears to clarify and confirm that proposed road and
streetscape improvements would be located within existing variable width ROW.
12. [Z.O. Sec. 32.6.2(a), 32.5.2(i)] Please coordinate with Mr. Dan Mahon, in the Albemarle County Department of
Parks and Recreation (ACPR), regarding potential trail alignment and potential public use easement boundaries
for the "proposed public nature trail" noted on Sheet 3.
Rev. Comm. #2: Addressed staff acknowledge applicant's significant coordination with Mr. Mahon.
13. [Z.O. Sec. 32.6.2(a), 32.5.2(s)] On Sheet 3, please include with the "proposed public nature trail" label a note
that the final site plan represents an approximate alignment, and the final alignment will be determined by
County Staff and built in partnership with the County.
Rev. Comm. #2: Addressed / no longer applicable — staff acknowledge revisions to proposed public nature
trail and proposed open space.
14. [Z.O. Sec. 32.6.2(a), 32.5.2(a)] On Sheet 1, please provide a list of planned recreation amenities and
reference/note the approved Request for Substitution of Required Recreation Areas and Facilities dated
September 20, 2018.
Rev. Comm. #2: Addressed.
15. [Z.O. Sec. 4.16.2.1] The tot lot area must be fenced to provide a safe environment for young children due to the
proximity of steep slopes, the travelway and parking area, and South Pantops Drive. Please demonstrate that
this tot lot fencing requirement is met by showing a visual depiction of a fence and by adding a note and/or
label.
Rev. Comm. #2: Addressed — staff acknowledge new label ("Proposed Tot Lot w/ Safety Fence") on Sheet 3
(Site Layout Plan).
16. [Z.O. Sec. 32.6.2(a), 32.5.2(n)] On Sheet 3 or 4, please include the approximate location and size (total square
feet) of the proposed clubhouse within Building 3.
Rev. Comm. #2: Addressed — staff acknowledge new description and details of proposed "Provided Facilities"
on Sheet 1 (Cover Sheet).
17. [Z.O. Sec. 32.6.2(i)] On Sheet 1, please revise the "Parking Required" site data calculations to include the new
minimum parking requirements established through the approved Parking Determination dated December 18,
2018. Specifically, please include the minimum parking requirement information that is currently shown (as
typically required by County Code), and add the new minimum parking requirements with a reference to the
aforementioned determination (include document name and date).
Rev. Comm. #2: Addressed — staff acknowledge revised/updated info regarding the approved Parking
Determination on Sheet 1 (Cover Sheet).
18. [Z.O. Sec. 4.12.17(c)(1)] The parking layout, between the surface lot in front of Building 3 leading to the
podium parking in Building 2, does not meet code requirements for two-way access. The required minimum
width is 20 feet. Please revise the parking schedule to conform to code requirements.
Rev. Comm. #2: Addressed — CDD-Planning staff acknowledge revisions to the site layout in this area, as well
as the corresponding dimensions, to achieve compliance with the applicable minimum design requirements
specified in Z.O. Section 4.12.17(c)(1), as shown on Sheet 3 (Site Layout Plan).
19. [Z.O. Sec. 32.6.2(a), 32.5.2(n)] Please provide the proposed paving materials or other surface materials for all
walks, parking lots, and driveways. *Unaddressed comment from the Initial Plan approval.
Rev. Comm. #2: Addressed.
20. [Z.O. Sec. 32.6.2(a), 32.5.2(n)] Please show the proposed location(s) of outdoor trash containers.
*Unaddressed comment from the Initial Plan approval.
Rev. Comm. #2: Addressed.
21. [Z.O. Sec. 32.6.20), 32.7.9.4(b-c), 32.7.9.5(b)] On Sheet 8, please identify the location/extent of the existing
tree canopy that will be preserved and maintained, as it is being used for the canopy bonus and (presumably)
being utilized in lieu of new street trees that would otherwise be required along South Pantops Drive.
Rev. Comm. #2: Addressed.
22. [Z.O. Sec. 32.6.20), 32.7.9.4(b)(2)] For all existing wooded areas that are being preserved and maintained in
the plan to meet tree canopy requirements and/or street tree requirements, please submit a signed Conservation
Plan Checklist and include any information required by the checklist into the plan documents, as necessary. See
attached.
Rev. Comm. #2: Partially addressed. Staff acknowledge addition of a Conservation Checklist (signed 3/19 and
3/22) on Sheet 8. However, the limits of disturbance, tree protection fencing, and other project details [as
specified in Z.O. Section 32.7.9.4(b)(1)] need to be shown on the Grading Plan (Sheet 6) as well as the
Landscape Plan (Sheet 7).
Rev. Comm. #3: Addressed. Staff acknowledge addition of required details to Sheet 6 and Sheet 7.
23. [Z.O. Sec. 32.6.20), 32.7.9.51 The current street trees specified for the street tree plantings (serviceberry) do not
meet County Code requirements. Please select a large shade tree species to replace the current species. Any
large tree species prescribed by the Albemarle County Recommended Plants List, attached, is acceptable. If
another species is desired by the applicant, please submit a request and we will evaluate whether the substitution
is acceptable.
Rev. Comm. #2: Addressed (Two Ulmus parvifolia specified at 3.5" caliper outside of right-of-way).
24. [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
right-of-way.
Rev. Comm. #2: Addressed.
25. [Z.O. Sec. 32.6.20), 32.7.91 The planting schedule depicted on Sheet 8 does not readily align with the Planting
Schedule table provided on Sheet 9. Please review and revise these items to ensure consistency and provide
clarity.
Rev. Comm. #2: Addressed.
26. [Z.O. Sec. 32.6.20), 32.7.91 On Sheet 8, please use genus and species names when identifying intended tree
placements on -site.
Rev. Comm. #2: Addressed.
27. [Z.O. Sec. 32.6.20), 32.7.9.4(d)] In the Planting Schedule table, please include an additional column within the
tree category to specify the category of tree, as it relates to the Albemarle County Recommended Plants List.
For example: Large Deciduous; Medium Deciduous; Small Deciduous; Ornamental Tree.
Rev. Comm. #2: Addressed.
28. [Z.O. Sec. 32.6.2(c)] On Sheet 7, the contour labels, grading elevations, and symbology used for contour lines
are not consistent and, at times, actually appear to use the same line type. Please ensure that existing and
proposed contours are depicted differently, and please ensure the contour labels and graphic conventions are
consistent.
Rev. Comm. #2: Addressed.
29. [Z.O. Sec. 32.6.2(a), 32.5.2(s)] Please label the maximum height of all retaining walls. It appears that this is
already shown for the retaining wall between Buildings 1 and 3, but please make sure that all retaining wall
heights are provided.
Rev. Comm. #2: Addressed.
30. [Z.O. Sec. 32.6.2(a) and 32.5.2(a)]: Revise the Site Data information on Sheet 1 (Cover Sheet) as follows:
A. Revise the "Critical Slopes" label to "Steep Slopes" (Critical Slopes are only located in the Rural
Areas; Steep Slopes are only located in the Development Areas); Rev. Comm. #3: Addressed.
B. In the corresponding description for "Critical Slopes," change all instances of "critical slopes" to
read "Steep Slopes" or "Preserved Steep Slopes" (as applicable); Rev. Comm. #3: Addressed.
C. Revise (update) the description of the document approved by the Engineering Division (titled
"The Vistas at South Pantops Critical Slope Exhibit") to include additional reference to the most
recent approval date (3/22/2019).
Rev. Comm. #3: Partially addressed. Staff acknowledge that the Cover Sheet has been revised
to reference the most recent approval date (3/22/2019). However, Sheet 2 includes an annotation
that references a "Critical Slope Exhibit" being approved by CDD-Engineering on 5/17/2018;
please also revise this reference to include the most recent approval date (3/22/2019).
Rev. Comm. #4: Addressed.
31. [Z.O. Sec. 32.6.2(a), 32.5.2(s), 32.6.2(g)]: As of 5/10/2019* it is the understanding of CDD-Planning staff
that some the proposed "Open Space" designations on the Final Site Plan will need to be revised as
described below; this will require revisions to labels, notes, and other information on Sheet 3 (Site Layout
Plan), and Sheet 4 (Layout Plan Ground Level Parking), as well as revisions to the corresponding Draft
Special Lot Plat SUB201800176.
A. After recent coordination with County staff within and outside of the Community Development
Department, the "upper" proposed Open Space (identified as an approximately 2.99-acre area
labeled as "County Park" on corresponding Draft Special Lot Plat) should no longer be reserved
for future dedication to the County due to the overlapping (proposed) SWM Forest/Open Space
Easement in this same area. Instead, this "upper" proposed Open Space should continue to be
designated as Open Space on the Final Site Plan, but with a new designation as a proposed
public use and access easement, and this public easement will need to be shown on the
corresponding Special Lot Plat and also the corresponding Easement Plat submission (with
corresponding legal documents also being required).
B. The "lower" proposed Open Space (identified as an approximately 3.91-acre area labeled as
"Greenway Reservation" on corresponding Draft Special Lot Plat) should also continue to be
designated as Open Space on the Final Site Plan, and must remain designated as being reserved
for future dedication to the County (as has been previously established by, and as is required by,
the terms of recorded plat in Deed Book 2913, pages 156-162, recorded 2/l/2005).
(*) Note: CDD-Planning staff will continue to coordinate closely with the applicants and
consultants, as well as all other regulatory stakeholders, to successfully identify a solution to the
issues associated with the proposed Open Space (shown on the Final Site Plan) in relation to the
proposed SWM Forest / Open Space Easement (shown on the WPO Plan).
Rev. Comm. #3: Comment #31 is no longer valid, and is withdrawn. As conveyed in writing (email
correspondence to Trey Steigman dated 5/20/2019, attached), the proposed Open Space should not be
subject to a public use and access easement — it should continue to be designated as being reserved for
future dedication to the County for public use, as was the applicant's intention prior to the issuance of this
comment #31 on 5/10/2019.
32. [Z.O.32.7.9.4.(d)]: Please add the required "verification of compliance" note to the Landscape Plan. 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 topping of trees is prohibited. Shrubs and trees shall be pruned
minimally and only to support the overall health of the plant."
Rev. Comm. #3: Addressed.
33. [Z.O.32.6.2.k, 32.7.8.b, 4.17.2.a, and 4.17.4]: Please revise the Photometric Plan and Details (Sheets 10
and 11) as follows:
A. Please clearly identify the location(s) of all proposed lighting fixtures on the Photometric Plan.
Sheet 10 does not clearly identify the proposed location(s) of the proposed light fixtures in a
legible way. Rev. Comm. #4: Addressed. Staff acknowledges the enlarged symbols,
additional annotation, and Lighting Plan Note #1 on revised Photometric Plan (Sheet 11).
B. Please verify the maximum lumens emitted by the proposed ERCO Gecko Floodlight LED
luminaire. Rev. Comm. #4: Addressed.
C. Please add the following standard notes:
i. "Each outdoor luminaire equipped with a lamp that emits 3,000 or more initial lumens
shall be a full cutoff luminaire and shall be arranged or shielded to reflect light away
from adjoining residential districts and away from adjacent roads."
ii. "The spillover of lighting from luminaires onto public roads and property in residential
or rural areas zoning districts shall not exceed one-half footcandle."
Rev. Comm. #4: Addressed. Staff acknowledges Lighting Plan Notes #2 and #3 on
revised Photometric Plan (Sheet 11).
34. [Z.O. 32.7.91: Please revise Landscaping Plan (Sheets 9 and 10) as follows (below); and please note that
CDD-Planning staff remain available to discuss these issues and address any questions you may have:
A. [Z.O. Sec. 32.6.20), 32.7.9.51: Resolve apparent conflict between proposed location of the street
trees (two Ulmus parvifolia) and the proposed retaining walls. It appears that one tree is shown
as being proposed on the wall. Staff acknowledges the constraints in this vicinity with the extent
of the right-of-way, existing grade and proposed grading, location of proposed retaining wall,
and location of proposed storm drain pipes and associated easements.
B. [Z.O. Sec. 32.7.9.7.a.2, 32.7.9.1.f, and 32.7.9.1.h]: Add additional landscape screening
materials to the area south of the proposed parking area (where 14 screening trees Osmanthus x
fortuni are currently proposed), in order to better ensure that the proposed parking will be
sufficiently screened from the adjoining residential district. In making this revision, staff
recommends specifying more than one species of landscape screening materials; and staff also
encourages the use of native evergreen materials (such as Pinus, Ilex, Viburnum, Rhododendron,
or Kalmia species) and/or native trees which retain their leaves for significant portions of the fall
and winter (such as certain Quercus species or Fagus grandifolia).
35. [Advisory]: It is the understanding of CDD-Planning staff that any maintenance within VDOT ROW is
conducted solely by VDOT; please coordinate with VDOT staff and Albemarle County Parks and
Recreation staff to determine the necessity of revising the following notes on Sheet 3 (Site Layout Plan):
A. "Proposed pedestrian crosswalk to be maintained by developer" and
B. "Location of proposed pedestrian crosswalk and connection point to trail to be determined and
maintained by Parks and Rec Dept."
Rev. Comm. #3: Addressed.
• Note: Permissibility and location of proposed crosswalks are subject to VDOT approval; CDD-
Planning staff strongly support the design and implementation of pedestrian crosswalks (with
appropriate signage, as may be applicable) across South Pantops Drive, which would also
support and advance relevant Comprehensive Plan goals and recommendations.
36. [Advisory]: The following remaining approvals are required prior to approval of final site plan SDP-2018-
00085:
A. [Z.O. Section 32.7.4.1.a]: Water Protection Ordinance Plan (and corresponding legal
documents) / WPO-2018-00095
B. [Z.O. Sections 32.7.4.2 and 32.7.5.31: Easement Plat (and corresponding legal documents) /
SUB201900115
C. [Z.O. Section 32.7.1.11: Special Lot Plat (and corresponding legal document) / SUB-2018-
00176
D. Tentative approvals (review status of "No Objection") from all applicable SRC members for
final site plan SDP-2018-00085 (see below).
REQUESTED CHANGES:
Rev. Comm. #2: All Requested Changes (Comments identified as #30 — 35 in the first review comment letter
dated 12/19/2018) are addressed. Thank you.
37. [Advisory Comment] Please be advised that, prior to a certificate of occupancy being granted, safety fencing is
required along the top of the retaining wall on the southern edge of the property due to its height. Staff requests
this fencing to be added (by graphic depiction and label) to this final site plan.
Rev. Comm. #2: Addressed.
38. [Z.O. 32.6.2(a), Sec. 32.5.2(a)] Review sheet index list and individual sheet titles to ensure these names match
and are spelled correctly.
Rev. Comm. #2: Addressed.
39. [Z.O. 32.6.2(a), Sec. 32.5.2(a)] On Sheet 1, include in the sheet index a total number of sheets.
Rev. Comm. #2: Addressed.
40. [Z.O. Sec. 32.6.2(a), 32.5.2(a)] On Sheet 2, please revise the Legend to add the word "Steep" when describing
Preserved and Managed Steep Slopes. For example, "Preserved Steep Slopes" and "Managed Steep Slopes".
* Unaddressed comment from the Initial Plan approval.
Rev. Comm. #2: Addressed.
41. [Z.O. Sec. 32.6.2(a), 32.5.2(h)] On Sheet 2, please label the Flood Hazard Overlay District.
Rev. Comm. #2: Addressed.
42. [Z.O. 32.6.2(a), Sec. 32.5.2(r)] On Sheet 2, the Soil Type Boundary in the legend is not readily distinguishable
on the map. Please revise.
Rev. Comm. #2: Addressed.
REVIEW STATUS OF OTHER SRC REVIEWERS / SDP201800085:
Albemarle County Building Inspections
Michael Dellinger, mdellingergalbemarle.org — "No Objection" (6/24/19).
Albemarle County Information Services (E911)
Andrew Slack, aslack e,albemarle.org — "No Objection" (12/7/18).
Albemarle County Department of Fire Rescue
Shawn Maddox, smaddoxkalbemarle.org — "No Objection" (4/15/19).
Albemarle County Engineering Services (Engineer)
David James, diames2(c�r�,albemarle.org — "Requested Changes" (12/9/19); please see attached review comments.
Albemarle County Service Authority
Richard Nelson, rnelsonnserviceauthority.org — "Requested Changes" (12/13/19); please see attached review
comments.
Virginia Department of Transportation
Adam Moore, adam.moorekvdot.virginia.gov— "Requested Changes" (11/25/19); please see attached letter.
Please contact Tim Padalino at the Department of Community Development at (434)-296-5832 ext. 3088 or
1padalinokalbemarle.org for further information or assistance.
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:
The Vistas at South Pantops — Final Site Plan
Plan preparer:
Riki Van-Niekerk, Roudabush Gale & Associates, 172 South Pantops Drive
Charlottesville, VA 22911 [rvan-niekerk(a)roudabush.com; riki(a)roudabush.com]
Applicant:
Trey Steigman, VP/Management Services Corp [tsteigman@msc-rents.com]
102 South First St. Ste. 301, Charlottesville, VA 22902
Owner:
Charles W. Hurt, South Pantops II Land Trust, P. 0. Box 8147
Charlottesville, VA 22906
Plan received date:
26 Nov 2018
2 April 2019
June 2019
Date of comments:
10 Jan 2019
25 April 2019
9 July 2019
Reviewer:
John Anderson
David James (Rev.1 & 2)
(Planning Reviewer:
Mariah Gleason
Project Coordinator:
Tim Padalino)
SDP2018-00085
Title sheet
1. Revise site plan title to reference SDP201800085. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
2. On title sheet, include Note reference to The Vistas at South Pantops Critical Slopes Exhibit, rev. d.
5/11/18, PE -seal date 5/17/18, Approved by Engineering Division 5/17/18, filed with SDP201800008.
(Rev. 1) Addressed.
3. Revise index to include retaining wall design for all walls associated with travel ways and parking areas.
Retaining wall design for walls integral to buildings 1, 2, or 3 may be submitted with building permit
application/s. (Rev. 1) Applicant will provide following FSP submittal. (Rev.2) Addressed.
4. Provide retaining wall design for retaining walls associated with travel ways or parking areas that are not
integral to buildings 1, 2, or 3. (Re£ site plan and retaining wall plan review checklists; Attached). (Rev. 1)
Applicant will provide following FSP submittal. (Rev.2) Addressed.
5. Provide /show outline location/s of conceptual SWM detention or treatment systems. VSMP/WPO plan
must be approved prior to Final Site Plan approval. (WP0201800095 is under review.) (Rev. 1) Area of
Forest/Open Space to be demarcated in the field (fenced off) prior to construction.-TBA on WPO plans
(Rev.2) Addressed.
6. Revise Erosion Control, ES-1 Note to ref. 9VAC25-840-40. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
7. Plan Note 3: Revise to eliminate contractor responsibility to obtain state -federal permits. Albemarle will
not approve a VSMP/WPO plan unless /until required state /federal permits are acquired. FSP cannot be
approved without an approved VSMP/WPO plan. Permit acquisition is an Applicant /Owner responsibility.
(Rev. 1) Addressed.
8. Plan Note 3: Revise to clarify Property Owner is required to post SWM-ESC-Mitigation plan bonds.
(Rev. 1) Addressed.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 5
9. Plan Note 4: Revise to read County Engineer, rather than District Engineer. (Rev.1) Addressed.
Sheet 2:
10. Delete ref. to ISP 10 for preserved slope details. Provide label reference to Critical Slopes Exhibit approved
by CDD/Engineering on 5/17/18, filed with SDP201800008. (Rev.1) Addressed.
11. Recommend show `special lot' boundaries. Provide note reference to SUB201800176. (Rev.1) Addressed.
Sheet 3:
12. Provide label reference to proposed private nature trail detail. Provide trail detail. Ref. ASCDSM. (Rev.1)
Addressed.
13. Label all pedestrian crosswalks. (Rev.1) Addressed.
14. Provide /label crosswalk striping. (Rev.1) Addressed.
15. Label all CG12. Provide CG-12 ramps at travelway/sidewalk crossing locations in plan view. (Rev.1)
Addressed.
16. Label sidewalk width for sidewalk fronting parking spaces located on south side of Vistas Way. (Rev.1)
Addressed.
17. Some proposed parking space /travel way linework is gray; revise to black to indicate proposed
improvements. Applies to sheets 4, 5 gray line type, as well. (Rev.1) Addressed.
18. Label retaining wall/s. (Rev.1) Addressed.
19. Provide /label retaining wall handrails, wherever wall ht. > 4-4 30-in. (Rev.1) Acknowledged; Correction >
30-in. (Rev.2) Addressed.
20. Label guardrail. Provide label reference to GR-2 detail, sheet 19. (Rev.1) Addressed.
21. Label sidewalk width facing South Pantops Drive. (Rev.1) Addressed.
22. Label South Pantops Rd. right-of-way (linework). (Rev.1) Addressed.
23. Provide outline locations of on -site SWM facilities (conceptual level), consistent with WPO201800095.
(Rev.1) Area of Forest/Open Space to be demarcated in the field (fenced off) prior to construction.-TBA on
WPO plans (Rev.2) Addressed.
24. Approx. location 100' water protection ordinance buffer leader line may be inaccurate. (Rev.1) Addressed.
25. WPO buffer location may require revision; confirm location buffer. Revise leader line, if necessary.
(Rev.1) Addressed.
Sheet 4:
26. Last parking space, NW corner of Vistas Way parking lot measures 13.2 (`sheltered' length =16'). Revise
island west of this parking space to provide `sheltered' length=18-ft. Sheet 20 indicates fire truck will
contact fender of vehicle parked in this space at a location 17-ft. distant from face of curb fronting this
space. Revise to provide 1-ft. clearance between fire vehicle turn figures; that is, 19-ft. from face of curb
fronting this parking space. (Rev.1) Addressed.
27. Revise label at dumpster pad, so legible (revise grayscale text to black). (Rev.1) Addressed.
28. Show and label existing terrain contours. (Rev.1) Addressed.
29. Label entrance width at narrowest point. Applies to sheet 5, as well. (Rev.1) Addressed.
Sheet 5:
30. Provide auto -turn figures for typical passenger vehicle encountering a second typ. passenger vehicle
traveling in the opposite direction at:
a. Travel way curve just prior to entering/leaving building 3 parking deck. (Rev.1) Addressed.
b. At curve measuring 17-ft., FC-FC, on approach to 23-space parking area west of building 2.
(Rev.1) Addressed
31. Ensure aisle width in 23-space parking area west of building 2 is at least 20-ft. (Rev.1) Addressed.
32. Label parking aisle width (item 31). (Rev.1) Addressed.
33. Revise design as needed to provide travelway width for typical passenger vehicles to pass one another at all
locations, when traveling in opposite directions. (Rev.1) Addressed.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 5
34. Provide mirror to aid residents exiting building 3 to minimize chance of collision with vehicle/s reversing
from parking spaces in the 16-space parking area. Sight distance is inadequate. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
35. In the following locations, recommend stripe 2 spaces as `No Parking' to allow parked vehicles to reverse,
and travel in a forward direction:
a. N corner building 1, beyond stair well;
b. SE corner building 2, beyond stairwell;
c. NW corner building 3, before stairwell;
Note: Recommendation results in loss of 6 parking spaces.
Note: If recommendation not accepted, provide alternate design to ensure all vehicles using building
parking decks can reverse and travel in a forward direction without performing extreme, multi -point or
precise reverse maneuvers.
(Rev. 1) Addressed.
Sheet 6
36. Label rectangular structure south of Str. 11. Rectangle differs in shape and style from typical DI. (Rev. 1)
Addressed.
37. Show and label existing terrain contours. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
38. Ensure adequate drainage easement width, all section of proposed storm system. For example, 20' is
insufficient for storm line depth between structures 3 and 4. Ref easement width diagram, ACDSM, p. 15.
(Rev. 1) Acknowledged.
39. Ensure `for residential development, the principal access [Vistas Way is] free of flooding during the 25-yr
storm.' Ref. item 4, Drainage, Drainage Plan review checklist. Provide LD-229 based on 25-3r event.
Note: development anticipates 949 trips per day (144 units). Vistas Way is a principal access. (Rev. 1)
Addressed.
40. Show /label VDOT ES, as Str. 1. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
41. Label slope of storm line between Str. 9 and 10. Ensure slope < 16%. Ref. Drainage plan review checklist.
(Rev. 1) Acknowledged.
Sheet 7
42. Provide additional detail /labels for pool deck area of plan (TWBW, if retaining wall; spot elevations).
Geometry of structures in this location is unclear. (Rev. 1) Acknowledged; Pool deck details will be
submitted with the building plans... (Rev.2) Addressed.
43. Provide/label handrails wherever wall ht. > 4-ft., including pool deck area. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
44. At tangent section of travel way just prior to entering building 3 parking deck, revise % grade labels so
legible. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
45. Add flow lines and % grade to asphalt surface to ensure runoff reaches Str. 5. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
46. Revise proposed improvements line type from grayscale to black. Also, similar comments elsewhere.
(Rev. 1) Addressed.
47. Provide TWBW elevations along retaining wall south of building 2. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
48. Show and label existing terrain contours. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
49. Ensure entrance grade < 4% for at least 40', measured from EP, South Pantops Drive. Ref site plan review
checklist, entrance improvements, item 2. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
50. Sheet 8: Two (2) serviceberry trees conflict with Str. 7 and 8; revise landscape plan to eliminate conflict.
(Rev. 1) Addressed.
51. Sheet 12: Provide pavement design for Vistas Way based on 949 VPD. Proposed pavement section Dp
=8.14, but Dr=14.575. Revise Vistas Way pavement section to ensure that Dp(roviaea) >_ D r(equirea). (Rev.l)
Addressed.
Sheet 14
Engineering Review Comments
Page 4 of 5
52. Recommend against 0.50% grade, EXSDMH to Str. 10. If As -built condition of this storm line pipe <
0.50%, owner must provide remedy. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
53. Max. grade storm line pipe is 16%. Revise proposed grade of storm line pipe between Str. 9 and 10.
(Rev. 1) Acknowledged.
54. Provide label identifying structure located 2.7' below storm line between Str. 8 and 9. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
55. Provide note requiring specific compaction for MH Str. placed in fill; that is, Str. 513, 613, and 6C, to
minimize issues related to settling. For example:
(Rev. 1) Addressed.
56. Show /label VDOT ES-1 in profile (Str. 1). (Rev. 1) Addressed.
57. Inlet calculation tables are not VDOT LD-204, LD-229 format. Provide LD-204 for inlets; LD-229 for
storm sewer design. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
58. Since vertical drop in `step-down' MH Str. 5 > 4', provide '/2" steel plate in floor of MH; ref. VDOT
drainage manual, p. 9-38 (image, below):
(Rev. 1) Addressed.
59. Max. water depth for 5.5" inlet throat ht. = 0.458'. Ensure water depth < Max. depth. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
60. Sheet 18: Provide MH Step detail. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
61. Sheet 19: Provide dumpster pad detail; ref. site plan review checklist, p. 3, item 8. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
62. Sheet 19: Provide handrail detail. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
63. Sheet 20: Engineering defers to ACFR on adequate geometric design for fire -rescue needs. (Rev. 1)
Addressed.
64. Relates to ESC Plan: Email from John Anderson dated 01/11/2019: Please provide V-2year at structure 1
(system outfall), and riprap L x W x D design, consistent with VESCH design guidelines (Std. & Spec. 3.18
Outlet protection). Label Str. 1 outfall riprap L x W x D dimensions on the VSMP/WPO Plan (WPO 2018-
00095), and on the final site plan. (Rev. 1) Acknowledged; Comment shall be addressed on the VSMP plan
review. (Rev.2) Addressed.
65. Email from John Anderson, dated 01/16/2019:
Right turn lane:
Sheet 12 shows South Pantops Drive typical road cross section with proposed 12' right turn lane. Please
revise site layout sheets (3, 4, 5) to show and label proposed rt. turn lane in plan view (unless overlooked).
(Rev. 1) Addressed.
Sheet 2 shows variable width Ex. concrete ditch section. Please revise sheet 2 to show portion of Ex.
concrete ditch to be removed /demolished. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
66. Email from David James, dated 01/17/2019:
1. The outfall pipes from storm structure 4 should be adjusted (enlarged/raised, etc.), or be made
watertight based upon HGL. {DSM, pg. 141 (Rev. 1) Acknowledged.
2. All drainage from public ROW should be shown in an easement. Minimum width 20' & meets DSM,
pg. 14 width requirement. (Rev. 1) Acknowledged.
3. Sheet 10 — Pipe (2-1) & (3-2)
a. Velocity shall not exceed 15 ft/s in pipes. (Rev. 1) Acknowledged.
b. Provide anchor blocks at every other pipe joint for storms pipes over 16% slope. A "step down"
manhole system can be used in steeper terrain to reduce pipe gradient. (Rev. 1) Acknowledged.
c. Correct the tables — node IDs showing `64' or don't match the nodes shown on Sheet 5 map.
(Rev. 1) Acknowledged.
67. (Rev. 1) Sheet 3/4:
a. Provide correct sheet callout for trash compactor. Correct the CG-12 callout along s. pantops
(should be CG-6) and page reference label (should be sheet 18) for guardrail terminal detail.
(Rev.2) Addressed.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 5 of 5
b. Label retaining walls over 30-in & not integral to the building wall design (RW#1, RW#2, etc.).
Provide max height, TWBW spot elev. for retaining wall at S-W parking lot corner near building
#3. Guardrail warranted in front of retaining wall for last two parking spaces. (Rev.2) Label
TWBW elevation and max height for wall #4. (Rev.3) Addressed.
c. Specify UD-3 for proposed sidewalk along s. pantops. UD-3 to outlet to EW-12 or proposed flume
drain str. Show UD-3 in the sidewalk detail. (Rev.2) Addressed.
d. (Rev.2) Show retaining wall accurately according to the wall design plans . (Rev.3) Addressed.
68. (Rev. 1) Sheet 6: Correct grading near entrance where the ditch (to be removed/demoed) and curb/sidewalk
meet. Sidewalks shall be generally level with minimal surface warping; cross -slope shall not exceed 2%.
(Rev.2) Addressed.
69. (Rev.l) Sheet 13:
a. Velocity in pipes (2-1) & (1-Out) & outlet is considered excessive. Reduce pipe velocity to 20fps
or less, and outlet velocity to 10fps or less. A possible solution would be to install additional `step-
down' manhole/s.
b. Show size of drainage area going to flume off of s.pantops. I believe the total drainage area going
to is more than 0.02ac. Is EC-3 adequate, if not provide alternative?
(Rev.2) Addressed.
70. [New] (Rev.3) Sheet 17:
a. Reduce outlet velocity to under 15fps by dropping MH 1 lower.
b. Provide anchors for the 36" culvert (over 16% slope).
c. Provide detail of energy dissipator at end of culvert.
d. Please show correct width and depth of channel. Plan/Cross-section shows it as 6'w & 1'
deep, and the Profile/Report show it as 81w & 1.5' deep.
e. Provide stone sizing calcs for the channel linings (Refer to E&SC HB, Chapter 5: Flexible
liner method).
f. How did you determine the n-value of 0.04 from Channel Report?
g. Show/Install fabric liner underneath the riprap of channel.
71. [New] (Rev.3) Please show correct width of drainage easement. The easement width shown is 25'
wide and should be about 28' wide for pipe Str. 2-1. 2'(dia.)+2'+2(12-5)+10 = 28 : & Likewise, for l-
out.
72. [New] (Rev.3) Retaining walls:
a. At least the height of the wall should be maintained from the property line. [DSM, p. 221
Ensure an off -site easement will not be required to construct the wall; otherwise, provide
letter of permission.
b. Sheet 3/9 — Move tree from on top of wall #1.
Review Comments for SDP201800085 lFinal Site Development Plan
Project Name: The Vistas at South Pantops - Final
Date Completed: Friday, December 13, 201 Department1DivisionfAgency: Review sus:
Reviewer: Richard Nelson _ ADSA I Requested Changes
Sheet 5: deflect water main after Manhole D, to provide more separation between water main and curb and gutter_
Sheet 6: MI -Is A and E should be tested once constructed_ Include sequence number 9 in the first step_ For step 7, please
clarify if scut pipe' refers to cut and capping the existing downstream pipe
Sheet 18: Have water main cross on top of roof drain at STA 13+00_ We will allow 6 inches of separation }, ith 3 feet of cover at
this crossing_
Page: County of Albemarle Printed On: 12) 16120'19
Stephen C. Brich, P.E.
Commissioner
+44
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper Virginia 22701
November 26, 2019
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Attn: Tim Padalino
Re: Vistas at South Pantops -- Final Site Plan
SDP-2018-00085
Review #4
Dear Mr. Padalino:
The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use
Section, has reviewed the above referenced plan as submitted by Roudabush, Gale, &
Associates, revised 3 October 2019, and offers the following comments:
I. The Department is fine with the general design of the proposed drainage flume; however,
the gals. I/2" steel diamond plate is not acceptable. Please look into different surface
coatings or types of non-slip/serrated sidewalk grating options.
Please provide two copies of the revised plan along with a comment response letter. If further
information is desired, please contact Max Greene 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,
ot(OL-
Adam J. Moore, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Charlottesville Residency
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING