HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201900067 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2020-05-13COUNTY 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
(Rev. 1)
3 Apr 2020
Date of comments:
6 Dec 2019
(Rev. 1)
13 May 2020
Plan Coordinator:
T:,� Christopher Perez
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. (Rev. 1) Persists. Applicant response (4/2/20 letter): `Noted. Will
continue to work in tandem.' Asfollow-up: most recent WPO plan review comments sent 4/6/20.
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.
(Rev. 1) Applicant response: `Noted. Property is to be subdivided per updated boundary info.'
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.
(Rev. 1) Persists. Applicant: `Road plan has been submitted. Since this street serves attached dwelling
units, the private street authorization request can be approved by the planning agent, and is included with
this submittal' As follow-up: Engineering Road Plan review comments sent 5/12/2020 6:15 PM outline
comprehensive essential revisions required for road plan approval, which is pre -requisite 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. (Rev. 1)
Persists. Applicant: `Noted, this is reflected in the site plan design.' Asefollow-up: Also, please see Road
Plan review comments sent 5/12/2020 6:15 PM since several comments relate to SP2018-16 conditions.
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). (Rev. 1) Partially Addressed. As -follow-up: Please also list SUB202000059 (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. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Asefollow-up: Please edit text at SDP
201800016 slopes disturbance waiver, C3, 3.A. to read `a grade that does not exceed a 3:1 slope.' Also,
please revise reference to SP201800016 (since special permit, not a site development plan).
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 6
Provide copies of detailed PE -sealed geotechnical retaining wall design/s 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. (Rev. 1) Persists. Response: `None of these
walls are required for Road Plans, we will provide with next final site plan submittal.' Note: walls support
parking area near Rio Rd. E., and are associated with the road plan.
C2
9. Show /label preserved steep slopes on TMP #61-210B. Applies to additional sheets; C17, for example.
(Rev. 1) Partially addressed. Asfollow-up: See C18 /GIS images. Incomplete hatching of preserved steep
slopes on C18. Hatch and label full extents of preserved steep slopes (consistent with GIS). Compare
impact to preserved steep slopes (highlight, below); compare with SDP201800016 slopes disturbance
waiver listed items (C3). Please notify Engineering how the slopes waiver addresses (authorizes) impacts
to preserved steep slopes south of Rio Road E. If not authorized by exception or variance; options: acquire
a special use permit [ 18-30.7.4.b.2], or furnish field survey data to show proposed impacts to preserved
steep slopes [below, right ] occur on slopes less than 25% based on new topographic information [18-
30.7.4.b.l.h.].
Albemarle County GIS SDP201900067, sheet C18 ( hatching )
I
T'��7�n,
77
10. Label stream buffer (TMP #61-210B)
C3 C5
(Rev. 1) Addressed.
ii!'u� doe
VifNER
41
ill
► 0
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.) (Rev. 1) Addressed.
12. Label HC-parking space width (2 separate locations). (Rev. 1) Addressed.
13. Revise Road A 32' Private to clarify that paved surface is 20', not 32'. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
14. Similarly, revise Road B, C, D, 30' Private to clarify width of geocell pavers (vs. 30' easement width).
(Rev. 1) Addressed.
15. At relevant points along Road D, label radii. (See Roads B, C.) (Rev. 1) Addressed. Asfollow-up: Please
relocate labels obscured by linework. For example: R500', R120% GR-2 guardrail, R80'(possibly others).
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. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
17. Label 10' Multi -use pedestrian trail. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
18. Label 14' Emergency Fire Access. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
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. (Rev. 1) Partially
addressed. Applicant: `CG-6 provided at critical points along Road A in accordance to what we identified
as the spirit of your request, specifically along the lower parking area, along the point where most of Road
A runoff is located, and before/at the intersection with Rio Rd E.' As follow-up: Ref. Engineering Road
Plan review comments sent with email, 5/12/2020 6:15 PM.
20. Provide CG-6, continuous from point identified in item 19., through last curvilinear parking space (End of
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 6
Road A). (Rev. 1) Not addressed. Applicant: `CG-6 is not provided here due to the low amount of runoff,
since it is the top of a hill.' As follow-up: Provide CG-6 consistent with VDOT Road Design Manual,
Appendix B(1) Table 1, Fig. 1.1. Road A is an urban design, not a shoulder /ditch roadway section.
21. Provide CG-6, not CG-2, in all parking areas. Ref. 18-4.12.15.Q. 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 En ig neer.' CG-6 is required to meet ordinance design requirements for parking,
and VDOT typ. section for subdivision roads. (Rev. 1) Not addressed. Applicant: `We have provided
gutter for curb along spaces that see more than 0.1 ac. drainage area. The current design achieves the goal
of well -managed overland runoff. We would be glad to review and discuss with engineering with a phone
conference as we seek to find solutions acceptable by both parties to this non-traditional development.' As
follow-up: Engineering review of exception /variation and private street authorization requests is pending,
but for purposes of FSP approval, a basic explanation of review: Engineering compares design with
ordinance. 18-14.12.15.g. makes no reference to drainage area, non-traditional development, or overland
runoff. 18-4.12.15.g. instead provides criteria specifying where and why curb and gutter is required.
Approval of design dismissing requirements is delayed until design meets requirements. Design proposes
no curb or gutter for 14 curvilinear parking spaces. Rather, runoff would cross a 5' sidewalk. Consider for
a moment effect of freezing weather on rain, snow, snowmelt, etc. that migrate from pavement to sidewalk.
A design that reflects ordinance requirements is more likely to be approved quicker with less review or
design expense than a design that proposes to eliminate required elements. Since ordinance requires curb
and gutter, Engineering checks for it, and (typically) comments or requests revision to provide curb and
gutter wherever required, specifically for (eligible) parking areas where the elderly, children, residents with
parcels or strollers, the disabled, or guests deserve protection afforded by design requirements published in
county ordinance and VDOT standards.
22. Recommend Site Summary include Ref. to WP0201900053 1.26 Ac. Forest /Open Space Easement. (Rev.
1) Addressed. Applicant response: `Noted, (area is now 1.06 Ac.)"
23. Label 12' and 14' turnaround W (narrowest) and L dimensions, to clarify, and avoid misunderstanding.
(Rev. 1) Addressed.
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 131, Fig. 2-21 (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant: `Enclosure revised, this is
achieved.'
A single -unit (SU) 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.
�m
[;Elm •
...
,b
cor
FIGURE 1 - "FIGURE 2-2" SCANNED FROM "A POLICY ON GEOMETRIC
DESIGN OF HIGHWAYS AND STREETS," AASHTO, 2011
Engineering Review Comments
Page 4 of 6
25. Provide sight distance line to ensure 100' min., unobstructed stopping sight distance through curvilinear
section with perpendicular parking, Road A. (Rev. 1) Withdrawn. Review error. Design provides CL
radius of 120' with parking on inside of a curved travelway, per ACDSM, 7.C. La.
26. Label all easement linework. (Rev. 1) Partially addressed. Design shows and labels ACSA utility, access,
drainage, multiple SWM facility, forest /open space, and fire access (20' access) easements. A final
subdivision plat may record easements. Deeds are required for SWM facility, forest /open space, and
public drainage easements. Engineering formats deeds once final plat review comments are addressed,
except sight distance easement deed. Since EcoVillage requires a final plat, the WPO plan may be
approved prior to easement recordation. WPO plan approval is required for FSP (mentioned elsewhere). As
follow-up: Ensure sight distance easement is shown with next FSP submittal and shown with the final plat.
27. Label all drainage easements downstream of any SWM facility (incl 38 raingardens) as up blic drainage
easements. Also, reference /address WP0201900053 12/4/19 Engineering review comments. (Rev. 1)
Addressed.
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 egress from development unless
this sight -distance easement is obtained /recorded. Show /label sight distance easement on C3. (Rev. 1)
Persists. Applicant: `Noted, the developer is working on this. We have advised that this is critical, and the
entire project approval hinges on this easement.'
EC7LLAGE! PROPOSED ENTRANCE LAYOUT
\
f
29. C3/C4: Identify multi -use pedestrian trail matt_ _ I, either in legend, on plan, or both. Provide typ. detail.
(Rev. 1) Addressed.
30. C3/C4: Show northern -most extent of 14' Emergency Fire Access (Secondary Exit) point of connection
with: Rio React, [Rockbrook Drive, ] Ex. paths /sidewalks, etc. Any work within VDOT R/W Rio Road E,
requires land use permit, and VDOT approval. (Rev. 1) Persists. Show and label Rockbrook Drive. Show
and label Rockbrook Drive right-of-way. Provide TMP # and ownership information for Spaar parcel.
Also, please ref. road plan review comments.
31. Note: Road Plan should provide profile of 14' Emergency Fire Access for comparison with fire apparatus
ground clearance requirements. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
C5, now C7
32. With CG-6, ensure no nuisance ponding. Provide spot elevations as needed to ensure positive drainage.
(Rev. 1) May persist given request for CG-6 along Road A, and in parking areas. Additional comments
possible, once road plan /FSP revised.
33. Revise 8% grade < 5% where Road A serves perpendicular parking spaces. (18-4.12.15.c.) (Rev. 1) Not
addressed. C7 indicates 8% grade (label). If drive aisle grade =8%, then parking space grade > 8%.
Please revise.
34. Revise 6% grade < 5% where Road A serves perpendicular HC-parking spaces. (18-4.12.15.c.) (Rev. 1)
Not addressed. See C7. Please revise.
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).
(Rev. 1) Addressed.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 5 of 6
36. Provide inlet capture along inside of Road A revised 70' R curve (w CG-6). (Rev. 1) Comment may
persist once CG-6 added to Road A. Additional comments possible.
C6
37. Relocate SWM Facility access (MH) from parking space to parking lot access aisle, to permit access. (Rev.
1) Comment persists. Applicant response: `Due to drive aisle width for angled parking, this could not be
fully achieved. However, MH access is on the stripe, which leaves room for maintenance access even if
there is a car parked there. In reality, the HOA will coordinate BMP maintenance with the residents, and
part of this coordination responsibility will be to ensure there is access to the system. While this might not
be an ideal situation, we have had similar BMP setups in several other subdivisions without issue. It just
takes a bit more communication on the ground.' As follow-up: Please relocate from parking space to
facilitate county inspection. County cannot as a practical matter coordinate with an HOA, and requires
unrestricted access to SWM facilities in public easement.
38. With CG-6, revise depiction of VDOT-typ. inlets. Integrate inlets with CG-6 as opposed to cut /fill section.
(Rev. 1) Comment may persist once CG-6 added to Road A/parking areas. Additional comments possible.
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): (Rev. 1)
Addressed. Applicant response: `BMP dia. =17' septh =5'. Max grade above BMP = 418. BMP Stone
invert=404.5. Esmt width = (17+2+2*(418-404.5-5)+10) =46'. 46' width provided. Dimensions labeled.'
Albemarle County Design Standards Manual — Engineering is
ixw��xarvi�.�e�nc� �a��.a�an; e�vnnYr;�ya�un
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;
httR://www.albemarle.org/detforms.M?deRartmenv=cdengyMo.
40. C6/C7: Revise storm inlet /pipe design consistent with WPO201900053 Engineering review comments.
(Rev. 1) May persist.
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. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant: `Notes, street
trees are now medium shade trees. Trunks have been moved out of easements, and out of raingardens.
However, there is not enough space onsite to place trees such that canopies are outside easements. We
have provided a plan that balances zoning requirements (street tree locations) and locations for better
maintenance practice.' Engineering appreciates design revisions.
42. C15/C16: Revise storm sewer profiles consistent with WPO201900053 12/4/19 Engineering review
Engineering Review Comments
Page 6 of 6
comments. (Rev. 1) Persists. Request for consistency across site, road, and WPO plans persists, though
Engineering makes no explicit request relating to plan inconsistency (we identify no inconsistency).
C 16, now C 18
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. (Rev. 1)
Addressed.
44. Please check (TMP #61-210B) Parcel A-1-A label; this appears inconsistent with GIS /Real Estate records.
(Rev. 1) Addressed.
45. C 17: Provide copy of recorded on -site sight -distance easement, left. Sight -distance easements (left /right)
are prerequisite to FSP approval. (Rev. 1) Persists. Response: `Noted, this is pending. See response 28,
above. The developer has not secured these, yet.'
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)
(Rev. 1) Addressed. All sheets signed and dated.
47. Revise per 18-Sep 2018 Engineering ISP review comment 10, image, below: (Rev. 1) Addressed.
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. (Rev. 1) Addressed. As follow-up: Ensure detail, C12, is readable.
Please feel free to call if any questions. Thank you
I Anderson 434.296-5832 -0069
SDP201900067 Ecovillage FSP 051320revl