HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP202000034 Review Comments Initial Site Plan 2020-05-14Phone (434) 296-5832
Project:
Project file#:
Plan preparer:
Owner or rep.:
Plan received date:
Date of comments:
Reviewer:
Project Coordinator:
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Site Plan review
HTC Area C Townhomes Initial Site Plan
SDP2020-00034
Shimp Engineering, 912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902
Justin Shimp justingshimp-en ing eerieg com
Post Office Land Trust
Charles Wm Hurt & Shirley L. Fisher, Trustees
P. O. Box 8147, Charlottesville, VA 22906
6 Apr 2020
14 May 2020
John Anderson
Andy Reitelbach
SDP2020-00034 (Also, ZMA201700005 relevant to design)
Fax (434) 972-4126
1. Recommend schematic layout of travelways /units more -nearly match ZMA201700005 approved revised
application plan, d. 12-18-2019.
2. Include SDP202000034 in revised plan set title.
3. Note: Engineering review comment of No objection on ZMA201700005 relied on ZMA Application Plan.
SDP202000034 bears no resemblance to ZMA201700005 approved Application Plan.
a. Compare block II with revised code of development, Narrative, p. 11 of 36.
Block II
�fhe buildings within Block ff Me dCkgned to front on Timberwood Boulevard and turn the comet to front
Access Road G. q4te building along Timberwood Bottlevar-1 starts with hm stories and steps to a three stM7
building dong Access Road E. ihis allows fOL the building to work with the grade while poy ding the aPF!uF
mass to these two important streets. Block II proposes multi- story buildings and/or single family attached dwellings
that are designed to front along Timberwood Boulevard and Access Road C. The height of buildings and the
location of the buildings, fronting on Timberwood Boulevard and Access Road C, provide the appropriate mass
to these two important streets. There is additional frontage available for future development of the block at the
corner of Timberwood Boulevard and Access Road B as well as along Access Road B. The parking lot is designed
to be located internally within the block and to allow the possibility of a parking deck that would accommodate
this future infill developme additional parking need. Finally, there will be space for public art, benches, kiosks,
and/ or other features on all four of the corners of Timberwood and Access Road C for the purpose of framing
this important intersection and providing an improved pedestrian orientation. If residential units are built on the
property, amenities, as outlined in Table A, must be provided. Amenity area must be no less than 7% of the total
area of Block II dedicated to residential use.
b. Block III:
ZMA201700005 Code of Development, p, 12, 14
Block III
Block III proposes a multi -story building that frames the corner of Timberwood Boulevard and Access Road C.
Contained in the building at the corner of Timberwood Boulevard and Access Road D, there maybe an apartment
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 8
building. Townhouses are proposed to front onto Access Road D. Finally, there will be a space for public art,
benches, kiosks, and/or other features on all four the corner of Timberwood and Access Road C for the purpose of
framing this important intersection and providing an improved pedestrian orientation.
c. Block VII
ZMA201700005 Code of Development, p, 15
Block VII
. This block proposes multi -story buildings
with at least one building and/or mutliple single family attached dwellings fronting Access Road C, the possiblity
for buildings and/or single family attached dwellings fronting Access Road B, and surface parking lots relegated
to the interior of the block. The buildings may contain residential, non-residential, and retail uses so long as the
unit count for residential uses does not exceed the maximum allowable outlined in Table A and the square footage
dedicated to non-residential and retail uses does not exceed the maximum allowable square footage outlined in
Table A. If residential units are built on the property, amenities, as outlined in Table A, must be provided. Amenity
area must be no less than 7% of the total area of Block VII dedicated to residential use.
4. Revise street design consistent with Approved ZMA201700005 Code of Development, p. 18:
Transportation and Mobility - TableC
Streets & Alleys
The location of streets, alleys, or access to parking areas, sidewalks and pedestrian paths are generally shown on the
Application Plan. Table C provides proposed street cross -sections, sidewalks, and streetscape design guidelines, and
indicates whether individual streets are proposed as public or private. The road layout as shown on the Application
Plan indicates the intent of the design. Timberwood West is a major thoroughfare in the Town Center providing
external connections to Airport Road and Route 29. The other major thoroughfare is Access Road C (a.k.a., Ridge
Rd.), which provides an eventual interconnection between the Town Center and the North Fork Research Park via
TMP 32-41. Access Road B provides access from Timberwood Boulevard and Area B.
Note: Design submitted with SDP202000034 does not match street cross-section in ZMA201700005, p. 21;
SDP202000034 does not reflect conceptual photos of streetscape, Code of Development, pp. 22-23.
5. C6, block VII
a. Private road A
i. Road A includes unlabeled ribbon curb adjacent to 10 attached units. Please label.
ii. Requires Private street authorization request.
iii. Drainage design does not accommodate sloped recreation area.
iv. Drainage design does not clearly prevent nuisance conditions at entrances to individual
unit garages /driveways (flow lines, drive grades not provided).
v. Does not include sidewalks or planting strips.
vi. Label /dimension ribbon curb with ISP resubmittal.
vii. Provide roadway width label, dimension lines, etc.
viii. At the NE end of Road A, design shows a turnaround over a sidewalk/pedestrian facility.
This design element is rejected. Design may never intentionally co -locate pedestrians
and vehicles in the same space (exception: crosswalks). Pedestrians on walks believe
they are safe from vehicle strike. Drivers assume a paved surface is available for use. SE
is urged to strike this design, and not return to it, again. Instead, propose a more typical
layout that separates vehicles and pedestrians except at designated crosswalks. Avoid
design that overlays vehicle and pedestrian facilities (sidewalks). Inherent with design at
NE end of Road A (and NE end of a second unnamed road, block VII) is conflict due to
positioning a sidewalk within a turnaround. Eliminate lots, if necessary, to allow
adequate separation between sidewalks and travel ways /turnarounds. Engineering
stresses fundamental need to respect driver behavior and to recognize individuals with
impaired /diminished sensory, cognitive, ambulatory, peripheral, or reaction responses,
who may use these walks, and suffer vehicle strike. Were such incident to occur, beyond
a preventable tragedy, questions arise: who is at fault? And who would be? Driver may
claim s/he was operating within limits by accessing the turnaround. Pedestrian would
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 8
never expect to be hit by a vehicle on a sidewalk. Design should recognize driver
behavioral patterns cued to signs, striping, paved edges, etc., and the range of pedestrians
(elderly, children, disabled, parents with strollers, distracted [texting]) who deserve
assurance that an approved plan shields sidewalks, that a plan proposing mixed walk
/turnaround will be disapproved. It is fine to think creatively. It is unacceptable,
however, by engineering standards to propose inherently unsafe design, to not recognize
and avoid increased risk to public safety and welfare relating to this design element.
Eliminate concept across this and future development plans, despite worthwhile
/competing density or affordability goals.
b. Unnamed road
i. Does not appear to meet sidewalk/planting strip requirements for a subdivision.
ii. Requires private street authorization request.
iii. Creates lot remnants on opposite side of street from townhomes. Engineering defers to
Planning as to whether this design may be approved with FSP (final site plan).
iv. Comments elsewhere may also apply to this unnamed road.
v. Provide dimension line, leader line/label to indicate pavement width.
c. For FSP approval
i. Provide entrance curb radii.
ii. Provide typ. curb /gutter (plan view), sections, details.
iii. Design to private street standards; i.e., VDOT standards.
iv. Provide linework to show connection between proposed storm pipes, block VII, and
existing HTC storm system /network.
v. Provide complete drainage calculations for proposed storm pipes.
vi. Evaluate capacity of existing storm pipes since flow in Ex. system likely to increase.
vii. Propose grade to ensures runoff reaches inlets (DI-7 in recreation area, for example).
viii. Show /label CG-12 ramps at street entrance crosswalk.
ix. Show /label and provide private drainage easements.
x. Label Ex. sidewalk width along Laurel Park Lane.
xi. Show curbs at individual townhouse drive entrances.
xii. Provide typical civil details.
xiii. Provide street /traffic control signs.
xiv. Provide sight lines at block site entrance point/s.
xv. Item 5.c.xiv. applies to Area C blocks 11, III, as well.
xvi. Provide sight distance easements (with final plat).
d. Block VII sidewalks may exceed 5% grade; ensure sidewalks meet ADA-accessible requirements.
e. Walks partially within public ROW, Berkmar Drive, require Maintenance Agreement between
Applicant and Albemarle to assign maintenance responsibility to Applicant /subsequent owner.
f. Recommend lots include no portion of sidewalk fronting Berkmar Drive. Also, next item.
g. Revise design /lot lines to remove all portions of lots from private streets.
6. [18-32.5.2.m] For ISP approval Ingress and egress: Show distance to the centerline of the nearest existing
street intersection, for each block (II, III, VII).
7. Block II, III, VII subdivision and final site plan approval (FPT, FSP) requires:
a. Approved Road Plan (including utility /drainage)
i. Roads must be built or bonded.
ii. Private street authorization request is required; review /approval required.
iii. Variance /exception requests appear to apply to current design (curb /gutter).
b. Approved WPO plan
i. WPO plan must ref. Ex. prior -recorded Maintenance Agreement.
ii. WPO plan must link FSP Area C blocks II, III, VII to ex. SWM facilities via plan #.
8. C5, block III
a. Topographic detail is inadequate to evaluate drainage. With revised ISP, provide topography at 2'
(or less) such that storm /street design may be evaluated.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 4 of 8
b. Design to private street (VDOT) standards if private streets proposed [14-412.B.]
c. Request private street authorization.
d. Comments at item 5, C6, above, may also apply.
e. With revised ISP submittal:
i. Show sidewalk fronting Lockwood connecting with remnant sidewalk to NE.
ii. Provide curb with VDOT designation at private driveway entrances to Lots 1 — 10.
iii. Label block III subdivision access: street name, private/public, width, dimension lines.
iv. Provide CG-12 /pedestrian ramps at crosswalk at subdivision street entrance.
v. Show storm system connection with existing storm system.
vi. Note: Show ACSA utility, private drainage, and access /street easements across lots on
final plat /final site plan. Planning Div. coordinator may require FSP include deed bk.-
pg. reference to recorded final plat.
9. C4, block II
a. Provide temporary turnaround for street at Lot 36. Private driveways do not serve as turnarounds.
b. Remove lots from private streets.
c. Request private street authorization for streets in block II.
d. Design to private street standards. Ref. 14-412.13.
e. Provide easements.
f. FSP (final site plan)
i. Provide detail sufficient to review and approve road, drainage and WPO plans.
ii. Ensure FSP is consistent with road, drainage, and WPO plans.
iii. Provide and record all utility, private storm, access, sight line easements, especially
across lots.
iv. Planning may request deed bk.-pg. reference to recorded final (subdivision /easement)
plat be shown on the final site plan.
v. Final site plan approval requires road /drainage (utility) and WPO plan approval.
vi. Final site plan approval may require final plat recordation, with bk.-pg. reference shown
on FSP. (defer to Planning.)
vii. 6' wide sidewalk crossing proposed 7570 SF recreation area turns NE and appears to
narrow. Min. sidewalk width =5'. Ensure NE portion of walk meets min. width
requirement.
viii. Curb, gutter, street requirements listed elsewhere (blocks VII, III) apply to block II, as
well.
ix. Label internal street CL radii.
x. Show /label CG-12 ramps for proposed or existing sidewalk along Conner Drive.
xi. VDOT road design manual (RDM) informs FSP design and will be Engineering reference
resource when evaluating Road Plan /drainage design.
xii. Rename entrance from Berkmar `Private Road C' (or similar). Planning/GIS may
comment on name usage for portions of intersecting streets with a stop condition.
xiii. Similarly, rename entrance from Conner Drive `Private Road D' or similar.
xiv. Note: There at least 4 discrete street sections:
1. Berkmar Drive subdivision entrance (Road A) w /stop condition
2. Conner Drive entrance with possible stop condition (Road A)
3. U-shaped interior Road A, with possible stop
4. Road B
Note: Naming convention may mislead e-911 first responders.
xv. Driveways entrances, Lots 22-26 may not be built as proposed, since:
1. These entrances fall near or in a street intersection that requires a yield or stop
condition. Design includes a sheet of pavement that includes site entrance from
Conner Drive intersection with Road A (which requires stop or yield condition),
a radial section of Road A, and Lot 26 and Lot 25 driveway entrances.
2. This design cannot be approved.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 5 of 8
3. Provide intersection sight distance lines.
4. Drivers' of vehicles reversing from Lots 22, 23, 24 and (possibly) 25 view is
obstructed, relative to vehicles entering from Conner Drive. Provide sight lines.
5. Adhere to minimum entrance setback requirements from nearest intersecting
street.
6. Modifying design similar to (constructed) design (below) may provide remedy
(separate drive entrances from street —blue circle; HTC Area C, block IV)
xvi. Recommend remove sidewalk fronting Berkmar Drive from lots and show sidewalk in
HOA open space.
xvii. Recommend locate all sidewalk, including sidewalk between Lots 42-49 and Lots 50-58
in HOA open space. If sidewalk crosses 15 lots, as shown, then future maintenance will
involve the interests of 15 individual property owners, rather than HOA (single entity).
xviii. Lot lines appears to provide double frontage for multiple lots in block II: Timberwood
Blvd, Conner Drive, Berkmar Drive and internal private streets. Engineering defers to
Planning on apparent double -frontage.
xix. Show connection with existing (off -site) storm drain system. With FSP (road /utility
plan) provide comprehensive inlet /culvert calculations, including calculations that
demonstrate receiving system pipes located downstream of block 11 have sufficient
capacity to convey increased storm runoff from development impervious area.
xx. Note: block VII is inconsistent with ZMA201700005 Revised Code of Development, 12-
18-2019. Also, item 3.a., above.
10. Cl: With revised ISP, provide additional SWM Note narrative to reference WPO or SDP plans relied upon
for SWM compliance.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 6 of 8
11. C2: SDP202000034 HTC Area C, block II,111, VII layouts (unit mix, street access, required easements) are
strikingly dissimilar from revised Application Plan d. December 18, 2019, which includes no subdivision.
Engineering defers to Planning as to whether ISP requires revision to more nearly align with revised
"Application Plan." (ZMA201700005 Proffer condition 1).
A 45p - --
II P
I
,r
------------
VIII
� \may _ S� .w - i •
n. � I i
12. C3: On revised ISP, include existing improvements not currently shown on adjacent, or on -site parcels.
Reff, satellite image, below (blue circle).
13. With final site plan (FSP): Include demolition details of any existing on- /off -site improvements proposed
to be demolished.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 7 of 8
14. Note: Inspection photos, HTC Area C, block IV (possible design reference /courtesy Engineering)
Curb (where practical) between private drive entrances
Engineering Review Comments
Page 8 of 8
Please feel free to call if any questions: 434.296-5832 -0069. Thank you
SDP2020-00034 HTC Area C Townhomes ISP 051420