The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSDP202000028 Correspondence 2020-06-05 (6)SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. Design Focused Engineering June 1, 2020 Mariah Gleason County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 RE: Response Letter #1 for SDP202000028 Proffit Rd Townhomes North — Planning Dear Mariah, Thank you for your review of the Final Site Plan for Proffit Rd Townhomes North. This letter contains responses to County comments dated April 30t' 2020. Our responses are as follows: 1. [32.5.2(a)] Application ID. Include the application ID on the Cover Sheet (SDP202000028). App. ID added to cover sheet. 2. [32.5.2(a)] Tax Map Parcel. Provide the unabbreviated tax map and parcel number in at least one place in the plan. Staff sr providing this information on the Cover Shee' Acknowledged, we replaced the short TMP with unabbreviated TMP on the cover sheet. 3. [32.5.2(a)] Zoning notes. a. Indicate on the plan whether this is a conventional or cluster development. This is a cluster development, this has been added to "PROPOSED USE". More than 25 % open space (2.71 / 7.59 = 35.7%) has been provided. b. Include in the zoning notes that this parcel is subject to ZMA2018-06 and its associated proffers. Note added to "ZONING" on cover sheet 4. [4.19, 18.31 R-15 zoning district regulations. a. If this is a conventional development, provide the size of each lot (ir ]are feet). This is a cluster development. The lot sizes are shown on the plat, we did not add these to the site plan since the text would obscure other data at this scale. b. Revise the Side setback to align with Sec 4.19 for non -fill development. The side setbacks are reduced to 5' per the provisions allowed by 4.11.3 — which allows a min. 10' building separation if there is available fire flows. The required fire flow for this development is 1500 gpm, available is 2247 gpm. Thus, this site meets the qualifications for a reduced side setback. c. Provide the Building Separation requirement (of loft) as a separate line item. Acknowledged 5. [32.5.1(c)] Setbacks. Sheet C3 indicates that Lots 1-7 have a rear setback along Proffit Rd. Is this correct or will lots on this block have two front setbacks? Review and revise the setbacks and labels accordingly. You are correct, these are double frontage lots and have 2 front setbacks. The "rear" front setback off Road B is the 18' offset from the sidewalk due to the garages, the front setback from Proffit has been corrected to "front" instead of "rear". 912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com 6. [ZMA2018-06] Double frontage. If Lots 1-7 are intended to have their front building fagade face Proffit Rd: a. A waiver will be needed to relieve this development of the requirement for screening of double frontage residential lots, in accordance with Sec 32.7.9.7(a)(4). Noted. This is submitted with the Subdivision Plat. b. Walkways connecting the front doors of Lot 1-7 to the sidewalk facilities along Proffit Rd will likely be required. We don't think this is a zoning requirement, so walks won't be shown. However, we have added a note which permits the private lead walks for this block to Sheet C3. 7. [ZMA2018-06] Lot orientation. The placement/orientation of Lots 18-22 cannot be approved with this plan as they do not align with the approved application plan. Remove this representative information from the plan. Lots 18-22 lot lines have been removed. 8. [32.7.7, 4.161 Recreation Facilities. a. Demonstrate that the minimum recreation area is being provided. The minimum recreation area needed for this development is 10,800sf (54 units x 200sf per unit). The plan is currently showing 2,500sf of recreation area. This has now been shown. We have provided 11,000 sf active recreation area (less than 10% slopes) and 1000 passive recreation area (a trail). The 2500 area was an unclear labelling, this represents the mulched area in the tot lot (part of the active rec. area). This has been clarified. b. Demonstrate that minimum facilities required for tot lots are being provided, per Sec. 4.16.2. Acknowledged, this is shown per Sec. 4.16.2. c. Will footings for the tot lot play equipment conflict with proposed underground stormwater facilities? They will not, the shallowest cover over the SWM facility is 5' (see profiles on C14) d. Indicate the intended ground cover of the tot lot. See Sec. 4.16.1 for examples of appropriate materials. The main "park" area is mulched. The remainder of that fenced in portion is turf. This has been clarified. e. Provide information/notes as required by Sec. 4.16.3: i. 4.16.3.2 Recreational equipment and facilities shall be maintained in a safe condition and replaced as necessary. Maintenance shall be the responsibility of the property owner if rental units or a homeowners' association if sale units. Note added to new sheet C15 ii. 4.16.3.3 Recreational facilities shall be completed when 50 percent of the units have received certificates of occupancy. Note added to new sheet C15 9. [32.5.2(d)] Managed Steep Slopes. Show managed steep slope locations on the existing conditions and site plan sheets. Managed slopes now shown on plan sheets. 10. [ZMA2018-06, 32.5.2(i)] Easements. An easement plat will be needed for the buffer areas required by Proffer #4 and the proposed Stormwater Management Forest/Open Space easement. The easement plat will need to be submitted, reviewed, approved, and recorded prior to final site plan approval. We are pushing back against the requirement to place the buffer area in an easement. This is not required by any county ordinance. Further supporting the intent of the buffer: this area is 912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com part of the preserved canopy and is guaranteed to be protected by the tree protection spreadsheet. 11. [32.5.2(b)] Land use schedule. a. Is the lot 7.59 acres or 7.29 acres? The deed book reference and square footage indicated in the Land Use Schedule total, 317,552sf both indicate the lot is 7.29 acres in size. Revise the site acreage provided on the plan maps sheet or clarify the source of this acreage. The source of the acreage is the boundary & topographic survey by Roger W. Ray & Assoc. The area is indeed 7.59 acres, the sf has been updated. To note, we have discovered that the plat of record has a typographic error and should read 7.59 acres, based on the computed area shown in the plat linework itself. This is of course supported by the boundary survey. b. Is the Land Use Schedule providing the amount of impervious surface cover on the site? A line for "total impervious" has been added. c. How are driveways being accounted for within the table? They are part of "pavement" 12. [32.5.2(n)] Driveways. a. Are the driveways for Lots 23-20 meant to extent to the building? Review and revise if necessary. Also, please note that a change may impact the proposed land use schedule. No, those units only have driveways, not garages. b. If not provided already, indicate the proposed paving material for the driveways. They are asphalt paved. Detail added to CIO. 13. [32.5.2(b)] Open spaces. Since northern portions of the lot will be used for open spaces and to meet canopy requirements, show the entire parcel on the existing conditions sheet and/or provide bearing di-tance- and tie -/monuments with the Landscape Plan. Entire parcel area shown on C2. 14. [32.7.9.4] Existing wooded area. On Sheet C2, indicate whether the existing wooded area is composed of evergreen, deciduous, or a mix. Noted. 15. [32.5.2(n)] Trash. Indicate how trash will be handled for this development. Trash will be handled in toters. See revised note on cover sheet "TRASH DISPOSAL AND WATER & SANITARY SERVICES". 16. [32.5.2(a)] Abutting parcel information. Provide the names of owners, zoning district, tax map and parcel numbers and present uses for all abutting parcels that are adjacent to areas where development is proposed. All neighboring parcel info now shown on C2. 17. [32.5.2(a)] Departing lot lines. Show the departing lot lines of parcels abutting the subject property along State Route 649. Shown on C2 and elsewhere. 18. [32.5.2(f)] Watershed. Revise watershed to "North Fork Rivanna (below water intake)". Acknowledged 19. [32.5.2(a)] North. Review and revise the north arrow on Sheet C8. Acknowledged. C8 & C9 have been removed from the Final Site plan per Engineering Comment, this is addressed in the Road Plans. 912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com Comments required for Final Site Plan approval that may also apply to the associated Road Plan (SUB2020-55): 20. [ZMA2018-06] Proffer #2. Show the right-of-way improvements along Proffit Rd per the plan view map shown on Sheet 3 and the cross-section shown on Sheet 1 of the approved application plan. Required improvements shown on plan, cross section shown on C10. 21. [ZMA2018-06] Internal street network. The internal street network shown on the plan is not in alignment with the application plan and proffers associated with ZMA2018-06. To adhere with the approved application plan, Road B must terminate at its intersection with Road D. Acknowledged, while this is correct, we anticipate that ZMA 2019-10 will be approved just prior to site plan approval, and have shown the layout in anticipation of this. A note has been added to C3 stating this. 22. [ZMA2018-06, 32.7.2.2(d-e)] Extension and coordination of streets. County Code requires all streets within a development to extend and be constructed to the abutting property lines. To meet this requirement: a. Show construction of proposed Road D up to the property line of TMP 32A-2-113 and secure any off -site construction or grading easements that may be needed to allow the construction of Road D up to the property line. Or Neighbors have been resistant to providing grading easements. b. Provide documentation to demonstrate that the abutting landowner will not grant the easement, show construction of proposed Road D as close to the abutting property line as possible, and grant the necessary easement area to allow the future extension/connection of Road D to this parcel boundary in the future. Note: The easement plat will need to be submitted, reviewed, approved, and recorded prior to final site plan approval. We will get documentation from the abutting landowner. We are actually providing ROW extension (not esmt) all the way to the boundary line. This is shown with the subdivision/easement plat (which will be submitted very soon). 23. [32.5.2(b), 4.12] Parking. a. The required parking for this development is 122 spaces. Per Sec. 4.12.6, this development is required to provide one guest parking space per four units (54/4=14 spaces). With this addition, the required parking for this development is 122 spaces (108+14). Review and revise the Parking Schedule on the Cover Sheet accordingly. Note revised as requested. b. There is a discrepancy in the proposed widths of on -street parking spaces. The plan maps indicate spaces will have a width of 8ft while the ROW Cross Sections provided on Sheet C10 indicate on -street parking spaces will have a width of 9ft. Please review and revise to align this information and provide on -street parking space widths of 9ft, in accordance with Sec. 4.12.16. This has been fixed to shown 9' width. 24. [32.7.9.4] Landscape Plan. a. Provide a scale bar. Scale bar added. b. Since this is not an infill development, where existing utilities are already in place, street trees will be required on both sides of the entire lengths of Road A and Road B. Revise the Landscaping Plan to include street trees in front of Lots 50-45 and on the eastern -facing sides of Lots 37-38. 912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com Updated to have street trees on both sides. c. All required street trees must be provided with this site plan, not a future site plan. Please revise the Landscaping Plan accordingly. Acknowledged d. Remove Note 5 from the Landscape Plan. The scheduled street trees are being used to meet the tree canopy requirement for this development. As such, tree species cannot be substituted since different species have different canopy covers. Note 5 removed. e. Is the last tree species provided in the Interior Street Tree Schedule supposed to be a Nyssa sylvatica (black gum) or a Quercus palustris (pin oak)? The schedule currently specifies "Nyssa sylvatica (pin oak)", which appears to be a clerical error. Tree species changed. Correct names are now provided. 25. [32.5.2(i)] Street names. Provide street names for new roads. Proposed names will need to be reviewed/approved by E911 prior to final site plan approval. Acknowledged. Proposed Road Names: Road A: Zelkova Drive Road B: Corner Oak Drive Road C: Hall Of Oaks Lane Road D: Flat Branch Lane 26. [32.5.2(m)] Nearest intersection. Adjust the nearest intersection distance labels on Sheet C3 so they are on top of the hatched pattern(s). Current layering makes it difficult to read these labels. Labels moved out of hatch. If you have any questions or concerns about these revisions, please feel free to contact me at keane@shimp-en ing eering com or by phone at 434-227-5140. Regards, Keane Rucker, EIT Shimp Engineering, P.C. 912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com