HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP202000034 Review Comments Initial Site Plan 2020-06-05COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone(434) 296-5832
June 5, 2020
Mr. Justin Shimp
Shimp Engineering, P.C.
912 East High St.
Charlottesville, VA 22902
justinkshimp-en ing eering c�
RE: SDP-2020-00034 HTC Townhomes — Initial Site Plan — Action Letter
Dear Mr. Shimp:
The Agent for the Board of Supervisors hereby grants conditional administrative approval to the above -
referenced site plan. See below and attached for conditions and process:
SITE PLAN: This approval shall be valid for a period of five (5) years from the date of this letter, provided
that the developer submits a final site plan for all or a portion of the site within one (1) year after the date of
this letter as provided in section 32.4.3.1 of Chapter 18 of the Code of the County of Albemarle, and
thereafter diligently pursues approval of the final site plan.
In accordance with Chapter 18 Section 32.4.2.8 Early or Mass Grading may be permitted after the
following approvals are received:
1. Engineering approval of a VSMP plan meeting the requirements of Chapter 17 of the Code of the
County of Albemarle.
2. Approval of all easements for facilities for stormwater management and drainage control.
3. Submittal of a tree conservation checklist with areas for tree preservation identified.
The final site plan will not be considered to have been officially submitted until the following items are
received:
1. A final site plan that satisfies all of the requirements of section 32.6 of Chapter 18 of the Code.
2. Applicable fee outlined in the application.
Please submit 13 copies of the final plans to the Community Development Department. The assigned
Lead Reviewer will then distribute the plans to all reviewing agencies.
The Department of Community Development shall not accept submittal of the final site plan for signature
until tentative approvals for the attached conditions from the following agencies/reviewers have been
obtained:
SRC Members:
Albemarle County Planning Services (Planner) — 3 copies
Albemarle County Engineering Services (Engineer) —1 copy
Albemarle County Information Services (E911) — 1 copy
Albemarle County Building Inspections —1 copy
Albemarle County Fire & Rescue —1 copy
Albemarle County Service Authority —3 copies
Virginia Department of Transportation — 2 copy
Albemarle County Planning Services (Architectural Review Board) — 1 copy
Please contact Andy Reitelbach at the Department of Community Development at mreitelbachgalbemarle.org or at
(434) 296-5832 ext. 3261 for further information or if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
V. ,4 R
Andy Reitelbach
Department of Community Development, Planning Division
Senior Planner
Albemarle County Planning Services (Planner)
Andy Reitelbach, mreitelbach(c-r�,albemarle.org — Required changes to be addressed prior to final site plan approval:
1. [32.5.2(a)] Zoning.
a. Include the applicable Zoning Overlay districts on the cover sheet: Airport Impact Area, Entrance
Corridor, and Steep Slopes — Managed.
b. Include that this property is also subject to ZMA2001-00020. Although Blocks II and VII are
subject to ZMA2017-00005, Block III is still subject to the original ZMA2001-00020.
c. Include the special exception that was approved with ZMA2001-00020 modifying the buffer
requirements for property adjacent to a Rural Areas zoned property, as this special exception is
applicable to Block VII.
d. Include the approved proffers for ZMA2001-00020 on sheet C2 as well, as Block III is subject to
that rezoning.
2. [32.5.2(a)] Provide the owner names, zoning district designations, present uses, and tax map and parcel numbers for
all parcels that are adjacent to the three subject parcels.
3. [32.5.2(c)] Provide phase lines if this project is proposed to be phased in any way.
4. [32.5.2(d)] Steep Slopes.
a. Show the locations of Managed Steep Slope areas on the plan.
b. In addition, the retaining wall at the southeast corner of Block II must meet the standards for steep
slopes in 30.7.5. Any single retaining wall cannot be over 6-feet in height. Revise the design of this
retaining wall so that it is 6-feet in height or less.
5. [32.5.1(c), ZMA2017-00005, ZMA2001-000201 Dimensions. Show setback lines on the plans and ensure that
proposed buildings comply with setbacks. Some areas do not appear to meet the setback requirements.
6. [32.5.2(m)] Ingress and egress. Show the distance to the centerline of the nearest existing street
intersection from all of the proposed ingresses and egresses in each of the three blocks.
7. [32.5.2(r)] Labels and symbology.
a. Identify the dashed gray lines that are shown at the fronts and rears of the proposed dwelling units. They
appear to likely be porches or overhangs or something similar.
8. [32.5.2(n)] Lighting. Provide an outdoor lighting plan that complies with 32.6.2(k) or note that no outdoor
luminaire will exceed 3,000 lumens.
9. [32.5.2(p)] Landscaping. Provide a landscaping plan that complies with section 32.7.9.
10. [32.5.2(o)] Areas to be dedicated or reserved. Identify all areas to be dedicated or reserved for public use.
11. [32.5.20); 32.5.2(1)] Identify all existing sewer and drainage facilities, as well as all existing and proposed
utilities.
a. There are several spots on the site plan sheets where deed book and page numbers are
referenced; however, the dimensions of those utilities and other easements are not clearly
depicted. Clearly identify these easements.
b. An approved easement plat will be needed for the proposed utilities and stormwater facilities.
Once recorded, the deed book and page number(s) for the new easements will need to be noted
on the plan before final approval can be granted.
12. [32.5.2(k)] Proposed sewer and drainage facilities. Depict these facilities and their dimensions. If necessary,
an approved and recorded easement plat will be required prior to approval of a final site plan and/or final
subdivision plat.
13. [32.5.2(b)] Information regarding the proposed use.
a. Indicate on the cover sheet that Block III is subject to the height regulations of ZMA2001-00020.
b. Identify on the cover sheet whether the proposed use is for single-family attached or single-family
detached dwellings.
c. Identify the maximum number of proposed dwelling units by type.
d. Provide the gross residential density for this project.
e. Revise the parking schedule to provide additional parking spaces. As single-family attached units
appear to be proposed, without common parking bays, an additional one guest space is required for
every four units. This requirement is in addition to the 2 spaces per units required.
f. Identify the locations of the guest parking spaces on the site plan sheets.
g. Identify on the cover sheet the maximum amount of impervious cover proposed on the site.
h. With the landscape plan, identify the maximum amount of paved parking and other vehicular
circulation areas on the site.
i. Provide the square footage of the proposed individual lots.
j. Lot 22 in Block II cannot have a property line going through the middle of its driveway. Revise.
14. [32.5.2(i)] Streets, easements, and travelways.
a. A private street request, with justification, is required if the lots are proposed to be subdivided.
b. The private streets as shown do not meet the minimum requirements for private street design.
• Provide sidewalks on both sides of all private streets.
• Provide planting strips on both sides of all private streets.
c. Clearly identify on the plans which travelways are proposed to be private streets and which are
proposed as private alleyways, including their proposed widths. Some of the travelways have no
labels. This distinction could affect such requirements as double -frontage lots, sidewalk provision,
planting strip provision, and street design standards.
d. Private streets and private alleyways would require easements to permit the right of passage along
them. Deed book and page numbers for those easements will be required on the final site plan
before approval can be granted.
e. Are interconnections with adjacent parcels proposed? There are areas on the south sides of Blocks
II and III that appear to be paved, but it is unclear whether they are proposed for interconnections.
Interconnections should be provided with adjacent parcels.
f. Identify who is responsible for owning and maintain the existing private streets, including Connor
Drive and Laurel Park Lane. Demonstrate the right of access for this proposed development over
those existing private streets. The legal documents for those private streets may need to be
amended to permit the additional development requested.
g. Provide more detail on the existing conditions at the Lockwood Road frontage of Block I11,
including the existing on -street parking spaces. It appears that public on -street parking spaces will
be lost with this proposal.
h. Identify how many public on -street parking spaces are proposed to be removed, and provide a plan
for the replacement of those lost on -street parking spaces adjacent to Block III on Lockwood Road.
i. Provide bike lanes along the appropriate streets as required by Table C of the Code of
Development.
j. All proposed new streets will require names approved by E911.
15. [32.5.2(n)] Existing and proposed improvements.
a. The sidewalks and planting strips along the public streets must be in the public right-of-way.
b. The sidewalks depicted going across individual lots would need to have easements over them to
allow the right of passage, prior to final site plan approval.
c. How is trash collection proposed to be handled for this development?
d. Provide accessible ramps and crosswalks at all street crossings.
e. Identify the materials proposed for the crosswalks. As mentioned in the Code of Development, all
crosswalks are required to be distinguished in a brick pattern style.
f. Provide sidewalks along the existing streets (Timberwood Blvd. and Access Roads B, C, and D in
the COD) at a width that is in conformance with the requirements of Table C of the Code of
Development.
g. Provide sidewalks to the front of each proposed dwelling unit from the main sidewalks/frontage.
h. Remove the sidewalk from the hammerhead turn-arounds located at the northern end of Block VII.
i. Provide dimensions for all parking spaces, including driveways.
j. Note the maximum footprint of the proposed buildings.
k. Proposed sidewalks must connect with existing sidewalks to prevent gaps. Show all existing
sidewalks and how they connect with the proposed sidewalks.
1. Show all existing improvements on site, such as the landscaping that crosses onto Block II from the
parcel to the south.
16. [32.5.2(n); ZMA2017-00005] Recreational areas and facilities.
a. Identify the amenities, as well as their locations, proposed for the recreational areas depicted in
Blocks II and VII. The Code of Development requires pocket parks and tot lots to be provided in
Blocks II and VII.
b. Identify who will have ownership and responsibility for maintenance of the common areas,
including the recreational areas. Are these areas proposed to be dedicated to the County? Or will a
homeowners association (HOA) be responsible for their ownership and maintenance? Legal
instruments creating the HOA and stating its responsibilities will be required prior to approval of a
final site plan and/or final subdivision plat.
17. [32.5.2(s)] Residual. Label the residual parcel area and acreage for each residual parcel. It appears at least Block III
will have a residual parcel area.
18. [ZMA2017-00005] Affordable Units. Identify the units proposed to be affordable as required by ZMA2017-
00005 for those units proposed on Blocks II and VII.
19. [Advisory Comment] If the applicant is interested in subdividing these parcels into individual lots for the proposed
single-family attached dwellings, a preliminary subdivision plat is required to be submitted for review, in addition to a
final subdivision plat.
20. [14-401] Double Frontage. There are several proposed lots that are depicted as having double -frontage. Submit
a Special Exception application for review and approval of proposed double frontage lots, with justification for
the inclusion of double -frontage lots. Consult 14- 401 and 14-419 for standards. This comment only applies if a
subdivision of the blocks into individual lots is proposed.
21. [32.7.9.71 Landscaping. Double -frontage lots require landscaping to screen the rears of those lots. If double -
frontage lots are proposed, either landscaping will be required in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, or a
modification request will need to be submitted for review. This comment only applies if a subdivision of the
blocks into individual lots is proposed.
22. [32.5.2(i); Chapter 141 Private Streets. Private streets are shown on the site plan. A request for private streets
is required to be submitted, with justification for the private streets. This comment only applies if a subdivision
of the blocks into individual lots is proposed.
23. [Advisory Comment] Be advised that a zoning map amendment to any individual block in Hollymead Town Center
Area C requires the signatures of all property owners of that block. As such, if the property owner of the proposed
residue of Block III was interested in a zoning map amendment for that parcel at a later time, the ZMA application
would need to include the signatures of all property owners, including the owners of each of the proposed single-
family attached residential units.
24. [General Comment] Mailboxes. USPS is now requiring new residential developments to provide centralized
delivery. Please work with the post master on an acceptable location and depict this location on the plan.
25. [General Comment] Final site plan. A final site plan is required to be submitted for this project.
Comments from Other Reviewing Departments and Agencies
Albemarle County Engineering Services (Engineer)
John Anderson, janderson2&albemarle.org — Requested Changes; see the attached memo.
Albemarle County Information Services (E911)
Brian Becker, bbecker&albemarle.org — Requested Changes:
Critical Issues: Private roads A and B in Block II and the access to Lots 23 — 33 in Block IV require road names for
addressing purposes.
Comments: Per the Albemarle County Road Naming and Property Numbering Ordinance, Sec. 7-200, Part B (page 2
of the PDF):
"It is intended by this article that all roads within the county which serve or are designed to serve three (3) or more
dwelling units or business structures shall be named..."
Private roads A and B in Block II and the access to Lots 23 — 33 in Block IV will therefore require road names for
addressing. Please provide this office at least three alternative road names for review, in case your first choices are
not acceptable. The Albemarle County Master Road Names Directory can be accessed here:
http://www.albemarle.org/albemarle/upload/images/webapps/roads/.
Albemarle County Architectural Review Board (ARB)
Margaret Maliszewski, mmaliszewskigalbemarle.org — See recommendations:
The ARB reviewed this application on June 1, 2020. See ARB-2020-45 for the action letter.
Albemarle County Planning Services (Transportation Planner)
Daniel Butch, dbutch(a)albemarle.oriz — See recommendations:
Be advised of currently submitted Revenue Sharing application for a new roadway with bicycle and pedestrian
accommodations to continue Berkmar Dr to Airport Rd where a roundabout will be constructed. Currently still in
anticipation of grant response.
Albemarle County Building Inspections
Michael Dellinger, mdellingergalbemarle.org — Requested Changes:
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.
Add the following note to the general notes page:
Where the flood level rims of plumbing fixtures are below the elevation of the manhole cover of the next upstream
manhole in the public sewer, the fixtures shall be protected by a backwater valve installed in the building drain,
branch of the building drain or horizontal branch serving such fixtures. Plumbing fixtures having flood level rims
above the elevation of the manhole cover of the next upstream manhole in the public sewer shall not discharge
through a backwater valve.
Albemarle County Fire -Rescue (ACFR)
Shawn Maddox, smaddox@albemarle.oriz — Review pending; comments will be provided to applicant when received
by Planning staff.
Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA)
Richard Nelson, melson@serviceauthoriM.org .org — Requested Changes:
I recommend SDP2020-00034 HTC Area C Townhomes - Initial Site Plan for approval with the following conditions:
Submit a PDF copy of the plan to ACSA for review.
A RWSA sewer capacity certification will be required.
RWSA will need to review and approve proposed connections to their water main.
2 separate sewer agreements will need to be recorded prior to final site plan approval. ACSA sewer upgrades may be
necessary based projected sewer flows from the proposed sections if other development occurs concurrently.
Currently there is available sewer capacity.
Block II:
1. Show existing water main.
2. Extend water main to serve Lots 33-36.
Block III:
1. Show existing sewer main.
2. Confirm if Fire/Rescue will require a fire hydrant.
Block VII:
1. Water main is in conflict with sewer in front of Lot 23.
2. Reuse existing water main stubout along Laurel Park Lane, or abandon it.
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT)
Adam Moore, adam.mooregvdot.vir ig nia.gov — Requested Changes; see the attached memo.
Virginia Department of Health, Thomas Jefferson Health District (VDH)
Alan Mazurowski, alan.mazurowskigvdh.vir ig nia.gov — No objections at this time; see the attached memo.
Phone (434) 296-5832
Project:
Project file#:
Plan preparer:
Owner or rep.:
Plan received date:
Date of comments:
Reviewer:
Project Coordinator:
SDP2020-00034
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, revised 3-Jun 2020
John Anderson
Andy Reitelbach
Fax (434) 972-4126
1. Include SDP202000034 in revised plan set title.
2. 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
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
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 6
(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. Comments elsewhere may also apply to this unnamed road.
iv. 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 2.c.xiv. applies to Area C blocks II, 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.
3. [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).
4. 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 #.
5. 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.
b. Design to private street (VDOT) standards if private streets proposed [14-412.B.]
c. Request private street authorization.
d. Comments at item 2, C6, above, may also apply.
e. With revised ISP submittal:
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 6
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.
6. 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.B.
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.
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.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 4 of 6
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 I1: 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 II have sufficient
capacity to convey increased storm runoff from development impervious area.
7. C1: With revised ISP, provide additional SWM Note narrative to reference WPO or SDP plans relied upon
for SWM compliance.
8. C2: SDP202000034 HTC Area C, block II, III, 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).
Engineering Review Comments
Page 5 of 6
Q: On revised ISP, include existing improvements not currently shown on adjacent, or on -site parcels.
Ref satellite image, below (blue circle).
10. With final site plan (FSP): Include demolition details of any existing on- /off -site improvements proposed
to be demolished.
11. Note: Inspection photos, HTC Area C, block IV (possible design reference /courtesy Engineering)
Street and drive entrances are separated.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 6 of 6
Please feel free to call if any questions: 434.296-5832 -0069. Thank you
SDP2020-00034 HTC Area C Townhomes ISP 060320rev
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Stephen C. Brich, P.E. 1401 East Broad Street (804) 786-2701
Commissioner Richmond, Virginia 23219 Fax: (804) 786-2940
May 27, 2020
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Attn: Andy Reitelbach
Re: SDP-2020-00034- Hollymead Town Center Area C- Townhomes-Initial Site Plan
Dear Mr. Reitelbach:
The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use
Section, has reviewed the above referenced rezoning amendment application plan as submitted
by, Shimp Engineering, PC., dated April 06, 2020, and offer the following comments.
Land use
1. Please provide right turn lane analysis from Berkmar drive, onto private road A.
The final site plan must also show conformance with the VDOT Road Design Manual
Appendices B(1) and F, as well as any other applicable standards, regulations or other
requirements.
If further information is desired please contact Willis C. Bedsaul at (434) 422-9866.
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,
Adam J. Moore, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Charlottesville Residency
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
In Cooperation with the Thomas Jefferson Health District ALBEMARLE- CHARLOTTESVILLE
State Department of Health FLUVANN COUNTY
(STAY IRALMVRA)
1138 Rose Hill Drive GREENE COUNTY ISTANTY(LO LLE)
LOVISA COVNTY)LOVISA)
Phone (434) 972-6219 P. O. Box 7546 NELSON COUNTY (LOVINGSTON)
Fax (434)972-4310
Charlottesville. Virginia 22906
May 18, 2020
Andy Reitelbach, Senior Planner
Albemarle County Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: HTC Area C Townhomes
Initial Site Plan
SDP2020-34
Mr. Reitelbach:
As requested, I have reviewed the Initial Site Plan, dated 4/6/20, for the proposed
townhouse development, referenced above. It is apparent both water and sewer will be
provided by public utilities, and it does not appear any existing wells or onsite septic
systems will be impacted. Therefore, I have no objection to the proposed development.
If there are any questions or concerns, please give me a call, 434-972-4306.
Sincerely,
Alan Mazurowski
Environmental Health Supervisor
Thomas Jefferson Health District
alan.mazurowski(gvdh.vir ig'nia.gov