Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA202000007 Correspondence 2020-10-08WILLIAMS M U LLEN Direct Dial: 434.951.5709 vlong@williamsmullen.com October 5, 2020 VIA EMAIL: mreitelbach(cilalbemarle.oro Andy Reitelbach Senior Planner Planning Division Albemarle County Department of Community Development RE: ZMA 2020-00007 RST Residences Dear Mr. Reitelbach: Thank you for your staff review comment letter of September 16, 2020 regarding ZMA 2020- 00007, RST Residences. This letter addresses the comments and suggestions contained in your letter. Planning — General ZMA Comments It appears that the only frontage for this property is from U.S. Route 29, Seminole Trail. How does the applicant intend to reach the subject property from Ashwood Boulevard, including the construction of the proposed entrance? There is a parcel of land owned by the Commonwealth of Virginia located between the Ashwood Blvd. public right-of-way and TMP 46-109. The applicant will need to either own that land or otherwise have an easement or some other right of access for the proposed entrance to cross that parcel, as this parcel is not a part of the right-of-way. Staff has found a deed that appears to apply to that parcel, TMP 46B5-1D (see attached deed), which also includes additional restrictions and conditions on the use of that property. Also, note that TMP 46B5-1 D is zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development, and may be subject to an application plan. Provide legal documentation from the Commonwealth of Virginia granting the applicant the right to cross the Commonwealth's property (TMP 46B54D) in order to access the applicant's parcel (TMP 46-109), whether this is a Deed of Bargain and Sale, a Deed of Easement, or some other documentation. Otherwise, remove the entrance proposed off of Ashwood Boulevard, and provide another entrance in a different location. Response: RST Development will provide such legal document when it is available. In the attached email correspondence of September 22, 2020, VDOT has informed RST Development that it is possible to issue an access permit to create an entrance to the Project at Ashwood Boulevard. The access permit requires a separate VDOT application and review process before the requested legal documentation can be provided. 2. ZO 18-19.7. In the PRD zoning district, any building over 40 feet in height or three stories, whichever is less, requires a stepback of 15 feet, as provided in 18-4.19. The "two -over -two" townhouse units are described as being four stories in height. These units will require a stepback of 15 feet, or a special exception request will need to be 321 East Main Street, Suite 400 Charlottesville, VA 22902 T 434.951.5700 F 434.817.0977 williamsmullen.com l A Professional Corporation ZMA 2020-00007 RST Residences October 5, 2020 Page 2 submitted to waive or modify that requirement. Submittal of Special Exception request acknowledged. Comments regarding the special exception request are listed below, in a separate section. 3. Provide more information on the design of the "two -over -two" townhouse units. The narrative says that these units contain garages for each unit. Does each individual unit, the top unit and the bottom unit, have its own garage space? In addition, is the garage its own story/level of the building? Or is the bottom unit's kitchen and living room on the same level as the garages? Thank you for providing the floor plans and elevations for these town -house units. 4. ZO 18-19.6.21ZO 18-4.16: Provide more information on the recreational facilities proposed to be included in this development. Recreation requirements mandate a minimum of 200 square feet be provided per dwelling unit. With 370 units proposed, 74, 000 sq. ft. of recreational space is required. It does not appear that this requirement is met with the amenity space shown on the application plan. a. Separate out the calculations of the proposed recreational space from the other open space areas, such as the vegetative buffers, so it is more clear what amenities and open space are being provided and where (there can be some overlap), and to ensure there is space to accommodate the minimum 25% required. b. Identify the locations of the required recreational facilities. The proposed amenity spaces do not appear large enough to accommodate these facilities. According to 18-4.16.2, a minimum of eight tot lots of at least 2,000 sq. ft. each is required and a minimum of four 3�-court basketball pads of 30 ft. by 30 ft. each is required. c. Submit substitution requests if other facilities are desired so that staff can evaluate to ensure adequate facilities are provided. The cover sheet identifies 4.53 additional open space area. Clarify what this additional space is referencing, as it does not appear to be labelled on the plans. It would also be helpful to provide estimates of the acreage/square footage of the various amenity and open space areas that are identified throughout the plan. Response: Additional open space area labels have been added to Sheet 4 and the breakdown of amenity areas has been added to the open space calculation on Sheet 1. The areas labeled "additional open space area" are separate from the buffer and amenity areas, and are proposed as an area to remain open space on the site for potential plantings or additional forested green space. It is still not clear that there is sufficient space provided to accommodate the required amenities mentioned above. Without a substitution request being provided and more detail on the proposed amenities, staff must review the ZMA based on the required amenities of 8 tot lots and 4 half -court basketball courts. These amenities should be shown conceptually to indicate that this requirement can be met. ZMA 2020-00007 RST Residences October 5, 2020 Page 3 Response: More information about the amenities proposed in lieu of the otherwise required 8 tot lots and 4 half basketball courts has been added to the plans on Sheets 1 and 4. Two (2) tot lot are proposed in addition to other amenities shown on the plans. In addition, not all amenities can overlap with open space. For example, an indoor fitness center cannot be counted as open space. Also, a dog park is repeatedly referenced in the narrative; however, no such facility is identified on the plan. Provide more information on what is proposed for amenities and what is proposed for the 25% open space. Response: A breakdown of the different amenity areas has been added to the open space calculation on Sheet 1 and "Additional Open Space Area" and a dog park have been labeled on Sheet 4. Is the proposed stormwater management area that overlaps the amenity area near the Ashland Townhouses property proposed to be underground? A SWM facility cannot be counted as an amenity. Response: The stormwater management facility is proposed to be underground, though a final determination will be made at the site plan stage. 5. Provide the acreage of the cemetery delineated on the property. Is the cemetery a separate parcel? Comment addressed. 6. Depict the Managed Steep Slopes across all sheets of the application plan. Managed Slopes are a zoning district, and staff needs to have a clear understanding of their location in order to adequately review the plan, as there are design requirements for areas of managed slopes. See ZO 18-30.7. Comment addressed. 7. It is indicated that the proposed "two -over -two" units will be sold as condos. Be aware of ZO 18-4.5 for requirements regarding condominiums. Comment addressed. 8. Is there any proposed subdivision that will occur with this development? Any lots created by subdivision will need to meet the requirements of ZO 18-4.6 and the Subdivision Ordinance, Chapter 14. It is likely that a boundary line adjustment (BLA) plat would be needed to vacate the property line between TMPs 46-108 and 46-109. (This vacation is not required at the rezoning stage but is something to be aware of at the site planning stage if the zoning map amendment is approved.) Comment addressed. 9. Is the open and amenity space proposed to be privately owned (such as by an HOA) or dedicated to public use? If this application is approved by the Board of Supervisors, documents establishing the HOA, such as a declaration of covenants and restrictions, will need to be submitted and reviewed by County staff at the site planning and subdivision stage in order to identify such elements as the responsibility of maintenance for shared items like open space, amenities, and any private travelways, among others. ZMA 2020-00007 RST Residences October 5, 2020 Page 4 Response: Noted, thank you. 10. Remove the parking and building envelopes from the areas of preserved steep slopes on the application plan sheets. Preserved steep slopes cannot be disturbed. In addition, several of the retaining walls and associated grading appear to be very close, or even directly adjacent to, areas of preserved steep slopes. These retaining walls need to be of a sufficient distance away from the preserved steep slopes so that the slopes are not disturbed during grading activities. It appears that several parking lot areas will need to be moved farther away from the preserved steep slope areas. The proposed retaining wall, on sheet 4, in the northwest corner of the site next to the 100-ft. buffer does not appear to provide sufficient space for grading next to the preserved steep slopes. In addition, the retaining wall in the northeast corner of that parking lot cuts off the corner of one parking space, which will not be permitted at the site planning stage. Response: The conceptual grading has been updated to remove the northwest retaining wall and modify the northeast parking space. Please see Sheet 6. Final grading will be determined during the site planning stage to assure that preserved steep slopes are not impacted. Please see the note on Sheet 6. 11. Private streets in the development areas require private street requests to be submitted. Public streets are preferred in the development areas of the County. Comment still applies. However, staff acknowledges that the designation of private streets vs. public is addressed at the site planning stage. There is a potential connection provided to the north of the property; however, this proposed connection is shown much farther to the east that what is shown in the Places29 Master Plan. With the streets in the RST development proposed to be private, is there a plan for access along the street to ensure that this proposed connection is usable by residents and property owners and will not be closed off? Interconnections are not helpful if there are barriers preventing their use. Also, why was a 24' access easement decided upon? Response: RST Development will record an access easement allowing the public access to the private streets. The Application Plan has been updated to show a 50' access easement. Please see Sheet 3. 12. There is a lack of pedestrian orientation across the whole development. Sidewalks and planting strips should be provided along both sides of all streets of the development. Safety features such as crosswalks should also be provided. Sidewalks and planting strips should be provided along both sides of all streets in a development to encourage the pedestrian connections identified in the neighborhood model principles. There do not appear to be any planting strips provided, or sufficient space identified. In addition, there are no pedestrian connections on the north side of the Route 29 entrance, along the west side of Road B, or along several of the roads around the townhouse units. Response: A sidewalk has been added to the north side of Road A at the Route 29 entrance, such that sidewalks are proposed for both the north and south side of that entrance. Please see Sheet 3 of the revised plans. ZMA 2020-00007 RST Residences October 5, 2020 Page 5 As discussed in our meeting on September 24, 2020, County Staff agrees that a sidewalk is not needed on the west side of Road B, provided that crosswalks connecting the parking area on the west of Road B to the sidewalk on the east side of Road B. A sidewalk on the west side of Road B is not feasible due to the parking requirements and topography on the site, although a planting strip is proposed to separate the parking area from Road B. Additionally, in response to suggestions from County Staff, the sidewalk on the east side of Road B has been widened in the area where the sidewalk connects to Road C, to achieve the same width as the portion of that sidewalk adjacent to the front of the South Wing of Building 1. The proposed wider sidewalk will enhance the pedestrian experience and will reflect the centrality of Building 1 to the RST Residences community. Also as discussed in our September 24, 2020 meeting, the sidewalks proposed for the townhouse buildings will serve the front of each townhouse building and the sides that face Road C. Sidewalks are not proposed for the rear of the townhouse buildings, which are served by alleyways. Landscaping will be incorporated in the parking areas and in the sidewalks pursuant to County requirements. Conceptual landscaping is shown in the "proposed aerial close-up view" on the Site View Exhibit (Sheet 7) of the revised plans. Specific details of the landscaping will be determined at the site plan stage. 13. What do the labels and line Land Bay 1 and Land Bay 2 stand for? Is this line separating the parking that is provided for the multi -family units vs. the two -over -two units? Comment addressed. 14. The parking areas must meet the requirements of ZO 18-4.12. Parking design and the number of parking spaces will be determined at the site plan stage, if the zoning map amendment is approved, based on the final designation of uses and number of units. Comment addressed. 15. How will waste management be addressed at this development? Is it only the proposed trash compactor? Comment addressed. 16. ZO 18-19.4: Provide in the project narrative and on the application plan both the gross density and the net density for this project. It appears that only the gross density has been provided. Without the net density, staff cannot adequately determine if this proposal is consistent with the recommendations of the Urban Density Residential land use designation and the Places29 Master Plan. Comment addressed. 17. Identify the structure that is being provided in the central amenity area. Also, how is this amenity area proposed to be accessed? It appears to be surrounded by Building 1 on two sides, and a terraced retaining wall on the third side. This retaining wall appears to create a significant barrier to access of that amenity area. Comment addressed. 18. Clarify whether the proposed entrance from Ashwood Blvd. aligns with the Brookhlll entrance across the street. These entrances would need to align with one another. Comment addressed. ZMA 2020-00007 RST Residences October 5, 2020 Page 6 19. Has a Phase 1 environmental impact statement been done on this property previously? Can you provide a copy of this Phase 1 enivronmental impact statement for the file? Response: While we are not in a position to provide the Phase 1 environmental assessment performed on the Property in 2019 (prior to the Applicant's purchase of the Property), the report did not reveal any concerns. 20. Revise sheet 2 of the Project Narrative. The property designated for Institutional uses appears to be owned by the County. There may be some confusion between this parcel and the parcel directly adjacent to the subject parcels, which is owned by the Commonwealth of Virginia. Comment addressed. 21. In the project narrative, on sheet 5, provide more clarification on how the project would improve the public road network, as all of the streets in the development are currently proposed to be private streets. As private streets, there is the potential to block them off, preventing their use as a connection by the general public. No new public street connections are shown on the application plan for this project. Please clarify how the public road network is proposed to be improved with this project, as no public roads are being proposed within this development allowing for a more interconnected public road network. Is the improvement that entrances to the property will be in better locations than where they are currently? (Please also see comment #1 above about the entrance onto Ashwood Boulevard.) Response: RST Development will grant an access easement for the public to use the private roads. Since the private roads will be accessible to the public, the Project could help support alternatives to Route 29 for north/south traffic flow in the vicinity in the event the parcel to the north of the Project is developed and connects to the Project's road network. In addition, the Project is proposing a connection to the planned Archer Avenue across Ashwood Boulevard. 22. Sheet 5 of the narrative states that the project is designed to avoid encroachment on preserved slopes. However, there are several locations on the application plan where the building/parking envelopes are shown to be overlapping areas of preserved slopes, as well as retaining walls that are abutting those slopes, indicating that there would be some disturbance. Please see comment #10. Otherwise, comment addressed. Response: The Application Plan has been updated as requested. Please see Sheet 3, and the note on Sheet 6. 23. On sheet 5 of the narrative, provide more detail on the "variety of recreational and other amenities" available for use, "as no amenities are identified on the application plan other than a few small areas of green space. See comment #4 above. Response: As noted in the response to comment #4 above, this information has been included in the revised plans. 24. On sheet 6 of the project narrative, provide more information on the expected number of students to be generated by this proposed development. 370 dwelling units is a significant number of units that could produce many additional students. Both Hollymead ZMA 2020-00007 RST Residences October 5, 2020 Page 7 Elementary and Albemarle High are currently over -capacity. Thank you for providing the additional information, and for the correction from my comment above that Hollymead Elementary is currently under -capacity. However, it is important to note that with the expected 46 elementary -age students to be generated by this development, the capacity level for Hollymead Elementary will nearly be reached. In addition, Albemarle High School is already over -capacity and will remain so with this development. A net of 81 additional students overall (84 expected to be generated minus the 3 stated to already live on the property) is a significant increase. Please be aware that school capacity levels have historically been closely considered by the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. Response: Noted, thank you. 25. On the cover sheet of the application plan: a. Provide the application number— ZMA2020-00007 b. Provide the tax map numbers in the center of the sheet, or remove that heading. c. In the "Total Residential Units," provide a maximum, minimum, or range of proposed units, so that staff can accurately calculate the proposed density of the site. +/- does not provide enough level of certainty for density calculations. Providing a range is fine if the final number of proposed units has not been determined at this time. d. Where is the required amount of 700 parking spaces coming from? Parking space counts are based on the number of bedrooms per unit, and it does not appear that that information is provided on the cover sheet — only a rough estimate of the total number of units. e. In the "Steep Slopes" note, indicate that Managed Slopes are also present. f. Provide both gross and net density of the proposed project. Comments addressed. 26. On the application plan, show the existing multi -use paths. Also, why is there a proposed pedestrian connection path shown along the 29 frontage of the property? Isn't there already a multi -use path existing in that location? Comment addressed. 27. In note #6 on sheet 3 of the application plan, it is mentioned that "garage units may be installed in parking areas..." Provide more information on what it means by `garage units"? Would these garages be separate structures from the dwelling units they serve? If so, a special use permit may be required. Are the garage units connected to any buildings? Standalone parking structures require special use permits. Response: As we discussed on September 24, 2020, the proposed garage units would not be structured parking decks, and, therefore, do not require a special use permit. The garage units would not be connected to other buildings. The garages would be placed on the site in a manner that accounts for pedestrian safety. The garages will be located in the parking areas as shown on the Application Plan, although the specific location of any garage units within the parking areas would be determined at the site plan stage. ZMA 2020-00007 RST Residences October 5, 2020 Page 8 28. Ensure the retaining walls do not disturb the cemetery location. In addition, the pedestrian connection to the cemetery does not appear to connect to anything on the other end. Comment addressed. 29. Is any type of barrier or blockade proposed to be put up to prevent residents from using the Ridgewood Drive entrance off of U.S. 29? The plan depicts the parking lot continuing to connect to that remnant drive, allowing for an additional access to 29. Comment addressed. 30. The cross-section #3 on sheet 5 does not match what is shown on sheet 4. The cross- section indicates that there is 130' +1- from the residential units to the Ashwood Blvd. pavement. When measuring on sheet 4, that same area is approximately only 115' from unit to pavement. Clarify the discrepancies. The cross-section for the Ashwood Boulevard entrance does not match what is shown on the plan. A planting strip is depicted on the cross-section; however, no planting strip is shown on the plan. Response: The Application Plan has been updated as requested. Please see Sheet 3. 31. There are no dimensions provided in the two bottom cross -sections on sheet 5. Comment addressed. 32. What is the oval -shaped area of grading located within the vegetative buffer directly to the north of the Seminole Trail entrance to the site? Comment addressed. 33. A community meeting has not yet been held for this rezoning application, although one is scheduled for Monday, July 20, 2020. Please be advised that additional comments may arise based on discussion that occurs at this meeting. Community input is taken into consideration by the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. Comment addressed. A community meeting has been held for this application. Comments from community members have previously be provided to the applicant. Additional Comments 34. Add the garage setbacks to the "Required Setbacks" note on the cover sheet, as garage units are mentioned as potentially being included within the development. Response: The requested change has been made to the Cover Sheet of the plans. 35. In the project narrative, page 4, under Neighborhood Center, it is stated that Brookhill amenities will be a "short walk" from the proposed RST development. How far is this exactly? Response: RST Residences is approximately 2,500 feet, or just under half a mile, from the Brookhill amenities. 36. If this application is approved by the Board, a shared parking agreement may be needed at the site planning stage, depending on how the ownership of this development is set up. The required number of parking spaces in Land Bay 1 ZMA 2020-00007 RST Residences October 5, 2020 Page 9 (which appears to be the apartments) is two more than what is actually being provided, however, two spaces more than what is required are being provided in Land Bay 2 (which appears to be the townhouses). Of course, these calculations would also depend on the final unit count in the development. Response: Noted, thank you. 37. The length from Ashwood Boulevard to the closest building and parking envelope is labelled differently on sheet 3 (70 feet) than on sheet 4 (68.1 feet) Response: Please see Sheets 3 and 4 of the plans, which have been updated to correct this inconsistency. The correct distance is 68 feet. Planning — Special Exception Application Comments The request for a special exception for the stepback requirements indicates that the building for which the stepback waiver is being requested (Building 1) is above the 40- foot height limit where stepbacks are required. However, it does not say how tall Building 1 is proposed to be or how many stories are proposed? Provide this information so that staff has a better understanding of the proposed building's height and how much of a stepback waiver is being requested. The proposed heights of Building 1 and the townhouse structures do not appear to be identified in the special exception request narrative. The third paragraph only says that they will exceed three stories, thus requiring the special exception. However, no proposed height is given. A stepback waiver request for a six -story building (which could be permitted based on the allowable height in the PRD) may be reviewed differently by staff than a request for a four-story building, because of their differences in scale and intensity. Response: The exact architecture of the building is undefined at this time, however the ultimate height of the building will be below the maximum allowable height in the PRD district. For reference, in the current concept, Building 1 is approximately +/- 55 feet tall. 2. A special exception request is also required to be submitted for the proposed "two -over - two" units, as it is indicated that they are four stories, if a stepback is not provided for those structures. Comment mostly addressed. The final page of the special exception request narrative does not appear to mention the townhouse structures at all. Response: References to the townhouse structures has been added to the final page of the special exception request narrative. Comprehensive Plan Initial comments on how your proposal generally relates to the Comprehensive Plan are provided below. Comments on conformity with the Comprehensive Plan are provided to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors as part of the staff report. ZMA 2020-00007 RST Residences October 5, 2020 Page 10 These properties are designated as Urban Density Residential in the Places29 Master Plan, which recommends a maximum building height of four stories or 45 feet. The requested zoning district of PRD, Planned Residential Development, permits a maximum height of 65 feet, which is not consistent with the Master Plan recommendations. Also, Building 1 at the center of the property, appears to be five stories in height according to the architectural renderings provided. This proposed height is in excess of what is recommended in the Master Plan. In your response to this comment, you mention that "all other buildings within the project will be four stories..."If the other buildings will be four stories, they all will need to be included within the special exception request as well, or stepbacks will be needed. Please clarify, as some of the renderings depict them as three stories. Is Building 1 proposed to be five stories? Response: Other than Building 1, which is proposed to be five stories, and the townhouse buildings which are proposed to be four stories, all other buildings are proposed to be three stories. The prior response is incorrect. Building 1 is proposed to be five stories and the townhouse structures would be four stories. Regarding the Places29 Master Plan's recommendation that residential buildings "should not be taller than four (4) stories, unless by exception," the Master Plan goes on to state that "[e]xceptions may be granted where the taller residential building is compatible with the surrounding uses." Places29 Master Plan, page 4-8. In this case, Building 1 is compatible with the surrounding uses of the Project, all of which are residential. Moreover, Building 1 is at the center of the Project. The nearest public roads and off -site residential structures are at such a distance from Building 1 that its proposed five stories would not overwhelm or predominate over nearby uses or roads. For context, Building 1 is proposed to be located 460 feet from the Route 29 right of way, and 360 feet from the Ashwood Boulevard right of way. In addition, every other building on the site is proposed to be four stories or less, in accordance with the Places29 Master Plan. With the other apartment building structures proposed to be three stories, and the townhome structures proposed to be four stores, the average height of all the buildings in the Project meets the Places29 Master Plan recommendation. Please note, the proposed building heights may comply with the 65-ft. limit allowed by the requested zoning district of PRD. However, compliance of the actual buildings with zoning height limits is something that would be addressed at the site planning stage. For this Zoning Map Amendment, the height limit permitted in the requested zoning district (65 feet) is not in conformance with the height limits as recommended in the Places29 Master Plan for this property's land use designation of Urban Density Residential, which is 45 feet. Response: Noted, thank you. 2. Pedestrian orientation is a Neighborhood Model principle and the Master Plan notes (on page 7-2) that "all streets in the Places29 area are expected to have a sidewalk or pedestrian path on both sides of the street, except where it is not physically possible to do so. Separation between the pedestrian path or sidewalk and the street will be provided by planting strips, either grassy strips with trees or paved areas with trees in grates." See Comment #12 above. Sidewalks have not been provided along both sides of all proposed streets. In addition, it does not appear that planting strips have been provided along any of the streets. ZMA 2020-00007 RST Residences October 5, 2020 Page 11 Response: Plantings will be incorporated along streets, with specific details to be determined at the site plan stage. As discussed in our meeting on September 24, 2020, sidewalks are proposed along all roads except for on the west side of Road B, which will instead have a planting strip to separate the parking area from Road B. The parking area on the other side of the planting strip will be connected by crosswalks to the sidewalk on the east side of Road B. The exclusion of the west side of Road B is requested due to site topography, project layout, and minimum parking requirements. There are no sidewalks proposed in the townhouse alleyways, which are not roads. 3. Chapter 6 of the Comprehensive Plan recommends that affordable housing units be both for -rent and for -sale, along with a variety of housing types provided at different price points. Clarify whether the proposed 15% affordable housing will include both rental and for -sale units, or rental units only. The narrative and the application plan should match. It is my understanding that if the affordable housing applies only to the for -rent units, then only the multi -family units in this development would fall under that category, as the "two - over -twos" are proposed to be for -sale condo units. Comment acknowledged. 4. This project, with 370 dwelling units proposed, will likely generate significant impacts on the surrounding area, including on facilities such as transportation infrastructure and schools. This project is not in a priority area of the Places29 Master Plan and is evaluated using the criteria identified on page 8-8 of the Master Plan (in Chapter 8). Comment acknowledged. Planning Division —Transportation Review pending; comments will be forwarded to applicant upon receipt by Planning staff. Transportation Planning contact — Daniel Butch, Transportation Senior Planner, dbutchna.albemarle.org. Response: This reviewer had no objection. Planning Division —Architectural Review Board (ARB) No objections at this time. Margaret Maliszewski, ARB Staff Planner (Chief of Resource Planning), mmaliszewski(a.albemarle.org: Response: Thank you. Zoninq Division, Community Development Department Review pending; comments will be forwarded to applicant upon receipt by Planning staff. Zoning Division contact — Francis MacCall, Principal Planner, fmaccall(a)albemarle.org. Response: This reviewer had no objection. Engineering & Water Resources Division, Community Development Department The following comments regarding this proposal have been provided by the County Engineer, Frank Pohl, fpohl(a)albemarle.org: ZMA 2020-00007 RST Residences October 5, 2020 Page 12 - Graded slopes must meet design standards (18-4.3.31. Retaining walls cannot exceed 10-ft in height (18-4.3.3-A]. 2:1 slopes must include a reverse bench if slope is greater than 20-ft (vertical) [18-4.3.3-C]. Response: Noted, thank you. All retaining walls will comply with County requirements. The specifics of the proposed retaining walls will be finalized at the site plan stage. i ne Meowing comments regaraing tnis proposal nave peen proviaea py brian becKer, uis Specialist, bbecker()a.albemarle.ora: Critical Issues: The five proposed private roads will each require road names. Comments: The private roads designated will require road names, per the Albemarle County Road Naming and Property Numbering Ordinance, Sec. 7-200, Part 8 (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..." Please provide this office at least three alternative road names for the each of the proposed roads for review, in case your first choices are not acceptable. The Albemarle County Master Road Names Directory can be accessed at the link in the Resources section. Resources A PDF version of the Ordinance and Manual can be found here: https://www.albemarle.org/uploadlimages/Forms_Center/Departments/Geographic Data_Servic es/Forms/Road Naming and Property_ Numbering Ordinance and Manual.pdf Albemarle County Master Road Names Directory: h ttp.//www. albemarle. oro/albemarle/upload/images/webapps/roads/ Response: As discussed on September 24, 2020, these issues will be addressed at the Site Plan stage. Housing Division, Community Development Department Review pending; comments will be forwarded to applicant upon receipt by Planning staff. Housing Division contact — Stacy Pethia, Principal Planner for Housing, spethia(a)albemarle.ora. Response: This reviewer had no objection. Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) Please see the attached memorandum with comments from ACSA plans reviewer, Richard Nelson, rnelson()a.serviceauthoritv.ora. Comments Received via email 9/2412020: Proposed water main connections at Seminole and Ashwood are two different pressure zones. Applicant will need to determine if fire flow can be achieved with one water main connection. ZMA 2020-00007 RST Residences October 5, 2020 Page 13 Applicant should explore if required fire flow can be met with a smaller diameter water main throughout the site. Response: Thank you. These items will be addressed at the site plan stage. Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Review pending; comments will be forwarded to applicant upon receipt by Planning staff. VDOT contact —Adam Moore, adam.mooreCa)vdot.viroinia.00v. Response: In response to VDOT comments, the revised plans propose 350 feet of storage in the southbound Route 29 left -turn lane at the intersection of Route 29 and Ashwood Boulevard. This area is shown on Sheets 3 and 4, labeled as "Proposed left turn lane extension," and on Sheet 6, with a numerical label of 350 feet. This amount has been increased from the previously proposed length of 250 feet, and is greater than the existing length of 200 feet. Should you require anything further in connection with this application, please do not hesitate to contact me directly at 951-5709 or vlongna williamsmullen.com. We appreciate your assistance with this application. Sincerely, 2/a2eJtie Zl , zoo Valerie W. Long cc: RST Residences Project Team Attachments: Revised Project Plans Revised Special Exception Request Narrative Email Communication from VDOT Regarding Access Permit for Ashwood Blvd.