HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201900067 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2020-05-12COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
Memorandum
To: Mr. Keane Rucker, E.I.T., Shimp Engineering (keane@shimp-en ing eering com) — Primary Contact
Ecovillage Holdings Inc. — c/o Mr. Tom Hickman (thickman56@gtnail.com) — Owner
From: Christopher Perez
Division: Community Development — Planning
Date: 5-12-2020
Subject: Review Comment Letter #2 — SDP-2019-00067 (Ecovillage — Final Site Plan)
The plan referred to above has been reviewed by the Planning Services Division of the Albemarle County Department of
Community Development (CDD) and by other members of the Site Review Committee (SRC). The Planner the will approve the
plan referred to above when the following items (below, from CDD-Planning and from applicable SRC plan reviewers) have
been satisfactorily addressed and when each applicable SRC plan reviewers have indicated in writing their tentative approval of
SDP201900067. The following comments include those that have been identified as outstanding from the initial site plan review
as well as those identified in reviewing the final site plan, additional comments or conditions may be added or eliminated based
on revision and/or based on farther review. Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference to the Albemarle County
Code.
REVIEW COMMENTS REQUIRING REVISIONS TO SDP201900067:
[SP-2018-16 Conditions of Approval #1, #3, and #41: Please note the following review comments regarding
SP201800016 conditions of approval #1, #3, and #4, primarily relating to the following requirements established by the
Board of Supervisors through special use permit SP201800016: (#1) the Limits of Disturbance shown on Final Site Plan
SDP201900067 and WP0201900053 being in general accord with the "Supplementary Exhibits" packet dated 2/4/2019,
(0) the Stormwater, Drainage, and Grading Plans shown on Final Site Plan SDP201900067 and WP0201900053 being in
general accord with the "Stormwater Improvements" exhibit and "Proposed Entrance Layout" exhibit dated 2/27/2019
(inclusive of required modifications), and (#4) the on -site provision of DEQ-approved BMPs for water quality compliance.
a. Please see CDD-Engineering comments for SDP201900067 and WPO201900053, and address and resolve those
comments in coordination with CDD-Engineering staff. CDD-Planning staff remain available to assist with any and
all questions relating to the Final Site Plan (and associated Water Protection Ordinance Plan) being in general accord
with the application materials for SP201800016 referenced above and specified in the conditions of approval.
Rev 1. Comment still relevant. Pending aDDroval by Engineering. The Dreserved slomeS and managed slopes
throughout the site plan are extremely hard to decipher from all other line types and improvements depicted
on the plan. Provide a new sheet that clearly depicts and labels the preserved slopes and managed slopes with
limits of disturbance for the proposed development. On this same sheet depict and label all of the preserved
slopes approved for disturbance by the special use permit and all slopes utilizing new topographic
information which demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Countv Engineer that the slimes are less than 25
percent.
2. [SP-2018-16 Condition of Approval #21: Please note the following review comments regarding SP201800016 condition
of approval #2, primarily relating to the Landscape Plan shown on Final Site Plan SDP201900067 being in general accord
with the "Habitat Planting Plan" and "Landscape Schedule" exhibit dated 2/26/2019 (inclusive of required modifications):
a. (#2a): The "Landscape Schedule: Trees" for the "Habitat Planting Plan' on Sheet C9 ("Habitat Redevelopment
Plan") specifies large shade trees at 1.5" caliper, which generally meets the minimum requirements specified by
County Code § 18-32.7.9.5.c. However, SP201800016 condition of approval #2a establishes the specific
requirement that 25% - 33% of tree plant materials and shrub plant materials meet the Entrance Corridor Design
Guidelines, which specify a minimum caliper of 3.5" for large shade trees, and which specify large shade trees to be
provided every 35' on center. Rev 1. Comment addressed.
Therefore, please revise the Landscape Schedule: Trees to ensure that 25% - 33% of the large shade trees are
specified at a minimum caliper of 3.5," the remaining 67% - 75% of the large shade trees can continue to be
specified at 1.5" minimum caliper. Rev 1. Comment addressed.
b. (#2b): The "Landscape Schedule: Trees" for the "Habitat Planting Plan" on Sheet C9 ("Habitat Redevelopment
Plan") specifies evergreen trees (flex opaca / American Holly) with a minimum height of 4' — 5' at time of planting.
The corresponding "Habitat Planting Plan" appears to show 12 such trees. These specifications are acceptable
relative to SP201800016 conditions of approval #2b.
However, please revise the Habitat Planting Plan to include additional evergreen plants (flex opaca / American
Holly tree; or Kalmia latifolia / Mountain Laurel shrub; or other native evergreen trees or shrubs) in the "strategic
locations" shown in red (below): Rev 1. Comment addressed.
c. Additionally, please cross-reference CDD-Planning comment #29 regarding the need to further revise Sheet C9
("Habitat Redevelopment Plan") through the addition of landscape materials in the area between the two terraced
retaining walls in the Steep Slopes Overlay District, as required per the applicable minimum design standards
specified in County Code § 18-30.7.5. (Note: CDD-Planning staff acknowledge that, in this particular context, it
might potentially be acceptable to satisfy this design standard through an alternative design other than "screening
shrubs planted on ten foot centers," and remain available to answer questions, consider alternative designs, or
otherwise assist.) Rev 1. Add additional shrubs to provide a complete hedge row to ensure this area complies
with the 10' on center requirement.
3. 118-32.6.2(a) and 18-32.5.2(a)]: Please add reference to SP201800016 approved by the Board of Supervisors on 5/l/2019
to Cover Sheet (Cl), and please insert a copy of the Conditions of Approval to the Final Site Plan. Rev 1. Comment
addressed.
4. [18-32.6.2(a), 18-32.5.2(a), and 18-32.5.2(b)]: Annotation on Sheet C2 indicates that the co -owned inheld parcel (TMP
#06100-00-00-210A0) is to be formally added to TMP #06100-00-00-21000 [" TMP 61A-201A to be added to parent
parcel (TMP 61-210 Parcel A-1)'J. (Note: the parcel reference appears to be incorrect, this should be " 210A" and not
"201 A.") This proposed modification to existing parcels of record would require the submittal of a separate application for
a final plat showing this vacation/boundary line adjustment for review, approval, and recordation prior to Final Site Plan
approval. Rev 1. Comment still relevant.
Alternately, please add existing parcel of record TMP 406100-00-00-210A0 to the Cover Sheet and please ensure the
acreage information is accurate. Rev 1. Comment addressed.
5. 118-32.6.2(a) and 18-32.5.2(a)]: On the Cover Sheet, please include specify the total number of sheets in the Sheet Index.
Rev 1. Comment addressed.
6. 118-Sec. 32.6.2(a) and 18-32.5.2(a)]: Please add the application number for this final site plan (SDP201900067) to the
Cover Sheet, and please also include reference to the approved initial site plan application number (SDP201800056) on this
sheet for reference purposes. Rev 1. Comment addressed.
7. 118-15.4 and 18-2.41: Bonus Factors. Additional information is required for County staff to have sufficient detail to make
a determination of the proposed bonus factor(s). Specifically, more information is required regarding the Environmental
Standards, Development Standards, and Affordable Housing Bonus Factors, as identified in the following comments. Staff
recommends adding an additional sheet which focuses on identifying all details, calculations, and justification of the
proposed bonus factors. Rev 1. Comment addressed: additional sheet added.
8. [18-15.4.1, 18-2.4, and 18-32.7.91: Bonus Factors: Environmental Standards. In order to qualify for this bonus factor
("maintenance of existing wooded areas equal to 10-19% of the site"), a conservation plan as specified in section 32.7.9 is
required. Please provide the required conservation plan and ensure Final Site Plan contains all necessary information.
Additionally, the Cover Sheet (C 1) indicates that this Final Site Plan includes "10% area preserved [as] open space" and
proposes a 5% density bonus (or 1.3 additional units). However, per County Code § 18-15.4.1, the "environmental
standards" for this bonus factor require "maintenance of existing wooded areas'— not "preserved open space." Please re-
calculate this (potential) bonus factor using the correct criteria ("maintenance of existing wooded areas"), Revd.
Comment addressed.
Specifically, please identify the location, extent, and size of the "wooded area(s)" that are to be maintained on the
applicable sheets, and please demonstrate that the "wooded areas" to be "maintain[ed]" are eligible for this bonus factor
(relative to the definition of "wooded area" in County Code § 18-3, below), by identifying the "minimum number of trees
of specified size or combinations thereof' in each "existing wooded area" to be "maintain[ed]."
Wooded area, forested area: An area containing one of the minimum number of trees of specified
size, or combinations thereof, from the following table:
Diameter of Tree at Breast Height:
Per One Acre:
Per One -Half Acre:
3.0" - 4.9"
60
30
5.0" - 6.9"
38
19
7.0" - 8.9"
22
11
9.0" - 10.9"
14
7
11.0" - 12.9"
10
5
13.0" - 14.9"
7
4
15.0"+
5
3
Rev 1. Within Open Space A there is a proposed "public access easement" for the extension of the 10' multiuse
pedestrian trail provided through areas of tree preservation. Revise the tree preservation area to account for this
improvement.
9. 118-15.4.2 and 18-2.41: Bonus Factors: Development Standards. Staff acknowledges the proposed "public access
easement — 0.49 acres dedicated to public use" and the "0.12 acres dedicated to public ROW (added to Rio Road)." Please
note the following review comments regarding the proposed "public access easement — 0.49 acres dedicated to public use."
Rev 1. On sheet C4 the bonus density for area dedicated to public use is not calculated correctly. Revise the
calculations to meet Section 15.4.2: "The acreage of the land dedicated and accented shall be multiplied by twice the
Bross density -standard level, and the resulting number of dwellings may be added to the site, provided that the density
increase shall not exceed 15 percent " (Ex) 0.49 acres x 8 du/acre = 3.9 units.
a. (18-15.4.2 — "For dedication of land to public use not otherwise required by law, density may be increased as
follows: [...I "): The proposed establishment of a public use access easement for a shared -use path technically does
not qualify as being eligible for the "Development Standards Bonus Factor" for "dedication of land to public use not
otherwise required by law." To pursue bonus density utilizing this bonus factor (if desired/as may be applicable), the
proposed easement would need to be modified to a proposed special lot for open space to be dedicated to the County
for public use.
Such a special lot would need to be established and dedicated on an approved and recorded plat, and would need to
include a maintenance agreement establishing acceptable terms of maintenance of the shared -use path by the
homeowners association/property owners association — all of which must be submitted, approved, and recorded prior
to approval of the final site plan. Rev 1. Comment not addressed. The dedication is required to be a special lot
and is not permitted to be an easement to aualifv for the density bonus.
b. (18-15.42 — "The dedication shall be accepted by the board of supervisors prior to final approval.'): Any such
proposal for the "dedication of land to public use not otherwise required by law" (as may be applicable) must be sent
to the Board of Supervisors for Board review and acceptance during the "Regular Board Action" portion of a
regularly -scheduled Board meeting. (Note: this process does not require public hearing.) Additional communication
and coordination with CDD-Planning staff and staff in the County Attorney's Office is necessary in order to prepare
any such proposal/request for Board review and action. Rev 1. Comment not addressed. The dedication is
required to be a special lot and is not permitted to be an easement to qualify for the density bonus.
c. Any bonus density through this proposed "Development Standards Bonus Factor" is subject to further coordination
with, and tentative approval by, Mr. Kevin McDermott, Principal Planner/Transportation and Mr. Frank Pohl,
County Engineer (in coordination with CDD-Planning staff and Albemarle County Parks and Recreation staff).
Please note that additional coordination with County staff is necessary in order to refine the proposed public access
shared -use path prior to BOS review and (potential) acceptance. Specifically, the following aspects of the proposed
path require further review and potential revision:
• the proposed location and alignment of the public access easement— including its proposed termination at
the Alwood Lane private street and not at the Rio Road E. public right of way, and
• the potential need to incorporate signage that clearly communicates to members of the public that the
shared -use path through the Ecovillage development is open to the public.
Rev 1. The shared use path shall be revised to connect to Rio Road at the north end of the property and Rio
Road at the south end of the property. Also, provide signage at both ends of the shared use path that clearly
communicates to members of the public that the shared -use path through the Ecovillage development is open
to the public. The shared use path is proposed in place of sidewalks along the frontage of Rio Road. If the
shared use path is not sufficiently provided through the property to connect to Rio Road at the north and
south ends of the property, then sidewalks along Rio Road will be required along the entire frontage of the
propertV.
10. 118-15.4.2 and 18-2.41: Bonus Factors: Affordable Housing Standards. Please provide additional details to explain the
bonus density for proposed affordable housing. Staff acknowledge that the Bonus Density Calculations indicate that this
bonus factor will yield an additional 7.8 units, however, this information must be incorporated into the Site Plan with more
detailed information [such as, at minimum, a note which confirms that "at least one-half of the additional housing units
allowed by this density bonus shall be developed as affordable housing units" and which specifies the number of such
affordable units, pursuant to County Code § 18-15.4.3(a)]. Any bonus density through this proposed "Affordable Housing
Bonus Factor" is subject to further coordination with, and tentative approval by, Mrs. Stacy Pethia, Principal
Planner/Housing (in coordination with CDD-Planning staff). Rev 1. The bonus factor block in the center of sheet C4
calculates the affordable housing units incorrectly. The requirement does not require 50% of the base units (13):
rather, the requirement is 50% of the allowable units from the 30% bonus density. Thus 4 affordable housing units
are required. On the final site plan label which units are the affordable units.
11. [Z.O. Sec. 32.6.2(a), 32.5.2(o)]: Sheet C3 includes proposed right-of-way dedication along Rio Road E. Please add a note
stating that this area is "dedicated to the County for public use — new right-of-way" Rev 1. Comment not addressed.
Additionally, please note that any such dedication requires the submission, approval, and recordation of a plat containing
the note "hereby dedicated to the County for public use" prior to final site plan approval. More details regarding platting
requirements will be provided during the review of the pending final plat and/or easement plat. Rev 1. Comment not
addressed.
12. 118-32.6.2(a) and 18-32.5.2(b)]: Annotation on Sheet C2 indicates that the existing structure addressed as 480 Rio Road
East will be retained in the proposed development ("Demo all ex. Structures except this building"). Please ensure this
existing structure is clearly shown on all other sheets in this Final Site Plan (as applicable).
Rev 1. Comment addressed.
13. 118-32.6.2(a), 18-32.5.2(a), 18-32.5.2(d), 18-30.7.4, and 18-30.7.51: Please revise the applicable sheets in this Final Site
Plan to clearly show the location and extent of all Steep Slopes Preserved and Steep Slopes Managed.
Staff acknowledges the note on Sheet C2 which states, "Note: managed slopes shown on this sheet only since they have no
effect on this plan." However, these managed steep slopes do need to be shown, and the proposed public access easement
for the proposed shared -use path appears to go through areas containing managed steep slopes — and would therefore need
to comply with all applicable minimum design standards specified in County Code § 18-30.7.5. Rev 1. Comment
addressed.
14. 118-32.6.2(a), 18-32.5.2(a), 18-32.5.2(d), 18-30.7.4.b.1(h), and 18-30.7.51: Staff acknowledges the information on Sheet
C2 which shows areas identified as "preserved slopes surveyed < 25%," and further acknowledges that the "Slopes"
information on the Cover Sheet (C 1) state that "9,866 SF of preserved slopes overlay was surveyed at less than 15% and do
not qualify as preserved slopes." (Note: the reference appears to be incorrect, this should be "25%" and not "15%."). Staff
also acknowledges that grading and/or improvements are proposed within the preserved steep slopes overlay district as
shown on Sheet C3.
However, no disturbance or improvements are permissible within the preserved steep slopes overlay district, unless and
until new topographic information is submitted pursuant to County Code § 18-30.7.4.b.1(h) which demonstrates to the
satisfaction of the County Engineer that the slopes are less than 25 percent. All disturbance or improvements proposed
following any such acceptance/approval by the County Engineer must comply with all applicable design standards
contained in County Code § 18-30.7.5. Rev 1. The preserved slopes and managed slopes throughout the site plan are
extremely hard to decipher from all other line types and improvements depicted on the plan. Provide a new sheet
that clearly depicts and labels the preserved slopes and managed slopes with limits of disturbance for the proposed
development. On this same sheet depict and label all of the preserved slopes approved for disturbance by the special
use permit and all slopes utilizing new topographic information which demonstrates to the satisfaction of the
County Engineer that the slopes are less than 25 percent.
15. 118-32.6.2(a) and 18-32.5.2(r)]: Please revise the legend and/or plans to clearly distinguish between "Property Line" and
"Vacated Property Line." It is difficult to accurately determine the proposed property boundary(s) and proposed ROW
limit(s) on Sheet C3 ("Site Layout"). Rev 1. Comment addressed.
16. 118-32.6.2(a), 18-32.5.2(a), 18-32.5.2(b), 18-15.3, and 184.191: Please verify that all proposed dwellings comply with the
minimum front yard setback (5') and maximum front yard setback (25') requirements. Rev 1. Lot 1013 does not meet the
front maximum setback Revise.
17. 118-32.6.2(a), 18-32.5.2(a), 18-32.5.2(b), 18-15.3, and 18-4.191: It appears that portions of the existing dwelling that will
be retained (identified as "Common House 1" and for which "Tourist Lodging" uses are proposed) does not meet the
minimum front yard setback (5'). Rev 1. Comment not addressed. The front setback is measured from the rear of the
sidewalk regardless of whether or not it's in the right-of-way. Revise.
18. 118-32.6.2(a) and 18-32.5.2(b)]: It appears that portions of the proposed "5' Sidewalk" are partially within the right of way
of the proposed private streets and partially within proposed lots and/or proposed Open Space. Please clarify and/or please
revise to locate sidewalk entirely within right of way or entirely within Open Space, as appropriate. Additional
coordination with CDD-Planning staff and VDOT staff may be necessary. [Note: sidewalk standards and specifications will
be subject to the requirements contained in County Code §§ 14-410.11 ("Standards for all streets and alleys.") and 14422
("Sidewalks and planting strips."), unless certain variations or exceptions are formally requested and approved (as may be
appropriate) pursuant to County Code §§ 14-422.E and 14.203.1, in conjunction with a pending application for a
corresponding plat.] Rev 1. Comment not addressed. The 5' sidewalk required for Road A is located on lot 23A and
lot 1C. Revise to locate the sidewalk entirely within right of way.
19. 118-32.6.2(a), 18-32.5.2(a), 18-32.6.2(1), 18-15.7, and 18-4.161: ("Recreation regulations. Developed recreational areas)
shall be providedfor every development of 30 units or more equal to or exceedingfour dwelling units per acre, exceptfor
single-family and two family dwellings developed on conventional lots.') Please identify the proposed developed
recreation areas and facilities which meet or exceed the "minimum facilities" required by County Code § 18-4.16.2.
Please also note that "Substitutions of equipment or facilities may be approved by the director ofplanning and community
development, provided they offer a recreational amenity equivalent to the facilities listed above, and are appropriate to the
needs of the occupants" may be requested pursuant to County Code § 18-4.16.2.1. Rev 1. The substitution request is
denied because the substitutions offered do not provide recreational amenities equivalent to the facilities required.
An indoor meeting space does not substitute for outdoor play areas unless it includes equivalent square footage
dedicated to active facilities (gym or play facilities). Provide a 2,000 SF tot lot with One swing (four seats), One
slide, Two climbers, One buckabout or whirl, and Two benches.
20. 118-32.6.2(a) and 18-32.5.2(n)]: On Sheet C3, please specify the maximum height of Common House 2. (Note: Staff
acknowledges this proposed amenity appears to be a one story structure.) Rev 1. Comment addressed.
21. 118-32.6.2(a) and 18-32.5.2(n)]: Please ensure that specifications and details for all proposed paving materials and/or other
surface materials for all sidewalks, paths, parking lots, driveways, and similar proposed improvements are included in the
Final Site Plan. Rev 1. Comment addressed.
22. 118-32.6.2(j), 18-32.7.9, 18-32.5.2(n), 18-4.17.41: Staff acknowledges the "Lighting" note on the Cover Sheet which states
that "No outdoor lighting is proposed... " Please verify the intent that no outdoor lighting is proposed anywhere within this
proposed development, however, please note that CDD-Planning staff might potentially require outdoor lighting in certain
locations such as along the proposed public shared -use path (following additional coordination with other County staff— to
be determined). Additionally, please also revise the "Lighting" note to reference the Final Site Plan (and not "Initial").
Rev 1. The lighting note has been revised to state: "No outdoor likluine exceedine 3,000lumens is proposed "Any
proposed outdoor lighting must be shown on the site plan. A photometric plan and lighting cut sheets shall be
provided with the final site plan. Also, demonstrate the spillover from the site does not exceed 0.5 foot-candles
within the public right-of-way.
23. [ 18-Sec. 32.6.20) and 18-32.7.91: On Sheets C8 and C9, please add genus and species names (or abbreviations) to identify
the locations of proposed landscape materials. Rev 1. Comment addressed.
24. [18-32.6.2(j), 18-32.7.9.4(b-c), and 18-32.7.9.5(b)]: Sheet C8 ("Landscape Plan") identifies areas labeled as "Trees to be
Preserved." The following revisions are necessary in order for these calculations to be permissible:
a. Please identify the location/extent and quantify the area of the existing tree canopy that will be preserved and
maintained, as it appears that this area is being used for the proposed bonus density and (presumably) to meet tree
canopy requirements and/or street tree requirements.
b. Please insert a signed Conservation Checklist onto one of the Landscape Plan sheets and include any information
required by the checklist into the plan documents (as specified by County Code § 18-32.7.9.4.b.2).
c. Please also revise the Grading Plan sheets and Landscape Plan sheets (where necessary) to clearly show the limits
of disturbance, tree preservation practices, and all other required details (as specified in Z.O. 32.7.9.4.b.1) in
relationship to the areas labeled as "Trees to be Preserved," in order to demonstrate that required conservation
practices will be utilized for successfully preserving these existing trees. Rev 1. Comment addressed.
25. 132.6.2(j), 32.7.9.4(b-c), 32.7.9.5(b)]: Please ensure that all new street trees are located outside of the Rio Road East right-
of-way. Rev 1. Comment addressed.
26. 118-32.3, 14-410.H]: Numerous street trees required per the "Landscaping Along Streets" requirements contained in
County Code § 18-32.7.9.5 appear to be proposed in locations outside the right of way (ROW) for proposed new private
streets. This is not permissible, unless a variation is formally requested and approved (as may be appropriate) pursuant to
County Code § 18-32.3.5.b, and unless one or more private landscape easements) are established.
Any such private landscape easement(s) to accommodate the required street trees outside of the ROW, if requested and if
approved, would need to be shown on the corresponding final plat, and a note would need to be included on the final site
plan and final plat, as follows (or similar): "The purpose of this landscape easement is to provide a location outside of the
private street right way for the installation and perpetual maintenance of street trees, in order to satisfy the `landscaping
along streets" requirements contained in Zoning Ordinance Section 32.7.9.5. The location of the required street trees
within this landscape easement is permissible per a variation approved with conditions by the Agent, pursuant to Zoning
Ordinance Section 32.3.5, on ." Rev 1. Comment not addressed. Parking setbacks do not apply to residential
developments. Pursuant to Section 32.7.9.5(d) street trees shall be planted within the private street right-of-way.
Provide the required street trees within the private street right-of-way,
27. [18-32.7.9.4(d)]: Please add the required "verification of compliance" note, and please include the following standard plant
health note: `All site plantings of trees and shrubs shall be allowed to reach, and be maintained at, mature height; the
toping of trees is prohibited. Shrubs and trees shall be pruned minimally and only to support the overall health of the
plant." Rev 1. Comment addressed.
28. 118-30.7.51: The plan shows two proposed retaining walls within the Steep Slopes Overlay District, with proposed
maximum heights of five (5) feet, as is permissible per SP201800016. However, these proposed retaining walls need to
comply with all applicable design standards in County Code § 18-30.7.5. Therefore, it appears that revisions to the
proposed retaining walls may be necessary in order to comply with the design standards contained in County Code § 18-
30.7.5.a.2 ("Multiple stepped walls; separation") which specifies that "a minimum horizontal distance of three feet shall be
maintained between each individual wall in a stepped wall system, and shall be landscaped with screening shrubs planted
on ten foot centers." Please cross-reference CDD-Planning comment #2c. Rev 1. Add additional shrubs to provide a
complete hedge row to ensure this area complies with the 10' on center requirement.
29. [18-15.3]: Minimum lot size for bonus -level conventional lots in the R-4 Residential District is 7,260 SF. Please identify
the size of the proposed lots. Rev 1. Comment addressed, as this is a cluster development.
30. 118-32.7.3, 18-4.12.8, and 18-4.12.111: In order to allow parking spaces that are required to meet minimum parking
requirements to be located separately from the residential lots, a Shared Parking Agreement must be submitted for review
pursuant to County Code § 18-4.12.11 and approved (as may be appropriate) by the Zoning Administrator. Rev1.
Comment not addressed.
31. 118-32.7.3, 18-4.12.2(c), and 18-4.12.81: Sheet Cl indicates that the proposed uses require a minimum of 81 total parking
spaces, but further indicates that the total number of parking spaces provided is 76. This discrepancy between required and
provided parking spaces is not permissible unless a written request for parking alternatives is submitted pursuant to County
Code § 18-4.12.8 and is reviewed and approved (as may be appropriate) by the Zoning Administrator. Rev 1. The onsite
parking is part of the required parking, so it cannot be considered for a reduction alternative. Of the alternatives
considered, staff only sees the possibility of safe and convenient access to the bus line and the use of bicycle racks as
acceptable possibilities. It is not evident where the safe and convenient access to the Rivanna Trail is, thus this
cannot be a factor to consider.
There needs to be safe and convenient access installed to get to the bus stop in front of Treesdale
apartments. There is a gap near the end of the subject property to access the sidewalk in front of the
Stonehenge entrance, see images below.
As far as bicycle use, someone using a bicycle is still permitted to use the road, and motor vehicles can safely
pass them. Bicycling is possible and not prohibited. Zoning will allow a reduction of once space for
area/racks for six bikes with a maximum of a two -space reduction. (1 space for 6 bikes) The plan depicts
three racks with six bikes for each rack, and this will give the project a reduction of two spaces. Ensure the
racks are located in "Common Area". Be advised that providing bike racks alone is not enough to get the
reduced number you are requesting. The proposed bike racks allow for a two space reduction.
Additionally, the parking calculation provided on the plan is not correct. The proposal requires 80 parking
spaces. 78 parking spaces are required for the 39 dwelling units. One of the 39 units is proposed to have a
homestav with three rooms. As mentioned below, the homestav is only permitted two guest rooms by right.
Two guest rooms will only require two additional spaces: thus, 78 + 2 = 80 spaces required.
The request states that 76 Darkimg spaces are provided: however, the plan only depicts 75. While 75 parking
spaces are provided, 2 spaces do not qualify because they are driveway parking spaces which do not meet the
minimum size requirement. If there is safe and convenient access via a sidewalk from the site to the bus stop
in front of Treesdale apartments along with bike racks, Zoning would consider the reduction from the 80
required parking spaces to 75 parking spaces. At this time, safe and convenient access is not available, so a
live space reduction cannot be granted. Revise the plan accordingly.
ADDITIONAL REVIEW COMMENTS APPLICABLE TO PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT:
32. 118-32.5.2(i), 14-233, 14-234, and 14-2351: This plan proposes private streets that would serve single family
detached units and single family attached units. While streets (public or private) are not reviewed or approved with
site plan applications, it should be noted that a private street authorization request must be submitted with any
subdivision plat application for this project. T..__r _ please S.d....it the __ ...:__ ,pfivate Weet _.quest ...want to
applieable) by the Planning Commission in eep�taiefien with staff Feview of the pendiFt subdivision applieetion.
Additionally, per County Code § 14-235, a maintenance agreement for the private street must be submitted for review
and approval by the County Attorney's Office with the subdivision application. Rev 1. The proposal contains
attached dwelling units therefore the private street reauest is administrative and authorized under Section 14-
233(B)1. The private street request that was submitted is incomplete, as it does not provide each of the five
required findings identified in paragraph C, which are required to be made as specified in Section 14-
234(A)(1). Please revise the private street request to provide all the required information. See attached
comment letter specifically related to the variation requests and the private street request.
33. 114-401, 14-419, and 14-203.11: Proposed lots 9A — 16A are double -frontage lots, which are not permissible unless a
special exception is formally requested and approved (as may be appropriate) pursuant to County Code § 14.203.1.
Additionally, if double -frontage lots are approved by special exception, County Code § 14-419 requires such lots to
be screened as provided in County Code § 18-32.7.9.7. Those screening requirements may be varied or excepted as
provided in County Code § 14-203.1. Please submit an application for any such special exception request with
required information and justification in conjunction with a pending application for a corresponding plat. Rev 1, The
waiver of double frontage lots cannot be processed until a subdivision plat is submitted. Staff is not compelled
to approve such a waiver without a 20' buffer planted with screening trees as provided for in Section 32.7.9.7.
The 20' buffer shall be located between the residences on lots 9A — 16A and Private Road B. Depict and label
this buffer and the required trees on the site plan.
34. 118-32.7.2.2(a), 14-410, 14-412, 14-234(D), and 18-2.51: It appears that the proposed "Road B," "Road C," and
"Road D" do not meet all applicable private street standards, and would only be permissible with County Engineer
approval. While stFeets (public @F pi:ivate) aFe not Feviewed oF approved with site plan applica4ions, it ghould he nated
this pi:ejeet.
Rev 1. Comment not addressed. The design standards of Section 14-412(A)(3)(b) and Section 14-412(B), and
Engineering design standards manual apply to these roads. There are no waivers provided in the ordinance
for these standards. Revise the private roads (Roads A, B, C, and D) to meet Virginia Department of
Transportation standards. Engineering comments will be provided to the applicant once received.
114-412(A)(3)1 Streets servine six lots or more. Each private street serving six (6) or more lots shall satisfy
Virginia Department of Transportation standards, provided:
114-412(A)(3)(b)l Private streets in the development areas. For such private streets in the development areas, the
agent may approve Virginia Department of Transportation standards for mountainous terrain or an
alternative standard deemed adequate by the county engineer to be equivalent to or greater than the
applicable standard in the design standards manual, so as to adequately protect the public health, safety or
welfare.
114-412(B)l Private streets serving non-residential, non-aericulturat attached residential, multi -unit residential
and combined residential and non-residential uses. Each Private street authorized to serve nonresidential, non-
agricultural, attached residential, multi -unit residential and combined residential and nonresidential uses
under sections 14-232 or 14-233 shall satisfv Virginia Department of Transportation standards or an
alternative standard deemed adequate by the agent, upon the recommendation of the county engineer, to be
equivalent to or greater than the applicable standard in the design standards manual, so as to adequately
protect the public health, safety or welfare. The agent may require minimum travelway widths to provide for
on -street parking upon a determination that the provisions for off-street parking may be inadequate to
reasonably preclude unauthorized on -street parking.
35. 118-32.6.2(a), 18-32.5.2(I), and 18-32.5.2(o)] Prior to final site plan approval, it is necessary to obtain County approval of
a plat showing all proposed easements (such as utility easements, stormwater management facility easements, and public
use recreation easements) as well as all areas intended for dedication to the County for public use. The platting of
easements and lands to be dedicated to the County for public use can be shown all together on one plat, or separately —
however the applicant prefers. Rev 1. Comment still relevant.
36. 118-32.6.2(a), 18-32.5.2(a), 18-32.4.3.2(b), and County Code Chapter 141: It appears that proposed new residential lot
lines are shown on the plan, but no subdivision plat application has been submitted. If division of the subject property is
intended, please submit an application for a plat for review and approval (as may be appropriate) by an authorized Agent in
the Community Development Department, as required by County Code § Chapter 14. A plat showing proposed new lots
can be incorporated into the same plat application showing proposed easements and lands to be dedicated to the County for
public use, or separately — however the applicant prefers. Rev 1. Comment still relevant.
37. 118-32.4.3.2 and 18-32.4.3.61: The County cannot approve Final Site Plan SDP201900067 unless and until all applicable
SRC reviewers have confirmed that all of their respective review comments have been satisfactorily addressed and have
each confirmed their tentative approval by indicating a review status of" No Objection." Rev 1. Comment still relevant.
38. Additionally, the following remaining (separate) applications and approvals are required prior to approval of Final Site
Plan SDP201900067:
a. 118-32.7.4.2 and 18-32.7.5.31: Easement Plat
b. 118-32.7.2 and County Code Chapter 141: Road Plan
c. 118-32.7.4.1 and County Code Chapter 171: Water Protection Ordinance Plan (Note: Staff acknowledge that
Water Protection Ordinance Plan application WPO201900053 is under review.)
Rev 1. Comment still relevant. SUB2020-59 Road Plan is under review.
ADDITIONAL REVIEW COMMENTS BASED ON 2°d REVIEW
39. 132.5.2(n), 5.1.481 Homestays. Throughout the fmal site plan discontinue the use of the terms "Tourist/Transient Lodging"
and "Guest Lodging" and instead revise the use of Common House 1 located on Lot 1C to be label as a dwelling unit.
Once the final site plan and final subdivision plat are approved the applicant may submit an application for a Homestay
use. https://www.albemarle.orp/department.asp?department=cdd&relpaage=22028 This use will be required to meet the
supplemental regulations of Section 5.1.48. Be advised that when applying for the homestay that it is only permitted two
guest rooms by right.
40. 132.5.2(n), 18-2.2.3, 18-4.7, 18-3, 15.2.2(15)] Stand -Alone Parking. Stand-alone parking lots require a Special Use Permit
be approved prior to final site plan approval. This development proposed 2 stand-alone parking lots. In order for these
stand-alone parking lots not to require a special use permit pursuant to Section 15.2.2(15), the parking lots must be
provided in Common Area. The private streets need to also be in the same Common Area so that the parking is not the sole
use of that parcel. The common area is not open space or common open space and does not count towards the minimum
open space requirement of a Cluster Development. It appears that the plan shows open space area over the required 25%
minimum, so there is room to reduce that area and call a portion of it Common Area for the parking and private streets.
Revise the plan accordingly.
41. 12.2.31 Cluster Provisions. A minimum of 25 percent of the total land area of the cluster development shall be in
common open space, subject to section 4.7, regulations governing open space. Currently sheet Cl lists 185,408 SF of
Open Space as provided, however, staff is only able to locate 132,603 SF of Open Space located in open space A-E.
Provide a chart with all common open space calculations clearly labeled.
42. 132.7.2.2, 14-410, 14-412(B), Engineering Design Standard Manual] Private Streets. The new access easements and like
access easements for the private roads shall be labeled as "New _'private street easements" as these roads are required
for frontage purposes.
43. [32.6.2(a), 32.5.2(a), 32.5.2(b), 15.3, and 4.191: The existing dwelling on Lot I does not meet the minimum rear yard
setback (20'). Revise. Also, many of the lots do not meet the rear setback requirement, such as: Lots IOB, 1113, 12B, 13B,
14B, 15B, 18A, 20A, 21A, 22A, 23A, 9A, 14A. Revise.
44. [32.6.2(a), 32.5.2(a), 32.5.2(b), 15.3, and 4.191: Some of the lots do not meet the minimum side setback requirement, such
as: Lots 913, IOB, 12B, 16A, and 9A. Revise.
45. [32.5.2(n), 4.11.11 Decks may project not more than four (4) feet into any required yard, provided that no such feature
shall be located closer than six (6) feet to any lot line. On the plan label and dimension all improvements to include
garages and decks, as well as the encroachment into required yards.
46. [32.5.2(n)] Revise Lot 23A to omit the handicaped parking space, bike rack, and 5' sidewalk from the rear of the lot.
Revise Lot I to omit the 5' sidewalk from the lot.
47. [32.5.2(n)] Provide easements dedicated to the HOA over all sidewalks provided through private lots.
48. [32.5.2(n)] At the entrances of Private Roads B and D provide bollards to prevent non -emergency vehicles from utilizing
these roads.
49. [32.5.1(c)] All offsite easements must be approved and recorded prior to final site plan and final subdivision plat approval,
this included easements for offsite utility connections and temporary construction easements if site work will encroach
upon neighboring properties. Prior to final site plan approval any required easements will need to be plated. The DB page
information of this action shall be provided on the final site plan.
50. [32.6.2(e)] Publicfacilities and utilities. All water and sewer facilities to be dedicated to public use and the easements for
those facilities shall be identified by a statement that the facilities are to be dedicated to the Albemarle County Service
Authority.
51. 132.7.3, 4.12.161 Parking. All parking spaces shall be designed so that no part ofany vehicle will extend over any lot
line, right-of-way line, sidewalk, walkway, and driveway or aisle space. The driveways for Lot 13A and Lot 16A do not
meet the minimum length requirement of 18' for a parking space and shall not count towards parking provided. For these
spaces to be counted the entire 18' length shall not extend over any lot line, right-of-way line, sidewalk, walkway, and
driveway or aisle space. Revise.
52. 132.5.1(c), 4.12.61 Dimensions. Dimension the proposed driveways to ensure a single vehicle can be parked in these spaces.
53. [32.7.2.2(a)] Minimum design. Each private street within a development shall be designed and constructed to the
standards for private streets in chapter 14. Numerous variation and exception requests have been submitted for the
proposed private streets in the development. Prior to approval the final site plan either the required street design shall be
satisfied or the variations modifying these requirements shall be approved. See attached review comments for the road
plan, the variations & exception requests, and the private street request.
54. [32.8.2,14-311] Infrastructure improvement plans. Road Plan and WPO application must be approved, all required
improvements must be built or bonded, and all required Deeds and Declarations must be reviewed and approved prior to
final site plan approval.
55. [32.5.2(a),4.19]: Setbacks. Revise the setbacks on the cover sheet as follows:
Front= Minimum 5'
Maximum 25'
Garage = Minimum Front loading garage: 18 feet from the right-of-way or the exterior edge of the sidewalk
if the sidewalk is outside of the right-of-way
Side loading garage: Five feet from the right-of-way or the exterior edge of the sidewalk if the
sidewalk is outside of the right-of-way
Maximum none
Rear = Minimum 20'
Maximum none
Side = Minimum 5'
Side = Maximum none
Building Separation = 10'
SRC REVIEWERS:
Albemarle County Engineering Services (Engineer)
Contact: John Anderson, 4anderson2Q)Albemarle.org
Review Status: PENDING, review comments will be forwarded upon receipt
Albemarle County Information Services (E911)
Contact: Brian Becker, bbeckerAAalbemarle.org
Review Status: "Requested Changes", see attached comments
Albemarle County Building Inspections
Contact: Michael Dellinger, mdellin er ,albemarle.org
Review Status: "No objection"
Albemarle County Department of Fire Rescue
Contact: Shawn Maddox, smaddox(a),albemarle.org
Review Status: "No objection", see attached comments
Albemarle County Service Authority
Contact: Richard Nelson, melsonAserviceauthoritv.org
Review Status: PENDING, review comments will be forwarded upon receipt
Virginia Department of Transportation
Contact: Adam Moore, adam.moore@vdot.vir ig nia.gov
Review Status: "Requested Changes", see attached comments
Please contact Christopher Perez at the Department of Community Development at coerez(a),albemarle.org for further
information or assistance regarding Final Site Plan application SDP201900067 (or associated applications).
�pF AI.gA_
a: m
A�n
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, VA, 22902
Memorandum
To: Keane Rucker/Justin Shimp
From: Christopher Perez, Senior Planner
Division: Planning
Date: May 12, 2020
Subject: SUB202000059 Eco Village Charlottesville - Road Plan, Variation & Exception Requests,
and Private Street Request
Variation and Exception Requests
The following review comments on the Variation and Exception requests do not constitute support of the
various requests; rather, the following review comments are provided to help the applicant make complete
requests that can be reviewed by staff.
1. [14-422(E), 14-422(F), 14-203.11 Staff is unable to recommend approval of the majority of the
requests as sufficient justifications to make the required findings are not provided. Many of the
justifications provided in the variation and exception requests fail to provide direct links between
varying or excepting the requirements and the required findings. Most of the justifications provided
rely on other aspects of the development to draw broad vague correlations between the request and
some of the required findings. The current layout and design of the development is heavily reliant
on variation requests propagated by the proposed density of the development. Simply by reducing
the number of units proposed and realigning and widening the roadways the required improvements
could be provided. Either revise the requests to provide sufficient justifications to permit the
required findings to be made or revise the final site plan/road plan to provide the required
improvements.
2. [14-203.1] The Variation and Exception requests fail to provide the required findings of Section 14-
201.3(B). Revise each of the requests to provide the appropriate findings for each request based on
the type of request (exception or variation). For a variation request provide the required findings of
Section 14-201.3(Bx2). For an exception request provide the required findings of Section 14-
201.3(B)(3).
3. [14-203.1] The Variation and Exception requests submitted do not consistently utilize the terms
"variation'' and "exception" in the requests, and frequently utilize the tern "waiver" in place of
these terns. This makes it very difficult to understand what is truly being requested and which
requirements/analysis of the ordinance to review the proposal against. The term variation shall be
used when you are providing the improvement in a modified form than what is required in the
regulation. The tern exception shall be used when you are not providing the required improvement
at all. For example: if you provide sidewalks on one side of the street, this would be a variation
request to permit sidewalks on one side of the street; rather, than an exception request which would
seek to eliminate sidewalks from the street. Revise the requests to be consistent in the use of the
terms variation and exception. It appears all the requests are variations, except the curb and gutter
Page 1 of 3
request, which is truly an exception request.
4. [14-422(E), 14-422(F), 14-203.11 The current requests associated with Road A are overly broad and
do not provide any specifics to what is actually being requested. The request needs to specify
everything that's being requested.
For example: The applicant requests a variation to the planting strip requirement for the eastern side
of Road A, specifically from the entrance of the site to the second crosswalk adjacent to Open
Space C. The request seeks to permit the planting strip to be provided behind the sidewalk. The
ordinance requires that the planting strip be located between the paved travelway and the sidewalk.
Additionally, the applicant requests that the width of the planting strip be reduced from the required
6 feet to the proposed 3.9 feet.
The applicant requests an exception to omit the planting strip requirement on both sides of the street
fronting Lots 13B, 14B, and 15B.
The applicant requests a variation to the planting strip requirement for the western side of Road A.
Specifically, the applicant requests a reduced planting strip width from the required 6 feet to the
proposed 3.5 feet along the frontage of Lots 9A - 16A continuing to Common House 1. The
applicant also requests to omit the planting strip fronting Open Space D.
The applicant requests a variation to not provide the sidewalk on the western side of Road A at the
entrance to the site to the entrance of the 15 space parking lot. The applicant requests a variation to
omit sidewalks on the western side of Road A fronting Lots Lk — 3A. The applicant requests a
variation to not provide the sidewalk on the eastern side of Road A adjacent to the 28 space parking
lot continuing to Lot 15B.
5. [14-203.1, 14-422(E)] Sidewalk Variation Associated with Road A. The request associated with
Road A fails to request a variation to permit the required sidewalk on the western side of the
entrance road be omitted. Revise to provide the request and ensure sufficient justifications to make
the required findings are provided for each portion of the request.
6. [14-422(E), 14-203.11 The request associated with Roads B, C, and Dare overly broad and do not
provide any specifics to what is actually being requested. Revise the request to state what is being
requested in detail, similar to the example provided above.
7. [14-422(E), 14-203.11 The request associated with Roads B, C, and D is missing the sidewalk
variation request and its required justifications to make the required findings. Revise to include this
portion of the request.
Private Street Request
The following review comments on the private street request does not constitute support of the request;
rather, the following review comments are provided to help the applicant make a complete request that
can be reviewed by staff.
1. [14-234(A)(1), 14-234(C] The private street request is incomplete, as it does not provide each of the
five findings identified in paragraph C, which are required to be made. Revise the request to include
the required findings. See below:
1. The private street will be adequate to carry the traffic volume which may be reasonably
expected to be generated by the subdivision.
Page 2 of 3
2. The comprehensive plan does not provide for a public street in the approximate location of the
proposed private street;
3. The fee of the private street will be owned by the owner of each lot abutting the right-of-way
thereof or by an association composed of the owners of all lots in the subdivision, subject in either
case to any easement for the benefit of all lots served by the street;
4. Except where required by the commission to serve a specific public purpose, the private street
will not serve through traffic nor intersect the state highway system in more than one location; and
5. If applicable, the private street has been approved in accordance with section 30.3, flood
hazard overlay district, of the zoning ordinance and other applicable law.
Road Plan
1. [14-410(H), 14-410(1)] In the development areas streets shall be constructed with curb and
gutter. Provide Roads B, C, and D with curb and gutter. An exception request has been
submitted and is being reviewed.
2. [14-422, 14-422(E), 14-422(F)] Sidewalks and planting strips for street trees and other
vegetation shall be established on both sides of each new street within the subdivision. Each
planting strip shall be a minimum of six (6) feet in width. The planting strip shall be located
between the curb and the sidewalk. The planting strip shall be located between the paved
travelway and the sidewalk. Provide Road A and Roads B, C, and D with planting strips and
sidewalks on each side of the street that meet the above requirements. Variation requests have
been submitted and are being reviewed.
3. [14-410, 14-412, 14-412(A)(3)(b), 14-412(B)] Road A and Roads B, C, and D do not appear
to meet all applicable private street standards and would only be permissible with both
County Engineer and Agent approval. Pending County Engineer review of the road plan. I
offer the following applicable sections of the ordinance for your consideration.
[14-412(A)(3)(b)] Streets serving six lots or more. Each private street serving six (6) or more
lots shall satisfy Virginia Department of Transportation standards, provided:
Private streets in the development areas. For such private streets in the development areas,
the agent t may approve Virginia Department of Transportation standards for mountainous
terrain or an alternative standard deemed adequate by the county engineer to be equivalent to
or greater than the applicable standard in the design standards manual, so as to adequately
protect the public health, safety or welfare.
[14-412(B)] Private streets serving non-residential, non-agricultural, attached residential,
multi -unit residential and combined residential and non-residential uses. Each private street
authorized to serve nonresidential, non-agricultural, attached residential, multi -unit residential
and combined residential and nonresidential uses under sections 14-232 or 14-233 shall
satisfy Virginia Department of Transportation standards or an alternative standard deemed
adequate by the agent, upon the recommendation of the county engineer, to be equivalent to
or greater than the applicable standard in the design standards manual, so as to adequately
protect the public health, safety or welfare. The agent may require minimum travelway
widths to provide for on -street parking upon a determination that the provisions for off-street
parking may be inadequate to reasonably preclude unauthorized on -street parking.
4. [14-410(H), 14-4221 Provide all the street trees in the planting strips.
Page 3 of 3
Review Comments for SDP201900067 Final Site Development Plan
Project Name: ECO VILLAGE CHARLOITESVILLE - FINAL - DIGITAL
Date Completed: Monday, April 27, 2020 DepartmentlDivision/Agency: Review Status:
Bnan Becker - CDD E911�] (Requested Changes
Reviewer: _
Critical Issues: Roads A, B, C and D require road names. The configuration of the buildings will require all four roads for
addressing purposes.
Comments: Roads A, B, C and D require road names, 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...'
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 at:
htt p://www.albemade.orglalbemarle/u pload/i mages/webapps/roads/.
Page: Fl----] Countyof Albemarle Printed On: 04/29/ 0020
Review Comments for SDP201900067 Final Site Development Plan
Project Name I ECO VILLAGE CHARLOTTESVILLE - FINAL - DIGITAL
Date Completed: I Sunday, April 05, 2020 DepartmenVDivision/Agency: Review Status:
Reviewer: Michael Dellinger � CDD Inspections No Objection
Pape: 1� Countyof Albemarle Printed On: 05/06/ 0020
Review Comments for SDP201900067 Final Site Development Plan
Project Name ECO VILLAGE CHARLOTTESVILLE - FINAL - DIGITAL
Date Completed: Monday, April 27, 2020 DepartrnentlDivisionlAgency: Review Status:
Reviewer Maddox —EFire Rescue See Recommendations
Pape: 1� Countyof Albemarle Printed On: 04/29/ 0020
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Stephen C. Brich, P.E. 1401 East Broad Street (804) 7862701
Commissioner Richmond, Virginia 23219 Fax: (804) 786.2940
May 05, 2020
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Attn: Chris Perez
Re: Eco Village Charlottesville — Final Site Plan
SDP-2020-00067
Review # 1
Dear Mr. Perez:
The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use
Section, has reviewed the above referenced plan as submitted by Shimp Engineering, dated 04
November 2019, revised 02 April 2020, and offers the following comments:
1. Show, ADT, ROW width, design and posted speeds.
2. This plan appears to include improvements (left turn lane) to Route 631, please provide
both left and right turn lane warrant analysis.
3. Provide spacing to the nearest intersections and entrances along Route 631.
4. Please provide drainage calculations, and plot HGL's on storm sewer profiles.
5. The site plan cannot be approved until the required sight distance easements are recorded.
6. Please note that sight distance will be checked in the asbuilt condition.
7. The entrance does not meet VDOT's requirements for a commercial entrance, please note
that the final site plan must show conformance with the VDOT Road Design Manual
Appendices 13(1) and F, as well as any other applicable standards, regulations or other
requirements.
8. Please provide auto turn diagrams showing an SU-40 can make all the movements w/o
encroaching on other lanes.
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. If further information is
desired please contact Willis Bedsaul at (434) 422-9866.
Sincerely,
Adam J. Moore, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Charlottesville Residency
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING