HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP202000063 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2020-12-070
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Stephanie Paul; Shimp Engineering, P.C. (steohanie akshimp-en ing eering com)
From: Andy Reitelbach, Senior Planner
Division: Planning Services
Date: December 4, 2020
Subject: SDP2020-00063 — HTC Area C Townhomes — Final Site Plan
The Planner for the Planning Services Division of the Albemarle County Department of Community Development will
recommend approval of the plan referred to above when the following items have been satisfactorily addressed. (The
following comments are those that have been identified at this time. Additional comments or conditions may be added
or eliminated based on further review.) [Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference to the Albemarle County
Code.]
New Comments — First Review of HTC Area C Townhomes — Final Site Plan (SDP2020-00063):
1. [32.5.21 General information. Include the application number for the final site plan on the cover sheet, SDP2020-
00063.
2. [32.5.2(p)] Landscapingplan.
a. Most of the street trees along the internal streets are not in the planting strips. They need to be provided
within the planting strips as part of the right-of-way.
b. Provide the height at 10 years of maturity for the vegetation. That determines whether the landscaping
counts for the required canopy amount.
c. Provide units for the table identified as "pavement"
d. Revise the number of required street trees. The requirement is inclusive, so for example 750 linear feet of
frontage requires 16 trees, not 15. (The first tree is planted at 0 feet, then 50 feet, then 100 feet, and so
on.) This comment applies to both Block II and Block III.
e. Street trees also need to be provided along Private Road C.
f. Many trees are planted in very narrow spaces between driveways, which does not provide sufficient space
for the trees to grow in a healthy manner. Revise these locations or narrow the driveways.
g. There is a tree on top of the front stoop of Lot 24. Revise the location of this tree. There is also a tree on
top of the crosswalk and ramp adjacent to Lot 29. Revise the location of this tree.
3. [32.5.2(b)] There are more parking spaces proposed on the site than are allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning
Ordinance permits a 20% increase over what is required. 177 spots are permitted; however, 215 are provided. The
number of spaces should be reduced.
Comments from SDP2020-00034 — HTC Area C Townhomes — Initial Site Plan Action Letter:
The original comments from the review and action letter for SDP2020-00034 are in gray font. Follow-up comments from the
review of the final site plan, SDP2020-00063, are in black font. Please address these follow-up comments as well.
1. [32.5.2(a)] Zoning.
a. Include the applicable Zoning Overlay districts on the cover sheet: Airport Impact Area, Entrance
Corridor, and Steep Slopes — Managed.
b. Include that this property is also subject to ZMA2001-00020. Although Blocks II and VII
are subject to ZM4,2017-00005, Block III is still subject to the original ZMA2001-00020.
c. Include the special exception that was approved with ZMA2001-00020 modifying the
buffer requirements for property adjacent to a Rural Areas zoned property, as this special
exception is applicable to Block VII.
d. Include the approved proffers for ZMA2001-00020 on sheet C2 as well, as Block III is
subject to that rezoning.
Comments addressed.
2. [32.5.2(a)] Provide the owner names, zoning district designations, present uses, and tax map and parcel
numbers for all parcels that are adjacent to the three subject parcels Comment addressed.
3. [32.5.2(c)] Provide phase lines if this project is proposed to be phased in any wad Comment addressed.
4. [32.5.2(d)] Steep Slopes
a. Show the locations of Managed Steep Slope areas on the plan.
b. In addition, the retaining wall at the southeast corner of Block II must meet the standards for
steep slopes in 30.7.5. Any single retaining wall cannot be over 6-feet in height. Revise the
design of this retaining wall so that it is 6-feet in height or less.
Comments addressed.
5. [32.5.1(c), ZMA2017-00005, ZMA2001-000201 Dimensions. Show setback lines on the plans and
ensure that proposed buildings comply with setbacks. Some areas do not appear to meet the setback
requirements. Comment addressed.
6. [32.5.2(m)] Ingress and egress. Show the distance to the centerline of the nearest existing street
intersection from all of the proposed ingresses and egresses in each of the three blocks. Comment
addressed.
7. [32.5.2(r)] Labels and symbology.
a. Identify the dashed gray lines that are shown at the fronts and rears of the proposed dwelling units.
They appear to likely be porches or overhangs or something similar. Comment addressed.
8. [32.5.2(n)] Lighting. Provide an outdoor lighting plan that complies with 32.6.2(k) or note that no
outdoor luminaire will exceed 3,000 lumens. Comment addressed.
9. [32.5.2(p)] Landscaping. Provide a landscaping plan that complies with section 32.7.9. See
comments above in the "New Comments" section for comments pertaining to the Landscape
Plan.
10. [32.5.2(o)] Areas to be dedicated or reserved. Identify all areas to be dedicated or reserved for public
use. More clearly identify whether the area of Block 2 that is located within the Connor Drive
right-of-way is proposed to be dedicated to public use. I was unsure if that area shown in the
inset on the top right of sheet 5 is included. Also, it appears that some right-of-way is being
dedicated to public use in Block III; however, that area is not identified or labelled.
it. [32.5.2(j); 32.5.2(1)] Identify all existing sewer and drainage facilities, as well as all existing and
proposed utilities.
a. There are several spots on the site plan sheets where deed book and page numbers are
referenced; however, the dimensions of those utilities and other easements are not clearly
depicted. Clearly identify these easements. Comment addressed.
b. An approved easement plat will be needed for the proposed utilities and stormwater
facilities. Once recorded, the deed book and page number(s) for the new easements will
need to be noted on the plan before final approval can be granted. This comment has not
been addressed. An easement plat must be reviewed and approved prior to approval
of the final site plan.
12. [32.5.2(k)] Proposed sewer and drainage facilities. Depict these facilities and their dimensions. If
necessary, an approved and recorded easement plat will be required prior to approval of a final site plan
and/or final subdivision plat. This comment has not been addressed. An easement plat must be
reviewed and approved prior to approval of the final site plan.
13. [32.5.2(b)] Information regarding the proposed use.
a. Indicate on the cover sheet that Block III is subject to the height regulations of ZM4,2001-
00020. Comment addressed.
b. Identify on the cover sheet whether the proposed use is for single-family attached or single-
family detached dwellings. Comment addressed.
c. Identify the maximum number of proposed dwelling units by type. Comment addressed.
d. Provide the gross residential density for this project. Comment addressed.
e. Revise the parking schedule to provide additional parking spaces. As single-family attached
units appear to be proposed, without common parking bays, an additional one guest space is
required for every four units. This requirement is in addition to the 2 spaces per units
required. The guest spaces cannot be included on individual private lots. They must be
in common parking areas open to all residents of the development. Revise both Blocks
II and III to include the required guest parking spaces in common areas. Be aware
that the existing on -street parking (such as in front of Block III) cannot be counted for
the guest spaces either.
E Identify the locations of the guest parking spaces on the site plan sheets. Not fully
addressed. See comment 13e above.
g. Identify on the cover sheet the maximum amount of impervious cover proposed on the site.
Comment addressed.
h. With the landscape plan, identify the maximum amount of paved parking and other
vehicular circulation areas on the site. Comment addressed.
i. Provide the square footage of the proposed individual lots. Block II, Lot 1 is not labelled.
j. Lot 22 in Block II cannot have a property line going through the middle of its driveway.
Revise. Comment not addressed. There are still several lots with property lines going
through the driveways (e.g., Lots 27 and 28, among others).
***It is also important to note that driveways used to meet the parking
requirements must meet the dimensions of parking spaces at 9 feet by 18
feet. Many of the proposed driveways do not appear to meet this standard.
Revise the property lines and provide dimensions of the driveways and
garages so that staff can ensure all garages and driveways meet the
regulations for parking spaces.
14. [32.5.2(i)] Streets, easements, and travelways
a. A private street request, with justification, is required if the lots are proposed to be
subdivided. What about Private Road C in Block II? Is that not also being requested as
a private street, since it provides access to the development, including the second
access point required by ACFR? Revise the private street request.
b. The private streets as shown do not meet the minimum requirements for private street
design.
Provide sidewalks on both sides of all private streets.
Provide planting strips on both sides of all private streets.
A special exception application form and fee are required to be submitted for the requests
to waive sidewalks and planting strips in certain areas and to waive curb and gutter.
Please be aware that these items also require approval by the Planning Commission and
cannot be granted administratively by staff.
Private Road C should be included in all applicable waiver requests too.
Sidewalks and planting strips should be included on both sides of Private Road C or be
included in the waiver requests. Sidewalk and planting strip should be provided on the
west side of the Private Road A entrance. Crosswalks should be provided from the
recreation areas in the northeast and southwest to the sidewalks on the other side of the
streets. Revise the sidewalk exhibit to also include those areas proposed not to have
planting strips. Planting strips also need to be provided along the existing public streets.
Pedestrian access should be provided from Connor Drive to the southwestern recreational
area.
c. Clearly identify on the plans which travelways are proposed to be private streets and which
are proposed as private alleyways, including their proposed widths. Some of the travelways
have no labels. This distinction could affect such requirements as double -frontage lots,
sidewalk provision, planting strip provision, and street design standards. Comment
addressed.
d. Private streets and private alleyways would require easements to permit the right of passage
along them. Deed book and page numbers for those easements will be required on the final
site plan before approval can be granted. Comment not addressed. Plat required.
e. Are interconnections with adjacent parcels proposed? There are areas on the south sides of
Blocks II and III that appear to be paved, but it is unclear whether they are proposed for
interconnections. Interconnections should be provided with adjacent parcels. The road and
sidewalks do not appear to go all the way to the property line. They need to be
constructed all the way to the property line. Otherwise, a construction easement may
be required to allow for that future interconnection.
L Identify who is responsible for owning and maintain the existing private streets, including
Connor Drive and Laurel Park Lane. Demonstrate the right of access for this proposed
development over those existing private streets. The legal documents for those private
streets may need to be amended to permit the additional development requested. Comment
not addressed.
g. Provide more detail on the existing conditions at the Lockwood Road frontage of Block 111,
including the existing on -street parking spaces. It appears that public on -street parking
spaces will be lost with this proposal. Comment addressed.
h. Identify how many public on -street parking spaces are proposed to be removed, and provide
a plan for the replacement of those lost on -street parking spaces adjacent to Block III on
Lockwood Road. Comment addressed.
i. Provide bike lanes along the appropriate streets as required by Table C of the Code of
Development. Comment addressed.
j. All proposed new streets will require names approved by E911. Comment not addressed.
15. [32.5.2(n)] Existing and proposed improvements
a. The sidewalks and planting strips along the public streets must be in the public right-of-
way. Comment addressed.
b. The sidewalks depicted going across individual lots would need to have easements over
them to allow the right of passage, prior to final site plan approval. Comment addressed.
c. How is trash collection proposed to be handled for this development? Comment
addressed.
it. Provide accessible ramps and crosswalks at all street crossings. Additional crosswalks
should be provided across the private streets in front of the southwest and northeast
recreational areas.
e. Identify the materials proposed for the crosswalks. As mentioned in the Code of
Development, all crosswalks are required to be distinguished in a brick pattern style.
Comment addressed.
L Provide sidewalks along the existing streets (Timberwood Blvd. and Access Roads B, C,
and D in the COD) at a width that is in conformance with the requirements of Table C of
the Code of Development. The sidewalk along Connor Drive must be at least 5 feet in
width.
g. Provide sidewalks to the front of each proposed dwelling unit from the main
sidewalks/frontage. A sidewalk must be provided from the front fagade of each unit to
the sidewalk along the street frontage.
h. Remove the sidewalk from the hammerhead tum-arounds located at the northern end of
Block VII. Comment addressed.
i. Provide dimensions for all parking spaces, including driveways. Comment not fully
addressed. There are still some driveways that do not have dimensions and are not
uniformly shaped. Driveways cannot be within street right-of-way. For parking spaces
in driveways to count, they must be fully outside of street right-of-way, whether that is
public or private. The driveways in the southeast corner are particularly problematic
in their design.
j. Note the maximum footprint of the proposed buildings. Clarify whether the maximum
building square footage of 1,005 square feet listed on the cover sheet is per unit or per
structure.
k. Proposed sidewalks must connect with existing sidewalks to prevent gaps. Show all existing
sidewalks and how they connect with the proposed sidewalks. Comment addressed.
1. Show all existing improvements on site, such as the landscaping that crosses onto Block II
from the parcel to the south. Comment addressed.
16. [32.5.2(n); ZMA2017-00005] Recreational areas and facilities.
a. Identify the amenities, as well as their locations, proposed for the recreational areas
depicted in Blocks II and VII. The Code of Development requires pocket parks and tot lots
to be provided in Blocks II and VIL Identify the areas as pocket parks or tot lots. Is the
tot lot area proposed to be fenced? What is the feature between the whirl and the slide
feature? A sidewalk should be provided from the tot lot toward Connor Drive. Are
any substitution of amenities requested?
b. Identify who will have ownership and responsibility for maintenance of the common areas,
including the recreational areas. Are these areas proposed to be dedicated to the County? Or
will a homeowners association (HOA) be responsible for their ownership and maintenance?
Legal instruments creating the HOA and stating its responsibilities will be required prior to
approval of a final site plan and/or final subdivision plat. Comment not addressed.
17. [32.5.2(s)] Residual. Label the residual parcel area and acreage for each residual parcel. It appears at least
Block III will have a residual parcel area. Comment addressed.
18. [ZMA2017-00005] Affordable Units. Identify the units proposed to be affordable as required by
ZMA2017-00005 for those units proposed on Blocks II and VII. Comment addressed.
19. [Advisory Comment] If the applicant is interested in subdividing these parcels into individual lots for the
proposed single-family attached dwellings, a preliminary subdivision plat is required to be submitted for
review, in addition to a final subdivision plat. Comment addressed.
20. [14-401] Double Frontage. There are several proposed lots that are depicted as having double -frontage.
Submit a Special Exception application for review and approval of proposed double frontage lots, with
justification for the inclusion of double -frontage lots. Consult 14- 401 and 14-419 for standards. This
comment only applies if a subdivision of the blocks into individual lots is proposed. Comment
addressed.
21. [32.7.9.71 Landscaping. Double -frontage lots require landscaping to screen the rears of those lots. If
double -frontage lots are proposed, either landscaping will be required in accordance with the Zoning
Ordinance, or a modification request will need to be submitted for review. This comment only applies if
a subdivision of the blocks into individual lots is proposed. Comment addressed.
22. [32.5.2(i); Chapter 141 Private Streets. Private streets are shown on the site plan. A request for private
streets is required to be submitted, with justification for the private streets. This comment only applies if
a subdivision of the blocks into individual lots is proposed. Comment not fully addressed. See
comments in 414 above for more information.
23. [Advisory Comment] Be advised that a zoning map amendment to any individual block in Hollymead Town
Center Area C requires the signatures of all property owners of that block. As such, if the property owner of
the proposed residue of Block III was interested in a zoning map amendment for that parcel at a later time, the
ZMA application would need to include the signatures of all property owners, including the owners of each of
the proposed single-family attached residential units Comment addressed.
24. [General Comment] Mailboxes. USPS is now requiring new residential developments to provide
centralized delivery. Please work with the post master on an acceptable location and depict this location
on the plan. Comment addressed.
25. [General Comment] Final site plan. A final site plan is required to be submitted for this project.
Comment addressed.
Please contact Andy Reitelbach in the Department of Community Development at areitelbach@albemarle.org or 434-
296-5832 ext. 3261 for further information.
Comments from Other Reviewine Departments and Aeencies
Albemarle County Architectural Review Board (ARB)
Margaret Maliszewski, mmaliszewski@albemarle.org — Requested changes; see comments below:
An ARB application for a Countywide Certificate of Appropriateness is required.
Albemarle County Transportation Planning (Transportation Planner)
Daniel Butch, dbutch agalbemarle.org —No objections at this time.
Albemarle County Engineering Services (Engineer)
John Anderson, janderson2 agalbemarle.org — Requested changes; see the attached comment memo.
Albemarle County Information Services (E911)
Brian Becker, bbecker@albemarle.org — Requested changes; see comments below:
Critical Issues: Private roads A and B in Block II require road names for addressing purposes.
Comments: Per the Albemarle County Road Naming and Property Numbering Ordinance, Sec. 7-200, Part B (page 2 of the
PDF):
"It is intended by this article that all roads within the county which serve or are designed to serve three (3) or more dwelling
units or business structures shall be named... "
Private roads A and B in Block II will therefore require road names for addressing. Please provide this office at least three
alternative road names for review, in case your first choices are not acceptable. The Albemarle County Master Road Names
Directory can be accessed at the link in the Resources section.
Resources:
A PDF version of the Ordinance and Manual can be found here:
https:Hgisweb.albemarle.org/gisdata/Road_Naming_and_Property Numbering_Ordinance_and Manual.pdf
Albemarle County Master Road Names Directory: https:Hlfweb.albemarle.org/Forms/RoadNamelndex
Albemarle County Building Inspections
Michael Dellinger, mdellinger agalbemarle.org —No objections at this time.
Albemarle County Department of Fire -Rescue
Shawn Maddox, smaddoxaalbemarle.org — No objections at this time.
Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA)
Richard Nelson, melson@serviceauthority.org — Requested changes; see the attached comment memo.
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT)
Adam Moore, Adam.Moore a@vdot.vir ig nia.gov — Requested changes; see the attached comment memo.
� AI
?"h
�IRGRTF
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 229024596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
Site Plan review
Project: HTC Area C Townhomes —block II and III —Final Site Plan
Plan preparer: Stephanie Paul, Shimp Engineering stephanie(d�shimp-engineering.com
Shimp Engineering P.C., 912 E. High Street, Charlottesville, VA 2290
Owner or rep.: Post Office Land Trust, Charles Wm Hut & Shirley L. Fisher Trustees
P. O. Box 8147 Charlottesville, VA 22906
Plan received date: 8 Oct 2020
Date of comments: 27 Oct 2020
Reviewer: John Anderson
Project Coordinator: Andy Reitelbach
SDP2020-00063
1. Recommend revise FSP title to include ref. to SDP202000063.
2. Submit Road Plan and VSMP /WPO plan applications. Road plan and WPO plan approval is required for
FSP approval.
3. Roads must be built or bonded for final plat approval.
4. Note: On -site SWM (if any) and public /pvt. drainage easements may be recorded with fmal plat.
5. 10/5/20 Shimp Engineering curb and gutter waiver request is addressed via these Engineering site plan
review comments in context of design standards and ordinance (VDOT subdivision design standards,
drainage manual). Engineering does not request additional width with request for CG-6 where CG-2, or
roll-top, or ribbon curb may be proposed (see comments elsewhere). Curb and gutter are required by 14-
410(H) for pavement stability/durability, drainage, and safety reasons. Waiver request statement reading
`Curb and gutter is not needed internally along both sides of Road A and B for the purposes of helping to
frame the street or for the purposes of further defining the pedestrian realm' may express a useful planning
orientation, but this review reflects engineering perspective that includes pavement integrity, safety, and
drainage.
6. Engineering does not object to Planning authorization of Roads A, B, and C as private streets, but requests
pavement design for (C18) Road A, B, C sections. Also, item 78 below. Also, please note: horizontal
road design must meet AASHTO Guideline for Geometric Design of Very Low -Volume Local Roads
(ADT<400).
C5, block II
7. Lot 52, 53: Revise entrance geometry so that vehicle wheel path between street and parking area on lot is
continuous without steering correction after passing the sidewalk. Issues with this type constrictive design
have required post -construction demolition /rebuild on another project (Rivanna Village). Lots 54-60 show
`straight -in' (no steering) continuous entrance -driveway design. On a different project, vehicle wheel path
cut into lawn and entrance apron required widening, and relocation.
8. Show lot entrance design radii for each lot (ref. CG-9 detail, Cam. Certain lots show radii graphically,
Lots 36-52, for example, others do not —Lots 29-35, for example.
9. Eliminate Lot 45 drive entrance -crosswalk design, which places driveway in permanent conflict with a
pedestrian crosswalk. This design should not be shown under this or any circumstance, should be
abandoned, cannot be approved. Overlap (even partial, but total in this instance) between a pedestrian
crosswalk and driveway brings diametrically opposed pedestrian and vehicle facilities into permanent
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 7
conflict, posing extreme risk to pedestrians. A driver reversing from Lot 45, whether under poor visibility,
distracted, or simply unaware, may strike a pedestrian (parent with stroller, etc.) who has every right to
occupy a crosswalk with expectation of safety. Perhaps Lot 45 driveway location can be shown adjacent to
Lot 44 to avoid pedestrian crosswalk conflict.
10. Lot 24,2 issues:
a. Driveway entrance width <12' absolute minimum. Revise to meet absolute min. entrance width.
IT. If approaching from Conner Drive, 12' w entrance maybe insufficient. Provide auto -turn at
entrance to Lot 24, approaching from east/Conner Drive. Revise as needed so that vehicle wheel
path does not leave paved driveway at entrance at revised min. width while at the same time not
requiring drastic maneuver to opposite side of Road A in order to park at Lot 24.
Ref. detail 3/C 16, CG-9 Driveway apron: desirable Min. 16' -Absolute Min. 12'.
RL.H.1KIN AOLIrNLwqQmqr/�xY aSYn/Q tti€FA.i
Lr°!mi`JrLifV-rEa.SKrvSw�EPseDw EpSDemIaREI6a.SK�.raTa`uRE.oNAn N roACCESS
CCESIS
IiSrtYrRrot.O[• e aU. TE.NaE�rtos
DETaA
. � SCC�NELOrSO rM EKLCS4R[ EIEEN bra � }
bl6 @pIgyB7� ip_ U. 'eac�o'Ei.%Nu.r 'ss DLouE"TiEe �i rM+
ea m"B0M AHDI[ ✓(: cne. MeiN FRTx maLD a r. SI
14LESSIN RNLI IWrzYlPS$EE .1r
i .A w.n . Yu ]r tla0 aasE. r
HALF PLAN
MF Dxv x awresirr mswwwm
nr cum rKr
.T.a *D sE Krerm rD wra Lre
YAIfdNE mM Cgi%SaI.iCM Y:
SE
Mme4 4VrtM � �� e l '
•. ..:v} '%i 4E } rAl v•i Li us u naE.ar aNc.
• � G vP1r m ni 1.1R MW4S � e
rw are we artrw NNr • },
F a R i WIyV MI.E.S[ F YDP[ .1 rNYY O FrrINYS
r
SECTION C'C ...
L i WYLN RQ F. MCLELNG IMIM 4 MER MS
9[V GiLw V
•'uE'= STANDARD ENTRANCE GUTTER „K „r
aoa (FOR USE WITH UNPAVED SPACE BETWEEN CURB & SIDEWALK) vmox D.¢
Dvu
"�3VDOT: CG-9 DRIVEWAY APRON
,,,C16 NOT TO SCALE
11. Multiple (perhaps the majority) of driveway entrance widths in block I1 are 9'. Revise entrances and avoid
driveway width <12'. Effect of design is that driveway width < 12' (which does not meet entrance
requirements), similar to constraint experienced in parking lots (especially if in or next to an SUV or
pickup), affords very little room to either side of a sedan, much less to either side of an SUV or pickup, to
enter or exit a vehicle. A 9' wide driveway is far worse than a 9' wide parking space where pavement is
continuous. A 9' w driveway means different surfaces (landscape stone, turf, uneven surface, edge) require
care to navigate. Even then, risk is random; 9' is too narrow for even well-balanced drivers to use without
mishap. Ave. width of a car is around 6 to 6.5 ft.; SUV, 69-79"; pickup, 6'-8"; pickup incl. std. mirrors,
96.8" (google). Compare with 9' (108"). Residents with pickups with std. mirrors will have, if truck is
centered, a strip < 6" to edge around the mirror without stepping off the driveway. Revise to extend width
at entrance onto lots; i.e.: 12' absolute minimum width. Note: Certain lots (3, 4, 5, all <1,275 SF lots) are
provided 16' w driveways, others (-1,367, 1,379 SF) have 9' w driveways. This seems insensible. Please
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 7
consider practical effects and relevant standards. Design that requires residents to enter or exit vehicles in
the narrow permanent confines of a 9' driveway is deficient, given standard vehicle widths, and poses risk.
If ZMA or Planning Div. has approved a 9' w driveway for these HTC Area C block II townhomes, please
notify Engineering. Otherwise, please accept that entrance width for driveways should continue the
absolute minimum entrance width onto lots. To argue the alternative ( <12') ends where, is unclear. 9'?
8'? 6.5'? No paved minimum?
12. Lot 29: Remove road name and stop sign from driveway.
13. (and C18): Revise Road A, Sec. B-B to provide CG-6 where street cross -slope /x-section indicate runoff
concentrates against curb. Also, revise C5.
14. (and C18): Revise Road C, Sec. A -A to provide CG-6 along outer curb edge. See blue highlight, image,
below, near subdivision entrance off Berkmar Drive. Revise C5 plan view ( same comment ).
15. (and C18): Revise Road A, Sec. A -A to provide CG-6 where street cross -slope /x-section indicate runoff
concentrates against curb. Also, revise C5.
16. Provide occasional dimensional width labels for sidewalk fronting Berkmar Dr., widened with this project.
17. Road A and B 70'R (radii) do not meet AASHTO Guidelines for Geometric Design of Very Low -Volume
Local Roads (5400 ADT). Revise design to meet standards.
Note: Roads A, B, C are streets not alleys and must meet VDOT /AASHTO low -volume, local road
standards. (CL R =70' appears less than AASHTO Min.)
18. (With road plan) Submit ADT table values for ease of comparison with VDOT /AASHTO guidelines.
19. Line of sight label on 2,259 SF recreational area is unclear. `All terrace to be limited trees must be pruned
to provide the line of sight' is ambiguous. Revise text for clarity. Line of sight across Lot 28 extending
toward Conner Drive appears to require an easement. Provide and label (this/other) sight line easement/s.
20. Lots 33-35 indicate porch stairs extend across parcel lines on Conner Drive private right-of-way. Revise,
or provide easement with maintenance agreement/s for portions of stairs serving units on these lots that lie
within private right-of-way.
21. Label sidewalk width, Road B.
22. Label trail width in amenity /playset area.
23. Provide /label retaining wall safety railing in amenity /playset area for all retaining walls given risk to
children and proximity to Conner Drive (railing required even for retaining wall <4-ft. In. at this location).
Engineering Review Comments
Page 4 of 7
24. (Cl Provide retaining wall safety railing detail with max. opening between vertical members <_ 4".
25. Retaining wall appears to extend across SE side of amenity /play area. Provide TWBW labels at Lot 35
end of wall to clarify where the wall ends, and that the wall ends. Wall maintenance easement on Lot 35 is
required if wall is proposed to end at lot line.
26. Label amenity /play area trail material type, and width.
C6, block III
27. Label CG-2 (Typ.) between driveways that extends between walk and units on each lot.
28. Provide CG-2 at Lots 1 and 10 (end units), similar to Lots 2-9 to complete curbing at existing gaps,
especially since, in these gaps, vehicle wheel path for vehicles reversing from Lot 1 and 10 driveways will
tend to drift from pavement, degrade turf, and undermine pavement. Ref. HTC block 4 photo below for
29. New `alley name and stop sign' label appears in duplicate. Engineering commends design for emphasis on
pedestrian safety, but is unsure how this will work in practicality. Drivers are not accustomed to a double
stop sign, and may be confused. Block III connects with a public street. Engineering defers to VDOT, yet
recommends pedestrian crosswalk striping to either side of the stamped concrete brick pattern crosswalk,
with stop condition past the crosswalk at intersection with Lockwood Drive.
30. Label radii (typ.) for CG-2 curbing at ribbon curb (CG-2 that extends between alley and units). If <1.5'R,
revise design and provide detail for a gradually sloping concrete ramp to replace CG-2 at radii, such that
vehicle wheels can mount the ramp as vehicles enter driveways, and such that this section of curbing (now
ramp) is more durable and may not deteriorate as rapidly due to wheel strike /multiple wheel crossings.
31. C5C6: Provide intersection sight lines for internal intersections.
C7
32. Remove hydrant from sidewalk near storm Str. A5.
33. Provide pvt. san. easement on Lot 46 for Lot 47 owner since lateral may not be installed or accessed
without easement across a portion of Lot 46.
34. Similarly, provide pvt. san. lateral easement on Lot # /for owner of Lot #:
a. 47/48
b. 51/52
c. 13/14
d. 51/52
e. 53/54
f. 58/57
Engineering Review Comments
Page 5 of 7
g. 59/58
h. 60/59
35. Provide pvt. sanitary lateral for Lots 18, and 36-40.
36. Relocate pvt. san. laterals onto Lots 51 and 50. Two laterals are shown on Lot 52, none on Lot 50.
37. Recommend extend pvt. san. sewer lateral for Lot 52 further onto lot.
38. Recommend extend pvt. water laterals to structure side of sidewalks to minimize and avoid damage to
walks during water line service connections. [ Note: walks must be acceptable prior to street acceptance. ]
39. Note: San. sewer lateral clean -outs appear problematic for attached units with laterals located in pavement,
else clean -outs require traffic rated lids if CO's located in private drives. Examples: Lots 24-27.
Engineering defers to ACSA.
40. Provide private drainage easements across Lots 47-52, 54-59, and 3645, for yard inlet systems.
41. Revise New 20' Storm Sewer Esm't label to read New 20' Private Drainage Easement.
42. Label 8" DIP WLs.
43. Delete concrete shading (in turf area) adjacent to CG-6 on Lot 55, 60.
44. There may be limit on placement of hydrant behind parallel parking near Lot 60, Engineering defers to
ACFR.
45. Shift Str. A7 label to more nearly align with structure location.
46. C7C8: There are two A2 and two Al structures, with same labels used in both block II and IIl. Relabel
block III drainage structures (revise labeling on C 13 profile, as well). Revise labels in Calc. report tables.
47. C7C8: Show linework and provide labels to show roof leader line connection with storm system. Ensure
Lots 1-10, block I1I, roof leader line discharge does not sheet across sidewalk and is not trapped behind
CG-2 curbing, if discharge is to surface.
48. Revise design: spread at inlet A6 (6.27') exceeds half lane width (5'). Also, LD-204, Cale. packet.
C8
49. Label Ex. watermain size in Lockwood Drive.
50. Please use conventional notation for remaining lot size (69,971.6 SF).
51. Recommend extend pvt. water laterals to structure side of sidewalks to minimize and avoid damage to
walks during water line service connections. [ Note: walks must be acceptable prior to street acceptance. ]
C9
52. Revise grading behind lots 53-60 to provide a reasonably -defined channel, ensure low points at yard inlets.
Runoff may not cross more than 2 lots; i.e., must be collected on Yd lot.
53. Lots 12-23: In limited turf space, provide runoff collection on every third lot (yard inlet) unless roof leader
lines connect with new /ex. storm sys. Vertical fall across lots as well as ambiguity concerning roof leader
lines is cause for concern. No runoff collection appears to be proposed on Timberwood Blvd side of these
twelve (12) units.
54. Label retaining wall, Lots 12, 13.
55. Lot 12, 13 retaining wall TW BW elevations are somewhat ambiguous. Additional elevations at either end
(TW/BW at each end) would be helpful.
56. Provide % slope with flow arrow for all driveways.
57. Lots 36-45, and Lots 12-13 retaining walls: Provide evidence of recorded (party) wall maintenance
agreement/s, and provide wall maintenance easement on final subdivision plat.
58. Provide grading or spot shots to ensure there is no nuisance ponding in southmost parallel parking space (of
5 spaces) opposite Lots 4-9, Road A.
59. Wherever storm runoff concentrates against curbing, provide CG-6, for example, 5 parallel spaces
referenced in comment, immediately preceding.
60. Provide labels that more clearly identify proposed retaining walls that extend from block II amenity space
across lots 36-45. Also, if retaining walls:
a. Span lot lines, they require easement and recorded (party) retaining wall maintenance agreement.
Albemarle is not a party to wall maintenance agreements but needs to ensure wall maintenance
agreements are recorded. Also, item 57, above.
b. >3' ht., they require a building permit.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 6 of 7
c. >4' In., they require sealed geotechnical design, and safety railing. Also, item 23 above.
61. Evaluate depth of Q iun event runoff, Road B, where grade indicates runoff concentrates inflow line at
drive entrances to lots 36 thru 45. Ensure runoff does not enter driveways of any lot in the development.
62. Provide storm runoff capture (grate/inlet) in line with CG-6 or at end of CG-6, blue -circles, image below.
1136 10 100
}go -
CIO
63. Replace Alley B CG-2 between entrance on Lockwood Drive and intersection with back alley access to
units. Runoff concentrates against curbing along both edges (entrance alley is crowned). Engineering
consistently requests that design that proposes to concentrate runoff against a curb provide CG-6, not CG-2.
Issue has been raised with /resolved by Albemarle County Engineer.
64. CG-6 label near 82.81' contour is confusing. It is somewhat unclear if gutter pan is to extend across paved
asphalt alley entrance, or not.
65. Provide spot elevations along outer edge of southmost bump out at face of curb to ensure that runoff
internal to development that drains along Alley B to Lockwood Drive, reaches Str. B 1.
66. Label driveway grade, units 1-10.
C11
67. Recent aerial imagery indicates existing landscaping /streetscape trees along Tmberwood Blvd that may
relieve requirement to plant a few of the proposed street trees along Timberwood. Engineering defers to
Planning.
C13
68. Provide B 1 to A 1 storm profile. Although shown partially in detail 51C 13, request profile for Str. B 1 with
complete structural information (INV out, rim, str. type, etc.).
69. Provide label for %:" steel plate in floor of Str. A4, in each profile that shows Str. A4.
70. Show all crossing san. laterals in water profile. 8" DIP WL appears to be located 3.5-4' below proposed
grade, and crossing water laterals may conflict /should be shown.
71. Provide profile, Str. Cl, Berkmar Drive, since Ex. 4' DI-3B is to be replaced with new 10' DI-3B. Provide
rim elevation, replacement DI.
72. C 14: Show all crossing water laterals in san. sewer profile.
73. C 15: Revise sight line captions to read Berkmar Drive (and Road C), rather than Timberwood Blvd.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 7 of 7
C18:
74. Provide ribbon curb detail.
75. Provide CG-6 to ribbon curb transition detail.
76. Road A, Sec. C-C: Label CG-6, for clarity.
77. Provide typ. amenity /play area trail section.
78. Provide pavement design [D,, DP] per 2018 VDOT Pavement Design Guide for Subdivision and Secondary
Roads in Virginia, required to evaluate pavement section depths and for comparison with 10/5/20 Private
Street Request, item 1. [ link:
https://www.virginiadot.org/business/resources/MateriaWPavement Design Guide for Subdivision and
Secondary Roads.pdf]
79. CALCULATIONS (31-pg. packet d. 10/5/20 re: HTC Area C Townhomes: Block II & Block III, SWM Plan):
a. HTC Area C Townhomes Block I1 Inlets Drainage Area Map (p. 5 of Cale. packet)
i. Indicates 11 attached units fronting Berkmar Drive will discharge post -developed runoff
to Str. C 1. It is not apparent how Berkmar Drive portion of rooftop runoff will reach C 1.
Roof leader lines and roof runoff may not discharge to surface and sheet across sidewalk
fronting Berkmar Drive as this represents high risk of fall due to ice in winter weather,
and lesser risk of challenge to permanently stabilize areas along fronts of units, if roofs
discharge to splash blocks. Provide additional plan detail that indicates how development
areas shown draining to C 1 will reach C 1 without crossing sidewalk.
ii. Similarly, provide same level of plan detail showing how roof runoff from attached units
fronting Timberwood Blvd. or Timberwood Blvd. roundabout, will reach inlet structures
DI, D2 without sheeting across sections of broad sidewalk, which is impermissible.
b. Pg. 8, LD-229:
i. Revise pipe DIA, F1 A8 or revise slope since total flow=1.29 which is nearly equal pipe
capacity: 1.30cfs.
ii. Revise pipe, A5-A4, since total flow, 7.50cfs, exceeds pipe capacity: 7.0cfs.
c. HTC Area C Townhomes Block III Inlets Drainage Area Map (p. 12 of Calc. packet)
Please see comments above re. roof runoff discharge, in this instance to Str. B 1 on Lockwood
Drive. Roof leader lines may not discharge to turf areas fronting units given risk of freezing
sidewalk conditions in winter. Provide additional plan detail.
d. LD-229: Check table values, possible error, total flow Al to AO, given other 2 table flow values.
Please feel free to call if any questions: 434.296-5832 -x3069
Thank you
SDP2020-00063 HTC Area C Townhomes block II III ESP 102720
Albemarle County
Service Authority
Serving ♦ Conserving
October 19. 2020
Shimp Engineering
Attn: Mr. Justin Shimp, P.E.
201 East Main Street, Suite M
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
Re: HTC Area C Townhomes
Dear Justin:
We have reviewed the plans entitled "HTC Area C Townhomes," dated October
5, 2020. The following comments need to be addressed.
General
1. Provide water and sewer data sheets.
2. Two sewer agreements will be required to be executed prior to plan approval.
3. RWSA will need to review and approve water service connections along their
water main.
4. RWSA sewer capacity certification will be required.
Sheet C7
1. Relocate fire hydrants from behind proposed parking spots. A minimum of 40' of
separation from any structure is required.
2. Adjust proposed water and sewer. Refer to attached PDF.
3. Multiple bends are called out that are not manufactured.
4. Move water meters closer to edge of curb and gutter.
5. Make double taps into single taps where spacing is tight.
6. Relocate MH 4A out of proposed pavers.
7. Call out 8" TS&V and show 8" GV.
Sheet C8
1. Callout 1" corp stop and 1" WL for services.
2. Relocate MH 3A out of pavement and adjust sewer alignment, as shown.
3. Confirm if a fire hydrant will be required.
4. RWSA to approve service connections.
Sheet C12
1. Remove plantings from proposed ACSA easement.
168 Spotnap Road - Charlottesville, VA 22911 - Phone (434) 977-4511 - Fax (434) 979-0698
www.serviceauthority.org
Sheet C13
1. Show elevation of proposed water main connection relative to existing water
main depth.
2. Remove vertical bends and deflect water main to minimum depth after storm
crossing.
If you have any questions concerning this review, feel free to call at (434) 977-
4511, Ext. 113.
Sincerely,
Richard Nelson
Civil Engineer
RN/dbh
Attachment
050601 HTC_AreaC_Comments101920
Stephen C. Brich, P.E.
Commissioner
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1401 East Broad Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
November 24, 2020
Andy Reitelbach
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: SDP-2020-00063 — HTC Area C Townhomes - FSP
Dear Mr. Reitelbach:
(804) 786-2701
Fax: (804) 786,2940
The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use
Section, has reviewed the above referenced HTC Area C Townhomes - FSP, as submitted by
Shimp Engineering, dated October 5, 2020 and find the following:
1. CG-12 handicap ramps will need to be redesigned to direct pedestrians across entrances
and not into the travelway. No mid -block crossing has been warranted.
2. Please show mill and overlay on plans in accordance with WP-2. Show limits of mill and
overlay to adjacent travel lane. Also, please add the WP-2 detail to the plans.
3. Please provide an MOT plan in accordance with the Virginia Work Area Protection
Manual. MOT plan should be on a separate sheet and designed for this project, include
the proposed mill and overlay phase of construction.
4. Please remove trees within 30 of intersections per B(1)-44 RDM.
5. Please remove the parking spaces within the sight triangles.
6. Landscaping plants and trees adjacent to the sight distance triangle will need to be
maintained in area between 2 and 7 feet above ground as a clear zone to preserve sight
lines and accommodate pedestrians.
7. Note that the final plan must show conformance with the VDOT Road Design Manual
Appendices B(1) and F, as well as any other applicable standards, regulations or other
requirements.
If you have further questions please contact Max Greene at (434) 422-9894.
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 land Use Section at (434) 422-9399
for information pertaining to this process.
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
Sincerely,
Adam J. Moore, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Charlottesville Residency