HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB202000055 Review Comments Appeal to BOS 2020-12-15� AI
�h
�lRGIN�P
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
Project title:
Project file number:
Plan preparer:
Owner or rep.:
Date Received:
Rev. 1 Received:
Rev. 2 Received:
Rev. 3 Received:
Date of Comments:
Rev. 1 Comments:
Rev.2 Comments:
Rev. 3: Comments:
Keane,
Road and Drainage plan review
Proffit Road Townhomes North
SUB202000055
Shimp Engineering, PC [keane@shimp-engineering.coml
Albemarle Land Development, LLC
Brent Hall [brent@hallsautobodyinc.coml
23 March 2020
05 June 2020
25 Sept. 2020
20 Nov. 2020
29 April 2020
17 July 2020
30 Oct 2020
15 Dec 2020
We have reviewed the above referenced plans and have the following comments:
Engineering (Emily Cox)
1. Road B must terminate at Road D to match the approved ZMA20180006. Also interconnectivity
must be shown as illustrated on the same approved ZMA. Rev 1:Comment not addressed. Rev.
2: Comment addressed.
2. Provide storm calculations to go along with the profiles shown on sheet C 13. Rev. 1: Comment
addressed.
3. Topography is older than a year. Please provide a date in which it was field verified. Rev. 1:
Comment addressed.
4. Show the managed slopes on the property. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
5. Ensure parallel parking spaces meet requirements (9ftx20ft). Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
6. Rev. 1: Velocity in storm pipe shall not exceed 15 ft/s. Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
7. Rev. 1: The trench drain should tie in with a manhole so there is a way to inspect or service
the system. Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
8. Rev. 1: [Sheet C61 Trees should be ideally located at least 5 ft from a storm pipe. They
cannot be centered on the pipe. Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
9. Rev 2: Please provide updated calculations to match the same date of the road plan. Rev. 3:
Comment addressed.
Planning (Daniel Butch)
1. Transportation Planning: For pedestrian interconnectivity provide crosswalk ramps extending
from sidewalk on Road D in front of lot 29; additionally crossing Road A in front of lot 45 to lot
31. Rev. 1: Proffered road improvements and right-of-way reservations from ZM4,2018-6 on
Proffit Rd should be shown on site plan. The recommended improvements from the TIA for a 200
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 3
feet turn lane with a 200 feet taper is warranted for the proposed site entrance. Rev. 2: Refer to
planning and/or VDOT comments for this issue.
Planning (Mariah Gleason)
1. See attached comment letter dated 4/29/2020. Rev. 1: See attached comment letter dated
7/8/2020. Rev. 2: See attached comment letter dated 10/27/2020. Rev. 3: See attached
comment letter dated 12/15/20.
VDOT (Adam Moore)
1. See attached comment letter dated 4/14/2020. Rev. 1: See attached letter dated July 7, 2020. Rev.
2: See attached letter dated 10/27/2020. Rev. 3: No objections. See attached letter dated
12/2/2020.
Fire Rescue (Shawn Maddox)
1. No objection.
ACSA (Richard Nelson)
1. Currently under review per email dated 4/23/20. Rev. 1: Still under review per email dated
7/9/2020. Rev. 2: Approved per email dated 10/20/20.
GIS (Brian Becker)
1. The private roads designated "Private Road A", "Private Road B", "Private Road C" and "Private
Road D" each 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: htto://www.albemarle.org/albemarle/upload/images/webapl2s/roads/.
Rev. 1: The provided road names Zelkova Drive, Corner Oak Drive, Hall Of Oaks Drive
and Flat Branch Lane are acceptable road names. Please show them on the submitted plan
for approval.
Rev. 3: Critical Issues: Oakley Court is not acceptable
Comments: The Albemarle County Road Naming and Property Numbering Ordinance and
Manual limits the number of road names that can begin with the same word to five, and
"Oak" exceeds the limit. Please provide an alternate road name for Oakley Court. The
provided road names Beechtree Terrace, Fernview Terrace Road and Halls Ridge Road are
acceptable. The previously submitted Aspen Drive and Ridge Road are acceptable road
names.
Resources:
A PDF version of the Ordinance and Manual can be found here
https://gisweb.albemarle.org/gisdata/Road_Naming_and_Property_N umbering_Ordinance
_and_Manual.pdf
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 3
Albemarle County Master Road Names Directory:
hftps://Ifweb.albemarle.org/Forms/RoadNameludex
Engineering plan review staff are available from 2-4 PM on Thursdays, should you require a meeting to
discuss this review.
If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me either by email (ecox2@albemarle.org) or by
phone at 434-296-5832 ext. 3565.
Sincerely,
Emily Cox, P.E.
Civil Engineer II
00UNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 229024596
(434) 296-5832
Memorandum
To: Emily Cox, Albemarle County Engineering Division (ecox2@albemarle.org)
From: Mariah Gleason — Senior Planner
Division: Planning Services
Date: April 29, 2020
Revision 1: July 8, 2020
Revision 2: October 27, 2020
Revision 3: December 15, 2020
Subject: SUB202000055 Proffit Rd Townhomes North — Road Plans
The County of Albemarle Planning Division will recommend approval of the plat referenced above once the following
comments 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.]
1. [32.5.2(a)] Application ID. Include the application ID on the Cover Sheet (SUB202000055). Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
2. [32.5.2(a)] Tax Map Parcel. Provide the unabbreviated tax map and parcel number in at least one place in the plan. Staff
suggests providing this information on the Cover Sheet. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
3. [32.5.2(a)] Zoning notes. Include in the zoning notes that this parcel is subject to ZMA2018-06 and its associated proffers.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
4. [ZA4t2819 06 ZMA2019-10] Proffer 42. Show the right-of-way improvements along Proffit Rd per the plan view map
shown on Sheet 3 and the cross-section shown on Sheet 1 of the approved application plan. Rev. 1: Comment remains.
During the review of ZMA2018-06, road improvements to Proffit Road were identified to mitigate the traffic impacts and
increased vehicular trips associated with the up -zoning of this parcel. The resulting proffer (Proffer 2) will need to be
provided as part of the site/subdivision plan approval. The County would be happy to meet to discuss this comment if the
applicant desires. Rev. 2: The applicant's comment response letter states in part that "the Right of Way
improvements per ZMA201900010 are included in the road plan." Staff disagrees and finds that the right-of-way
improvements, per the proffered application plan for ZMA201900010, are not included in the revised road plans
however the right-of-way dedication is being fulfilled with this road plan. Otherwise, comment sufficiently
addressed. The proffered right-of-way improvements do not need to be installed at this time.
5. [ZMA2018-06] Internal street network. The internal street network shown on the plan is not in alignment with the
application plan and proffers associated with ZMA2018-06. To adhere with the approved application plan, Road B must
terminate at its intersection with Road D. Rev, 1: Comment remains. Staff acknowledges the applicant's response, however,
as ZMA2019-10 has not been approved, staff cannot approve the extension of Road B beyond the intersection of Road D,
since the design is inconsistent with the approved ZMA (ZMA2018-06) for the subject property. Therefore, revise the road
plan so Road B does not extend beyond the intersection with Road D. Rev. 2: Comment resolved. With the approval of
ZMA201900010, the internal street network shown on the road plan now aligns with the approved application plan.
6. [ZMA2018-06, 32.7.2.2(d-e)] Extension and coordination ofstreets. County Code requires all streets within a development
to extend and be constructed to the abutting property lines. To meet this requirement:
a. Show construction of proposed Road D up to the property line of TMP 32A-2-113 and secure any off -site
construction or grading easements that may be needed to allow the construction of Road D up to the property
line.
OR
b. Provide documentation to demonstrate that the abutting landowner will not grant the easement, show
construction of proposed Road D as close to the abutting property line as possible, and grant the necessary
easement area to allow the future extension/connection of Road D to this parcel boundary in the future. Note:
The easement plat will need to be submitted, reviewed, approved, and recorded prior to final site plan
approval.
Rev. 1: The comment response letter from the applicant indicates that documentation from the abutting landowner,
consistent with Comment 6b, will be provided to staff. The aforementioned documentation will be needed before this
comment can be resolved. In addition, provide information to demonstrate that the road is being built as close as possible to
the abutting property line and that a future connection can be built inside the right-of-way on the subject property. If not,
easements outside of the proposed right-of-way may be needed to ensure this segment of roadway can be built in the future.
Rev. 2: Comment not fully addressed. Thank you for including the letter from Southern States (the abutting landowner of
TMP 32A-2-1B). To satisfy this comment fully, also provide materials to demonstrate that a future road connection can be
made in this area. Materials should show if easements on the subject property or adjoining parcels are needed to allow the
road connection to be fully constructed.
Rev. 3: Comment not fully addressed. While grading easements to allow a future road connection and extension were
included with the revised plan, staff is still unable to determine whether the proposed grading easement areas, and
possibly the road termination point, are adequate to allow the modification to the requirement for roads to be
constructed to abutting property lines. Staff recommends designing the road as if it is going to be built to the
property line so that the previously mentioned aspects can be analyzed.
[32.5.2(b), 4.12] Parking.
a. The required parking for this development is 122 spaces. Per Sec. 4,12.6, this development is required to
provide one guest parking space per four units (54/4=14 spaces). With this addition, the required parking for
this development is 122 spaces (108+14). Review and revise the Parking Schedule on the Cover Sheet
accordingly. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
b. There is a discrepancy in the proposed widths of on -street parking spaces. The plan maps indicate spaces will
have a width of 8ft while the ROW Cross Sections provided on Sheet CIO indicate on -street parking spaces
will have a width of 9ft. Please review and revise to align this information and provide on -street parking space
widths of 9ft, in accordance with Sec. 4.12,16. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
c. [Rev. 1] The driveway widths for Lots 23-30 will need to be increased to provide at least the minimum parking
space envelope of 9 feet wide and 18 feet long, as described in Sec. 4,12.16. Rev, 2: Comment satisfied,
however, in discussions with the applicant, there seemed to be a desire for these driveways to be separated
from one another. If that is still the case, consider applying for a special exception under Sec. 4.12.2(c)(2) for
the requirements of Sec. 4.12.16. This is an administrative waiver. Rev. 3: The applicant has submitted a
waiver request to the minimum parking space size for the off-street parking spaces serving proposed
Lots 23-30. The review of this parking waiver will be moved and considered with the site plan
application for this property (SDP202000028) since the aforementioned spaces are a requirement of the
site plan. This change to the review was discussed with the applicant via phone on December 7, 2020.
The applicant was in agreement with this change.
8. [32.7.9.4] Landscape Plan
a. Provide a scale bar. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
b. Since this is not an infill development, where existing utilities are already in place, street trees will be required
on both sides of the entire lengths of Road A and Road B. Revise the Landscaping Plan to include street trees
in front of Lots 50-45 and on the eastern -facing sides of Lots 37-38. Rev. 1: Thank you for providing
continuous street trees, however, some tree placements may create conflicts with proposed storm sewer lines.
Revise the landscaping plan to provide adequate separation between these two plan elements. Planning staff
will defer to Engineering on guidance related to the storm sewer line separation. Rev. 2: Comment satisfied.
c. All required street trees must be provided with this site plan, not a future site plan. Please revise the
Landscaping Plan accordingly. Rev. 1: Comment acknowledged by applicant in the comment response
letter.
d. Remove Note 5 from the Landscape Plan. The scheduled street trees are being used to meet the tree canopy
requirement for this development. As such, tree species cannot be substituted since different species have
different canopy covers. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
e. Is the last tree species provided in the Interior Street Tree Schedule supposed to be a Nyssa sylvatica (black
gum) or a Quercus palustris (pin oak)? The schedule currently specifies "Nyssa sylvatica (pin oak)", which
appears to be a clerical error. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
f [New] The Landscape Plan map indicates 12 medium trees are being provided along Proffit Rd, however the
planting schedule table and landscaping notes indicate that 11 trees are being provided here. Revise and align
the map, planting schedule, and landscaping notes. Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
g. [New] Including the adjusted tree quantity for the street trees along Proffit Rd, staff is only able to confirm a
1.52 acre (66,409sf) tree canopy being provided by the revised plan, however the Landscaping Plan notes a
1.53 acre canopy is being provided. While the canopy requirement is being met, there is likely a rounding
difference between the calculations of the applicant and staff. Please review and revise as needed. Rev. 2:
Comment addressed.
9. [32.5.2(i)] Street names. Provide street names for new roads. Proposed names will need to be reviewed/approved by E911
prior to final site plan approval. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
10. [32.5.2(m)] Nearest intersection. Adjust the nearest intersection distance labels on Sheet C3 so they are on top of the
hatched pattem(s). Current layering makes it difficult to read these labels. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
11. [32.5.2(a)] North. Review and revise the north arrow on Sheet C8. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
12. [Comment] This road plan application is only for the review/approval of improvements in the right-of-way. All other
information and improvements outside of the right-of-way are being reviewed with site plan application SDP202000028.
13. [Rev. I] If not already provided, include a note on the road plan that all proposed right-of-way areas are hereby dedicated to
public use. Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
14. [Rev. 2] On Sheet C3, the proposed road names shown on the plan map differ from those listed in the break-out notes. Also,
the plan map shows two spellings for the entrance road — "Aspire and "Aspen'. These names are also different from those
shown on the subdivision plat. For example, the subdivision plat labels the entrance road "Zelkova Dr". Clarify the desired
name for each proposed road. Rev. 3: Comment not addressed. There still seems to be a conflict on Sheet C3 between
the proposed road names shown on the plan map and those indicated in the plan notes. Please revise the proposed
road names accordingly and ensure alignment between this plan, the site plan, and subdivision plat.
15. [Rev. 31 Street trees. Staff recommends replacing tree species in front of Lots 23-30 with a columnar or narrow
cultivar to accommodate lack of growing area. Note, this is just a suggestion to facilitate successful street tree
planting; this is not a requirement of approval.
Please contact Mariah Gleason in the Planning Division by using mg1easonAalbemarle.org or 434-296-5832 ext. 3097 for
further information.
(Z)
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Stephen C. Brich, P.E. 1401 East Broad Street
Commissioner Richmond, Virginia 23219
December 2, 2020
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Attn: Emily Cox and Mariah Gleason
(804) 786-2701
Fax: (804) 786,2940
Re: SUB-2020-00055 - Proffit Road Townhomes North — Road Plan - Review #4
Dear Ms. Cox:
The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use
Section, has reviewed the above referenced plan as submitted by Shimp Engineering, dated 20
November 2020, and find them to be generally acceptable.
Though the warrants are not met solely by this development they will contribute greatly to the
warrants being met for opposing left turn lanes when the southern property develops.
If further information is desired, 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 Transportation and Land Use
Section at (434) 422-9399 for information pertaining to this process.
Sincerely,
Adam J. Moore, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Charlottesville Residency
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING