The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSDP201900067 Correspondence 2020-11-10 Christopher Perez From: Christopher Perez Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2020 4:19 PM To: ilkamorse@gmail.com Subject: SDP201900067 EcoVillage - Final Site Plan Attachments: SDP201900067_EcoVillage Final Site Plan_Rev Comm 2_5-12-2020 Combined.pdf; Engineering review - SDP201900067 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2020-05-13.pdf Ilka, SDP201900067 EcoVillage - Final Site Plan Here is a LINK to the County's website which holds the final site plan. It has not been approved yet but still is an active project. Below is a highlighted picture of the document you need to click on once you get into this link to access the file. Its too big to attached to this email, thus the need for the link. If you have trouble accessing it, let me know, I can scan off a single page and send it to you showing the general layout. Attached is the last County review letter of the proposal and Engineering's review as well, these documents list all detailed items that are left to address prior to approval. 1 0 6 https://Ifweb.albemarle.org/weblink/search.aspx?dbid=3&searchcorr Search in WebtUnk Q Customize Search v Sort results by: Name - Records Management v j D SDP201900067 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps.2020-05-13 ienerat Search X zr, Show more information... ,earth terms • •. -- SDP201900067 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps.2020-05-06 ' Show more information... SDP201900067 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps.2019-12-12 is Show more information_.. D 5DP201900067 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps.2019.12-10 Show more information... D SDP201900067 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps.2019-12-06 (* Show more information... Q SDP201900067 Plan-Other(not approved)2020-04-02 Show more information.., LJ 5DP201900067 Plan•Other(not approved)2019-11-05 Show more information... Submit Reset Christopher Perez Senior Planner Albemarle County cperez(2i albemarle.org office 434.296.5832 x 3443 401 McIntire Road,Charlottesville,VA 22902 2 Christopher Perez From: Christopher Perez Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 2:59 PM To: John Anderson Subject: RE: SDP201900067 EcoVillage Final Site Plan -- Engineering review comment 19. [ street design ] Attachments: SP201800016 Approval - County 2019-05-01 signed resolution.pdf John, Sounds good.Please revise accordingly and provide me your review comments when they are complete. When you reviewed this plan the 1"time w/Tim did you review against SP conditions(SP2018-16)?If not,will you please review it this time against these conditions as many(conditions 1,3,and 4)relate specifically to Engineering requirements. Christopher Perez I Senior Planner Department of Community Development I County of Albemarle,Virginia 401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext.3443 From:John Anderson <janderson2@albemarle.org> Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 1:50 PM To: Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org> Subject: RE: SDP201900067 EcoVillage Final Site Plan-- Engineering review comment 19. [ street design j Christopher,thank you—you've given quite good advice. I appreciate it. I'll use typical format(addressed/not addressed). Sorry for any confusion. Email below deals with a single FSP comment—it is long and sprawling. There are a lot of statements and thoughts without much clear guidance. Points well-taken. Don't worry,will stick with typical Memo format. Also,a good suggestion to speak with Frank. I will,once I've reviewed the road plan. I think(in partial response to questions)that I'm uncertain where we go from here. Roads B,C,D,likely cannot be configured to meet private street standards,and if not,how will design accommodate 39 units approved under the ISP? No,it may not fall to Engineering to resolve challenges,but CDD is committed to try to help—at least,that's my sense. Multiple Is this a statement or are you telling them to do something?and Why is this being stated?help me focus. Yes,comments below may be confusing,perhaps even a disservice. FSP Engineering review comments may distill to `Approved road plan is required.' I think I was trying to accomplish too much at once;fewer comments will suffice. I will review/comment on the road plan,and send to you(prior to sending to Applicant). I am not so inclined to offer to meet with the Applicant—not yet;it may be best to simply send the Engineering road plan review comments,and allow the Applicant a chance to respond. You may have sent road plan review comments to Applicant. If so,thanks. Sorry to be slow with both plan reviews. Private street standards,if private street authorization is approved,apply to this development.Agreed,what are the private street standards for this development.Does the proposal meet these standards?If not,what do they need to do to meet these standards?is helpful;thank you! Engineering will work with Planning to resolve challenge posed by design,relative to private street standards.Why is Planning and Engineering resolving challenges posed by the design?This is the responsibility of the applicant.Does it meet the required design standard?If not,what do they need to do to meet the required design standards.Is quite helpful Thanks again,Christopher 1 • From: Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org> Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 12:25 PM To:John Anderson <janderson2@albemarle.org> Subject: RE: SDP201900067 EcoVillage Final Site Plan -- Engineering review comment 19. [ street design ] John, I offer my feedback below in red. 1)Your 1st review of the site plan back in 12-6-19 yielded 48 comments in standard format. The latest review doesn't track well with the previous comments.Your normal format provides the old comments and then below it states whether or not the comment was addressed?Why did you discontinue this format?Are all other previous comments addressed? 2)The single comment provided below is very long and sprawling and is hard to make since of what is required to meet the ordinance. It seems like there are a lot of statements and thoughts listed in the comment but not much clear guidance on what to do to meet the ordinance. See below my remarks on the comment specifically. 3)I'd advise you to hold your site plan comments till the road plan review is completed,as it may yield additional comments relevant on the site plan. When do you anticipate completing the road plan comments? 4)Did you discuss these review comments and new format with Frank?I think the applicant will have a hard time with these comments and will want to meet,as it's hard to understand the guidance being provided. Let me know how you wish to proceed. From:John Anderson <janderson2@albemarle.org> Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 11:24 AM To: Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org> Subject: RE: SDP201900067 EcoVillage Final Site Plan -- Engineering review comment 19. [ street design ] Thanks ! From: Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org> Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 11:22 AM To:John Anderson <janderson2@albemarle.org> Subject: RE: SDP201900067 EcoVillage Final Site Plan -- Engineering review comment 19. [ street design ] John, I'll take a look at it now...wanted to ensure you were done tweaking it before I got into it. I will provide feedback in the next 10 min. From:John Anderson <janderson2@albemarle.org> Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 11:20 AM To: Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org> Subject: RE: SDP201900067 EcoVillage Final Site Plan -- Engineering review comment 19. [street design ] Christopher, Any thoughts before I send SDP201900067 comments to you,with extensive road-related comments? Thanks From:John Anderson Sent:Thursday, May 7, 2020 5:54 PM 2 • To: Christopher Perez<cperez@al.,,_..iarle.org> Subject: RE: SDP201900067 EcoVillage Final Site Plan-- Engineering review comment 19. [street design ] Christopher,cleaned up 3 -4 typos,but this is what I come up with looking at ordinance,ACDSM, SP201800016, SDP201800056 and VDOT standards. Will try to wrap it up tomorrow by 11AM—have a good evening. Thanks,take care, From:John Anderson Sent:Thursday, May 7, 2020 5:34 PM To:Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org> Subject: RE:SDP201900067 EcoVillage Final Site Plan-- Engineering review comment 19. [street design ] Christopher,please read this one,instead. I made some changes,but not many—does this appear off-base,or relatively accurate? Thanks Will send SDP201900067 comments to you tomorrow,without fail,but not road plan comments—let's start with this. Please share your thoughts,thanks,best,J.Anderson 434.296-5832-x3069 Photo: Riverside—Riverwalk Crossing is the 'street' while alleys provide vehicular access to each lot. EcoVillage takes it to a different level:only a grass-pave 'street' and no vehicular access to the majority of lots. What is the point of stating this? I don't think we should be providing apples to oranges comparisons in our comment letter, it makes it seem like we support it. GIS Satellite 3 / •M �K! AY M Y 4r • ` 4 .446------iovar,5 • , 4. ' ......-.. Atrliri/0 , . ..je t11:44146‘)/ .... .40 dr Jaw- q ! j .. lit srl \ .� ) 1it ' � � � , it _� vegaN t -+rliza_ali 1 i_ cll1ltlJ i /I i 4--....-„, _ . „ ., . e./. ' ' tL �.. `�A f. A. . izuv,..... _ 1 iiii' a 1440/. / II It, ' 1P , wr ef \.. re: 1 t 1ma • 1 . _ — , � • / 1. Provide CG-6(curb with gutter)to match VDOT Road Design Manual typ.CG section in urban setting,not CG-2. Provide CG-6 for Road A between Rio Rd.E entrance and the 4 perpendicular parking spaces just north of the 2 HC-parking spaces on west side of Road A,thru R5' radius return. CG-2 does not meet VDOT standard for urban design;please revise to VDOT standard. Also, 18-4.12.15.g.(Rev. 1)Partially addressed.Applicant response: `CG-6 provided at critical points along Road A in accordance to what we identified as the spirit of your request,specifically along the lower parking area, along the point where most of Road A runoff is located,and before/at the intersection with Rio Rd E.' As follow-up:While review may at times misapply standards or appear off-base,we do not believe that is the case in this instance. Relative to roads A,B,C,D,for your consideration: a. Engineering will work with Planning to resolve challenge posed by design,relative to private street standards.Why is Planning and Engineering resolving challenges posed by the design?This is the responsibility of the applicant. Does it meet the required design standard?If not,what do they need to do to meet the required design standards. b. Engineering will respond to private street authonzation request,if submitted or once submitted.It's already been submitted and was distributed with the fmal site plan in blue beam. c. Engineering will respond to waiver from curb/gutter standards,if submitted or once submitted. It's already been submitted and was distributed with the final site plan in blue beam. d. Private street standards,if private street authorization is approved,apply to this development.Agreed,what are the private street standards for this development.Does the proposal meet these standards?If not,what do they need to do to meet these standards? e. EcoVillage is a 39-unit subdivision(29 attached/10 detached).Why is this being stated? f. A road plan is required,since development is a subdivision. g. Road A: I don't understand what is going on with this section of the comment?Is each bullet merely talking points about Road A,or are you telling them to do something? i. Crowned sections of pnvate Road A that concentrate runoff against curb require CG-6. ii. Nine(9)of 39 total units appear to have frontage on Road A.Why is this being stated? iii. After 9th unit,first placement of perpendicular parking on Road A,Sta. 16+50'±.Is this a statement or are you tellmg them to do something? iv. Road A terminates at Sta. 17+40(±)-20'prior to PC 17+65,a 120'radius(paved)curve with perpendicular parking on both sides,but primarily one side.Is this a statement or are you telling them to do somethmg? 5 v. Curved paved tl_.__way is a transitional road/parking area.Is thi..__atement or are you telling them to do something? vi. This transitional road/parking serves multiple residents,and patrons of common house 1,and common house 2.Why is this being stated? vii. Note:It is unclear how this design meets VDOT standards. Understood,shouldn't we tell them what they need to do to meet VDOT standards. viii. At Sta. 19+67(±),paved portion of transitional road/parking area ends.Why is this being stated? ix. Transitional road/parking area ends just after a last radial perpendicular parking space,prior to transition to Road D sidewalk/grass pave/emergency access facility. ? x. Perpendicular parking may work for a site plan access/travelway that enters a defmed parking area with perpendicular parking,but has been approved sparingly and for few subdivisions(Timberwood Square /Emerson Commons).Is this a statement or are you telling them to do somethmg? h. Roads B,C,D: I don't understand what is going on with this section of the comment?Is each bullet merely talking points about Road A,or are you telling them to do something? i. Are non-street designs that serve pedestrians,but not vehicles.Is this a statement or are you telling them to do something? ii. May support emergency response vehicles,if properly designed.Is this a statement or are you telling them to do something? iii. Will be evaluated in more detail with road plan,SUB202000059.I think you should hold your site plan comments till you have reviewed the road plan. iv. Lack typical street features defmed by VDOT standards,including: 1. Curb 2. Gutter 3. Storm inlets 4. durable riding surface v. Are instead 5'wide sidewalks set in grass-pave structure that require landscape maintenance.Is this a statement or are you telling them to do something? vi. A similar facility,visible in photo below,appears to be a parklike corridor between rows of homes (Riverside/Rt.20). Note,however,that these rows of residences have streets on the other side.Why is this being stated? vii. Proposed design: 1. There is one known instance of approving grass-pave as a private street(Riverside Village development;photos above). Riverside Village Riverwalk Xing has bollards(is not a street),yet provides alley access to each lot with drive/parking on each lot. EcoVillage takes a lenient review/approval approach to Riverside Village to an extreme:with no lot access to the majority of lots. EcoVillage eliminates pervious ride surface visible in satellite image of Riverside Village,and replaces it with a 5' winding walk.Why is this being stated? 2. Engineering will work with Planning on response to design presented,but cannot look past applicable design standards.Uncertain what this accomplishes. 3. Engineering is open to whatever legislative or waiver or exception may allow this design to proceed.Why would Engineering take this stance?It makes it seem like Engineering supports this design and will do whatever is necessary for it to be approved. 4. Engineering recognizes benefits likely to accrue from design that favors walking,and recognizes benefits of density,and lower impervious area.Why is this being stated? 5. Engineering accepts that proper grass-pave structure can support fire-rescue apparatus,and defers to ACF&R. 6. Engineering cannot recommend to Planning that Roads B,C,D,as designed,qualify as private streets under county code. 7. Engineering can disqualify facilities labeled Roads B,C,or D as private streets since grass pave is disqualifying(does not appear in VDOT standards). 8. Engineering is constrained by ordinance definitions,requirements,and standards. 9. If Roads B,C,D,are required to be streets for a-911 addressing,they should be designed as streets. 10. If required to be streets for frontage or lot access(14-403, 14-404),they should meet private street standards(see ACDSM, 14-410, 14-412.B). 11. Unless a non-VDOT facility concept of`road' is authorized by legislative action(Approved zoning,code of development,special permit,etc.),then Engineering is unclear how this design advances. 12. If Roads B,C,D are required to serve as streets,reference VDOT standards. 6 13. SI__ ___mdards at 14-410 and 14-412.B.,which appll ___ll streets,and to streets serving attached units. 14. 14-412.B states: 'Each private street authorized to serve non-residential,non-agricultural,attached residential,multi-unit residential and combined residential and non-residential 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.' 15. A pedestrian sidewalk within a lane travel is not equivalent to VDOT standards. 16. Taking a step back: a. It appears that absent legislative approval of facilities labeled Roads B,C,D,if such are required to be public roads(or private streets or even site access),comprehensive site plan revision is required. b. Engineering cannot identify means whereby these pedestrian grass-pave facilities qualify as streets(private or public). c. Of 39 attached or unattached units proposed for this proposed subdivided development, only 8 have driveway parking. d. Residents of 31 units(detached/detached)of a subdivided development(including 10 detached)are required to park some distance from their residence.Why is this being stated? e. This fmal site plan,unless revised to provide facilities meeting VDOT standards,does not appear to provide or to meet 14-403(frontage)or 14-404.A.requirements. f. Initial Site Plan approval(d. 10/11/18)did not approve street design. g. Engineering review comments on EcoVillage Charlottesville project—(SDP201800056, 18-Sep 2018): i. Comment 1 states a WPO Plan must be submitted and approved before fmal site plan can be approved ii. Comment 2 states a Road Plan must be approved before fmal site plan can be approved. iii. Initial site plan Engineering comments like these remind that critical design tasks cannot proceed apart from ordinance requirements. iv. Approved ISP for this project did not authorize/suggest that facilities labeled Roads B,C,D,were exempt from private street(or public road)standards. h. Engineering appreciates whatever guidance Applicant or others may provide. 17. This street design is an innovative response that provides affordable dense development of a site constrained by topography and overall area available for development,but development is constrained by ordinance.Why is this being stated? 18. A tele-meeting can be arranged with Albemarle County Engineer,with whom Applicant has met to discuss VSMP/WPO design,though not road plan design.Why not meet for road plan design? 19. Last:there is much to admire about design concepts that limit development impact,treat storm runoff on-site,and provide affordable units,but if concept does not work with ordinance,even after waiver or exceptions or special use permit are issued,then it does not work. From:John Anderson Sent:Thursday, May 7, 2020 5:00 PM To: Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org> Subject: SDP201900067 EcoVillage Final Site Plan -- Engineering review comment 19. [ street design ] Christopher, Not finished,need to edit/shorten,but does this generally address and reflect Planning concerns relative to EcoVillage street design? Although numbered 1,it is review item 19—I will see how far I can get,but since 48 review comments,total,may not finish by 6pm. I intend to address Road A,and Roads B,C,D,in particular. Thanks ! 7 • 1 Provide CG-6(curb with gutter)to match VDOT Road Design Manual typ.CG section in urban setting,not CG-2 Provide• CG-6 for Road A between Rio Rd E entrance and the 4 perpendicular parking spaces lust north of the 2 HC-parking spaces on west side of Road A,thru R5' radius return. CG-2 does not meet VDOT standard for urban design,please revise to VDOT standard Also, 18-4 12 15.g (Rev. 1)Partially addressed Applicant response `CG-6 provided at critical points along Road A in accordance to what we identified as the spirit of your request,specifically along the lower parking area. along the point where most of Road A runoff is located,and before/at the Intersection with Rio Rd E ' A follow-up While we comments may at times misapply standards or appear ambiguous,we do not believe that is the case,in this instance Relative to roads A,B,C.D,for your consideration. a Engineering will woik with Planning to resolve significant challenge posed by design,relative to private street standards b. Engineering will respond to private street authorization request,if submitted or once submitted. c Engmeering will respond to waiver from curb/gutter standards, if submitted or once submitted d Private street standards,if private street authorization is approved,apply to this development. e EcoVillage is a 39-unit subdivision(29 attached/10 detached) f. A road plan is required,since development is a subdivision g Road A. r Crowned sections of private Road A that concentrate runoff against curb require CG-6 ii Nine(9)of 39 total units appear to have frontage on Road A in After ninth unit,first incidence of perpendicular pai king on Road A. Sta 16+50'} iv Road A terminates at Sta. 17+40(±),approx 20' prior to PC17+65,a 120'radius paved curve with perpendicular parking on both sides v Curved paved perpendicular parking is transitional road/parking area vi. This curved transitional road/parking area serves multiple residents,and patrons of common house 1,and common house 2 vit. Note.It is unclear how this design meets VDOT standards. vnr. At Sta 19 467(}),the paved portion of transitional road/parking area ends ix Transitional road/parking area ends immediately after a last radial perpendicular parking space,prior to transition to Road D sidewalk/grass pave/emergency access facility. x Perpendicular parking may work for a site plan access/travel-way that enters a defined parking area with perpendicular parking,but has been approved sparingly for few subdivisions(Tunberwood Square /Emerson Commons). h Roads B,C,D. i Are innovative non-street designs that serve pedestrians,but not vehicles ii May support emergency response vehicles,if properly designed. ui. Will be evaluated in more detail with road plan,SUB202000059. iv. Lack typical and standard vehicular travelway street features,including 1 Curb 2 Gutter 3 Storm inlets 4 durable riding surface. v. Are instead 5' wide winding sidewalks set in grass-pave structures that will require landscape maintenance vi A similar facility,visible in photo below,appears to be a grassed park-like corridor between rows of homes (Riverside development/Rt 20) Note,however,that these rows of attached residences have streets on the side opposite vii Proposed design I. There is no known instance of approving grass-pave structure as a private street 2 Engineering will work with Planning on correct response to design presented,but cannot look past otherwise applicable design standards 3 Engineering is open to consider whatever legislative or waiver or exception remedy may allow this design to proceed. 4. Engineering recognizes benefits likely to accrue from design that favors walking,and recognizes environmental benefit of density,and less impervious area 5 Engineering accepts that proper grass-pave structure can support fire-rescue apparatus,and defers to AC:F&R 6 Engineering cannot,however.recommend to Planning that Roads B.C.D,as designed,qualify as private streets under county code 7 Engineering can disqualify facilities labeled Roads B C,or D as private streets,at a glance. Grass pave surface is disqualifying(does not appear in VDOT standards) 8 Engineering is constrained by ordinance definitions,requirements,and standards 8 • 9 It a.,uds B,C.D. are required to be streets foi e 91 . ..a...ressing,they should be designed as streets 10 If required to be streets for more fundamental reasons(14-403, 14-404), they should be meet private street standards(see ACDSM, 14-410, 14-412 B) 11 Unless a novel non-VDO I facility concept of'road' is authorized by legislative action(Approved zoning,code of des elopment,special permit.etc ), then 1 ngineenng is unclear hove this design concept advanced this far 12 if Roads B,C.D are required to serve as streets,reference VDO I standards 13 Please ref standards at 14-410 and 14-412 B ,which apply to all streets,and to attached units 14 14-412 B states 'Each pi iv ate street authorized to seive non-residential,non-agricultural attached residential,multi-unit residential and combined residential and non-residential uses under sections 14-232 or 14-233 shall satisfy Virginia Department of Transportation standards or an alternative standaid deemed adequate by the agent,upon the recommendation of the county engineer,to he equivalent to or greater than the applicable standard in the design standards manual, so ass to adequately piotect the public health safety or welfare ' 15. A pedestrian sidewalk within a lane travel is not equivalent to VDO 1 standards 16. 1 aking a step back a It appears that absent prior(or pending) legislative approval of facilities labeled Roads B, C,D,if such are required to be public roads or private streets(or even site access), comprehensive revision is required b Engineering cannot identify means under code whereby these travel;pedestrian grass- pave facilities remotely qualify to be considered streets(private or public) c Of 39 attached or unattached units proposed for this proposed subdivided development, lust eight(8)have driveway parking d Residents of 31 units(detached/detached)of a subdn rded development(including 10 detached units)are required to park a distance from their residence e this final site plan,until revised to provide facilities meeting VDOT standards,does not appear to meet 14-403 (frontage)or 14-404.A requirements f Initial Site Plan approval (d 10/11/18)did not approve road or street design g Engineering review comments on EcoVillage Charlottesville project (SDP201800056) i Comment 1 states WPO Plan must be submitted and approved before final site plan can be approved ii Comment 2 states that Road Plan must be approved before final site plan can be approved in Initial site plan Engineering comments like these are important reminder of what lies ahead,critical design task that cannot proceed separate from ordinance requirements iv Approved ISP for this project did not authorize/suggest that facilities labeled Roads B,C,1),were exempt from private street or public road standards h Engineering appreciates whatever guidance Applicant or others may provide 17 This street design is novel,is a reasonable innovative responsive design that provides affordable dense development of a site constrained by topography and overall area available for development, but development is constrained by ordinance 18 A tele-meeting can be ananged with Albemarle County Engineer,with whom Applicant met to discuss VSMP,'WPO design,though not road plan design 19 Last there is much to admire about concepts that underlie EcoVillage final site plan density limiting development footprint,on-site SWM water quality treatment,affordability,but if concept does not work with ordinance,including once waiver or exceptions or special use permit mechanisms are applied,then it does not work John E.Anderson,PE I Civil Engineer II Department of Community Development I County of Albemarle,Virginia 401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext.3069 9 Christopher Perez From: Tim Padalino Sent: Friday, May 1, 2020 4:11 PM To: Kevin McDermott; Christopher Perez Subject: RE: SDP2019-67 Eco Village of Charlottesville— Final Site Plan (10' Multiuse Pedestrian Trail Discussion) Attachments: Places29_Parks and Green Systems_Southjpg Yes —well said, and I strongly agree, Kevin (especially these particular points you made). Regarding maintenance agreements: • My initial reaction is that the County could (?) require a maintenance agreement with Ecovillage, because it can (very) reasonably be interpreted that a 10' path located in the interior of the site is an acceptable way to satisfy the requirements for "Sidewalks and pedestrian ways within a development" per Z.O. Section 32.7.2.3. • Additionally, I also think it's worth carefully considering if a maintenance agreement could be required for this proposed connection, per Z.O. Section 32.7.1.3, if Planning and Zoning determine that a 10' path located in the interior of the site is functionally equivalent to, and satisfies the intent of, the proposed multi- use path shown (conceptually) along the Rio Road ROW on the Places 29 Parks and Green Systems Plan. And regarding Kevin's comments about the importance of this connection: just a reminder that there is a transit stop on Rio Road E, just north of the Ecovillage site —which further underscores the value/importance of enabling safe/ convenient bike and ped access along that corridor. Thanks for your hard work on this. Enjoy the weekend, and stay safe dudes - - - Tim Padalino, AICP (434)-296-5844 x 3207 From: Kevin McDermott<kmcdermott@albemarle.org> Sent: Friday, May 1, 2020 3:53 PM To: Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org>; Tim Padalino <tpadalino@albemarle.org> Subject: RE: SDP2019-67 Eco Village of Charlottesville—Final Site Plan (10' Multiuse Pedestrian Trail Discussion) Thanks Chris, I reviewed this and my only comment is in relation to your point below that this trail needs to be accessible at both ends to Rio Rd. If we are letting them replace sidewalks along Rio with this path then it needs to be intuitive to pedestrians and bicyclists that this is the route to make that connection by.Therefore it needs to be visible and accessible from Rio at both ends. It should connect from the corner of Alwood and Rio to the corner of Rockbrook and Rio. VDOT will not maintain this though because it is not adjacent to a public street. If it needs to be dedicated fee simple but County Parks and Recreation do not want to maintain it can we require them to sign a maintenance agreement with the County stating they will maintain it even though they do not own the land? i Generally though I do see a big benefit ..,,.r this trail to pedestrian and bicycle cons... ...vity.The County does have plans to complete these pedestrian and bike connections along Rio Rd.The sidewalk already essentially already connects to Rockbrook, it's just a little awkward because of the way Stonehenge and Rockbrook merge.Te full connection is listed in the approved 2019 Albemarle County Transportation Priorities list. Let me know if you want me to discuss further or if you want me to make these comments in either CV or Bluebeam. Kevin From:Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org> Sent:Tuesday,April 28, 2020 3:52 PM To:Tim Padalino<tpadalino@albemarle.org>; Kevin McDermott<kmcdermott@albemarle.org> Subject:SDP2019-67 Eco Village of Charlottesville—Final Site Plan (10' Multiuse Pedestrian Trail Discussion) Tim and Kevin, SDP2019-67 Eco Village of Charlottesville—Final Site Plan(10' Multiuse Pedestrian Trail Discussion) I am reviewing Eco Village of Charlottesville's final site plan on TMP 06100-00-00-21000. As part of the proposal the applicant is offering to dedicate to the County a 10' multiuse pedestrian trail in an effort to gain a bonus density in the proposed development. Prior to approval of the site plan the dedication request must be sent to the Board of Supervisors for their approval and acceptance of the dedication to public use. As part of the review I request that Parks and Recreation and the County's Transportation Planner weigh in on the appropriateness of the proposed dedication of the trail,and whether or not the County should accept the dedication. Please be advised that as proposed on the current site plan the trail is depicted in a 10' wide access easement; however, in order for this trail to qualify for the bonus density it must be dedicated to public use, fee simple, in the form of a special lot. Thus the applicant must revise the plan to locate it in a fee simple lot prior to moving forward. LINK to the plan in CV to view the plan click on the 4t1i link labeled: "SDP201900067 Plan—Other(not approved) 2020-04-02" I just send you a Blue Beam invite as well to view the plan. I offer the following questions for your consideration: 1)Is the proposed trail something that Parks and Recreation recommends the County take into the public system to maintain? 2)If so, what specific purpose does this connection serve? 3)Is the proposed location and alignment of the new 10' multiuse pedestrian trail appropriate?It currently runs through the site and connects to Alwood Lane and Rockbrook Drive,which are both private streets on either side of the development; rather than connecting to Rio Road E. (public right of way).Notably,the County is not requiring sidewalks be provided along the property's frontage of Rio Road because of substantial geographic constraints(preserved slopes). 4)Please elaborate on any safety concerns you may have with the proposal. 5)Does the County have any long-term goals to provide pedestrian connections along Rio Road E? 6)Do either of you have anything further to add? Christopher Perez I Senior Planner Department of Community Development I County of Albemarle,Virginia 401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902 434 296.5832 ext.3443 2 Christopher Perez From: Megan Nedostup Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2020 10:12 AM To: Kerry Griggs Cc: Christopher Perez Subject: FW: SUB2020000138 722, 738, 746 Rio Road E - BLA for Christopher Perez Good Morning, See below correspondence that I sent earlier today regarding this application. Changes were made to the plat and needed to be sent to Albemarle County Service Authority for approval. Thank you, Megan Nedostup, AICP (pronounced nuh-DAHST-up) she/her/hers(What is this?) Principal Planner Community Development Department Planning Services ph: 434.296.5832 ext. 3004 From: Megan Nedostup Sent:Thursday,August 27, 2020 9:30 AM To:Will White<WWhite@roudabush.com> Cc: Nick Hutchinson<NHutchinson@roudabush.com> Subject: RE: SUB2020000138 722, 738,746 Rio Road E- BLA for Christopher Perez Good Morning, Apologies for the delayed response. I just sent this plat over to ACSA for review since the new easement was added. Once I receive their approval, I will let you know. All other comments have been addressed. Thank you, Megan Nedostup, AICP (pronounced nuh-DAHST-up) she/her/hers(What is this?) Principal Planner Community Development Department Planning Services ph: 434.296.5832 ext. 3004 From:Will White<WWhite@roudabush.com> Sent:Thursday,August 20, 2020 8:43 AM To: Megan Nedostup<mnedostup@albemarle.org> Cc: Nick Hutchinson<NHutchinson@roudabush.com> Subject:SUB2020000138 722,738, 746 Rio Road E- BLA for Christopher Perez CAUTION: This message originated outside the County of Albemarle email system. DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe. 1 Hi Megan, Would you be able to have a look at this BLA since Christopher will be out till the 31st?The property owners were hoping to have a resolution relatively quickly since it was just one very minor comment. Also, I do want to let you know that since the first review I did add the new private lateral easement. It goes along the rear of TMP 61-174 and TMP 61-172A for the benefit of TMP 61-172. The property owners had a discussion with Jeremy Lynn and this was what they agreed on. Let me know if you have any questions or need more information. Thank you, William W White, SIT Roudabush, Gale &Assoc., Inc. I Survey Department Office#: (434) 977-0205 Direct#: (434) 260-5389 www.roudabush.com Office: Mail: 999 2nd Street SE, Suite 201 436 Merchant Walk Square, Suite 300-159 Charlottesville,VA 22902 Charlottesville,VA 22902 IMPORTANT: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. It is strictly forbidden to share any part of this message with any third party, without the written consent of the sender. If you received this message by mistake, please reply to this message and follow with its deletion, so that we can ensure such a mistake does not occur in the future. 2 Christopher Perez From: Tim Padalino Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2020 10:14 AM To: Christopher Perez; Kevin McDermott Subject: RE: SDP2019-67 Eco Village of Charlottesville— Final Site Plan (10' Multiuse Pedestrian Trail Discussion) Attachments: Places29_Parks and Green Systems_South jpg; Places 29 exhibit.png Hey— my schedule got a bit busier for today, so I'm going to just send some initial responses (below). And if it would still be helpful to discuss this interactively, then please set up a Teams meeting so we can communicate about these important topics before moving forward. Here are my initial responses and thoughts below, in blue. Let's all discuss further whenever you're both ready. Thanks - - - 1)Is the proposed trail something that Parks and Recreation recommends the County take into the public system to maintain?This is not so much a trail(for recreation) as it is a shared-use path(for transportation/connectivity purposes). Maintenance was discussed at least one time during the previous reviews (can't remember if it was during the two pre-app meetings,or during the initial site plan review). Ideally,if the connection is not in the public ROW,then the maintenance should fall to the Ecovillage HOA with a maintenance agreement being a required part of the easement plat/special lot plat process. 2)If so,what specific purpose does this connection serve?This proposed connection is in lieu of a sidewalk along Rio Road(which would otherwise be required,correct?).During the two pre-app meetings,the sidewalk issue was discussed—and it was agreeable to everyone at that time to thread a sidewalk(or similar bike/ped connection) through the interior of the site,instead of on the Rio Road ROW.That was because of safety concerns on the steep hills and blind curves of Rio, and also because of the steep slopes you mentioned. 3) Is the proposed location and alignment of the new 10' multiuse pedestrian trail appropriate? It currently runs through the site and connects to Alwood Lane and Rockbrook Drive,which are both private streets on either side of the development; rather than connecting to Rio Road E. (public right of way).Notably,the County is not requiring sidewalks be provided along the property's frontage of Rio Road because of substantial geographic constraints(preserved slopes). The County has consistently supported the concept of an interior connection in lieu of an on-street connection for this project,throughout the numerous pre-app meetings and project reviews.This is related to the engineering and environmental issues you referenced (steep slopes)but also, importantly,because of perceived bike/ped safety issues along that particular section of Rio Road E. However,previous discussions with the Ecovillage team and County staff had the shared use path connecting to Rio Road at the north end and either connecting directly to Rio Road or to Alwood Lane at the south end(with a public use and access easement over the private street,where necessary). The northern end of the proposed path was shown as being located over the emergency access travelway coming in from the north. 4)Please elaborate on any safety concerns you may have with the proposal. If the bike/ped connection remains interior to the site,there might be safety concerns about bicyclists and pedestrians exiting Ecovillage to the south and not having any on-road facilities to continue safely towards Melbourne Road, City limits, etc. Additionally, considering the elevation change of this site (seventy feet maybe?), it may be challenging to design a shared-use path that meets County standards. 5)Does the County have any long-term goals to provide pedestrian connections along Rio Road E ?This might be a better question for Kevin to respond to, but Places 29 envisions a "multi-use path"along Rio Road E in this location(see attached plan and marked-up exhibit). However, during discussions with Ecovillage team and during 1 Interdivisional meetings, it was cons____ed acceptable (and appropriate)to hay_ alternative arrangement for. the bike/ped connection to go through the site in this location, in order to avoid engineering,environmental,and perceived bike/ped safety issues along Rio Road E frontage. 6) Do either of you have anything further to add?Any such shared use path interior to this site needs to be easily recognizable and accessible to bicyclists and pedestrians travelling along the Rio Road public ROW. The importance of clear,welcoming,well-placed signage was addressed in previous review comments, so that members of the public would understand that they can and should continue through the site if they want to walk/pedal south towards the City or north towards Rio/JW Parkway. Tim Padalino, AICP (434)-296-5844 x 3207 From:Tim Padalino Sent:Tuesday,April 28, 2020 9:30 PM To:Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org>; Kevin McDermott<kmcdermott@albemarle.org> Subject: RE: SDP2019-67 Eco Village of Charlottesville—Final Site Plan (10' Multiuse Pedestrian Trail Discussion) Hey Chris, Thanks for sending this detailed message, and thanks for trying to connect with me on Teams earlier today. Sorry I wasn't very available. I haven't looked at these materials or even read your entire message (yet) — but I did want to follow up with an interim response, just to let you know I can work on this tomorrow or (more likely) Thursday. What's your deadline for this review? Also— I think this would benefit from a relatively quick Teams meeting, so we can have some interactive dialogue on this. It's fairly complicated, and it would be beneficial to talk about this together. (And enjoyable, too!) Finally, I don't think I received a Bluebeam invite—and regardless, I no longer have Bluebeam. But I'll use the CV link you provided (thanks). So just let me know about a Teams meeting later this week. I could meet tomorrow morning (anytime) or late Thursday morning. Onward - - - Tim Padalino, AICP (434)-296-5844 x 3207 From: Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org> Sent:Tuesday,April 28, 2020 3:52 PM To:Tim Padalino<tpadalino@albemarle.org>; Kevin McDermott<kmcdermott@albemarle.org> Subject:SDP2019-67 Eco Village of Charlottesville—Final Site Plan (10' Multiuse Pedestrian Trail Discussion) 2 Tim and Kevin, SDP2019-67 Eco Village of Charlottesville—Final Site Plan (10' Multiuse Pedestrian Trail Discussion) I am reviewing Eco Village of Charlottesville's final site plan on TMP 06100-00-00-21000. As part of the proposal the applicant is offering to dedicate to the County a 10' multiuse pedestrian trail in an effort to gain a bonus density in the proposed development. Prior to approval of the site plan the dedication request must be sent to the Board of Supervisors for their approval and acceptance of the dedication to public use. As part of the review I request that Parks and Recreation and the County's Transportation Planner weigh in on the appropriateness of the proposed dedication of the trail, and whether or not the County should accept the dedication. Please be advised that as proposed on the current site plan the trail is depicted in a 10' wide access easement; however, in order for this trail to qualify for the bonus density it must be dedicated to public use, fee simple, in the form of a special lot. Thus the applicant must revise the plan to locate it in a fee simple lot prior to moving forward. LINK to the plan in CV to view the plan click on the 4th link labeled: "SDP201900067 Plan—Other(not approved) 2020-04-02" I just send you a Blue Beam invite as well to view the plan. I offer the following questions for your consideration: 1) Is the proposed trail something that Parks and Recreation recommends the County take into the public system to maintain?This is not so much a trail (for recreation) as it is a shared-use path(for transportation/connectivity purposes).Maintenance was discussed at times in the past(Can't remember if it was during the two pre-app meetings,or during the initial site plan review). Ideally,the maintenance should fall to the Ecovillage HOA,with a maintenance agreement being a required part of the easement plat/special lot plat process. 2) If so,what specific purpose does this connection serve?This proposed connection is in lie of a sidewalk along Rio Road (which would otherwise be required,correct?). During the two pre-app meetings,the sidewalk issue was discussed—and it was agreeable to everyone at that time to thread a sidewalk(or similar bike/ped connection) through the interior of the site,instead of on the Rio Road ROW.That was because of safety concerns on the steep hills and blind curves of Rio,and also because of the steep slopes you mentioned. 3) Is the proposed location and alignment of the new 10' multiuse pedestrian trail appropriate?It currently runs through the site and connects to Alwood Lane and Rockbrook Drive,which are both private streets on either side of the development; rather than connecting to Rio Road E. (public right of way).Notably,the County is not requiring sidewalks be provided along the property's frontage of Rio Road because of substantial geographic constraints(preserved slopes). The County has consistently supported the concept of an interior connection in lieu of an on-street connection for this project,throughout the numerous pre-app meetings and project reviews.This is related to the engineering and environmental issues you referenced (steep slopes) but also,importantly,because of perceived bike/ped safety issues along that particular section of Rio Road E. However, previous discussions with the Ecovillage team and County staff had the shared use path connecting to Rio Road at the north end and either connecting directly to Rio Road or to Alwood Lane at the south end(with a public use and access easement over the private street,where necessary). The northern end of the proposed path was shown as being located over the emergency access travelway coming in from the north. 4) Please elaborate on any safety concerns you may have with the proposal. If the bike/ped connection remains interior to the site,there might be safety concerns about bicyclists and pedestrians exiting Ecovillage to the south and not having any on-road facilities to continue safely towards Melbourne Road,City limits,etc. Additionally,considering the elevation change of this site(seventy feet maybe?), it may be challenging to design a shared-use path that meets County standards. 5)Does the County have any long-term goals to provide pedestrian connections along Rio Road E ?This might be a better question for Kevin to respond to,but Places 29 envisions bicycle lanes and sidewalk along Rio Road E in this location(see attached). However, during discussions with Ecovillage team and during Interdivisional meetings,it was considered acceptable (and appropriate)to have an alternative arrangement for the connection to go through 3 the site in this location,in order to a. _w engineering, environmental, and perce_..J bike/ped safety issues along- Rio Road E frontage. 6)Do either of you have anything further to add?Any such shared use path interior to this site needs to be easily recognizable and accessible to bicyclists and pedestrians travelling along the Rio Road public ROW. The importance of clear,welcoming,well-placed signage was addressed in previous review comments, so that members of the public would understand that they can and should continue through the site if they want to walk/pedal south towards the City or north towards Rio/JW Parkway. Christopher Perez I Senior Planner Department of Community Development I County of Albemarle,Virginia 401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext 3443 4 Christopher Perez From: Christopher Perez Sent: Wednesday,April 29, 2020 9:32 AM To: John Anderson; Richard Nelson;Adam Moore Subject: RE: SDP201900067 Eco Village Charlottesville - Final Site Plan All, SDP201900067 Eco Village Charlottesville-Final Site Plan I am checking on the status of the above ref final site plan. Christopher Perez I Senior Planner Department of Community Development I County of Albemarle,Virginia 401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext.3443 From:Christopher Perez Sent: Friday,April 3, 2020 3:59 PM To:John Anderson<janderson2@albemarle.org>; Brian Becker<bbecker@albemarle.org>; Michael Dellinger <mdellinger@albemarle.org>; Shawn Maddox<smaddox@albemarle.org>; Richard Nelson <rnelson@serviceauthority.org>; Adam Moore<Adam.Moore@vdot.virginia.gov>; Bart Svoboda <bsvoboda@albemarle.org> Subject:SDP201900067 Eco Village Charlottesville- Final Site Plan All, SDP201900067 Eco Village Charlottesville-Final Site Plan I just sent a Bluebeam notification for the above referenced application,which was submitted this week for review. Tim Padalino was the previous reviewer; he is no longer with Planning and I have been assigned to this project. Please send all reviewer comments to me. Associated with this submittal are numerous waivers for your review/consideration: -Curb and Gutter waiver&Parking strip waiver associated w/Roads B, C,and D - Sidewalk and planting strip waiver associated w/Road A -Associated private street request for all streets in the development(A,B, C, and D) -Double frontage waiver Associated with this submittal are: -Parking reduction request - Substitution of recreational equipment or facilities For those of you that don't want to or cannot access Bluebeam, you can access the file on Laserfiche using the following link: LINK. Please provide your comments by April 27th Christopher Perez I Senior Planner Department of Community Development I County of Albemarle,Virginia 401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902 434.296 5832 ext.3443 1 Christopher Perez From: Christopher Perez Sent: Tuesday,April 28, 2020 3:52 PM To: Tim Padalino; Kevin McDermott Subject: SDP2019-67 Eco Village of Charlottesville— Final Site Plan (10' Multiuse Pedestrian Trail Discussion) Attachments: Road Connections GIS.png Tim and Kevin, SDP2019-67 Eco Village of Charlottesville—Final Site Plan(10' Multiuse Pedestrian Trail Discussion) I am reviewing Eco Village of Charlottesville's final site plan on TMP 06100-00-00-21000. As part of the proposal the applicant is offering to dedicate to the County a 10' multiuse pedestrian trail in an effort to gain a bonus density in the proposed development. Prior to approval of the site plan the dedication request must be sent to the Board of Supervisors for their approval and acceptance of the dedication to public use. As part of the review I request that Parks and Recreation and the County's Transportation Planner weigh in on the appropriateness of the proposed dedication of the trail,and whether or not the County should accept the dedication. Please be advised that as proposed on the current site plan the trail is depicted in a 10' wide access easement; however, in order for this trail to qualify for the bonus density it must be dedicated to public use, fee simple, in the form of a special lot. Thus the applicant must revise the plan to locate it in a fee simple lot prior to moving forward. LINK to the plan in CV to view the plan click on the 4th link labeled: "SDP201900067 Plan—Other(not approved) 2020-04-02" I just send you a Blue Beam invite as well to view the plan. I offer the following questions for your consideration: 1)Is the proposed trail something that Parks and Recreation recommends the County take into the public system to maintain? 2)If so,what specific purpose does this connection serve? 3)Is the proposed location and alignment of the new 10' multiuse pedestrian trail appropriate?It currently runs through the site and connects to Alwood Lane and Rockbrook Drive,which are both private streets on either side of the development;rather than connecting to Rio Road E. (public right of way).Notably,the County is not requiring sidewalks be provided along the property's frontage of Rio Road because of substantial geographic constraints(preserved slopes). 4)Please elaborate on any safety concerns you may have with the proposal. 5)Does the County have any long-term goals to provide pedestrian connections along Rio Road E ? 6)Do either of you have anything further to add? Christopher Perez I Senior Planner Department of Community Development I County of Albemarle,Virginia 401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext.3443 1 \P ;\N.,0 Ston en4 �nN 15 �1.--_--� eh --- 1-02--A �� \\....,„1:1: \56 . 3 55 �� +9f23 933� � 8y��r _ .6� '� \ N�l s�''r 996 0 '� � q 555 61 -189 a gg /, �' -o s� ��oieDr' �, 5°- 5 �364".` y, 943 �-7 /6' 4 r•o 4.0 ...,. 524, 61 A 1 -0�2?r05 7 9' Qtp 937 a. .. 924 J a'0%\ -9413) X\3-- �1 540 _� 446 C/9i eTh- /\ -y'1v 5 35 0 —1- s► u .573, .� 61 -1888 c 61A-01• 17— o. ►� 61 -1 89A 58i 4 1 A-1 Fi1�A-01 -1 f 438'` / , , 508 - t 61-188A 43 $ 421 61 -189C '�'' S0 f 5� 68 B 68 ' ) 514 430 j �.[-.� 61 -210 1 � �� '' 61 -189B • 61 -168A f .r..1 ..,i byo p i Ni a 61 -190 �. d lt� r.....- 435 .. 425 '"► 61 -210E R10 Rd E-r *1 J Ie :‘,/ , ''396 465 Christopher Perez From: Tim Padalino Sent: Monday, April 6, 2020 10:16 AM To: Megan Nedostup; David Benish Cc: Christopher Perez Subject: RE: Re-Submission from CDD Portal - Transaction #00004244 Thanks Megan, sounds good. Chris, just let me know if/when you might want to get together on this review (virtually/Teams). Thanks again! - - - Tim Padalino, AICP (434)-296-5844 x 3207 From: Megan Nedostup <mnedostup@albemarle.org> Sent: Monday, April 6, 2020 10:09 AM To: Tim Padalino <tpadalino@albemarle.org>; David Benish<DBENISH@albemarle.org> Cc: Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org> Subject: RE: Re-Submission from CDD Portal -Transaction #00004244 Hi Tim, Thanks for reaching out. I have assigned Chris to this one to finish up. Copying him on this email, so he can coordinate with you. Thank you, Megan Nedostup, AICP (pronounced nuh-DAHST-up) she/her/hers(What is this?) Principal Planner Community Development Department Planning Services ph: 434.296.5832 ext. 3004 From:Tim Padalino<tpadalino@albemarle.org> Sent: Monday, April 6, 2020 10:05 AM To: Megan Nedostup <mnedostup@albemarle.org>; David Benish<DBENISH@albemarle.org> Subject: FW: Re-Submission from CDD Portal -Transaction#00004244 Hey there, I hope each of you and your families are doing OK and staying healthy/safe. I saw that Ecovillage Final Site Plan was resubmitted (Below). I was also contacted by Tom Hickman, the developer, last week. 1 I don't know who this application will assigned to, but I just wanted to send a quick note saying I can try to help —specifically, I'd be willing to join a Teams meeting to go over some of the background on this project with whoever will be involved moving forward. With a long-running and relatively complex site plan, it might be helpful to do that up front -- to talk through SP conditions, prior review comments, application/waiver/SE requests, etc., and other technical things. Just let me know, and send a message if you (or the lead reviewer) wants to set something up. Thanks; good luck with everything - - - Tim Padalino, AICP (434)-296-5844 x 3207 From: Laserfiche-Notification@albemarle.org<Laserfiche-Notification@albemarle.org> Sent:Thursday,April 2, 2020 5:47 PM To:Tim Padalino<tpadalino@albemarle.org> Cc:CDD Submittal<CDDSubmittal@albemarle.org> Subject: Re-Submission from CDD Portal-Transaction#00004244 Re-Submission was made to CDD Portal. Please review. Summary of Submission: Project: ECO VILLAGE CHARLOTTESVILLE-FINAL-DIGITAL App Number: SDP201900067 Name:Keane Rucker Email: keaneAshimp-engineering.com Phone:434-299-9843 Files Submitted: SDP201900067 Submittal 2 Transmittal.pdf, SDP201900067 EcoVillage Final SDP Sub.2(04-02-20).pdf, SDP201900067 Engineering Response.pdf, SDP201900067 Planning Response.pdf, SDP201900067 GIS Response.pdf, SDP201900067 Building-Inspection Response.pdf, SDP201900067 Private Street Authorization Request.pdf, SDP 201900067 Double Frontage Lots Request for Exception.pdf, SDP201900067 Parking Alternatives&Reduction Request.pdf, SDP201900067 Road A Request for Exception- Sidewalks and Planting Strips.pdf, SDP201900067 Road B_C_D Request for Exception-Curb Gutter Sidewalks and Planting Strips.pdf, SDP201900067 Tot Lot Substitution Request.pdf View Files Submitted: http://cob-Ifiche03/WebLinkWA/Search.aspx?dbid=2&searchcommand={[CDD- WebSubmissionsl:[ReceiptNumberl="00004244"} 2 Christopher Perez From: Christopher Perez Sent: Friday, April 3, 2020 3:59 PM To: John Anderson; Brian Becker; Michael Dellinger; Shawn Maddox; Richard Nelson;Adam Moore; Bart Svoboda Subject: SDP201900067 Eco Village Charlottesville - Final Site Plan All, SDP201900067 Eco Village Charlottesville-Final Site Plan I just sent a Bluebeam notification for the above referenced application, which was submitted this week for review.Tim Padalino was the previous reviewer; he is no longer with Planning and I have been assigned to this project. Please send all reviewer comments to me. Associated with this submittal are numerous waivers for your review/consideration: -Curb and Gutter waiver&Parking strip waiver associated w/Roads B, C, and D - Sidewalk and planting strip waiver associated w/Road A -Associated private street request for all streets in the development(A,B, C,and D) -Double frontage waiver Associated with this submittal are: -Parking reduction request - Substitution of recreational equipment or facilities For those of you that don't want to or cannot access Bluebeam, you can access the file on Laserfiche using the following link: LINK. Please provide your comments by April 27th Christopher Perez I Senior Planner Department of Community Development I County of Albemarle,Virginia 401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext.3443 1