HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP202100071 Correspondence 2022-03-18S�
608 Preston Avenue P 434.295.5624
Suite F434.295.1800
TIMMONS GROUP
Charlottesville, VA 22903 www.timmons.com
March 18, 2022
Rebecca Ragsdale
County of Albemarle
Community Development
401 McIntire Rd
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: Southwood Blocks 11-12 — Final Site Plan Review — SDP20210-71 - Comment Response
Letter
Dear Ms. Ragsdale:
We have reviewed your comments from February 4th, 2021 and made the necessary revisions.
Please find our responses to the comments below in bold lettering.
Outstanding Initial Site Plan Comments:
1. [Sec. 32.7.9.4 (b)(2)] Submittal of a tree conservation checklist with areas for tree
preservation identified.
*A signed checklist was added to Sheet L.20. However, the required items per the
checklist for tree preservation have not been adequately provided on the site plan,
including those listed below. Staff can provide examples if that would be helpful. The
following items shall be shown on the plan:
a. Trees to be saved;
b. Limits of clearing (outside dripline of trees to be saved);
c. Location and type of protective fencing;
d. Grade changes requiring tree wells or walls;
e. Proposed trenching or tunneling beyond the limits of clearing.
Rev. 1 : Comment appears partially addressed. I would like to meet to discuss further.
We have included additional trail plantings as was shared and confirmed with the
County in the exhibit on 3/11 (see attached email). We have also eliminated the notes
in the plan set for saving existing vegetation in the R.O.W., added more clear trail
labels, and added tree protection to the landscaping plans (see attached meeting
minutes).
ENGINEERING I DESIGN I TECHNOLOGY
2. [ZMA; Code of Development, page 13, 15] Show and label the 30' trail buffer area/line
on all sheets, it is hard to determine if there is a conflict with parking without it being
labeled.
*This comment has not been fully addressed.
a. The 30' trail buffer must be measured from the edge of the ROW. There are
several plan sheets that show trail buffer in the ROW.
b. The required trail needs to be shown and labeled, with dimensions on the plan
sheets and indicate if there will be public access easements dedicated. The 10'
public access easement for the trail through the buffer in addition to
connections into Blocks in shown on Sheet C4.6. The notes are referencing the
initial site plan number for Blocks 9-11. Easements are dedicated via final plats.
This note needs to be revised.
c. A trail standard needs to be added to the plan sheet that meets the minimum
standards of the COD.
d. There appears to be grading in the trail buffer area. A replanting plan for those
areas according to the standard below must be provided.
Rev. 2 : 1 still have some concerns about the trail areas I would like to discuss.
We have included additional trail plantings as was shared and confirmed with the
County in the exhibit on 3/11 (see attached email). We have also added additional 30'
trail buffer labels, made the trail buffer lines more clear and added tree protection to
the landscaping plans. We did not add a trail detail or callouts to the trail as it is
constructed with Blocks 9-11 and not Blocks 11-12 (see attached meeting minutes).
3. [ZMA; COD page 16] Provide information regarding the amenity space as discussed
including seating, landscaping, etc that will be provided (see email dated 03/25/2021 to
Whitney McDermott). Not enough detail is provided to for approval compared to what
is required under the code of development. In addition, the 6,500 sq ft should not
include right of way.
Rev. 1 : Please make sure the landscape plan sheet includes the updated plan for
amenity area and all required improvements such as details for benches and seat walls.
Agreed on 2/16 meeting that the only additional revision necessary was to include the
brick seater width on the landscaping plans (see attached meeting minutes), which
has been added to sheet L1.1.
4. [32.5.7.9.7] Parking spaces of four spaces or more must be screened from streets and
residential zoned areas in accordance with this section. Screening needs to be provided
for the parking. Comment not fully addressed. The site plan proposes clearing and
grading along property lines shared with TMP 76-51 and Old Lynchburg Road where the
plan proposes existing vegetation and topography to screen parking. It does not appear
that any vegetation will remain. A berm may be a permitted type of screening, but I will
need to confirm that and what standard height is acceptable.
Rev. 1): 1 still have a few areas of the site where I have concerns I would like to discuss
with you regarding the proposed landscaping.
Agreed on 2/16 meeting to remove label regarding using trees in the R.O.W. as
screening. We have also included additional trail plantings as was shared and
confirmed with the County in the exhibit on 3/11.
5. [32.5.7.9] Dumpster pads will need to be screened in accordance with this section.
Dumpster detail was provided. Confirm minimum requirements of Section 4.12.19(b)
are met: The pad shall extend beyond the front of each dumpster so that the front
wheels of a truck servicing the dumpster will rest on the concrete, but in no case shall
the length of a concrete pad be less than eight feet beyond the front of the dumpster.
Agreed on 2/16 meeting that only additional revision was to move shrub screening to
the backside of the dumpster enclosure on Block 12 (see attached meeting minutes).
Final Site Plan Comments:
1. [ZMA; COD pages 6 and 13] Proposed building heights are indicated on the cover sheet.
The illustrative building elevations shown on Sheets C1.5 and C1.6 are not to -scale.
Please update sheets to -scale and provide maximum height required (4 stories or 50',
15' stepbacks at 3 stories or 45' and)/proposed heights.
Agreed on 2/16 meeting that no revisions to these sheets are required (see attached
meeting minutes).
2. Easements will need to be platted via a subdivision plat application, which is a separate
review and approval. Comment addressed. Plat under review. The reviews of plats
could generate site plan comments.
Acknowledged.
3. Where will the mailboxes be provided?
Mail rooms are located in Buildings 1&3. We agreed on 2/16 meeting that no
additional revisions are required (see attached meeting minutes)
4. [32.7.9.8] Please provide breakdown of tree calculations.
Canopy provided is included on sheet L2.0, on the right side of the plant schedule — we
agreed on 2/16 meeting that no additional revisions are required (see attached
meeting minutes).
CDD Eneineerine— Matthew Wentland 10-11-2021:
1. The VSMP plan will need to be approved prior to Final Site Plan approval. Review of the
VSMP plan may generate additional comments on the Final Site Plan.
Acknowledged.
2. The road plan will need to be approved prior to Final Site Plan approval. Review of the
road plan may generate additional comments on the Final Site Plan.
Acknowledged.
Fire Rescue — Howard Lagomarsino 10-11-2021:
1. The fire flow chart for the hydrants on page C1.5 does not match your correspondence
that indicates H-4 at 4099 gpm (fire flow chart shows H-2 as the hydrant with flow of
4099 gpm). H-3 shows a flow of 2918 gpm as indicated in the correspondence and your
fire flow for the hydrants on the plans page C1.5. This appears to satisfy the fire flow
required due to these two hydrants (H-2 and H3), but under the current design hydrants
further downstream are affected negatively without designs to ensure maintenance of
fire flow or increase of fire flow in the hydrants further down the line from the main
feeding into the development on Hickory, off Old Lynchburg Road. The design of these
fire hydrant systems and the flow available at hydrants to serve the FDC may impact the
sprinkler design for the buildings.
Apologies, there was a typo in the prior comment response letter on the hydrant
numbering. Agreed, it is hydrants 2 & 3 that satisfy the fire flow required on this plan
for the three apartment buildings. We have also revisited our ISO fire flow calculations
for the downstream areas of Village 1 and blocks 9-11 and corrected an error in our
calculations artificially increasing the requirement. In short, we had considered the
entire GFA of the townhouse stick, which was incorrect. We have revised the ISO
needed fire flow calculation for one townhouse as there are fire rated walls between
each unit. The result is lower required ISO flows that are adequately served by the
modeled hydrants throughout the Southwood development. Downstream of this plan,
the highest ISO fire flow is on blocks 9-11 for the 8-unit condo building, which is 1,500
GPM. All downstream hydrants have flow rates that exceed this requirement. The
highest ISO required flow on Village 1 is 1,250 GPM for the 6-unit condo building,
which again all downstream hydrants adequately serve.
2. Based on the presence of H-2 and H-3, and the improved turn radii calculation
presented in this revision dated 12/17/21, fire rescue has no objection to the site plan,
but keep in mind the fire flows are model projections and the as -built must provide the
required fire flow to satisfy the needs for fire suppression at the buildings.
Acknowledged.
ACSA Alexander Morrison:
Comments have been internally coordinated with ACSA.
VDOT — Doug McAvoy — Comments dated 01-13-2022:
1. Please remove all Structure and Bridge Standard Details from the plans. S&B standard
details are to be referenced in plan notes.
VDOT S&B details have been removed from the plans and referenced with a note.
2. Please show the mail boxes & cluster box units per RDM Appendix B(1)-56
The three apartment buildings include internal mail rooms, which is why mailboxes & cluster
units are not included in this plan. This has been noted on sheets C4.0 & C4.1.
3. Profile view for Horizon Road does not appear to show the CG-11 requirements as
described in the Road & Bridge standards. Please show a min. 5' extension of the
Hickory street cross slope as a parabolic curve from the EP of Hickory Street to the
Horizon Road entrance flow line. Water should not flow from Horizon Road across
Hickory Street during a 10-yr storm.
The profile of Horizon Road has been updated to show a 20' extension into the cross slope of
Hickory Street. See Sheet C4.2 of the road plan.
4. UFO HH Box should not be in the sidewalk or within maintenance area of the culvert.
The UFO boxes on the plans have been updated and the field locations have been coordinated
with Max Greene to be outside of the sidewalk.
5. Water valve boxes should not be in the sidewalk.
The water meter location has been coordinated with ACSA and moved outside of the sidewalk
area.
6. Sanitary MH should not be in the sidewalk or CG-12 area.
The proposed CG-12 has been moved to avoid conflicting with the existing sanitary MH.
7. CG-12 alignment appears awkward in this location and should be adjusted or moved to
meet ADA requirements.
The proposed sidewalk from the Building 1 in Block 11 has been moved further plan south to
avoid an awkward alignment with the CG-12.
B. The valve to fire hydrant should be moved from the curb into the grass area.
The fire hydrant valve has been moved into the grassed area.
RWSA (Dyon Vega): RWSA has reviewed the Southwood Blocks 11 & 12 Final Site Plan dated
12/17/2021 by Timmons Group and has the following comments. General Comments:
• RWSA will require a sewer flow acceptance prior to the final site plan approval.
• The request will need to be sent to us by ACSA and will include the following:
o Estimated average daily dry weather sewage flow (ADDWF)
o Point of connection into RWSA system (which manhole)
o Number of units/square footage
o Estimated in-service date
We have included PDF copies of the plans and calculations for your review. If you have any
questions or comments, please feel free to give me a call at 434.295.5624 or email at
Bryan.cichocki(@timmons.com .
Sincerely,
Bryan Cichocki, PE
Project Manager
f
608 Preston Avenue p 434.295.5624
Suite 200 F 434.295.1800
T I M M O N S GROUP
Charlottesville, VA 22903 www.timmons.com
Meeting Minutes
SW 11-12 Comment Response Meeting
Meeting Date: February 16, 2022
Issue Date: February 18, 2022
Attendees:
Rebecca Ragsdale
Bryan Cichocki
Clint Shifflett
Matt Denhard
El
Below are the meeting minutes in relation to the remaining comments for Southwood 11-12:
Comment 1:
1. [See. 32.7.9.4 (b)(2) ]Submittal of a tree conservation checklist with areas for tree preservation identified. A
signed checklist was added to Sheet L.20. However, the required Items per the checklist for tree
preservation have not been adequately provided on the site plan, including those listed below. Staff can
provide examples if that would be helpful. Rev. 2. Comment appears partially addressed. I would like to
meet to discuss further.
i -Ihe follonine item, shall he shmsn on the plan:
Trees to he .a, cd;
❑ Limits of clearing (outside dripbne of bees to be saved):
❑ Location and type of protective fencing;
❑ Grade changes requiring tree wells or walls;
❑ Proposed trenching or tunneling beyond the limits of clearing.
Agreed Revision:
• Eliminate notes in the plan set for saving existing vegetation in the R.O.W.
• Add more clear trail labels
• Add tree protection to landscaping plans
Comment 11:
ENGINEERING I DESIGN I TECHNOLOGY
[Sec. 32.7.9.4 (b)(2) ISubmittal of a tree conservation checklist with areas for tree preservation identified. A
signed checklist was added to Sheet L.20. However, the required items per the checklist for tree
preservation have not been adequately provided on the site plan, including those listed below. Staff can
provide examples if that would be helpful. Rev. 2. Comment appears partially addressed. I would like to
meet to discuss further.
I. The folloe ins! items %hall be shown on the plan:
J I recs to he saved;
J Limits of cicanng (outside driphne of trees to be saved);
J Location and type of protective fencing;
J ( hale changes requiring tree wells or walls;
J Proposed trenching or tunneling beyond the limits of clearing.
Agreed Revision:
• Add additional 30' buffer labels
• Make trail buffer lines more clear
• Add tree protection linework to landscaping plans
• Agreed not to include a trail detail or callouts as trail is constructed in 9-11, not 11-12
Comment 13:
13. [ZMA; COD page 16] Provide information regarding the amenity space as discussed including seating,
landscaping, etc that will be provided (see email dated 3/2512021 to Whitney McDermott). Not enough detail is
provided to for approval compared to what is required under the code of development. In addition. the 6,500 sq ft
should not include right of way. This comment has been addressed. Planning has no further comment.
However, I don't have comments from all reviewers on the slip sheets that were provide after the final site
plan set was Initially distributed. Rev. 1. Please make sure the landscape plan sheet Includes the updated
plan for amenity area and all required improvements such as details for benches and seat walls.
Agreed Revision:
• Add brick seater widths to the landscaping plans
Comment 14:
14. [32.5.7.9.71 Parking spaces of four spaces or more must be screened from streets and residential zoned areas in
accordance with this section. Screening needs to be provided for the parking. Comment not fully addressed. The
site plan proposes clearing and grading along property lines shared with TMP 76-51 and Old Lynchburg Road
where the plan proposes existing vegetation and topography to screen parking. It does not appear that any
vegetation will remain. A berm may be a permitted type of screening but I will need to confirm that and what
standard height is acceptable. Rev. I still have a few areas of the site where I have concerns I would like to
discuss with you regarding proposed landscaping.
Agreed Revision:
• Remove label regarding use trees in the R.O.W. as screening
Comment 15:
15. (32.5.7.91 Dumpster pads will need to be screened in accordance with this section. Dumpster detail was
provided. Confirm minimum requirements of Section 4.12.19(b) are met:
The pad shall extend beyond the front of each dumpster so that the front wheels of a truck
servicing the dumpster will rest on the concrete, but in no case shall the length of a concrete pad
be less than eight feet beyond the front of the dumpster.
Agreed Revision:
Move shrubs screening to the backside of the dumpster enclosure on Block 12
Final Site Plan Comment 4:
4. [ZMA; COD pages 6 and 13] Proposed building heights are indicated on the cover sheet. The illustrative
building elevations shown on Sheets C1.5 and C1.6 are not to- scale. Please update sheets to -scale and
provide maximum height required (4 stories or 50', 15stepbacks at 3 stories or 45' and)/proposed heights.
Agreed Revision:
Agreed that no additional revisions to the sheets are required
Final Site Plan Comment 7:
7. New comment: Where will mailboxes be provided?
Agreed Revision:
Mail rooms are located in Building 1 U, no additional revisions required.
Final Site Plan Comment 8:
S. New comment: [32.7.9.8 ] Please provide breakdown of tree calculations.
Agreed Revision:
Canopy provided is included on sheet L2.0, on the right side of the plant schedule. No additional
revisions are required.
From: Rebecca Ragsdale <rragsdale@albemarle.org>
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2022 1:59 PM
To: Clint Shifflett <clint.shifflett@timmons.com>; Bryan Cichocki <bryan.cichocki@timmons.com>
Subject: FW: Southwood Blocks 11-12 Follow Up and 9-11 SDP202100066 Remaining Comments
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Hello,
I sent the illustrative plan you provided plus a few site plan landscape sheets so he could see the plant species of the
deciduous/evergreen mix. Charles is good with the approach and thinks its very well done!
Please update the site plan sheets accordingly prior to resubmittal.
Have a good weekend,
Rebecca
From: Rebecca Ragsdale
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2022 12:03 PM
You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com)
To: Charles Rapp <rappc@albemarle.org>
Subject: RE: Southwood Blocks 11-12 Follow Up and 9-11 SDP202100066 Remaining Comments
Please see attached landscape plan sheets.
Thanks!
From: Bryan Cichocki <Bryan.Cichocki@timmons.com>
Sent: Monday, March 7, 2022 10:38 PM
To: Rebecca Ragsdale <ragsdale@albemarle.org>
Cc: Matt Denhard <Matt.Denhard@timmons.com>
Subject: RE: Southwood Blocks 11-12 Follow Up and 9-11 SDP202100066 Remaining Comments
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.
Hi Rebecca,
I was asked to put this landscape graphic together for Habitat and thought it might be helpful for you too in seeing the
additional plantings in the trail buffer as discussed. Can you please confirm this looks satisfactory to you in terms of the
planting density? The mixture of plantings is both deciduous and evergreen as required by the COD.
Would you like to reach out to VDOT about planting in the sight distance easement or would you like me to see if they
will accept anything there? I expect at most they will allow ground covers along the edge of the path to keep mature
plant heights low and not impacting sight lines.
I would greatly appreciate it if you could have a look at this graphic and offer an opinion prior to our Wednesday
meeting this week.
As a heads up I will also be asking about the 11&12 BLA plats on Wednesday as county view lists the due date as 3/11.
Thank you
Bryan Cichocki, PE
Project Manager
TIMMONS GROUP I www.timmons.com
608 Preston Avenue I Suite 200 1 Charlottesville, VA 22903
Office: 434.327.5380 1 Mobile: 804.837.2438
bryan. cichocki (cDti mmons. com
Your Vision Achieved Through Ours
To send me files greater than 20MB click here.
You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com)
r"
MMMMMXM
41M -_OEM