HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP202000063 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2022-05-040
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Keane Rucker; Shimp Engineering, P.C. (keane@shimp-en ing eering com)
From: Andy Reitelbach, Senior Planner
Division: Planning Services
Date: May 4, 2022
Subject: SDP2020-00063 — HTC Area C Townhomes — Final Site Plan; 21 Review Comments
The Planner for the Planning Services Division of the Albemarle County Department of Community Development will
recommend approval of the plan referred to above when the following items have been satisfactorily addressed. (The
following comments are those that have been identified at this time. Additional comments or conditions may be added
or eliminated based on further review.) [Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference to the Albemarle County
Code.]
New Comments — Final Site Plan (SDP2020-00063):
1. The retaining walls from Rec Area 4 to Lot 42 do not appear to have a height labelled any longer. Ensure these
retaining walls are labelled.
2. Provide additional information on Lots 23-26, especially in regards to sidewalks and planting strips. These lots are
taking their frontage from the private street, since the sidewalk is technically within the open space areas, not within
right-of-way. These lots should be added to the sidewalk and planting strip waivers.
3. [32.5.2(p)] Landscaping plan.
a. Most of the street trees along the internal streets are not in the nlanting strips. Thev need to be provided
within the planting strips as part of the right-of-way Comment mostly addressed. Any trees outside of the
planting strip must be in a landscaping easement.
b. Provide the height at 10 years of maturity for the vegetation. That determines whether the landscaping
counts for the required canopy amount. Comment addressed.
c. Provide units for the table identified as "pavement.Comment addressed.
d. Revise the number of required street trees. The requirement is inclusive, so for example 750 linear feet of
frontage requires 16 trees, not 15. (The first tree is planted at 0 feet, then 50 feet, then 100 feet, and so
on.) This comment applies to both Block II and Block III. Comment addressed.
e. Street trees also need to be provided along Private Road ( Comment addressed.
f. Many trees are planted in very narrow spaces between driveways, which does not provide sufficient space
for the trees to grow in a healthy manner. Revise these locations or narrow the drivewa Comment
addressed. However, ensure driveways continue to be of the necessary width to accommodate required
parking spaces.
g. There is a tree on top of the front stoop of Lot 24. Revise the location of this tree. There is also a tree on
top of the crosswalk and ramp adjacent to Lot 29. Revise the location of this tree There is a tree in the
middle of the sidewalk between lots 38 and 39. Revise.
h. The right-hand column of the landscape schedule on sheet C-11 appears to have been cutoff. Staff is unable
to review the total calculations for the landscaping. Revise.
2. [32.5.2(b)] There are more parking spaces proposed on the site than are allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning
Ordinance permits a 20% increase over what is required. 177 spots are permitted, however, 215 are provided. The
number of spaces should be reduced. Comment addressed. However, see below for other comments related to
parking requirements
Comments from SDP2020-00034 — HTC Area C Townhomes — Initial Site Plan Action Letter:
The original comments from the review and action letter for SDP2020-00034 are in gray font. Follow-up comments from the
review of the final site plan, SDP2020-00063, are in black font. Please address these follow-up comments as well.
[32.5.2(b)] Information regarding the proposed use.
a. Revise the parking schedule to provide additional parking spaces. As single-family attached
units appear to be proposed, without common parking bays, an additional one guest space is
required for every four units. This requirement is in addition to the 2 spaces per units
required. The guest spaces cannot be included on individual private lots. They must be in
common parking areas open to all residents of the development. Revise both Blocks II and
III to include the required guest parking spaces in common areas. Be aware that the existing
on -street parking (such as in front of Block 111) cannot be counted for the guest spaces
either.
The parking calculation for Block III is incorrect. It should be twenty spaces provided
(not thirty).
b. Identify the locations of the guest parking spaces on the site plan sheets. Not fully
addressed. See comment 13e above.
The guest spaces in Block III (and the mail center) are on the residue parcel. Who is
going to own this parcel? At a minimum, the areas for these improvements must be
under common ownership for the development, such as the HOA.
c. Lot 22 in Block II cannot have a property line going through the middle of its driveway.
Revise. Comment not addressed. There are still several lots with property lines going
through the driveways (e.g., Lots 27 and 28, among others). Comment addressed.
***It is also important to note that driveways used to meet the parking
requirements must meet the dimensions of parking spaces at 9 feet by 18 feet.
Many of the proposed driveways do not appear to meet this standard. Revise the
property lines and provide dimensions of the driveways and garages so that staff
can ensure all garages and driveways meet the regulations for parking spaces.
Many of the Block II and III driveways continue to be too small to count
for parking spaces. They must be at least 18 feet wide to count for two
parking spaces, as identified on the cover sheet, not 16 feet wide as
currently shown. If garages are used for the required parking spaces, then
the dimensions of the garages must be provided on the site plan.
2. [32.5.2(i)] Streets, easements, and travehvays
a. A private street request, with justification, is required if the lots are proposed to be
subdivided. What about Private Road C in Block II? Is that not also being requested as
a private street, since it provides access to the development, including the second
access point required by ACFR? Revise the private street request. Comment
addressed.
b. The private streets as shown do not meet the minimum requirements for private street
design.
• Provide sidewalks on both sides of all private streets.
• Provide planting strips on both sides of all private streets.
A special exception application form and fee are required to be submitted for the requests
to waive sidewalks and planting strips in certain areas and to waive curb and gutter.
Please be aware that these items also require approval by the Planning Commission and
cannot be granted administratively by staff.
Private Road C should be included in all applicable waiver requests too. Responses
acknowledged. Waivers under review.
Sidewalks and planting strips should be included on both sides of Private Road C or be
included in the waiver requests. Sidewalk and planting strip should be provided on the
west side of the Private Road A entrance. Crosswalks should be provided from the
recreation areas in the northeast and southwest to the sidewalks on the other side of the
streets. Revise the sidewalk exhibit to also include those areas proposed not to have
planting strips. Planting strips also need to be provided along the existing public streets.
Pedestrian access should be provided from Connor Drive to the southwestern recreational
area.
Beside Lot 27, the planting strip must be between the sidewalk and the street.
c. Private streets and private alleyways would require easements to permit the right of passage
along them. Deed book and page numbers for those easements will be required on the final
site plan before approval can be granted. Plat under review.
d. Are interconnections with adjacent parcels proposed? There are areas on the south sides of
Blocks II and III that appear to be paved, but it is unclear whether they are proposed for
interconnections. Interconnections should be provided with adjacent parcels. The road and
sidewalks do not appear to go all the way to the property line. They need to be
constructed all the way to the property line. Otherwise, a construction easement may
be required to allow for that future interconnection. Comment addressed.
e. Identify who is responsible for owning and maintain the existing private streets, including
Connor Drive and Laurel Park Lane. Demonstrate the right of access for this proposed
development over those existing private streets. The legal documents for those private
streets may need to be amended to permit the additional development requested Comment
addressed.
L All proposed new streets will require names approved by E911. See comment memo from
E911.
3. [32.5.2(n)] Existing and proposed improvements.
a. Provide accessible ramps and crosswalks at all street crossings. Additional crosswalks
should be provided across the private streets in front of the southwest and northeast
recreational area Comment addressed.
b. Provide sidewalks along the existing streets (Timberwood Blvd. and Access Roads B, C,
and D in the COD) at a width that is in conformance with the requirements of Table C of
the Code of Development. The sidewalk along Connor Drive must be at least 5 feet in
width. Comment addressed.
c. Provide sidewalks to the front of each proposed dwelling unit from the main
sidewalks/frontage. A sidewalk must be provided from the front fagade of each unit to
the sidewalk along the street frontag Comment addressed.
d. Provide dimensions for all parking spaces, including driveways. Comment not fully
addressed. There are still some driveways that do not have dimensions and are not
uniformly shaped. Driveways cannot be within street right-of-way. For parking spaces
in driveways to count, they must be fully outside of street right-of-way, whether that is
public or private. The driveways in the southeast corner are particularly problematic
in their design. Many driveways appear to be only 16 feet in width. To accommodate
two parking spaces, they must be at least 18 feet wide. Clarify the driveway widths
and how parking spaces are being accommodated. See comment lc. above.
e. Note the maximum footprint of the proposed buildings. Clarify whether the maximum
building square footage of 1,005 square feet listed on the cover sheet is per unit or per
structure. Comment addressed.
4. [32.5.2(n); ZMA2017-00005] Recreational areas and facilities.
a. Identify the amenities, as well as their locations, proposed for the recreational areas
depicted in Blocks II and VII. The Code of Development requires pocket parks and tot lots
to be provided in Blocks II and VII. Identify the areas as pocket parks or tot lots. Is the
tot lot area proposed to be fenced? What is the feature between the whirl and the slide
feature? A sidewalk should be provided from the tot lot toward Connor Drive. Are
any substitution of amenities requested? Comment addressed.
b. Identify who will have ownership and responsibility for maintenance of the common areas,
including the recreational areas. Are these areas proposed to be dedicated to the County? Or
will a homeowners association (HOA) be responsible for their ownership and maintenance?
Legal instruments creating the HOA and stating its responsibilities will be required prior to
approval of a final site plan and/or final subdivision plat. Comment addressed.
5. [ZMA2017-00005] Affordable Units. Identify the units proposed to be affordable as required by
ZMA2017-00005 for those units proposed on Blocks II and VII. Comment addressed. The required
affordable units in Block II no longer appear to be labelled. A note on the cover sheet listing
which ones are affordable is helpful.
6. [32.5.2(i); Chapter 141 Private Streets. Private streets are shown on the site plan. A request for private
streets is required to be submitted, with justification for the private streets. This comment only applies if
a subdivision of the blocks into individual lots is proposed. Comment not fully addressed. See
comments in #14 above for more information. Comment addressed.
Please contact Andy Reitelbach in the Department of Community Development at areitelbach@albemarle.org or 434-
296-5832 eat. 3261 for further information.
Comments from Other Reviewin¢ Departments and Agencies
Albemarle County Architectural Review Board (ARB)
Margaret Maliszewski, mmaliszewski@albemarle.org — Requested changes; see the comment below:
An ARB application for a Countywide Certificate of Appropriateness is required.
Albemarle County Engineering Services (Engineer)
John Anderson, janderson2 a@albemarle.org — Requested changes; see the attached memo and the comment below:
Additional comment:
When you receive Engineering review comments (with site plan comments from Planning review coordinator), please scan
comments for follow-up at items 30, 54, 60, and new item 79.
Albemarle County Information Services (E911)
Andy Slack, aslack@albemarle.org — Requested changes; see the attached memo.
Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA)
Richard Nelson, rnelson@serviceauthoriiy.org — Review pending; comments will be forwarded to applicant upon receipt by
Planning staff.
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT)
Doug McAvoy, dou as.mcave@vdot.vir ig nia.gov — Requested changes; see the attached memo.
� AI
?"h
�IRGRTF
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 229024596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
Site Plan review
Project:
HTC Area C Townhomes —block H and III —Final Site Plan
Plan preparer:
Stephanie Paul, Shimp Engineering stephanie(d�shimp-engineering.com
Shimp Engineering P.C., 912 E. High Street, Charlottesville, VA 2290
Owner or rep.:
Post Office Land Trust, Charles Wm Hurt & Shirley L. Fisher Trustees
P. O. Box 8147 Charlottesville, VA 22906
Plan received date:
8 Oct 2020
(Rev. 1)
13 May 2022
Date of comments:
27 Oct 2020
(Rev. 1)
22 Apr2022
Reviewer:
John Anderson
Project Coordinator: Andy Reitelbach
SDP2020-00063
1. Recommend revise FSP title to include ref. to SDP202000063. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
2. Submit Road Plan and VSMP /WPO plan applications. Road plan and WPO plan approval is required for
FSP approval. (Rev. 1) Partially addressed. Applicant response (letter 3/10/22): `These plans have been
submitted. WPO plan has been approved, road plan is being resubmitted concurrently with this final site
plan submittal.'
3. Roads must be built or bonded for final plat approval. (Rev. 1) Persists. Applicant: `Noted, roads shall be
bonded for approval.'
4. Note: On -site SWM (if any) and public /pvt. drainage easements may be recorded with final plat.
5. 10/5/20 Shimp Engineering curb and gutter waiver request is addressed via these Engineering site plan
review comments in context of design standards and ordinance (VDOT subdivision design standards,
drainage manual). Engineering does not request additional width with request for CG-6 where CG-2, or
roll-top, or ribbon curb may be proposed (see comments elsewhere). Curb and gutter are required by 14-
410(H) for pavement stability/durability, drainage, and safety reasons. Waiver request statement reading
`Curb and gutter is not needed internally along both sides of Road A and B for the purposes of helping to
frame the street or for the purposes of further defining the pedestrian realm' may express a useful planning
orientation, but this review reflects engineering perspective that includes pavement integrity, safety, and
drainage. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant: `All areas now have curb and gutter, please note that the rolltop
curb features curb and gutter, with a lower "curb" portion for ease of vehicle wheel mounting.'
6. Engineering does not object to Planning authorization of Roads A, B, and C as private streets, but requests
pavement design for (C 18) Road A, B, C sections. Also, item 78 below. Also, please note: horizontal
road design must meet AASHTO Guideline for Geometric Design of Very Low -Volume Local Roads
(ADT<400). (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant: `Noted, pavement design had been included in Road Plan
Submittal 1, they are now reincluded with the site plan submittal.'
C5. block H
7. Lot 52 53: Revise entrance geometry so that vehicle wheel path between street and parking area on lot is
continuous without steering correction after passing the sidewalk. Issues with this type constrictive design
have required post -construction demolition /rebuild on another project (Rivanna Village). Lots 54-60 show
`straight -in' (no steering) continuous entrance -driveway design. On a different project, vehicle wheel path
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 9
cut into lawn and entrance apron required widening, and relocation. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant: 'This
has been provided with the provision of 12' wide driveway entrances for single -vehicle driveways.'
8. Show lot entrance design radii for each lot (ref. CG-9 detail, C 16). Certain lots show radii graphically,
Lots 36-52, for example, others do not —Lots 29-35, for example. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant: 'Noted,
this is not provided consistently throughout.
9. Eliminate Lot 45 drive entrance -crosswalk design, which places driveway in permanent conflict with a
pedestrian crosswalk. This design should not be shown under this or any circumstance, should be
abandoned, cannot be approved. Overlap (even partial, but total in this instance) between a pedestrian
crosswalk and driveway brings diametrically opposed pedestrian and vehicle facilities into permanent
conflict, posing extreme risk to pedestrians. A driver reversing from Lot 45, whether under poor visibility,
distracted, or simply unaware, may strike a pedestrian (parent with stroller, etc.) who has every right to
occupy a crosswalk with expectation of safety. Perhaps Lot 45 driveway location can be shown adjacent to
Lot 44 to avoid pedestrian crosswalk conflict. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant: 'Noted, a legitimate CG-12
has been added for this intersection.'
10. Lot 24, 2 issues:
a. Driveway entrance width <12' absolute minimum. Revise to meet absolute min. entrance width.
(Rev. 1) Addressed.
b. If approaching from Conner Drive, 12' w entrance may be insufficient. Provide auto -turn at
entrance to Lot 24, approaching from east/Conner Drive. Revise as needed so that vehicle wheel
path does not leave paved driveway at entrance at revised min, width while at the same time not
requiring drastic maneuver to opposite side of Road A in order to park at Lot 24. (Rev. 1)
Addressed. Applicant: 'The entrance/driveway condition has been revised so that this is not
needed.'
Ref. detail 3/C 16, CG-9 Driveway apron: desirable Min. 16' -Absolute Min. 12'.
CElp
r
r
t
� k
error..oen
� �
p�
YBR�E'ID1BAN
URBAN
HALF PKm
I I PEOESTPoM ACCESS ROUTE DETA
Y
'
rtq, eeltii..cew"O.o1eiLEWNTS wri
SI
v ra.w. wM sa.o a e.
�e":w
T `
a "re . a°rt ,
SE
♦ wvr w vv .urt
ro+.w
A;
r E Nn'
SI
SECTION C-C
wvurw
STANDARD ENTRANCE GUTTER
(iDR USE WITN UNPAVED WISE BETWEEN CURB E SOEWN-K)
rvol wrt
�
.ww. mrron a wra.nw
wV
=3 )VDOT: CG-9 DRIVEWAY APRON
,,_C16 NOT TO SCALE
11. Multiple (perhaps the majority) of driveway entrance widths in block II are 9'. Revise entrances and avoid
driveway width <12'. Effect of design is that driveway width < 12' (which does not meet entrance
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 9
requirements), similar to constraint experienced in parking lots (especially if in or next to an SUN or
pickup), affords very little room to either side of a sedan, much less to either side of an SUV or pickup, to
enter or exit a vehicle. A 9' wide driveway is far worse than a 9' wide parking space where pavement is
continuous. A 9' w driveway means different surfaces (landscape stone, turf, uneven surface, edge) require
care to navigate. Even then, risk is random, 9' is too narrow for even well-balanced drivers to use without
mishap. Ave. width of a car is around 6 to 6.5 ft.' SUV, 69-79' , pickup, 6'-8' , pickup incl. std. mirrors,
96.8" (google). Compare with 9' (108"). Residents with pickups with std. mirrors will have, if truck is
centered, a strip < 6" to edge around the mirror without stepping off the driveway. Revise to extend width
at entrance onto lots, i.e.: 12' absolute minimum width. Note: Certain lots (3, 4, 5, all <1,275 SF lots) are
provided 16' w driveways, others (z1,367, 1,379 SF) have 9' w driveways. This seems insensible. Please
consider practical effects and relevant standards. Design that requires residents to enter or exit vehicles in
the narrow permanent confines of a 9' driveway is deficient, given standard vehicle widths, and poses risk.
If ZMA or Planning Div. has approved a 9' w driveway for these HTC Area C block II townhomes, please
notify Engineering. Otherwise, please accept that entrance width for driveways should continue the
absolute minimum entrance width onto lots. To argue the alternative ( <12') ends where, is unclear. 9'?
8'? 6.5'? No paved minimum? (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant: `Entrance (concrete section) widths are
now 12' wide. Provided driveway pavement (parking surface) is minimum 10' wide. County code only
requires 9' parking width per ordinance. We can conclude that 9' is the minimum driveway width. 10' is
provided here for a few reasons:
1. Ease of coordination -easy to locate the even width driveway in relation to the curb cuts.
2. Allows additional paved area for practicality/access benefit for users. Anecdotally, a 10'
parking width is not uncommon for existing townhomes across Albemarle County
(anecdotally, I have a friend who owns a townhouse with a 10' wide driveway). I have seen
no requirements for larger driveway widths (not entrance width, only width for parking a car).
Since this is a consideration of practicality, I will offer a practical counterargument for a 10'
wide driveway —this provides (10'— 6.5'/2) about 2 F paved width on each side of a car, wide
enough for access, and this does not count additional space for existing bordering yard, which
at time of construction will be accessible. This leaves owner with option to either provide
additional landscaping over a 12' driveway, or if they desire more paved area, they can
certainly add paverstbrick walk for additional surface (allowed, VSMP plan calculated for 12'
driveways).' (Rev. 1) Addressed. Engineering accepts thoughtful, reasoned response.
12. Lot 29: Remove road name and stop sign from driveway. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
13. (and C18): Revise Road A, Sec. B-B to provide CG-6 where street cross -slope /x-section indicate runoff
concentrates against curb. Also, revise C5. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
14. (and C18): Revise Road C, Sec. A -A to provide CG-6 along outer curb edge. See blue highlight, image,
below, near subdivision entrance off Berkmar Drive. Revise C5 plan view ( same comment I. [Image
removed with Rev. 1 comments. ) (Rev. 1) Addressed.
15. (and C 18): Revise Road A, Sec. A -A to provide CG-6 where street cross -slope /x-section indicate runoff
concentrates against curb. Also, revise C5. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
16. Provide occasional dimensional width labels for sidewalk fronting Berkmar Dr., widened with this project.
(Rev. 1) Addressed.
17. Road A and B 70'R (radii) do not meet AASHTO Guidelines for Geometric Design of Very Low -Volume
Local Roads (<400 ADT). Revise design to meet standards.
Note: Roads A, B, C are streets not alleys and must meet VDOT /AASHTO low -volume, local road
standards. (CL R=70' appears less than AASHTO Min.) (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant: `Both roads are
superelevated at 2% cross slope along these 70' radii, per these AASHTO guidelines, this is acceptable.
This same scenario was presented for the Eco Village Site Plan (SDP201900067) — calculations
demonstrating that the 2% superelevation for a 70' radius is copied from this project, and is included with
this submittal.'
18. (With road plan) Submit ADT table values for ease of comparison with VDOT /AASHTO guidelines.
(Rev. 1) Addressed.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 4 of 9
19. Line of sight label on 2,259 SF recreational area is unclear. `All terrace to be limited trees must be pruned
to provide the line of sight' is ambiguous. Revise text for clarity. Line of sight across Lot 28 extending
toward Conner Drive appears to require an easement. Provide and label (this/other) sight line easement/s.
(Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant: `This was ambiguous and has been clarified. Label about trees only
provided where trees are within the line of sight.'
20. Lots 33-35 indicate porch stairs extend across parcel lines on Conner Drive private right-of-way. Revise,
or provide easement with maintenance agreement/s for portions of stairs serving units on these lots that lie
within private right-of-way. (Rev. 1) Withdrawn. Applicant: `These are not part of the porches, but rather
part of the lead walks (common throughout Hollymead towncenter). There is no exclusion for lead walks
in private right of way, thus no additional steps are necessary.'
21. Label sidewalk width, Road B. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
22. Label trail width in amenity /playset area. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
23. Provide /label retaining wall safety railing in amenity /playlet area for all retaining walls given risk to
children and proximity to Conner Drive (railing required even for retaining wall <4-ft. ht. at this location).
(Rev. 1) Addressed.
24. (C 18) Provide retaining wall safety railing detail with max. opening between vertical members < 4". (Rev.
1) Addressed. Applicant: `Rail detail in attached retwall design.' Ref. 3/17/22 Michael R. Circeo retwall
design.
25. Retaining wall appears to extend across SE side of amenity /play area. Provide TWBW labels at Lot 35
end of wall to clarify where the wall ends, and that the wall ends. Wall maintenance easement on Lot 35 is
required if wall is proposed to end at lot line. Label amenity /play area trail material type, and width. (Rev.
1) Addressed. Applicant: `Additional detail added. Trail material noted. Due diligence design now
applied to tot lot amenity area.
C6. block III
26. Label CG-2 (Typ.) between driveways that extends between walk and units on each lot. (Rev. 1)
Withdrawn. Applicant: `CG-2 only included for certain driveways. CG-2 not required by code for
driveways. This indeed could present a tripping hazard and in our opinion does not provide public health
or safety in this application. The vast majority of driveways in Albemarle County do not have curbing. We
have revised general layout in such a way where this is no longer much of a concern. See response below
for additional consideration.'
27. Provide CG-2 at Lots I and 10 (end units), similar to Lots 2-9 to complete curbing at existing gaps,
especially since, in these gaps, vehicle wheel path for vehicles reversing from Lot 1 and 10 driveways will
tend to drift from pavement, degrade turf, and undermine pavement. Ref. HTC block 4 photo below for
example of CG-2 that frames end unit driveways. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant: `This curb is provided
for Lot 1, 27, and 33 with the updated design to assist in grade transition and protection of the adjacent
sidewalk. For the remaining units, we understand County Engineering's concern for driveway pavement
lifespan, but we push back on this request. Our rationale is below.
While curb would likely promote improved pavement lifespan, the reality is that the high majority of
driveways in Albemarle County are constructed without curb without prominent/premature pavement
failure, even if vehicle tires depart from paved surface.
The CG-2 in your example photo seem (an interpretation) to be provided more of a grading assistance, as
the adjacent grade is higher than the driveways —the curb appears to help reconcile some of the slope. For
Blocks 2 & 3, at most driveways, slope is not a concern, and we think for most driveways, the framing
benefit of CG-2 does not outweigh the risks. On that note, 2 scenarios if a vehicle wheel leaves the
driveway:
1. With no curb: some minor damage is done to the turf (usually noticeable damage is only created in
saturated condition —a divot in the wet turf)
2. With curb: the side of the wheel could be scraped against the concrete, damaging the wheel,
potentially damaging car suspension, etc.
a. If the wheel does jump the curb, the turf could still be damaged, same as the previous "no
curb" scenario.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 5 of 9
b. Additionally, CG-2 is not designed to be mounted, so if there is a reasonable risk of
vehicle tires leaving a driveway, we can assume tires will occasionally mount the curb, which
means eventual damage to the curb —creating yet additional maintenance requirements.
The result of this is that we think, for driveways, that the forgiveness provided by omitting curb
outweighs potential benefits of a curb. Anecdotally, I am thankful that my driveway has no curb,
because it is cheaper and easier to repair a tire divot in turf with a shovel and some grass seed (—$25
repair), than have an auto body repair damage to a vehicle wheel caused by a curb (potential $200 +
thank you.
28. New `alley name and stop sign' label appears in duplicate. Engineering commends design for emphasis on
pedestrian safety, but is unsure how this will work in practicality. Drivers are not accustomed to a double
stop sign, and may be confused. Block III connects with a public street. Engineering defers to VDOT, yet
recommends pedestrian crosswalk striping to either side of the stamped concrete brick pattern crosswalk,
with stop condition past the crosswalk at intersection with Lockwood Drive. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
29. Label radii (typ.) for CG-2 curbing at ribbon curb (CG-2 that extends between alley and units). If <1.5'R,
revise design and provide detail for a gradually sloping concrete ramp to replace CG-2 at radii, such that
vehicle wheels can mount the ramp as vehicles enter driveways, and such that this section of curbing (now
ramp) is more durable and may not deteriorate as rapidly due to wheel strike /multiple wheel crossings.
(Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant: `Radii for ribbon curbing (now called Rolltop Curb) has been labelled. As
was alluded to in response 27, above, and as you mentioned in this comment, CG-6 curb is not designed to
be mounted, thus we have designed the rolltop curb for the dense portion of driveways. This also avoids an
undulating scenario which traditional curb would provide here, which is difficult to construct, difficult to
traverse, and would appear strange in appearance. We realize this rolltop curb would be an atypical, and
perhaps unwarranted, design if there were a traditional sidewalk and landscape strip, however, since these
items do not exist along this area (waiver request), we believe the rolltop curb is a better application. Note
that VDOT Appendix Bl allows rolltop curb.' Engineering appreciates and accepts Applicant response.
30. C5C6: Provide intersection sight lines for internal intersections. (Rev. 1) May persist. Applicant: `100'
internal private road intersection sight distance (and stopping sight distance for radii) provided.' Please
direct reviewer to sight lines on C5, C6, which may have been overlooked by reviewer.
C7
31. Remove hydrant from sidewalk near storm Str. A5. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
32. Provide pvt, san. easement on Lot 46 for Lot 47 owner since lateral may not be installed or accessed
without easement across a portion of Lot 46. (Rev.1) Addressed. Applicant: `Design revised so these are
not necessary.'
Engineering Review Comments
Page 6 of 9
33. Similarly, provide pvt. san. lateral easement on Lot 4 /for owner of Lot #: (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant:
`Design revised so these are not necessary.'
a. 47/48
b. 51/52
c. 13/14
d. 51/52
e. 53/54
f. 58/57
g. 59/58
h. 60/59
34. Provide pvt, sanitary lateral for Lots 18, and 36-40. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
35. Relocate pvt, san. laterals onto Lots 51 and 50. Two laterals are shown on Lot 52, none on Lot 50. (Rev. 1)
Addressed.
36. Recommend extend pvt, san. sewer lateral for Lot 52 further onto lot. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
37. Recommend extend pvt. water laterals to structure side of sidewalks to minimize and avoid damage to
walks during water line service connections. [ Note: walks must be acceptable prior to street acceptance. ]
(Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant: `Our drawing convention is to show water service linework only to the
meters. This is to avoid clutter to plans — the private portion of laterals after meter are flexible and can be
run with curves & bends as needed to best travers the lot as dictated by site constraints and plumbers'
recommendations. For this subdivision, all utilities will be installed before sidewalks, and will be adjacent
to house footprints. We agree with your point, but this is not really needed here as the site contractor is
already contracted to provide this.'
38. Note: San. sewer lateral clean -outs appear problematic for attached units with laterals located in pavement,
else clean -outs require traffic rated lids if CO's located in private drives. Examples: Lots 24-27.
Engineering defers to ACSA. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant: `Correct, traffic -rated cleanouts will be
required throughout. Note added to plans.'
39. Provide private drainage easements across Lots 47-52, 54-59, and 36-45, for yard inlet systems. (Rev. 1)
Addressed. Applicant: `Provided for yard drain systems.'
40. Revise New 20' Storm Sewer Esm't label to read New 20' Private Drainage Easem (Rev. 1)
Addressed.
41. Label 8" DIP WLs. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
42. Delete concrete shading (in turf area) adjacent to CG-6 on Lot 55, 60_ (Rev. 1) Addressed.
43. There may be limit on placement of hydrant behind parallel parking near Lot 60, Engineering defers to
ACFR. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
44. Shift Str. A7 label to more nearly align with structure location (Rev. 1) Addressed.
45. C7 C8C8: There are two A2 and two Al structures, with same labels used in both block II and III. Relabel
block III drainage structures (revise labeling on C 13 profile, as well). Revise labels in Cale. report tables.
(Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant: Block III structures relabeled for clarity.'
46. C7 C8C8: Show linework and provide labels to show roof leader line connection with storm system. Ensure
Lots 1-10, block III, roof leader line discharge does not sheet across sidewalk and is not trapped behind
CG-2 curbing, if discharge is to surface. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
47. Revise design: spread at inlet A6 (6.27') exceeds half lane width (5'). Also, LD-204, Cale, packet. (Rev. 1)
Addressed.
C8
48. Label Ex. waterrnain size in Lockwood Drive. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
49. Please use conventional notation for remaining lot size (69,971.6 SF). (Rev. 1) Addressed.
50. Recommend extend pvt, water laterals to structure side of sidewalks to minimize and avoid damage to
walks during water line service connections. [ Note: walks must be acceptable prior to street acceptance. ]
(Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant: `See response 37, above —this will be provided, but is not explicitly shown
on plans, contractor will still achieve this.'
C9
Engineering Review Comments
Page 7 of 9
51. Revise grading behind lots 53-60 to provide a reasonably -defined channel, ensure low points at yard inlets.
Runoff may not cross more than 2 lots' i.e., must be collected on 3`d lot. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
52. Lots 12-23: In limited turf space, provide runoff collection on every third lot (yard inlet) unless roof leader
lines connect with new /ex. storm sys. Vertical fall across lots as well as ambiguity concerning roof leader
lines is cause for concern. No runoff collection appears to be proposed on Timberwood Blvd side of these
twelve (12) units. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
53. Label retaining wall, Lots 12, 13. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant: `Wall labeled.'
54. Lot 12, 13 retaining wall TW BW elevations are somewhat ambiguous. Additional elevations at either end
(TWBW at each end) would be helpful. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant: `Label clarified. This is now a
short decorative -style wall.' As follow-up: Please label retaining walls on C5. C9, consistent with Michael
Circeo retaining wall plans all 1 2).
55. Provide % slope with flow arrow for all driveways. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
56. Lots 36-45, and Lots 12-13 retaining walls: Provide evidence of recorded (party) wall maintenance
agreement/s, and provide wall maintenance easement on final subdivision plat. (Rev. 1) Persists.
Applicant: `This is being worked on —we will provide this within the BOA does, required for plat
approval.'
57. Provide grading or spot shots to ensure there is no nuisance ponding in southmost parallel parking space (of
5 spaces) opposite Lots 4-9, Road A. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
58. Wherever storm runoff concentrates against curbing, provide CG-6, for example, 5 parallel spaces
referenced in comment, immediately preceding. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
59. Provide labels that more clearly identify proposed retaining walls that extend from block II amenity space
across lots 36-45. Also, if retaining walls:
a. Span lot lines, they require easement and recorded (party) retaining wall maintenance agreement.
Albemarle is not a party to wall maintenance agreements but needs to ensure wall maintenance
agreements are recorded. Also, item 57, above. (Rev. 1) Persists. Applicant: `Noted, 12' wall
maintenance easement is now shown, maintenance agreement will be in HOA does.'
b. >3' ht., they require a building permit.
c. >4' In., they require sealed geotechnical design, and safety railing. Also, item 23 above. (Rev. 1)
Addressed. Applicant: `Noted, provide with this submittal.'
60. Evaluate depth of Qlo,, event runoff, Road B, where grade indicates runoff concentrates in flow line at
drive entrances to lots 36 thru 45. Ensure runoff does not enter driveways of any lot in the development.
(Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant: `Runoff does not enter driveways (CG-913 entrance with 6" rise across
entrance). LD-204 for A6 shows adequacy of runoff depth at the worst portion of Road B. Note that this
road was revised to be superelevated, so now minimal runoff near entrances 34-42.' As follow-up: Please
restore VDOT LD-204, LD-229 tables to the site plan. Also, item 79.c., below.
61. Provide storm runoff capture (grate/inlet) in line with CG-6 or at end of CG-61 blue -circles, image below.
(Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant: `This is not required due to updated grading design, and provision of
reverse CG-6. The minimal amount of runoff will sheetflow across superelevated road in this area.' [Image
removed with Rev. 1 comments.]
C10
62. Replace Alley B CG-2 between entrance on Lockwood Drive and intersection with back alley access to
units. Runoff concentrates against curbing along both edges (entrance alley is crowned). Engineering
consistently requests that design that proposes to concentrate runoff against a curb provide CG-6, not CG-2.
Issue has been raised with /resolved by Albemarle County Engineer. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant: `CG-
6 provided for this access route.'
63. CG-6 label near 82.81' contour is confusing. It is somewhat unclear if gutter pan is to extend across paved
asphalt alley entrance, or not. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant: `This has been revised for clarity. As this is
now a CG-9D concrete entrance, the remaining gutter pan will smoothly transition into the entrance flow
line.'
64. Provide spot elevations along outer edge of southmost bump out at face of curb to ensure that runoff
internal to development that drains along Alley B to Lockwood Drive, reaches Str. B 1. (Rev. 1)
Engineering Review Comments
Page 8 of 9
Addressed. Applicant: `Noted, this is provided by the "curb cut" in the island which leaves the existing
CG-6. Thus current positive drainage is maintained. Spots added —though these match existing grade.'
65. Label driveway grade, units 1-10. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
C11
66. Recent aerial imagery indicates existing landscaping /streetscape trees along Tmberwood Blvd that may
relieve requirement to plant a few of the proposed street trees along Timberwood. Engineering defers to
Planning. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant: `Noted, this site is very tight on street trees, so these are left to
provide a buffer.'
C13
67. Provide B1 to Al storm profile. Although shown partially in detail 51C13, request profile for Str. B1 with
complete structural information (INV out, rim, str. type, etc.). (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant: Bl to Al
has been replaced with roof drain system, now shown in profile.'
68. Provide label for Y2" steel plate in floor of Str. A4, in each profile that shows Str. A4. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
Applicant: `Design revised to avoid this.'
69. Show all crossing san. laterals in water profile. 8" DIP WL appears to be located 3.54' below proposed
grade, and crossing water laterals may conflict /should be shown. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant: `Design
revised to avoid this'
70. Provide profile, Str. Cl, Berkmar Drive, since Ex. 4' DI-3B is to be replaced with new 10' DI-313. Provide
rim elevation, replacement DI. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant: `Design revised to avoid this. Structure top
no longer replaced.'
71. C14: Show all crossing water laterals in san. sewer profile. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
72. C 15: Revise sight line captions to read Berkmar Drive (and Road C), rather than Timberwood Blvd. (Rev.
1) Addressed.
C18:
73. Provide ribbon curb detail. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant: `Ribbon curb renamed to more descriptive
"rolltop" curb —see detail 2 Sheet C 16.'
74. Provide CG-6 to ribbon curb transition detail. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant: `Transition note added to
new detail. As you can infer form the rolltop curb detail, which has similar dimensions to CG-6, this
transition will be easy to achieve, and is fairly intuitive.'
75. Road A, Sec. C-C: Label CG-6, for clarity. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant: `Sections updated to match
recent design changes.'
76. Provide typ. amenity /play area trail section. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant: `Material selection specified,
the section depth noted as "designed by manufacturer" in the plans.'
77. Provide pavement design [D,, DP] per 2018 VDOT Pavement Design Guide for Subdivision and Secondary
Roads in Virginia, required to evaluate pavement section depths and for comparison with 10/5/20 Private
Street Request, item 1. [ link:
https://www.virginiadot.orgibusiness/resources/Materials/Pavement Design Guide for Subdivision and
Secondary Roads.pdf ] (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant: `This had been provided with road plans, included
in this submittal for consistency.'
78. CALCULATIONS (31-pg. packet d. 10/5/20 re: HTC Area C Townhomes: Block II & Block III, SWM Plan):
a. HTC Area C Townhomes Block II Inlets Drainage Area Map (p. 5 of Cale, packet)
i. Indicates 11 attached units fronting Berkmar Drive will discharge post -developed runoff
to Str. C 1. It is not apparent how Berkmar Drive portion of rooftop runoff will reach C 1.
Roof leader lines and roof runoff may not discharge to surface and sheet across sidewalk
fronting Berkmar Drive as this represents high risk of fall due to ice in winter weather,
and lesser risk of challenge to permanently stabilize areas along fronts of units, if roofs
discharge to splash blocks. Provide additional plan detail that indicates how development
areas shown draining to C 1 will reach C 1 without crossing sidewalk. (Rev. 1)
Addressed.
Engineering Review Continents
Page 9 of 9
ii. Similarly, provide same level of plan detail showing how roof runoff from attached units
fronting Timberwood Blvd. or Timberwood Blvd, roundabout, will reach inlet structures
D 1, D2 without sheeting across sections of broad sidewalk, which is impermissible. (Rev.
1) Addressed.
b. Pg. 8, LD-229:
i. Revise pipe DIA, F 1-A8, or revise slope since total flow =1.29 which is nearly equal pipe
capacity: 1.30cfs. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant: `Addressed with redesign.'
ii. Revise pipe, A5-A4, since total flow, 7.50cfs, exceeds pipe capacity: 7.0cfs. (Rev. 1)
Addressed. Applicant: `Addressed with redesign.'
c. HTC Area C Townhomes Block III Inlets Drainage Area Map (p. 12 of Cale. packet)
Please see comments above re. roof runoff discharge, in this instance to Str. B 1 on Lockwood
Drive. Roof leader lines may not discharge to turf areas fronting units given risk of freezing
sidewalk conditions in winter. Provide additional plan detail. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
d. LD-229: Check table values, possible error, total flow A 1 to A0, given other 2 table flow values.
(Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant: `Addressed with redesign.'
79. (Rev. 1) New
a. C5: Recommend either remove or label and provide reference to the seven road x-section lines (x-
sections detail shown on C18).
b. C 13: Storm profile captions appear to be identical, please edit to correlate with structure -pipe runs.
c. LD-204, LD-229 tables may display with road plan, but please restore these drainage design tables
to the site plan.
Please feel free to call if any questions: 434.296-5832 -x3069
Thank you
SDP2020-00063 HTC Area C Townhomes block II III ESP 042220rev 1
�1 OF AL8
County of Albemarle
GEOGRAPHIC DATA SERVICES OFFICE
" = COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
`�RGIN�Q'
PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS - E911
APPLICATION#: SDP202000063
TMP: 032000000041J0, 032000000041 K1
DATE:
4/14/22
Andrew Slack
aslack@albemarle.org
tel: 434-296-5832 ext. 3384
fax: 434-972-4126
Please remove "Flora Bend" from the plan as a road name. The road name of "Purple Flora Bend"
should remain consistent through the travel way. Per the Road Naming and Property Ordinance
and Manual That section of the road does not need to have a different name.
A PDF version of the Ordinance and Manual can be found here:
https://gisweb.albemarle.org/gisdata/Road Naming and Property Numbering Ordinance and Manual.pdf
Please consult the County's Road Name Index to check your road names prior to submittal. The
Index can be found here: https://Ifweb.albemarle.org/Forms/RoadNameindex
Parcel and mapping information can be found here: https://gisweb.albemarle.org/gpv 51/Viewer.aspx
If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office.
WWW.ALBEMARLE.ORG
401 McIntire Road, Suite 228 1 Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
Stephen C. Brich, P.E.
Commissioner
(Z)
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1401 East Broad Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
April 19, 2022
Andy Reitelbach
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: SDP-2020-00063 — HTC Area C Townhomes — FSP
Rev. #2
Dear Mr. Reitelbach:
(804) 786-2701
Fax: (804) 786,2940
The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and
Land Use Section, has reviewed the above referenced HTC Area C Townhomes -
FSP, as submitted by Shimp Engineering, dated March 7, 2022 and find the
following:
I. CG-12 handicap ramps shown within the right of way will need to be
redesigned/reconstructed to direct pedestrians across entrances and not into
the travelway. No mid -block crossing has been warranted. Please see
VDOT R&B Standards Revised December 2021
https://www.virginiadot.org/business/locdes/2016_road_ and bridge_standar
ds.asp
2. Existing bike ramp on Timberwood Blvd. should be corrected to match the
other bike ramps in this development.
3. VDOT will not maintain the decorative CG-9D entrance on Lockwood
Drive.
4. Please remove trees within 30' of intersections per B(1)-44 RDM.
5. Please remove the parking spaces within the sight triangles. CG-3 Islands
should be extended to address clear line of sight for sight triangle.
6. Please clarify the sight triangles are shown per VDOT RDM. Sight lines
location of eye do not appear to be per RDM F-40 Intersection Sight
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
Distance detail and table 2-5 and RDM B(1)19 Sight Distance. Eye location
will be a minimum 14.5 feet from the edge of travel lane.
7. Existing manhole HI appears to be in the proposed R/W and under proposed
sidewalk. Manhole HI should be relocated from under the sidewalk area.
8. Landscaping plants and trees adjacent to the sight distance triangle will need
to be maintained in area between 2 and 7 feet above ground as a clear zone
to preserve sight lines and accommodate pedestrians.
If you have further questions please contact Max Greene at (434) 422-9894.
A VDOT Land Use Permit will be required prior to any work within the right of
way. The owner/developer must contact the Charlottesville Residency land Use
Section at (434) 422-9399 for information pertaining to this process.
Sincerely,
John C. Wilson, P.E.
Assistant Resident Engineer
Area Land Use
Charlottesville Residency