HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201400005 Review Comments Initial Site Plan 2014-03-06 (2)�a
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Cu•peper, Vrgin,a 22701
Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E.
Commissioner
March 6, 2014
Ms. Ellie Carter Ray
Senior Planner
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: SDP - 2014 -0005 Riverside Village Initial Site Plan
Dear Ms. Ray:
We have reviewed the initial site development plan for Riverside Village dated 1116./14 as submitted by Shimp
Engineering, P.C. and offer the following comments:
1. The utilities should cross the proposed State road perpendicularly. More specifically, the storm sewer from
structure A5 to A4 and the sanitary sewer from manhole 301 to 302 should be realigned so that they are
perpendicular to the roadway.
2. There should be CG -12's located on each side of Road `B" at the intersection with Road "A ".
3. There should be a turn around for Road "A" that is located within dedicated right -of -way.
4. Pavement design calculations need to be submitted for review.
5. Storm sewer calculations need to be submitted for review.
6. Street trees need to be located 30' at a minimum from the end of radius at each intersection as indicated in
Appendix B(1) of the Road Design Manual. This includes intersections with private alleys and streets.
7. Sight lines and available sight distance needs to be added for each intersection shown in the site plan. This
includes intersections with private alleys and streets.
8. Turn lane warrants need to be provided for review for each of the turn lanes proposed on Route 20.
9. The northern most entrance off of Route 20 needs to be designed in accordance with VDOT Commercial
Entrance standards as found in Appendix F of the Road Design Manual. A right -turn lane warrant should
be provided for this entrance. At a minimum, the northern most radius of this entrance should be off -set
12' with a 4:1 taper. In addition, as drawn there is only a 5' through lane shown on the north side of this
entrance due to the striping. This needs to be addressed.
10. Storm structure C10 is likely to require relocation as a result of comment #9.
If you need additional information concerning this project, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Troy Austin, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Culpeper District
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
ALB���r
� �'IRGINZP
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832
Fax (434) 972 -4126
TO:
Ellie Ray, Senior Planner - Planning Services
FROM:
Rebecca Ragsdale, Senior Planner- Zoning Services
DATE:
March 6, 2014
RE:
SDP 2014 -05- Riverside Village Initial Site Plan
Review comments below focus on the proffers approved with the Riverside Village (ZMA 2012-
02) and the major elements required on the general development plan and in the code of
development.
• Townhouse units Block 3- The units proposed in Block 3B are townhouses according to
the zoning ordinance. Although the block description on page 5 mentions townhouses,
the Code of Development does not list townhouses as a permitted unit type in the
Development Block Summary table on page 4 or in the Table of Uses by Block on page
5. A variation is needed to allow townhouses in this block.
• Reminder about Building Separation -No encroachments are permitted into the required
building separation of 8' as required in the Lot /Parking /Building Regulations on page 4.
This means that no eave overhangs or architectural features may project into the 8'
separation requirement.
• Proffer 1- Park Land Dedication /Trails system- The park should be dedicated to public
use prior to final site plan approval and the County will make this official request
according to the proffer during final site plan review.
• Proffer 2- Affordable Housing- No information is provided on how the affordable housing
proffer will be met.
• Proffer 4- Frontage and Other Road Improvements- All necessary plans and plat(s)
should be submitted and reviewed by VDOT to ensure this proffer is met. The proffer
requires the frontage improvements as part of the first site plan or subdivision plat.
Phone 434 - 296 -5832
� jRclti��
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, VA, 22902
Memorandum
To: Justin Shimp ( Justin (a)shimp- engineering.com)
From: Ellie Ray, CLA, Senior Planner
Division: Planning
Date: March 5, 2014
Subject: SDP 201400005 Riverside Village - Initial
Fax 434 - 972 -4126
The County of Albemarle Planning Division will recommend approval of the plan referenced above once the
following comments have been satisfactorily addressed (The following comments are those that have been
identified at this time. Additional comments or conditions may be added or eliminated based on further review.):
[Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference, which is to the Subdivision /Zoning Ordinances unless
otherwise specified.]
1. [Comment] Note which blocks from ZMA201200002 are included in this application.
2. [Comment] This application was reviewed against Site Development Plan requirements only. It appears
that lot lines are shown on the plan, but no subdivision application was submitted. Any subdivision related
comments are provided for reference only unless necessary for site plan approval.
3. [32.5.2(a) & Proffer 4] Clearly delineate any area proposed to be dedicated for the improvements to Route
20. Additional land for the future widening of Route 20 (as noted in proffers) must also be dedicated by plat
contemporaneously with the Final Site Plan.
4. [32.5.2(a)] Add Entrance Corridor (EC) to the Zoning note.
5. [32.5.2(a)] List the Special Exceptions approved with the ZMA application on the cover sheet.
6. [32.5.2(a) & COD Section X] It appears that internal lot lines are shown within the parking lot serving Block
2C. If an internal parcel is proposed, this layout violates both the side and rear setbacks listed in Section X
of the Code of Development.
7. [32.5.2(b)] Provide information about the acreage occupied by each proposed use including residential,
roads, and open space.
8. [32.5.2(b)] Provide a breakdown of unit types listing the number of each proposed by block.
9. [32.5.2(b) & COD Section IV] It appears that a three unit row of townhouses is proposed in Block 3.
According the Section IV of the Code of Development, townhouses are not a permitted use. Zoning is
currently reviewing the Code of Development and the Initial Site Plan and will determine if this use complies;
a variation may be necessary to build the three unit row of dwelling units as proposed.
10. [32.5.2(b)] Provide the gross residential density for each Block and for the project overall.
11. [32.5.2(b) & COD Section VII] Provide a chart or other schedule demonstrating how the minimum green
space and amenity requirements listed in COD Section VII are being satisfied. It appears that minimum
requirements are not met in each block including: four benches and "plantings" along mews in Block 2, mix
of evergreen trees and shrubs in northern buffer #2 in Block 2, flowering trees in SWM facility #3 in Block 3,
flowering trees along the park connector in Block 3, and rear yard landscaping adjacent to northern
boundary (northern buffer #3) in Block 4. Is should also be noted that any buffer landscaping proposed on
individual lots will require a landscape maintenance easement when the lots are subdivided.
12. [32.5.2(b) & Application Plan] Provide a chart or other schedule demonstrating how the minimum parking
requirements are being satisfied, listing the amount required and provided. Block 2C does not provide the
minimum 24 spaces for 12 multi - family dwelling units. Additionally, since parking is proposed on individual
lots in Block 4, a minimum of 1 parking space per four dwelling units for guest parking is required.
13. [32.5.2(b) & COD Section IV] As noted above, it appears that internal lot lines are shown within the
parking lot serving Block 2C. If an internal parcel is proposed, this layout proposes stand -alone parking on
this internal parcel which is not a permitted use in Block 2 according to Section IV of the Code of
Development.
14. [32.5.2(1) & COD Section XIII] Provide a chart or other schedule listing the street cross sections approved
with the ZMA application and indicating the proposed cross sections. Streetscape requirements in the Code
of Development must also be met (see landscape comments below).
15. [32.5.2(1) & COD Section XIII] Section XIII describes Road "C" as a 12' walkway, but the proposed design
includes only a 10' walkway free of groundcover. The paver only portion of Road "C" should be increased to
a minimum 12' width.
16. [32.5.2(k)] Verify that all necessary easements for proposed water, sewer and drainage facilities have been
shown on the plan.
17. [32.5.2(1)] Provide the location of any other existing or proposed utilities and utility easements including
telephone, cable, electric and gas.
18. [32.5.2(m)] Show the distance to the centerline of the nearest existing street intersection from the proposed
ingress and egress locations.
19. [32.5.2(n)] Provide the maximum footprint for all proposed buildings.
20. [32.5.2(n)] Dimension the full width of the retaining wall required for construction.
21. [32.5.2(n)] Show proposed lighting locations on the layout, utility and landscape sheets to verify no conflicts
exist.
22. [32.5.2(0)] Clearly show any areas intended to be dedicated or reserved for dedication to public use (such
as street right -of -way), and provide a note stating that the land is to be dedicated or reserved for public use.
23. [32.5.2(p) & 32.7.9.4(b)] Existing trees may be preserved in lieu of planting new plant materials in order to
satisfy the landscaping and screening requirements of section 32.7.9, subject to the agent's approval. If you
intend to use existing trees to satisfy any of the landscape plan requirements, please include the following:
1. Areas and other features shown on landscape plan. The landscape plan shall show the trees to be
preserved, the limits of clearing, the location and type of protective fencing, grade changes requiring
tree wells or walls, and trenching or tunneling proposed beyond the limits of clearing.
2. Conservation checklist. The applicant shall sign a conservation checklist approved by the agent to
ensure that the specified trees will be protected during construction. Except as otherwise expressly
approved by the agent in a particular case, the checklist shall conform to the specifications in the
Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook, pages III -393 through III -413, and as hereafter
amended.
24. [32.5.2(p), 32.7.9.5 & COD Section IX] Provide flowering trees interspersed between street trees along the
Route 20 frontage as required by Section IX of the Code of Development.
25. [32.5.2(p), 32.7.9.5] When a parking lot is located such that parked cars will be visible from a public street,
low shrubs should be planted to minimize the view of the parked cars. The parking lot proposed in Block 2C
will be visible from Route 20 and internal Road A; provide shrubs along the eastern border of the parking lot,
and the western border that isn't blocked by the proposed dwelling units.
26. [32.5.2(p) & 32.7.9.7] Proposed SWM Facility #3 should be screened from the adjacent residential lot.
27. [32.5.2(p) & 32.7.9.8] It appears the majority of the tree canopy requirement is being met with existing
trees; see #23 above for direction on how to verify and document preservation of existing trees.
28. [32.5.2(p), 32.7.9.8, and COD] The percentage of tree canopy required is determined by the gross
residential density of the proposal. The maximum gross residential density for Blocks 1 -5 is listed in the
Code of Development as 8.1 dwelling units /acre, which would require 20% tree canopy. Please revise the
landscape notes to use 20% as the basis for the tree canopy requirement.
29. [32.5.2(p) & 32.7.9.8] The landscape schedule lists an incorrect count for Betula jacquemontii.
30. [32.5.2(p) & 32.7.9.81 Tree canopy calculations can be based on the proposed caliper at planting. Zelkova
serrata, Acer rubrum and Quercus phellos have three possible canopy calculations; 3.5" caliper, 2.5" caliper,
and the standard planting caliper. In order to use the larger canopy numbers, a breakdown of how many
trees are provided at each size is required. Additionally, the canopy number listed for Quercus phellos uses
the 3.5" caliper for all proposed trees when many of the trees are proposed at 2.5" caliper; please revise.
31. [32.5.2(p) & 32.7.9.8] Tree canopy consists of plants that will grow to 5' or taller at maturity; many azaleas
do not get 5' tall. Either provide information regarding the specific species proposed that will get 5' tall or
remove the azalea canopy from the calculation.
32. [32.5.2(p) & 32.7.9.8] The landscape schedule provides an incorrect total tree canopy number.
33. [32.5.2(p)] Some of the proposed plantings appear to be within existing or proposed easements; show all
easements on the landscape plan, verify locations of plantings, and either move all landscaping outside of
easements or provide proof of authorization from the easement holder.
34. [32.5.2(p) & Application Plan] Utility lines are proposed within the "Tree Preservation Area" shown and
described on the approved Block Plan; the installation of this utility will require removal of many of these
preserved trees. Please clarify and revise.
35. [32.5.2(p) & COD Section IX] Provide a chart or other schedule demonstrating how the Landscape
Treatment requirements listed in Section IX of the Code of Development are being satisfied. Among
possible others, it appears that several requirements are not being met, including: flowering trees along
Route 20 (as previously noted); screening as listed for northern buffers #1, 2, & 3 (type and placement);
mitigation as listed for SWM facility #3 (no evergreen trees, no ornamental trees, no grasses proposed); and
the listed plant types for the Main Road entrance (ornamental trees, shrubs, ornamental grasses).
36. [32.5.2(p) & COD Section IX] It appears that 100 Thuja occidentalis are proposed at 5' o.c. along the
retaining wall at the northern edge of the property. Thuja occidentalis species gets 10 -15' wide and may be
overcrowded; please indicate if a smaller cultivar is proposed. Also provide verification that these trees can
be safely planted in such close proximity to the proposed retaining wall.
37. [32.5.2(p) & COD Section IX] Section IX states that all plant species must conform to the Native Plants for
Virginia Landscapes list. Zelkova serrata, Betula jacquemontii, Acer griseum, many azaleas, and Juniperus
chinensis are not native plants.
38. [4.17] It appears that light poles may be located within proposed easements; verify locations and provide
documentation of authorization from the intended easement holder.
39. [4.17] Extend the photometric information toward Route 20 to demonstrate where the foot - candle levels
drop below 0.5.
3
40. [4.17] Provide the following standard lighting note on the lighting plan: Each outdoor luminaire equipped
with a lamp that emits 3, 000 or more initial lumens shall be a full cutoff luminaire and shall be arranged or
shielded to reflect light away from adjoining residential districts and away from adjacent roads. The spillover
of lighting from luminaires onto public roads and property in residential or rural areas zoning districts shall
not exceed one -half foot - candle.
41. [Comment] ARB approval is required. Due to inclement weather, ARB review has been rescheduled from
March 3rd to March 17th. ARB comments will be provided after the March 17th meeting.
42. [Comment] If any off -site easements are required, they must be approved and recorded prior to Site Plan
approval. Among possible others, it appears easement(s) will be required for the proposed tree and shed
removal at the northern property line as shown on the demolition plan, and as indicated in ACSA comments.
Please contact Ellie Ray in the Planning Division by using eray(a)albemarle.org or 434 - 296 -5832 ext. 3432 for
further information.
4
Ellie Ray
From: Alex Morrison [amorrison @serviceauthority.org]
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2014 9:34 AM
To: Ellie Ray
Subject: SDP20140005: Riverside Village - Initial Site Plan (Rivanna Magisterial District)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Dear Ellie :
The Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) has received and reviewed the plan /document /project described above.
All ACSA comments have been addressed by the applicant. The ACSA hereby approves the plan /document /project
described above.
Please feel free to contact me at the number below with any comments or questions you may have.
Thank you.
Note: The applicant should submit 3 copies of the constructin plans along with water and sewer data sheets to the ACSA
(Attn: Jeremy Lynn, PE) for review and approval when available. Offsite easements will be required prior to granting
construction approval.
Alexander J. Morrison, EIT
Civil Engineer
Albemarle County Service Authority
168 Spotnap Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22911
(0) 434 - 977 -4511 Ext. 116
(F) 434 - 979 -0698
Project Name:
Date Completed:
Reviewer:
Department/Division/Agency:
Reviews
Comments:
Review Status:
Review Comments
Riverside Village - Initial
Monday, March 17, 2014
Margaret Maliszewski
ARB
Initial Site Plan
Motion: Ms. Joseph moved to approve the consent agenda and forward the recommendations outlined in the staff
reports to the agent for the Site Review Committee, as follows:
Regarding (b) ARB-2014-07: Riverside Village - Initial Plan:
• Regarding requirements to satisfy the design guidelines as per § 18-30.6.4(2), (3) and (5): None.
• Regarding recommendations on the plan as it relates to the guidelines: None.
• Regarding recommended conditions of initial plan approval:
1. A Certificate of Appropriateness is required prior to final site plan approval. The following are required on the
final plan.
2. Revise the design of the stormwater facility located at the entrance to the site to eliminate the engineered
appearance and to make it an integrated landscape element.
3. Increase shrub heights to 24” minimum at planting.
4. The following note is required on the site and architectural plans: Visibility of all mechanical equipment from the
Entrance Corridor shall be eliminated.
5. Revise the luminaire schedule to indicate that the light fixtures will have flat glass lenses.
6. Revise the luminaire schedule to indicate light fixture and pole color. Bronze is recommended.
7. Indicate fixture and pole height on the lighting plan. Indicate if bases are proposed for the pole lights. If they are,
indicate that the base height is included in the overall fixture height and that the overall height does not exceed 20’.
8. Include the standard lighting note on the plan. “Each outdoor luminaire equipped with a lamp that emits 3,000 or
more initial lumens shall be a full cutoff luminaire and shall be arranged or shielded to reflect light away from
adjoining residential districts and away from adjacent roads. The spillover of lighting from luminaires onto public
roads and property in residential or rural areas zoning districts shall not exceed one half footcandle.”
9. Continue the large shade and ornamental tree planting along the EC frontage south of the site in all areas where
grading and/or tree removal are proposed.
10. Show the required ornamental trees along the EC frontage, south of the entrance into the site, to be planted in
Phase 1.
11. Indicate on the plan any easement associated with the electric line at the north and east corner of the property.
If an easement exists, shift proposed trees out of the easement without reducing quantities.
12. Provide all plant sizes in the landscape schedule.
13. Provide shrubs, 24” high at planting, along the southeast side of the parking lot in Block 2C.
14. Replace the white-barked Himalayan birch with an alternate tree that is more suited to the local climate and
coordinate the number of trees shown on the plan and those listed in the schedule.
15. Revise the screening trees north of Block 2A to a mix of species. Increase the planting area to comfortably
accommodate the trees and the wall or provide details showing how the proposed screening trees can be planted
on top of the wall in the minimal 5’ planting strip.
16. Indicate the individual trees to remain at the eastern corner of the site and show appropriate tree protection
fencing. Provide additional trees in this area, along and around the new slope, and at the base of the retaining wall,
to integrate the site into the surroundings. Coordinate the planting with utilities and easements.
17. Revise the grading plan to round contours with a ten foot minimum radius where they meet the adjacent
condition, for a natural appearance.
18. Clarify the 50’ tree preservation area with the sewer line running through it.
• Regarding conditions to be satisfied prior to issuance of a grading permit:
o Indicate the individual trees to remain at the eastern corner of the site and show appropriate tree protection
fencing on the plan.
Mr. Lebo seconded the motion.
The motion carried by a vote of 4:0. (Quale absent)
Requested Changes
Ellie Ray
From: Ellie Ray
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 9:52 AM
To: Rebecca Ragsdale; Justin Shimp
Cc: David Benish
Subject: RE: Riverside Village, Block 2C layout
I'll add that with a 20'travelway,the parking spaces would have to be 10'wide...it looks like these are only 9'. The issue
with the previous layout was about the future subdivision problems...that layout was approvable as a site plan. So, it
might be helpful to show us where you envision the internal lot lines being, that way we can comment on the
subdivision and not just the site plan.
Ellie Carter Ray,PLA
Senior Planner
Albemarle County Community Development
ph: 434.296.5832 x. 3432
From: Rebecca Ragsdale
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 9:45 AM
To: Justin Shimp; Ellie Ray
Cc: David Benish
Subject: RE: Riverside Village, Block 2C layout
Justin,
Ellie and I did take another look at this layout and the one you had shown on the initial site plan. Ellie may have
comments to add to this but here are my thoughts:
• Providing parking in garages, an apartment on the lower level, and 2-story townhomes on the upper levels is
permitted. Rental apartments can be provided to satisfy the affordable housing proffer.
• With 12 parking spaces in garages then only 12 parking lot spaces would be needed.
• A parking lot on its own parcel is considered stand-alone parking and is not a permitted use in Block 2.
• If the units are all on one parcel and condos,then parking setbacks would apply from Road C 15' and 5'from
property lines.
• I think the challenge will be to configure the parking lot spaces, or provide 2 parking spaces behind each unit in a
driveway, in a way that meets the parking setbacks if you want to create lots for sale. A variation could be
requested to parking setbacks.
I'd be happy to take a look at any other layout ideas you come up with for this block.
Thanks,
Rebecca
From: Justin Shimp [mailto:justin(ashimp-engineering.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 5:13 AM
To: Ellie Ray
Cc: David Benish; Rebecca Ragsdale
Subject: Riverside Village, Block 2C layout
Hello Ellie,
Following up to see if you'll had a chance to review this concept and the COD in more detail to see what might be done
about how we make the affordable units work in 2C? my intention with this design would be to have 2 car garages in
each unit with an affordable 1 BR unino.6n the same level and then the main unit o4.,ene two levels above. Each unit
would be a two unit townhome (which I guess is multi-family technically?) it would be sold like a townhome.
Thanks,
Justin M. Shimp, P.E.
President
Shimp Engineering, P.C.
201 E. Main Street,Suite M
Charlottesville VA 22902
E:Justin@shimp-engineering.com
P: 434-953-6116(Direct)
P:434-207-8086(Office)
F:804-302-7997
2
ell,
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper, Virginia 22701
Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E.
Commissioner
March 6, 2014
Ms. Ellie Carter Ray
Senior Planner
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: SDP - 2014 -0005 Riverside Village Initial Site Plan
Dear Ms. Ray:
We have reviewed the initial site development plan for Riverside Village dated 1 16 14 as submitted by Shimp
Engineering, P.C. and offer the following comments:
1. The utilities should cross the proposed State road perpendicularly. More specifically, the storm sewer from
structure A5 to A4 and the sanitary sewer from manhole 301 to 302 should be realigned so that they are
perpendicular to the roadway.
2. There should be CG -12's located on each side of Road `B" at the intersection with Road "A ".
3. There should be a turn around for Road "A" that is located within dedicated right -of -way.
4. Pavement design calculations need to be submitted for review.
5. Storm sewer calculations need to be submitted for review.
6. Street trees need to be located 30' at a minimum from the end of radius at each intersection as indicated in
Appendix B(1) of the Road Design Manual. This includes intersections with private alleys and streets.
7. Sight lines and available sight distance needs to be added for each intersection shown in the site plan. This
includes intersections with private alleys and streets.
8. Turn lane warrants need to be provided for review for each of the turn lanes proposed on Route 20.
9. The northern most entrance off of Route 20 needs to be designed in accordance with VDOT Commercial
Entrance standards as found in Appendix F of the Road Design Manual. A right -turn lane warrant should
be provided for this entrance. At a minimum, the northern most radius of this entrance should be off -set
12' with a 4:1 taper. In addition, as drawn there is only a 5' through lane shown on the north side of this
entrance due to the striping. This needs to be addressed.
10. Storm structure C10 is likely to require relocation as a result of comment #9.
If you need additional information concerning this project, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Troy Austin, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Culpeper District
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
TO: Ellie Ray, Senior Planner-Planning Services
FROM: Rebecca Ragsdale, Senior Planner-Zoning Services
DATE: March 6, 2014
RE: SDP 2014-05-Riverside Village Initial Site Plan
Review comments below focus on the proffers approved with the Riverside Village (ZMA 2012-
02) and the major elements required on the general development plan and in the code of
development.
• Townhouse units Block 3- The units proposed in Block 3B are townhouses according to
the zoning ordinance. Although the block description on page 5 mentions townhouses,
the Code of Development does not list townhouses as a permitted unit type in the
Development Block Summary table on page 4 or in the Table of Uses by Block on page
5. A variation is needed to allow townhouses in this block.
• Reminder about Building Separation-No encroachments are permitted into the required
building separation of 8’ as required in the Lot/Parking/Building Regulations on page 4.
This means that no eave overhangs or architectural features may project into the 8’
separation requirement.
• Proffer 1- Park Land Dedication/Trails system- The park should be dedicated to public
use prior to final site plan approval and the County will make this official request
according to the proffer during final site plan review.
• Proffer 2-Affordable Housing- No information is provided on how the affordable housing
proffer will be met.
• Proffer 4-Frontage and Other Road Improvements- All necessary plans and plat(s)
should be submitted and reviewed by VDOT to ensure this proffer is met. The proffer
requires the frontage improvements as part of the first site plan or subdivision plat.
1
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, VA, 22902
Phone 434-296-5832 Fax 434-972-4126
Memorandum
To: Justin Shimp (justin@shimp-engineering.com)
From: Ellie Ray, CLA, Senior Planner
Division: Planning
Date: March 5, 2014
Subject: SDP 201400005 Riverside Village - Initial
The County of Albemarle Planning Division will recommend approval of the plan referenced above once the
following comments have been satisfactorily addressed (The following comments are those that have been
identified at this time. Additional comments or conditions may be added or eliminated based on further review.):
[Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference, which is to the Subdivision/Zoning Ordinances unless
otherwise specified.]
1. [Comment] Note which blocks from ZMA201200002 are included in this application.
2. [Comment] This application was reviewed against Site Development Plan requirements only. It appears
that lot lines are shown on the plan, but no subdivision application was submitted. Any subdivision related
comments are provided for reference only unless necessary for site plan approval.
3. [32.5.2(a) & Proffer 4] Clearly delineate any area proposed to be dedicated for the improvements to Route
20. Additional land for the future widening of Route 20 (as noted in proffers) must also be dedicated by plat
contemporaneously with the Final Site Plan.
4. [32.5.2(a)] Add Entrance Corridor (EC) to the Zoning note.
5. [32.5.2(a)] List the Special Exceptions approved with the ZMA application on the cover sheet.
6. [32.5.2(a) & COD Section X] It appears that internal lot lines are shown within the parking lot serving Block
2C. If an internal parcel is proposed, this layout violates both the side and rear setbacks listed in Section X
of the Code of Development.
7. [32.5.2(b)] Provide information about the acreage occupied by each proposed use including residential,
roads, and open space.
8. [32.5.2(b)] Provide a breakdown of unit types listing the number of each proposed by block.
9. [32.5.2(b) & COD Section IV] It appears that a three unit row of townhouses is proposed in Block 3.
According the Section IV of the Code of Development, townhouses are not a permitted use. Zoning is
currently reviewing the Code of Development and the Initial Site Plan and will determine if this use complies;
a variation may be necessary to build the three unit row of dwelling units as proposed.
10. [32.5.2(b)] Provide the gross residential density for each Block and for the project overall.
11. [32.5.2(b) & COD Section VII] Provide a chart or other schedule demonstrating how the minimum green
space and amenity requirements listed in COD Section VII are being satisfied. It appears that minimum
requirements are not met in each block including: four benches and “plantings” along mews in Block 2, mix
of evergreen trees and shrubs in northern buffer #2 in Block 2, flowering trees in SWM facility #3 in Block 3,
flowering trees along the park connector in Block 3, and rear yard landscaping adjacent to northern
2
boundary (northern buffer #3) in Block 4. Is should also be noted that any buffer landscaping proposed on
individual lots will require a landscape maintenance easement when the lots are subdivided.
12. [32.5.2(b) & Application Plan] Provide a chart or other schedule demonstrating how the minimum parking
requirements are being satisfied, listing the amount required and provided. Block 2C does not provide the
minimum 24 spaces for 12 multi-family dwelling units. Additionally, since parking is proposed on individual
lots in Block 4, a minimum of 1 parking space per four dwelling units for guest parking is required.
13. [32.5.2(b) & COD Section IV] As noted above, it appears that internal lot lines are shown within the
parking lot serving Block 2C. If an internal parcel is proposed, this layout proposes stand-alone parking on
this internal parcel which is not a permitted use in Block 2 according to Section IV of the Code of
Development.
14. [32.5.2(i) & COD Section XIII] Provide a chart or other schedule listing the street cross sections approved
with the ZMA application and indicating the proposed cross sections. Streetscape requirements in the Code
of Development must also be met (see landscape comments below).
15. [32.5.2(i) & COD Section XIII] Section XIII describes Road “C” as a 12’ walkway, but the proposed design
includes only a 10’ walkway free of groundcover. The paver only portion of Road “C” should be increased to
a minimum 12’ width.
16. [32.5.2(k)] Verify that all necessary easements for proposed water, sewer and drainage facilities have been
shown on the plan.
17. [32.5.2(l)] Provide the location of any other existing or proposed utilities and utility easements including
telephone, cable, electric and gas.
18. [32.5.2(m)] Show the distance to the centerline of the nearest existing street intersection from the proposed
ingress and egress locations.
19. [32.5.2(n)] Provide the maximum footprint for all proposed buildings.
20. [32.5.2(n)] Dimension the full width of the retaining wall required for construction.
21. [32.5.2(n)] Show proposed lighting locations on the layout, utility and landscape sheets to verify no conflicts
exist.
22. [32.5.2(o)] Clearly show any areas intended to be dedicated or reserved for dedication to public use (such
as street right-of-way), and provide a note stating that the land is to be dedicated or reserved for public use.
23. [32.5.2(p) & 32.7.9.4(b)] Existing trees may be preserved in lieu of planting new plant materials in order to
satisfy the landscaping and screening requirements of section 32.7.9, subject to the agent’s approval. If you
intend to use existing trees to satisfy any of the landscape plan requirements, please include the following:
1. Areas and other features shown on landscape plan. The landscape plan shall show the trees to be
preserved, the limits of clearing, the location and type of protective fencing, grade changes requiring
tree wells or walls, and trenching or tunneling proposed beyond the limits of clearing.
2. Conservation checklist. The applicant shall sign a conservation checklist approved by the agent to
ensure that the specified trees will be protected during construction. Except as otherwise expressly
approved by the agent in a particular case, the checklist shall conform to the specifications in the
Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook, pages III-393 through III-413, and as hereafter
amended.
24. [32.5.2(p), 32.7.9.5 & COD Section IX] Provide flowering trees interspersed between street trees along the
Route 20 frontage as required by Section IX of the Code of Development.
25. [32.5.2(p), 32.7.9.5] When a parking lot is located such that parked cars will be visible from a public street,
low shrubs should be planted to minimize the view of the parked cars. The parking lot proposed in Block 2C
3
will be visible from Route 20 and internal Road A; provide shrubs along the eastern border of the parking lot,
and the western border that isn’t blocked by the proposed dwelling units.
26. [32.5.2(p) & 32.7.9.7] Proposed SWM Facility #3 should be screened from the adjacent residential lot.
27. [32.5.2(p) & 32.7.9.8] It appears the majority of the tree canopy requirement is being met with existing
trees; see #23 above for direction on how to verify and document preservation of existing trees.
28. [32.5.2(p), 32.7.9.8, and COD] The percentage of tree canopy required is determined by the gross
residential density of the proposal. The maximum gross residential density for Blocks 1-5 is listed in the
Code of Development as 8.1 dwelling units/acre, which would require 20% tree canopy. Please revise the
landscape notes to use 20% as the basis for the tree canopy requirement.
29. [32.5.2(p) & 32.7.9.8] The landscape schedule lists an incorrect count for Betula jacquemontii.
30. [32.5.2(p) & 32.7.9.8] Tree canopy calculations can be based on the proposed caliper at planting. Zelkova
serrata, Acer rubrum and Quercus phellos have three possible canopy calculations; 3.5” caliper, 2.5” caliper,
and the standard planting caliper. In order to use the larger canopy numbers, a breakdown of how many
trees are provided at each size is required. Additionally, the canopy number listed for Quercus phellos uses
the 3.5” caliper for all proposed trees when many of the trees are proposed at 2.5” caliper; please revise.
31. [32.5.2(p) & 32.7.9.8] Tree canopy consists of plants that will grow to 5’ or taller at maturity; many azaleas
do not get 5’ tall. Either provide information regarding the specific species proposed that will get 5’ tall or
remove the azalea canopy from the calculation.
32. [32.5.2(p) & 32.7.9.8] The landscape schedule provides an incorrect total tree canopy number.
33. [32.5.2(p)] Some of the proposed plantings appear to be within existing or proposed easements; show all
easements on the landscape plan, verify locations of plantings, and either move all landscaping outside of
easements or provide proof of authorization from the easement holder.
34. [32.5.2(p) & Application Plan] Utility lines are proposed within the “Tree Preservation Area” shown and
described on the approved Block Plan; the installation of this utility will require removal of many of these
preserved trees. Please clarify and revise.
35. [32.5.2(p) & COD Section IX] Provide a chart or other schedule demonstrating how the Landscape
Treatment requirements listed in Section IX of the Code of Development are being satisfied. Among
possible others, it appears that several requirements are not being met, including: flowering trees along
Route 20 (as previously noted); screening as listed for northern buffers #1, 2, & 3 (type and placement);
mitigation as listed for SWM facility #3 (no evergreen trees, no ornamental trees, no grasses proposed); and
the listed plant types for the Main Road entrance (ornamental trees, shrubs, ornamental grasses).
36. [32.5.2(p) & COD Section IX] It appears that 100 Thuja occidentalis are proposed at 5’ o.c. along the
retaining wall at the northern edge of the property. Thuja occidentalis species gets 10-15’ wide and may be
overcrowded; please indicate if a smaller cultivar is proposed. Also provide verification that these trees can
be safely planted in such close proximity to the proposed retaining wall.
37. [32.5.2(p) & COD Section IX] Section IX states that all plant species must conform to the Native Plants for
Virginia Landscapes list. Zelkova serrata, Betula jacquemontii, Acer griseum, many azaleas, and Juniperus
chinensis are not native plants.
38. [4.17] It appears that light poles may be located within proposed easements; verify locations and provide
documentation of authorization from the intended easement holder.
39. [4.17] Extend the photometric information toward Route 20 to demonstrate where the foot-candle levels
drop below 0.5.
4
40. [4.17] Provide the following standard lighting note on the lighting plan: Each outdoor luminaire equipped
with a lamp that emits 3,000 or more initial lumens shall be a full cutoff luminaire and shall be arranged or
shielded to reflect light away from adjoining residential districts and away from adjacent roads. The spillover
of lighting from luminaires onto public roads and property in residential or rural areas zoning districts shall
not exceed one-half foot-candle.
41. [Comment] ARB approval is required. Due to inclement weather, ARB review has been rescheduled from
March 3rd to March 17th. ARB comments will be provided after the March 17th meeting.
42. [Comment] If any off-site easements are required, they must be approved and recorded prior to Site Plan
approval. Among possible others, it appears easement(s) will be required for the proposed tree and shed
removal at the northern property line as shown on the demolition plan, and as indicated in ACSA comments.
Please contact Ellie Ray in the Planning Division by using eray@albemarle.org or 434-296-5832 ext. 3432 for
further information.
Project Name:
Date Completed:
Reviewer:
Department/Division/Agency:
Reviews
Comments:
Review Status:
Review Comments
Riverside Village - Initial
Tuesday, March 04, 2014
Margaret Maliszewski
ARB
Initial Site Plan
Due to inclement weather, ARB review of the Riverside Village initial plan has been rescheduled from March 3,
2014 to March 17, 2014. Comments will be provided after the March 17 meeting.
Requested Changes
Project Name:
Date Completed:
Reviewer:
Department/Division/Agency:
Reviews
Comments:
Review Status:
Review Comments
Riverside Village - Initial
Wednesday, February 26, 2014
Max Greene
Engineering
Initial Site Plan
`Safety railing between back of sidewalk and basin. Guard rail may be required along State Route 20.
`50' stations along center line of roads will be shown on the plan views for reference.
`Unobstructed sight distance lines at entrances are required to verify road design meets the minimum standards.
`VDOT approval will be required prior to final site plan approval.
See Recommendations
Project Name:
Date Completed:
Reviewer:
Department/Division/Agency:
Reviews
Comments:
Review Status:
Review Comments
Riverside Village - Initial
Tuesday, February 18, 2014
Ellie Ray
Soil && Water Conservation
Initial Site Plan
2/14/2014 Soils Report received from TJ Soil and Water Conservation District
See Recommendations
Project Name:
Date Completed:
Reviewer:
Department/Division/Agency:
Reviews
Comments:
Review Status:
Review Comments
Riverside Village - Initial
Monday, February 10, 2014
Robbie Gilmer
Fire Rescue
Initial Site Plan
Based on plans dated 1/16/14
1. Hydrant spacing shall be every 500 feet per travel way.
2. Provide the spec's on the street pavers on Road C. They should support the weight of the apparatus per
VSFPC 502.2.3
3. Road A shall be marked "No Parking Fire Lane" on one side, Road B Shall be marked "NO Parking Fire Lane on
Both sides to include the turn around area located at the end of the street. Road C shall be marked "No Parking
Fire Lane" on Both sides.
Requested Changes
Project Name:
Date Completed:
Reviewer:
Department/Division/Agency:
Reviews
Comments:
Review Status:
Review Comments
Riverside Village - Initial
Thursday, January 30, 2014
Andrew Slack
E911
Initial Site Plan
The applicant should contact this office with a list of three (3) proposed road names for each of the following roads,
"Road A", "Road B", and "Road C" before final plans are submitted.
Requested Changes
Project Name:
Date Completed:
Reviewer:
Department/Division/Agency:
Reviews
Comments:
Review Status:
Review Comments
Riverside Village - Initial
Tuesday, January 28, 2014
Jay Schlothauer
Inspections
Initial Site Plan
Based on plans dated January 16, 2014.
No comments or conditions.
No Objection