Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201500036 Review Comments Road Plan and Comps. 2015-08-05R COMMON WEAL`FH of VIRGINIA CEPAK 1 MENT aF TKANSPaRTATION 1601 Omngw Re -d oolpeper Virginia Z--, C1`1 -1`63 A. Rilparivk, P.t. Commissioner August 5. 2015 Mr. Jvhn Anacr3u„ County of Albemarle Department of Community uevelopment 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: SUn -1015 -00119 Rivµnna Village, Pha3c, I Road Pian3 Dear Mr. Ande, sou: We have reviewed tnz ,gad plans for R;vanna Village, Phase 1 dated 6/18/15 as submitted by Alan Franklin and offer the f ;uuw;ng com,nent3: 1. There appea, to be numerous drafting errors with the road r,lana. Potentially tnc,z; have been teaesign iteratio„s of the layout and some of the labels may have not been correetzZ. Examples of 3%r,,,c, ur the errors ate as follows: On Street 5 ut 25, there ;s a note call;ng out a CG -12, Type C at Lot L6; however, there n:.t appear tu oc. a CG -12 at this location. ■ On Snc ut3 12, 16, aA 18 of 25 there ;s a label ur reference to SD G3 -1 on windins Road, however there di-Ic.3 nut appea, tv be a d,up Inlet for SD G3 -1. On Smut 18 of 25, tnt.rc; are sevetai labels that have duplicate arrows to the features that they are identiryinb. • On Sheet 18 of 25, tnzrc are iabci3 for SS F1, SD N1, SD N2_ ana SD Ml near Sycamore Lane; however there do not arr,eur to be tc.atutes as3uc;ated with these labels. • The Sheet Numbers for Sheets -f, a and 23 of 25 we missmg. • Sheets I6 and 18 are mislabeled as Sheet3 16 and 18 of 24. 2. Ou Sheet 2. there needs to be a note indicating that vDOT will oc c. -vntactea 48 nuurs in advance ut starting cunst, action. VDOT should also be included in the pre - construct mec,ting. 3. Sheet L has a Trir Ge„cration table, nuwcver, there Should be a detail ide,rtifying the proposed ADT for each individual street as tnia infbrmat;o,„ is necessary to dete,,,,i„e the approp,iate roadway typical section. 4. The plan should clearly identify which lots are single family residential and which conacrninium/t-uwtiii-, u3e�"dupl e,t. 5. On Sheet zF there is a note stating "Potential Ct,l -De -Sac Area, See Note #7 ". Where is ,tare 7 and is this notation necessary as the cul- de -3a,. has bec,n 3nuwn'! 6. On Sn=t 5, the radii fu, tnc; h.t xsectiun ut SycamULe Lane and Main Street have been shown as t D - . The minimum radii anc;,ti ed by tnc; Ruad Design Manual, Appendix B(1) is 25'. 7. Sight l;ne5 and p,ufiles tu, each intersection needs to be provided for review. 8. Tnc CG -12 at the inter3ection of Sweet Gum Lane and Main Street does not have a receiving CG -12 and should be rcm'vved. 9. Typically, the preference is to not locate CG -127s in tnc .midpoint of the i„tersect;u„ , etunts. This directs a visually impaired person towards the uc.tcr of the inter3CCtion. The preference ;5 to luca,e CG -12's perpenaiCular to the road centerline near the intersect ;u,.. The CV -127s at the intersections of Steamer Drive and Main Street_ and at Sycamore Lane any Dutn Main Strect slid Steamzt Drive, ans at Sweet Gut„ Lane and Steamer Drive should be revised accordin ,,iy. 10. Midblock ctassings are discouraged. Approval from NWRu fur tnL rnidblock CtU33ing3 vn Mai„ Street, Wina;ng Ruad_ and Steamer Drive will be required. 11. The proposes .ud;u3 of the cul -se -sac on Steamer Drive steeds to be added to the plan. iz. nxmending centerline }.runic yr Steamer Drive through the cul -se -Sac does not serve any real purpose. The centerline should berin at tnz::.enter of the Sul -de -sac and then run perpendicularly to the mainline centerline of Steamer Drive. 13. Spot elevations along the curbing of the cul -de -Sac should be provided to ensure positive sr-.;huge from the cui -de -sac. 14. The centerline of Sweet G.m Lm.e shouts i,rtersect Mai„ Street ans Steamer Dive perpendicularly. 15. Th; stations and finished grade elevations of each cross street needy to DC added to tnc road ce„tuti;ne profiles. Specifically_ the Stations and elevations for the intersections warn S,rycet Gum Lanc, Pri -,ate Alley "A ", P,ivate Alley "C ". and Sycamore Lane needs to be added to the .rofiles fur Stcanner D,.vc and Main Street. In addition_ the stau-un and elevation of the intersection of Steamer Drive m-.s Main Street needs to be added to the Ma ;t, Street profile. 16. The design speeds for each toad section is based on the ADT for each road section. To this ens, the ADT wr each specific roadway needs to be provided. In addition, it appears that the .0 mph/25 mrh desi&. 3pceds snown on the Steamer Drive ptatile should be reversed. 17. i he method of c- u,urol fill for the till sections of the roadways shouls Dc added to the profiles. 18. On tiic prunle for Swect Gum Lan ;, the beginning and ending labels for the profile appear to be reversed. The nigher elevat; -Ur, aide of the profile should be Steame, Drive and the lower elevation side should be Main Str4ct. 19. 1 he profile for Sweet Gum Lane shows the intersection with Steamer Dry, c to be at Station 10 +01.74. The stat;an for this intersection shown on Sheet D of i-:) indicates the staGun .3 10 +00. 1 n ;3 3t3tiuning sht;uld be the Same. 20. The profile for Sycamore La,x shows tnc intersection with Steamy, Dt;ve to be at 10-00. The Station for this intersection shown on Sheet 5 ur 25 ind;catC3 the station ;s 10 +12.57. Th;s stationing should be the same. 21. 1 nc profile fur Sycamore Lane Shuws the intersection with Main Street to be at t L'Y80. The stat;un rur this inter3zctiun shown un Sheet 5 ut 25 indicates the station is 1292.57. This stationing should be the san.c. 22. "The station and elevation of the low point in the 3ar, u1` Winding Ruau should be added to the ptafiIe. 23. It appears that the p,ufile fo, Alley B on Sheet 7 of 25 is actually the profile for Alley C and vice vcr3u based un tnc labels of these alleys an Sheet 5 of 25. 24. 1 ne a13ta .cc rrom the NICK ur curb to the Street trees needs to be Shown in the typical sections. mote, the minimum distance i3 3. 25. In all typical sections_ the minimum distance of the rignt -of -way beyuna the sidewwK is P. The typical for Main Sure, (Station 12-50 to 18 +00) needs to be revised accordin.ly. 26. 1 he labels for the CG -6 ir, the typical sections for Mai„ Street are not pointing to the curb. 27. The typical section for main Street ( Statiun 12 *50 to 18+00) ir,(licatc3 parking Vn bvth Sides of the road. The numerous entrances shown on the north side of Main StrCet appears to rn7Ru this not practical. 28. The typical 3cction for Steamer Drive front Station 10 +00 to 14-50 indicates that the ADT is between 2,000 and 4,000 veni:.lc3 per day. HVWGVGI, based on the Stationing shown on Sheet 5 of 2D, this is the cul -de -sac sect. -.. ur Steamer Drive and this ADT is not accurate. It appears the ADTs shown for the two typical sections of SteaTax, Drive have been reversed. 29. The graded ur tnc ,uadway, landscape strip, and sidewalk need to be Shown on each typical section. 30. The pavement design should be added to each typical 3,.ctiun. 31. Both typical sections for Steamer Drive indicate that there will either be no on-3t, =t parking a, parking on one Side. This needs to be defined US to which condition will occur VII urtzh section. Furtncrmore, wh;cn Side of the ruaaway parking will be allowed needs to be identified and No Parking Signs nee'n tu bC added to the plan, i.rdicating which side Of the street parking will be allowed. 32. The Most current details from the 2008 Road and Bridge standards for the CG -12, the CG -9 and the pavement widening need to be provided in the plans. 33. Tnc lcrt turn lane and taper un GlenrtrOrc Way into Mai„ Street needs to be regraded in plan view. in addition, the rua(_13ia4 ditch neea3 tu be relocated Ina regraded as the left turn lane will be removing the ditch. 34. On Sheet 10 of 25_ it appears that the left turn lane is shown on the wron, side or tnc typical sectio,r. 35. 1 ne typical Sections 3ncwn an Sheet 10 at 25 are not it, accordance with the pavement widening t w r -2) standard as 3nu., n in the 2008 Read and Bridge Standards. 36. The pavement designs shown on sheet 11 of 25 are incurrz.ct. The BM -25 course is actually the Base course and the 21A aggregate is actually the sub -base course. A3 7.wch, the equivalency value for the 21A should be 0.6 instead of 1. The designs with AU 1 of 200 W,a 600 appear to be adequate, but the designs with ADT of 2.200 and 4,400 do not. The designs need to be revises. 37. It appears to be a need for a drainage easement between SD A10 -1 and SD A10. 38.'l he tulluwing structures were included in the storm sewer structure schedule D..t could ,rut be found un the plan: SD N1 • SD N2 • SD B3 -1 • SD K1 • SD K2 • SL G3 -1 39. A column tar height of structure should be added to tnc 3t-Vvm newer 3tructtlre schedule. 40. 'l here are several diSctepancies in the data for the storm sewer system betwee., tlic profiles, the stvinr structure schedule and the Storm sewer calculations. A full review of the 3tv,,,. 3ti.wer calculations will be .nade once these aisctepancies have been corrected. zF I I. There is greater pc,tcntiarl for leakage ;.. tnc public waterline at ttttings than there is if the waterline is deflected. i he following locations of bendy in tnz waterline 3nu.ld be reevaluates: • It appears that the waterline along winding Road could be aericctcd instead et using the bends Cut ernly Shown. • It would be preferable to replace the two 45° bends at the intersection of Glet„nole Way and Mai„ Street with a single 90° bend. The waterline sh;tts tiom one side of the road to the other on Steamer tcoad near Lot B8. The waterline ShuuId remain on the sane Side of the load. zL. Utilities should cm33 tnz roadway perpend ;a.ularly er as close a5 possible. Locations of concern that need to be reevaluated are: • The storm sewer cr, winr, et Winding Road between SD 15 and SD 14. The stun,, Sewer cro33,r g et Syea mire Lane between SD A5 -3 ana SD A5 -2. Tnu sanitary 3s.wc:r crossing of Stea,nc, Drive between SS A18 and SS A17. 43. The inverts of the storm sewer structures 3nu..la be labeled as c;tncr Invert I„ m Invert Out instead of having a bearing. In addition; the invert ins should ina;V-atu which structure they are coming trot„ and all invert his to a structure should be included in the label ut the structu,u un the profiles. 44. It ar,,ears tnat SD B2 as 3ni+wn un the profile for Sturm, Sewer "B" on Sheet 14 of 25 could be lowered to existin�,s.ade to avui5 putCr,t;ul Settling of tnu inlet. 45. It appears that the final and existing grades in the Storm Sewer -A7" have Ducn rever3ca. 46. It appears that SD B2. SD 132 -1. and SD 132 -2 as shown on the profile for Storm Sewer 'B2" un Sheet 14 ut 25 could be lowetea to existing grade to avoid potential sealing of the inlets. 47. The separation between utility crossings and tn4 3t-VTM Sewer shu,.tn bu labeled tut each ctossi„g ill the storm sewer profiles. Many of these separations have been [uazled, but several have nut. 48. There appuar3 to be a uvuply of conflicts between the storm sewe, and utility crossings. Two of the locat ;un3 are as follvw3: Sanitary Sewer A crus3;ng between SD A3 and SD A4. Samitary Sewe, A crossing between SD C2 and SD C3. ,49. An erosion and sea;rnunt control plan .,ends to be provided tu, this project to, review. This can be a separate submittal. 50. A maintenance of traffic plan needs to be provided for this project for review. This can be a Separate submittal. we are currently usin, the arttaruhed checxl;3t3 nuring our review ut toad and site plans. It stay be helpful for the engineer to use these checklists du,.ny, cun3trp4tion plan aevulopment to reduce the numbe, of review comments by VDOT. Due to the numerous commelts u3sociatea w;th this ,eview, it may be beneficial to meet with the design engineer to review the comments. if you need additional inmr,nartion cunccrn;ng this project, please 5u not hesitate to contact ,ne ac (434) 422 -9782. SiSLin- , T P.E. Area Land Use Engineer Culpupe, District WE KEEP vIRGIMIH PlOvInG COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville,. Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 August 19, 2015 Alan Franklin 427 Cranberry Lane Crozet VA 22932 RE: SDP201500036 Rivanna Village Phase 1, Block A Villas — Initial Site Plan Dear Mr. Franklin: The Site Review Committee has reviewed the development proposal referenced above. Initial comments for the following divisions of the Department of Community Development and other agencies, as applicable, are attached: Albemarle County Planning Services (Planner) Albemarle County Engineering Services (Engineer) Virginia Department of Transportation Albemarle County Department of Fire Rescue Albemarle County Information Services (E911) -------Albemarlee County - Service Aut ority Police Department Albemarle County Building Inspections (to be forwarded upon receipt) Comments reflect information available at the time the development proposal was reviewed, and should not be considered final. However, the Site Review Committee has attempted to identify all issues that will be required to be resolved prior to Final Site Plan approval. Please contact me at your earliest convenience if you have questions or require additional information. Sincerely; Christopher P. Perez Senior Planner Planning Services COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community. Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 August 19, 2015 Alan Franklin 427 Cranberry Lane Crozet VA 22932 RE: SDP201500036 Rivanna Village Phase 1, Block A Villas — Initial Site Plan Dear Sir: Department of Community Development has reviewed the above referenced site plan (dated 7 -6 -15) against applicable Code of Development, Proffers, Application Plan, and other codes and ordinances. Comments are provided below; however, 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] This application was reviewed against Site Development Plan requirements only. Road plans being reviewed simultaneously and comments will be provided under separate cover. Also, it appears that lot lines are shown on the plan but no subdivision application was submitted at this time. -- _- — -- _ Any-subdivision or- road plan related- comments - are - provided -for reference-only-unless-necessary-for - site plan approval. 2. [ZMA201300012 Proffer 10] Prior to Initial Site Plan approval submit Construction. Traffic Management Plan (`CTM') as described in the proffer. Please coordinate `CTM' with road plans under review. This item cannot be a condition of'initial site plan approval. Please be aware: "The owner shall obtain approval of the CTMPlan by the Director before the County approves any grading permit for the property... " 3. [ZMA201300012 Proffer 10A] Assure the CMT establishes the location, design and width of the shared use path (the `trail' as labeled on the initial site plan). 4. [ZMA201300012 Proffer 3] Route 250 and Eastern Entrance Improvements. "The owner shall either construct left and right turn lanes on Route 250 at the eastern entrance to the property or bond these improvements prior to approval of the first site plan or subdivision plat for the development... " The above shall take place prior to final site plan approval. 5. [ZMA201300012 Proffer 8, Code of Development Section 5.4.1] Landscape Buffer along Glenmore Way. On the plan provide the full width of the retaining walls to include the underground geo grid, as the geo grid is part of the retaining wall. Notably retaining walls are not permitted to be within the 70' buffer per Section 5.4.1 of the Code of Development. As depicted on sheet C2.2 the existing trees within the required 70' buffer are being disturbed to provide for the retaining walls; however, as discussed above this is not permitted. Revise appropriately so no portion of the retaining wall is disturbing the 70' buffer. 6. [ZMA201300012 Proffer 8, Code of Development Section 5.4.1] Landscape Buffer along Glenmore Way. On the final site plan depict the amount of disturbance and the grading required for the installation of the trail. 7. [ZMA201300012 Proffer 8, Code of.Development Section 5.4.11 Landscape Buffer along Glenmore Way. On the site plan assure that the entire 70' landscape buffer within Block A is depicted, as the final site plan dictates the landscaping requirements for this feature. Notably, sheet C1.I will not be adequate on the final site plan to meet the above mentioned requirement as it is merely an overview. Revise appropriately. 8. [32.7.9] Landscape Plan. On sheet C2.0 it is noted that Screen Plantings are Part of Road Plans; however, these types of plantings (screening) are required to be captured and accounted for on the final site plan's landscape plan. Revise appropriately. 9. [32.5.2(e), 32.7.9.4(c)] Existing landscape features. "The landscape plan shall show the existing landscape features on the site, which shall include: (1) Wooded areas. All wooded areas, identifying whether they are composed of evergreen, deciduous, or a mix of type, and showing the location of the tree line; (2) Small groups of trees and individual trees. Small groups of trees and individual trees of six (6) inch caliper or greater, or ornamental trees of any size, identified by common name and approximate caliper and showing their location; " Assure that the final site plan provides the above detail for the site, with special attention to the 70' buffer area on Glenmore Way. Revise appropriately. 10. [32.5.2(m)] Ingress and Egress. The proposed first entrance of `Winding Road' from Glenmore Way (near Villa Al on the site plan) is not depicted on the site plan but rather only depicted on the road plan. Prior to final site plan approval the entrance and the entire duration of the proposed road shall - - be- depicted -on the- site - plan -and approved -by VDOT. ( See -V -DOT- comments- dated 8- 18 -15,- -with— - - - -- - -- -- special attention to #3). Notably, sheet CI.1 will not be adequate on the final site plan to meet the above mentioned requirement as it is merely an overview. Revise appropriately. 11. [32.5.2(n)] Proposed Improvements. Assure that all improvements (except the single family detached units) within Block A are depicted on the final site plan to include all trails /shared use paths.-Notably, sheet C1.I will not be adequate on the final site plan to meet the above mentioned requirement as it is merely an overview. Revise appropriately. 12. [Code of Development Section 4.2] Covenants to Provide Architectural Review Committee. Prior to final site plan and /or final subdivision plat approval a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Rivanna Village shall be reviewed /approved by the County Attorney's office in consultation with County Planning staff. The above document shall be approved by the County and recorded by the developer prior to final site plan and /or final subdivision plat approval. The DB page reference information of this recorded document shall be noted on the final site plan and /or final subdivision plat. 13. [ZMA201300012 Proffer 9] Affordable housing. The owner shall provide affordable housing equal to 15% of the total residential units constructed on the property. On all final site plan and final subdivision plats assure that the affordable units for the entire development are clearly tracked in a chart provided on the cover sheet, regardless if any affordable units are proposed for said block. 14. [ZMA201300012 Proffer 5, 32.5.2(d)] An easement plat by David A. Jordan of Roudabush, Gale & Associates [SUB2015 -13 8 Rivanna Village Easement plat] has been submitted to the County, which proposes various easements required for the grading, drainage, SWMPBMP, and Trails ... etc for improvements in Block A and H. Prior to final site plan approval the required easements shall be reviewed and approved by the County and recorded in the Clerk's Office by the developer. The DB page reference information of this recorded document shall be noted on the final site plan. "If the required easements are not provided, alternative stormwater management (to be consistent with the stormwater requirements for the overall project) will be provided which does not compromise the design ofBlockA and H. " 15. [Code of Development- Attachment B - sheet 71 Open Space and Recreational Plan. - To avoid confusion, throughout the plan revise the labels for the "Open Amenity Space" to be consistent with the rezoning. For this Block please label these areas as "Open Space /Green Space Area: Linear Park w/ Trails ". The reasoning behind the above request is that these areas in Block A are labeled in Attachment B dated 7 -15 -13 as "Linear Park with Trails" (which is a portion of the sites' 13.26 acres .of this designation), which is a part of the sites' "Amenity Area" (which makes up 3 1.6 8 acres of the site), which is a part of the developments total "Open Space /Greenspace Area" (which makes up 3 7.52 acres of the site). Excluding areas in Block K. - Also, to avoid confusion it is advisable to track the Open Space Statistics for the development as page 7 of Attachment B did (see below). TOTAL SITE AREA 94.76 ACRES INCLUDING BLOCK K (ME STATION) - COMMUNITYPARK 18.42ACRE6* Plus LINEARPARKW /TRAILS 13.26ACRE AMENITY AREA 31A ACRES (35.7%)* AMENITYAREA 31.68ACRES* Phis OTHER OPEN SPACE 7.67 ACRES* IMPERVIOUS AREAS 1.83 ACRES* TOTAL OPEN SPACE /GREENSPACEAREA 37.52 ACRES (42.3%)* *EXCLUDES AREA IN BLOCK K (FIRE STATION) BASKETBALL COURT 2TENNIS COURTS 2 PICNIC SHELTERS LARGE PLAYFIELD PLAYGROUND M/F RESTROOM FACILTY CC DOG PARK WrMPIERAT QUARRY ��. PONDWITHPIER >,- WOODED GROVE WITH QUARRY•SIDE PAVILION, `may 0 8,650 LF OF PAVED TRAILS 16. [ZMA201300012 Proffer 6, Code of Development Section 8,32.5.2(o)] Construction and Dedication of Parks and Recreation Improvements. Block A contains `Linear Park Areas' subject to Proffer 6 and Section 8 of the Code of Development, as such, on the site plan provide a note that states: "Linear Park Area hereby dedicated to public use " Prior to approval of the final subdivision plat County Planning staff shall coordinate with the Director of Planning, Parks & Recreation, and the County Engineering to determine if the land shall be dedicated with the final subdivision plat for this Block or at a later date. The dedication of this land shall be in a form acceptable to the County Attorney and the Director of Planning. 17. [32.5.2(a)] General Information. On Sheet CO. 1, under project data the site plan lists all tax map parcels involved in the rezoning. Please revise this note to specify which tax map parcels this site plan covers 18.'[32.5.2(a)] General Information. On sheet CO. 1, under Project Data, under Proffers assure that an additional note is added which stated that a Code of Development dated June 9, 2014 and titled: "Rivanna Village Amended and Restated Code of Development' ' applied to this development. 19. [Comment] If the applicant chooses or is required to resubmit the initial site plan on sheet 1 assure that the site plan number is included: SDP2015 -36). 20. [32.5.2(a), (b)] General Information. On sheet CO. 1, under Project Data, Parking Requirements are listed; however, the parking calculations account for Single Family Detached Units; however, such a unit type is not being proposed on this site plan. Revise the parking calculations to omit that unit type to avoid any confusion. 21. [32.5.2(b), 4.12.6, Code of Development Section 7.1] Parking. On sheet CO. 1, under Project Data, Parking Requirements of 61 spaces are correctly listed for the 27 Single Family Attached units; however, the calculations should be broken down to their simplest form. Assure that the number of bedrooms for each unit is provided /listed on the plan (2 of more bedrooms * 27 = 54 required parking spaces). Also, assure that the required Guest Spaces are separately calculated and listed (27 units /4= 7 guest spaces). If the guest spaces are not located on each individual lot and are proposed within the R/W assure that the physical location of the guest spaces are labeled and marked (stripped or signed) on the final site plan, currently they are not depicted on the site plan. 22. [32.5.2(b), 4.12.6] Parking. On sheet CO. 1, under Project Data, Parking Requirements, under Provided Parking 124 spaces are accounted for; however, this far exceeds the maximum 20% over the -- - __- required - spaces - which_ are - permitted -by- the - ordinance:- Prior -to final - site - plan - approval- revise - - - -- -- appropriately. 23. [32.5.2(b), 4.12.61 Parking. On sheet CO. 1, under Project Data, Parking Requirements are listed as each unit providing a 2 car garage and a driveway which can handle 2 parked cars. Also on sheet C2.0 Villa A3 provides a typical dimension for the garage and driveway; however, the dimensions provided are not universal for all of the driveways, nor all of the garages. On the site plan dimension each driveway and each garage to assure the required parking can be accommodated. Revise appropriately. Each parking space shall be a minimum of 9' wide by 18' long. - The proposed 16'wide garage does not provide enough width to accommodate two parked cars. Either reduce the number of `provided' spaces in the garage or widen the garage to accommodate two vehicles. If the latter is chosen, when dimensioning the garage please take into account the garage entrance door walls and interior drywall. Revise appropriately. - The proposed 16'wide driveway does not provide enough width to accommodate two parked cars. Either reduce the number of `provided' spaces in the driveway or widen the driveway to accommodate two vehicles. Revise appropriately. 24. [32.5.2(b), 4.12.61 Parking. `Winding Road' is listed as 29' FC/FC and 60' R/W. The Code of Development provides that typical road section type with either parking on one side or no street parking. What is being proposed for this Block, please include a typical road section in the site plan. If street parking is proposed on the site plan please label and sign appropriately (ie. parking on one side and depict it or no parking). Revise appropriately. 25. [Code of Development Section 3.31 Lot Regulations /Minimum lot size. Assure that the minimum lot size for each proposed duplex or multiplex lot can be met. Currently no lot minimums are provided on the site plan. While not required for site plan approval, it is advisable to keep track of this for subdivision purposes, as it will be required prior to final subdivision plat approval. The minimum lot size for these units is 3, 000 SF. There is no maximum. 26. [Code of Development Section 3.3] Lot Regulation /Setbacks. On sheet CO. 1, under Project Data, Setbacks, add a Side Setback for: any unit which has a road or alley at its side, the minimum side yard setback is increased to 15 feet. 27. [32.5.2(b), Code of Development Section 3.4] Building Height Regulations. On sheet CO. 1, under Project Data, assure a note is added which lists the maximum building height for proposed structures. The Code of Development has a limit of 50' for building height. 28. [32.5.2(d)] Managed Slopes. There are managed slopes in various portions of Block A, assure they are correctly depicted and labeled on the final site plan. Any disturbance of these slopes shall be per the County's Design Guidelines. 29. [32.5.2(k)] Proposed sewer and drainage facilities. On the site plan for the storm drainage system provide direction of flow in all pipes and watercourses with arrows. 30. [32.5.2(a)] WaiverslSpecial Exceptions. Numerous waivers were granted with ZMA2001 -08 and were carried over with ZMA2013 -12. On the site plan list all waivers which apply to this development. These waivers can be found in the August 6" 2014 . BOS action letter. Revise appropriately. - —34:-P2 5.2(n)' Code- of-Development Sectiow8] -Proposed - Improvements:-On- the final- site -plan provide -- -- - - -- typical sections for trails (6' wide asphalt per Section 8 of the Code of Dev), sidewalks, and road improvements. Also, in addition to the typical assure the improvements are dimensioned on the plan. Revise appropriately. 32. [32.5.1(c), 32.5.2(n)] Dimensions. On the plan provide the dimensions of all the proposed structures (specifically units A5 — A16, as the others have been dimensioned). 33. [32.5.2(k)] Verify that all necessary easements for proposed water, sewer and drainage facilities have been shown on the plan. 34. [Comment] Water lines are currently depicted in the middle of the roadway, this will not be acceptable to VDOT, when relocating them assure they are relocated as not to interfere with the required street trees. 35. [32.5.2(p) & 32.7.9.7] Proposed SWM Facility should be screened from the adjacent residential lots. 36. [32.5.2(n) & (p), Code of Development Section 5.11 The following will be required for final site plan approval: - If lighting is proposed: Outdoor lighting information including a photometric plan and location, description, and photograph or diagram of each type of outdoor luminaire [Sec. 32.7.8 & Sec. 4.17] - A landscape plan in accordance with Sec. 32.7.9, except where the provisions of the Code of Development are more stringent. 37. [Comment] Attached is the Soil Report furnished by Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District dated August 4, 2015. Please take the soils into consideration. Engineering Comments — John Anderson See attached comments dated 8 -19 -15 VDOT— Troy Austin See attached comments dated 8 -18 -15 Fire and Rescue — Robbie Gilmer 1. Streets 29' or less shall be marked on one side "No Parking Fire Lane" per County code requirments. 2. Fire flow test required before final approval. E911— Andrew Slack The applicant should contact this office with a list of three (3) replacement names for "Main Street ". That road name is not an acceptable road name. ACSA — Alex Morrison I have reviewed the above referenced plan. Currently the overall utility plan for Rivanna Village is under review by the ACSA. I hereby recommend approval of SDP201500036 with a condition that approval for the final site plan will not be granted until utility approval is given by the ACSA for Rivanna Village. Police Department — Steve Watson See attached comments dated 8 -17 -15 Building Inspections — Jay Schlothauer - Comments pending Please contact Christopher P. Perez in the Planning Division by using cperezQalbemarle.org or 434 -296- --- 3832 ext. -3443 for further- information or if-you- have questions. -- - -- - - -- - -- - -- -- - -- COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 Project: Rivanna Village, Phase 1, Block A, Villas — Initial Plan preparer: Alan Franklin, 427 Cranberry Lane, Crozet, VA 2293 [clan @alanfranklinpe.coml Owner or rep.: Rivanna Village, 314 E Water St, Charlottesville, VA 22902 Plan received date: 17 Jul 2015 Date of comments: 19 Aug 2015 Reviewer: John Anderson Plan Coordinator: Christopher Perez SRC: 20 -Au;- -2015 A. Initial Site Plan (SDP201500036) 1. Note: WP0201400077 SWMP (Approved 16 -Jun 2015) provides design to control storm runoff from 11.904 Ac. of impervious area. The SWMP shows rough grading, and depicts hardscape features in light - gray line type. Approved VSMP/WPO SWM Plan should be amended to show hardscape layout consistent with Final Site and Road Plan. Depicting roadway /structures as a layer without complementary fine grade contours is unusual. The Final Site Plan cannot be approved until SWMP contours match FSP fine grade contours, and until SWMP includes proposed layout consistent with Final Site Plan. Lots may only be graded consistent with the Approved SWMP. SWM facilities must be bonded prior to Final Site Plan Approval. SWM Facility, Access, and Drainage Easements must be recorded prior to Final Site Plan Approval: A SWM Maintenance Agreement-for Rivanna Village Phase -l- (blocks -A, B, C, -D,- E & -H) is -- required to be recorded prior to Final Site Plan Approval. (Additional Note: In the future, SWM- related/ Drainage Easements and Maintenance Agreements will be required to be recorded prior to WPO Approval.) Scott Blossom, PE, Stantec, sent note (8/19/2015 4:02 PM) stating: "The stormwater plans were designed to treat the impervious area associated with Phase 1 development, including proposed roads, sidewalks, hardscape and structures. The impervious areas are depicted within the stormwater plan set, and the supporting calculations for runoff reduction, channel adequacy and TR -55 based hydrology were all provided and approved along with the plan set." 2. ZMA Proffer #10 includes text immediately following 10.G. that reads in part: "The Owner shall obtain approval of the CTMPlan by the Director (of Community Development) before the County approves any grading permit for the property, and shall satisfy and thereafter ... Any approval of the Director required by this proffer shall be made only after consultation with the Owner, the County Engineer and VDOT." VDOT Road Plan comment #50 requests a maintenance of traffic plan. This is a separate plan, not identical with Proffer Condition #10 CTM Plan. Please note: Albemarle County is prohibited from issuing a grading permit prior to approval of the CTM Plan. Provide CTMPlan as soon as possible. 3. Note: SLTB201500119 (P1 Rivanna Village Public Road, Water & Sanitary Sewer - Road Plans) is under review. ACF &R (d. 7/12/15) and VDOT comments (d. 8/5/15) are available via CV database system. Engineering and Planning Division comments on road plans received 6/23/15 will be sent as soon as possible. Road Plans must be approved and bonded prior to Final Site Plan Approval. Also, VDOT comments indicate response to road plan comments may affect Initial or Final Site Plan. Please coordinate road plan comments with individual reviewing agencies /reviewers, and carry design revisions (required by road plan comments) through to Initial or Final Site Plan as necessary. 4. Note: Coordinate design revisions with ACSA. ACSA road /utility plan approval is required prior to Final Site Plan Approval. Easements relating to Glenmore GST and associated new water line are relevant to Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 3 Final Site Plan (visible on C2.1 as 20' ACSA Easement). 5. Submit Construction Traffic Management Plan (`CTM'). Reference ZMA Proffer Condition #10. Coordinate `CTM' with road plans. 6. Woods credited in SWM compliance computations (WPO201400077; 19 -Dec 2014 plan review comment; B.2, image below) require permanent easement. Ensure that (confirm if/whether) 0.705 Ac. Preserved Woods visible on C2.2 are preserved via conservation easement if credited in SWM computations. .2. N'Vhere preserved /Porested.areas.are credited in the:computations, there must he temporary physical barriers and permanent easement measures:provided to ensure they remain undisturbed. 7. C1.1 Provide phase lines and the proposed (approximate) timing of development for Rivanna Village. — Ref. 18- 32.5.2.c. [Recommend revise C1.1, or include separate sheet similar to Sheet 6 of Attachment B. (ZMA201300012/12- 16 -13, Mark E. Keller /Alan G. Franklin, Terra Concepts, P.C.)] 8. CO. 1 —Trip Generation Estimates table: identify number of condominium /townhouse /duplex units associated with Ave. weekday /peak/weekend estimates (as with single- family detached =4). Note: these values relate to CTM Plan, but may not serve as accurate parameter for public /private street pavement design. Pavement design for streets within the development should reflect ultimate (full build -out) ADT estimates. 9. CO.1 Project Data: Although ISP may not make additional waiver /variance requests, this descriptor may be inconsistent with Planning Div. expectation for ISP/FSP. Defer to Planning on whether this descriptor requires revision consistent with waiver /variance requests granted by initial or revised ZMA. B. for Final Site Plan 10. C1.0 —Label wetlands located west of East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Company. C2.0 11. Align concrete entrance aprons with edges of 16'W driveways. Winding Road horizontal /reverse curves, with apron curbs shown perpendicular to EP, creates mismatch with driveway edges (image below). Mismatch is similar (and severe) in recently developed areas Alb. County. Left unaligned, design would impose effects hard to remedy. Provide, with road and Final Site Plan, aprons and drive edges that align. Aprons may flare. Provide special (typ.) apron detail. Also, eliminate 2' R curb returns at entrances at following locations. Instead, provide continuous concrete aprons that serve two villas, from road (EP) to - - -- - -- - -- sidewalk. Provide special (typ.) continuous apron detail with captto typ. I -ab e I tot d entt fy wh ere continuous aprons required: Villas Al /A2; A5 /A6; Al l /Al2; Al5 /A16; All /A18; A23/A24; and A26/27. Proposed entrance /driveway design does not work at listed Villa locations. Revised design is required at 12. PT/PRC are provided. Provide complete horizontal curve data (or roadway CL radii at a minimum). Engineering Review Comments Page 3 of 3 13. Label Glenmore Way. 14. Retaining wall (RW): If CMU proposed, examine geogrid length in direction of preserved woods. Consult geotechnical engineer. Examine RW /geogrid relative to preserved woods, sheet C2.2. Confirm that 0.705 Ac. area is unaffected. 15. L (length RW segment) = 183.72' understates actual length. This figure may exclude wall length north of 79.60' boundary. Please confirm whether value is correct. 16. Eliminate trees /plantings near retaining wall. Do not show trees closer than the greater (distance) of: Max. length of geogrid required to construct RW (if design requires geogrid); or canopy (Radius /ft.) of proposed plantings /trees at maturity (dripline). Geotechnical PE- sealed retaining wall design must accompany Final Site Plan, and is prerequisite to FSP approval. Please reference attached Retaining Wall Plan checklist. 17. Show north intersection of Glenmore Way and Winding Road. [18- 32.5.2.m. /ingress and egress]. C2.1 18. Provide yard inlets at additional locations: behind Villas A19, A22, A25, and A14, and in front of A10. [Ref. Drainage Plan checklist, Attached, Drainage, last item {Policy)] 19. Relocate /revise proposed MH locations in 4' strips between drives at Villas A17 /A18, A23/A24, A26/A27. 20. Show grading for bioretention basin Access, consistent with facility to be proposed under WPO201400077. 21. Provide additional existing contour labels. 22. Change line weight /type to indicate proposed contours —at bioretention basin, and inlet aboveibehind upper retaining wall, for example. 23. Label (12" DIP Water Main) ACSA Easement crossing Villa A15/A16 Lots `to be constructed by others.' While important to show this water line, line weight suggests construction with this plan. 12" water line was approved independent of ISP review, earlier this year, and is not proposed with this project. 24. SS lateral, Villa A20, appears to have a bend. Eliminate bend, if nonessential. Feel free to call to discuss. /Tel: 434.296-5832-0096 Thankyou t'ilc;: SDP'?0I nt)0016-R i vai) tt z.'ViIlaoC..... h- 1..._blo k ..1....'ISP..: €)8191 5_i; Albemarle County Engineering Drainage Plan checklist for plan reviewers 18 Feb 2014 (Use the latest checklist from the Team Services engineering forms site) A drainage plans is typically a component of a road plan, site plan, or stormwater management plan. It consists of the channel, ditch, culvert, or stormsewer design drawings, drainage maps, and computations for hydrology and hydraulics. Reference key; [Square Brackets] are County Code references, {Curved Brackets} are policy references, and (regular parenthesis) are explanatory. Links to reference documents are provided where possible. A professional seal should be provided for any computation packages where are separate from sealed plans. Drainage: [18- 32.6.2d, 14 -305, 311] drainage area maps (This is a basic element, and without this there is no review) drainage computations (usually in the form of tables from the VDOT Drainage Manual App. 9B -1 LD -2014, App.713-1 LD -268, App., App.8B -1 LD -269, etc. - computations are a basic element, and without them there is no review) all proposed and existing storm sewer must be shown in plan view for residential development, principle access free of flooding during the 25yr storm [14- 410] site runoff and entrances do not drain into streets (from VDOT Drainage Manual 9.4.5.2, 9.4.6.2) concentrated runoff (lcfs or greater) does not run across travelways /streets (as above' following VDOT design) drainage does not run across, through, or backwater in dumpster areas [18- 4.12.19] overland relief is provided for any drainage structure or inlet in case of clogging. The failure of any system will not cause structures, streets or yards to flood. {Policy} direction of flow change (or deflection angle) in each drainage structure is 90 degrees or greater (flow should not have to reverse direction) (from guide of VDOT Drainage Manual 9.4.9.3.2.3) labels on all drainage structures provided (and should match the drainage computations and profiles) provisions and easements for drainage across 3 or more lots. Dense development where fencing, decking, etc is expected should provide yard inlets and pipes in easements, rather than ditches zPolicy} Drainage profiles: (applicable to site plans, road and drainage plans) [14 -311, 18 -32] drainage profiles for each pipe, structure or channel must contain: existing ground proposed ground any channel linings all utility crossings a VDOT designation (MH -1, DI -3B, etc.) for each structure throat length for each drop inlet grate type for each grate inlet a label on each structure to correspond with the computations Albemarle County Engineering Drainage Plan Checklist Page 2 of 2 material and strength class or gage of each pipe manhole access every 300' for 15 " -42" or 800' for 48" or greater pipe slopes at 0.5% min. to 16% max. (per VDOT stnds for anchors over 16 %) concrete inlet shaping (IS -1) specified on any structure with a 4' or greater drop safety slabs (SL -1) in any structure taller than 12'. top or rim elevation for each structure all invert elevations for each structure (with positive flow drop between inverts). end sections (ES -1) or endwalls (EW -1) on all pipe outlets. Endwalls for culverts 48" or taller scour outlet protection at all outlets, corresponding to computations (Green Brook, OP) Drainage computations: (applicable to any plan proposing pipes, channels, etc.) Pipe computations for all pipes All proposed systems are designed within open channel flow capacities. (HGL computations are not necessary, and should not be relied upon unless the entire system is to be watertight.) For systems within drainage easements, all proposed pipes are a minimum 15" in diameter There are no excessive outlet velocities (> 15fps) Curb inlet computations for any curb inlets on grade All spreads are less than 10' carryover is accounted for 100% capture at entrances so no flow runs out entrances into travel lanes 100% capture, or overland flow of capacity storm, to stormwater management facilities. Typically stormwater management is designed to the 1 Oyear storm, and inlets on grade cannot capture this. Curb inlet computations for any curb inlets in sump conditions All flow depths are below 6" in the capacity table All spreads are less than 10' 100% capture to stormwater management facilities Ditch computations for any ditches . ditch linings specified per plans meet velocity requirements Culvert computations for any culverts headwaters < 1.5 x culvert height, and 18" below shoulder elevation of streets. Outlet protection computations for all outlets dimensions and stone sizes for all outfalls Proposed pipe and inlet drainage area map limits of all areas and sub -areas draining to proposed structures, and existing structures or channels which will be impacted acreage of each drainage area as used in computations hydrologic coefficient for each drainage area as used in the computations time of concentration for each drainage area as used in the computations destination structure labeled for each drainage area (if not obvious) Albemarle County Engineering Retaining wall Plan checklist for plan reviewers 18 Feb 2014 (Use the latest checklist from the Team Services engineering forms site) Any walls supporting roads or necessary infrastructure require engineered plans (not generic manufacturer's details) and computations. {Design Manual, section 81 This will also be required where walls are close to propert lines and there is the danger of affecting neighboring property, either during construction, with later failures, or with pedestrian or vehicle safety. Reference key; [Square Brackets] are County Code references, {Curved Brackets} are policy references, and (regular parenthesis) are explanatory. Links to reference documents are provided where possible. Title information: (applicable to any type of plan) Project title. Professional seal, with original-signature and date. [18- 32.6.1]. Plans : safety railing shown for retaining walls over 4' high guardrail with VDOT designations or equivalent shown for retaining walls next to parking or travelways VDOT approval for any walls in right -of -way Accurate depiction of horizontal depth (batter) on site plans. All structural reinforcement, steal, or geogrids specified. All dimensions specified Constructability; there- should be-no vertical cuts on property_ lines during construction, such that abutting property does not become unstable. Adequate room for consruction needs to be available. Details and sections : typical sections with dimensions shown for all configurations reinforcement layout shown and dimensioned (steel, geogrids, etc.) details for any pipes through, or bridged utilities, or manholes through geogrid Computations Structural computations with original seal and signature for walls over 5' high Accurate surcharges and loadings assumed Materials and dimensions match plans appropriate safety factores used COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1801 Orange Road Culpeper, Virginia 22701 Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E. Commissioner August 18, 2015 Mr. Christopher Perez Senior Planner County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: SDP -2015 -00035 Rivanna Village, Phase 1, Block A Villas Initial Site Plan Dear Mr. Perez: We have reviewed the initial site plan for Rivanna Village, Phase 1, Block A dated July 2, 2015 as submitted by Alan Franklin and offer the following comments: -1_. Utilities, including-storm sewer_should cross the roadway perpendicularly. -In particular, the storm sewer between SD-I4 and SD -I5 should be realigned to provide as close as possible a perpendicular crossing. 2. The waterline under the roadway should be installed by deflection where possible rather than including the numerous bend fittings as shown. If a leak1will developed in the waterline, it is likely to occur at a fitting so it is important to minimize the number of fittings. 3. Review comments of the road plans that were identified in a letter dated August 5, 2015 . may impact this site plan. Due to the numerous comments, they have not been restated in this letter; however the comments in the August 51h letter need to be considered during site plan review. If you need additional information concerning this project, please do not hesitate to contact me at (434) 422 -9782. Sincerely, /f I Troy Austin, P.E. Area Land Use Engineer Culpeper District WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING ACCREDITED 1,4wE1,qFORCEMENTAGENCY COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE POLICE DEPARTMENT Initial Site Plan Lead Reviewer: Chris Perez Item Number: SDP201500036 Project Name: Rivanna Village, Phase 1, Block A Villas Due Date: August 17, 2015 All Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) recommendations are considered to be advisory. The recommendations are meant to be utilized as a design strategy to create a safer environment for the future residents of Rivanna Village. Advisory Landscaping Recommendations • All shrubbery and ornamental grasses used in foundation planting areas should follow the CPTED two foot six foot rule. Shrubs should be no taller than two feet in front of building windows. Tree crowns in common areas, near buildings, and along pedestrian walkways should be pruned no less than six feet from ground level to maximize surveillance opportunities. Shrubbery should always remain below the window line so natural surveillance is not hindered from the interior of the residence out onto property grounds. -- - -- -- +- -Shrubs, ornamental grasses, and ornamental flowering trees should be planted -no less -than six feet from- - -- - - - pedestrian walkways to eliminate concealment and ambush opportunities. • Shrubbery and ornamental grasses should be maintained at no more than two feet tall around pedestrian entranceways to eliminate concealment and ambush opportunities. Advisory Lighting Recommendations • All lighting should be within the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) guidelines for minimum security lighting standards. • It is advised that all pedestrian walkways, be illuminated to a minimum 1.0 fc horizontal on pavement and a minimum of .5 fc to .8 fc vertical 5' above ground. • All lighting on site should be at a 4:1 average to minimum ratio (background to face), and designed to limit light trespass and glare. • Use pedestrian scale lighting (see below) in high pedestrian traffic areas. All lighting on site should be sufficient to allow facial recognition at thirty feet. Thirty feet is the minimum for reaction time to determine if a person is a potential threat. • It is advised that the open space area and all alley ways should be illuminated to a minimum 1.0 fc horizontal on pavement and a minimum of .5 to .8 fc vertical 5' above ground. Advisory Territorial Recommendations • Concrete sidewalks leading to the individual buildings from the public sidewalks should be constructed with pavers or different textures and colors to indicate a transition from public space to private space. • All living space should be designed with front porches or stoops to promote ownership of the property and encourage surveillance. Pedestrian Scale Lighting • Typical pedestrian scale luminaires are mounted at a height of 10 to 20 feet. Typical pedestrian zone lighting is MPO Steve Watson, ICPS, CPD Albemarle County Police Department Crime prevention Unit a „t \ altremnrlry RIM August 4, 2015 -Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water ..� Conservation District Louisa 706 Forest St, SteG,Charlottesville, VA22903 Fluvnnne Tel: (434) 975 -0224 Fax: (434) 975 -1367 ,; ,/ Web Page: www.tiswcd.org T0: Albemarle County Department of Community Development— Division of Planning RE: Soils Report for: Site Review Committee Rivanna Village Initial Site Plans Block A 1 nf, ..tom/• , 4 r " ¢ r Y F Ai CV7 ,d- x'�t, -'_ rt� 7 �v • /'r ct T � �i imr •.#.�IZfifi �'t',h=;; r T -b tv 3 '�tJ� #i4 t�' y ; ;! �cA � �ra�i rt' � r •r' �Ett t1 _, f .9 . 0 \ � T ?�"1 '� l 5 .v n.ry r- �. 1 t "5'mµ tip` r �y 1� '•1't'�. ��,�, ,Y(ql r ri"3 U " r :1 1 r v, , // U m m F= QI U O � ml o C U m a) al cc m UI -a CD � Cal O C U) m z LO Cr G O LL Z Ca G O O c0 a) CL CL m m E d 3 Q 0 T m N E O U m w N 2 7 N 0 a) t H a) cuC m — C m O N � y N o C U V U V m o N O U N N a) G. m d m U N 'O m y C E G M S; f0 m a m N m m >Lm —0 =0 3 o — N O O C m O N 75 C a) O N 2 a O a) n. momd m E E L r2 O C L 'p O C m �— 7 U) a) y U rnC E E m 7 U N m E u) E cL m CL c � N y O a y m m O C m 0 0 x O_ A 0 C (n m O N J 9 ¢ C O fi U i. m W N N a) 0 0) CL � m LL N N U � N m N CL C O' O 'p CO Z+ J L W ... U O CL O lq > O O N .0 cl Z N {i � '+rte c"st 0 0 U ` N y U m C O O "�.' m W f I 3 C N CL m O p L a) j 0 'D N a) N 7 C .E m E U) N a N a) O co E N - CL m U O N C — Y ' a) p_ d)O a) c0 E U m m N a o L a) a) (D O L a) O p 4' O 7 L C. d - °Nm S a) -0 Z 5 r N o � E N LL U—m� O L 3` m C L U a� co y ) O .O a 2 y d C N O Q a) m m 3 75 ° t o ro c Q m 7 m ° C a a. C o� a) � 2 c' m 3 C) o m a o CD E2`m m ° m a w 4' a) 'O O a) d m EE O C N Q. a) ro E a m aO M N N (= N m E .0 •O -p E N a) .m.. 'O a) a) N •O - a) E c0 m J> U) N °_ C C M N Q N N L N C ° w>, Z� E > aQ ° ° N CO a m a ° tl ° `m O Sm N C N .a) a) N Co ? 9 '= 'O U CU M 'C - O m e N m d Q m p e a 7 p..0 O C U) U) L ,p 'm0 ` .rN• l0 L C. ma'c E E m Qo 'o CL o d vla�i Em oa�m cram Sao a.E; @a)0 N> �r �p a) () n. E p a) p U) U m O N a N 2 L -0 Q U L L I— . O O V) U) O U) O m N L E. H U .— O m CL c � N y O a y m m O C m 0 0 x O_ A 0 C (n m O N J 9 ¢ C O fi U i. m W N N y CL � m LL N N U � N N CL C O' O 'p CO Z+ J L W y' N CL O lq > O N y = lq O C cl Z N {i � '+rte c"st ra 1 N y C y W f a F m CL c � N y O a y m m O C m 0 0 x O_ A 0 C (n m O N J 9 ¢ C O fi U i. m W J CL O Q C 0 a a° d C y c a° o w m d to G y m y d O c Q m e D m D e m e D m = i - 0 ° a O o = U) _ y C 0 cc m 3 m w =3 O 0. CL n U) _a o n ) U) ¢ o ( o o m m m 0 v m c cu c v c > v ' iiiU n a, c a y d 3d N a w O O CD N N d 00 N M T 7 CO Z� o m — m o W U) p. U m c O M Z m U N 7 C 0 ayi m 7 N C R O Z U �Id� Soil Map—Albemarle County, Virginia Map Unit Legend usA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 8/4/2015 o" Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page uo«o Albemarle County, Virginia (VA003) Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in A01 —T—Percent of A01 1 slopes Lignum silt loam, 2 to 7 percent: slopes 51B Manteo channery silt loam, 2 to 18.4 20.3% 7 percent slopes 51C Manteo channery silt loam, 7 to 38.91 42.9% 15 percent 62B 1 Nason silt loam, 2 to 7 percent 14.91 16.4%1 slopes Totals for Area of Interest 90.7 100.0% usA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 8/4/2015 o" Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page uo«o Map Unit Description (Brief, Generated) - -- Albemarle County, Virginia Rivanna _Villlage_Site_Plans_Block_ A Tract Map Unit Description (Brief, Generated) The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions in this report, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit. A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils. The Map Unit Description (Brief, Generated) report displays a generated description of the major soils that occur in a map unit. Descriptions of non -soil (miscellaneous areas) and minor map unit components are not included. This description is generated from the underlying soil attribute data. Additional information about the map units described in this report is available in other Soil Data Mart reports, which give properties of the soils and the limitations, capabilities, and potentials for many uses. Also, the narratives that accompany the Soil Data Mart reports define some of the properties included in the map unit descriptions. Report —Map Unit Description (Brief, Generated) Albemarle County, Virginia Map Unit: 1 B —Abell silt loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes Component: Abell (80 %) The Abell component makes up 80 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 2 to 7 percent. This component is on drainageways, piedmonts. The parent material consists of alluvium derived from igneous rock. Depth to a root restrictive layer, bedrock, paralithic, is 30 to 60 inches. The natural drainage class is moderately well drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is moderate. Shrink -swell potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation is at 33 inches during January, February, March, December. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 1 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 2e. This soil does not meet hydric criteria. Component: Worsham (3 %) USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 8/4/2015 :iris Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 3 Map Unit Description (Brief, Generated) - -- Albemarle County, Virginia Rivanna _Villlage_Site_Plans_Block A Tract Generated brief soil descriptions are created for major components. The Worsham soil is a minor component. Map Unit: 4613— Lignum silt loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes Component: Lignum (85 %) The Lignum component makes up 85 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 2 to 7 percent. This component is on piedmonts, hillslopes. The parent material consists of residuum weathered from serecite schist. Depth to a root restrictive layer, bedrock, paralithic, is 40 to 60 inches. The natural drainage class is moderately well drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is low. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is moderate. Shrink -swell potential is moderate. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation is at 21 inches during January, February, March, April, May, December. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 1 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 2e. This soil does not meet hydric criteria. Component: Worsham (3 %) Generated brief soil descriptions are created for major components. The Worsham soil is a minor component. Map Unit: 51B— Manteo channery silt loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes Component: Manteo (80%) The Manteo component makes up 80 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 2 to 7 percent. This component is on uplands, interfluves. The parent material consists of residuum weathered from serecite schist. Depth to a root restrictive layer, bedrock, lithic, is 15 to 20 inches. The natural drainage class is somewhat excessively drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is very low. Shrink -swell potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 1 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 4e. This soil does not meet hydric criteria. Map Unit: 51C— Manteo channery silt loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes Component: Manteo (80 %) The Manteo component makes up 80 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 7 to 15 percent. This component is on uplands, interfluves. The parent material consists of residuum weathered from serecite schist. Depth to a root restrictive layer, bedrock, lithic, is 10 to 20 inches. The natural drainage class is somewhat excessively drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is very low. Shrink -swell potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 1 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 6e. This soil does not meet hydric criteria. USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 8/4/2015 U" Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 3 Map Unit Description (Brief, Generated) - -- Albemarle County, Virginia Map Unit: 6213—Nason silt loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes Component: Nason (80% Rivanna_Villlage` Site_Plans_Block A Tract The Nason component makes up 80 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 2 to 7 percent. This component is on uplands, interfluves. The parent material consists of residuum weathered from serecite schist. Depth to a root restrictive layer, bedrock, paralithic, is 40 to 60 inches. The natural drainage class is well drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is moderate. Shrink -swell potential is moderate. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 2 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 2e. This soil does not meet hydric criteria. Map Unit: W —Water Component: Water (100 %) Generated brief soil descriptions are created for major soil components. The Water is a miscellaneous area. Data Source Information Soil Survey Area: Albemarle County, Virginia Survey Area Data: Version 10, Dec 11, 2013 USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 8/4/2015 2" Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3 Dwellings and Small Commercial Buildings - -- Albemarle County, Virginia Rivanna _Villlage_Site_Plans_Block_ A Tract Dwellings and Small Commercial Buildings Soil properties influence the development of building sites, including the selection of the site, the design of the structure, construction, performance after construction, and maintenance. This table shows the degree and kind of soil limitations that affect dwellings and small commercial buildings. The ratings in the table are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect building site development. Not limited indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for the specified use. Good performance and very low maintenance can be expected. Somewhat limited indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and moderate maintenance can be expected. Very limited indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use. The limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive installation procedures. Poor performance and high maintenance can be expected. Numerical ratings in the table indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00). Dwellings are single - family houses of three stories or less. For dwellings without basements, the foundation is assumed to consist of spread footings of reinforced - concrete built on undisturbed soil at a depth of 2 feet or at the depth of maximum - frost penetration, whichever is deeper. For dwellings with basements, the foundation is assumed to consist of spread footings of reinforced concrete built on undisturbed soil at a depth of about 7 feet. The ratings for dwellings are based on the soil properties that affect the capacity of the soil to support a load without movement and on the properties that affect excavation and construction costs. The properties that affect the load- supporting capacity include depth to a water table, ponding, flooding, subsidence, linear extensibility (shrink -swell potential), and compressibility. Compressibility is inferred from the Unified classification. The properties that affect the ease and amount of excavation include depth to a water table, ponding, flooding, slope, depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, hardness of bedrock or a cemented pan, and the amount and size of rock fragments. Small commercial buildings are structures that are less than three stories high and do not have basements. The foundation is assumed to consist of spread footings of reinforced concrete built on undisturbed soil at a depth of 2 feet or at the depth of maximum frost penetration, whichever is deeper. The ratings are based on the soil properties that affect the capacity of the soil to support a load without movement and on the properties that affect excavation and construction costs. The properties that affect the load- supporting capacity include depth to a water table, ponding, flooding, subsidence, linear extensibility (shrink -swell potential), and compressibility (which is inferred from the Unified classification). The properties that affect the ease and amount of excavation include flooding, depth to a water table, ponding, slope, depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, hardness of bedrock or a cemented pan, and the amount and size of rock fragments. USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 8/4/2015 ;r Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 3 Dwellings and Small Commercial Buildings - -- Albemarle County, Virginia Rivanna _Villlage_Site_Plans_Block A Tract Information in this table is intended for land use planning, for evaluating land use alternatives, and for planning site investigations prior to design and construction. The information, however, has limitations. For example, estimates and other data generally apply only to that part of the soil between the surface and a depth of 5 to 7 feet. Because of the map scale, small areas of different soils may be included within the mapped areas of a specific soil. The information is not site specific and does not eliminate the need for onsite investigation of the soils or for testing and analysis by personnel experienced in the design and construction of engineering works. Government ordinances and regulations that restrict certain land uses or impose specific design criteria were not considered in preparing the information in this table. Local ordinances and regulations should be considered in planning, in site selection, and in design. Report— Dwellings and Small Commercial Buildings [Onsite investigation may be needed to validate the interpretations in this table and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site. The numbers in the value columns range from 0.01 to 1.00. The larger the value, the greater the potential limitation. The table shows only the top five limitations for any given soil. The soil may have additional limitations] t° 7 7Dwelhngs and Small CommercialsBuildmgs AlbemarleCounty, U�rgm�a a f>flap symbol and soil Pct of Dwellings without basemenFs' Jwellmgs w�ffi casements Smaii commercial buildings name map unit Rating class and Ualue Rating class and 1/alue Rating class and Value limiting features ; . ' limiting features limiting features 1 B —Abell silt loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes Abell 80 Not limited Somewhat limited Somewhat limited Depth to saturated 0.99 Slope 1 0.13 zone 46B— Lignum silt loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes Lignum 85 Somewhat limited Very limited Somewhat limited – Depth to saturated 0.81 Depth to saturated 1.00 -- - - - - -- - .- .. -.__. Depth to saturated _....._._._ 0.81 zone zone zone (-- Shrink -swell 0.40 Shrink -swell 0.01 Shrink -swell 0.40 Slope 0.13 51 B— Manteo channery silt loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes Manteo 80 Very limited Very limited Very limited Depth to hard bedrock 1.00 Depth to hard bedrock 1.00 Depth to hard bedrock 1.00 Slope 0.13 USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 8/4/2015 2" Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 3 Dwellings and Small Commercial Buildings - -- Albemarle County, Virginia Rivanna _Villlage_Site_Plans_Block A_Tract 51 C— Manteo channery silt loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes Manteo 80 Very limited Very limited Very limited Depth to hard bedrock 1.00 Depth to hard bedrock 1.00 Depth to hard bedrock 1.00 Slope 0.37 Slope 0.37 Slope 1.00 628 — Nason silt loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes Nason 80 Somewhat limited Somewhat limited Somewhat limited Shrink -swell 0.47 Shrink -swell 0.10 Shrink -swell 0.47 Slope 0.13 W —Water Water 100 Not rated Not rated Not rated Data Source Information Soil Survey Area; Albemarle County, Virginia Survey Area Data: Version 10, Dec 11, 2013 USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 8/4/2015 2" Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3 Roads and Streets, Shallow Excavations, and Lawns and Landscaping - -- Albemarle County, Virginia Rivan na_Villl age_S ite_Plans_Bl ock A Tract Roads and Streets, Shallow Excavations, and Lawns. and. Landscaping Soil properties influence the development of building sites, including the selection of the site, the design of the structure, construction, performance after construction, and maintenance. This table shows the degree and kind of soil limitations that affect local roads and streets, shallow excavations, and lawns and landscaping. The ratings in the table are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect building site development. Not limited indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for the specified use. Good performance and very low maintenance can be expected. Somewhat limited indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and moderate maintenance can be expected. Very limited indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use. The limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive installation procedures. Poor performance and high maintenance can be expected. Numerical ratings in the table indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00). - - - Local roads and streets have an all - weather surface and carry automobile and -light truck traffic all year. They have a subgrade of cut or fill soil material; a base of gravel, crushed rock, or soil material stabilized by lime or cement; and a surface of flexible. material (asphalt), rigid material (concrete), or gravel with a binder. The ratings are based on the soil properties that affect the ease of excavation and grading and the traffic- supporting capacity. The properties that affect the ease of excavation and grading are depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, hardness of bedrock or a cemented pan, depth to a water table, ponding, flooding, the amount of large stones, and slope. The properties that affect the traffic- supporting capacity are soil strength (as inferred from the AASHTO group index number), subsidence, linear extensibility (shrink -swell potential), the potential for frost action, depth to a water table, and ponding. Shallow excavations are trenches or holes dug to a maximum depth of 5 or 6 feet for graves, utility lines, open ditches, or other purposes. The ratings are based on the soil properties that influence the ease of digging and the resistance to sloughing. Depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, hardness of bedrock or a cemented pan, the amount of large stones, and dense layers influence the ease of digging, filling, and compacting. Depth to the seasonal high water table, flooding, and ponding may restrict the period when excavations can be made. Slope influences the ease of using machinery. Soil texture, depth to the water table, and linear extensibility (shrink -swell potential) influence the resistance to sloughing. usDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 814/2015 yin Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 4 Roads and Streets, Shallow Excavations, and Lawns and Landscaping - -- Albemarle County, Rivanna_Villlage_Site_Plans Block_ Virginia A Tract Lawns and landscaping require soils on which turf and ornamental trees and shrubs can be established and maintained. Irrigation is not considered in the ratings. The ratings are based on the soil properties that affect plant growth and trafficability. . after vegetation is established. The properties that affect plant growth are reaction; depth to a water table; ponding; depth to bedrock or a cemented pan; the available water capacity in the upper 40 inches; the content of salts, sodium, or calcium carbonate; and sulfidic materials. The properties that affect trafficability are flooding, depth to a water table, ponding, slope, stoniness, and the amount of sand, clay, or organic matter in the surface layer. Information in this table is intended for land use planning, for evaluating land use alternatives, and for planning site investigations prior to design and construction. The information, however, has limitations. For example, estimates and other data generally apply only to that part of the soil between the surface and a depth of 5 to 7 feet. Because of the map scale, small areas of different soils may be included within the mapped areas of a specific soil. The information is not site specific and does not eliminate the need for onsite investigation of the soils or for testing and analysis by personnel experienced in the design and construction of engineering works. Government ordinances and regulations that restrict certain land uses or impose specific design criteria were not considered in preparing the information in this table. Local ordinances and regulations should be considered in planning, in site selection, and in design. Report—Roads and Streets, Shallow Excavations, and Pawns and Landscaping [Onsite investigation may be needed to validate the interpretations in this table and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site. The numbers in the value columns range from 0.01 to 1.00. The larger the value, the greater the potential limitation. The table shows only the top five limitations for any given soil. The soil may have additional limitations] Roads and Streets, Shallow Excavations;,and Lawns andlandscapmg Albemarle:County Virgm�a: ,. Map symbol and soil Pct of Local roads and streets Shallow excavations Lawns and landscaping name map , . .; - unit Ratmg class and Value Rating classiand Value Rating class and Value lunitm features limttm features i hmitm feature's t g 9 9 1 B —Abell silt loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes Abell 80 Not limited Somewhat limited Somewhat limited Depth to saturated 0.99 Low exchange 0.75 zone capacity Dusty 0.06 Dusty 0.06 Unstable excavation 0.01 walls USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 8/4/2015 "rte Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 4 Roads and Streets, Shallow Excavations, and Lawns and Landscaping - -- Albemarle County, Virginia Rivanna _Villlage_Site_Plans_Block_ A Tract 466 - Lignum silt loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes Lignum 85 Very limited Very limited Somewhat limited Low strength 1.00 Depth to saturated 1.00 Low exchange 0.75 zone capacity USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 8/4/2015 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 4 Depth to saturated zone 0.48 Dusty 0.07 Depth to saturated zone 0.48 Shrink -swell 0.40 Unstable excavation walls 0.01 Dusty 0.07 51 B- Manteo channery silt loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes Manteo 80 Very limited Very limited Very limited Depth to hard bedrock 1.00 Depth to hard bedrock 1.00 Depth to bedrock 1.00 Dusty 0.07 Low exchange capacity 1.00 Unstable excavation walls 0.01 Droughty 0.99 Dusty 0.07 Large stones content 0.03 51C-Manteo channery silt loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes Manteo 80 Very limited Very limited Very limited Depth to hard bedrock 1.00 Depth to hard bedrock 1.00 Depth to bedrock 1.00 Slope 0.37 Slope 0.37 Low exchange capacity 1.00 Dusty 0.07 Droughty 0:99 Unstable excavation walls 0.01 Slope 0.37 Dusty 0.07 626 -Nason silt loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes Nason 80 Very limited Somewhat limited Somewhat limited Low strength 1.00 Dusty 0.08 Low exchange capacity 0.75 Shrink -swell 0.47 Unstable excavation walls 0.01 Dusty 0.08 W -Water Water 100 Not rated Not rated Not rated USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 8/4/2015 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 4 Roads and Streets, Shallow Excavations, and Lawns and Landscaping - -- Albemarle County, Virginia Data Source Information Soil Survey Area: Albemarle County, Virginia Survey Area Data: Version 10, Dec 11, 2013 Rivanna _Villlage_Site_Plans_Block A Tract USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 8/4/2015 Merl Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 4 of 4 Physical Soil Properties - -- Albemarle County, Virginia Rivanna _Villlage_Site_Plans_Block A Tract Physical Soil Properties ; This table shows estimates of some physical characteristics and features that affect soil behavior. These estimates are given for the layers of each soil in the survey area. The estimates are based on field observations and on test data for these and similar soils. Depth to the upper and lower boundaries of each layer is indicated. Particle size is the effective diameter of a soil particle as measured by sedimentation, sieving, or micrometric methods. Particle sizes are expressed as classes with specific effective diameter class limits. The broad classes are sand, silt, and,clay, ranging from the larger to the smaller. Sand as a soil separate consists of mineral soil particles that are 0.05 millimeter to 2 millimeters in diameter. In this table, the estimated sand content of each soil layer is given as a percentage, by weight, of the soil material that is less than 2 millimeters in diameter. Silt as a soil separate consists of mineral soil particles that are 0.002 to 0.05 millimeter in diameter. In this table, the estimated silt content of each soil layer is given as a percentage, by weight, of the soil material that is less than 2 millimeters in diameter. Clay as a soil separate consists of mineral soil particles that are less than 0.002 millimeter in diameter. In this table, the estimated clay content of each soil layer is given as a percentage, by weight, of the soil material that is less than 2 millimeters in diameter. - - - - - — - The content of sand, silt, and clay affects the physical behavior of a soil. Particle - - -- -- size is important for engineering and agronomic interpretations, for determination of soil hydrologic qualities, and for soil classification. The amount and kind of clay affect the fertility and. physical condition of the soil and the ability of the soil to adsorb cations and to retain moisture. They influence shrink - swell potential, saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat), plasticity, the ease of soil dispersion, and other soil properties. The amount and kind of clay in a soil also affect tillage and earthmoving operations. Moist bulk density is the weight of soil (ovendry) per unit volume. Volume is measured when the soil is at field moisture capacity, that is, the moisture content at 1/3- or 1/10 -bar (33kPa or 10kPa) moisture tension. Weight is determined after the soil is dried at 105 degrees C. In the table, the estimated moist bulk density of each soil horizon is expressed in grams per cubic centimeter of soil material that is less than 2 millimeters in diameter. Bulk density data are used to compute linear extensibility, shrink -swell potential, available water capacity, total pore space, and other soil properties. The moist bulk density of a soil indicates the pore space available for water and roots. Depending on soil texture, a bulk density of more than 1.4 can restrict water storage and root penetration. Moist bulk density is influenced by texture, kind of clay, content of organic matter, and soil structure. u.SDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 8/4/2015 +— Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 6 Physical Soil Properties - -- Albemarle County, Virginia Rivanna _Villlage_Site_Plans_Block_ A Tract Saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat) refers to the ease with which pores in a saturated soil transmit water. The estimates in the table are expressed in terms of micrometers per second. They are based on soil characteristics observed in the field, particularly structure, porosity, and texture. Saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat) is considered in the design of soil drainage systems and septic tank absorption fields. Available water capacity refers to the quantity of water that the soil is capable of storing for use by plants. The capacity for water storage is given in inches of water per inch of soil for each soil layer. The capacity varies, depending on soil properties that affect retention of water. The most important properties are the content of organic matter, soil texture, bulk density, and soil structure. Available water capacity is an important factor in the choice of plants or crops to be grown and in the design and management of irrigation systems. Available water capacity is not an estimate of the quantity of water actually available to plants at any given time. Linear extensibility refers to the change in length of an unconfined clod as moisture content is decreased from a moist to a dry state. It is an expression of the volume change between the water content of the clod at 1/3- or 1/10 -bar tension (33kPa or 10kPa tension) and oven dryness. The volume change is reported in the table as percent change for the whole soil. The amount and type of clay minerals in the soil influence volume change. Linear extensibility is used to determine the shrink -swell potential of soils. The shrink -swell potential is low if the soil has a linear extensibility of less than 3 percent; moderate if 3 to 6 percent; high if 6 to 9 percent; and very high if more than 9 percent. If the linear extensibility is more than 3, shrinking and swelling can cause damage to buildings, roads, and other structures and to plant roots. Special design commonly is needed. Organic matter is the plant and animal residue in the soil at various stages of decomposition. In this table, the estimated content of organic matter is expressed as a percentage, by weight, of the soil material that is less than 2 millimeters in diameter. The content of organic matter in a soil can be maintained by returning crop residue to the soil. Organic matter has a positive effect on available water capacity, water infiltration, soil organism activity, and tilth. It is a source of nitrogen and other nutrients for crops and soil organisms. Erosion factors are shown in the table as the K factor (Kw and Kf) and the T factor. Erosion factor K indicates the susceptibility of a soil to sheet and rill erosion by water. Factor K is one of six factors used in the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) and the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) to predict the average annual rate of soil loss by sheet and rill erosion in tons per acre per year. The estimates are based primarily on percentage of silt, sand, and organic matter and on soil structure and Ksat. Values of K range from 0.02 to 0.69. Other factors being equal, the higher the value, the more susceptible the soil is to sheet and rill erosion by water. Erosion factor Kw indicates the erodibility of the whole soil. The estimates are modified by the presence of rock fragments. Erosion factor Kf indicates the erodibility of the fine -earth fraction, or the material less than 2 millimeters in size. USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 8/4/2015 +il—= Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 6 Physical Soil Properties - -- Albemarle County, Virginia Rivanna_Villlage_Site_Plans Block A Tract Erosion factor Tis an estimate of the maximum average annual rate of soil erosion by wind and /or water that can occur without affecting crop productivity over a sustained period. The rate is in tons per acre per year. Wind erodibility groups are made up of soils that have similar properties affecting their susceptibility to wind erosion in cultivated areas. The soils assigned to group 1 are the most susceptible to wind erosion, and those assigned to group 8 are the least susceptible. The groups are described in the "National Soil Survey Handbook." Wind erodibility index is a numerical value indicating the susceptibility of soil to wind erosion, or the tons per acre per year that can be expected to be lost to wind erosion. There is a close correlation between wind erosion and the texture of the surface layer, the size and durability of surface clods, rock fragments, organic matter, and a calcareous reaction. Soil moisture and frozen soil layers also influence wind erosion. Reference: United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National soil survey handbook, title 430 -VI. (http: / /soils.usda.gov) USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 8/4/2015 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 6 U F- Q Y U O ml _R 0.. NI Cn a)l LT Lo 5� LQ C C A O 'C 7 O U a� `m E a) y N r N Q 0 a` 0 U) m U �N T .0 a N tE 0) CL O ^^L (L CO V .N .L L.�.L O LL LO CO N O a) x LO ca 11 Z U) a) 'O ZU) O N C6 O N c a .0 00 C O Z d U N d d �CO o C 0 0 d m 7 N ZU SIN OI yam d CO O LO U7 LO LO y!� , N 'IT h CA m LO ii. M M N M In W W . M M N M V d N U ` of - M M M M M M Ch r 0 O L, O CO O L, `' O O CC) O U) I O E 6cN OO 00 00 L6 OO OO i I O O ..... 6 O O O O C4 �, CA CA m tT m LA CA c a N N U) N N LO N V k 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 co O O O O O O O a,. i c;; •y::3. �. N Ln 1 f- 6 r a O_' O w o- O O O I O N O I O—I LD O O i 00 0 p N _0 0 0 0 O 0 N 00 CA 00 (A Ih 00 00, CA 00 CV °v, tN °o c E O 0 O <r 0 r ' o U ` �' '•• I Ln LO L() M U) O O j N Y U lh U7 Lo Lo Un O M O L, Lo lA -. . y ;:•, U r V: Lo r' In CC) r Ln U) r LD U7 r Lq O r U) r Ln CN � r N' r Cl? ' r M' r '.!' r N N r N r N O. :.• r r r r LO U') I-- U) m 1-- , ,; N M V' N N U7 N 0:.. 00 tT OD N 0 N C7 r M N O 00 LO o o h N - _.._....._ -._.. .__...._ —_ __ -_. N .____ -.. ___.. .._ I ...... .. ._._ _ ...... .... N ___. .______. �w a I , ?R Li a .N N M N CO I- M LO i 7. c0+a co Lq ti Q CD - O' tT O M W co W O Cl) v M LO d I O E N E c No o w C E N aCi o - E Ln o . Q O ,: .n aa) aa)) Qff Ll = _-�i N O. 7 '- c2 C •; C1 N Q N n zo La it CO c LO CO N O a) x LO ca 11 Z U) a) 'O ZU) O N C6 O N c a .0 00 C O Z d U N d d �CO o C 0 0 d m 7 N ZU SIN OI U m HI Q� Y U O ml c m a� ro U) W rn m �I c c R m •c R c 0 O U a� `m E d Q N N r CL 0 a 0 U) m U •N T L 0.. 3rZ�. co m ° m a T 7 O 7 — R O n a > U m C O m Z N U it d w e O d N L O U pY X a 3;o c ao co •a' v ea � 0 to m O o� Y r�i vM M v W „w Y O O N N U a ci to Elm E 46 cj p6 ujN 60 t 0- O O I O O I C 0;;0 N N (V (V N U 0 Lo Ui Lit w d O O O O � C ...._ O O I O O I O ' O O O O m m :im d O 6 c O O to O t -d Q V r Or r h Or a o o c o `Q ,` U N 'd N Y N O N O N Y fl E oo co q ed oo N fV N N O N O N m T p U O O 0 0 0 0 Lq LD r (O — CO r to r (O a C\1 r- M N M r a N M N M m U a r M N r co CV I 7 Or f� O bf N I to U,) � 5 c am N N N I N N a 00 ti ° 4' O O W O r xd` cLn C� O 'tq � O O .N N O T ° C m N N C y O C m CU t` C to Erc C O N E U a CU rG = CU (U E o N ay m of I m m o nrmn m I m U 0° CL m c. r cLi r LO 3rZ�. co m ° m a T 7 O 7 — R O n a > U m C O m Z N U it d w e O d N L O U U R HI Q' Y U m N' R a i m 5� co _ cu R .c 21 c 0 O U c`a E d Q' r N O.. O a 0 U) m U .y T L m co �= T N \\� / T p U C � O � vo T O E o y.. a) Q C6 L CU � Q � O U U) U) I N O CO N Cp m R IL T N 7 (n UO ZU) co c O CL O 92 C O R Z d U N U �N = 0 C R m 7 N Z U �I a "= x 3:' o LO ; o 0) LO CN �- Y __... M ,O O V M st Y M M I N U N O (7 M m �+ R U CV O O lCY O to m. O E oM o0 00 o o O1 O) CA CV uj N ) 4 x O O O 7 _ - y w c m R C CV o... o oo OO O O a C) N . -- o_ o -w;'a a ° 0 0 rn 0 0 Oi CA n Y: R 0 t0 LO O 0 Co o �� - L .�L .C. d A) Cn r O Cn r N N a O> N co v. o r� o �- N CL L LO LO a m N i N a Q & 0 rn co M 06 L O M O LO m °Q 'n c > _ ;i O ° ro N C N N O s N Z U U E U C1 c O IO N a, R S'C I R O CL N Z I f0 oR r CO m co �= T N \\� / T p U C � O � vo T O E o y.. a) Q C6 L CU � Q � O U U) U) I N O CO N Cp m R IL T N 7 (n UO ZU) co c O CL O 92 C O R Z d U N U �N = 0 C R m 7 N Z U �I Soil Features - -- Albemarle County, Virginia Rivanna _Villlage_Site_Plans_Block A Tract Soil Features This table gives estimates of various soil features. The estimates are used in land use planning that involves engineering considerations. A restrictive layer is a nearly continuous layer that has one or more physical, chemical, or thermal properties that significantly impede the movement of water and air through the soil or that restrict roots or otherwise provide an unfavorable root environment. Examples are bedrock, cemented layers, dense layers, and frozen layers. The table indicates the hardness and thickness of the restrictive layer, both of which significantly affect the ease of excavation. Depth to top is the vertical distance from the soil surface to the upper boundary of the restrictive layer. Subsidence is the settlement of organic soils or of saturated mineral soils of very lowdensity. Subsidence generally results from either desiccation and shrinkage, or oxidation of organic material, or both, following drainage. Subsidence takes place gradually, usually over a period of several years. The table shows the expected initial subsidence, which usually is a result of drainage, and total subsidence, which results from a combination of factors. Potential for frost action is the likelihood of upward or lateral expansion of the soil caused by the formation of segregated ice lenses (frost heave) and the subsequent collapse of the soil and loss of strength on thawing. Frost action occurs when moisture moves into the freezing zone of the soil. Temperature, texture, density, saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat), content of organic matter, and depth to the water table are the most important factors considered in evaluating the potential for frost action. It is assumed that the soil is not insulated by vegetation or snow and is not artificially drained. Silty and highly structured, clayey soils that have a high - water table in winter are the most susceptible to frost action. Well drained very _ _ gravelly, or very sandy soils are the least susceptible. Frost heave and low soil strength during thawing cause damage to pavements and other rigid structures. Risk of corrosion pertains to potential soil- induced electrochemical or chemical action that corrodes or weakens uncoated steel or concrete. The rate of corrosion of uncoated steel is related to such factors as soil moisture, particle -size distribution, acidity, and electrical conductivity of the soil. The rate of corrosion of concrete is based mainly on the sulfate and sodium content, texture, moisture content, and acidity of the soil. Special site examination and design may be needed if the combination of factors results in a severe hazard of corrosion. The steel or concrete in installations that intersect soil boundaries or soil layers is more susceptible to corrosion than the steel or concrete in installations that are entirely within one kind of soil or within one soil layer. For uncoated steel, the risk of corrosion, expressed as low, moderate, or high, is based on Soil drainage class, total acidity, electrical resistivity near field capacity, and electrical conductivity.of the saturation extract. For concrete, the risk of corrosion also is expressed as low, moderate, or high. It is based on soil texture, acidity, and amount of sulfates in the saturation extract. [JSnA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 8/4/2015 2" Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 3 \ f \ \ \ co _f \ / ± \ \ \ ( \ d } \ \ ] I 0 0 £ k \ ] I E 3 \ - - \ \. . . « »a .\ 0 0 __ \W I (D / »5 a? \( \0 cts...� .. .� z @� §� )� 2� k/ 0 - - - -- «« « »a 0 0 0 9 9 § ® )" ( 2 \ : a« /2 to 0 LL / k ! k \ \ c } 0 0 ƒ 2 § § . y d k ' — t n to 2 G \ \3 2 — »» ^© —§ »� ER§ ��[ 2�0— /�o- Q� 2 «a3{ g . \ s�, \�f §/ §(Q{ « \ »o koo e % c/ �� o/ y y I(§ =_a. E I®(® c£_& c ) o§_= : Co u / § G __ \W I (D / »5 a? \( \0 cts...� .. .� z @� §� )� 2� k/ 0 U aJ �I QI Y 0 O ml L a1 a a) 0� as SI as c c m Of m 21 5 C 0 U a� `as E a) .o Q N a) R a7 LL O co INW.7, O O N C7 co 07 w CL T a) 7 CD 7 Q) a3 O � � a y 00 ?� U az c 0 as Z a) U a, N c 0 m c 0 O U I RS M O N � r _ O U �m ° ❑ U o E c`a o 0 C aEi �j Q ^' W f6 � Q � C � Q 0 Ct) CO INW.7, O O N C7 co 07 w CL T a) 7 CD 7 Q) a3 O � � a y 00 ?� U az c 0 as Z a) U a, N c 0 m c 0 O U I �pF A vt�r�1Q COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 Project: Rivanna Village, Phase 1, Block A, Villas — Initial Plan preparer: Alan Franklin, 427 Cranberry Lane, Crozet, VA 2293 [alan a,alanfranklinpe.com] Owner or rep.: Rivanna Village, 314 E Water St, Charlottesville, VA 22902 Plan received date: 17 Jul 2015 Date of comments: 19 Aug 2015 Reviewer: John Anderson Plan Coordinator: Christopher Perez SRC: 20- Aug -2015 A. Initial Site Plan (SDP201500036) 1. Note: WP0201400077 SWMP (Approved 16 -Jun 2015) provides design to control storm runoff from 11.904 Ac. of impervious area. The SWMP shows rough grading, and depicts hardscape features in light - gray line type. Approved VSMP/WPO SWM Plan should be amended to show hardscape layout consistent with Final Site and Road Plan. Depicting roadway /structures as a layer without complementary fine grade contours is unusual. The Final Site Plan cannot be approved until SWMP contours match FSP fine grade contours, and until SWMP includes proposed layout consistent with Final Site Plan. Lots may only be graded consistent with the Approved SWMP. SWM facilities must be bonded prior to Final Site Plan Approval. SWM Facility, Access, and Drainage Easements must be recorded prior to Final Site Plan Approval. A SWM Maintenance Agreement for Rivanna Village Phase 1 (blocks A, B, C, D, E & H) is required to be recorded prior to Final Site Plan Approval. (Additional Note: In the future, SWM - related/ Drainage Easements and Maintenance Agreements will be required to be recorded prior to WPO Approval.) Scott Blossom, PE, Stantec, sent note (8/19/2015 4:02 PM) stating: "The stormwater plans were designed to treat the impervious area associated with Phase 1 development, including proposed roads, sidewalks, hardscape and structures. The impervious areas are depicted within the stormwater plan set, and the supporting calculations for runoff reduction, channel adequacy and TR -55 based hydrology were all provided and approved along with the plan set." 2. ZMA Proffer #10 includes text immediately following 10.G. that reads in part: "The Owner shall obtain approval of the CTM Plan by the Director (of Community Development) before the County approves any grading permit for the property, and shall satisfy and thereafter ... Any approval of the Director required by this proffer shall be made only after consultation with the Owner, the County Engineer and VDOT." VDOT Road Plan comment #50 requests a maintenance of traffic plan. This is a separate plan, not identical with Proffer Condition #10 CTM Plan. Please note: Albemarle County is prohibited from issuing a grading permit prior to approval of the CTM Plan. Provide CTMPIan as soon as possible. 3. Note: SUB201500119 (P1 Rivanna Village Public Road, Water & Sanitary Sewer - Road Plans) is under review. ACF &R (d. 7/12/15) and VDOT comments (d. 8/5/15) are available via CV database system. Engineering and Planning Division comments on road plans received 6/23/15 will be sent as soon as possible. Road Plans must be approved and bonded prior to Final Site Plan Approval. Also, VDOT comments indicate response to road plan comments may affect Initial or Final Site Plan. Please coordinate road plan comments with individual reviewing agencies /reviewers, and carry design revisions (required by road plan comments) through to Initial or Final Site Plan as necessary. 4. Note: Coordinate design revisions with ACSA. ACSA road /utility plan approval is required prior to Final Site Plan Approval. Easements relating to Glenmore GST and associated new water line are relevant to Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 3 Final Site Plan (visible on C2.1 as 20' ACSA Easement). 5. Submit Construction Traffic Management Plan (`CTM'). Reference ZMA Proffer Condition #10. Coordinate `CTM' with road plans. 6. Woods credited in SWM compliance computations (WPO201400077; 19 -Dec 2014 plan review comment; B.2, image below) require permanent easement. Ensure that (confirm if/whether) 0.705 Ac. Preserved Woods visible on C2.2 are preserved via conservation easement if credited in SWM computations. 2. Where preserved/forested areas are credited in the computations, there must be temporary physical barriers and permanent easement measures provided to ensure they remain undisturbed. 7. C1.1 — Provide phase lines and the proposed (approximate) timing of development for Rivanna Village. — Ref. 18- 32.5.2.c. [Recommend revise C1.1, or include separate sheet similar to Sheet 6 of Attachment B. (ZMA201300012/12- 16 -13, Mark E. Keller /Alan G. Franklin, Terra Concepts, P.C.)] 8. CO.1 —Trip Generation Estimates table: identify number of condominium/townhouse /duplex units associated with Ave. weekday /peak/weekend estimates (as with single - family detached =4). Note: these values relate to CTM Plan, but may not serve as accurate parameter for public /private street pavement design. Pavement design for streets within the development should reflect ultimate (full build -out) ADT estimates. 9. CO.1 — Project Data: Although ISP may not make additional waiver /variance requests, this descriptor may be inconsistent with Planning Div. expectation for ISP/FSP. Defer to Planning on whether this descriptor requires revision consistent with waiver /variance requests granted by initial or revised ZMA. B. for Final Site Plan 10. C1.0 —Label wetlands located west of East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Company. C2.0 11 Align concrete entrance aprons with edges of 16'W driveways. Winding Road horizontal/reverse curves, with apron curbs shown perpendicular to EP, creates mismatch with driveway edges (image below). Mismatch is similar (and severe) in recently developed areas Alb. County. Left unaligned, design would impose effects hard to remedy. Provide, with road and Final Site Plan, aprons and drive edges that align. Aprons may flare. Provide special (typ.) apron detail. Also, eliminate 2' R curb returns at entrances at following locations. Instead, provide continuous concrete aprons that serve two villas, from road (EP) to sidewalk. Provide special (typ.) continuous apron detail with caption/typ. label to identify where continuous aprons required: Villas Al /A2; A5 /A6; Al I /Al2; A15 /A16; A17 /A18; A23/A24; and A26/27. Proposed entrance /driveway design does not work at listed Villa locations. Revised design is required at 12. PT/PRC are provided. Provide complete horizontal curve data (or roadway CL radii at a minimum). C2.1 Engineering Review Comments Page 3 of 3 13. Label Glenmore Way. 14. Retaining wall (RW): If CMU proposed, examine geogrid length in direction of preserved woods. Consult geotechnical engineer. Examine RW /geogrid relative to preserved woods, sheet C2.2. Confirm that 0.705 Ac. area is unaffected. 15. L (length RW segment) = 183.72' understates actual length. This figure may exclude wall length north of 79.60' boundary. Please confirm whether value is correct. 16. Eliminate trees /plantings near retaining wall. Do not show trees closer than the greater (distance) of: Max. length of geogrid required to construct RW (if design requires geogrid); or canopy (Radius /ft.) of proposed plantings /trees at maturity (dripline). Geotechnical PE- sealed retaining wall design must accompany Final Site Plan, and is prerequisite to FSP approval. Please reference attached Retaining Wall Plan checklist. 17. Show north intersection of Glenmore Way and Winding Road. [18- 32.5.2.m. /ingress and egress]. 18. Provide yard inlets at additional locations: behind Villas A19, A22, A25, and A14, and in front of A10. [Ref. Drainage Plan checklist, Attached, Drainage, last item {Policy}] 19. Relocate /revise proposed MH locations in 4' strips between drives at Villas A17 /A18, A23/A24, A26/A27. 20. Show grading for bioretention basin Access, consistent with facility to be proposed under WPO201400077. 21. Provide additional existing contour labels. 22. Change line weight/type to indicate proposed contours —at bioretention basin, and inlet aboveibehind upper retaining wall, for example. 23. Label (12" DIP Water Main) ACSA Easement crossing Villa A15 /A16 Lots `to be constructed by others.' While important to show this water line, line weight suggests construction with this plan. 12" water line was approved independent of ISP review, earlier this year, and is not proposed with this project. 24. SS lateral, Villa A20, appears to have a bend. Eliminate bend, if nonessential. Feel free to call to discuss. /Tel: 434.296 -5832 -0096 Thank you File: SDP201500036- Rivanna Village _ph- 1_block A ISP_081915 -c COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENTOF RFNuFZRircdZl1 roe: vreng� RCEa Culpeper Virginia 22741 Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E. Commissioner August 18, 2015 Mr. Christopher Perez Senior Planner County of flbcmarle Depa, anent of Community Development 401 McIntire Read Chart ;RC3vitle, VA 22902 Re: SDP - 2015 -000ie tcivanna village, Phase 1, BIZCK A Villas I..itial Site Plan Deal, Mr. Perez: we have reviewed the init;ai 3;tc plan for Rivanna Village, Pntae 1, Block A anted July 2. 2015 as submitted by Alan Franklin and offer the followin6 co..rrnents: 1. Utilities, includi,tg Dtvttn sewer should Moss the roadway perpendicularly. in particular; the storm 3ewc, between SD44 and SD -15 should be realigned to p,uvide as close as possible a t.erpendicular Lrz33ing. 2. The waterline under the roadway should be installed Dy deflection wnc.e possible ratnz;t than i,tcludi„g the numerous bend fittings as shown. if a leak will develorea tnc waterline, it is likely to occur at a fitting so it is importam to minimize the number of nttings. a. meview comments of the ruaa ptuns that were ;a-11.tified in a tettet dated August 5, 2015 may impact this site plan. Lue to the numerous comment3, they have nut been restated «t this lette,: however the comments in the August 5l,h later need to be considered a..nng site plat, review. If you need additional information ;, .c%—.rning this project, please do nut nc3itate to Contact me at (434) 422 -9782. S;ncurcly, /'� Axtbt T.uy A..3tin, P.E. Area Land U3Z E..gineer Culpeper District WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING A CCREDITED LA W ENFORCEMENTA GENCY COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE POLICE DEPARTMENT * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Initial Site Plan Lead Reviewer: Chris Perez Item Number: SDP201500036 Project Name: Rivanna Village, Phase 1, Block A Villas Due Date: August 17, 2015 All Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) recommendations are considered to be advisory. The recommendations are meant to be utilized as a design strategy to create a safer environment for the future residents of Rivanna Village. Advisory Landscaping Recommendations • All shrubbery and ornamental grasses used in foundation planting areas should follow the CPTED two foot six foot rule. Shrubs should be no taller than two feet in front of building windows. Tree crowns in common areas, near buildings, and along pedestrian walkways should be pruned no less than six feet from ground level to maximize surveillance opportunities. Shrubbery should always remain below the window line so natural surveillance is not hindered from the interior of the residence out onto property grounds. • Shrubs, ornamental grasses, and ornamental flowering trees should be planted no less than six feet from pedestrian walkways to eliminate concealment and ambush opportunities. • Shrubbery and ornamental grasses should be maintained at no more than two feet tall around pedestrian entranceways to eliminate concealment and ambush opportunities. Advisory Lighting Recommendations • All lighting should be within the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) guidelines for minimum security lighting standards. • It is advised that all pedestrian walkways, be illuminated to a minimum 1.0 fc horizontal on pavement and a minimum of .5 fc to .8 fc vertical 5' above ground. • All lighting on site should be at a 4:1 average to minimum ratio (background to face), and designed to limit light trespass and glare. • Use pedestrian scale lighting (see below) in high pedestrian traffic areas. All lighting on site should be sufficient to allow facial recognition at thirty feet. Thirty feet is the minimum for reaction time to determine if a person is a potential threat. • It is advised that the open space area and all alley ways should be illuminated to a minimum 1.0 fc horizontal on pavement and a minimum of .5 to .8 fc vertical 5' above ground. Advisory Territorial Recommendations • Concrete sidewalks leading to the individual buildings from the public sidewalks should be constructed with pavers or different textures and colors to indicate a transition from public space to private space. • All living space should be designed with front porches or stoops to promote ownership of the property and encourage surveillance. Pedestrian Scale Lighting • Typical pedestrian scale luminaires are mounted at a height of 10 to 20 feet. Typical pedestrian zone lighting is usually mounted in the 12 to 18 ft. range. All luminaires should be dark sky compliant and designed to minimize glare and light trespass. MPO Steve Watson, ICPS, CPD Albemarle County Police Department Crime prevention Unit Short Review Comments Report for: SDP201500036 SubApplication Type: Rivanna Village, Phase 1, Block A Villas - Initial Initial Site Plan Date Completed:08/19/2015 Reviewer:Christopher Perez CD Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments: Division: Date Completed:07/17/2015 Reviewer:Andrew Slack E911 Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments:The applicant should contact this office with a list of three (3) replacement names for "Main Street". That road name is not an acceptable road name. Division: Date Completed:08/19/2015 Reviewer:John Anderson Engineering Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments: Division: Date Completed:08/07/2015 Reviewer:Margaret Maliszewski ARB Review Status:No Objection Reviews Comments:Block A does not fall within the Entrance Corridor overlay. However, regarding the landscape buffer along Glenmore Way: 1. The areas on Sheet C5.0 that show a mix of individual trees adequately meet Entrance Corridor requirements due to the quantity of trees proposed. 2. It is not clear from the plan how the first 130’ of buffer at the intersection of Rt. 250 and Glenmore Way (approx., measured along Glenmore Way) will be treated. If existing trees are to remain in this area, this should be noted on the plan and individual existing trees to remain should be identified by species and size. The quantity of trees to remain in this area should be sufficient to provide a consistent appearance with the buffer areas to be planted. Consider any impacts of path construction when showing existing trees to remain. If existing trees to remain are not sufficient, show new trees to be planted in this area. 3. Two other areas in the Glenmore Way buffer do not show individual trees to remain or to be planted. It is recommended that these areas be treated as in comment #2. Division: Date Completed:08/15/2015 Reviewer:Robbie Gilmer Fire Rescue Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments:Based on plans dated 7/6/15. 1. Streets 29' or less shall be marked on one side "No Parking Fire Lane" per County code requirments. 2. Fire flow test required before final approval. Division: Date Completed:08/19/2015 Reviewer:Troy Austin VDOT Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments: Division: Page:1of2 County of AlbemarlePrinted On:October 29, 2015 Date Completed:08/13/2015 Reviewer:Alexander Morrison ACSA Review Status:See Recommendations Reviews Comments: From: Alex Morrison [mailto:amorrison@serviceauthority.org] Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 3:16 PM To: Christopher Perez <cperez@albemarle.org> Subject: SDP201500036: Rivanna Village - Phase 1 - Block A - Initial Site Plan Chris, I have reviewed the above referenced plan. Currently the overall utility plan for Rivanna Village is under review by the ACSA. I hereby recommend approval of SDP201500036 with a condition that approval for the final site plan will not be granted until utility approval is given by the ACSA for Rivanna Village. Alexander J. Morrison, P.E. Civil Engineer Albemarle County Service Authority 168 Spotnap Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22911 (O) 434-977-4511 Ext. 116 (C) 434-981-5577 (F) 434-979-0698 Division: Date Completed:08/17/2015 Reviewer:Steve Watson PD Review Status:Pending Reviews Comments: Division: Date Completed:08/24/2015 Reviewer:Jay Schlothauer Inspections Review Status:No Objection Reviews Comments:Based on plans dated July 6, 2015. No comments or conditions. Division: Date Completed:10/19/2015 Reviewer:Christopher Perez CD Review Status:Pending Reviews Comments:CTM was submitted 10-6-15; however, it was submitted under an incorrect heading and sat in Engineerings office for a week. Staff truely recieved it on 10-15-15. Planning staff sent it out to VDOT, Engineering, Planning, and Glenmore Association on 10-19-15 for their review. Division: Date Completed:10/19/2015 Reviewer:Christopher Perez CD Review Status:Approved Reviews Comments: Division: Page:2of2 County of AlbemarlePrinted On:October 29, 2015 '04.00, r00, Christopher Perez From: Christopher Perez Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 4:03 PM To: 'Alan Franklin, PE' Cc: John Anderson Subject: SUB2015-119 Road Plan Comments- Planning and ARB Attachments: 9-15-15 CD1_Rivanna Village- Road Plans SUB2015-119.pdf Alan, Attached are the road plan comments from Planning to include ARB review. These comments have also been entered into Countyview. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Thanks for your patience. Christopher P. Perez Senior Planner Department of Comnnmitp Development 1County of Albemarle.Virginia 401 McIntire Road l Charlottesville.VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext.3443 // — i \} r (/ ( 1\- ,1 il 7//7/. y" , 4.i,..- --1 r/ i 0(1119 �r�J �a�G�+'�C. _.1--6 _ i 1 Nue /o A u ."�I1iy'.'' =tact.. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road,Room 227 Charlottesville,Virginia 22902-4596 Phone(434)296-5832 Fax(434)972-4126 September 15,2015 Alan Franklin 427 Cranberry Lane Crozet VA 22932 RE: SUB201500119 Rivanna Village—Road Plans(Phase 1 Blocks A, B, C,D,and E) Dear Sir: 1. [ZMA201300012 Proffer 3] Route 250 and Eastern Entrance Improvements. "The owner shall either construct left and right turn lanes on Route 250 at the eastern entrance to the property or bond these improvements prior to approval of the first site plan or subdivision plat for the development... " The above shall take place prior to final site plan approval. It is advisable that the road plans be revised to include the above improvements OR an additional road plan shall be submitted and review/approved to cover these improvements so that they may be built or bonded prior to the 1St final site plan approval as dictated by the proffer. 2. [ZMA201300012 Proffer 10] The `CTM' shall be coordinated with road plans under review. Also, please be aware: "The owner shall obtain approval of the CTM Plan by the Director before the County approves any grading permit for the property... " Discrepancies between road plan and rezoning 3. [Code of Development Section 2.3,Application Plan] The code of development and the application plan depict and describe Block E as being served by a rear alley;however, no alley has been depicted on the road plans, rather these lots appear to be served by Main Street. Either revise to provide such an alley that will serve these units or request a Variation to the Code of Development and the Application plan which will be required to go to the Board of Supervisors for review prior to approval. 4. [Application Plan-Phasing] Portions of Blocks C, D, E, and F and phase lines for phase 1 and 4 depicted and labeled on the road plan do not match up with the rezoning. Either revise the labeling to match the rezoning or request a Variation to the Code of Development and the Application plan which will be required to go to the Board of Supervisors for review prior to approval. * On the road plan Block D(D1 and D2)-The application plan lists Block D as being contain in Phase 4;however,the road plan has pulled portions of Block D into Phase 1. Is this a typographical error and Dl&D2 should be relabeled as portions of Block C?Please address this discrepancy between the road plan and the rezoning. * On the road plan Block E ends across from `Private Alley C';however,the rezoning has Block E ending across from `Sycamore Lane'. Please address this discrepancy between the road plan and the *we w. rezoning. * On the road plan Block F starts across from `Private Alley C';however,the rezoning has Block F starting across from `Sycamore Lane'. Please address this discrepancy between the road plan and the rezoning. * Phase 1 shall only contain Blocks A,B, C,and E. If this road plan is meant to cover multiple phases assure it is appropriately labeled on the cover sheet/title of the road plans and assure the phase lines are correctly labeled within the road plan. Revise appropriately. 5. [Code of Development-sheet 5 of Exhibit B] The Code of Development relies on sheet 5 of Exhibit B dated 7-15-13 for typical road sections. Two of the sections provided on the road plan do not match the code of development in width(A and B below). A)The typical street section w/parking on both sides of the street as depicted on Sheet C2.4 of the road plan does not meet the minimum requirements of the Code of Development. It appears to be one (1)foot short of the required sixty one(61)foot R/W. VDOT also commented on this. B)The typical street section w/no street parking or one side only as depicted on Sheet C2.4 of the road plan does not meet the minimum requirements of the Code of Development. It appears to be two (2)foot short of the required thirty one(31) foot curb to curb measurement. Also,the Private Alley `B' and `C' typical sections on sheet C2.4 of the road plan provide for "Establishing turf on final grades in future parking area"; however,the Code of Development sheet 5 Exhibit B requires these parking spaces to meet VDOT standards of 2" SM-9.5A, 3"BM-25, 6" VDOT#21A. Notably the code of development also provides for Alterative parking surfaces in section 7.3 subject to prior review and approval by the Director of Community Development, or his designee. Please explain how the turf is going to be maintained with residential vehicle usage?Are these to be grass pavers?Engineering will need to sign off on the surface material of these spaces before the spaces are approvable.Alternatively if the note is merely to signify the temporary condition of this area as being turf in the intern please disregard the above comment and signify on the plans that this is a temporary condition until future parking area is designed and approved. Also,the proposed future parking expansions listed in Block C(CI-C4)appear possible;however, their design shall be evaluated at the time of the site plan. Landscaping 6. [Code of Development Section 5.2,and Section 32.7.9.5(d)of County Code] During the review of the initial site plan for Block A(SDP2015-36)planning staff guided the applicant to revise the plan to provide all required plantings within the 70' Glenmore Way buffer on the landscape plan of the final site plan rather than the road plan. However, based on my review of the road plan and the unit type depicted in Block B please disregard that comment(the initial site plan conditions of approval letter will reflect this new guidance). Rather the road plan is the appropriate document to locate all the required plantings within the 70' buffer.The plantings in the 70' buffer will be bonded on the road plan. 7. [Application Plan,Code of Development Section 5.2,and Section 32.7.9 of County Code] The landscape plan depicts proposed plantings in the 70' buffer; however,there are large pockets of blank space throughout the buffer area. Are these areas where existing trees are to be preserved?If so, depict these trees and provide their size and common name on existing conditions sheet of the plan. ARB has also commented on this item below. lope .vier 8. [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 go 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 1I1-393 through 1I1-413, and as hereafter amended. 9. [Code of Development Section 5.2,and Section 32.7.9 of County Code] Based on the proximity to Rte. 250 the Architectural Review Board(ARB) is required to review the plantings in the portion of the 70' Glenmore Way buffer situated in Block B. The landscape sheet provided in the road plans has been given to the ARB planner for consideration. Her comments are provided below(A, B, and C): A) The areas on Sheet C5.0 that show a mix of individual trees adequately meet Entrance Corridor requirements due to the quantity of trees proposed. B) It is not clear from the plan how the first 130' of buffer at the intersection of Rt. 250 and Glenmore Way(approx., measured along Glenmore Way)will be treated. If existing trees are to remain in this area,this should be noted on the plan and individual existing trees to remain should be identified by species and size. The quantity of trees to remain in this area should be sufficient to provide a consistent appearance with the buffer areas to be planted. Consider any impacts of path construction when showing existing trees to remain. If existing trees to remain are not sufficient, show new trees to be planted in this area. C) Two other areas in the Glenmore Way buffer do not show individual trees to remain or to be planted. It is recommended that these areas be treated as in comment B, above. 10. [Code of Development Section 5.2,and Section 32.7.9.5(d)of County Code] On the landscape plan and all other sheets of the road plan please label and depict the 70' Glenmore Way buffer. 11. [Code of Development Section 5.2,and Section 32.7.9.5(d)of County Code] On the landscaping sheet C5.0, please provide the calculations for the required street trees so that staff may verify the adequate numbers of plantings. "One (1) large street free shall be required for every fifty(50)feet of street frontage... " Other 12. [Comment] On the road plans assure each proposed public road is appropriately labeled as Public Road. 13. [Comment] Parking requirements,Amenity space requirements,and Green Space requirements listed on sheet CO.1 have not been reviewed nor approved during the review of this road plan as there have been no site plan submittals or subdivision plat submittals for any section of this project except Block A. Please remove these notes from the road plan. 14. [Application Plan] On sheet C1.1 `Steamer Drive' cul-de-sacs in Block B. This design is permitted per the approved rezoning application plan. To avoid confusion on the road plans assure the note Nee Noe which reads: "Potential cul-de-sac area see note #7" is revised to say something to the affect of "Cul-de-sac permitted per note #7 on approved Application Plan". 15. [Application Plan] As mentioned above `Steamer Drive' in Block B has been designed with a cul- de-sac. As such the trail connection at that intersection is being lost. To make up for this pedestrian access deficit provide a trail connection at the intersection of Rte 250 and Glenmore Way. 16. [Comment] On sheet C2.0 there is proposed widening of Glenmore Way to 24'. It is unclear is this improvement is happening within the existing VDOT Right of Way OR whether it's on land owned by Rivanna Village.If it is on land owned by Rivanna Village a plat of dedication shall be required to dedicate this portion of land to public use. If it is within the existing VDOT right of way,this road plan will be sufficient to cover the work. 17. [Comment] On sheet CO.1, for Project Data, under Zoning,Proffers,or Setbacks assure it clearly states that a"Code of Development dated June 9, 2014 and titled:Rivanna Village Amended and Restated Code of Development applies to this development". Please contact Christopher P. Perez in the Planning Division by using cperez(2 albemarle.org or 434-296- 5832 ext. 3443 for further information or if you have questions. V Noe Christopher Perez From: Christopher Perez Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 7:51 AM To: 'alan @alanfranklinpe.com' Cc: Megan Yaniglos Subject: RE: SDP2015-36 Phase 1 Block A Villas and RE: Rivanna Village (ZMA2013-12) - Park Maintenance and Stormwater facilities Alan, Sounds good, thanks for the deferral request. As you stated: "once the CTM Plan is approved we will restart the site plan approval process. " You can go that route, which is fine. But be advised I can approve the initial site plan w/conditions (without any resubmittal of the initial site plan) once I have the CTM submitted, it does not need to be approved for the initial site plan approval. According to the proffer, the grading permit approval cannot happen till the CTM is approved. Just wanted to be clear on that one. Have a good weekend. Christopher P. Perez I Senior Planner Department ofCommunit) De\elopment (Count\ of Albemarle. Virginia 401 Mclnlire Road Charlottes\ille.VA 22902 434.296.5532 e\t. 3443 From:alan @alanfranklinpe.com [mailto:alan @alanfranklinpe.com] Sent:Thursday, September 10, 2015 4:04 PM To:Christopher Perez<cperez @albemarle.org>; Boninti, Andrew<andrew.boninti @cbre-charlottesville.com> Cc:Alan Franklin, PE<alan @alanfranklinpe.com>; Megan Yaniglos<myaniglos @albemarle.org> Subject: Re: SDP2015-36 Phase 1 Block A Villas and RE: Rivanna Village (ZMA2013-12)- Park Maintenance and Stormwater facilities Christopher, Please allow this email to serve as official request for deferral of SDP2015-36 Phase 1 Block A Villas Initial Site Plan while we work on the CTM Plan. Once the CTM Plan is approved we will restart the site plan approval process. Thank you, Alan Franklin, PE Original Message From: Christopher Perez [mailto:cperez©albemarle.orq] Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 03:55 PM To: 'Boninti, Andrew' Cc: 'Alan Franklin, PE', 'Megan Yaniglos' Subject: SDP2015-36 Phase 1 Block A Villas and RE: Rivanna Village (ZMA2013-12) - Park Maintenance and Stormwater facilities Andrew, In response to your email response below, please be aware of the last paragraph in Proffer 10 on sheet 7 of the proffers, which states ?The owner shall obtain approval of the CTM Plan by the Director before the County approved any grading permit for the property??. At this point the CTM plan has not been submitted, let alone i w '4111, approved. I suspect approval of this document may take some time once it?s submitted as we?11 be including some of the Glenmore representatives who attended the SRC meeting in the review of the document. Please take this into consideration. Also, for the initial site plan SDP2015-36 Phase 1 Block A Villas, I need you or Alan Franklin to request deferral of the plan (an email is fine). The reasoning is the County needs to take an action on the initial site plan within a certain time frame, and without the CTM submitted I cannot approve the initial site plan nor approve it w/condition(see comment#2 from the 8-19-15 SRC letter). Deferral does nothing to your project but allows the time clock in the ordinance to stop. If I do not receive the deferral request I?ll have to take action on the initial site plan and that action will be denial without the CTM submitted. There is no fee to restart the initial site plan once it?s been deferred. If you have any questions about the above let me know. I?ve CCed Alan to alert him to the deferral request. Thanks Christopher P. Perez Senior Planner Department of Community Development lCount\ of Albemarle. Virginia 401 McIntire Road C'harlottes\ille.VA 22902 434.296.5832 e\t. 3443 From: Boninti,Andrew [mailto:andrew.boninti @cbre-charlottesville.com] Sent:Thursday, September 10, 2015 12:46 PM To:Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org> Cc: Megan Yaniglos<myaniglos@albemarle.org>; Dan Mahon<DMAHON @albemarle.org>; Glenn Brooks <GBROOKS @albemarle.org> Subject: RE: Rivanna Village (ZMA2013-12)- Park Maintenance and Stormwater facilities Thanks to all for your timely answer to these questions. We are starting to get all aspects of the project organized so that we can start our grading before the end of the year. Here we go! From: Christopher Perez [mailto:cperez @albemarle.org] Sent:Thursday, September 10, 2015 11:52 AM To: Boninti,Andrew<andrew.boninti @cbre-charlottesville.com> Cc: Megan Yaniglos<myaniglos @albemarle.org>; Dan Mahon<DMAHON @albemarle.org>; Glenn Brooks <GBROOKS @albemarle.org> Subject: Rivanna Village (ZMA2013-12) - Park Maintenance and Stormwater facilities Andrew, Below I am providing answers to each of your questions on the HOA does for Rivanna Village. Your original questions are the bold black text, my responses are in red. We are in the process of finishing up our HOA documents for Rivanna Village (the County must approve the documents before site plan approval) and a few questions have come up that we need assistance with: 1. Our preference and understanding is that we will construct the storm water facility/trails and the County will maintain them. We need some confirmation of this. We have storm water facilities within the park, fire station (which is owned with the County) and the Rivanna Village community. I discussed your request with the County Engineer (Glenn Brooks). Parks & Rec (Dan Mahon) and I researched the rezoning file (ZMA2013-12). All parties are in agreeance that the storm water facilities are for the Rivanna 2 Village development. thus the developer would construct them and maintain them. The County does not maintain the stormwater facilities of a private development, thus these facilities would be put in easements which would allow the developer to maintain them on these portions of the development which are dedicated to public use. If you have documentation that the County entered into such an agreement that it would maintain the Stormwater Management Facilities within these areas. please provide such documentation to County review/consideration. Notably, the maintenance of trails within parks to be dedicated to public use are mentioned in Proffer 6 as: ??the owner and the County acknowledge that the Count)'may assume responsibility jar maintenance for completed portions of the Community Parks prior to dedication?.The owner shall construct the trails through the Linear Park Areas within twelve (12) months after the approval by the County of the,first subdivision plat or site plan applicable to any portion of a block within with the trails are located.? Thus once constructed and accepted into the County?s park system then Parks and Rec would maintain the trails. 2. We need someone to confirm with the Parks and Recreation Department that all the trails located within Rivanna Village that are extensions of a trail system largely within the park dedication will be dedicated, owned and maintained by the County. I have discussed this request with Dan Mahon of Parks & Recreation and he confirms that all the trails located within Rivanna Village that are extensions of a trail system largely within the park dedication will be dedicated, owned and maintained by the County. Once the HOA document is developed Parks & Rec will be one of the depts to review and sign off on the document before it can be approved. 3. Sidewalks: Although these are placed within the VDOT right of way and dedicated to them (correct?) Sidewalks and landscaping strip are within the VDOT right of way; however, repairs of the sidewalks are the responsibility of the HOA and maintenance of the street trees are the responsibility of the HOA, I assume snow removal is an HOA or homeowner's responsibility. How are future repairs to sidewalks covered? Snow removal in a VDOT right of way will be the responsibility of VDOT once the roads are accepted into the state system. Repairs of the sidewalks are the responsibility of the HOA. Maintenance of the street trees are the responsibility of the HOA. Thanks for your help with these items. With communities like Old Trail already up and running, I am sure this is not the first time these types of questions have come up. Christopher P. Perez Senior Planner Department o1Communit■ Development Count■ of Albemarle. Virginia 401 McIntire Road'Charlottesville. VA 22902 434 296.5832 ext. 3443 3 Christopher Perez From: Christopher Perez Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 11:52 AM To: 'Boninti, Andrew' Cc: Megan Yaniglos; Dan Mahon; Glenn Brooks Subject: Rivanna Village(ZMA2013-12) - Park Maintenance and Stormwater facilities Andrew, Below I am providing answers to each of your questions on the HOA docs for Rivanna Village. Your original questions are the bold black text, my responses are in red. We are in the process of finishing up our HOA documents for Rivanna Village (the County must approve the documents before site plan approval) and a few questions have come up that we need assistance with: 1. Our preference and understanding is that we will construct the storm water facility/trails and the County will maintain them. We need some confirmation of this. We have storm water facilities within the park, fire station (which is owned with the County) and the Rivanna Village community. I discussed your request with the County Engineer(Glenn Brooks), Parks & Rec (Dan Mahon) and I researched the rezoning file (ZMA2013-12). All parties are in agreeance that the storm water facilities are for the Rivanna Village development, thus the developer would construct them and maintain them. The County does not maintain the stormwater facilities of a private development, thus these facilities would be put in easements which would allow the developer to maintain them on these portions of the development which are dedicated to public use. If you have documentation that the County entered into such an agreement that it would maintain the Stormwater Management Facilities within these areas,please provide such documentation to County review/consideration. Notably, the maintenance of trails within parks to be dedicated to public use are mentioned in Proffer 6 as: "...the owner and the County acknowledge that the County may assume responsibility for maintenance for completed portions of the Community Parks prior to dedication....The owner shall construct the trails through the Linear Park Areas within twelve (12) months after the approval by the County of the first subdivision plat or site plan applicable to any portion of a block within with the trails are located. " Thus once constructed and accepted into the County's park system then Parks and Rec would maintain the trails. 2. We need someone to confirm with the Parks and Recreation Department that all the trails located within Rivanna Village that are extensions of a trail system largely within the park dedication will be dedicated, owned and maintained by the County. I have discussed this request with Dan Mahon of Parks & Recreation and he confirms that all the trails located within Rivanna Village that are extensions of a trail system largely within the park dedication will be dedicated, owned and maintained by the County. Once the HOA document is developed Parks & Rec will be one of the depts to review and sign off on the document before it can be approved. 3. Sidewalks: Although these are placed within the VDOT right of way and dedicated to them (correct?) Sidewalks and landscaping strip are within the VDOT right of way; however, repairs of the sidewalks are the responsibility of the HOA and maintenance of the street trees are the responsibility of the HOA, I assume snow removal is an HOA or homeowner's responsibility. How are future repairs to sidewalks covered? Snow removal in a VDOT right of way will be the responsibility of VDOT once the roads are accepted into the state system. Repairs of the sidewalks are the responsibility of the HOA. Maintenance of the street trees are the responsibility of the HOA. 1 Thanks for your help with these items. With communities like Old Trail already up and running, I am sure this is not the first time these types of questions have come up. Christopher P. Perez j Senior Planner Department of Community Development County of Albemarle,Virginia 401 McIntire Road l Charlottesville,VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext.3443 2 4 .,-. Christopher Perez From: Christopher Perez Sent: Monday, August 31, 2015 11:02 AM To: 'Boninti, Andrew' Cc: Megan Yaniglos; Valerie Long Subject: RE: CTM Plan Attachments: Shared use path design and width.PNG Andrew, The requirement is to provide a shared use path along Glenmore Way from Rte 250 to Main Street.The 6'trail within the 70' buffer is not sufficient to meet the requirements of a shared use path. The County's design standards dictate shared use paths be 14' wide(10' for surface and 2' cleared for shoulders)—see the attached guidelines from the County's Design Standards Manual(link to entire document provided below). Thus that portion of the 6' wide trail from Rte 250 to Main Street should be a minimum of 14' wide, it should also stub out to Rte 250. Hope this helps. hops://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/forms center/departments/community development/forms/designst andards_manual/Albernarle_County_Design_Standards Manual_2()15-04-25_draft.pdf Christopher P. Perez I Senior Planner Department of Community Development 1County of Albemarle.Virginia 401 McIntire Road l Charlottesville,VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext.3443 From:Christopher Perez Sent:Tuesday,August 25,2015 9:17 AM To: 'Boninti,Andrew' <andrew.boninti @cbre-charlottesville.com>; Megan Yaniglos<myaniglos @albemarle.org> Cc:Valerie Long<vlong @williamsmullen.com> Subject: RE:CTM Plan Andrew, I plan to respond to your email soon, I'm working on another project, but will jump back on Rivanna shortly. I'll get into your request and get with the Director and provide you something. Thanks t'€€ricrophe°°P. Pere?;Senior Planner Department of Community Development County of Albemarle,Virginia 401 Mclntire Road 1 Charlottesville,VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext.3443 From: Boninti,Andrew (mailto:andrew.bonintic cbre-charlottesville.com] Sent: Monday,August 24,2015 12:30 PM To: Megan Yaniglos<mvaniglos @albemarle.org> Cc: Christopher Perez<cperezi albemarle.org>;Valerie Long<vlong@williamsmullen.com> Subject: CTM Plan Megan, 1 r.✓ 'rte If you remember one of the Ilth hour proffers that was added to Rivanna Village was a CTM Plan. See attached paragraph 10. At the site plan review last week there was some discussion that the 6 foot wide path that is planned to connect the community along Glenmore Way might need to be widened to serve as a multiple use path along Glenmore Way only. I am happy to have Valerie Long incorporate the provisions of paragraphs B through G in a formal document, but we need some direction on A. There was a big deal made of this by the Glenmore residents, but from a practical standpoint I probably have been out to Glenmore Way twice a week fro the past 12 months and I see very little if any pedestrian, equestrian, or bike traffic along our section of Glenmore Way. I think our existing trail location will easily accommodate members of our community as well as those that venture down from Glenmore. I need direction from the Director of Community Development. We do not want this detail to hold up our grading permit in the coming weeks. As always thanks for all your assistance! Andrew Bonlnti Senior Vice President Brokerage Services and Development CBRE I Mid-South Region 314 East Water Street Charlottesville. VA 22902 D 434 284 4006 1 T 434 974 7377 ' F 434 974 1909 C 434 531 3125 andrew.boninti @cbre-charlottesville.com I www.cbre.com/andrew.boninti This email may contain information that is confidential or attorney-client privileged and may constitute inside infonnatior. The contents of this emair are intended only to the recipientr,s,listed above.if you are not the intended recipient yot:are directed not to read disclose.distrib.ne or otherwise use this transmission.If you nave received this email in erroi.please notify the sender immeaiateiy ano aerete trio transmission. Delivery of this message is not intended to waive any aepircaole privileges. Please consider the environment before printing this email.Thank you. 2