HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201500036 Action Letter 2015-10-19COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832
October 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 Agent for the Board of Supervisors hereby grants administrative approval to the above referenced site plan.
This approval shall be valid for a period of five (5) years from the date of this letter, provided that the developer
submits a final site plan for all or a portion of the site within one (1) year after the date of this letter as provided in
section 32.4.3.1 of Chapter 18 of the Code of the County of Albemarle, and thereafter diligently pursues approval of
the final site plan.
The final site plan will not be considered to have been officially submitted until the following items are received:
1. A final site plan that satisfies all of the requirements of section 32.6 of Chapter 18 of the Code.
2. A fee of $1,613.
Please submit 9 copies of the final plans to the Community Development Department. The assigned Lead Reviewer
will then distribute the plans to all reviewing agencies (for ACSA, please also submit 3 conies of construction plans
directly to them). Once you receive the first set of comments on the final site plan, please work with each reviewer
individually to satisfy their requirements.
The Department of Community Development shall not accept submittal of the final site plan for signature until
tentative approvals for the attached conditions from the following agencies/reviewers have been obtained:
SRC Members:
Albemarle County Planning Services ( PIanner) - 3 copies [Christopher Perez (434) - 296 -5832 Ext. 3443]
Albemarle County Engineering Services (Engineer) - 1 copy [John Anderson (434)- 296 -5832 Ext. 30691
Albemarle County Information Services (E911) - 1 copy [Andy Slack (434)- 296 -5832 Ext. 3384]
Albemarle County Building Inspections - 1 copy [Jay Schlothauer (434)- 296 -5832 Ext. 3228]
Albemarle County Department of Fire Rescue - 1 copy [Robbie Gilmer 434 -531 -6606]
Albemarle County Service Authority - 1 copy [Alex Morrison (434) 977 -4511 Ext. 116]
Virginia Department of Transportation - I copy [Troy Austin (434) 422 -9373]
*Recommendations:
Albemarle County Police Department — Steve Watson [OPTED recommendations]
Albemarle County Planning Services (ARB) - Margaret Maliszewski [recommendations]
If you have any questions about these conditions or the submittal requirements please feel free to contact me at
Extension 3443, cperez @albemarle.org.
Sincerely,
Christopher P. Perez
Senior Planner
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
Revised 10 -19 -15 for Conditional Approval Letter
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.]
[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.
R ffl!!! i
11 1 NMI
MINES V!WZ
Please be awffe: "The aifiier shall obtain affiaeval of Me C-T-AIP4an by the Dif-eetai- befel-e
Comment Addressed: The Construction Traffic Management (CTM) Plan has been submitted and
is now under review 10- 19 -15.
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 5.4.11 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 5.4.11 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 Cl.l 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. ,
site plan's landseape plan. Revise appfepfia4ely.
On 9 -15 -15 Road plan review SUB2015 -119 specifically comment 6 has corrected this issue, all 70'
buffer landscaping shall be on the road plan rather than the final site plan; however, on the final site
plan provide a note that the landscaping in this buffer is depicted on the road plan SUB2015 -119.
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 MOT comments dated 8-18-15, with special
attention to #3). Notably, sheet Cl.l 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 Cl.l 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 4.21 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 91 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 -138 Rivanna Village Easement plat] has been submitted to the County, which
proposes various easements required for the grading, drainage, SWMP /BMP, 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 of Block A 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 31.68 acres of the site), which is a part of
the developments total "Open Space /Greenspace Area" (which makes up 37.52 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 9436 ACRES
INCLUDING BLOCK K (FIRE STATION)
COMMUNITY PARK 18.42 ACRES*
plus
LINEAR PARK W/ TRAILS 13.26 ACRES*
AMENITY AREA 31.68 ACRES (35.7%)*
AMENITY AREA
31.68 ACRES*
plus
2 TENNIS COURTS
OTHER OPEN SPACE
7.67 ACRES*
minus
IMPERVIOUS AREAS
1.83 ACRES*
TOTAL OPEN SPACE /GREENSPACE AREA
37.52 ACRES (42.3%)*
*EXCLUDES AREA IN BLOCK K (FIRE STATION)
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"
BASKETBALL COURT
2 TENNIS COURTS
2 PICNIC SHELTERS
LARGEPLAYFIELD
PLAYGROUND
M /FRESTROOM FACILTY
' C
DOG PARK WITH PIER AT QUARRY
��.
POND WITH PIER
� WOODED GROVE WITH QUARRY -SIDE PAVILION.
= \� _
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 (93A1 -4 and 79 -25A).
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 7.11 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 14= 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), 4.12.61 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.
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 3.31 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)] Waivers /Special 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 6th 2014 BOS action letter. Revise appropriately.
31. [32.5.2(n), Code of Development Section 81 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. , !his will net be aeeeptabl
trees. VDOT says they have no authority over this. Comment shall be omitted.
35. [32.5.2(p) & 32.7.9.71 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.
Please contact Christopher P. Perez in the Planning Division by using cperez(,albemarle.org or 434 -296-
5832 ext. 3443 for further information or if you have questions.
�I�LSIP
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)alanfranklippe. 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 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 CTM Plan 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 Villageph- 1_block A ISP_081915 -c
Review C ran rune n is
SDP201500036
Project Name: ivanna Village, Phase 1, Block A Villas - initial
Date Completed: ' = riday, July 17, 2015 Initial Site Plan
Reviewer: Andrew Slack
Department/Division /Agency: E911
Reviews Comments:
The applicant should contact this office with a fist of three {} replacement names for "Main Street "_
That road name is not an acceptable road name.
Review Status: I Requested Changes
Page: 1 County of Albemarle Printed On: 110/19/2015
Review Comments
SDP 01500036
Project Name: ivanna Village, Phase 1, Block A Villas - initial
Date Completed: ' vlonday, August 24, 2015 Initial Site Plan
Reviewer: Jay Schlothauer
Department/Division/Agency: Inspections
Reviews Comments:
Review Status: I No Objection I - I
Page: 1 County of Albemarle Printed On: 110/19/2015
Review Comments
SDP 01500036
Project Name: .ivanna Village, Phase 1, Block A Villas - initial
Date Completed: ' 3aturday, August 15, 2015 Initial Site Plan
Reviewer: Bobbie Gilmer
Department/Division /Agency: Fire Rescue
Reviews Comments:
Based on plans dated 716115. }
I1 _ Streets 9' or less shall be marked on one side "No Parking Fire Lane" per County code
requirments.
12. Fire flow test required before final approval.
Review Status: I Requested Changes I - I
Page: 1 County of Albemarle Printed On: 110/19/2015
nurseay, Aug
Reviewer: klexander Morrison
DeparkmentiDivision /Agency: AGSA
Reviews Comments:
From: Alex Morrison [mailto:amorrisona serviceauthority.org]
Sent: Thursday, August 13; 2015 3:16 PM
To: Christopher Perez cpereza@albemarle.org
Subject: SDP 01500036: Rivanna Village - Phase 1 - Block A - Initial Site Plan
hris,
have reviewed the above referenced plan. Currently the overall utility plan for Rivanna Village is under
review by the AOSA. I hereby recommend approval of SDP 01500036 with a condition that approval for
the final site plan will not be granted until utility approval is given by the AOSA for Rivanna Village.
Alexander J_ Morrison, P. E.
Civil Engineer
Albemarle County Service Authority
168 SpDtnap Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22911
{0} 434- 977 -4511 Ext. 116
{} 434 -981 -5577
{F} 434 - 979 -0698
Review Status: See Recommendations
Page: 1 County of Albemarle Printed On: 10/19/2015
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 orange R=d
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
R
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper Virginia 22701
Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E.
Commissioner
August 5, 2015
Mr. John Anderson
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: SUB -2015 -00119 Rivanna Village, Phase I Road Plans
Dear Mr. Anderson:
We have reviewed the road plans for Rivanna Village, Phase 1 dated 6/18/15 as submitted by
Alan Franklin and offer the following comments:
1. There appear to be numerous drafting errors with the road plans. Potentially there have
been redesign iterations of the layout and some of the labels may have not been corrected.
Examples of some of the errors are as follows:
• On Sheet 5 of 25, there is a note calling out a CG -12, Type C at Lot E6; however,
there does not appear to be a CG -12 at this location.
• On Sheets 12, 16, and 18 of 25 there is a label or reference to SD G3 -1 on
Winding Road, however there does not appear to be a drop inlet for SD G3 -1.
• On Sheet 18 of 25, there are several labels that have duplicate arrows to the
features that they are identifying.
• On Sheet 18 of 25, there are labels for SS F1, SD N1, SD N2, and SD Ml near
Sycamore Lane; however there do not appear to be features associated with these
labels.
• The Sheet Numbers for Sheets 4, 6 and 23 of 25 are missing.
• Sheets I6 and 18 are mislabeled as Sheets 16 and 18 of 24.
2. On Sheet 2, there needs to be a note indicating that VDOT will be contacted 48 hours in
advance of starting construction. VDOT should also be included in the pre - construction
meeting.
3. Sheet 2 has a Trip Generation table, however, there should be a detail identifying the
proposed ADT for each individual street as this information is necessary to determine the
appropriate roadway typical section.
4. The plan should clearly identify which lots are single family residential and which are
condominium/townhouse `duplex.
5. On Sheet 4 there is a note stating "Potential Cul -De -Sac Area, See Note #7 ". Where is
note 7 and is this notation necessary as the cul -de -sac has been shown?
6. On Sheet 5, the radii for the intersection of Sycamore Lane and Main Street have been
shown as 15'. The minimum radii allowed by the Road Design Manual, Appendix B(1)
is 25'.
7. Sight lines and profiles for each intersection needs to be provided for review.
8. The CG -12 at the intersection of Sweet Gum Lane and Main Street does not have a
receiving CG -12 and should be removed.
9. Typically, the preference is to not locate CG -12's in the midpoint of the intersection
returns. This directs a visually impaired person towards the center of the intersection.
The preference is to locate CG -12's perpendicular to the road centerline near the
intersection. The CG -12's at the intersections of Steamer Drive and Main Street, and at
Sycamore Lane and both Main Street and Steamer Drive, and at Sweet Gum Lane and
Steamer Drive should be revised accordingly.
10. Midblock crossings are discouraged. Approval from NWRO for the midblock crossings
on Main Street, Winding Road, and Steamer Drive will be required.
11. The proposed radius of the cul -de -sac on Steamer Drive needs to be added to the plan.
12. Extending centerline profile of Steamer Drive through the cul -de -sac does not serve any
real purpose. The centerline should begin at the center of the cul -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
drainage from the cul -de -sac.
14. The centerline of Sweet Gum Lane should intersect Main Street and Steamer Drive
perpendicularly.
15. The stations and finished grade elevations of each cross street needs to be added to the
road centerline profiles. Specifically, the stations and elevations for the intersections
with Sweet Gum Lane, Private Alley "A ", Private Alley "C ", and Sycamore Lane needs
to be added to the profiles for Steamer Drive and Main Street. In addition, the station and
elevation of the intersection of Steamer Drive and Main Street needs to be added to the
Main Street profile.
16. The design speeds for each road section is based on the ADT for each road section. To
this end, the ADT for each specific roadway needs to be provided. In addition, it appears
that the 30 mph/25 mph design speeds shown on the Steamer Drive profile should be
reversed.
17. The method of control fill for the fill sections of the roadways should be added to the
profiles.
18. On the profile for Sweet Gum Lane, the beginning and ending labels for the profile
appear to be reversed. The higher elevation side of the profile should be Steamer Drive
and the lower elevation side should be Main Street.
19. The profile for Sweet Gum Lane shows the intersection with Steamer Drive to be at
station 10 +01.74. The station for this intersection shown on Sheet 5 of 25 indicates the
station is 10 +00. This stationing should be the same.
20. The profile for Sycamore Lane shows the intersection with Steamer Drive to be at 10 +00.
The station for this intersection shown on Sheet 5 of 25 indicates the station is 10 +12.57.
This stationing should be the same.
21. The profile for Sycamore Lane shows the intersection with Main Street to be at 12 +80.
The station for this intersection shown on Sheet 5 of 25 indicates the station is 12 +92.57.
This stationing should be the same.
22. The station and elevation of the low point in the sag of Winding Road should be added to
the profile.
23. It appears that the profile for Alley B on Sheet 7 of 25 is actually the profile for Alley C
and vice versa based on the labels of these alleys on Sheet 5 of 25.
24. The distance from the back of curb to the street trees needs to be shown in the typical
sections. Note, the minimum distance is 3'.
25. In all typical sections, the minimum distance of the right -of -way beyond the sidewalk is
1'. The typical for Main Street (Station 12 +50 to 18 +00) needs to be revised accordingly.
26. The labels for the CG -6 in the typical sections for Main Street are not pointing to the
curb.
27. The typical section for Main Street (Station 12 +50 to 18 +00) indicates parking on both
sides of the road. The numerous entrances shown on the north side of Main Street
appears to make this not practical.
28. The typical section for Steamer Drive from Station 10 +00 to 14 +50 indicates that the
ADT is between 2,000 and 4,000 vehicles per day. However, based on the stationing
shown on Sheet 5 of 25, this is the cul -de -sac section of Steamer Drive and this ADT is
not accurate. It appears the ADTs shown for the two typical sections of Steamer Drive
have been reversed.
29. The grades of the roadway, landscape strip, and sidewalk need to be shown on each
typical section.
30. The pavement design should be added to each typical section.
31. Both typical sections for Steamer Drive indicate that there will either be no on- street
parking or parking on one side. This needs to be defined as to which condition will occur
on each section. Furthermore, which side of the roadway parking will be allowed needs
to be identified and No Parking signs need to be added to the plan indicating 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. The left turn lane and taper on Glenmore Way into Main Street needs to be regraded in
plan view. In addition, the roadside ditch needs to be relocated and 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 wrong side of the
typical section.
35. The typical sections shown on Sheet 10 of 25 are not in accordance with the pavement
widening (WP -2) standard as shown in the 2008 Road and Bridge Standards.
36. The pavement designs shown on Sheet 11 of 25 are incorrect. The BM -25 course is
actually the Base course and the 21A aggregate is actually the sub -base course. As such,
the equivalency value for the 21A should be 0.6 instead of 1. The designs with ADT of
200 and 600 appear to be adequate, but the designs with ADT of 2,200 and 4,400 do not.
The designs need to be revised.
37. It appears to be a need for a drainage easement between SD A10 -1 and SD A10.
38. The following structures were included in the storm sewer structure schedule but could
not be found on the plan:
• SD N1
• SD N2
• SD B3 -1
• SD K1
• SD K2
• SD G3 -1
39. A column for height of structure should be added to the storm sewer structure schedule.
40. There are several discrepancies in the data for the storm sewer system between the
profiles, the storm structure schedule and the storm sewer calculations. A full review of
the storm sewer calculations will be made once these discrepancies have been corrected.
41. There is greater potential for leakage in the public waterline at fittings than there is if the
waterline is deflected. The following locations of bends in the waterline should be
reevaluated;
• It appears that the waterline along Winding Road could be deflected instead of
using the bends currently shown.
• It would be preferable to replace the two 45° bends at the intersection of
Glenmore Way and Main Street with a single 90° bend.
• The waterline shifts from one side of the road to the other on Steamer Road near
Lot B8. The waterline should remain on the same side of the road.
42. Utilities should cross the roadway perpendicularly or as close as possible. Locations of
concern that need to be reevaluated are:
• The storm sewer crossing of Winding Road between SD 15 and SD 14.
• The storm sewer crossing of Sycamore Lane between SD A5 -3 and SD A5 -2.
• The sanitary sewer crossing of Steamer Drive between SS A18 and SS A17.
43. The inverts of the storm sewer structures should be labeled as either Invert In or Invert
Out instead of having a bearing. In addition, the invert ins should indicate which
structure they are coming from and all invert ins to a structure should be included in the
label of the structure on the profiles.
44. It appears that SD B2 as shown on the profile for Storm Sewer "B" on Sheet 14 of 25
could be lowered to existing grade to avoid potential settling of the inlet.
45. It appears that the final and existing grades in the Storm Sewer "AT' have been reversed.
46. It appears that SD B2, SD 132 -1, and SD 132 -2 as shown on the profile for Storm Sewer
"B2" on Sheet 14 of 25 could be lowered to existing grade to avoid potential settling of
the inlets.
47. The separation between utility crossings and the storm sewer should be labeled for each
crossing in the storm sewer profiles. Many of these separations have been labeled, but
several have not.
48. There appears to be a couple of conflicts between the storm sewer and utility crossings.
Two of the locations are as follows:
• Sanitary Sewer A crossing between SD A3 and SD A4.
• Sanitary Sewer A crossing between SD C2 and SD C3.
49. An erosion and sediment control plan needs to be provided for this project for 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 using the attached checklists during our review of road and site plans. It may
be helpful for the engineer to use these checklists during construction plan development to
reduce the number of review comments by VDOT. Due to the numerous comments associated
with this review, it may be beneficial to meet with the design engineer to review the comments.
If you need additional information concerning this project, please do not hesitate to contact me at
(434) 422 -9782.
Sincer y,
TrolAstin, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
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
Review Comments
SDP201500036
Project Name: .ivanna Village, Phase 1, Block A Villas - initial
Date Completed: ' =rida , August 07, 2015
Reviewer: Margaret Maliszewki
Department/Division /Agency: ARB
Reviews Comments:
Initial Site Plan
Block A does not fall within the Entrance Corridor m►erlay. However; regarding the landscape buffer
along Olenmore 1a:
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.
. It is not clear from the plan how the first 130' of buffer at the intersection of Rt. 260 and Olenmore
Way (approx.. measured along Olenmore 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 Olenmore lay buffer do not show individual trees to remain or to be planted.
It is recommended that these areas be treated as in comment #2.
Review Status: I No Objection
n
Page: 1 County of Albemarle Printed On: 110/19/2015