HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201400067 Correspondence 2015-06-17 •
Christopher Perez
From: David Jensen <djensen @wwassociates.net>
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 4:47 PM
To: Christopher Perez
Cc: emottley@wwassociates.net
Subject: FW: Lofts at Meadow Creek SUB 2015-00039 and Final Site Plan (SDP2014-67)
Attachments: LM Recordation Receipt Deed Consolidation DB4635P123.pdf; LM Recordation Receipt Plat
DB4635P 115.pdf
r
Importance: High
Good afternoon Christopher,
The plat has been recorded and the Clerk of the Court receipts are attached he Rio Road right of way dedication
occurred with the Certificate of Plat with boundary Line Adjustment/Ease nt Plat at DB 4635 Page 115. We will add that
notation with recording information in the lower right hand corner of the ..ver sheet of the Site Plan and will submit 4 sets
of the site plan to you for signature. The vacation of the interior lot an• •arcel lines were recorded at DB 4635 PG 123.
Thanks, A C
David M.Jensen, PE /..
Vice President
A likEnds o
1P RY'i 10145
PLANNERS
ASSOCIATES
Direct:434.960.7549
Main:434.984.2700
Fax:434.978.1444
3040 Avemore Square Place
Charlottesville,VA 22911
diensen@wwassociates.net
www.wwassociates.net
www.facebook.com/WWAssociateslnc
From: Betty Groth [mailto:bgroth @pinnacleconstructionva.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 12:39 PM
To: djensen @wwassociates.net
Cc: PC LM (com-inbound-lofts-at-meadowcreek @procoretech.com)
Subject: RE: Lofts at Meadow Creek SUB 2015-00039 and final site plan (SDP2014-67)
Importance: High
David,attached are receipts of recordation of the following:
• Certificate of Plat with Boundary Line Adjustment/Easement Plat DB 4635 Page 115
• Deed of Consolidation DB 4635 Page 123
Betty Groth
Pinnacle Construction&Devel.Corp.
Park Properties Management Co.LLC
From: David Jensen [mailto:djensen @wwassociates.net]
Sent:Tuesday, June 16, 2015 3:51 PM
To: Betty Groth
Subject: RE: Lofts at Meadow Creek SUB 2015-00039 and final site plan (SDP2014-67)
1
Thanks!!
David M.Jensen, PE
Vice President
IrA a
E. 1 1144
S3:R1E1ORS
PI.ASN RS
ASSOCIATES
Direct:434.960.7549
Main:434.984.2700
Fax:434.978.1444
3040 Avemore Square Place
Charlottesville,VA 22911
diensen@wwassociates.net
www.wwassociates.net
www.facebook.com/WWAssociateslnc
From: Betty Groth [mailto:bgroth @pinnacleconstructionva.com]
Sent:Tuesday, June 16, 2015 3:41 PM
To: djensen @wwassociates.net
Cc: 'PC- LM '; William Park; Stacy Casaday
Subject: RE: Lofts at Meadow Creek SUB 2015-00039 and final site plan (SDP2014-67)
David, since the clerk's office closes for recordation at 4 PM, we plan to record this tomorrow.We will provide you with
recordation information as soon as it is available.
Betty Groth
Pinnacle Construction&Devel.Corp.
Park Properties Management Co.LLC
From: David Jensen [mailto:djensen @wwassociates.net]
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2015 3:35 PM
To: William Park
Cc: Betty Groth; 'PC - LM '
Subject: FW: Lofts at Meadow Creek SUB 2015-00039 and final site plan (SDP2014-67)
William/betty,
Plat as signed by the County was picked up and delivered to your office at about 3:00 PM today. The plat can now be
recorded. Please let me know the recording information for the right of way as this needs to be added to the plan sets
submitted for signature. I will need the deed book and page number for the vacation of interior lot/parcel lines as will the
title company(and I if I recall your loanNHDA docs.) so those lines can be deleted from the ALTA/ACSM plat.
David M.Jensen, PE
Vice President
iiSi ,
EsciNalts
St R1k:1OC4S
Pi,aNNlnttz
ASSOCIATES
Direct:434.960.7549
Main:434.984.2700
Fax:434.978.1444
3040 Avemore Square Place
Charlottesville,VA 22911
djensen @wwassociates.net
2
Now *ye
www.wwassociates.net
www.facebook.com/WWAssociatesInc
From: Christopher Perez [mailto:cperez @albemarle.orct]
Sent:Tuesday, June 16, 2015 1:26 PM
To: djensen @wwassociates.net
Cc: emottley @wwassociates.net
Subject: Lofts at Meadow Creek SUB 2015-00039 and final site plan (SDP2014-67)
David,
Lofts at Meadow Creek SUB 2015-00039
The plat has been approved and is downstairs of Community Development for you to pick up. Please record this
document and revise the final site plan to provide the DB page info of the recordation.
Thanks
Also, I have followed up on our conversation from last week about the final site plan (SDP2014-67) and where
it's at in the process.
Below is a status update:
RWSA—no objection
ACSA—no objection
VDOT—no objection
Fire and Rescue—no objection
E911-no objection
Building Inspection—no objection
Engineering—no objection
Planning—no objection (please record the BLA/Easement plat and revise the final site plan to provide the DB
page info. Then it looks like we're ready for approval of the final site plan (4 copies min for approval).
P.Perez Senior Planner
Department of Community Development'County of Albemarle,Virginia
401 McIntire Road Charlottesville,VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext.3443
3
Christopher Perez
From: Christopher Perez
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2015 5:53 PM
To: 'djensen @wwassociates.net'
Cc: Justin Deel
Subject: SDP2014-67 The Lofts at Meadow Creek- Final Site Plan. &SUB2015-39 The Lofts at
Meadow Creek-BLA.
Attachments: Engineering Comments 5-22-15 SDP2014-67 The Lofts at Meadow Creek-final site plan.doc;
Planning Comments 5-28-15 CD3_SDP2014-67 The Lofts at Meadow Creek-final site
plan.pdf; Planning Comments 5-28-15 CD1 SUB2015-39 The Lofts at Meadow Creek-
BLA.pdf
David,
Attached are the remaining comments for SDP2014-67 The Lofts at Meadow Creek-Final Site Plan.
Also, attached are the comments for SUB2015-39 The Lofts at Meadow Creek—BLA It appears as though
the plat can be approved provided ACSA approves the revised/final deed...please provide Alex the final copy
of the deed, once he approves the deed we can approve the plat.
Christopher P.Perez I Senior Planner
Department of Community Development(County of Albemarle,Virginia
401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext.3443
1
W
ENGINEERS
SURVEYORS
PLANNERS
ASSOCIATES
May 1,2015
Christopher P. Perez
Senior Planner
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
Re: The Lofts at Meadowcreek
Final Site Development Plan SDP-2014-67 and VSMP Plan WPO-2014-87
WWA Project No. 213001.05
Dear Mr. Perez:
This letter is to document and respond to Agency review comments contained in your
letter dated March 24, 2015 for the above-referenced project. The final site plan and
comment response letter have been forwarded to ACSA, RWSA and VDOT under
separate cover. Our responses to Agency comments are as follows:
Conditions of Initial Plan Approval (from approval letter dated August 20,2014):
Co ent: 132.6] A site plan meeting all the requirements of section 32.6 of Chapter
of the Code.
Final: See Final Plan comments below. Comment still valid.
Response: This is understood.
2. Comment: [COD Section I, 8.5.5.31 Street landscaping. VDOT comment #4 dated
8-5-14 requires the street tree landscaping along Rio Rd to be relocated out of the
landscaping strip in the right-of-way due to Clear Zone requirements. The street tree
landscaping is depicted in the application plan for ZMA2013-00001 and is required;
however, the required plantings can be relocated outside of the landscape strip to
where VDOT requires it. In order to facilitate the relocation of the street tree
landscaping a Variation request will need to be requested and processed to modify the
typical street design requirement and the application plan from the rezoning. This
item can be handled at the final site plan stage. The Variation will he reviewed
through the special exception process, if stall is recommending approval of the
variation it will go to the BOS on consent agenda. If staff is recommending denial it
will he required to go to the PC 1st, then to the BOS.
Final: Comment addressed. In consultation with the Director of Planning the
required street trees are determined to be in the same general character as
depicted on the application plan/Code of Development.
3040 Avemore Square Place •Charlottesville,VA 22911
Telephone(434)984-2700 •Fax(434) 978-1444
Charlottesville•Lynchburg
3. Comment: [COD Section I, 8.5.5.31 Landscaping strip. VDOT comment 45 dated 8-
5-14 requires the landscaping strip along Rio Rd to be six (6) foot wide, rather than
the five (5) foot wide as provided. The landscape strip is depicted in the application.
plan for ZMA2013-00001 as five (5) foot wide and is required; however, it can be
modified to meet VDOT requirements if needed. In order to facilitate the change a
Variation request will need to be requested and processed to modify the typical street
design requirement and the application plan from the rezoning. This item can be
handled at the final site plan stage. The Variation will be reviewed through the special
exception process, if staff is recommending approval of the variation it will go to the
BOS on consent agenda. If staff is recommending denial it will be required to go to
the PC 1st, then the BOS.
Final: Comment addressed. In consultation with the Director of Planning the
required landscape strip is determined to be in the same general character as
depicted on the application plan/Code of Development.
4. Comment: [COD Section I, 8.5.5.3, 32.5.2(n), 4.12.16(c)(3)1 Angled Parking
Spaces. VDOT comment #9 dated 8-5-14 requires the two (2) parking spaces along
the entrance from Rio Rd to be relocated to meet minimum throat length. If the two
parking spaces are to be relocated from what is depicted on the application plan from
the rezoning then a Variation shall take place. If the two spaces can be pushed back
slightly to meet the throat length but are in the same general location and design a
Variation will not be needed. Final: Comment appears to be addressed. A
variation is not required based on minimal redesign.
5. Comment: [32.5.2(n), 4.12.16(c)(3)1 Angled Parking Spaces. Also, for the two
spaces mentioned above provide the angle of these spaces on the plan so staff can
verify they meet the required dimensions per section 4.12.16(c)3. Final: Comment
appears to be addressed by having been revised to perpendicular spaces and
shifting spaces further from R/VV.
6. Comment: [32.5.2(n), 4.12.16(c)(4)1 Curvilinear Parking Spaces. For the rt
curvilinear space after you enter the site provide a one-hundred (100) foot sight
distance line on the plan. Final: Comment addressed.
7. Comment: "COD Section I, 8.5.5.31 Pedestrian Path. The pedestrian path is
depicted on the application plan for ZMA2013-00001 as going around the rear of the
building and meeting up in the general area of the dumpster pad at the front of the
building. The original path design provided access to the open space on the
southwestern portion of the property. Instead, on the site plan the path has been
modified to double back and lead to the passive recreational area near the pond and
rear of the building. Staff suggests the original design/layout of the path also be
incorporated into the site plan, in addition to what is depicted on the site plan.
Regardless of the design in order to facilitate a change from the application plan/
rezoning a Variation request will need to be requested and processed to modify the
path location. This item can be handled at the final site plan stage. The Variation
3040 Avemore Square Place •Charlottesville,VA 22911
Telephone(434) 984-2700 •Fax(434) 978-1444
Charlottesville •Lynchburg
Page 2 of 19
4
be reviewed through the special exception process, if staff is recommending approval
of the variation a will go to the BUS on consent agenda. If staff.is recommending
denial it will be required to go to the PC 1", then the BOS. Final: Comment
addressed.
8. Comment: ]ZMA2013-1, Proffer#2] Transit Reservation Area. On the site plan
label and depict the small transit shelter associated with the bus stop. Rev 2:
Comment addressed.
9. Comment: 132.5.2(a) & (o) & Proffer#1] Rio Road Improvements. On the plan
clearly delineate with shading any area proposed to be dedicated for the
improvements to Rio Rd. Also, provide a note stating that the land is to be dedicated
for public use. Final: Comment addressed.
(i Comment: [ZMA2013-1,Proffer#1] Rio Road Improvements. Prior to final site
plan approval the Rio Rd widening/dedication to public use will need to take place
on a s division plat to be reviewed by the County, approved, and then recorded in
the Jerk's Office prior to final site plan approval. The DB page information of this
ction shall be provided on the final site plan.
Rev 2: Comment still relevant. Staff has received. Pending approval/
recordation of plat,the site plan shall be revised to provide the latest deed book
and page reference information.
response: This is understood. The plat is being resubmitted concurrently with this
plan.
11. Comment: IZMA2013-1, Proffer#3] Affordable Housing. "Each site plan for land
within the property shall note the aggregate number of units designated for
Affordable Units" Provide the affordable unit information on the site plan for staff to
verify the requirement is met.
Final: Comment not adequately addressed. Sheet 2, Affordable Units, provides a
note which states: "see proffer 3 above for required number of affordable units."
however, proffer 3 states that "each site plan...shall note the aggregate number of
units designated for Affordable Units." Thus on this site plan please provide the
aggregate number of units designated as Affordable Units. Based on the proffer,
the required amount of affordable housing for this use is twenty percent of 65
units, thus 13 affordable units shall be provided. Clearly label this on the plan.
Rev 2. Comment addressed.
12. Comment: [32.5.2(n), 4.12.16(c)(1)] Perpendicular Parking Size. Throughout the
plan label the aisle widths, including in the parking areas. Spaces along a 24'aisle
shall he 9'ii ide by 18'long.
Final: Comment still relevant. Only a single 24' width label was provided on the
plan. Please add a measurement to the parking structure aisles and the parking
3040 Avemore Square Place •Charlottesville,VA 22911
Telephone(434) 984-2700 •Fax(434) 978-1444
Charlottesville •Lynchburg
Page 3 of 19
structure entrance. This will aid the Zoning Inspectors in the field. Rev 2:
Comment addressed.
13. Comment: The design of the parking garage does not provide a vehicle turnaround
location to be used when all the spaces are full. Rather vehicles will be prompted to
reverse out of the site if the lot is full. For safety reasons it is suggested that two
spaces at the northern end of the unit are stripped for no parking to facilitate vehicle
turn arounds, as would be for a hammer head turn around.
Final: Comment addressed.
14. Comment: 14.12.6J Parking. On the plan depict the required parking spaces based on
the use, show the calculations. Continue to depict the spaces provided. Staff
understands a parking waiver was processed at the rezoning stage; however,the
overall mix of unit types has changed since the rezoning. Previously it was 40 - single
bedroom units, now it is 35 - single bedroom units. Previously it was 25 - two
bedroom units, now it is 28 - two bedroom units and 2 -three bedroom units. Provide
the revised information on the final site plan so that Zoning can determine if the
parking provided is still adequate. Final: Comment addressed.
15. Comment: [32.5.2(a), 32.7.2.3(a), 32.5.6.i, 32.7.2.3(a)(c)] Sidewalks. The sidewalks
fronting the property shall be built to the side property lines. Currently each sidewalks
stops 10 feet short of the property line. Revise. Final: Comment addressed.
16. Comment: [32.5.2(n),32.7.2.3(a), 14-422] Sidewalks and landscaping strips. On the
plan please dimension and label all proposed sidewalks and planting strips. Final:
Comment addressed.
17. Comment: [32.5.2(a) & (n)] General information. The zoning of the property is
correctly labeled as NMD. Also, under the zoning of the property provide a note that
proffers are associated with ZMA2013-1. Staff understands that page two lists the
proffers, but sheet I under zoning should also state that proffers apply per the
rezoning ZMA2013-I `final: Comment addressed.
18. Comment: [3 . .2(d),30.7.5] Managed and Preserved Slopes. This parcel no longer
contains " tical slopes"; it has a combination of both -managed slopes" and
"preser -d slopes" based on the approved overlay map. Show both the managed and
press ved slopes as represented on the approved map and label them accordingly.
ese slopes should be shown on the site plan as well as the existing conditions sheet
o give a better understanding of the impacts on each type of slope. Comment
addressed. The proposed disturbance of the preserved slopes is allowed based on the
exhibit and special exception approved with ZMA201300001 which requires
construction in this area. Additionally, disturbance of managed slopes is now
permitted without a waiver as long as certain performance standards are met.
Coordinate with engineering to make sure the construction proposed on the managed
slopes meets these requirements. Final: Comment still relevant,work with
3040 Avemore Square Place •Charlottesville,VA 22911
Telephone(434) 984-2700 •Fax(434) 978-1444
Charlottesville•Lynchburg
Page 4 of 19
Engin ing to remedy this. Rev. 2: Comment addressed. Assure that the
ve on of Sheet C-7 staff received via email dated March 4th is provided in the
anal version of the site plan for approval.
Response: The correct version of Sheet C-7 is contained in this plan.
19. Comment: (32.5.2(a)1 Setbacks. On sheet 1 of the site plan assure that the 10'
setbacks are noted.
Final: Comment addressed.
20. Comment: [Comment] Throughout the plan provide directional arrows for the drive
aisles. Final: Comment addressed.
21. Comment: 132.5.2(b)] On sheet 1, revise site data information to break down how
70,696SF of Open Space is being provided onsite. Notably, sheet 10 does not depict
enough open to have 70,696SF of Open Space. Please address this. Revise. Final:
Comment addressed.
22. Comment: [Comment] It appears as though only one (1) dumpster is being provided
onsite. Being there are to be 65 units in this multifamily development, it seems
appropriate more dumpsters will be required to handle all the waste produced. Assure
that the amount of dumpsters is provided which will adequately service the
development. Final: Applicant acknowledges this comment. Comment addressed.
23. Comment: [4.17( Lighting. On sheet I. under Notes, the lighting note shall be
revised, as lighting shall not exceed one half(0.5) foot candle. Comment addressed.
Revise to provide the following standard lighting note on the lighting plan: Each
outdoor luminaire equipped with a lamp that emits 3,000 or more initial lumens shall
he a full cutoff luminaire and shall be arranged or shielded to reflect light away from
adjoining residential districts and away from adjacent roads. The spillover of lighting
from luminaires onto public roads and property in residential or rural areas zoning
districts shall not exceed one-half f)ot-candle. Final: Comment not adequately
addressed. The above required note shall be provided on all site plans that have
lighting associated with them. Please include the above note on the site plan. Rev
2: Comment addressed.
24. Comment: If any off-site easements are required, they must be approved and
recorded prior to Site Plan approval. Rev 2: Comment appears to be addressed.
25. Comment: [32.5.2(n) & (p)] The following will be required for final site plan
approval:
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]
3040 Avemore Square Place •Charlottesville,VA 22911
Telephone(434) 984-2700 •Fax(434) 978-1444
Charlottesville •Lynchburg
Page 5 of 19
- Sheet C-26 provides the required lighting cutsheets for each light type;
however, the cutsheets are not clearly labeled as to which fixture corresponds
with the table: XA, XB,XC, and XW. Rev 2: What happened to the 4 different
types of lighting previously proposed on the plan,to include wallpacks, it
appears they have been omitted. Please confirm that all site lighting is depicted
on the lighting plan and photometric plan. All exterior lighting shall be shown
and accounted for on the lighting plan and photometric plan.
Response: Sheets LT-1 and LT-2 have been provided. The lighting fixtures and type
A, XC and XW. The photometrics are provided on Sheet LT-1 along with a
luminaire schedule and cutsheets of fixtures type A, XC and XW are on Sheet LT-2.
Th_e2,EA-and XB fixtures are no longer being specified
- Sheet C-6 depicts the locations of the various types of lights (XA-XW); however
sheet C-26 does not provide matching quantities of each light found on sheet
C-6. Rev 2: What happened to the 4 different types of lighting previously
proposed on the plan,to include wallpacks, it appears they have been omitted.
Please confirm that all site lighting is depicted on the lighting plan and
photometric plan. All exterior lighting shall be shown and accounted for on the
lighting plan and photometric plan.
Response: The luminaire schedule on Sheet LT-1 matches that shown on the
photometric plan. The XC fixture is a recessed fixture at the front entrance location,
the XW are wallpacks and the A fixture is along the travelway to the garage entrance.
- Also, the details of each light type provided in the cutsheet is not legible. Rev 2:
Comment addressed.
- Also, the table does not provide labels for each column. Rev 2: Comment
addressed.
- Also, clearly provide the lumen levels of each lamp within the table (if the light is
over 3.000 lumens, it shall be a full cutoff fixture). Rev 2: Comment addressed.
- Within the table assure the tilt of the fixture is provided (full cutoff provides for zero
tilt). Rev 2: Comment addressed.
-Also,the lighting plan shall include a photometric plan which measures the
light spillover to the residential property lines and the public street (spillover
shall not to be over 0.5 half foot candles). Rev 2. The photometric plan provided
is too small to read and the measurements at the property lines overlap on
another causing another obstacle to legibility. Please revise sheet LT-1 so that
the photometric plan is large enough to read. Staff suggests making the lighting
plan two pages; sheet 1 for the photometric plan, and sheet 2 for the cutsheets
and other lighting data.
3040 Avemore Square Place •Charlottesville,VA 22911
Telephone(434) 984-2700 •Fax(434) 978-1444
Charlottesville•Lynchburg
Page 6 of 19
w.r
Response: The photometric plan Sheet LT-1 demonstrates compliance with spillover
requirements. A color copy of Sheet LT-1 is attached and electronic file will be sent
to you.
- All maintenance factors for the lights shall be 1.0. Rev 2: Comment addressed.
NEW COMMENTS
26. Comment: 14.12.6) Parking. On sheet C-2, under Parking Required, there appears to
be a mathematical error in the amount of required parking spaces. As currently the
plan lists 53 + 60 spaces as 93; however, I believe it should be 113. Revise if
appropriate. Rev 2: Comment addressed.
27. Comment: 14.12.6] Parking. The Building Official has commented on the size of the
handicapped barrier free parking space associated with the van-accessible. Currently
the plan has a 5' width; I believe he's looking to have this expanded to 8' wide.
ePlease work with him on this item. Rev 2: Comment addressed.
18 Comment: Prior to final site plan approval the vacation of the property line between
TMP 61A-17 and TMP 61A-15 shall take place on a subdivision plat to be reviewed
by the County, approved, and then recorded in the Clerk's Office prior to final site
plan approval. The DB page information of this action shall be provided on the final
site plan. It may be appropriate to combine all platting items on a single plat. Rev 2.
A plat has been submitted and shall be reviewed/approved/and recorded prior to final
site plan approval.
Response: This is understood. The plat(SUB 2015-00039) has been resubmitted
concurrently with this plan.
29. Comment: 'COD Section VIII] The two required benches are depicted in various
locations throughout the plan (see sheet C-18 and sheet C-22). Assure that the plan is
consistent on the location of the benches. Revise. Rev 2: Comment addressed.
30. Comment: [COD Section X, 32.7.9.5(d)] The plan attempts to utilize Lagerstroemia
Indica"Crape Myrtle" as street trees along Rio Road; however, this is not permitted
as these trees are classified as small ornamental trees and do not qualify for use as
public street trees, which shall be large deciduous trees (Section 32.79.5(d)).
The applicant should revise the plan to provide some type of large deciduous tree in
this area to act as street trees in order to meet the required street tree landscaping. The
Acer Rubrum "Flame Red Maple- is an appropriate tree, as such replace the five
Crape Myrtles fronting Rio with an appropriate tree type.
Please note, that the Code of Development provides guidelines for plantings on the
entrance road, that requirement is met with this same mix: however, to meet the
3040 Avemore Square Place • Charlottesville,VA 22911
Telephone(434) 984-2700 •Fax(434) 978-1444
Charlottesville•Lynchburg
Page 7 of 19
requirements for landscaping on the public street frontage please refer to the comment
above. If you have questions please give me a call. Rev 2: Comment addressed.
31. Comment: The plan I -picts an indention, which looks like parallel parking spaces
adjacent to the two Barking spaces at the entrance. Please clarify what this space is for
through labels. they are for parking spaces please provide measurements and
labels. Etc
Rev 2. S ""ion 4.12.16(C)2 requires parallel parking spaces to be a minimum of
9' wid, and 20' long. The spaces provided do not meet this requirement. Also the
spa s shall be stripped. Revise appropriately. If these spaces are to be used as
p. king spaces the parking calculations on sheet 2 should be updated to reflect
i ese spaces. Notably planning staff does not believe these spaces should remain
as parking spaces as they are an impediment to the 100' sight distance line
shown. Either revise to omit them or revise to meet code requirements.
Response: Per your 4/14/15 electronic transmission, the "pavement widening area"/
indentation is acceptable to planning and engineering provided that the depth is
increased to 7 feet,the area is equipped with a no parkin sign with pavement
markings, and the verbiage "pull out"removed. The indentation on Sheet 6 of 30 has
been revised to reflect these requirements. ✓
32. Comment: lo avoid confusion on sheet A2.01, please provide labels to each
elevation view. For example it appears the West Elevation is the view from Rio Road.
If so, please label it as such. Also, it appears the East Elevation is the rear of the
building. If so. please label it as such.
Rev 2: Comment addressed.
33. Co ent: [4.12.61 Parking. At the rear of the building (East Elevation) is the base of
th- all openings tall enough to block vehicle headlamps from shining through? If
et,please modifying the openings to prevent headlamps from shining through onto
residential lots. Rev 2: Comment not addressed. The owner has not commented on this
aspect of the plan as discussed in the response letter.
l'�
Response: A note has been added to Sheet 6 of 30 noting that wall/barrier for the last
9 garage parking spaces on the southeas orner of the building is to extend four(4)
feet above the garage floor. This is as agreed upon during a phone conversation in
mid-March 2015.
34. Comment: To avoid confusion on the cover sheet please omit SDP201400048 from
the title, and replace it with SDP201400067 — Final Site Plan. Rev 2: Comment
addressed.
35. Comment: On sheet C-1, in the approvals box, please omit the Health Department
and ARB signature lines, and please include "E911" signature line. Rev 2:
Comment addressed.
3040 Avemore Square Place •Charlottesville,VA 22911
Telephone(434) 984-2700 •Fax(434) 978-1444
Charlottesville •Lynchburg
Page 8of19
troor' 'vote
36. mment: [32.5.2(n)] Proposed improvement. On the site plan dimension the height
the retaining wall to the far north associated with the sidewalk exiting the garage
spaces. All other retaining walls have max heights provided on sheet C-7. Assure that
it's provided for this retaining wall too.
Response: The maximum height for the retaining wall in question has been added to
Sheet C-7 as requested.
37. Co - 't: The revised site plan was not sent to RWSA for review based on previous
co r-spondence not allowing a connection to RWSA lines. It appears that the
splicant has worked out it's water connection issues with RWSA and they are
allowing it. Prior to final site plan approval, provide something in writing (email is
\ fine)that signifies RWSA has approved the site plan being reviewed or has no
objections. Per a phone call with Victoria Fort 1 am forwarding them a copy of the
plan today (3-24-15).
Response: The RWSA comments bein a dressed co c ently with this (. - ,, q
submission. Ot e, A ;. i g C r, u 1 ?(,J tad S
Engineering Comments—Justin Deel(03/19/15)
1. Comment: The VSMP/WPO application will need to be approved before
recommending approval of the final site plan to Planning. Please separate the
VSMP package (SWM, ESC, storm drainage) from the site plan. `This should be a
stand-alone submittal for the VSMP program. (Rev. 1) Comment Addressed.
2. Comment: Critical Slopes must be per Albemarle County Code (ACC) 18-30.7.
Please make your drawings match the overlay district maps. The walls proposed
to till in the slopes that are marked as managed slopes must follow the design
guidelines of ACC 30.7.5, with 6 foot wall maximum. (Rev. 1) Comment
Addressed.
3. Comment: Slopes steeper than 3:1 must have a low maintenance ground cover
(not grass). [ACC 18-30.7] (Rev. 1) Comment partially addressed. This note
was not found on your Landscape Plan, please provide.
Response: The note to this effect has been transferred to Sheet 26 of 30 as agreed
upon during our 4/9/15 meeting.
4. Comment: Provide sealed retaining wall plans. (Rev. 1) Comment partially
addressed. Please include retaining wall plans with the SDP. Ensure that
retaining wall plans show and reflect redesign of biofilter. Wall plans received
with the VSMP show the old biofilter layout. Also, please show safety rails
and/or fencing along retaining walls on plans, and provide a typical detail.
3040 Avemore Square Place • Charlottesville,VA 22911
Telephone(434) 984-2700 •Fax(434) 978-1444
Charlottesville •Lynchburg
Page 9 of 19
Response: The requested drawings will be submitted to you under separate cover.
5. Comment: VDOT approval will be required for improvements along Rio Road.
(Rev. 1) Comment Addressed.
6. Comment: Ensure that bus stop lane is marked off so as to differentiate from the
turn lane. (Rev. 1) Comment Addressed.
7. Comment: The travelway into the site does not meet the grade requirements for
parking [ACC 18-4.12]. (Rev. 1) Comment not addressed. Your profile is of
the centerline, however, the grade on the right side goes from 5%to 9%almost
immediately. We feel that this is impractical as it will likely not be constructed as
planned.
Response: The spot elevations along the right side of the travelway through the
handicap parking space and access aisle are at a 2% slope. The parking space to
the curb return(approximately 5 feet away) is at a 5% slope then down at 8%.
These elevations were reviewed with you during our 4/9/15 meeting. The
parking/travelway grading is buildable and in conformance with the referenced
County Code for parking spaces and access aisles not adjacent to parking spaces.
8. Comment: Parallel parking needs to be striped. (Rev. 1) Comment partially
addressed. Please provide no parking signs for this area.
Response: The "pavement widening area"/indentation is acceptable to planning
and engineering provided that the depth is increased to 7 feet. The area is
equipped with a no parking sign with pavement markings and the verbiage "pull
out"removed. The indentation area on Sheet 6 of 30 has been revised to reflect
these requirements.
9. Comment: Handicapped parking spaces in garage should be located on the east
side of the parking facility to eliminate the need to cross vehicle access isle [ACC
18-4.12.15.i]. (Rev. 1) Comment Addressed.
10. Comment: Restore east elevation profile view of retaining wall. (Rev. 1)
Comment Addressed.
11. Comment: Inlet calculations do not appear to be correct. Please accurately reflect
curbs and grades, and ensure 10 year storm gets to the SWM facilities. We can
check details with VSMP plans. (Rev. 1) Comment partially addressed. Inlet
calculations still do not appear to be correct. Please compare your spread results
for both 2 and 10 year storms. We cannot see how 8 is in a sump conditions. It
appear that the trench drain at the building entrance will collect much of the
3040 Avemore Square Place • Charlottesville,VA 22911
Telephone(434) 984-2700 •Fax(434)978-1444
Charlottesville •Lynchburg
Page 10 of 19
drainage presumably intended for structure 6, which is fine,just please provide
calculations.
Response: The inlet spread computations on Sheet 17 of 30 has been corrected
for the design storm and the check storm. Inlet structure 8 is at the low point of
the curb line and thus in a sump condition. This was reviewed with you during
our 4/9/15 meeting and found to be acceptable. The trench drain only collects
wash down water from the garage. Structure 6 is below the elevation of the top of
the trench drain,thus structure 6 collects the surface drainage shown on the storm
drainage area map (Sheet 16 of 30), is at the low point and is in a sump condition.
The following issues with biofilter design will affect the layout of the site plan:
1. Comment: You cannot have a sanitary sewer/manhole in the biofilter darn.
(Rev. 1) Comment Addressed.
2. Comment: The biofilter does not appear to meet minimum setback for
bioretention BMP [VA DEQ Stormwater Design Specification No. 9, Table 9.3].
(Rev. 1) Comment Addressed.
3. Comment: Provide a 4 to 6 foot maintenance access strip to west side of
bioretention facility. (Rev. 1) Comment Addressed.
4. Comment: The biofilter treatment cannot be part of the sediment forebay.
(Rev. 1) Comment Addressed.
VSMP PERMIT PLAN REVIEW
A. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
1. Comment: Please use the standard template from the county website.
(Rev. 1) Comment not addressed. An updated SWPPP was not included
with this resubmission.
Response: The SWPPP is being submitted under separate cover.
2. Comment: Provide SWPPP documents as a stand-alone package. Do not
include them as part of the site plan package, as the zoning site plan
approval will not be a valid VSMP approval. (Rev. 1) Comment
addressed. This comment should have been placed in Section C below.
The intent of this comment was to provide VSMP documents separate
from site plan documents. which has been done.
3040 Avemore Square Place •Charlottesville,VA 22911
Telephone(434) 984-2700 •Fax(434) 978-1444
Charlottesville •Lynchburg
Page 11 of 19
B. Pollution Prevention Plan (PPP)
1. Comment: Not found. (Rev. 1) Comment not addressed. An updated
SWPPP containing a PPP was not included with this resubmission.
Response: The SWPPP is being submitted under separate cover.
C. Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP)
Comment: The dam cannot have a sanitary sewer line or manhole in it.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
2. Comment: Any basin should have 3:1 slopes for maintenance and safety
[VSMIT Vol. 1, 3.01-13]. (Rev. 1) Comment response acceptable.
3. Comment: The County BMP spreadsheet is no longer acceptable. Please
provide water quality calculations according to the State regulation
9VAC25-870-62 etc., for Part TIC criteria. (Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
4. Comment: Provide a drainage area map for each area used in calculations.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
5. Comment: Stormwater narrative references July 14, 2014, and should be
July 1st. (Rev. 1) Comment not addressed.
Response: The notation has been corrected.
6. Comment: Stormwater narrative references "Level I" biofilter. which
implies Part IIB criteria. See comment 3. (Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
7. Comment: The area used in required biofilter surface area calculations
(49,760 sf) is different than the given impervious area (45,073 sf).
Additionally, the total impervious area used in County BMP spreadsheet is
47.650 sf. (Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
8. Comment: Appears that more than a biofilter may be required. (Rev. 1)
Comment addressed.
9. Comment: Pollutant removal calculations reference "Level 1" biofilter.
This is new(IIB) criteria language. Please revise computations to follow
IIC criteria. (Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
10. Comment: Bioretention details reference "Level 2" (new criteria
language). Please provide Type IIC details. Use basin sizing
3040 Avemore Square Place •Charlottesville,VA 22911
Telephone(434) 984-2700 • Fax(434) 978-1444
Charlottesville •Lynchburg
Page 12 of 19
methodology found in VSMH Vol. 1, 3.11-13. (Rev. 1) Comment
addressed.
11. Comment: Your bioretention facility detail calls for a 12-inch minimum
ponding depth. The maximum ponding depth is 6 inches for a
bioretention basin. (VSMH Vol. 1, 3:11-3) (Rev. 1) Comment partially
addressed. Your response that 3.11A applies in this case is understood.
However, your note on the detail still calls for a 12 inch minimum ponding
depth. The maximum ponding depth should be 12 inches, per your
response and VSMH 3.11-14. Please correct.
Response: The notation has been corrected to reflect 12 inch maximum
ponded depth.
I
12. Comment: Provide actual sections, to scale, for bioretention details,
showing both existing and proposed grades. (Rev. 1) Comment
addressed.
13. Comment: Predeveloped SWM drainage map extends off property. Pre-
and post-developed drainage areas appear an invalid basis for compliance.
There does not appear to be a reason for this, and it affects the
computations (Tc, CN, etc.) significantly. Please use the point of
discharge from the site, which will restrict the drainage areas to the site
itself (Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
14. Comment: DD at SW side of property appears to divert to neighboring
property. (Rev. 1) Comment not addressed. The diversion dike in
question(beginning near the stockpile area) appears unchanged and routes
drainage from 61A-14 directly onto 61A-16. Please correct this. (Note:
Comments should have appeared in E&SC comments)
Response: This DD has been deleted as agreed upon during our 4/9/15
meeting.
15. Comment: The hydrograph reports were not reviewed, as it is expected
that changes to the slopes, access, retaining walls, and avoiding the sewer
location will necessitate redesign. (Rev. 1) Comment acknowledged.
16. Comment: Provide sheets which are titled and clearly provide a
stormwater management plan. Only computations and maps were found.
(These cannot be approved as part of a site plan.) Include soil types.
(Rev. 1) Comment partially addressed. Please provide a"Stormwater
Management Plan".
3040 Avemore Square Place •Charlottesville,VA 22911
Telephone(434) 984-2700 •Fax(434) 978-1444
Charlottesville •Lynchburg
Page 13 of 19
Response: Drawing C-7 has been added to the VSMP plan which
constitutes the "Stormwater Management Plan" as agreed upon during our
4/9/15 meeting.
17. Comment: Label contours on drainage plan. (Rev. 1) Comment
addressed.
18. Comment: Please see Comment 11 from the Revision 1 site plan review.
The trench drain at the garage entrance is not shown on the Storm
Drainage Area Map. Please clarify.
Response: The trench drain has been added to the plan as requested.
D. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP)
1. Comment: Please do not show piping in the sediment trap, unless it is to
be a sediment basin. If a stormwater basin is to be used, it should be
designed as a sediment basin also, so that the piping in the dam is installed
once for both the temporary and the permanent control. (Rev. 1)
Comment not addressed. The sediment trap needs to be installed first,
unless this is to be a sediment basin. Making this a sediment basin could
potentially eliminate the need for the DD that diverts drainage onto the
neighboring property(SWM Comment 14). If this is to be a sediment
trap, please remove riser and pipe from the E&SC plans.
Response: The riser and outfall pipe are to be constructed with the
sediment trap embankment and will serve as the permanent embankment
for the stormwater management facility. The riser orifices will be blocked
watertight during use as a sediment trap and has been labeled as such on
the Phase 1 and 2 E&SC plan. This is as agreed upon during the 4/9/15
meeting.
2. Comment: The first phase of the E&SC plan must not have site
improvements which will not be there at start. Show all measures to he
installed as a first step in any land disturbance. (Rev. 1) Comment
addressed.
3. Comment: See site plan comments regarding critical slopes, walls, slopes.
etc. A redesign may be required. (Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
4. Comment: Provide silt fence around the site perimeter. (Rev. 1)
Comment addressed.
5. Comment: The right-of-way diversion must drain to a sediment trapping
measure. (Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
3040 Avemore Square Place • Charlottesville,VA 22911
Telephone(434) 984-2700 •Fax(434) 978-1444
Charlottesville•Lynchburg
Page 14 of 19
8 440
•
6. Comment: Show soil types on plan. (Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
7. Comment: Provide stock pile location and staging/parking area. (Rev. 1)
Comment addressed.
8. Comment: On north side of site, silt fence should not be shown going
downhill. (Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
9. Comment: Your adequate channel analysis doesn't look complete. Check
channel calculations and CN values. (Rev. 1) Comment not addressed.
Our field review indicated a heavily eroded channel downstream of your
outfall. Please indicate how you intend to address this issue.
Response: The post developed 2 year and 10 year routed discharges are
less than the pre-developed discharges; thus, MS-19 has been met as the
project is grandfathered with the pre July 1, 2014 criteria. This is as
agreed upon during our 4/9/15 meeting.
10. Comment: Provide construction entrance detail. (Rev. 1) Comment
addressed.
Albemarle County Service Authority—Alex Morrison (03-31-15)
C-6
1. Comment: Due to the height of the building a backflow device is required. Add a
note beyond the proposed water meter calling out a backflow device. For more
information on the required backflow device you can contact Tim Brown at 434-
977-4511 ext. 119.
Response: The prescribed note has been added.
2. Comment: Reconfigure the fire hydrant, fire line and domestic service as shown
in Exhibit A.
Response: The plan and profile have been reconfigured to that shown on your
Exhibit A.
3. Comment: Expand the easement on the southern side of the proposed fire hydrant
assembly so it extends 10' off all sides of the fire hydrant.
Response: The easement has been expanded to meet this criteria.
3040 Avemore Square Place •Charlottesville,VA 22911
Telephone(434) 984-2700 • Fax(434) 978-1444
Charlottesville •Lynchburg
Page 15 of 19
4. Comment: THIS COMMENT IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY
AND IS NOT A REQUIREMENT BY THE ACSA: The ACSA recommends
that you remove the 8"x 6" reducer that is shown on your sanitary sewer lateral
and install 8"the entire length. The additional cost of material will be minimal
but will reduce the likelihood of a clog and/or backup.
Response: The sanitary sewer lateral has been revised to reflect your
recommendation.
C-25
1. Comment: Update the sewer crossing notes in Storm-1 profile so it requires a
minimum of 12" of vertical separation.
Response: The facility has been adjusted to provide 1 foot clearance.
C-25A
1. Comment: Update the Water-1 profile so it addresses the following comments:
• Call-out a 1.5"water meter vault.
• Update the pipe sizes and notes based on the comments referencing Exhibit A.
• The "existing grade" and"new grade" callouts are not clear. Update the
callouts and maintain 3' of cover.
Response: The meter size has been revised to 2-inch as the request to upsize the
meter in order to eliminate the need for a pump inside the building has been
granted by the ACSA. The profile has been revised per Exhibit"A" and the
leaders for existing and proposed grade callouts have been revised to correctly
denote each. A note has been added to Drawing No. C-6 regarding the upsizing
of the meter as contained in your 4/15/15 electronic communication regarding
ACSA authorization to upsize the meter.
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority— Victoria Fort[electronic communication dated
04-02-1 5J
Sheet 6 of 16 (C-6):
1. Comment: Re-label the RWSA water main as "Existing RWSA 18" C.I. Water
Main."
Response: The verbiage has been revised as requested.
2. Comment: The 16"x 8"tapping sleeve and valve shown should be changed to an
18"x 8"tapping sleeve and valve. Include a reference to the water connection
notes (see comment#4 below).
3040 Avemore Square Place • Charlottesville,VA 22911
Telephone(434) 984-2700 •Fax(434) 978-1444
Charlottesville •Lynchburg
Page 16 of 19
Response: The verbiage has been revised as requested.
3. Comment: Add the following RWSA General Water and Sewer Notes to the
plans:
a. RWSA Engineer(Victoria Fort at(434) 977-2970 ext. 205) shall be notified
three business days prior to the start of any work affecting the RWSA 18"
water main.
b. All work is subject to inspection by RWSA staff. No tie-ins to the existing
system shall be made without coordination with and the presence of RWSA
staff. No work shall be conducted on RWSA facilities on weekends or
holidays without special written permission from RWSA.
c. No blasting shall be permitted within 100 feet of RWSA facilities without
written permission and RWSA approval of the blasting plan. Ground
monitoring during blasting and a pre-blast survey may be required. RWSA
may also require certification from a licensed professional engineer stating
that the proposed blasting will not damage any RWSA facilities. Damage to
any utilities due to blasting shall be repaired by the Contractor to the original
condition at no additional cost to the Owner.
d. New water main installations shall be pressure tested, chlorinated, flushed and
have water samples approved prior to making any permanent connection to
the public water system. Approved methods of filling and flushing new water
mains will be required to prevent any contamination of the public water
system.
Response: These notes are shown on Drawing C-3 under RWSA General Water
and Sewer Notes (Notes 4, 5, 9 and 11).
4. Comment: Add the following RWSA Water Connection Notes to this sheet:
Contractor shall coordinate with RWSA and ACSA during
construction of the connection to the existing RWSA 18"
waterline. Contractor shall use due diligence to protect the RWSA
18"waterline during construction and tapping.
Contractor shall verify the horizontal and vertical location, the
outside diameter and the pipe material of the 18" waterline prior to
ordering the tapping sleeve. RWSA shall be contacted 3 business
days in advance of the test pit and shall be present during the test
pit. The tapping sleeve shall be approved by RWSA prior to being
ordered. The tapping contractor shall be approved by RWSA prior
to the tap.
3040 Avemore Square Place •Charlottesville,VA 22911
Telephone(434) 984-2700 •Fax(434) 978-1444
Charlottesville •Lynchburg
Page 17 of 19
A minimum of 3 business days' notice shall be given prior to
installation of the tapping sleeve. The 18"x 8"tapping sleeve and
valve shall be installed plumb. Following the placement of the 18"
x 8"tapping sleeve, a concrete pad and thrust block shall be placed
under and behind the tapping sleeve.
Response: These notes have been added to Drawing C-6.
Sheet 30 of 30 (C-25A)
1. Comment: Revise water connection label on profile Water-1 to read"18"x 8"
tapping sleeve and valve. Connect to existing RWSA 18" waterline. Contractor
to field verify depth."
Response: The verbiage has been revised as requested.
2. Comment: Include the following note: "see RWSA Water Connection Notes,
sheet C-6".
Response: This verbiage has been revised as requested.
VDOT—Shelly Plaster(comments dated 3-24-15)
1. Comment: The second paragraph, under the Temporary Traffic Control/
Maintenance of Traffic Plan Narrative, should be corrected to include the
restricted work hours for lane closures and the 6th sentence should be removed.
Response: This note has been revised as requested.
2. Comment: The Flagger stations, on sheet 14, should be adjusted to the south side
of Towne Lane and to the north side of Pen Park Lane. The corresponding
controls/signage spacing should be adjusted to accommodate the shift.
Response: The Flagger stations have been adjusted at both locations as requested.
3. Comment: Care should be taken when placing the Road Work Ahead signs, on
the side streets, to ensure all vehicular traffic is aware of the work zone.
Response: This is understood.
3040 Avemore Square Place • Charlottesville,VA 22911
Telephone(434) 984-2700 •Fax(434) 978-1444
Charlottesville •Lynchburg
Page 18 of 19
•
I trust that the above responses and plan changes properly address the outstanding issues.
If there are any questions, please contact this office.
Sincerely,
WW Associates, Inc.
VaNtivi6,0"241
David M. Jensen, P.E.
Vice President
Manager, Charlottesville Operations
cc: William N. Park, Bluestone Land, L.L.C.
3040 Avemore Square Place •Charlottesville,VA 22911
Telephone(434) 984-2700 •Fax(434) 978-1444
Charlottesville •Lynchburg
Page 19 of 19
• ENGINEERS
lik4 SURVEYORS
PLANNERS
ASSOCIATES
February 27,2015
Christopher P. Perez
Senior Planner
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,North Wing
Charlottesville,Virginia 22902
Re: The Lofts at Meadowcreek—Final Site Development Plan
SDP-2014-67/WPO-2014-87
WWA Project No. 213001.05
Dear Mr. Perez:
This letter is to document and respond to Agency review comments contained in your
letter dated November 3, 2014 for the above-referenced project. Our responses to
Agency comments are as follows:
Conditions of Initial Plan Approval(from approval letter dated August 20,2014:
1. Comment: [32.6] A site plan meeting all the requirements of section 32.6 of Chapter
18 of the Code.
Final: See Final Plan comments below. Comment still valid.
Response: This item is understood.
2. Comment: [COD Section I, 8.5.5.31 Street landscaping. VDOT comment#4 dated
8-5-14 requires the street tree landscaping along Rio Rd to he relocated out of the
landscaping strip in the right-of-way due to Clear /one requirements. 'Me street tree
landscaping is depicted in the application plan for ZMA201}-OhOOI and is required:
however. the required plantings can be relocated outside of the landscape strip to
where VDO'l' requires it. In order to facilitate the relocation of the street tree
landscaping a Variation request will need to he requested and processed to modify the
typical street design requirement and the application plan from the rezoning. Finis
item can be handled at the final site plan stage. The I ariation will he reviewed
through the .special exception process, ifs-kW is recommending approval ell t e
variation it will =n 10 the BOX on consent agenda. It.vtaff is recommending denial it
will he required to go to the P( r. then to the BOX.
Final: Comment addressed. In consultation with the Director of Planning the
required street trees are determined to be in the same general character as
depicted on the application plan/Code of Development.
3040 Avemore Square Place •Charlottesville,VA 22911
Telephone(434)984-2700 •Fax(434)978-1444
Charlottesville•Lynchburg
s.0.
3. Comment: 1(01) Section 1, 8.5.5.31 1.widwcaping.strip. \/DOT comment -; dated 8-
5-14 requires the landscaping strip along Rio Rd to be six (6) loot wide, rather than
the live (ti) foot wide as provided. The landscape strip is depicted in the application
plan for ZMA201 00001 as five (5) foot wide and is required: howe\er. it can he
modified to meet VDOT requirements if needed. In order to facilitate the change a
Variation request will need to be requested and processed to modify the typical street
design requirement and the application plan from the rezoning. This item can be
handled at the final site plan stage. The I aria/ion will he reviewed through the .special
exception process, if stuff is recommending approval of the variation it will go to the
13(lS oil consent agenda. If rio/f i.c rec orrnnerrdirrg denial it will he required to go to
the P( ' l', then the BOS,
Final: Comment addressed. In consultation with the Director of Planning the
required landscape strip is determined to be in the same general character as
depicted on the application plan/Code of Development.
4. Comment: !COIll Section 1, 8.5.5.3, 32.5.2(n), 4.12.16(c)(3)1 Angled Parking
Spaces. Vl)OT comment itt) dated 8-5-14 requires the two (2) parking spaces along
the entrance from Rio Rd to be relocated to meet minimum throat length. If the two
parking spaces are to he relocated from \\hat is depicted on the application plan from
the rezoning then a Variation shall take place. If the two spaces can he pushed back
slightly to meet the throat length but are in the same general location and design a
Variation will not be needed. Final: Comment appears to be addressed. A
variation is not required based on minimal redesign.
5. Comment: [32.5.2(n), 4.12.16(c)(3)I Angled Parking Spaces. Also. for the two
spaces mentioned above provide the angle of these spaces on the plan so staff can
verify they meet the required dimensions per section 4.12.16(c)3. Final: Comment
appears to be addressed by having been revised to perpendicular spaces and
shifting spaces further from R/W.
6. Comment: 132.5.2(n), 4.12.16(c)(4)1 Curvilinear Parking Spaces, For the 1
curvilinear space after you enter the site provide a one-hundred (100) foot sight
distance line on the plan. Final: Comment addressed.
7. Comment: [COD Section I, 8.5.5.31 Pedestrian Path. The pedestrian path is
depicted on the application plan for ZMA201 3-00001 as going around the rear of the
building and meeting up in the general area of the dumpster pad at the front of the
building. The original path design provided access to the open space on the
southwestern portion of the property. Instead, on the site plan the path has been
modified to double back and lead to the passive recreational area near the pond and
rear of the building. Staff suggests the original design/layout of the path also be
incorporated into the site plan. in addition to what is depicted on the site plan.
Regardless of the design in order to facilitate a change from the application plan'
rezoning a Variation request will need to be requested and processed to modif\ the
path location. This item can he handled at the final site plan stage. The Variation it ill
3040 Avemore Square Place •Charlottesville,VA 22911
Telephone(434)984-2700 •Fax(434)978-1444
Charlottesville•Lynchburg
Page 2 of 22
i�,r r.r►
bc reviewed through the Tu_'(:iu1 exception procc%.,„ it. I(.ttf t.S recoio iieiiclni:; approval
of the curiation it Will do to the [3Oh' on rouselnt ugendu. If au/f is rec onli cilcllit
denial it will he require'('to au to the P( ' 1 the ilk, 1305 Final: Comment
addressed.
8. Comment: [ZMA2013-1,Proffer#2] Transit Reservation Area. On the site plan
label and depict the small transit shelter associated with the bus stop.Final: Per
proffer#2 the design of the bus pull-off and shelter shall be reviewed and
approved by Charlottesville Transit Authority(CAT),VDOT, and the Director
of Planning. Currently CAT is the only reviewer left to review the design.
Planning staff has sent the plans to CAT for review/approval.Pending
comments.
Response: Per your 11/19/14 electronic communication, you indicated that CAT
approval had been issued and would be noted as such in"County View".
9. Comment: 132.5.2(a) & (o) & Proffer#11 Rio Road Improvement,'.'. On the plan
clearly delineate with shading any area proposed to be dedicated for the
improvements to Rio Rd. Also. provide a note stating that the land is to he dedicated
for public use. Final: Comment addressed.
10. Comment: [ZMA2013-1,Proffer#1] Rio Road Improvements. Prior to fmal site
plan approval the Rio Rd widening/dedication to public use will need to take place
on a subdivision plat to be reviewed by the County, approved, and then recorded in
the Clerk's Office prior to final site plan approval. The DB page information of this
action shall be provided on the fmal site plan.
Final: Comment still relevant.Pending submittal of plat under separate cover.
Response: The plat will be submitted under separate cover.
11. Comment: [ZMA2013-1,Proffer#3]Affordable Housing. "Each site plan for land
within the property shall note the aggregate number of units designated for
Affordable Units"Provide the affordable unit information on the site plan for staff to
verify the requirement is met.
Final: Comment not adequately addressed. Sheet 2,Affordable Units, provides a
note which states: "see proffer 3 above for required number of affordable units."
however,proffer 3 states that "each site plan...shall note the a,'greRate number of
units designated for Affordable Units." Thus on this site plan please provide the
aggregate number of units designated as Affordable Units. Based on the proffer,
the required amount of affordable housing for this use is twenty percent of 65
units,thus 13 affordable units shall be provided. Clearly label this on the plan.
Response: The affordable units note on Drawing No. C-2 has been revised to denote
13 affordable units required and 13 affordable units provided.
3040 Avemore Square Place •Charlottesville,VA 22911
Telephone(434)984-2700 •Fax(434) 978-1444
Charlottesville•Lynchburg
Page 3 of 22
Now
12. Comment: [32.5.2(n),4.12.16(c)(1)] Perpendicular Parking Size. Throughout the
plan label the aisle widths, including in the parking areas. Spaces along a 24'aisle
shall be 9'wide by 18'long.
Final: Comment still relevant. Only a single 24' width label was provided on the
plan. Please add a measurement to the parking structure aisles and the parking
structure entrance. This will aid the Zoning Inspectors in the field.
Response: The garage travelway width and entrance width dimension have been
added to Drawing No. C-6.
13. Comment: l;ti t ..,<;`,2i- 01 k '; ' ; .
+A i,
14. Comment: ?"':r _.
15. Comment: ;. .,..... .. - :`:. - ;4.
16. Comment:
17. Comment:
18. Comment: [32.5.2(d),30.7.5] Managed and Preserved Slopes. This parcel no longer
contains "critical slopes"; it has a combination of both"managed slopes"and
"preserved slopes"based on the approved overlay map. Show both the managed and
preserved slopes as represented on the approved map and label them accordingly.
These slopes should be shown on the site plan as well as the existin.t conditions sheet
3040 Avemore Square Place •Charlottesville,VA 22911
Telephone(434)984-2700 •Fax(434)978-1444
Charlottesville•Lynchburg
Page 4 of 22
Nome ...
to give a better understanding of the impacts on each type of slope. Comment
addressed. The proposed disturbance of the preserved slopes is allowed based on the
exhibit and special exception approved with ZMA201300001 which requires
construction in this area. Additionally, disturbance of managed slopes is now
permitted without a waiver as long as certain performance standards are met.
Coordinate with engineering to make sure the construction proposed on the managed
slopes meets these requirements. Final: Comment still relevant,work with
Engineering to remedy this.
Response: Per your January 27, 2015 electronic communication, critical/steep slopes
have been labeled as managed and preserved slopes. A note has been added to
Drawing No. C-5 indicating that the "steep" slopes shown are based on a field run
survey and thus supersede those shown on the"approved" County Map. The
disturbance of the steep slopes as shown is permitted. Further,the retaining walls are
not subject to the height restriction as they are incorporated into the design of the
building.
19. Comment: (32.5.2(x)] Setbacks. On sheet 1 of the site plan assure that the 10'
setbacks are noted.
Final: Comment addressed.
20. Comment: (Comment( Throughout the plan provide directional arrows for the drive
aisles.
Final: Comment addressed.
21. Comment: 132.5.2(b)] On sheet 1. revise site data information to break down how
70.696SF of Open Space is being provided onsite. Notably, sheet 10 does not depict
enough open to have 70.696SF of Open Space. Please address this. Revise. Final:
Comment addressed.
22. Comment: ]Comment] It appears as though only one (1 ) dumpster is being provided
onsite. Being there are to be 65 units in this multifamily development, it seems
appropriate more dumpsters will be required to handle all the waste produced. Assure
that the amount of dumpsters is provided which will adequately service the
development. Final: Applicant acknowledges this comment. Comment addressed.
23. Comment: [4.17] Lighting. On sheet 1. under Notes. the lighting note shall he
revised. as ii.ghting shall not exceed one half(0.5) foot candle. Comment addressed.
Revise to provide the following standard lighting note on the lighting plan:Each
outdoor luminaire equipped with a lamp that emits 3,000 or more initial lumens shall
be a full cutoff luminaire and shall be arranged or shielded to reflect light away from
adjoining residential districts and away from adjacent roads. The spillover of lighting
from luminaires onto public roads and property in residential or rural areas zoning
districts shall not exceed one-half foot-candle. Final: Comment not adequately
3040 Avemore Square Place •Charlottesville,VA 22911
Telephone(434)984-2700 •Fax(434)978-1444
Charlottesville•Lynchburg
Page 5 of 22
addressed.The above required note shall be provided on all site plans that have
lighting associated with them. Please include the above note on the site plan.
Response: Per your January 27, 2015 electronic communication, the plan"content"
has been modified to address the Code References contained in your electronic
communication as well as the requested note (see Drawing No. LT-1).
24. Comment: If any off-site easements are required,they must be approved and
recorded prior to Site Plan approval. Final: Comment appears to be relevant for
water connections to the site.
Response: There are no off-site easements required for this plan.
25. Comment: [32.5.2(n) & (p)] The following will be required for final site plan
approval:
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]
Final: Comment not adequately addressed.
-Sheet C-26 provides the required lighting cutsheets for each light type;
however,the cutsheets are not clearly labeled as to which fixture corresponds
with the table: XA,XB,XC, and XW.
-Sheet C-6 depicts the locations of the various types of lights (XA-XW); however
sheet C-26 does not provide matching quantities of each light found on sheet
C-6.
-Also,the details of each light type provided in the cutsheet is not legible.
-Also,the table does not provide labels for each column.
-Also, clearly provide the lumen levels of each lamp within the table(if the light
is over 3,000 lumens,it shall be a full cutoff fixture).
-Within the table assure the tilt of the fixture is provided (full cutoff provides
for zero tilt).
-Also,the lighting plan shall include a photometric plan which measures the
light spillover to the residential property lines and the public street (spillover
shall not to be over 0.5 half foot candles).
-All maintenance factors for the lights shall be 1.0
Response: The plan has been modified accordingly to address the above issues(see
Drawing No. LT-1).
3040 Avemore Square Place •Charlottesville,VA 22911
Telephone(434)984-2700 •Fax(434)978-1444
Charlottesville•Lynchburg
Page 6 of 22
NEW COMMENTS
26. Comment: [4.12.6] Parking. On sheet C-2,under Parking Required,there appears to
be a mathematical error in the amount of required parking spaces. As currently the
plan lists 53 +60 spaces as 93;however, I believe it should be 113. Revise if
appropriate.
Response: The amount of required parking spaces has been corrected to 113 on
Drawing No. C-2.
27. Comment: [4.12.6] Parking. The Building Official has commented on the size of the
handicapped bather free parking space associated with the van-accessible. Currently
the plan has a 5' width; I believe he's looking to have this expanded to 8' wide.
Please work with him on this item.
Response: The space in question has been revised to van accessible geometrics and
has been labeled as such.
28. Comment: Prior to final site plan approval the vacation of the property line between
TMP 61A-17 and TMP 61A-15 shall take place on a subdivision plat to be reviewed
by the County, approved, and then recorded in the Clerk's Office prior to final site
plan approval. The DB page information of this action shall be provided on the final
site plan.It may be appropriate to combine all platting items on a single plat.
Response: The plat will be submitted under separate cover. The plat denotes
vacation of all interior lot lines.
29. Comment: [COD Section VIII] The two required benches are depicted in various
locations throughout the plan(see sheet C-18 and sheet C-22). Assure that the plan is
consistent on the location of the benches. Revise.
Response: The plan depicts that the two required benches are to be located at the rear
of the building between the retaining wall and building(see Drawing Nos. C-18 and
C-22). This location is adjacent to a building entrance at the garage level. The
building elevator is located adjacent to this entrance and provides service to the
garage level.
30. Comment: [COD Section X,32.7.9.5(d)] The plan attempts to utilize Lagerstroemia
Indica"Crape Myrtle"as street trees along Rio Road; however,this is not permitted
as these trees are classified as small ornamental trees and do not qualify for use as
public street trees, which shall be large deciduous trees(Section 32.7.9.5(d)).
The applicant should revise the plan to provide some type of large deciduous tree in
this area to act as street trees in order to meet the required street tree landscaping. The
3040 Avemore Square Place •Charlottesville,VA 22911
Telephone(434)984-2700 •Fax(434)978-1444
Charlottesville•Lynchburg
Page 7 of 22
Acer Rubrum "Flame Red Maple" is an appropriate tree, as such replace the five
Crape Myrtles fronting Rio with an appropriate tree type.
Please note,that the Code of Development provides guidelines for plantings on the
entrance road,that requirement is met with this same mix;however,to meet the
requirements for landscaping on the public street frontage please refer to the comment
above. If you have questions please give me a call.
Response: The planting plan on Drawing No. C-22 and the landscape schedule and
tabulations on Drawing No. C-23,have been revised to reflect the use of"Flame Red
Maple"in lieu of the"Crape Myrtle" for street trees along Rio Road.
31. Comment: The plan depicts an indention,which looks like parallel parking spaces
adjacent to the two parking spaces at the entrance. Please clarify what this space is for
through labels. If they are for parking spaces please provide measurements and
labels. Etc
Response: The area in question is a pullout to facilitate temporary parking and has
been labeled as such and is fully dimensioned. (See Drawing No. C-6.)
32. Comment: To avoid confusion on sheet A2.01,please provide labels to each
elevation view. For example it appears the West Elevation is the view from Rio Road.
If so,please label it as such. Also,it appears the East Elevation is the rear of the
building. If so,please label it as such.
Response: The key plan at the lower right hand corner of Sheet A2.01 has been
labeled to denote the elevation view as referenced to the plan view.
33. Comment: [4.12.6] Parking. At the rear of the building (East Elevation)is the base of
the wall openings tall enough to block vehicle headlamps from shining through? If
not,please modifying the openings to prevent headlamps from shining through onto
residential lots.
Response: This comment will be addressed directly by Owner/Architect.
34. Comment: To avoid confusion on the cover sheet please omit SDP201400048 from
the title, and replace it with SDP201400067—Final Site Plan.
Response: The identification number on the plan cover sheet has been revised as
requested.
35. Comment: On sheet C-1, in the approvals box,please omit the Health Department
and ARB signature lines,and please include"E911"signature line.
Response: The requested change has been made.
3040 Avemore Square Place •Charlottesville,VA 22911
Telephone(434)984-2700•Fax(434)978-1444
Charlottesville•Lynchburg
Page 8 of 22
Engineering Comments—Justin Deel
SDP 2014-00067
1. Comment: The VSMP/WPO application will need to be approved before
recommending approval of the final site plan to Planning. Please separate the
VSMP package (SWM,ESC, storm drainage) from the site plan. This should be a
stand-alone submittal for the VSMP program.
Response: The plan has been separated in the manner requested(separate site
plan package and separate VSMP plan package).
2. Comment: Critical Slopes must be per Albemarle County Code (ACC) 18-30.7.
Please make your drawings match the overlay district maps. The walls proposed
to fill in the slopes that are marked as managed slopes must follow the design
guidelines of ACC 30.7.5,with 6 foot wall maximum.
Response: The source of topography is a field run survey listed under the Site
Data on the cover sheet. The critical/steep slopes shown on the plan are those
slopes 25% or greater as based on the field run survey. (See Note on Drawing
C-5.) During our January 15, 2015 meeting, Mr. Max Greene indicated that this
met the certification requirements for ACC Section 18-30.7.4.b.1.h. The walls are
permitted as they are in compliance with ACC Section 18-30.7.5.a.3.
3. Comment: Slopes steeper than 3:1 must have a low maintenance ground cover
(not grass). [ACC 18-30.7]
Response: A low maintenance ground cover will be provided for those slopes
steeper than 3:1. A note has been added to Drawing No. C-17 and to the
Landscape Plan Drawing No. C-22.
4. Comment: Provide sealed retaining wall plans.
Response: Sealed retaining wall plans prepared by Circeo Geotech are included.
5. Comment: VDOT approval will be required for improvements along Rio Road.
Response: This is understood.
6. Comment: Ensure that bus stop lane is marked off so as to differentiate from the
turn lane.
Response: The bus stop lane has been marked off and in compliance with VDOT
Shelley Plaster comment 18.
3040 Avemore Square Place •Charlottesville,VA 22911
Telephone(434)984-2700•Fax(434)978-1444
Charlottesville•Lynchburg
Page 9 of 22
7. Comment: The travelway into the site does not meet the grade requirements for
parking [ACC 18-4.12].
Response: Spot elevations have been added to Drawing No. C-7 and a centerline
of travelway has been added to Drawing No. C-7 to demonstrate compliance with
ACC 18-4.12.15.c along with a profile on Drawing No. C-8.
8. Comment: Parallel parking needs to be striped.
Response: The area in question is a pullout/over to facilitate temporary short term
parking for delivery type vehicles. This was determined to be acceptable to
Engineering staff during our 1/15/15 meeting.
9. Comment: Handicapped parking spaces in garage should be located on the east
side of the parking facility to eliminate the need to cross vehicle access isle [ACC
18-4.12.15.i].
Response: The garage design due to column line spacing does not permit location
of the garage handicap spaces as requested. The manner in which the garage
handicap spaces have been laid out to include crosswalk is ADA compliant.
10. Comment: Restore east elevation profile view of retaining wall.
Response: This comment was withdrawn by you during the 1/15/15 meeting with
Engineering staff
11. Comment: Inlet calculations do not appear to be correct. Please accurately reflect
curbs and grades,and ensure 10 year storm gets to the SWM facilities. We can
check details with VSMP plans.
Response: The area adjacent to structure number 8 has been regraded such that it
is in a sump condition. All inlet structures are in a sump condition as reflected in
the inlet compuations.
The following issues with biofilter design will affect the layout of the site plan:
1. Comment: You cannot have a sanitary sewer/manhole in the biofilter dam.
Response: The facility has been relocated/regraded to eliminate this condition.
3040 Avemore Square Place •Charlottesville,VA 22911
Telephone(434)984-2700 • Fax(434)978-1444
Charlottesville•Lynchburg
Page 10 of 22
2. Comment: The biofilter does not appear to meet minimum setback for
bioretention BMP [VA DEQ Stormwater Design Specification No. 9,Table 9.3].
Response: The biofilter is set no closer than 20 feet down slope of the building
(see Volume 1,page 3.11-3.13 of the Virginia Stormwater Management
Handbook 1st Edition, 1999). Please be reminded that the project is vested with
the Part IIC criteria.
3. Comment: Provide a 4 to 6 foot maintenance access strip to west side of
bioretention facility.
Response: A maintenance strip has been added along the south side of the SWM
facility to the retaining wall. This is as agreed upon with Glenn Brooks during
our January 15, 2015 meeting.
4. Comment: The biofilter treatment cannot be part of the sediment forebay.
Response: The facility has been modified to comply with this policy.
VSMP Permit Plan Review
A. SWPPP
1. Comment: Please use the standard template from the county website.
Response: This is understood. The SWPPP will be provided under
separate cover.
2. Comment: Provide SWPPP documents as a stand-alone package. Do not
include them as part of the site plan package, as the zoning site plan
approval will not be a valid VSMP approval.
Response: The SWPPP documents will be submitted under separate
cover.
B. PPP
1. Comment: Not found.
Response: The Pollution Prevention Plan will be included in the SWPPP
documents to be submitted under separate cover.
3040 Avemore Square Place •Charlottesville,VA 22911
Telephone(434)984-2700 •Fax(434)978-1444
Charlottesville•Lynchburg
Page 11 of 22
C. SWMP
1. Comment: The dam cannot have a sanitary sewer line or manhole in it.
Response: The facility has been relocated/regraded to eliminate this
condition.
2. Comment: Any basin should have 3:1 slopes for maintenance and safety
[VSMH Vol. 1, 3.01-131
Response: The same paragraph referenced further states"if possible,with
a maximum combined upstream and downstream slope of 5:1 (3:1
downstream face and 2:1 upstream face)." The grading plan is in
compliance with VSMH criteria.
3. Comment: The County BMP spreadsheet is no longer acceptable. Please
provide water quality calculations according to the State regulation
9VAC25-870-62 etc., for Part IIC criteria.
Response: The BMP Performance Based Water Quality Calculations
worksheet as contained in Volume 2,Appendix 5D has been utilized per
our January 15, 2015 meeting(see Drawing No. C-20). The calculations
have been revised to meet Part IIC criteria.
4. Comment: Provide a drainage area map for each area used in calculations.
Response: The drainage area(see Drawing No. C-19)to be utilized for
stormwater management pre- and post-development is to encompass the
project area consisting of the land mass associated with TMP 61A-15 and
61A-17. This is as agreed upon during our January 22, 2015 meeting.
Drainage areas to storm drain inlet type structures are shown on Drawing
No. C-16.
5. Comment: Stormwater narrative references July 14, 2014, and should be
July 1st
Response: The reference has been corrected.
6. Comment: Stormwater narrative references "Level 1"biofilter,which
implies Part IIB criteria. See comment 3.
Response: The narrative has been revised to denote that the Water Quality
facility is a Bioretention Filter designed in accord with Part IIC criteria as
contained in Minimum Standards 3.11 and 3.11A as contained in Volume
1 of the Virginia Stormwater Management Handbook 1st Edition, 1999.
3040 Avemore Square Place •Charlottesville,VA 22911
Telephone(434)984-2700 •Fax(434)978-1444
Charlottesville•Lynchburg
Page 12 of 22
The bioretention filter captures approximately 100%of the"Project Area"
impervious surfaces and provides a treatment volume of 0.5 inches of
runoff from the post-developed impervious area of 50,772 square feet with
a ponded depth of 1 foot and an underdrain.
7. Comment: The area used in required biofilter surface area calculations
(49,760 sf) is different than the given impervious area(45,073 sf).
Additionally,the total impervious area used in County BMP spreadsheet is
47,650 sf.
Response: The post-developed impervious area directed to the BMP
facility is 50,772 square feet. The calculations and references in the plan
have been revised accordingly to reflect this area.
8. Comment: Appears that more than a biofilter may be required.
Response: The bioretention filter design provides the required removal
per the Performance Based Water Quality Calculations worksheet.
9. Comment: Pollutant removal calculations reference"Level 1"biofilter.
This is new(IIB)criteria language. Please revise computations to follow
IIC criteria.
Response: The reference to "Level 1"has been removed and the
calculations are per the Part IIC criteria.
10. Comment: Bioretention details reference"Level 2" (new criteria
language). Please provide Type IIC details. Use basin sizing
methodology found in VSMH Vol. 1, 3.11-13.
Response: Details provided are Part IIC details per Minimum Standard
3.11 and 3.11A and cross-reference Minimum Standards as contained in
Volume 1 of the Virginia Stormwater Management Handbook 1st Edition,
1999.
11. Comment: Your bioretention facility detail calls for a 12-inch minimum
ponding depth. The maximum ponding depth is 6 inches for a
bioretention basin. (VSMH Vol. 1, 3:11-3)
Response: The referenced standard states that when an underdrain system
is used(Minimum Standard 3.11A),the overflow(ponded depth) can be
as much as 1.0 feet above the mulch layer(see Page 3.11-14 of VSMH
Volume 1, 3.11). The design is in compliance with this criteria.
3040 Avemore Square Place •Charlottesville,VA 22911
Telephone(434)984-2700 • Fax(434)978-1444
Charlottesville•Lynchburg
Page 13 of 22
12. Comment: Provide actual sections,to scale, for bioretention details,
showing both existing and proposed grades.
Response: The embankment profile on Drawing No. C-25 has been
expanded to include the upstream embankment to the retaining wall. This
was as agreed to during our January 22,2015 meeting.
13. Comment: Predeveloped SWM drainage map extends off property. Pre-
and post-developed drainage areas appear an invalid basis for compliance.
There does not appear to be a reason for this, and it affects the
computations (Tc, CN, etc.) significantly. Please use the point of
discharge from the site, which will restrict the drainage areas to the site
itself.
Response: The drainage area map (Drawing No. C-19)has been revised
to encompass the"Project Area" consisting of TMP 61A-15 and 61A-17.
This is as agreed upon during our January 22, 2015 meeting.
14. Comment: DD at SW side of property appears to divert to neighboring
property.
Response: The DD at the SW side of the property has been extended to
outfall into the sediment trap. Additional silt fence has been added
northeast of the DD to capture disturbed area downstream of the DD (see
Drawing No. C-16). This is as agreed upon during our January 22, 2015
meeting.
15. Comment: The hydrograph reports were not reviewed, as it is expected
that changes to the slopes, access,retaining walls, and avoiding the sewer
location will necessitate redesign.
Response: Acknowledged.
16. Comment: Provide sheets which are titled and clearly provide a
stormwater management plan. Only computations and maps were found.
(These cannot be approved as part of a site plan.) Include soil types.
Response: The plan has been separated into a separate site plan package
and a separate VSMP plan package(SWM&ESC). Soil types have been
added to the Phase I E&SC plan Drawing No. C-16A).
17. Comment: Label contours on drainage plan.
Response: Contours have been indexed on Drawing No. C-13.
3040 Avemore Square Place •Charlottesville,VA 22911
Telephone(434)984-2700 •Fax(434)978-1444
Charlottesville•Lynchburg
Page 14 of 22
D. ESCP
1. Comment: Please do not show piping in the sediment trap,unless it is to
be a sediment basin. If a stormwater basin is to be used, it should be
designed as a sediment basin also, so that the piping in the dam is installed
once for both the temporary and the permanent control.
Response: The underdrain has been removed. The SWM facility outfall
structure 10, 18"diameter HDPE outfall pipe and outfall structure 9 are to
be built concurrently with the embankment associated with sediment trap
1. The openings in structure 9 will be blocked during use as a sediment
trap;thus,there will be no disturbance of the embankment when converted
to the permanent condition. This note has been added to Drawing No.
C-16A as agreed upon during our January 22, 2015 meeting.
2. Comment: The first phase of the E&SC plan must not have site
improvements which will not be there at start. Show all measures to be
installed as a first step in any land disturbance.
Response: The Phase I E&SC plan(Drawing No. C-16A) is in
compliance with the requested requirements.
3. Comment: See site plan comments regarding critical slopes,walls, slopes,
etc. A redesign may be required.
Response: The critical/steep slopes shown to be disturbed with
construction of the improvements to include retaining walls and retaining
wall heights as shown on this plan are in conformance with the Steep
Slopes Overlay District Ordinance and as vested with ZMA 2013-00001
(with Proffers). It is understood that Mr. Christopher Perez, Senior
Planner,has discussed with you that the improvements as shown and as
designed are permitted.
4. Comment: Provide silt fence around the site perimeter.
Response: Silt fence has been placed in a manner to conform with the silt
fence criteria contained in the Virginia Erosion Control Handbook(i.e., on
contour).
5. Comment: The right-of-way diversion must drain to a sediment trapping
measure.
Response: The right-of-way diversion in front of the trench drain at the
garage drain is not required and has been deleted. The trench drain is
3040 Avemore Square Place •Charlottesville,VA 22911
Telephone(434)984-2700 •Fax(434)978-1444
Charlottesville•Lynchburg
Page 15 of 22
Noire Nue
protected with inlet protection. This is as agreed upon during our January
22, 2015 meeting.
6. Comment: Show soil types on plan.
Response: The soil types have been added to the E&SC Phase I plan.
7. Comment: Provide stock pile location and staging/parking area.
Response: These areas have been added to the Phase I and Phase II E&SC
plans.
8. Comment: On north side of site, silt fence should not be shown going
downhill.
Response: The silt fence at this location has been placed on contour.
9. Comment: Your adequate channel analysis doesn't look complete. Check
channel calculations and CN values.
Response: As based on our field review of the existing conditions of the
natural drainageway, the channel is adequate and remains adequate. A
composite factor"n" is not warranted as the drainageway side slopes are
homogeneous.
10. Comment: Provide construction entrance detail.
Response: The requested detail has been added to Drawing No. C-17.
E. Process
1. Comment: Bonding
Response: The bond estimate request letter will be submitted under
separate cover.
2. Comment: SWM Facilities Maintenance Agreement
Response: The executed agreement will be submitted under separate
cover.
3. Comment: DEQ Application Fees
Response: The DEQ fees have been paid. This project was vested prior to
and after July 1, 2014. DEQ registration/coverage letters are attached.
3040 Avemore Square Place •Charlottesville,VA 22911
Telephone(434)984-2700 •Fax(434)978-1444
Charlottesville•Lynchburg
Page 16 of 22
Now
4. Comment: DEQ Coverage
Response: DEQ registration/coverage letters dated June 6, 2014 and
September 5, 2014 are attached.
Albemarle County Service Authority—Alex Morrison'
1. Comment: PE signature must be original on cover sheet.
Response: A"wet seal"with signature and date has been applied to the cover
sheet.
2. Comment: Call out water meter as 1.5"(according to fixture counts provided).
Response: The water meter has been called out as 1.5". (See Drawing No. C-6.)
3. Comment: Remove the 3"gate valve before the water meter vault and replace
with a 6" gate valve before the 6"x 3"reducer.
Response: The requested change has been made. (See Drawing No. C-6 for plan
view and Drawing No. C-25 for profile view.)
4. Comment: Relocate the water main connection to TMP61A-29. You can'also
explore a connection to the 10" CI ACSA water main located in Pen Park Lane.
A connection to the RWSA water main has been denied.
Response: A connection to the RWSA water main is now being permitted(see
your 12/9/14 electronic communication). The water line connection as currently
shown is acceptable.
5. Comment: Include the following details:
• TD-1
• TD-2
• TD-12
Response: The requested details have been added to new Drawing No. C-25A.
6. Comment: Update the water main profile based on the new connection location.
Response: See response to item 4.
7. Comment: Be advised that plantings are proposed in the existing ACSA sanitary
sewer easement on the NE corner of the property. The ACSA will allow the
installation of this landscaping, as shown,with the understanding that the ACSA
3040 Avemore Square Place •Charlottesville,VA 22911
Telephone(434)984-2700 •Fax(434)978-1444
Charlottesville•Lynchburg
Page 17 of 22
Now
has no financial responsibility to replace the landscaping in the event that the
sewer easement must be accessed by ACSA maintenance crews, per the existing
deed of easement. No trees or obstructions will be allowed.
Response: This is understood by the owner/developer/applicant.
8. Comment: Provide a profile view of the existing sanitary sewer main where
grading, a walking path and a storm crossing is proposed. Be advised that any
cover exceeding 15' will require complete replacement of the existing PVC sewer
main with DIP.
Response: The plan has been revised such that there is no grading over the
existing sanitary sewer and the path and access road are no longer within the
sanitary sewer easement.
Electronic Communication dated November 14, 2014
1. Comment: Relocate the water main to TMP 61A-29. A connection to the RWSA
water main has been denied. The existing 10"CI line(located in Pen Park Lane)
was installed in 1963 and a tap will not be allowed.
Response: This comment is no longer applicable.
Electronic Communication dated November 14, 2014
1. Comment: RWSA has lifted the restriction for connecting to the existing RWSA
water main in Rio Road. I hereby revise my comments to allow connection to the
RWSA main. If you so choose to connect to the RWSA main,the ACSA will
request an easement to the Catholic School property for a future loop and
redundant water feed.
Response: The waterline connection as currently shown is acceptable. Per our
January 14, 2015 meeting and your subsequent electronic communication of the
same date, the requested easement is no longer being required by the ACSA.
Building Inspections—Jay Schlothauer
1. Comment: Rearrange the barrier-free parking space that is not within the garage,
so that it is van-accessible.
Response: The surface handicap parking space(exterior of the building)has been
revised to a van accessible space per your request. (See Drawing Nos. C-6, C-7,
C-9, C-11, C-13, C-16 and C-22).
3040 Avemore Square Place •Charlottesville,VA 22911
Telephone(434)984-2700 •Fax(434)978-1444
Charlottesville•Lynchburg
Page 18 of 22
vow vie
Fire and Rescue—Robert Gilmer
1. Comment: Fire flow test needs to be conducted on the RWSA 16-inch main on
Rio Road, not the 12-inch ACSA line on Pen Park Road.
Response: There is no hydrant connected to the RWSA 16-inch main in Rio Road
within this project. The closet hydrant connected to the RWSA main and to the
project site is at Towne Lane. Test data for this hydrant has been added to
Drawing No. C-2 to replace the hydrant data that was obtained from the Catholic
School.
VDOT—Shelly Plaster
1. Comment: Please correct the curb and gutter label at STA 11+50 on Rio Road.
Response: The curb and gutter reference has been corrected(see Drawing No.
C-6).
2. Comment: The minimum entrance radius is 25',please see appendix F of the
Road Design Manual.
Response: The radius has been revised to 25 feet(see Drawing Nos. C-6, C-7,
C-8A, C-9, C-11, C-13, C-16 and C-22). An exhibit with the entrance radius
within VDOT R/W increased to 25' and the handicap ramps pushed up closer to
Rio Road. This was as discussed in our meeting. Per your 1/29/15 electronic
communication,you indicated to proceed as shown(on the Exhibit).
3. Comment: Please add a note to nose down the curb at STA 07+75 on Rio Road.
Response: The CG-6 will transition from 6-inch height at station 7+69.02 to fl-
inch height at station 7+63.87 (see Drawing No. C-8A).
4. Comment: Please add a note stating that the relocated utility poles shall be set
outside of the clear-zone.
Response: Note 12 on Drawing No. C-5 has been expanded to denote the
requested requirements. The clear zone has been added to the Rio Road Frontage
Improvements cross-sections on Drawing No. C-10.
5. Comment: As mentioned in the initial Site plan comments, additional detail,
including spot elevations, need to be provided at the SWM facility entrance.
Please clarify the transition from C&G to shoulder/roadside ditch. How will the
additional runoff be controlled now that there is concentrated flow coming down
the gutter-pan?
3040 Avemore Square Place • Charlottesville,VA 22911
Telephone(434)984-2700 •Fax(434)978-1444
Charlottesville•Lynchburg
Page 19 of 22
Nue
Response: Spot elevation shave been added to the entrance as requested(see
Drawing No. C-7). Nose down transition of new CG-6 has been added(see
Drawing No. C-8A). Please note that the drainage area outfalling at the terminous
of the improvements adjacent to the westbound lane Rio Road has been
significantly reduced as storm drain structure No. 8 intercepts surface runoff. The
existing ditch section outfalled as a concentrated flow at the low point of Rio
• Road(approximately station 12+50). The existing drainage way has been added
to Drawing No. C-7 along with a note to regrade within existing right-of-way to
ensure positive drainage.
6. Comment: The cross-slope at the main entrance is approx.. 6.3%. This should be
within a 2-3%range.
Response: The entrance has been adjusted to maintain 2-3%cross slope within
Rio Road(see Drawing No. C-7).
7. Comment: Please provide additional spot elevations, along the C&G at the main
entrance,to ensure positive flow. Also,please consider a reversed curb on the
south-side of the entrance.
Response: Additional spot elevations have been added to Drawing No. C-7 to
demonstrate drainage across the main entrance as well as along Rio Road
frontage.
8. Comment: Why is STM STR#8 called out as a sump on the inlet computations?
It does not appear to be a sump condition on the profile.
Response: The grading has been revised such that the inlet in question is in a
sump condition.
9. Comment: Please provide the Asphalt Pavement Widening detail, WP-2.
Response: The requested detail along with Note 2 has been added to Drawing
No. C-8A.
10. Comment: The crosswalk located within the ROW should be shifted closer to Rio
Road. The stop bar should be a minimum of 4' behind the crosswalk.
Response: The crosswalk location has been revised and stop bar relocated as
requested(see Drawing Nos. C-6, C-7 and C-9). Per your 1/29/15 electronic
communication,you indicated to proceed as shown(see response to comment 2).
3040 Avemore Square Place •Charlottesville,VA 22911
Telephone(434)984-2700 •Fax(434)978-1444
Charlottesville•Lynchburg
Page 20 of 22
w
11. Comment: The Crosswalk spacing between lines should be not less than 6 feet
wide and the CG-12's should be located within the crosswalk markings.
Response: Crosswalk spacing between lines has been revised and labeled to be 6
feet between lines and CG-12s with crosswalk markings (see Drawing Nos. C-6,
C-7 and C-9).
12. Comment: Stop Bars and arrows should be Type, B Class 1 Thermoplastic. The
remaining pavement markings should be Type A (Latex)paint.
Response: Pavement marking note number 2 has been revised accordingly(see
Drawing No. C-9).
13. Comment: Please remove the proposed stop bar located in the left turn lane on
Rio Road, approx.. STA 10+50.
Response: The requested stop bar has been removed(see Drawing Nos. C-6, C-7,
C-9, C-11, C-l3, C-16 and C-22).
14. Comment: Please extend the left turn lane striping, approx.. 10',to the entrance
PC. However, ensure that the striping does not interfere with the left turn
movements exiting the site.
Response: The left turn lane has been extended to the PC of the proposed
entrance into the site. The extended left turn marking does not impact/interfere
with a WB-40 movement. (See Drawing Nos. C-6, C-7, C-9, C-11, C-13, C-16
and C-22).
15. Comment: The allowable lane closures along Rio Road are restricted to work
hours from 8:00 pm thru 6:00 am.
Response: Temporary traffic control General Notes number 5 has been revised
accordingly(see Drawing No. C-11).
16. Comment: Thank you for providing the MOT Notes,Narrative and
Communications Plan. We also request that you schematically show the
placement of all traffic control devices rather than referencing a typical traffic
control standard.
Response: Drawing Nos. C-11A and C-11B have been added to include
schematic layout of lane closure and shoulder with minor encroachment
temporary traffic controls(TTC). The majority of work in VDOT right-of-way
will utilize these TTC standards.
3040 Avemore Square Place •Charlottesville,VA 22911
Telephone(434)984-2700 •Fax(434)978-1444
Charlottesville•Lynchburg
Page 21 of 22
40.r. Nee
17. Comment: Further discussion is required for the ROW dedication to
accommodate the bus stop.
Response: It is understood from our November 10,2014 meeting,that right-of-
way 1 foot from the "bus stop"improvements as currently shown is acceptable.
18. Comment: The dashed lines in front of the bus stop should be solid rather than
dashed. Hopefully this will help guide a driver away from entering the bus stop.
Also in the bus lane please include the word marking BUS ONLY.
Response: The requested change has been made (see Drawing Nos. C-6, C-7,
C-9, C-11, C-13, C-16 and C-22).
I trust that the above responses and plan changes properly address the outstanding issues.
If there are any questions,please contact this office.
Sincerely,
WW Associates, Inc.
Davey vi9rovoot
David M. Jensen,P.E.
Vice President
Manager, Charlottesville Operations
cc: William N. Park, Bluestone Land, L.L.C.
3040 Avemore Square Place •Charlottesville,VA 22911
Telephone(434) 984-2700 • Fax(434)978-1444
Charlottesville•Lynchburg
Page 22 of 22
Christopher Perez
From: Christopher Perez
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 12:45 PM
To: 'djensen @wwassociates.net'
Subject: Lofts at Meadowcreek SDP2014-00067
Attachments: Easement_Plat_&_Checklist.pdf; Boundary_Line_Adjustment_Plat_&_Checklist.pdf
David,
In response to your voicemail, attached are two applications (Easement plat/w site plan ($200 fee) and
Boundary Line Adjustment plat ($200 fee)).
As you can see in the attached applications the fee is $200 for each of these application types. Because your
combining two types of plats into a single plat, please only pay ONE of the $200 fees and assure that all items
required by each type of plat are provided on the plat you prepare,to include the title (assure it explains what is
happening). If one of the fees was higher, you would be paying the higher of the two fees.
As I understand it you want to cover the right of way dedication with this plat, you also want to combine the
two existing lots on this plat, and you want to depict any easements with this plat (to include any off-site
easements that are required prior to final site plan approval).
Hope t;u helps.
{'ig:ir'.s t,her P. Perez!Senior Planner
Department of Community Development County of Albemarle,Virginia
401 McIntire Road;Charlottesville.VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext.3443
From: Christopher Perez
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2015 9:39 AM
To: 'djensen @wwassociates.net
Subject: RE: Lofts at Meadowcreek SDP2014-00067
I was beginning to wonder.
Regardless,thanks for letting me know you received the email.
C hriste>nhe..>' Pvrei Senior Planner
Department of Community Development ;County of Albemarle,Virginia
401 McIntire Road Charlottesville,VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext.3443
From: David Jensen [mailto:djensen @wwassociates.net]
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2015 9:38 AM
To: Christopher Perez
Subject: RE: Lofts at Meadowcreek SDP2014-00067
Good morning Chris,
My apologizes for the delay in acknowledging receipt of your responses below. If I have questions, I will contact you.
Thanks,
David M. Jensen, PE
Vice President
1
Christopher Perez
From: Plaster, Shelly(VDOT) [Shelly.Plaster @vdot.virginia.gov]
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2014 1:51 PM
To: Christopher Perez
Cc: Troy Austin
Subject: RE: SDP-2014-00067 The Lofts at Meadow Creek
Absolutely. I will send out an updated letter first thing Monday.
Regarding the bus stop... I will be adding a note stating : The dashed lines in front of the bus shop
should be solid rather than dashed. Hopefully this will help guide a driver away from entering the
bus stop. Also in the bus lane please include the word marking BUS ONLY.
Hopefully this will satisfy Engineering's concerns.
Have a great weekend!
SIA-elt j
From: Christopher Perez [mailto:cperez@ albemarle.orq]
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2014 12:32 PM
To: Plaster, Shelly (VDOT)
Cc: Austin, Nathran. (VDOT); Glenn Brooks; Justin Deel
Subject: RE: SDP-2014-00067 The Lofts at Meadow Creek
Shelly,
Comment#17. I have spoken to David Benish and Claudette Grant w/the County...and they both state that the
bus service has now been extended on Rio. Thus it is the time to actually have the bus stop built to meet the
proffer. Being the applicant already seeks to do this now, can we edit your comment letter to remove comment
#17 and avoid any confusion.
Thanks
Also, can you contemplate/weigh in on Engineering's comment in an email, will this be acceptable to VDOT:
"6. The bus stop appears to interfere significantly with the turn lane. It would be better situated on the other
side of the entrance. "
thanks
==x;. P. Pet'?.-; Senior Planner
Department of Community Development County of Albemarle,Virginia
401 McIntire Road Charlottesville.VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext.3443
From: Plaster, Shelly (VDOT) [mailto:Sheliy.Plaster(avdotvircinia.ccv]
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 11:03 AM
To: Christopher Perez
1
Cc:Troy Austin
vof
Subject: SDP-2014-00067 The Lofts at Meadow Creek
Hello Chris,
I have attached my comment letter for The Lofts at Meadow Creek. Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thank you,
SHztly A. Pl,a34
Land Development Engineer
VIDCIT
Charlottesville Residency
701 VDOT Way
Charlottesville,VA 22911
Phone: (434)422-9894
Fax: (434)984-1521