Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201400043 Correspondence 2014-06-25 ililloe Ellie Ray From: Rebecca Ragsdale Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 2:45 PM To: Max Greene Cc: Ellie Ray Subject: RE: Riverside Village Garages may be detached or attached. If they are less than 3'from the primary structure,then they are considered attached. Attached v. detached may make a difference in terms of what setbacks are applicable, primary structure setbacks apply if attached or accessory structure setbacks apply if detached. From: Max Greene Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 2:27 PM To: Rebecca Ragsdale Cc: Ellie Ray Subject: Riverside Village Rebecca, I noticed the garages on several of the units are about a foot from the garages... can they be that close for this project or should they be shown a minimum 3 feet apart? Thanks, Max Max Greene Albemarle County 401 McIntire rd. Charlottesville,Va. 22902 434-296-5832 ext.3283 1 SHIMP PROJECT MANAGEMENT CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND PLANNING ENGINEERING November 13, 2014 Ms. Ellie Ray Regarding: SDP 2014-00043- Riverside Village Final Site Development Plan Dear Ms. Ray, I have attached 7 copies of the Final Site Development Plan addressing your comments dated November 4, 2014. We have also included 2 additional sets for the road plan file and the accompanying application fee. The specific changes are outlined below. Conditions of Initial Approval (from approval letter dated 3/19/14): 1. To the best of our knowledge we are submitting a final site development plan meeting these requirements. 4. We have reviewed this matter with zoning and their determination is that the plat should be approved and recorded prior site plan approval. We disagree with this requirement but will provide the plats as soon as VDOT confirms the right of way dedication width. 12. We have revised the previously proposed variation to include additional changes to the requirements for green space and amenity areas. We have also revised the green space and amenity table on sheet C2 to reflect the changes made to the variation. Additional columns were also added to the table to show what we are providing on the plan is in conformance with the requirements. 13. References made to block 4 have been updated to reflect the new unit type and count within block 4. The two parallel parking spaces for units 24 and 25 are now shown as 9 wide as required. The parking calculations on sheet C1 have been broken out into number of garage spaces versus open air asphalt spaces as requested. All driveway widths for the 2 car garages throughout the plan are now shown as 18 wide from the street to the garage. 15. Riverwalk Xing has also been added to the revised variation request to include the changes in right of way width. There are no proposed one way alleys or roads with this final site plan. 20. The maximum building area is now shown on each lot separate from the total lot area as "Bld:X,XXX SF". See sheet C5. 24. The conservation plan checklist will be signed by the owner's agent at the time of final approval when County signatures are expected. 30. We corrected the mistake of way too many autumn flame red maples on the landscape schedule. We double checked the count for all other species but there was no change. Additional matchlines and text are now shown on sheets C11 and C12 to hopefully make the plan easier to read. The total new canopy provided has been revised within the calculations on sheet C12. 33. The landscaping calculations have been updated showing the updated new canopy areas based on the correction of total autumn flame red maples. The canopy shown for the autumn flame red maple is based on the Albemarle County Plant Canopy table spreadsheet under"Medium Shade Trees"of 2.5"cal. "err • . 34. A letter from the ACSA will be provided to you directly from the ACSA as proof of authorization to plant within their easements. Plantings have been shifted around to not conflict with the proposed utilities as requested. See sheets C11 and C12. 36. We have submitted a revised variation request to clear up the discrepancies. 42. ARB comments have been received and addressed.A separate revised set of plans will be submitted directly to Margaret with an associated comment response letter. 43. The note labeling an area of trees to be removed along the northern property line has been removed from the existing conditions and demolition plan. See sheet C3. Final Site Plan Comments: 46. The missing managed slopes along Route 20 are now shown and labeled on sheet C3. The labels have also been revised to note"steep slopes" rather than "critical slopes."This text edit was also done on the cover sheet as requested. 53. To the best of our knowledge all matchlines are correctly showing and referencing the applicable details or sheets as noted on the plan. Additional matchlines were added specifically around the landscaping at the north eastern corner of the site. 54.Comment noted. Revisions have been made to the plan per the comments that we have received to date. Comment responses will be provided for the other departments that have provided us with their reviews. 55. Sycamores are no longer shown along the proposed Riverwalk Xing. Black gums are now shown as a replacement species. The landscaping schedule and all associated calculations have been updated to reflect this change. 56. The initial site plan notification fee of$200 is included with this resubmittal. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at your earliest opportunity at chris @shimp- engineering.com or Justin Shimp, P.E. may be reached at:justin @ shimp-engineering.com or by phone at 434-953- 6116. Best Regards, Chris Norvelle Shimp Engineering, P.C. t f ....., SH' IMP PROJECT MANAGEMENT CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND PLANNING ENGINEERING C- , December 10, 2014 Ms. Ellie Ray Regarding: SDP 2014-00043- Riverside Village Final Site Development Plan Dear Ms. Ray, I have attached 5 copies of the Final Site Development Plan addressing your comments dated November 4, 2014. Comments received from Engineering and Zoning are also included with this comment response and resubmittal. The specific changes are outlined below. Conditions of Initial Approval (from approval letter dated 3/19/14): 1. To the best of our knowledge we are submitting a final site development plan meeting these requirements. 1. The associated boundary line adjustment plats for the onsite and offsite right of way dedications have been submitted to the County prior to this resubmittal. 12. All applicable tables included on sheet C2 have been updated per the most recently revised variation that was submitted for review. A reference to the approved variation is now noted on the cover sheet under "zoning." 13. As discussed in our meeting we have updated the interior"dashed" line of the garages to reflect the internal dimensions of the garage rather than the door width.After clarification it has been determined that all garages are able to accommodate 2 parking spaces. The parking calculations on sheet C1 have been updated to better describe how the required guest parking spaces for blocks 2C, 3A& B, and 4 are provided. 15. The northern alley that is 12' in width is now shown to have a one way traffic pattern with appropriate signage. See sheet C5. 20. The maximum building footprint area is now shown along with a text label defining this area for each building. Please see sheet C5. 24. The conservation plan checklist will be signed by the owner's agent at the time of final approval when County signatures are expected. 30. The reference lines for details 1 and 2 on sheet C12 have been revised to prevent confusion on the number of street trees to be provided along route 20. Also an additional matchline with text is now shown on detail 2 on sheet C12. 34. A letter from the ACSA will be provided to you directly from the ACSA as proof of authorization to plant within their easements. The two river birches over top the proposed storm sewer within the biofilter have been shifted to either side of this pipe.As discussed in our meeting the proposed dogwood along Route 20 that is overtop of the 72"CM Pipe is not in conflict due to the excessive amount of cover over the existing culvert pipe. To the best of our knowledge no other utility conflicts exist. See sheet C11 &C12. 36. All applicable tables included on sheet C2 have been updated per the most recently revised variation that was submitted for review.A reference to the approved variation is now noted on the cover sheet under "zoning." . Final Site Plan Comments: 53. The reference lines on details 1 and 2 on sheet C12 have been revised to avoid confusion on total number of street trees to be planted along Route 20. 54.Comment noted. Revisions have been made to the plan per the comments that we have received to date. We are continuing to finalize the plan for approval with VDOT and the ACSA. Engineering and Zoning comments have been received and revisions have been made per their comments as well. Responses outlining the specific changes to their comments shall be included with this resubmittal, see below. Engineering Comments (Max Greene): 1. Revisions to the SUB and WPO plans have been completed and shall be resubmitted for review. 2. The northern alley with a width of 12' is now shown having a one way vehicular circulation with appropriate signage and pavement markings. Zoning Comments (Rebecca Ragsdale): 1. A meeting was held with Dan Mahon on the trails and we have included a note as requested from him as note number 4 on detail 7 on sheet C10. 2. The proposed rear decks in block 4 have been revised to not encroach the 20' rear building setback. 3. Comment noted. The required number of affordable units are provided. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at your earliest opportunity at chris @shimp- engineering.com or Justin Shimp, P.E. may be reached at:justin @shimp-engineering.com or by phone at 434-953- 6116. Best Regards, Cidr? , A/0,u_ Norvelle Shimp Engineering, P.C.