HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201400043 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2015-02-20Ellie Ray
From: Michael Vieira [mvieira @serviceauthority.org]
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2015 1:46 PM
To: 'Justin Shimp, P.E.'
Cc: 'Chris Henry'; Ellie Ray
Subject: RE: Riverside Approval?
Attachments: Riverside Village -Plan Approval_Engineer.pdf
Justin,
The water and sewer utility plans are approved. I have attached a pdf of the official
approval letter, for your reference. I will let you know when the hard copy of the letter and
the approved set of plans are ready to be picked -up.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks,
Michael Vieira, P.E.
Civil Engineer
168 Spotnap Road
Charlottesville, VA 22911
Office: (434) 977 -4511 ext. 113
This e -mail may contain confidential information that should not be shared with anyone other
than its intended recipient(s).
Original Message---- -
From: Justin Shimp, P.E. [ mailto :lustin(@shimp- engineering.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 7:02 PM
To: Michael Vieira
Cc: Chris Henry
Subject: Riverside Approval?
Hi Michael,
Just following up with you on the plan? I spoke with Ellie today and she said she had not yet
heard from you. Just making sure everything is in order.
Thanks,
Justin Shimp, P.E.
434 - 953 -6116
1
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper, Virginia 22701
Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E.
Commissioner
February 11, 2015
Ms. Ellie Ray
Senior Planner
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: SDP- 2014 - 00043 /SUB- 2014 -00185 Riverside Village
Dear Ms. Ray:
We have reviewed the Riverside Village Final Site Development Plan; latest revision dated
January 20, 2015, as submitted by Shimp Engineering, and offer the following comments:
1. All previous review comments have been adequately addressed.
2. VDOT has no objection to the approval of the road plans as submitted.
3. Prior to commencement of construction activities, there will need to be a pre - construction
conference for this project. Please contact this office at least 48 hours prior to a
requested pre - construction conference to schedule this meeting.
If you need additional information concerning this project please do not hesitate to contact me at
434} 422 -9894.
Sincerely,
l %
Al
Shelly A. Plaster
Land Development Engineer
Culpeper District
r.-
4
t+u.
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Cuipeper Yrgirda 22701
Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E.
Commissioner
December 7, 2015
Ms. Ellie Ray
Senior Planner
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: SDP- 2014 -00043 and SUB - 2014 -00185 Riverside Village
Dear Ms. Ray:
We have reviewed the Riverside Village Final Site Development Plan; latest revisions dated
December 9, 2014, as submitted by Shimp Engineering, and offer the following comments:
1. The entrance onto Trailside Drive, approx. station 15 +23, should be called out as a CG-
1 1 rather than a CG -7. Also CG -12's should be provided at this location.
2. A stop sign should be provided at south alley coming onto Trailside Drive. Also is
Riverwalk Xing to be used as one way similar to the North Alley?
3. A future stub out street sign should be provided at the end of Trailside Drive. The sign
specifications can be found in the SSAR Guidance Document.
4. The barrier proposed at the entrance along Trailside Drive, approx. station 11 +56, should
be a type III barricade in accordance with the latest VWAPM.
5. The stone monument signs should be located outside of a public drainage easement or
ROW.
6. The grading, at approx. station 15 +23, appears to be drawn as if there is C &G is this the
intent? Additional spot elevations may be necessary to ensure positive drainage.
7. Additional spots at the PC's and PT's may be beneficial and ensure positive drainage.
8. Station labels on the site sheets would be helpful.
9. FYI Sheets C13 -C19 titles state Initial Site Plan.
10. The guardrail details that need to be shown are 501.04 and 501.05. 1 do not feel the GR-
FOA-1 detail that is referenced is necessary.
11. A note should be added to the Striping and Signage Plan stating that the striping and
signage shall be in accordance with the latest revisions of the MUTCD.
12. The crosshatch markings at approx. station 12 +50 -16 +00 and 24 +00 -27 +00 on Rt. 20 are
going the wrong direction.
13. Recommend adding a thru arrow at approx. station 12 +87 (Rt. 20)
14. The stop bars in the turn lanes should be removed.
15. A stop bar should be added behind the crosswalk (the intersection of Trailside Drive and
Rt. 20)
16. UD -4's shall be required on both sides of a crowned road. See details.
17. When the borrow material is placed, in order to widen Rt. 20, soil tests will need to be
taken to ensure that the pavement design is adequate. Also, the typical section will need
to meet or exceed the existing pavement on Rt. 20.
18. The following note should be added to the plans: The borrow material, necessary for the
improvements along Rt. 20, shall be taken from an approved source or soils test shall be
provided prior to placement.
19. The storm profile for A13-Al2 appears to be missing.
20. The HGL for storm structure B2 appears to be missing.
21. The inlet computation for storm structure D7 appears to be missing.
22. Storm run D3B -D3A pipe lengths on the profile do not appear to match the computations.
23. The inverts, on the profiles, for runs D2B -D2A and D2A -D2 do not appear to match the
computations.
24. Once the remaining soil samples are received I will verify the pavement design.
25. It is understood the MOT will be submitted as soon as possible. Thank you.
I am available if you wish to schedule a meeting to discuss the comments. Please do not hesitate
to contact me at (434) 422 -9894.
Sincerely,
ZEll11ON
Shelly A. Plaster
Land Development Engineer
Culpeper District
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
Phone 434 - 296 -5832
jRclti
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, VA, 22902
Memorandum
To: Justin Shimp ( Justin (a)shimp- engineerinq.com)
From: Ellie Ray, CLA, Senior Planner
Division: Planning
Date: June 20, 2014
Revl : November 4, 2014
Rev2: November 26, 2014
Rev3: December 22, 2014
Subject: SDP 201400043 Riverside Village — Final
Fax 434 - 972 -4126
The County of Albemarle Planning Division will recommend approval of the plan referenced above once the
following comments have been satisfactorily addressed (The following comments are those that have been
identified at this time. Additional comments or conditions may be added or eliminated based on further review.):
Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference, which is to the Subdivision /Zoning Ordinances unless
otherwise specified.]
Conditions of Initial Approval (from approval letter dated 3/19/14):
1. A site plan meeting all the requirements of section 32.6 of Chapter 18 of the Code.
Final: See Final Plan comments below.
Rev1: Comment still valid; see below.
Rev2: Comment still valid; see below.
Rev3: Comment addressed; see below for outstanding comments.
2. [Comment] Note which blocks from ZMA201200002 are included in this application.
Final: Comment addressed.
3. [Comment] This application was reviewed against Site Development Plan requirements only. It appears
that lot lines are shown on the plan, but no subdivision application was submitted. Any subdivision related
comments are provided for reference only unless necessary for site plan approval.
Final: For informational purposes only.
4. [32.5.2(a) & Proffer 4] Clearly delineate any area proposed to be dedicated for the improvements to Route
20. Additional land for the future widening of Route 20 (as noted in proffers) must also be dedicated by plat
contemporaneously with the Final Site Plan.
Final: The Boundary line adjustment plat required to dedicate additional land for the widening of
Route 20 must be submitted and approved prior to approval of the Site Plan. The owners of the
adjacent parcel must also sign the plat.
Rev1: Comment not addressed. A Final Subdivision plat, that may have included the required
boundary line adjustment, was submitted for review; however this plat is currently suspended until
after the Site Plan is approved. The boundary line adjustment must be submitted and approved
prior to Site Plan approval.
Rev2: Comment not addressed. The boundary line adjustment plat has not yet been submitted.
Rev3: Comment not fully addressed. The boundary line adjustment plats have been submitted and
are under review. Once approved and recorded, this comment will be satisfied.
5. [32.5.2(a)] Add Entrance Corridor (EC) to the Zoning note.
Final: Comment addressed.
6. [32.5.2(a)] List the Special Exceptions approved with the ZMA application on the cover sheet.
Final: The following special exceptions were granted during the rezoning: Section 14- 234(C): Traffic
volume adequacy; Section 14- 410(H): Curb, gutter, sidewalk, and Planting strip; Section 14- 412(A)-
3(b): Alternative standard deemed adequate by county engineer; and Section 14- 422(A): Sidewalks
and planting strips at portico entrance to Block 5. A Special Permit (SP201300001) for fill in the
floodplain was also approved. List these items on the cover sheet under Zoning information.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
7. [32.5.2(a) & COD Section X] It appears that internal lot lines are shown within the parking lot serving Block
2C. If an internal parcel is proposed, this layout violates both the side and rear setbacks listed in Section X
of the Code of Development.
Final: Comment addressed. It has been determined that the revised disconnected parking spaces
within Block 2C do not meet the definition of a parking lot as presented in the Code of Development;
therefore, the parking setbacks do not apply.
8. [32.5.2(b)] Provide information about the acreage occupied by each proposed use including residential,
roads, and open space.
Final: Comment addressed.
9. [32.5.2(b)] Provide a breakdown of unit types listing the number of each proposed by block.
Final: If two unit types are proposed within a single block, provide a breakdown of the number of
each type of unit.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
10. [32.5.2(b) & COD Section IV] It appears that a three unit row of townhouses is proposed in Block 3.
According the Section IV of the Code of Development, townhouses are not a permitted use. Zoning is
currently reviewing the Code of Development and the Initial Site Plan and will determine if this use complies;
a variation may be necessary to build the three unit row of dwelling units as proposed.
Final: Comment addressed; townhouses no longer proposed in Block 3.
11. [32.5.2(b)] Provide the gross residential density for each Block and for the project overall.
Final: Comment addressed.
12. [32.5.2(b) & COD Section VII] Provide a chart or other schedule demonstrating how the minimum green
space and amenity requirements listed in COD Section VII are being satisfied. It appears that minimum
requirements are not met in each block including: four benches and "plantings" along mews in Block 2, mix
of evergreen trees and shrubs in northern buffer #2 in Block 2, flowering trees in SWM facility #3 in Block 3,
flowering trees along the park connector in Block 3, and rear yard landscaping adjacent to northern
boundary (northern buffer #3) in Block 4. Is should also be noted that any buffer landscaping proposed on
individual lots will require a landscape maintenance easement when the lots are subdivided.
Final: Many of the areas listed in the "Provided Green Space, Civic Areas, and Amenities by Block"
chart on Sheet 2 do not meet (or are different from) the areas listed in the "Minimum Green Space,
Civic Areas, and Amenities by Block" chart approved in the Code of Development; clarify why any
number listed as minimum in the COD is not being met. If minimum areas aren't provided, the COD
must be revised through a variation. Even though Blocks 1 & 5 are not under review with this
application, it should also be noted that the stormwater facility areas approved in this chart must
also be revised by variation (either now or when Blocks 1 & 5 are under review) if SWM Facilities #1
2 are no longer proposed.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. The plan does not appear to include all of the landscaping
listed as provided under `SWM #3' in the "Provided Green Space, Civic Areas, and Amenities by
Block" table (for example, there are no evergreen trees and significantly less than 68 shrubs shown
in the SWM area). What is shown on the plan does meet the COD, but isn't what is listed in this
table; revise this chart to include only what is provided on the plan. A variation is under review that,
once approved, will fix all remaining issues with this Table. There are some differences in the areas
of many of the green spaces between what was approved and what is provided. These differences
are considered minimal and are approvable as long as the total provided meets or exceeds what was
approved with the ZMA. However, since you have a variation under review, you may want to include
these changes in the variation to minimize the chance of issues in the future.
Rev2: Comment not yet addressed. The variation is expected to go to the Board on December 10tH
with the condition that a complete amended Application Plan and Code of Development be
submitted to Community Development prior to Site Plan approval. The variation is not yet
completely through the Executive Summary system, so the Board date is still subject to change.
Once approved, all tables on the Site Plan should reflect the changes approved through the
variation(s) with a note indicating the variation number. Make sure the setback table is also
updated, including the associated notes.
Rev3: The variations were approved by the Board of Supervisors on December 10th, and an updated
Application Plan and Code of Development was provided to address the condition of approval of the
variations. Add a revision date to the cover of the updated Application Plan with a note referencing
the variations, and provide a digital copy for County records. The variation note on the Cover Sheet
of the Site Plan includes "alley widths ", but the alley widths were deemed to not require a variation;
please remove this reference from the note. For future applications (as mentioned above), all
required landscaping proposed on individual lots will need landscape easements when the Final
Plat is submitted.
13. [32.5.2(b) & Application Plan] Provide a chart or other schedule demonstrating how the minimum parking
requirements are being satisfied, listing the amount required and provided. Block 2C does not provide the
minimum 24 spaces for 12 multi - family dwelling units. Additionally, since parking is proposed on individual
lots in Block 4, a minimum of 1 parking space per four dwelling units for guest parking is required.
Final: Include blocks 2A, 213, 3A and 3B in the parking note. Note if and how much parking is
provided in garages. Clarify how units 28 & 29 have four parking spaces; the driveway is not wide
enough to support a two car garage (it's only 16'). Additionally, the parallel parking spaces in Block
2C must be 9' wide instead of 8' as proposed (4.12.16(c)2).
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. Remove any reference to parking required or provided in
Block 4 as no units are currently proposed in this block. The two parallel parking spaces that
support units #24 and #25 are still only 8' wide; revise to 9'. As requested, provide information in
the parking notes regarding how much parking is provided in garages. All but one of the driveways
in Blocks 2A and 2B are only 16' wide, which cannot support 2 parking spaces as indicated on the
plan; please clarify and revise.
Rev2: Comment not fully addressed. Clarify how parking is provided in Blocks 3A, 3B and 4; the
site plan states all parking in these blocks is provided in garages, but no garage shown is large
enough to accommodate 2 parking spaces. Additionally, guest parking must be provided in Block 4
at one space per four units.
Rev3: Comment addressed.
14. [32.5.2(b) & COD Section IV] As noted above, it appears that internal lot lines are shown within the
parking lot serving Block 2C. If an internal parcel is proposed, this layout proposes stand -alone parking on
this internal parcel which is not a permitted use in Block 2 according to Section IV of the Code of
Development.
Final: Comment addressed; stand -alone parking is no longer proposed.
15. [32.5.2(i) & COD Section XIII] Provide a chart or other schedule listing the street cross sections approved
with the ZMA application and indicating the proposed cross sections. Streetscape requirements in the Code
of Development must also be met (see landscape comments below).
Final: Portions of the street and alley sections on Sheet 10 do not match what is shown on the
layout sheet or in the chart on Sheet 2; all information, including widths and setbacks, must be the
same throughout the plan set and match what was approved with the rezoning.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. A variation is under review to correct some of the
discrepancies between the sections approved with the ZMA and what is proposed on the site plan.
However, it appears that Riverwalk Xing also needs to be included in this variation request; the
approved section has a 30' private road easement, while the plan proposes a 36' right -of -way.
Provide directional arrows for any one -way road or alley sections.
Rev2: Comment not fully addressed. David Benish determined that no variation is required for the
minor differences in road sections as the sections in the Application Plan were labeled as
3
conceptual. The proposed 12' alley may not meet the minimum standard for two -way traffic; please
consult with the County Engineer.
Rev3: Comment addressed.
16. [32.5.2(1) & COD Section XIII] Section XIII describes Road "C" as a 12' walkway, but the proposed design
includes only a 10' walkway free of groundcover. The paver only portion of Road "C" should be increased to
a minimum 12' width.
Final: Comment addressed.
17. [32.5.2(k)] Verify that all necessary easements for proposed water, sewer and drainage facilities have been
shown on the plan.
Final: Comment addressed.
18. [32.5.2(1)] Provide the location of any other existing or proposed utilities and utility easements including
telephone, cable, electric and gas.
Final: Comment addressed.
19. [32.5.2(m)] Show the distance to the centerline of the nearest existing street intersection from the proposed
ingress and egress locations.
Final: Comment addressed.
20. [32.5.2(n)] Provide the maximum footprint for all proposed buildings.
Final: The actual maximum footprint must be provided for all townhouse units; the footprints shown
should not be conceptual as noted in the comment response letter.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. Provide the maximum footprint square footage for each
building.
Rev2: Comment not fully addressed. The maximum footprint should be provided, not maximum
square footage.
Rev3: Comment addressed.
21. [32.5.2(n)] Dimension the full width of the retaining wall required for construction.
Final: Comment addressed.
22. [32.5.2(n)] Show proposed lighting locations on the layout, utility and landscape sheets to verify no conflicts
exist.
Final: If lighting is no longer proposed, please remove the lighting note on the cover sheet.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
23. [32.5.2(0)] Clearly show any areas intended to be dedicated or reserved for dedication to public use (such
as street right -of -way), and provide a note stating that the land is to be dedicated or reserved for public use.
Final: See #4 above for information regarding dedication of right -of -way along Route 20.
24. [32.5.2(p) & 32.7.9.4(b)] Existing trees may be preserved in lieu of planting new plant materials in order to
satisfy the landscaping and screening requirements of section 32.7.9, subject to the agent's approval. If you
intend to use existing trees to satisfy any of the landscape plan requirements, please include the following:
1. Areas and other features shown on landscape plan. The landscape plan shall show the trees to be
preserved, the limits of clearing, the location and type of protective fencing, grade changes requiring
tree wells or walls, and trenching or tunneling proposed beyond the limits of clearing.
2. Conservation checklist. The applicant shall sign a conservation checklist approved by the agent to
ensure that the specified trees will be protected during construction. Except as otherwise expressly
approved by the agent in a particular case, the checklist shall conform to the specifications in the
Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook, pages III -393 through III -413, and as hereafter
amended.
Final: The tree protection line extends across the area where the proffered trail is to be constructed;
revise the proposed tree line and tree protection to allow for the trail construction. Additionally, add
tree protection parallel to Route 20 where trees are intended to be saved. As noted, the
conservation plan checklist must be signed and dated prior to site plan approval.
4
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. The conservation plan checklist must be signed and dated
prior to site plan approval.
Rev2: Comment not fully addressed. As a reminder, the conservation plan checklist must be
signed and dated prior to site plan approval.
Rev3: Comment not fully addressed. As a reminder, the conservation plan checklist must be
signed and dated prior to site plan approval.
25. [32.5.2(p), 32.7.9.5 & COD Section IX] Provide flowering trees interspersed between street trees along the
Route 20 frontage as required by Section IX of the Code of Development.
Final: Comment addressed.
26. [32.5.2(p), 32.7.9.5] When a parking lot is located such that parked cars will be visible from a public street,
low shrubs should be planted to minimize the view of the parked cars. The parking lot proposed in Block 2C
will be visible from Route 20 and internal Road A; provide shrubs along the eastern border of the parking lot,
and the western border that isn't blocked by the proposed dwelling units.
Final: Comment addressed.
27. [32.5.2(p) & 32.7.9.7] Proposed SWM Facility #3 should be screened from the adjacent residential lot.
Final: Comment addressed.
28. [32.5.2(p) & 32.7.9.8] It appears the majority of the tree canopy requirement is being met with existing
trees; see #23 above for direction on how to verify and document preservation of existing trees.
Final: Comment not fully addressed. See #24 above for direction on how to verify and document
preservation of existing trees.
Rev1: See #24 above.
29. [32.5.2(p), 32.7.9.8, and COD] The percentage of tree canopy required is determined by the gross
residential density of the proposal. The maximum gross residential density for Blocks 1 -5 is listed in the
Code of Development as 8.1 dwelling units /acre, which would require 20% tree canopy. Please revise the
landscape notes to use 20% as the basis for the tree canopy requirement.
Final: Comment addressed.
30. [32.5.2(p) & 32.7.9.8] The landscape schedule lists an incorrect count for Betula jacquemontii.
Final: The landscape schedule now lists an incorrect count for Amelanchier laevis and Quercus
phellos; verify and revise.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. The number of `Autumn Flame' Red Maples is listed as 29, but
it appears there are only 4 proposed on the plan; verify and revise this number (including canopy
provided). Additionally, the numbers provided for the Sweet Gum, Willow Oak and Redbud appear
to be incorrect, but it might be due to unclear match - lines. Verify that the counts are correct and
make sure the location of any match -line is clearly provided.
Rev2: Comment not fully addressed. The matchline provided for detail 2 on sheet 12 still isn't clear;
it appears to have an overlap area that could lead a viewer to think that an additional sweet gum and
redbud are proposed on the plan. Provide an accurate matchline.
Rev3: Comment addressed.
31. [32.5.2(p) & 32.7.9.8] Tree canopy calculations can be based on the proposed caliper at planting. Zelkova
serrata, Acer rubrum and Quercus phellos have three possible canopy calculations; 3.5" caliper, 2.5" caliper,
and the standard planting caliper. In order to use the larger canopy numbers, a breakdown of how many
trees are provided at each size is required. Additionally, the canopy number listed for Quercus phellos uses
the 3.5" caliper for all proposed trees when many of the trees are proposed at 2.5" caliper; please revise.
Final: Comment addressed.
32. [32.5.2(p) & 32.7.9.8] Tree canopy consists of plants that will grow to 5' or taller at maturity; many azaleas
do not get 5' tall. Either provide information regarding the specific species proposed that will get 5' tall or
remove the azalea canopy from the calculation.
Final: Comment addressed.
33. [32.5.2(p) & 32.7.9.8] The landscape schedule provides an incorrect total tree canopy number.
5
Final: Revise the proposed tree canopy to reflect the accurate preserved tree canopy (excluding the
area removed for trail construction) and updated plant counts.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. As noted above, revise the tree canopy calculation provided
to reflect any changes in plant counts. Please also clarify where the canopy number provided for
Autumn Flame' Red Maple came from? This number does not appear to be from the County's
Approved Plant Canopy Calculations.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
34. [32.5.2(p)] Some of the proposed plantings appear to be within existing or proposed easements; show all
easements on the landscape plan, verify locations of plantings, and either move all landscaping outside of
easements or provide proof of authorization from the easement holder.
Final: Proof of authorization from the easement holder to plant in their easement must be provided.
Additionally, some landscaping is proposed directly on top of water lines and storm pipes; even
when planting is allowed in the easement it cannot be directly on top of any utility. Additionally,
verify that all easements are shown on the landscape plan; the "base map" is odd on this sheet, it
appears to include old information as well as new and some strange grey mystery areas (these
areas are on other sheets as well). Correct the base information and move all landscaping off of
utility lines.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. Proof of authorization to plant within easements must be
provided prior to Site Plan approval. Additionally, several plant/ utility conflicts still exist where a
proposed planting is directly on top of a proposed utility; these include a red maple on a water
lateral, and a river birch and dogwood on storm pipes. These conflicts should be resolved.
Rev2: Comment not fully addressed. Proof of authorization to plant within easements must be
provided prior to Site Plan approval; we are awaiting this approval. There is still a river birch and a
dogwood shown on top of storm pipes along the front of the site; please resolve these conflicts.
Rev3: Comment not fully addressed. As a reminder, proof of authorization to plant within
easements must be provided prior to Site Plan approval.
35. [32.5.2(p) & Application Plan] Utility lines are proposed within the "Tree Preservation Area" shown and
described on the approved Block Plan; the installation of this utility will require removal of many of these
preserved trees. Please clarify and revise.
Final: The utility line is now entirely within the lots in Block 3 instead of partially in the tree
preservation area. However, many of the lots are now larger than they were on the initial plan to
cover the area where the utility line is proposed. Clarify how the Block Area listed in the chart on
Sheet 2 is still exactly the same even though most of the lots are larger than previously proposed.
Please also provide an area for the SWM facility parcel and label with the intended ownership. If the
block area is changing, a variation will be required.
Rev1: Comment addressed. Block area changes are minimal enough to be considered approvable
without a variation.
36. [32.5.2(p) & COD Section IX] Provide a chart or other schedule demonstrating how the Landscape
Treatment requirements listed in Section IX of the Code of Development are being satisfied. Among
possible others, it appears that several requirements are not being met, including: flowering trees along
Route 20 (as previously noted); screening as listed for northern buffers #1, 2, & 3 (type and placement);
mitigation as listed for SWM facility #3 (no evergreen trees, no ornamental trees, no grasses proposed); and
the listed plant types for the Main Road entrance (ornamental trees, shrubs, ornamental grasses).
Final: It still appears that many of the Landscape Treatment requirements listed in Section IX of the
Code of Development are not being satisfied. Among possible others, screening as listed for
northern buffers #1, 2, & 3 (type, size and spacing); mitigation as listed for SWM facility #3 (size and
minimum quantity); plant types for the Main Road entrance (ornamental grasses), and front yard
landscaping has not been provided. Provide a chart as requested with the initial plan review listing
what is required and what is proposed; any deviation from the requirements must be revised by a
variation. It should be noted that the charts in COD sections VII and IX often refer to the same area,
but list different requirements. These discrepancies should have been rectified during the rezoning
as all parts of the approved Code of Development must be followed. Due to detailed requirements,
such as `flowering shrubs on top of the retaining wall' and specifics about each SWM facility (parts
of which now do not exist), and the various inconsistencies included in the approved COD, a
variation will likely be required to clean up the Code of Development moving forward.
0
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. A variation is under review to correct some of the
discrepancies between the sections approved with the ZMA and what is proposed on the site plan.
If approved, this comment will be satisfied.
Rev2: Comment not yet addressed. The variation is expected to go to the Board on December 10th
with the condition that a complete amended Application Plan and Code of Development be
submitted to Community Development prior to Site Plan approval. The variation is not yet
completely through the Executive Summary system, so the Board date is still subject to change.
Once approved, all tables on the Site Plan should reflect the changes approved through the
variation(s) with a note indicating the variation number. Make sure the setback table is also
updated, including the associated notes.
Rev3: Comment addressed.
37. [32.5.2(p) & COD Section IX] It appears that 100 Thuja occidentalis are proposed at 5' o.c. along the
retaining wall at the northern edge of the property. Thuja occidentalis species gets 10 -15' wide and may be
overcrowded; please indicate if a smaller cultivar is proposed. Also provide verification that these trees can
be safely planted in such close proximity to the proposed retaining wall.
Final: Comment no longer valid; thuja and portions of retaining wall are no longer on the plan.
38. [32.5.2(p) & COD Section IX] Section IX states that all plant species must conform to the Native Plants for
Virginia Landscapes list. Zelkova serrata, Betula jacquemontii, Acer griseum, many azaleas, and Juniperus
chinensis are not native plants.
Final: Comment addressed; the Native Plants for Virginia Landscapes list is no longer part of the
Design Guidelines and shouldn't be referenced on future plans. A few of the proposed species are
not on the old list but are included in the new plant list used by the ARB, so these species can be
approved.
39. [4.17] It appears that light poles may be located within proposed easements; verify locations and provide
documentation of authorization from the intended easement holder.
Final: Comment addressed; lighting is no longer proposed.
40. [4.17] Extend the photometric information toward Route 20 to demonstrate where the foot - candle levels
drop below 0.5.
Final: Comment addressed; lighting is no longer proposed.
41. [4.17] Provide the following standard lighting note on the lighting plan: Each outdoor luminaire equipped
with a lamp that emits 3, 000 or more initial lumens shall be a full cutoff luminaire and shall be arranged or
shielded to reflect light away from adjoining residential districts and away from adjacent roads. The spillover
of lighting from luminaires onto public roads and property in residential or rural areas zoning districts shall
not exceed one -half foot - candle.
Final: Comment addressed; lighting is no longer proposed.
42. [Comment] ARB approval is required. Due to inclement weather, ARB review has been rescheduled from
March 3rd to March 17th. ARB comments will be provided after the March 17th meeting.
Final: See ARB comments.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. See ARB comments.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
43. [Comment] If any off -site easements are required, they must be approved and recorded prior to Site Plan
approval. Among possible others, it appears easement(s) will be required for the proposed tree and shed
removal at the northern property line as shown on the demolition plan, and as indicated in ACSA comments.
Final: In addition to any ACSA comments regarding necessary easements, it appears that tree
removal is proposed on the adjacent property as noted on Sheet 3 which could require an easement;
please clarify.
Rev1: Comment not addressed. There is still a note saying `Existing treeline (to be removed)' that
points to off -site trees on Sheet 3; if no off -site trees are to be removed, delete or revise this label.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
7
Final Plan Comments:
44. [32.5.2(a)] Several of the units proposed in Block 4 do not meet the maximum build -to line of 25', and unit
51 in Block 2A (with an attached garage) does not meet the rear setback requirement. Revise the layout to
meet the build -to and setback requirements or apply for a variation.
Rev1: Comment addressed. Units in Block 4 are no longer proposed with this Site Plan.
45. [32.5.2(a)] The titles on Sheets C8 & C9 do not match what is listed in the sheet index.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
46. [32.5.2(d)] This parcel no longer contains "critical slopes "; it has a combination of both "managed slopes"
and "preserved slopes" based on the approved Steep Slopes Overlay Map. Show both the managed and
preserved slopes as represented on the approved map and label them accordingly (including in notes).
These slopes should be shown on the site plan as well as the existing conditions sheet to give a better
understanding of the impacts on each type of slope. The proposed disturbance of the preserved slopes is
allowed based on the Application Plan and Proffer approved with ZMA201200002 which shows disturbance
of these slopes for the improvements to Route 20. 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 any construction proposed on the managed slopes meets these requirements.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. Revise the note on cover sheet to reference `steep slopes'
instead of `critical slopes'. Additionally, show both managed and preserved slopes present on the
property and label them accordingly.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
47. [32.5.2(f)] Revise the watershed note to indicate this parcel is not in a water supply protection area.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
48. [32.6.2(g)] Any drainage easements intended for public use shall be noted as such, and any water or sewer
facilities to be dedicated shall be identified by a statement that they are to be dedicated to the Albemarle
County Service Authority.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
49. [32.6.2(h)] Provide a signature panel for signature by each member of the site review committee.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
50. [32.6.2(i)] The island provided between a parking space and the travelway /access way must be a minimum
of 3' wide; widen the islands around the parking in Block 2C.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
51. [32.6.20) & 32.7.9.7(a)2] Parking areas of four or more spaces should be screened from adjacent
residential areas; add screening shrubs along the parking in Block 2C supporting units 26, 27, 28, and 29 to
screen the parking from Block 2B.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
52. [Proffer #2] Proffer #2 states that before the owner applies for a building permit for the 50th residential unit,
the owner shall have offered for sale or rent all ten affordable housing units. This plan includes 51 units but
only 6 affordable units. Either reduce the total number of units on this plan to below 50 or include all 10
affordable units.
Rev1: Comment addressed. Block 4 units have been removed for the Site Plan.
53. [Comment] Many of the plan sheets are cut off on the northeast corner and either do not have a match line
at all or have a match line that references a sheet no longer in the plan set. Provide match lines on all
necessary sheets with a reference to an existing sheet in the plan set.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. Make sure all match lines are clear as to where exactly the
match line is located.
Rev2: Comment not fully addressed. See #30 for information on matchlines.
Rev3: Comment addressed.
W
54. [Comment] This site plan cannot be approved until VDOT and engineering complete their reviews and
grant their approval. Inspections and Fire /Rescue have reviewed the plan and have no objections. ARB,
Zoning, E911 and ACSA comments have been provided.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. This site plan cannot be approved until Engineering, ARB,
Zoning and ACSA complete their reviews and grant their approval. E911 has reviewed the plan and
has no objections. VDOT comments have been provided.
Rev2: Comment not fully addressed. This site plan cannot be approved until VDOT and ACSA
complete their reviews and grant their approval. ARB has reviewed the plan and has no objections.
Engineering and Zoning comments have been provided.
Rev3: Comment not fully addressed. This site plan cannot be approved until Zoning, VDOT and
ACSA complete their reviews and grant their approval; comments will be forwarded upon receipt.
ARB has reviewed the plan and has no objections. Engineering comments have been provided.
55. [Comment] Sycamores are an inappropriate plant choice for between the units in Blocks 2A and 213; they
get much too large for the space that's available and also tend to have significant branch breakage as they
grow older, it is recommended that a different species be selected.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
56. [Comment] The notification fee of $200 for the Initial Site Plan was never paid. The fee must be submitted
prior to Final Site Plan approval.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
Staff has provided references to provisions of Chapter 18 of the Code of the County of Albemarle. The Code is
kept up to date by the County Attorney's office. The Code may found on the County Attorney's website which
may be found under "Departments and Services" at Albemarle.org.
In accord with the provisions of Section 32.4.3.5 of Chapter 18 of the Code if the developer fails to submit a
revised final site plan to address all of the requirements within six (6) months after the date of this letter the
application shall be deemed to have been voluntarily withdrawn by the developer.
Please contact Ellie Ray in the Planning Division by using eray(a)albemarle.org or 434 - 296 -5832 ext. 3432 for
further information.
0
0.0 Oil'
r
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper Urgmia 22701
Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E.
Commissioner
December 1, 2014
Ms. Ellie Ray
Senior Planner
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
40I McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: SDP -2014 -00043 Riverside Village
Dear Ms. Ray:
We have reviewed the Riverside Village Final Site Development Plan, latest revisions dated 10-
20-14, as submitted by Shimp Engineering, and offer the following comments:
1. Per the Subdivision Street Design Guide private entrances shall be a minimum of 12'
wide. Please revisit lot 10 and show curb returns on lot 11.
2. PIease revisit the landscape strip at the intersection of Riverwalk Crossing and Trailside
Drive and provide C &G along the entrance. Also revisit the curb line near STM STR
D4.--'Entrance into the Private access.
3. The minimum radius for the proposed entrance (STA I8 +04) is 25' rather than I5' as
shown. Also please label all entrance radii.
4. PIease provide the angle of intersection at the first entrance along Trailside Drive.
5. The private access easement closest to RTE 20 should also have the throat width
increased to 24' wide.
6. We have not received the Access Management Corner CIearance exception as mentioned.
Please resubmit.
7. Please accurately show the sight distance line for RTE 20. Also provide a line of sight
profile.
8. Since there is not a publicly maintained street connection between the terminus of
Trailside Drive and Route 20, the 150 foot reference does not apply. There is not
currently an adequate turnaround for Trailside Drive. As previously commented, the T-
type turnaround should have a branch on the west side of Trailside Drive to allow a "3-
point" turn maneuver. The preference for a turnaround at this location remains to be a
cul -de -sac. The entire turnaround should be located within right -of -way. In addition, the
turnaround currently shown should have the pavement "squared up" to the easement line.
9. Sidewalks within a VDOT ROW shall include underdrains. Please provide the UD -3
detail.
10. Why aren't the CG -12's located in the returns at the intersection of Trailside Court and
Trailside Drive?
11. In various locations the throat lengths are missing from the STM profiles. Please update
accordingly.
12. Please call out inlet shaping (IS -1 detail) for the proposed inlets within the VDOT ROW.
13. Please provide HGL calculations.
14. Please provide the asphalt widening detail (WP -2)
15. Nose down the curb at the end of STM STR A8.
16. Revisit STM A9 inlet computation sheet. The plans show a DI -7 and the computations
state a D1 -3B.
17. Please provide the 10yr WSE at A9 to verify minimum freeboard.
18. A graded shoulder is required along RT 20. Please see the Geometric Design Standards
GS -6) and adjust the proposed ditch accordingly.
19. Please provide a Guardrail Warrant Analysis along RTE 20 where the culvert extension is
taking place.
20. Please "turn on" Station labels, i.e. Trailside Dr, W.1 etc., to simplify the review process.
2l. Please add a note stating that the contractor shall replace or repair, as directed by VDOT,
any section of asphalt/roadbed damaged by jacking operations at his own expense.
22. Please provide the waterline casing pipe size to the plans.
23. Please provide a STM profile for the proposed 48" pipe within the RTE 20 ROW,
calculations and STM labels. Also ES -1 should be added to the run.
24. Please turn on the existing storm system to be removed, on sheet 25.
25. Could the four -inch pipe, flowing into the existing DI along RTE 20, be an underdrain?
If this is the case could this 4" pipe be field adjusted and turned into the proposed DI -313
therefore eliminating the proposed MH- I?
26. The RTE 20 culvert extension profile should have the riprap landing & backf ll updated
as discussed on -site with the Permits Specialist.
27. Please provide a pavement marking/signage plan.
28. Please provide a MOT plan.
29. Before we can confirm the pavement design we require 3 soil samples (and the CBR
reports) along Trailside Drive (one taken at the intersection of RTE 20, one within the
first 500' of Trailside Drive, and one within the remaining 304':' -) as indicated in the
2014 Pavement Design Guide. Also per the 2014 Pavement Design Guide, the design
CBR is the mathematical average of the tests multiplied by 13.
I am available if you wish to schedule a meeting to discuss the comments. Please do not hesitate
to contact me at (434) 422 -9373.
Sincerely,
Shelly A. Plaster
Land Development Engineer
Culpeper District
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
Phone 434 - 296 -5832
jRclti
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, VA, 22902
Memorandum
To: Justin Shimp ( Justin (a)shimp- engineerinq.com)
From: Ellie Ray, CLA, Senior Planner
Division: Planning
Date: June 20, 2014
Rev1: November 4, 2014
Rev2: November 26, 2014
Subject: SDP 201400043 Riverside Village - Final
Fax 434 - 972 -4126
The County of Albemarle Planning Division will recommend approval of the plan referenced above once the
following comments have been satisfactorily addressed (The following comments are those that have been
identified at this time. Additional comments or conditions may be added or eliminated based on further review.):
Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference, which is to the Subdivision /Zoning Ordinances unless
otherwise specified.]
Conditions of Initial Approval (from approval letter dated 3/19/14):
1. A site plan meeting all the requirements of section 32.6 of Chapter 18 of the Code.
Final: See Final Plan comments below.
Rev1: Comment still valid; see below.
Rev2: Comment still valid; see below.
2. [Comment] Note which blocks from ZMA201200002 are included in this application.
Final: Comment addressed.
3. [Comment] This application was reviewed against Site Development Plan requirements only. It appears
that lot lines are shown on the plan, but no subdivision application was submitted. Any subdivision related
comments are provided for reference only unless necessary for site plan approval.
Final: For informational purposes only.
4. [32.5.2(a) & Proffer 4] Clearly delineate any area proposed to be dedicated for the improvements to Route
20. Additional land for the future widening of Route 20 (as noted in proffers) must also be dedicated by plat
contemporaneously with the Final Site Plan.
Final: The Boundary line adjustment plat required to dedicate additional land for the widening of
Route 20 must be submitted and approved prior to approval of the Site Plan. The owners of the
adjacent parcel must also sign the plat.
Rev1: Comment not addressed. A Final Subdivision plat, that may have included the required
boundary line adjustment, was submitted for review; however this plat is currently suspended until
after the Site Plan is approved. The boundary line adjustment must be submitted and approved
prior to Site Plan approval.
Rev2: Comment not addressed. The boundary line adjustment plat has not yet been submitted.
5. [32.5.2(a)] Add Entrance Corridor (EC) to the Zoning note.
Final: Comment addressed.
6. [32.5.2(a)] List the Special Exceptions approved with the ZMA application on the cover sheet.
Final: The following special exceptions were granted during the rezoning: Section 14- 234(C): Traffic
volume adequacy; Section 14- 410(H): Curb, gutter, sidewalk, and Planting strip; Section 14- 412(A)-
3(b): Alternative standard deemed adequate by county engineer; and Section 14- 422(A): Sidewalks
and planting strips at portico entrance to Block 5. A Special Permit (SP201300001) for fill in the
floodplain was also approved. List these items on the cover sheet under Zoning information.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
7. [32.5.2(a) & COD Section X] It appears that internal lot lines are shown within the parking lot serving Block
2C. If an internal parcel is proposed, this layout violates both the side and rear setbacks listed in Section X
of the Code of Development.
Final: Comment addressed. It has been determined that the revised disconnected parking spaces
within Block 2C do not meet the definition of a parking lot as presented in the Code of Development;
therefore, the parking setbacks do not apply.
8. [32.5.2(b)] Provide information about the acreage occupied by each proposed use including residential,
roads, and open space.
Final: Comment addressed.
9. [32.5.2(b)] Provide a breakdown of unit types listing the number of each proposed by block.
Final: If two unit types are proposed within a single block, provide a breakdown of the number of
each type of unit.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
10. [32.5.2(b) & COD Section IV] It appears that a three unit row of townhouses is proposed in Block 3.
According the Section IV of the Code of Development, townhouses are not a permitted use. Zoning is
currently reviewing the Code of Development and the Initial Site Plan and will determine if this use complies;
a variation may be necessary to build the three unit row of dwelling units as proposed.
Final: Comment addressed; townhouses no longer proposed in Block 3.
11. [32.5.2(b)] Provide the gross residential density for each Block and for the project overall.
Final: Comment addressed.
12. [32.5.2(b) & COD Section VII] Provide a chart or other schedule demonstrating how the minimum green
space and amenity requirements listed in COD Section VII are being satisfied. It appears that minimum
requirements are not met in each block including: four benches and "plantings" along mews in Block 2, mix
of evergreen trees and shrubs in northern buffer #2 in Block 2, flowering trees in SWM facility #3 in Block 3,
flowering trees along the park connector in Block 3, and rear yard landscaping adjacent to northern
boundary (northern buffer #3) in Block 4. Is should also be noted that any buffer landscaping proposed on
individual lots will require a landscape maintenance easement when the lots are subdivided.
Final: Many of the areas listed in the "Provided Green Space, Civic Areas, and Amenities by Block"
chart on Sheet 2 do not meet (or are different from) the areas listed in the "Minimum Green Space,
Civic Areas, and Amenities by Block" chart approved in the Code of Development; clarify why any
number listed as minimum in the COD is not being met. If minimum areas aren't provided, the COD
must be revised through a variation. Even though Blocks 1 & 5 are not under review with this
application, it should also be noted that the stormwater facility areas approved in this chart must
also be revised by variation (either now or when Blocks 1 & 5 are under review) if SWM Facilities #1
2 are no longer proposed.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. The plan does not appear to include all of the landscaping
listed as provided under `SWM #3' in the "Provided Green Space, Civic Areas, and Amenities by
Block" table (for example, there are no evergreen trees and significantly less than 68 shrubs shown
in the SWM area). What is shown on the plan does meet the COD, but isn't what is listed in this
table; revise this chart to include only what is provided on the plan. A variation is under review that,
once approved, will fix all remaining issues with this Table. There are some differences in the areas
of many of the green spaces between what was approved and what is provided. These differences
are considered minimal and are approvable as long as the total provided meets or exceeds what was
approved with the ZMA. However, since you have a variation under review, you may want to include
these changes in the variation to minimize the chance of issues in the future.
Rev2: Comment not yet addressed. The variation is expected to go to the Board on December 10t"
with the condition that a complete amended Application Plan and Code of Development be
submitted to Community Development prior to Site Plan approval. The variation is not yet
completely through the Executive Summary system, so the Board date is still subject to change.
Once approved, all tables on the Site Plan should reflect the changes approved through the
variation(s) with a note indicating the variation number. Make sure the setback table is also
updated, including the associated notes.
13. [32.5.2(b) & Application Plan] Provide a chart or other schedule demonstrating how the minimum parking
requirements are being satisfied, listing the amount required and provided. Block 2C does not provide the
minimum 24 spaces for 12 multi - family dwelling units. Additionally, since parking is proposed on individual
lots in Block 4, a minimum of 1 parking space per four dwelling units for guest parking is required.
Final: Include blocks 2A, 2B, 3A and 3B in the parking note. Note if and how much parking is
provided in garages. Clarify how units 28 & 29 have four parking spaces; the driveway is not wide
enough to support a two car garage (it's only 16'). Additionally, the parallel parking spaces in Block
2C must be 9' wide instead of 8' as proposed (4.12.16(c)2).
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. Remove any reference to parking required or provided in
Block 4 as no units are currently proposed in this block. The two parallel parking spaces that
support units #24 and #25 are still only 8' wide; revise to 9'. As requested, provide information in
the parking notes regarding how much parking is provided in garages. All but one of the driveways
in Blocks 2A and 2B are only 16' wide, which cannot support 2 parking spaces as indicated on the
plan; please clarify and revise.
Rev2: Comment not fully addressed. Clarify how parking is provided in Blocks 3A, 3B and 4; the
site plan states all parking in these blocks is provided in garages, but no garage shown is large
enough to accommodate 2 parking spaces. Additionally, guest parking must be provided in Block 4
at one space per four units.
14. [32.5.2(b) & COD Section IV] As noted above, it appears that internal lot lines are shown within the
parking lot serving Block 2C. If an internal parcel is proposed, this layout proposes stand -alone parking on
this internal parcel which is not a permitted use in Block 2 according to Section IV of the Code of
Development.
Final: Comment addressed; stand -alone parking is no longer proposed
15. [32.5.2(i) & COD Section XIII] Provide a chart or other schedule listing the street cross sections approved
with the ZMA application and indicating the proposed cross sections. Streetscape requirements in the Code
of Development must also be met (see landscape comments below).
Final: Portions of the street and alley sections on Sheet 10 do not match what is shown on the
layout sheet or in the chart on Sheet 2; all information, including widths and setbacks, must be the
same throughout the plan set and match what was approved with the rezoning.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. A variation is under review to correct some of the
discrepancies between the sections approved with the ZMA and what is proposed on the site plan.
However, it appears that Riverwalk Xing also needs to be included in this variation request; the
approved section has a 30' private road easement, while the plan proposes a 36' right -of -way.
Provide directional arrows for any one -way road or alley sections.
Rev2: Comment not fully addressed. David Benish determined that no variation is required for the
minor differences in road sections as the sections in the Application Plan were labeled as
conceptual. The proposed 12' alley may not meet the minimum standard for two -way traffic; please
consult with the County Engineer.
16. [32.5.2(1) & COD Section XIII] Section XIII describes Road "C" as a 12' walkway, but the proposed design
includes only a 10' walkway free of groundcover. The paver only portion of Road "C" should be increased to
a minimum 12' width.
Final: Comment addressed.
17. [32.5.2(k)] Verify that all necessary easements for proposed water, sewer and drainage facilities have been
shown on the plan.
Final: Comment addressed.
18. [32.5.2(1)] Provide the location of any other existing or proposed utilities and utility easements including
telephone, cable, electric and gas.
Final: Comment addressed.
3
19. [32.5.2(m)] Show the distance to the centerline of the nearest existing street intersection from the proposed
ingress and egress locations.
Final: Comment addressed.
20. [32.5.2(n)] Provide the maximum footprint for all proposed buildings.
Final: The actual maximum footprint must be provided for all townhouse units; the footprints shown
should not be conceptual as noted in the comment response letter.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. Provide the maximum footprint square footage for each
building.
Rev2: Comment not fully addressed. The maximum footprint should be provided, not maximum
square footage.
21. [32.5.2(n)] uimension the Tuii width of the reiaining wail requirea Tor construction.
Final: Comment addressed.
22. [32.5.2(n)] Show proposed lighting locations on the layout, utility and landscape sheets to verify no conflicts
exist.
Final: If lighting is no longer proposed, please remove the lighting note on the cover sheet.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
23. [32.5.2(0)] Clearly show any areas intended to be dedicated or reserved for dedication to public use (such
as street right -of -way), and provide a note stating that the land is to be dedicated or reserved for public use.
Final: See #4 above for information regarding dedication of right -of -way along Route 20.
24. [32.5.2(p) & 32.7.9.4(b)] Existing trees may be preserved in lieu of planting new plant materials in order to
satisfy the landscaping and screening requirements of section 32.7.9, subject to the agent's approval. If you
intend to use existing trees to satisfy any of the landscape plan requirements, please include the following:
1. Areas and other features shown on landscape plan. The landscape plan shall show the trees to be
preserved, the limits of clearing, the location and type of protective fencing, grade changes requiring
tree wells or walls, and trenching or tunneling proposed beyond the limits of clearing.
2. Conservation checklist. The applicant shall sign a conservation checklist approved by the agent to
ensure that the specified trees will be protected during construction. Except as otherwise expressly
approved by the agent in a particular case, the checklist shall conform to the specifications in the
Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook, pages III -393 through III -413, and as hereafter
amended.
Final: The tree protection line extends across the area where the proffered trail is to be constructed;
revise the proposed tree line and tree protection to allow for the trail construction. Additionally, add
tree protection parallel to Route 20 where trees are intended to be saved. As noted, the
conservation plan checklist must be signed and dated prior to site plan approval.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. The conservation plan checklist must be signed and dated
prior to site plan approval.
Rev2: Comment not fully addressed. As a reminder, the conservation plan checklist must be
signed and dated prior to site plan approval.
25. [32.5.2(p), 32.7.9.5 & COD Section IX] Provide flowering trees interspersed between street trees along the
Route 20 frontage as required by Section IX of the Code of Development.
Final: Comment addressed.
26. [32.5.2(p), 32.7.9.5] When a parking lot is located such that parked cars will be visible from a public street,
low shrubs should be planted to minimize the view of the parked cars. The parking lot proposed in Block 2C
will be visible from Route 20 and internal Road A; provide shrubs along the eastern border of the parking lot,
and the western border that isn't blocked by the proposed dwelling units.
Final: Comment addressed.
27. [32.5.2(p) & 32.7.9.7] Proposed SWM Facility #3 should be screened from the adjacent residential lot.
Final: Comment addressed.
4
28. [32.5.2(p) & 32.7.9.8] It appears the majority of the tree canopy requirement is being met with existing
trees; see #23 above for direction on how to verify and document preservation of existing trees.
Final: Comment not fully addressed. See #24 above for direction on how to verify and document
preservation of existing trees.
Rev1: See #24 above.
29. [32.5.2(p), 32.7.9.8, and COD] The percentage of tree canopy required is determined by the gross
residential density of the proposal. The maximum gross residential density for Blocks 1 -5 is listed in the
Code of Development as 8.1 dwelling units /acre, which would require 20% tree canopy. Please revise the
landscape notes to use 20% as the basis for the tree canopy requirement.
Final: Comment addressed.
30. [32.5.2(p) & 32.7.9.8] The landscape schedule lists an incorrect count for Betula jacquemontii.
Final: The landscape schedule now lists an incorrect count for Amelanchier laevis and Quercus
phellos; verify and revise.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. The number of `Autumn Flame' Red Maples is listed as 29, but
it appears there are only 4 proposed on the plan; verify and revise this number (including canopy
provided). Additionally, the numbers provided for the Sweet Gum, Willow Oak and Redbud appear
to be incorrect, but it might be due to unclear match - lines. Verify that the counts are correct and
make sure the location of any match -line is clearly provided.
Rev2: Comment not fully addressed. The matchline provided for detail 2 on sheet 12 still isn't clear;
it appears to have an overlap area that could lead a viewer to think that an additional sweet gum and
redbud are proposed on the plan. Provide an accurate matchline.
31. [32.5.2(p) & 32.7.9.8] 1 ree canopy caicuiaiions can De Dasea on ine proposed caliper at planting. Zelkova
serrata, Acer rubrum and Quercus phellos have three possible canopy calculations; 3.5" caliper, 2.5" caliper,
and the standard planting caliper. In order to use the larger canopy numbers, a breakdown of how many
trees are provided at each size is required. Additionally, the canopy number listed for Quercus phellos uses
the 3.5" caliper for all proposed trees when many of the trees are proposed at 2.5" caliper; please revise.
Final: Comment addressed.
32. [32.5.2(p) & 32.7.9.8] Tree canopy consists of plants that will grow to 5' or taller at maturity; many azaleas
do not get 5' tall. Either provide information regarding the specific species proposed that will get 5' tall or
remove the azalea canopy from the calculation.
Final: Comment addressed.
33. [32.5.2(p) & 32.7.9.8] The landscape schedule provides an incorrect total tree canopy number.
Final: Revise the proposed tree canopy to reflect the accurate preserved tree canopy (excluding the
area removed for trail construction) and updated plant counts.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. As noted above, revise the tree canopy calculation provided
to reflect any changes in plant counts. Please also clarify where the canopy number provided for
Autumn Flame' Red Maple came from? This number does not appear to be from the County's
Approved Plant Canopy Calculations.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
34. [32.5.2(p)] Some of the proposed plantings appear to be within existing or proposed easements; show all
easements on the landscape plan, verify locations of plantings, and either move all landscaping outside of
easements or provide proof of authorization from the easement holder.
Final: Proof of authorization from the easement holder to plant in their easement must be provided.
Additionally, some landscaping is proposed directly on top of water lines and storm pipes; even
when planting is allowed in the easement it cannot be directly on top of any utility. Additionally,
verify that all easements are shown on the landscape plan; the "base map" is odd on this sheet, it
appears to include old information as well as new and some strange grey mystery areas (these
areas are on other sheets as well). Correct the base information and move all landscaping off of
utility lines.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. Proof of authorization to plant within easements must be
provided prior to Site Plan approval. Additionally, several plant/ utility conflicts still exist where a
5
proposed planting is directly on top of a proposed utility; these include a red maple on a water
lateral, and a river birch and dogwood on storm pipes. These conflicts should be resolved.
Rev2: Comment not fully addressed. Proof of authorization to plant within easements must be
provided prior to Site Plan approval; we are awaiting this approval. There is still a river birch and a
dogwood shown on top of storm pipes along the front of the site; please resolve these conflicts.
35. [32.5.2(p) & Application Plan] Utility lines are proposed within the "Tree Preservation Area" shown and
described on the approved Block Plan; the installation of this utility will require removal of many of these
preserved trees. Please clarify and revise.
Final: The utility line is now entirely within the lots in Block 3 instead of partially in the tree
preservation area. However, many of the lots are now larger than they were on the initial plan to
cover the area where the utility line is proposed. Clarify how the Block Area listed in the chart on
Sheet 2 is still exactly the same even though most of the lots are larger than previously proposed.
Please also provide an area for the SWM facility parcel and label with the intended ownership. If the
block area is changing, a variation will be required.
Rev1: Comment addressed. Block area changes are minimal enough to be considered approvable
without a variation.
36. [32.5.2(p) & COD Section IX] Provide a chart or other schedule demonstrating how the Landscape
Treatment requirements listed in Section IX of the Code of Development are being satisfied. Among
possible others, it appears that several requirements are not being met, including: flowering trees along
Route 20 (as previously noted); screening as listed for northern buffers #1, 2, & 3 (type and placement);
mitigation as listed for SWM facility #3 (no evergreen trees, no ornamental trees, no grasses proposed); and
the listed plant types for the Main Road entrance (ornamental trees, shrubs, ornamental grasses).
Final: It still appears that many of the Landscape Treatment requirements listed in Section IX of the
Code of Development are not being satisfied. Among possible others, screening as listed for
northern buffers #1, 2, & 3 (type, size and spacing); mitigation as listed for SWM facility #3 (size and
minimum quantity); plant types for the Main Road entrance (ornamental grasses), and front yard
landscaping has not been provided. Provide a chart as requested with the initial plan review listing
what is required and what is proposed; any deviation from the requirements must be revised by a
variation. It should be noted that the charts in COD sections VII and IX often refer to the same area,
but list different requirements. These discrepancies should have been rectified during the rezoning
as all parts of the approved Code of Development must be followed. Due to detailed requirements,
such as `flowering shrubs on top of the retaining wall' and specifics about each SWM facility (parts
of which now do not exist), and the various inconsistencies included in the approved COD, a
variation will likely be required to clean up the Code of Development moving forward.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. A variation is under review to correct some of the
discrepancies between the sections approved with the ZMA and what is proposed on the site plan.
If approved, this comment will be satisfied.
Rev2: Comment not yet addressed. The variation is expected to go to the Board on December 10th
with the condition that a complete amended Application Plan and Code of Development be
submitted to Community Development prior to Site Plan approval. The variation is not yet
completely through the Executive Summary system, so the Board date is still subject to change.
Once approved, all tables on the Site Plan should reflect the changes approved through the
variation(s) with a note indicating the variation number. Make sure the setback table is also
updated, including the associated notes.
37. [32.5.2(p) & COD Section IX] It appears that 100 Thuja occidentalis are proposed at 5' o.c. along the
retaining wall at the northern edge of the property. Thuja occidentalis species gets 10 -15' wide and may be
overcrowded; please indicate if a smaller cultivar is proposed. Also provide verification that these trees can
be safely planted in such close proximity to the proposed retaining wall.
Final: Comment no longer valid; thuja and portions of retaining wall are no longer on the plan.
38. [32.5.2(p) & COD Section IX] Section IX states that all plant species must conform to the Native Plants for
Virginia Landscapes list. Zelkova serrata, Betula jacquemontii, Acer griseum, many azaleas, and Juniperus
chinensis are not native plants.
Final: Comment addressed; the Native Plants for Virginia Landscapes list is no longer part of the
Design Guidelines and shouldn't be referenced on future plans. A few of the proposed species are
0
not on the old list but are included in the new plant list used by the ARB, so these species can be
approved.
39. [4.17] It appears that light poles may be located within proposed easements; verify locations and provide
documentation of authorization from the intended easement holder.
Final: Comment addressed; lighting is no longer proposed.
40. [4.17] Extend the photometric information toward Route 20 to demonstrate where the foot - candle levels
drop below 0.5.
Final: Comment addressed; lighting is no longer proposed.
41. [4.17] Provide the following standard lighting note on the lighting plan: Each outdoor luminaire equipped
with a lamp that emits 3, 000 or more initial lumens shall be a full cutoff luminaire and shall be arranged or
shielded to reflect light away from adjoining residential districts and away from adjacent roads. The spillover
of lighting from luminaires onto public roads and property in residential or rural areas zoning districts shall
not exceed one -half foot - candle.
Final: Comment addressed; lighting is no longer proposed.
42. [Comment] ARB approval is required. Due to inclement weather, ARB review has been rescheduled from
March 3rd to March 17th. ARB comments will be provided after the March 17th meeting.
Final: See ARB comments.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. See ARB comments.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
43. [Comment] If any off -site easements are required, they must be approved and recorded prior to Site Plan
approval. Among possible others, it appears easement(s) will be required for the proposed tree and shed
removal at the northern property line as shown on the demolition plan, and as indicated in ACSA comments.
Final: In addition to any ACSA comments regarding necessary easements, it appears that tree
removal is proposed on the adjacent property as noted on Sheet 3 which could require an easement;
please clarify.
Rev1: Comment not addressed. There is still a note saying `Existing treeline (to be removed)' that
points to off -site trees on Sheet 3; if no off -site trees are to be removed, delete or revise this label.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
Final Plan Comments:
44. [32.5.2(a)] Several of the units proposed in Block 4 do not meet the maximum build -to line of 25', and unit
51 in Block 2A (with an attached garage) does not meet the rear setback requirement. Revise the layout to
meet the build -to and setback requirements or apply for a variation.
Rev1: Comment addressed. Units in Block 4 are no longer proposed with this Site Plan.
45. [32.5.2(a)] The titles on Sheets C8 & C9 do not match what is listed in the sheet index.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
46. [32.5.2(d)] This parcel no longer contains "critical slopes "; it has a combination of both "managed slopes"
and "preserved slopes" based on the approved Steep Slopes Overlay Map. Show both the managed and
preserved slopes as represented on the approved map and label them accordingly (including in notes).
These slopes should be shown on the site plan as well as the existing conditions sheet to give a better
understanding of the impacts on each type of slope. The proposed disturbance of the preserved slopes is
allowed based on the Application Plan and Proffer approved with ZMA201200002 which shows disturbance
of these slopes for the improvements to Route 20. 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 any construction proposed on the managed slopes meets these requirements.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. Revise the note on cover sheet to reference `steep slopes'
instead of `critical slopes'. Additionally, show both managed and preserved slopes present on the
property and label them accordingly.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
7
47. [32.5.2(f)] Revise the watershed note to indicate this parcel is not in a water supply protection area.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
48. [32.6.2(g)] Any drainage easements intended for public use shall be noted as such, and any water or sewer
facilities to be dedicated shall be identified by a statement that they are to be dedicated to the Albemarle
County Service Authority.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
49. [32.6.2(h)] Provide a signature panel for signature by each member of the site review committee.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
50. [32.6.2(i)] The island provided between a parking space and the travelway /access way must be a minimum
of 3' wide; widen the islands around the parking in Block 2C.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
51. [32.6.20) & 32.7.9.7(a)2] Parking areas of four or more spaces should be screened from adjacent
residential areas; add screening shrubs along the parking in Block 2C supporting units 26, 27, 28, and 29 to
screen the parking from Block 2B.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
52. [Proffer #2] Proffer #2 states that before the owner applies for a building permit for the 501h residential unit,
the owner shall have offered for sale or rent all ten affordable housing units. This plan includes 51 units but
only 6 affordable units. Either reduce the total number of units on this plan to below 50 or include all 10
affordable units.
Rev1: Comment addressed. Block 4 units have been removed for the Site Plan.
53. [Comment] Many of the plan sheets are cut off on the northeast corner and either do not have a match line
at all or have a match line that references a sheet no longer in the plan set. Provide match lines on all
necessary sheets with a reference to an existing sheet in the plan set.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. Make sure all match lines are clear as to where exactly the
match line is located.
Rev2: Comment not fully addressed. See #30 for information on matchlines.
54. [Comment] This site plan cannot be approved until VDOT and engineering complete their reviews and
grant their approval. Inspections and Fire /Rescue have reviewed the plan and have no objections. ARB,
Zoning, E911 and ACSA comments have been provided.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. This site plan cannot be approved until Engineering, ARB,
Zoning and ACSA complete their reviews and grant their approval. E911 has reviewed the plan and
has no objections. VDOT comments have been provided.
Rev2: Comment not fully addressed. This site plan cannot be approved until VDOT and ACSA
complete their reviews and grant their approval. ARB has reviewed the plan and has no objections.
Engineering and Zoning comments have been provided.
55. [Comment] Sycamores are an inappropriate plant choice for between the units in Blocks 2A and 213; they
get much too large for the space that's available and also tend to have significant branch breakage as they
grow older, it is recommended that a different species be selected.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
56. [Comment] The notification fee of $200 for the Initial Site Plan was never paid. The fee must be submitted
prior to Final Site Plan approval.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
Staff has provided references to provisions of Chapter 18 of the Code of the County of Albemarle. The Code is
kept up to date by the County Attorney's office. The Code may found on the County Attorney's website which
may be found under "Departments and Services" at Albemarle.org.
111
In accord with the provisions of Section 32.4.3.5 of Chapter 18 of the Code if the developer fails to submit a
revised final site plan to address all of the requirements within six (6) months after the date of this letter the
application shall be deemed to have been voluntarily withdrawn by the developer.
Please contact Ellie Ray in the Planning Division by using eray(a)albemarle.orp or 434 - 296 -5832 ext. 3432 for
further information.
0
Phone 434 - 296 -5832
jRclti
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, VA, 22902
Memorandum
To: Justin Shimp ( Justin (a)shimp - engineering.com)
From: Ellie Ray, CLA, Senior Planner
Division: Planning
Date: June 20, 2014
Rev1: November 4, 2014
Subject: SDP 201400043 Riverside Village - Final
Fax 434 - 972 -4126
The County of Albemarle Planning Division will recommend approval of the plan referenced above once the
following comments have been satisfactorily addressed (The following comments are those that have been
identified at this time. Additional comments or conditions may be added or eliminated based on further review.):
Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference, which is to the Subdivision /Zoning Ordinances unless
otherwise specified.]
Conditions of Initial Approval (from approval letter dated 3/19/14):
1. A site plan meeting all the requirements of section 32.6 of Chapter 18 of the Code.
Final: See Final Plan comments below.
Rev1: Comment still valid.
2. [Comment] Note which blocks from ZMA201200002 are included in this application.
Final: Comment addressed.
3. [Comment] This application was reviewed against Site Development Plan requirements only. It appears
that lot lines are shown on the plan, but no subdivision application was submitted. Any subdivision related
comments are provided for reference only unless necessary for site plan approval.
Final: For informational purposes only.
4. [32.5.2(a) & Proffer 4] Clearly delineate any area proposed to be dedicated for the improvements to Route
20. Additional land for the future widening of Route 20 (as noted in proffers) must also be dedicated by plat
contemporaneously with the Final Site Plan.
Final: The Boundary line adjustment plat required to dedicate additional land for the widening of
Route 20 must be submitted and approved prior to approval of the Site Plan. The owners of the
adjacent parcel must also sign the plat.
Rev1: Comment not addressed. A Final Subdivision plat, that may have included the required
boundary line adjustment, was submitted for review; however this plat is currently suspended until
after the Site Plan is approved. The boundary line adjustment must be submitted and approved
prior to Site Plan approval.
5. [32.5.2(a)] Add Entrance Corridor (EC) to the Zoning note.
Final: Comment addressed.
6. [32.5.2(a)] List the Special Exceptions approved with the ZMA application on the cover sheet.
Final: The following special exceptions were granted during the rezoning: Section 14- 234(C): Traffic
volume adequacy; Section 14- 410(H): Curb, gutter, sidewalk, and Planting strip; Section 14- 412(A)-
3(b): Alternative standard deemed adequate by county engineer; and Section 14- 422(A): Sidewalks
and planting strips at portico entrance to Block 5. A Special Permit (SP201300001) for fill in the
floodplain was also approved. List these items on the cover sheet under Zoning information.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
7. [32.5.2(a) & COD Section X] It appears that internal lot lines are shown within the parking lot serving Block
2C. If an internal parcel is proposed, this layout violates both the side and rear setbacks listed in Section X
of the Code of Development.
Final: Comment addressed. It has been determined that the revised disconnected parking spaces
within Block 2C do not meet the definition of a parking lot as presented in the Code of Development;
therefore, the parking setbacks do not apply.
8. [32.5.2(b)] Provide information about the acreage occupied by each proposed use including residential,
roads, and open space.
Final: Comment addressed.
9. [32.5.2(b)] Provide a breakdown of unit types listing the number of each proposed by block.
Final: If two unit types are proposed within a single block, provide a breakdown of the number of
each type of unit.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
10. [32.5.2(b) & COD Section IV] It appears that a three unit row of townhouses is proposed in Block 3.
According the Section IV of the Code of Development, townhouses are not a permitted use. Zoning is
currently reviewing the Code of Development and the Initial Site Plan and will determine if this use complies;
a variation may be necessary to build the three unit row of dwelling units as proposed.
Final: Comment addressed; townhouses no longer proposed in Block 3.
11. [32.5.2(b)] Provide the gross residential density for each Block and for the project overall.
Final: Comment addressed.
12. [32.5.2(b) & COD Section VII] Provide a chart or other schedule demonstrating how the minimum green
space and amenity requirements listed in COD Section VII are being satisfied. It appears that minimum
requirements are not met in each block including: four benches and "plantings" along mews in Block 2, mix
of evergreen trees and shrubs in northern buffer #2 in Block 2, flowering trees in SWM facility #3 in Block 3,
flowering trees along the park connector in Block 3, and rear yard landscaping adjacent to northern
boundary (northern buffer #3) in Block 4. Is should also be noted that any buffer landscaping proposed on
individual lots will require a landscape maintenance easement when the lots are subdivided.
Final: Many of the areas listed in the "Provided Green Space, Civic Areas, and Amenities by Block"
chart on Sheet 2 do not meet (or are different from) the areas listed in the "Minimum Green Space,
Civic Areas, and Amenities by Block" chart approved in the Code of Development; clarify why any
number listed as minimum in the COD is not being met. If minimum areas aren't provided, the COD
must be revised through a variation. Even though Blocks 1 & 5 are not under review with this
application, it should also be noted that the stormwater facility areas approved in this chart must
also be revised by variation (either now or when Blocks 1 & 5 are under review) if SWM Facilities #1
2 are no longer proposed.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. The plan does not appear to include all of the landscaping
listed as provided under `SWM #3' in the "Provided Green Space, Civic Areas, and Amenities by
Block" table (for example, there are no evergreen trees and significantly less than 68 shrubs shown
in the SWM area). What is shown on the plan does meet the COD, but isn't what is listed in this
table; revise this chart to include only what is provided on the plan. A variation is under review that,
once approved, will fix all remaining issues with this Table. There are some differences in the areas
of many of the green spaces between what was approved and what is provided. These differences
are considered minimal and are approvable as long as the total provided meets or exceeds what was
approved with the ZMA. However, since you have a variation under review, you may want to include
these changes in the variation to minimize the chance of issues in the future.
13. [32.5.2(b) & Application Plan] Provide a chart or other schedule demonstrating how the minimum parking
requirements are being satisfied, listing the amount required and provided. Block 2C does not provide the
minimum 24 spaces for 12 multi - family dwelling units. Additionally, since parking is proposed on individual
lots in Block 4, a minimum of 1 parking space per four dwelling units for guest parking is required.
Final: Include blocks 2A, 2B, 3A and 3B in the parking note. Note if and how much parking is
provided in garages. Clarify how units 28 & 29 have four parking spaces; the driveway is not wide
enough to support a two car garage (it's only 16'). Additionally, the parallel parking spaces in Block
2C must be 9' wide instead of 8' as proposed (4.12.16(c)2).
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. Remove any reference to parking required or provided in
Block 4 as no units are currently proposed in this block. The two parallel parking spaces that
support units #24 and #25 are still only 8' wide; revise to 9'. As requested, provide information in
the parking notes regarding how much parking is provided in garages. All but one of the driveways
in Blocks 2A and 2B are only 16' wide, which cannot support 2 parking spaces as indicated on the
plan; please clarify and revise.
14. [32.5.2(b) & COD Section IV] As noted above, it appears that internal lot lines are shown within the
parking lot serving Block 2C. If an internal parcel is proposed, this layout proposes stand -alone parking on
this internal parcel which is not a permitted use in Block 2 according to Section IV of the Code of
Development.
Final: Comment addressed; stand -alone parking is no longer proposPH
15. [32.5.2(i) & COD Section XIII] Provide a chart or other schedule listing the street cross sections approved
with the ZMA application and indicating the proposed cross sections. Streetscape requirements in the Code
of Development must also be met (see landscape comments below).
Final: Portions of the street and alley sections on Sheet 10 do not match what is shown on the
layout sheet or in the chart on Sheet 2; all information, including widths and setbacks, must be the
same throughout the plan set and match what was approved with the rezoning.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. A variation is under review to correct some of the
discrepancies between the sections approved with the ZMA and what is proposed on the site plan.
However, it appears that Riverwalk Xing also needs to be included in this variation request; the
approved section has a 30' private road easement, while the plan proposes a 36' right -of -way.
Provide directional arrows for any one -way road or alley sections.
16. [32.5.2(i) & COD Section XIII] Section XIII describes Road "C" as a 12' walkway, but the proposed design
includes only a 10' walkway free of groundcover. The paver only portion of Road "C" should be increased to
a minimum 12' width.
Final: Comment addressed.
17. [32.5.2(k)] Verify that all necessary easements for proposed water, sewer and drainage facilities have been
shown on the plan.
Final: Comment addressed.
18. [32.5.2(1)] Provide the location of any other existing or proposed utilities and utility easements including
telephone, cable, electric and gas.
Final: Comment addressed.
19. [32.5.2(m)] Show the distance to the centerline of the nearest existing street intersection from the proposed
ingress and egress locations.
Final: Comment addressed.
20. [32.5.2(n)] Provide the maximum footprint for all proposed buildings.
Final: The actual maximum footprint must be provided for all townhouse units; the footprints shown
should not be conceptual as noted in the comment response letter.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. Provide the maximum footprint square footage for each
building.
21. [32.5.2(n)] Dimension the full width of the retaining wall required for construction.
Final: Comment addressed.
22. [32.5.2(n)] Show proposed lighting locations on the layout, utility and landscape sheets to verify no conflicts
exist.
Final: If lighting is no longer proposed, please remove the lighting note on the cover sheet.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
3
23. [32.5.2(0)] Clearly show any areas intended to be dedicated or resu1 vCU IUI UGUIUCIl1U1I LU NUU11k, Uac kaUU1I
as street right -of -way), and provide a note stating that the land is to be dedicated or reserved for public use.
Final: See #4 above for information regarding dedication of right -of -way along Route 20.
24. [32.5.2(p) & 32.7.9.4(b)] Existing trees may be preserved in lieu of planting new plant materials in order to
satisfy the landscaping and screening requirements of section 32.7.9, subject to the agent's approval. If you
intend to use existing trees to satisfy any of the landscape plan requirements, please include the following:
1. Areas and other features shown on landscape plan. The landscape plan shall show the trees to be
preserved, the limits of clearing, the location and type of protective fencing, grade changes requiring
tree wells or walls, and trenching or tunneling proposed beyond the limits of clearing.
2. Conservation checklist. The applicant shall sign a conservation checklist approved by the agent to
ensure that the specified trees will be protected during construction. Except as otherwise expressly
approved by the agent in a particular case, the checklist shall conform to the specifications in the
Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook, pages III -393 through III -413, and as hereafter
amended.
Final: The tree protection line extends across the area where the proffered trail is to be constructed;
revise the proposed tree line and tree protection to allow for the trail construction. Additionally, add
tree protection parallel to Route 20 where trees are intended to be saved. As noted, the
conservation plan checklist must be signed and dated prior to site plan approval.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. The conservation plan checklist must be signed and dated
prior to site plan approval.
25. [32.5.2(p), 32.7.9.5 & COD Section IX] Provide flowering trees interspersed between street trees along the
Route 20 frontage as required by Section IX of the Code of Development.
Final: Comment addressed.
26. [32.5.2(p), 32.7.9.5] When a parking lot is located such that parked cars will be visible from a public street,
low shrubs should be planted to minimize the view of the parked cars. The parking lot proposed in Block 2C
will be visible from Route 20 and internal Road A; provide shrubs along the eastern border of the parking lot,
and the western border that isn't blocked by the proposed dwelling units.
Final: Comment addressed.
27. [32.5.2(p) & 32.7.9.7] Proposed SWM Facility #3 should be screened from the adjacent residential lot.
Final: Comment addressed.
28. [32.5.2(p) & 32.7.9.8] It appears the majority of the tree canopy requirement is being met with existing
trees; see #23 above for direction on how to verify and document preservation of existing trees.
Final: Comment not fully addressed. See #24 above for direction on how to verify and document
preservation of existing trees.
Rev1: See #24 above.
29. [32.5.2(p), 32.7.9.8, and COD] The percentage of tree canopy required is determined by the gross
residential density of the proposal. The maximum gross residential density for Blocks 1 -5 is listed in the
Code of Development as 8.1 dwelling units /acre, which would require 20% tree canopy. Please revise the
landscape notes to use 20% as the basis for the tree canopy requirement.
Final: Comment addressed.
30. [32.5.2(p) & 32.7.9.8] The landscape schedule lists an incorrect count for Betula jacquemontii.
Final: The landscape schedule now lists an incorrect count for Amelanchier laevis and Quercus
phellos; verify and revise.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. The number of `Autumn Flame' Red Maples is listed as 29, but
it appears there are only 4 proposed on the plan; verify and revise this number (including canopy
provided). Additionally, the numbers provided for the Sweet Gum, Willow Oak and Redbud appear
to be incorrect, but it might be due to unclear match - lines. Verify that the counts are correct and
make sure the location of any match -line is clearly provided.
31. [32.5.2(p) & 32.7.9.8] Tree canopy calculations can be based on the proposed caliper at planting. Zelkova
serrata, Acer rubrum and Quercus phellos have three possible canopy calculations; 3.5" caliper, 2.5" caliper,
and the standard planting caliper. In order to use the larger canopy numbers, a breakdown of how many
trees are provided at each size is required. Additionally, the canopy number listed for Quercus phellos uses
the 3.5" caliper for all proposed trees when many of the trees are proposed at 2.5" caliper; please revise.
Final: Comment addressed.
32. [32.5.2(p) & 32.7.9.8] Tree canopy consists of plants that will grow to 5' or taller at maturity; many azaleas
do not get 5' tall. Either provide information regarding the specific species proposed that will get 5' tall or
remove the azalea canopy from the calculation.
Final: Comment addressed.
33. [32.5.2(p) & 32.7.9.8] The landscape schedule provides an incorrect total tree canopy number.
Final: Revise the proposed tree canopy to reflect the accurate preserved tree canopy (excluding the
area removed for trail construction) and updated plant counts.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. As noted above, revise the tree canopy calculation provided
to reflect any changes in plant counts. Please also clarify where the canopy number provided for
Autumn Flame' Red Maple came from? This number does not appear to be from the County's
Approved Plant Canopy Calculations.
34. [32.5.2(p)] Some of the proposed plantings appear to be within existing or proposed easements; show all
easements on the landscape plan, verify locations of plantings, and either move all landscaping outside of
easements or provide proof of authorization from the easement holder.
Final: Proof of authorization from the easement holder to plant in their easement must be provided.
Additionally, some landscaping is proposed directly on top of water lines and storm pipes; even
when planting is allowed in the easement it cannot be directly on top of any utility. Additionally,
verify that all easements are shown on the landscape plan; the "base map" is odd on this sheet, it
appears to include old information as well as new and some strange grey mystery areas (these
areas are on other sheets as well). Correct the base information and move all landscaping off of
utility lines.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. Proof of authorization to plant within easements must be
provided prior to Site Plan approval. Additionally, several plant/ utility conflicts still exist where a
proposed planting is directly on top of a proposed utility; these include a red maple on a water
lateral, and a river birch and dogwood on storm pipes. These conflicts should be resolved.
35. [32.5.2(p) & Application Plan] Utility lines are proposed within the "Tree Preservation Area" shown and
described on the approved Block Plan; the installation of this utility will require removal of many of these
preserved trees. Please clarify and revise.
Final: The utility line is now entirely within the lots in Block 3 instead of partially in the tree
preservation area. However, many of the lots are now larger than they were on the initial plan to
cover the area where the utility line is proposed. Clarify how the Block Area listed in the chart on
Sheet 2 is still exactly the same even though most of the lots are larger than previously proposed.
Please also provide an area for the SWM facility parcel and label with the intended ownership. If the
block area is changing, a variation will be required.
Rev1: Comment addressed. Block area changes are minimal enough to be considered approvable
without a variation.
36. [32.5.2(p) & COD Section IX] Provide a chart or other schedule demonstrating how the Landscape
Treatment requirements listed in Section IX of the Code of Development are being satisfied. Among
possible others, it appears that several requirements are not being met, including: flowering trees along
Route 20 (as previously noted); screening as listed for northern buffers #1, 2, & 3 (type and placement);
mitigation as listed for SWM facility #3 (no evergreen trees, no ornamental trees, no grasses proposed); and
the listed plant types for the Main Road entrance (ornamental trees, shrubs, ornamental grasses).
Final: It still appears that many of the Landscape Treatment requirements listed in Section IX of the
Code of Development are not being satisfied. Among possible others, screening as listed for
northern buffers #1, 2, & 3 (type, size and spacing); mitigation as listed for SWM facility #3 (size and
minimum quantity); plant types for the Main Road entrance (ornamental grasses), and front yard
landscaping has not been provided. Provide a chart as requested with the initial plan review listing
5
what is required and what is proposed; any deviation from the requirements must be revised by a
variation. It should be noted that the charts in COD sections VII and IX often refer to the same area,
but list different requirements. These discrepancies should have been rectified during the rezoning
as all parts of the approved Code of Development must be followed. Due to detailed requirements,
such as `flowering shrubs on top of the retaining wall' and specifics about each SWM facility (parts
of which now do not exist), and the various inconsistencies included in the approved COD, a
variation will likely be required to clean up the Code of Development moving forward.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. A variation is under review to correct some of the
discrepancies between the sections approved with the ZMA and what is proposed on the site plan.
If approved, this comment will be satisfied.
37. [32.5.2(p) & COD Section IX] It appears that 100 Thuja occidentalis are proposed at 5' o.c. along the
retaining wall at the northern edge of the property. Thuja occidentalis species gets 10 -15' wide and may be
overcrowded; please indicate if a smaller cultivar is proposed. Also provide verification that these trees can
be safely planted in such close proximity to the proposed retaining wall.
Final: Comment no longer valid; thuja and portions of retaining wall are no longer on the plan.
38. [32.5.2(p) & COD Section IX] Section IX states that all plant species must conform to the Native Plants for
Virginia Landscapes list. Zelkova serrata, Betula jacquemontii, Acer griseum, many azaleas, and Juniperus
chinensis are not native plants.
Final: Comment addressed; the Native Plants for Virginia Landscapes list is no longer part of the
Design Guidelines and shouldn't be referenced on future plans. A few of the proposed species are
not on the old list but are included in the new plant list used by the ARB, so these species can be
approved.
39. [4.17] It appears that light poles may be located within proposed easements; verify locations and provide
documentation of authorization from the intended easement holder.
Final: Comment addressed; lighting is no longer proposed.
40. [4.17] Extend the photometric information toward Route 20 to demonstrate where the foot - candle levels
drop below 0.5.
Final: Comment addressed; lighting is no longer proposed.
41. [4.17] Provide the following standard lighting note on the lighting plan: Each outdoor luminaire equipped
with a lamp that emits 3, 000 or more initial lumens shall be a full cutoff luminaire and shall be arranged or
shielded to reflect light away from adjoining residential districts and away from adjacent roads. The spillover
of lighting from luminaires onto public roads and property in residential or rural areas zoning districts shall
not exceed one -half foot - candle.
Final: Comment addressed; lighting is no longer proposed.
42. [Comment] ARB approval is required. Due to inclement weather, ARB review has been rescheduled from
March 3 d to March 17`h. ARB comments will be provided after the March 17`h meeting.
Final: See ARB comments.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. See ARB comments.
43. [Comment] If any off -site easements are required, they must be approved and recorded prior to Site Plan
approval. Among possible others, it appears easement(s) will be required for the proposed tree and shed
removal at the northern property line as shown on the demolition plan, and as indicated in ACSA comments.
Final: In addition to any ACSA comments regarding necessary easements, it appears that tree
removal is proposed on the adjacent property as noted on Sheet 3 which could require an easement;
please clarify.
Rev1: Comment not addressed. There is still a note saying `Existing treeline (to be removed)' that
points to off -site trees on Sheet 3; if no off -site trees are to be removed, delete or revise this label.
Final Plan Comments:
44. [32.5.2(a)] Several of the units proposed in Block 4 do not meet the maximum build -to line of 25', and unit
51 in Block 2A (with an attached garage) does not meet the rear setback requirement. Revise the layout to
meet the build -to and setback requirements or apply for a variation.
Rev1: Comment addressed. Units in Block 4 are no longer proposed with this Site Plan.
45. [32.5.2(a)] The titles on Sheets C8 & C9 do not match what is listed in the sheet index.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
46. [32.5.2(d)] This parcel no longer contains "critical slopes "; it has a combination of both "managed slopes"
and "preserved slopes" based on the approved Steep Slopes Overlay Map. Show both the managed and
preserved slopes as represented on the approved map and label them accordingly (including in notes).
These slopes should be shown on the site plan as well as the existing conditions sheet to give a better
understanding of the impacts on each type of slope. The proposed disturbance of the preserved slopes is
allowed based on the Application Plan and Proffer approved with ZMA201200002 which shows disturbance
of these slopes for the improvements to Route 20. 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 any construction proposed on the managed slopes meets these requirements.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. Revise the note on cover sheet to reference `steep slopes'
instead of `critical slopes'. Additionally, show both managed and preserved slopes present on the
property and label them accordingly.
47. [32.5.2(f)] Revise the watershed note to indicate this parcel is not in a water supply protection area.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
48. [32.6.2(g)] Any drainage easements intended for public use shall be noted as such, and any water or sewer
facilities to be dedicated shall be identified by a statement that they are to be dedicated to the Albemarle
County Service Authority.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
49. [32.6.2(h)] Provide a signature panel for signature by each member of the site review committee.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
50. [32.6.2(i)] The island provided between a parking space and the travelway /access way must be a minimum
of 3' wide; widen the islands around the parking in Block 2C.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
51. [32.6.20) & 32.7.9.7(a)2] Parking areas of four or more spaces should be screened from adjacent
residential areas; add screening shrubs along the parking in Block 2C supporting units 26, 27, 28, and 29 to
screen the parking from Block 2B.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
52. [Proffer #2] Proffer #2 states that before the owner applies for a building permit for the 50th residential unit,
the owner shall have offered for sale or rent all ten affordable housing units. This plan includes 51 units but
only 6 affordable units. Either reduce the total number of units on this plan to below 50 or include all 10
affordable units.
Rev1: Comment addressed. Block 4 units have been removed for the Site Plan.
53. [Comment] Many of the plan sheets are cut off on the northeast corner and either do not have a match line
at all or have a match line that references a sheet no longer in the plan set. Provide match lines on all
necessary sheets with a reference to an existing sheet in the plan set.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. Make sure all match lines are clear as to where exactly the
match line is located.
54. [Comment] This site plan cannot be approved until VDOT and engineering complete their reviews and
grant their approval. Inspections and Fire /Rescue have reviewed the plan and have no objections. ARB,
Zoning, E911 and ACSA comments have been provided.
7
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. This site plan cannot be approved until Engineering, ARB,
Zoning and ACSA complete their reviews and grant their approval. E911 has reviewed the plan and
has no objections. VDOT comments have been provided.
55. [Comment] Sycamores are an inappropriate plant choice for between the units in Blocks 2A and 213; they
get much too large for the space that's available and also tend to have significant branch breakage as they
grow older, it is recommended that a different species be selected.
56. [Comment] The notification fee of $200 for the Initial Site Plan was never paid. The fee must be submitted
prior to Final Site Plan approval.
Staff has provided references to provisions of Chapter 18 of the Code of the County of Albemarle. The Code is
kept up to date by the County Attorney's office. The Code may found on the County Attorney's website which
may be found under "Departments and Services" at Albemarle.org.
In accord with the provisions of Section 32.4.3.5 of Chapter 18 of the Code if the developer fails to submit a
revised final site plan to address all of the requirements within six (6) months after the date of this letter the
application shall be deemed to have been voluntarily withdrawn by the developer.
Please contact Ellie Ray in the Planning Division by using eray(a)albemarle.org or 434 - 296 -5832 ext. 3432 for
further information.
M
t
t. yr. — -
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper Virginia 22701
Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E.
Commissioner
November 3, 2014
Ms. Ellie Ray
Senior Planner
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: SDP -2014 -00043 Riverside Village
Dear Ms. Ray:
We have reviewed the Riverside Village Final Site Development Plan, latest revisions dated 10-
20-14, as submitted by Shimp Engineering, and offer the following comments:
1. Per the Subdivision Street Design Guide private entrances shall be a minimum of 12'
wide. Please revisit lot 10 and show curb returns on lot 11.
2. PIease revisit the landscape strip at the intersection of Riverwalk Crossing and Trailside
Drive and provide C &G along the entrance. Also revisit the curb line near STM STR
D4.'-'Entrance into the Private access.
3. The minimum radius for the proposed entrance (STA 18 +04) is 25' rather than 15' as
shown. Also please label all entrance radii.
4. Please provide the angle of intersection at the first entrance along Trailside Drive.
5. The private access easement closest to RTE 20 should also have the throat width
increased to 24' wide.
6. We have not received the Access Management Corner Clearance exception as mentioned.
Please resubmit.
7. Please accurately show the sight distance line for RTE 20. Also provide a line of sight
profile.
8. Since there is not a publicly maintained street connection between the terminus of
Trailside Drive and Route 20, the 150 foot reference does not apply. There is not
currently an adequate turnaround for Trailside Drive. As previously commented, the T-
type turnaround should have a branch on the west side of Trailside Drive to allow a "3-
point" turn maneuver. The preference for a turnaround at this location remains to be a
cul -de -sac. The entire turnaround should be located within right -of -way. In addition, the
turnaround currently shown should have the pavement "squared up" to the easement line.
9. Sidewalks within a VDOT ROW shall include underdrains. Please provide the UD -3
detail.
10. Why aren't the CG -12's located in the returns at the intersection of Trailside Court and
Trailside Drive?
11. In various locations the throat lengths are missing from the STM profiles. Please update
accordingly.
12. Please call out inlet shaping (IS -I detail) for the proposed inlets within the VDOT ROW.
13. PIease provide HGL calculations.
14. Please provide the asphalt widening detail (WP -2)
15. Nose down the curb at the end of STM STR A8.
16. Revisit STM A9 inlet computation sheet. The plans show a DI -7 and the computations
state a DI -3B.
I7. Please provide the 10yr WSE at A9 to verify minimum freeboard.
18. A graded shoulder is required along RT 20. Please see the Geometric Design Standards
GS -6) and adjust the proposed ditch accordingly.
19. PIease provide a Guardrail Warrant Analysis along RTE 20 where the culvert extension is
taking place.
20. Please "turn on" Station labels, i.e. Trailside Dr, Wit etc., to simplify the review process.
21. Please add a note stating that the contractor shall replace or repair, as directed by VDOT,
any section of asphalt/roadbed damaged by jacking operations at his own expense.
22. Please provide the waterline casing pipe size to the plans.
23. Please provide a STM profile for the proposed 48" pipe within the RTE 20 ROW,
calculations and STM labels. Also ES -1 should be added to the run.
24. Please turn on the existing storm system to be removed, on sheet 25.
25. Could the four -inch pipe, flowing into the existing DI along RTE 20, be an underdrain?
If this is the case could this 4" pipe be field adjusted and turned into the proposed DI -3B
therefore eliminating the proposed MH -1 ?
26. The RTE 20 culvert extension profile should have the riprap landing & backfill updated
as discussed on -site with the Permits Specialist.
27. Please provide a pavement marking/signage plan.
28. Please provide a MOT plan.
29. Before we can confirm the pavement design we require 3 soil samples (and the CBR
reports) along Trailside Drive (one taken at the intersection of RTE 20, one within the
first 500' of Trailside Drive, and one within the remaining 304' + / -) as indicated in the
2014 Pavement Design Guide. AIso per the 2014 Pavement Design Guide, the design
CBR is the mathematical average of the tests multiplied by 2/3.
I am available if you wish to schedule a meeting to discuss the comments. Please do not hesitate
to contact me at (434) 422 -9373.
Sincerely,
Jlgz asd*
Shelly A. Plaster
Land Development Engineer
Culpeper District
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
Lrf2C;l1 ZA
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
September 19, 2014
Justin Shimp, P.E.
Shimp Engineering
201 E. Main St., Ste. M
Charlottesville, VA 22901
RE: ARB201400094 Riverside Village
Dear Mr. Shimp:
The Albemarle County Architectural Review Board reviewed the above noted item at its meeting on
Monday, September 15, 2014. The Board unanimously approved the request, pending staff
administrative approval of the conditions listed in the 9/2/2014 staff report, amended as follows,
based on the revised drawings submitted 9/15/2014:
1. Indicate on the drawings that the window glass meets the following requirements: Window glass
meets the following criteria: Visible light transmittance (VLT) shall not drop below 40 %. Visible
light reflectance (VLR) shall not exceed 30 %.
2. Consider possible locations for a freestanding sign at the entrance to the development as the
landscape plan at the entrance is revised. Coordinate the landscape design on both the south
and north sides of the entrance.
3. Consider developing a design that eliminates the requirement for a handrail along the sidewalk
at the front entrance. If this is not possible, provide in the plan a detail for the safety railing. The
railing shall have an appropriate appearance for the EC.
4. Add the standard mechanical equipment note to the architectural drawings.
5. Continue the large shade and ornamental tree planting along the EC frontage south of the site in
all areas where grading and /or tree removal are proposed.
6. Replace all the green ash with an alternate species. Replace the large trees adjacent to the
overhead line at the northeast corner of the property with medium shade trees.
7. Coordinate the quantity of willow oaks and serviceberry trees listed in the plant schedule with the
number drawn on the plan. Do not reduce the number drawn on the plan to achieve
coordination.
8. Revise the planting along the north side of the development to meet the landscape requirements
of the rezoning and to include a mix of screening trees north of Block 2A. Show adequate
planting area in the vicinity of the retaining wall.
9. Revise the landscape plan to be consistent with the other site plan sheets regarding Blocks 1
and 5. If the architectural designs are not available for review at this time, these building
footprints should be removed from the plan.
10. Revise the grading plan to round contours with a ten foot minimum radius where they meet the
adjacent condition, for a natural appearance south of the pipe that crosses Rt. 20.
11. Revise the landscape plan at the northeast corner of the site to provide a coordinated planting
scheme that accounts for the loss of the trees previously shown as to remain. Coordinate the
planting and landscape design of this area with the design of the overall frontage along the EC.
Please provide:
1. Two full sets of revised drawings addressing each of these conditions. Include updated ARB
revision dates on each drawing.
2. A memo including detailed responses indicating how each condition has been satisfied. If
changes other than those requested have been made, identify those changes in the memo
also. Highlighting the changes in the drawing with "clouding" or by other means will facilitate
review and approval.
3. The attached "Revised Application Submittal" form. This form must be returned with your
revisions to ensure proper tracking and distribution.
When staff's review of this information indicates that all conditions of approval have been met, a
Certificate of Appropriateness may be issued.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Margaret Maliszewski
Principal Planner
cc: Riverside Village Properties Inc
200 Garrett St Ste S
Charlottesville Va 22902
VOMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper, VirgiNa 22701
Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E.
Commissioner
June 24, 2014
Ms. Ellie Carter Ray
Senior Planner
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: SDP - 2014 -00043 Riverside Village — Final Site Plan
Dear Ms. Ray:
We have reviewed the final site development plan for Riverside Village dated 511114 as
submitted by Shimp Engineering, P.C. and offer the following comments:
1. We did not receive storm sewer calculations with this submittal.
2. We did not receive pavement design calculations with this submittal.
3. The proposed turn around for Riverside Drive does not meet the standards for a T -type
turn around as shown in Appendix B(1) of the Road Design Manual. To be adequate,
there needs to be an additional branch to the turn around that extends onto Lot 12. In
addition, the turn around should be located within dedicated right -of -way rather than
easement.
4. The entrance connections to Riverside Drive for the 20' Private Access Easement needs
to be designed to commercial entrance standards since more than 50 vehicle trips per day
will use the entrances. At a minimum, the moderate volume commercial entrance
standard should be utilized.
5. The first entrance from Route 20 on the east side of Riverside Drive should be
perpendicular to Riverside Drive.
6. The sight distance for the first and second entrance from Route 20 on the east side of
Riverside Drive will be impacted by the proposed street trees between the two entrances.
This needs to be corrected.
7. The radii lengths for the turn around at the end of Riverside Drive should be 25'.
8. An Access Management Corner Clearance exception will need to be requested for the
first entrance from Route 20 on the east side of Riverside Drive.
9. If there is potential for the waterline located in Riverside Drive to be extended to TMP
78 -58A, the 90° bend at the end of Riverside Drive should be replaced with a Tee and
extended beyond the paved surface so that the waterline could be extended without
cutting the asphalt.
10. It appears that a standard CD -1 should be added on the profile for Riverside Drive at
approximately station 12 +70.
11. The plan views do not clearly identify the locations of storm structures C2C and C21). I
believe that these may be the structures along Route 20, but they are not labeled.
12. VDOT maintenance of the proposed storm sewer will be confined to the structures
located within dedicated right -of -way and the storm sewer between those structures.
13. Storm sewer structures B2, B3, and C3A do not meet minimum height requirements as
indicated in the 2008 Road and Bridge Standards.
14. The off -site waterline extension will need to be bored under Route 20. The plan and
profiles for this waterline should reflect this requirement.
15. On Sheet 25 of 26, there is a note on the plan view of the Route 20 improvements Sta
10 +00 — Sta 19 +00 to "Remove Ex. DI and Replace wl MH -1 Top ". The note should
indicate that the entire structure should be replaced since there is also a note that the
existing RCP that is downstream from the structure is to be removed.
16. The proposed right -of -way for the east side of Route 20 does not match the proposed
right -of -way that has been agreed to.
17. The plan view of a portion of the Route 20 improvements is labeled as STA 0 +00 — STA
19 +00. I believe that this should actually be 10 +00.
18. The storm structures on Sheet 25 of 26 should be labeled as this is the plan view that
shows the locations best.
19. The invert out of the 72" CMP to be extended needs to be added to the plan view. In
addition, a cross - section of the receiving channel should be provided to insure that the
invert of the culvert works with the elevation of the channel.
20. What is the proposed end treatment for the extended 72" CMP?
21. It appears from the provided contours that invert of the extended 72" CMP is directed
towards the channel bank. This may cause the channel bank to erode without adequate
measures.
22. It is unclear from the plan view what curbing is proposed for the right turn lane taper into
Riverside Drive. This should be noted on the plan.
23. Per Appendix F of the Road Design Manual, it appears that the lane transition for the left
turn lane shown from approximately Station 24 +90 on Route 20 to approximately Station
26 +90 should be 245 feet rather than the 209 feet shown. In addition, the proposed
striping shown on the plan appears to stop short of the lane transition extent.
24. The dimensions of all turn lanes and tapers should be shown on the plan.
If you need additional information concerning this project, please do not hesitate to contact me at
434) 589 -5871.
Sincerely,
Troy Austin, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Culpeper District
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
Phone 434 - 296 -5832
jRclti
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, VA, 22902
Memorandum
To: Justin Shimp ( Justin (a)shimp- engineerinq.com)
From: Ellie Ray, CLA, Senior Planner
Division: Planning
Date: June 20, 2014
Subject: SDP 201400043 Riverside Village - Final
Fax 434 - 972 -4126
The County of Albemarle Planning Division will recommend approval of the plan referenced above once the
following comments have been satisfactorily addressed (The following comments are those that have been
identified at this time. Additional comments or conditions may be added or eliminated based on further review.):
Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference, which is to the Subdivision /Zoning Ordinances unless
otherwise specified.]
Conditions of Initial Approval (from approval letter dated 3/19/14):
1. A site plan meeting all the requirements of section 32.6 of Chapter 18 of the Code.
Final: See Final Plan comments below.
2. [Comment] Note which blocks from ZMA201200002 are included in this application.
Final: Comment addressed.
3. [Comment] This application was reviewed against Site Development Plan requirements only. It appears
that lot lines are shown on the plan, but no subdivision application was submitted. Any subdivision related
comments are provided for reference only unless necessary for site plan approval.
Final: For informational purposes only.
4. [32.5.2(a) & Proffer 4] Clearly delineate any area proposed to be dedicated for the improvements to Route
20. Additional land for the future widening of Route 20 (as noted in proffers) must also be dedicated by plat
contemporaneously with the Final Site Plan.
Final: The Boundary line adjustment plat required to dedicate additional land for the widening of
Route 20 must be submitted and approved prior to approval of the Site Plan. The owners of the
adjacent parcel must also sign the plat.
5. [32.5.2(a)] Add Entrance Corridor (EC) to the Zoning note.
Final: Comment addressed.
6. [32.5.2(a)] List the Special Exceptions approved with the ZMA application on the cover sheet.
Final: The following special exceptions were granted during the rezoning: Section 14- 234(C): Traffic
volume adequacy; Section 14- 410(H): Curb, gutter, sidewalk, and Planting strip; Section 14- 412(A)-
3(b): Alternative standard deemed adequate by county engineer; and Section 14- 422(A): Sidewalks
and planting strips at portico entrance to Block 5. A Special Permit (SP201300001) for fill in the
floodplain was also approved. List these items on the cover sheet under Zoning information.
7. [32.5.2(a) & COD Section X] It appears that internal lot lines are shown within the parking lot serving Block
2C. If an internal parcel is proposed, this layout violates both the side and rear setbacks listed in Section X
of the Code of Development.
Final: Comment addressed. It has been determined that the revised disconnected parking spaces
within Block 2C do not meet the definition of a parking lot as presented in the Code of Development;
therefore, the parking setbacks do not apply.
8. [32.5.2(b)] Provide information about the acreage occupied by each proposed use including residential,
roads, and open space.
Final: Comment addressed.
9. [32.5.2(b)] Provide a breakdown of unit types listing the number of each proposed by block.
Final: If two unit types are proposed within a single block, provide a breakdown of the number of
each type of unit.
10. [32.5.2(b) & COD Section IV] It appears that a three unit row of townhouses is proposed in Block 3.
According the Section IV of the Code of Development, townhouses are not a permitted use. Zoning is
currently reviewing the Code of Development and the Initial Site Plan and will determine if this use complies;
a variation may be necessary to build the three unit row of dwelling units as proposed.
Final: Comment addressed; townhouses no longer proposed in Block 3.
11. [32.5.2(b)] Provide the gross residential density for each Block and for the project overall.
Final: Comment addressed.
12. [32.5.2(b) & COD Section VII] Provide a chart or other schedule demonstrating how the minimum green
space and amenity requirements listed in COD Section VII are being satisfied. It appears that minimum
requirements are not met in each block including: four benches and "plantings" along mews in Block 2, mix
of evergreen trees and shrubs in northern buffer #2 in Block 2, flowering trees in SWM facility #3 in Block 3,
flowering trees along the park connector in Block 3, and rear yard landscaping adjacent to northern
boundary (northern buffer #3) in Block 4. Is should also be noted that any buffer landscaping proposed on
individual lots will require a landscape maintenance easement when the lots are subdivided.
Final: Many of the areas listed in the "Provided Green Space, Civic Areas, and Amenities by Block"
chart on Sheet 2 do not meet (or are different from) the areas listed in the "Minimum Green Space,
Civic Areas, and Amenities by Block" chart approved in the Code of Development; clarify why any
number listed as minimum in the COD is not being met. If minimum areas aren't provided, the COD
must be revised through a variation. Even though Blocks 1 & 5 are not under review with this
application, it should also be noted that the stormwater facility areas approved in this chart must
also be revised by variation (either now or when Blocks 1 & 5 are under review) if SWM Facilities #1
2 are no longer proposed.
13. [32.5.2(b) & Application Plan] Provide a chart or other schedule demonstrating how the minimum parking
requirements are being satisfied, listing the amount required and provided. Block 2C does not provide the
minimum 24 spaces for 12 multi - family dwelling units. Additionally, since parking is proposed on individual
lots in Block 4, a minimum of 1 parking space per four dwelling units for guest parking is required.
Final: Include blocks 2A, 2B, 3A and 3B in the parking note. Note if and how much parking is
provided in garages. Clarify how units 28 & 29 have four parking spaces; the driveway is not wide
enough to support a two car garage (it's only 16'). Additionally, the parallel parking spaces in Block
2C must be 9' wide instead of 8' as proposed (4.12.16(c)2).
14. [32.5.2(b) & COD Section IV] As noted above, it appears that internal lot lines are shown within the
parking lot serving Block 2C. If an internal parcel is proposed, this layout proposes stand -alone parking on
this internal parcel which is not a permitted use in Block 2 according to Section IV of the Code of
Development.
Final: Comment addressed; stand -alone parking is no longer proposed
15. [32.5.2(i) & COD Section XIII] Provide a chart or other schedule listing the street cross sections approved
with the ZMA application and indicating the proposed cross sections. Streetscape requirements in the Code
of Development must also be met (see landscape comments below).
Final: Portions of the street and alley sections on Sheet 10 do not match what is shown on the
layout sheet or in the chart on Sheet 2; all information, including widths and setbacks, must be the
same throughout the plan set and match what was approved with the rezoning.
16. [32.5.2(1) & COD Section XIII] Section XIII describes Road "C" as a 12' walkway, but the proposed design
includes only a 10' walkway free of groundcover. The paver only portion of Road "C" should be increased to
a minimum 12' width.
Final: Comment addressed.
17. [32.5.2(k)] Verify that all necessary easements for proposed water, sewer and drainage facilities have been
shown on the plan.
Final: Comment addressed.
18. [32.5.2(1)] Provide the location of any other existing or proposed utilities and utility easements including
telephone, cable, electric and gas.
Final: Comment addressed.
19. [32.5.2(m)] Show the distance to the centerline of the nearest existing street intersection from the proposed
ingress and egress locations.
Final: Comment addressed.
20. [32.5.2(n)] Provide the maximum footprint for all proposed buildings.
Final: The actual maximum footprint must be provided for all townhouse units; the footprints shown
should not be conceptual as noted in the comment response letter.
21. [32.5.2(n)] Dimension the full width of the retaining wall required for construction.
Final: Comment addressed.
22. [32.5.2(n)] Show proposed lighting locations on the layout, utility and landscape sheets to verify no conflicts
exist.
Final: If lighting is no longer proposed, please remove the lighting note on the cover sheet.
23. [32.5.2(0)] Clearly show any areas intended to be dedicated or reserved for dedication to public use (such
as street right -of -way), and provide a note stating that the land is to be dedicated or reserved for public use.
Final: See #4 above for information regarding dedication of right -of -way along Route 20.
24. [32.5.2(p) & 32.7.9.4(b)] Existing trees may be preserved in lieu of planting new plant materials in order to
satisfy the landscaping and screening requirements of section 32.7.9, subject to the agent's approval. If you
intend to use existing trees to satisfy any of the landscape plan requirements, please include the following:
1. Areas and other features shown on landscape plan. The landscape plan shall show the trees to be
preserved, the limits of clearing, the location and type of protective fencing, grade changes requiring
tree wells or walls, and trenching or tunneling proposed beyond the limits of clearing.
2. Conservation checklist. The applicant shall sign a conservation checklist approved by the agent to
ensure that the specified trees will be protected during construction. Except as otherwise expressly
approved by the agent in a particular case, the checklist shall conform to the specifications in the
Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook, pages III -393 through III -413, and as hereafter
amended.
Final: The tree protection line extends across the area where the proffered trail is to be constructed;
revise the proposed tree line and tree protection to allow for the trail construction. Additionally, add
tree protection parallel to Route 20 where trees are intended to be saved. As noted, the
conservation plan checklist must be signed and dated prior to site plan approval.
25. [32.5.2(p), 32.7.9.5 & COD Section IX] Provide flowering trees interspersed between street trees along the
Route 20 frontage as required by Section IX of the Code of Development.
Final: Comment addressed.
26. [32.5.2(p), 32.7.9.5] When a parking lot is located such that parked cars will be visible from a public street,
low shrubs should be planted to minimize the view of the parked cars. The parking lot proposed in Block 2C
will be visible from Route 20 and internal Road A; provide shrubs along the eastern border of the parking lot,
and the western border that isn't blocked by the proposed dwelling units.
Final: Comment addressed.
3
27. [32.5.2(p) & 32.7.9.7] Proposed SWM Facility #3 should be screened from the adjacent residential lot.
Final: Comment addressed.
28. [32.5.2(p) & 32.7.9.8] It appears the majority of the tree canopy requirement is being met with existing
trees; see #23 above for direction on how to verify and document preservation of existing trees.
Final: Comment not fully addressed. See #24 above for direction on how to verify and document
preservation of existing trees.
29. [32.5.z(p), 32.7.9.8, ana L.OD] The percentage of tree canopy required is determined by the gross
residential density of the proposal. The maximum gross residential density for Blocks 1 -5 is listed in the
Code of Development as 8.1 dwelling units /acre, which would require 20% tree canopy. Please revise the
landscape notes to use 20% as the basis for the tree canopy requirement.
Final: Comment addressed.
30. [32.5.2(p) & 32.7.9.8] The landscape schedule lists an incorrect count for Betula jacquemontii.
Final: The landscape schedule now lists an incorrect count for Amelanchier laevis and Quercus
phellos; verify and revise.
31. [32.5.2(p) & 32.7.9.8] Tree canopy calculations can be based on the proposed caliper at planting. Zelkova
serrata, Acer rubrum and Quercus phellos have three possible canopy calculations; 3.5" caliper, 2.5" caliper,
and the standard planting caliper. In order to use the larger canopy numbers, a breakdown of how many
trees are provided at each size is required. Additionally, the canopy number listed for Quercus phellos uses
the 3.5" caliper for all proposed trees when many of the trees are proposed at 2.5" caliper; please revise.
Final: Comment addressed.
32. [32.5.2(p) & 32.7.9.8] Tree canopy consists of plants that will grow to 5' or taller at maturity; many azaleas
do not get 5' tall. Either provide information regarding the specific species proposed that will get 5' tall or
remove the azalea canopy from the calculation.
Final: Comment addressed.
33. [32.5.2(p) & 32.7.9.8] The landscape schedule provides an incorrect total tree canopy number.
Final: Revise the proposed tree canopy to reflect the accurate preserved tree canopy (excluding the
area removed for trail construction) and updated plant counts.
34. [32.5.2(p)] Some of the proposed plantings appear to be within existing or proposed easements; show all
easements on the landscape plan, verify locations of plantings, and either move all landscaping outside of
easements or provide proof of authorization from the easement holder.
Final: Proof of authorization from the easement holder to plant in their easement must be provided.
Additionally, some landscaping is proposed directly on top of water lines and storm pipes; even
when planting is allowed in the easement it cannot be directly on top of any utility. Additionally,
verify that all easements are shown on the landscape plan; the "base map" is odd on this sheet, it
appears to include old information as well as new and some strange grey mystery areas (these
areas are on other sheets as well). Correct the base information and move all landscaping off of
utility lines.
35. [32.5.2(p) & Application Plan] Utility lines are proposed within the "Tree Preservation Area" shown and
described on the approved Block Plan; the installation of this utility will require removal of many of these
preserved trees. Please clarify and revise.
Final: The utility line is now entirely within the lots in Block 3 instead of partially in the tree
preservation area. However, many of the lots are now larger than they were on the initial plan to
cover the area where the utility line is proposed. Clarify how the Block Area listed in the chart on
Sheet 2 is still exactly the same even though most of the lots are larger than previously proposed.
Please also provide an area for the SWM facility parcel and label with the intended ownership. If the
block area is changing, a variation will be required.
36. [32.5.2(p) & COD Section IX] Provide a chart or other schedule demonstrating how the Landscape
Treatment requirements listed in Section IX of the Code of Development are being satisfied. Among
possible others, it appears that several requirements are not being met, including: flowering trees along
Route 20 (as previously noted); screening as listed for northern buffers #1, 2, & 3 (type and placement);
mitigation as listed for SWM facility #3 (no evergreen trees, no ornamental trees, no grasses proposed); and
the listed plant types for the Main Road entrance (ornamental trees, shrubs, ornamental grasses).
Final: It still appears that many of the Landscape Treatment requirements listed in Section IX of the
Code of Development are not being satisfied. Among possible others, screening as listed for
northern buffers #1, 2, & 3 (type, size and spacing); mitigation as listed for SWM facility #3 (size and
minimum quantity); plant types for the Main Road entrance (ornamental grasses), and front yard
landscaping has not been provided. Provide a chart as requested with the initial plan review listing
what is required and what is proposed; any deviation from the requirements must be revised by a
variation. It should be noted that the charts in COD sections VII and IX often refer to the same area,
but list different requirements. These discrepancies should have been rectified during the rezoning
as all parts of the approved Code of Development must be followed. Due to detailed requirements,
such as `flowering shrubs on top of the retaining wall' and specifics about each SWM facility (parts
of which now do not exist), and the various inconsistencies included in the approved COD, a
variation will likely be required to clean up the Code of Development moving forward.
37. [32.5.2(p) & COD Section IX] It appears that 100 Thuja occidentalis are proposed ai o o.c. along the
retaining wall at the northern edge of the property. Thuja occidentalis species gets 10 -15' wide and may be
overcrowded; please indicate if a smaller cultivar is proposed. Also provide verification that these trees can
be safely planted in such close proximity to the proposed retaining wall.
Final: Comment no longer valid; thuja and portions of retaining wall are no longer on the plan.
38. [32.5.2(p) & COD Section IX] Section IX states that all plant species must conform to the Native Plants for
Virginia Landscapes list. Zelkova serrata, Betula jacquemontii, Acer griseum, many azaleas, and Juniperus
chinensis are not native plants.
Final: Comment addressed; the Native Plants for Virginia Landscapes list is no longer part of the
Design Guidelines and shouldn't be referenced on future plans. A few of the proposed species are
not on the old list but are included in the new plant list used by the ARB, so these species can be
approved.
39. [4.17] It appears that light poles may be located within proposed easements; verify locations and provide
documentation of authorization from the intended easement holder.
Final: Comment addressed; lighting is no longer proposed.
40. [4.17] Extend the photometric information toward Route 20 to demonstrate where the foot - candle levels
drop below 0.5.
Final: Comment addressed; lighting is no longer proposed.
41. [4.17] Provide the following standard lighting note on the lighting plan: Each outdoor luminaire equipped
with a lamp that emits 3, 000 or more initial lumens shall be a full cutoff luminaire and shall be arranged or
shielded to reflect light away from adjoining residential districts and away from adjacent roads. The spillover
of lighting from luminaires onto public roads and property in residential or rural areas zoning districts shall
not exceed one -half foot - candle.
Final: Comment addressed; lighting is no longer proposed.
42. [Comment] ARB approval is required. Due to inclement weather, ARB review has been rescheduled from
March 3rd to March 17th. ARB comments will be provided after the March 17th meeting.
Final: See ARB comments.
43. [Comment] If any off -site easements are required, they must be approved and recorded prior to Site Plan
approval. Among possible others, it appears easement(s) will be required for the proposed tree and shed
removal at the northern property line as shown on the demolition plan, and as indicated in ACSA comments.
Final: In addition to any ACSA comments regarding necessary easements, it appears that tree
removal is proposed on the adjacent property as noted on Sheet 3 which could require an easement;
please clarify.
5
Final Plan Comments:
44. [32.5.2(a)] Several of the units proposed in Block 4 do not meet the maximum build -to line of 25', and unit
51 in Block 2A (with an attached garage) does not meet the rear setback requirement. Revise the layout to
meet the build -to and setback requirements or apply for a variation.
45. [32.5.2(a)] The titles on Sheets C8 & C9 do not match what is listed in the sheet index.
46. [32.5.2(d)] This parcel no longer contains "critical slopes "; it has a combination of both "managed slopes"
and "preserved slopes" based on the approved Steep Slopes Overlay Map. Show both the managed and
preserved slopes as represented on the approved map and label them accordingly (including in notes).
These slopes should be shown on the site plan as well as the existing conditions sheet to give a better
understanding of the impacts on each type of slope. The proposed disturbance of the preserved slopes is
allowed based on the Application Plan and Proffer approved with ZMA201200002 which shows disturbance
of these slopes for the improvements to Route 20. 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 any construction proposed on the managed slopes meets these requirements.
47. [32.5.2(f)] Revise the watershed note to indicate this parcel is not in a water supply protection area.
48. [32.6.2(g)] Any drainage easements intended for public use shall be noted as such, and any water or sewer
facilities to be dedicated shall be identified by a statement that they are to be dedicated to the Albemarle
County Service Authority.
49. [32.6.2(h)] Provide a signature panel for signature by each member of the site review committee.
50. [32.6.2(i)] The island provided between a parking space and the travelway /access way must be a minimum
of 3' wide; widen the islands around the parking in Block 2C.
51. [32.6.20) & 32.7.9.7(a)2] Parking areas of four or more spaces should be screened from adjacent
residential areas; add screening shrubs along the parking in Block 2C supporting units 26, 27, 28, and 29 to
screen the parking from Block 2B.
52. [Proffer #2] Proffer #2 states that before the owner applies for a building permit for the 50th residential unit,
the owner shall have offered for sale or rent all ten affordable housing units. This plan includes 51 units but
only 6 affordable units. Either reduce the total number of units on this plan to below 50 or include all 10
affordable units.
53. [Comment] Many of the plan sheets are cut off on the northeast corner and either do not have a match line
at all or have a match line that references a sheet no longer in the plan set. Provide match lines on all
necessary sheets with a reference to an existing sheet in the plan set.
54. [Comment] This site plan cannot be approved until VDOT and engineering complete their reviews and
grant their approval. Inspections and Fire /Rescue have reviewed the plan and have no objections. ARB,
Zoning, E911 and ACSA comments have been provided.
Staff has provided references to provisions of Chapter 18 of the Code of the County of Albemarle. The Code is
kept up to date by the County Attorney's office. The Code may found on the County Attorney's website which
may be found under "Departments and Services" at Albemarle.org.
In accord with the provisions of Section 32.4.3.5 of Chapter 18 of the Code if the developer fails to submit a
revised final site plan to address all of the requirements within six (6) months after the date of this letter the
application shall be deemed to have been voluntarily withdrawn by the developer.
Please contact Ellie Ray in the Planning Division by using eray(a)albemarle.org or 434 - 296 -5832 ext. 3432 for
further information.
0
ALB
r
IRGINZP
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
TO: Ellie Ray, Senior Planner - Planning Services
FROM: Rebecca Ragsdale, Senior Planner- Zoning Services
DATE: June 19, 20014
RE: SDP 2014 -43- Riverside Village Final Plan
Comments provided with SDP2014 -05 initial site plan on March 6, 2014 are bulleted below with
final site plan comments noted.
Townhouse units Block 3- The units proposed in Block 3B are townhouses according to the
zoning ordinance. Although the block description on page 5 mentions townhouses, the Code
of Development does not list townhouses as a permitted unit type in the Development Block
Summary table on page 4 or in the Table of Uses by Block on page 5. A variation is needed
to allow townhouses in this block. Final Site Plan: This comment has been addressed. The
final site plan no longer proposes townhouses in Block 3. Unit types proposed are now
single family detached and single family attached unit types.
Reminder about Building Separation -No encroachments are permitted into the required
building separation of 8' as required in the Lot /Parking /Building Regulations on page 4. This
means that no eave overhangs or architectural features may project into the 8' separation
requirement. Final Site Plan: This is information for future building permits.
Proffer 1- Park Land Dedication /Trails system- The park should be dedicated to public use
prior to final site plan approval and the County will make this official request according to the
proffer during final site plan review. Final Site Plan: Zoning will coordinate with Parks and
Recreation to make a request for the park land dedication and request for payment of the
30,000 cash proffer (Proffer 3) for a park master plan.
Proffer 2- Affordable Housing- No information is provided on how the affordable housing
proffer will be met. Final Site Plan: Six affordable units have been shown in Block 2C. The
proffer requires that before the owner applies for the 40th residential unit on the property, the
owner shall have offered for sale or for rent, six affordable units. Prior to the building permit
for the 50th unit, the owner shall have offered for sale all 10 affordable units. The site plan
proposes 51 dwelling units so 10 affordable units should be designated on the site plan.
Proffer 4- Frontage and Other Road Improvements- All necessary plans and plat(s) should
be submitted and reviewed by VDOT to ensure this proffer is met. The proffer requires the
frontage improvements as part of the first site plan or subdivision plat. Final Site Plan: Not
addressed.
i"
IRGINZP
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
Project: Riverside Village SDP201400043
Plan preparer: Shimp Engineering [Justin @shimpengineering.com]
Owner or rep.: RIVERSIDE VH -LAGE PROPERTIES INC
Plan received date: 27 May 2014
Date of comments: 26 June 2014
Reviewer: Max Greene
The Final Site Plan (SDP201400043) submitted 27 May 2014 has received Engineering
Review and do not appear to meet Albemarle County minimum checklist items for
approval. The following list of deficiencies will be adequately addressed prior to final
approval of the site plan:
A) Road and drainage plans
1) VDOT approval is required prior to final site plan approval.
2) Parking spaces for 28/29 appears too close to travel way and should be moved at least 3
feet from the back of curb of travel way to prevent encroachment into travel way by a
parked vehicle or open car doors.
3) Please show directional "One Way" sign locations for 12' access lanes.
4) Please make the shading consistent on the plan sheets. Appears some of the parking is
shaded and others are not. There is also extra shading in the Public right -of -way.
5) Please show VDOT designations for entrances.
B) Stormwater Management and Mitigation Plan
1) Stormwater Management and Mitigation Plans with application and fee will be
submitted for review and approval. See link to County form below.
C) Erosion Control Plan
1) Erosion and Sediment Control Plan with application and fee will be submitted for
review and approval. Existing early grading permit will be replaced with new
WPO plan for Final Site Plan.
hqp:// www.albemarle.org/upload/images /forms_ center / departments /Community Developme
nt/forms/En ingeeringandWPOForms/PlanReview-
ApplicationStormwater _Management- BMPPlan.pdf
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 2
Once these comments have been addressed, please submit 2 copies of the revised plans,
calculations, and narratives to Current Development Engineering along with the required review
fee and transmittal form.
Current Development Engineering is available from 2:30 -4 PM on Thursdays to discuss these
review comments. Please contact Max Greene at 434 - 296 -5832 ext. 3283 or email
mgreene @albemarle.org to schedule an appointment.
Warning: EPA has determined underground perforated pipes are considered class 5 injection wells and may not be approvable
by the State. http:Hwater.epa.gov/ infrastructure /sustain /upload/2003 08 25 uic class5 fs uic - class5 classystudy fs storm.pdf
And http:Hwater.epa.goy /type /,groundwater /uic /class5 /upload/study uic - class5 classystudy fs storm wells.pdf
File: CDDEl_sdp_MRG_Riverside Village - Final.doc
Ellie Ray
From: Alex Morrison [amorrison @serviceauthority.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 2:43 PM
To: Ellie Ray
Subject: SDP201400043: Riverside Village - Final
Ellie,
Please instruct the applicant to submit 3 copies of the final site plan directly to the ACSA (Attn: Jeremy Lynn, PE) to begin
the construction review process. In addition, the applicant should show the offsite sewer extension on the plans they
submit to the ACSA. Thank you.
Alexander J. Morrison, EIT
Civil Engineer
Albemarle County Service Authority
168 Spotnap Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22911
0) 434 - 977 -4511 Ext. 116
F) 434 - 979 -0698
Like the ACSA on Facebook at www.facebook.com /acsaconnect