HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP200800074 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2016-08-22Short Review Comments Report for:
SDP200800074
SubApplication Type:
Blue Ridge Cohousing - Final
Final – Non-residential – Commission
Date Completed:05/20/2008
Reviewer:Lisa K Glass CDD CDZCD
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:SRC Comments for Gerald since he is out this week.
Division:
Date Completed:05/19/2008
Reviewer:Gerald Gatobu CDD CDZCD
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:Based on plans dated
Division:
Date Completed:05/15/2008
Reviewer:Jonathan Sharp CDD Current Development
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:SRC 5/22/08
Division:
Date Completed:06/13/2008
Reviewer:Jonathan Sharp CDD Current Development
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:05/15/2008
Reviewer:Andrew Slack CDD E911
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:THE APPLICANT SHOULD CONTACT THIS OFFICE WITH A LIST OF THREE (3) ROAD NAMES
FOR THIS PROJECT. PLEASE CONTACT THIS OFFICE DIRECTLY FOR APPROVAL.
Division:
Date Completed:05/21/2008
Reviewer:Jay Schlothauer CDD Inspections
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:Based on plans dated April 28, 2008.
Provide one van-accessible, barrier-free parking space as close as practicable to the eastern-most
multi-family residential building. (Similar to the one shown near the western-most multi-family
building.)
Note: The two multi-family residential buildings may require fire suppression sprinkler systems.
Division:
Date Completed:05/05/2008
Reviewer:Margaret Maliszewski CDD ARB
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:Tax map 56/parcel 67B falls within the Route 240 Entrance Corridor. The portion of the development
proposed within this parcel is not expected to be visible from the EC. Consequently, ARB review is
not required.
Division:
Date Completed:05/21/2008
Reviewer:Joel DeNunzio VDOT
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Page:1 of 12 County of Albemarle Printed On:March 17, 2017
Reviews Comments:
Date Completed:06/13/2008
Reviewer:Gerald Gatobu CDD CDZCD
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:Applicant asked to address new engineering comments and then resubmit.
Division:
Date Completed:06/13/2008
Reviewer:Amy Pflaum CDD Current Development
Review Status:Pending
Reviews Comments:Per applicant - new plans are being submitted based on comments received 6/13/08, so this
submittal is not to be reviewed. -ADP 7/7/08
Division:
Date Completed:07/31/2008
Reviewer:Gerald Gatobu CDD CDZCD
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:08/14/2008
Reviewer:Philip Custer CDD Current Development
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:08/14/2008
Reviewer:Philip Custer CDD Current Development
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:08/14/2008
Reviewer:Jay Schlothauer CDD Inspections
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:Based on plans revised July 25, 2008.
No further comments or conditions.
Division:
Date Completed:08/11/2008
Reviewer:Andrew Slack CDD E911
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:THE APPLICANT SHOULD HAVE THE ROAD NAME PRINTED ON THE FINAL PLAT BEFORE
APPROVAL IS GIVEN.
Division:
Date Completed:08/11/2008
Reviewer: ACSA
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:From: Gary Whelan [gwhelan@serviceauthority.org]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 3:11 PM
To: Gerald Gatobu
Subject: SDP200800074 Blue Ridge Cohousing
Attachments: GENERAL WATER & SEWER CONDITIONS.doc
Gerald,
Sheet 8 is still showing a retaining wall over the proposed water line and the ACSA General Water
and Sewer Conditions must be shown (attached).
~Gary <<...>>
G. M. Whelan, LS
Civil Engineer
Albemarle County Service Authority
168 Spotnap Road
Charlottesville, VA 22911
(434) 977-4511
Fax: (434) 979-0698
Division:
Page:2 of 12 County of Albemarle Printed On:March 17, 2017
~Gary <<...>>
G. M. Whelan, LS
Civil Engineer
Albemarle County Service Authority
168 Spotnap Road
Charlottesville, VA 22911
(434) 977-4511
Fax: (434) 979-0698
Date Completed:10/07/2008
Reviewer:Gerald Gatobu CDD CDZCD
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:11/25/2008
Reviewer:Philip Custer CDD Current Development
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:11/25/2008
Reviewer:Philip Custer CDD Current Development
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:12/17/2008
Reviewer:Gerald Gatobu CDD CDZCD
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:01/28/2009
Reviewer:Philip Custer CDD Current Development
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:02/10/2009
Reviewer:Gerald Gatobu CDD CDZCD
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:Easement Plat Pending.
Division:
Date Completed:02/24/2009
Reviewer:Philip Custer CDD Current Development
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:Must receive receipt for easement plat recordation before approval.
Division:
Date Completed:02/24/2009
Reviewer:Philip Custer CDD Current Development
Review Status:Approved
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:03/17/2009
Reviewer:Gerald Gatobu CDD CommDev-Current Development
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:Asked Kevin Connor to reinstate the site plan. The site plan was deffered on the 19th of september.
The 19th of March will be 6 months. After 6 months, the application is deemed withdrawn if the
agent, commission or board of supervisors does not take action on the application.
Division:
Page:3 of 12 County of Albemarle Printed On:March 17, 2017
agent, commission or board of supervisors does not take action on the application.
Date Completed:09/23/2009
Reviewer:Gerald Gatobu CDD CommDev-Current Development
Review Status:Pending
Reviews Comments:Need ACSA approval before the site plan can be signed.
Division:
Date Completed:12/18/2009
Reviewer:Gerald Gatobu CDD CommDev-Current Development
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:11/21/2013
Reviewer:Ellie Ray CDD Planning
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:11/19/2013
Reviewer:Michelle Roberge CDD Engineering
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:11/19/2013
Reviewer:Rebecca Ragsdale CDD Zoning
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:Proffer 1- Are they providing 4 affordable units or cash in-lieu of units? If units are provided, they
must be designated on the site plan.
Proffer 3a and 3b-Are these requirements being shown in a separate plan set? It looks like the
widening of Parkview Drive to 18’ and the 8’ bike path are shown on some plan sheets but I don’t see
where Parkview Drive is shown all the way to the intersection, where the improvements are required
by Proffer 3b.
Division:
Date Completed:11/04/2013
Reviewer:Andrew Slack CDD E911
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:The applicant should contact this office with a list of three (3) proposed road names for each of the
two (2) travelways shown on this plan.
Division:
Date Completed:11/19/2013
Reviewer:Alexander Morrison ACSA
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:11/12/2013
Reviewer:Robbie Gilmer Fire Rescue
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:Based on plans dated 10/16/13
1. Fire hydrant spacing shall be every 500 ft per travel way. At no point shall a house be greater than
250 ft from a fire hydrant.
2. Travel way shall be a minimum of 18 ft wide and constructed from a material that can support
72,000lbs.
Division:
Date Completed:11/21/2013
Reviewer:Troy Austin VDOTDivision:
Page:4 of 12 County of Albemarle Printed On:March 17, 2017
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Date Completed:11/14/2013
Reviewer:Margaret Maliszewski CDD ARB
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:A small portion of this parcel falls within the Route 240 Entrance Corridor. The development
proposed within that area is not expected to be visible from the EC. Consequently, ARB review is not
Division:
Date Completed:11/11/2013
Reviewer:Jay Schlothauer CDD Inspections
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:Based on plans dated October 16, 2013.
No comments or conditions.
Division:
Date Completed:05/19/2014
Reviewer:Ellie Ray CDD Planning
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:06/06/2014
Reviewer:John Anderson CDD Engineering
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:
Reviewer:Rebecca Ragsdale CDD Zoning
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:05/06/2014
Reviewer:Andrew Slack CDD E911
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:The applicant should contact this office with a list of three (3) proposed road names for each of the
two (2) travelways shown on this plan.
Division:
Date Completed:
Reviewer:Alexander Morrison ACSA
Review Status:Pending
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:05/15/2014
Reviewer:Robbie Gilmer Fire Rescue
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:Based on plans dated 3/14/14
No comments or objections
Division:
Date Completed:05/22/2014
Reviewer:Troy Austin VDOT
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:08/26/2014
Page:5 of 12 County of Albemarle Printed On:March 17, 2017
Reviewer:Ellie Ray CDD Planning
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:10/03/2014
Reviewer:John Anderson CDD Engineering
Review Status:See Recommendations
Reviews Comments:No objections; ref. document. Note: site plan approval requires approved VSMP.
Division:
Date Completed:09/08/2014
Reviewer:Rebecca Ragsdale CDD Zoning
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:Affordable units have been designated on site plan per proffer 1.
Playground comments have been addressed.
Division:
Date Completed:08/20/2014
Reviewer:Andrew Slack CDD E911
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:After reviewing the plans and discussion with my supervisor we will need to name the Walking path
that connects the living units from Building 3 to Building 11. We suggest using the following road
designators for this pathway since it isn't a traditional "road" to lessen confusion by citizens. The
applicant could use any of the following designators with a name that fits into the Road Naming and
Property Numbering Ordinance. Arch, Bend, Bluff, Green, Grove, Heights, Hill, Knoll, Path, Reach,
Row, Run, Square, Terrace, Trace, or Trail.
Division:
Date Completed:
Reviewer:Alexander Morrison ACSA
Review Status:Pending
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:08/29/2014
Reviewer:Troy Austin VDOT
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:01/15/2015
Reviewer:Ellie Ray CDD Planning
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:01/15/2015
Reviewer:John Anderson CDD Engineering
Review Status:See Recommendations
Reviews Comments:Applicant is reminded that "Each person who proposes to establish or extend a central sewerage
system or a central water supply shall notify the board of supervisors of the proposal at least sixty
(60) days prior to commencing construction thereof. The notice shall be filed with the clerk of the
board of supervisors. "
Ref Gay and Neel response letter, 13-Aug 2014; also, 3-Oct discussion, J.Anderson/K. Conner.
G&N will time notice to clerk of BOS at least sixty (60) days prior to construction –ref §16-102.
janderson2 1/15/2015 1:33 PM
Division:
Date Completed:01/09/2015
Reviewer:Andrew Slack CDD E911
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:The applicant should contact this office with a list of three (3) proposed road names for each of the
two (2) travelways shown on this plan.
Division:
Page:6 of 12 County of Albemarle Printed On:March 17, 2017
two (2) travelways shown on this plan.
Date Completed:
Reviewer:Alexander Morrison ACSA
Review Status:Pending
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:03/06/2015
Reviewer:Ellie Ray CDD Planning
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:03/05/2015
Reviewer:John Anderson CDD Engineering
Review Status:See Recommendations
Reviews Comments:1. Sheet C3-01/Note: Parkview Drive is a private road and is not located in a subdivision,
meaning VDOT cannot post speed limits, nor is there apparent means for the County to set or
enforce speed limits (state law §15.2-2201, “Subdivision”) (Sec. 9-600). Engineering does not object
to posting 15 MPH limit on Parkview Drive, but a speed limit at this location does not appear
enforceable.
2. Please notify Engineering when prepared to submit notice of intent to establish a central
sewerage system for Emerson Commons. We are positioned to assist with notification, with notifying
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, Ella Jordan. It has been months (Jul-14) since last contact with
Ms. Jordan (email/E. Jordan to K. Conner, J. Anderson, 7/11/2014 8:30 AM). Ref. prior comment:
Applicant is reminded that "Each person who proposes to establish or extend a central sewerage
system or a central water supply shall notify the board of supervisors of the proposal at least sixty
(60) days prior to commencing construction thereof. The notice shall be filed with the clerk of the
board of supervisors." (15-Jan 2015, CV).
3. Revise C4-02 to show stream buffer (Parrott Branch), and revised location of proposed
private sanitary sewer easement. [ref email J. Anderson to K. Conner, Wed 3/4/2015 3:31 PM]
janderson2 3/5/2015 11:23 AM
Division:
Date Completed:02/24/2015
Reviewer:Andrew Slack CDD E911
Review Status:Approved
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:02/25/2015
Reviewer:Alexander Morrison ACSA
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:05/06/2015
Reviewer:Ellie Ray CDD Planning
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:05/08/2015
Reviewer:John Anderson CDD Engineering
Review Status:See Recommendations
Reviews Comments:All prior comments Addressed. As follow-up:
1. Engineering will assist coordination with Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, Ella Jordan (ref
Sec. 16-102), unless, through prior agreement, Notification to Clerk of BOS is deemed
non-applicable (E-mail: Jo Higgins, Project Development LLC, to County Engineer -4/23/2015 6:46
PM).
2. C4-02/Note: Limited stream buffer impact (Parrott Branch, Parkview Drive RW) due to
revised private sanitary alignment is driven by need at County request to avoid critical slopes. Impact
is necessary to avoid critical slopes. Mitigation for ~500 sq.ft. stream buffer impact at this location is
not required. (Area =0.0115 Ac.±)
3. C4-02 –Show and label stream buffer on TMP 56-67. Show stream buffer in addition to 100’
MINIMUM (offset) label. Make stream buffer location explicitly clear.
4. Revise C1-01 (Existing Conditions and Demolition Plan) and C6-01 (Site Landscape Plan) at
stream buffer, adjacent to Parkview Drive (hatching/label: ‘Remove brush and trees for tree orchard
planting’; C1-01) and in same location on C6-01 (4 tree centers within buffer), in 1 of 2 ways: 1) Avoid
clearing/planting within stream buffer –revise plans accordingly; or, 2) Add Note to each plan sheet:
“Limited Silvicultural Activity permissible within stream buffer provided activity complies with water
quality protection procedures established by the Virginia Department of Forestry in its “Virginia’s
Forestry Best Management Practices for Water Quality.” Impermissible to exceed clearing shown on
C1-01, or 4 orchard tree centers within stream buffer, C6-01.” –revise plans accordingly. Reviewer
regrets late comment on proposed clearing/ orchard within Parrott Branch stream buffer. Call if any
questions: 434.296-5832 –x3069.
Division:
Page:7 of 12 County of Albemarle Printed On:March 17, 2017
is necessary to avoid critical slopes. Mitigation for ~500 sq.ft. stream buffer impact at this location is
not required. (Area =0.0115 Ac.±)
3. C4-02 –Show and label stream buffer on TMP 56-67. Show stream buffer in addition to 100’
MINIMUM (offset) label. Make stream buffer location explicitly clear.
4. Revise C1-01 (Existing Conditions and Demolition Plan) and C6-01 (Site Landscape Plan) at
stream buffer, adjacent to Parkview Drive (hatching/label: ‘Remove brush and trees for tree orchard
planting’; C1-01) and in same location on C6-01 (4 tree centers within buffer), in 1 of 2 ways: 1) Avoid
clearing/planting within stream buffer –revise plans accordingly; or, 2) Add Note to each plan sheet:
“Limited Silvicultural Activity permissible within stream buffer provided activity complies with water
quality protection procedures established by the Virginia Department of Forestry in its “Virginia’s
Forestry Best Management Practices for Water Quality.” Impermissible to exceed clearing shown on
C1-01, or 4 orchard tree centers within stream buffer, C6-01.” –revise plans accordingly. Reviewer
regrets late comment on proposed clearing/ orchard within Parrott Branch stream buffer. Call if any
questions: 434.296-5832 –x3069.
Date Completed:06/03/2015
Reviewer:John Anderson CDD Engineering
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:Ellie,
3-Jun-15 email Dropbox link to .PDF design:
Engineering comments Addressed –No objection
Division:
Date Completed:06/04/2015
Reviewer:Ellie Ray CDD Planning
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:This revision addressed comment #38 from the 5-6-15 comment letter. All other comments remain;
most are not plan specific, but are supporting items such as easements, road maintenance
agreements etc. The Conservation Plan Checklist must be signed and dated on the signature
Division:
Date Completed:08/02/2015
Reviewer:John Anderson CDD Engineering
Review Status:See Recommendations
Reviews Comments:email sent 8/2/2015 9:20 PM: text - "Kevin,
Is sheet C6-01 the only sheet with revisions showing additional plant screenings along Parkview, and
fewer plantings along the rear (NE side) of the site? Two bullets from 20-Jul letter reference
plantings, and appear contradictory: “trees along the rear of the site have been moved up” and “trees
have been moved farther into the east corner.” Isn’t this the same approximate location? Please let
me know if any other plan sheets involve plantings. Also, Landscape Note #3, C6-01 leaves 8.5
months when stabilization seems not to occur. Please revise this note per VESCH requirements.
Thanks, Kevin -434.296-5832 –x3069"
janderson2 8/2/2015 9:23 PM
Division:
Date Completed:08/05/2015
Reviewer:Ellie Ray CDD Planning
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:
Reviewer:Alexander Morrison ACSA
Review Status:Pending
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:10/02/2015
Reviewer:Ellie Ray CDD Planning
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Page:8 of 12 County of Albemarle Printed On:March 17, 2017
Reviews Comments:
Date Completed:09/23/2015
Reviewer:John Anderson CDD Engineering
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:Stream buffer mitigation planting locations are acceptable janderson2 9/23/2015 9:57 AM
UPDATE -
Sheet C4-03: Add note: "SAN MH structures .1A, .1B, .1C, and .1E require safety slab"
Sheet C4-03: Add detail / VDOT SL-1. (Detail Attached to plan review comments)
Sheet C4-03: Show proposed grade (if dashed =existing); several structures appear buried, or to
project above grade.
Sheet C4-03: Label/show sanitary sewer profile Existing and Proposed grades.
janderson2 9/23/2015 10:35 AM
UPDATE2
Please remove sheets C3-06, C5-01, C5-02, and C5-03 from Final Site plan signature set.
We cannot approve ESC elements with Final Site Plan (C3-04, C3-05 show grading, ok).
janderson2 9/23/2015 10:48 AM
Division:
Date Completed:12/17/2015
Reviewer:Alexander Morrison ACSA
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:09/23/2015
Reviewer:John Anderson CDD Engineering
Review Status:See Recommendations
Reviews Comments:Prior engineering review comments addressed.
janderson2 9/23/2015 4:12 PM
( .PDF electronic review )
janderson2 9/23/2015 4:17 PM
*Review next submittal to verify revised sheet sent via email is included.
Division:
Date Completed:03/03/2016
Reviewer:Ellie Ray CDD Planning
Review Status:See Recommendations
Reviews Comments:See email in RMS. Site plan in approvable form, but still need road maintenance agreement,
recorded easement copies etc.
Division:
Date Completed:02/28/2016
Reviewer:John Anderson CDD Engineering
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:Final Site Plan responds to email request for clarification/revision [2/11/2016 10:59 AM]; partial text,
email:
"Please let me know plant species / qty. required for SWM (bioretention). These plantings will be
bonded with WPO.
I must get estimate to Ana, assured Jo that I would, and am late. Please ref. C6-01 –wish I’d caught
sooner –sorry.
Also: Please compare ST-5 data, sheets C5-02, C5-03; please revise for consistency.
We appreciate these minor last minute changes."
Design revisions also reconcile minor INV discrepancies for each detention system.
Engineering comments addressed with this or prior plan submission janderson2 2/28/2016 4:25 PM
Division:
Page:9 of 12 County of Albemarle Printed On:March 17, 2017
Date Completed:04/01/2016
Reviewer:Ellie Ray CDD Planning
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:I received what appear to be signature sets today. Please note that all of my previous comments
(see RMS) are still valid and the plan sets will not be signed until they are addressed.
Three of the copies submitted have a signature and date on the Conservation Plan checklist, but the
‘original set’ does not. I cannot sign that set without the signature and date.
Division:
Date Completed:05/12/2016
Reviewer:Unassigned Unassigned
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:Road maintenance agreement...CAO comments uploaded.
Division:
Date Completed:05/17/2016
Reviewer:Unassigned Unassigned
Review Status:Approved
Reviews Comments:Revised RMA sent to CAO
Division:
Date Completed:07/27/2016
Reviewer:Christopher Perez CDD Planning
Review Status:See Recommendations
Reviews Comments:
From: Christopher Perez
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2016 1:37 PM
To: 'Musxit@aol.com' <Musxit@aol.com>
Cc: David Benish <DBENISH@albemarle.org>; Megan Yaniglos <myaniglos@albemarle.org>
Subject: RE: SDP2008-74 Blue Ridge Cohousing – final site plan, SUB2015-25 Emmerson Co...
Jo,
I just received the signed/approved deed from the County Attorney’s office, Tom Foley has signed it,
and it is ready for you to pickup and record in the Clerk’s Office. I’ll make a copy and then put it
downstairs at the front desk w/ your name on it. Once recorded please provide me the DB PG
information and a copy of the recorded document w/ Clerk’s receipt.
Being you are already behind the 8-ball I’ll go ahead and request SRC signers sign it asap and will
hold my final approval till all signers sign the plans and you provide me the recorded doc mentioned
above.
Once the site plan is approved I will let you know, and you can come pick it up.
Thanks for your patients as we work through this process.
Christopher P. Perez | Senior Planner
Department of Community Development |County of Albemarle, Virginia
401 McIntire Road | Charlottesville, VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext. 3443
From: Christopher Perez
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2016 9:08 AM
To: 'Musxit@aol.com' <Musxit@aol.com>
Cc: David Benish <DBENISH@albemarle.org>; Megan Yaniglos <myaniglos@albemarle.org>; Erika
Castillo <ecastillo@albemarle.org>
Subject: RE: SDP2008-74 Blue Ridge Cohousing – final site plan, SUB2015-25 Emmerson Co...
Jo,
Good news, I just received conditional approval of your legal document with one minor change, the
date of the plat as referenced in the document. I pulled the hard copy w/ signatures you sent over
after I transmitted it to the CA and it was already correct on that version. Thus I just forwarded the
signature copy for the County Attorney to approve to form and for Tom Foley to sign. Once I receive
Tom’s signature I’ll let you know.
Thanks
Christopher P. Perez | Senior Planner
Department of Community Development |County of Albemarle, Virginia
401 McIntire Road | Charlottesville, VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext. 3443
From: Musxit@aol.com [mailto:Musxit@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2016 8:05 AM
To: Christopher Perez <cperez@albemarle.org>
Cc: David Benish <DBENISH@albemarle.org>; Megan Yaniglos <myaniglos@albemarle.org>; Erika
Castillo <ecastillo@albemarle.org>
Subject: Re: SDP2008-74 Blue Ridge Cohousing – final site plan, SUB2015-25 Emmerson Co...
Christopher-
Since this is holding up the site plan being signed, please follow up.
The deed form was provided by the County so it seems that it should be easily approved and signed.
Your assistance is appreciated.
thanks Jo
In a message dated 7/14/2016 12:13:01 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, cperez@albemarle.org writes:
Ms. Higgins,
Thanks for the call. Megan forwarded me the original deed w/ signatures that you sent her.
At this point I’m still awaiting County Attorney approval of the deed, which was sent to him last week.
If he approves it as is, I’ll send him the signed copy for him to approve to form and then get Tom’s
signature on. If he requires changes, we’ll see if we can slip sheet the signed pages in with the rest of
the deed that you make those changes to, this all depends on where his required changes are
located in the deed.
I understand that you’ve been waiting on these docs a long time; however, it appears this extended
wait stems from the legal docs being distributed to the County Attorney’s office via email by Ellie
instead of hard copy transmittal with a cover sheet. Thus Greg may have never saw the email from
all those months ago to conduct his review. I’ll keep you posted as it has now been distributed to him
via hard copy w/ a transmittal sheet.
Christopher P. Perez | Senior Planner
Department of Community Development |County of Albemarle, Virginia
401 McIntire Road | Charlottesville, VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext. 3443
From: Christopher Perez
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 12:52 PM
To: 'Musxit@aol.com' <Musxit@aol.com>
Cc: David Benish <DBENISH@albemarle.org>; Megan Yaniglos <myaniglos@albemarle.org>
Subject: SDP2008-74 Blue Ridge Cohousing – final site plan, SUB2015-25 Emmerson Commons,
and Deed of Dedication and Easement plat.
Ms. Higgins,
SDP2008-74 Blue Ridge Cohousing – final site plan
As you know, Ellie is no longer with the County. Her project was reassigned to me. I’ve called you
twice today to touch base but have been unable to get ahold of you. I’ll just put it in email.
I’ve looked through the file (SDP2008-74 Blue Ridge Cohousing – final site plan) and Ellie’s notes,
and I believe I understand the situation and what is left to be done prior to its approval.
The plat SUB2015-25 Emmerson Commons was approved on 1-21-16 but has yet to be recorded in
the clerk’s office. The deed of dedication and easement you have been waiting on since May 31st
relates to that plat (see attached plat). Seems the deed was the one thing holding up that plat.
Unfortunately I doubt the County Attorney ever received/reviewed the legal document which Ellie
sent on May 31st bc it was transmitted through email rather than hard copy, thus it may have been
missed.
In the mean time I have sent the deed to Greg for his review w/ the attached cover sheet and the
attached plat.
Please advise if I am correct on the above. If so, we’re good and I’ll await Greg’s review.
If not, please tell me what part I got wrong, and I’ll reassess and redistribute the deed to Greg with
the correct information.
Thanks
Christopher P. Perez | Senior Planner
Department of Community Development |County of Albemarle, Virginia
401 McIntire Road | Charlottesville, VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext. 3443
Division:
Page:10 of 12 County of Albemarle Printed On:March 17, 2017
Good news, I just received conditional approval of your legal document with one minor change, the
date of the plat as referenced in the document. I pulled the hard copy w/ signatures you sent over
after I transmitted it to the CA and it was already correct on that version. Thus I just forwarded the
signature copy for the County Attorney to approve to form and for Tom Foley to sign. Once I receive
Tom’s signature I’ll let you know.
Thanks
Christopher P. Perez | Senior Planner
Department of Community Development |County of Albemarle, Virginia
401 McIntire Road | Charlottesville, VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext. 3443
From: Musxit@aol.com [mailto:Musxit@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2016 8:05 AM
To: Christopher Perez <cperez@albemarle.org>
Cc: David Benish <DBENISH@albemarle.org>; Megan Yaniglos <myaniglos@albemarle.org>; Erika
Castillo <ecastillo@albemarle.org>
Subject: Re: SDP2008-74 Blue Ridge Cohousing – final site plan, SUB2015-25 Emmerson Co...
Christopher-
Since this is holding up the site plan being signed, please follow up.
The deed form was provided by the County so it seems that it should be easily approved and signed.
Your assistance is appreciated.
thanks Jo
In a message dated 7/14/2016 12:13:01 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, cperez@albemarle.org writes:
Ms. Higgins,
Thanks for the call. Megan forwarded me the original deed w/ signatures that you sent her.
At this point I’m still awaiting County Attorney approval of the deed, which was sent to him last week.
If he approves it as is, I’ll send him the signed copy for him to approve to form and then get Tom’s
signature on. If he requires changes, we’ll see if we can slip sheet the signed pages in with the rest of
the deed that you make those changes to, this all depends on where his required changes are
located in the deed.
I understand that you’ve been waiting on these docs a long time; however, it appears this extended
wait stems from the legal docs being distributed to the County Attorney’s office via email by Ellie
instead of hard copy transmittal with a cover sheet. Thus Greg may have never saw the email from
all those months ago to conduct his review. I’ll keep you posted as it has now been distributed to him
via hard copy w/ a transmittal sheet.
Christopher P. Perez | Senior Planner
Department of Community Development |County of Albemarle, Virginia
401 McIntire Road | Charlottesville, VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext. 3443
From: Christopher Perez
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 12:52 PM
To: 'Musxit@aol.com' <Musxit@aol.com>
Cc: David Benish <DBENISH@albemarle.org>; Megan Yaniglos <myaniglos@albemarle.org>
Subject: SDP2008-74 Blue Ridge Cohousing – final site plan, SUB2015-25 Emmerson Commons,
and Deed of Dedication and Easement plat.
Ms. Higgins,
SDP2008-74 Blue Ridge Cohousing – final site plan
As you know, Ellie is no longer with the County. Her project was reassigned to me. I’ve called you
twice today to touch base but have been unable to get ahold of you. I’ll just put it in email.
I’ve looked through the file (SDP2008-74 Blue Ridge Cohousing – final site plan) and Ellie’s notes,
and I believe I understand the situation and what is left to be done prior to its approval.
The plat SUB2015-25 Emmerson Commons was approved on 1-21-16 but has yet to be recorded in
the clerk’s office. The deed of dedication and easement you have been waiting on since May 31st
relates to that plat (see attached plat). Seems the deed was the one thing holding up that plat.
Unfortunately I doubt the County Attorney ever received/reviewed the legal document which Ellie
sent on May 31st bc it was transmitted through email rather than hard copy, thus it may have been
missed.
In the mean time I have sent the deed to Greg for his review w/ the attached cover sheet and the
attached plat.
Please advise if I am correct on the above. If so, we’re good and I’ll await Greg’s review.
If not, please tell me what part I got wrong, and I’ll reassess and redistribute the deed to Greg with
the correct information.
Thanks
Christopher P. Perez | Senior Planner
Department of Community Development |County of Albemarle, Virginia
401 McIntire Road | Charlottesville, VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext. 3443
Page:11 of 12 County of Albemarle Printed On:March 17, 2017
I’ve looked through the file (SDP2008-74 Blue Ridge Cohousing – final site plan) and Ellie’s notes,
and I believe I understand the situation and what is left to be done prior to its approval.
The plat SUB2015-25 Emmerson Commons was approved on 1-21-16 but has yet to be recorded in
the clerk’s office. The deed of dedication and easement you have been waiting on since May 31st
relates to that plat (see attached plat). Seems the deed was the one thing holding up that plat.
Unfortunately I doubt the County Attorney ever received/reviewed the legal document which Ellie
sent on May 31st bc it was transmitted through email rather than hard copy, thus it may have been
missed.
In the mean time I have sent the deed to Greg for his review w/ the attached cover sheet and the
attached plat.
Please advise if I am correct on the above. If so, we’re good and I’ll await Greg’s review.
If not, please tell me what part I got wrong, and I’ll reassess and redistribute the deed to Greg with
the correct information.
Thanks
Christopher P. Perez | Senior Planner
Department of Community Development |County of Albemarle, Virginia
401 McIntire Road | Charlottesville, VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext. 3443
Date Completed:08/22/2016
Reviewer:Christopher Perez CDD Planning
Review Status:Approved
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Page:12 of 12 County of Albemarle Printed On:March 17, 2017
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.]
1. [32.5.2(a)] Label the southern boundary dimensions on the existing conditions sheet.
Revi : Comment addressed.
2. [32.5.2(a)] Reference the ZMA (ZMA200700012) in the Zoning note.
Revi : Comment addressed.
3. [32.5.2(a)] The waivers referenced in note #34 are incorrect; see the rezoning approval letter dated
12/21/07 and revise the waivers accordingly.
Revl : Comment addressed.
4. [32.5.2(b)] This plan proposes to change or eliminate several elements that were shown on the approved
rezoning application plan. Zoning has determined that the "playground" shown on the application plan must
be provided or an equivalent amenity must be proposed; either include the playground or propose an
equivalent amenity for Zoning review. Please also consider adding back the walkway that was shown in
between the playground area and the existing pool as it provided better site circulation. The Director of
Planning has determined that the minor modifications to the parking and travelway layout along the front of
the site are in conformity with the application plan.
Revi : Comment not fully addressed. The playground area is now shown, but a list of equipment
provided must also be included. See section 4.16.2.1 for requirements.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
5. [32.5.2(b)] 200 square feet per dwelling unit of recreational area is required by section 4.16; label this
recreational area on the plan and indicate the square footage provided.
Revi : Comment addressed.
6. [32.5.2(b)] The plan states that 52 parking spaces are provided, but it appears there are 53 spaces shown
on the plan; please clarify and revise if necessary.
Revi : Comment addressed.
7. [32.5.2(i)] Label and clarify the proposed 8' multipurpose along Park View Drive as it is difficult to see the
path on the plans.
AL
IRGINZ�'
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, VA, 22902
Phone 434 - 296 -5832
Fax 434 - 972 -4126
Memorandum
To:
Kevin Conner, L.A. (kconner @gayandneel.com)
From:
Ellie Ray, LA, Senior Planner
Division:
Planning
Date:
November 21, 2013
Rev1: May 19, 2014
Rev2: August 26, 2014
Rev3: January 15, 2015
Rev4: March 6, 2015
Revs: May 6, 2015
Rev6: August 5, 2015
Rev7: October 2, 2015
Subiect:
SDP 200800074 Emerson Commons
(formerlv Blue Ridae and SheeFlee Co- Housina) — Final SDP
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.]
1. [32.5.2(a)] Label the southern boundary dimensions on the existing conditions sheet.
Revi : Comment addressed.
2. [32.5.2(a)] Reference the ZMA (ZMA200700012) in the Zoning note.
Revi : Comment addressed.
3. [32.5.2(a)] The waivers referenced in note #34 are incorrect; see the rezoning approval letter dated
12/21/07 and revise the waivers accordingly.
Revl : Comment addressed.
4. [32.5.2(b)] This plan proposes to change or eliminate several elements that were shown on the approved
rezoning application plan. Zoning has determined that the "playground" shown on the application plan must
be provided or an equivalent amenity must be proposed; either include the playground or propose an
equivalent amenity for Zoning review. Please also consider adding back the walkway that was shown in
between the playground area and the existing pool as it provided better site circulation. The Director of
Planning has determined that the minor modifications to the parking and travelway layout along the front of
the site are in conformity with the application plan.
Revi : Comment not fully addressed. The playground area is now shown, but a list of equipment
provided must also be included. See section 4.16.2.1 for requirements.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
5. [32.5.2(b)] 200 square feet per dwelling unit of recreational area is required by section 4.16; label this
recreational area on the plan and indicate the square footage provided.
Revi : Comment addressed.
6. [32.5.2(b)] The plan states that 52 parking spaces are provided, but it appears there are 53 spaces shown
on the plan; please clarify and revise if necessary.
Revi : Comment addressed.
7. [32.5.2(i)] Label and clarify the proposed 8' multipurpose along Park View Drive as it is difficult to see the
path on the plans.
Revi : Comment addressed.
8. [32.5.2(1)] Provide the Deed Book and Page Number for the plat /deed that established the access
easement that runs with Park View Drive. Additionally, a revised private maintenance agreement must be
submitted for review by the County Attorney's Office.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. Revised private road maintenance agreement must be
submitted for review and approval by the County Attorney's Office prior to site plan approval.
Rev2: Comment still valid.
Rev3: Comment still valid.
Rev4: Comment still valid.
Revs: Comment still valid.
Rev6: Comment still valid.
Rev7: Comment still valid.
9. [32.5.2(n)] Provide the maximum footprint for each existing and proposed building.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. The information provided is broken down by unit type and
labeled as "Max S.F', which indicates that it's the total square footage for each type of unit
(sometimes more than one unit per floor and /or multiple floors). Please also provide the maximum
footprint for each existing and proposed building.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
10. [32.5.2(n)] Label and dimension all walkways. Make sure they are distinguishable from travelways.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
11. [32.5.2(n)] Label all fences and note the height.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. A fence is now proposed around the newly added dumpster
pad; provide the height of this fence. To help determine if screening standards are met, include a
detail showing the design of the fence.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
12. [32.5.2(n)] Label all retaining walls with the maximum height.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
13. [32.5.2(n)] Clarify how trash storage and pick up will be accommodated.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
14. [32.5.2(n)] Clarify what the pad or gravel area is in between buildings 9 & 10.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
15. [32.5.2(n) & 4.12.16(c)6] Any parking space whose length is reduced to 16' must have a minimum 2' of
unobstructed overhang area. Verify that this unobstructed area exists in front of any reduced length parking
space and show it on the plan.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. It appears that several of the proposed light fixtures are
located within the required unobstructed overhang; move all obstructions out of these areas.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
Rev6: The letter provided with the most recent submittal does not list this change, but the
screening shrubs (Ilex glabra) provided at the end of the parking lot further into the site have been
moved. These shrubs are now within the required unobstructed overhang; please revise.
Rev7: Comment addressed.
16. [32.5.2(n) & 4.12.16(c)1] Parking spaces that are 9' wide must have an aisle width of 24'. The proposed
spaces to the right as you enter this development are 9' wide but the aisle is only 20' wide. Revise either
the spaces to 10' width or the aisle to 24' width.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
17. [32.6.2(f)] Dimension the radius of curb returns or edge of pavement.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
2
18. [32.5.2(1) & 32.6.2(g)] Please verify that the location of all existing and proposed utilities and utility
easements, including telephone, cable, electric and gas easements are shown on the plan. Any new
easements may be generally shown and dedicated by separate plat.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
19. [32.6.2(i)] Provide the angle of parking stalls for any that aren't perpendicular to the travelway.
Rev1: Comment addressed. Angled parking has been removed from the plan.
20. [32.6.2(]) & Comment] Please show utilities and associated easements on the landscape and lighting
plans to verify that no conflicts exist with plantings and lighting locations.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. Label all easements on the landscape and lighting sheets.
Additionally, ACSA must approve any proposed landscaping or lighting within their easements.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
Rev6: It appears that not all easements are shown; verify and show all easements. The new
proposed public utility easement near the pump station has landscaping and a light pole proposed
in the easement; ACSA must approve any proposed landscaping or lighting within their easements.
Rev7: Comment addressed.
21. [32.6.2(j), 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. It
appears that many of the existing trees are proposed to be used toward the tree canopy requirement, and
possibly the screening and street tree requirements. The landscape plan should 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. The applicant shall also
sign a conservation checklist approved by the agent to ensure that the specified trees will be protected
during construction. 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.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. Provide all relevant information including tree protection line,
notes, etc on the landscape plan as the E &S plan will now be removed from the plan set (see
Engineering comments). The Conservation Plan checklist must also be signed and dated.
Rev2: Comment not fully addressed. Several areas of tree protection shown on the E &S plan are
not shown or labeled on the landscape plan. The silt fence around the limits of disturbance (shown
on the E &S plan) also acts as tree protection fencing. Show all areas of tree protection on the
landscape plan. The Conservation Plan checklist must also be signed and dated prior to site plan
approval.
Rev3: Comment not fully addressed. The tree protection shown on the E &S plan is still not shown
and labeled on the landscape plan; please add this information. The silt fence (newly added to the
landscape plan) should be labeled. The Conservation Plan checklist must also be signed and dated
prior to site plan approval.
Rev4: Comment not fully addressed. The Conservation Plan checklist must be signed and dated
when the site plan is submitted for signature.
Rev5: Comment still valid.
Rev6: Comment not fully addressed. Several areas of tree protection shown on the E &S plan are not
shown or labeled on the landscape plan. The silt fence around the limits of disturbance (shown on
the E &S plan) also acts as tree protection fencing. Show all areas of tree protection on the
landscape plan. The Conservation Plan checklist must also be signed and dated prior to site plan
approval.
Rev7: Comment not fully addressed. The tree protection around the limits of disturbance (shown on
the E &S plan) is still not shown on the landscape plan. Show all areas of tree protection on the
landscape plan. The Conservation Plan checklist must also be signed and dated prior to site plan
approval.
22. [32.6.2(]), 32.7.9.4(b)] In addition to the above, clearly delineate the trees that are to be saved as there
appear to be some discrepancies between the demolition plan, the grading plan, and the landscape plan.
Any trees to be saved that are within 40' of any proposed disturbance require tree protection fencing. The
landscape plan and grading plans show proposed grading directly through areas of landscape that are
proposed to be saved; please clarify.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. There is a note on the E &S plan that references many of the
existing trees along the frontage of the property and basically states that the trees may or may not
remain on the site at the discretion of the owner and contractor during construction; this note
should also be included on the landscape plan. The approved Application Plan shows many of the
trees as remaining and notes supplemental planting along the street frontage as well. Revise your
note about possible removal to include a statement that if any of these trees are removed,
supplemental evergreen planting will be installed to help buffer views of the proposed development.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
Rev6: Comment not fully addressed. The line showing this area is no longer on the landscape plan;
show the line as it was on the previous submittals.
Rev7: Comment addressed.
23. [32.6.2(j), 32.7.9.5] Street trees are required along the existing road frontage at one large street tree per
fifty feet of road frontage. It appears that a few existing trees may be used to meet this requirement for a
portion of the frontage, but additional street trees should be added along the remaining portion.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
24. [32.6.2(j), 32.7.9.5(e)] Where parked cars will be visible from an off -site street, low shrubs should be
planted between the street and the parking area. Some screening shrubs have been provided, but
additional shrubs should be added to provide screening of all portions of the parking areas from the existing
street.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
25. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.6(a)] An area of at least five (5) percent of the paved parking and vehicular circulation
area shall be landscaped with trees or shrubs. The note provided states 5% of the lot area is required;
please revise.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
26. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.6(b)] The 5% landscaped area required in 32.7.9.6(a) shall be planted with a mixture of
shade trees and shrubs and shall include one (1) large or medium shade tree per ten (10) parking spaces or
portion thereof, if five (5) spaces or more. This plan requires 5 parking lot trees and proposes many large or
medium shade trees, but none of the trees are particularly close to the parking areas. Please either add
additional parking lot trees or move some of the proposed trees to provide shade in the parking areas.
Rev1: Comment addressed. However, if possible, please add one additional tree near Building 13 to
help provide shade for that 19 space parking lot.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
27. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.7(a)] Parking areas of four or more spaces should be screened from adjacent residential
and rural area districts; add additional screening along the existing road frontage as well as between this
parcel and TMP 56 -67B or demonstrate how the current proposal adequately screens the parking.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. See comment #22 above; the note referenced is also
applicable to making sure parking is properly screened.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
Rev6: Comment not fully addressed. The letter provided with the most recent submittal does not list
this change, but the screening shrubs (Ilex glabra) provided at the end of the parking lot further into
the site have been moved. Move these shrubs back to the previously approved location.
Rev7: Comment addressed.
28. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.8] It appears the tree canopy requirement is being met primarily through the
preservation of existing trees. See comment above regarding the conservation plan checklist and the clear
delineation of what trees will remain and how they will be protected. Also, please clarify where the 200 sf
canopy number came from for the Malus; the County Plant Canopy Calculations lists 129 sf.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. The total canopy number provided for the "Site Landscaping
Plan Schedule" does not equal the sum of the numbers provided in the schedule; revise this number
in all applicable locations (for schedule, in overall total canopy calculation, & on cover sheet).
Rev2: Comment not fully addressed. The total canopy number still doesn't match the sum of the
numbers in the plant schedule (the numbers added together total 8953 sf, but the total is provided at
6174 sf ... it seems the Acer rubrum has been left out of the calculation ?) Verify and revise this
number in all applicable locations (schedule, in overall total canopy calculation, & on cover sheet).
Rev3: Comment addressed.
4
29. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] No lighting cut sheets were provided; cut sheets must be provided in the plan set for
each proposed fixture to verify if fixtures are full cutoff. These cut sheets should coordinate with the catalog
number provided in the luminaire schedule.
Revl : Comment not fully addressed. The County's definition of full cutoff is, "The term "full cutoff
luminaire" means an outdoor light fixture shielded in such a manner that all light emitted by the
fixture, either directly from the lamp or indirectly from the fixture, is projected below the horizontal
plane." Fixture B is not full cutoff; very few, if any, bollard style fixtures meet this definition. Either
propose a different fixture or a different bulb /lamp that will drop the fixture below 3000 lumen.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
30. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] The luminaire schedule lists 23 as the quantity of fixture B proposed, but the plan only
appears to show 19 of this type of fixture; please clarify.
Revl : Comment addressed.
31. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] The luminaire schedule should list the tilt of each proposed fixture.
Revl : Comment addressed.
32. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] Show the proposed light locations on the site plan, utility plan and landscape plan to
demonstrate that there are no site conflicts.
Revl : Comment not fully addressed. As noted previously, some light locations are within the
required unobstructed parking overhang. These fixtures must be moved out of the overhang area.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
Rev6: It appears that not all easements are shown; verify and show all easements. The new
proposed public utility easement near the pump station has landscaping and a light pole proposed
in the easement; ACSA must approve any proposed landscaping or lighting within their easements.
Rev7: Comment addressed.
33. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] Revise the lighting note provided to the following standard lighting (the note provided is
slightly different): 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.
Revi : Comment addressed.
34. [Comment] Show, and provide documentation of, all off -site easements, including temporary and
permanent easements for the work that appears to be proposed on TMPs 56 -67B, 56 -67, 56A3 -1, 56A3 -7,
56 -68, and within the access easement for Park View Drive. Add the Deed Book and Page Number to any
existing easements. Any new easements must be submitted for review and approval, and recorded prior to
approval of this site plan.
Revl: Comment still valid; all easements must be submitted for review and approval, and recorded
prior to Final Site Plan approval.
Rev2: Comment still valid; all easements must be submitted for review and approval, and recorded
prior to Final Site Plan approval.
Rev3: Comment still valid; all easements must be submitted to the County for review and approval,
and recorded prior to Final Site Plan approval.
Rev4: Comment still valid. Easement plats are currently under review; comments will be forwarded.
The plats must be approved and recorded prior to site plan approval.
Revs: Comment still valid.
Rev6: Comment still valid. Three easement plats have been approved, but one remains
outstanding; all easement plats must be approved and recorded prior to site plan approval.
Rev7: Comment still valid. The one remaining easement plat has been deemed approvable; it must
be submitted for signature, officially approved and recorded prior to site plan approval. Once
recorded, please provide documentation of recordation for all four plats.
35. [Comment] This site plan cannot be approved until all site review committee members grant their approval.
Engineering, Zoning, E911, ACSA, and Fire /rescue comments have been provided. ARB and Inspections
had no objection to the first submittal. VDOT comments will be provided once received.
Revi: Comment still valid. This site plan cannot be approved until all site review committee
members grant their approval. E911 comments have been provided (street names were previously
discussed via email, but they must be added to the plans). Fire /rescue has reviewed the revisions
and has no objection. ARB and Inspections had no objection to the first submittal. Engineering,
Zoning, ACSA and VDOT comments will be provided once received.
Rev2: Comment still valid. This site plan cannot be approved until all site review committee
members grant their approval. E911 comments have been provided. Fire /rescue, ARB and
Inspections had no objection to previous submittals. Engineering, Zoning, ACSA and VDOT
comments will be provided once received.
Rev3: Comment still valid. This site plan cannot be approved until all site review committee
members grant their approval. E911 and Engineering comments have been provided. Zoning,
VDOT, Fire /rescue, ARB and Inspections had no objection to previous submittals. ACSA comments
will be provided once received.
Rev4: Comment still valid. This site plan cannot be approved until all site review committee
members grant their approval. Engineering comments have been provided. All other reviewers
have completed their reviews and have no objection to the site plan.
Rev5: Comment still valid. Engineering comments will be forwarded upon receipt.
Rev6: Comment still valid. Engineering and ACSA must grant their approval prior to site plan
approval.
Rev7: Comment still valid. Engineering and ACSA must grant their approval prior to site plan
approval. Engineering has given a tentative `no objection' but will verify that emailed revisions are
in the plan set and removal of WPO sheets on next submittal. ACSA comments will be forwarded
once received.
36. [32.5.2(d)] Due to a Zoning Text Amendment approved earlier this year, this parcel no longer contains
"critical slopes "; it has a much smaller area of "preserved slopes" based on the approved Overlay Map (see
County GIS). Remove the "critical slopes" and show the "preserved slopes" as represented on the
approved map (on the subject parcel and any adjacent parcel where work is proposed) and label them
accordingly. These slopes should be shown on the site plan as well as the existing conditions sheet, and
any sheet showing off -site improvements to give a better understanding of the proposed impacts to these
slopes. Disturbance of preserved slopes is allowed for public utilities (if no reasonable alternative exists),
but the proposed sewer connection appears to be a private line. It is unclear from the plan whether this
proposed line impacts any preserved slopes, but it will either need to avoid all impacts to preserved slopes
or apply for a Special Use Permit for approval of disturbance to the preserved slopes.
Rev2: Comment not fully addressed. First, both `25% or greater slopes' and `steep slopes,
managed and preserved' are shown on Sheet C1 -01. Slopes of 25% or greater no longer need to be
shown on the plan and `preserved' slopes must be differentiated from `managed' slopes (as they are
handled quite differently by the Zoning Ordinance). Steep slopes should be shown as they appear
in County GIS. Most of the slopes on this property and the other impacted properties are
`preserved' and must be labeled as such (only one small area of `managed' slopes is present).
Second, the slopes are only shown on the existing conditions sheet and not on the site plan, utility
plan, grading plan or any other plan that shows proposed disturbance /improvements. The slopes
must be shown on these plans to clarify if there is any proposed disturbance to `preserved' slopes.
As noted above, any disturbance to `preserved' slopes could require a special use permit for
approval.
Rev3: Comment not fully addressed. It appears that disturbance of preserved slopes is proposed
for both the adjacent property sewer connection and the off -site private sanitary sewer
connection /easement. As noted above, no impacts to preserved slopes are allowed for private
utilities without a special use permit. Relocate the sewer connections so that slope impacts are no
longer proposed, or apply for a special use permit to allow for these disturbances.
Rev4: Comment addressed; utilities have been relocated to eliminate disturbance to steep slopes.
37. [Comment] This Site Plan cannot be approved until the central sewerage system and the WPO application
have been approved.
Rev3: Comment still valid.
Rev4: Comment still valid.
Rev5: Comment still valid.
Rev6: Comment still valid.
Rev7: Comment still valid.
38. [Comment] As indicated in Engineering comments, show the stream buffer location on all parcels impacted
by off -site work.
M
Rev5: Comment not fully addressed. The stream buffer line on TMP56 -67 is not shown. The line
should be shown and labeled on sheets C1 -01, C1 -02 and C4 -02. There appears to be minor stream
buffer disturbance proposed within the right -of -way of Parkview Drive; see engineering comments
for information regarding mitigation, if required.
Rev6: Comment addressed.
39. [Comment] The revision of previously approved mitigation landscaping appears to not be approvable; see
Engineering comments.
Rev7: Comment addressed.
40. [32.3.3(a)] Before a site plan is approved by the agent, the developer may amend a site plan or
accompanying data sheet that has been submitted to the county if the agent authorizes the amendment in
writin or if the site review committee requires the amendment in its review of the site plan. The procedures
and requirements for initial and final site plans apply to amendments to a site plan. This revision submittal
includes several amendments that were not authorized prior to submittal and not requested by any member
of the site review committee. Any further unrequested /unauthorized amendments will require a new
application.
Rev7: Comment still valid.
Please contact Ellie Ray in the Planning Division by using eray@albemarle.org or 434 - 296 -5832 ext. 3432 for
further information.
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.]
1. [32.5.2(a)] Label the southern boundary dimensions on the existing conditions sheet.
Revl : Comment addressed.
2. [32.5.2(a)] Reference the ZMA (ZMA200700012) in the Zoning note.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
3. [32.5.2(a)] The waivers referenced in note #34 are incorrect; see the rezoning approval letter dated
12/21/07 and revise the waivers accordingly.
Revl : Comment addressed.
4. [32.5.2(b)] This plan proposes to change or eliminate several elements that were shown on the approved
rezoning application plan. Zoning has determined that the "playground" shown on the application plan must
be provided or an equivalent amenity must be proposed; either include the playground or propose an
equivalent amenity for Zoning review. Please also consider adding back the walkway that was shown in
between the playground area and the existing pool as it provided better site circulation. The Director of
Planning has determined that the minor modifications to the parking and travelway layout along the front of
the site are in conformity with the application plan.
Revi : Comment not fully addressed. The playground area is now shown, but a list of equipment
provided must also be included. See section 4.16.2.1 for requirements.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
5. [32.5.2(b)] 200 square feet per dwelling unit of recreational area is required by section 4.16; label this
recreational area on the plan and indicate the square footage provided.
Revl : Comment addressed.
6. [32.5.2(b)] The plan states that 52 parking spaces are provided, but it appears there are 53 spaces shown
on the plan; please clarify and revise if necessary.
Revi : Comment addressed.
7. [32.5.2(1)] Label and clarify the proposed 8' multipurpose along Park View Drive as it is difficult to see the
path on the plans.
Revl : Comment addressed.
_ c
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, VA, 22902
Phone 434 - 296 -5832
Fax 434 - 972 -4126
Memorandum
To:
Kevin Conner, L.A. (kconner @gayandneel.com)
From:
Ellie Ray, LA, Senior Planner
Division:
Planning
Date:
November 21, 2013
Rev1: May 19, 2014
Rev2: August 26, 2014
Rev3: January 15, 2015
Rev4: March 6, 2015
Revs: May 6, 2015
Rev6: August 5, 2015
Subiect:
SDP 200800074 Emerson Commons
(formerlv Blue Ridae and SheeFlee Co- Housina) — Final SDP
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.]
1. [32.5.2(a)] Label the southern boundary dimensions on the existing conditions sheet.
Revl : Comment addressed.
2. [32.5.2(a)] Reference the ZMA (ZMA200700012) in the Zoning note.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
3. [32.5.2(a)] The waivers referenced in note #34 are incorrect; see the rezoning approval letter dated
12/21/07 and revise the waivers accordingly.
Revl : Comment addressed.
4. [32.5.2(b)] This plan proposes to change or eliminate several elements that were shown on the approved
rezoning application plan. Zoning has determined that the "playground" shown on the application plan must
be provided or an equivalent amenity must be proposed; either include the playground or propose an
equivalent amenity for Zoning review. Please also consider adding back the walkway that was shown in
between the playground area and the existing pool as it provided better site circulation. The Director of
Planning has determined that the minor modifications to the parking and travelway layout along the front of
the site are in conformity with the application plan.
Revi : Comment not fully addressed. The playground area is now shown, but a list of equipment
provided must also be included. See section 4.16.2.1 for requirements.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
5. [32.5.2(b)] 200 square feet per dwelling unit of recreational area is required by section 4.16; label this
recreational area on the plan and indicate the square footage provided.
Revl : Comment addressed.
6. [32.5.2(b)] The plan states that 52 parking spaces are provided, but it appears there are 53 spaces shown
on the plan; please clarify and revise if necessary.
Revi : Comment addressed.
7. [32.5.2(1)] Label and clarify the proposed 8' multipurpose along Park View Drive as it is difficult to see the
path on the plans.
Revl : Comment addressed.
8. [32.5.2(1)] Provide the Deed Book and Page Number for the plat /deed that established the access
easement that runs with Park View Drive. Additionally, a revised private maintenance agreement must be
submitted for review by the County Attorney's Office.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. Revised private road maintenance agreement must be
submitted for review and approval by the County Attorney's Office prior to site plan approval.
Rev2: Comment still valid.
Rev3: Comment still valid.
Rev4: Comment still valid.
Revs: Comment still valid.
Rev6: Comment still valid.
9. [32.5.2(n)] Provide the maximum footprint for each existing and proposed building.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. The information provided is broken down by unit type and
labeled as "Max SY ", which indicates that it's the total square footage for each type of unit
(sometimes more than one unit per floor and /or multiple floors). Please also provide the maximum
footprint for each existing and proposed building.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
10. [32.5.2(n)] Label and dimension all walkways. Make sure they are distinguishable from travelways.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
11. [32.5.2(n)] Label all fences and note the height.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. A fence is now proposed around the newly added dumpster
pad; provide the height of this fence. To help determine if screening standards are met, include a
detail showing the design of the fence.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
12. [32.5.2(n)] Label all retaining walls with the maximum height.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
13. [32.5.2(n)] Clarify how trash storage and pick up will be accommodated.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
14. [32.5.2(n)] Clarify what the pad or gravel area is in between buildings 9 & 10.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
15. [32.5.2(n) & 4.12.16(c)6] Any parking space whose length is reduced to 16' must have a minimum 2' of
unobstructed overhang area. Verify that this unobstructed area exists in front of any reduced length parking
space and show it on the plan.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. It appears that several of the proposed light fixtures are
located within the required unobstructed overhang; move all obstructions out of these areas.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
Rev6: The letter provided with the most recent submittal does not list this change, but the
screening shrubs (Ilex glabra) provided at the end of the parking lot further into the site have been
moved. These shrubs are now within the required unobstructed overhang; please revise.
16. [32.5.2(n) & 4.12.16(c)1] Parking spaces that are 9' wide must have an aisle width of 24'. The proposed
spaces to the right as you enter this development are 9' wide but the aisle is only 20' wide. Revise either
the spaces to 10' width or the aisle to 24' width.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
17. [32.6.2(f)] Dimension the radius of curb returns or edge of pavement.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
18. [32.5.2(1) & 32.6.2(g)] Please verify that the location of all existing and proposed utilities and utility
easements, including telephone, cable, electric and gas easements are shown on the plan. Any new
easements may be generally shown and dedicated by separate plat.
Revi : Comment addressed.
2
19. [32.6.2(i)] Provide the angle of parking stalls for any that aren't perpendicular to the travelway.
Revi : Comment addressed. Angled parking has been removed from the plan.
20. [32.6.2(j) & Comment] Please show utilities and associated easements on the landscape and lighting
plans to verify that no conflicts exist with plantings and lighting locations.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. Label all easements on the landscape and lighting sheets.
Additionally, ACSA must approve any proposed landscaping or lighting within their easements.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
Rev6: It appears that not all easements are shown; verify and show all easements. The new
proposed public utility easement near the pump station has landscaping and a light pole proposed
in the easement; ACSA must approve any proposed landscaping or lighting within their easements.
21. [32.6.2(j), 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. It
appears that many of the existing trees are proposed to be used toward the tree canopy requirement, and
possibly the screening and street tree requirements. The landscape plan should 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. The applicant shall also
sign a conservation checklist approved by the agent to ensure that the specified trees will be protected
during construction. 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.
Revi: Comment not fully addressed. Provide all relevant information including tree protection line,
notes, etc on the landscape plan as the E &S plan will now be removed from the plan set (see
Engineering comments). The Conservation Plan checklist must also be signed and dated.
Rev2: Comment not fully addressed. Several areas of tree protection shown on the E &S plan are
not shown or labeled on the landscape plan. The silt fence around the limits of disturbance (shown
on the E &S plan) also acts as tree protection fencing. Show all areas of tree protection on the
landscape plan. The Conservation Plan checklist must also be signed and dated prior to site plan
approval.
Rev3: Comment not fully addressed. The tree protection shown on the E &S plan is still not shown
and labeled on the landscape plan; please add this information. The silt fence (newly added to the
landscape plan) should be labeled. The Conservation Plan checklist must also be signed and dated
prior to site plan approval.
Rev4: Comment not fully addressed. The Conservation Plan checklist must be signed and dated
when the site plan is submitted for signature.
Rev5: Comment still valid.
Rev6: Comment not fully addressed. Several areas of tree protection shown on the E &S plan are not
shown or labeled on the landscape plan. The silt fence around the limits of disturbance (shown on
the E &S plan) also acts as tree protection fencing. Show all areas of tree protection on the
landscape plan. The Conservation Plan checklist must also be signed and dated prior to site plan
approval.
22. [32.6.2(j), 32.7.9.4(b)] In addition to the above, clearly delineate the trees that are to be saved as there
appear to be some discrepancies between the demolition plan, the grading plan, and the landscape plan.
Any trees to be saved that are within 40' of any proposed disturbance require tree protection fencing. The
landscape plan and grading plans show proposed grading directly through areas of landscape that are
proposed to be saved; please clarify.
Revi: Comment not fully addressed. There is a note on the E &S plan that references many of the
existing trees along the frontage of the property and basically states that the trees may or may not
remain on the site at the discretion of the owner and contractor during construction; this note
should also be included on the landscape plan. The approved Application Plan shows many of the
trees as remaining and notes supplemental planting along the street frontage as well. Revise your
note about possible removal to include a statement that if any of these trees are removed,
supplemental evergreen planting will be installed to help buffer views of the proposed development.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
Rev6: Comment not fully addressed. The line showing this area is no longer on the landscape plan;
show the line as it was on the previous submittals.
23. [32.6.2(j), 32.7.9.5] Street trees are required along the existing road frontage at one large street tree per
fifty feet of road frontage. It appears that a few existing trees may be used to meet this requirement for a
portion of the frontage, but additional street trees should be added along the remaining portion.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
24. [32.6.2(j), 32.7.9.5(e)] Where parked cars will be visible from an off -site street, low shrubs should be
planted between the street and the parking area. Some screening shrubs have been provided, but
additional shrubs should be added to provide screening of all portions of the parking areas from the existing
street.
Revi : Comment addressed.
25. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.6(a)] An area of at least five (5) percent of the paved parking and vehicular circulation
area shall be landscaped with trees or shrubs. The note provided states 5% of the lot area is required;
please revise.
Revi : Comment addressed.
26. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.6(b)] The 5% landscaped area required in 32.7.9.6(a) shall be planted with a mixture of
shade trees and shrubs and shall include one (1) large or medium shade tree per ten (10) parking spaces or
portion thereof, if five (5) spaces or more. This plan requires 5 parking lot trees and proposes many large or
medium shade trees, but none of the trees are particularly close to the parking areas. Please either add
additional parking lot trees or move some of the proposed trees to provide shade in the parking areas.
Revi : Comment addressed. However, if possible, please add one additional tree near Building 13 to
help provide shade for that 19 space parking lot.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
27. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.7(a)] Parking areas of four or more spaces should be screened from adjacent residential
and rural area districts; add additional screening along the existing road frontage as well as between this
parcel and TMP 56 -67B or demonstrate how the current proposal adequately screens the parking.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. See comment #22 above; the note referenced is also
applicable to making sure parking is properly screened.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
Rev6: Comment not fully addressed. The letter provided with the most recent submittal does not list
this change, but the screening shrubs (Ilex glabra) provided at the end of the parking lot further into
the site have been moved. Move these shrubs back to the previously approved location.
28. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.8] It appears the tree canopy requirement is being met primarily through the
preservation of existing trees. See comment above regarding the conservation plan checklist and the clear
delineation of what trees will remain and how they will be protected. Also, please clarify where the 200 sf
canopy number came from for the Malus; the County Plant Canopy Calculations lists 129 sf.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. The total canopy number provided for the "Site Landscaping
Plan Schedule" does not equal the sum of the numbers provided in the schedule; revise this number
in all applicable locations (for schedule, in overall total canopy calculation, & on cover sheet).
Rev2: Comment not fully addressed. The total canopy number still doesn't match the sum of the
numbers in the plant schedule (the numbers added together total 8953 sf, but the total is provided at
6174 sf ... it seems the Acer rubrum has been left out of the calculation ?) Verify and revise this
number in all applicable locations (schedule, in overall total canopy calculation, & on cover sheet).
Rev3: Comment addressed.
29. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] No lighting cut sheets were provided; cut sheets must be provided in the plan set for
each proposed fixture to verify if fixtures are full cutoff. These cut sheets should coordinate with the catalog
number provided in the luminaire schedule.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. The County's definition of full cutoff is, "The term "full cutoff
luminaire" means an outdoor light fixture shielded in such a manner that all light emitted by the
fixture, either directly from the lamp or indirectly from the fixture, is projected below the horizontal
plane." Fixture B is not full cutoff; very few, if any, bollard style fixtures meet this definition. Either
propose a different fixture or a different bulb /lamp that will drop the fixture below 3000 lumen.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
30. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] The luminaire schedule lists 23 as the quantity of fixture B proposed, but the plan only
appears to show 19 of this type of fixture; please clarify.
4
Revi : Comment addressed.
31. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] The luminaire schedule should list the tilt of each proposed fixture.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
32. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] Show the proposed light locations on the site plan, utility plan and landscape plan to
demonstrate that there are no site conflicts.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. As noted previously, some light locations are within the
required unobstructed parking overhang. These fixtures must be moved out of the overhang area.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
Rev6: It appears that not all easements are shown; verify and show all easements. The new
proposed public utility easement near the pump station has landscaping and a light pole proposed
in the easement; ACSA must approve any proposed landscaping or lighting within their easements.
33. [32.6.2(k) & 4.1 IJ rtevise the iignting note provided to the toiiowing stanaaro iignting (tne note proviaeo is
slightly different): 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.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
34. [Comment] Show, and provide documentation of, all off -site easements, including temporary and
permanent easements for the work that appears to be proposed on TMPs 56 -67B, 56 -67, 56A3 -1, 56A3 -7,
56 -68, and within the access easement for Park View Drive. Add the Deed Book and Page Number to any
existing easements. Any new easements must be submitted for review and approval, and recorded prior to
approval of this site plan.
Rev1: Comment still valid; all easements must be submitted for review and approval, and recorded
prior to Final Site Plan approval.
Rev2: Comment still valid; all easements must be submitted for review and approval, and recorded
prior to Final Site Plan approval.
Rev3: Comment still valid; all easements must be submitted to the County for review and approval,
and recorded prior to Final Site Plan approval.
Rev4: Comment still valid. Easement plats are currently under review; comments will be forwarded.
The plats must be approved and recorded prior to site plan approval.
Rev5: Comment still valid.
Rev6: Comment still valid. Three easement plats have been approved, but one remains
outstanding; all easement plats must be approved and recorded prior to site plan approval.
35. [Comment] This site plan cannot be approved until all site review committee members grant their approval.
Engineering, Zoning, E911, ACSA, and Fire /rescue comments have been provided. ARB and Inspections
had no objection to the first submittal. VDOT comments will be provided once received.
Rev1: Comment still valid. This site plan cannot be approved until all site review committee
members grant their approval. E911 comments have been provided (street names were previously
discussed via email, but they must be added to the plans). Fire /rescue has reviewed the revisions
and has no objection. ARB and Inspections had no objection to the first submittal. Engineering,
Zoning, ACSA and MOT comments will be provided once received.
Rev2: Comment still valid. This site plan cannot be approved until all site review committee
members grant their approval. E911 comments have been provided. Fire /rescue, ARB and
Inspections had no objection to previous submittals. Engineering, Zoning, ACSA and VDOT
comments will be provided once received.
Rev3: Comment still valid. This site plan cannot be approved until all site review committee
members grant their approval. E911 and Engineering comments have been provided. Zoning,
MOT, Fire /rescue, ARB and Inspections had no objection to previous submittals. ACSA comments
will be provided once received.
Rev4: Comment still valid. This site plan cannot be approved until all site review committee
members grant their approval. Engineering comments have been provided. All other reviewers
have completed their reviews and have no objection to the site plan.
Rev5: Comment still valid. Engineering comments will be forwarded upon receipt.
Rev6: Comment still valid. Engineering and ACSA must grant their approval prior to site plan
approval.
36. [32.5.2(d)] Due to a Zoning Text Amendment approved earlier this year, this parcel no longer contains
"critical slopes "; it has a much smaller area of "preserved slopes" based on the approved Overlay Map (see
County GIS). Remove the "critical slopes" and show the "preserved slopes" as represented on the
approved map (on the subject parcel and any adjacent parcel where work is proposed) and label them
accordingly. These slopes should be shown on the site plan as well as the existing conditions sheet, and
any sheet showing off -site improvements to give a better understanding of the proposed impacts to these
slopes. Disturbance of preserved slopes is allowed for public utilities (if no reasonable alternative exists),
but the proposed sewer connection appears to be a private line. It is unclear from the plan whether this
proposed line impacts any preserved slopes, but it will either need to avoid all impacts to preserved slopes
or apply for a Special Use Permit for approval of disturbance to the preserved slopes.
Rev2: Comment not fully addressed. First, both `25% or greater slopes' and `steep slopes,
managed and preserved' are shown on Sheet C1 -01. Slopes of 25% or greater no longer need to be
shown on the plan and `preserved' slopes must be differentiated from `managed' slopes (as they are
handled quite differently by the Zoning Ordinance). Steep slopes should be shown as they appear
in County GIS. Most of the slopes on this property and the other impacted properties are
`preserved' and must be labeled as such (only one small area of `managed' slopes is present).
Second, the slopes are only shown on the existing conditions sheet and not on the site plan, utility
plan, grading plan or any other plan that shows proposed disturbance /improvements. The slopes
must be shown on these plans to clarify if there is any proposed disturbance to `preserved' slopes.
As noted above, any disturbance to `preserved' slopes could require a special use permit for
approval.
Rev3: Comment not fully addressed. It appears that disturbance of preserved slopes is proposed
for both the adjacent property sewer connection and the off -site private sanitary sewer
connection /easement. As noted above, no impacts to preserved slopes are allowed for private
utilities without a special use permit. Relocate the sewer connections so that slope impacts are no
longer proposed, or apply for a special use permit to allow for these disturbances.
Rev4: Comment addressed; utilities have been relocated to eliminate disturbance to steep slopes.
37. [Comment] This Site Plan cannot be approved until the central sewerage system and the WPO application
have been approved.
Rev3: Comment still valid.
Rev4: Comment still valid.
Rev5: Comment still valid.
Rev6: Comment still valid.
38. [Comment] As indicated in Engineering comments, show the stream buffer location on all parcels impacted
by off -site work.
Rev5: Comment not fully addressed. The stream buffer line on TMP56 -67 is not shown. The line
should be shown and labeled on sheets C1 -01, C1 -02 and C4 -02. There appears to be minor stream
buffer disturbance proposed within the right -of -way of Parkview Drive; see engineering comments
for information regarding mitigation, if required.
Rev6: Comment addressed.
39. [Comment] The revision of previously approved mitigation landscaping appears to not be approvable; see
Engineering comments.
40. [32.3.3(a)] Before a site plan is approved by the agent, the developer may amend a site plan or
accompanying data sheet that has been submitted to the county if the accent authorizes the amendment in
writing or if the site review committee requires the amendment in its review of the site plan. The procedures
and requirements for initial and final site plans apply to amendments to a site plan. This revision submittal
includes several amendments that were not authorized prior to submittal and not requested by any member
of the site review committee. Any further unrequested /unauthorized amendments will require a new
application.
Please contact Ellie Ray in the Planning Division by using erayCa)albemarle.org or 434 - 296 -5832 ext. 3432 for
further information.
M
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.]
1. [32.5.2(a)] Label the southern boundary dimensions on the existing conditions sheet.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
2. [32.5.2(a)] Reference the ZMA (ZMA200700012) in the Zoning note.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
3. [32.5.2(a)] The waivers referenced in note #34 are incorrect; see the rezoning approval letter dated
12/21/07 and revise the waivers accordingly.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
4. [32.5.2(b)] This plan proposes to change or eliminate several elements that were shown on the approved
rezoning application plan. Zoning has determined that the "playground" shown on the application plan must
be provided or an equivalent amenity must be proposed; either include the playground or propose an
equivalent amenity for Zoning review. Please also consider adding back the walkway that was shown in
between the playground area and the existing pool as it provided better site circulation. The Director of
Planning has determined that the minor modifications to the parking and travelway layout along the front of
the site are in conformity with the application plan.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. The playground area is now shown, but a list of equipment
provided must also be included. See section 4.16.2.1 for requirements.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
5. [32.5.2(b)] 200 square feet per dwelling unit of recreational area is required by section 4.16; label this
recreational area on the plan and indicate the square footage provided.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
6. [32.5.2(b)] The plan states that 52 parking spaces are provided, but it appears there are 53 spaces shown
on the plan; please clarify and revise if necessary.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
7. [32.5.2(1)] Label and clarify the proposed 8' multipurpose along Park View Drive as it is difficult to see the
path on the plans.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
_ c
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, VA, 22902
Phone 434 - 296 -5832
Fax 434 - 972 -4126
Memorandum
To:
Kevin Conner, L.A. (kconner @gayandneel.com)
From:
Ellie Ray, LA, Senior Planner
Division:
Planning
Date:
November 21, 2013
Revl: May 19, 2014
Rev2: August 26, 2014
Rev3: January 15, 2015
Rev4: March 6, 2015
Revs: May 6, 2015
Subject:
SDP 200800074 Emerson Commons (formerly Blue Ridge and SheeFlee Co- Housing) — Final SDP
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.]
1. [32.5.2(a)] Label the southern boundary dimensions on the existing conditions sheet.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
2. [32.5.2(a)] Reference the ZMA (ZMA200700012) in the Zoning note.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
3. [32.5.2(a)] The waivers referenced in note #34 are incorrect; see the rezoning approval letter dated
12/21/07 and revise the waivers accordingly.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
4. [32.5.2(b)] This plan proposes to change or eliminate several elements that were shown on the approved
rezoning application plan. Zoning has determined that the "playground" shown on the application plan must
be provided or an equivalent amenity must be proposed; either include the playground or propose an
equivalent amenity for Zoning review. Please also consider adding back the walkway that was shown in
between the playground area and the existing pool as it provided better site circulation. The Director of
Planning has determined that the minor modifications to the parking and travelway layout along the front of
the site are in conformity with the application plan.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. The playground area is now shown, but a list of equipment
provided must also be included. See section 4.16.2.1 for requirements.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
5. [32.5.2(b)] 200 square feet per dwelling unit of recreational area is required by section 4.16; label this
recreational area on the plan and indicate the square footage provided.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
6. [32.5.2(b)] The plan states that 52 parking spaces are provided, but it appears there are 53 spaces shown
on the plan; please clarify and revise if necessary.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
7. [32.5.2(1)] Label and clarify the proposed 8' multipurpose along Park View Drive as it is difficult to see the
path on the plans.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
8. [32.5.2(1)] Provide the Deed Book and Page Number for the plat /deed that established the access
easement that runs with Park View Drive. Additionally, a revised private maintenance agreement must be
submitted for review by the County Attorney's Office.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. Revised private road maintenance agreement must be
submitted for review and approval by the County Attorney's Office prior to site plan approval.
Rev2: Comment still valid.
Rev3: Comment still valid.
Rev4: Comment still valid.
Revs: Comment still valid.
9. [32.5.2(n)] Provide the maximum footprint for each existing and proposed building.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. The information provided is broken down by unit type and
labeled as "Max SY ", which indicates that it's the total square footage for each type of unit
(sometimes more than one unit per floor and /or multiple floors). Please also provide the maximum
footprint for each existing and proposed building.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
10. [32.5.2(n)] Label and dimension all walkways. Make sure they are distinguishable from travelways.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
11. [32.5.2(n)] Label all fences and note the height.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. A fence is now proposed around the newly added dumpster
pad; provide the height of this fence. To help determine if screening standards are met, include a
detail showing the design of the fence.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
12. [32.5.2(n)] Label all retaining walls with the maximum height.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
13. [32.5.2(n)] Clarify how trash storage and pick up will be accommodated.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
14. [32.5.2(n)] Clarify what the pad or gravel area is in between buildings 9 & 10.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
15. [32.5.2(n) & 4.12.16(c)6] Any parking space whose length is reduced to 16' must have a minimum 2' of
unobstructed overhang area. Verify that this unobstructed area exists in front of any reduced length parking
space and show it on the plan.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. It appears that several of the proposed light fixtures are
located within the required unobstructed overhang; move all obstructions out of these areas.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
16. [32.5.2(n) & 4.12.16(c)1] Parking spaces that are 9' wide must have an aisle width of 24'. The proposed
spaces to the right as you enter this development are 9' wide but the aisle is only 20' wide. Revise either
the spaces to 10' width or the aisle to 24' width.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
17. [32.6.2(f)] Dimension the radius of curb returns or edge of pavement.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
18. [32.5.2(1) & 32.6.2(g)] Please verify that the location of all existing and proposed utilities and utility
easements, including telephone, cable, electric and gas easements are shown on the plan. Any new
easements may be generally shown and dedicated by separate plat.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
19. [32.6.2(i)] Provide the angle of parking stalls for any that aren't perpendicular to the travelway.
Rev1: Comment addressed. Angled parking has been removed from the plan.
20. [32.6.20) & Comment] Please show utilities and associated easements on the landscape and lighting
plans to verify that no conflicts exist with plantings and lighting locations.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. Label all easements on the landscape and lighting sheets.
Additionally, ACSA must approve any proposed landscaping or lighting within their easements.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
21. [32.6.2(j), 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. It
appears that many of the existing trees are proposed to be used toward the tree canopy requirement, and
possibly the screening and street tree requirements. The landscape plan should 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. The applicant shall also
sign a conservation checklist approved by the agent to ensure that the specified trees will be protected
during construction. 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.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. Provide all relevant information including tree protection line,
notes, etc on the landscape plan as the E &S plan will now be removed from the plan set (see
Engineering comments). The Conservation Plan checklist must also be signed and dated.
Rev2: Comment not fully addressed. Several areas of tree protection shown on the E &S plan are
not shown or labeled on the landscape plan. The silt fence around the limits of disturbance (shown
on the E &S plan) also acts as tree protection fencing. Show all areas of tree protection on the
landscape plan. The Conservation Plan checklist must also be signed and dated prior to site plan
approval.
Rev3: Comment not fully addressed. The tree protection shown on the E &S plan is still not shown
and labeled on the landscape plan; please add this information. The silt fence (newly added to the
landscape plan) should be labeled. The Conservation Plan checklist must also be signed and dated
prior to site plan approval.
Rev4: Comment not fully addressed. The Conservation Plan checklist must be signed and dated
when the site plan is submitted for signature.
Rev5: Comment still valid.
22. [32.6.20), 32.7.9.4(b)] In addition to the above, clearly delineate the trees that are to be saved as there
appear to be some discrepancies between the demolition plan, the grading plan, and the landscape plan.
Any trees to be saved that are within 40' of any proposed disturbance require tree protection fencing. The
landscape plan and grading plans show proposed grading directly through areas of landscape that are
proposed to be saved; please clarify.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. There is a note on the E &S plan that references many of the
existing trees along the frontage of the property and basically states that the trees may or may not
remain on the site at the discretion of the owner and contractor during construction; this note
should also be included on the landscape plan. The approved Application Plan shows many of the
trees as remaining and notes supplemental planting along the street frontage as well. Revise your
note about possible removal to include a statement that if any of these trees are removed,
supplemental evergreen planting will be installed to help buffer views of the proposed development.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
23. [32.6.20), 32.7.9.5] Street trees are required along the existing road frontage at one large street tree per
fifty feet of road frontage. It appears that a few existing trees may be used to meet this requirement for a
portion of the frontage, but additional street trees should be added along the remaining portion.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
24. [32.6.20), 32.7.9.5(e)] Where parked cars will be visible from an off -site street, low shrubs should be
planted between the street and the parking area. Some screening shrubs have been provided, but
additional shrubs should be added to provide screening of all portions of the parking areas from the existing
street.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
25. [32.6.20) & 32.7.9.6(a)] An area of at least five (5) percent of the paved parking and vehicular circulation
area shall be landscaped with trees or shrubs. The note provided states 5% of the lot area is required;
please revise.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
26. [32.6.20) & 32.7.9.6(b)] The 5% landscaped area required in 32.7.9.6(a) shall be planted with a mixture of
shade trees and shrubs and shall include one (1) large or medium shade tree per ten (10) parking spaces or
portion thereof, if five (5) spaces or more. This plan requires 5 parking lot trees and proposes many large or
medium shade trees, but none of the trees are particularly close to the parking areas. Please either add
additional parking lot trees or move some of the proposed trees to provide shade in the parking areas.
Rev1: Comment addressed. However, if possible, please add one additional tree near Building 13 to
help provide shade for that 19 space parking lot.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
27. [32.6.20) & 32.7.9.7(a)] Parking areas of four or more spaces should be screened from adjacent residential
and rural area districts; add additional screening along the existing road frontage as well as between this
parcel and TMP 56 -67B or demonstrate how the current proposal adequately screens the parking.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. See comment #22 above; the note referenced is also
applicable to making sure parking is properly screened.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
28. [32.6.20) & 32.7.9.8] It appears the tree canopy requirement is being met primarily through the
preservation of existing trees. See comment above regarding the conservation plan checklist and the clear
delineation of what trees will remain and how they will be protected. Also, please clarify where the 200 sf
canopy number came from for the Malus; the County Plant Canopy Calculations lists 129 sf.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. The total canopy number provided for the "Site Landscaping
Plan Schedule" does not equal the sum of the numbers provided in the schedule; revise this number
in all applicable locations (for schedule, in overall total canopy calculation, & on cover sheet).
Rev2: Comment not fully addressed. The total canopy number still doesn't match the sum of the
numbers in the plant schedule (the numbers added together total 8953 sf, but the total is provided at
6174 sf ... it seems the Acer rubrum has been left out of the calculation ?) Verify and revise this
number in all applicable locations (schedule, in overall total canopy calculation, & on cover sheet).
Rev3: Comment addressed.
29. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] No lighting cut sheets were provided; cut sheets must be provided in the plan set for
each proposed fixture to verify if fixtures are full cutoff. These cut sheets should coordinate with the catalog
number provided in the luminaire schedule.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. The County's definition of full cutoff is, "The term "full cutoff
luminaire" means an outdoor light fixture shielded in such a manner that all light emitted by the
fixture, either directly from the lamp or indirectly from the fixture, is projected below the horizontal
plane." Fixture B is not full cutoff; very few, if any, bollard style fixtures meet this definition. Either
propose a different fixture or a different bulb /lamp that will drop the fixture below 3000 lumen.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
30. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] The luminaire schedule lists 23 as the quantity of fixture B proposed, but the plan only
appears to show 19 of this type of fixture; please clarify.
Revl : Comment addressed.
31. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] The luminaire schedule should list the tilt of each proposed fixture.
Revl : Comment addressed.
32. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] Show the proposed light locations on the site plan, utility plan and landscape plan to
demonstrate that there are no site conflicts.
Revl : Comment not fully addressed. As noted previously, some light locations are within the
required unobstructed parking overhang. These fixtures must be moved out of the overhang area.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
33. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] Revise the lighting note provided to the following standard lighting (the note provided is
slightly different): 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.
Revl : Comment addressed.
4
34. [Comment] Show, and provide documentation of, all off -site easements, including temporary and
permanent easements for the work that appears to be proposed on TMPs 56 -67B, 56 -67, 56A3 -1, 56A3 -7,
56 -68, and within the access easement for Park View Drive. Add the Deed Book and Page Number to any
existing easements. Any new easements must be submitted for review and approval, and recorded prior to
approval of this site plan.
Rev1: Comment still valid; all easements must be submitted for review and approval, and recorded
prior to Final Site Plan approval.
Rev2: Comment still valid; all easements must be submitted for review and approval, and recorded
prior to Final Site Plan approval.
Rev3: Comment still valid; all easements must be submitted to the County for review and approval,
and recorded prior to Final Site Plan approval.
Rev4: Comment still valid. Easement plats are currently under review; comments will be forwarded.
The plats must be approved and recorded prior to site plan approval.
Rev5: Comment still valid.
35. [Comment] This site plan cannot be approved until all site review committee members grant their approval.
Engineering, Zoning, E911, ACSA, and Fire /rescue comments have been provided. ARB and Inspections
had no objection to the first submittal. VDOT comments will be provided once received.
Rev1: Comment still valid. This site plan cannot be approved until all site review committee
members grant their approval. E911 comments have been provided (street names were previously
discussed via email, but they must be added to the plans). Fire /rescue has reviewed the revisions
and has no objection. ARB and Inspections had no objection to the first submittal. Engineering,
Zoning, ACSA and VDOT comments will be provided once received.
Rev2: Comment still valid. This site plan cannot be approved until all site review committee
members grant their approval. E911 comments have been provided. Fire /rescue, ARB and
Inspections had no objection to previous submittals. Engineering, Zoning, ACSA and VDOT
comments will be provided once received.
Rev3: Comment still valid. This site plan cannot be approved until all site review committee
members grant their approval. E911 and Engineering comments have been provided. Zoning,
VDOT, Fire /rescue, ARB and Inspections had no objection to previous submittals. ACSA comments
will be provided once received.
Rev4: Comment still valid. This site plan cannot be approved until all site review committee
members grant their approval. Engineering comments have been provided. All other reviewers
have completed their reviews and have no objection to the site plan.
Rev5: Comment still valid. Engineering comments will be forwarded upon receipt.
36. [32.5.2(d)] Due to a Zoning Text Amendment approved earlier this year, this parcel no longer contains
"critical slopes "; it has a much smaller area of "preserved slopes" based on the approved Overlay Map (see
County GIS). Remove the "critical slopes" and show the "preserved slopes" as represented on the
approved map (on the subject parcel and any adjacent parcel where work is proposed) and label them
accordingly. These slopes should be shown on the site plan as well as the existing conditions sheet, and
any sheet showing off -site improvements to give a better understanding of the proposed impacts to these
slopes. Disturbance of preserved slopes is allowed for public utilities (if no reasonable alternative exists),
but the proposed sewer connection appears to be a private line. It is unclear from the plan whether this
proposed line impacts any preserved slopes, but it will either need to avoid all impacts to preserved slopes
or apply for a Special Use Permit for approval of disturbance to the preserved slopes.
Rev2: Comment not fully addressed. First, both '25% or greater slopes' and `steep slopes,
managed and preserved' are shown on Sheet C1 -01. Slopes of 25% or greater no longer need to be
shown on the plan and `preserved' slopes must be differentiated from `managed' slopes (as they are
handled quite differently by the Zoning Ordinance). Steep slopes should be shown as they appear
in County GIS. Most of the slopes on this property and the other impacted properties are
`preserved' and must be labeled as such (only one small area of `managed' slopes is present).
Second, the slopes are only shown on the existing conditions sheet and not on the site plan, utility
plan, grading plan or any other plan that shows proposed disturbance /improvements. The slopes
must be shown on these plans to clarify if there is any proposed disturbance to `preserved' slopes.
As noted above, any disturbance to `preserved' slopes could require a special use permit for
approval.
Rev3: Comment not fully addressed. It appears that disturbance of preserved slopes is proposed
for both the adjacent property sewer connection and the off -site private sanitary sewer
connection /easement. As noted above, no impacts to preserved slopes are allowed for private
utilities without a special use permit. Relocate the sewer connections so that slope impacts are no
longer proposed, or apply for a special use permit to allow for these disturbances.
Rev4: Comment addressed; utilities have been relocated to eliminate disturbance to steep slopes.
37. [Comment] This Site Plan cannot be approved until the central sewerage system and the WPO application
have been approved.
Rev3: Comment still valid.
Rev4: Comment still valid.
Rev5: Comment still valid.
38. [Comment] As indicated in Engineering comments, show the stream buffer location on all parcels impacted
by off -site work.
Rev5: Comment not fully addressed. The stream buffer line on TMP56 -67 is not shown. The line
should be shown and labeled on sheets C1 -01, C1 -02 and C4 -02. There appears to be minor stream
buffer disturbance proposed within the right -of -way of Parkview Drive; see engineering comments
for information regarding mitigation, if required.
Please contact Ellie Ray in the Planning Division by using eray(jr.albemarle.org or 434 - 296 -5832 ext. 3432 for
further information.
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, VA, 22902
Phone 434 - 296 -5832 Fax 434 - 972 -4126
Memorandum
To: Kevin Conner, L.A. (kconner @gayandneel.com)
From: Ellie Ray, LA, Senior Planner
Division: Planning
Date: November 21, 2013
Revl: May 19, 2014
Rev2: August 26, 2014
Rev3: January 15, 2015
Rev4: March 6, 2015
Subject: SDP 200800074 Emerson Commons (formerly Blue Ridge and SheeFlee Co- Housing) — Final SDP
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.]
1. [32.5.2(a)] Label the southern boundary dimensions on the existing conditions sheet.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
2. [32.5.2(a)] Reference the ZMA (ZMA200700012) in the Zoning note.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
3. [32.5.2(a)] The waivers referenced in note #34 are incorrect; see the rezoning approval letter dated
12/21/07 and revise the waivers accordingly.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
4. [32.5.2(b)] This plan proposes to change or eliminate several elements that were shown on the approved
rezoning application plan. Zoning has determined that the "playground" shown on the application plan must
be provided or an equivalent amenity must be proposed; either include the playground or propose an
equivalent amenity for Zoning review. Please also consider adding back the walkway that was shown in
between the playground area and the existing pool as it provided better site circulation. The Director of
Planning has determined that the minor modifications to the parking and travelway layout along the front of
the site are in conformity with the application plan.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. The playground area is now shown, but a list of equipment
provided must also be included. See section 4.16.2.1 for requirements.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
5. [32.5.2(b)] 200 square feet per dwelling unit of recreational area is required by section 4.16; label this
recreational area on the plan and indicate the square footage provided.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
6. [32.5.2(b)] The plan states that 52 parking spaces are provided, but it appears there are 53 spaces shown
on the plan; please clarify and revise if necessary.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
7. [32.5.2(i)] Label and clarify the proposed 8' multipurpose along Park View Drive as it is difficult to see the
path on the plans.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
8. [32.5.2(i)] Provide the Deed Book and Page Number for the plat/deed that established the access
easement that runs with Park View Drive. Additionally, a revised private maintenance agreement must be
submitted for review by the County Attorney's Office.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. Revised private road maintenance agreement must be
submitted for review and approval by the County Attorney's Office prior to site plan approval.
Rev2: Comment still valid.
Rev3: Comment still valid.
Rev4: Comment still valid.
9. [32.5.2(n)] Provide the maximum footprint for each existing and proposed building.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. The information provided is broken down by unit type and
labeled as "Max SY ", which indicates that it's the total square footage for each type of unit
(sometimes more than one unit per floor and /or multiple floors). Please also provide the maximum
footprint for each existing and proposed building.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
10. [32.5.2(n)] Label and dimension all walkways. Make sure they are distinguishable from travelways.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
11. [32.5.2(n)] Label all fences and note the height.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. A fence is now proposed around the newly added dumpster
pad; provide the height of this fence. To help determine if screening standards are met, include a
detail showing the design of the fence.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
12. [32.5.2(n)] Label all retaining walls with the maximum height.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
13. [32.5.2(n)] Clarify how trash storage and pick up will be accommodated.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
14. [32.5.2(n)] Clarify what the pad or gravel area is in between buildings 9 & 10.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
15. [32.5.2(n) & 4.12.16(c)6] Any parking space whose length is reduced to 16' must have a minimum 2' of
unobstructed overhang area. Verify that this unobstructed area exists in front of any reduced length parking
space and show it on the plan.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. It appears that several of the proposed light fixtures are
located within the required unobstructed overhang; move all obstructions out of these areas.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
16. [32.5.2(n) & 4.12.16(c)1] Parking spaces that are 9' wide must have an aisle width of 24'. The proposed
spaces to the right as you enter this development are 9' wide but the aisle is only 20' wide. Revise either
the spaces to 10' width or the aisle to 24' width.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
17. [32.6.2(f)] Dimension the radius of curb returns or edge of pavement.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
18. [32.5.2(1) & 32.6.2(g)] Please verify that the location of all existing and proposed utilities and utility
easements, including telephone, cable, electric and gas easements are shown on the plan. Any new
easements may be generally shown and dedicated by separate plat.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
19. [32.6.2(i)] Provide the angle of parking stalls for any that aren't perpendicular to the travelway.
Rev1: Comment addressed. Angled parking has been removed from the plan.
20. [32.6.20) & Comment] Please show utilities and associated easements on the landscape and lighting
plans to verify that no conflicts exist with plantings and lighting locations.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. Label all easements on the landscape and lighting sheets.
Additionally, ACSA must approve any proposed landscaping or lighting within their easements.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
21. [32.6.2(j), 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. It
appears that many of the existing trees are proposed to be used toward the tree canopy requirement, and
possibly the screening and street tree requirements. The landscape plan should 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. The applicant shall also
sign a conservation checklist approved by the agent to ensure that the specified trees will be protected
during construction. 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.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. Provide all relevant information including tree protection line,
notes, etc on the landscape plan as the E &S plan will now be removed from the plan set (see
Engineering comments). The Conservation Plan checklist must also be signed and dated.
Rev2: Comment not fully addressed. Several areas of tree protection shown on the E &S plan are
not shown or labeled on the landscape plan. The silt fence around the limits of disturbance (shown
on the E &S plan) also acts as tree protection fencing. Show all areas of tree protection on the
landscape plan. The Conservation Plan checklist must also be signed and dated prior to site plan
approval.
Rev3: Comment not fully addressed. The tree protection shown on the E &S plan is still not shown
and labeled on the landscape plan; please add this information. The silt fence (newly added to the
landscape plan) should be labeled. The Conservation Plan checklist must also be signed and dated
prior to site plan approval.
Rev4: Comment not fully addressed. The Conservation Plan checklist must be signed and dated
when the site plan is submitted for signature.
22. [32.6.20), 32.7.9.4(b)] In addition to the above, clearly delineate the trees that are to be saved as there
appear to be some discrepancies between the demolition plan, the grading plan, and the landscape plan.
Any trees to be saved that are within 40' of any proposed disturbance require tree protection fencing. The
landscape plan and grading plans show proposed grading directly through areas of landscape that are
proposed to be saved; please clarify.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. There is a note on the E &S plan that references many of the
existing trees along the frontage of the property and basically states that the trees may or may not
remain on the site at the discretion of the owner and contractor during construction; this note
should also be included on the landscape plan. The approved Application Plan shows many of the
trees as remaining and notes supplemental planting along the street frontage as well. Revise your
note about possible removal to include a statement that if any of these trees are removed,
supplemental evergreen planting will be installed to help buffer views of the proposed development.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
23. [32.6.20), 32.7.9.5] Street trees are required along the existing road frontage at one large street tree per
fifty feet of road frontage. It appears that a few existing trees may be used to meet this requirement for a
portion of the frontage, but additional street trees should be added along the remaining portion.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
24. [32.6.20), 32.7.9.5(e)] Where parked cars will be visible from an off -site street, low shrubs should be
planted between the street and the parking area. Some screening shrubs have been provided, but
additional shrubs should be added to provide screening of all portions of the parking areas from the existing
street.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
25. [32.6.20) & 32.7.9.6(a)] An area of at least five (5) percent of the paved parking and vehicular circulation
area shall be landscaped with trees or shrubs. The note provided states 5% of the lot area is required;
please revise.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
26. [32.6.20) & 32.7.9.6(b)] The 5% landscaped area required in 32.7.9.6(a) shall be planted with a mixture of
shade trees and shrubs and shall include one (1) large or medium shade tree per ten (10) parking spaces or
portion thereof, if five (5) spaces or more. This plan requires 5 parking lot trees and proposes many large or
medium shade trees, but none of the trees are particularly close to the parking areas. Please either add
additional parking lot trees or move some of the proposed trees to provide shade in the parking areas.
Revl: Comment addressed. However, if possible, please add one additional tree near Building 13 to
help provide shade for that 19 space parking lot.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
27. [32.6.20) & 32.7.9.7(a)] Parking areas of four or more spaces should be screened from adjacent residential
and rural area districts; add additional screening along the existing road frontage as well as between this
parcel and TMP 56 -67B or demonstrate how the current proposal adequately screens the parking.
Revl : Comment not fully addressed. See comment #22 above; the note referenced is also
applicable to making sure parking is properly screened.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
28. [32.6.20) & 32.7.9.8] It appears the tree canopy requirement is being met primarily through the
preservation of existing trees. See comment above regarding the conservation plan checklist and the clear
delineation of what trees will remain and how they will be protected. Also, please clarify where the 200 sf
canopy number came from for the Malus; the County Plant Canopy Calculations lists 129 sf.
Revl : Comment not fully addressed. The total canopy number provided for the "Site Landscaping
Plan Schedule" does not equal the sum of the numbers provided in the schedule; revise this number
in all applicable locations (for schedule, in overall total canopy calculation, & on cover sheet).
Rev2: Comment not fully addressed. The total canopy number still doesn't match the sum of the
numbers in the plant schedule (the numbers added together total 8953 sf, but the total is provided at
6174 sf ... it seems the Acer rubrum has been left out of the calculation ?) Verify and revise this
number in all applicable locations (schedule, in overall total canopy calculation, & on cover sheet).
Rev3: Comment addressed.
29. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] No lighting cut sheets were provided; cut sheets must be provided in the plan set for
each proposed fixture to verify if fixtures are full cutoff. These cut sheets should coordinate with the catalog
number provided in the luminaire schedule.
Revl : Comment not fully addressed. The County's definition of full cutoff is, "The term "full cutoff
luminaire" means an outdoor light fixture shielded in such a manner that all light emitted by the
fixture, either directly from the lamp or indirectly from the fixture, is projected below the horizontal
plane." Fixture B is not full cutoff; very few, if any, bollard style fixtures meet this definition. Either
propose a different fixture or a different bulb /lamp that will drop the fixture below 3000 lumen.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
30. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] The luminaire schedule lists 23 as the quantity of fixture B proposed, but the plan only
appears to show 19 of this type of fixture; please clarify.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
31. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] The luminaire schedule should list the tilt of each proposed fixture.
Revl : Comment addressed.
32. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] Show the proposed light locations on the site plan, utility plan and landscape plan to
demonstrate that there are no site conflicts.
Revl : Comment not fully addressed. As noted previously, some light locations are within the
required unobstructed parking overhang. These fixtures must be moved out of the overhang area.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
33. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] Revise the lighting note provided to the following standard lighting (the note provided is
slightly different): 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.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
34. [Comment] Show, and provide documentation of, all off -site easements, including temporary and
permanent easements for the work that appears to be proposed on TMPs 56 -67B, 56 -67, 56A3 -1, 56A3 -7,
56 -68, and within the access easement for Park View Drive. Add the Deed Book and Page Number to any
existing easements. Any new easements must be submitted for review and approval, and recorded prior to
approval of this site plan.
Rev1: Comment still valid; all easements must be submitted for review and approval, and recorded
prior to Final Site Plan approval.
Rev2: Comment still valid; all easements must be submitted for review and approval, and recorded
prior to Final Site Plan approval.
Rev3: Comment still valid; all easements must be submitted to the County for review and approval,
and recorded prior to Final Site Plan approval.
Rev4: Comment still valid. Easement plats are currently under review; comments will be forwarded.
The plats must be approved and recorded prior to site plan approval.
35. [Comment] This site plan cannot be approved until all site review committee members grant their approval.
Engineering, Zoning, E911, ACSA, and Fire /rescue comments have been provided. ARB and Inspections
had no objection to the first submittal. VDOT comments will be provided once received.
Rev1: Comment still valid. This site plan cannot be approved until all site review committee
members grant their approval. E911 comments have been provided (street names were previously
discussed via email, but they must be added to the plans). Fire /rescue has reviewed the revisions
and has no objection. ARB and Inspections had no objection to the first submittal. Engineering,
Zoning, ACSA and VDOT comments will be provided once received.
Rev2: Comment still valid. This site plan cannot be approved until all site review committee
members grant their approval. E911 comments have been provided. Fire /rescue, ARB and
Inspections had no objection to previous submittals. Engineering, Zoning, ACSA and VDOT
comments will be provided once received.
Rev3: Comment still valid. This site plan cannot be approved until all site review committee
members grant their approval. E911 and Engineering comments have been provided. Zoning,
VDOT, Fire /rescue, ARB and Inspections had no objection to previous submittals. ACSA comments
will be provided once received.
Rev4: Comment still valid. This site plan cannot be approved until all site review committee
members grant their approval. Engineering comments have been provided. All other reviewers
have completed their reviews and have no objection to the site plan.
36. [32.5.2(d)] Due to a Zoning Text Amendment approved earlier this year, this parcel no longer contains
"critical slopes "; it has a much smaller area of "preserved slopes" based on the approved Overlay Map (see
County GIS). Remove the "critical slopes" and show the "preserved slopes" as represented on the
approved map (on the subject parcel and any adjacent parcel where work is proposed) and label them
accordingly. These slopes should be shown on the site plan as well as the existing conditions sheet, and
any sheet showing off -site improvements to give a better understanding of the proposed impacts to these
slopes. Disturbance of preserved slopes is allowed for public utilities (if no reasonable alternative exists),
but the proposed sewer connection appears to be a private line. It is unclear from the plan whether this
proposed line impacts any preserved slopes, but it will either need to avoid all impacts to preserved slopes
or apply for a Special Use Permit for approval of disturbance to the preserved slopes.
Rev2: Comment not fully addressed. First, both '25% or greater slopes' and `steep slopes,
managed and preserved' are shown on Sheet C1 -01. Slopes of 25% or greater no longer need to be
shown on the plan and `preserved' slopes must be differentiated from `managed' slopes (as they are
handled quite differently by the Zoning Ordinance). Steep slopes should be shown as they appear
in County GIS. Most of the slopes on this property and the other impacted properties are
`preserved' and must be labeled as such (only one small area of `managed' slopes is present).
Second, the slopes are only shown on the existing conditions sheet and not on the site plan, utility
plan, grading plan or any other plan that shows proposed disturbance /improvements. The slopes
must be shown on these plans to clarify if there is any proposed disturbance to `preserved' slopes.
As noted above, any disturbance to `preserved' slopes could require a special use permit for
approval.
Rev3: Comment not fully addressed. It appears that disturbance of preserved slopes is proposed
for both the adjacent property sewer connection and the off -site private sanitary sewer
connection /easement. As noted above, no impacts to preserved slopes are allowed for private
utilities without a special use permit. Relocate the sewer connections so that slope impacts are no
longer proposed, or apply for a special use permit to allow for these disturbances.
Rev4: Comment addressed; utilities have been relocated to eliminate disturbance to steep slopes.
37. [Comment] This Site Plan cannot be approved until the central sewerage system and the WPO application
have been approved.
Rev3: Comment still valid.
Rev4: Comment still valid.
38. [Comment] As indicated in Engineering comments, show the stream buffer location on all parcels impacted
by off -site work.
Please contact Ellie Ray in the Planning Division by using eray(LDalbemarle.org or 434 - 296 -5832 ext. 3432 for
further information.
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, VA, 22902
Phone 434 - 296 -5832 Fax 434 - 972 -4126
Memorandum
To: Kevin Conner, L.A. (kconner @gayandneel.com)
From: Ellie Ray, LA, Senior Planner
Division: Planning
Date: November 21, 2013
Revl: May 19, 2014
Rev2: August 26, 2014
Rev3: January 15, 2015
Subject: SDP 200800074 Emerson Commons (formerly Blue Ridge and SheeFlee Co- Housing) — Final SDP
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.]
1. [32.5.2(a)] Label the southern boundary dimensions on the existing conditions sheet.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
2. [32.5.2(a)] Reference the ZMA (ZMA200700012) in the Zoning note.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
3. [32.5.2(a)] The waivers referenced in note #34 are incorrect; see the rezoning approval letter dated
12/21/07 and revise the waivers accordingly.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
4. [32.5.2(b)] This plan proposes to change or eliminate several elements that were shown on the approved
rezoning application plan. Zoning has determined that the "playground" shown on the application plan must
be provided or an equivalent amenity must be proposed; either include the playground or propose an
equivalent amenity for Zoning review. Please also consider adding back the walkway that was shown in
between the playground area and the existing pool as it provided better site circulation. The Director of
Planning has determined that the minor modifications to the parking and travelway layout along the front of
the site are in conformity with the application plan.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. The playground area is now shown, but a list of equipment
provided must also be included. See section 4.16.2.1 for requirements.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
5. [32.5.2(b)] 200 square feet per dwelling unit of recreational area is required by section 4.16; label this
recreational area on the plan and indicate the square footage provided.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
6. [32.5.2(b)] The plan states that 52 parking spaces are provided, but it appears there are 53 spaces shown
on the plan; please clarify and revise if necessary.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
7. [32.5.2(i)] Label and clarify the proposed 8' multipurpose along Park View Drive as it is difficult to see the
path on the plans.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
8. [32.5.2(1)] Provide the Deed Book and Page Number for the plat /deed that established the access
easement that runs with Park View Drive. Additionally, a revised private maintenance agreement must be
submitted for review by the County Attorney's Office.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. Revised private road maintenance agreement must be
submitted for review and approval by the County Attorney's Office prior to site plan approval.
Rev2: Comment still valid.
Rev3: Comment still valid.
9. [32.5.2(n)] Provide the maximum footprint for each existing and proposed building.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. The information provided is broken down by unit type and
labeled as "Max SY ", which indicates that it's the total square footage for each type of unit
(sometimes more than one unit per floor and /or multiple floors). Please also provide the maximum
footprint for each existing and proposed building.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
10. [32.5.2(n)] Label and dimension all walkways. Make sure they are distinguishable from travelways.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
11. [32.5.2(n)] Label all fences and note the height.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. A fence is now proposed around the newly added dumpster
pad; provide the height of this fence. To help determine if screening standards are met, include a
detail showing the design of the fence.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
12. [32.5.2(n)] Label all retaining walls with the maximum height.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
13. [32.5.2(n)] Clarify how trash storage and pick up will be accommodated.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
14. [32.5.2(n)] Clarify what the pad or gravel area is in between buildings 9 & 10.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
15. [32.5.2(n) & 4.12.16(c)6] Any parking space whose length is reduced to 16' must have a minimum 2' of
unobstructed overhang area. Verify that this unobstructed area exists in front of any reduced length parking
space and show it on the plan.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. It appears that several of the proposed light fixtures are
located within the required unobstructed overhang; move all obstructions out of these areas.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
16. [32.5.2(n) & 4.12.16(c)1] Parking spaces that are 9' wide must have an aisle width of 24'. The proposed
spaces to the right as you enter this development are 9' wide but the aisle is only 20' wide. Revise either
the spaces to 10' width or the aisle to 24' width.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
17. [32.6.2(f)] Dimension the radius of curb returns or edge of pavement.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
18. [32.5.2(1) & 32.6.2(g)] Please verify that the location of all existing and proposed utilities and utility
easements, including telephone, cable, electric and gas easements are shown on the plan. Any new
easements may be generally shown and dedicated by separate plat.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
19. [32.6.2(i)] Provide the angle of parking stalls for any that aren't perpendicular to the travelway.
Rev1: Comment addressed. Angled parking has been removed from the plan.
20. [32.6.20) & Comment] Please show utilities and associated easements on the landscape and lighting
plans to verify that no conflicts exist with plantings and lighting locations.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. Label all easements on the landscape and lighting sheets.
Additionally, ACSA must approve any proposed landscaping or lighting within their easements.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
21. [32.6.20), 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. It
appears that many of the existing trees are proposed to be used toward the tree canopy requirement, and
possibly the screening and street tree requirements. The landscape plan should 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. The applicant shall also
sign a conservation checklist approved by the agent to ensure that the specified trees will be protected
during construction. 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.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. Provide all relevant information including tree protection line,
notes, etc on the landscape plan as the E &S plan will now be removed from the plan set (see
Engineering comments). The Conservation Plan checklist must also be signed and dated.
Rev2: Comment not fully addressed. Several areas of tree protection shown on the E &S plan are
not shown or labeled on the landscape plan. The silt fence around the limits of disturbance (shown
on the E &S plan) also acts as tree protection fencing. Show all areas of tree protection on the
landscape plan. The Conservation Plan checklist must also be signed and dated prior to site plan
approval.
Rev3: Comment not fully addressed. The tree protection shown on the E &S plan is still not shown
and labeled on the landscape plan; please add this information. The silt fence (newly added to the
landscape plan) should be labeled. The Conservation Plan checklist must also be signed and dated
prior to site plan approval.
22. [32.6.20), 32.7.9.4(b)] In addition to the above, clearly delineate the trees that are to be saved as there
appear to be some discrepancies between the demolition plan, the grading plan, and the landscape plan.
Any trees to be saved that are within 40' of any proposed disturbance require tree protection fencing. The
landscape plan and grading plans show proposed grading directly through areas of landscape that are
proposed to be saved; please clarify.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. There is a note on the E &S plan that references many of the
existing trees along the frontage of the property and basically states that the trees may or may not
remain on the site at the discretion of the owner and contractor during construction; this note
should also be included on the landscape plan. The approved Application Plan shows many of the
trees as remaining and notes supplemental planting along the street frontage as well. Revise your
note about possible removal to include a statement that if any of these trees are removed,
supplemental evergreen planting will be installed to help buffer views of the proposed development.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
23. [32.6.20), 32.7.9.5] Street trees are required along the existing road frontage at one large street tree per
fifty feet of road frontage. It appears that a few existing trees may be used to meet this requirement for a
portion of the frontage, but additional street trees should be added along the remaining portion.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
24. [32.6.20), 32.7.9.5(e)] Where parked cars will be visible from an off -site street, low shrubs should be
planted between the street and the parking area. Some screening shrubs have been provided, but
additional shrubs should be added to provide screening of all portions of the parking areas from the existing
street.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
25. [32.6.20) & 32.7.9.6(a)] An area of at least five (5) percent of the paved parking and vehicular circulation
area shall be landscaped with trees or shrubs. The note provided states 5% of the lot area is required;
please revise.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
26. [32.6.20) & 32.7.9.6(b)] The 5% landscaped area required in 32.7.9.6(a) shall be planted with a mixture of
shade trees and shrubs and shall include one (1) large or medium shade tree per ten (10) parking spaces or
portion thereof, if five (5) spaces or more. This plan requires 5 parking lot trees and proposes many large or
medium shade trees, but none of the trees are particularly close to the parking areas. Please either add
additional parking lot trees or move some of the proposed trees to provide shade in the parking areas.
Revl: Comment addressed. However, if possible, please add one additional tree near Building 13 to
help provide shade for that 19 space parking lot.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
27. [32.6.20) & 32.7.9.7(a)] Parking areas of four or more spaces should be screened from adjacent residential
and rural area districts; add additional screening along the existing road frontage as well as between this
parcel and TMP 56 -67B or demonstrate how the current proposal adequately screens the parking.
Revl : Comment not fully addressed. See comment #22 above; the note referenced is also
applicable to making sure parking is properly screened.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
28. [32.6.20) & 32.7.9.8] It appears the tree canopy requirement is being met primarily through the
preservation of existing trees. See comment above regarding the conservation plan checklist and the clear
delineation of what trees will remain and how they will be protected. Also, please clarify where the 200 sf
canopy number came from for the Malus; the County Plant Canopy Calculations lists 129 sf.
Revl : Comment not fully addressed. The total canopy number provided for the "Site Landscaping
Plan Schedule" does not equal the sum of the numbers provided in the schedule; revise this number
in all applicable locations (for schedule, in overall total canopy calculation, & on cover sheet).
Rev2: Comment not fully addressed. The total canopy number still doesn't match the sum of the
numbers in the plant schedule (the numbers added together total 8953 sf, but the total is provided at
6174 sf ... it seems the Acer rubrum has been left out of the calculation ?) Verify and revise this
number in all applicable locations (schedule, in overall total canopy calculation, & on cover sheet).
Rev3: Comment addressed.
29. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] No lighting cut sheets were provided; cut sheets must be provided in the plan set for
each proposed fixture to verify if fixtures are full cutoff. These cut sheets should coordinate with the catalog
number provided in the luminaire schedule.
Revl : Comment not fully addressed. The County's definition of full cutoff is, "The term "full cutoff
luminaire" means an outdoor light fixture shielded in such a manner that all light emitted by the
fixture, either directly from the lamp or indirectly from the fixture, is projected below the horizontal
plane." Fixture B is not full cutoff; very few, if any, bollard style fixtures meet this definition. Either
propose a different fixture or a different bulb /lamp that will drop the fixture below 3000 lumen.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
30. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] The luminaire schedule lists 23 as the quantity of fixture B proposed, but the plan only
appears to show 19 of this type of fixture; please clarify.
Revl : Comment addressed.
31. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] The luminaire schedule should list the tilt of each proposed fixture.
Revl : Comment addressed.
32. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] Show the proposed light locations on the site plan, utility plan and landscape plan to
demonstrate that there are no site conflicts.
Revl : Comment not fully addressed. As noted previously, some light locations are within the
required unobstructed parking overhang. These fixtures must be moved out of the overhang area.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
33. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] Revise the lighting note provided to the following standard lighting (the note provided is
slightly different): 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.
Revl : Comment addressed.
34. [Comment] Show, and provide documentation of, all off -site easements, including temporary and
permanent easements for the work that appears to be proposed on TMPs 56 -67B, 56 -67, 56A3 -1, 56A3 -7,
56 -68, and within the access easement for Park View Drive. Add the Deed Book and Page Number to any
existing easements. Any new easements must be submitted for review and approval, and recorded prior to
approval of this site plan.
Rev1: Comment still valid; all easements must be submitted for review and approval, and recorded
prior to Final Site Plan approval.
Rev2: Comment still valid; all easements must be submitted for review and approval, and recorded
prior to Final Site Plan approval.
Rev3: Comment still valid; all easements must be submitted to the County for review and approval,
and recorded prior to Final Site Plan approval.
35. [Comment] This site plan cannot be approved until all site review committee members grant their approval.
Engineering, Zoning, E911, ACSA, and Fire /rescue comments have been provided. ARB and Inspections
had no objection to the first submittal. VDOT comments will be provided once received.
Rev1: Comment still valid. This site plan cannot be approved until all site review committee
members grant their approval. E911 comments have been provided (street names were previously
discussed via email, but they must be added to the plans). Fire /rescue has reviewed the revisions
and has no objection. ARB and Inspections had no objection to the first submittal. Engineering,
Zoning, ACSA and VDOT comments will be provided once received.
Rev2: Comment still valid. This site plan cannot be approved until all site review committee
members grant their approval. E911 comments have been provided. Fire /rescue, ARB and
Inspections had no objection to previous submittals. Engineering, Zoning, ACSA and VDOT
comments will be provided once received.
Rev3: Comment still valid. This site plan cannot be approved until all site review committee
members grant their approval. E911 and Engineering comments have been provided. Zoning,
VDOT, Fire /rescue, ARB and Inspections had no objection to previous submittals. ACSA comments
will be provided once received.
36. [32.5.2(d)] Due to a Zoning Text Amendment approved earlier this year, this parcel no longer contains
"critical slopes "; it has a much smaller area of "preserved slopes" based on the approved Overlay Map (see
County GIS). Remove the "critical slopes" and show the "preserved slopes" as represented on the
approved map (on the subject parcel and any adjacent parcel where work is proposed) and label them
accordingly. These slopes should be shown on the site plan as well as the existing conditions sheet, and
any sheet showing off -site improvements to give a better understanding of the proposed impacts to these
slopes. Disturbance of preserved slopes is allowed for public utilities (if no reasonable alternative exists),
but the proposed sewer connection appears to be a private line. It is unclear from the plan whether this
proposed line impacts any preserved slopes, but it will either need to avoid all impacts to preserved slopes
or apply for a Special Use Permit for approval of disturbance to the preserved slopes.
Rev2: Comment not fully addressed. First, both `25% or greater slopes' and `steep slopes,
managed and preserved' are shown on Sheet C1 -01. Slopes of 25% or greater no longer need to be
shown on the plan and `preserved' slopes must be differentiated from `managed' slopes (as they are
handled quite differently by the Zoning Ordinance). Steep slopes should be shown as they appear
in County GIS. Most of the slopes on this property and the other impacted properties are
`preserved' and must be labeled as such (only one small area of `managed' slopes is present).
Second, the slopes are only shown on the existing conditions sheet and not on the site plan, utility
plan, grading plan or any other plan that shows proposed disturbance /improvements. The slopes
must be shown on these plans to clarify if there is any proposed disturbance to `preserved' slopes.
As noted above, any disturbance to `preserved' slopes could require a special use permit for
approval.
Rev3: Comment not fully addressed. It appears that disturbance of preserved slopes is proposed
for both the adjacent property sewer connection and the off -site private sanitary sewer
connection /easement. As noted above, no impacts to preserved slopes are allowed for private
utilities without a special use permit. Relocate the sewer connections so that slope impacts are no
longer proposed, or apply for a special use permit to allow for these disturbances.
37. [Comment] This Site Plan cannot be approved until the central sewerage system and the WPO application
have been approved.
Rev3: Comment still valid.
Please contact Ellie Ray in the Planning Division by using eray(@albemarle.org or 434 - 296 -5832 ext. 3432 for
further information.
�pF A
c--
kn
t ?RGSNtP
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:
Sheeflee Cohousing —Final Site Plan
Review Coordinator:
Ellie Ray
Plan preparer:
Kevin Conner, Gay and Neel, Inc [ 1260 Radford Streen, Christiansburg, VA
24073 — kconner @gayandneel.com]
Owner or rep.:
Peter Lazar, Sheeflee LLC [1730 Sage Lane, Blacksburg, VA 24060
peterlazar@gmail.co
Plan received date:
5- May -2014
(Rev. 1)
18- August 2014
Date of comments:
6 -Jun- 2014
(Rev. 1)
3- October 2014
Reviewer:
John Anderson
A. Final Site Plan (SDP200800074)
1. C1 -01: Replace (or supplement) shaded areas that show 25% or greater slopes with critical slopes (managed
and preserved) — see County GIS Web Map. —ref. 18 -30.7 Steep Slopes overlay district (Rev. 1) Comment
addressed; §30.7.4.b. L(c) /(g) for by -right permitted use of preserved slopes.
2. Identify location and size of existing water and sewer facilities, especially existing septic fields (Ch. 18
§32.5.2.j.) (Rev. 1) Comment addressed. See Gay and Neel comment response letter, 13 -Aug 2014
(existing locations unknown, except as shown).
3. Show the location of proposed utilities and utility easements, including telephone, electric, cable, and gas.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed; request noted. Easements are to be shown on final plat. —Gay and Neel
comment response letter, 13 -Aug 2014.
4. Project proposes to establish a central sewerage system. Please reference AC Ch. 16, §16 -100 — 16 -105 for
requirements that apply to proposed pump station and sanitary lines deemed private. See also letter from
Alexander Morrison, ACSA, to John Neel, Gay and Neel, dated May 6, 2014. (Rev. 1) Comment
addressed. Ref Gay and Neel response letter, 13 -Aug 2014; also, 3 -Oct discussion, J.Anderson/K. Conner.
G &N will time notice to clerk of BOS at least sixty (60) days prior to construction —ref § 16 -102.
Link to ordinance:
httn: / /www.albemarle .ore /unload/iTnaees/Forms Center/Denartments /County Attornev /Forms /Albemarle Countv C
ode _Ch16_ Waste _& Water Systems.pdf
[Sec. 16 -102 Notice of proposal to establish system or supply.
Each person who proposes to establish or extend a central sewerage system or a central water supply shall
notify the board of supervisors of the proposal at least sixty (60) days prior to commencing construction
thereof. The notice shall be filed with the clerk of the board of supervisors. In addition to the foregoing
information, the notice shall include the following:
1. The location of the proposed central sewerage system or central water supply;
2. The number of connections proposed to be served by the central sewerage system or central water supply;
3. A statement describing the type of the proposed central sewerage system or central water supply and
explaining the reasons the system or supply is needed; and
4. Three (3) copies of the preliminary plans for the central sewerage system or central water supply.]
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 2
5. Travelways within the development are not constructed to the standards of the Virginia Department of
Transportation, or Albemarle County design standards for private streets [ref. 18- 32.7.2.2. ]. These homes
will not have adequate infrastructure for later subdivision [ref. Code section 14 -232, and Code Chapter 14,
Article IV, Division 21. While this may be approvable by the agent under the zoning regulations as a site in
common between all residents, it is not recommended. The intent of the referenced code sections is to
provide safe and convenient access and this will be creating a set of dwellings that are substandard in this
regard. (Rev. 1) Comment addressed. Gay and Neel response, 13 -Aug 2014: "Property not intended to
be subdivided."
File: SDP200800074- sheeflee cohousing- 100314rev1
N.
COMMONWEALTH of 'VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper Virginia 22701
Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E.
Commissioner
August 29, 2014
Ms. Ellie Carter Ray
Senior Planner
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: SDP - 2008 -00074 Sheeflee Cohousing
Dear Ms. Ray:
We have reviewed the site plan for Sheeflee Cohousing dated 8/11/14 as submitted by Gay and
Neel, Inc. and offer the following comments:
1. All prior review comments have been adequately addressed and VDOT has no objection
to the approval of the site plan as submitted.
2. A Land Use Permit will need to be obtained from this office for all construction within
dedicated right -of -way prior to commencement of construction activities.
If you need additional information concerning this project, please do not hesitate to contact me at
(434) 422 -9782.
Sincerely,
Troy Austin, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Culpeper District
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, VA, 22902
Phone 434 - 296 -5832
Fax 434 - 972 -4126
Memorandum
To: Kevin Conner, L.A. (kconner @gayandneel.com)
From: Ellie Ray, LA, Senior Planner
Division: Planning
Date: November 21, 2013
Revl: May 19, 2014
Rev2: August 26, 2014
Subject: SDP 200800074 SheeFlee Co- Housing (formerly Blue Ridge) — Final Site Development Plan
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.]
1. [32.5.2(a)] Label the southern boundary dimensions on the existing conditions sheet.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
2. [32.5.2(a)] Reference the ZMA (ZMA200700012) in the Zoning note.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
3. [32.5.2(a)] The waivers referenced in note #34 are incorrect; see the rezoning approval letter dated
12/21/07 and revise the waivers accordingly.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
4. [32.5.2(b)] This plan proposes to change or eliminate several elements that were shown on the approved
rezoning application plan. Zoning has determined that the "playground" shown on the application plan must
be provided or an equivalent amenity must be proposed; either include the playground or propose an
equivalent amenity for Zoning review. Please also consider adding back the walkway that was shown in
between the playground area and the existing pool as it provided better site circulation. The Director of
Planning has determined that the minor modifications to the parking and travelway layout along the front of
the site are in conformity with the application plan.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. The playground area is now shown, but a list of equipment
provided must also be included. See section 4.16.2.1 for requirements.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
5. [32.5.2(b)] 200 square feet per dwelling unit of recreational area is required by section 4.16; label this
recreational area on the plan and indicate the square footage provided.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
6. [32.5.2(b)] The plan states that 52 parking spaces are provided, but it appears there are 53 spaces shown
on the plan; please clarify and revise if necessary.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
7. [32.5.2(i)] Label and clarify the proposed 8' multipurpose along Park View Drive as it is difficult to see the
path on the plans.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
8. [32.5.2(i)] Provide the Deed Book and Page Number for the plat/deed that established the access
easement that runs with Park View Drive. Additionally, a revised private maintenance agreement must be
submitted for review by the County Attorney's Office.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. Revised private road maintenance agreement must be
submitted for review and approval by the County Attorney's Office prior to site plan approval.
Rev2: Comment still valid.
9. [32.5.2(n)] Provide the maximum footprint for each existing and proposed building.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. The information provided is broken down by unit type and
labeled as "Max SY ", which indicates that it's the total square footage for each type of unit
(sometimes more than one unit per floor and /or multiple floors). Please also provide the maximum
footprint for each existing and proposed building.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
10. [32.5.2(n)] Label and dimension all walkways. Make sure they are distinguishable from travelways.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
11. [32.5.2(n)] Label all fences and note the height.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. A fence is now proposed around the newly added dumpster
pad; provide the height of this fence. To help determine if screening standards are met, include a
detail showing the design of the fence.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
12. [32.5.2(n)] Label all retaining walls with the maximum height.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
13. [32.5.2(n)] Clarify how trash storage and pick up will be accommodated.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
14. [32.5.2(n)] Clarify what the pad or gravel area is in between buildings 9 & 10.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
15. [32.5.2(n) & 4.12.16(c)6] Any parking space whose length is reduced to 16' must have a minimum 2' of
unobstructed overhang area. Verify that this unobstructed area exists in front of any reduced length parking
space and show it on the plan.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. It appears that several of the proposed light fixtures are
located within the required unobstructed overhang; move all obstructions out of these areas.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
16. [32.5.2(n) & 4.12.16(c)1] Parking spaces that are 9' wide must have an aisle width of 24'. The proposed
spaces to the right as you enter this development are 9' wide but the aisle is only 20' wide. Revise either
the spaces to 10' width or the aisle to 24' width.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
17. [32.6.2(f)] Dimension the radius of curb returns or edge of pavement.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
18. [32.5.2(1) & 32.6.2(g)] Please verify that the location of all existing and proposed utilities and utility
easements, including telephone, cable, electric and gas easements are shown on the plan. Any new
easements may be generally shown and dedicated by separate plat.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
19. [32.6.2(i)] Provide the angle of parking stalls for any that aren't perpendicular to the travelway.
Rev1: Comment addressed. Angled parking has been removed from the plan.
20. [32.6.20) & Comment] Please show utilities and associated easements on the landscape and lighting
plans to verify that no conflicts exist with plantings and lighting locations.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. Label all easements on the landscape and lighting sheets.
Additionally, ACSA must approve any proposed landscaping or lighting within their easements.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
21. [32.6.20), 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. It
appears that many of the existing trees are proposed to be used toward the tree canopy requirement, and
possibly the screening and street tree requirements. The landscape plan should 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. The applicant shall also
sign a conservation checklist approved by the agent to ensure that the specified trees will be protected
during construction. 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.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. Provide all relevant information including tree protection line,
notes, etc on the landscape plan as the E &S plan will now be removed from the plan set (see
Engineering comments). The Conservation Plan checklist must also be signed and dated.
Rev2: Comment not fully addressed. Several areas of tree protection shown on the E &S plan are
not shown or labeled on the landscape plan. The silt fence around the limits of disturbance (shown
on the E &S plan) also acts as tree protection fencing. Show all areas of tree protection on the
landscape plan. The Conservation Plan checklist must also be signed and dated prior to site plan
approval.
22. [32.6.20), 32.7.9.4(b)] In addition to the above, clearly delineate the trees that are to be saved as there
appear to be some discrepancies between the demolition plan, the grading plan, and the landscape plan.
Any trees to be saved that are within 40' of any proposed disturbance require tree protection fencing. The
landscape plan and grading plans show proposed grading directly through areas of landscape that are
proposed to be saved; please clarify.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. There is a note on the E &S plan that references many of the
existing trees along the frontage of the property and basically states that the trees may or may not
remain on the site at the discretion of the owner and contractor during construction; this note
should also be included on the landscape plan. The approved Application Plan shows many of the
trees as remaining and notes supplemental planting along the street frontage as well. Revise your
note about possible removal to include a statement that if any of these trees are removed,
supplemental evergreen planting will be installed to help buffer views of the proposed development.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
23. [32.6.20), 32.7.9.5] Street trees are required along the existing road frontage at one large street tree per
fifty feet of road frontage. It appears that a few existing trees may be used to meet this requirement for a
portion of the frontage, but additional street trees should be added along the remaining portion.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
24. [32.6.20), 32.7.9.5(e)] Where parked cars will be visible from an off -site street, low shrubs should be
planted between the street and the parking area. Some screening shrubs have been provided, but
additional shrubs should be added to provide screening of all portions of the parking areas from the existing
street.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
25. [32.6.20) & 32.7.9.6(a)] An area of at least five (5) percent of the paved parking and vehicular circulation
area shall be landscaped with trees or shrubs. The note provided states 5% of the lot area is required;
please revise.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
26. [32.6.20) & 32.7.9.6(b)] The 5% landscaped area required in 32.7.9.6(a) shall be planted with a mixture of
shade trees and shrubs and shall include one (1) large or medium shade tree per ten (10) parking spaces or
portion thereof, if five (5) spaces or more. This plan requires 5 parking lot trees and proposes many large or
medium shade trees, but none of the trees are particularly close to the parking areas. Please either add
additional parking lot trees or move some of the proposed trees to provide shade in the parking areas.
Rev1: Comment addressed. However, if possible, please add one additional tree near Building 13 to
help provide shade for that 19 space parking lot.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
27. [32.6.20) & 32.7.9.7(a)] Parking areas of four or more spaces should be screened from adjacent residential
and rural area districts; add additional screening along the existing road frontage as well as between this
parcel and TMP 56 -67B or demonstrate how the current proposal adequately screens the parking.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. See comment #22 above; the note referenced is also
applicable to making sure parking is properly screened.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
28. [32.6.20) & 32.7.9.8] It appears the tree canopy requirement is being met primarily through the
preservation of existing trees. See comment above regarding the conservation plan checklist and the clear
delineation of what trees will remain and how they will be protected. Also, please clarify where the 200 sf
canopy number came from for the Malus; the County Plant Canopy Calculations lists 129 sf.
Revl: Comment not fully addressed. The total canopy number provided for the "Site Landscaping
Plan Schedule" does not equal the sum of the numbers provided in the schedule; revise this number
in all applicable locations (for schedule, in overall total canopy calculation, & on cover sheet).
Rev2: Comment not fully addressed. The total canopy number still doesn't match the sum of the
numbers in the plant schedule (the numbers added together total 8953 sf, but the total is provided at
6174 sf ... it seems the Acer rubrum has been left out of the calculation ?) Verify and revise this
number in all applicable locations (schedule, in overall total canopy calculation, & on cover sheet).
29. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] No lighting cut sheets were provided; cut sheets must be provided in the plan set for
each proposed fixture to verify if fixtures are full cutoff. These cut sheets should coordinate with the catalog
number provided in the luminaire schedule.
Revl: Comment not fully addressed. The County's definition of full cutoff is, "The term "full cutoff
luminaire" means an outdoor light fixture shielded in such a manner that all light emitted by the
fixture, either directly from the lamp or indirectly from the fixture, is projected below the horizontal
plane." Fixture B is not full cutoff; very few, if any, bollard style fixtures meet this definition. Either
propose a different fixture or a different bulb /lamp that will drop the fixture below 3000 lumen.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
30. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] The luminaire schedule lists 23 as the quantity of fixture B proposed, but the plan only
appears to show 19 of this type of fixture; please clarify.
Revl: Comment addressed.
31. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] The luminaire schedule should list the tilt of each proposed fixture.
Revl: Comment addressed.
32. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] Show the proposed light locations on the site plan, utility plan and landscape plan to
demonstrate that there are no site conflicts.
Revl: Comment not fully addressed. As noted previously, some light locations are within the
required unobstructed parking overhang. These fixtures must be moved out of the overhang area.
Rev2: Comment addressed.
33. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] Revise the lighting note provided to the following standard lighting (the note provided is
slightly different): 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.
Revl: Comment addressed.
34. [Comment] Show, and provide documentation of, all off -site easements, including temporary and
permanent easements for the work that appears to be proposed on TMPs 56 -67B, 56 -67, 56A3 -1, 56A3 -7,
56 -68, and within the access easement for Park View Drive. Add the Deed Book and Page Number to any
existing easements. Any new easements must be submitted for review and approval, and recorded prior to
approval of this site plan.
Revl: Comment still valid; all easements must be submitted for review and approval, and recorded
prior to Final Site Plan approval.
Rev2: Comment still valid; all easements must be submitted for review and approval, and recorded
prior to Final Site Plan approval.
35. [Comment] This site plan cannot be approved until all site review committee members grant their approval.
Engineering, Zoning, E911, ACSA, and Fire /rescue comments have been provided. ARB and Inspections
had no objection to the first submittal. VDOT comments will be provided once received.
Rev1: Comment still valid. This site plan cannot be approved until all site review committee
members grant their approval. E911 comments have been provided (street names were previously
discussed via email, but they must be added to the plans). Fire /rescue has reviewed the revisions
and has no objection. ARB and Inspections had no objection to the first submittal. Engineering,
Zoning, ACSA and VDOT comments will be provided once received.
Rev2: Comment still valid. This site plan cannot be approved until all site review committee
members grant their approval. E911 comments have been provided. Fire /rescue, ARB and
Inspections had no objection to previous submittals. Engineering, Zoning, ACSA and VDOT
comments will be provided once received.
36. [32.5.2(d)] Due to a Zoning Text Amendment approved earlier this year, this parcel no longer contains
"critical slopes "; it has a much smaller area of "preserved slopes" based on the approved Overlay Map (see
County GIS). Remove the "critical slopes" and show the "preserved slopes" as represented on the
approved map (on the subject parcel and any adjacent parcel where work is proposed) and label them
accordingly. These slopes should be shown on the site plan as well as the existing conditions sheet, and
any sheet showing off -site improvements to give a better understanding of the proposed impacts to these
slopes. Disturbance of preserved slopes is allowed for public utilities (if no reasonable alternative exists),
but the proposed sewer connection appears to be a private line. It is unclear from the plan whether this
proposed line impacts any preserved slopes, but it will either need to avoid all impacts to preserved slopes
or apply for a Special Use Permit for approval of disturbance to the preserved slopes.
Rev2: Comment not fully addressed. First, both `25% or greater slopes' and `steep slopes,
managed and preserved' are shown on Sheet C1 -01. Slopes of 25% or greater no longer need to be
shown on the plan and `preserved' slopes must be differentiated from `managed' slopes (as they are
handled quite differently by the Zoning Ordinance). Steep slopes should be shown as they appear
in County GIS. Most of the slopes on this property and the other impacted properties are
`preserved' and must be labeled as such (only one small area of `managed' slopes is present).
Second, the slopes are only shown on the existing conditions sheet and not on the site plan, utility
plan, grading plan or any other plan that shows proposed disturbance /improvements. The slopes
must be shown on these plans to clarify if there is any proposed disturbance to `preserved' slopes.
As noted above, any disturbance to `preserved' slopes could require a special use permit for
approval.
37. [Comment] This Site Plan cannot be approved until the central sewerage system and the WPO application
have been approved.
Please contact Ellie Ray in the Planning Division by using eray(jr.albemarle.org or 434 - 296 -5832 ext. 3432 for
further information.
�pF A
vt�r�1Q
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
Project: Sheeflee Cohousing
Review Coordinator: Ellie Ray
Plan preparer: Kevin Conner, Gay and Neel, Inc [ 1260 Radford Streen, Christiansburg, VA
24073 — kconner @gayandneel.com]
Owner or rep.: Peter Lazar, Sheeflee LLC [1730 Sage Lane, Blacksburg, VA 24060
p eterlazar(a) gmail. com]
Plan received date: 5- May -2014
Date of comments: 6 -Jun- 2014
Reviewer: John Anderson
A. Final Site Plan (SDP200800074)
1. C1 -01: Replace (or supplement) shaded areas that show 25% or greater slopes with critical slopes (managed
and preserved) — see County GIS Web Map. —ref. 18 -30.7 Steep Slopes overlay district
2. Identify location and size of existing water and sewer facilities, especially existing septic fields (Ch. 18
§32.5.2.j.)
3. Show the location of proposed utilities and utility easements, including telephone, electric, cable, and gas.
4. Project proposes to establish a central sewerage system. Please reference AC Ch. 16, § 16 -100 — 16 -105 for
requirements that apply to proposed pump station and sanitary lines deemed private. See also letter from
Alexander Morrison, ACSA, to John Neel, Gay and Neel, dated May 6, 2014.
Link to ordinance:
httn:// www. albemarle .org/unload /imaaes/Fonns Center /Departments /County Attornev /Forms /Albemarle Countv C
ode _Ch16_ Waste _& Water_Systems.pdf
[Sec. 16 -102 Notice of proposal to establish system or supply.
Each person who proposes to establish or extend a central sewerage system or a central water supply shall
notify the board of supervisors of the proposal at least sixty (60) days prior to commencing construction
thereof. The notice shall be filed with the clerk of the board of supervisors. In addition to the foregoing
information, the notice shall include the following:
1. The location of the proposed central sewerage system or central water supply;
2. The number of connections proposed to be served by the central sewerage system or central water supply;
3. A statement describing the type of the proposed central sewerage system or central water supply and
explaining the reasons the system or supply is needed; and
4. Three (3) copies of the preliminary plans for the central sewerage system or central water supply.]
5. Travelways within the development are not constructed to the standards of the Virginia Department of
Transportation, or Albemarle County design standards for private streets [ref. 18- 32.7.2.2.]. These homes
will not have adequate infrastructure for later subdivision [ref. Code section 14 -232, and Code Chapter 14,
Article IV, Division 2]. While this may be approvable by the agent under the zoning regulations as a site in
common between all residents, it is not recommended. The intent of the referenced code sections is to
provide safe and convenient access and this will be creating a set of dwellings that are substandard in this
regard
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 2
File: SDP200800074- sheeflee cohousing- Memo - 060614 -geb
u•. ��'�M'1I \ �.IP
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper, Virginia 22701
Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E.
Commissioner
May 22, 2014
Ms. Ellie Carter Ray
Senior Planner
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: SDP - 2008 -00074 Sheeflee Cohousing
Dear Ms. Ray:
We have reviewed the site plan for Sheeflee Cohousing dated 2127114 as submitted by Gay and
Neel, Inc. and offer the following comments:
1. The proposed entrance needs to be installed in accordance with the detail found in
Appendix F of the Road Design Manual for a Private Subdivision Road Entrance. The
radius of the entrance needs to be a minimum of 25'. The western radius is labeled as
25'. I did not see a label for the radius length on the eastern side of the entrance. Also,
per the referenced detail, the throat width of the entrance should be a minimum of 24'.
The plan view of the entrance scales to approximately 20' in width.
2. Sheet C3 -01 has a detail for GS -SSR shown. The GS -SSR is not applicable to new
projects. The GS -SSAR (Appendix B(1)) would apply to new streets. Since Parkview
Drive is a private street, the County will need to determine which standard will be
allowed.
If you need additional information concerning this project, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
1 kLt
Troy ustin, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Culpeper District
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, VA, 22902
Phone 434 - 296 -5832
Fax 434 - 972 -4126
Memorandum
To: Kevin Conner, L.A. (kconner @gayandneel.com)
From: Ellie Ray, LA, Senior Planner
Division: Planning
Date: November 21, 2013
Rev1: May 19, 2014
Subject: SDP 200800074 SheeFlee Co- Housing (formerly Blue Ridge) — Final Site Development Plan
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.]
1. [32.5.2(a)] Label the southern boundary dimensions on the existing conditions sheet.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
2. [32.5.2(a)] Reference the ZMA (ZMA200700012) in the Zoning note.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
3. [32.5.2(a)] The waivers referenced in note #34 are incorrect; see the rezoning approval letter dated
12/21/07 and revise the waivers accordingly.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
4. [32.5.2(b)] This plan proposes to change or eliminate several elements that were shown on the approved
rezoning application plan. Zoning has determined that the "playground" shown on the application plan must
be provided or an equivalent amenity must be proposed; either include the playground or propose an
equivalent amenity for Zoning review. Please also consider adding back the walkway that was shown in
between the playground area and the existing pool as it provided better site circulation. The Director of
Planning has determined that the minor modifications to the parking and travelway layout along the front of
the site are in conformity with the application plan.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. The playground area is now shown, but a list of equipment
provided must also be included. See section 4.16.2.1 for requirements.
5. [32.5.2(b)] 200 square feet per dwelling unit of recreational area is required by section 4.16; label this
recreational area on the plan and indicate the square footage provided.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
6. [32.5.2(b)] The plan states that 52 parking spaces are provided, but it appears there are 53 spaces shown
on the plan; please clarify and revise if necessary.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
7. [32.5.2(1)] Label and clarify the proposed 8' multipurpose along Park View Drive as it is difficult to see the
path on the plans.
Revl : Comment addressed.
8. [32.5.2(1)] Provide the Deed Book and Page Number for the plat/deed that established the access
easement that runs with Park View Drive. Additionally, a revised private maintenance agreement must be
submitted for review by the County Attorney's Office.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. Revised private road maintenance agreement must be
submitted for review and approval by the County Attorney's Office prior to site plan approval.
9. [32.5.2(n)] Provide the maximum footprint for each existing and proposed building.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. The information provided is broken down by unit type and
labeled as "Max S.F ", which indicates that it's the total square footage for each type of unit
(sometimes more than one unit per floor and /or multiple floors). Please also provide the maximum
footprint for each existing and proposed building.
10. [32.5.2(n)] Label and dimension all walkways. Make sure they are distinguishable from travelways.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
11. [32.5.2(n)] Label all fences and note the height.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. A fence is now proposed around the newly added dumpster
pad; provide the height of this fence. To help determine if screening standards are met, include a
detail showing the design of the fence.
12. [32.5.2(n)] Label all retaining walls with the maximum height.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
13. [32.5.2(n)] Clarify how trash storage and pick up will be accommodated.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
14. [32.5.2(n)] Clarify what the pad or gravel area is in between buildings 9 & 10.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
15. [32.5.2(n) & 4.12.16(c)6] Any parking space whose length is reduced to 16' must have a minimum 2' of
unobstructed overhang area. Verify that this unobstructed area exists in front of any reduced length parking
space and show it on the plan.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. It appears that several of the proposed light fixtures are
located within the required unobstructed overhang; move all obstructions out of these areas.
16. [32.5.2(n) & 4.12.16(c)1] Parking spaces that are 9' wide must have an aisle width of 24'. The proposed
spaces to the right as you enter this development are 9' wide but the aisle is only 20' wide. Revise either
the spaces to 10' width or the aisle to 24' width.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
17. [32.6.2(f)] Dimension the radius of curb returns or edge of pavement.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
18. [32.5.2(1) & 32.6.2(g)] Please verify that the location of all existing and proposed utilities and utility
easements, including telephone, cable, electric and gas easements are shown on the plan. Any new
easements may be generally shown and dedicated by separate plat.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
19. [32.6.2(i)] Provide the angle of parking stalls for any that aren't perpendicular to the travelway.
Rev1: Comment addressed. Angled parking has been removed from the plan.
20. [32.6.20) & Comment] Please show utilities and associated easements on the landscape and lighting
plans to verify that no conflicts exist with plantings and lighting locations.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. Label all easements on the landscape and lighting sheets.
Additionally, ACSA must approve any proposed landscaping or lighting within their easements.
21. [32.6.20), 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. It
appears that many of the existing trees are proposed to be used toward the tree canopy requirement, and
possibly the screening and street tree requirements. The landscape plan should 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. The applicant shall also
sign a conservation checklist approved by the agent to ensure that the specified trees will be protected
during construction. 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.
Revl: Comment not fully addressed. Provide all relevant information including tree protection line,
notes, etc on the landscape plan as the E &S plan will now be removed from the plan set (see
Engineering comments). The Conservation Plan checklist must also be signed and dated.
22. [32.6.20), 32.7.9.4(b)] In addition to the above, clearly delineate the trees that are to be saved as there
appear to be some discrepancies between the demolition plan, the grading plan, and the landscape plan.
Any trees to be saved that are within 40' of any proposed disturbance require tree protection fencing. The
landscape plan and grading plans show proposed grading directly through areas of landscape that are
proposed to be saved; please clarify.
Revl: Comment not fully addressed. There is a note on the E &S plan that references many of the
existing trees along the frontage of the property and basically states that the trees may or may not
remain on the site at the discretion of the owner and contractor during construction; this note
should also be included on the landscape plan. The approved Application Plan shows many of the
trees as remaining and notes supplemental planting along the street frontage as well. Revise your
note about possible removal to include a statement that if any of these trees are removed,
supplemental evergreen planting will be installed to help buffer views of the proposed development.
23. [32.6.26), 32.7.9.5] Street trees are required along the existing road frontage at one large street tree per
fifty feet of road frontage. It appears that a few existing trees may be used to meet this requirement for a
portion of the frontage, but additional street trees should be added along the remaining portion.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
24. [32.6.26), 32.7.9.5(e)] Where parked cars will be visible from an off -site street, low shrubs should be
planted between the street and the parking area. Some screening shrubs have been provided, but
additional shrubs should be added to provide screening of all portions of the parking areas from the existing
street.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
25. [32.6.20) & 32.7.9.6(a)] An area of at least five (5) percent of the paved parking and vehicular circulation
area shall be landscaped with trees or shrubs. The note provided states 5% of the lot area is required;
please revise.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
26. [32.6.20) & 32.7.9.6(b)] The 5% landscaped area required in 32.7.9.6(a) shall be planted with a mixture of
shade trees and shrubs and shall include one (1) large or medium shade tree per ten (10) parking spaces or
portion thereof, if five (5) spaces or more. This plan requires 5 parking lot trees and proposes many large or
medium shade trees, but none of the trees are particularly close to the parking areas. Please either add
additional parking lot trees or move some of the proposed trees to provide shade in the parking areas.
Rev1: Comment addressed. However, if possible, please add one additional tree near Building 13 to
help provide shade for that 19 space parking lot.
27. [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.7(a)] Parking areas of four or more spaces should be screened from adjacent residential
and rural area districts; add additional screening along the existing road frontage as well as between this
parcel and TMP 56 -67B or demonstrate how the current proposal adequately screens the parking.
Revl: Comment not fully addressed. See comment #22 above; the note referenced is also
applicable to making sure parking is properly screened.
28. [32.6.20) & 32.7.9.8] It appears the tree canopy requirement is being met primarily through the
preservation of existing trees. See comment above regarding the conservation plan checklist and the clear
delineation of what trees will remain and how they will be protected. Also, please clarify where the 200 sf
canopy number came from for the Malus; the County Plant Canopy Calculations lists 129 sf.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. The total canopy number provided for the "Site Landscaping
Plan Schedule" does not equal the sum of the numbers provided in the schedule; revise this number
in all applicable locations (for schedule, in overall total canopy calculation, & on cover sheet).
29. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] No lighting cut sheets were provided; cut sheets must be provided in the plan set for
each proposed fixture to verify if fixtures are full cutoff. These cut sheets should coordinate with the catalog
number provided in the luminaire schedule.
Revl: Comment not fully addressed. The County's definition of full cutoff is, "The term "full cutoff
luminaire" means an outdoor light fixture shielded in such a manner that all light emitted by the
fixture, either directly from the lamp or indirectly from the fixture, is projected below the horizontal
plane." Fixture B is not full cutoff; very few, if any, bollard style fixtures meet this definition. Either
propose a different fixture or a different bulb /lamp that will drop the fixture below 3000 lumen.
30. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] The luminaire schedule lists 23 as the quantity of fixture B proposed, but the plan only
appears to show 19 of this type of fixture; please clarify.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
31. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] The luminaire schedule should list the tilt of each proposed fixture.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
32. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] Show the proposed light locations on the site plan, utility plan and landscape plan to
demonstrate that there are no site conflicts.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. As noted previously, some light locations are within the
required unobstructed parking overhang. These fixtures must be moved out of the overhang area.
33. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] Revise the lighting note provided to the following standard lighting (the note provided is
slightly different): 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.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
34. [Comment] Show, and provide documentation of, all off -site easements, including temporary and
permanent easements for the work that appears to be proposed on TMPs 56 -67B, 56 -67, 56A3 -1, 56A3 -7,
56 -68, and within the access easement for Park View Drive. Add the Deed Book and Page Number to any
existing easements. Any new easements must be submitted for review and approval, and recorded prior to
approval of this site plan.
Rev1: Comment still valid; all easements must be submitted for review and approval, and recorded
prior to Final Site Plan approval.
35. [Comment] This site plan cannot be approved until all site review committee members grant their approval.
Engineering, Zoning, E911, ACSA, and Fire /rescue comments have been provided. ARB and Inspections
had no objection to the first submittal. VDOT comments will be provided once received.
Rev1: Comment still valid. This site plan cannot be approved until all site review committee
members grant their approval. E911 comments have been provided (street names were previously
discussed via email, but they must be added to the plans). Fire /rescue has reviewed the revisions
and has no objection. ARB and Inspections had no objection to the first submittal. Engineering,
Zoning, ACSA and VDOT comments will be provided once received.
36. [32.5.2(d)] Due to a Zoning Text Amendment approved earlier this year, this parcel no longer contains
"critical slopes "; it has a much smaller area of "preserved slopes" based on the approved Overlay Map (see
County GIS). Remove the "critical slopes" and show the "preserved slopes" as represented on the
approved map (on the subject parcel and any adjacent parcel where work is proposed) and label them
accordingly. These slopes should be shown on the site plan as well as the existing conditions sheet, and
any sheet showing off -site improvements to give a better understanding of the proposed impacts to these
slopes. Disturbance of preserved slopes is allowed for public utilities (if no reasonable alternative exists),
but the proposed sewer connection appears to be a private line. It is unclear from the plan whether this
proposed line impacts any preserved slopes, but it will either need to avoid all impacts to preserved slopes
or apply for a Special Use Permit for approval of disturbance to the preserved slopes.
Please contact Ellie Ray in the Planning Division by using erav(a- )albemarle.org or 434 - 296 -5832 ext. 3432 for
further information.
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper, Virginia 22701 -3819
Gregory A. Whirley
Commissioner of Highways
November 21, 2013
Ms. Ellie Carter Ray
Senior Planner
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: SDP - 2008 -00074 Blue Ridge Co- Housing (Sheeflee Co- Housing) — Final
Dear Ms. Ray:
We have reviewed the site development plan for Sheeflee Co- Housing dated 10/16/2013 as submitted by
Gay and Neel, Inc. and offer the following comments:
1. The road names should be added to the all plan views for the roadways. More specifically, they
should be added to the plan view shown on sheet C1 -02 and sheet C3 -01.
2. The entrance of Parkview Drive at Three Notch'd Road should accurately reflect the existing
conditions on -site. There is a right turn lane for Parkview Drive that is not shown on the plan.
3. The proposed edge of pavement for Parkview Drive needs to be labeled on the plan view shown
on sheet C3 -01.
4. The Parkview Drive connection to Three Notch'd Road needs to meet the requirements for a CG-
11 as defined in the Road and Bridge Standards and the requirements for a Private Subdivision
Road as defined in Appendix F of the Road Design Manual.
5. The sight line shown on the plan view on sheet C3 -01 needs to originate at 14.5' from the edge of
the travel lane on Three Notch'd Road. It appears that it is shown at 10'.
6. It is my understanding that the 12" waterline shown in Three Notch'd Road is currently being
designed for replacement. This project should coordinate with the RWSA concerning this design
to make sure that an appropriate connection is made available rather than cutting the road for a
wet -tap.
If you need additional information concerning this project, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Troyy ustin, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Culpeper District
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, VA, 22902
Phone 434 - 296 -5832
Fax 434 - 972 -4126
Memorandum
To: Kevin Conner, L.A. (kconner @gayandneel.com)
From: Ellie Ray, LA, Senior Planner
Division: Planning
Date: November 21, 2013
Subject: SDP 200800074 SheeFlee Co- Housing (formerly Blue Ridge) — Final Site Development Plan
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.]
1. [32.5.2(a)] Label the southern boundary dimensions on the existing conditions sheet.
2. [32.5.2(a)] Reference the ZMA (ZMA200700012) in the Zoning note.
3. [32.5.2(a)] The waivers referenced in note #34 are incorrect; see the rezoning approval letter dated
12/21/07 and revise the waivers accordingly.
4. [32.5.2(b)] This plan proposes to change or eliminate several elements that were shown on the approved
rezoning application plan. Zoning has determined that the "playground" shown on the application plan must
be provided or an equivalent amenity must be proposed; either include the playground or propose an
equivalent amenity for Zoning review. Please also consider adding back the walkway that was shown in
between the playground area and the existing pool as it provided better site circulation. The Director of
Planning has determined that the minor modifications to the parking and travelway layout along the front of
the site are in conformity with the application plan.
5. [32.5.2(b)] 200 square feet per dwelling unit of recreational area is required by section 4.16; label this
recreational area on the plan and indicate the square footage provided.
6. [32.5.2(b)] The plan states that 52 parking spaces are provided, but it appears there are 53 spaces shown
on the plan; please clarify and revise if necessary.
7. [32.5.2(i)] Label and clarify the proposed 8' multipurpose along Park View Drive as it is difficult to see the
path on the plans.
8. [32.5.2(i)] Provide the Deed Book and Page Number for the plat/deed that established the access
easement that runs with Park View Drive. Additionally, a revised private maintenance agreement must be
submitted for review by the County Attorney's Office.
9. [32.5.2(n)] Provide the maximum footprint for each existing and proposed building.
10. [32.5.2(n)] Label and dimension all walkways. Make sure they are distinguishable from travelways.
11. [32.5.2(n)] Label all fences and note the height.
12. [32.5.2(n)] Label all retaining walls with the maximum height.
13. [32.5.2(n)] Clarify how trash storage and pick up will be accommodated.
14. [32.5.2(n)] Clarify what the pad or gravel area is in between buildings 9 & 10.
15. [32.5.2(n) & 4.12.16(c)6] Any parking space whose length is reduced to 16' must have a minimum 2' of
unobstructed overhang area. Verify that this unobstructed area exists in front of any reduced length parking
space and show it on the plan.
16. [32.5.2(n) & 4.12.16(c)1] Parking spaces that are 9' wide must have an aisle width of 24'. The proposed
spaces to the right as you enter this development are 9' wide but the aisle is only 20' wide. Revise either
the spaces to 10' width or the aisle to 24' width.
17. [32.6.2(f)] Dimension the radius of curb returns or edge of pavement.
18. [32.5.2(1) & 32.6.2(g)] Please verify that the location of all existing and proposed utilities and utility
easements, including telephone, cable, electric and gas easements are shown on the plan. Any new
easements may be generally shown and dedicated by separate plat.
19. [32.6.2(i)] Provide the angle of parking stalls for any that aren't perpendicular to the travelway.
20. [32.6.20) & Comment] Please show utilities and associated easements on the landscape and lighting
plans to verify that no conflicts exist with plantings and lighting locations.
21. [32.6.20), 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. It
appears that many of the existing trees are proposed to be used toward the tree canopy requirement, and
possibly the screening and street tree requirements. The landscape plan should 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. The applicant shall also
sign a conservation checklist approved by the agent to ensure that the specified trees will be protected
during construction. 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.
22. [32.6.20), 32.7.9.4(b)] In addition to the above, clearly delineate the trees that are to be saved as there
appear to be some discrepancies between the demolition plan, the grading plan, and the landscape plan.
Any trees to be saved that are within 40' of any proposed disturbance require tree protection fencing. The
landscape plan and grading plans show proposed grading directly through areas of landscape that are
proposed to be saved; please clarify.
23. [32.6.20), 32.7.9.5] Street trees are required along the existing road frontage at one large street tree per
fifty feet of road frontage. It appears that a few existing trees may be used to meet this requirement for a
portion of the frontage, but additional street trees should be added along the remaining portion.
24. [32.6.20), 32.7.9.5(e)] Where parked cars will be visible from an off -site street, low shrubs should be
planted between the street and the parking area. Some screening shrubs have been provided, but
additional shrubs should be added to provide screening of all portions of the parking areas from the existing
street.
25. [32.6.20) & 32.7.9.6(a)] An area of at least five (5) percent of the paved parking and vehicular circulation
area shall be landscaped with trees or shrubs. The note provided states 5% of the lot area is required;
please revise.
26. [32.6.20) & 32.7.9.6(b)] The 5% landscaped area required in 32.7.9.6(a) shall be planted with a mixture of
shade trees and shrubs and shall include one (1) large or medium shade tree per ten (10) parking spaces or
portion thereof, if five (5) spaces or more. This plan requires 5 parking lot trees and proposes many large or
medium shade trees, but none of the trees are particularly close to the parking areas. Please either add
additional parking lot trees or move some of the proposed trees to provide shade in the parking areas.
27. [32.6.20) & 32.7.9.7(a)] Parking areas of four or more spaces should be screened from adjacent residential
and rural area districts; add additional screening along the existing road frontage as well as between this
parcel and TMP 56 -67B or demonstrate how the current proposal adequately screens the parking.
28. [32.6.20) & 32.7.9.8] It appears the tree canopy requirement is being met primarily through the
preservation of existing trees. See comment above regarding the conservation plan checklist and the clear
delineation of what trees will remain and how they will be protected. Also, please clarify where the 200 sf
canopy number came from for the Malus; the County Plant Canopy Calculations lists 129 sf.
29. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] No lighting cut sheets were provided; cut sheets must be provided in the plan set for
each proposed fixture to verify if fixtures are full cutoff. These cut sheets should coordinate with the catalog
number provided in the luminaire schedule.
30. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] The luminaire schedule lists 23 as the quantity of fixture B proposed, but the plan only
appears to show 19 of this type of fixture; please clarify.
31. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] The luminaire schedule should list the tilt of each proposed fixture.
32. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] Show the proposed light locations on the site plan, utility plan and landscape plan to
demonstrate that there are no site conflicts.
33. [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] Revise the lighting note provided to the following standard lighting (the note provided is
slightly different): 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.
34. [Comment] Show, and provide documentation of, all off -site easements, including temporary and
permanent easements for the work that appears to be proposed on TMPs 56 -67B, 56 -67, 56A3 -1, 56A3 -7,
56 -68, and within the access easement for Park View Drive. Add the Deed Book and Page Number to any
existing easements. Any new easements must be submitted for review and approval, and recorded prior to
approval of this site plan.
35. [Comment] This site plan cannot be approved until all site review committee members grant their approval.
Engineering, Zoning, E911, ACSA, and Fire /rescue comments have been provided. ARB and Inspections
had no objection to the first submittal. VDOT comments will be provided once received.
Please contact Ellie Ray in the Planning Division by using eray(LDalbemarle.org or 434 - 296 -5832 ext. 3432 for
further information.
Maude Ginty
Service Auth6rity
TO: Ellie Carter Ray
FROM: Alexander J. Morrison, Civil Engineer
DATE: November 18, 2013
RE: Site Plan Technical Review for: SDP200800074: Blue Ridge Co- Housing- Final (Now
Sheeflee Co- Housing)
TMP# 56 -67A
The below checked items apply to
this site.
✓ 1. This site plan is within the Authority's jurisdictional area for:
✓ A. Water and sewer
B. Water only
C. Water only to existing structure
D. Limited service
✓ 2. A 12 inch water line is located approximately 450' distant.
3. Fire flow from, nearest public hydrant, located distant from this site plan, is
Gpm + at 20 psi residual.
✓ 4. An 8 inch sewer line is located approximately 515' distant.
5. An Industrial Waste Ordinance survey form must be completed.
✓ 6. No improvements or obstructions shall be placed within existing or future
easements.
7. and plans are currently under review.
8. and plans have been received and approved.
9. No plans are required.
✓ 10. Final and plans are required for our review and approval prior to
granting tentative approval.
11. Final site plan may /may not be signed.
12. RWSA approval for water and /or sewer connections.
13. City of Charlottesville approval for sewer.
✓ Comments:
• Submit 3 copies of construction plans to the ACSA for construction review and approval.
• Pump station should be built to DEQ standards.
168 Spotnap Road • Charlottesville • VA 22911 • Tel (434) 977 -4511 • Fax (434) 979 -0698
www.serviceauthority.org
�pF A
vt�r�1Q
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
Project: Sheeflee Co- Housing
Plan preparer: Gay and Neel, Inc [540- 381 -6011]
Owner or rep.: Crozet Co- Housing, LLC
Plan received date: 29 Oct 2013
Date of comments: 18 Nov 2013
Reviewer: Michelle Roberge
Engineering has completed the review of application SDP200800074.
A. Site Development Plan (SDP200800074)
1) The limits of travelway from walkways are not clear. Please label travelways and walkways on
plans.
2) Please note the road plan has changed. Please submit a road plan as a separate SUB application.
The Albemarle County Engineering Department distributes road plan submittals to our planning
staff, and to VDOT as a courtesy. We do not distribute or coordinate review with other
departments or agencies like Fire & Rescue, Parks and Recreation, ACSA, RWSA, etc. This must
be coordinated by the owner or applicant. Approval documentation must be provided from all
applicable departments and agencies prior to final road plan approval. Please address the following
comment:
a) The road beyond station 16 +96.03 goes from 4.78% to about 10 %. What is the sight
distance? Show vertical crest curve for this area in profile. Also, please note all
recorded easements plats already recorded may need to be revised due to changes
with this proposal. Please address.
b) The previous submittal proposed to remove and replace the entire 30" CMP under
Parkview Drive. Now, it only replaces two sections of the pipe to EW and ES. The
pipe's condition under road is unknown. Please clarify. Show calcs with WPO
application.
3) Please provide copies of federal and state permits for stream disturbance (Army Corps, VEDQ,
etc).
4) It appears the traffic circulation has changed since the previous submittal from July 31, 2008.
This proposal should incorporate the previous layout with the loop for better circulation. Here are
some additional concerns.
a) The road to NW parking lot now has horizontal curvatures with angular parking.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 2
These parking spaces should be removed and added to lot located NW of site. The
angular parking will be difficult to maneuver into from the SB direction.
b) I recommend changing gravelpave2 limits as shown in attached image to clarify
this area from adjacent travelway.
5) Removable bollards are shown in front of travelways to be used for emergency. I will defer to fire
rescue if the bollards are ok or if they should be removed.
6) Show an outer radius for sharp curve north of site.
7) Label the pad between Bldg 9 and Bldg 10.
8) It appears the grading limits and LOD are beyond project property line. Provide a letter or any
document from adjacent property owners stating permission of construction. For example, the
TMP 56 -67B will be graded for SWM -5 facility. Also, provide easements for construction of
utilities offsite.
9) A WPO application shall be submitted to review SWM, E &S and mitigation plan. An approved
WPO plan is required prior to the site plan approval. Here are some WPO comments. Please note I
will do full review after I receive the WPO application. Please address the following with the
WPO application:
a) Address MS -19 on WPO.
b) Please note SWM -5 is outside property line. Access easement around facility will
be required.
c) A standard SWM agreement will be necessary for SWM facilities.
d) Provide an additional mitigation due to grading within the WPO buffer.
e) Remove proposed ditch within floodplain.
Sincerely,
Michelle Roberge
r
/j
N \ \ OS,
D TAX IAARCEL 56 -67A 2 RADIUS uj
m
N SH EFLEE, LLi - _._— - \ mow.
o PARCEL 1,D -9 1169 PG. 455;- , \ \ \
I D.B. p086 PG. 583 \,\ ? \ \� \rye °J� CAST IN TO wcE. E40DO Psi IF IF �ar� w� o
ti > . _.._,._, a PRECAST. Ld i7
\ S° u o
rrw• N lib .i N Y
ENGINEER SHALL STAKEOUT FINAL
LOCATION OF DWELLING UNITS AND z T
RETAINING WALLS UPON APPROVAL
AND ACCEPTANCE OF FINAL w w B uN1T r o \FO suRFACE
I -+I \\ TYPE 1\2 BR's \\ CF \ \• - <
ARCHITECTURAL AND RETAINING o m B uNlr « ` \oF /�
\ \\ TYPE V
WALL PLANS. ARCHITECT TO xl Z? •, ���� /v D UNIT QFFS \ R m
COORDINATE FINAL PLANS WITH r ` $ \ �/r <<� /r \ O
ENGINEER. °p z,,�• u \V, �y �� ^ BASE The drawing, the property of digital
Gay flies relating[. this
W\* / \ ,\ project are the property of Gay and Neel, Inc The
GRAVELPAVE2 BY \ reprotlucton, copy�n &or other use of this drawing
Op• - ^ / \\\\ -\ \ _ without GNI s written consent rs prohibited
INVISIBLE STRUCTURES,
II rl $8 �%' \ Q` D NOT _.�. TYPE
OR EQUAL ROD /"TYPE I \\ / 3 BRb / \ W
I
FIND. O a . , `., . 15.3x' // A UNIT �\ t << a \ SUBBASE
I c a"t+' 2 8R's / M "*` \ \ \B / PROPOSED REDO -ROCK I > O
GRASSPAVE2 BY "°°"'�'' RErAININOWALL
1' iw 6.a6' //� TY I UPPER / TYPE i O\ \ \ J // !,/" \ .. \ O Z
INVISIBLE STRUCTURES, &` 8: 5< A UNIT 2 BRb %>> ``� %'' S) ems^ 4 t Tr1
v „ TYPE IV , \ \ Z Q
y a' / \ 2 BR'e ,� UPPER /// // C UNIT / \
OR EQUAL <\ �howEx , ( / /,' ^ « 3 BR'a,' �� a Q
TYPE I 73 .� \\ %� / TYPE
SEGMENTED A UNIT // /% \ / J• / C UNIT \ I \ t vJ Z
PAVEMENT, SEE DETAIL „° RETAINING < 2 BR a ,, /' „% \ �j(' 3 BR'sN
Ea sS
iry WALL ^LOWER /,/ y \\ \p \\ 1 \ NO SCALE GE -28 o Z
SHEET C7 -03 I ��, z3� 1 �' ..' TYPE v >>> �\ /� " O 5
0 UNIT w \ ' «0 3 SR'.
�\ wq % ^`.� \ STANDARD 6 CURB CG -2 = li1
{
A v U
a -zs.ar C UNIT / \ + �J'
g BARN & \\�' \v' \ 3 BR' %/ TPE III a ♦G G�9� \ F\. O U
m SHEDS ! A> / B UNOTS� I p l <o /y 2 \ w UJI
I
v ♦1 �6r do `�s �j IL W w
O 4
8 ♦♦ ro \
/ s 3 SPACES O 9' y' 8 pti ♦ //v/ \ \ 01, \ 0 ��/ \ W m
22.00' %L\ �� O
}• // TYPE IV O\_ G W
`TQ>9.� �, a z95x ♦ �� C UNIT ,/ \� \.00� SF� >J'
X11'00'49" °, o a 3 8R's / ry ` Bq\ U
R= 823.92' uN1T " /�\ `sr c�\ BRANCH GENERALLY ALONG (n
X240 3 BR'a 4�`\ /> ` Re \ PROPERTY LINE
L= 158.38' 1 �? '
T= 79.43' A
CH= 158.13'`k- x. aoxx3b' I \, \v N /S�TYPE IB `> \\ e \
C8= N4T00 °15 "l„ / REMOVABLE BOLLARD xpzoOQ a C uNIT / \ r \
(SELECTION OF SME �: # N 61X1'00' E « 3 BR', ' \ '" \ N 45'15'24" E
i° r TYPE III
I ROD} ^ +zr SHALL BE BY OWNER �.. truss• \\ 13 UNIT !( ` A \
rr-3 PUMP a -za.5a A) ' >j \ 82.15'
FND WV ®I BR's / \ \ Tg
PE
QTY.
BR /UNIT
TOTAL
SQ.FT.
8
2
16
982, 1099
1
2
2
4
1248
II
8
3
24
1248, 1581
J
4
3
12
1534
1
4
3
12
1884
I C� v e p C� HOUSE
IT
S
rol nF
c CO$\ l�
NIT
nl
o _
'-
a
WOOD FNC.
5 "- a- lseso'
«\ 3 BR' / /TYPEIT //
\ \
_ _
_
O •+
U JO 9
AROUND POOL
` - — -
A> /' 3 BR '9
-\
No. 35 80EL
�... 98.00' 0 n 4 > a
a /�,/ A UNIT /
'z a FI r�r : �! 2 �'a l TOPE I
v/
.v O� /
3$ /O $l�
NAL
., M q �..I
UPPER / A UNIT
/
rn o s.00,a
2OR'a
/ A / UPPER
1 / I S4r
i /r v
% /��7� / D UNIT
/
\ / /
/
NO. COMMENTS DATE
@t" _
V
t`z BR`s I
LOWER / A /,] �/
G� 0/ 3 BR'a
�»
�� OF ALBS,
�'IRGINZ�
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832
To:
Kevin Conner
From:
Gerald Gatobu, Senior Planner
Division:
Zoning and Current Development
Date:
09/02/2008
Subject:
SDP 2008— 00074 Blue Ridge Cohousing Final.
Fax (434) 972 -4126
The County of Albemarle Division of Zoning and Current Development will grant or recommend
approval of the final site development plat referred to above once the following comments have been
addressed: [Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference, which is to the Subdivision /Zoning
Ordinances unless otherwise specified.
Please Note:
Mr. Connor, this proposal has been submitted as a final site plan prior to a preliminary site plan.
The Albemarle County Ordinance contemplates the approval of a preliminary site plan prior to the
submittal of a final site plan. However, by interpretation, the ordinance does allow the submittal of a
final prior to approval of a preliminary. No mechanism exists in the ordinance for the County to
approve with conditions a final site plan. This site plan does not have all necessary approvals
[including approvable Water Protection Ordinance and road plans] to allow signature by the
(past) revision deadline. Albemarle County Community Development will therefore have to deny
your application. You may request that this project be changed from a final to a preliminary site plan
which will allow the County to approve the plan with conditions or you may request that the County
defer taking a formal action on your application.
If you request deferral, we will continue to review any information you submit that is designed to
allow the final to be approved. However, because you will have officially requested deferral no
mandatory timeline for review and comment will exist.
Let me know your decision as soon as possible. If no response is received by 09/07/2008, your
application will be denied. Once the County denies the site plan, you will have 15 days to get
approvals from all agencies and departments and resubmit. Failure to resubmit within 15 days will
mean that the site plan is denied and the applicant will have to start over with a new application.
32.5.6
A) The Preliminary/Final Site Plan shall contain the following information.
• Zoning: The zoning for the property is PRD (Planned Residential Development) and not
PDR as shown on the site plan.
• Descriptions of all variances, zoning proffers and bonus factors applicable to the site;
Please show the entire approved proffer form. The date of the proffer signature, the ZMA #,
tax map and parcel number, heading and nd signatures of all owners are missing on sheet 2 of 15
of the site plan. Note that all proffers must be met. Has the ACSA jurisdictional area been
amended?
B) Written schedules or data as necessary to demonstrate that the site can accommodate the proposed
use, including:
■ Maximum number of dwelling units by type: Please include the breakdown of the type of
units, quantity and square footage of the proposed dwelling per the application plan
(sheet 4 of 7) dated 10/19/07.
Square footage of recreation area: What is the square footage for the proposed common
area/recreation area? What are the nronosed amenities for the common green with
playground? [Refer to section 4.16.2 of the Albemarle County Code for guidance]
Schedule of parking including maximum amount required and amount provided: What
is the scheduled amount of parking for this project? Please include the amount required and
the amount Drovided on the site Dlan and the formula used to arrive at this amount e. a. two
spaces per each 2 bedroom unit...
F) The name and location of all watercourses and other bodies of water adjacent to or on the site.
Indicate if the site is located within a reservoir watershed. This site is located in the Beaver Creek
Reservoir Watershed. Please add this note to the site Dlan
P) Landscape plan in conformance with section 32.7.9.
All development subject to site development plan review shall include the following required
landscaping for parking lots consisting of five (5) spaces or more:
(A) Interior landscaping: Exclusive of the requirements of section 32.7.9.7 (a) and (c), an area
equal to five (5) percent of the paved parking and vehicular circulation area shall be
landscaped with trees or shrubs. What is the paved parking and vehicular circulation area in SF
for this site? The calculation on the cover sheet says 5% of lot area. 1.097.47 SF: however, the
impervious parking lot area figure is 23,013 SF. .05 x 23,013 = 1,150.65 sf. Please clarify the
figure used as the Daved narking and vehicular circulation area (in SF). and make sure an area
equal to 5% is landscaped with trees and shrubs.
(B) This shall include one (1) large or medium shade tree per ten (10) parking spaces or portion
thereof, if five (5) spaces or more.
How many large or medium shade trees are provided? [Based on the number of parking spaces for this
site 52/10 =5.2 provide at least 6 large or medium shade trees].
2
Canopy Calculations
The following minimum requirements shall apply:
1) Twenty (20) percent tree canopy for a residential site to be developed at a gross density
of ten (10) or fewer dwelling units per acre.
268,111.8 x 0.2 = 53,622.36 SF
Shown on plan 76,245 + 4,400 + 828 + 780 = 82,253 S.F.
a. On the site plan, which/what/where are the existing trees used in the canopy
calculation? Indicate the name, symbol, quantity, condition and canopy of all existing
trees included in the canopy figure [76,2451. How did you arrive at the 76,245 square
feet of existing anopy? Please note that canopy can only be counted for trees within the
property boundary.
b. The Albemarle County Conservation checklist must be checked and signed. Please
check the conservation checklist shown on sheet 9 of 15 and add a signature i.e.
the entire checklist needs to be on the site plan and the owner(s) need to sign the
checklist.
Lighting Plan Comments
A. Cut sheets. If any of the fixtures will emit more that 3000 lumens, the fixtures must be full
cutoff. Please provide cut sheets on the site elan that show that the fixtures are full cutoff if
of the fixtures emit 3000 or more lumens.
a. lumen level (3000 or more must be full cutoff)
B. Provide a luminaire schedule on the site plan
a. Make sure the catalog numbers shown on the luminaire schedule coordinate the with cut
sheets
b. Quantity /types of fixtures with quantity /types shown on lighting plan must match
c. Tilt must be 0 if full cutoff
C. Light locations
a. Make sure there are no location conflicts with other site elements (trees, utilities, etc.)
b. Light locations must coordinate with other site plan sheets
c. Show all light fixture locations and label the fixtures so as to coordinate with the fixture
count in the luminaire schedule.
D. Photometric plan: Please revise the lighting plan to the calculation grid method. The
lighting plan is shown in the light contour method: The calculation grid method is preferred
a. Make sure there is no excessive spillover on adjacent zoning and property lines.
b. Maintenance factor must be 1.
c. Add the standard lighting note which is: "Each outdoor luminaire equipped with a lamp
that emits 3,000 or more initial lumens shall be a full cut off Luminaire. 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."
Please contact Gerald Gatobu at the Division of Zoning and Current Development at 296 -5832 ext.
3385 for further information.
ALg�,��
�'IRGINZ�
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
Project:
WPO- 2008 - 00045, SDP - 2008 -00074 Blue Ridge Co- Housing
Plan preparer:
Mr. Kevin Conner, CLA; Gay and Neel Inc. [kconner @gayandneel.com]
Owner or rep.:
Crozet Co- Housing, LLC fax (unknown)
Date received:
(Rev. 3) 17 December 2008
(Rev. 2) 7 October 2008
(Rev. 1) 31 July 2008
29 April 2008
Date of Comment:
(Rev. 3) 28 January 2009
(Rev. 2) 25 November 2008
(Rev. 1) 14 August 2008
15 May 2008 (SRC Final Site Plan Comments)
13 June 2008 (Road Plans, SWM Plans, ESC Plans)
Engineer:
(Rev. 1, 2, and 3) Phil Custer
Jonathan Sharp
A. Final Site Plans (comments from 15 May 2008)
1. Please provide copies of federal and state permits for stream disturbance (Army Corps, VDEQ,
etc.).
(Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed.
(Rev. 2) Comment has not been addressed.
(Rev. 3) Comment has not been addressed.
4. Please provide all copies of necessary offsite easements. For example, easements to construct
water and sewer, road improvements, offsite construction and access easements, drainage
easements, etc.
(Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. The only offsite easement obtained has been for the
construction within the private ROW. Permanent easements are needed for this project that must
be obtained before approval is granted. Temporary construction easements also appear
necessary on adjacent parcels affected by the roadway upgrade and construction of the SCC's to
the streams.
(Rev. 2) Comment has not been addressed. An easement plat has not yet been reviewed by the
County. Comments from a full review of the plat will be given under a separate cover. Over the
last several months, most of the discussion regarding offsite easements has revolved around the
roadway culvert and drainage channels. Please be aware that in addition to the drainage
easements in this area, the following easements will be required:
- drainage easements will be needed for the channels downstream of SWM facilities 3 and
5
- construction easements for the sediment traps shown on the ESC plan, and
- a swm easement on the 56 -76B encompassing the embankment of SWM facility 5.
A letter from the property owner will be enough to address our concerns about the construction
of the sediment traps.
(Rev. 3) A letter from the owner of 56 -67B acknowledging and permitting the construction
activity taking place on his /her parcel is required before plan approval. Comments from the
review of the easement plat will be given in a separate letter (SUB- 2008 - 00285). The easement
plat must be recorded before the site plan can be approved.
15. Please show the sight distance lines at the entrance of the site on Parkview Drive.
(Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. A vertical profile of this sight line may be needed
because of the existing grading of Park View Drive.
(Rev. 2) Comment has not been addressed.
(Rev. 3) Comment has not been addressed. The sight distance lines shown in this set are from
Parkview Drive onto Route 240 as opposed to from the site onto Parkview Drive. There is some
concern that the sight line from the site looking north is obstructed because of the crest curve in
the roadway.
16. VDOT approval is required for any work affecting the public right -of -way.
(Rev. 1) VDOT approval has not yet been received.
(Rev. 2) VDOT approval has been received.
17. Parking areas cannot exceed 5% in grade, in any direction.
(Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed.
(Rev. 2) Grading has been amended and the plan is now currently in violation of 18- 4.12.15c.
(Rev. 3) There is a spot elevation west of the existing house that should be changed from 652.5
to 653. This change will bring the site into compliance with the parking lot grade
requirements.
B. Road Plans
37. Guardrail must be specified over all fill slopes and culverts, with 3' additional shoulder, using
VDOT designations. Guardrail end sections must be labeled.
(Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. The shoulder has not been increased an additional aft
when the guardrail is necessary. Guardrail is needed over a larger span than what is specified.
The guardrail should be accounted for in the roadway section as well.
(Rev. 2) The applicant seems to have replaced 2:1 slopes with 3:1 slopes for most areas on the
latest plan. Considering this change and the wide clear zone on the north side of the road,
guardrails are no longer needed. If the applicant wishes to keep the guardrails along the
roadway, then the guardrails must be placed in a f at area of 2 010, not on the 3:1 slope. Please be
sure to update the roadway section to match what has been changed in plan view.
(Rev. 3) Guardrail is still shown on the east side of the roadway. It is not necessary at this
location because of the grade of the slope. However, if it is still proposed, it should be shown
on a relatively mild grade, not 3:1.
38. Ditches must be dimensioned at 1' depth min., and 4' min. width from shoulder to ditch
centerline.
(Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed.
39. Please provide a profile for the roadway culvert.
(Rev. 1) The profile of the roadway culvert is adequate but a drainage easement will be needed
over the pipe where it exists outside of the ROW. The easement should be placed at the width
specified by the formula in the design manual.
(Rev. 2) All vertical or horizontal changes in direction or changes in material require a VDOT
structure. It appears the latest revision to the culvert design requires 2 structures. The pipe
diameters cannot decrease in a pipe system.
(Rev. 3) Comment has been addressed. The profile as shown is acceptable. Changes to the
profile may be required due to comments regarding the calculations.
40. Please provide culvert calculations.
(Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. The computations appear to be for the existing culvert
that will be replaced with this plan.
(Rev. 2) Comment has not been addressed. The calculations provided appear to be for a pipe in
a storm sewer network instead of a culvert calculation. The capacity of a 24in culvert at 2% is
smaller than of a 24in pipe in a stormsewer system because of the headwater conditions. The
culvert calculations should show that headwater for the pipe during a 10 -year storm is less than
1.5 times the diameter. Depending on the slope, my calculations show that a 30 or 36 inch culvert
may be needed.
(Rev. 3) Calculations for the culvert require the following changes:
- The drainage area map is not correct. There is an existing drainage system along
Route 240 that directs some runoff from the south side of Route 240 across to the
stream. Another drainage system picks up water from the second storage building on
TMP 56A3 -7. Please adjust the map.
- The calculations do not accurately reflect the proposed condition. Please provide a
calculation for a 20ft 30" culvert sloped at 3.48% with a tailwater condition of the
height of the water through the existing culvert. Also provide two storm drain
calculations for the existing CMP pipe and proposed the 38ft RCP pipe. The culvert
must meet all requirements listed above (head cannot be greater than 1.5 x diameter,
etc.).
C. Stormwater Management Plan
49. Cross - section details of each facility must be provided, including: embankments, principle and
emergency spillways, sediment forebays, and biofilter floor dimensions. See the County
Engineering design manual checklist for all cross - section detail requirements.
(Rev. 1) The provided details are missing critical pieces of information. Please list the
embankment elevation, embankment width, bed elevation, spillway elevation and TOW (if
applicable). And, for all biofilters adjacent to walls, please show the gravel backfill behind the
biofilters and any tie backs and how it relates to the mix in the biofilter. Engineering review is
concerned about water escaping the mix without treatment by passing through the backfill.
Please also provide details for the spillway through the retaining wall.
(Rev. 2) Please show and dimension the check dam forebays in plan view as they have been
designed in the calculations package. Check dams should be cleaned out or replaced at the time
of biofilter construction conversion. The channels in the check dam forebay calculations do not
appear to match the dimensions in the SCC calculations. As an alternative, the applicant may
place stone horse -shoe shaped dams in the biofilter bed at the inlet point as long as they are sized
correctly. (Please contact me to discuss this possibility further.)
(Rev. 1) The grading plan does not show the swales and checkdams. The calculations do not
consider the slope of the swale either. The calculations double count a large percentage of the
water. I do not believe there is enough room in the swales for the checkdams to act as forebays.
More extensive calculations should be submitted or, as an alternative, the applicant may place
stone forebays in the biofilter bed. A forebay should also be provided in SWM 3.
50. For facilities with embankments 3 feet or higher, the 10 yr. and 100 yr. high water elevations must
be shown on the cross - section details. With an emergency spillway, 1 foot of freeboard for the
100 yr. storm must be provided. Without an emergency spillway, 2 feet of freeboard for the 100
yr. storm must be provided.
(Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. It appears that all facilities lack adequate free board.
(Rev. 2) Freeboard appears to have been met on all facilities. Please remove "MIN" from the
spillway callout on the biofilter detail sheets. The weir must be the length specified on the plan. If
it were widened in the field, discharges would be higher and may not meet the pre- development
rate.
(Rev. 2) Comment has not been addressed. "MIN" has not been removed from the description
of each spillway.
58. A SWM bond will be computed by the County once the plans have been approved.
(Rev. 1) Comment has been noted by the applicant.
(Rev. 2) Comment has been noted by the applicant.
(Rev. 3) Comment has been noted by the applicant.
D. Mitigation Plan
59. A mitigation plan is required for any stream buffer disturbance. Please provide a mitigation
application, plan, and fee.
a. (Rev. 1) Please provide the disturbance detail showing a shaded areas of the proposed
stream buffer disturbance so that the 0.32 acres can be confirmed. This area must match
the ESC plan. [DM]
(Rev. 2) Comment not addressed. The stream buffer at the crossing is actually 200ft
(100ft on both sides of the stream). The stream buffer layer should be adjusted and the
mitigation plan recalculated. Please note that the buffer disturbance line should match
the limits of disturbance on the ESC plan. There is also a discrepancy between sheet 5
and 9 to how much stream buffer has been disturbed.
(Rev. 3) The mitigation plan does not appear to be sufficient. The disturbance of the
buffer for the construction of sediment traps 3 -6 does not appear to be included in the
buffer disturbed area. Also, the calculation does not appear to be computed correctly.
With the limits as shown on the latest plan, about 17,200sf are disturbed. Our
ordinance requires that the mitigation for this disturbance be replanted at a 2:1 ratio
which then makes the total to consider 34,400sf. This number should then be divided
by 400 (as detailed in Option la of the Design Manual in the mitigation section) to find
the number of sets of plantings required.
60. A Mitigation bond will be computed by the County once the plans have been approved.
(Rev. 1) Comment has been noted.
(Rev. 2) Comment has been noted.
(Rev. 3) Comment has been noted.
E. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
61. It appears that inadequate perimeter control is provided. See comment #24.
(Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed.
b. The construction of ST -1 will require a retaining wall. This wall needs to be the first
measure installed and should be noted in the construction sequence and shown on sheet
4.
(Rev. 2) Comment has been addressed.
c. The grading for the sediment traps 1 and 2 are not correct. It appears the grading is
being shown is the grading of the biofilters which appear on sheet 7. Please correct. It is
difficult checking the compliance with the sediment trap calculations without the
necessary grading. Additional comments may be necessary once the grading is shown.
(Rev. 2) Please remove the silt fence and note stating that silt fence is to be installed on
the uphill side of the biofilters. The biofilters will not be installed until after stabilization.
This means that builings 6, 7, and 11 will be built after site stabilization. This should be
called out more clearly on the plan so the contractor is more aware of the phasing. Silt
fence on the downhill side of SWM 3 is required. Please label contours and show the
weirs for traps 1 and 2. Volumes will be confirmed once the contours have been labeled.
(Rev. 3) The wet storage of trap 1 is steeper than 1:1. The calculation table for trap 2
requires 6ft from the bottom of the trap to the top of the embankment, but only 5ft is
provided in the grading, there does not appear to be enough volume in this trap. Traps
3 -6 should be moved inline with the ditches so that the fill from the roadway can be
directed into the traps.
62. Silt fence must not be used across contours in place of diversion dikes. Silt fence is limited to
areas of sheet flow with 1/a acre per 100ft of level on -grade silt fence.
(Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed.
63. Please provide ESC measures for the road improvements and sewer line improvements.
(Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. The grading for the sediment traps need to be shown.
I do not see any ESC measures for the construction of the sewer line.
(Rev. 2) Comment has not been addressed. Please show silt fence for utility work in the VDOT
ROW. Please also label the contours of traps 3 -6 to confirm the dimensions of the traps with the
tables. The stone weirs should also be shown.
(Rev. 3) Traps 3 -6 should be moved inline with the ditches so that the fill from the roadway can
be directed into the traps.
64. Stream crossings and diversions must be provided at all stream crossings. A detailed sequence of
construction must be provided for the replacement of the existing culvert and work within the live
stream.
(Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed.
(Rev. 2) Comment has not been addressed.
(Rev. 3) Please provide a USC symbol on the plan and include a copy of Plate 3.25 -3 next to the
pump detail. Engineering review recommends, but will not require, constructing a new pipe
parallel to the existing culvert to simplify the work near the stream.
76. An ESC bond will be computed by the County once the plans have been approved.
(Rev. 1) Comment noted.
(Rev. 2) Comment noted.
(Rev. 3) Comment has been noted by the applicant.
File: E5_esc swm rp fsp mp_PBC_sdp08074 + wpo08045 Blue Ridge Co- Housing.doc
ALg�,��
�'IRGINZ�
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
Project:
WPO- 2008 - 00045, SDP - 2008 -00074 Blue Ridge Co- Housing
Plan preparer:
Mr. Kevin Conner, CLA; Gay and Neel Inc. [kconner @gayandneel.com]
Owner or rep.:
Crozet Co- Housing, LLC fax (unknown)
Date received:
(Rev. 2) 7 October 2008
(Rev. 1) 31 July 2008
29 April 2008
Date of Comment:
(Rev. 2) 25 November 2008
(Rev. 1) 14 August 2008
15 May 2008 (SRC Final Site Plan Comments)
13 June 2008 (Road Plans, SWM Plans, ESC Plans)
Engineer:
(Rev. 2) Phil Custer
(Rev. 1) Phil Custer
Jonathan Sharp
A. Final Site Plans (comments from 15 May 2008)
1. Please provide copies of federal and state permits for stream disturbance (Army Corps, VDEQ,
etc.).
(Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed.
(Rev. 2) Comment has not been addressed.
2. Please provide a completed copy of the standard stormwater maintenance agreement and fee for
recordation for the proposed stormwater management facilities.
(Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed.
(Rev. 2) Comment has been addressed.
3. Please provide the FEMA map and date references labeled for the FEMA floodplain.
(Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed.
4. Please provide all copies of necessary offsite easements. For example, easements to construct
water and sewer, road improvements, offsite construction and access easements, drainage
easements, etc.
(Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. The only offsite easement obtained has been for the
construction within the private ROW. Permanent easements are needed for this project that must
be obtained before approval is granted. Temporary construction easements also appear
necessary on adjacent parcels affected by the roadway upgrade and construction of the SCC's to
the streams.
(Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. An easement plat has not yet been reviewed by the
County. Comments from a full review of the plat will be given under a separate cover. Over
the last several months, most of the discussion regarding offsite easements has revolved around
the roadway culvert and drainage channels. Please be aware that in addition to the drainage
easements in this area, the following easements will be required.
- drainage easements will be needed for the channels downstream of SWM facilities 3
and 5
- construction easements for the sediment traps shown on the ESC plan, and
- a swm easement on the 56 -76B encompassing the embankment of SWM facility 5.
A letter from the property owner will be enough to address our concerns about the construction
of the sediment traps.
5. The proposed adjacent subdivision and boundary line adjustment must be recorded prior to final
site plan approval.
(Rev. 1) Please adjust site plan set to match the approved boundaries.
(Rev. 1) The BLA plat must be recorded prior to site plan approval.
6. Please provide traffic generation figures for the proposed site and proposed roadway
improvements.
(Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. The applicant has just mentioned the estimated traffic
generation for the proposed development and has not offered an estimate of the traffic load
existing on Park View Drive. This is needed in order to check the road is designed to the correct
standards.
(Rev. 2) Comment has been addressed.
Curb and gutter and treated surfaces based on VDOT regulations and standards are required for all
travel -ways and parking areas. As proposed, the plan requires a waiver of curb and gutter and
parking /travel -way surface requirements. If you want to pursue a waiver of the requirements,
please provide a waiver request which includes the items requesting to be waived and a
justification in accordance with the Code Sections provided below:
Curb and gutter waiver request:
Curb and gutter can be waived administratively for stormwater management purposes by the
County Engineer according to Code Section 18.4.12.15g. For all other purposes, a curb and gutter
waiver can be administratively waived by the Zoning Administrator in conjunction with the
County Engineer according to Code Section 18.4.12.2c2.
Parking and travel -way surface waiver request:
Parking and travel -way surface requirements can be waived by the county Engineer according to
Code Section 18.4.12.15a.
(Rev. 1) I have forwarded your request for a waiver of the curb and gutter to the Zoning
Administrator. I will forward you her response once it is received. I have also noticed that the
site plan is not in compliance with sections 18- 4.12.17.a and 18- 4.12.16.c.6 and requested that
the Zoning Administrator make decisions on these waivers as well.
The County Engineer has approved your request for the alternative surface requirements. These
details cannot be amended without County Engineer approval.
(Rev. 2) The waiver of curb and gutter and the reduction of the 18ft parking space length to
l7ft have been approved by the Zoning Administrator. The county will not waive travelway and
parking lot grade requirements.
8. The proposed plan is showing stream buffer disturbance. Stream buffer disturbance should be
minimized. Engineering recommends minimizing stream buffer disturbance along Parkview Drive
and eliminating all stream buffer disturbance shown on site, except for any necessary ditches to
convey the outletting drainage of the facilities to the streams below. Any stream buffer
disturbances will need approval from the Program Authority, and require an approved Mitigation
Plan prior to Final Site Plan approval.
(Rev. 1) The disturbances of the stream buffer for temporary ESC controls as shown on the
latest plan will be allowed through section 17 -320B of the Water Protection Ordinance.
Comments from the mitigation plan review for the disturbance of the stream buffer for the
upgrade of Park View Rd. will appear in the sections to follow.
9. The grading plans show proposed slopes steeper than 2:1. Please revise the grading plans so that
all proposed slopes are 2:1 or flatter. Some of the proposed spot elevations are very confusing.
For example, the spot elevation 651.9 near the existing barn/shed is very close to the existing 650
contour, creating very steep slopes in this area. There are other proposed spot elevations which
create very steep proposed slopes.
(Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed.
(Rev. 2) Comment has been addressed.
10. For SWM facilities with embankments 3 feet or higher, the downhill face of the embankment must
be minimum of 3:1. Several of the proposed embankments are only 1.5:1.
(Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. SWM facility 3 has an embankment taller than aft and
the slope varies between 3:1 and 2:1. Please amend.
(Rev. 2) A variance has been granted by the County engineer for the 2:1 slopes on the
downstream side of the embankments to the SWM facilities as shown.
11. All proposed slopes steeper than 3:1 must have low maintenance (not grass) ground cover
specified on the plans (site plan and road plans).
(Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. The groundcover must not be grass. For instance,
juniper would be something that would meet the requirement. Also, not all slopes steeper than
3:1 are shown with the special low maintenance groundcover designation.
(Rev. 2) Please update the landscape sheet with this note.
12. Safety railing must be specified for retaining walls over 4 feet high.
(Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed.
(Rev. 2) Comment has been addressed.
13. Adequate access must be provided to all of the SWM facilities. The requirements are: 10 feet
wide access not exceeding 20% in grade. For grades in excess of 10 %, graveled access is
required. Access must be provided to the embankment, any outlet structures, and any forebays.
(Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. Please clearly show the access paths on the plan.
(Rev. 2) Comment has been addressed.
14. All entrances must be shown with a VDOT designation.
(Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed.
15. Please show the sight distance lines at the entrance of the site on Parkview Drive.
(Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. A vertical profile of this sight line may be needed
because of the existing grading of Park View Drive.
(Rev. 2) Comment has not been addressed.
16. VDOT approval is required for any work affecting the public right -of -way.
(Rev. 1) VDOT approval has not yet been received.
(Rev. 2) VDOT approval has been received.
17. Parking areas cannot exceed 5% in grade, in any direction.
(Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed.
(Rev. 2) Grading has been amended and the plan is now currently in violation of 18- 4.12.15c.
18. The proposed parking area configuration does not meet County requirements. In order to maintain
9 foot wide parking spaces, a 24 foot wide travel -way must be provided. If a 20 foot wide travel -
way is provided, parking spaces must maintain 10 feet in width.
(Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed.
19. Guardrail is required for the stream crossing along Parkview Drive.
(Rev. 1) Guardrail placement is not correct. The shoulder needs to be 7ft wide and the guardrail
should be placed in the outer 3ft to maintain the required clear zone. Please see VDOT manuals.
(Rev. 2) The applicant seems to have replaced 2:1 slopes with 3:1 slopes for most areas on the
latest plan. Considering this change and the wide clear zone on the north side of the road,
guardrails are no longer needed. If the applicant wishes to keep the guardrails along the
roadway, then the guardrails must be placed in a flat area of 2 010, not on the 3:1 slope. Please
be sure to update the roadway section to match what has been changed in plan view.
20. It appears that the concept for Stormwater Management is not capturing as much proposed
impervious area as practicable. It appears that parking areas and structures may bypass the facility.
Typically, roof drains of structures tie into the proposed stormwater management facilities, and
parking areas /travel -ways are directed to the SWM facilities through use of curb and gutter, piping,
or ditches and swales. Any concentrated discharges flowing in to a SWM facility require forebays.
(Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. Grading around the parking lot and travelway
adjacent to SWM 3 indicates that not all stormwater could be captured. It appears a curb along
the travelway from SWM 5 to SWM 3 would collect this water. All other site runoff appears to be
directed to facilities through roof drains, channels, or overland flow. Also, forebays have not
been provided for any of the biofllters. Forebays are required at all concentrated discharge
points. The forebay should be sized to hold at least 0.1 "of runoff from the impervious area. This
volume can be included in your Water Quality volume of the biofilter so the footprints do not need
to be increased.
(Rev. 2) Please see comment 49.
21. Please indicate the outlet locations of the proposed SWM facilities. Also, show the required
improvements in order to provide adequate channels for the outlets of the facility to the streams
below.
(Rev. 1) Please show the grading and lining necessary for all stormwater conveyance channels on
the site plan.
(Rev. 2) Please see comment 46. Please show riprap on the channels down the biofilter
embankments.
22. We received a copy of you SWPP permit. This should be sent directly to DCR. Please contact
Mr. Matthew Grant, DCR, at 804.225.3068 for more information. This does not affect your
review /approval of this plan.
(Rev. 1) Comment has been noted by the applicant.
23. Engineering has not yet been able to complete the review of the ESC plans. However, after a
quick look at the plans, it appears that the plans are inadequate. Use of only silt fence as ESC
protection is inadequate. For adequate perimeter control, please provide diversion dikes which
convey drainage to sediment traps and basins.
(Rev. 1) ESC comments will be given in the ESC section of this letter.
24. The ESC plans appear to indicate that the SWM facilities will be constructed during the same time
that the grading /site construction occurs. SWM facilities cannot be constructed or retrofitted from
sediment traps to biofilters until after final stabilization has occurred.
(Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. Please remove biofilter grading from the ESC plan.
Traps 1 and 2 do not appear to be graded to the areas listed in the calculations.
(Rev. 2) Please comment 61b.
25. The road plans, drainage plans, ESC plans, SWM plans, and mitigation plans, any easement plats,
subdivision plats, and boundary line adjustments must be approved and/or recorded prior to final
site plan approval.
(Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. Engineering review cannot recommend approval to
the site plan until all comments are addressed.
(Rev. 2) Comment has not been addressed.
26. More comments may be necessary upon resubmittal.
a. (Rev. 1) Please provide a detail or call out a specific product number for the Enviroform
wheel stops. The proposed wheels stops must be all the requirements listed in section 18-
4.12.16.3.
(Rev. 2) Please show the striping and wheel stops on sheet 6.
b. (Rev. 1) Is there a storm drain located adjacent to Building l ? If so please provide
calculations, outlet protection, a profile, and all other requirements listed in the design
manual.
(Rev. 2) Comment has been withdrawn.
c. (Rev. 1) The sanitary force main is being shown through inlets, water meters, fire
hydrants, and storm manholes. Please correct. Please also show the ROW and property
boundaries on sheet 8A.
(Rev. 2) Comment has not been addressed. The ROW has been shown but the force
main is still proposed through water meters and storm inlets. The county cannot
approve the plan with the note regarding the IOft separation because it would imply
that if the water line was closer to the curb and gutter, the force main could be
constructed on private property. This will not be allowed. Please adjust the note to
state that if the waterline necessitates the force main to be constructed outside of the
ROW, the contract shall stop work and the owner shall obtain an easement.
d. (Rev. 1) The intersection of travelways adjacent to the 2 -story log dwelling does not meet
the county's standard for safe and convenient access. The northern travelway is at too
steep of a grade. The intersected travelway is also at a cross 10% slope which is far to
great. Please reduce to a grade no steeper than 5 %.
(Rev. 2) Comment has not been addressed. There are several areas where the grade is
steeper than 5 %.
B. Road Plans
27. Adequate conveyance of drainage must be provided for Parkview Drive. The ditch shown
opposite of the development ends at contour 646. An adequate channel must be provided to the
channel below. There does not appear to be any adequate ditches or conveyance on the roadside
directly adjacent to the development (from the high point 16 + 00 to the channel below the
culvert.) It appears drainage may spill into the street.
(Rev. 1) Please show the necessary grading all channels including the SCC's along Park View
Drive. A drainage easement will be necessary if a ditch leaves the ROW. Also, the ditch
calculations are confusing. I do not see how any of the roadside ditches can have a 10 -year flow
of 40.04cfs. Please amend calculations for SCC8. Also, there appears to be 4 separate channels
along Parkview Drive. There should be 4 separate calculations: SCC8, 9, 10, and 11. The side
slopes of the ditch in the computations must match the roadway section (3:1).
(Rev. 2) The depth of these roadway ditches must be Ift. [DM] Please also see comment 46.
28. Please provide pavement design calculations.
(Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed.
(Rev. 2) Comment has not been addressed.
29. A traffic generation and distribution summary (ADT's) and design speed limit are needed for
design of Parkview Drive (for road width, K values, pavement design, etc.)
(Rev. 1) Comment not addressed. The applicant has just mentioned the estimated traffic
generation for the proposed development and has not offered an estimate of the traffic load
existing on Park View Drive. This is needed in order to check the road is designed to the correct
standards.
(Rev. 2) Comment has been addressed.
30. Please show all existing and proposed signs for traffic control (speed limit, stop signs, etc.)
(Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. Stops signs are needed from Parrot Creek Rd. and the
site at Sta. 11 +00. The sign at Sta. 11 +00 should be placed before the bike path. A speed limit
sign should be shown for the lane traveling from Route 240. Please specify what the speed limit
and design speed for the roadway upgrade are.
(Rev. 2) Comment has been addressed.
31. Please show all existing and proposed street name signs.
(Rev. 1) A street sign needs to be shown at the intersection of Park View and Route 240.
(Rev. 2) Comment has been addressed.
32. Please provide the Albemarle County general construction notes, and notes for streets on the plans,
verbatim (It appears old notes are provided.) A copy of the latest notes is provided at the end of
this comment letter.
(Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed.
(Rev. 2) Comment has been addressed.
33. Please show cross drain locations labeled with VDOT designations (CD -1,2) at every major cut
and fill transition or sag curve on the road profile sheet.
(Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. Please remove the note and locate the cross - drains in
the profile meeting the VDOT requirements.
(Rev. 2) Comment has been addressed.
34. The pavement crown must be specified at 1/4 ":1' slope.
(Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed.
35. The roadway shoulder must be a minimum of 4' width.
(Rev. 1) It appears there are many discrepancies between the roadway section and plan view/ The
grading in plan view seems to indicate that the shoulder is not graded at114"11'. Please correct.
There doesn't appear to be a shoulder on the west side of the road from Sta. 14 +00 to 15 +75.
Please correct and show grading for the ditch and provide an easement. Easements will be
needed over all roadside ditches outside of the ROW. The section should show a f ll slope at the
edge of the bike path.
(Rev. 2) Comment has not been addressed. To specify a few:
- the section does not match what has been drawn in plan view,
- in plan view, the shoulder on the south side of the road is 6ft, not 5ft,
- the bike trail is shown at the edge of easement when it is not in plan view, and
- the guardrail on the north side of the road is not shown.
36. Proposed slopes steeper than 3:1 must have low maintenance (not grass) ground cover specified.
(Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. The groundcover must not be grass. Juniper would be
something that would meet the requirement. Also, not all slopes steeper than 3:1 are shown with
the special low maintenance groundcover designation.
(Rev. 2) Comment has been addressed.
37. Guardrail must be specified over all fill slopes and culverts, with 3' additional shoulder, using
VDOT designations. Guardrail end sections must be labeled.
(Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. The shoulder has not been increased an additional aft
when the guardrail is necessary. Guardrail is needed over a larger span than what is specified.
The guardrail should be accounted for in the roadway section as well.
(Rev. 2) The applicant seems to have replaced 2:1 slopes with 3:1 slopes for most areas on the
latest plan. Considering this change and the wide clear zone on the north side of the road,
guardrails are no longer needed. If the applicant wishes to keep the guardrails along the
roadway, then the guardrails must be placed in a flat area of 2 %, not on the 3:1 slope. Please
be sure to update the roadway section to match what has been changed in plan view.
38. Ditches must be dimensioned at F depth min., and 4' min. width from shoulder to ditch
centerline.
(Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed.
39. Please provide a profile for the roadway culvert.
(Rev. 1) The profile of the roadway culvert is adequate but a drainage easement will be needed
over the pipe where it exists outside of the ROW. The easement should be placed at the width
specified by the formula in the design manual.
(Rev. 2) All vertical or horizontal changes in direction or changes in material require a VDOT
structure. It appears the latest revision to the culvert design requires 2 structures. The pipe
diameters cannot decrease in a pipe system.
40. Please provide culvert calculations.
(Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. The computations appear to be for the existing culvert
that will be replaced with this plan.
(Rev. 2) Comment has not been addressed. The calculations provided appear to be for a pipe
in a storm sewer network instead of a culvert calculation. The capacity of a 24in culvert at 2%
is smaller than of a 24in pipe in a stormsewer system because of the headwater conditions. The
culvert calculations should show that headwater for the pipe during a 10 year storm is less than
1.5 times the diameter. Depending on the slope, my calculations show that a 30 or 36 inch
culvert may be needed.
41. Please provide ditch calculations.
(Rev. 1) All grass -lined ditches must have side slopes of 3:1. If side slopes are steeper, the
channel must be lined with rip -rap because of the county's policy of not allowing grass on slopes
steeper than 3:1. Please show accurate grading reflecting the width of the channel on sheet 7.
For instance, SCC7 is shown as lft wide on the plan but is 4ft wide in the calculations.
(Rev. 2) There are discrepancies between the channels in the forebay calculations and in the
SCC calculations. Please see comment 49. Please provide riprap on the channels through the
embankment of the biofilters. When the channel reaches existing grade, the ditch lining
determined in the channel calculations are satisfactory.
42. Please provide outlet protection and outlet protection calculations for the roadway culvert.
(Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. Please show the outlet protection dimensions in the
plan set.
(Rev. 2) Comment has not been addressed. Dimensions for the outlet protection must be
provided.
43. Please show the drainage area drainage to the proposed culvert.
(Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed.
C. Stormwater Management Plan
44. Stormwater Management drainage area maps (proposed and existing) must have the acreage
coefficient, and time of concentration labeled for each drainage area on the maps.
(Rev. 1) Drainage area lines do not look accurate. Please amend. Also, show the proposed
contour lines on the "Post Development Drainage Area Map ".
(Rev. 2) Comment has been addressed.
45. It appears that not all impervious areas drain to the SWM facilities. See comment #20.
(Rev. 1) Grading around the parking lot and travelway adjacent to SWM 3 indicates that not all
stormwater could be captured. It appears a curb along the travelway from SWM 5 to SWM 3
would collect this water. All other site runoff appears to be directed to facilities through roof
drains, channels, or overland flow.
(Rev. 2) Comment has been addressed.
46. Please provide ditch calculations for all proposed ditches conveying flow to SWM facilities.
(Rev. 1) Please show the grading for channels and include in the limits of disturbance on the ESC
plan. Please also see comment 41.
(Rev. 2) Engineering review is satisfied with the channel calculations. Due to the number and
differing conditions for all of the channels on site, please provide a summary table on the site
plan showing side slopes, depth, and lining for each channel.
47. The Stormwater Management facilities must not be located within the stream buffers.
(Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed.
48. Flow in the facilities must not be short - circuited. The flow path must be 2:1 or greater in all water
quality facilities.
(Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed.
(Rev. 2) Comment has been withdrawn.
49. Cross - section details of each facility must be provided, including: embankments, principle and
emergency spillways, sediment forebays, and biofilter floor dimensions. See the County
Engineering design manual checklist for all cross - section detail requirements.
(Rev. 1) The provided details are missing critical pieces of information. Please list the
embankment elevation, embankment width, bed elevation, spillway elevation and TOW (if
applicable). And, for all biofilters adjacent to walls, please show the gravel backfill behind the
biofilters and any tie backs and how it relates to the mix in the biofilter. Engineering review is
concerned about water escaping the mix without treatment by passing through the backfill.
Please also provide details for the spillway through the retaining wall.
(Rev. 2) Please show and dimension the check dam forebays in plan view as they have been
designed in the calculations package. Check dams should be cleaned out or replaced at the
time of biofilter constructionlconversion. The channels in the check dam forebay calculations
do not appear to match the dimensions in the SCC calculations. As an alternative, the
applicant may place stone horse -shoe shaped dams in the biofilter bed at the inlet point as long
as they are sized correctly. (Please contact me to discuss this possibility further.)
50. For facilities with embankments 3 feet or higher, the 10 yr. and 100 yr. high water elevations must
be shown on the cross - section details. With an emergency spillway, 1 foot of freeboard for the
100 yr. storm must be provided. Without an emergency spillway, 2 feet of freeboard for the 100
yr. storm must be provided.
(Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. It appears that all facilities lack adequate free board.
(Rev. 2) Freeboard appears to have been met on all facilities. Please remove "MIN "from the
spillway callout on the biofilter detail sheets. The weir must be the length specified on the plan.
If it were widened in the field, discharges would be higher and may not meet the pre -
development rate.
51. Areas of sheet flow draining into biofilter facilities must be protected from erosion by appropriate
scour protection stone or energy dissipation measure.
(Rev. 1) Comment not addressed. The applicant has referred to a VDOT standard detail that is
not appropriate for this use. Please specify on the plan the size, depth, and any other necessary
characteristics of scour protection for each biofilter.
(Rev. 2) Comment has been addressed.
52. Plants must be shown and labeled with height or caliper in the biofilters. Three species of trees
and three species of shrubs are required in each biofilter.
(Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. Each facility needs to have 3 species of trees and 3
species of shrubs specified where possible.
(Rev. 2) Comment has been addressed.
53. The minimum depth of sand /soil media in biofilters is 2.5 feet.
(Rev. 1) Please amend the plan to indicate I.Sft of gravel as the underdrain. All references to the
Luckstone mix should be removed and replaced with "State Approved Mix ". All underdrains
must be 6" in diameter as well. [DMj
(Rev. 2) Comment has been addressed.
54. The outlet of the facilities must be shown on the plans and cross - sections, matching the
computations.
(Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed.
55. Biofilter underdrains and cleanouts must be shown on the plans. Clean -outs are required at each
junction and 50'.
(Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed.
56. Please provide the Albemarle County general stormwater notes on the plans. Notes are provided at
the end of this comment letter.
(Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed.
57. The 100 yr. storm elevations are shown at a lower elevation than the 2 and 10 year storm. This
does not make sense. The critical duration storm must be used for the 100 yr. storm. Detention
requirements are for the 2 and 10 yr. storm only, the 100 yr. storm does not need to be detained.
The routings for the 100 yr. storm are required to show that the freeboard requirements are met for
facilities with embankments 3 feet in height and above.
(Rev. 1) Detention calculations for Basin 1 do not appear correct. Please clarify. In the
calculations, the crest length for SWM 4 is listed as 12ft as opposed to 2ft on the plan. Please
adjust. Freeboard requirements do not appear to be met.
(Rev. 2) Freeboard requirements appear to be met. Please show outlet protection at the base of
the redi -rock wall.
58. A SWM bond will be computed by the County once the plans have been approved.
(Rev. 1) Comment has been noted by the applicant.
(Rev. 2) Comment has been noted by the applicant.
D. Mitigation Plan
59. A mitigation plan is required for any stream buffer disturbance. Please provide a mitigation
application, plan, and fee.
a. (Rev. 1) Please provide the disturbance detail showing a shaded areas of the proposed
stream buffer disturbance so that the 0.32 acres can be confirmed. This area must match
the ESC plan. [DM]
(Rev. 2) Comment not addressed. The stream buffer at the crossing is actually 200ft
(100ft on both sides of the stream). The stream buffer layer should be adjusted and the
mitigation plan recalculated. Please note that the buffer disturbance line should match
the limits of disturbance on the ESC plan. There is also a discrepancy between sheet 5
and 9 to how much stream buffer has been disturbed.
b. (Rev. 1) Please submit maintenance agreement for the mitigation planting area. [DM]
(Rev. 2) Comment has been withdrawn.
c. (Rev. 1) Please provide a maintenance narrative and schedule on the plan that includes
the completion date. [DM]
(Rev. 2) Comment has not been addressed.
d. (Rev. 1) Please show adequate channels from each biofilter through the buffer. [DM]
(Rev. 2) Comment has been addressed.
e. (Rev. 1) The planting locations for each of the landscape categories (canopy tree,
understory tree, and shrub) should be heterogeneous. The shrubs, canopy trees, and
understory trees should not be grouped together in bands but mixed.
(Rev. 2) Comment has been addressed.
60. A Mitigation bond will be computed by the County once the plans have been approved.
(Rev. 1) Comment has been noted.
(Rev. 2) Comment has been noted.
E. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
61. It appears that inadequate perimeter control is provided. See comment #24.
(Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed.
a. The construction of ST -1 will require a retaining wall. This wall needs to be the first
measure installed and should be noted in the construction sequence and shown on sheet
4.
(Rev. 2) Comment has been addressed.
b. The grading for the sediment traps 1 and 2 are not correct. It appears the grading is
being shown is the grading of the biofilters which appear on sheet 7. Please correct. It is
difficult checking the compliance with the sediment trap calculations without the
necessary grading. Additional comments may be necessary once the grading is shown.
(Rev. 2) Please remove the silt fence and note stating that silt fence is to be installed on
the uphill side of the biofilters. The biofilters will not be installed until after
stabilization. This means that builings 6, 7, and 11 will be built after site stabilization.
This should be called out more clearly on the plan so the contractor is more aware of
the phasing. Silt fence on the downhill side of SWM 3 is required. Please label
contours and show the weirs for traps I and 2. Volumes will be confirmed once the
contours have been labeled.
62. Silt fence must not be used across contours in place of diversion dikes. Silt fence is limited to
areas of sheet flow with 1/a acre per 100ft of level on -grade silt fence.
(Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed.
63. Please provide ESC measures for the road improvements and sewer line improvements.
(Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. The grading for the sediment traps need to be shown.
I do not see any ESC measures for the construction of the sewer line.
(Rev. 2) Comment has not been addressed. Please show silt fence for utility work in the VDOT
ROW. Please also label the contours of traps 3 -6 to confirm the dimensions of the traps with
the tables. The stone weirs should also be shown.
64. Stream crossings and diversions must be provided at all stream crossings. A detailed sequence of
construction must be provided for the replacement of the existing culvert and work within the live
stream.
(Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed.
(Rev. 2) Comment has not been addressed.
65. The County Erosion Control notes must be shown on the plans. Notes are provided at the end of
this comment letter.
(Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed.
66. The limits of clearing and grading encompassing all disturbances must be shown on the plans.
(Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed.
(Rev. 2) Comment has not been addressed. The removal of the second entrance to the site and
the utility work in the ROW needs to be shown within the limits of disturbance.
67. Please graphically show the construction entrance on the plans.
(Rev. 1) A construction entrance will be needed at Park View Rd's intersection with Route 240.
Please provide a narrative regarding when the road upgrade will take place.
(Rev. 2) Comment has not been addressed.
68. Please show existing drainage divides.
(Rev. 1) The "Pre- Development Drainage Area Map" appears to be incorrect in the delineation
of area 5 and 3 and should match the map lines on the sediment trap area map. The sediment
trap drainage area map also does not seem to match the ESC plan. The drainage areas for traps
3 -6 also needs to be shown in the map.
(Rev. 2) The drainage areas for traps 3 -6 also needs to be shown in a map.
69. Please show existing soil boundaries with labels.
(Rev. 1) The map in the narrative is illegible.
(Rev. 2) Comment has been addressed.
70. Please show a stockpile location.
(Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed.
71. Please show a staging and parking area.
(Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed.
72. Please show outlet protection at all outlets.
(Rev. 1) Comment not addressed. It appears there is a low point and inlet protection on the plans
adjacent to building 1, but there is no accompanying outlet protection or storm sewer system
proposed anywhere on the plan. This system will need a profile. Also, it appears a culvert is
needed at the site entrance off of Park View Dr. and outlet protection should be provided. A
profile of this culvert will also be needed.
(Rev. 2) Comment has not been addressed. Outlet protection is needed on both culverts at the
entrance to the site. All outlet protection should be dimensioned in the sheet set.
73. All ESC measures must remain outside of the stream buffers.
(Rev. 1) The disturbances of the stream buffer for temporary ESC controls as shown on the
latest plan will be allowed through section 17 -320B of the Water Protection Ordinance.
74. Adequate channels (MS -19) are required at each facility outlet and at the outlet of all ditches and
culverts.
(Rev. 1) Please see comment 41.
(Rev. 2) Comment has been addressed.
75. A paved construction entrance detail is required for the plans. A copy of the detail is attached
following the comments.
(Rev. 1) Comment has been withdrawn.
76. An ESC bond will be computed by the County once the plans have been approved.
(Rev. 1) Comment noted.
(Rev. 2) Comment noted.
77. (Rev. 1) Please show tree protection to the proper VESCH standard or remove completely from
the plan if the tree protection is not required through the ZMA or other agency review. Many
trees are called out as having tree protection fencing but the placement of the fence is not shown.
The state standard requires fencing at the dripline for each tree. The site plan shows disturbances
well within the dripline.
(Rev. 2) Comment has not been addressed.
File: E4_esc swm rp fsp mp_PBC_sdp08074 + wpo08045 Blue Ridge Co- Housing.doc
ALg�,��
�'IRGINZ�
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
Project: WPO- 2008 - 00045, SDP - 2008 -00074 Blue Ridge Co- Housing
Plan preparer: Mr. Kevin Conner, CLA; Gay and Neel Inc. [kconner @gayandneel.com]
Owner or rep.: Crozet Co- Housing, LLC fax (unknown)
Date received: (Rev. 1) 31 July 2008
29 April 2008
Date of Comment: (Rev. 1) 14 August 2008
15 May 2008 (SRC Final Site Plan Comments)
13 June 2008 (Road Plans, SWM Plans, ESC Plans)
Engineer: (Rev. 1) Phil Custer
Jonathan Sharp
A. Final Site Plans (comments from 15 May 2008)
1. Please provide copies of federal and state permits for stream disturbance (Army Corps, VDEQ,
etc.).
(Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed.
2. Please provide a completed copy of the standard stormwater maintenance agreement and fee for
recordation for the proposed stormwater management facilities.
(Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed.
3. Please provide the FEMA map and date references labeled for the FEMA floodplain.
(Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed.
4. Please provide all copies of necessary offsite easements. For example, easements to construct
water and sewer, road improvements, offsite construction and access easements, drainage
easements, etc.
(Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. The only offsite easement obtained has been for the
construction within the private ROW. Permanent easements are needed for this project that
must be obtained before approval is granted. Temporary construction easements also appear
necessary on adjacent parcels affected by the roadway upgrade and construction of the SCC's
to the streams.
5. The proposed adjacent subdivision and boundary line adjustment must be recorded prior to final
site plan approval.
(Rev. 1) Please adjust site plan set to match the approved boundaries.
6. Please provide traffic generation figures for the proposed site and proposed roadway
improvements.
(Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. The applicant has just mentioned the estimated
traffic generation for the proposed development and has not offered an estimate of the traffic
load existing on Park View Drive. This is needed in order to check the road is designed to the
correct standards.
7. Curb and gutter and treated surfaces based on VDOT regulations and standards are required for all
travel -ways and parking areas. As proposed, the plan requires a waiver of curb and gutter and
parking /travel -way surface requirements. If you want to pursue a waiver of the requirements,
please provide a waiver request which includes the items requesting to be waived and a
justification in accordance with the Code Sections provided below:
Curb and gutter waiver request:
Curb and gutter can be waived administratively for stormwater management purposes by the
County Engineer according to Code Section 18.4.12.15g. For all other purposes, a curb and gutter
waiver can be administratively waived by the Zoning Administrator in conjunction with the
County Engineer according to Code Section 18.4.12.2c2.
Parking and travel -way surface waiver request:
Parking and travel -way surface requirements can be waived by the county Engineer according to
Code Section 18.4.12.15a.
(Rev. 1) I have forwarded your request for a waiver of the curb and gutter to the Zoning
Administrator. I will forward you her response once it is received. I have also noticed that the
site plan is not in compliance with sections 18- 4.12.17.a and 18- 4.12.16.c.6 and requested that
the Zoning Administrator make decisions on these waivers as well.
The County Engineer has approved your request for the alternative surface requirements.
These details cannot be amended without County Engineer approval.
8. The proposed plan is showing stream buffer disturbance. Stream buffer disturbance should be
minimized. Engineering recommends minimizing stream buffer disturbance along Parkview Drive
and eliminating all stream buffer disturbance shown on site, except for any necessary ditches to
convey the outletting drainage of the facilities to the streams below. Any stream buffer
disturbances will need approval from the Program Authority, and require an approved Mitigation
Plan prior to Final Site Plan approval.
(Rev. 1) The disturbances of the stream buffer for temporary ESC controls as shown on the
latest plan will be allowed through section 17 -320B of the Water Protection Ordinance.
Comments from the mitigation plan review for the disturbance of the stream buffer for the
upgrade of Park View Rd. will appear in the sections to follow.
9. The grading plans show proposed slopes steeper than 2:1. Please revise the grading plans so that
all proposed slopes are 2:1 or flatter. Some of the proposed spot elevations are very confusing.
For example, the spot elevation 651.9 near the existing barn/shed is very close to the existing 650
contour, creating very steep slopes in this area. There are other proposed spot elevations which
create very steep proposed slopes.
(Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed.
10. For SWM facilities with embankments 3 feet or higher, the downhill face of the embankment must
be minimum of 3:1. Several of the proposed embankments are only 1.5:1.
(Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. SWM facility 3 has an embankment taller than 3ft
and the slope varies between 3:1 and 2:1. Please amend.
11. All proposed slopes steeper than 3:1 must have low maintenance (not grass) ground cover
specified on the plans (site plan and road plans).
(Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. The groundcover must not be grass. For instance,
juniper would be something that would meet the requirement. Also, not all slopes steeper than
3:1 are shown with the special low maintenance groundcover designation.
12. Safety railing must be specified for retaining walls over 4 feet high.
(Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed.
13. Adequate access must be provided to all of the SWM facilities. The requirements are: 10 feet
wide access not exceeding 20% in grade. For grades in excess of 10%, graveled access is
required. Access must be provided to the embankment, any outlet structures, and any forebays.
(Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. Please clearly show the access paths on the plan.
14. All entrances must be shown with a VDOT designation.
(Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed.
15. Please show the sight distance lines at the entrance of the site on Parkview Drive.
(Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. A vertical profile of this sight line may be needed
because of the existing grading of Park View Drive.
16. VDOT approval is required for any work affecting the public right -of -way.
(Rev. 1) VDOT approval has not yet been received.
17. Parking areas cannot exceed 5% in grade, in any direction.
(Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed.
18. The proposed parking area configuration does not meet County requirements. In order to maintain
9 foot wide parking spaces, a 24 foot wide travel -way must be provided. If a 20 foot wide travel -
way is provided, parking spaces must maintain 10 feet in width.
(Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed.
19. Guardrail is required for the stream crossing along Parkview Drive.
(Rev. 1) Guardrail placement is not correct. The shoulder needs to be 7ft wide and the
guardrail should be placed in the outer 3ft to maintain the required clear zone. Please see
VDOT manuals.
20. It appears that the concept for Stormwater Management is not capturing as much proposed
impervious area as practicable. It appears that parking areas and structures may bypass the facility.
Typically, roof drains of structures tie into the proposed stormwater management facilities, and
parking areas /travel -ways are directed to the SWM facilities through use of curb and gutter, piping,
or ditches and swales. Any concentrated discharges flowing in to a SWM facility require forebays.
(Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. Grading around the parking lot and travelway
adjacent to SWM 3 indicates that not all stormwater could be captured. It appears a curb along
the travelway from SWM 5 to SWM 3 would collect this water. All other site runoff appears to
be directed to facilities through roof drains, channels, or overland flow. Also, forebays have
not been provided for any of the biofilters. Forebays are required at all concentrated discharge
points. The forebay should be sized to hold at least 0.1 " of runoff from the impervious area.
This volume can be included in your Water Quality volume of the biofilter so the footprints do
not need to be increased.
21. Please indicate the outlet locations of the proposed SWM facilities. Also, show the required
improvements in order to provide adequate channels for the outlets of the facility to the streams
below.
(Rev. 1) Please show the grading and lining necessary for all stormwater conveyance channels
on the site plan.
22. We received a copy of you SWPP permit. This should be sent directly to DCR. Please contact
Mr. Matthew Grant, DCR, at 804.225.3068 for more information. This does not affect your
review /approval of this plan.
(Rev. 1) Comment has been noted by the applicant.
23. Engineering has not yet been able to complete the review of the ESC plans. However, after a
quick look at the plans, it appears that the plans are inadequate. Use of only silt fence as ESC
protection is inadequate. For adequate perimeter control, please provide diversion dikes which
convey drainage to sediment traps and basins.
(Rev. 1) ESC comments will be given in the ESC section of this letter.
24. The ESC plans appear to indicate that the SWM facilities will be constructed during the same time
that the grading /site construction occurs. SWM facilities cannot be constructed or retrofitted from
sediment traps to biofilters until after final stabilization has occurred.
(Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. Please remove biofilter grading from the ESC plan.
Traps I and 2 do not appear to be graded to the areas listed in the calculations.
25. The road plans, drainage plans, ESC plans, SWM plans, and mitigation plans, any easement plats,
subdivision plats, and boundary line adjustments must be approved and/or recorded prior to final
site plan approval.
(Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. Engineering review cannot recommend approval to
the site plan until all comments are addressed.
26. More comments may be necessary upon resubmittal.
a. (Rev.]) Please provide a detail or call out a specific product number for the
Enviroform wheel stops. The proposed wheels stops must be all the requirements listed
in section I8- 4.12.16.3.
b. (Rev. 1) Is there a storm drain located adjacent to Building I ? If so please provide
calculations, outlet protection, a profile, and all other requirements listed in the design
manual.
c. (Rev. 1) The sanitary force main is being shown through inlets, water meters, fire
hydrants, and storm manholes. Please correct. Please also show the ROW and
property boundaries on sheet 8A.
d. (Rev. 1) The intersection of travelways adjacent to the 2 -story log dwelling does not
meet the county's standard for safe and convenient access. The northern travelway is
at too steep of a grade. The intersected travelway is also at a cross 10% slope which is
far to great. Please reduce to a grade no steeper than 5 %.
B. Road Plans
27. Adequate conveyance of drainage must be provided for Parkview Drive. The ditch shown
opposite of the development ends at contour 646. An adequate channel must be provided to the
channel below. There does not appear to be any adequate ditches or conveyance on the roadside
directly adjacent to the development (from the high point 16 + 00 to the channel below the
culvert.) It appears drainage may spill into the street.
(Rev. 1) Please show the necessary grading all channels including the SCC's along Park View
Drive. A drainage easement will be necessary if a ditch leaves the ROW. Also, the ditch
calculations are confusing. I do not see how any of the roadside ditches can have a 10 year
flow of 40.04cfs. Please amend calculations for SCC8. Also, there appears to be 4 separate
channels along Parkview Drive. There should be 4 separate calculations: SCC8, 9, 10, and 11.
The side slopes of the ditch in the computations must match the roadway section (3:1).
28. Please provide pavement design calculations.
(Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed.
29. A traffic generation and distribution summary (ADT's) and design speed limit are needed for
design of Parkview Drive (for road width, K values, pavement design, etc.)
(Rev. 1) Comment not addressed. The applicant has just mentioned the estimated traffic
generation for the proposed development and has not offered an estimate of the traffic load
existing on Park View Drive. This is needed in order to check the road is designed to the
correct standards.
30. Please show all existing and proposed signs for traffic control (speed limit, stop signs, etc.)
(Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. Stops signs are needed from Parrot Creek Rd. and
the site at Sta. 11 +00. The sign at Sta. 11 +00 should be placed before the bike path. A speed
limit sign should be shown for the lane traveling from Route 240. Please specify what the speed
limit and design speed for the roadway upgrade are.
31. Please show all existing and proposed street name signs.
(Rev. 1) A street sign needs to be shown at the intersection of Park View and Route 240.
32. Please provide the Albemarle County general construction notes, and notes for streets on the plans,
verbatim (It appears old notes are provided.) A copy of the latest notes is provided at the end of
this comment letter.
(Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed.
33. Please show cross drain locations labeled with VDOT designations (CD -1,2) at every major cut
and fill transition or sag curve on the road profile sheet.
(Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. Please remove the note and locate the cross - drains
in the profile meeting the VDOT requirements.
34. The pavement crown must be specified at' /a ":1' slope.
(Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed.
35. The roadway shoulder must be a minimum of 4' width.
(Rev. 1) It appears there are many discrepancies between the roadway section and plan view/
The grading in plan view seems to indicate that the shoulder is not graded at 1 /a " /1'. Please
correct. There doesn't appear to be a shoulder on the west side of the road from Sta. 14 +00 to
15 +75. Please correct and show grading for the ditch and provide an easement. Easements
will be needed overall roadside ditches outside of the ROW. The section should show a fill
slope at the edge of the bike path.
36. Proposed slopes steeper than 3:1 must have low maintenance (not grass) ground cover specified.
(Rev.]) Comment has not been addressed. The groundcover must not be grass. Juniper would
be something that would meet the requirement. Also, not all slopes steeper than 3:1 are shown
with the special low maintenance groundcover designation.
37. Guardrail must be specified over all fill slopes and culverts, with 3' additional shoulder, using
VDOT designations. Guardrail end sections must be labeled.
(Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. The shoulder has not been increased an additional
3ft when the guardrail is necessary. Guardrail is needed over a larger span than what is
specified. The guardrail should be accounted for in the roadway section as well.
38. Ditches must be dimensioned at F depth min., and 4' min. width from shoulder to ditch
centerline.
(Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed.
39. Please provide a profile for the roadway culvert.
(Rev. 1) The profile of the roadway culvert is adequate but a drainage easement will be needed
over the pipe where it exists outside of the ROW. The easement should be placed at the width
specified by the formula in the design manual.
40. Please provide culvert calculations.
(Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. The computations appear to be for the existing
culvert that will be replaced with this plan.
41. Please provide ditch calculations.
(Rev. 1) All grass -lined ditches must have side slopes of 3:1. If side slopes are steeper, the
channel must be lined with rip -rap because of the county's policy of not allowing grass on
slopes steeper than 3:1. Please show accurate grading reflecting the width of the channel on
sheet 7. For instance, SCC7 is shown as I
ft
wide on the plan but is Oft wide in the calculations.
42. Please provide outlet protection and outlet protection calculations for the roadway culvert.
(Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. Please show the outlet protection dimensions in the
plan set.
43. Please show the drainage area drainage to the proposed culvert.
(Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed.
C. Stormwater Management Plan
44. Stormwater Management drainage area maps (proposed and existing) must have the acreage
coefficient, and time of concentration labeled for each drainage area on the maps.
(Rev. 1) Drainage area lines do not look accurate. Please amend. Also, show the proposed
contour lines on the "Post Development Drainage Area Map ".
45. It appears that not all impervious areas drain to the SWM facilities. See comment #20.
(Rev. 1) Grading around the parking lot and travelway adjacent to SWM 3 indicates that not all
stormwater could be captured. It appears a curb along the travelway from SWM 5 to SWM 3
would collect this water. All other site runoff appears to be directed to facilities through roof
drains, channels, or overland flow.
46. Please provide ditch calculations for all proposed ditches conveying flow to SWM facilities.
(Rev. 1) Please show the grading for channels and include in the limits of disturbance on the
ESC plan. Please also see comment 41.
47. The Stormwater Management facilities must not be located within the stream buffers.
(Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed.
48. Flow in the facilities must not be short - circuited. The flow path must be 2:1 or greater in all water
quality facilities.
(Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed.
49. Cross - section details of each facility must be provided, including: embankments, principle and
emergency spillways, sediment forebays, and biofilter floor dimensions. See the County
Engineering design manual checklist for all cross - section detail requirements.
(Rev. 1) The provided details are missing critical pieces of information. Please list the
embankment elevation, embankment width, bed elevation, spillway elevation and TOW (if
applicable). And, for all biofilters adjacent to walls, please show the gravel backfill behind the
biofilters and any tie backs and how it relates to the mix in the biofilter. Engineering review is
concerned about water escaping the mix without treatment by passing through the backfill.
Please also provide details for the spillway through the retaining wall.
50. For facilities with embankments 3 feet or higher, the 10 yr. and 100 yr. high water elevations must
be shown on the cross - section details. With an emergency spillway, 1 foot of freeboard for the
100 yr. storm must be provided. Without an emergency spillway, 2 feet of freeboard for the 100
yr. storm must be provided.
(Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. It appears that all facilities lack adequate free
board.
51. Areas of sheet flow draining into biofilter facilities must be protected from erosion by appropriate
scour protection stone or energy dissipation measure.
(Rev. 1) Comment not addressed. The applicant has referred to a VDOT standard detail that is
not appropriate for this use. Please specify on the plan the size, depth, and any other necessary
characteristics of scour protection for each biofilter.
52. Plants must be shown and labeled with height or caliper in the biofilters. Three species of trees
and three species of shrubs are required in each biofilter.
(Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. Each facility needs to have 3 species of trees and 3
species of shrubs specified where possible.
53. The minimum depth of sand/soil media in biofilters is 2.5 feet.
(Rev. 1) Please amend the plan to indicate 1.5ft of gravel as the underdrain. All references to
the Luckstone mix should be removed and replaced with "State Approved Mix': All
underdrains must be 6" in diameter as well. [DM]
54. The outlet of the facilities must be shown on the plans and cross - sections, matching the
computations.
(Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed.
55. Biofilter underdrains and cleanouts must be shown on the plans. Clean -outs are required at each
junction and 50'.
(Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed.
56. Please provide the Albemarle County general stormwater notes on the plans. Notes are provided at
the end of this comment letter.
(Rev. I) Comment has been addressed.
57. The 100 yr. storm elevations are shown at a lower elevation than the 2 and 10 year storm. This
does not make sense. The critical duration storm must be used for the 100 yr. storm. Detention
requirements are for the 2 and 10 yr. storm only, the 100 yr. storm does not need to be detained.
The routings for the 100 yr. storm are required to show that the freeboard requirements are met for
facilities with embankments 3 feet in height and above.
(Rev. 1) Detention calculations for Basin I do not appear correct. Please clarify. In the
calculations, the crest length for SWM 4 is listed as 12ft as opposed to 2ft on the plan. Please
adjust. Freeboard requirements do not appear to be met.
58. A SWM bond will be computed by the County once the plans have been approved.
(Rev. 1) Comment has been noted by the applicant.
D. Mitigation Plan
59. A mitigation plan is required for any stream buffer disturbance. Please provide a mitigation
application, plan, and fee.
a. (Rev. 1) Please provide the disturbance detail showing a shaded areas of the proposed
stream buffer disturbance so that the 0.32 acres can be confirmed. This area must
match the ESC plan. [DM]
b. (Rev. 1) Please submit maintenance agreement for the mitigation planting area. [DM]
c. (Rev. 1) Please provide a maintenance narrative and schedule on the plan that includes
the completion date. [DM]
d. (Rev. 1) Please show adequate channels from each biofilter through the buffer. [DM]
e. (Rev. 1) The planting locations for each of the landscape categories (canopy tree,
understory tree, and shrub) should be heterogeneous. The shrubs, canopy trees, and
understory trees should not be grouped together in bands but mixed.
60. A Mitigation bond will be computed by the County once the plans have been approved.
(Rev. 1) Comment has been noted.
E. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
61. It appears that inadequate perimeter control is provided. See comment #24.
(Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed.
a. The construction of ST -1 will require a retaining wall. This wall needs to be the first
measure installed and should be noted in the construction sequence and shown on
sheet 4.
b. The grading for the sediment traps 1 and 2 are not correct. It appears the grading is
being shown is the grading of the biofilters which appear on sheet 7. Please correct. It
is difficult checking the compliance with the sediment trap calculations without the
necessary grading. Additional comments may be necessary once the grading is shown.
62. Silt fence must not be used across contours in place of diversion dikes. Silt fence is limited to
areas of sheet flow with 1/a acre per 100ft of level on -grade silt fence.
(Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed.
63. Please provide ESC measures for the road improvements and sewer line improvements.
(Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. The grading for the sediment traps need to be
shown. I do not see any ESC measures for the construction of the sewer line.
64. Stream crossings and diversions must be provided at all stream crossings. A detailed sequence of
construction must be provided for the replacement of the existing culvert and work within the live
stream.
(Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed.
65. The County Erosion Control notes must be shown on the plans. Notes are provided at the end of
this comment letter.
(Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed.
66. The limits of clearing and grading encompassing all disturbances must be shown on the plans.
(Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed.
67. Please graphically show the construction entrance on the plans.
(Rev. 1) A construction entrance will be needed at Park View Rd's intersection with Route 240.
Please provide a narrative regarding when the road upgrade will take place.
68. Please show existing drainage divides.
(Rev. 1) The "Pre- Development Drainage Area Map" appears to be incorrect in the delineation
of area 5 and 3 and should match the map lines on the sediment trap area map. The sediment
trap drainage area map also does not seem to match the ESC plan. The drainage areas for
traps 3 -6 also needs to be shown in the map.
69. Please show existing soil boundaries with labels.
(Rev. 1) The map in the narrative is illegible.
70. Please show a stockpile location.
(Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed.
71. Please show a staging and parking area.
(Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed.
72. Please show outlet protection at all outlets.
(Rev. 1) Comment not addressed. It appears there is a low point and inlet protection on the
plans adjacent to building 1, but there is no accompanying outlet protection or storm sewer
system proposed anywhere on the plan. This system will need a profile. Also, it appears a
culvert is needed at the site entrance off of Park View Dr. and outlet protection should be
provided. A profile of this culvert will also be needed.
73. All ESC measures must remain outside of the stream buffers.
(Rev. 1) The disturbances of the stream buffer for temporary ESC controls as shown on the
latest plan will be allowed through section 17 -320B of the Water Protection Ordinance.
74. Adequate channels (MS -19) are required at each facility outlet and at the outlet of all ditches and
culverts.
(Rev. 1) Please see comment 41.
75. A paved construction entrance detail is required for the plans. A copy of the detail is attached
following the comments.
(Rev. 1) Comment has been withdrawn.
76. An ESC bond will be computed by the County once the plans have been approved.
(Rev. 1) Comment noted.
77. (Rev. 1) Please show tree protection to the proper VESCH standard or remove completely from
the plan if the tree protection is not required through the ZMA or other agency review. Many
trees are called out as having tree protection fencing but the placement of the fence is not
shown. The state standard requires fencing at the dripline for each tree. The site plan shows
disturbances well within the dripline.
File: Mew swm rp fsp mp_PBC_sdp08074 + wpo08045 Blue Ridge Co- Housing
� OF AL
,. vIRGI1`IZP
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: Blue Ridge Cohousing [SDP200800031, WP0200800018]
Plan preparer: Kevin Conner, Gay and Neel Inc. [email: kconner @gayandneel.com]
Plan received date: 29 Apr 2008
Date of comments: 15 May 2008 (SRC Final Site Plan comments)
13 June 2008 (Road Plans, SWM Plans, ESC Plans)
Reviewer: Jonathan Sharp
A. Final Site Plans (comments from 15 May 2008)
1. Please provide copies of federal and state permits for stream disturbance (Army Corps, VDEQ,
etc.).
2. Please provide a completed copy of the standard stormwater maintenance agreement and fee for
recordation for the proposed stormwater management facilities.
3. Please provide the FEMA map and date references labeled for the FEMA floodplain.
4. Please provide all copies of necessary offsite easements. For example, easements to construct
water and sewer, road improvements, offsite construction and access easements, drainage
easements, etc.
5. The proposed adjacent subdivision and boundary line adjustment must be recorded prior to final
site plan approval.
6. Please provide traffic generation figures for the proposed site and proposed roadway
improvements.
7. Curb and gutter and treated surfaces based on VDOT regulations and standards are required for all
travelways and parking areas. As proposed, the plan requires a waiver of curb and gutter and
parking /travelway surface requirements. If you want to pursue a waiver of the requirements, please
provide a waiver request which includes the items requesting to be waived and a justification in
accordance with the Code Sections provided below:
Curb and gutter waiver request:
Curb and gutter can be waived administratively for stormwater management purposes by the
County Engineer according to Code Section 18.4.12.15g. For all other purposes, a curb and gutter
waiver can be administratively waived by the Zoning Administrator in conjunction with the
County Engineer according to Code Section 18.4.12.2c2.
Parking and travelway surface waiver request:
Parking and travelway surface requirements can be waived by the County Engineering according
to Code Section 18.4.12.15a.
8. The proposed plan is showing stream buffer disturbance. Stream buffer disturbance should be
minimized. Engineering recommends minimizing stream buffer disturbance along Parkview Drive
and eliminating all stream buffer disturbance shown on site, except for any necessary ditches to
convey the outletting drainage of the facilites to the streams below. Any stream buffer disturbances
will need approval from the Program Authority, and require an approved Mitigation Plan prior to
Final Site Plan approval.
9. The grading plans show proposed slopes steeper than 2:1. Please revise the grading plans so that
all proposed slopes are 2:1 or flatter. Some of the proposed spot elevations are very confusing. For
example, the spot elevation 651.9 near the existing barn/shed is very close to the existing 650
Albemarle County Community Development
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 8
contour, creating very steep slopes in this area. There are other proposed spot elevations which
create very steep proposed slopes.
10. For SWM facilities with embankments 3 feet or higher, the downhill face of the embankment must
be a minimum of 3:1. Several of the proposed embankments are only 1.5:1.
11. All proposed slopes steeper than 3:1 must have low maintenance (not grass) ground cover
specified on the plans (site plan and road plans).
12. Safety railing must be specified for retaining walls over 4 feet high.
13. Adequate access must be provided to all of the SWM facilities. The requirements are: 10 feet wide
access not exceeding 20% in grade. For grades in excess of 10 %, graveled access is required.
Access must be provided to the embankment, any outlet structures, and any forebays.
14. All entrances must be shown with a VDOT designation.
15. Please show the sight distance lines at the entrance of the site on Parkview Drive.
16. VDOT approval is required for any work affecting the public right -of -way.
17. Parking areas cannot exceed 5% in grade, in any direction.
18. The proposed parking area configuration does not meet County requirements. In order to maintain
9 foot wide parking spaces, a 24 foot wide travelway must be provided. If a 20 foot wide travelway
is provided, parking spaces must maintain 10 feet in width.
19. Guardrail is required for the stream crossing along Parkview Drive.
20. It appears that the concept for Stormwater Management is not capturing as much proposed
impervious area as practicable. It appears that parking areas and structures may bypass the facility.
Typically, roof drains of structures tie into the proposed stormwater management facilities, and
parking areas /travelways are directed to the SWM facilities through use of curb and gutter, piping,
or ditches and swales. Any concentrated discharges flowing into a SWM facility require forebays.
21. Please indicate the outlet locations of the proposed SWM facilities. Also, show the required
improvements in order to provide adequate channels for the outlets of the facility to the streams
below.
22. We received a copy of your SWPP permit. This should be sent directly to DCR. Please contact Mr.
Matthew Grant, DCR, at 804.225.3068 for more information. This does not affect your
review /approval of this plan.
23. Engineering has not yet been able to complete the review of the ESC plans. However, after a quick
look at the plans, it appears that the plans are inadequate. Use of only silt fence as ESC protection
is inadequate. For adequate perimeter control, please provide diversion dikes which convey
drainage to sediment traps and basins.
24. The ESC plans appear to indicate that the SWM facilities will be constructed during the same time
that grading /site construction occurs. SWM facilities cannot be constructed or retrofitted from
sediment traps to biofilters until after final stabilization has occurred.
25. The road plans, drainage plans, ESC plans, SWM plans, and mitigation plans, any easement plats,
subdivision plats, and boundary line adjustments must be approved and/or recorded prior to final
site plan approval.
26. More comments may be necessary upon resubmittal.
B. Road Plans
27. Adequate conveyance of drainage must be provided for Parkview Drive. The ditch shown opposite
the development ends at contour 646. An adequate channel must be provided to the channel
below. There does not appear to be any adequate ditches or conveyance on the roadside directly
adjacent to the development (from the high point —16 + 00 to the channel below the culvert). It
appears drainage may spill into the street.
28. Please provide pavement design calculations.
29. A traffic generation and distribution summary (ADT's) and design speed limit are needed for
Albemarle County Community Development
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 8
design of Parkview Drive (for road width, K values, pavement design, etc.)
30. Please show all existing and proposed signs for traffic control (speed limit, stop signs, etc.)
31. Please show all existing and proposed street name signs.
32. Please provide the Albemarle County general construction notes, and notes for streets on the plans,
verbatim (It appears old notes are provided. A copy of the latest notes is provided at the end of this
comment letter.
33. Please show cross drain locations labeled with VDOT designations (CD -1,2) at every major cut
and fill transition or sag curve on the road profile sheet.
34. The pavement crown must be specified at 1 /a ":1' slope.
35. The roadway shoulder must be a minimum of 4' width.
36. Proposed slopes steeper than 3:1 must have low maintenance (not grass) groundcover specified.
37. Guardrail must be specified over all fill slopes and culverts, with 3' additional shoulder, using
VDOT designations. Guardrail end sections must be labeled.
38. Ditches must be dimensioned at 1' depth min., and 4' min. width from shoulder to ditch
centerline.
39. Please provide a profile for the roadway culvert.
40. Please provide culvert calculations.
41. Please provide ditch calculations.
42. Please provide outlet protection and outlet protection calculations for the roadway culvert.
43. Please show the drainage area drainage to the proposed culvert.
C. Stormwater Management Plan
44. Stormwater Management drainage area maps (proposed and existing) must have the acreage,
coefficient, and time of concentration labeled for each drainage area on the maps.
45. It appears that not all impervious areas drain to the SWM facilities. See comment #20.
46. Please provide ditch calculations for all proposed ditches conveying flow to SWM facilities.
47. The Stormwater Management facilities must not be located within the stream buffers.
48. Flow in the facilities must not be short- circuited. The flow path must be 2:1 or greater in all water
quality facilities.
49. Cross - section details of each facility must be provided, including: embankments, principle and
emergency spillways, sediment forebays, and biofilter floor dimensions. See the County
Engineering design manual checklist for all cross - section detail requirements.
50. For facilities with embankments 3 feet or higher, the 10 yr and 100 yr high water elevations must
be shown on the cross - section details. With an emergency spillway, 1 foot of freeboard for the 100
yr storm must be provided. Without an emergency spillway, 2 feet of freeboard for the 100 yr
storm must be provided.
51. Areas of sheet flow draining into biofilter facilities must be protected from erosion by appropriate
scour protection stone or energy dissipation measure.
52. Plants must be shown and labeled with height or caliper in the biofilters. Three species of trees and
three species of shrubs are required in each biofilter.
53. The minimum depth of sand/soil media in biofilters is 2.5 feet.
54. The outlet of the facilities must be shown on the plans and cross - sections, matching the
computations.
55. Biofilter underdrains and cleanouts must be shown on the plans. Clean-outs are required at each
junction and 50'.
56. Please provide the Albemarle County general stormwater notes on the plans. Notes are provided at
the end of this comment letter.
57. The 100 yr storm elevations are shown at a lower elevation than the 2 and 10 year storm. This does
not make sense. The critical duration storm must be used for the 100 yr storm. Detention
Albemarle County Community Development
Engineering Review Comments
Page 4 of 8
requirements are for the 2 and 10 yr storm only, the 100 yr storm does not need to be detained. The
routings for the 100 yr storm are required to show that freeboard requirements are met for facilities
with embankments 3 feet and high and above.
58. A SWM bond will be computed by the County once the plans have been approved.
D. Mitigation Plan
59. A mitigation plan is required for any stream buffer disturbance. Please provide a mitigation
application, plan, and fee.
60. A Mitigation bond will be computed by the County once the plans have been approved.
D. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
61. It appears that inadequate perimeter control is provided. See comment #24.
62. Silt fence must not be used across contours in place of diversion dikes. Silt fence is limited to areas
of sheet flow with 1/a acre per 100 ft of level on -grade silt fence.
63. Please provide ESC measures for the road improvements and sewer line improvements.
64. Stream crossings and diversions must be provided at all stream crossings. A detailed sequence of
construction must be provided for the replacement of the existing culvert and work within the live
stream.
65. The County Erosion Control notes must be shown on the plans. Notes are provided at the end of
this comment letter.
66. The limits of clearing and grading encompassing all disturbances must be shown on the plans.
67. Please graphically show the construction entrance on the plans.
68. Please show existing drainage divides.
69. Please show existing soil boundaries with labels.
70. Pleas show a stockpile location.
71. Please show a staging and parking area.
72. Please show outlet protection at all outlets.
73. All ESC measures must remain outside of stream buffers.
74. Adequate channels (MS -19) are required at each facility outlet and at the outlet of all ditches and
culverts.
75. A paved construction entrance detail is required for the plans. A copy of the detail is attached
following the comments.
76. An ESC bond will be computed by the County once the plans have been approved.
Albemarle County Community Development
Engineering Review Comments
Page 5 of 8
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
FINAL PLANS NOTES
General Construction Notes
1. Prior to any construction within any existing public right -of -way, including connection to any
existing road, a permit shall be obtained from the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT).
This plan as drawn may not accurately reflect the requirements of the permit. Where any
discrepancies occur the requirements of the permit shall govern.
2. All materials and construction methods shall conform to current specifications and standards of
VDOT unless otherwise noted.
3. Erosion and siltation control measures shall be provided in accordance with the approved erosion
control plan and shall be installed prior to any clearing, grading or other construction.
4. All slopes and disturbed areas are to be fertilized, seeded and mulched.
5. The maximum allowable slope is 2:1 (horizontal:vertical). Where reasonably obtainable, lesser
slopes of 3:1 or better are to be achieved.
6. Paved, rip -rap or stabilization mat lined ditch may be required when in the opinion of the County
Engineer, or designee, it is deemed necessary in order to stabilize a drainage channel.
7. All traffic control signs shall conform with the Virginia Manual for Uniform Traffic Control
Devices.
8. Unless otherwise noted all concrete pipe shall be reinforced concrete pipe — Class Ill.
9. All excavation for underground pipe installation must comply with OSHA Standards for the
Construction Industry (29 CFR Part 1926).
General Construction Notes for Streets (This list is in addition to the General Construction Notes)
1. Construction inspection of all proposed roads within the development will be made by the County.
The contractor must notify the Department of Community Development (2965832) 48 hours in
advance of the start of construction.
2. Upon completion of fine grading and preparation of the roadbed subgrade, the contractor shall
have CBR tests performed on the subgrade soil. Three (3) copies of the test results shall be
submitted to the County. If a subgrade soil CBR of 10 or greater is not obtainable, a revised
pavement design shall be made by the design engineer and submitted with the test results for
approval.
3. Surface drainage and pipe discharge must be retained within the public right -of -way or within
easements prior to acceptance by the County. All drainage outfall easements are to be extended to
a boundary line or a natural watercourse.
4. Guardrail locations are approximate. Exact length, location and appropriate end treatments will be
field verified at the time of construction. Additional guardrail may be required at locations not
shown when, in the opinion of the County Engineer, or designee, it is deemed necessary. When
guardrail is required, it shall be installed four (4) feet offset from the edge of pavement to the face
of guardrail, and roadway shoulder widths shall be increased to seven (7) feet.
5. Where urban cross sections are installed, all residential driveway entrances shall conform to
VDOT CG -9(A, B or Q.
6. Where rural cross sections are installed, all residential driveway entrances shall conform to VDOT
standard PE -1.
7. Compliance with the minimum pavement width, shoulder width and ditch sections, as shown on
the typical pavement section detail, shall be strictly adhered to.
8. Road plan approval for subdivisions is subject to final subdivision plat validation. Should the final
plat for this project expire prior to signing and recordation, then approval of these plans shall be
null and void.
Albemarle County Community Development
Engineering Review Comments
Page 6 of 8
9. All signs or other regulatory devices shall conform with the Virginia Manual for Uniform Traffic
Control Devices and the Albemarle County Road Naming and Property Numbering Ordinance and
Manual.
10. Traffic control or other regulatory signs or barricades shall be installed by the developer when, in
the opinion of the County Engineer, or designee, they are deemed necessary in order to provide
safe and convenient access.
11. The speed limits to be posted on speed limit signs are 5 mph below the design speed, or as
determined by VDOT for public roads.
12. VDOT standard CD -1 or CD -2 cross - drains under to be installed under the subbase material at all
cut and fill transitions and grade sag points as shown on the road profiles.
13. A video camera inspection is required for all storm sewers and culverts that are deemed
inaccessible to VDOT or County inspections. The video inspection shall be conducted in
accordance with VDOT's video camera inspection procedure and with a VDOT or County
inspector present.
General construction notes for Erosion and Sediment Control plans
1. The plan approving authority must be notified one week prior to the pre - construction conference,
one week prior to the commencement of land disturbing activity, and one week prior to the final
inspection.
2. All erosion and sediment control measures will be constructed and maintained according to
minimum standards and specifications of the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook
and Virginia Regulations VR 625 -02 -00 Erosion and Sediment Control Regulations.
3. All erosion and sediment control measures are to be placed prior to or as the first step in clearing.
4. A copy of the approved erosion and sediment control plan shall be maintained on the site at all
times.
5. Prior to commencing land disturbing activities in areas other than indicated on these plans
(including, but not limited to, off -site borrow or waste areas), the contractor shall submit a
supplementary erosion control plan to the owner for review and approval by the plan approving
authority.
6. The contractor is responsible for installation of any additional erosion control measures necessary
to prevent erosion and sedimentation as determined by the plan approving authority.
7. All disturbed areas are to drain to approved sediment control measures at all times during land
disturbing activities and during site development until final stabilization is achieved.
8. During dewatering operations, water will be pumped into an approved filtering device.
9. The contractor shall inspect all erosion control measures periodically and after each runoff -
producing rainfall event. Any necessary repairs or cleanup to maintain the effectiveness of the
erosion control devices shall be made immediately.
10. All fill material to be taken from an approved, designated borrow area.
11. All waste materials shall be taken to an approved waste area. Earth fill shall be inert materials
only, free of roots, stumps, wood, rubbish, and other debris.
12. Borrow or waste areas are to be reclaimed within 7 days of completion per Zoning Ordinance
section 5.1.28.
13. All inert materials shall be transported in compliance with section 13 -301 of the Code of
Albemarle.
14. Borrow, fill or waste activity involving industrial -type power equipment shall be limited to the
hours of 7:OOam to 9:OOpm.
15. Borrow, fill or waste activity shall be conducted in a safe manner than maintains lateral support, or
order to minimize any hazard to persons, physical damage to adjacent land and improvements, and
damage to any public street because o slides, sinking, or collapse.
Albemarle County Community Development
Engineering Review Comments
Page 7 of 8
16. The developer shall reserve the right to install, maintain, remove or convert to permanent
stormwater management facilities where applicable all erosion control measures required by this
plan regardless of the sale of any lot, unit, building or other portion of the property.
17. Temporary stabilization shall be temporary seeding and mulching. Seeding is to be at 75 lbs /acre,
and in the months of September to February to consist a 50150 mix of Annual Ryegrass and Cereal
Winter Rye, or in March and April to consist of Annual Rye, or May through August to consist of
German Millet. Straw mulch is to be applied at 80lbs /100sf. Alternatives are subject to approved
by the County erosion control inspector.
18. Permanent stabilization shall be lime and fertilizer, permanent seeding, and mulch. Agricultural
grade limestone shall be applied at 90lbs /1000sf, incorporated into the top 4 -6 inches of soil.
Fertilizer shall be applied at 1000lbs /acre and consist of a 10 -20 -10 nutrient mix. Permanent
seeding shall be applied at 180lbs /acre and consist of 95% Kentucky 31 or Tall Fescue and 0 -5%
Perennial Ryegrass or Kentucky Bluegrass. Straw mulch is to be applied at 80lbs /100sf.
Alternatives are subject to approved by the County erosion control inspector.
19. Maintenance: All measures are to be inspected weekly and after each rainfall. Any damage or
clogging to structural measures is to be repair immediately. Silt traps are to be cleaned when 50%
of the wet storage volume is filled with sediment. All seeded areas are to be reseeded when
necessary to achieve a good stand of grass. Silt fence and diversion dykes which are collecting
sediment to half their height must be cleaned and repaired immediately.
20. All temporary erosion and sediment control measures are to be removed within 30 days of final
site stabilization, when measures are no longer needed, subject to approval by the County erosion
control inspector.
General construction notes for Stormwater Management plans
1. All dams and constructed fill to be within 95% of maximum dry density and 2% of optimum
moisture content. All fill material to be approved by a geotechnical engineer. A geotechnical
engineer is to be present during construction of dams.
2. Pipe and riser joints are to be watertight within stormwater management facilities.
3. For temporary sediment traps or basins which are to be converted to permanent stormwater
management facilities; conversion is not to take place until the site is stabilized, and permission
has been obtained from the County erosion control inspector.
Albemarle County Community Development
Engineering Review Comments
Page 8 of 8
Paved construction entrance for erosion control plans
rOfdE 70' MIN.
CONSTRUCTION —\ 3" Sfu! -2,� ASPHALT TOP
COURSE EYI1 .7 NG
2 � PAVEMENT
5TO .I4E
CT /�`,
ONSIRUC710 V
ACCESS —,
6" %N. 21A AGGRE(WE BASE
PROFILE
70' MIN.
—o ASPHALT PAVED
WASH RAC K
2% 1 2%
2% 12' MIN_*
I POST;VE Dew E
*DUST E}{TENd FULL w11dTH t0 SEDIMENT
OF INGRESS AND EGRESS TOAPPING pI:VIE
OPERATION
PLAN
EXISTING
PAVEMEWTJ
F;LTER CLu -II
SECTION A —A
JAGL.
IC.
A mutimmi water tap of 1 inch amst be n>u celled alth a miu -ninn 1 inch bAcock
s-butoff valve nTppt -nkg a welt Bose with a di- 7mefier of 1.5 inches for adequate
constant jAessaue. Wash Wafer must be cainled away from the enhrauce to an
approved sa ink area to U sediment shall be prevented troin
enteiiym storin drains, ditches or watercourses.
PAVED WASH RACK
NO SCALE
II
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper, Virginia 22701
David S. Ekern, P.E. VirginiaDOT.org
COMMISSIONER
May 21, 2008
Mr. Glenn Brooks
Department of Engineering and Development
401 McIntire Rd.
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Subject: Site Review Meeting Comments May 22, 2008 site review meeting
Dear Mr. Brooks:
Below are VDOT's comments on the Site Plans for the May 22, 2008 Site Review Committee
Meeting:
SDP - 2008 -00070 Vintage Virginia Apples Cidery- Waiver (Lisa Glass)
• The plan needs to show the connection to route 29. The entrance needs to meet The
Minimum Standards of Entrances to State Highways criteria and show adequate sight
distance.
SDP - 2008 -00072 Old Trail Village — Phase I- blocks 15 and 31 -Final (Megan Yaniglos)
• Standard CG -I I's with 25 foot radii need to be the method of connecting the alley to the
proposed state road as was approved with the preliminary plan.
• Label the grade on Claremont Lane.
• Claremont Lane should have a 50 foot landing area at the connection to Glen Valley Dr.
as described in appendix B of the Road Design Manual.
• The intersection of Fielding Run Dr. with Meadow Bluff should have the 50 foot landing.
• Include the "No Parking" signs on the layout sheet as needed according to the typical
section.
• Sump inlets spread at the curb for structures 1, 9, 17, 25, 31, 45, 47, and 49 exceed the
maximum allowed.
SDP - 2008 -00073 Three Notch'd Center - Preliminary (Summer Frederick)
• The entrances to route 240 need to be designed to the CG -11 standards and the profiles at
the entrances need to be shown on the plan.
��i'EARS OF
Tit
AHSPORiAikOH El[C4LEHCE
a 9-D G 2 0 0 6
• Pavement widening in accordance with st'd WP -2 needs to be shown for the additional of
the turn lane.
• Standard curb and gutter CG -6 is required along route 240.
• Drainage computations for structure 7 need to be shown along with pipe computations.
• Show sight distances at the entrances.
• The proposed ROW needs to be a minimum of three feet behind the back of curb or to
include the clear zone, whichever is greater. Any feature outside proposed ROW that
needs to be maintained by VDOT such as drainage features need to be within an
easement.
• Any utility poles within the clear zone will need to be relocated.
SDP - 2008 -00074 Blue Ridge Co- housing — Final (Gerald Gatobu)
• Any work within the VDOT ROW will need to be permitted by VDOT Charlottesville
Residency.
Please request the applicants provide a written description of revisions with re- submissions. If you
have any questions or comments, please contact me prior to sharing these comments with the
applicants.
Sincerely,
Joel DeNunzio, P.E.
Residency Program Manager
VDOT Charlottesville Residency
434 - 293 -0011
cc Bill Fritz, David Benish, Juan Wade, Elaine Echols, Joan McDowell, Judith Wiegand,
Margaret Maliszewski, David Pennock, Francis McCall, Jon Sharp, Summer Frederick, Patrick
Lawrence, and John Giometti
0
COUNTY OF ALBE?IARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road. Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax(434)972 -4126
Mac, 29, 2008
Kevin Conner, Gay and Neel, Inc.
1260 Radford Street
Christiansburg , VA, 24073
RE: SDP - 2008 - 00074: Blue Ridge Cohousing, Final Site Plan
Dear Sir,
The Site Review Committee has reviewed the development proposal referenced above. Preliminary
comments for the following divisions of the Department of Community Development and other agencies, as
applicable, are attached:
Albemarle County Division of Zoning & Current Development (Planner)
Albemarle County Division of Zoning & Current Development (Engineer)
Albemarle County Division of Planning (Principle Planner ARB)
Albemarle County Division of Planning (Principle Planner Rural Area)
Albemarle County Division of Inspections (Building Official)
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT).
Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA).
Albemarle County Fire and Rescue.
Comments reflect information available at the time the development proposal was reviewed, and should not
be considered final. however, the Site Review Committee has attempted to identify all issues that could
affect approval of the proposed project.
Please make the revisions that have been identified as necessary for preliminary approval by the Site Review
Committee. If you choose not to make the requested revisions, please submit in writing justification for not
incorporating such revisions. Submit eight (8) hall size copies and one (1) 11' x 17" copy to the Department
of Community Development including responses to each of the attached comments of the Site Review
Committee by ;Monday June 2, 2008. Failure to submit this information by this date will result in suspension
of the review schedule. Review will resume when revisions are submitted along with a reinstate vent fee of
S65.
Please contact me at your earliest convenience if you have questions or require additional information.
Sincerely,
Lisa Glass, Planner (for Gerald Gatobu, Sr. Planner)
County of :Albemarle Department of Community Development, Current Development Division,
434-296-5832, ext. 3432
CC: Crozet Cohousing LLC, 32 Walnut farm Parkway, Fredericksburg, VA 22405
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone(434)296 -5832 Fax(434)972 -4126
Memorandum
To: Kevin Conner, Gay and Neel, Inc.
From: Lisa Glass, Principal Planner, for Gerald Gatobu, Sr. Planner 1"
Division: Zoning and Current Development
Date: May 20, 2908
Subject: SDP 08 -74: Blue Ridge Cohousing: Final Site Plan
The Albemarle County Department of Community Development, Current Development planner has
reviewed the site plan referenced above. The plan may be approved when the following items have been
satisfactorily addressed. Each comment is followed by a reference to the Albemarle County Zoning
Ordinance.
The Site Plan comments below are from the Current Development Planner only. Other comments will be
forth coming under separate cover. Please work directly with each reviewer to obtain tentative approvals.
1. Reference the ZMA 2007 -0012 in note 38. (Section 32.5.6 a)
2. Proffer in the application plan include some site plan specifics. The plan should include these:
a) Run -off reduction: indicate how this will be done,
b) Outdoor Lighting to meet dark sky code, see comment 18;
c) Energy Star Homes : note this in text;
d) Building scale to be noted on plans:
e) Playground details should be shown on plans,
t) Site screening (the orchard) should be shown on the landscape plan. see comment 14.
(Section 32.5.6 a)
3. Approved Proffers in the Board of Supervisor action letter should be include in notes on the plan:
a) Affordable housing: note how this will he done;
b) Cash proffers: note timing for this agreement;
c) Road improvements: note to be completed prior to first Certificate of Occupancy, per
proffer language. (Section 32.5.6 a)
4. Items from the 1, 30108 Board of Supervisors action letter not included in note 34, sheet I, are
listed below. Please indicate if these have been met.
a) Approval of Section 14-422 a and d sidewalks and planting strips:
b) Public hearing to amend the ACSA jurisdictional area. (Section 32.5.6 a)
5. Show owner, zoning, tax map parcel number and present use of all adjacent parcels. (Section
32.5.6 a)
6. Include in notes the maximum amount of impervious cover on the site (for roads, walks,
buildings, etc.) (Section 32.5.6 b)
7. Note the maximum amount of parking and circulation areas.(Section 32.5.6 b)
8. Provide sufficient offsite topography to describe features and characteristics, or explain why not
shown. lSection 32.5.6 d)
9. Shod= easements for water and sewer tines, as well as easement for other utilities. (Section 32.5.6
j, k and 1)
lo. Show the distance to the centerline of the nearest existing street intersection. (Section 32.5.6 m)
11. Show the location for trash containers or state that trash will be kept inside buildings. (Section
32.5.[ n)
12. Please indicate paved surface materials on plan, for all walks, parking lots and driveways.
(Section 325.6.)
13. Show all areas or easements to be dedicated or reserved for public use. (Section 32.5.6 1)
14. Revise landscape plan to meet requirements of Section 32.7.9; including the following:
a) Add the trees for the proposed orchard to the landscape plant list.
b) Provide screening shrubs and the required number of trees per code or explain why
different.
c) Include a tree conservation check List for the existing landscaping to remain
(Section 325.6 p and 32.6.6 i)
15. Add "free Protection to the Erosion Control Plan in areas where existing landscaping is to remain
(Section 32.7.9 )
16. Indicate in the notes the number of bedrooms per unit and if for sale or rent. (Section 32.6.6 a)
17, Provide detailed drainage and construction plans. See review engineer comments if you have
questions. (Section 32.6.6 d)
18. Please provide photograph or diagram of each type of outdoor luminaire. (Section 32.6.6.j)
CC: Crozet Cohousng
File SDP 2008 -0674
2
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Gerald Gatobu, Current Development Project planner
From: Jonathan Sharp, Current Development Engineering Review
Date: 15 May 2008
SubJect: Blue Ridge Cohousing (SDP200800074)
The final site plan for Blue Ridge Cohousing has been reviewed. For the Site Review Committee meeting,
only a preliminary review of the plans has been completed. A full review including: drainage, road plans,
stormwater management, and erosion control is pending. Before Engineering can recommend approval, the
following items must be addressed:
I . Please provide copies of federal and state permits for stream disturbance (Army Corps, VDEQ,
etc.).
2. Please provide a completed copy of the standard stormwater maintenance agreement and fee for
recordation for the proposed stormwater management facilities.
3 Please provide the FEMA map and date references labeled for the TEMA floodplain.
4. Please provide all copies of necessary offsite easements. For example, easements to construct
water and sewer, road improvements, of s'ne construction and access easements, drainage
casements. etc.
5. The proposed adjacent Subdivision and boundary line adjustment must be recorded prior to final
site plan approval.
6. Please provide traffic generation figures for the proposed site and proposed roadway
improvements.
7. Curb and gutter and treated surfaces based on VDOT regulations and standards are required for all
travelways and parking areas. As proposed, the plan requires a waiver of curb and gutter and
parkingitravelway surface requirements. If you want to pursue a waiver of the requirement,, please
provide a waiver request which includes the items requesting to be waived and ajustification in
accordance with the Code Sections provided below:
Curb and gutter waiver request:
Curb and gutter can be waived administratively for stormwater management purposes by the
County Engineer according to Code Section 18.4 1 2.15g. For all other purpose.,, a curb and gutter
waiver can be administratively waived by the Zoning Administrator in coniunction with the
County Engineer according to Code Section 18.4.12.2c2.
Parking and travelway surface waiver request:
Parking and travelwa) surface requirements can be waived by the County Engineering according
to Code Section 18.4.12.15a.
Current Development
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 3
8. The proposed plan is showing stream buffer disturbance. Stream buffer disturbance should be
urinninized. Engineering recommends minimizing stream buffer disturbance along Parkview Drive
and eliminating all succor buffer disturbance shown on site, except for any necessary ditches it)
convey the outletting drainage of the facifires to the streams below. Any stream buffer disturbances
will need approval from the Program Authority, and require an approved Mitigation Plan prior to
Final Site Plan approval.
9, The grading plans show proposed slopes steeper than 2:1. Please revise the grading plans so that
all proposed slopes are 2:1 or flatter. Some of the proposed spot elevations are very confusing. For
example, the spot elevation 651.9 near the existing harn/shed is very close to the existing 650
contour, creating very steep slopes in this area. There are other proposed spot elevations which
create very steep proposed slopes.
I0. For SWM facilities with embankments 3 feet or higher, the downhill face of the embankment trust
be a minimum of3: 1. Several of the proposed embankments are only 1.5:1.
11. All proposed slopes steeper than 3:1 trust have low maintenance (not grass) ground cover
specified on the plans (site plan and road plans).
12. Safety railing must be specified for retaining walk over 4 feet high.
13. Adequate access must be provided to all of the S)vN'M facilities. The requirements are: 10 feet wide
access not exceeding 201.", in grade. For grades in excess of 10%. graveled access is required.
Access must be provided to the embankment, any outlet structures, and any forebays.
14. All entrances must be shown with a VDOT designation.
15. Please show the sight distance lines at the entrance of the site on Parkview Drive.
16. VDOT approval is required for any work affecting the Public right-of-way.
17. Parking areas cannot exceed 5% in grade, in any direction.
I s. The proposed parking area configuration does not meet County requirements. In order to maintain
9 foot wide parking spaces, a 24 foot wide travelway must be provided. If a 20 foot wide rravelv% ay
is provided, parking spaces trust maintain 10 feet in width.
19. Guardrail is required for the stream crossing along Parkview Drive.
20. It appears that the concept for Storinwater Management is not capturing as much proposed
JMPCFVi0US area as practicable. It appears that parking areas, and structure,, may bypass the facility.
Typically, roof drains of structures tic into the proposed stornawater management facilities, and
parking areas/n avel ways are directed to the SWM facilities through use of curb and gutter, piping,
or ditches and sw ales. Any concentrated discharges flowing into a SWM facility require forebays.
1. Please indicate the outlet locations of the proposed SWM facilities. Also, show the required
improvements in order to provide adequate channels for the outlets of the facility to the streams
below.
Current Development
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 3
22. We received a copy Of Your SNVPP permit. This should be sent directly to DCR. Please contact Mr,
Matthew Grant. DCR. at 804.225.3068 for more intormation. This does not affect your
review !approval of this plan.
23. Engineering has not yet been able to complete the review of the ESC plans. However, after a quick
look at the plans, it appears that the plans are inadequate. Use of only silt fence as ESC protection
is inadequate. For adequate perimeter control, Please provide diversion dikes which convey
drainage to sediment traps and basins.
24. The ESC plans appear to indicate that the SWNM facilities will be constructed during the swine time
that grading /site construction occurs. SWM facilities cannot be constructed or retrofitted from
sediment traps to biofilters until after final stabilization has occurred.
25. The road plans, drainage plans, ESC plans, SWM plans. and mitigation plans, any casement plats,
subdivision plats, and boundary line adjustments Must be approved and/or recorded prior to final
site plan approval.
26. More comments may be necessary upon resubauttal.
Application #: SDP200800074 Short Review Comments
Project Name: Blue Ridge Cohousing - Final Final - Non - residential - Commission
Date Completed: 05/15,2008
Reviewer: Andrew Slack E911
Review Status: Requested Changes
Reviews Comments THE APPLICANT SHOULD CONTACT THIS OFFICE WITH A LIST OF THREE (3) ROAD NAMES
FOR THIS PROJECT. PLEASE CONTACT THIS OFFICE DIRECTLY FOR APPROVAL.
Date Completed: _... 0511512008 _..
Reviewer: Jonathan Sharp Engineer Z &CD
Review Status: Requested Changes
Reviews Comments: 'SRC 5/22108
Date Completed: 051;0512008 ...._ _.._
Reviewer: Margaret Maliszewski ARB
Review Status: No Objection
Reviews Comments Tax map 56/parcel 67B falls within the Route 240 Entrance Corridor. The portion of the development
proposed within this parcel is not expected to be visible from the EC. Consequently, ARB review is
not required
Page: 1.00 County of Albemarle Printed On: Tuesday, May 20; 2008
February 14, 2007
GENERAL WATER & SEWER CONDITIONS
(1) Work shall be subject to inspection by Albemarle County Service
Authority (ACSA) inspectors. The Contractor will be responsible for
notifying the proper ACSA officials at the start of the work.
(2) The location of existing utilities across the line of the proposed work
are not necessarily shown on the plans, and where shown, are only
approximately correct. The Contractor shall, on his own initiative,
locate all underground lines and structures as necessary.
(3) All materials and construction shall comply with the current edition of
the General Water & Sewer Construction Specifications, as adopted by
the ACSA.
(4) Datum for all elevations shown in National Geodetic Survey.
(5) The Contractor shall be responsible for notifying Miss Utility (1 -800-
552- 7001).
(6) All water and sewer pipes shall have a minimum of three (3) feet of
cover measured from the top of pipe over the centerline of pipe. This
includes all fire hydrant lines, service laterals, and water lines, etc.
(7) All water and sewer appurtenances are to be located outside of
roadside ditches.
(8) Valves on dead -end lines shall be rodded to provide adequate restraint
for the valve during a future extension of the line.