HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201800031 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2018-07-11COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
Phone (434) 296-5832
July 11, 2018
Alan Franklin
427 Cranberry Lane
Crozet VA 22932
RE: SDP2018-31 Rivanna Village Phase 2 (Blocks D, F, G, H, I, and J) - Final Site Plan
Dear Sir:
Department of Community Development has reviewed the above referenced site plan (dated 6-5-17) against applicable
Code of Development, Proffers, Application Plan, and other codes and ordinances. Comments are provided below;
however, additional comments or conditions may be added or eliminated based on further review.): [Each comment is
preceded by the applicable reference, which is to the Subdivision/Zoning Ordinances unless otherwise specified.]
1. [ZMA201300012 Proffers] All proffers shall be adhered to as dictated in the proffers. Final: Comment still
relevant.
2. [COD Sec 3.31 Lot Regulation/Setbacks. Replace the setbacks listed and depicted throughout the plan
with the new setback chart (provided below) which was approved by the BOS on December 6, 2017.
Please do not reword anything in the chart, merely provide the exact chart on the site plan.
Additionally, revise the setbacks and buildable area depicted on all lots throughout the plan utilizing
these new setbacks and the various factors provided in the chart. Final: Comment addressed.
3. [COD Sec 3.41 Building Height. Throughout the site plan label the maximum height of each structure by block
that is being platted. See table 3.4 of the Code of Development as each block has different heights permitted
based on the use. Example: Block G is permitted a maximum building height of 40 feet. Final: Comment
addressed.
4. [COD Sec 7.11 Parking. The only portion of the development not subject to the 20% maximum rule for
parking provided in excess of required parking, is that for Block D, as a waiver was granted during the
rezoning for this block. All other blocks shall meet the 20% maximum for parking provided. Final: Comment
addressed.
Additionally, the minimum number of parking required in Blocks C, D, E, and F for NON-RESIDENTIAL
uses in these blocks shall be based on the requirements for Shopping Centers, as contained in Section 4.12.6 of
the County Code. Also, the calculations for NON-RESIDENTIAL parking shall be based on the total square
footage within the block and not upon a per lot basis. Final: Comment still relevant but only for the
nonresidential section, which is being pushed to a separate site plan.
Also, provide parking calculation for the public park and identify the locations of these spaces. These spaces
may be satisfied by either on -street spaces along perimeter of Block J, or provided using on -street or surface
lots available to the public in adjacent blocks or in Block K's surface parking lot (see Sec 8 of the COD)).
Final: The fire station parking lot in Block K is being proposed to serve the public park. As such this
parking area shall be included on this final site plan. Permission shall be granted from the Fire Station
and the offsite parking agreement shall be recorded in the Clerk's Office documenting the terms of this
agreement. Based on existing conditions the parking lot will need to be upgraded to meet current
parking lot standards. Also, provide the required parking study for a public recreation area (this should
be developed in consultation with Dan Mahon of Parks and Recreation). The number of required spaces
for the park shall be determined by the zoning administrator in consideration of the recommendations
in the parking study, traffic generation figures either known to the industry or estimated by the Institute
of Transportation Engineers, peak parking demands, and other relevant information.
[ZMA201300012 Proffer 9] Affordable Housing. Designate which lots are the affordable units throughout the
final site plan and final plat. Also, under the chart provide the full statement that reads: "The owner shall
contribute cash to the County in the amount of Twenty -One Thousand, One Hundred Fifty Dollars ($21,150)
instead of constructing each required affordable unit. Such payment shall be made after completion of the
final inspection andprior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy for any such unit for which payment in
lieu of constructing affordable housing is made. " Final: Comment not adequately addressed, applicant
response to this condition is not adequate. On the plan identify the lots which will be the ADUs.
6. IZMA201300012 Proffer 2] Cash Proffer for Capital Improvement. The required cash contribution for each
unit shall be dictated by the proffer and is required to be paid after completion of final inspection and prior to
the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for each unit. Final: Applicant acknowledges the comment.
7. [ZMA201300012 Proffer 71 Rte 250 Landscape Buffer and Right of Way Dedication. Label, dimension, and
depict the required 70' reservation zone and the 30' landscape buffer along Rte 250. These improvements shall
be reserved for public use and dedicated upon the request of the County. The developer shall preserve the
existing vegetation in this area as described in the proffer. Final: Comment not addressed. The Route 250
Landscape Buffer and Right-of-way dedication shall be appropriately labeled and dimensioned
throughout the plan. Currently this area is labeled as "Amenity Space"; however, this is not an
acceptable use of this land. Additionally, it is also labeled "SWM/BMP Forest/Open Space Easement";
however, this land shall not be used for this purpose either. The rezoning calls out the permitted uses in
this area which can take place on the land until it is dedicated to the County upon demand for Rte 250
widening. Specifically, landscaped open space, signage, utilities. Remove the above uses from this land.
On the plan provide a note for this area: "The 70' reservation zone and 30' landscape buffer are reserved
for Public use and dedication upon the demand of the County. " "The maintenance and upkeep of these
areas and their landscapinm shall be the responsibility of the HOA until the County demands dedication and
accepts it: "
8. [COD Sec 3.2(4)] Density Regulations. A minimum of 20,000 SF of non-residential uses shall be in the
development. On the plans label and depict where the required 20,000 SF non-residential use shall be located
and assure there is enough area for 20,000 SF. Revise the Density by Block chart on sheet 4 to provide these
calculations. Presumably these uses are to be in either Block D. Final: The `Density by Block' chart on
sheet 4 contains incorrect density ranges for Blocks A, B, D, E, I, and J. Also, revise note #1 of the chart
to mention the 20,000 SF nonresidential development in Block D.
9. [COD Sec 81 Open Space/Greenspace Preservation. Throughout the plan label the park as `Hereby Dedicated
to the County of Albemarle for Public use as a Public Park". Final: Comment addressed.
10. [COD Sec 8] Open Space/Greenspace Preservation. Prior to final site plan approval the Director of Parks and
Recreation is required to approve a park plan, which shall ensure amenities provided meet the needs of the
County and satisfy the rezoning. Final: Comment still relevant. Dan Mahon provided the applicant
comments on the park plan. Pending revisions of the final site plan to address these review comments.
11. [COD Sec 8] Open Space/Greenspace Preservation. The wetlands areas in the park shall be labeled as
"Preserved Wetland Areas". Omit the reference to "Future Park" on sheet 4, as this area shall be part of the
park with phase 2 of development. Final: Comment addressed.
12. [COD Sec 81 Open Space/Greenspace Preservation. Depict, label, and design a maintenance facility within the
development for use by the County Parks and Recreation Department to maintain the public park facility. Also,
coordinate with Parks and Recreation Department on the width and design of the trails throughout the park.
Once coordinated provide `typicals' of these access ways. Prior to approval engineering and the Parks and Rec
department shall sign off that these trails are adequate for use by motorized maintenance vehicles.
Final: Comment is still relevant. These improvements shall be depicted on the site plan and approved by
Parks and Recreation prior to final site plan approval.
13. [COD Sec 81 Open Space/Greenspace Preservation. The park has two required trail connects to the Eastpark
Road. Currently these are depicted as easements; however, this is not appropriate and shall be revised to be fee
simple dedications to the park. Depict, label, and dimension these trail connections. Additionally, the trail
connections shall be increased in width above the 6' width as currently provided. These trail connections are to
be utilized as access points for the public as well as used by Parks and Recreation Department to maintain the
public park facility. Revise. Final: Comment addressed.
14. [Comment] On either sheet 4 or 5 provide a table of content overlay, which labels which sheets each section of
various blocks can be found on. Final: Comment addressed.
15. [32.5.2(a), 32.5.2(i)] Existing or platted streets. Label all streets (public) and all alleys (private). Provide
directional arrows on each alley to signify one way or two-way traffic. Also, provide the widths of all streets.
Final: Comment addressed.
16. 132.5.2(a), 32.5.2(i)] Alleys. On the plan provide a note that states no public agency, including VDOT, and the
County of Albemarle will be responsible for maintaining the alleys. Also, provide information on the plans that
the alleys shall be dedicated and maintained by the HOA. Final: Comment addressed.
17. [ZMA201300012 Proffer 31 Route 250 and Eastern Entrance Improvements. "The owner shall either
construct left and right turn lanes on Route 250 at the eastern entrance to the property or bond these
improvements prior to approval of thefirst site plan or subdivision plat for the development... "
Final: A road plan for the above referenced entrance improvements and all the roads in phase 2 shall be
submitted and approved prior to final site plan approval. Staff is aware that the entrance improvements
onto Rte 250 are currently bonded; however, no road plan was ever submitted or approved for these
improvements. One is required. This 1st review of the final site plan does not cover a review of the
improvements along Rte 250; rather, such heavy lifting will be done on the road plan and it's review.
Once submitted and reviewed the road plan and the final site plan shall match for these improvements.
18. [Code of Development Section 4.21 Covenants to Provide Architectural Review Committee. Prior to final site
plan and/or final subdivision plat approval a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for
Rivanna Village Phase II shall be reviewed/approved by the County Attorney's office in consultation with
County Planning staff. The above document shall be approved by the County and recorded by the developer
prior to final site plan and/or final subdivision plat approval. The DB page reference information of this
recorded document shall be noted on the final site plan and/or final subdivision plat. Final: Comment not
addressed. While this requirement was addressed for phase I, per conversations with the County
Attorney it is not addressed for phase II. Please submit a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and
Restrictions for Rivanna Village Phase II.
19. [32.6.20)] Landscape plan. A landscape plan that complies with section 32.7.9 is required with the final site
plan. Final: Comment Addressed.
20. [32.5.2(n)] Proposed Improvements. Provide the maximum footprint for all proposed townhome buildings.
Final: Comment not addressed.
21. [32.5.2(n)] Proposed improvements. How is daily household trash going to be disposed of for these units? If
each lot is going to have its own trash container for curbside pickup, where are these containers going to be
stored when not in use? Final: Comment addressed.
22. [32.7.4.2] Easements for stormwater management facilities. Provide access to the stormwater management
facility. Also, provide an easement over the facility and the access. Final: Comment addressed.
23. [32.8.2, 14-3111 Infrastructure improvementplans. Road plans must be approved and built or bonded prior to
approval. On the initial site plan Fire and Rescue commented that the road widths are not adequate for on street
parking. They have not provided staff comments on the plan yet. Work with Fire and Rescue to ensure the
roads are wide enough to accommodate onstreet parking and that the spaces are dimensioned and labeled.
Final: Comment still relevant.
24. [32.5.2(p) & 32.7.9.71 Screening. Proposed SWM Facilities shall be screened from the adjacent residential
lots. Final: Comment addressed.
25. [32.7.2.1] Vehicular Access to Site. Each entrance onto any public street shall be designed and constructed as
required by the standards of the Virginia Department of Transportation. VDOT approval of the entrance to the
site shall be required prior to final site plan and/or final plat approval. Final: Comment still relevant.
26. [Comment] Provide the dimensions of proposed easements and whether they are to be publicly or privately
maintained. Final: Comment addressed.
27. [32.6.2(e)] Public facilities and utilities. All water and sewer facilities to be dedicated to public use and the
easements for those facilities and shall be identified by a statement that the facilities are to be dedicated to the
Albemarle County Service Authority. Final: Comment addressed.
28. [Comment] On sheet 1 provide the site plan number and when submitted ensure it is labeled as Final Site Plan.
Please omit Road Plan from the title. Final: On the plan provide the following SDP#: "SDP2018-31".
Additional Comments on the Final
29. [14-409] Coordination & Extension. All public streets within a subdivision shall be extended and constructed
to the abutting property lines to provide vehicular and pedestrian interconnections to future development on
adjoining lands, terminating within the subdivision with a temporary turnaround. The three cul-de-sac streets
that shall meet the above requirement are: Mossy Rock Road, Terrapin Trace, and Lazy Branch Lane. Please
depict and label the right of way dedications to the property lines, reservation of the areas are appropriate at
this time through the following note: `Area reserved for future right-of-way dedication upon demand of the
County. "
30. [Comment] Label the land use of the hatched area adjacent to and fronting lots I-59, I-60, I-61, I-62, and J-48.
What does the hatching signify? Hopefully it is a reservation zone for future right-of-way dedication, if so,
labeled it `Area reserved for future right-of-way dedication upon demand of the County. "
31. [14-303] Cattail Court needs to be modified to a "30' private street easement". This private street is being
relied upon for frontage of the townhomes.
32. [4.12] Parking. Label and dimension the two required parking spaces per lot for Lots F7, F8, F9, F10, F11, and
F12. Additionally, on the site plan, with arrows, locate the guest parking spaces for these lots (staff assumes
they are along Sedgwick Lane).
33. [4.12.5, 4.12] Location of Parking Areas. All parking spaces shall be established on the same lot with the
primary use to which it is appurtenant, except as authorized by section 4.12.8. Lots G-11, G-25, G-26, G-27,
G-41, G-42 are not provided 2 parking spaces on each lot. Nor are they provided guest parking spaces.
Additionally, none of the full spaces are encompassed on the lot; rather, every space is a quarter outside of the
lot. Block G is lacking the minimum number of required parking spaces.
To correct this staff suggests you revise the parking area in Block G to no longer be on the individual lots, but
instead locate them in congregate parking bays within a parking easements for the entire block. If you go this
route the guest parking space requirement no longer applies. If you modify this, ensure the lots continue to
meet the minimum lot size of 1,300 SF. Also, provide an instrument ensuring continuation of off -site parking
shall be recorded prior to final site plan approval.
If you do not modify parking as recommended, the required parking spaces and the required guest spaces will
need to be provided for all lots in this block.
34. [4.12] Parking. Which townhome lots are the 21 lots you believe have a parking deficiency? Their location and
access to on -street parking will determine if their parking is met through this alternative. If it is Block G you
speak of, on -street parking will not suffice because it is separated by a public road.
35. [4.12.6] Parking Requirements. Dimension all parking spaces.
36. [32.5.2(n)] Trails. Throughout the plan label and dimension the trail and the trail easements (most are but some
are not). Also, provide a cutsheet for trail design specifications.
37. [4.12] Parking. Provide column titles for the parking calculations chart.
38. [COD Sec 81 Open Space/Greenspace Preservation. Please work with Parks and Recreation to determine the
appropriate method to separate and distinguish private residential lots from the public park (either fencing,
berm, evergreen landscaping, or a combination). Prior to final site plan approval please depict and label the
solution.
39. [Comment] The final site plan shall not be approved until all SRC reviewers have approved the plan. Their
comments attached.
40. Additional Engineering Site Plan Review comments —thanks for drawing my attention to
these items, Christopher:
Additional Engineering review comments:
41. "55. Sheet C10 includes a proposed 200' taper and 200' right turn lane on U.S. Rt. 250 EBL. While Road
Plan/s for this and other portions of public roads and privates streets (if any) internal to the development will
present design information to be reviewed by County, VDOT, and others, at first glance, a 200' taper may be
insufficient for a primary arterial roadway (55 MPH limit). Design for a similar development entrance located
on U.S. primary arterial Rt. 29 with identical design /posted limits serves preliminary indication (prior to
County review of traffic impact analysis) that proposed 200' taper to 200' right turn lane may require revision
to ensure safe movement on Rt. 250, EBL, at current or future ADT projections. Please reference TIA, by date
and title, that supports 200' taper and 200' turn lane for U.S. Rt. 250 EBL. As stated elsewhere, please submit
road plans as required by ordinance."
42. "56. No portion of the 70' reservation zone or 30' landscape buffer that may in the future be dedicated to
Albemarle County, upon demand, for widening of Rt. 250 may be placed in SWM /BMP Forest /Open Space
Easement. Revise calculations or water quality compliance strategies that may at present rely on buffer areas
that cannot with any assurance be preserved in perpetuity as forest /open space."
Please contact Christopher P. Perez in the Planning Division by using cperez(a)albemarle.org or 434-296-5832 ext.
3443 for further information or if you have questions.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
Site Plan review
Project:
Rivanna Village Phase 2, Block F, G, H, I, & J —Final Site Plan
Plan preparer:
Alan Franklin PE, LLC /427 Cranberry Lane, Crozet, VA 22932
[alan(a,alanfranklinpe.com ]
Owner or rep.:
Rivanna Investment Holdings LLC, 150 West Main St. Suite 1100
Norfolk, VA 23510
Plan received date:
4 May 2018
Date of comments:
26 June 2018
Reviewer:
John Anderson
Project Coordinator: Christopher Perez
SDP2018-00031
1. VSMP Approval required prior to Final Site Plan Approval.
a. Provide VSMP Plan that meets requirements of 17-401.
b. Provide vehicular access /Access easements to SWM facilities.
c. Provide receipt of recordation of SWM Facility Deed of Dedication.
d. Ref. prior -approved WPO# if prior approved plans are relied upon.
e. Provide Mitigation for stream buffer and wetland impacts.
2. Road Plan Approval required prior to Final Site Plan Approval.
3. Provide trail standard detail meeting Albemarle County Design Standards Manual Std.
4. Sheet 2, Note 17: Owner shall be responsible for posting the ESC bond. Revise note.
5. Sheet 2, Note 24: Appears incomplete. Please revise.
6. Sheet 4: Label all wetlands. Label 100' stream buffers.
7. A separate Road Plan is required. Please submit a Road Plan with Application and required fee.
8. Sheet 4: Provide calculations for ADT. ADT appears inconsistent; for example: Cattail Court 42
Attached units (G1-G42), ADT =200, while Terrapin Trace 14 Attached units (I48-I62) ADT =200.
Mossy Rock Rd. 18 single-family (J39-J57) ADT =100 appears low, while Meander Way (12 single-
family units, I35-I47) ADT =100, is more reasonable. Reference ITE Trip Generation Manual, most
recent volume, when calculating ADT.
9. Sheet 6: Rt. 250Improvements single lane addition typical section appears to indicate 2" SM-12.5A
tapers to zero thickness (0") at edge of 8' paved shoulder; confirm consistent with VDOT standards.
Sheet 8 / CONTECH BridgeCor® Arch Structure
10. Ref. 2016 VDOT Road & Bridge Specifications for pre -cast arch requirements /302.03.b.
18.
19.
20.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 9
(b) Precast Drainage Structures: Submittal of designs for precast items included in the Road and
Bridge Standards will not be required provided fabrication is in accordance with the Standards.
Submittal of designs for precast box culverts produced under the VDOT Precast Concrete
Quality Assurance Program by a manufacturer on the Materials Division's Approved Products
List 34 will not be required provided the Contractor submits a certification that the item shall
be fabricated in accordance with the preapproved design drawings.
Requests for approval of a precast design shall include detailed plans and supporting com-
putations that have been signed and sealed by a Professional Engineer having at least 5 years
experience in structural design of precast structures or components proposed and licensed to
practice engineering in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Unless otherwise specified, concrete
Provide high definition images with legible text details for each CONTECH BridgeCor® Arch
Structure detail. Most text is illegible.
Illegible Specifications for Manufacture and Installation of CONTECH BridgeCor® Arch Structure is
of particular concern. Please provide legible Mfr./Installation text.
Provide PE -seal for each CONTECH BridgeCor® Arch Structure detail. Site Plan PE -seal is
insufficient unless Site Plan Professional Engineer holds PE certification in structural engineering
discipline, and seals each CONTECH detail on sheet 8, not simply plan sheet 8.
Provide structural details, including plan /profile view with dimensions, for reinforced concrete
headwall. Detail on this sheet indicates `supplied by others.' Furnish plan /profile structural detail
sufficient to evaluate adequacy and integrity of concrete headwall design.
Provide reinforcement detail, including plan /profile views with dimensions, for reinforced concrete
arch footing.
Albemarle County Building Inspections Division permit may be required. Applicant is encouraged to
coordinate with Building Inspections on building permit requirements for proposed 34'-1" X 9'-2".
Note: Notes on schematic of proposed Contech detail (top right corner, sheet 8) are problematic:
"Footing dimensions and details shown are conceptual only"; "Final dimensions and details to be
furnished by the Project Engineer"; "Foundation reinforcing to be determined." These notes indicate
final design is to be performed by Project Engineer, relative to arch footings. Provide: footing
dimensions and calculations supporting design for this site and location (soil type, dead /live load,
etc.); final dimensions /details; and foundation reinforcing details. Provide calculations that support
footing design.
Details reference single radius arch: This does not appear to be a single radius structure; check label.
Sheets 9-19: Base sight lines on design speed (posted speed limit + 5MPH). Example: sight line at Int.
Moose Lane and Lazy Branch Lane would appear to be 335'. Check /revise sight lines, as needed.
Sheets 9-19 /CG-12: Ramps at perpendicular crossings are shown as diagonal crossing ramps. Revise
per VDOT standard —compare images:
DETECTABLE WARMNO SVRFACE,
PLICATI ON
IRA RAMP LENGTH 12,1 µAy„ S' MIN
FEET Ef
cone R^ cuRe
5 A 4'SGUME CADGING MEA
D'JT1. CF TRAVELWM
5 9 SNALL K PROVIDED FDR
6 R CA05SW µK PERPENGICDLMi CROSSWALK
E 12 WITM THE MARKED
CROSSWALK ME4
q 15
TS
A A ALLEL RAMP
EG LESS OF THE
SHEET 3 0%
CC-12 DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE
TYPE B (PARALLEL) APPLICATION PE'. 1,05
VIRGINIA GEPMTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 203 .6
Sheet 14
VDOT STD. CG-1
-
RAMP,TYP
35'R
r
W?oIM
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 9
21. Sheet 11: Provide Auto -turn figs. /driveway geometry, multiple lots, including I-60, -61, -62, -64, J-1
(sheet 18), etc. Propose smooth curves as opposed to angles which necessitate off -pavement turns
/maneuvers to enter and exit drives. Review all driveways. (Also item #36)
n y I I i n
15-TOWN
I� I I GARAGE E
-Iflj l
20 I I
_T � - - i� 00' i �4
860 SF
&. j / / l l l I / / /
22. Sheet 14: Street Name signs are proposed for atypical locations at Int. Lazy Branch Lane and Moose
Lane, and at Int. Lazy Branch Lane and Cattail Court. Revise to appear in conventional location on
street with stop sign. Defer to VDOT comments for public roads.
23. Sheet 14: Recommend relocate street name /speed limit and any required signs from radial sections of
roadway to tangent sections, wherever possible.
24. Sheet 14: Revise Matchline (right margin) to read sheet 15.
25. Sheet 15: Provide sight line easement on Lot I-4.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 4 of 9
26. Sheet 16/18, 18/19 (at Matchline) —Label road radii, Lazy Branch Lane. Review horizontal road curves.
Label all horizontal road curve radii in plan view.
27. Sheet 20: Revise value in parenthesis to match design speed (60, not 25). Check profiles captions.
28. Sheets 20/21: Profile ref to Butterfield and Park may not match proposed road names. Please confirm.
29. Ensure arch spans on Terrapin Trace (sheet 24) and Lazy Branch Lane (between Mossy Rock Rd. and
Moose Ln.; sheet 25), the two 8' X 4' and the 4' X 2' double box culvert (sheet 26) pass the 25-year
storm event without roadway flooding. Portions of development have no outlet save crossing one or
more of these culverts. Recent local flooding lends particular impetus to conservative design.
30. Sheet 28: Provide paved concrete channel (and detail) between two pipes south of Rt. 250 to prevent
nuisance ponding. Fall between outfall of one and inlet of the other is only 0.5% (0.12' over 23.5'±).
31. Sheet 28: Provide drainage easement for storm pipe, NE corner lot I-31.
32. Sheet 32: Provide drainage easement for storm line between SD 2J3-1 and SD 2J3.
33. Sheet 34: Proposed forest /open space easement 1' from edge of basketball court and on a portion of
tennis court playing surface is ambitious. While proposed Forest /Open Space easements are generally
consistent with DEQ Training Module 4, Engineering cannot approve proposed easements in such
close proximity to developed features (sports courts, lots, etc.). Revise, as needed.
(https://www.deq.vir ig nia. og_y/portals/0/deg/connectwithdeg/trainin swMZplanreviewswmpiz modul
e4.pdf )
t
t
r
r
r
r
r
Sheet 34 —Revise proposed Forest /Open Space Easement located interior to Lot lines. Do not show
Forest /Open Space Easements on any portion of any lot unless Owner intends to convey lots with
portions that may never be turf or impervious but must remain open space /forest, in perpetuity.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 5 of 9
eeIIAA j
.C`PAL
CESIN.. ATE
W
3
$r
� 3
LOT H•1
Y
5,805 5F
I�
FFE 36 K
V PE KCOPPER `
/
WATER SERVICE. TYP,
WATER
� I
r
METER IWMI, TYE.
lA6
LOT H-2
4,4111 SF
'
FFE ]66,50
r,00 4•PVcs '
1 3
uTERu
y- M&W
I BLOCK H
/ LOT H3 f 1i_
/ 4.400 SF 01 3
FFE 96r.50 ... 1
ExT6ro EK. a• -
- /I
]6t.50 9WMBMP 3 /
FCoiESTMPEN 11/
SPACE EASEMENT RW ! 1
LOT H< PC S ! T
1 50795F s''77 r
FFE 3& M ... f
34. Sheet 36: Provide yard drains for drainage across 3 or more lots (ref design at Lots J-12 thru J-14).
Ref. Drainage Plan checklist. Examine all grading /utility plan sheets; provide yard drains with plan
/ rp ofile data including invert in/out, rim, and profile: diameter, length, slope, etc. Provide drainage
computations /tables —consider spread, Qio capacity. Note: Min. pipe diameter is 12". Link:
http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/fonns center/departments/Community Development/forms/Engineering and
WPO Forms/Engineering Review Drainage Plans Checklist 1Dec2014.pdf
Also: Provide yard drains at: Lots I-32 thru I-36 (sheets 28/32); I-48 thru I-57 (back yards, sheet 29);
J-39 thru J-44 (front Yards, sheets 33/35).
668�P _. _IX P® tlP .�„ - ��� •... I/�: LOTJaO..
-.�,- - e,ora S �4-:°���: � �� `�� i/ asr�,r•.or... rw
s.arxv �
� 2
s.oco sF 99 �
-� _ _ .,,.-" saw, a�..•.:... rac -wd° ,.` �`.
-- soso sF j
r ao
LOT "o
VTIAL 906'° , aenrRaww �
®� �+
1 � �
35. Sheet 37: Revise proposed grades that intersect porches, walks, etc., unless intentional —image, below.
(Review all sheets.)
Engineering Review Comments
Page 6 of 9
_,_
t�
354M 353.oi -
__ _� } f �y
356.Od
J -2t - T LOTJ-20
LOT
} 8,7885F I i
5 - WATER METER _ l } -.5,933 SF
(WM), rvF. -LOT J-22-
V TYPE K COPPERTM�"} 4,902 Sr` _ FFE 3e3so .��. - _IypT1:1i.5ERVICE, t` _ —
t t 55,1000J SF
3
3) s f — F�e'3G+.5i
3
383.00 `
A I
DO
366 0-
W� k 1 f III i W BEND
36. Sheet 37: Provide Auto -turn diagrams that show a 2nd vehicle may park next to an already -parked
vehicle: Lots J-20, -21, -22. Revise design to ensure two vehicles may enter /exit and park in space
fronting dwellings (this sheet, and elsewhere).
* Note: Albemarle has received complaint concerning negative experience based on unrealistic design
driveway access, similar to proposed. Provide Auto -turn figure for any lot where design configuration
is similar, oryroblematic.
- I ,
V }
VVV _� -_ _LIIITI�I _ T ��
1 6.708 SF
-LOT J-22
- L '"- NIATE85F.R'NC£TYP 1 4,965F
5,100 L5,11l
SF � I
8F
11�000 SF
11 f } 4A00 25
bA005G-
lYP.1 4,406 $F
{
- ' �yp,45C �,- rTmucs IV' yq
37. Sheet 37: Proposed Entrance, Lot J-20 does not work; revise such that a car may enter /exit without
exceptional maneuvers, without dropping off curb. Albemarle has received severe complaint post -
construction relating to misalignment of apron and driveway edge. Propose alignment similar to blue
line. Examine all entrance aprons /all sheets, especially in cul-de-sacs and curves (sheet 36, Lots J-1,
J2, for example). Revise as necessary.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 7 of 9
FG.V.—
FHA #X5
G.V.
38. Sheet 37: Provide off -site temporary construction easements required to grade to adjacent property
lines. Image, below —examine and provide remedy for similar proposed grading to property line.
(Mossy Rock Rd. cul-de-sac, for example —sheet 35)
+ I I I P
fir- yyy' V I I ! I I
PA���EME� I I
k '
1 l I I
l I 1 I
rMPl80-4i
1&ErTY Mc�LA NAN I� I I
�I I Oa.1ae4Na G1sll I y l
39. Sheet 40: Sanitary Sewer Aerial Crossing —provide a Floodplain Development Permit Application to
address requirements of Code 18-30.3 if development is proposed in FEMA Zone A /AE floodplain.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 8 of 9
350
AERIAL GROSSING OF CREEK&
FLOODPLAIN" WITH 8' GRIFFIN LONG
SPAN DIP SUPPORTED WITH 1ITO
REI NFOREGED CONCRETE SONOTHBE
340
-
STAINLESS STEEL STANCH ONABLE
SADDLES
- - -
-- --' -- -28959 LF Of 8" DIP Q D.50 %
- - -
-
330
--------
STAINLESS STEEL STANCHION SADDLE
SPECIFICATION
MAN UFACTURER' FM STAINLESS, LLC - (706) B16-1881
320
ITEM #: 59G-8
MATERIAL: 3M1 16 STAINLESS STEEL
ORDERING: SPECIFY BY PIPE, FIGURE NUMBER,
DISTANCE TO CENTER OF CONCRETE
10+00 11+00 12+00
SANITARY SEWER 'B' PROFILE; STA. 10+00 - 16+60
SCALE: 1'-2D' H,^ 111 TV
40. Sheet 63: Revise d/h column values, Inlets in Sump.
41. Sheets 64-68: Label each nine. Provide pipe structure numbers.
42. Sheets 64-68: Engineering strongly recommends that storm sewer pipe in fill sections be RCP. Any
HDPE or RCP pipe with As -built slope < 0.5% will be rejected by Albemarle, and will need to be
replaced at Owner's expense. Note, for example:
a. `2F' profile:
i. 114.54 LF of 15" HDPE @ 1.75% (placed on 5' fill).
ii. 40.86 LF of 15" HDPE @ 0.88% (placed on 3' fill).
b. `2G' Profile: 50.94 LF of 15" HDPE @ 1.75% (4-5' fill).
c. `2H' Profile: Recommend revise grade of 38.84 LF of 15" HDPE @ 0.51%.
d. `2P' Profile: 82.23 LF of 15" HDPE @ 0.91%.
e. `2Q' Profile: 82.46 LF of 18" HDPE @ 0.73%
f. `2M' profile:
i. 144.84 LF of 24" HDPE @ 2.74%.
ii. 52.22 LF of 24" HDPE @ 3.03%.
iii. 31.84 LF of 24" HDPE @ 0.94%.
iv. 50.08 LF of 15" HDPE @ 5.73%.
g. `2S' profile: 164.95 LF of 15" HDPE @ 1.81% (5-6' fill).
43. Sheet 67: Str. SD 2S3, 2S4 (height str. >12') -provide label and detail for VDOT SL-1 (safety slab).
44. Sheet 67: Revise structure label SD S24 to read 2S4.
45. Sheet 68: Provide box culvert endwalls based on VDOT standards. Provide VDOT Std. for Modular
Block retaining wall as EW, if such exists. Show VDOT Std. EW on plans. Provide and show Wing
Wall Std. on plans. Ref profile of proposed box culverts at Lazy Branch Ln Sta. 31+63 and 26+40.
46. Sheet 68: Specify minimum slope of each proposed box culvert. Albemarle recognizes need for invert
elevations to be adjusted per verification of stream inverts.
47. Provide Note stating: "All fill material supporting roadways, embankments, and structures within the
right-of-way shall consist of Type I Select Material as defined in Section 207 of the 2016 VDOT Road
and Bridge Specifications and must be placed in successive uniform lifts not exceeding 8" and
compacted to 95% of the soil's maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D698."
48. MH Structures SD 2F2, 2F3, 2G2, 2K2, 2L2, 2M9, 2M10, 2M11, 2M12, 2R1-B, 2S-11 are proposed
in fill sections and require inspection by qualified personnel reporting to the Engineer that installation
is per VDOT specification, item #47.
49. Provide VDOT Std. PB-1, General Notes on plans (107.00; Spec. Ref. 302 /303 -.PDF p. 112 of
VDOT on-line CSection100)
50. Provide VDOT Std. PB-1, Pipe Bedding and Backfill, Method A" on plans (107.01 -p. 113 of
CSection100).
51. Provide VDOT Std. PB-1, Pipe Arch Bedding and Backfill on plans (107.03 -p. 115 of CSection100).
Engineering Review Comments
Page 9 of 9
52. Provide VDOT Std. PB-1, Bedding and Backfill/Box Culverts, Method "A" on plans (107.04 —p. 116
of CSection100).
53. Provide VDOT Std. DS13-1, Bedding for Inlet, MH, and JB on plans (106.15, p. 111 of CSection100).
54. Provide VDOT 2016 VDOT R&B Spec. Note (303.04(g)):
(g) Backfilling Openings Made for Structures: Backfill shall be suitable material removed for
the structure, although the Engineer may require that backfill material be obtained from a
source within the construction limits entirely apart from the structure, or other approved mate-
rial. The opening to be backfilled shall be dewatered prior to backfilling. Backfill shall not be
placed against or over cast -in -place box culverts or other structures until the top concrete slab
section(s) has been in place 14 days, exclusive of days on which the average high -low ambient
temperature is below 40 degrees F in the shade or until the concrete control cylinder(s) has at-
tained a compressive strength equal to 93 percent of the 28-day minimum design compressive
strength.
Also:
Box culverts shall not be opened to construction equipment traffic until concrete has attained
100 percent of the 28-day design minimum compressive strength and has a backfill cover of
at least 4.0 feet. The minimum height of backfill cover required to protect pipe culverts from
construction equipment shall be in accordance with Standard Drawing PC-1 for the type and
size specified.
Please feel free to call if any questions: 434.296-5832 —x3069
Thank you
SDP201800031_Rivanna Village Phase 2—block F-G-H-I-J FSP_062618.doc
Review Comments for SDP201800031 IFinal Plat 1-1
Project Name: Rivanna Village, Phase 2 (Blk_ F,G_H_1 and J) - Final
Date Completed: Tuesday, June 26, 2018 DepartmentlDi+vision/Agency: Review sus:
Reviewer: John Anderson LJ CDD Engineering - Requested Changes
Additional Engineering review comments (janderson2 711012018 12:09 PM):
55_ Sheet C10 includes a proposed 200' taper and 200' right turn lane on U__ Rt.- 250 EBL While Road Plants for this and
other portions of public roads and privates streets (if any) internal to the development will present design information to be
reviewed by County, VDOT, and others, at first glance, a 200' taper may be insufficient for a primary arterial roadway (66 MPH
limit)_ Design for a similar development entrance located on U_ _ primary arterial Rt_ 29 with identical design /posted limits
serves preliminary indication (prior to County review of traffic impact analysis) that proposed 200' taper to 200' right turn lane
may require revision to ensure safe movement on Rt_ 250, EBL, at current or future ADT projections_ Please reference TIA, by
date and title, that supports 200' taper and 200' turn lane for U_ _ Rt_ 260 EBL As stated elsewhere, please submit road plans
as required by ordinance_
56_ No portion of the 70' reservation zone or 30' landscape buffer that may in the future be dedicated to Albemarle County, upon
demand, for widening of Rt_ 260 may be placed in SWM /BMP Forest /Open Space Easement_ Revise calculations or water
quality compliance strategies that may at present rely on buffer areas that cannot with any assurance be preserved in
perpetuity as forest /open space_
Page: County of Albemarle Printed On: 10711 T2018
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper Virginia 22701
Stephen C. Brich, P.E.
Commissioner
June 11, 2018
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Attn: Christopher Perez
Re: Rivanna Village Phase II — Final Site Plan
SDP-2018-00031
Review #1
Dear Mr. Perez:
The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use
Section, has reviewed the above referenced plan as submitted by Alan Franklin PE, LLC, dated
24 April 2018, and offers the following comments:
I. Oversized structures, such as the proposed arch bridges, will only be approved if a
maintenance agreement is recorded with the County of Albemarle. If VDOT is to
maintain these structures, their sizes must be hydraulically justified.
2. Regardless of maintenance, arch bridges, box culverts, and retaining walls that are
located within the ROW or- support structures within the ROW must be approved by the
Culpeper District Structure & Bridge Section, as well as the Culpeper District Hydraulics
Section prior to permit issuance. A maintenance agreement with the County/HOA for
retaining walls located in or supporting structures within the ROW should be recorded
prior to street acceptance. Comments from the Structure & Bridge and Hydraulics
Sections will be forwarded as they are received.
3. Also concerning the arches, box culverts, and walls, a Geotechnical report is required
including borings at each end wall. Borings must be performed in accordance with
Chapter 3 of the VDOT Manual of Instructions (MOI).
4. Excessive right-of-way should not be granted for the purposes of having utilities. The
right-of-way line should be I foot beyond the sidewalk.
5. Where DI-3s are greater than 8 feet deep, DI-3AA, -3BB, or -3CC should be specified as
applicable and those details should be provided. The 9' requirement is for DI-2s.
6. The Drainage Manual states that pipe velocities that exceed 10 fps are to be avoided.
7. PIease show HGL's on profiles. Also provide HGL calculations, which should be
consistent with existing plans showing existing structures that are being tied in to.
8. Typical Sections; pavement materials should be daylighted to the shoulder/slope, not
abruptly terminated as shown. The pavement materials on the typical sections do not
appear to have changed from the previous submission.
9. The Route 250 Improvements typical sections call for 2" of SM 9.5; as previously noted,
the maximum lift thickness for SM 9.5 is 1.5".
10. Please provide the Route 250 Improvements on a single sheet, or two, fully dimensioned.
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
June 11, 2018
Christopher Perez
Page 2
11. Why does the Lazy Branch Lane section decrease to 29 feet f/c to f/c? The roadway
section should remain consistent throughout. This decrease in section width is not
reflected in the typical sections.
12. PIease callout arches on layout plans, including dimensions. Note that design plans for
only one of the three proposed arches has been provided.
13. It would be preferable to aid in and quicken the review process if the plans were scaled to
a smaller scale. Note that the Department only requires that scales be 1":50'.
14. If the resubmission is printed and scaled to an architectural paper size, the Department
will require hard copies to review.
15. Show the required area of mill and overlay on Route 250.
15. Provide pavement design calculations.
17. Please include the attached Construction Notes on the plans.
Please provide two copies of the revised plan along with a comment response letter. If further
information is desired, please contact Justin Deel at 434-422-9894.
A VDOT Land Use Permit will be required prior to any work within the right-of-way. The
owner/developer must contact the Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use
Section at (434) 422-9399 for information pertaining to this process.
Sincerely,
a6m,
Adam J. Moore, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Charlottesville Residency
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
June 22, 2018
Alan Franklin
427 Cranberry Lane
Crozet, VA 22932
RE: SDP-2018-31: Rivanna Village Phase 2 Final (Blocks F, G, H, J and I)
Dear Mr. Franklin,
The Albemarle County Architectural Review Board reviewed the above noted item at its meeting on Monday,
June 18, 2018. The Board, by a vote of4:0, approved the request, pending staff administrative approval of the
following conditions:
1. Show the boundaries of the 30' buffer on the landscape plans.
2. Add ornamental trees and large shrubs in the landscape buffer.
3. Distribute the trees and shrubs in the landscape buffer to fully populate the 30' depth and to
achieve a natural appearance.
4. On the landscape plan, label the existing wooded area to remain and include notes identifying the
character of the wooded area.
5. Revise the plan to remove all conflicts between grading and wooded area to remain.
6. Add the standard plant health note to the landscape plans: "All site plantings of trees and shrubs shall
be allowed to reach, and be maintained at, mature height; the topping of trees is prohibited. Shrubs
and trees shall be pruned minimally and only to support the overall health of the plant."
Please provide:
I . One set of revised drawings addressing each of these conditions. Include updated ARB revision dates
on each drawing.
2. A memo including detailed responses indicating how each condition has been satisfied. If changes
other than those requested have been made, identify those changes in the memo also. Highlighting the
changes in the drawing with "clouding" or by other means will facilitate review and approval.
3. The attached "Revised Application Submittal" form. This form must be returned with your revisions to
ensure proper tracking and distribution.
When staffs review of this information indicates that all conditions of approval have been met, a Certificate of
Appropriateness may be issued.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
i
Margaret Maliszewski
Chief of Planning/Resource Management
cc: Rivanna Investment Holdings
150 West Main Street, STE 1100
Norfolk, VA 23510
Review Comments for SDP201800031 IFinal Plat 1-1
Project Name: Rivanna Village, Phase 2 (Blk_ F,G_H_1 and J) - Final
Date Completed: Thursday, May 10, 2018 DepartmentlDi+visionlAgency: Review Sys:
Reviewer: Richard Nelson U ACSA Requested Changes
Please advise the applicant to submit 3 hard copies toACSAfor waterlsewe r review_
Page: County of Albemarle Printed On: 10711 T2018
Review Comments for SDP201800031 IFinal Plat 1-1
Project Name: Rivanna Village, Phase 2 (Blk_ F,G,H,I and J) - Final
Date Completed: Friday, May 04, 2018 DepartmentIDivisionfAgency: Review Sys:
Reviewer: Michael Dellinger CDD Inspections No Objection
No Objection
Page: County of Albemarle Printed On: 10711 T2018
Review Comments for SDP201800031 IFinal Plat 1-1
Project Name: Rivanna Village, Phase 2 (Blk_ F,G_H_1 and J) - Final
Date Completed: Tuesday, May 15, 2018 DepartmentlDi+visionlAgency: Review Sys:
Reviewer: Elise iewra CDD E911 No Objection
No Objections per site plan dated 4124118
Page: County of Albemarle Printed On: 10711 T2018
Review Comments for SDP201800031 lFinal Plat 1-1
Project Name: Rivanna Village, Phase 2 (Blk_ F,G_H_I and J) - Final
Date Completed: DepartmentlDi+visionlAgency: Review sus:
Reviewer: Lshawn Maddox Fire Rescue Pending
COMMENTS PENDING
Page: County of Albemarle Printed On: 10711 T2018
Review Comments for SDP201800031 lFinal Plat 1-1
Project Name: Rivanna Village, Phase 2 (Blk_ F,G_H_I and J) - Final
Date Completed: DepartmentlDi+visionlAgency: Review sus:
Reviewer: Dan Mahon CDD Planning Pending
COMMENTS PENDING
Page: County of Albemarle Printed On: 10711 T2018