HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201600007 Review Comments Appeal to BOS 2018-09-17 (3)pF AL
k>i
�IRGIN�`
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, VA, 22902
434-296-5832
Memorandum
To: Justin Shimp (justinkshimp-en . in�g com)
From: Christopher P. Perez, Senior Planner
Division: Planning
Date: September 17, 2018
Subject: SDP201600007 Inglewood Terrace — Final Site 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.]
Conditions of Initial Plan Approval:
1. [Comment] This application was reviewed against Site Development Plan requirements only. Lot lines and a `private
road' are shown on the plan, but no subdivision application, nor private road request, nor road plans have been
submitted. Any subdivision related comments are provided for reference only unless necessary for site plan approval.
Rev 3: A private road request was submitted and has been approved.
14.6.1, 4.6.6, 32.7.2.1, 32.7.2.2, 32.5.2(m), 32.7.2.3,14-207, 14-3091 The private street serving the development is
proposed within an existing publicly dedicated right-of-way, this is not approvable. VDOT never accepted the portion
of the right-of-way labeled as `Unimproved Inglewood Drive' into the State Secondary System and the County still
owns it. Either pursue vacation of the right of way pursuant to State Code 15.2-2272 prior to final site plan and/or final
subdivision plat approval OR upgrade the existing roadway to meet current VDOT standards from the point where
VDOT maintenance ends. This will include a suitable turn around at the end of state maintenance, removal of the
existing parking area, continuation of curb and gutter, tie in of the existing driveway of TMP 061KO-05-OD-00400, and
the dedication of right-of-way or easements as necessary. Please show these improvements and easements or right-of-
way prior to final site plan and/ or subdivision plat approval. Rev 3: Comment addressed.
3. [Comment] Approval and recordation of a plat showing the vacation of the property line between TMP 61K-I O-OA
and TMP 61K-10-OA2 is required prior to final site plan approval. Include the deed book/page reference number on the
final site plan. It may be appropriate to combine all platting items on a single plat (if other items exist). Rev 5:
Comment still relevant. Please resubmit the plat for review and approval prior to final site plan approval.
4. [Comment] VDOT approval of the proposed entrance to the site shall be required prior to final site plan approval.
Rev 5: Comment still relevant. VDOT comments attached.
5. [14-412(A)(3),14-412(A)(3)(b) and 14-412(B)] VDOT road standards apply to the proposed private street. Show the
24' required width FC/FC on the final site plan. Rev 2: The County Engineer may permit the width of the private
street to be 20' FC/FC per design standards manual. Comment addressed.
6. [32.5.2(i),15.2.1(3, 14-233(B)1, 14-2341 A private street request must be submitted prior to final subdivision plat
approval. This private street request can be reviewed administratively due to the presence of attached dwellings. A
maintenance agreement for the private street must be submitted for review and approval by the County Attorney's
Office with the subdivision application. Rev 3: A private street request was submitted and has been approved by
the Agent due to the presence of attached units.
7. [32.7.2.2, 14-410(H),14-4221 Private Streets in the Development Area. In the development areas, streets shall be
constructed with curb or curb and gutter, sidewalks and planting strips. Sidewalks and planting strips shall be designed
and constructed in compliance with section 14-422 (Sidewalks and planting strips for street trees and other vegetation
shall be established on both sides of each new street within a subdivision creating lots for single family detached and
single family attached dwellings in the development areas) Revise to provide sidewalks and landscape strips on both
sides of the new street. Otherwise submit variation or exception request pursuant to Section 14-422(F) & 14-203.1.
This item shall be acted on prior to final subdivision plat and final site plan approval. Rev 4: The above sections of
the subdivision ordinance were sited in error and have been determined not to apply to this development or the
request; rather it has been determined that Section 32.3.5 permits variations and exceptions of the required
improvements listed under Section 32.7.2.2, which utilize the private road standards in Chapter 14 but are not
varied or excepted by Chapter 14. Because of this error the agent has requested revised exception requests and
justifications under Section 32.3.5 in order to act on the request. The applicant submitted the revised exception
requests on June 25th 2018 and staff has reviewed it. I offer the following:
Considerations and Finding: The applicant has chosen to develop the current proposal as a public street within
the existing publically dedicated right-of-way, and develop a private street for the remainder. In considering the
request submitted on June 25th the agent has examined the surrounding neighborhood, which is a historic
neighborhood that was originally designed without sidewalks and landscape strips. As lots are redeveloped
sidewalks are established along the frontage, void of landscape strips. Current VDOT standards do not require
sidewalks and landscape strips on both sides of the public roadway.
The agent finds there is an unusual situation involving the existing previously dedicated but not accepted 50'
Public right-of-way that is acting as a constricting factor for the installation of the required improvements.
Additionally, the current proposal is not served by a through street but rather a dead-end street that serves the
9 proposed units.
Taking into consideration the above circumstances the agent approves the exception request to permit sidewalks
on one side of the roadway and omit landscape strips throughout which will result in an improvement that
substantially satisfies the overall purpose of the ordinance in a manner that equally meets the desired effect of
the requirement. Additionally the improvement facilitates public safety, health, and welfare of residents in the
neighborhood by providing enhanced pedestrian access from the units down the hill.
As a condition of the approval landscape easements shall be provided between the driveways on individual lots
1-3 to provide the required street trees, and all other requires street trees shall be planted within the open space
areas adiacent to the right-of-wav and in narking islands. as depicted on the plans.
The comment has been addressed.
8. [32.5.2(n), 4.12.15(g)] Curb and gutter in parking areas and along travelways. Either provide the required curb and
gutters in the parking area or submit a request and justification for a modification/waiver under Section 4.12.2(C) &
(C)2. This is an agent approved waiver which can only be acted on after consultation with the County Engineer, who
shall advise whether the proposed waiver or modification would equally or better serve the public health, safety or
welfare. This item shall be acted on prior to final subdivision plat and final site plan approval. Rev 2. Comment
addressed.
9. 132.5.2(b), 4.12.16(c)] Minimum parking space size. Are the 6'-wide parking spaces fronting Lots 4-9 for
motorcycles/mopeds? If so, label the spaces as such. If not, on the plan label what they are being utilized for. These
spaces shall not be counted towards the minimum required spaces. Final: Comment addressed.
10. [4.12.16(C)] The two proposed parking spaces fronting TMP 061KO-05-OD-00400 are required to be 18' in length.
Currently they are depicted as 16' in length. Revise the final site plan accordingly. Final: Comment no longer
relevant, plans were modified to omit these spaces.
11. [32.5.2(i)] Street trees shall be required for this development. Prior to final site plan approval a landscape plan shall be
provided. Final: A landscape plan has been provided. Detailed landscape comments are provided below in
"Additional Comments".
12. 132.5.2(i), 4.6.3,15.2.1(3), 15.31 Setbacks. Rev 3. Per conversations with Zoning the original comment was made
in error, and is no longer relevant, see new setback comment below.
13. [32.5.2(f)] Per the June 19, 2015 letter by David L. Powell, Environmental Specialist, which was submitted to staff on
October 29, 2015, the stream feature has been categorized as an Intermittent Stream. The study was reviewed by
County Engineering staff and has been determined to be adequate. An adjacent property owner has contacted staff and
expressed his concerns with this study and has opted to contract a stream categorization study of his own by a licensed
professional. At the time of this approval letter the second study has not been provided. When the study is submitted it
shall be considered and reviewed by County Engineering staff. If the second study contradicts the June 19th, 2015
study, the County Engineer will make a determination to classify the stream. Rev 2. Comment has been addressed.
14. 132.5.2(d), 32.5.2(f)] The 9' retaining wall is acting as a dam for the stream that may cause flooding on neighboring
properties in the event of heavy rainfall. Have any studies been conducted to assess the max flow of this stream to
assure that the 60" storm sewer pipe is adequate to avoid such flooding? If so, please provide copies of the study to
myself and Engineering. This item may pose an issue for the development during the WPO plan review of the project.
Please work with Engineering staff to address this concern prior to final site plan approval. Also, the `New 60" HDPE
Storm Sewer' discharges water into the existing swale on TMP 61K-5-D-4. Will piping the water under the proposed
buildings increase the velocity/flow of discharged water potentially increasing erosion on the neighboring property
and/or impact properties downstream? During the WPO plan review and prior to final site plan approval please work
with Engineering staff to address this concern. Rev 1: Plans have been revised to terrace the retaining wall into two
separate 5' tall walls, and detention pipes. The WPO plan shall be approved prior to final site plan approval.
The site plan shall reflect approved WPO.
15. 132.5.2(p) & 32.7.9.71 Screening. The proposed outfall of the stream shall be screened from the adjacent residential
lots (TMP 061KO-05-OD-00400& 061KO-09-00-003BO). Provide the required screening on the final site plan's
landscape plan. Rev 1: The outfall will contain rip -rap and open pipe is not proposed. Based on this design
screening is not needed.
16. 132.5.2(a), 15.4.1, 3.11 Maintenance of existing wooded areas. For the undisturbed areas to qualify for a 10% density
bonus, demonstrate in an exhibit that the area meets the definition of "Wooded Areas" per section 3.1 of the ordinance.
Provide the exhibit and a conservation plan as specified in section 32.7.9 prior to final site plan approval and/or final
subdivision plat approval. Rev 4: Comment addressed.
On the final subdivision plat, show the conservation area and provide the following note: "Lot acreages shown hereon
were calculated under the Bonus Level Cluster development requirements. Lots shown hereon comply with section
15.4.1 "Environmental standards" by conserving acreage area that comprises % of the total area of the
subdivided parcels. " Final: Item shall be addressed prior to final subdivision plat approval.
17. [32.5.2(a), 15.4.31 Affordable housing. Clearly identify the affordable unit on the final subdivision plat.
Rev 2. Comment addressed (Lot 2).
18. 132.5.2(a), 15.5,15.3, 4.7] Cluster Development. On the plan clearly distinguish what area is being counted towards the
required Open Space B & C, and omit the square footage for the road and parking from the open space totals. Rev 3.
Comment addressed.
On the final subdivision plat list who shall own and maintain the open space. An open space maintenance agreement
approved by the County Attorney's office shall be required prior to final subdivision plat approval. Final: Shall be
addressed on final subdivision olat.
19. 132.5.2(a), 15.5,15.3, 4.7] Cluster Development. On sheet C1, under Impervious Area Schedule, 33,500 SF is listed
under "Area in open space"; however, on sheet C3 open space A-D add up to 27,676 SF. Correct and coordinate
calculations throughout the plans. Rev 3. Comment addressed
20. [32.5.2(d)] Prior to final site plan approval provide a temporary grading and construction easement or license
agreement for the installation of the proposed DI and New 15" HDPE Storm Sewer on TMP 061KO-05-OC-01300.
Also, revise the plan to provide this property owner's name and TMP. Final: Comment no longer relevant as there is
no work proposed on adjoining neighbor's property; rather, the work will take place in the existing right-of-
way.
3
21. 132.5.1(c), 32.5.2(n)] Dimensions. On the plan provide the dimensions of the proposed structures.
Final: Comment addressed.
22. [Comment] On the plans provide the deed book page reference information for the existing 30' Joint Access
Easement. Staff research determined that the maintenance agreement for this join access easement is DB 1654-291.
Revise accordingly. Rev 1: Comment addressed.
23. [Comment] The adjacent property owner of TMP 061KO-10-00-OOOA1 has a portion of his existing driveway on land
that is part of your development and property (TMP 061KO- 10-00-OOOA2). It appears that some grading is taking place
on a portion of his driveway that is on your land. He has contacted County staff (Engineering and myself) and is very
concerned with this aspect of the plans and does not want this to take place. It is recommended that you contact this
citizen and try and work out this issue. I have his contact information and will provide it to you upon your request.
Final: The developer has been made aware of this recommendation.
24. [32.5.2(n) & (p)] The following will be required for final site plan approval:
- If lighting is proposed: Outdoor lighting information including a photometric plan and location, description, and
photograph or diagram of each type of outdoor luminaire [Sec. 32.7.8 & Sec. 4.17]
Final: Comment addressed.
- A landscape plan in accordance with [Sec. 32.7.9]. Final: Comment addressed.
Additional Comments
1. [32.7.2.2, 14-410(H),14-4221 Streets and Travelways. Each private street and travelway within a development shall be
designed and constructed to the standards for private streets in chapter 14. Provide curb or curb and gutter, sidewalks and
landscape strips on both sides of the new private road and the public road. Otherwise submit the applicable variation or
exception request pursuant to Sections 14-410(I) and 14-422(F) and 14-203.1 for consideration.
Rev 4: The above sections of the subdivision ordinance were sited in error and have been determined not to apply to
this development or the request; rather it has been determined that Section 32.3.5 permits variations and exceptions
of the required improvements listed under Section 32.7.2.2, which utilize the private road standards in Chapter 14
but are not varied or excepted by Chapter 14. Because of this error the agent has requested revised exception
requests and iustifications under Section 32.3.5 in order to act on the request. The applicant submitted the revised
exception requests on June 25t" 2018 and staff has reviewed it. I offer the following:
Considerations and Finding: The applicant has chosen to develop the current proposal as a public street within the
existing publically dedicated right-of-way, and develop a private street for the remainder. In considering the request
submitted on June 25th the agent has examined the surrounding neighborhood, which is a historic neighborhood that
was originally designed without sidewalks and landscape strips. As lots are redeveloped sidewalks are established
along the frontage, void of landscape strips. Current VDOT standards do not require sidewalks and landscape strips
on both sides of the Dublic roadway.
The agent finds there is an unusual situation involving the existing previously dedicated but not accepted 50' public
right-of-way that is acting as a constricting factor for the installation of the required improvements. Additionally,
the current Dronosal is not served by a through street but rather a dead-end street that serves the 9 Dronosed units.
Taking into consideration the above circumstances the agent approves the exception requests to permit sidewalks on
one side of the roadway and omit landscape strips throughout, which will result in an improvement that
substantially satisfies the overall purpose of the ordinance in a manner that equally meets the desired effect of the
requirement. Additionally the improvement facilitates public safety, health, and welfare of residents in the
neighborhood by Droviding enhanced Dedestrian access from the units down the hill.
As a condition of the approval landscape easements shall be provided between the driveways on individual lots 1-3
to provide the required street trees, and all other requires street trees shall be planted within the open space areas
adjacent to the right-of-way and in parking islands, as depicted on the plans. The comment has been addressed.
2. 114-403, 14-4121 Lot frontage. Private street easements shall be a minimum of 30' wide to provide frontage for the
proposed lots. Prior to final site plan and final subdivision plat approval revise the required easement. Rev 3. Comment
4
Addressed.
3. [Comment] Various pages throughout the site plan depict the existing asphalt parking fronting TMP 06 1 KO-05-OD-00400
as remaining in the 50' public right-of-way; however, these spaces shall be removed unless VDOT approves their location
on the road plan and is willing to maintain them. Rev 2. Comment addressed by removing these spaces.
4. [32.5.2(i)] Streets. Label the proposed extension of Inglewood Drive as "Public Road". Rev 2. Comment addressed.
5. 14.11.3, 4.11.41 Structures within easements. A portion of the rear deck for Lot 1 is within an existing 20' waterline
easement. Either provide approval from the easement holder that the deck is permitted within the easement or revise the
plan to take the deck completely out of the easement. Rev 1. Comment addressed.
6. [32.5.2(n)] Proposed improvements. How is daily household trash going to be disposed of for these units? Depict the
location, dimensions, and screening of a dumpster for use by the residents. Rev 3. Comment Addressed.
6a. [4.12.19, 32.7.9.7(E)] Trash Enclosure. The minimum height of the wooden fence surrounding the trash enclosure shall
be 6 feet tall. Currently it is 5 feet tall, revise. Rev 3. Comment Addressed.
6b. [4.12.19, 32.7.9.7(E)] Dumpster Enclosure. Will the trash enclosure house a dumpster or is it merely housing
trashcans? If a dumpster is proposed, the concrete pad shall be extended 8 feet beyond the front of the dumpster. If it is
merely for trashcans, what is proposed will suffice. Rev 3. Comment Addressed.
7. [32.7.9.4] Landscaping. Throughout the plan there are numerous conflicts between required landscaping and
proposed/existing easements.Rev 3. Comment addressed.
8. [32.7.9.41 Landscaping. All required plantings located outside of the right-of-way on individual lots shall be within
landscape easements which shall be depicted on the final subdivision plat and recorded with a maintenance agreement
approved by the County. Rev 3. Comment Addressed.
9. [32.7.9.5(d), 15.4.1, 2.4.11 Location and spacing of street trees. The site is short two (2) of the required street trees. Based
on the prevalence of easements these two (2) trees shall be located in either open space areas onsite or in the rear yards of
Lots 1 - 6 within an easement. Rev 3. Comment Addressed.
10. [32.7.9.6(b)] Landscaping within parking area. Swap out the plantings fronting Lots 7-9 from large shade trees
to shrubs. Rev 1. Comment addressed.
11. [32.7.9.7(3)] Screening. Provide a single row of evergreen screening (trees or shrubs) at the base of all retaining
walls on Lots 2-6. This screening will help reduce the visual impacts of these walls on the neighboring property. Rev 1.
Comment addressed.
12. [32.7.9.5(c)] Minimum caliper of street trees. Correct the typographical error on sheet C6 under Required Street Tree from
1-1.5" to 1.5". Rev 1. Comment addressed.
13. [Design Standards Manual] For safety reasons provide a slightly opaque fence (minimum of 4' tall) atop the 5' retaining
wall on Lot 2. Also, provide a typical detail. Provide guardrail or fencing atop the 9' tall retention wall adjacent to Lot 7.
Rev 2. Comment addressed.
14. [Comment] Revise the title of the plan from SDP2015-20 to SDP2016-7. Rev 1. Comment addressed.
15. [Comment] The final site plan shall not be approved until all approvals are granted from various SRC reviewers.
Rev 5. Comment still relevant. Engineering & VDOT have vet to approve the plans.
Additional Comments on Revision
16. [32.7.9.5] Street Trees. The revised measurement of road frontage (445 LF) is not correct and shall be revised. Rev 5.
Comment addressed. Road modifications caused frontage to be revised to 680' of frontage, which has been correctly
calculated.
5
17. [32.7.9.7] Screening. Evergreen trees for screening purposes shall be a minimum of 4' tall at the time of planting. In the
landscape schedule provide their height at the time of planting. Rev 2. Comment addressed.
Additional Comments based on plans submitted to the County on August 29, 2017 but dated August 8, 2017
1. [Pursuant to Conversations with Justin Shimp] Page C4 has an out of date note on it that reads "Unimproved
Inglewood Drive 50' RIW to be vacated". Omit this note as it no longer represents what is being proposed.
Rev 3. Comment addressed.
2. [Pursuant to Conversations with Justin Shimp] Page C3 "line hooks" for a possible R/W vacation are also out
of date and shall be removed as it no longer represents what is being proposed. Rev 3. Comment addressed.
3. [Pursuant to Conversations with Justin Shimp] Throughout the plans, assure the road is labeled as public to the
point it is proposed public. Rev 3. Comment addressed.
4. [4.12.16(C)] Minimum Parking Space Size. The carport/parking area fronting Lot 1 is not 18 feet long for the
entire width of the carport; rather, where it is dimensioned it is the only portion that meets the 18 feet length. As
you move towards the public road, it drops to 16 feet long. Revise to assure the entire carport is 18 feet long.
Rev 3. Comment addressed.
5. [4.12.16(e)] Bumper Blocks. On the cover sheet provide a note that states: "The County Engineer has waived the
requirement for bumper blocks for parking fronting Lots 4-9 as provided under Sec 4.12.16(e). " Rev 3. Note
provided; however, Engineering is requesting bumper blocks in this location (see attached Engineering
comments). Rev 4. Comment Addressed.
6. 132.5.2(i), 4.6.3,15.2.1(3), 15.3, 4.19(6)] Setbacks. After re-examining the development proposal and the
definitions of infill development, the setbacks for this development are truly non-infill by definition. Revise the
setbacks listed on the cover sheet as follows, also correct the dimensions for the setbacks throughout the plan as
follows:
Front Minimum - 5 feet from right-of-way or the exterior edge of the sidewalk if the sidewalk is outside the right-of-way.
Front Maximum - 25 feet from right-of-way or the exterior edge of the sidewalk if the sidewalk is outside the right-of-way.
Rear Minimum - 20 feet
Side Minimum & Maximum —none (see non-infill building separation) 10'
Notably, all buildings meet these setbacks as currently laid out; however it's a matter of how you dimension and
label them on the plans. When measuring the setbacks for lots 4-9 the setbacks shall be measured from behind the
sidewalk thus it meets the minimum for these lots at 7'. Additionally, Lots 1-3 measure the setback from behind
the sidewalks which appear to be 20'. Revise the labels.
Rev 4. Comment Addressed.
7. [Comment] Boundary line adjustment plat, road plan, and WPO plan shall be approved prior to final site plan
approval. Please resubmit these plans for County review and approval. Rev 5. Comment still relevant.
8. [Comment] On sheet C8, remove the landscape note: "Preserved trees along the entrance shall serve as street
trees in lieu of planting new trees. 7 trees are located within individual lots. These trees shall be places in
landscaping easements as shown and shall be maintained by the HOA per Albemarle County standards. Trees
shown within open space shall not be removed without written consent of the County. "
Please replace it with the following note: "The required street trees are located within individual lots and open
space areas. Street trees on individual lots shall be places in landscaping easements as shown and shall be
maintained by the HOA per Albemarle County standards. These trees as well as the trees shown within open space
shall not be removed without written consent of the County. "
0
Staff has provided references to the County Code. In accord with the provisions of Section 32.4.3.5 of Chapter 18, if the
applicant fails to submit a revised plan to address all of the requirements within six (6) months after the date of this letter,
then the application shall be deemed voluntarily withdrawn. Please contact Christopher Perez at the Division of Current
Development at cperez@albemarle.org or 434-296-5832 ext. 3443 for further information.
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Christopher Perez, Planning
From: Matt Wentland, Engineering
Date: 7 September 2018
Subject: Inglewood Terrace (SDP201600007) Rev. 6
The final site plan for Inglewood Terrace has been reviewed. The following concerns should be addressed;
1. Due to two conflicting stream studies, Staff requests that a third study be performed, either by a
third party agreed upon by both the homeowners and the developer or by the US Army Corps of
Engineers. This third study will determine whether or not a buffer will be placed on the parcels in
question and on all parcels downstream of the site.
Comment addressed.
Within the steep slopes overlay district, the maximum height of a single retaining wall is 6 feet
[18-30.7.5]. This plan proposes a 9' to 10' wall passing through an area designated as a managed
slope. Please adjust. Note that the minimum horizontal distance between individual walls in a
stepped wall system is 3 feet. Provide certified wall plans.
Comment addressed.
3. The width of drainage easements should be calculated using the formula found in the Design
Standards Manual (Easement Width = Pipe Diameter + 2' + 2(depth — 5') + 10').
Comment not addressed.
The 20' drainage easement will not provide enough space to replace the larger and deeper
pipes if the need arises. The easements should be expanded to the extent possible. The
Service Authority will allow the drainage easement to overlap their easements as long as it
doesn't go over the pipe itself. For example, this will allow the easement from 132-133 to
expand to 30' or more.
(Rev. 3) Comment addressed.
4. The minimum width for a private road easement is 30'. [Design Standards Manual]
Comment addressed.
5. The minimum sight distance on a private road is 100' and the minimum K for a sag curve is 15.
[Design Standards Manual]
Comment addressed.
6. Verify that proper sight lines are provided at the parking on the inside of the curve on the private
road.
Comment addressed.
7. Show stationing on the road centerline on the plan view.
Comment addressed.
8. Provide a barrier or guard rail at the end of the private road.
Comment addressed.
Albemarle County Community Development
Engineering Review comments
Page 2 of 3
9. VDOT normally requires a 45' radius for turnarounds on residential streets, but may not be
required due to distance from intersection.
Comment addressed.
10. The landscaping plan is showing trees planted inside the drainage easements directly over pipes.
Comment addressed.
11. Provide plans for the retaining wall and verification that there is no issue with the wall and wall
foundation being submerged during storm events.
Response noted.
12. Additional erosion control measures should be used below ST1 to ensure runoff does not enter the
neighboring property. Demonstrate how ST1 will function during construction. It appears that it
will be filled in almost immediately when the storm system and fill slope are installed.
Response noted. See VSMP review for any further comments.
Comments for Final Site Plan (previously provided by Michelle Roberge and remain unaddressed on
plans)
13. Retaining walls greater than 4' require railing.
Comment addressed.
14. A separate road plan will need to be approved and bonded prior to the approval of a subdivision
plat.
Response noted. Additional items are needed before the road plans can be distributed
(emailed to Justin on 2/22/18).
15. VDOT approval is necessary for connection to public road and for improvements within their
right-of-way.
Comment addressed.
16. Show groundcover, not grass, for slopes greater than 3:1.
Comment addressed.
17. A VSMP application shall be approved prior to the approval of the final site plan.
Response noted. (Rev. 5) A VSMP submittal was not found with these plans. (Rev. 6) The
VSMP submittal is currently under review.
18. Verify guardrails are not warranted under GRIT manual. Otherwise, please show.
Comment addressed.
Revision 3 Comments
19. The Stormwater Structure Table on C6 is missing. (Rev. 4) Comment addressed.
20. Please remove the ROW vacation note on C4 and the line hooks on C3. (Rev. 4) Comment
addressed.
Albemarle County Community Development
Engineering Review comments
Page 3 of 3
Revision 4 Comments
21. Provide bumper blocks where parking spaces are adjacent to sidewalk less than 6' wide
(18.4.12.16e). (Rev. 5) Comment addressed.
22. The labels on the storm structures do not match the structure table or profiles. Please correct and
ensure that all pipes have the required amount of cover (normally 2'). (Rev. 5) Comment
addressed.
file: SDP201600007 Inglewood Terrace FSP Engineering Comments 03-06-2018.doc
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 orange Road
Culpeper Virginia 22701
Stephen C. Brich, P.E.
Commissioner
September 6, 2018
Christopher Perez
Senior Planner
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: SUB-2016-0007- Inglewood Terrace— Final Site Plan
Review #8
Dear Mr. Perez:
The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use
Section, has reviewed the above referenced plan as submitted by Shimp Engineering, dated April
20, 2015, revised July 18, 2018 and offer the following comment.
1. Please note that Subdivision Streets are not to be designed with superelevation. Please
refer to VDOT's Road Design Manual, Appendix B(I), for Geometric Design criteria for
Subdivision Streets. Recommend placing additional DI, to adequately control drainage
flow.
Upon submission of the appropriate signed and sealed approval copies this office will perform a
final review and, if acceptable, sign the plans. Please allow for this office to obtain two signature
copies.
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 land Use Section at (434) 422-9399
for information pertaining to this process. If further information is needed please contact Willis
C. Bedsaul at 434-422-9866.
Sincerely,
Adam J. M ore, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Charlottesville Residency
WE KEEL VIRGINIA MOVING
Christopher Perez
From:
Richard Nelson <rnelson@serviceauthority.org>
Sent:
Tuesday, August 21, 2018 1:48 PM
To:
Christopher Perez
Cc:
Alex Morrison
Subject:
SDP201600007 Inglewood Terrace - Final Site Plan
Chris,
I recommend SDP201600007 Inglewood Terrace - Final Site Plan for approval.
Thanks,
Richard Nelson
Civil Engineer
Albemarle County Service Authority
168 Spotnap Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22911
(434) 977-4511